WTF !?!?!? 4.7 trillion not enough????

This man truly is insane.

I'm doing my share this Christmas.

I thinking spending it on food, fuel, and the bills is pretty serious. Oh he's talking umpteen-billions, isn't he.... yeahfuckthat.

It's time, past time, to offer fixed 30 year mortgages at 3% or less to everyone who can make the payement allowing millions of people to lower there monthly payments so they will have money left over to spend.

At the same time, it's time to reform banks, lending, wall street, insurance, and to REGULATE.

Throwing more money at wall street is criminally insane. If you want to save banks, nationalize them, take ownership, get rid of the management, investigate wall street, banks and insurance companies for fraud, get your money back and send the crooks to jail.

The US should have an ideal family budget strategy whereby an individual is expected about 10-15% of their income on housing - not 33% or more; and go down the line and create a model family/individual budget. US economic policies need to be developed around the model.

Good post, countmyvote. I'd also like to see those who stupidly over extentended themselves on the subprimes to be able to renegoticate their mortgage (perhaps for a small fee) but have Uncle Sugar play Title Company and somehow pick up closing costs

he's talking about infrastructure investment. and don't pull the old "the new deal didn't get us out of the depression" argument. if fdr wasn't trying to balance the budget, we would've been out of the depression by 1934.

The best way to "spend money" is to allow people to spend it by taking it out of the hands of the government. That way it is spent on things that people need, and those vital businesses thrive. Allowing the government to say where our money should and should not go is what gets our country into most of its messes in the first place.

We have nothing to fear, but fear itself.

It's hard to believe that numbnuts Krugman won a nobel prize for economics?

Aw...fudge. You beat me to it, Mr. Atwater. I madly went scrolling down to post, ebullient with snarky merriment, only to find my joke starring back at me.

Curses...foiled again. (Muttley snickers)

t's time, past time, to offer fixed 30 year mortgages at 3% or less to everyone who can make the payement allowing millions of people to lower there monthly payments so they will have money left over to spend.
* * * *

Right now my mortgage is 6.5%, and I make my payments every month. Under your stupid proposal, I'll just say that I can't afford to anymore, and let the taxpayer subsidize my mortgage at 3.

The law of unintended consequences is real, you know. Why should anyone pay on a mortgage over 3%? You think the housing and credit markets are bad now, wait until we try things your way.

my mortgage is 6.5%

Which makes it feasible to pay 4-5% on savings accounts. The downside of all this cheap credit is that older investors have been forced into stocks and mutual funds to keep up with inflation when they should be in bonds, savings, and money markets.

I do think that we should stabilize the interest rate, and get rid of the Fed. This Yo-Yo monetary policy creates boom to bust to boom, etc., and that only favors the arbitragers.

Sometimes the mind is boggled and some times it is just stunned. My mind is just laying there whimpering and weeping. This doesn't seem like a good thing to me. This cretin is talking like a career politician(sorry). That too is not a good thing.

To bed and under the covers head and all, mommy!

$77 trillion, more than all 35 wars since WWII, the Marshall Plan, all health care expenses, every hurricane and tsunami, the moon mission and entire NASA budget.

A substantial majority of this country's people object to the bailout and Iraq War in Iraq. Yet, the duopoly goes for it, after one week delay.

What the Fuck?

Paying the visa card and the master card with an
american express card is a brilliant idea.

No wonder he was awarded the Nobel peace prize!

Be Well.

77trillion? Please explain this rather large and if I may, inflated sum.

"Please explain this rather large and if I may, inflated sum."

Not inflated at all.

It's what the books would say, if the US had to adhere to GAAP standards.

Let's say a CEO has a contract which pays him a million dollars of severance for every year of service. Under GAAP standards, the company must account for the $1M in additional liabilities each year on their books. Well, the US has all kinds of unfunded liabilities---social security, medicare, veterans benefits, veterans health care, etc.---which would/should be accounted for each year. If they were, the national debt would be much closer to---you guessed it---$77 trillion.

Typical economist. More money is always their answer to everything. Too bad there isn't a Nobel Prize for Accounting.

