Paul Krugman: Romney would be worse than Hoover

(CBS News) -- Mitt Romney in the White House would be worse for the struggling U.S. economy than Herbert Hoover was in the wake of the Great Depression, nobel laureate and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman charged on Monday.

"Romney is saying let's do exactly what we did under the Bush administration and this time hope for different results," Krugman said in an interview with "CBS This Morning," adding that his policies would "make Herbert Hoover look good by comparison."

"He is saying let's do exactly what they did in Ireland which has led to 15 percent unemployment and 30 percent youth unemployment and that will lead to great results here," Krugman said skeptically.

Krugman says policymakers in Washington have it backwards. Textbook economics say the economy needs more spending now, not less.

"You look at what's happening in Europe and you say, we just learned austerity is not the answer," Krugman said.

"The right thing is to spend more. Right now, you know, we have a long-term budget problem but now is not the time to be slashing. Now is not the time to be laying off school teachers. Now is not the time to be doing public works, rehiring those school teachers, to get this economy moving again," he said.

The Princeton professor also slammed Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke, a former Princeton professor himself, for being too afraid of inflation.

The central bank, which sets interest rates, needs "to say, we're not concerned about inflation. 3 percent, 4 percent is not a problem. We're willing and would like to see a little inflation to get this economy moving," Krugman added.

[endurorob_5]

This guy is a Nobel Laureate? Figures. Spend more? Where do we get all this money? Borrow it? That would be shrot term gain for big long term loss. Tax the life out of the wealthy? Then who will create jobs? This guy also says austerity is the casuse for the economic problems in Europe. Out of control taxing and spending is what caused Europes problems not austerity. What a complete moron.

[sjc_1]

You get the money from large corporations. Corporations used to pay 40% of the federal budget through taxes 50 years ago, now they pay 6%. They do not create jobs, they send them offshore. Time for the large corporations to pay more.

[TimeToEvolve]

The problem we have with our economy really goes back to the failed free market ideas of Reaganomics (there never was and never will be a "free" market, that is a corporate and Top 1% scam of the American people).

Bushoccio, the mental midget Top 1% puppet, put Reaganomics on steroids. So how stupid can we be to give another Republicon fake free market freak like Robmee our pResident? We need strong government regulation of Wall Street, the gutting of regulation of industry was the cause of this Second Great Republican Depression Bush started. And Robmee wants to finish the job.

[sjc_1]

Time has it exactly right, just because you don't think so means nothing.

[jmn122736]

MikeVoice said: "Obama is not the answer. We experimented with ultra-liberal and social justice spending, it failed. Lets give Mitt a try, he can't do worse"
.......................

."The problem with your suggestion is that Romney would continue the Reagan fiasco of cut taxes, borrow and spend, which is exactly what brought us to our present economic condition.
Going from a less than $1 trillion national debt in 1981 to over $11.9 trillion in 2009, while paying out $8.22 trillion in interest on said debt.

28 years of trickle down, voo doo economics, 20 years of which were under republican administrations.

Remember; the definition of sanity is to continue the same failed policy hoping for a different result.

BTW, $2 trillion of that paid interest was automatically added to the debt increase incurred under the present administration, also included in this administration's debt increases are more $trillions in additional spending NECESSARY to prevent a sure repeat of the 1930's great depression.

As for bankruptcy and the burden going to our children; that fact was set in concrete by the republican borrow and spend "THE DEBT DON'T MATTER" policies of the Reagan and both Bush administrations.

Where were all you republican defender/apologists then?

[wfw3536]

Paul's goal is to spend more than the 7 trillion dollars of debt Obama is projected to spend in the next several years. They both feel you just spend your way to turning this economy around. At this rate we will soon be looking like Greece/Spain/Italy and a number of other countries looking at bankruptcy. I just feel sorry for our children and grandchildren who some day will have to deal with this reckless spending.

[sjc_1]

Bush wasted $6 trillion in borrowed money for no reason at all, it did not have to happen. He did not have to ignore al Qaeda leading to 9/11, which led to Afghanistan, which he led to Iraq. He did not have to cut taxes for the rich THREE times. None of that was necessary and did NOT have to happen and should NOT have happened at all.

[MikeVoice]

If Paul is saying that the general public needs to spend more, ok. If he is talking about government spending more, then no, he's missing the point of what a deficit is and what its short and long term effect on the country's national security and economic health.

In order for "the people" to spend more, they need to make more. In order to make more, there have to be jobs, about 900,000 of them before the end of this year.

Obama is not the answer. We experimented with ultra-liberal and social justice spending, it failed. Lets give Mitt a try, he can't do worse.

[jmn122736]

The problem with your suggestion is that Romney would continue the Reagan fiasco of cut taxes, borrow and spend, which is exactly what brought us to our present economic condition.
Going from a, less than $1 trillion, national debt in 1981 to over $11.9 trillion in 2009, while paying out $8.22 trillion in interest on said debt. 28 years of trickle down, voo doo economics, 20 years of which were under republican administrations.

Remember; the definition of insanity is to continue the same failed policy hoping for a different result.

[MalthViking]

If you think Obama has done anything ultra liberal, then I'm sorry but you are sadly mistaken. Increased government spending has been proven to help during recessions several times over the past 100 years, while we can see the devastating effects austerity is having on the Euro nations. Our economy is doing better because we have not aggressively pursued austerity. This isn't a left or right issue, it's economics and it is what it is.

The deficit is nothing more than the money supply, and the government can make as much of it as it wants. Contrary to popular belief, bonds and taxes don't actually fund spending. There is no debt crisis.

[audemus]

The problem with experts, is that they all have different opinions.