This coming from an Enron consultant.

This coming from a Nobel Winning Economist Who Knows What the Hell He’s Talking About.  ‎1981 – Carter to Reagan = $800 billion national debt; 1989 – Reagan to George HW Bush = $2.4 Trillion national debt; 1993 – George HW Bush to Clinton = $4.2 Trillion national debt; 2001 – Clinton to Goober W. Bush = $5.7 Trillion national debt — and then the fit hit the shan. 2009 – Goober W. to Obama = $10.8 trillion with a $1.42 Trillion fy 2009 budget deficit. $6.5 Trillion (taking the national debt up to $12.3 Trilliion) – now you know who bankrupted America.

I’d like to buy Gnewt Gingrich for what he’s worth and then sell him for what he thinks he’s worth. Talk about a Ponzi Scheme!

S’funny, but a whole lot of people say the same thing about Paul Krugman.

Wow, he’s talking to all of your red-neck Republicans.

The Nobel Prize has been rendered relatively meaningless  and politically driven the minute they gave the One the Nobel Peace Prize for not doing anything yet. Even He was embarassed. Kind of like the episode of Seinfeld where Elaine was enthralled someone called her “breathtaking” until she discovered what else that person thought was breathtaking.

Lol!! Yes he is!!

Sure they do… stupid people win Nobel prizes all the time!! Lol!!

Why assume conservatives now want a smart candidate? that’s never been the selling point

Anyway, it’s like the Coch brothers intentionally lined up these deeply flawed & defective but far right candidates to force Romney to pull to the right and nothing else – all candidates seemed resigned to a Romney candidacy evidenced by the fact that no one dared to try to bloody him politically

ROFL!! Wow take that GOP and CAIN DANCE till you are tired! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs7fJ6jAOVU&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Paul Krugman? He’s fat! He’s fat! …oh sorry, that’s Michael Moore. Socialism! Socialism!

Krugman is just pointing out a well known fact that the Republicon base is loaded with ignorant people who look at Newt as a man with intelligence!!  Newt is a fraud!!

Paul Krugman is James Bond 007′s idea of what a commie spy and danger to national security looks like.

Dog pee is a loser.

Oh, and awesome line by Krugman.. a man after my own heart

The utter lack of adult thought in this response is saddening. What or why even discuss the very minor detail of the Nobel prize? You act as if the Prize was anything other than a joke from the start! It’s named for a guy who developed a means to murder many many many many people. BFD who wins the award it’s the other stuff that is important.
For your response you get CAIN DANCE! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs7fJ6jAOVU&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Nobel Prize winners: Krugman, Gore, Carter, Obama, Chu…

Yes. Every one a prize winning nitwit.

Don’t confuse the peace prize for the other awards.

Go back to your TeeVee shows.

Um er — the 2009 deficit included TARP, which has largely been paid back.  Then in the succeeding 3 years, Obama manage to accrue nearly $5 trillion in NEW debt even though there was nearly $1 trillion in TARP paybacks.

Numbers are sharp, be careful using them.

Krugman is a smart persons idea of what a pretentious academic twit sounds like.

Prizes mean a lot to lefties. They always bring it up. Eugene Robinson is a “Pulitzer Prize Winner”.

Robinson has not been coherent on TV or in print for many years. He’s always on MSNBC because he lives in the hall rather than try to find his house. Liberals hand out meaningless prizes to each other, taking turns lapping up praise like empty headed actors at their frenzied award circuses.

Ignorant people also don’t know how to make a decision.  That’s why they have a new front-runner every month! lol 
Who knew Republicans were so good at comedy?  You have The Traveling Mormon, The Hick from Texas,  My Best Friend is Black Candidate,  and Lego Guy Gingrich! 
Instead of a Death Pool we should have a Republican Nomination Pool!

This coming from oe that wishes the USA to emulate Greece!

Paul Krugman IS so delusinal he believes he’s smart.

I agree!! 75% of the Republicon base don’t have it in them to vote for a Mormon!!

If SpongBob entered the Presidential race, he would be beating Romney in a matter of days!!

I just love how liberals point out the “debt” under the past Republican presidents, as a bad thing, but then they get amnesia about Krugman’s complaints that we need to really run up the debt now.  This blithering idiot continually promotes the utterly failed Keynesianism, by pointing out the govt spending in WWII without ever mentioning that 10million men were removed from the unemployment rolls and placed into the military.   Anyone can lower unemployment if you draft all the unemployed into the army.  What a completely dishonest leftist.

Number one rule of becoming president in this age is don’t bash or insult any group and if you do you will never become president. What you say is ”I understand your concerns and the problems you want solved but we just happen to differ on how to go about solving them”

Who cares what Krugman says? Krugman is against the right to protest and the freedom of speech.

You know this because he closes comments on his blog.

Paul Krugman, conversely, is everyone’s idea of what a stupid person sounds like.

Nonsense! As a Republican I can tell you most of us couldn’t care less that he’s a Mormon. You sure do make a lot of wild generalizations, Leedog!

That would ordinarily be true, but Newt would have less appeal to his base if he took that moderated an approach to a group that is seen as opposed to nearly everything he believes in.

This is coming from left wing nut who wants to go to war with Space Aliens… as if a Nobel Prize means anything…  They handed one to Obama not even knowing anything about the man at the time, but they sure did love his teleprompter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaED2ErdIv8

O.k.!! Then what is your reasoning for why Romney can never get higher than 25% of the votes in polls??

I think every speech our president has given in the last five years would prove your theory wrong. It’s all about blaming someone else.

Well it hardly has anything to do with his being a Mormon. Maybe it’s the fact that are seven other GOP candidates in the race?

Paul Krugman is a seething, bomb-throwing Leftistst whose life will be a living Hell this next year as his beloved Keynesian thought will be bludgeoned along with OBAMO.

It’s no surprise that Krugman’s whole life has been tied to failure: Keynesian thought, OBAMO, Enron, The New York Times.

Classic!

Krugman is spot on with his comment!

You can tell he’s hit a nerve with all the usual one-dimensional thinking commenters you see in here. They’re all doing their typical reactionary monkey squawking and throwing their ‘excrement’!

You Righty Monkeys are always good for a LAUGH!

Given your avatar — which is a double-memed fake out if I ever saw one, an attempt to immunize yourself against the coming spew of racist-tinged garbage we can expect to issue from under avatar pic, combined with the single most ‘your 15 SECONDS are up’ time-delimited name in Internet history –
you may be a little short on what the Nobel is all about.

First: Nobel was largely a Swedish arms manufacturer, very big in commercial & “commercial” uses of dynamite & nitroglycerine, urgently engaged late in his life in trying to buy himself out of his imagined Hell and into his imagined Heaven for his products, inventions & innovations being used to cause the wholesale slaughter of millions of people.

Second: the Swedish Nobel committee chooses the SCIENCE & economics winners – the most prestigious of which is generally, and in my view rightly, accorded to the one in physics, but the committee that chooses the prize for Peace is out of Norway, and the separation is deliberate.

Third: Kissinger, the Mad Bomber of Cambodia, won a Peace prize (for the Paris Peace talks over Viet Nam, which FAILED, and in which the other main participant was Chou En Lai, who was assigned by Chairman Mao Tse Tng of the Chinese People’s Communist Republic the chief responsibility of culling out the Chinese human population by between 20 and 50 millions of unemployed itinerant factory workers and displaced farm workers, including a great many in the same age group of the typical Occupy demonstrator). Plus Arafat. Plus Anwar Sadat, every bit the elitist war monger the younger Bush proved out to be. I could go on.

This year the Peace prize went jointly to 3 women promoting women’s political advancement & human rights, in Liberia (2) and in Yemen (1). 

The one in Yemen is in her early 30s, and really has only been active in rights protests in THIS YEAR, thereby symbolizing “the Arab Spring” – and so can be characterized as an “aspirational selection”, something the Peace prize committee struggles with constantly, as to whether it should be a ‘lifetime achievement’ type award (Nelson Mandela, Bishop Tutu) for the past, or an expression of hope for the future. 

Obviously, Obama stood in both categories – the first because the committee was moved by him being the first non-white European origin’d US president ever (a bit ironic, given his mother’s roots trace back to the eastern side of Eire, from where a LOT of U.S. presidents have come, including most recently Kennedy, Reagan, Bush, Shrub and Clinton – all of them, Obama included, being likely relations to each other, PROVABLY TRACED so with Bush & Shrub on the hand and Obama on the other – & also Cheney: Bush, Shrub & Obama are ALL proven to be related to Cheney), while at the same time it was expressing hope that he would embrace a policy of peace, more like Jimmy Carter & Bill Clinton did, at least in the sense of putting a stop to arbitrary & ignorant invasions like the one into Iraq, and apply practical Keynesian solutions to the world economic crisis.

But Obama still has time. The very first U.S. winner of the Peace prize was Teddy Roosevelt, for his involvement in helping work out the terms of peace that ended the Russia-Japan War (which worked for a while). Then Elihu Root, the U.S. Secretary of State for those great shoes – uh, for working out a number of arbitration agreements leading to peace in Europe (for a little while). Woodrow Wilson for the League of Nations (which failed). Charles Dawes for the WWI reparations agreement (which contributed to making WWII almost inevitable). Frank Kellogg for Corn Flakes (actually, another failed treaty, on settling trade disputes). Nicholas Butler for promoting Corn Flakes (actually, promoting the same trade disputes mechanism as Kellogg). Cordell Hull (for the UN, on which the reviews are still mixed). Then Emily Balch got to share one for women’s rights with John Mott for Xian missionary nonsense, followed by the US Quakers for other missionary nonsense. Ralph Bunche for the first Israel-Palestine peace accord (first, as we know of many, all failed). Linus Pauling for ending nukes testing (that worked out – not). MLK of course, one of the best of the lot. Norman Borlaug for work in wheat to ease world famine (that too worked out pretty well). Kissinger in 1973 (The North Viet Nam co-winner declined; his pessism turned out more accurate; of course, he also knew Kissinger and Nixon were trying to bomb Cambodia back to the stone ages). A US non-profit, Physicians against nukes. Elie Wiesel re: the Holocaust (a mixed bag of prevention and revenge). Jody Williams for getting rid of land mines (oh yeah…). Jimmy Carter in 2002, no doubt the greatest ever ex-POTUS for peace. Then Gore. Then finally Obama.

So when you consider the CONTEXT, Obama still has lots of time to prove worthy of the Peace prize. Indeed, the only other SITTING POTUS to win it, Teddy Roosevelt, did more to actually earn it AFTER the prize was awarded than before it was; and before, Teddy had been, among other things, the leader of a quasi-private army that conquered the Philippines for US private interests advantage – pretty much the Francis Drake of the US, an officially licensed pirate.

Paul Krugman is the smartest idiot in his own shallow mind!!

Like Sarah?lol

Krugman plays these wingnuts like a cheap fiddle.

krugman and yourself should look in the mirror.  But especially you.

That’s actually quite wrong: Shrub deliberately failed to acknowledge in US debt the costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which in total bring in, already, about $3 trillion in debt, and over time, according to Joe Stiglitz, another Nobel winner, in economics, will total closer to $7 trillion. I think it’s not unfair to split the cost of the first between Shrub and Obama, so that’s $6 trillion to Shrub and $1 trillion to Obama in just the costs of those two foreign wars. But the point is, Shrub caused in total about $12 trillion of the 2009 realized deficit, with his ‘work’ on those two wars plus the Bush Tax Cuts and the prescription drugs boondoggle. 

Rent-free.

Just how many cereal box tops did krugman have to send in to get his degree?  That begs another question.  How many did he have to send the NYT to get a job there?

Koch. As in what gets shoved into you.

STUPID.

Whenever you think of the haughty Krugman, think ENRON.

What a perfectly expected inferior response.

Mostly boring, though!

Increase your ‘drivel level’ to increase your entertainment value, Monkey!

You side w/ krugman?  How many cereal box tops did you have to send in to get your GED?  BTW who’s pushin’ your stool in today? 

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3e9_1180550096

Herman Cain would do Peggy Noonan if she’d ever shut her pie hole.