The law of unintended consequences is real, you know. Why should anyone pay on a mortgage over 3%? You think the housing and credit markets are bad now, wait until we try things your way.

Why should my neighbor pay 5.25% and I pay 6.25% on loans to buy the same priced house in the same area all qualifying but one makes more money than the other?

If one can afford it, one gets abetter interest rate. The better able to buy the better the interest rate. How backwards is that.

You want that tv.....you make 40,000 per year tv price is 1000 dollars. You make 200,000 per year the tv price is 500 dollars. Hmmm, wouldn't this be kind barbaric.

Why should my neighbor pay 5.25% and I pay 6.25% on loans to buy the same priced house in the same area

Because he has better credit and is better qualified than you.

If one can afford it, one gets abetter interest rate.

No.

If one pays his bills and has a qualifiying income/debt ratio he gets a better interest rate.

You want that tv.....you make 40,000 per year tv price is 1000 dollars. You make 200,000 per year the tv price is 500 dollars.

There's a concept called "principal".

There's another concept called "interest".

There's yet another concept called an "analogy".

You need to invest a little time in reading up on all three.

from above...

"It's time, past time, to offer fixed 30 year mortgages at 3% or less to everyone who can make the payement allowing millions of people to lower there monthly payments so they will have money left over to spend.

At the same time, it's time to reform banks, lending, wall street, insurance, and to REGULATE.

Throwing more money at wall street is criminally insane. If you want to save banks, nationalize them, take ownership, get rid of the management, investigate wall street, banks and insurance companies for fraud, get your money back and send the crooks to jail."

All I can say to that is....CAN I GET AN AMEN?!
and believe me, I'm not so religous...

All these folks below these posts who argue that the economy would collapse if housing was suddenly made affordable are either accountants, lawyers, or real estate brokers. The very bloated segment of society that we continue to support too many of through corporate wellfare. Seriously, half of you should lose your jobs tommorow. I mean really, other than the lawyers, would anyone else miss it if half of them (~250,000) lawyers were gone tommorow? Would society truly fall on it's @ss any more than it already has? Doubtful.

The post I quoted above was dead on. Actually make a house payment affordable, and you would have people with extra income to afford supporting this consumeristic society. Not that I advocate mindless consumerism mind you...but one step at a time.

Just a little tired of the strangle hold that Bankers, Lawyers, and Real Estate and Investment gurus have on the world today. We would be quite a bit better off with fewer of them, and the ones that remain being watched and monitored very closely.

p.s. yeah, yeah, yeah, don't really care if you don't like it...(grin)

We need to raise wages and let interest rates be controlled by the market. Krugman is absolutely dead on, as always, when he says we need to spend on infrastructure. That will raise employment and help drive wages which are the basis for the economy. Without raising wages the US will slowly (or rapidly actually) lose its middle class. Decades ago, pre-Reagan, one pay check could raise a family now it takes at least two. That is because wages have stagnated while expenses have not. Just as FDR did, we need to use government spending to put pressure on wages, we need to raise taxes on the wealthy to force investment. We need to forget forever the disproven ideas of Reaganomics and Supply Side Economics and return to Keynesian economics which were responsible for building the largest middle class in the world until Reagan began lowering taxes for the rich and driving up the national debt.

If we could only convince the Iraqis, with their $80 billion gathering dust, that the stores of America are now as safe as the markets in Baghdad, maybe we could run some charter flights from Fallujah to America....

Or as Palin would say "Buy,baba, buy!".

The best way to "spend money" is to allow people to spend it by taking it out of the hands of the government. That way it is spent on things that people need, and those vital businesses thrive. Allowing the government to say where our money should and should not go is what gets our country into most of its messes in the first place.

That is worth repeating!

I wonder too how many of the people out shopping this past weekend, spending more than last year according to the numbers, spent their mortgage money on Christmas? People need to at least make the effort to control their own spending habits and stop expecting government to handle everything! We get pissed when the big companies waste & hate them for it but our neighbors are doing it right next door and we ring our hands about their "unfortunate circumstances". We have serious confusion of needs vs wants in this country from main street to wall street.

