On Sunday’s Face the Nation on CBS, fill-in host Chip Reid discussed the economic crisis with left-wing economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, wondering: "I know you've been arguing for a more progressive government for a long time and obviously at difficult times like this, I don't want to suggest that a recession is a good thing. But if looking back at this five years, or some number of years, from now, can you envision a country that is better off because of how it responded to this recession?"
In response, Krugman explained: "Well, if you believe, as I do, that we need a stronger social safety net, that we need universal healthcare, then the revelation of just how vulnerable we are when things go wrong is going to help." Krugman went on to praise the New Deal: "We came out of the New Deal, we came out of the 1930s, as a better country, a middle class country, where we had been in the Gilded Age. We came out as a country that took better care of its citizens."
Reid later asked about Krugman’s view on bipartisanship:
REID: Barack Obama has talked a lot about the need to reach across the aisle on everything, on all of his policies, foreign policy and this. And clearly in the Senate you can't get anything done with anything less than 60 votes, you need Republicans. And in fact, I've been told on Capitol Hill they want a lot more than 60 votes, they want this to be genuinely bipartisan, which brings me to your book, which I was actually reading last night. And on page 272, I'm not playing gotcha, but I just wanted to see, you talk about the fact that the Republican Party is controlled by movement conservatives. You then say, quote, 'the notion beloved of political pundits that we can make progress through bipartisan consensus is simply foolish.' Are you suggesting that the kind of bipartisan consensus Barack Obama is looking for is foolish?
KRUGMAN: He's -- you know, that -- he's not going to get bipartisan consensus. He may be able to get some moderate Republican votes. May be able to get the moderate Republicans in the Senate, both of them. To go vote with the Democrats. There -- the point is, you look at what John Boehner is doing in the House right now, the House Republican leader, he's dead set against doing anything constructive right now. He's actually soliciting on his website, saying 'if there are any credentialed economists who are willing to, you know, say negative things about stimulus plans, please contact me.' So no, it's not going to be bipartisan in the sense that leaders of both parties are going to get together, reaching out across the aisle trying to find some sensible people on the Republican side is not the same thing.
Here is the full transcript of the segment:
10:30AM TEASE:
CHIP REID: How long is this devastating recession going to last and how deep will it go? We'll ask economist Paul Krugman.
10:49AM SEGMENT:
CHIP REID: With us now from New York City, Paul Krugman, winner of the 2008 Nobel Prize in economics, he's also the author of 'The Return of Depression Economics' and 'The Conscience of a Liberal.' Paul, thank you very much for joining us and congratulations on the Nobel Prize.
PAUL KRUGMAN: Well, thank you.
REID: How long do you see this recession lasting?
KRUGMAN: Oh, boy, it's not a simple question. I mean, I expect, if only because of all the money that the Obama Administration is going to spend, I expect to see some pick up late 2009. But I think we're going to be in trouble for several years. It's going to be a tough, long-term slog.
REID: 'In trouble,' how deep do you see this going? And some people have made comparisons to the 1930s, do you think that's fair and accurate?
KRUGMAN: You know, if we were as ignorant as we were in the 1930s, I think we would be facing a second Great Depression. You look at the scope of this thing, you look at -- you know, we're in trouble, but go around the world. I mean, I've been looking at numbers to for Ukraine, which are terrible. All around the world there's this crisis taking place. The -- really the only reason that we're not headed for Great Depression II, at least I don't think we are, is that we think we've learned a few things since then. So we're not trying to balance the federal budget in the face of a recession. But this is -- this is big stuff. This is the worst thing, you know, in two life times.
REID: I -- I mean, people are moving very quickly on this Obama plan, you know, they want to have it on his desk, the economic recovery plan, on his desk probably a week to ten days, according to people in the Senate, after he is sworn in. Very different from back in the 1930s. I mean, you had the stock market crash in 1929, you didn't really have a depression until years later because they didn't do anything. Is that correct?
