Paul Krugman is such a sad fellow. His partisan rants in the New York Times make “progressives” feel good about their terrible economic practices. They think to themselves, “Krugman is an economist and he agrees with us, so we must be doing something right.”
Now Krugman is upset at Republicans for moaning about deficits. It seems he’s not very concerned about the growing debt:

Many economists take a much calmer view of budget deficits than anything you’ll see on TV. Nor do investors seem unduly concerned: U.S. government bonds continue to find ready buyers, even at historically low interest rates

That’s all well and good. Those crazy Republicans are just trying to scare the public like they did about Iraq. I wonder what Krugman thought about deficits during the Bush administration? Oh, I don’t have to wonder, Google enables me to search myself. Here’s Krugman’s take on deficits in 2003:

Still, do deficits matter? Some economists worry, with good reason, about their long-run effect on economic growth. But I worry most about America’s fiscal credibility.
You see, a government that has a reputation for sound finance and honest budgets can get away with running temporary deficits; if it lacks such a reputation, it can’t. Right now the U.S. government is running deficits bigger, as a share of GDP, than those that plunged Argentina into crisis. The reason we don’t face a comparable crisis is that markets, extrapolating from our responsible past, trust us to get our house in order.

Well Mr. Krugman, which one is it? American fiscal credibility is much worse in 2010 than it was in 2003, but now he’s completely changed his attitude. It seems Krugman is only concerned with deficits when a Republican is in charge. Krugman’s observations aren’t from an economics standpoint, but they represent the views of a bitter hypocritical liberal quite well.
Does Krugman even bother to read his own drivel?