Paul Krugman- Intellectually Lazy

Oh, so THAT'S why the NYC residential real estate market is so sluggish.

flimflam sauce.. so tasty with a side of beans.

NO LICC, lazy is a fool who's tits up in LIC RE and who's been warned that the pain's coming for 2yrs and does nothing. Hey, no comments on Pertrifitz bailing on NYC RE all the while pumping lemmings to buy?

I did not know that "intellectually lazy" people get Noble prizes. May we see your Nobel prize Mr. Ryan?

Ryan is trulty a dangerous person, perhaps the most dangerous in all of Congress. This si someone who support rationing healthcare ("Rationing happens today! The question is who will do it?") and wants to replace Medicare with a voucher program that depreciates every year.

hey remember tech_guy.... yeah probably got canned and had to sell... left to Milwaukee with his mouse tail between his legs... such a fool that one too

Nobel prizes are political, and looking at who as won them in recent years, have been devalued. Krugman won because the Nobel committee hated Bush and Krugman is a high-profile columnist. Without that NY Times column, Krugman would never have won.

Arafat has a Nobel Prize. Gore has a Nobel Prize. That tells it all.

Ryan has a plan based on individual responsibility, fiscal discipline, and freedom. No wonder liberals like Pres hate it.

Why did the Nobel committee hate Bush, LICcounty?

Hello

"Ryan has a plan based on individual responsibility, fiscal discipline, and freedom."

That's right. Individual responsibility, as your on your own!

And how can Ryan claim he supports "fiscal discipline" when he wants to continue the $700 billion tax cuts for the rich?

Paul Ryan's Plan to Tax You More

However, their reason for supporting Ryan's plan is also obvious: it would cut taxes on the rich dramatically, and there's nothing conservatives like better than cutting the tax bills of America's wealthy. But how much would it cut taxes on the rich? Citizens for Tax Justice has run the numbers and the answer is: a lot. The very richest of the rich would see their tax bills go down by an average of over $200,000, a whopping 15% of their income. Ka-ching! To make up for that, everyone with an income under $100,000 would have their taxes increased by about $2,000 per year.

It's a sweet deal for the rich. But even with all the tax increases on the middle class, Ryan's plan still raises less revenue than today's tax code. "It’s difficult to design a tax plan that will lose $2 trillion over a decade even while requiring 90 percent of taxpayers to pay more," says CTJ acerbically. "But Congressman Ryan has met that daunting challenge."

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/03/paul-ryans-plan-tax-you-more

How can Dems say they are pro-business when they want tax increases on small businesses?

Rep. Ryan’s House GOP Budget Plan
Federal Government Would Collect $2 Trillion Less Over a Decade
and Yet Require Bottom 90 Percent to Pay Higher Taxes

http://ctj.org/pdf/ryanplan2010.pdf

The federal government would collect $183 billion less in 2011 and more than $2 trillion
less over a decade than it would if Congress adopted President Obama’s tax proposals.

"How can Dems say they are pro-business when they want tax increases on small businesses?"

I am not interested in hearing your bullshit about how Dems hate small business. Look in the mirror first.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-29/senate-republicans-block-small-business-lending-bill-sought-by-democrats.html

Obama and the Dems are crushing small business with tax increases, but throw a miniscule tax credit, or a lending program that gives government more control, to do as little as possible to tout publicly that they are trying to help. What a sham. And Pres falls for it.

Oh zip it already. Only 2% of small business would see their taxes increase. that's right, just 2%:

In response to McCain's statements during the debate, Obama said only 2 percent of small businesses would be subject to the tax.

It seems likely that Obama is right, according to data and an analysis from the experts at the Tax Policy Center.

Obama's plan is to roll back the Bush tax cuts on the top two tax brackets. In practice, this means that people with income above $200,000 for single people and $250,000 for couples would see taxes increase.

Now what does this mean for small businesses? It's not as easy as you might think to identify small businesses via the tax code. But there are several typical ways that small business owners pay their taxes, usually by declaring business income on their individual tax returns. Many people who declare business income are small businesses, though the group also includes professionals like lawyers, authors, or public speakers.

Looking at all the tax filers who report any business income at all, the Tax Policy Center confirms that about 2 percent will see their taxes increase under Obama's plan.

In 2007, about 2 percent of those tax filers would have made enough money to see a tax increase under Obama's plans.

