Paul Krugman- Republicans Hate America

[Winehole23]

Have it! Just give us Texas and everyone will be happy.

I wish you all and Barney Frank lots of luck and happiness on your journey to rebuilding America.

However much you may consider the secession of Texas a spiritual fait accompli, it flies in the face of the facts. We're still estadounidense.

Whose side were you on again?

[Winehole23]

It's our standard reply because we are mocking you. Every time someone says, "why do you hate America," the right is being made fun of for all the years they spent saying, "why do you hate America?"

The difference, we're joking- you seriously ing meant it. Do you not understand that dumbass?

I think he does.

It's getting to be a broken record, ballijuana. For me, it's bad enough that it already was one. The sardonic echoes proceeding in the other direction are even more tired and pompous than the phony jingo umbrage was in the first place.

Let's talk baseball, and cut down on the stupid chatter.

[johnsmith]

It's our standard reply because we are mocking you. Every time someone says, "why do you hate America," the right is being made fun of for all the years they spent saying, "why do you hate America?"

The difference, we're joking- you seriously ing meant it. Do you not understand that, dumbass?

First of all, link to where I ever said one of those things please.


Second, I'm pretty sure it was a joke then too, you were just to angry to recognize it as such.................weird thing about it though is that you are still just as angry.

[balli]

It's getting to be a broken record

I know... I'm tepidly sorry for doing it initially, I shouldn't have distorted Krugman into a tired joke- at least not in the le. And it's only been a week so this "hating America" ship will sail soon enough.

[balli]

First of all, link to where I ever said one of those things please.

Look into majestic pluralization.

And yes, the right did mean it, all those YEARS they spent saying it.

[johnsmith]

Look into majestic pluralization.

Ok, but only if you look into broad generalization.

[johnsmith]

Look into majestic pluralization.

And yes, the right did mean it, all those YEARS they spent saying it.

I have to quote you twice now since you can't muster up a complete thought at once and go back and edit your after the fact.

Anyway, I don't think the right did mean it, I think they meant it the same way you do.

[balli]

Ok, but only if you look into broad generalization.

Are you seriously going to try to deny the right's use of accusations about patriotism during the Bush years? That's not a generalization, it's a stone cold fact. Give me a ing break.

[johnsmith]

Are you seriously going to try to deny the right's use of accusations about patriotism during the Bush years? That's not a generalization, it's a stone cold fact. Give me a ing break.

I'm going to deny it when you speak specifically about a group that I associate myself with yet have never uttered the words you brought up and therefore have painted me in a light that I don't truly belong in.


It's sort of like the temper tantrum you threw when Angel Luv called you the devil or whatever the she said to merit a finger lashing from the hands of an angry Ute.

[balli]

I'm going to deny it when you speak specifically about a group that I associate myself with yet have never uttered the words you brought up and therefore have painted me in a light that I don't truly belong in.

I didn't say about you personally. Anytime I used the word you, I was clearly, clearly, speaking in the context of right v left. Again, look into majestic pluralization.

[johnsmith]

I didn't say about you personally. Anytime I used the word you, I was clearly, clearly, speaking in the context of right v left. Again, look into majestic pluralization.

It's our standard reply because we are mocking you.

See, a period symbolizes the end of a complete thought. Therefore, you are talking about me.

Then you called me a "dumbass" at the end. To me, that isn't clearly, clearly speaking of context of right v left. Again, look into broad generalization.

I'll be accepting apologies between 5:00 and 6:00 PM Pacific Standard time via instant messaging. Until then, carry on with your Boutons like anger all over the political forum. I wonder if you are this miserable in real life?

[DarrinS]

Q: What did Reagan do back in 1981, during one of the worst recessions?

Hint: He didn't drastically increase the size of govt. and raise taxes.

People forget what a mess Reagan inherited from Jimmy Carter.



If I'm against giant govt and I'm for low taxes, does that automatically make me an anti-American, anti-Obama, political hack?

[ChumpDumper]

Hint: He didn't drastically increase the size of govt. and raise taxes.

Right, he drastically increased the size of government and cut taxes of the rich.

And '81 was nothing compared to this -- all one had to do back then was jack up interest rates to kill inflation. Not as simple today.

[DarrinS]

Right, he drastically increased the size of government and cut taxes of the rich.

And '81 was nothing compared to this -- all one had to do back then was jack up interest rates to kill inflation. Not as simple today.

Uh, do you even know what you're talking about?

[ChumpDumper]

Absolutely. Thinking Reagan didn't drastically increase the size of government is cute, but wrong. That's like saying W didn't do it either.

[Winehole23]

http://www.buyandhold.com/bh/en/educ...l_volker2.html

[balli]

Hint: He didn't drastically increase the size of govt. and raise taxes.

If I'm against giant govt and I'm for low taxes, does that automatically make me an anti-American, anti-Obama, political hack?

First, you're going to get huge tax cuts and stimulus checks under Obama.

Second, I'm sorry you don't want to face the reality that the Govt. has to inject money into the system, propose something better or build a time machine.

