Krugman nails it again -- this time about the economy

[FourScore]

EXCERPTS:

You see, for 30 years American politics has been dominated by a political movement practicing Robin-Hood-in-reverse, giving unto those that hath while taking from those who don’t. And one secret of that long domination has been a remarkable flexibility in economic debate. The policies never change — but the arguments for these policies turn on a dime.

When the economy is doing reasonably well, the debate is dominated by hype — by the claim that America’s prosperity is truly wondrous, and that conservative economic policies deserve all the credit.

But when things turn down, there is a seamless transition from “It’s morning in America! Hurray for tax cuts!” to “The economy is slumping! Raising taxes would be a disaster!”

SNIP

And we all remember how little entrepreneurship there was, how weakly the economy performed, during the Clinton years, right? Oh, wait. (I’ve put some charts comparing job performance during the Clinton and Bush years on my Times blog, http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com . It’s pretty startling how comparatively weak the Bush era looks.)

Never mind. The whole point of scare tactics is that they can work even in the face of inconvenient facts.

SNIP

Not to put too fine a point on it, Barack Obama won his impressive victory in Iowa with a sunny, upbeat message of change.

But there’s a powerful political faction in this country that understands very well that any real change will create losers as well as winners. In particular, any serious progressive reform of health care, let alone a broader attempt to reduce middle-class insecurity and inequality, will have to mean higher taxes on the affluent. And members of that faction will do whatever it takes to scare people into believing that change means disaster for the economy.

I don’t think they’ll succeed. But it would be a big mistake to assume that they won’t.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&ex=1357448400&en=2be424a7ade5ab75&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[bullimiami]

1. well writ. i agree.

[hfojvt]

2. except that the country has not been dominated for 30 years

Reagan was forced to raise taxes. Bush 41 read-my-lips was forced to raise taxes. Clinton and Congressional Democrats raised taxes and the minimum wage. Bob Dole's supply-side Kemp/Roth tax cut message was soundly defeated in 1996. Gore also won, albeit too narrowly to actually take office.

[flashl]

3. Change will come when binary thinking is defeated?

The average Joe and Jane are given few options mainly in the form of 'either / or', while financial vehicles are 'created' and remain unregulated in other arenas, which usually provide unlimted options.

[ixion]

4. we wouldn't have to raise taxes if we'd stop allowing the government to waste

billions.

Those billions spent on bogus studies, on needless wars, on handouts to the MIC could pay for a cadillac infrastructure, w/o raising them a penny.

[Bandit]

5. Many different Republicans stood on the floor of the House and stated

Passing the Clinton budget would devastate the American economy. It would be the entire ruin of our nation. The Republicans voted in "lockstep" against that budget and it took Al Gore acting as President of the Senate to cast the Tie-breaking vote to pass that budget... America went on to experience the greatest economic expansion in history..It would seem prudent to me to see those words of leading Republicans thrown right back in their faces as an example of incompetence..