****But still, Obama's statement during the debate that "98 percent of small businesses make less than $250,000" matches the findings of a respected, non-partisan group of tax analysts. For that reason, we rate Obama's statement True.****

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/16/barack-obama/most-small-businesses-wont-be-subject-to-obamas-ta/

Lawmaker claims Democrats want to hit small businesses with tax increases

......

We looked and looked for a shred of truth and couldn't find one, so we rate this Pants on Fire.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/04/randy-neugebauer/lawmaker-claims-democrats-want-hit-small-businesse/

"People in the top tax bracket, "these so-called wealthy, most of them are small-business owners."

--Stephen Hayes

A popular talking point with little to back it up

and yet TODAY on fox news, stuart varney INSISTED that that same level - $200k in income per year, was indeed "rich." Its rich if you use the figure to attack Obama, see.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008100033 - $200k is "VERY rich."

Except when they discuss taxes on the "middle class", then $250k - 50 k higher, mind you, is "middle class."

http://mediamatters.org/research/201007280066

And oops, Varney is quoted in BOTH stories!

From the article- When the tax committee declined his request, Ryan took his proposal to experts at the Treasury Department who said his plan would hit its revenue target. Ryan said that the Treasury Department's numbers may, in fact, be more accurate than the Tax Policy Center's analysis. "Nobody knows the answer to this, by the way, if TPC is right or if the data we got from Treasury was right," said Ryan, who thinks Treasury's numbers are "closer" to reality. "The point is this: we made a full effort to hit revenue targets. They may hit the revenue targets and TPC may be wrong."

The Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats have said that they want to raise taxes in the top two income tax rates in January 2011. Under their plan, the 33 percent rate will rise to 36 percent, and the 35 percent rate will rise to 39.6 percent automatically in January. These rates affect families and small business owners earning at least $200,000 per year
Unlike corporations, small businesses usually don’t pay their own taxes. Rather, business profits flow through to the business owner. The business owner pays taxes on her small business by adding the profits to her income tax form. Therefore, personal income taxes are the same thing as small business taxes.
According to the IRS, most small business profits pay taxes in households making more than $200,000 per year. The IRS keeps track of two types of small business income: sole proprietors, and “pass-through” entities like partnerships and S-corporations.
All small businesses. There were 30 million tax returns reporting small business income in 2008. On net (profits reduced by losses), these owners reported business profits of $631billion. A large chunk of this net profit--$457 billion—faced taxation in households making more than $200,000 per year. A majority of small business profits will face a tax rate hike under the Obama-Pelosi-Reid plan.
Sole proprietors. There were 22 million tax returns reporting sole proprietor income in 2008. On net (profits reduced by losses), these owners reported business profits of $264 billion. A large chunk of this net profit--$90 billion—faced taxation in households making more than $200,000 per year. 34 percent of sole proprietor profits will face a tax rate hike under the Obama-Pelosi-Reid tax hike plan.
S-corporations and partnerships. There were 8 million partners and S-corporation shareholders in 2008. On net (profits reduced by losses), these owners reported business profits of $367 billion. Virtually all of this profit faced taxation in households making more than $200,000 per year. Aggregate pass-through entity profits will almost entirely fall in households making more than $200,000 per year.

Read more: http://www.atr.org/majority-small-business-sectorbr-facing-higher-a5247##ixzz0wF7nWqWZ

Notice how when facts dispute Pres' vision of things, his response is to tell you to zip it.

Nice try, but ATR is hardly neutral in this matter. You think quoting Grover Norquist and his cronies proves your point?

Involvement with Jack Abramoff
According to an investigative report from the Senate Indian Affairs Committee on the Jack Abramoff scandal, released in June 2006, ATR served as a "conduit" for funds that flowed from Abramoff's clients to finance surreptitiously grass-roots lobbying campaigns.[17] Records show that donations from the Choctaw and Kickapoo tribes to ATR were coordinated in part by Abramoff, and in some cases preceded meetings between the tribes and the White House.[17][18]

OOPS!

Remarkably informed commentary from Alpine. Nice work.

SkinnyNsweet, you're needed on the Newtown Creek thread.

Also, have you checked your electronic mail messages this week?

Also, yes Alpie -- I take back all those Jersey things I said about you

This one, I mean: http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/22032-science-deepwater-horizon-vs-long-island-city

he has nothing to offer the young regarding SS and Medicare, just more taxes. ... forget it! let the young opt out if they think the entitlements are a ponzi, that's true democracy imho.