I really like the work of all those guys so far except Obama. Chu did fabulous work with Bell Labs on lasers, one of the outstanding engineering feats of the last 100 years. Krugman got his for trade imbalance calculations, a technical achievement, but really deserves it even more for his work on the Lost Decade in Japan and the refinement of the liquidity trap; it’s like you can just go to his blog at the NY Times and watch him daily work towards justifying his award on a daily basis, in ways that actually only hint at the stated reasons for the award (I really think the Swedish committee was being at least partly aspirational in his award, hoping he would convince Obama to become the modern FDR.). Carter is like the all-time mensch award, someone who has been absolutely indefatigible in continuing to use the FORMER bully pulpit for future peace; so far, I would call him the most natural inheritor of the legacy of Teddy Roosevelt. Gore, of course, was absolutely right and a perfect use of the award, despite that goofballs and doofuses like GD here have their fingers in their ears yelling about ignoring global warming;  we’re already in it now, and it’s going to wipe out this species several millions of years in advance of any extinction event. 

But GD says he’s smarter than all those Nobel committee selectors. 

Rufus.

Lol!! You must be one of those ignorant Republicons who feel Newt has intelligence!! Krugman had you pegged from the beginning and you are proving his point!! Lol!!

When you start throwing numbers out that don’t seem to make any sense then maybe you should begin citing your sources…  ”Shrub caused in total about $12 trillion of the 2009 realized deficit” I assume that you are talking about president Bush, and I hope that you don’t feign indignation when someone posts something about president Obama using a less than flattering name for him..  

I have seen plenty of numbers thrown around regarding both the deficit and the wars and the numbers you are using here are not commonly found when one researches either of the two subjects, either cite sources  that will put your claims into some sort of perspective or otherwise you are just as many suspect here, schilling for the left leaving fact and reason out of your arguments all together.  

You mean like the nation losing 700,000 jobs per month when he took office?

Paul Krugman is a genius, in his own mind.

Obama…..teleprompter

*DRINK*

Who was the last Republicon to win a Nobel Prize in economics?? Anyone??

Yes Charlie, Obama has incurred more debt, there is no doubt about that…but as all Republicans like to cover up the fact that the drivers of Bush 2 debt, two wars, the Bush tax cuts and the unpaid drug benefit program to seniors all still exist, then increased debt is inevitable when Republicans will not allow any new tax revenue.

Newt Gingrich Is ‘A Stupid Man’s Idea Of What A Smart Person Sounds Like’

I really can’t add anymore to this.

Newt is supposed to be a smart idea guy, the problem is all his ideas suck. The Newt as intelligent meme has been going on for a long time but it’s easy for Newt to be the smartest guy in the room when he’s in that room with Palin, Bachmann, Perry, and Cain.

You are correct Sir!!

James, you should listen more carefully! Krugman said “Somebody said he’s a stupid man’s idea of what a smart person sounds like,” which is NOT what the title of this post suggests.

Other than that thanks to Paul for echoing those wise words ;)

Barry Hussein is a mentally retarded person’s idea of what a smart person sounds like.

Republicans don’t want a smart candidate, but they love con men and grifters like Palin and Cain.  Newt appeals to their desire for a sleazy unethical fighter and Newt is as slimy and unethical as they come.

And you posted that link why? To show that there’s at least one person who won’t vote for Romney because he’s a Mormon? I said most Republicans don’t care, I didn’t say there was no one!

More elitist BS from the biggest BSer on the NYT

>>”…he’s a stupid man’s idea of what a smart person sounds like…”

I thought that’s what someone said about Krugman!

Why should I drink?  

Obama sans teleprompter…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbpWonUzlrc

The Nobel committee has been raising eyebrows in recent years with a number of their selections, but that has little to do the issue many people have with Krugman. From what I hear from economists, Krugman was a good economist, but what he says as a columnist and a political pundit so often contradicts what he’s written as an economist that it’s become a joke. One wonders if he sold his soul to get the Times gig.

Ah, the good ol’ round table mash up. I can’t stand that format.

“Prizes mean a lot to lefties”

FACEPALM.

He doesn’t want to hear what you have to say?

That’s shocking.

Leedog,

As Francis points out never has there been a better case of projection that Krugman calling ANYONE a “dumb mans smart man”.Seriously,He’s hasn’t gotten very few economic projection right(like most economists) and is recent years ALWAYS tilts his economic analysis to tilt towards his liberal beliefs and democratic friends.Worst,he has begun in recent years getting into subjects other than economics.

Unfortunately, economics has become like all other “soft sciences” infested by “Progressives” and liberals-COMPLETELY POLITICIZED.Any subject that doesn’t have hard quantifiable answers and objective facts(and even smethings that do) will be distortede by this clanish tribal mindset of “The ideology is never wrong” it’s always the implementation”.

In short, SCREW TEH KRUGMAN!

You hate science, learning, and culture.

Go live in the forest. Oh, right: you’re obese, watch Fox “news,” and hate the goverment while receiving a hefty farm subsidy every month. You would last about two minutes in the forest without the goverment keeping you alive, phony.

Got it.

truer words never spoken!  and the whole pack of jersk running spell MEDIOCRITY; look it up you might all learn something.

Nobel Prise in economics can’t prevent the greatest depression. Hardly an endorsment?

Now if only those space aliens would invade, boost our economy and help Obama win the election? I’m paraphrasing Krugman, our answer to the greatest depression facing the USA.

Did he think of that line before or after the alines melted his brain?

Newt thinks he is GAINING ground, and then talks himself OUTTA his ranking IMMEDIATELY with some EXTREMELY dumb/IDIOTIC things by opening his MOUTH….Not a good candidate as WAS cain.

krugman is a gerble!!!! look at him!!!! a gerble!!!!

this is the guy that said “right wingers” did the shootings in ariz. even before the blood dried!!!

“noble prize”!!!!! really!!!!! nothing noble about the comm that decides the “winners”!!! all left wing loons!!!

start with krugman and end withe obama!!!!

But I thought all you had to do was stop taxing everyone and all of that stuff would just magically go away. That’s what Limbaugh told me, and he can’t be wrong. 

Peggy, why are you Newt’s pimp?

LOL

Well said Mr Krugman!

At least come up with your own material.

lee, who’s pushin’ your stool?

Why does he need to come up with his own material when everyone agrees with this opinion of OBAMO?

Paul Krugman is a stupid man’s idea of what a smart economist sounds like.

Get used to it….He’s gonna’ be YOUR next President.

Is Krugman a homosexual?
Just askin…..he sure looks queer.
Round mouth….flat head…..

Gallup Poll last June, 20% of Republicans would not vote for Candidate if he/she were Mormon

This was a great line. I am sorry I didn’t think of it first.

And your solution is the Laffer Curve?Arthur
Laffer’s supply-side snake oil has been Republican
orthodoxy ever since Jude
Wanniski first sketched Laffer’s curve on a cocktail napkin. But in the
wake of Reagan’s disastrous supply side experiment, the GOP didn’t merely
suggest that tax cuts were the cure for everything from surpluses and deficits
to erectile dysfunction and male pattern baldness. Despite the inescapable
conclusion of empirical data and history to the contrary, Republicans continue
to wrongly insist that “tax cuts
pay for themselves.” Sadly, the success of that poisonous propaganda has made
talk of needed tax increases a non-starter.

be careful there.  27% of Dems wouldn’t vote for a Mormon, either. 

of course, the difference between Dems and Repubs on this matter is that the social conservative positions Mormons advocate are not in line with the liberal/progressive POVs on social issues.  for Repubs, it *is* tied to their opinion of them not being true Christians.

I suspect a Krugman-Gingrich debate would leave Krugman looking a great deal less smart than he thinks he is.

You should drink because it helps.

I agree! Krugman said “SOMEBODY” said that. He didn’t come up with that comment on the show today! If he’s quoting someone else, he has a right to that. This is America right! And I like Newt but I would never vote for him. Newt is a terrific speaker but it takes a lot to become the leader of the free world. It takes Americans who vote to have their say, that’s part of what it takes to become President.

This from the former paid advisor to Enron and a person who talks about “Death Panels.”

LOL

But is that in a general election or a primary? In a general election that would be a problem, but not so much in a primary.

MONKEYS? WHAT DO YOU MEAN MONKEYS? RACIST!

Amidoinitrite?

Try Milton Friedman.

man are you stupid.

That 30 year economic boom after Reagan, I guess didn’t happen, right?   The problems we face now are NOT as a result of too little govt spending, but are clearly a result of too much govt spending and interference in the private sector.  Check out the Fannie/Freddie debacle if you want an idea of govt’s ability to operate the private sector.  Or maybe a better example of govt “fixing” the private sector would be Solyndra and all of the DOE idiocies.   Keep lapping up that Krugman BS.  At least Laffer can claim 30 years of success as opposed to Krugmans ZERO years of success.

That’s why he won the Nobel Prize. LOL. Turn off the Fox Noise and clear your head.

I love it.

Newt has a PhD in scamming. He’s a whore who will say and do anything for money.

The Repigs have
narrowed it down to a few candidates; unfortunately for them, they’re all
garbage candidates. None of these guys is ready for prime-time, and Obama will
bitch-slap whichever lamb the Repigs choose to slaughter.

(“I am a libertarian with a small ‘l’ and a Republican with a capital ‘R.’ And I am a Republican with a capital ‘R’ on grounds of expediency, not on principle.”)

At the very best, by today’s and your standrads, Friedman would be a RINO!! You need to understand history a little better before you start opening your mouth!!!

Yes, we Fiscal Conservatives-Social Liberals, which I guess you must call us a Democrat…Remember what FDR did for WW 2. He raised taxes, and sold War Bonds. Something Bush Sr didn’t do in the Gulf War and certainly Dumbya didn’t do to provide financing the two wars. Dumbya on the other had just used the National Debt to finance these things. As strange as it may seem to you, there would be hardly a rise in the National Debt if it weren’t for the War Spending and the Bush Tax Cuts.*These were the first tax cuts ever during a War.

Maybe gay-boy Matt Drudge would know. You can email Matt and ask.

Paul Krugman is a stupid man’s idea of what a smart person sounds like.  He thinks Obama’s stimulus that blew a hole in the nation’s debt while not putting a dent in the unemployment rate wasn’t big enough.  Looks like all his education and research hasn’t given him any common sense.

And Paul is just a stupid blow hard who loves to listen to no one but himself.

Whether you like it or not, we are all Keynesians.  Every Republican since Eisenhower has supported Keynesian economic policies.  That is why politicians from both parties fight for Defense spending in their districts because it creates jobs.  So you really believe the phenomenal growth in the US after WW2 was cause by taking 10 million men out of the work force.  Do you have any references for that economic theory?

LOL.If you say so. I’d pay money to see Paul debate that fat little reptile.

Paul Krugman is an economist? That’s funny because every column of his I have ever seen was about politics. Him calling someone else stupid is hilarious. Paul has basically been advocating an entitlement, technocratic European style government for years. Too bad Europe is slowly unraveling. In Keynes dying days he was concerned some might take his ideas too far. Paul Krugman is basically Keynes nightmare.

It’s funny to read these opinions about how Krugman doesn’t know what he’s talking about, but they think Newt does. Evidently you haven’t heard Newt take back just about everything he has said, when asked if he meant what he said, while Krugman is giving his opinion based on evidence that he has accumulated over time in economics. Newt is just a spin machine set on wishy washy. Of course you wouldn’t want to base your opinions on any facts becasue you haven’t any; just normal right wing discourse.

An award from a commie isn’t much of a benchmark.

Krugman’s a smart man’s idea of what a blithering idiot should sound like.

And Barack Obama is a pseudo-intellectual’s idea what a genius sounds like.

Actually, “Shrub” is a nickname Bush and his family have long applied to him themselves.  So there may not, in fact, be a moral equivalency as you inevitably suggest.

Right.  That’s the rationale of Keynesian thinking – low unemployment during WWII.  And that has something to do with the historical fact that Republicans have run up the national debt to unprecedented levels every chance they’ve had since Carter.  It must be fun to beat up on straw men all day.  Not very challenging or educational, obviously, but fun.

You may not like his politics, but Newt IS a man of intelligence.  And he holds a Ph.D. from Tulane University.

What an inflated tool Krugman is. You know Obama also won a Nobel prize for… for… let’s see, what was it for again?

If you think that Newt is not intelligent, that says much about your own ignorance.  It’s obvious that you  don’t know much about Newt at all.  So why not give your snarky attitude a rest and go to Wiki if it isn’t over your head and read about Newt.  He is not someone I would vote for for any office, definitely not president, but if you contend he is unintelligent you are not familiar with the concept or you are simply lying.