KRUGMAN: Well, they didn't do anything. In fact they did perverse stuff. I mean, Herbert Hoover raised taxes in the face of the slump. He -- people were cutting spending in the face of a slump, and the Federal Reserve at the time sort of didn't understand the risks. That said, it's not so easy to deal with this thing. I mean, everybody, I think, that I'm talking to is worried about time. We're talking about, you know, there may be a stimulus package on Obama's desk a week or ten days after he takes office. But these things take time to get going. It's going to take six months, probably, before you get any significant amount of stuff going through, maybe they can do better than that, we'll see. Probably a year before a lot of activity starts happening. And meanwhile, we lost more than half a million jobs last month, we're probably losing jobs at the rate of 600,000 a month now. The economy needs to add 100,000 jobs a month just to keep up with the population. So, you know, time is passing, things are headed downhill and it's going to be a long time before, even with all of this speed, before the Obama plan gets any traction.
REID: David Axelrod, a top Obama advisor, a short time ago on this show, said that he is still talking about a number of 675 billion to 775 billion. And I think that's a two-year figure, do you think that's enough or does it need to be bigger than that?
KRUGMAN: I'd like to see it bigger. I understand that there's difficulty in actually spending that much money. I think they're also afraid of the 'T' word, they're afraid of trillion dollars for the two-year number. But, you know, on the back of my envelope says it takes roughly 200 billion a year to cut the unemployment rate by 1% from what it would otherwise be. In the absence of this program, we could very easily be looking at a 10% unemployment rate. So you do the math and you say, you know, even these enormous numbers we're hearing about are probably enough to mitigate, but by no means reverse, the slump we're headed into. So this is, you know, I -- they're thinking about it straight. I like what Larry Summers wrote in the Washington Post. I think he was getting it right that the risks of being too small are much bigger than the risks of being too big. Nonetheless, I am actually concerned that this thing is not going to be really big enough.
REID: How do you see this recession, and the response to it, changing this country? I know you've been arguing for a more progressive government for a long time and obviously at difficult times like this, I don't want to suggest that a recession is a good thing. But if looking back at this five years, or some number of years, from now, can you envision a country that is better off because of how it responded to this recession?
KRUGMAN: Well, if you believe, as I do, that we need a stronger social safety net, that we need universal healthcare, then the revelation of just how vulnerable we are when things go wrong is going to help. If you believe that we've gone way too far in this belief that the market is always right and that regulation is always wrong, then this is one heck of a lesson in what happens if you don't adequately regulate financial markets. So I think we may be seeing a swing of the political pendulum as a result of this crisis that will hopefully leave us a better nation in the long run. We came out of the New Deal, we came out of the 1930s, as a better country, a middle class country, where we had been in the Gilded Age. We came out as a country that took better care of its citizens. That doesn't mean that you hope for a depression, right? So we hope that this thing is
relatively short, shorter than I expect it to be, and that it's not as bad as I expect it to be. But, yeah, I mean, we're learning something and hopefully we'll make some use of those lessons.
REID: Barack Obama has talked a lot about the need to reach across the aisle on everything, on all of his policies, foreign policy and this. And clearly in the Senate you can't get anything done with anything less than 60 votes, you need Republicans. And in fact, I've been told on Capitol Hill they want a lot more than 60 votes, they want this to be genuinely bipartisan, which brings me to your book, which I was actually reading last night. And on page 272, I'm not playing gotcha, but I just wanted to see, you talk about the fact that the Republican Party is controlled by movement conservatives. You then say, quote, 'the notion beloved of political pundits that we can make progress through bipartisan consensus is simply foolish.' Are you suggesting that the kind of bipartisan consensus Barack Obama is looking for is foolish?
KRUGMAN: He's -- you know, that -- he's not going to get bipartisan consensus. He may be able to get some moderate Republican votes. May be able to get the moderate Republicans in the Senate, both of them. To go vote with the Democrats. There -- the point is, you look at what John Boehner is doing in the House right now, the House Republican leader, he's dead set against doing anything constructive right now. He's actually soliciting on his website, saying 'if there are any credentialed economists who are willing to, you know, say negative things about stimulus plans, please contact me.' So no, it's not going to be bipartisan in the sense that leaders of both parties are going to get together, reaching out across the aisle trying to find some sensible people on the Republican side is not the same thing.
REID: Okay, great. Paul Krugman, thank you so much for joining us. Happy New Year.
KRUGMAN: Thank you.
—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Bi-partisan means do
December 31, 2008 - 17:18 ET by mattmBi-partisan means do whatever the Democrats want.
