Krugman was not invited to the Tea Party

[LickNeckey]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html?_r=1&src=tp

[steve dave]

krugman is great

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

LOL, Krugman is insane.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

LOL, Krugman is insane.

This.  None of that makes any sense, nor is it based in reality.  What a dolt.  He's the Forrest Gump of economics.

[sys]

i'm pretty good at explaining simple concepts to stupid people, so if fake sd or john dougie have any questions about the column, just post them up and i'll be happy to pretend explain his arguments as a means of showing everyone reading the thread how dumb you are.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

i'm pretty good at explaining simple concepts to stupid people, so if fake sd or john dougie have any questions about the column, just post them up and i'll be happy to pretend explain his arguments as a means of showing everyone reading the thread how dumb you are.

Pretty sure the only thing you could tell me that I don't already know is the recipe to the secret sauce in a Big Mac.

@Paul_Krugman

Auto loans are cheap right now, everyone should buy 20 cars.  You'll never get a chance to finance a car at this rate again.

What an imbecile 

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html?_r=1&src=tp

Krugman is a Keynesian Ideologue.  His refusal to accept the results of his theories application in real life is why he's insane.  We like ideologues because they are uncompromising in their principle (see the Ron Paul following), however this is no way to run a country.

Sort of on-topic. 

Ominous parallels between Obama, Roosevelt grow
By: Walter Williams | 08/15/11 7:05 PM
Examiner Columnist
People are beginning to compare Barack Obama's administration to the failed administration of Jimmy Carter, but a better comparison is to the Roosevelt administration of the 1930s and '40s.

Let's look at it with the help of a publication from the Mackinac Center for Public Policy and the Foundation for Economic Education titled "Great Myths of the Great Depression," by Lawrence Reed.

During the first year of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, he called for increasing federal spending to $10 billion while revenues were only $3 billion.

Between 1933 and 1936, government expenditures rose by more than 83 percent. Federal debt skyrocketed by 73 percent. Roosevelt signed off on legislation that raised the top income tax rate to 79 percent and then later to 90 percent.

Hillsdale College economics historian and professor Burt Folsom -- author of "New Deal or Raw Deal?" -- notes that in 1941, Roosevelt even proposed a 99.5 percent marginal tax rate on all incomes more than $100,000. When a top adviser questioned the idea, Roosevelt replied, "Why not?"

Roosevelt had other ideas for the economy, including the National Recovery Act. Reed says:

"The economic impact of the NRA was immediate and powerful. In the five months leading up to the act's passage, signs of recovery were evident: Factory employment and payrolls had increased by 23 and 35 percent, respectively.

"Then came the NRA, shortening hours of work, raising wages arbitrarily and imposing other new costs on enterprise. In the six months after the law took effect, industrial production dropped 25 percent."

Blacks were especially hard hit by the NRA. Black spokesmen and the black press often referred to the NRA as the "Negro Run Around," Negroes Rarely Allowed," "Negroes Ruined Again," "Negroes Robbed Again," "No Roosevelt Again" and the "Negro Removal Act."

Fortunately, the courts ruled the NRA unconstitutional. As a result, unemployment fell to 14 percent in 1936 and lower by 1937.

Roosevelt had more plans for the economy, namely the National Labor Relations Act, better known as the "Wagner Act." This was a payoff to labor unions, and with these new powers, labor unions went on a militant organizing frenzy that included threats, boycotts, strikes, seizures of plants, widespread violence and other acts that pushed productivity down sharply and unemployment up dramatically.

In 1938, Roosevelt's New Deal produced the nation's first depression within a depression. The stock market crashed again, losing nearly 50 percent of its value between August 1937 and March 1938, and unemployment climbed back to 20 percent.

Columnist Walter Lippmann wrote in March 1938 that "with almost no important exception every measure [Roosevelt] has been interested in for the past five months has been to reduce or discourage the production of wealth."

Roosevelt's agenda was not without its international admirers. The chief Nazi newspaper, Volkischer Beobachter, repeatedly praised "Roosevelt's adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies," and "the development toward an authoritarian state" based on the "demand that collective good be put before individual self-interest."

Roosevelt himself called Benito Mussolini "admirable" and professed that he was "deeply impressed by what he [had] accomplished."

FDR's very own Treasury secretary, Henry Morgenthau, saw the folly of the New Deal, writing: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. ... We have never made good on our promises. ... I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... and an enormous debt to boot!"

The bottom line is that Roosevelt's New Deal policies turned what would have been a three- or four-year sharp downturn into a 16-year affair.

The 1930s depression was caused by and aggravated by acts of government, and so was the current financial mess that we're in. Do we want to repeat history by listening to those who created the calamity? That's like calling on an arsonist to help put out a fire.

Examiner Columnist Walter E. Williams is nationally syndicated by Creators Syndicate.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/08/ominous-parallels-between-obama-roosevelt-grow#ixzz1ipAcTm8R

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

i'm pretty good at explaining simple concepts to stupid people, so if fake sd or john dougie have any questions about the column, just post them up and i'll be happy to pretend explain his arguments as a means of showing everyone reading the thread how dumb you are.

Nearly 5 trillion of our 16 trillion in debt is owned by foreign countries, do they agree with Krugman that we only owe the money to ourselves, so we should keep spending?