DRUDGE: Why do you print anything from this retaded asshole Krugman? You just reduce your creditability which is just above Nancy Polucka.

"Allowing the government to say where our money should and should not go is what gets our country into most of its messes in the first place."

Sounds good but utter nonsense. Give folks the money and great....they'll go buy another TV made in China or a car from N. Korea. No, we need to spend the money on things created here in the US, like infrastructure which will not just be a short term gain for the economy like the stimulus checks were, it will create jobs which create wages for years. That will stimulate business and if we enact some sort of protections for our industries we could then make our private industries begin to grow again.

"DRUDGE: Why do you print anything from this retaded asshole Krugman? You just reduce your creditability which is just above Nancy Polucka."

Yeah, just because he has been right while the right wing economists have brought about the economic crisis we now face does undercut his credibility. I see in Ozzie someone who would let ideology drive his thinking all the way to the poor house.

DRUDGE:

#27 | Posted by ozzieoswald

Now we've been over this before Oozie. There is no one here named "Drudge".

Also, Ozzie, you misspelled "retarded."

Also, Ozzie, you misspelled "retarded."

#30 | Posted by cbob

Maybe he's from Boston and meant like "wicked retaded".

Krugman is an academian. He is not a real world economist. His opinion matters little off campus

Timbci have you tried craigslist for meeting ladies? I have found success there.

"He is not a real world economist."

Whatever that is.

Yep, and those real world economists did us proud!

LOL

and again I ask...should we just ignore what george will wrote about in his column about history
and that the great depression might have been over with sooner if it werent for the new deal or other programs that threw money at it like he is apparently talking about?

and AGAIN............let them fail........let them fail through the system that YOU AND I would have to do if we did shit like this with our budgets.

"and again I ask...should we just ignore what george will wrote about in his column about history
and that the great depression might have been over with sooner if it werent for the new deal or other programs that threw money at it like he is apparently talking about?"

Answer: yes. Look at GDP figures and it is obvious he is full of crap.

"He is not a real world economist."

What is a real world economist???

"Yeah, just because he has been right while the right wing economists have brought about the economic crisis we now face does undercut his credibility. I see in Ozzie someone who would let ideology drive his thinking all the way to the poor house."

#28 | Posted by danni

You mean he was right the past 7 years arguing that Bush was ruining he country with budget deficits but now he argues that even bigger deficits are not only OK but beneficial?

By what logic?

Answer: yes. Look at GDP figures and it is obvious he is full of crap.

"He is not a real world economist."

What is a real world economist???

#38 | Posted by danni at

not if you look at history which is where he was looking

something about the industrial meltdown of 37 and it is a known fact that it wasnt until the war that we really came out of it.
so how does that square with your point?

I was listening to a discussion..on fox I think it was BUT it could have been cnn since I listen to both and most of you libs dont.

but they were saying that one complication NOW is that today we are less and less an industrial nation and are becoming more of a service nation

does that make sense?

OOPS FORGOT TO COMPLETE

and that by being less industrial that the same old rememdies wont work??

there......so what about that theory?

service............I think they were also talking about tech stuff as well.

There's some validity to the concerns you mentioned in #41 & #42, BLT. America needs to retain some ability to manufacture. It's foolish to think every American can be part of the information economy.

I think this recession, along with dwindling oil supplies, and possibly the international tensions that will inevitably result from those two factors, will force us to reconsider all that outsourcing to China and elsewhere.

"By what logic?"

By the logic of....after the Bush tax cuts the government is heavily in debt and because of teh Bush/Greenspan Housing Bubble the economy is in a disaster so the only hope we have is to borrow enough to stimulate the economy back out of recession so that we may raise taxes on the rich and then pay off the debt. The economic crisis we are in is roughly twice that which Bill Clinton encountered when he entered the presidency.

"not if you look at history which is where he was looking"

Baloney, the GDP rose every year following the New Deal. The depression was largely over before we entered WWII.

