Yes, Dr. Paul Krugman is a well paid, very famous professor who won a Nobel Prize in economics. But like most LIE-berals, he just doesn’t get it. Consider his attacks on Republicans…
Case One: he attacks David Brooks (ok, he is a RINO but hey, at the New York Times that is the best that we can do):
The good folks at EPI are upset by my colleague David Brooks’s claims that the gap between the top 20 and the bottom 30, not the gap between the top 1 and everyone else, is what really matters.
As you might guess, I’m with Larry Mishel on this; but I thought it might be useful to have a calm discussion of what someone might mean by saying that the rise of the top 1 percent isn’t important.
One thing such a person might mean is that it’s unimportant in quantitative, dollars and cents terms. But this is just false. The CBO inequality report confirms what independent studies have been saying: the rise of the top 1 percent has absorbed a large fraction (almost half, by my reckoning), of economic growth, leaving a much smaller pie for everyone else. If we look at Gini indexes, a measure of overall inequality, CBO has calculated them both with and without the top 1 percent:
He goes on to point out that 45 percent of the economic growth has gone to the top 1 percent.
Our take: there is one thing wrong with that: it is only 45 percent! Why should the sub 250K per year riff-raff (and those who would be at 250K if it weren’t for Barack HUSSEIN Obama) get anything?
Case Two: he attacks Willard “Mittens” Romney:
Still, I believe Mr. Romney when he says he isn’t concerned about the poor. What I don’t believe is his assertion that he’s equally unconcerned about the rich, who are “doing fine.” After all, if that’s what he really feels, why does he propose showering them with money?
And we’re talking about a lot of money. According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Mr. Romney’s tax plan would actually raise taxes on many lower-income Americans, while sharply cutting taxes at the top end. More than 80 percent of the tax cuts would go to people making more than $200,000 a year, almost half to those making more than $1 million a year, with the average member of the million-plus club getting a $145,000 tax break.
And these big tax breaks would create a big budget hole, increasing the deficit by $180 billion a year — and making those draconian cuts in safety-net programs necessary.
Which brings us back to Mr. Romney’s lack of concern. You can say this for the former Massachusetts governor and Bain Capital executive: He is opening up new frontiers in American politics. Even conservative politicians used to find it necessary to pretend that they cared about the poor. Remember “compassionate conservatism”? Mr. Romney has, however, done away with that pretense.
True, but why is this bad? It is only bad to a LIE-beral. The deserving get the breaks and the slackers get the shaft which is exactly as it should be. Really, it isn’t as if the 5 figure income slimebags have ever amounted to anything…or ever will.