i'm talking about paul krugman. [laughter] now, you can't make it up stuff, the analogy between krugman are so striking it is just downright eerie. they are both socialists. he says quote, an unabashed defender of the welfare state which i regard as the most decent yet divide. he said he advocates a state that offers everyone underpaid additional income. they both hate rich people. krugman once wrote that rich people must be defenders of the downtrodden otherwise they have no hope of quote unquote justifying their systems. so we have to kill them if they disagree with paul krugman? there is a little bit of a hypocrite thing. are we surprised? paul krugman happens to be a very wealthy man. it's a million dollars home in a million dollars apartment in new york on a multimillion dollars estate in princeton, new jersey where he teaches. if it is a 6000 square foot home with 12-foot ceilings and music room and have the fire pit outside where he and other princeton faculty members have been known to burn an effigy various

paul krugman and others have suggested that it was never big enough from the start. the white house cut a deal and they thought they could get through even when they controlled both houses of congress. >> right. a couple of things. let's remember that it barely got through. there was not a lot of margin. that is related to the second point. i am sympathetic as a peer of economists to the notion that it should have been there. -- i am sympathetic as a pure and economist. it did not look obvious that say a trillion dollar stimulus could have gotten through the congress even though both congress is had democratic majority. -- both houses had a democratic majority. the number kept changing. it was 787 and now it is estimated to be 850 as more data came in. this is not at all obvious that we had gotten bigger. what is obvious is that we could have made it better. this is lost to history now, but you might remember in return for almost no republican votes, no matter what it was, the president gave over about 250 billion, about 1/3 of the stimulus. this was in the spirit of

on the krugman side, i have an enormous admiration of him. there's too much debt in the system. we have to fix that over time. what the right timetable is, who am i to argue with a nobel laureate? i think he's right, of course. you have to worry about the 1937 phenomena when roosevelt tried to pass a budget. >> the question is, how do you not look at the newspapers in greece, portugal, ireland, italy, california, across america and the states and not realize whether you are a progressive economist or not that we have too much debt in the system. >> the american public understands when you have millions of homes with mortgage that is exceed the value of their homes and credit lines, debt has consequences. they are right. >> would you agree with that howard dean? >> the issue that paul raises is how fast should we get rid of it? it's where we have to be careful. it's great to talk about the debt in washington. most people are worried about jobs, 5-1. paul makes a great point. jobs is the biggest problem, not the deficit. the deficit has gotten

result in the short term has been extreme contraction of the economy. >> but if you buy the paul krugmanith his point that this whole mess -- i can't think of a better word -- this whole mess has been portrayed as a bunch of immature, squabbling narrow minded politicians who can't get in the room and agree when the alternative analysis and certainly one krugman embraces, is it's the republicans and particularly the tea party faction that has been intransigent, has said no to trillions in spending cuts and the democrats and obama have moved quite a ways towards the gop position? >> i think that conclusion, that actually the terms of the debate have shifted far to the right is objectively the case. what's interesting to me, and we already saw it on the front page of "the new york times" today and this was alluded to in your panel, people are now saying, okay, in the post mortem phase, we're going to talk about how obama shifted pretty far to the right, that's a little bit too late. the decisions will have have been taken. >> briefly, why has mainstream journalism not portrayed this atds a

fiscal policy out of the federal reserve and state sponsored state supported economists like paul krugman is like expecting gambling addicts to suddenly walk away from the table what is the only solution that the government has when it faces a crisis caused by its own corruption and decadence and thievery double down baby double down double down that's all it can do is continue to do the same thing now i think it's important to remember that the political class like the ruling on the darks they're fine i mean they've got their holdings probably in swiss francs in gold and that they're all set they can do whatever they want it's the average person and particularly the poor person in the retired person who is going to face the real calamity when this mess hits the fan and so they they're sort of secure they've got their escape hatch they've got their golden parachutes everybody out so they can continue to mess around without any particular fear of their own finances going in the toilet all right imagine double down double down and i mean they got me thinking of the martin gal betting system

