You do what many do - you take something that is mostly, circumstantially, or contextually true ("The private sector creates wealth and jobs.") and extend it beyond the limits of its truth, making into an absolutist dogma. You go on to point out what would happen if everyone worked for the government and the negative consequences of that. Fine. So let me point out that if everyone worked for the private sector, there would be no national defense, no investments in areas that are hard to privatize (transportation, medical research, etc) and policing would be reduced to a series of rival militias a la Lebanon or Somalia. Should I also make that an absolutist dogma and conclude that the private sector is no good??

Lumping those who see the value of government with those who worship at the altar of central planning is an obvious straw man and false guilt by association fallacy.

Economic growth comes from people's willingness AND ABILITY to spend and invest. Govt stimulus is the last resort (necessary evil if you will) to prime that pump. Without that impetus, stagnation and contraction can go on for a VERY long time.

In general all true. But our situations are specific, not general, and there are times when debt is not merely justified, but necessary (WWII, the Great Depression, and now, during the Bush Recession).
The problem is using debt as a politically expedient crutch during good times. We are living through the consequences of that problem now.

Tell all those LAID OFF Greek government workers (bloat perhaps, but that another story) that their layoff was a reduction in the rate of increase. No - it's an absolute reduction.
Greece had used up far more debt capacity for far longer than most, and is therefore in the dire situation that it is in.

It would be more meaningful if your graph were per capita or % of GDP.

The point isn't that "there is no major austeriy going on." Of course there isn't because that's all but impossible. The point is that with 25% unemployment (Spain) there should be NO AUSTERITY WHATSOEVER, rather NON-AUSTERITY.

Let's recall that Romney was FOR universal health care before he was against it.
Romney can't stop bragging about how right his plan was for Massachusetts, but then shifts gears and says each state should decide for itself and that therefore the Feds shouldn't be involved (thereby slamming the Affordable Care Act).

What Romney completely and willfully refuses to address is: what is SO UNIQUE about the people of Massachusetts that makes RomneyCare so good for them, but the almost same thing at the federal level is not good for the American people as whole???

Are Massachusttians significantly younger, older, healthier, sicker, richer, poorer or otherwise distinct from the average American that what works for them wouldn't apply to everyone else??

It would be nice if the Mittster would explain this bizarre concept.

That's why the govt use DEBT and not taxes to drive stimulus. The growth and increased economic activity that should result should justify the debt and enable payback, just as a business uses debt to invest in productive machinery etc. Our problem now is not that the govt is piling up debt per se, it's that we had already used (pissed away) so much debt capacity during the earlier good times.

Only true for a small fraction - the extremely poor who qualify for Medicaid.

Let's let the (impossible) perfect be the enemy of the good, right??

And Obama was unlucky because the Bush recession got into full meltdown right before he took office. Right??

Krugman understands that you get out from under deficits with financial growth. Austerity causes contraction (look at Greece and Spain, and draw the right conclusions). The time to "balance the budget" or even run surpluses is during boom times, not during a recovery. The problem we have is that we ran deficits during the boom, and now we have excessive debt at a time when we need to use debt as a tool to promote growth. It's kind of like we left our car idling in the driveway all day so the AC could run (when we were flush) and now that we need the car to actually go somewhere and do something productive, we can't because there is so little gas (debt capacity) left in the tank.

Well - it sure as heck won't cost less for all the free riders who suddenly would be required to pay their share.
Romney apparently stands for the right to avoid responsibility for paying if one could otherwise get away without paying...good to know that.....

Borrowing and spending won us WWII, and it got me into the houses I have owned.

That doesn't qualify as "never worked" in my book.

Way to go Jimmy Olsen, cub reporter. I can't believe this is what passes for a letter to the editor at the Camera....