Krugman is full of it, part redux

I tend to tune out the NY Times' liberal polemicist since even his own ombudsman described him as somebody with "disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults."

As Patterico ably demonstrates, the slicing blades were at full power in Krugman's latest take on the nation's long-term debt.  By using the stimulus-heavy year of 2009 as the baseline for spending and deficits, Krugman now claims that "all is well" since we're now running slightly lower deficits.  Also, he compares the total debt-to-GDP to post World War II levels as if this is contextual to modern times.  Finally, Krugman ignores that revenues-to-GDP almost never rise above 20%, no matter what taxation rate is applied, so debt will rise inexorably when spending is above that level.

Of course, it's well known that everybody who disagrees with Krugman is an idiot, including the green eyeshades over at the CBO who said this only a couple days ago:

If current laws remained generally unchanged in the future, federal debt held by the public would decline slightly relative to GDP over the next few years, CBO projects. After that, however, growing budget deficits would push debt back to and above its current high level. Twenty-five years from now, in 2039, federal debt held by the public would exceed 100 percent of GDP, CBO projects. Moreover, debt would be on an upward path relative to the size of the economy, a trend that could not be sustained indefinitely.

Once again, as Patterico notes, liberals like Krugman wailed like banshees at the insignificant budget cuts of the sequester.  There is zero chance they'll accept the $230+ billion in cuts or tax hikes required to close this gaping hole.