Letters to the Editor
-
GOP and using racism to win
I suggest Krugman read the Lassiter book on the changing of the white middle class in the South. One of the major reasons that the South has gone to the GOP is that the South is no longer as poor as they used to be. LBJ understood that it was happening and was able to push Civil Rights (which passed because of conservative Republican votes) without fear of losing his voting bloc because he was losing his Southern bloc for other reasons.
The notion that a region of the US, which has always been conservative, became conservative solely because of racism is absurd.
-
since August 2003, the economy has added more than 8 million new jobs
Yeah, but we can't ALL work at McDonalds.
-
Interesting polling on interracial marriage...
I'm a little surprised to see that 23% of Americans still think interracial marriage is wrong, but I wonder how much overlap there is between that 23% and the 20 or 30% who still think the Iraq war is a good idea...
-
Virtue001
We've always known that massive deficit spending could bring about some form of economic prosperity. When the government hires people and buys goods on credit, it can make things look pretty good for a short time. That's what we did in WWII, and the economy boomed. But no serious economist of any political hue argues that it's any way to run an economy. Bush economics relies on foreign investors to finance our lifestyles. The more debt we run up, the less valuable it becomes and pretty soon, creditors start wanting more and more interest to continue buying our bonds, which means higher interest rates and a depressed economy. There's no way around it - long term, Bush economics is a fool's game, which is no surprise given who the president is.
There was a time when conservatives generally and Republicans specifically knew this stuff.
-
Good times for America?
Are there any bets on what the percentage of African Americans is in the 23% of Americans who still think miscegenation is wrong? Oh, all African Americans are cool with inter-racial relationships you say?
Yes the USA is becoming less "white" as Krugman notes, whatever a "white" person is; go to South Africa, Brazil or Mexico and being "white" has a different meaning than it does in our 4% of the world's demographic. If one demographics "hispanics" as "non-white" as ridiculous as these terms all sound, outside our borders whitey is in the minority, except in Canada and Europe; Paul, have you ever thought of emigrating to a country where the European diaspora were in the minority, if their taking care of their own business gets up your nose? We all know that the rest of the world is better than us, with more equal societies and better distributions of wealth than the USA you describe in your writings. You really must not get around the world much Paul, except for junkets to Europe?
Since Krugman likes to mix his obsession with race and economics, why don't we discuss how liberal whites like he have failed African Americans, America's not getting browner because the numbers of African Americans are increasing, no, it's actually getting tanner because we can't control our sunny southern border; America's becoming another Latin American nation because we don't have the cajones to protect our national sovereignty. If things are so great elsewhere Paul, like in Latin America, why would everyone in Latin America except the wealthy regardless of their color want to skip our border into the USA? Why don't we talk about the economic inequalities and racism of Latin America Paul, because that will be your legacy and your grandkids reality, living in Latin America. How is this going to benefit African Americans the way Latin America treats its African minorities? Vicente Fox looked like a white Spaniard to these eyes compadre, as does Fidel Castro. Is Krugman really a good economist, or just one of Mr. Sulzberger's favorite sons?
Krugman's wrong about America, the blue liberal states, not the red conservative states are the wealthiest American states, and these blue states are the most ethnically diverse; if there are inequalities in these most cosmopolitan of American states than it is liberal, not conservative economic policies that cause the economic disparities in New York, California etc. We all know from Krugman's writings that the red states are populated by a bunch of poor white racist hayseeds not worthy of any political consideration.
-
Robert Franklin
You make some good points, but our government has been hiring people and buying goods on credit for a long, long time. And although Bushonomics relies, in part, on foreign investors to finance our lifestyles, this, too, was going on well before Bush came ever into power. However, those policies are only part of this administration's total economic philosophy (albeit a large part). But for the sake of argument, let's pretend I buy this part of your argument for the moment, so that I can ask you the following question: If Hillary were to become President of the United States tomorrow, what would happen to the economy we have now in place, if she were to:
1) Let President Bush's tax cuts for top earners expire, meaning she raises the top bracket (for those earning more than $200,000 a year) on income taxes from the 35 percent to which Bush cut it, to the 39.6 percent to which her husband raised it in 1993.
2) Increase the tax on capital gains from the current 15 percent to at least 20 percent or more likely to the 30 percent level backed by most liberals.
3) Repeal Bush's tax cut on dividends, raising it from its current 15 percent to 30 percent.
4) End the planned elimination of the estate tax and reduce the size of estates subject to the tax.
5) Raise FICA taxes levied on the first $97,000 of income to the first $250,000.
I think you'll agree that these five points are hardly outside the realm of Hillary's agenda. And that being the case, what do you honestly think the effect on our present economy would be?
-
Virtue001
The answer to your questions is contained in my post to Phoenix Woman. The effect of the actions you describe, with the exception of raising the cap on FICA earnings would be salutary for the economy because it would effect a transfer of wealth from the very well-to-do to the poor and middle class. (The government would take tax money from the wealthy and redistribute it via govenrment spending to workers in defense industries, government bureaucracies, etc.) That would enhance our ability to consume what we produce which would boost wages and lower inventories. In other words, instead of relying on foreign investors to finance our economic activity, we'd do more of it ourselves and be able to cut the deficit at the same time.
As to raising the FICA earnings cap, I'm all for it. The Economic Policy Institute has studies showing that, if the cap were raised to $140,000, we would make Social Security solvent until 2075 with no cut in benefits. Given that, if we raised the ceiling even further, it would allow us to cut taxes on everyone earning under the current cap while still making the system solvent until 2075 with no cut in benefits. It would be easy and politicians could rightly claim to have both cut taxes and saved Social Security. What's not to like?
You're right that the current administration is not the first to deficit spend. Reagan slashed taxes the way Bush did and produced, like Bush, unprecedented deficits. The difference between the two of course is that Reagan learned from his mistake and raised taxes later in his presidency.