So Pres thinks that his liberal sources are accurate, but sources from conservatives are not. This is devolving into joke level where all Pres has are ad hominem attacks.

alpo, you are, from this point on, the pres to me

Bloomberg, a business news media organization, and CTJ, a tax reform org, are liberal sources?

Zip it.

"So Pres thinks that his liberal sources are accurate, but sources from conservatives are not."

Politifact and Wikipedia are not liberal or conservative sources.

i guarantee you a lot more liberals are editing wikipedia than conservatives...

Krugman: "they want to pretend, in the teeth of overwhelming evidence, that there are still people in the G.O.P. making sense"

That statement tells you all you need to know about Krugman. He's an ideologue, a slave to "progressive" Democratic dogma (tax and spend, "spread the wealth around" redistribution, antibusiness, antijobs, anti-self determination, pro-govt dependence, pro-welfare, pro-giant govt bureaucracies dominating every aspect of everyone's life, etc etc etc). He's biased beyond belief. Next.

At least Ryan has the balls to proffer a plan to fix the looming entitlement tsunami about to crash down on our collective heads. Dems have offered NADA to address the problem.

...and as for Krugman having a Nobel Prize on his resume, remember that they gave Obama a Nobel Prize when he was barely in office for 3 months! Even Obama himself was embarrassed by it. The Nobel Prize Committee is a joke.

Read Krugman's sad attempt to impugn Ryan's reputation and then read Ryan's response below and ask yourself...who is the grownup in this debate and who is the child. The answer should be obvious to anyone with a brain.

Ryan's 'Roadmap'
Krugman's detour on 'Roadmap' to solvency
By Paul Ryan

Aug. 7, 2010 |(104) Comments

Related Coverage
Paul Krugman: Ryan's plan is a fraud; the math doesn't work
Paul Ryan: Krugman's detour on 'Roadmap' to solvency
Despite watching European welfare states collapse under the weight of their own debt, those running Washington are leading us down precisely the same path. With the debt surpassing $13 trillion, we can no longer avoid having a serious discussion about how to address the unsustainable growth of government.

Unfortunately, rather than make meaningful contributions to this conversation and bring solutions to the table, Democrats have attempted to win this debate by default. Relying on demagoguery and distortion, the left would prefer that entitlements - often labeled the "third rail" of American politics - remain untouchable, and the column by Paul Krugman of The New York Times is indicative of the partisan attacks leveled against the plan I've offered, a "Roadmap for America's Future."

When I introduced the "Roadmap," my hope was that it would spur an open and honest discussion about how our nation can address its fiscal challenges. If we are truly committed to developing real solutions, this discussion must be free of the inflammatory rhetoric that has derailed past reform efforts. In keeping with this spirit, it is necessary to clarify some of the inaccurate claims and distortions made recently regarding the "Roadmap."

The assertion by Krugman and others that the revenue assumptions in the "Roadmap" are overly optimistic and that my staff directed the Congressional Budget Office not to analyze the tax elements of the "Roadmap" is a deliberate attempt to misinform and mislead.

I asked the CBO to analyze the long-term revenue impact of the "Roadmap," but officials declined to do so because revenue estimates are the jurisdiction of the Joint Tax Committee. The Joint Tax Committee does not produce revenue estimates beyond the 10-year window, and so I worked with Treasury Department tax officials in setting the tax reform rates to keep revenues consistent with their historical average.

What critics such as Krugman fail to understand is that our looming debt crisis is driven by the explosive growth of government spending - not from a lack of tax revenue.

Krugman also recycles the disingenuous claim that the "Roadmap" - the only proposal certified to make our entitlement programs solvent - would "end Medicare as we know it."

Ironically, doing nothing, as Democrats would prefer, is certain to end entitlement programs as we know them, and in the process, beneficiaries would face painful cuts to these programs. Conversely, the "Roadmap" would pre-empt these cuts in a way that prevents unnecessary disruptions for current beneficiaries.

It reforms Medicare and Social Security so those in and near retirement (55 and older) will see no change in their benefits while preserving these programs for future generations of Americans. We do not have a choice on whether Medicare and Social Security will change from their current structure - the true debate is if and how these programs will be made solvent.

Far from the "radical" label that critics have tried to pin on it, the Medicare reforms in the "Roadmap" are based on suggestions made by the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare, chaired by Sen. John Breaux (D-La.). That commission recommended in 1999 "modeling a system on the one members of Congress use to obtain health care coverage for themselves and their families." With respect to Medicare and Social Security, the "Roadmap" puts in place systems similar to those members of Congress have. There has been support across the political spectrum for these types of reforms.