big john's looks to understate bag of krugman's. he knew the krugman's.his woman, her husband making way through the crowd with his elbows. the woman is giving something. looks like a little he says oh, no, sure enough, they get close, the husband takes it, it is a baby that is call scott on the barbwire. one of the msg's runs up, and looks at. drops it back down. can't ticketing. people are coming up. this are heartbreaking stories. mr. knock them up to an msg and he got close enough to the gate. he's kind of a with old man and he is old he and his army jacket on. a row of metal. he pulls a invalid out of his pocket and he slips it to and what the msg's opens it up and it's from the officers club dated 1967. it says mr. na has served not only his country but the united states of america well. please consider that when you deal with mr. na. mr. na had one arm and he starts, he starts washing dishes, wash dishes. and i remember the msg just turned around and said who am i to play god? who am i to say yes, you can come in? and in the meanwhile, all the viet

in 1982 when krugman was part of the council of economic advisers in the reagan white house and wroteer in 1982 when we had just come off the all-time peak in u.s. inflation, at least the civil war, he wrote a paper called the inflation time bomb predicting that inflation would skyrocket and throw the world back into the persian. basically ever since you wrote the paper inflation has been lower. it's been practically and zero. he hates big government deficits. as long as their in the bush to ministration, and he is terrified it will create sky-high interest rates. he loves deficits now in 1983 and created, the fancy word with the crowd sourcing. the use the internet, blocks to get dozens of like-minded people to participate in a joint project. the project at the time was every time he writes a column all of the members of the troops got stay up all night, fact checking. kids every line, every error, every distortion, every misquotation, e-mail me. i'll have it published on national review online in a state. we did about a hundred columns over seven years. that does major retractions o

people like paul krugman have been trying to get us to realize how well has been so concentrated in such a small group of folks. what strategies could be used to attack this minority of individuals in a way that foundations and charities did in the past? if we had a few people, and quite a number of them at an immense amount of wealth, why are we not having them at the new macarthur foundation's and the people who will finance this community journalism? there should be a way of strategy and a mindset where they can help reduce the public interest journalism of the future -- help produce the public interest journalism of the future. >> you are seeing that from some of the wealthy. you have bill gates doing fantastic things. msn and msnbc sprang from microsoft. rupert murdoch, for all the criticism he gets, is invested in the media and innovation. mike bloomberg is doing a ton of stuff through his company. they are hiring hundreds of people. i worked at bloomberg 15 years ago, and i was in europe as a foreign correspondent. there were 40 journalists, and now, there are thousands. i think i

a way that i never did before and consider myself something of an expert but what confuse me paul krugman, frank rich rich, at least they did well on their s.a.t. test because stayed went to good colleges but seems so stupid that is crowd psychology. people in a crowd lose some of their intelligence and grasp onto conspiracies to list every part of groupthink briefly describes but not in the same way to describe conservatives. you are all getting a copy but i love to take questions because then i don't need prepared remarks. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> i love "the view" i have been on four times. they have been lovely we had a great time every time except one when it all yelled at me i would have to wait to get something out that was the only time barbara will pleasure -- program walters was on the show. by process of elimination the rest of them are lovely girls. it has been weird because usually instantly liberals fixate on some small joke in my book and twisted around that is the only thing that i talk about for the next month which gets tedious and for the first time i am asked about

did before i considered myself as an expert but the things that confused me was for example, paul krugman, frank rich, they must be applied but they did well on their as a tea but they seem so stupid and. [laughter] that is explained as crowd psychology that people in the crowd will lose some of their intelligence the matter how intelligent they are grasping onto conspiracies turn people into enemies it is the mob psychology beautifully described liberals not in the way you could say the same thing about conservatives. that is all i will say right now because you all get a copy tonight but i would love to take questions because then i don't need prepared remarks. [laughter] >> [inaudible] this. >> i love the view i have been on four times they have been lovely to me the last time when they all yelled at me i would have to wait for a pause to get something out that was the only time barbara walters was on the show. so by process of elimination [laughter] i think the rest of them are lovely and actually led has tour because instantly liberals usually fixate on one point* in my book and twis

