Paul Krugman: You Anti-Government Folks Are To Blame For State/Local Money Problems

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

Paul Krugman: You Anti-Government Folks Are To Blame For State/Local Money Problems

Written By : William Teach

If it’s a day ending in a “y”, it must be a day where an inside the beltway mentality liberal is making an absurd argument, casting blame, naming problems, but, unable to provide any rationale for his/her solutions. Over at Powerline, Paul eviscerates Excitable Matthew Yglesias over Matty’s ridiculous “Summer of Fear” opinion piece in the Washington Post. Not to be outdone, Paul Krugman provides his own deranged op-ed piece in the NY Times

The lights are going out all over America — literally. Colorado Springs has made headlines with its desperate attempt to save money by turning off a third of its streetlights, but similar things are either happening or being contemplated across the nation, from Philadelphia to Fresno.

Meanwhile, a country that once amazed the world with its visionary investments in transportation, from the Erie Canal to the Interstate Highway System, is now in the process of unpaving itself: in a number of states, local governments are breaking up roads they can no longer afford to maintain, and returning them to gravel.

And a nation that once prized education — that was among the first to provide basic schooling to all its children — is now cutting back. Teachers are being laid off; programs are being canceled; in Hawaii, the school year itself is being drastically shortened. And all signs point to even more cuts ahead.

So, what is the the answer? If you guessed some tax increases, you would be correct. He blames Republicans and “centrist” Democrats for worrying more about the deficit (which used to be bad in Paul’s World when Bush was president and the deficit was a fraction of what it is today) than about the nation’s infrastructure and teacher’s high salaries. Say, Paul, you make well over $250K a year: are you sending yearly taxes equal to what you would have paid while Clinton was president, since that is what you want all “the rich” to pay?

It’s crucial to keep state and local government in mind when you hear people ranting about runaway government spending under President Obama. Yes, the federal government is spending more, although not as much as you might think. But state and local governments are cutting back. And if you add them together, it turns out that the only big spending increases have been in safety-net programs like unemployment insurance, which have soared in cost thanks to the severity of the slump.

We ranted about runaway government spending under Bush, too, hence his overall low approval rating. Perhaps if your Chump Messiah and his crew, along with the Democrat Congress Critters (who’s been in charge of Congress since 2007?) had a clue as to the way the economy worked, they wouldn’t have put in place policies and legislation, with potential legislation and policies floating over Washington as threats, that makes companies from tiny to mega-huge hold off on increasing its workforce. If people were working, they would be spending, more tax money would hit the local and state coffers, and they wouldn’t have to worry about turning asphalt roads into gravel roads.

The rest is what you would expect, left wing rants with idiotic solutions based on late night Harvard bull sessions rather than Reality Land, ending with

The antigovernment campaign has always been phrased in terms of opposition to waste and fraud — to checks sent to welfare queens driving Cadillacs, to vast armies of bureaucrats uselessly pushing paper around. But those were myths, of course; there was never remotely as much waste and fraud as the right claimed. And now that the campaign has reached fruition, we’re seeing what was actually in the firing line: services that everyone except the very rich need, services that government must provide or nobody will, like lighted streets, drivable roads and decent schooling for the public as a whole.

See? It’s your fault, Conservatives and TEA Partiers, that government, which is spending more money than ever, creating monster sized deficits, harming the solvency of future generations, is so inept that it can’t keep the street lights lit. I don’t really have to mention that it’s actually idiots like Krugman, who believes that it is the government which drives wealth creation, rather than the private sector, do I?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach

baoxian

Krugman recognizes the problem but just plugs his ears and screams “LALALALALALA” rather than admit it. The liberal welfare state is a failure and it's taking the country down with it.

60% of the Federal budget is now entitlements, as well as about 50% of most state budgets. It doesn't take a math whiz to figure out that when that much of government is nothing but redistributed welfare, the lights are going to go out and the bridges are going to crumble.

As the country collapses around them, liberals will lash out at anybody that suggests Constitutional government, a balanced budget, or employer-friendly regulations and tax policy. Krugman has nothing to say about Obamacare, which will piss away another trillion dollars we don't have while cities lay off police and close schools.

Liberals are getting exactly what they've been demanding, and are wetting their pants when they see the results. They have two options: listen to the small government folks, or drive the country into ruin and civil war.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=836619118 Michael Torkildsen

HA, Paul Krugman is an idiot, hypocrite, and a liar. Here he admits that there IS fraud and waste…

“…those were myths … never remotely as much waste and fraud as the right claimed.”

