Paul Krugman: "In Defense of Obama"

[KingOrfeo]

Here is an awesome article from the The American Thinker . . .

No such thing has ever existed, nor will.

 

[Mello_SixtyNine]

I guess that you believe the New York Times is a bastion of impartial and ethical journalists.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I guess that you believe the New York Times is a bastion of impartial and ethical journalists.

Kindasorta but not so much.

 

[dan_c00000]

Well, he does have one more Nobel than you. And a job.

And one more high school diploma.

 

[The_Trouvere]

July 2, 2014 - Obama Is First As Worst President Since WWII, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; More Voters Say Romney Would Have Been Better

President Barack Obama is the worst president since World War II, 33 percent of American voters say in a Quinnipiac University National Poll released today. Another 28 percent pick President George W. Bush.

Ronald Reagan is the best president since WWII, 35 percent of voters say, with 18 percent for Bill Clinton.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-...y-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2056

--------

When Obama was inaugurated in January 2009 the unemployment rate was 7.8 percent. When he was reelected unemployment was again at 7.8 percent. In between it had risen to 10 percent.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

Obama's biggest "success" has been to force through a health care plan that most Americans do not like.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ddenly-obamacare-is-more-unpopular-than-ever/

I am not criticizing Obama from the left. I am certainly not criticizing him from the right. I just don't think he is competent. Before addressing health care he needed to concern himself with unemployment. Right after his inauguration his approval rating was about 65 percent. That was when he needed to raise taxes on the well to do. Then he needed to introduce a work program similar to the Civilian Conservation Corps, which was popular during FDR's first term.

Before working on his health care plan, which was never very popular, he needed to do what most Americans wanted. He needed to substantially reduce unemployment, and he needed to achieve successful conclusions to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In other words, he needed to clean up the mess Bush left.

If he had achieved those goals he would have had the credibility to expand health care to those who lacked it. Instead those goals have still not been achieved six years into his presidency. Obamacare is a big vote getter for the GOP.

Meanwhile, the black ghetto riots in Ferguson, Missouri remind white blue collar workers why their parents and grand parents voted for George Wallace in 1968 and Richard Nixon in 1972. Ebola will probably help the Republicans too. It intensifies popular emotions that range from distaste to loathing for third world immigrants.

 

[The_Trouvere]

And one more high school diploma.

I am pretty sure vetteman graduated from high school. I doubt NeverEndingMe did.

 

[Boxlicker101]

krugman has no credibility.

Except with imbeciles.

 

[Boxlicker101]

July 2, 2014 - Obama Is First As Worst President Since WWII, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; More Voters Say Romney Would Have Been Better

President Barack Obama is the worst president since World War II, 33 percent of American voters say in a Quinnipiac University National Poll released today. Another 28 percent pick President George W. Bush.

Ronald Reagan is the best president since WWII, 35 percent of voters say, with 18 percent for Bill Clinton.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-...y-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2056

--------

When Obama was inaugurated in January 2009 the unemployment rate was 7.8 percent. When he was reelected unemployment was again at 7.8 percent. In between it had risen to 10 percent.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

Obama's biggest "success" has been to force through a health care plan that most Americans do not like.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ddenly-obamacare-is-more-unpopular-than-ever/

I am not criticizing Obama from the left. I am certainly not criticizing him from the right. I just don't think he is competent. Before addressing health care he needed to concern himself with unemployment. Right after his inauguration his approval rating was about 65 percent. That was when he needed to raise taxes on the well to do. Then he needed to introduce a work program similar to the Civilian Conservation Corps, which was popular during FDR's first term.

Before working on his health care plan, which was never very popular, he needed to do what most Americans wanted. He needed to substantially reduce unemployment, and he needed to achieve successful conclusions to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In other words, he needed to clean up the mess Bush left.

If he had achieved those goals he would have had the credibility to expand health care to those who lacked it. Instead those goals have still not been achieved six years into his presidency. Obamacare is a big vote getter for the GOP.

Meanwhile, the black ghetto riots in Ferguson, Missouri remind white blue collar workers why their parents and grand parents voted for George Wallace in 1968 and Richard Nixon in 1972. Ebola will probably help the Republicans too. It intensifies popular emotions that range from distaste to loathing for third world immigrants.

And he was only able to get Obamacare through by lying like crazy about it.

 

[Wrong Element]

Here is an awesome article from the The American Thinker that goes into great detail (backed up by facts) about why Krugman is a complete and utter hack:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/paul_krugman_gives_up_1.html

Holy shit! Please stick to fluff only.


Krugman is mostly addressing his fellow liberals. I agree with a lot of what he said, but overall, it's not a record that makes Obama one of the greatest presidents.

