Are you kidding me? This guy is cited all the time (he looks exactly like the swishy health-food-political-know-it-all-disrespects-women-and-his-mother jerk-off I work with, except one smiles and one doesn't. Guess which.) Dude, you're not even trying. That was the piss-poorest critique/analysis of an economic issue, ever. I know you can do better, because to my surprise one of those "wonk" leftist sites actually made me think for a quarter of a second the other day by reporting what you just said and then having the decency to at least take it a tiny bit further. God.
Also, citing Krugman isn't going to impress people - he's very good at creating a stir, but that doesn't make him right. He also touts the positive economic powers of war, citing WWII and the Iraq war as positive economic boosts for our economy. He might have won a prize for his Keynesian (ugh) economics but he wasn't going to win the peace prize, now was he? Of course the Nobel committee only mentions his trade writing and not his cycle writing; no surprise there. Plus, I think even a Keynesian would know what's wrong with that silly calculator style of "X dollars per year for Joe the plumber is better than Y dollars per year for Joe the plumber." I tend to suspect that the people writing such pap are smarter than that, and know they are just spinning it in the most infantile manner possible, but then maybe they aren't. Is that really possible?