See, he admits that there IS fraud and waste, just not as much as the right wingers claim.

Paul, STFU!

Big Richard

I'll bet there was more fraud and waste fro nteh Iraq fiasco than from the stimulus.

Anyway, it doesn't say to much about you to dismiss the experts so strongly. He's certainly no idiot (that's half term's status), hypocrite (that's the right wing, which opposes the health care changes even though they are a carbon copy of Mitt Romney's proposal), and liars (death panels, Obama is a commie, etc).

http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

A person is only an expert as long as they are usually correct in their assumptions/predictions/etc. Krugman has been wrong time and time again, as has Obama and Co.

As for healthcare, Mass. is having massive financial problems with their program.

maha

Krugman has been wrong time and time again

Here's a challenge: Make a list of at least ten times Krugman was wrong over the last decade, with links to what he said that was wrong. A list item doesn't count if there is no link or at least a very specific citation, e.g., title of book/article with page number. The list must be of predictions related somehow to economics, since that's his area of expertise.

I betcha can't do it without a LOT of fudging. The fact is that Krugman is rarely wrong.

StanW

I'll start out with one, Martha!

Krugman is partisan and a blatent hypocrite. He was a consultant for ENRON, who then criticized Bush during their crash, without disclosing he had ever advised them.

OK, your turn, why don;t you provide us an example of where Krugman was RIGHT.
maha

Stan W — If that's the best you can do, I win. Yes, we all know Krugman served for a time on an Enron advisory panel with some other prominent economists, from which he resigned in 1999 before taking the NY Times gig. This was open knowledge; he didn't lie about it. The panel met only occasionally, and Krugman says now the panel existed mostly to make Enron look more prestigious. Whoop-dee-doo.

And even if there were some ethics violation there — I say there wasn't — that still doesn't give us an example of something Krugman said about the economy that turned out to be wrong.

If Krugman so often wrong, it shouldn't be that hard to come up with ten specific things he was wrong about in the past decade, having to do with economics. If that's too much work, just five things. So far, you've got nothing.

Here's just one example of Krugman being right, according to another economist:

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsvie…
StanW

Interesting, Martha. The fact that Bush and Cheney used to be oilmen was cause enough to negate anything they said about energy. But Krugman can advise ENRON, failed to disclose that in articles criticizing Bush for ENRON, and that is not big deal. You even explain it away.

Well, I guess it takes one partisan Liberal hack to know one.
maha

We're going to disagree on the ethics charges. That's not an argument I want to get sucked into. Here's Krugman's explanation, which is satisfactory to me.

http://www.pkarchive.org/personal/EnronFAQ.html

On the other hand, there was a strong appearance (that I believe was verified eventually) that the Bush-Cheney administration allowed Enron execs to dictate their energy policy. That's kind of a big deal.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2002-01-30/news/1752…
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

What that Bush and Enron, like many conservatives, feel that business descisions should be made by business not by govt officials?? That's quite literally Bush's policy, and what Enron wanted, and that's wrong how? Can you prove that Enron requested this policy and Bush just gave it to them, or that they didn't just have the same ideas, and it is coincidental that they meshed? So far all your article proves about Bush and Enron is that you are a ok with the media being a fear monger.
Not just any Richard

You seem to forget what happened with Enron, when business dictated policy.

Could you give a worse example?
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

So Krugman, according to your link, got ONE thing right in his essay, there is nothing else they can point to in his entire article otherwise just that one thing, and that makes him an expert? I've read several articles tearing apart Krugman's screed about Friedman, and all say his general premise is bullshit. Yet you claim he's an expert because he got one small aspect correct?

Asshatma, you're a tool.
maha

bthewolf, someone asked me for ONE example of Krugman being right, and I provided it. I am a regular reader of his columns and usually agree with him, so as far as I'm concerned, he's usually right. Wrong would be exceptional. But if it's true that he's often wrong, you have to show me, and no one here can do it. All you can do is tell me that you and some other people disagree with him, but that doesn't mean he's the one who is wrong. You have to show me by real-world example that he was wrong.

I've read several articles tearing apart Krugman's screed about Friedman, and all say his general premise is bullshit.