If Krugman was the intellect he pretends to be, he wouldn’t have to demean others in order to try to elevate himself.

I don’t read Krugman spews. I just laugh because he closes his comments sections whenever he writes something he knows is inflammatory.

You still add nothing to this site.

It must be tough being Paul Krugman.  The President followed Krugman’s idiotic game plan of spending borrowed money on federal pork projects, and it created the disastrous results we are living through right now.  Krugman’s track record is so miserable, that anyone he attacks should move up a few notches in your estimation.

I’m a Ron Paul supporter — I’d never vote for Newt. However, Krugman is a terrible economist. Why? Because he still worships at the shrine of John Maynard Keynes. 

Come join the Austrian School of Economics…we like reality more than the fairy tales Krugman likes to tell us.

Krugman looks like a pedophile. Mover over Sandusky…you’ve got competition.

Krugman is a political hack. Go back a few years and you will see he fits his so called financial analysis on what fits the DemoRats agenda. He loves Obama.
Krugman if you read these I beat it eats you alive that under Bush there was more tax revenue and more people owning homes then anytime in history.
Also when Clinton left office we were in debt $5 trillion. This notion that there was a huge surplus is factually wrong.

ABC was a stupid idea for a television network.

Laffer assumes that the government would collect no income tax at a 100% tax rate because there would be no incentive to earn income. Research has shown that it is possible for a Laffer curve to continuously slope upwards all the way to 100%.Additionally, the Laffer curve depends on the assumption that tax revenue is used to provide a public good that is separable in utility and separate from labor supply, which may not be true in practice.The Laffer curve is also too simplistic in that it assumes a single tax rate, a single labor supply. Actual systems of public finance are more complex. There is serious doubt about the relevance considering a single marginal tax rate.

Unsurprisingly, republicans aren’t even familiar with the basic concept of “news.” Speaking of that, Newt’s neverending baggage is old news, but knock yourself out supporting him. I’m sure he’s ready to go shopping again.

Jesus, you’re so lame that you had to respond to your own post, but those prize-winning “lefties” are the true idiots. Those knowledge knowing libruls! Duuuuuh!

Good job, you’re representing the retardlican cult well.

No one is more satisfied with his failed ideas than Paul Krugman, a guy who’s a legend in his own mind.

So in other words, you go out of your way to find Paul Krugman’s articles online just so you can NOT read them. Wow, that doesn’t sound retarded at all! (yawn)

 Right, except the Nobel committee and the entire Keynesian branch of professional economists.

God, that’s good!  The typical Republicult midset defined.

Phenomenal growth after WWII was in large part thanks to a huge cut in govt spending immediately after the war.  Keynesian economics did not work to solve the Depression and never has.   The USA was the last Western industrialized country to come out of the depression,and did so at the end of WWII.

The Economist, a conservative publication, showed a chart where the US and the UK were having roughly equal recession problems. The US went for stimulus and the UK went conservative. The UK now remains mired in recession, while the US pulled out of it.
Sure, we didn’t get all the jobs back, but we improved far more than the UK has, and it is tied to what stimulus the Teapublicons allowed us to pull off.
After that initial burst, Teapublicons have held us back.

Oh. You mean like the Teapublicons do constantly. Krugman puts forward sound ideas, and you call that demeaning others.

     Reagan traded arms for hostages (with Iran), Traded arms for drugs (failed with contras), expedited the decline of middle class by believing trickle down would do anything other than make rich richer and create  low paying service jobs with no upward mobility. Sounds like a third world country to me but that’s what corporate America wants.
      It’s amazing how you always blame Fannie and Freddie no blame on derivatives, or any private company. Your ignorance is showing you can’t have a good economy without demand, you don’t get demand without jobs because without money people don’t buy. If corporations are allowed to make there own rules we will have our rivers equal to the Ganges. The private sector created triangle shirtwaist fire, the Chicago slaughter houses of the early 1900s, working conditions in China, Bangladesh, the South Pacific Islands, etc. I could go on fir paragraphs citing deaths, abhorrent conditions, and slavery  that exists in the private sector of Corporations so your argument is mute.
     

Perfect description of Newt!

Spin machine set on wishy-washy

His only talent is that he manages to sound like he is firm and decisive. In the end, he is a pompous ass.

look at republicans they can’t tell which end is up without a corporation telling them

Economists are politicians who understand math. Krugman is a a journalist who trained in economics, and good economics can be used to prove liberal ideas just as much as they can be used to prove conservative ideas. Only in physics and chemistry can you say If you do this, this other thing will happen.

Let me give you a simple example: If I give you a million dollars, can I predict how you will spend it? No. I cannot. But, politicians are constantly asking economists to tell them that you will either A. Invest it and improve our economy, or B. buy something stupid and be broke the next day.
Of course there are a million possibilities, but the politician demands that the economist chose A or B.

right – and the Peace Prize recipient with no credentials?  lol

How’s the Keynesian branch of “professional” economics working out?  Do tell….

If you would read Krugman’s columns and books, you would be a lot smarter than you are now.

please share how “teapublicons” held you back…..

Giving people and groups cutsy names mires you in the gutter with the unwashed, uneducated dolts who prove that the mind and fingers are not mutually supportive of their intellectual endeavors.  

Krugman’s last sound idea was to wear a night cap so he wouldn’t get a head cold from being all wet constantly.

If you think the Canadians prove something, you give the facts to back it up, or at least give a source. I did a quick look at unemployment in Canada and I see 7%. Canada is known to have been more liberal than the US, especially in national health care.

…notice the shifty eyes.  He knows that we know that he doesn’t know what the hell he’s attempting to talk about.  He’s truly creepy.  

I heard that smarty pants Newtie is considering converting to Islam…..then he can have three wives at the same time.

Newtie demeans himself every time he opens his mouth and when that animatron wife is beside him it’s all way to weird! It must take her at least two hours to get couifed up in the morning not to mention she actually has sex with the Newtie creature of flubber. Oh yeah and she was tucking Newties socks while he was married good catholic girl there.

Now who is being childish?

 Nobel Prize…LOL!!!
Obama got one too….and then went to war and killed thousands.
Peace….My ASS!!

the Canadian’s had a non confidence vote and elected a conservative majority government during this upheaval.  They figured out what they needed to get through and Harper and Government delivered.  

“The bulk of the decline in October occurred in manufacturing, followed by construction. Natural resources was the only industry to post notable gains for the month.”

How’s the Natural Resources doing here?  How’s that old Pipeline that’s been put off again?
Do you see the disconnect?

Why is it profitable to get oil from the oil-sands in Canada? Because the price of oil is so high. That oil source was known about for decades, but as long as prices were low, there was no profit in extracting it.
Today, the strongest argument for not extracting it is that using it will only add to global warming.
Then, there is the environmentalist argument against the pipeline.
Guess what. I am not opposed to any of that. I favor both the extraction in Canada and the building of a sound pipeline that will not leak. I believe it can be done and should be done.
We do need to find more and better ways of “going green,” but in the meanwhile, I would not block careful extraction and delivery.
I am not knee-jerk on these things.

Yes. Milton Friedman. Got to give you a point for that one.
I say he was an ass, but now I’m being childish.
See my comment elsewhere that economists can be either conservative or liberal and both can be right and both can get Nobel prizes for their work. Good economists can explain what did happen, but when it comes to what will happen, they are no better than weathermen were 100 years ago.
Economics is not a science. It is political math.

Doing very well, thank you.
Now, please explain the difference between Keynesian economics and Friedman economics, just so we know you aren’t saying dogs are better than cats because conservatives tell you so.

Barrack Obama is President of the United States of America. Paul Krugman is one of the most respected economists of our time no matter his political leanings. You are some guy sitting on the mediaite.com forums with the name Fedup in Florida. Do you really think you know more than the Nobel committee? I don’t care how you feel about their decisions, or Krugmans ideas, are you really that ignorant? I bet it feels really good living in your own head, in fantasy land. Just THINK man, the world is not that black and white. Ugh, I don’t know why I waste my time.

You speak as if that’s a guaranteed fact. As if there’s no debate among real economists, just because Daniel said it. Who are you Daniel? Are you invited to conferences convening the best economists in the world? Are you anyone, at all, who matters? Nope. Just an online poster. Don’t use such sweeping generalizations unless you’ve proven you have the intelligence to back it up.

Yes, thank you. Everyone here acts as if Krugman is some nit wit. I’ve read his books, and done a little research into his background, and he’s a very smart guy and a great economist. He has a way of understanding the big macro picture, but describing it in simple detail.

Hate on the guy all you want, but hate him because he’s extremely political, opinionated, and uses his soap box to spew nonsense that contradicts his own writings in some cases. These people just blather on about how “stupid” he is.

Hey champ.  I’m not a Newt Gingrich supporter, but, for a Nobel prize winner to make that assertion smacks of arrogance and hidden insecurities.  I’d put a hundred bucks on Gingrich over Krugman any day in a debate and I’ll even give you 5 to 1, suggesting that for everything Krugman thinks he says is smart, Gingrich will point out 2 logical reasons as to why it is dumb.  What Gingrich has forgotten, Krugman still has to learn, that much I know.  And failing your willingness to pay and take this bet, you might want to consider that the Nobel prize in economics, ain’t all its cracked up to be considering that neither Christopher Sims (Prof. of Economics & Banking), or Thomas Sargent (2011 recipients), could not even hazard a grade 5 response as to why the economy is not responding to the stimulus and loose monetary policy that Krugman is so adamant that we continue to employ without even the slightest regard for adverse consequences.  So, you do your homework, and check out some of the methodological questionable crap your boy Paul Krugman has churned out and see if I’m still wrong.

I have no words to express how hilarious it is that PAUL KRUGMAN accuses somebody else of being an icon of faux-intelligence and wisdom.

I’m pretty stunned right now.

Krugman is a stupid man’s idea of what an economist sounds like (he thought a trillion-dollar unfunded stimulus was a fantastic idea when he and Obama both made a lot of noise about BUSH’S deficit spending) so I suppose we have to trust him on the “empty suit/empty skull” issue – he certainly speaks from deep personal experience.

Gee Tito, did you come up with that one all by yourself? Or did you have help?

Tito….agree.  Brilliant post!

In an unrelated story, it seems the spanking Chris Matthews received from Larry Elders did some correction to his mental condition, considering the fact that Obama used to give him a “Thrill up my leg.” in his own words.
 
http://bit.ly/tI7Cf4
 
 
PS: I’ll post this several times on this website because I know the left wing media and the Mediate Crew(DNC Crew) will likely ignore the story as they usuaslly do when their White House Boss is trashed. We all know it takes only minutes for Mediate to make the bashing of Republican candidates their top stories here.

Obama still has time?  That’s a joke.  His time is drawing near…Nov. 2012 and it’s Bye Bye Barry.

I take you speak from experience???  Like most Libs??

Look at the Dems. great leader, can’t say a word unless it’s on his “magic” teleprompter.

Here is part of Krugman’s response to your allegation:
“1. What did I do? In early 1999 I was asked to serve on a panel
that offered Enron executives briefings on economic and political issues.
As far as I knew at the time, they genuinely wanted to learn something.
I resigned from that board in the fall of 1999, when I accepted an offer
to write for the New York Times.
2. What was I paid? It turns out that I was actually paid $37,500
- the last quarterly payment did not take place, because of my early resignation
from the board.
3. Was this exorbitant? It didn’t seem so at the time. In 1998-1999
my
normal fee for a one-hour business speech in Boston or New York was $20,000
- more if the speech involved long-distance travel. The Enron board required
that I spend 4 days in Houston. So the sum they offered didn’t seem out
of line – if anything it seemed rather low compared with my usual rates.
4. Was I being paid off because I was a journalist? That Enron
board, when I was on it, did not strike me as a board of pundits. It included
Larry Lindsey and Bob Zoellick – future Bush administration officials,
though I had no way of knowing that, but certainly not journalists. It
also included Pankaj Ghemawat, a strategy professor at Harvard, and Irwin
Stelzer, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute. (Stelzer had
a column in the London Times, but I didn’t know that) The only person
there I thought of as a journalist was William Kristol – I thought he was
there to regale us with Washington gossip. And I regarded myself as being
in the same category as Ghemawat – an academic expert, who was there because
of his expertise.”That is only part of it. For much more, go to this link (the quote was taken from it): http://www.pkarchive.org/personal/EnronFAQ.htmlBottom line: Kurgman was on the board of directors because of his expertise in economics and world trends. He was one member of that board, and he resigned from it long before there were any obvious problems. He cannot be blamed for what happened after his resignation, and he always was more than just some loud mouthed journalist.