His biggest mistake was that in his silly ambition of having everyone like him, he decided not to capitalize on the populist mood of the country in early 2009. You always get an upsurge of populism when the economy tanks, but Obama and his pals in Democratic fundraising circles were terrified of it -- result being that the right hijacked populism, and within two years the Tea Party and the billionaires were on the same side. Krugman has to know this.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

I am pretty sure vetteman graduated from high school. I doubt NeverEndingMe did.

pretty sure you've never had a real job ... and still living in mom's basement. but hey, what ever works for you ... loser

 

[The_Trouvere]

pretty sure you've never had a real job ... and still living in mom's basement. but hey, what ever works for you ... loser

Look in the mirror you nonentity. Everything you say about the liberals here is true of you. You are a poorly educated, unemployable waste of protoplasm.

The reason most people do not respond to your infantile raving is that you are on nearly everyone's ignore list. The reason you are not on my ignore list is that I keep hoping I catch you doing something that gets you banned.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Look in the mirror you nonentity. Everything you say about the liberals here is true of you. You are a poorly educated, unemployable waste of protoplasm.

The reason most people do not respond to your infantile raving is that you are on nearly everyone's ignore list. The reason you are not on my ignore list is that I keep hoping I catch you doing something that gets you banned.

oh pumpkin, you are a failure in every sense of the word. we both know it, but till you come to terms with it ...

enjoy the basement at mamma's and the library
(why is it that they forbade you from interacting with guests)??????

 

[The_Trouvere]

Here is an awesome article from the The American Thinker that goes into great detail (backed up by facts) about why Krugman is a complete and utter hack:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/paul_krugman_gives_up_1.html

The legitimate function of the internet is to substantiate factual assertions one makes in his own arguments. Anyone can find something on the internet they agree with. Posting a link to it and saying in effect, "Click on this. It's the truth," reveals one's intellectual limitations. At the very least one should present the argument in one's own words. Failing that, one should excerpt the important parts of the essay.

Ever since I was a child people have given me books to read with the message, "I can't answer your argument, but this book can."

My response to them, as it is to you is, "If you understood the book, convey it's argument. If you can't do that, you do not understand it. It just makes you feel good."

Of course I could say, "Here is a book for you to read." Then we are throwing books back and forth. That's tedious, don't you think?

I did read the essay by Fred Douglass. I will respond to it directly. Most of it is just a lot of emotion, but I will respond to his few debatable points.

 

[The_Trouvere]

Paul Krugman Gives Up

By Fred Douglass August 3, 2010

Krugman is an academic. He has never run a company. He has never created a job.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/paul_krugman_gives_up_1.html#ixzz3GgQKvsH9
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

----------

How many jobs did Milton Friedman create, or Friedrich von Hayek, or Ronald Reagan?

Claiming that businessmen are the only people who understand the economy is one of the facile arguments on the right. Businessmen frequently do not understand much beyond the company parking lot. Frequently they are astonishingly ignorant of general knowledge. Henry Ford once revealed that he thought the American Revolution happened during the 1820's.

 

[The_Trouvere]

Paul Krugman Gives Up

By Fred Douglass August 3, 2010

Here are a few: Obama's stimulus was too small. Debt is good.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/paul_krugman_gives_up_1.html#ixzz3GgSSeLcf
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

----------

The United States taxed and spent its way out of the Great Depression. After the inauguration of Franklin Roosevelt there was a steady decline in the unemployment rate, except for a year after 1937 after Roosevelt made the mistake of cutting government spending and employment.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html

When the top tax rate reached 94 percent, the unemployment rate declined to 1.2 percent.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

There was nearly as much economic growth during Roosevelt's first term as during the terms of Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge.

http://www.singularity.com/charts/page99.html

Professor Krugman never said, "Debt is good." He did say that during a period of high and persistent unemployment debt is not the main problem. Unemployment is.

Also, why are Republicans only concerned with deficit spending during Democratic administrations? From the presidencies of Harry Truman to that of Jimmy Carter the national debt declined as a percentage of gross domestic product. The national debt declined absolutely during Bill Clinton's second term.

The national debt only became a problem when Ronald Reagan cut taxes while raising defense spending. It has remaines a problem because Congressional Republicans prevent the high taxes on the rich that most Americans desire.

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

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=poll+++taxes+++rich

 

[The_Trouvere]

Paul Krugman Gives Up

By Fred Douglass August 3, 2010

Befitting his ideology, Krugman has only one policy to propose, regardless of topic: Transfer more resources from the discipline and dynamism of markets to the inefficiency and cronyism of government.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/paul_krugman_gives_up_1.html#ixzz3GgZBhHGO
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

-----------

I have already pointed out that the U.S. economy usually does better when the government is bigger, more expensive, and under Democratic presidents. This is true too: "Since 1900, the Dow has averaged a 7.8% annual gain under Democratic presidents, compared with a 3% annual gain under Republicans, WSJ reported earlier this year."
http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2012/11/06/what-an-obama-win-may-mean-for-stocks/

 

[The_Trouvere]

Paul Krugman Gives Up

By Fred Douglass August 3, 2010

For example, Robert Barro, the distinguished Harvard economist, noted that Krugman "just says whatever is convenient for his political argument. He doesn't behave like an economist." The New York Times ombudsman Daniel Okrent observed that Paul Krugman has "the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults." James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal, after listing the falsities in Krugman's latest piece on climate last week, hazarded that perhaps "Krugman makes himself ridiculous merely to make our job easy."