"but they were saying that one complication NOW is that today we are less and less an industrial nation and are becoming more of a service nation"

That trend began with Ronnie Raygun and his tax cuts. Industrial capacity investment isn't going to happen without tax benefits that make it more profitable than outsourcing. Before Reagan's tax cuts we built the largest manufacturing economy in history, after his tax cuts it began to decline and continues to this day. To reverse it we will have to create tax incentives to induce investment, can't do that without higher taxes on the wealthy and higher capital gains taxes.

To reverse it we will have to create tax incentives to induce investment, can't do that without higher taxes on the wealthy and higher capital gains taxes.
#46 | Posted by danni

I think the horses have already left the gate on that one. There isn't any amount of money that's going to incentivize businesses to reinvest in American manufacturing when we'll still have to compete with de facto slave labor in other countries. That's especially true when you're talking about taxing rich people and their capital gains... the same people who we are expecting to invest in manufacturing.

If the US stopped doing business with countries that do not follow the same rules as we do what would happen?

If the US stopped doing business with countries that do not follow the same rules as we do what would happen?
#48 | Posted by slaryman

The global economy would collapse, hundreds of millions already close to starvation would actually do so.

Our standard of living cannot be maintained globally. Looks like we're going to have to make some concessions.

But not you ehe Hag? You won't give anything up will you?

But not you ehe Hag? You won't give anything up will you?
#50 | Posted by slaryman

What do you think "we're going to have to make some concessions" means?

But facetiously, no, that's why I married up.

"That's especially true when you're talking about taxing rich people and their capital gains... the same people who we are expecting to invest in manufacturing."

I agree with you that we have to protect our market before it will be profitable again for investment into American manufacturing. Initial investment into industries should get a 100% tax deduction, profits from playing the stock market though should be taxed the same as labor. Playing the stock market creates no jobs, actually drains investment capital away from real investment that pays off with jobs. It's just gambling.

Initial investment into industries should get a 100% tax deduction, profits from playing the stock market though should be taxed the same as labor. Playing the stock market creates no jobs, actually drains investment capital away from real investment that pays off with jobs. It's just gambling.

#52 | Posted by danni

It'd be a tough sell... My more-or-less-liberal-but- wealthy Obama-voting uncle gets very upset when you talk about taxing his capital gains. I'm sure many Obama supporters are like him. I'd be impressed if Obama could do it and still get re-elected.

"I'd be impressed if Obama could do it and still get re-elected."

Maybe not, but if we don't pay down the debt it won't make any difference. sooner or later we have to raise enough tax to pay the bills, there is absolutely no reason labor should be taxed higher than capital gains.

Maybe not, but if we don't pay down the debt it won't make any difference.

I get it... Krugman is right. Inflate the currency to the point where you need a billion dollars for a loaf of bread which will make paying 20 trillion on the debt a piece of cake.

"I get it... Krugman is right. Inflate the currency to the point where you need a billion dollars for a loaf of bread which will make paying 20 trillion on the debt a piece of cake."

ER....taxes would prevent inflation not cause it. Krugman is saying we need to borrow (which will cause inflation) to stimulate the economy to the point that it would make sense to increase taxes on the rich which eventually would cut inflation.
Bush and the Republicans did more to inflate the dollar than anyone in history.

I think that taxes DO need to be raised, once we get through this recession.

However, I ALSO think spending needs to be reduced.

I propose that for every dollar of increased tax revenue we have an equal reduction of government spending.

Let the Democrats control where the increased revenues come from and let the Republicans control where the reduction in spending comes from.

Sounds fair to me.

Bush and the Republicans did more to inflate the dollar than anyone in history.

#56 | Posted by danni
Again, your stupidity knows no bounds. Do you mean inflation? Or do you mean devalue the dollar?

Krugman is saying we need to borrow (which will cause inflation) to stimulate the economy to the point that it would make sense to increase taxes on the rich which eventually would cut inflation.

We've already borrowed 8 Trillion in what...about 8 months. 65% of our GDP. Clearly not enough for Krugman. What do you have in mind? 20 Trillion? 50? How is that going to keep China and Japan from dumping all of our debt and running us into the ground? No amount of taxes are going to put that cat back into the bag. Unless your idea of America is indentured servitude.