By dismissing credible proposals as "flimflam," critics such as Krugman contribute nothing to the debate. Standing on the sidelines shouting "boo" amounts to condemning our people to a future of managed decline. Absent serious reform, spending on entitlement programs and interest on government debt will consume more and more of the federal budget, resulting in falling standards of living and higher taxes as we try to sustain an ever larger social welfare state.

The American people deserve a serious and civil discussion about how to reduce our exploding debt and deficit. By relying on ad-hominem attacks and discredited claims, Krugman and others are missing an opportunity to contribute to this discussion and are only polarizing and paralyzing attempts to solve our nation's fiscal problems.

I reject the notion that these problems are too big or too difficult to tackle or that it is acceptable to leave future generations of Americans an inferior standard of living than we enjoy. The "Roadmap" shows that a European-style social welfare state is not inevitable, that it is not too late for our nation to choose a different path and that we can do so in a way that preserves our freedoms and traditions.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) represents the 1st Congressional District.

How can anyone defend Ryan? For goodness sake, the guy wants to INCREASE taxes on the middle class to finance tax cuts for the rich. And that is not me, Krugman, or some liberal saying that... it's a non-partisan tax group.

ANd if Ryan's plan is so good, why have only a tiny fraction of Congressional republicans become cosponsors? The fact is that they know it is a horrible plan that will cost them in November.

Pres actually started another thread on this topic because his inaccuracies have been laid out clearly on this one.

What inaccuracies? I don't see any inaccuracies. Everything I wrote is 101% accurate. You on the other hand got your sources from right wing places, like Grover Norquist. That would be like me quoting Rachel Maddow.

"How can anyone defend Ryan?"

I'm not defending all of his plan per se (although parts of it I like). I am defending him for having the BALLS to propose a plan that actually solves the looming entitlement explosion.

The Democrats have offered NOTHING. They have no plan, no clue, no ideas - except "more stimulus"/regulation/socialism/taxes - that's why they are going to get obliterated in Nov.

Yesterday Caroline Baum summed up the Krugman/Keysnian stimuls argument.
---------------------
What we had was a government-prescribed course of amphetamines (to keep it up), antibiotics (to prevent infection) and antidepressants (to make it feel better). It endured regular steroid injections from both monetary and fiscal authorities. And it still has no real muscle.
----------------------------
On the fiscal front, the government threw huge sums of money at the economy. It paid people to buy cars and homes. It paid them to weatherize their houses, maybe the same ones the government paid them to buy. It paid them to buy appliances for the houses the government paid them to buy. And it paid banks to modify mortgages.

What did we learn from this exercise? That, by golly, if someone were planning to buy a home anyway, an $8,000 tax credit acts as an inducement to do it that much sooner!
---------------------------------
So, yes, if the goal is to put money in the pockets of people who will spend it, as Democrats in Congress are wont to say, then the $862 billion fiscal stimulus has been a smashing, but not lasting, success.

Now what? The recipients of government largess buy goods and services, putting money in someone else’s pocket. That’s the Keynesian argument for more spending to stimulate aggregate demand.
----------------------------

So, yes, if the goal is to put money in the pockets of people who will spend it, as Democrats in Congress are wont to say, then the $862 billion fiscal stimulus has been a smashing, but not lasting, success.

Now what? The recipients of government largess buy goods and services, putting money in someone else’s pocket. That’s the Keynesian argument for more spending to stimulate aggregate demand.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-10/economy-lost-momentum-while-i-was-pulling-weeds-caroline-baum.html

"The Democrats have offered NOTHING. They have no plan, no clue, no ideas - except "more stimulus"/regulation/socialism/taxes - that's why they are going to get obliterated in Nov."

Actually, the GOP has offered nothing either. You have ONE member offering half of a plan - not a full one, half of one. If you went through the ranks of the dems, you would find plenty who have plans. But the parties? Nothing on either side.

In this situation, no plan may be the better option.

"The Democrats have offered NOTHING. They have no plan, no clue, no ideas"

Have you been asleep for the last 18 months? They have offered lots, like a public option, consumer financial protection agency, middle class tax cuts, greater lending to small businesses, etc.

Plus Barney Frank, Alan Grasyon, and yes, RON PAUL, have a great plan to reduce military spending.

