Mick Mulvaney exposes Paul Krugman's 'vested interest' in a lousy economy

One of the brightest stars in President Trump's White House, White House budget director Mick Mulvaney, who's part of that team that triggered our current economic boom, has a bead on the skeevy statements about it coming from the left, such as those of vaunted New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.

Check out Grabien:

Mulvaney points out the obvious about why the left keeps attempting to downplay the economic growth that has characterized the Trump administration: leftists have an actual political interest in a bad economy for America.

As Mulvaney explained to Fox News:

Keep in mind, all of the folks who are now saying it's – it's just a short-term sugar high, it's just a blip, it's not sustainable, including the CBO, are the same people who said it was impossible to get to 3 percent in the first place.  They have a vested interest in seeing us fail.

One of my favorite lines came, I think, from Paul Krugman who said that – about the time we rolled out our first budget, which introduced this concept of 3 percent growth, sustainable 3 percent growth, he said you could make him complete dictator of the country and he couldn't get you there.  So there's a lot of folks who are interested in seeing us fail because we are proving that if you regulate (INAUDIBLE), you let people keep more of their own money, that the American economy can grow and that that growth is sustainable.

Now, part of this is undoubtedly jealousy at President Trump's success, which makes their own record, by contrast, look so bad in comparison.

First, as Mulvaney noted, they said 3% growth wasn't possible.  The good times were forever over.  Small was beautiful, just as Jerry Brown in the 1970s used to say, and that included a small economy.  Guys like Paul Krugman, putting on their economist green eyeshades, were quite loud about that.

Then a number of them tried to switch the "narrative," generally espoused by the Obama administration's deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, that Obama was the real author of the booming Trump economy, something that doesn't stack up in the wake of Obama's long eight years in office without so much as a hint of such results.

That didn't work for them, either (note President Trump's rising support among black Americans as the first president who ever did anything good economically for them), so there are now the claims, coming out of Krugmanville and probably his echo chamber, that the good economy is a sugar high.  Back to fake economics, for sure.

And that as the economy booms, "capitalism" is out of control.  Look at this crap from Elizabeth Warren, as noted by Kerry Jackson, writing for Investor's Business Daily, calling for "accountable capitalism."

Oh, and throw in the sorry Democrat talking point that just fell apart yesterday, about wages not rising, so the boom was invalid.  Turns out there are big wage rises in store for American workers, as I noted here.

One wonders why they just can't be honest about things instead and follow the lead of leftist comedian Bill Maher, who said he wants the economy to crash.

"By the way, I'm hoping for it because one way you get rid of Trump is a crashing economy.  So please, bring on the recession," Maher said.  "Sorry if that hurts people but it's either root for a recession or you lose your democracy[.] ... I feel like the bottom has to fall out at some point."

They all want the economy to crash.  It's what Mulvaney meant by noting their "vested interest."

How pathetic that the word of a comedian carries more truth than the contortions of a Nobel Prize-winning economist.

Because here's what's really going on: free-market ideas are not the property of the right or Trump or anyone.  They are there for all to take, and like a reliable machine, they work every time they are tried.  Democrats could have had a Trump-style economy too if they wanted one, all they had to do was cut taxes and deregulate, just as Trump did.  The result would be exactly the same.  But they didn't, and it was because they didn't want to, and it wasn't just because they don't understand economics; it's because they have a vested interest in a bad economy, the better to keep the masses down.

One can only hope the voters notice this as guys like Krugman continue to try to sugarcoat that vested agenda, into their latest claims about a "sugar high."

Screenshot from Grabien and Fox News.

One of the brightest stars in President Trump's White House, White House budget director Mick Mulvaney, who's part of that team that triggered our current economic boom, has a bead on the skeevy statements about it coming from the left, such as those of vaunted New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.

Check out Grabien:

Mulvaney points out the obvious about why the left keeps attempting to downplay the economic growth that has characterized the Trump administration: leftists have an actual political interest in a bad economy for America.

As Mulvaney explained to Fox News:

Keep in mind, all of the folks who are now saying it's – it's just a short-term sugar high, it's just a blip, it's not sustainable, including the CBO, are the same people who said it was impossible to get to 3 percent in the first place.  They have a vested interest in seeing us fail.

One of my favorite lines came, I think, from Paul Krugman who said that – about the time we rolled out our first budget, which introduced this concept of 3 percent growth, sustainable 3 percent growth, he said you could make him complete dictator of the country and he couldn't get you there.  So there's a lot of folks who are interested in seeing us fail because we are proving that if you regulate (INAUDIBLE), you let people keep more of their own money, that the American economy can grow and that that growth is sustainable.

Now, part of this is undoubtedly jealousy at President Trump's success, which makes their own record, by contrast, look so bad in comparison.

First, as Mulvaney noted, they said 3% growth wasn't possible.  The good times were forever over.  Small was beautiful, just as Jerry Brown in the 1970s used to say, and that included a small economy.  Guys like Paul Krugman, putting on their economist green eyeshades, were quite loud about that.

Then a number of them tried to switch the "narrative," generally espoused by the Obama administration's deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, that Obama was the real author of the booming Trump economy, something that doesn't stack up in the wake of Obama's long eight years in office without so much as a hint of such results.

That didn't work for them, either (note President Trump's rising support among black Americans as the first president who ever did anything good economically for them), so there are now the claims, coming out of Krugmanville and probably his echo chamber, that the good economy is a sugar high.  Back to fake economics, for sure.

And that as the economy booms, "capitalism" is out of control.  Look at this crap from Elizabeth Warren, as noted by Kerry Jackson, writing for Investor's Business Daily, calling for "accountable capitalism."

Oh, and throw in the sorry Democrat talking point that just fell apart yesterday, about wages not rising, so the boom was invalid.  Turns out there are big wage rises in store for American workers, as I noted here.

One wonders why they just can't be honest about things instead and follow the lead of leftist comedian Bill Maher, who said he wants the economy to crash.

"By the way, I'm hoping for it because one way you get rid of Trump is a crashing economy.  So please, bring on the recession," Maher said.  "Sorry if that hurts people but it's either root for a recession or you lose your democracy[.] ... I feel like the bottom has to fall out at some point."

They all want the economy to crash.  It's what Mulvaney meant by noting their "vested interest."

How pathetic that the word of a comedian carries more truth than the contortions of a Nobel Prize-winning economist.

Because here's what's really going on: free-market ideas are not the property of the right or Trump or anyone.  They are there for all to take, and like a reliable machine, they work every time they are tried.  Democrats could have had a Trump-style economy too if they wanted one, all they had to do was cut taxes and deregulate, just as Trump did.  The result would be exactly the same.  But they didn't, and it was because they didn't want to, and it wasn't just because they don't understand economics; it's because they have a vested interest in a bad economy, the better to keep the masses down.

One can only hope the voters notice this as guys like Krugman continue to try to sugarcoat that vested agenda, into their latest claims about a "sugar high."

Screenshot from Grabien and Fox News.