And I've read several articles agreeing with Krugman about Friedman; here is just one

http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2007/01/milton_f…

… so that means nothing. Friedman is a great darling of the libertarian/free market crowd, so whenever anyone calls bullshit on Friedman the knees jerk in objection. But all they ever say is that Krugman must be wrong because he disagrees with the great and holy libertarian/free market ideology, about which most libertarians would rather cut out their own eyeballs before they will admit it doesn't work in the real world. But it doesn't.

But the challenge is to provide examples of things Krugman said that proved to be wrong, and all you can give me are hack right-wing opinions that disagree with him. I keep saying real-world; I don't think you people know what that means. That means Krugman said X would lead to Y, when in fact X led to Z.

I'll check back on this thread one more time before I declare victory.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

You dclared victory from the start and asked for 10 mistakes, and then can only provide a couple things some people think he got right????!!!

Pathetic, prove all of boax's list RIGHT or you have done nothing but prove you are a gullible partisan hack, willing to accept any experts view that supports your world view, no matter unreal it and Krugman make it.
Mahatma

Hey that's your man-crush name you use for me.
Mr. EMT

Stan W — If that's the best you can do, I win.

You were taught how to win wrong…as a joke.
abcxyz

that's one person saying (s)he thinks Krooksman is right about liquidity trap while citation to a paper by Anna Schwartz and Ed Nelson opining that, and I quote, “We also refute the conclusions that Krugman draws about monetary policy from the experiences of the United States in the 1930s and of Japan in the 1990s.” Both opinions, one of a blogger and the other of eCONmen at St Louis Fed and NBER.

None of that proves Krooksman to be right in the “real world” as you claim him to be.
baoxian

Done.

Krugman is a cheap hack and a partisan liar. I don't even need to skip an article because all of them are bursting with lies and ignorance.

8/8/2010 “America Goes Dark – Argues that we need tax increases and Federal bailouts of the states, both of which are economic poison.

8/6/2010 “The Flim Flam Man” – An ad homenim attack against Paul Ryan for proposing make entitlements solvent. Declares a Federal budget freeze to be impossible.

8/1/2010 “Defining Prosperity Down” – Blames Republicans and “conservative Democrats” for unemployment by refusing to piss away any more money on stimulus…which is already a proven failure.

7/29/2010 “Curbing Your Enthusiasm” – Claims Obamacare will “greatly improve American's lives”. Argues Obama's Cabinet isn't liberal enough, and still tries to push the absurd notion that Obama is “post-partisan”.

7/25/2010 “Who's Cooked the Planet” – No further citation necessary.

7/22/2010 – “Addicted to Bush” – Claims the only problem Republicans ever had with Bush was his low approval rating, a baldfaced lie.

7/18/2010 “The Pundit Delusion” – Argues for a bigger Porkulus Bill, despite its utter failure so far.

7/15/2010 “Redo that Voodoo” – Claims tax cuts don't create government revenue, despite plain fact to the contrary.

7/11/ “The Feckless Fed” – Wonders why the Fed isn't provoking inflation as a solution (which it isn't) to the economic crisis, when even he admits he doesn't know if it will work.

7/8/2010 “Pity the poor CEOs” – A laughable attempt to portray Obama as “pro-business” because the Dow went up a few points. Blames not Obama's policies, but the outlets reporting on them for “scare tactics”. Pushes for more government intervention when that's been the problem the whole time.
http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

Preciate the backup, baoxian. When I saw Maha's comment while out and about, I was going to do the same thing, look at his last 10 op-eds.

Well done! Let's see if Maha replies. Doubtful.
maha

I replied, Teach, and called bullshit on the reply. You can't just list a bunch of columns you disagree with. You have to show me something that is demonstrably, as in real-world, wrong, that turned out differently from how Krugman said it would turn out. And you can't do it.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Actually you're blind if you think anything posted there by Krugman was right. You can now prove him right, correct? Show us that, provide links, and please use non-partisan sources. Otherwise Krugman is just a hack, a one-time shill for Enron, and a partisan big government Keysian econo0mist with no grasp on reality.
maha

Show us that, provide links, and please use non-partisan sources.

*sigh* Krugman usually does a pretty good job of providing data to back up what he says, so Krugman's columns argue for themselves as well as I could argue for them. But for ONE MORE example, here's a blog post he wrote in January 2009 that turned out to be pretty much dead on correct, both economically and politically.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/sti…

I already know you will throw another tamtrum and scream that Krugman is wrong because you disagree with his reasoning, but events turned out just about as he said they would turn out, which is what I mean by “real world.”