Hey Paul-boy, you need to educate yourself: http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=111
Somebody help me.
December 31, 2008 - 17:20 ET by sadHow did we come out a democrat elongated depression a better country?
To Krugman, a better America
December 31, 2008 - 21:41 ET by GregETo Krugman, a better America is one that is dependent who's citizenry is most dependent on government. The further in the tank we economically go, the more willing we are to let government bend us over. The further we're bent over, the harder it is to get back to the prone position again. Exactly what liberals want. Someone standing upright is ready for you and will fight back hard, but someone that's bent over with their head between their knees is defenseless.
if this is what *********
December 31, 2008 - 22:25 ET by TruthMongerif this is what dickheads like krugman want then MOVE TO A SOCIALIST COUNTRY
THIS IS NOT A SOCIALIST COUNTRY YOU LIBERALS BONEHEADS - MOVE AWAY MOVE AWAY MOVE AWAY
~
December 31, 2008 - 22:27 ET by Free Stinker~
How? Simple...
January 1, 2009 - 08:11 ET by misterbee241We went to war and kicked come Japanese butt and took some Nazi names, and then rebuilt those two countries because we are good people. We had the backbone it took to take the fight to the enemy (Col. Jimmy Doolittle) and win. It did wonders for our self esteem.
We dont have that now and Obama's not going to restore it.
Rush Limbaugh, with tongue
December 31, 2008 - 17:28 ET by motherbeltRush Limbaugh, with tongue in cheek, calls this show "Slay the Nation."
I like my version better: Fleece the Nation.
mb... Either one works
December 31, 2008 - 17:36 ET by bigtimermb...
Either one works for me..."Fleece the Nation" seems to be perfectly fitting now though.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Deface The Nation
December 31, 2008 - 20:18 ET by choselife3xA friend of mine calls it 'DeFace The Nation'.
I can't bring myself to watch it.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Unfortunately:
December 31, 2008 - 17:37 ET by Chris Norman"Progressive" government = repressive government.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
You lose any credibility
December 31, 2008 - 17:39 ET by fitzfongYou lose any credibility right off the bat when you describe socialist economic policies as "progressive". That is a knowingly dishonest expression and anyone who uses it should be discredited. And asking the opinion of an arrogant economic illiterate like Paul Krugman just underlines Chip Reid's lack of fitness to be a journalist...as if the use of his infantile nickname wasn't enough to disqualify him.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
fitz,I always resented
December 31, 2008 - 17:46 ET by Chris Normanfitz,
I always resented liberals hijacking the term "progressive". Who defines what's "progress"? I'd say people living prosperous lives with as much individual liberty as possible is certainly "progressive". The only claim the liberals should have to "progressive" is their damned income tax scale.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Liberals take words and
December 31, 2008 - 21:48 ET by GregELiberals take words and phrases and give them the meaning they want, then use it so often that it becomes mainstream......Examples are......
Progressive
Gay (once meant happy, now never used in that manner)
Green (means a color, but quickly losing that)
Employee Free Choice Act (describing the polar opposite of free choice, that being to take away an employee's secret union vote)
I'm sure there are others, but those stand out to me.
liberal words
December 31, 2008 - 21:58 ET by porpoiseboyafter a nice couple hours here on nb chat i always leave feeling gay. you're right, it was hard to type that! ;-)
"Here comes the orator! With his flood of words, and his drop of reason" Ben Franklin
Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left
negro becomes colored
December 31, 2008 - 23:29 ET by Kevroynegro becomes colored becomes black becomes african-american.
hobo becomes bum becomes homeless
illegal alien becomes illegal immigrant becomes undocumented worker
tax becomes revenue enhancement
retard becomes mentally challenged
abortion becomes pro choice
if you dont like the word, just change it....liberal become progressive.
negro becomes colored
January 1, 2009 - 07:25 ET by motherbeltnegro becomes colored becomes black becomes african-american.
You left out that it then went full circle to "people of color."
And don't forget that kids etc. can't use rainbows as symbols of hope anymore, because the gays have seized that as their own!
They've taken something beautiful and perverted it...