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/paul_krugman_gives_up_1.html#ixzz3GgcGmBF7
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

----------

These criticisms are not illustrated with details. They can be made of any economist whose writings have obvious political implications.

Any economic policy, and any change in economic policy will benefit some people at the expense of others. Economists advocate policies that are most likely to benefit the kind of people they like and care about. Occasionally the kind of people most liberals do not care about, like stock owners, benefit from liberal economic policies, as I have already pointed out.

This does not mean that economics is a pseudo science. It does mean that the writings of any macro economist should be read more skeptically than the writings of a chemist or a physicist.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

love how you fools stand around looking for the obama circle jerk

 

[The_Trouvere]

Paul Krugman Gives Up

By Fred Douglass August 3, 2010

For just as Krugman was declaring his love for his blog commenters last January, people started posting serious rebuttals of Krugman's standard claims about economics. These commenters were not obviously Republican stooges. They were not obviously members of "the political class." They were not obvious ideologues.

Rather, the posters simply knew some economic science and how jobs are created and economies grow,


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/paul_krugman_gives_up_1.html#ixzz3GgfWcyOL
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Jobs are created and economies grow when businessmen have more customers. Businessmen have more customers when most Americans have more money to spend.

The natural tendency of capitalism, and one noted by Karl Marx in 1847 when the wrote The Communist Manifesto, is to accumulate money at the top, where it stagnates. Cutting taxes for the rich probably creates a few jobs for butlers and chauffeurs. It does not lead to an expansion of jobs that pay middle class incomes.

Increasing government employment, raising the minimum wage, and raising blue collar incomes with strong labor unions create more robust growth in employment. This is why Democratic presidents usually have better records on job creation than Republican presidents.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

 

[NeverEndingMe]

ouch....

sucks to be obama

 

[The_Trouvere]

Paul Krugman Gives Up

By Fred Douglass August 3, 2010

For example, when Krugman a month ago drew one of his famous "trend lines" based on a single point, a blogger named rjh immediately responded, "These trend lines you are drawing all over the place. Pardon my French, they are complete garbage." And nearly half of Krugman's commenters joined to point out that Krugman was arguing junk.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/paul_krugman_gives_up_1.html#ixzz3Ggi9dfNr
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Garbage and junk fill Fred Douglass's article. Most of it is just right wing rhetoric.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

sucks for the sinking ships called SS obama aka no hope

 

[The_Trouvere]

Paul Krugman Gives Up

By Fred Douglass August 3, 2010

Responding to Krugman's praise for the high taxes in Europe and his repeated denial that tax cuts might stimulate an economy enough to make up for revenues lost, a European posting under his initials jg pointed out that the low Reagan-Clinton tax rates made "being an entrepreneur interesting again. All those internet startups like eBay, Amazon or Netscape would probably never have been created if it weren't possible for the inventors to get rich."

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/paul_krugman_gives_up_1.html#ixzz3GgiwrZdI
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Income tax receipts increased more under President Carter than President Reagan.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=203

Amazon and Netscape were both founded in 1994.

President Clinton raised the top tax rate in 1993.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

 

[The_Trouvere]

Paul Krugman Gives Up

By Fred Douglass August 3, 2010

Matching Krugman's repeated claim that the "stimulus" was too small, Sean produced peer-reviewed economic science from Alesina, who examined 92 attempts at stimulus since 1970 in OECD countries and found that tax cuts, but not spending, stimulated.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/paul_krugman_gives_up_1.html#ixzz3GglFn4Wp
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

I can't speak for OECD countries. In the United States during the eighty years from 1921 to 2000 the United States has had Republican presidents for forty years, and Democratic presidents for the other forty. Per capita gross domestic product in constant dollars has grown over twice as much under Democratic presidents. There was nearly as much growth during Franklin Roosevelt's first term as under the terms of Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge.

http://www.singularity.com/charts/page99.html

 

[NeverEndingMe]

hey throb .... the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results.


obama is a sunk ship


a loser, like you. wake up. go get a real job

By Fred Douglass August 3, 2010

Matching Krugman's repeated claim that the "stimulus" was too small, Sean produced peer-reviewed economic science from Alesina, who examined 92 attempts at stimulus since 1970 in OECD countries and found that tax cuts, but not spending, stimulated.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/paul_krugman_gives_up_1.html#ixzz3GglFn4Wp
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

I can't speak for OECD countries. In the United States during the eighty years from 1921 to 2000 the United States has had Republican presidents for forty years, and Democratic presidents for the other forty. Per capita gross domestic product in constant dollars has grown over twice as much under Democratic presidents. There was nearly as much growth during Franklin Roosevelt's first term as under the terms of Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge.

http://www.singularity.com/charts/page99.html