Thus the problem with economics, statistics can be moved to support any side.

Correct calls in the Euro-debacle, what calls?

Appeals to an authority that selected an individual who did nothing more than present a slideshow or be elected President of the United States are not empirical examples from which to denigrate others. Also, Mr. Krugman has an economic text-book when he was a professor showing the downsides of minimum wage in an economic system, but later on, when writing for the New York Times disregards a number of his propositions. His articles in the New Yorks times are reviewed and inflated for incendiary material by his wife.

"...austerity is self-defeating, sane evidence-based standard..."

Assuming you are referring to Greece, the country is over leveraged in debt obligations, it readily admits they only have a few weeks of cash on hand (granted this may be a negotiating tactic), any move to try and reign in any of the million programs within the country was defeated. There was no austerity, just an appearance of austerity.

Assuming you are referring to the U.S. of A., the country's austerity measures are being seen as effecting economic recovery in a positive manner.

Your pointing to the Brookings Institute's report from Austen Goolsbee, he is a gun-for-hire economist to match whatever political whim that is needed. He served within the current administration and along with Christina Romer, sold their economic literacy souls to pass the stimulus. Which, you can point to as having worked, pushing unemployment down, but do not; real full-time unemployment has cratered.

Your Business Insider article admits that there is no correlation between trickle down, but also no demonstrable correlation with tax increases; all things being equal, policy should be for the populace to keep their monies.

"Corporations mostly just give the money to executives and hoard the rest."

Corporations do not hoard money unless there are financial incentives, corporate tax rates on bring money back to America means that many companies are investing abroad or simply placing it in off-shore accounts. If there is an activist shareholder on the board, they will lobby significantly to get a dividend, as Apple has done, or move to break up the company into profitable and unprofitable sections, as HP and its printing division keeps trying to get lopped off. The executives go out and try to make more money by investing it into return projects, look at Silicon Valley, the rich there take their earnings, set up an angel fund and then fund the next big thing. An economy does not end when the executive takes their money home.

"Don't allow governments to spend tax money on infrastructure, innovation, and public education? Excellent! You've strangled the research that led to the beginnings of the Internet..."

The Internet sprang up from a DARPA intiative through the Department of Defense to mitigate issues from a nuclear fall out through distributive services (http://www.internetsociety.org/internet/what-internet/histor...). The take-off of the internet that we know today occurred through private investments.

Innovation within in the government is minimal to non-existent, the government engages in rent-seeking habits that create projects that appear to innovate, but simply funnel taxes from the government to well connected "innovators" who fail quickly.

Public education should not be included in this as that is a state matter, not a federal policy matter; but public education could be accomplished better for students from a private side approach. Change could actually occur and administrators would be able to adjust curriculum faster.