Krugman: 'If Obama Called for Endorsing Motherhood Republicans in the House Would Oppose It'
If it's Sunday, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman must be "saying something really stupid or outrageous."
On ABC's "This Week," the Nobel laureate told host Christiane Amanpour, "If Obama called for endorsing motherhood, the Republicans in the House would oppose it" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
PAUL KRUGMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: Obama has an interesting problem, because I think that I, the way I think of it there’s three different things. There's what we should be doing. And what we should be doing is a huge public investment program. No better time to do it. Government can borrow money almost for free. Lots of unemployed workers.
Then there’s the question, but it's not going to happen, because the second question is what can actually pass Congress? And the answer is nothing. Nothing. If Obama called for endorsing motherhood, the Republicans in the House would oppose it.
Really?
As his own newspaper reported August 1, 174 House Republicans voted for an Obama-endorsed agreement to raise the debt ceiling. The previous month, the Times reported 229 House Republicans voted in favor of Cut, Cap and Balance. In April, the Times reported 235 House Republicans voted for Congressman Paul Ryan's (R-Wisc.) budget proposal.
Maybe Mr. Krugman ought to read his own paper from time to time for it's continually reporting bills House Republicans voted for.
And maybe if the President put something forward that actually made sense, House Republicans would vote for that, too. Better still, maybe he'd even get Democrat support.
Or does Mr. Krugman forget that the only budget actually proposed on paper by a Democrat in more than two years - the one Obama offered in February - didn't get one Democrat vote in the Senate?
Oh. That's right. That was the House Republicans' fault.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Lame
Submitted by permagrin on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 2:23pm.
Do these folks realize how lame they sound? They've been using this line for a year now. "If Obama did/said , republicans would ". I guess it get golf claps somewhere.
That shifty-eyed
Submitted by Nortonalec on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 2:25pm.
little turd really makes me laugh. He gets up there every week and tries to keep a straight face as he spins his b.s. I like to watch him will George Will is there, trying not to look like little kid caught telling a lie. He KNOWS George is going to call him out with a sharp retort that he has no chance of returning. I bet he and his lunch money didn't make it to school everyday, if you know what I mean.
If he endorsed motherhood, it
Submitted by rbosque on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 2:28pm.
If he endorsed motherhood, it would be a shock since he's a proponent for killing children through abortion and even after birth.
Beware!
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 2:57pm.
When Obama endorses motherhood it can only mean that he's getting ready to tax it.
Or, in this case, he endorses
Submitted by killa37 on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 3:37pm.
Or, in this case, he endorses motherhood to produce more inner-city breeders and welfare recipients, illegal aliens moooooooooooslems, future brainwashed commie liberals, government employees, leeches, ticks, bloodsuckers, and - of course - voters.
And with that in mind, I'm totally in agreement with that loony-tune Krugman - which is something I am embarrassed to admit!!!
'They'll say it's racist'
Submitted by Slyrr on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 2:28pm.
The only thing Krugman didn't say is 'It's because Obama's BLACK!'
The 'race' card is the only thing that these floundering, desperate liberals have in their entire deck. The deck has thousands of cards, but they all say the same thing: Race - Race - Race - Race - Race.
They just had a gang of liberal 'academics' (i.e. professors) gather together and agree that everyone in the Tea Party is a racist. Where do they get their evidence for that? They oppose Obama's policies. And in the tiny, tiny brain of a liberal academic, it means they're racists because they oppose a black man.
I think the Tea Party is a great thing because it's set liberals across the board in a frenzy. They're spluttering, frothing and raging at the Tea party because they're threat to their power. Does that mean I'm a racist? They think it does. I don't think I'm racist at all. I like Obama's black half just fine. His black half is personable, affable and even friendly at times.
It's Obama's white European socialist half that I can't stand. That half of him is fruity, obnoxious, condescending, angry, divisive, greedy, hypocritical, a liar, all kinds of perfectly horrible and perfectly true names.
WELL SAID!!!!
Submitted by The_Barrel_Guy on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 5:32pm.
"It's Obama's white European socialist half that I can't stand. That half of him is fruity, obnoxious, condescending, angry, divisive, greedy, hypocritical, a liar, all kinds of perfectly horrible and perfectly true names."
Someday the black community in America is gonna wake up and realize that Barak Hussein Obama has absolutely NO connection with the African-American slave experience in this country... One of my Great Great Great Great Great Great Great grandfathers was a slave... I have more connection with that experience than BHO... Maybe the A-A community should vote for me =8-)
You've got that right,
Submitted by killa37 on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 8:21pm.