I detect jealous ignorance coming from Colorado.

Someone I know knows Paul Krugman. Here’s what he once said about this slimeball Krugman:

“Imagine if a turd were in the road, about to be run over by a truck. I would rather run into the road to try to rescue that turd, and get hit by the truck, than have to have an argument with Krugman. He is the most pathetic, boorish, thuggish leftist I have ever met – he is so in love with himself and his own voice that if someone told him that his hair were on fire he wouldn’t listen unless that person was holding a copy of one of Krugman’s books.”

I bet you suck on Krugman’s dick, and thank him for the privilege.

“Wow, that doesn’t sound retarded at all!”

The voice of experience.

Gee Bruce, who helped you come up with your reply?

no one in your trailer park knows paul krugman, stop lying, bitch.

lol newt gingrich.  the GOP’s sacrificial lamb for the week.  the more republicans talk, the big obama continues to go up in the polls.  obama wins 2012, its already done and over with, conservative idiots

andrew cuomo comes in 2016, wins then and in 2020 and its a democratic white house till at least 2024

conservatism is dead in this country.  pretty soon we’ll be hunting conservatives down with blood hounds and rifles, and since conservatives are all limp wristed boy lovers like jerry sandusky (registered republican) they won’t pose much of a trouble.

Bill Adkins Newt gets newtered again!! Newt lobbies but doesn’t register as a lobbiest – and he was for Health Care Reform before he was against it. “The Center for Health Transformation, …. advocated, among other things, requiring that “anyone who earns more than $50,000 a year must purchase health insurance or post a bond,” a type of insurance mandate that has since become anathema to conservatives.The group also pushed proposals to build centralized electronic medical records and use such data to research treatment effectiveness, both central features of President Obama’s health-care reforms.”http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gingrich-think-tank-collected-millions-from-health-care-industry/2011/11/16/gIQAcd72VN_print.html

This from the squirrelly moron that called Bush’s <5% unemployment rate a depression bit thinks 0bama's 9%+ is wonderful and shows leadership. 

There was one, I think quite notable, exception to the meme that ‘all R presidents run up the national debt’, that being Ike. 

I like Ike. 

Ike actually was going to run for president as a Democrat. There was a deal between him and President Truman whereby Truman offered, and Ike agreed, that if the Republicans looked at all serious about stealing the 1948 election – they were taking steps to do exactly that – then Ike and Truman would jointly announce running as a Democratic ticket, with Ike for president and Truman, as President, as his prospective VP. But the circumstances they jointly feared didn’t pan out, and in fact the Republicans nominated a centrist rather than an extremist, and maybe the Ds found some creative ways to offset the R chicanery at the polls, but whatever, Truman ran for re-election and won (or “won”, who knows) a pretty darned close election. Then 4 years later, when Ike decided to run as a Republican, the story goes that Truman was p.o.’d at him, because he assumed Ike was a Democrat. I myself suspect Ike was an independent and simply chose to run as a Republican because after 20 years it was time to change to Republican or else the party system would become endangered, also because Ike had a lot of very good friends who were Republicans, rich friends who could support him, and finally because, this is me thinking, off the 1960 ‘warning’ speech Ike gave about the “military-industrial complex”, he liked being able to keep tabs on the crazies, who were, as usual, almost entirely in the R party (Remember that when Ike was running, Senator Joe McCarthy, R-Wisconsin, was terrorizing the U.S. military with his commie witch hunts.), and Ike in particular did not like or trust Nixon but could see how he was the natural leader to the nuts in the R party.

When Ike came in, the nation was still paying off WWII debt and related adjustment costs, was still involved with a number of really big and expensive national infrastructure building programs, was still helping fund Europe through the Marshall Plan and Japan into western civilization, and had a new war going in Korea – so there were expenses. Ike kept taxes high right thru his 8 years – or at least used his bully pulpit to stop them from being precipitously reduced – with the result that by the time JFK came into the White House, the US government was flush with money, in a healthy surplus – and in fact JFK was able to use HIS turn at the bully pulpit to promise big reductions in the marginal personal rates, which he delivered on.

The president whose disposition was or is most like Ike, in terms of being calm and acting above the fray, is Obama, another centrist who, as Ds, particularly progressives and liberals recognize, could just as easily be a Republican president, given the way he has conducted himself in the first 3 years:

1. a quite modest stab at Keynesian stimulus, consistent with any Republican president from Ike through Shrub even;

2. Obamacare, which is the same as Romneycare, which is something Newt Gingrich asked the conservative Heritage Institute to come up with as an alternative to Hillarycare back in the 1990s, which is a very modest and quite traditional Republican idea to funnel health care insurance through private enterprise rather than going with socialized medical care;

3. a very muscular but measured foreign policy, very much consistent with the sort of f.p. the elder Bush favored, consistent with the one Ike followed, and Nixon but for Cambodia, and certainly a lot more aggressive than Clinton, but not as stupid as LBJ with Viet Nam or Shrub with Iraq, or as aggressive as Truman or even FDR, so all-in-all a modest and characteristically conservative ‘Republican’ model;

4. a whole lot of agency budget-cutting, and deregulation, tax breaks and tax cuts for businesses, particularly start-ups and self-employment, very much things Republican presidential candidates talk about but way, way more than any president since, well, ever in terms of small business incentives;

5. a modest, deliberately underdone Jobs bill initiative, very much in line with the sort of ‘spot’ stimulus prolicies and programs followed by Ike, Nixon and the elder Bush;

6. continuation of a whole range of surveillance and national security programs installed by Shrub, with an effort, but hardly a petulant or dragged-out one, to shut down GITMO or resist military tribunals for trials of foreign nationals;

7. an open, upbeat, graceful & generally optimistic carriage of public duties, which Republicans used to really really like from Reagan in particular; and

I could go on.

Unfortunately, he has been unable to change his skin tone, or the identity of his father, and has stubbornly stuck with continuing to call himself a Democratic party member, despite not a lot of evidence of such, or at least not any that would distinguish himself from the Blue Dog Caucus.

You know, he actually sounds like an almost ideal nominee for the traditional establishment Republican presidential figure, for all the years between when William F. Buckley booted the Birchers out of the R party after the Goldwater defeat in 1964, and when Dick Armey & Koch brothers money bus’d them back in again in 2009, a period of 45 years.

It was for being anybody but Bush or Cheney.
This is very much like Tea-publi-cons loving anybody but Romney.

Nonsense and hogwash.

There WAS no such “huge cut in govt spending immediately after the war”. Government spending remained robust well into the 1950s and beyond, and taxes stayed at all-time record highs until JFK came in. FDR followed Keynes through the advice of Canadian advisor and Liberal leader WLM King, a former Harvard prof and colleague of Keynes, a Canadian PM at various times in the 1920s, 1930s, all through the 1940s & into the 1950s, and a Keynes believer. Following Keynes from 1933 through into 1936 caused substantial improvements in the US economy in 1934-6, to the point that Republican Congressional leaders managed to convince FDR of the prospects of an over-heated economic recovery and a “bubble”, which led to his brief abandonment of Keynes in 1937, until that obviously failed, and he returned to Keynes in 1938 and into WWII – which if you recall the words “December the 7th … nineteen-forty-one … a day that shall live … in infamy”, did not really involve the US until 1942, by which time the US economy was by far the healthiest and most robust it had been since the 1920s before the Crash. This is the Big Lie by George F***ing Will, and every time he trots it out in front of Krugman, Krugman calls him out for exactly that. The USA was NOT AT ALL “the last Western industrialized country to come out of the depression,and did so at the end of WWII”, it was out of it BEFORE WWII started.

Newt the History professor knows more than a Nobel winning economist about economics?
Doubtful.
One only gets a Nobel prize in the sciences and social sciences by producing sound reasoning backed by sound numbers and examples. Guess which one Economics is. It is a social science, and nobody can predict what you would do with a million dollars. As an individual, you might spend it wisely or foolishly.
An entire nation might act wisely or foolishly, and there are many good examples of both.
No one ever knows which is which until it is tried. The argument is all about what is wise and what is foolish, and economists are taking sides about which is which with solid evidence for either one.

You sad, silly, deluded person.

Who is the commie?

Krugman – the “economist” who’s been consistently WRONG on just about everything he’s prognosticated!

Krugman wins “economic” awards the same way Obama wins “peace” awards – they’re political prizes from their lapdog sycophants on the left.

There’s no real value in the LIES either of them have to say!

You are just writing inanities. I would love to see you even THINK about trying to say any such thing to Krugman’s face or even to write it on his blog. 

This is a symptom of the ‘messy democracy’ of the Internet, where everyone thinks that because they have an opinion they are entitled to have it respected as such. So, you have an opinion, and it’s not founded on theory or observation or experiment or fact, the foundations of science – yet somehow your opinion, to you, and you expect to US, is better than that of one of most celebrated and renowned and accomplished economists in history, a PhD, a Nobel prize winner, the recipient of dozens and dozens of professional awards and accreditations, and someone with such GUTS that he’s able to show his thinking off in public at his blog, to be watched and commented on and disputed and debated all in public. You cannot possibly find an economist more courageous than Krugman for doing that – except for Keynes, who did very much the same thing in the 1930s, not just for Britain but throughout the western world. Krugman is the one economist who puts himself out there on the front lines of social commentary every single day in multiple posts on the biggest most noticeable platform on the planet for an economist. 

And who are YOU? You are a preposterously silly reader of a largely silly website posting indefensibly silly posts under a truly pretentious and quite silly AVATAR name, ANONYMOUSLY. And the only scorn you risk for your absurdly unbaked posts, with all these right wing meme zombies, willing to cluster about you in agreement, is that someone like me might come along and call you out for how really really silly you are to be presenting yourself so.

Do you remember the scene in Lawrence of Arabia, when Prince Ali shot and killed Lawrence’s guide while the guide was drinking from a well not owned by his tribe but by the tribe of someone who was a friend to Ali? And when Ali was about to depart, when Lawrence shouted out to him, Ali, Prince Ali: you are prince of a silly people, and your people will remain silly for howsoever long you remain under the yoke of other nations. Well, “PerceptorII, whoever you are, YOU are a silly person, with a silly avatar name, and silly pretentious opinions derived from your absurdly silly superficial bonding with a very large body of extremely silly people who deal in memes, in underboiled cheap shots and rules of half a thumb, in so-called “common sense” which is scarcely common at all. And you shall remain silly for howsoever long your remain under the yoke of that silly body and continue to deny yourself the right and ability to think for yourself.

When Goober W. Bush came into office unemployment was at 3.9%.  But when Goober W. left office in January 2009 unemployment was at 7.8% and the market was at 6500.  What part of economic clusterbush don’t you understand? The Republican crayon and construction paper fantasy economic theory has likely delivered what will be remembered as the Great Depression II, brought to you by those same happy crappy dolts who brought you the first one.

I believe you, that you don’t care that he’s a Mormon. I care, because I think all religious dogma is dangerous, and my concern is that no one has examined Mitten’s commitment to his religious dogma. If he were like Perry, wearing it on his sleeve, we could see how silly it was, and what a hypocrite he is, and how truly meaningless Perry’s religious ‘commitment’ is in a practical sense. We can easily see that Newt and Cain do nothing beyond paying lip service and pandering to Xian fundys, so with them it’s just a tool in their quiver of cheap tricks. And I really don’t think religious zeal about GOD causes me concern with Ron Paul as much as religious zeal about the GOLD standard and his silly Austrian school ‘economics’ misunderstanding. We already know about how dangerous Bachmann’s religious views are, and she would be a real concern but for her low polling, among REPUBLICANS, which suggests even Xian fundys are not comfortable with her views and competency. Not that it really matters, but it appears Huntsman’s religious views get pretty much parked as a politician.