So make up your mind...Are we going to pay down the debt or are we going to inflate? Mind you we have not yet felt the pain of the fresh 8 billion on the books.

By the logic of....
#45 | Posted by danni

But Danni, Federal deficit spending is bad, Kludgeman has always said so. How can even bigger deficits be good?

Oh I get it, Republic deficit bad but Democrat deficit good.

8 Billion, LOL

8 TRILLION

Hey Danni, here's your post from another thread:

"Let's all hope Barack Obama is anything but a Ronald Reagan. Creating more debt is the last thing we need to do."

#4 | Posted by danni

Care to explain? Kludge says more debt is good.

Care to explain?

Yeah, she's fucking baked like Betty Crocker.

I've got to say, even as a left-of-center guy, that all this talk of massive spending makes my head hurt. Maybe it'll work, I don't know, but it is a little frightening. I keep thinking of that line about "throwing good money after bad." Are we merely propping up a consumer culture that is beyond conventional repair?

Krugman and I both consider increasing the debt to be an unfortunate necessity in light of the EMERGENCY Bush has plunged us into. It is either that or sit by and watch the economy melt down. No guarantees it will be successful but what other strategy is available to us???
Jeff says cut spending...that will increase unemployment and not really make a dent in the debt.

"No amount of taxes are going to put that cat back into the bag."

Quite possibly true, so your answer is not to try???

I believe all of these contradictions explains Obama's choice of economic advisors, he needs credibility, new ideas, and a population willing to let him try to fix what 28 years of Reaganomics has done to this country, it won't happen over night.

"Are we merely propping up a consumer culture that is beyond conventional repair?"

Or....attempting to prevent a massive economic collapse on a scale we can't even imagine.

As if Bernanke and Paulson haven't spent larger and faster than anyone else in the history of mankind. Not that it did any good.

Now why is that?

Because they're lying, that's why.

The real reason they needed the money was to bailout their pals, who otherwise faced civil suits for fraud. Without bailout money, the foriegners Wall Street screwed would refuse to lend us anymore. Since we cannot pay for our day to day operations, we'd be screwed and unable to project our military power belligerently around the world.

So none of the money ever reached US consumers. Which is why Krugman, a Keynsian, is asking for more. Unlike Bernanke and Paulson, Krugman is interested in helping commoners, who really drive the economy by virtue of their numbers. Yet they have virtually no representation in Washington.

Instead, 15,000 millionaire lobbyists chase 600 Congressmen who need their money to continue to hold office. Hopelessly corrupt.

attempting to prevent a massive economic collapse on a scale we can't even imagine.

#66 | POSTED BY DANNI
------

Not prevent, just delay. When the system is flawed, you can't fix it by doing more of the same. Eventually, this flooding the market with more money is going to come back and bite us in the ass, and it will be exponentially worse that it would be if we just let it the house of cards fall now, instead of building it higher first.

nether is exactly right.

At some yet unknown point, printing dollars or selling another business for every problem, will completely destroy its value and our economy.

"and it will be exponentially worse that it would be if we just let it the house of cards fall now, instead of building it higher first."

This thought is based on what???
I doubt that you or I or anyone else really can even imagine the hardships we would have to deal with. If we can borrow our way out of this mess we would be crazy not to try.

We borrowed our way INTO this mess. What makes you think we can borrow a way out?

"We borrowed our way INTO this mess. What makes you think we can borrow a way out?"

What other options do we have???

Consider too that inflation could help mortagees, those with large student loans, debtors of all stripes. Most nations, when they get into serious debt inflate their currency to pay their way out with cheaper money.

What other options do we have???
----

We have an unsustainable economic system right now. We can't fix it by making it less sustainable.

It's going to crash eventually. If we let it happen now it will be painful, but less than if we delay it with costly bailouts that only deepen the hole before we fall in.