January 1, 2009 - 08:23 ET by misterbee241Government Owns the printing presses, so Ponzi scheme works
December 31, 2008 - 17:40 ET by upcountrywaterand the dollar is up (today)!
So how long will this last..
We are talkin Faith here.
Believe in more gov spending money that ain't printed yet, Ponzi SQUARED.
How long will it be before we sell Hawaii to China, you know to pay off the trade imbalance?
The depression lasted 10 years... welcome to year 1
FREEDOM
(D)
Krugman
December 31, 2008 - 18:12 ET by iveseenitallThis ass won the Nobel Prize in economics. Another indication of the trouble we are in. Krugman is a socialist "professor" who fancies himself an economist. Probem is-- you have to live in the real world to understand the economy. Barry is a poorly educated child actor and political thug who fancies himself a leader of the free world. Problem is--you have to live in the real world in order to lead the free world. I watch both these clowns and have to stop myself from weeping for America, a once great nation which has slid into Third Worldism. Prepare yourself and your children for what is coming. The party is over and no one is left who knows how to or wants to clean up the mess. But some "liberal" is sure to drop a match and then the burning will begin. Sad.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
isia.. The party is over
December 31, 2008 - 18:35 ET by bigtimerisia..
The party is over and no one is left who knows how to or wants to clean up the mess.
I do pray someone comes along in the next four years that nobody knows much about to do just what you wrote above...in the meantime, the destruction from the mess we are in for in the net four years, that cannot be undone for decades is past sad.
I also bow my head and weep for what I have seen happen in my lifetime, and it is going down hill now at break-neck speed.
I hope you and your wife have a healthy, safe, wonderful year together.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
BT
December 31, 2008 - 19:11 ET by iveseenitallSame to you, BT. God Bless.
The first step in "change", Chip Reed, is to report the word!
December 31, 2008 - 18:28 ET by Gary HallThe first step in change, Chip Reed, is to report what your [progressive] experts really have to say.
NB readers: The context here is about media bias. Progressives have a right to speak their mind, but the media has the obligation to say all of what they are saying. Put it all out Chip Reed, and let's see how the voters (and I'm thinking of the Democratic base - the worker bee - here). If you equip them with the full story - that these progressive voices are so far to the left of even the Bill Clinton's of the world - consider what the reaction might be.
Now. Krugman knows a lot more than you want in this conversation in this moment in time. Krugman, back in 2005, in "Running out of bubbles:"
Well, they knew all along, but they support it anyway.
Housing bubble? What caused the housing bubble? Well, the rather progressive "Village Voice" spelled it out, just recently in Aug. '08, in, Andrew Cuomo and Fannie and Freddie -- How the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history gave birth to the mortgage crisis:"
And, specifically how did that happen? Well, in Nov. of 2000, during the last days of the Clinton Administration, and almost a year into the last rather historic bubble crash and beginning of a recession which cost millions of jobs:
Oh, and by the way, who was proposing rather historic regulation to get all of this under control back in 2003?
Yea, the MSM knows all this - but censorship is how they put Obama in the White House.
Other progressive voices? One of the MSM's (Moyers and the LA Times especially like this socialist economist) most revered leftist economists, Dean Baker, of CEPR. Although the MSM wasn't listenning, he was sounding the warnings back in 1999 - 2000, etc., and reminding us in 2001 that the financial leadership under Bill Clinton was the worst since Herbert Hoover, and while this MSM will go to him day in and out to get specific pokes at the Bush administration, he is still trumpeting the same message. For instance in just last month, in The high priests of the bubble economy, he laid out why he thinks that Obama is way too conservative, while continuing to lay most of the blame for the crisis on the Clinton era:
OK, so Bush gets some of the blame for it happening on his watch.
But what about the far left? Let's look at what the west coast left-wing rag, "Dissident Magazine" had to say back in Aug. of 2008, as the mushroom food was hitting the fan. In The Legacy of the Clinton Bubble, it's laid out once again for us:
Chicago? You think that Obama and the soon to be indicted governor would have noticed.
Wonder why the MSM doesn't pass all of this readily available information, of which they are quite familiar with, along to the general mainstream public? Well, it really no rocket science, is it? The media wants pure socialism forced on the US public. If the broad public were to actually understand what all these experts are really after, the MSM understands that they would finally hear the voice of a deeply troubled "we the people." They might just have a different definition of the term, "Change," than you do.