But about Mitt, we just don’t know that much. We know about the magic undies. We know he was a lay bishop when he lived in Boston, and we have stories about his ‘ministering’ there. We know enough about the Mormon church to know that if someone ACTUALLY believed in that crap, then they would indeed be dangerous. So, yes, I am concerned, mostly because I don’t know. Shrub I could tell mostly pandered to the fundys, with that phoney story about being born again. Clinton was almost Catholic in his Baptist beliefs, like it washed off in confession or something. The elder Bush was a nominal Presbyterian, but right there your talking about a nominal belief system, so his religion meant nothing to him I expect. Reagan was exempt, apparently; he spent his whole life reciting lines from a script he mostly did not believe. Carter was and is a believer, but he’s explained how it doesn’t get in the way of his politics, although I think it did quite a bit. Nixon SAID he was a Quaker, but clearly was no believer in anything except power. LBJ was more like Clinton, I think, than Carter. JFK the same. Ike, who knows: he was raised technically something like 7th Adventist, but I think he found religion a bother. Truman, FDR, Hoover, all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt, maybe the ONLY president whose religion interfered with his politics was Wilson. And Wilson, in that regard at least, was a little scary; I also think Mittens might be a little scary, in something like the same way.

But I really don’t know. And I really would LIKE to know, because Mormonism is nuts.

Any one left of Peggy Noonan apparently.

And I believe THEM, too, because I find just the possibility that Mitt might be devote Mormon in the sense of actually following the precepts, disturbing. It doesn’t even help that he’s got this big track record as a serial flip-flopper and lier, telling everyone what they want to hear, because there is Mormon dogma that ADVISES that be done with non-believers. Anyway, there’s lots of other stuff to hold against Mittens that we KNOW about – Mormonism is just … out there. 

I can tell you this though: if I WAS a believer in some Xian church (and I come from a background of belief, from family and childhood), I would indeed not trust someone who actually believed that Mormon crap & never vote for them under any circumstances. We almost got a true believer president once, in William Jennings Bryan – and that close call was indeed frightening to think back on. I’m not sure we ever came nearly that close again – but we may be close with Mittens; I just don’t have any way of knowing, which is not the MAIN thing that makes me queasy about him, but it sure doesn’t help.

sir,
that is not true, about “I just love how liberals point out the “debt” under the past Republican presidents, as a bad thing, but then they get amnesia about Krugman’s complaints that we need to really run up the debt now.”

there are 2 types of debt. the bush type that contributes nothing but cebt and spending to stimulate the economy, rebuild crumbling infrastructure and other positive things. all shrub’s debt did was put us into the poor house and threaten our economic future, but, that’s how the old strategic deficits plans works. isn’t it?

You know … I don’t really think so. The thing is, the General Election is an amazing microscope on a personality, and I really don’t think Mittens is NEARLY capable of surviving that. The one and only time he’s ever won an election was in Mass., which is something quite a bit less emotional and daunting from president, in a state where Republicans actually do get elected Governor fairly often, and what he did to GET the job and KEEP the job was act like a left-leaning centrist. That looks to me like a guy who will do anything and say anything to get and keep the job – and what makes it worse is that he seems very likely – I would say it’s a GIVEN – to have wanted to be president since he was a little boy. That is actually disturbing, because it means he may well have decided to con every voter into finding him inoffensive just to get to his dream job.

reagan abandoned the manufacturing base of this country and moved it into a service based one. his own words, but don’t readily have the exact quote.

and why?

because our butt got kicked by the japanese in every trade deal we negotiated and then the negotiators went to work for them. they sold us out in steel, in autos, in tv and electronics and just about every other facet of trade negotiations. 

reagan good for the economy. HAH!

Well, we all know where you’re coming from, but just forget or suspend for a moment who said it, and just take a look at who Gingrich is and his history and background: Is it a fair statement? Well, yeah, of course it is: Newt has ALWAYS been a blowhard, a fifth rate academic pretending to be a first rate one. Take a long hard look at the Wikipedia entry and his “academic” credentials, and then compare THAT to what he CLAIMS them to be, how he carries on about them. The guy was denied tenure at a college you never probably heard of. He was done, kaput, washed up in terms of any “academic” standing or career. He started running for Congress WHILE that “academic” career was going nowhere – within just 3 years of his getting his PhD. He didn’t even stick with being an “historian” – he was a GLOBAL WARMING guy for like 4 years, even organized a program around it.

sir,
that last coming out of debt is because we bailed out the losing countries and rebuilt them under the marshall plan. 

funny thing is. the stats keeper for the wall street journal (you know—that leftist rag?)
says he doesn’t understand why the republicans get so much credit for being good for the markets. that the markets have ALWAYS <<<<< always peformed better under democratic administration that republicans.

surprising little fact for the right wingers touting the republican economic stance.

and the tasty part of it is that the margin is substantial.

so put that in your wall economic pipe and smoke it

uhmmm the Oil Sands?  You think they just started working on extracting from the oil sands because it’s profitable now?

Do you have any idea how long they’ve been working on the oil sands?  It wasn’t a knee jerk reaction.  Just have a gander at Fort McMurray and how long it’s been up and running.  

ron paul

we’d have jim crow days again with ron paul!

Again, go check out what he got it for and what he did with it: go to Wikipedia, read up on it. Tulane, Schulane – I have one degree from a university as good as Tulane in the area, and another from a university quite a bit better than Tulane  (which I like, mind you, in certain areas – though not history, I’m afraid, which is one my own degrees, and CERTAINLY NOT “Modern European History”; for that, to be any good at THAT, you expect a guy to go off and study in France or Germany for a while, gets a Rhodes scholarship or a post-doc, something. And his dissertation choice is an absolute basket-weaving job, a true joke, so bad I’m surprised they let him get away with it, having about zip to do with Europe or history, but rather a lot more to do with educational programs imposed by imperialistic powers, at best a sociological study. I remember doing a first year undergrad paper on foreign mining influences on Bolivia and that was a lot more challenging than what Newt got away with for his Ph freaking D dissertation. Modern European History, to me, involves at least going as far north as say Spain or Portugal, both of them particularly the latter a pretty attractive subject for a dissertation, given it’s late emergence from dictatorship. 

It LOOKS like the product of a blowhard, of which there are an awful lot in university arts programs. It LOOKS like he was so bad at it, that even HE knew he stunk at it, and so he went off to do other things that were more meaningful to him and more ‘useful’. Really, who in the world, who even in the CONGO, in 1971 or now, gives a rat’s skinny behind about how late imperial Belgium tried to influence Congolese school kids over less than a generation? It LOOKS like Newt picked something really really obscure and lazy and did a ‘job’ on it, expecting no one who reviewed his work would even CARE if he got it right. It LOOKS like the kind of dissertation which wouldn’t even earn you a job as an evening adult extension school lecturer. 

there is a difference in intelligence and political cleverness

thing i’m kidding?

paul is an institutional racist

he and rand believe that a business has the right to separate restrooms (if they want),

guess i’d better qualify that?

an institutional racist is a person who believes that businesses (small—big—no matter) have the right to, refuse service based on race, have separate dining facilities for blacks (or not serve them at all), separate restrooms, separate schools too. there would be NO civil rights act. tho rand says he wouldn’t work to repeal it. that part not because he wouldn’t if he thought he could get away with it, but because he would be castigated for it!

what is that person called?
hypocrite?

oh and the proof he and rand are institutional racists?

that proof can be found in the definition of the word (and pay special attention to the 2nd one)

dictionary.reference.com
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others. 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. 3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

thefreedictionary.com
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

who’d of thunk?

the pay special attention is the second one in the first definition

not the second,,,thoi it says it too

Ah! The 99%.

LOL! Finally Krugman has come up with an valid idea, but being Krugman has gotten the variables all wrong! He has actually described himself PERFECTLY! HE is a stupid man’s idea of what a smart man sounds like!

So you believe that just because one person makes a truthful statement that it shouldn’t be allowed to be repeated? Sounds like a liberal non-idea to me.

I am saying I do not knee-jerk, as many would assume. That is why I do not oppose the exploitation of the oil sands or the building of the pipeline. I apologize for not making that clear in the first place.
However, I do say that it was only when world-wide oil prices got high enough that people proposed a pipeline to move that expensive to process oil for export beyond Canada.
Politically, Canada may be going back to the more liberal policies of the past. Politics is always subject to experiment and change.

Question(s):

Is “Job Loss” within the economy, the same thing as a “reduction in job creation,” within the economy?

Can the to two co-exist at the same time?  Meaning, are the two mutually exclusive, economic phenomena?  Also, one doesn’t necessarily cause the other?

Were the “Bush Tax Cuts” the cause of “Job Loss,” as well as diminished “Job Creation?”

What was happening to the Nation during the Bush years, that may have had an affect on “loss”, or, “creation?”

(Note: America was deeply involved in a war(s), the Nation’s borders were wide open and Jobs were being sent “off shore,” etc.)

Hence, I conclude that there is a formula of sorts that requires participation of all parties and problems/solutions.  The Bush Tax cuts had little chance for success unless the other, salient, issues affecting the economy were/are, coincidentally dealt with?

Purveyor of Rhetoric

So, do you have anything substantive to say, or, do you just wander around spouting oracle like diatribes of nonsense and rhetoric?  That you make this distinction between the hard and soft sciences (as if no one but you understand this), and then try and tie this distinction to a Newt v. Krugman tradeoff is laughable.  The fact is champ, the Austrian economists had made short work of the 08 crisis long before it happened.  They predicted, based on first principles, the economic distortions that would/will inevitably occur when price fixing of interest rates occur from central bank monetary policy.  Krugman wants desparately to continue with the Keynesian assertion that government knows best despite the failure of this assertion; that government can allocate capital better than the market can, despite the fact that $4T of that exercise has fallen flat on its face.  Again, I reiterate, it is here where Gingrich would eat Krugman for lunch.  Disagree with Gingrich all you want on his politics, but, at least Gingrich understands the economic problem.  Contrary to what you ramble on about, the argument is not about “money spent wisely and money spent foolishly.”  The argument is what is efficient, and the government (as well as Krugman) have clearly demonstrated that central planning and central bank policy cannot know the inter-temporal preferences, of firms, and individuals regarding capital allocation, consumption, time value of money, labor, etc.  So, did I get it right, or, are you going to school everybody with bullshit on this site some more?

DEVIL,

I believe your comment is quite similar, to the “Nuremberg defense?”  Krugman was at the conference/panel, and even though he’s an orthodox, leftist economist, (among other things) he can’t be held accountable for sowing any seeds of thought?  

Paul Krugman is a man of questionable character; a dogmatic opportunist.  In the vernacular: “are you [simply] having sunshine blown up your ass” while you attend class?  Good Lord, when HANOI STEVE gives you a thumbs up, its time for introspection…

Purveyor

Yeah, in 2008. Long since after the Nobel Prize committee had been discredited as a farce.

Milton Friedman, an ACTUAL economist who actually contributed to the field of economics and whose theories have been proven true, was awarded the Nobel Prize 32 years before Krugman back when the committee actually had some integrity.

Milton Friedman’s theories of free people without government intrusion are the most prosperous has been proven true time and time again. John Keynes theories that we’re “animal spirits” and that government creates wealth by stealing it from people and then giving it back to whoever they see fit has been proven a massive failure time and time again. Example 1 of many: The Obama administration.

actually there are only 2 schools of economics

the one started (well not started) by bush and cheney says that deficits do not matter as long as the economy is moving forward. in diametric opposition to the old republican mantra of balanced budgets.

so what do we get with that?

we get eventual collapse—as evidenced by history

buch and cheney had a plan to change the face of government. much like reagan’s strategic deficits scenario. run up the deficit and force government to change, but what happened.

at least when reagan saw their strategy was hurting the country? he raised taxes the greatest of any president in history and still holds the record (i think it hasn’t been surpassed).

was strategic deficits real?

according to david stockman it was. he admitted they tried to do it, but where reagan (whom i would call a true conservative) saw and cared about the damaging effects were on ordinary americans—cheney and his puppet bush did not. cheney being the extremist ideologue he is said full speed ahead.

2 wars and unfunded mandates later and what do we see happening today and don’t seem to recognize it.

clincton described an extremist ideologue in a speech at georgetown
(paraphrased)

a conservative digs himself into a hole and asks for help out (reagan). an exremist ideologue will dig themselves into a hole and ask fora bigger shovel.

cheney and bush took us from surplus to deficit and 700,000 job losses per month with those very strategic deficits. the republican mantra was always balanced budgets, but cheney and bush changed all that and the nation is suffering for it and what do we hear now from the right? balanced budgets? where were they all the time bush and cheney was driving us into the national poorhouse?

they have shown themselves to be nothing less that hypocrites!