Inflation is not going to help anyone by the way. I'm not sure what color the sky is in your world, but when we have inflation in this world, interest rates rise. While my student loans may cost me "less", it will now cost me much more to send my kids to college, also more for them to buy a house, car, ect.

try to fix what 28 years of Reaganomics has done to this country-DUMMI

You libtards should really start a religion over this. It's tired, old and been proven wrong time and time again.
Reaganomics was an approach to handling of the economy, based on some principles of the Chicago School of economics and the famous "Laffer curve," which showed that cutting income taxes across the board would result in benefits for all of society. This was labeled "supply-side" economics and also called the "trickle-down" theory.
The idea was that a "Rising Tide Lifts All Boats", and by cutting taxes, especially capital gains rates, economic activity picked up and income to the Federal Government more than doubled during Reagan's term of office, even at much lower tax rates. While those with high incomes saw the largest benefit in tax reduction, the stimulation to the economy created jobs and prosperity to the middle class. The same was true when Kennedy's administration cut the tax rate in the early 1960's.
The theory is often dismissed by those who point to the high deficits from Reagan's term in office, but the deficits were a result of increased expenditures (largely to build up the military following years of reduced defense spending). The huge increase in tax revenue, however, supported the theory, despite the corresponding increase in spending that resulted in the deficit increase.

"and it will be exponentially worse that it would be if we just let it the house of cards fall now, instead of building it higher first."

This thought is based on what???
I doubt that you or I or anyone else really can even imagine the hardships we would have to deal with. If we can borrow our way out of this mess we would be crazy not to try.

What are your thoughts based on? I can give you example after example of economies that have inflated themselves out of existence. We have already borrowed 70 percent of our yearly GDP and things have gotten worse. The only thing that is being accomplished with all of this borrowing is that the rich are squeezing every remaining penny they can out of the system before the total collapse.

What other options do we have???

Consider too that inflation could help mortagees, those with large student loans, debtors of all stripes. Most nations, when they get into serious debt inflate their currency to pay their way out with cheaper money.

The same thing that happens when you and I fuck up. We go bankrupt. The solvent acquire the assets of the insolvent and we start over. The market will correct and no amount of meddling is going to stop that from happening. As far as your inflation comment goes, there's are these things called food and fuel that don't have a fixed price. Not to mention fixed income people. Remember the 401k's that Corky and Nullifidian were crying about a couple months ago? The same result happens that they thought they could prevent with a banker's blank check. POOF...up in smoke.

Fiat money will be the death of us if we let it. Most nations inflate their currency because they are all run by the same cabal of evil bankers.

Fiat money will be the death of us if we let it.
--------

I suspect it will be the death of us wether we let it or not.

elcid,

the chicago school of economics has destroyed many countries for the benefit of wall street. read the shock doctrine, a well documented history of their reign of terror.

Paul Craig Roberts is a supply side expert who was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan. One genius economist worried sick about the current economic condition. He believes our only hope is to close 700 overseas bases. Still a believer in supply side theory, he also points out that the benefits of tax reduction depend on many conditions in the economy, debt being one, production being another. The point is the same action under different circumstances yields different results.

Economic problems are dynamic including mass psychology and other unpredictable, uncontrollable, external factors. Measure, carefully consider, and adjust.

from just above...

famous "Laffer curve,"

Yeah, I have a "laugher curve" for yah.

Fed Deficit is 10+ trillion dollars atm
and growing exponentially. Out of that 10+
trillion, 8+ trillion of the Deficit was
caused by the Milton Friedman school of
Trickle Down Voodoo monkeynomics devised by
Republican Administration after Republican
Administration.

IT IS A FAILED SYSTEM. Perhaps the biggest
lie ever sold to the American People.

Sure the money trickled down...it trickled down
into offshore bank accounts, and 100 ft. yachts
for the uber rich. It trickled down into country
clubs and golden parachute retirement benefits for
CEOs. It trickled down into paying accountants to find tax dodges and loopholes in the law.

Some rich do share what they make, (ala Buffet and
Gates), and they are rightly commended and lauded.
But far and away the vast majority of the rich look after themselves; first, second, and last.

