Ben Franklin would be labeled a right-wing extremist if he was alive today.

I hardly have the energy to write about the ongoing debt ceiling debate that has been going on for months. What is there that I can add? Democrats want to raise taxes and not cut a single dime of non-defense spending. It’s amazing how invested the Democratic party is in the status quo. They will fight to the death to defend entitlements as they are, not matter how outdated and not relevant to 21st Century America they are. What happened to Hope and Change? Can I at least get Change?

Raising taxes of any kind during a recession is ridiculous. It’s just bad economics. Over the last three years almost every part of the United States has cut back, except the federal government. Businesses have reduced payrolls. City and State governments had to make cuts. Yet, liberals believe the the federal government is immune to cuts. Once a government job is created it’s eternal.

The nation’s debt problem is too big for taxes; however, the American liberal fails to see the problem. They would rather punt it down the road another decade. Happy days are here again! How can a problem as dire as this be solved when so much of population is detached from reality? The War on Poverty has bankrupted the United States.

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

Ben Franklin wrote that 245 years ago and he is right. Over the last 70 years the left has incrementally passed well-intentioned legislation to help the poor. Poverty hasn’t been eliminated. In fact, the poverty rate was decreasing until the War on Poverty was enacted. For 4o years the poverty rate has remained unchanged. The cost of this grand experiment has pushed our great nation to the brink of financial ruin.

Entitlements haven’t lifted people out of poverty, but have made the poor, students, and the elderly dependent on government services. Now we all face economic uncertainty.

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?