[ElNono]

Listen, it's not that complicated. As Winehole pointed out earlier, the Keynesian recipe for dealing with recession is to increase government spending. You can increase spending in two ways: Cutting taxes and/or increasing spending on programs. Normally both are done. There's no defined set ratio between the two. So most conservatives push for tax cuts, while the liberals normally push for the programs. Why follow Keynes? Well, his recipe is pretty much the only available, and was used both on the great depression and in the economic crisis in Japan in the 90's. While there are no guarantees it will work, it's pretty much all we have. So those looking to balance the budget right now, it's just not going to happen. It makes no economic sense. Once prosperity returns, we can go back to trimming spending.

[DarrinS]

http://www.buyandhold.com/bh/en/educ...l_volker2.html

That was actually a good read.

[BradLohaus]

The real problems are:

1.) the wealth continues to become concentrated at the very, very top

2.) (partly because of #1) the masses of consumers don't have the purchasing power to continue to live the way they way the do for much longer

3.) the government owes more in debt and en lements than it can ever hope to pay without a serious devaluation of the dollar, and that amount will only grow in the future

Fiscal stimulus will help numbers 1 and 2 in the short term while hurting number 3 in the long term... which is why the government loves it - they are here in the short term, and gone in the long term.

Krugman is hot right now after winning the Nobel Prize and all, but people seem to forget that he was writing articles like this in Japanese periodicals in the 90s... and his advise didn't work. Not that anyone else's really did either, which is really the point. This is the beginning of another huge test for Keynes's theories. We'll probably just get into another huge war again and claim that they passed the test again.

[ElNono]

The real problems are:

1.) the wealth continues to become concentrated at the very, very top

2.) (partly because of #1) the masses of consumers don't have the purchasing power to continue to live the way they way the do for much longer

3.) the government owes more in debt and en lements than it can ever hope to pay without a serious devaluation of the dollar, and that amount will only grow in the future

Fiscal stimulus will help numbers 1 and 2 in the short term while hurting number 3 in the long term... which is why the government loves it - they are here in the short term, and gone in the long term.

Krugman is hot right now after winning the Nobel Prize and all, but people seem to forget that he was writing articles like this in Japanese periodicals in the 90s... and his advise didn't work. Not that anyone else's really did either, which is really the point. This is the beginning of another huge test for Keynes's theories. We'll probably just get into another huge war again and claim that they passed the test again.

I actually adventure that we'll go in circles. When the recession moves over somebody is going to refloat monetarism, then let free-market take over again... then we'll drive right back into recession...

[Winehole23]

That was actually a good read.

The way many people see it, the Volcker Fed chairmanship vindicated monetarism. He whipped inflation with a 20.5% prime rate. Then he refused to loosen as quickly and as much as the politicians wanted him to. Volcker took inflation seriously.

We're at the opposite pole, trying to stave off deflation. All the monetaristic rope is played out with rates effectively already at zero. So the solution has to be fiscal if there is one at all. If demand craters more than the 2-3% of GDP we're going to spend, we'll only be softening the blow, but if a deflation spiral is thereby averted, it'll have been worth doing. Is the way the village wisdom goes.

Averts deflation? Maybe. Who knows?

If it fails we'll know for sure Keynesian priming doesn't work at the chosen magnitude. If it succeeds, people will say the economy didn't need saving anyway. That it was about to get better all on its own.

Softens the blow? This takes me back to the old joke about pissing in dark slacks: it gives you a nice warm feeling, but nobody else can tell.

[Rogue]

as the vicious cycle would have it the democrats are going to take this blame in 4 or 8 years.

this thread sucks even more than tmac does.

we are facing a financial desaster which is generated by decades of ignorance and abusement, so it can not be resolved overnight. the cluprits are the housellers I think. these motherf***ers sold their houses at sky high prizes and most americans don't have cash to afford them, so they had to buy them on credit. Our banks had always been generous to loan money to help our business starters and family builders, but the dollars they had lent all went to the pockets of those f***ing house-sellers who used the money to avoid being charged after ing their moms.

[Winehole23]

as the vicious cycle would have it the democrats are going to take this blame in 4 or 8 years.

this thread sucks even more than tmac does.

we are facing a financial desaster which is generated by decades of ignorance and abusement, so it can not be resolved overnight. the cluprits are the housellers I think. these motherf***ers sold their houses at sky high prizes and most americans don't have cash to afford them, so they had to buy them on credit. Our banks had always been generous to loan money to help our business starters and family builders, but the dollars they had lent all went to the pockets of those f***ing house-sellers who used the money to avoid being charged after ing their moms.

[angrydude]

The real problem is our standard of living is too high compared to how much money we make. That's why we buy everything on credit and then default on the debt. The Fed's response for the past 30 years has been to cut interest rates effectively putting more money into the economy to cover up this fact and ensure there was plenty of credit to go around. Now that we've run out of interest rates to cut we're just going to make money the old fashion way--by printing it.

The country needs a recession to get back to some sort of balance. Too bad we've put it off for so long that now its going to be much worse than it would have been in the past. Even if this measure does what its intended to do its only going to prolong the inevitable.