Milton Friedman style economics looks great on paper....but it fails to factor in one of the oldest
human weaknesses....HUMAN GREED.

Is it any surprise then in an age of deregulation that we ran into this debacle??? I ask you...

We need to buckle down, let some of these companies go under--to serve as examples to the rest--bail out what can be saved, eliminate Golden Parachutes for CEOs...in fact eliminate the whole good ole boy I'll vote you on the council if you vote me a raise and then I'll vote you a raise back fixed corporate system. Make a graduated Flat tax...that is equivalent over the whole spectrum of salaries in this country. Close all the loopholes, fire half the tax lawyers, and stick peoples feet to the fire and say pay up your fair share.

If I can pay taxes as a single dad along with my child support house payment and everything else, so can some uber rich whinny CEO mad at having to pay his fair share.

And actually start paying down the debt in this country. I hate to tell all you Dick Chenney lovers the truth...but unlike what he said....debts
do matter...

and now we are learning just how much.

"Most nations inflate their currency because they are all run by the same cabal of evil bankers."

The bankers are the ones who lose out when you inflate a currency and gain when it deflates.
If I can pay my mortgage off with inflated dollars it actually costs me less every percentage that inflation rises.
As far as things like food, yes prices can rise but so too can wages. That is why it is so important to stimulate the economy with non-outsourcable jobs like infrastructure repair. One billion invested produces between 30-40,000 new jobs, that put more pressure on wages and allows families to eat.
Down the road, when the economy is more stable, then higher taxes on the highest income earners will be used to repay the increased debt and to further stimulate the economy with investment in domestic industries. Some of the wealthy will whine but the smarter ones will invest and become richer just as they did in the fifties and sixties. WE built the largest manufacturing economy in the world and the highest standard of living when we also had some of the highest income tax rates in our history.

The bankers are the ones who lose out when you inflate a currency and gain when it deflates.

LOL!

The bankers are the ones who create the inflation in the first place and if you have not figured out YET but the bankers never ever LOSE out of money...NEVER.

"The bankers are the ones who create the inflation in the first place and if you have not figured out YET but the bankers never ever LOSE out of money...NEVER."

That must explain why they needed bailing out, worldwide. If the interest they charge is less than inflation they lose money. If defaults on loans exceed what they earn in interest they lose.

The bankers are the ones who lose out when you inflate a currency and gain when it deflates.
If I can pay my mortgage off with inflated dollars it actually costs me less every percentage that inflation rises. As far as things like food, yes prices can rise but so too can wages.

The bankers aren't losing. They are buying up assets. You pay off your mortgage with inflated dollars. They buy banks.

Inflation has already been occurring at a higher rate than wage increases, before adding 8 trillion to the tab...what makes you think that will magically change by adding more to that 8 trillion? It's ludicrous.

That is why it is so important to stimulate the economy with non-outsourcable jobs like infrastructure repair. One billion invested produces between 30-40,000 new jobs, that put more pressure on wages and allows families to eat.

You're still creating money out of thin air. Forget about people wanting to eat...you aren't going to get anything on the shelves to buy let alone eating it. I challenge you to find one positive story out of Zimbabwe as a result of their runaway inflation.

Down the road, when the economy is more stable, then higher taxes on the highest income earners will be used to repay the increased debt and to further stimulate the economy with investment in domestic industries.

Down the road, when the economy is more stable...

Enough with the platitudes. Give me a number. I know you're not an economist, but you seem to think you have your finger on the pulse. We've pumped out 8 trillion at this point. Krugman thinks that's not nearly enough. What kind of figure do you think he is hinting at in addition to the 8 trillion? 20 trillion more? 50? What do you think China is going to say when we attempt to devalue their holdings? You honestly think they are going to stand by and do nothing while we devalue our debt they hold by 50 percent?

Some of the wealthy will whine but the smarter ones will invest and become richer just as they did in the fifties and sixties. WE built the largest manufacturing economy in the world and the highest standard of living when we also had some of the highest income tax rates in our history.

Krugman doesn't want you to save. He says that is what the problem is. I'm not really sure what you mean in this last section.