You've got that right, Barrel............and I'm glad that YOU are saying it!!! I've been laying this one down from Day One - Boy Barry has NO background or history to the 'black American experience'............hell, the guy can't even speak like a homie!!! And how he can sell this BS to the 'black' community is beyond me - well, not really. But I know that there are a LOT of 'blacks' who don't buy his phony BS, and I'd bet that those numbers are increasing............and I'm NOT talking about guys like Natso Sharpton and the 'Reverand' Jesse, who think that this pampered interloper has stole some of their thunder.
What a Ridiculous Example
Submitted by VideoSavant on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 2:28pm.
This President would never endorse motherhood -- hey, even his own mother could never be bothered to endorse it.
No, this is the guy who voted to put mis-aborted babies in a closet to die.
I think that..
Submitted by ThePickle on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 2:29pm.
If Obama proposed to support "Motherhood" the screeching nitwits of the pro-abortion crowd would burn him in effigy.
A Novel New Plan by Genius Krugman:
Submitted by Comrade Jim on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 2:30pm.
Genius Krugman came up with a great new never-thought-of-before plan to get out of the economic stagnation caused by government spending, government mismanagement and government debt. Borrow more, mismanage more and spend more.
Krugman & the Unlimited Credit Card
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 2:52pm.
KRUGMAN: "Government can borrow money almost for free."
And there you have in one simple sentence the economic philosophy that has gotten us into this debt debacle. If borrowed money is "almost free," why not borrow more?
This guy has a Nobel Prize in Economics and can't understand basic household management.
That one jumped out at me
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 4:13pm.
That one jumped out at me also. Heck look at all these credit card offers in the mail ... lets sign up for all of em and use the cards. The cards have rewards, how can I lose.
unemployment payments stimulate the economy
Submitted by wizardjr on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 6:29pm.
well heck, let's all just go on unemployment then,
and...
while we're at it let's raise the payout limit to $60,000 a year so we can really stimulate the economy.
Nobel Incompetence
Submitted by needle on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 10:38pm.
Thanks for pointing out that Krugman has a Nobel Prize in Economics.
We should remember that Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize.
That helps put their mutual incompetence into perspective.
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.
PAUL, YOU MIGHT WANT TO USE SOMETHING ELSE
Submitted by StewartIII on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 2:53pm.
Obama: Babies are a "punishment"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNbaig-D5pk
Obama and Motherhood?
Submitted by NVRAT on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 2:57pm.
I wish he would try it. Krugman is so self centered he would say "OH SH#T"
Projection, Pure & Simple
Submitted by Junk Science Skeptic on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 3:28pm.
I realize that the left can never be held accountable for their actions of even 20 seconds ago, and certainly not for their actions during the Bush Administration, but do they really expect the rest of us to forget eight years of reflexive opposition to anything that could even be remotely attributed to Bush during that time?
Anybody with a memory longer than their . . . finger, knows that the very same actions that are just fine under Obama, were akin to the wholesale slaughter of baby kittens when they occurred under the Bush Administration, in the exact same context, except for the party affiliation of the President in office at the time.
In other words, the "policy" objections had nothing to do with the merits of the policy, they were just poorly-veiled attacks on Bush.
Now I won't try to claim that there isn't a small element of payback happening for the eight years of purely partisan opposition during the Bush Administration, but where exactly was Krugman when actually treasonous behavior was being justified under the banner of "dissent being the highest form of patriotism?"
Which is it, oh lofty Nobel laureate(s), is dissent patriotic, or isn't it? Hint: the definition of "is" does not apply here.
Note to Noel & Co.: I realize you guys are neck deep in this stuff, so it might sometimes be difficult to see the big picture themes in these reports, so let me offer a suggestion for a new section/category title. Reports like the one above should be filed under "Lefty Projection(s) of the Day" from now on.
What do you think?
You may want to review those eight years under Bush...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 5:59pm.
"Now I won't try to claim that there isn't a small element of payback happening for the eight years of purely partisan opposition during the Bush Administration, but where exactly was Krugman when actually treasonous behavior was being justified under the banner of "dissent being the highest form of patriotism?"
You mean a "small element of payback" in retaliation for the overwhelming support by the Democrats for the Patriot Act of 2001 and 2006? Payback for Democratic support of Bush's tax cut package of 2001 which would never have passed without the votes of Democrats? That's what you call "eight years of purely partisan opposition" by Democrats--in light of the recent spectacle of unprecedented GOP congressional obstructionism? The Republicans better pray for overwhelming supermajorities in 2012. Otherwise, they should brace themselves for the very likely administering of a massive dose of real payback for the oppositional tactics the GOP routinely employed during the past three years.
Jer
Oh my....