[sys]

Nearly 5 trillion of our 16 trillion in debt is owned by foreign countries, do they agree with Krugman that we only owe the money to ourselves, so we should keep spending?

every dollar’s worth of foreign claims on America is matched by 89 cents’ worth of U.S. claims on foreigners.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Nearly 5 trillion of our 16 trillion in debt is owned by foreign countries, do they agree with Krugman that we only owe the money to ourselves, so we should keep spending?

every dollar’s worth of foreign claims on America is matched by 89 cents’ worth of U.S. claims on foreigners.

us govt. =/ us citizen/entity

 

[sys]

Nearly 5 trillion of our 16 trillion in debt is owned by foreign countries, do they agree with Krugman that we only owe the money to ourselves, so we should keep spending?

every dollar’s worth of foreign claims on America is matched by 89 cents’ worth of U.S. claims on foreigners.

us govt. =/ us citizen/entity

 

why are you so stupid?  do you think it's an effective posting technique?  it is not.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Nearly 5 trillion of our 16 trillion in debt is owned by foreign countries, do they agree with Krugman that we only owe the money to ourselves, so we should keep spending?

every dollar’s worth of foreign claims on America is matched by 89 cents’ worth of U.S. claims on foreigners.

us govt. =/ us citizen/entity

 

why are you so stupid?  do you think it's an effective posting technique?  it is not.

Why are you such a smug bad person?  Technique?

Instead of being an bad person why don't you explain why Krugman's ramblings are good policy.

You're acting like a douche bag.

[sys]

Why are you such a smug bad person?  Technique?

yes.

Instead of being an bad person why don't you explain why Krugman's ramblings are good policy.

the context of the quote under discussion was re. the us govt debt being principally owed to ourselves or to foreign entities, ergo, your comment was either a deliberate or negligent non sequitur.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Why are you such a smug bad person?  Technique?

yes.

I prefer satire

Instead of being an bad person why don't you explain why Krugman's ramblings are good policy.

the context of the quote under discussion was re. the us govt debt being principally owed to ourselves or to foreign entities, ergo, your comment was either a deliberate or negligent non sequitur.

you need to think hard about who's being negligent here:

Nearly 5 trillion of our 16 trillion in debt is owned by foreign countries, do they agree with Krugman that we only owe the money to ourselves, so we should keep spending?
v.
every dollar’s worth of foreign claims on America is matched by 89 cents’ worth of U.S. claims on foreigners

FWIW, the notion "we owe it to ourselves" is doltish, foolish and proof off krugman's insanity.  It seems "we've" decided we don't want to "owe it to ourselves" any more. 

Hopefully the u.s. and "foreign" are allies, wouldn't want to piss off foreign since we owe foreign more money than foreign owes us

[sys]

FWIW, the notion "we owe it to ourselves" is doltish, foolish and proof off krugman's insanity.

no, it makes a huge difference.  compare japan v greece.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

FWIW, the notion "we owe it to ourselves" is doltish, foolish and proof off krugman's insanity.

no, it makes a huge difference.  compare japan v greece.

you aren't thinking very hard

[sys]

you aren't thinking very hard

thinking is easy for me.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

you aren't thinking very hard

thinking is easy for me.

obviously

[LickNeckey]

 

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

President Barack Obama has been increasing the national debt during his presidency by an average of $4.24 billion per day ($4,240,506,004.34) putting him on a pace to increase the national debt by $6.2 trillion ($6,195,379,272,340.74) by the end of his term on Jan. 20, 2013, according to the debt figures published by the U.S. Treasury.

That $6.2 trillion is more debt than was accumulated by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Bill Clinton combined.

In fact, the U.S. national debt did not eclipse the $6.195 trillion level—the amount Obama is on pace to increase it in one term—until August 19, 2002, during President George W. Bush’s second year of office.

The national debt was $10.6 trillion ($10,626,877,048,913.08) on Jan. 20, 2009, the day Obama was inaugurated. As of the close of business on Jan. 11, 2012, it was $15.2 trillion ($15,236,307,075,631.58.) In Obama’s first 1,087 days in office, the debt increased $4.6 trillion ($4,609,430,026,718.50)—or an increase of $4.24 billion ($4,240,506,004.34) per day.

At that daily rate, the debt would increase a total of $6.2 trillion ($6,195,379,272,340.74) over the entire 1,461 days of Obama’s four year term.

At the close of business Aug. 19, 2002, the total national debt was $6.195 trillion.

Link

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Since debt doesn't matter, why is our government being so stingy? I've got a mortgage and student loans I'm sick of paying - who can I vote for that will pay those for me?

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Since debt doesn't matter, why is our government being so stingy? I've got a mortgage and student loans I'm sick of paying - who can I vote for that will pay those for me?

Yea, I just posted that for informational purposes. I say we see exactly how much we need to spend before everyone in the U.S.A. is a millionaire, then we will be able to pay ourselves back through taxes. 

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Since debt doesn't matter, why is our government being so stingy? I've got a mortgage and student loans I'm sick of paying - who can I vote for that will pay those for me?

Yea, I just posted that for informational purposes. I say we see exactly how much we need to spend before everyone in the U.S.A. is a millionaire, then we will be able to pay ourselves back through taxes. 

I would be happy to buy some T-bills to help make this happen. As long as it is American held debt, it's Ok, right?

[LickNeckey]

as a good god fearing american i have chosen to buy my niece and nephew t-bills for christmas and birthdays (i also buy them some shitty dollar tree crap so they have something to open), while you let the chinese invest their yuan in our future greatness

 

a true patriot this guy,

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

as a good god fearing american i have chosen to buy my niece and nephew t-bills for christmas and birthdays (i also buy them some shitty dollar tree crap so they have something to open), while you let the chinese invest their yuan in our future greatness

 

a true patriot this guy,

You buy your niece and nephew $10,000 bonds for christmas?  Somebody isn't paying their "fair share".