However, so far the only example anyone has given here of something Krugman said that could be disputed is a statement about politics — what Republicans thought of Bush — not economics, but I don't have time to look up the column to find the context.

The original challenge shouldn't be that hard. If the guy is wrong so often, you ought to be able to dig up some of his columns and find predictions he made about the economy that turned out to be false, or statements of fact about the economy that can be shown to be false. But be sure it's something he actually said and not something you assume he said because you heard it somewhere else.

And to respond to someone else, no, I do not live in my mother's basement. I am 58 years old and own my own home, thank you. For three years in the 1970s I worked for a state government in the midwest, but the rest of my employment history has been in private business.
Christopher_Taylor

The original challenge shouldn't be that hard.

Yeah it wasn't. That's why it took less than an hour for someone to throw out 10 errors in only his last 10 columns. The fact that you're such a drooling sycophant you can't admit the errors doesn't make them go away.
abcxyz

lollll. Krooksman said in that opinion piece that stimulus would cut the unemployment to 7.3%, but never said by when. He is dead wrong right now but if the unemployment rate drops below 7.3%, EVER, he will be proven correct, right?
Mr. EMT

We realize you want to be shown “something” that you can see with your own eyes.
However, when your head is rammed so deeply into your ass, that your view is blocked by your colon, we will not bother to show you anything until you are able to show us you have managed to extract your skull from your posterior and wiped your eyes clean of the defecation you live in.
baoxian

He wanted lies of the last decade? I needed less than two months. Krugman is a pathological liar and delusional to boot. It might take ten years of column space to come up with a sentence of truth in that bearded gnome's rantings.
maha

He wanted lies of the last decade? I needed less than two months.

You never showed me ONE EXAMPLE of Krugman being actually wrong; just that you disagree with him, and I think you're the one who is wrong.

So I win. I won't be checking back here, since it's obvious none of you understands the difference between facts and opinion, and I doubt any of you could meet the challenge if I gave you a year to do so.
baoxian

Ha. We wouldn't be lucky enough for you to actually leave.

One fact I posted doesn't even require you to leave this site. Krugman said the only problem Republicans had with Bush was his approval ratings. Take a glimpse into past threads here and you'll see volumes of material opposing Bush on spending, Medicare D, and TARP.

Krugman is a proven liar, you're a proven idiot. Hit the road.
Christopher_Taylor

So basically what you're saying is “if I like what he had to say, it wasn't wrong.” Thanks for showing what a pathetic little leftist kool aid chugging wretch you are.
Mediumheadboy

Oooooh, that's gonna leave a mark.
maha

baoxian — Sorry, I say those are examples of Krugman being right. Just because what he says doesn't conform to your ideology doesn't make it wrong. It just means you disagree with him.

To win the challenge, you have to provide an example of something Krugman said that turned out to be wrong IN THE REAL WORLD, not just in your heads. In other words, if Krugman said X was going to go up when IN FACT X later came down.

I realizre this means you'll have to deal with tangible, real-world facts, which probably is not your forte, but give it a shot.

So far, y'all are zip. As I predicted.
baoxian

The average unemployment during the entire Bush Administration was 6.0%.

Ronald Reagan.

Karl Rove is guest hosting Rush Limbaugh's show today.

(Now I'm just saying things to piss you off)
maha

The average unemployment during the entire Bush Administration was 6.0%.

The original challenge called for you to link specifically to something Krugman said. I put that in because I know most of you don't actually read Krugman; you read other people's opinions about Krugman. So you don't actually know what Krugman writes, just what other people say he writes. Very often the critics misrepresent what Krugman said.

So, when you write, “The average unemployment during the entire Bush Administration was 6.0%” as if that statement in a vacuum is supposed to disprove something, I have to ask precisely what Krugman said that you think you are disproving.

Krugman has written many, many columns and blog posts on Bush's record on job creation, and if you want to find one and show me some fact Krugman presents that is incorrect, and you can document it is incorrect, that would be something.

I'll even help you out — one statement Krugman has made more than once is that Bush's record on job growth was worse than Clinton's. Here's a blog post on it:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/pat…

If there's something in that post you think is untrue, le's hear it.

Ronald Reagan.

Ronald Reagan what? What specifically did Krugman say about Reagan that you can document is not factual?
the_hawk

I would look at it this way: If the unemployment rate is as low as it can go, then why was there a need to create jobs? Everyone who wants to work is working!

