t-revor asks; PDog delivers
For your reading pleasure:
Steve Levitt and some other less interesting dudes.
If you are really interested in what people doing real economic analysis have to say*, poking around DeLong's will reveal a list of good econ links.
*I am refering to Krugman's portion of the "debate" which, while written in the context of debating Kuttner, explains what the basic framework is for being taken seriously by economists. If you care to read on to Kuttner's portion it is a good example of, well, the arguments that don't meet the standard Krugman sets forth for being taken seriously:
I am willing to give a hearing to any economic argument that does not contain obvious logical holes, or ignore readily available evidence.
Kuttner's response is riddled with logical fallacies that I won't even try to take it apart (well maybe I will at a later time) because a) I doubt anyone but T-Revor is reading this far, b) I'd rather point you to resources that allow you do learn to spot logical fallacies and c) While Kuttner uses some of the language of logic to bolster his rehetoric, it seems to me he is implicitly arguing that logical argument is not a valid / important framework.
A good resource for logical analysis is the Non-Sequitur Blog. It is not only a great resource that the use of and adherence to logic by the media, but also has an analysis of Krugman specifically as well as some similar debates he has engaged in.