Krugman’s advice was exactly that. Advice. Just like Gingrich’s advice to Freddie Mac.

Krugman’s book, The World Is Flat, is used in the class that I will finish this week (with the highest grade in the class). It is used along with texts on international trade, laws, and business strategies. It covers all government agencies that deal with trade, tariffs, subsidies, and all the rest of international business and diplomacy. It teaches how the WTO, UN, and NGOs (non-government organizations) really work. (The WTO, especially, is requiring socialist nations to become more capitalist to even join, and they all want to join. No organization does more to advance capitalism around the world than the WTO!

I know many of your friends will deny that, but they don’t have the proof that I do now have.

Krugman and the government agencies support free trade without government interventions, and they are especially opposed to government subsidies as disruptors and distorters. I have three professors right now, and every one of them thinks “globalization” is a BS term. It is loaded with misconceptions and factual holes.
 
Nobody but Krugman claims that he is perfect, and we studied the arguments against him, as well. Good scholarship always requires finding faults, because they always exist. Nobody is perfect.

There are some remarkably naive students who always go for soft stuff, like the kind of socialism you imagine of all liberals, and I come off as the hard-hearted realist. I have butted heads with so many of them that I offered to back off, but two professors asked me not to back down. So long as I don’t use personal insult, I can be harsh on their logic. (Just like I am here.)

Yes, I am the (relative) conservative in those classes because I insist on real world facts, not “what my heart says.”

that lower unemployment rate is deceptive. none of the damaged had much accumulated till at the end of his terms. much like the damages we’re suffering from right now. i seem to recall clinton leaving a surplus? what did bush leave us with?

here’s a question for you and i bet very few will know it.

who was the last republican president to leave the economy in better condition that he got it?

that would go back to eisenhower and eisenhower today would be reviled and would reagan…tho it’d be like pulling teeth to get a republican to agrre with that statement. neither reagan nor eisenhower would stand a chance in today’s republican party!

OK. You make sound arguments. Please do not accuse me of “diatribes” without a chance to respond to your sound arguments (which by the way, ended up in my spam folder as sometimes happens to perfectly good e-mail notices, but it did delay my response).
My comment about what people will do with money remains valid. An economist can tell you what a wise person would do, but cannot tell you what real people will do. I hope you can agree with me that a whole lot of people are not “wise,” especially if they are in politics.
That Swiss economist you mentioned seems to have been discredited by most of his peers. You didn’t give his name, so I have to assume you mean the one who said the world should return to a gold standard along with the removal of all central banks. Nobody has taken him up on those recommendations. Nobody.
What caused the crashes? Not enough regulation of banks! Too much “creativity” in banking. Central banks do not create derivatives and Credit Default Swaps. Central banks smooth out the peaks and the valleys in economies, and that acts to prevent the depressions that were common in the past.
No Republican advocates the end of the Fed. (Ron Paul is an Independent running for the Republican nomination.)

Things change…I suspect that JFK with his record of the 50,000 Americans murdered in his Vietnam fiasco would be a bit of a hard sell today  in the Dem party.

Why would anyone vote for Newt Gingrich? He is not a conservative. He was for individual mandates and carbon taxes. He was a lobbyist for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were at the center of the housing bubble. Newt then supported the bailouts of the banks with taxpayer money. During the debt crisis, Newt came out and called Paul Ryan’s debt reduction plan “radical”. The man is a big government RINO and can not be trusted. Just because he is a good debater and gives the media a hard time doesn’t mean he deserves to be POTUS. And to all those Republicans who desire to see a debate between Gingrich and Obama, don’t get too excited. While Gingrich is a lot smarter than the empty suit in the White House, Obama would have a field day pointing out Newts flip-flopping past. Gingrich may be a worse choice for POTUS than Romney and that’s saying a lot cause Mitt is a leftist. Gingrich needs to be permanenty barred from Washington, not elected POTUS. That being said, Krugman may be the most clueless economist in the history of the social science. And Peggy Noonan is equally cluess by indicating that Newt Gingrich is not the choice of the Republican establishment. He is the establishment’s way of offering a choice to the party’s base. If you don’t want the establishment’s first choice (Romney), you can always vote for the establishment’s 2nd choice (Gingrich).

Try this for comparison:

Some decades ago, economists heatedly debated the
relative strengths of monetary and fiscal policies, with some Keynesians
arguing that monetary policy is powerless, and some monetarists arguing that fiscal policy
is powerless. Both of these are essentially dead issues today. Nearly
all Keynesians and monetarists now believe that both fiscal and monetary
policies affect aggregate demand.”

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/KeynesianEconomics.html (Friedman was the original monetarist.)

@Mawnerpop

What thefuck are you talking about?

We could solve the national debt if we did the same with Paul Krugman. What does it mean about my intelligence that I have always thought he was stupid.

Again (still).  Misinformed.  The Lucas Critique (1976) all but debunks the notion that monetary or fiscal policy has any real effect on aggregate demand.  Both firms and individuals adjust expectations with the knowledge that prices will inevitably rise as a result of monetary policy, and savings will rise as individuals expect that taxes will rise to compensate for deficit financing.  Finally, central banks do not smooth out peaks and valleys (as you suggest).  The peaks and valleys arrive from central bank interference!!  Markets force a liquidation of bad bets made from loose money….always.  Just like you are about to discover again.  Markets are going to force capital adjustments in an entirely different direction than what central bank policy expects, from holding rates down too low for too long.  There is no free lunch devils spawn, and if you were an economist, you would understand the implications of that.

LOL…

Sure, that “stupid” man who has made a very profound contribution to the field of international trade economics. I have studied the field. Krugman is a brilliant man, even if you don’t like his politics.

No, he has been consistently right. He predicted all this financial and housing crap years ago!

Define brilliant. I seem to remember barry won a Nobel peace prize ( I think that embarrassed even him). Please inform me of one or two on Krugman’s wonderful achievements and enlighten me.

Please link me to the articles. I seem to remember him saying good old Boney Fwank was on the right track when he wanted anyone who was still breathing to be able to qualify for a home loan. And we see where that got us. I also know for a fact that the republicans under Bush wanted to reign in Fanny and Freddy, knowing that only a disaster could follow the insane lending practices they pushed, but where then shouted down by the left. The left seems to do much more time shouting than engaging in intelligent argument don’t they!

I seem to recall Clinton being drug kicking an screaming to a surplus by Newt and a conservative senate. Things had got progressively worse under Bill and a dem house and senate (sound familiar?) until the GOP took over again. And please explain why the longer the amount of time that obummer is in office, the worse things get. Would it EVER become obummer’s economy to the likes of you? I think it would only if it ever became positive. Otherwise he could be in the white house for 50 years and the bad economy would still be Bush’s fault right?

Yes, things certainly has improved under the fraud haven’t they?!

Please, a few examples of his sound ideas! LOL!

I can completely disprove liberalism in a very short, concise way that even a liberal should be able to comprehend. Have you ever read the story about Chicken Little and her quest for some nice baked bread?

I can completely disprove every “idea” that Krugman and liberalism push in a very short, concise way that even a liberal like Kurgman should be able to comprehend. Have you ever read the story about Chicken Little and her quest for some nice baked bread?

The one and only one reason required is that he is NOT Obama.

DEVIL,

Gosh!  Who would have guessed that economic, thus world salvation was hidden away in obscurity, secreted in an American University, waiting to be unearthed by a Socialist “Indiana Jones?”

Does this mean that only YOU have been given the privilege of the secret information, or, are there others so authorized?  Are there bad guys actively trying to steal the “secret formula” and sell it to the Chinese?

Quote: “No organization does more to advance capitalism around the world than the WTO!”  Is that, (according to you) a good thing, or a bad thing?  I am just curious as to what the implications of the economic archeology you uncovered, are?  All archeology is subject to interpretation, isn’t it?

Anyway, under most circumstances I would be pleased at the enthusiasm a student is showing.   However, as I mentioned earlier, I worry that you are simply “having sunshine blown up your ass?”  Sometimes, the person you claim to be, is a bit inconsistent, with the person you really are?

Purveyor

Bravo. Krugman surely must be my brother from another mother. This is not the first time that his comments agree exactly with my own—especially in this matter of Mr.Gingrich’s vaunted faux-intellectual status.

I don’t.  So you are wrong.

You do know that the Nobel Prize for Peace and the Nobel Prize for Sciences are not chosen by the same people.

Krugman is A Smart Person’s Idea Of What A Stupid Man Sounds Like’…. dead on!

You certainly don’t let facts get in the way of your opinions. Speaking of facts, let’s face some: electing a politician to a political office is like selecting the best looking girl to be Miss America based on how she looks in a skimpy bathing suit.  It is only a matter of what turns you on at the moment you cast your vote.
It doesn’t take a helluva lot of brains to be a politician, but  it does take gall and enough money to buy the just enough votes from a disinterested public to get elected. If we elected only those who were honest and without baggage we wouldn’t have enough candidates to fill up a three person city council race.  What I find interesting about GMason1776′s post is that he took the time to write a post without having any facts to backup any of his opinions about who is and who isn’t honest enough or classy enough or experienced enough to run for any kind of political office as a Republican in the 2012 election.  Next time, do some researching on the candidates, it will help you write more words in your next post.

Newt has a snow balls chance in hell against Obama.Peggy Noonan makes my skin crawl.She couldn’t say shit if she had a mouth full of IT!

Au contraire! ’tis you who have had darkness blown up you ass. You have heard that the WTO is some kind of super government that is hell-bent on stealing our sovereignty like some rapist trying to steal our virginity. (The professors agree that World TO was a bad choice of words.)

My thesis (if you will) is that upon being released from colonization in the 1960s, about 100 brand new countries who had been oppressed by colonizers and therefore had no experience in governing themselves or running a business bigger than a small grocery or trinket shop, turned immediately to socialism in one form or another. They did this because they though they saw it as the only way to lift everybody at once. It was naive but sincere in most cases. (You know, like American socialists, the real ones, are naive.)

Several new countries became downright communist, while others settled for nationalizing most or all of the industries left behind by the colonizers. They were just shy of being communist by virtue of not calling themselves that. They wanted to be democratic, but when leaders suddenly get that much power and democracy is a new concept, it just doesn’t take right away. So by 1970 there were fewer than 20 real democracies, and every one of them was either in Western Europe or North America, minus Mexico.

These attempts to solve all problems and bring all people out of poverty simultaneously via government intervention in all aspects of life failed miserably, as I am positive you and all conservatives will heartily agree. The only real beneficiaries of the new freedoms were the families and tribes of the new dictators.

Now look at the world today. Dictatorships AND “super socialism” are withering away to the point that only Cuba and North Korea are true communist dictatorships, and less than half of the Middle East/North Africa is under dictatorship. Capitalism, which is related but not directly tied to democracy, is flourishing everywhere, and it is because of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, plus the General Agreement on Trade and Services. Those agreements are what makes it possible for trade to flow between countries more freely than ever before, and that makes capitalism ever more efficient as it removes the Government Imposed restrictions on trade that had been the norm.

Which governments imposed the most barriers to trade? The communist and socialist governments. So, along comes the GATT and a club was formed. The club was formed by the wealthiest nations first, and they were all capitalist democracies. Others wanted to join the club, but they were told that to join, they must first open up trade by removing government imposed tariffs, subsidies, and control over what should be private property, namely BUSINESSES. IF they did this, they would be given aide and loans to help them progress to a level of self-sufficiency and improved conditions for all of their people.

It didn’t happen overnight, and many small countries balked at the capitalist requirements imposed on them, but gradually most of those countries have seen the bright shining light of capitalism and democracy and are now much more in tune with those principles than they were before. The down side of that is that since they are now better off, they are less dependent on buying our goods and better capable of producing their own. A person with evil in his heart would wish that the rest of the world would turn back to socialism and communism so they would be dependent on us again.

Then some idiots decided the GATT and GATS system was so big and so successful that it should now be called The WORLD Trade Organization. It is only semantics, but that WORLD thing scares the hell out of conservatives like you, and when you are afraid, you lose all logic. You won’t look into what the WTO is and what it does and what it even can and CANNOT do. You fear that it will take away our sovereignty, but those nations that were socialist, after being colonies of the rich, are the ones who traded their right to be backward and socialist for the good deal of becoming capitalist and thus really improving the income level of all of their citizens.