Anyway, it's a known FACT that president's don't directly create jobs. Their policies can make it easier or more difficult for business to expand, but jobs are created by demand and need.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

You haven't done anything to prove Krugman right, outside of one example that I already showed was essentially meaningless.
maha

You haven't done anything to prove Krugman right, outside of one example that I already showed was essentially meaningless.

Your opinion means nothing to me. You haven't done anyting to prove Krugman wrong, which was the original challenge. Teach said “A person is only an expert as long as they are usually correct in their assumptions/predictions/etc.” So show me something Krugman said that turned out to be wrong IN THE REAL WORLD. Not according to somebody's bullshit opinion because Krugman's ideas don't conform to their ideology. Show me stuff that ACUTALLY HAPPENED differently from how Krugman predicted or assumed they would happen.

If he's wrong as much as you guys seem to think he is, that should be easy. What's your problem?
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

If he's right as much as you seem to think he is, that should be easy prove. What's your problem?
Mr. EMT

And in other news on earth, bailouts fail to really bail out anything.
Stimulus fails to stimulate, and shocker of all shockers, raising taxes on people actually makes it harder for them to spend money and cripples the economy.

Oh and maha is a moron that does not live in the real world and is a basement dwelling momma's boy who has never had to have a job to provide his own well being much less will ever possess the world skills needed to have a sense of responsibility.
the_hawk

Then, here are two examples:

“In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We've all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false.” (NY Times column on August 17, 2009)

There are documented and verified examples all over the web about how crappy the health care system in Britain is. Just do a search.

And this:

“You've probably heard about the accusations leveled against climate researchers–allegations of fabricated data, the supposedly damning e-mail messages of “Climategate,” and so on. What you may not have heard, because it has received much less publicity, is that every one of these supposed scandals was eventually unmasked as a fraud concocted by opponents of climate action, then bought into by many in the news media.” (NY Times column on July 26, 2010)

A flat out lie. The authenticity of the email messages is not in dispute. And the damage to the AGW has been both measurable and devastating.
Mr. EMT

Ten times in one month…
Christopher_Taylor

Yeah all it takes is a peek at his last 10 articles at the outside, the man makes the most absurd and laughable assertions and patently false statements on a regular basis. Why not? The left believes him without question and loves what he says.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

“The fact is that Krugman is rarely wrong.”

Then it should be simple to prove, but so far you haven't done jack to prove it, only asked us to do all the work proving him wrong. I say until you prove him right at least 75% of the time, you're just a partisan hack who accepts Krugman because he agrees with world view.
Mr. EMT

You claim rarely wrong, but you “think” not more than ten times in ten years in public speeches consisting largely of opinion…
Think you just proved how incompetent he is with out anyone having to lift a finger to do anything other than say,
Look the word “rarely” up, you clearly do not know how to correctly use the term.
Yes Yes Richard

Maha was proven correct in his assertion that Krugman has been right mo often than not.

Funny thing about Krugman. Started off as a conservative then grew a brain. Check out the New Yorker profile from a ear or so ago.

baoxian

Since when were conservatives ever proponents of government-run health care? Romney is a liberal Republican from a liberal state that got some Democrats to vote for him when he ran for President. He didn't get the nomination, in case you forgot.

Obama and his Administration have admitted the death panels are coming, and he's not a communist. He's clearly a Corporatist/Fascist in his style of government. Communists at least pretend to give a crap about the plight of the working class.
anwatkins

Since the last two points were already covered, what about Obama's own “half-term status?” You realize he quit half way through his term AFTER promising to serve the entire term.

Yes Richard

He became President, which is the antithesis of quitting.

Half term became a Fox mouthpiece.

anwatkins

How is that the antithesis of quitting?

Here is what he told TIm Russert in 2006:

Russert: When we talked back in November of ‘04 after your election, I said, “There’s been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your six-year term as United States senator from Illinois?”

Obama: “Absolutely.”

Obama: I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things. But my thinking has not changed.

Russert: So you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?

Obama: I will not.

So, if that is not half-term, what is? He quit the senate three years after he was elected, which is…..half a term. If you do not like htta phrase goven to him, then how about liar????

mightysamurai

I'll bet there was more fraud and waste fro nteh Iraq fiasco than from the stimulus.

I would love to see you try to prove that.

Seriously. Prove it.

Right now.

Show us the numbers proving there was more waste from the Iraq War than from the trillion-dollar Stimulus.

