Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kpete

(71,900 posts)
Sat Mar 2, 2013, 02:22 PM Mar 2013

KRUGMAN Explains Sequestration: “This was designed to be stupid”

“This was designed to be stupid,” Krugman said. “The whole point was, this was supposed to be a doomsday device that would force the Democratic and Republican parties to reach an agreement. Of course, they didn’t, and here it goes.”

While the effect of the spending cuts would take time to manifest, Krugman told Schultz, they would definitely be felt by late 2013.

“This is exactly what the doctor did not order,” he said.

...............

“If we would just stop cutting, the growth would probably keep going,” Krugman answered. “If spending had grown as fast in this recovery as it has in past recoveries, we’d be spending something like $200 billion a year — state, local and federal — more, maybe $300 billion a year more. Maybe $300 billion a year more. We’d have about a million and a half more public sector workers than we do right now, because we’ve been laying them off at [an] unprecedented pace. So, I think $300 billion a year of additional spending would be appropriate and would mean, if we did it, that we would be pretty close to full employment at this point.”


..........................

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/01/paul-krugman-sequester-was-designed-to-be-stupid/
13 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
KRUGMAN Explains Sequestration: “This was designed to be stupid” (Original Post) kpete Mar 2013 OP
Idiots libodem Mar 2013 #1
FAIL on the part of BOTH PARTIES Skittles Mar 2013 #2
we would be pretty close to full employment at this point DJ13 Mar 2013 #3
Problem is, it wasn't designed to be stupid ENOUGH. Buns_of_Fire Mar 2013 #4
Given the current Congress, how could you design a policy that I Cant Dance Mar 2013 #6
I'm sure if Sara Palin and Michelle Bachmann put their Cleita Mar 2013 #8
Throw in Ted Cruz Aerows Mar 2013 #13
The bipartisan commitment to rule via artificial crisis and assignment of blame is damnable TheKentuckian Mar 2013 #5
Take a K, expand the song, we can reverse this saidsimplesimon Mar 2013 #10
thank God we were dealing with Russians during the cold war... oldhippydude Mar 2013 #7
Isn't that the truth. n/t Cleita Mar 2013 #9
And all those employed people would be paying taxes, buying things... n2doc Mar 2013 #11
Love Krugman abelenkpe Mar 2013 #12

DJ13

(23,671 posts)
3. we would be pretty close to full employment at this point
Sat Mar 2, 2013, 02:37 PM
Mar 2013

Im starting to think neither party wants full employment any longer, its bad for their corporate donors.

Buns_of_Fire

(17,119 posts)
4. Problem is, it wasn't designed to be stupid ENOUGH.
Sat Mar 2, 2013, 02:47 PM
Mar 2013

Sorry, but I've long since become totally unimpressed with the mental abilities of the so-called "leaders" in Washington.

 

I Cant Dance

(42 posts)
6. Given the current Congress, how could you design a policy that
Sat Mar 2, 2013, 04:11 PM
Mar 2013

is stupid enough? That seems like am impossible task.

Cleita

(75,480 posts)
8. I'm sure if Sara Palin and Michelle Bachmann put their
Sat Mar 2, 2013, 04:50 PM
Mar 2013

pointed heads together, they could come up with something.

TheKentuckian

(24,943 posts)
5. The bipartisan commitment to rule via artificial crisis and assignment of blame is damnable
Sat Mar 2, 2013, 03:46 PM
Mar 2013

No confidence at best. There are no white hats to be found here, the options range from willful malpractice to French Revolution reaction inducing wickedness.

oldhippydude

(2,514 posts)
7. thank God we were dealing with Russians during the cold war...
Sat Mar 2, 2013, 04:21 PM
Mar 2013

if we had been dealing with Republicans, we would be a troublesome stain on radioactive slag.....

n2doc

(47,953 posts)
11. And all those employed people would be paying taxes, buying things...
Sat Mar 2, 2013, 04:57 PM
Mar 2013

and the deficit would probably be lower than it is now.

This would not make the Republicans happy.

abelenkpe

(9,933 posts)
12. Love Krugman
Sat Mar 2, 2013, 05:18 PM
Mar 2013

But with or without the sequester the entire VFX industry has been decimated by offshoring with hundreds of animators and artists losing work in the last couple of years. It's picked up pace recently with studios gong bankrupt and in dreamworks case deciding to move to China. So personally, while I agree the sequester is stupid and unnecessary, the economy for myself and hundreds of my coworkers was NOT improving.

Now it just gets to be worse.

What we need is a massive wpa style jobs program, to end subsidies and tax incentives that send work overseas (leaving qualified experienced workers unemployed) and a single payer healthcare plan so that US workers aren't more expensive than workers in Canada, New Zealand, England and heck, everywhere else. Everything about our tax code and current employer based healthcare practically begs corporations and businesses to send jobs anywhere else in the world and rewards them for doing so. And good luck doing that when the house is controlled by Republicans.

We need to raise taxes on the wealthy who can afford to pay a bit more. And to cut defense spending. But no, some in government seem bent on cutting the remaining social programs oblivious to the fact that the 99 percent has already sacrificed and is continuing to do so.

Yay, Thank you Republicans for giving us a world of no hope for meaningful, secure jobs and no possible retirement.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»KRUGMAN Explains Sequestr...