You see, the number one rule of joining the WTO is allowing foreign multinational corporations to come into their country and own up to 100% of local companies. Membership is voluntary, but it does require making a promise that the  government will not own businesses and will protect Intellectual Property Rights. This means the businesses can be run by the best and most experienced capitalist in the world, which are mostly US and EU based companies. The unofficial motto is: Governments, get out of the way and let us Capitalists show you how it is done!

Russia is still trying to get in, but not “up to snuff” because the “former” communists still control the big businesses. They are not capitalist enough in action to be allowed into the club. That is the other rule. Be relatively clean of corruption. The WTO It is a CLUB, not a government. It does not have any of the powers of the UN, and the UN has very few powers to worry about.

QUOTATION: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.Ralph Waldo Emerson. When you think I am being inconsistent, you should realize that I do not belong in the box that you have constructed for me in your own mind. I refuse to get in it.

Yes. The Little Red Hen.
How about the ant and the grasshopper?

I prefer to think like an adult, thank you. My philosophy is: We are all in this together. Your philosophy is probably that you are an island, with plenty of coconuts in the trees and fish in the ocean. Enjoy that. I am happy for you.

He wrote two books, each several hundred pages long. The first was The Lexus and the Olive Tree. The other was The World Is Flat. Both books have great insights and great claims that are arguable but not proven. But, to really understand MACRO Economics, you have to start way back with Adam Smith and David Ricardo in the second half of the 18th century.
Micro Economics are what people understand. MACRO Economics are what PhDs argue about.
By the way, both Keynes and Friedman AGREE that stimulus works in the short term, but not forever.
Let me say that again. BOTH AGREED. It was in other details that they disagreed, but the people on this thread have concentrated on the mistaken belief that they disagreed on that key issue. Why? Because Republicans tell you to.

nice cut and paste, libtard

You nonsensical commie, stupid leftwing BS as usual.

I think you better read a real history book so you can discover that Carter began that flight of jobs from this country. Look at libtard California chasing every major employer away with their ridiculous taxes and over-regulation. Amazing how libtards project their own miserable failings upon conservatives!

Paul Krugman is the laughingstock of the vast majority of real economists, not the ones who bought a cheap meaningless award as did Odumbo. Give me a break with that Nobel garbage!

Odumbo did!

You’re a boring blowhard.

Oh, I thought it was all of you racist libtards…you know the ones that hate it when a person of color leaves the liberal plantation. Idiot.

Love to see him debate Odumbo without his teleprompter…ROTFLMAO!!!

You have an america hating socialist in office who is a one term president. Did you like the 2010 midterms? You’re in for more next election libtard.

@yahoo-2KIIKMWLBKCXGLJ6ETKDIZOCZY:disqus 
i’ll have you know i am very well read on history

and reagan DID start (maybe stretching it a bit—but he surely helped in the destruction of manufacturing based insdustries in this country

and that sir IS history

from my experience most people don’t even know history

like what was the kuwait war for

kick out the bad incubator stealing iraqi’s?

lol

people generally see very little—even from history and proves that even hindsight does most little good.

btw

the “real” cause of the kuwaiti war was to get an american base built in the region—which the arabs refused, until we tricked hussein into invading and then tell we’ll rescue you kuwait lying princes and princesses, but we want our base, but i bet you are ignorant of that also sir?!

You’re right.
On the one hand, a Nobel laureate, on the other, you, a no-brainer.

I like what Krugman said. Evidently, Republicans have enough stupid people to push Newt up in the Republican polls.

Evidently you don’t think like an adult judging by your response. That was exactly the moral of the story that you somehow completely missed. We are all in it together and everyone either must do their share, or do without, except those who cannot help. The ones who would not help her are the ones who think they have plenty of coconuts and fish. How did your thinking get so twisted around?

The Little Red Hen story tells of her deciding to be self-sufficient because she got no help form anybody. She must act like an island.
The Little Red Hen story is an over-simplified example for little children to learn to share in work and play. We adults SHOULD know that lots of folks would be willing to do their part when asked. Therefore, I say that to use the Little Red Hen as an example of reality is childish. It is just another fable that is taught between the ages of four and six. At least in the story of the ant and the grasshopper, there is only one lazy person. We can all find one lazy person. The Little Red Hen story says that everybody she knows is basically lazy, and that is a warped view of reality.
A more appropriate story for adults is the community practice of barn building. People got together to build each others barns. The men did the heavy work, and the women provided a banquet of food until the job was done. My father had his barn built that way, and he helped others to build their barns.

You wrote a lot of words but didn’t refute any of my facts. Would you like to try again or just admit that you’re clueless?

Republicants and teabaggers need a hero.  Anyone? Anyone? 

Interesting, a subject I know little about, at least to any depth. Of course the entire narrative would provide greater detail and history, but your subject matter is compelling!

Question: Succinctly, what was your initial assertion? (Conclusion?)

Comment #1: The “penultimate” paragraph reminds me that a plurality of America is moving in the opposite direction of “let the capitalists show you how its done?”

Comment#2: I fear “multi-nationals” lack of Nationalism, thus Patriotism as such fits into my theory of “economic treason.” Also, I fear foreign influences ensconced within the Multi-Nat with nefarious intent? Furthermore, I am a proponent of the American worker and Private Union “Brother.” (Depending on the Union, of course)

Well done…

Krugman is the best and the brightest that the Left has…and that’s so sad.

What facts.  You don’t have any facts in your post.  You have nothing but your opinions.  And you’re arrogant to a fault, to boot.

More than once you have attempted, or, felt impelled/compelled to convince me of your perceived, undefinable, almost amorphous viewpoint. Why?

Who are you trying to convince?

Purveyor

I am really curious, who do you imagine the Republicans will find to replace him?

I haven’t seen a Republican candidate that anyone could take seriously.

It’s amazing, when ever there is a Republican in the White House deficit spending is meaningless. Now that Obama has to try and fix the catastrophic policies of the  Bush administration a certain Tea loving sector of the American public has been convinced that deficit spending will kill the USA. The best way to illustrate this is by comparing the US economy with a family budget…..this is probably the most glaring illustration of the “dumbing down” of America. The U.S. economy and a family budget have about as much in common as a Cadillac and a cockroach (the downside is,you can kill a Cadillac!).  The debt ceiling was raised under every modern Republican President as a matter of course. 

 I also love listening to people who have virtually no knowledge of George Maynard Keynes’ theories spouting off about how wrong he always was. It’s like listening to third graders discuss molecular biology.

Well, you are certainly in contention for winning a Nobel in absurdity. Give me an example of a “stupid” person who won a Nobel. You might find plenty you disagree with politically, but you won’t find anyone who spends their days trolling on political websites, posting nonsense!

Are you suggesting that Newt never did any of those things?

@purveyor1 Then I give up on you. Stay in your black and white ignorance. Yes. I say ignorance. Intentional ignorance because you cannot handle nuance and complexity.

Krugman is a typical economics professor. He studies theories he then advocates based on classroom research but which have no bearing in the real world. He’s been consistently wrong in his predictions and his advice has done nothing but further damage the economy.

I’m not suggesting anything. Newt was not a member of Congress during the period of time you are censuring him for having viewpoints counter to yours.  Your critical opinions of those Republicans who don’t think like you does not make you right and them wrong or you a better Republican than they are. What is a Republican, anyway? Anybody worth their salt in the Republican Party believes strongly in the Constitution. Do you inner voices tell you that Newt doesn’t believe strongly enough in the Constitution to be a true Republican?  During an election campaign it is important that all Republicans stick together even though they all don’t think alike on certain issues.  The word “Rino” is tossed around quite a bit by  conservative Republicans, but that term means nothing if the user doesn’t explain the difference between what he thinks and what another Republican thinks on some issues.  For your information, the Republican Party houses liberal thinkers who are very loyal members of the Republican Party. Ever since Barry Goldwater became a force in the Republican Party, so-called conservatives believe that all true Republican Party members should walk lockstep with them on every single political issue.  It isn’t going to happen.  Newt is conservative on some issues and moderate to liberal on other issues, but he is still a loyal Republican Party member who deserves the support of other Republicans within the Party.  If you can’t accept that, then it is you who has the problem, not Newt.  FYI, the Republican Party has never elected a president who is a so-called true conservative and new will.  Get used to that truth or you’re going to have your shorts tied up in knots every election period.  President Obama and the members of the Democratic Party Senate are the enemy. They are the ones who should be drawing your fire!   

It doesn’t matter if Newt Gingrich was a member of Congress when he betrayed his party and country. He is a flip-flopper of the highest magnitude who is now seeking the Republican nomination for POTUS by attempting to brand himself as a conservative. He’s not and that’s why he’ll never win the support of the conservative wing of the GOP. And just because you or anyone else claims to believe strongly in the Constitution means nothing. Actions speak much louder than words. One can not be a Constitutionalist and be in favor of individual mandates, carbon taxes, government intrusion in the housing market, and bailouts of private companies. And in regard to your opinion that the Republican Party is a big tent made up of both conservative and liberal thinkers, that wouldn’t be such a problem if the GOP didn’t constantly portray itself to be a party of limited government and fiscal conservatism. That’s were the RINO label comes from because the liberal wing of the party is for big government and big spending. They’re a bunch of hypocrites that in reality have more in common with the Democrats than with the conservatives of their own party. The conservative wing of the Republican party has watched the liberal wing compromise away the wealth and liberty of the American people for decades. And your justification for the RINO’s erosion of American wealth and liberty is that it happens at a slightly slower pace than if a Democrat inhabits the oval office? That’s not good enough. No long will I put party ahead of country. And there are millions more just like me. I will no longer vote for the lesser of two evils. The liberal wing of the GOP either begins to adhere to the party platform or should be prepared to not win anymore elections. The GOP nominated John McCain and the conservatives stayed home. Nominate Gingrich and/or Romney and be prepared to watch history repeat itself.

Fannie and Freddie don’t appear to be the big drivers of the housing bubble at all. Look at the scholarly work. The banks’ role is a major factor. Ever heard of a credit default swap? Look it up. Here is a brief primer to get you started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_United_States_housing_bubble

So I suppose the problem is not Krugman’s  predictions but rather the rights inability (or better put unwillingness) to assess the present.

It’s always nice to be lectured on JOHN Maynard Keynes, (I minored in economics) by people who can’t even get his name correct.   Once again, Keynes was a respected, but thoroughly discredited economist, followed religiously by academics like Krugmna who never have to actually implement and prove their laughable theories.  And, quite frankly, Keynesian economics as currently imposed is not really economics but an excuse for profligate govt spending.   They  get the spending right, but everything else about Keynesianism, they get wrong.   Keep on bloviating, it just makes you look more like a boffoon.

He is not brilliant because of a nobel prize or any prize. No one is. I said nothing about his nobel prize. He is brilliant because of the brilliant work he produced for economics. Even far right wing economists who hate him admit he is brilliant.

I don’t need a primer. If you look into it a little deeper, you’ll find that the beginning of this mess started with congress (Carter, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd) MANDATING that loans be given by banks and mortgage companies to unqualified applicants for home loans, to people who could not afford them. They accused these companies of “redlining” (not giving loans to minorities) and provided fines and penalties for refusing to do so. As a carrot to get those “bad” loans created, the congress (dems) created Fanny and Freddie to guarantee the loans the mortgage companies were forced to provide, taking them off the hook eventually and putting you and me (the taxpayer) on it. The loan companies knowing the loans they were FORCED to make were toxic, bundled them and sold them to try and get their money back. You probably know the rest. In short, THE GOVERNMENT caused this melt down by interfering in the free market. This is a good example of why the governments power must be kept in check at all times.

What is the Republican Party platform in regards to the 2012 election?  Don’t guess at it, send a word for word copy to me at dalehogue@juno.com   I bet it doesn’t say “only conservatives will be allowed to represent the Republican Party in the 2012 election or the conservatives will stay at home on election day.” 

Coming out of Obama’s rectum for air?

Unfortunately, my response did not attach here. So here it is again.
Your Little Red Hen story is for kindergartners to learn to work and play together, not as individuals. The moral is that if you don’t contribute, you don’t deserve to share in the reward. This is an important early lesson, but we are too grown up for that.
More importantly, the Little Red Hen story says everybody is lazy or otherwise occupied, so the Little Red Hen becomes self-sufficient, an island of industriousness in a sea of sloth, so she deserves to enjoy the fruits of her labor by herself. Again, that is fine, except for the part where everyone else is a lazy good-for-nothing.
If that is your world view, continue to be an island.