Go on, make us eat our words. I dare you.

Anyway, it doesn't say to much about you to dismiss the experts so strongly.

By contrast, it says a great deal about you that you automatically believe the so-called “experts”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

He's certainly no idiot (that's half term's status)

Hey now! There's no call to drag Obama into this!

hypocrite (that's the right wing, which opposes the health care changes even though they are a carbon copy of Mitt Romney's proposal)

Yeah, that Mitt Romney! The guy conservatives supported so hard they voted for him in a massive landslide during the '08 Republican Primaries!

…Oh wait…
Hotspur1

Come back when you learn how to spell, troll.
http://conservativebootcamp.com Martin Hale

Petey? Is that you?
Mr. EMT

If you had a job to have any possessions or property, other than your parents, to bet with, I would take that bet and you would loose.
Even Biden has announced Iraq = Succes…
And biden said of the stimulous = not much success….
And that was from BIDEN, who is apparently showing more intelligence than obamao these days.

As for your claim that mitt romney's healthcare BS is supported by the right wing?
Try again.
I don't see ANYONE on the right claiming that Mitt's healthcare was a good idea, nor did I see anyone supporting it when it was at its beginning stages.
Btw, don't look but obamao, who was raised by communists, mentored by communists, and has friends who are rabid marxists, communists, socialists is actually himself, a communist.
Christopher_Taylor

Wow you really are impervious to facts and logic, aren't you? You keep repeating the same absurdly demolished talking points as if nothing at all has happened, apparently out of the belief that restating a lie often enough makes it true.
Christopher_Taylor

Maybe, depending on how you define waste and fraud. Does that somehow mean the “stimulus” package was free of fraud and waste – not even by your own attempt at an argument.

The stimulus was a boondoggle, a failure wrapped in a fraud.

UFKA_Smithwick

Yeah but you see the bribes and wasted money will trickle down and help the economy.

The politician who gets a bribe, or the union boss with his kickbacks is then able to go out and buy some hookers for his friends, and maybe some cocaine. That necessitates the hiring of more lawyers in addition to helping out the anti-biotics companies and maybe shovel and quicklime companies depending on how the party goes. The young prostitutes they abuse are now able to buy some meth for themselves and their children (stimulating American chemical companies as well as a variety of teeth replacement products) and some fancy new boots and skirts. And so on and so forth.

So really what you see as “government waste and inefficiency” is actually just Obamas stimulus plan part B.

Actually111

I'm putting this blog on the “blocked” list. No reason to listen to your clueless blather. When you finally wake up you'll realize you're part of the problem – not offering solutions. thumbs down

baoxian

My, the trolls are getting pissy lately. I guess Messianic Letdown can cause some pretty big mood swings.
StanW

And you should ACTUALLY let the door hit you on the way out. Good riddence to bad trach!
UFKA_Smithwick

You realize that isn't necessary. You could simply not post here or read it.

It would be hard, but we'd manage to get by without you.

Mediumheadboy

Trolls honestly do believe the world revolves around them, don't they?

mightysamurai

I love when trolls show up to tell us how they're leaving and never coming back. The insincerity and faux-machismo drips from their words like warm molasses.

Mediumheadboy

But then there's asswipes like that jharp turd, who say they're going to leave and then don't. Typical lying cockholster lefticles.

Mahatma

Flagged for gratuitous potty-mouthitis.*

Limited vocabulary range used by those with limited cognitive skills.

http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

OK, then, Actually111, what are your solutions? Please, share. What do we do? Democrats have controlled Congress since 2007, and the WH since 2009. The economy is not getting better. Shall we continue with the same old failed policies you folks have to offer?

Oh, if you think taxation is so wonderful, then you have sent in what you would have been paying under Clinton, right?

mightysamurai

Didn't you hear, William? Actually111 is leaving and never coming back.

We're now bereft of his soaring intellect and razor wit forever! Oh woe is us!

Hotspur1

And this means what to us? I've never even seen you on this blog before.
http://conservativebootcamp.com Martin Hale

I'm putting this blog on the “blocked” list.

Well now, that'll make a big difference in everyone's life, I'm sure. Seriously. We'll all miss you terribly. But at least putting us all on your little sh*t list will make you feel potent, powerful, maybe even masterful. Good on you mate.

No reason to listen to your clueless blather.

Well, there never was any reason you had to listen in the first place. But if it makes you feel better in saying it, then carry on.