i am not an economist but paul krugman has a nobel prize in economics and he says the only serious attack on the long-term entitlement budget deficit is these progressive budgets. is that what it is called? people budget. he says the only serious one is the people's budget. i will take his word for it. think about the fact that in washington you have this notion that only paul ryan is serious. he destroys medicare to give more money to the wealthy who have had the best 40 years in the history of this country. that is what obama doesn't want to recognize. obama's budget is worse than the simpson bowles budget which takes $3 out of spending for every $1 it raises in revenue. that is the democratic petition. obama's is worse than that. this conservative aura has created this notion that to be serious you have to attack 4 people and and rich rich people. that to me is the problem. [applause] >> i wasn't necessarily endorsing paul ryan's budget in my earlier comments. [talking over each other] >> are you trying to get this guy lynched? >> this is what happened to me last time was the only pers

. >> peter, i want to put up, we have got a quote from paul krugman, "the new york times" columnist and nobel prize winner who also blogged this today. the situation he said cries out aggressively expansionary monetary and fiscal policy. instead, however, the political push is in the opposite direction. to you agree with that, peter? >> i agree about the political push. we need to compliment greater fiscal discipline with addressing some structural problems that would give us the kind of stimulus we need. the huge trade deficit, for example, with china. the president talks about more trade agreements with korea. that may be nice, but that's not going to solve the problem. we already have a trade agreement with china. it's not working. we have to rebalance trade. on energy we need to develop domestic energy in addition to all teternative sources, we nee start drilling for oil and gas again so we're not importing so much. if we did those things we could reduce the deficit, increase employment and get out of this mess. >> jared, i guess what worries me is all the emphasis seems to be on a

pulitzer prize winner, paul krugman also a columnist for "the new york times." grover norquist, preredent of the american tax reform. a group that played a major role in this debate and one again, abc chief political correspondent george stephanopoulos. gentlemen, you just heard what senator lindsey graham said, what david plouffe, the president's adviser said. mitch mcconnell saying they are quite close, that he'll have the parameters of framework to show to his members today. is this now going to pass? are we going to get a deal? >> i think we are. i think it was signalled when the president spoke last monday. that's six days ago, seems like six months ago. what he said it was unjust, unacceptable to have a debt ceiling agreement that does not include revenues, that is unbalanced. the president said that after the second most prominent and powerful democrat in washington, harry reid proposed exactly that. not only proposed that. but an increase of revenue, but increase that had the other main republican component, which was spending cuts commensurate with the

was inaugurated he addressed herbert hoover's confidence fairy as paul krugman calls and saying flat out that the problem wasn't rich people's confidence but working people need a good job and some help with their mortgage. this is not. our . greatest primary. business understandable problem if we pay fifty million courageously they can be accomplished in. recruiting by the government itself treating the family goes away with great pm good concealable. but at the same time ruby is one complicated great greatly needed project to stimulate and reorganize they use a lot of great men through we can't. be helped by preventing really take away rick perry did a. great book. that was by the way his first day in office this morning at his press conference president obama also referenced the second big republican they were broke but there's not enough money in america to put people back to work. i've been hearing from my republican friends for quite some time that it is a moral imperative for us to tackle our debt and our deficits in a serious right i've been hearing from them that this is one

. >> rose: also this evening a conversation with paul krugman and david brooks th columnists at the "new york times". this conversation took pla before the president's press conference and therefore was edited accordingly. >> whave no consensus in our political system. there is no center. we have no consensus about what all to be happening. so if you try to strike a lo-term deal you're basically stking a deal that nobody actually beeves and that isot going to be adhered to. i think we buy we buy se time. shouldn't be negotiating at all about the debt ceiling but we buy someime and give the voters another chance to weigh in. >> we really need to cut i think some of the rating agencies have said this, we need to cut $4 trillion to sort of stabilize debt levels and if we don't do that that's really bad news. and then the second thing i do think both parties may find it useful to have a framework. no, we're to the going to write a plan that is going to dictate the next ten years of politics but both parties may find it extremely useful to have a framework going forward and believe me none