CBS’s Reid: Will Country Be ‘Better Off’ With ‘Progressive Government’?

Photo of Kyle Drennen.

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.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Bi-partisan means do

Bi-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.

How did we come out a democrat elongated depression a better country?

To Krugman, a better America

To 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 *********

if 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  

~

~

How? Simple...

We 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

Rush Limbaugh, with tongue in cheek, calls this show "Slay the Nation."

I like my version better: Fleece the Nation.

mb... Either one works

mb...

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

A 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:

"Progressive" government = repressive government. 

The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.

You lose any credibility

You 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

fitz,

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

Liberals 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

 after 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

negro 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

negro 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...

Genesis 9:13-17 (New King James Version): 13 I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth. 14 It shall be, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud; 15 and I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 The rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will look on it to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” 17 And God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth.”

Government Owns the printing presses, so Ponzi scheme works

and 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

This 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

isia..

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

Same to you, BT. God Bless.

The first step in "change", Chip Reed, is to report the word!

The 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:"

The important point to remember is that the bursting of the stock market bubble [Oh, that would be the Clinton bubble of the late 90's] hurt lots of people - not just those who bought stocks near their peak. By the summer of 2003, private-sector employment was three million below its 2001 peak. And the job losses would have been much worse if the stock bubble hadn't been quickly replaced with a housing bubble.

So what happens if the housing bubble bursts? It will be the same thing all over again, unless the Fed can find something to take its place. And it's hard to imagine what that might be. After all, the Fed's ability to manage the economy mainly comes from its ability to create booms and busts in the housing market. If housing enters a post-bubble slump, what's left?

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:"

He [Cuomo] turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money down, and he legalized what a federal judge has branded "kickbacks" to brokers that have fueled the sale of overpriced and unsupportable loans. Three to four million families are now facing foreclosure, and Cuomo is one of the reasons why.What he did is important—not just because of what it tells us about how we got in this hole, but because of what it says about New York's attorney general, who has been trying for months to don a white hat in the subprime scandal, pursuing cases against banks, appraisers, brokers, rating agencies, and multitrillion-dollar, quasi-public Fannie and Freddie.

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:

HUD ANNOUNCES NEW REGULATIONS TO PROVIDE $2.4 TRILLION IN MORTGAGES - FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR 28.1 MILLION FAMILIES

Oh, and by the way, who was proposing rather historic regulation to get all of this under control back in 2003? 

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae "The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." NY Times Sept. 10, 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:

Rather than handing George Bush a booming economy, Clinton handed over an economy that was propelled by an unsustainable stock bubble and distorted by a hugely over-valued dollar.

The 2001 recession was relatively short, but the economy continued to shed jobs for almost two years after the recession ended. Because President Bush refused to abandon the high dollar policy, the only tool available to boost the economy was the housing bubble. In addition to the growth created directly by the housing sector, the wealth created by this bubble led to an even sharper decline in saving than the stock bubble.

Of course, the housing bubble is now in the process of deflating. The resulting tidal wave of bad debt has created the greatest financial crisis since the second world war. With the loss of $8tn in housing wealth, consumption has seized up, throwing the economy into a severe recession.

While the Bush administration must take responsibility for the current crisis (they have been in power the last eight years), the stage was set during the Clinton years. The Clinton team set the economy on the path of one-sided financial deregulation and bubble driven growth that brought us where we are today. (The deregulation was one-sided, because they did not take away the "too big to fail" security blanket of the Wall Street big boys.)

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:

THE CONVENTIONAL wisdom has held that economic policy was a great success under Bill Clinton in the 1990s and a failure ever since. .. The only problem is that the story line is flawed. One could even say that it’s a bit of a fairy tale.

[..]

Chickens Come Home to Roost

HISTORY SHOULD deal harshly with Bill Clinton. Throughout his terms, real wages stagnated, manufacturing and service jobs moved overseas in large numbers, and the middle class was squeezed. With the federal government asleep at the wheel, there was a significant rise in predatory lending practices by banks and mortgage companies. By Clinton’s final years in office, all of these trends had contributed to an ominous rise in delinquencies and foreclosures on subprime mortgage loans. This was particularly pronounced in urban America. In Chicago, for instance, foreclosures on subprime mortgages rose from 131 in 1993 to more than 5,000 in 1999.

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

The 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

Krugman 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?

Krugman 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

Krugman 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

Well 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

I 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

Economics (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

 

What 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

I'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,

 Not 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

 

If 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 

 

 sorry duplicate 

Progressive=Liberal=Insane=Doom-----

What 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

Right 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----

Yea, 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

RM...

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....

October 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,

CBS’s Reid: Will Country

CBS’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

It'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...

I 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

Here 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

They 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.