Friday, January 7, 2011

Texas is a river in Egypt

Krugman points out that Texas has little regulation and is nevertheless suffering these days.
Therefore tax cuts and deregulation can't be the economic panacea many on the right say it is.
Freepers need to refute this attack on their simple philosophy (Tax breaks good! Government bad! End of philosophy). Or at least try:

Lazamataz chases his denial with some projection:
Texas was THE ONE AND ONLY STATE that made it through the Near-Depression almost unscathed, and Krugman attacks THAT success as proof of his Socialist belief
system being borne out?
Is it just me, or is the left really simply losing it, lately?
Just saying stuff, for the hell of it? Like "Red is BLUEEEE!!!" and "1 + 1 = 1982378.3999198!!!!!"

GeronL wants us to know that Texas doesn't count anyway, since it's secretly liberal:

Krugman must live in a fantasy world of some kind. Where does he get the idea that Texas has low taxes and no regulation?

bigredkitty1 just assumes somewhere as awesome as Texas will just solve it's problems through grit:

While Texas may have budget issues as of 01/07/11, when the Texas Legislature is dismissed in the spring, the budget issues will be handled.(The remedies may be painful, but Texas will do what is needed.)

Lefties like Krugman just can’t stand to see conservative states thrive and prosper. (Oh, did I mention the 4 new US congressional districts Texas picked up, due to all the new residents?) Too freaking bad for Krugman and his ilk.


SeekAndFind notes that low taxes mean you can raise taxes more easily:
Texas has a lot more avenues to raise funds such as implementing a short term income tax (Which I don’t think they will).
Would you rather be in a deficit with 0% state income tax or at 14% state income tax? Which state can handle the issue better. I don’t think this is a fight liberals want.
On top of that, Texas doesn’t have the issue of unfunded liabilities associated with pensions, nor does it have the problem of public unions that the other states mentioned have

Not coming from unfunded liability means Texas' deficit is much more badass, I guess.

jimt knows who to blame:

Our budget deficit would disappear once we deport the illegals. Illegals’ costs in socialist services are huge. The load on goobermint schools, the load on emergency rooms (unpaid) - there are scads of programs being milked by illegals and paid for by us.
Deport the illegals and their anchor babies NOW !

RatRipper goes to a different blame-well:
We should not forget that a significant portion of the financial problems of the states results from UNFUNDED MANDATES thrust upon them by the Federal government. Repeal the 17th Amendment!

gitmogrunt just throws up his hands and goes ad-hominem.
The gleem in Krugman’s eyes, indicates he’s off his meds.
child-like ideals can be a harsh mistress.

2 comments:

  1. Texas may be suffering, but it is doing way better than California, Michigan ,New York or Nevada. You know, the high-tax unionized liberal havens. A cursory google search on unemployment by state reveals this. Tax-cuts and regulation is not a "panacea", but will cut unemployment to Texas-like levels (7.8%). Another 3% cut will have to come from tariffs on select imports to bring home manufacturing jobs from overseas.

    State Unemployment rate (Source:BLS)
    Texas 7.9%
    Michigan 13.2%
    California 12%
    Nevada 12%
    New York 8%

    Besides, lesser government spending and lesser pay and benefit for government union fatcats, is also a question of "fairness". Liberals keep increasing taxes on the "rich" claiming it is "fair". Is it fair that the increasingly impoverished private sector employees, who have seen their wages and benefits decimated keep supporting generous pay and benefits for government union fatcats? Is this not terribly unfair? Or is the definition of "fairness" is the one that supports liberal talking points.

    Krugman is a hack, and keeps parroting discredited Keynesian babble. Krugman argued that the $800 billion stimulus is necessary to keep unemployment below 8%. Now a year and $800 billion later, the unemployment is 9.8% and shows no signs of coming down. Krugman should just shut his trap, and no one should listen to him.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Your unemployment number is compelling, and does indeed indicate that lower regulation and taxes do increase employment.

    But the issue is not with unemployment, it is with the debt. Indeed, one could have no taxes or regulations and have lots of busness, but miserable people and an awful financial situation.

    As for fairness, both sides lay claim to that word. Indeed, your definition hewes to right-wing talking points, just as you accuse the left of doing with their definition.

    Anyhow, the fact that you can point to unfairness on one side, does not mean your way is any more fair.

    Also, government union fatcats? That's a bit of kettle-pot action there.

    And, finally, Keynes is not discredited. All but a few crazy Austrian-school folks still think he was a smart dude.

    And if we stop listening to Krugmen cause he got a number wrong, then we can never listen to another economist again.

    Which, by the way, is fine by me.

    ReplyDelete