The Democrat/Keynsian plan has been to spend a ton of money with no result, which we have to pay back. I'll take the camp that offered nothing. It cost less.

"I'll take the camp that offered nothing."

Herbert Hoover's ghost must be so proud.

Dems plan- raise taxes, spend more, more government control over people's lives. Sorry, that is just awful. You only like that plan if you like taking handouts.

"Dems plan- raise taxes, spend more, more government control over people's lives."

And Republicans don't raise taxes ("Read my lips no nex taxes")?

The Republican platform:

1. Reagan tax INCREASES of 1982 and 83

2. Out of control spending under Reagan and George W. Bush

3. George H.W. Bush tax INCREASES

4. Reagan gives amnesty to illegal immigrants

5. Republicans control women's lives; no abortion even in cases of rape and incest

The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982[1]was a United States federal law that rescinded some of the effects of the Kemp-Roth Act passed the year before.

The scheduled increases in accelerated depreciation deductions were repealed, a 10 percent withholding on dividends and interest paid to individuals was instituted, and the Federal Unemployment Tax Act wage base and tax rate were increased. Excise taxes on cigarettes were temporarily doubled, and excise taxes on telephone service temporarily tripled, in TEFRA

Tax Reform Act of 1986

The top tax rate was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was ****raised**** from 11% to 15% since many lower level tax brackets were consolidated, and the upper income level of the bottom rate was increased from $5,720/year to $29,750/year. This package ultimately consolidated tax brackets from fifteen levels of income to four levels of income. [1] This would be the only time in the history of the U.S. income tax (which dates back to the passage of the Revenue Act of 1862) that the top rate was reduced and the bottom rate increased concomitantly. In addition, capital gains faced the same tax rate as ordinary income. Moreover, interest on consumer loans such as credit card debt were no longer deductible. An existing provision in the tax code, called Income Averaging, which reduced taxes for those only recently making a much higher salary than before, was eliminated

According to a recent Treasury Department study, Ronald Reagan proposed the largest peacetime tax increase in American history as part of a budget deal to get the federal deficit under control. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) of 1982 was signed into law on Sept. 3, and most of its provisions took effect on Jan. 1, 1983.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/26/obama-budget-reagan-clinton-bush-opinions-columnists_higher_taxes.html

Krugman is so lazy he got proven wrong by his own theory.

Besides he says "Social Security is just fine there's the trust fund", sure it is! as long as you are a self-serving baby boomer yourself. You would think that Nobel prize winners don't fall for accounting gimmicks... well, Krugman does.

--------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2c1c83c2-a4b4-11df-8c9f-00144feabdc0.html

Watch China’s coasts, not its currency

By Yukon Huang

Published: August 10 2010 22:45 | Last updated: August 10 2010 22:45

China’s exchange rate continues to be blamed for global economic imbalances, with the economist Paul Krugman one of Beijing’s staunchest critics. Even after China announced a change in its currency policy in June, Mr Krugman argued that it did not “address the real issue, which is that China has been promoting its exports at the rest of the world’s expense”. Yet, arguably, it is the Nobel Prize-winning ideas that Mr Krugman developed three decades ago, not currency manipulation, that have led to China’s unparalleled growth.

Pres, you posted a lot of things with absolutely no point whatsoever. Yes, Reagan streamlined the tax code by lowering rates and eliminating many credits and deductions. Okay . . .

I forgot one part of the Dems' plan (raise taxes, spend, spend, spend, increase control over major industries and people's lives), that is- borrow tons of money and run up unprecedented deficits with no care how it affects economic growth. But all is fine as long as the teachers union is happy.

Krugman may be intellectually lazy, but he definitely is an intellectual hypocrite.

All Obama does is blame Bush. He doesn't fix the main problem - i.e., lack of jobs. Remember the saying "It's the economy, stupid"? Looks like Obama forgot about that one. He's worried about everything EXCEPT jobs - witness the pointless drilling moratorium that put Gulf Coast residents out of work at the worst possible time.

Perhaps there are no quick fixes and both the administration and the country should not expect or attempt one. This crisis took many years to develop and will probably take that long to cure. Best we should do is stop bashing business and promote foreign trade and a good economic environment for business decisions while putting forth sensible regulation that protects consumers and the markets. Bashing the energy producers hasn't helped create jobs either.

"Reagan streamlined the tax code by lowering rates and eliminating many credits and deductions"

And how does that not make Reagan a tax and spend Republican?