That's mushroom science, folks.
(;~> gary
CYA for Democrats
December 31, 2008 - 18:36 ET by dmaley1714The democrats are in charge they do not need the Republicans to pass a single peice of legislation, they have a majiority in both houses. It is now time for them implment what ever goof y ideas they want. Republicans did not block the auto bail out, if all the Democrats vote for some socialist plan it is in there laps
Krugman is not a trained
December 31, 2008 - 18:41 ET by EdhenryKrugman is not a trained economist, but calls himself a "social economist". He is wrong historically, on economics and politically, including his misstatements on about the 30s, Hoover's actions, the stimulus, healthcare. If there was anyone at that interview that had any brains, guts or even common sense, Krugman could have been pummeled. And I mean pummeled. But he gets away with this bulls#!% everytime with these one on ones.
Sadly, Reid has nothing. And like the fossil media, likes too much the socialist agenda. It is not "progressive", it is totalitarian, which is the ultimate regression.
Krugman's history?
December 31, 2008 - 18:45 ET by GalvanicKrugman ignores the fact that it was our victory in WW2 that saved the New Deal and pulled us out of Depression, leaving us as the most prosperous country on the planet.
Krugman not a trained
December 31, 2008 - 20:42 ET by NL207Krugman not a trained Economist? Think again. He is currently a Professor of Economics at Princeton. He TRAINS future economists.
Does he have a lick of common sense? H*** No! Notice he is just chock full of lefty opinions, 'believes' before he 'thinks', and avoids public debate where his bogus ideology might be challenged, even embarassed, like the plague.
Well what do you
January 1, 2009 - 07:32 ET by motherbeltWell what do you expect?
Princeton has (or at least did have, I don't know if he's still there) Dr. Peter Singer, a guy who believes in infanticide for the disabled, as a professor of bioethics.
Go figure.
I think it's important for
December 31, 2008 - 18:45 ET by rbosqueI think it's important for those seeking journalism degrees to take Economics and MicroEconomics classes. If they're going to cover this topic, it's best that they know what they're talking about. This is an example of ignorance.
Journalism Degree
January 1, 2009 - 08:43 ET by AgnosticEconomics (Home, Micro, Macro, International, etc...) should be required of all. History, History, History and English should be required of Journalist.
As a bonus there should be absolutely no creative writing classes in a journalism curriculum.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
What the Krugmeister
December 31, 2008 - 18:58 ET by BlazerWhat the Krugmeister failed to mention however was that big government and large social programs didn't bring us out of the thirties and The Great Depression " just fine", WWII did.
Ignorance along with revisionist history is bliss when it comes to most liberals.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Krugman
December 31, 2008 - 19:40 ET by iveseenitallI'm afraid we may never return to a time when an economist was an economist and a sociologist was a sociologist (whatever that term means). This new-age jackass represents the phony, P.C. world we live in today. I guess Krugman has spread himself too thin. One can't be both a good economist and a good sociologist (whatever a "sociologist" is). But, of course, Krugman is neither a good economist nor a good sociologist (whatever that is). He's just a politically correct, nasty, ignorant "liberal" phony---just the type to win that once-respected Nobel Prize (for sociologist - economics?, Huh?)
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Not to mention isia,
December 31, 2008 - 20:01 ET by BlazerNot to mention isia, socialist and economist is a bit of an oxymoron. Imho, an economist should love capitalism not loathe it as Mr. Krugman does.
He should take the -ist off of econom- and just add it to commun-. It would suit him better.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Socialism
December 31, 2008 - 19:47 ET by rick007If every body is on the Govt. take who will work??????????
Give everybody a free ride in the U.S. and you will have to import millions of labors to work.
Why should I work for a wage to buy a house when the goverment will give me one?
Why should I work to provide insurance for me and my family when the goverment will provide it for me?