Funny, because that’s my take on Obama — sounds smart;
 is not very smart.

Libtard, that sounds like something a retarded Dave would say and think it’s funny as he snorts and chuckles.

You’re an idiot!

Peggy Noonan is irritating!!

Can we all agree on one thing?  That Krugman is an arrogant D**khead!!

You clearly do need a primer because you are very misinformed. I have already heard everything you said, believed it, defended it, continued to study it, and found out that it was very wrong. Very few economists and financial experts make that argument. That argument you make doesn’t fit the facts but it does conveniently fit with the laissez faire ideology. Read what I sent and some of the references for that page and you will see what I mean. However, my guess is you won’t because you look for the views that fit what you want to believe instead of forming a conclusion after studying the facts. But as I implied, I made that same mistake but kept looking for facts. I am sure that you keep looking you will see the mistaken conclusion you have made.

I think it is pretty clear that you don’t have f-ing clue what you talking about.

If I’m conversing with someone and get interrupted I’ll take exception to it. If Paul Krugman interrupts me, I’ll excuse myself.

Leedog, what’s cooking? Just wanted to say hey.

Why is removing men from unemployment through government-paid war different from removing men from unemployment with government-paid works programs?

Nope, we can agree that you are, though.

Yeah, but you’re one of those stupid people Krugman was referring to.

If there’s one thing Republicans have no shortage of, it’s stupid people.

Okay, so where’s your disproving of liberalism? A stupid little story won’t cut it, let’s see some actual facts. Oh that’s too bad, facts have this well-known liberal bias.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not “at the center of the housing bubble”, that’s just Fox News nonsense to distract from the Wall Street banks that were actually responsible. And calling Paul Ryan’s budget plan (which includes abolishing Medicare and Medicaid) radical is an understatement. As for deserving to be president, there is no Republican alive today who deserves the job. As for your ignorant attack on Krugman…he’s the greatest economist of our generation. You just refuse to see it because he doesn’t buy into your ignorant ideology.

Like most conservatives who proudly declare themselves “Constitutionalists”, you have no clue what the Constitution actually says. Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it’s unconstitutional. That’s something Repigs have a lot of trouble understanding. And there is no “liberal wing of the GOP”. McCain is a conservative, with a more conservative voting record that f-ing Jim Inhofe.

You’re the one who’s consistently wrong, Mason. And the one who wants disastrously stupid economic policies to be enacted. But your anti-intellectualism is in full display. What is it about Republicans that makes you hate science?

You right-wingers keep on pushing a false narrative about what caused the housing crisis, but reality doesn’t get rewritten just because you say so. Fanny and Freddie had no significant role. It was mostly defaults by WEALTHY homeowners that caused the housing crash.

Repeating your lies won’t make them true, so just give it up.

You remember a lot of things that aren’t true. It was the tax increases that went through when there was a Dem House & Senate that created the Clinton surplus.

The fraud is the Republican Party. As long as they hold on to any meaningful political power, it’ll be nearly impossible to fix the damage they’ve caused.

A trillion-dollar stimulus WAS a fantastic idea…except that it really needed to be closed to 2 trillion. Without that stimulus, we’d be looking at 20-30% unemployment right now.

Everything Matthews said proves what I already knew: he’s an idiot. But then, the fact that Matthews admits to having voted for George W. Bush also proves that.

He’s a buffoon who thinks the president’s job is to be cheerleader-in-chief, and that being smart isn’t important. He justifies this claim with the nonsensical suggestion that Kennedy, Roosevelt and Truman weren’t brilliant, even though they demonstrably were.

 Milton Friedman contributed some of the most destructively wrong ideas in the history of economics.

Friedman’s theories have been proven disastrously wrong. The implementation of his ideas is what got us into our current mess. Deregulation and low taxes are what Friedman called for, it’s what we did and we got the Bush economic collapse out of it.

Why would it “eat him alive” read things like that, when they’re just not true? Bush slashed taxes for the rich and that exploded the deficit.

You’re getting caused and effect mixed up, dumbass. The stimulus didn’t cause the economic problems, it was a response to them.

A conservative government who’d virtually all be Democrats in the US. The Republican Party in the US is equivalent to the lunatic fringe minor parties in Canada.

As is typical of a conservative, you completely misread what the problems facing Europe are. And fail to grasp that they’re not applicable to the United States.

Of course they’re garbage candidates. They’re Republicans.

I suspect you know a lot less than you think you know.

New Gingrich is not a brilliant man, he’s just a run of the mill con artist.

Also, the economy HAS responded to the stimulus. The problem was the stimulus was just too small.

There’s been no such failure of Keynesian economics. What’s failed is is America’s 30-year experiment in Reaganomics.

The Lucas Critique is typical Chicago School bunk.

You sure you’re not paraphrasing your beloved Saint Ronnie, who on multiple occasions talked about his fantasy of space aliens invading and causing all nations to unite?

Cries of “elitism” = stupid people complaining about smart people being smart.

No, only stupid people who don’t realize they’re stupid (see the Dunning-Kruger Effect) agree with that ignorant opinion.

You sure you’re not thinking of yourself, dunce?

Anybody who thinks Keynesian economics is a failure should be removed from all economic policy decisions forever.

Actually, it isn’t different.   But @ WWII, it was done en masse to the tune of millions.  The “hiring or drafting” of citizens has an technical impact on unemployment, but over the long haul is not helpful.  The govt doesn’t create jobs, it merely hires people.  Remember that military service is temporary, whilst a govt job is forever.

Take a look around the world. Liberalism is socialism. Every socialist country EVERYWHERE in the world is collapsing. But you will not see the evidence because you have been blinded by the fact that you are a ”truth believer”.

That idea would really frighten an intelligent informed person.

To a liberal simply stating their thoughts makes them true.  

So where is the narrative false? Congress (liberals) pushed for easy home loans to those who couldn’t afford them that were to be guaranteed by the taxpayer (through Fanny & Freddie). More buyers meant prices go up, a bubble ensues, those unqualified buyers default, the bubble bursts and economic collapse ensues because housing is the main driver behind the economy. Yes there were crooks on wall street making the most of the governments bungling, but the GOVERNMENT started the whole ball rolling. Just why do you seem to not be capable of understanding these simple facts?

The simple facts are that Clinton had a democratic house and senate for the first two years and the economy was tanking. The public threw out the dems and put Conservatives in charge of the house and senate. They began instituting spending cuts, welfare reform etc. At THAT POINT the economy started improving. Clinton had to come out and admit that this was working and said himself that the era of big government was over. Please provide some FACTS if you disagree and not just a misinformed, uniformed opinion.

Are you smart enough to look at the facts and see that EVERY time the libs get control of the government that spending skyrockets and the economy tanks? Evidently not.

*LOL* Just goes to show you have absolutely not idea what you’re talking about. What deregulation!? Where is government NOT involved in home purchases?

Get a clue, then get back to me.

If conservatism had any solid, logical arguments in its defense, then they would be sharing them. Yet all I ever perceive conservatives doing is making broad, unsupportable claims. They attack cogent progressive ideas with distortion and deceit… with unethically edited sound-bytes. They routinely jump up & down…shouting screeds and pointing at liberals whenever they can’t counter the historic evidence against their “watch”…which is 90% of the time. 

By their fruits, you will know these trees. Just look at the current orchard of fruit & nut trees at the GOP debates!  Anyone with any sense can see how indicative of stupidity the current candidate crop is. The only decent candidates, Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman, are either ignored or laughed at! The Republican party is dying from a lack of imagination along with a surplus of bow ties! To survive they must either they allow co-optation or revolution—there is no middle ground.

How does it feel to be totally clueless? While the banks were definitely complicit, it was the government that laid the groundwork for the housing bubble. And after Washinton/Wall St axis wiped out trillions in wealth, the crooks in DC bailed out the crooks on Wall St with tax payer money.

Here’s the NY Times article (not Fox News) from 1999 discussing Fannie Mae’s and the Clinton administration’s role in the housing bubble:

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-paid-mortgage-lending.html

And here is that “brilliant” economist Paul Krugman advocating for a new housing bubble back in 2002, again from the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com2002//08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html

Read it and weep you leftist stooge!

How does it feel to be totally clueless? While the banks were definitely complicit, it was the government that laid the groundwork for the housing bubble. And after Washinton/Wall St axis wiped out trillions in wealth, the crooks in DC bailed out the crooks on Wall St with tax payer money. Here’s the NY Times article (not Fox News) from 1999 discussing Fannie Mae’s and the Clinton administration’s role in the housing bubble:http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09…And here is that “brilliant” economist Paul Krugman advocating for a new housing bubble back in 2002, again from the NY Times:http://www.nytimes.com2002//08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.htmlRead it and weep you leftist stooge!

yeah “Tito” he’s a real moron – lets see your bio

an American economist, professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics, and an op-ed columnist for The New York Times.[7][8] In 2008, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his contributions to New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography

off you go back to Fox news

Wrong on both counts. Liberalism is not the same thing as socialism, and your claim that all socialist countries are collapsing is stupid in the extreme. Take a look at Sweden, Norway, Finland & Denmark. All socialist, all have much better economies than we do.

An article from 1999 discusses Fannie Mae’s role in the housing bubble? There WAS NO HOUSING BUBBLE IN 1999! It wasn’t until years later that we had a housing bubble. And neither Fannie Mae nor Clinton had anything to do with it. The housing bubble didn’t come from poor people trying to buy houses. It came from upper-class people buying lots of real estate as investments, then defaulting when their investments failed.

Where is it false? Everything you said was false. Home loans to poor people through Fannie and Freddie were not responsible for the housing bubble. Rich people engaging in real estate speculation was the origin of the bubble.

I’d have to be incredibly stupid to “see” that like you do. It’s Republicans who consistently tank the economy with their tax cuts and spending cuts.

Only a totally brainwashed moron would continue to argue when proof was just offered that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, at the urging of the Clinton administration, began to inflate the housing bubble in the late ’90′s by purchasing subprime loans from banks and then selling them on the secondary market to other banks. The bubble didn’t burst until 2007-2008. Where was Krugman during the interim period? Oh yeah, telling us how strong the economy was. He’s a know nothing loser, just like you!

You are then obviously incredibly stupid. To stupid to see the historical facts right in front of your face.

Everything I said in my post is demonstrably true. Please never vote until you can at least investigate basic facts and truths. It is half/ill-informed people like you who think they know the facts, when all they’ve really done is swallow someone’s talking points without investigating anything, who are destroying this country.

Once again, please do a little investigation before making stupid statements. If you check into it, any European country that is doing moderately well is involved presently in removing socialists from their halls of government.

     Krugman’s remarks are priceless. I’ll have to store that in my arsenal of remarks.
     I think we’ve all been that stupid person at some point in our lives. We were all once that person who didn’t have the confidence  to challenge or to admit to our deficits of knowledge when that ‘erudite’ person uses big words or makes historical references we’re not familiar with.  What all of us need to do is process and challenge the ideas and talking points we’re spoon fed by our alleged ‘leaders’.

Take your own advice. The Scandinavian nations still have some the strongest economies in Europe and the highest quality of life, and they’re still the most socialist.

 Nope, everything you said is demonstrably false. Repeating false claims doesn’t make them any less false.

Those loans by Fannie and Freddie had nothing whatsoever to do with the housing bubble! Your moronic insistence to the contrary won’t change that.

I almost feel sorry for the republicans!  I said almost! What a bunch of nimrods they have to choose from!  Really, the only person who thinks Newt Gingrich is an intelligent man, is Newt!

Yeah, people who get Keynes’ name wrong are “boffoons”!  Like that Krugmna guy you are on about.  :)  Irony is fantistak, don’t you find?

krugman is biges idiot demokrat

Every time I see the comment “libtard” I think of some guy who looks and acts like Beavis or Butthead in their mothers basement making a comment.  

Right. Only an idiot like your self would blame Obama for Bush losing 8 million jobs in his last two years in office.
.  

Then handing over the country like a bag of shit on fire to Obama. 

Two wars. Millions of jobs being lost. Country going from a surplus to a trillion dollar yearly deficit. 

How can anyone take you Republicans seriously when your either mentally retarded or just was high during the Bush years. 

It’s like they never existed.