When you finally wake up you'll realize you're part of the problem – not offering solutions.

I'll have to take you at your word on this one, mate, since you yourself have never offered any advice, guidance, ideas or solutions during your stay here, let alone even post here before. It's tough to decide whether you've got the solutions and answers we need when you've done precious little offering of such.

thumbs down

I could be wrong about this, but I suspect that most folks here could suggest something else you might do with your thumb.

Cheers. Have a nice journey.
Mediumheadboy

Awwwwwwww, the troll won't be flinging any more feces here. What a shame.
Mr. EMT

Well said, obamaton. Your dear leader is proud of the way you eat his shit sandwiches and pass the left overs out.
Christopher_Taylor

What ISP are you using that compels you to take Right Wing News unless you specifically block it? Goofball.

UFKA_Smithwick

So the people who were against runaway spending are to blame for the problems caused by runaway spending?

I assume likewise that he'd argue anyone who called the cops to report a crime be immediately arrested for causing that crime. Or that anyone who protested the war be held personally responsible for every single death occurring in that war.

StanW

FLAG ON THE PLAY!

Expecting consistency from a Liberal – 15 Yard Penalty and loss of down.
baoxian

You're obviously not listening to Krugman. Borrowing and spending money does not lead to debt. We're only in debt when a conservative points out we're in debt…thus it's his fault. Kind of like the tree falling in the woods. Only makes a sound if you're the one that heard it.

You're also behind on the crime thing. This country is now one big Yakov Smirnov joke. “In Obama's America, illegal immigrants sue you!”

http://conservativebootcamp.com Martin Hale

Yup. No doubt about it – months of high unemployment and sluggish economic performance couldn't possibly have anything to do with cutbacks in state and local spending. It's that $60k a year accountant holding up a sign at a TEA Party event wot done it. Ought toss the bastard in gaol and throw away the key, they should.

That's Nobel Prize-winning analysis? It sounds remarkably like just another partisan voice to me.
http://twitter.com/RightKlik RightKlik

Paul “Journolist” Krugman's opinion is worthless. He's a partisan hack who regurgitates decades-old democrat talking points. Krugman's work isn't based on facts and reason; it's based on emotion and a blind commitment to statism.
baoxian

Just thought I should mention that when Sarah Palin left office, Alaska had $7 billion in the bank.

This Richard

Because half term taxed the oil companies.

the_hawk

There was already a budget surplus before she did that.

AustinSC

When you rail against Obama's stimulus package, Krugman's argument makes more sense. 40% of the spending was in the form of direct aid to state and local governments, intended to avoid exactly what Krugman is describing – decaying infrastructure and closing schools.

And another 35% of it went to $400 tax credit for individuals and $800 for couples, but we don't want to hear about that, do we?

http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

So, then the stimulus really didn't put people back to work, it just kept the public sector at work. For a short time, anyhow.

Those tax credits never happened. Instead, the withholding was changed to slightly increase what people made. The actual tax credits were to be part of the budget, as Obama wanted (and, it was a good idea, I will give him that), but, alas, the Democrat Congress punted on the actual budget, so, the idea never made it into law.
gfchicago

What are the local and state governments going to do when all of this funding goes away? They will be in the same boat that they were in before. So how does this help the rest of us, when private entities are not creating lasting jobs. The money will not be their for all of the pubic entities because we can't afford it.

Granted I'm not as highly educated as Martin Hale and some of the other conservative posters on this board, however I do have common sense and this whole mess with Obama is just plain stupid.

The tax cuts that you are talking about don't mean jack squat, and they are for one time only. What happens next year?

Christopher_Taylor

Krugman's columns are like reading a fourth grader's report on dinosaurs. He has a lot of the right words, but they don't link together in a rational, conclusive progression and his logic is generally spurious.
ken_l

Fascinating thread … like dropping into a children's nursery when the kiddies are overtired and haven't had their nap.

Ed Klein on ‘The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House’

Premium Right Ads

Blogads Right

Previous Features

40 Of The Most Bad-Ass, Masculine, Manly, Alpha Male Quotes Of All Time

Why Men Are Becoming Wimpy, Video Game Playing Slackers Who Don’t Want To Get Married

Horror You Will Never Get Out Of Your Brain Again: Bronies

The 10 Best Obama Ate A Dog Images From Around The Web

User Info

Features

Archives Best of RWN Humor John Hawkins Interviews Quotes Special to RWN