Why should I work to send my kids to collage when the goverment will pay their tuition?
sorry duplicate
December 31, 2008 - 19:48 ET by rick007sorry duplicate
Progressive=Liberal=Insane=Doom-----
December 31, 2008 - 21:13 ET by Roscoe MendagoWhat has liberalism achieved? (Some say) it got us out of the Great Depression, I say, as all I've read indicates, it prolonged it. What the hell have we learned? How many times do the politicians insist on making the same mistakes and do an about face with index finger extended to point blame. People like Krugman just want friends, how else could he get people to talk to him. He comes up with his hair brained ideas about economics, publishes them and the socialists get all warm, fuzzy and wet. O'Reilly should have jumped across his desk and pinched his head off when he had the chance. Ya know, screw bipartisanship, that's exactly what got us into this problem in the first place. The fear of being called a racist for not granting affordable home loans to people who couldn't afford'em. People like Frank, Dodd, Waters and all the progressives, the stinking liberals, who facilitated the current mess should all be booted from the Senate and House and then dropped at sea with 155mm shells duct taped between their legs.
Come on people grab your pitch forks, light the torches-----OK, grab a beer, forget it.
Just remember what Everly Waverly once said, "I always vote a straight Republican ticket, I sleep better."
Roscoe
December 31, 2008 - 21:56 ET by iveseenitallRight on, Roscoe. I think it was Einstein who defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over--expecting a different result. For example, it is loosening the credit and lowering interest rates that got us into the economic mess. So what do we do to "fix" the problem--loosen the credit and lower the interest rates. Duh! And electing an inexperienced,incompetent manchild to be President simply because he is black? Holy Cow----American "liberals" are nuts!
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Quote from a lost post----
December 31, 2008 - 22:09 ET by Roscoe MendagoYea, the flippin liberals are gonna get us all killed---
This is something I posted earlier, a quote...it relates to how experienced the "chosen one" appears to be and the stark reality of his total lack of anything beyond rhetoric....
If Barack Obama had given a speech on bowling, it might well have been brilliant and inspiring. But instead he actually tried bowling and threw a gutter ball. The contrast between talking and doing could not have been better illustrated. Thomas Sowell----
RM... Oh now, those are
December 31, 2008 - 23:16 ET by bigtimerRM...
Oh now, those are precious, priceless words from Sowell.
Thank YOU!
Btw..Have a great Next Year!
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
This is awesome....
December 31, 2008 - 21:52 ET by GregEOctober 2001.
http://www.unifr.ch/...
Alfred Nobel's intention in creating and endowing the prizes was not
merely to reward great achievements, but to stimulate further work.
Paul Krugman, an economist and New York Times Op-Ed page columnist,
complains that the economics prize "ends up going to people who are not
only long past their productive research years but even past the
mentoring stage."
GregE,
December 31, 2008 - 22:16 ET by R D HelmNice find. :-)
-Dave
“Them that’s going get on the wagon.
Them that ain’t get out of the way.”
CBS’s Reid: Will Country
December 31, 2008 - 21:53 ET by R D HelmCBS’s Reid: Will Country Be ‘Better Off’ With ‘Progressive Government’?
CBS’s Reid: Will Country Be ‘Better Off’ With ‘Regressive Government’?
There, fixed it. :-)
There is nothing "progressive" about socialism.
-Dave
“Them that’s going get on the wagon.
Them that ain’t get out of the way.”
It's amazing how cavalier
December 31, 2008 - 21:57 ET by celatorIt's amazing how cavalier Reid and Krugman are when they discuss the "merits" of progressive government for the United States. They are, of course, talking about National Socialism, the preferred government style of Obama and company. No wonder they like him.
We are in for some strange times.
I can answer this one...
December 31, 2008 - 23:02 ET by Clear thinkerI can answer this one... No, and Hell No!
A progressive government = regressive government.
Obama vs Palin - Who’s Sexy?
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Here we go with the
January 1, 2009 - 07:15 ET by AlgerHissHere we go with the euphemisms again: Progressive.
Here’s the deal: They are not progressives, or populists or liberals. They are leftists.
All together now, say along with me: LEFTISTS
Rochester, Minnesota: A Fem_Leftist City!
They co-opted the
January 1, 2009 - 14:38 ET by RR GOPThey co-opted the "progressive" label at least going back to the 1920s. I guess "progressive" sounded less threatening than "Communist".
However, I don't that today they need to even hide behind that. Come out and say you're a Communists, Marxist, whatever and most Americans either won't care or would think that's a good thing.
One of the 24% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 89% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.