Submitted by wizardjr on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 6:27pm.
so apparently you're fine with turning America into Greece then? Apparently you are fine with robbing the hard working folks so you can stay at home and drink yourself into silliness on someone else's dime. Apparently you believe successful people should be punished for being successful.
Otherwise....
You wouldn't be such a pimp for the Marxist, redistributionist, Nanny Statism of King Putt and the Dhimmeroids.
Nah, wizard---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 6:50pm.
Ol' Jer only pimps for liberalism and a chance to take potshots at Republicans.
He don't know from Marxist - redistributionist - Nanny Statism stuff.
Obama being liberal = Obama being da bestest evah!
;o)
MD
wizardjr...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 6:55pm.
No offense, but are you drunk? I don't drink and I don't spend anyone's dime but my own. Furthermore, my post was about oppositional political tactics--which Junk Science Skeptic had raised--not policy.
Now run pimp your absurdities elsewhere, or make a coherent argument.
Jer
wizard---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 7:24pm.
Lib speak:
making a coherent argument = stating as positives, or agreeing with, what I believe in.
MD
So many fallacies, so little time.
Submitted by Junk Science Skeptic on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 3:12am.
@ Jer - Somebody once said that it's not that Democrats don't know anything, it's just that so much of what they know is wrong. That's quite the case here.
Let's start with the easy part. Obama had an unstoppable supermajority until January 2011, so how exactly was the GOP able to oppose anything between January 2009 and January 2011 (i.e. two of your three years)?
When the Patriot Act was passed immediately after 9/11, voting against it would have been virtually-certain career suicide.
As for the tax cuts, given the tech crash that Bush "inherited" from Clinton, and the economic fallout of 9/11, voting against the cuts wouldn't have been a career builder for the small group (not so overwhelming numbers) of Dems who voted for the cuts.
Anybody who understands the Left's projection already knows that the ludicrous claims of obstructionism during a supermajority are just pre-emptive rationalization for genuinely unprecedented obstructionism that will occur if the American people ever again let the Dems even get near the levers of legislative power.
J S S: Your fallacies are few, but they are whoppers.
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 1:40am.
Someone somewhere some time came up with the expression "hoisted on his own petard". Whoever it was may have had you in mind.
Let's start with the obvious. Contrary to your assertion, Obama did not enjoy either an actual or theoretical supermajority in the senate for anywhere close to two years. To the extent it existed at all, it lasted only from the seating of Al Franken to the seating of Scot Brown--less than nine months. Furthermore, even then an "unstoppable" filibuster-defeating supermajority was largely illusory inasmuch as it presumes at least sixty like-minded ideological automatons exercising the requisite party discipline to coalesce and overcome the dilatory tactics of the minority party. There is far too much philosophical diversity within the Democratic party for that to occur except on rare occasions. Consequently, forty senators can seriously hamstring the movement of legislation if they are so inclined, and the GOP during Obama's first term has clearly been so inclined. Moreover, the ability of senators to place holds and "blue slip" nominations are additional means by which a single member can frustrate the will of the majority party as well as the agenda of the administration. The Republicans have utilized these strategies frequently and effectively.
Your point about the Patriot Act is well taken. I agree with it. But your rationale for the Democratic support--and twelve votes in the senate is not insignificant--for Bush's tax cut package is less persuasive. Again, the legislation would have gone down without the backing from across the aisle. Furthermore, the passage of the tax cut bill occurred well before 9/11.
The concluding paragraph of your post is essentially emotionalism propping up a dubious argument followed by sheer conjecture. Needless to say, I have a different view.
Jer
If you are going to start with the obvious, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 2:30am.
then start with the obvious:
I, Jer, am a liberal Democrat who posts almost daily on NewsBusters, a conservative site - except for myself and a few maniacal drive-by liberals known as trolls.
I, Jer, will contest, to the best of my ability, each and every statement made by a conservative on these threads that in any way suggests anything less than a halo for headgear to be worn by any of my fellow liberals and Democrats; as well as striving mightily to present the liberal Democrat view as correct, and any and all conservative viewpoints, actions, or memories as misguided at the least, up to and including insanely libelous at the other end of the spectrum.
I, Jer, by calling down hellfire on the heads of miscreant liberals and Democrats; as I do continually, if I do say so myself; shall be elevated above criticism from any conservatives on this site because I perform the sacred act of policing my own. Uncle Jer knows best.
I, Jer, reserve the right to insist that only I know the true political thoughts and leanings of Joe Scarborough, because I have watched his show.
NOTE:
This is one of a series of posts put forth to rankle Jer. :o)
My initial intention was to keep Jer in a state of angered confusion. :o) :o)
Alas, Obama beat me to it. :o) :o) :o)
(Please observe all the smiley faces, and ignore any subsequent replies from the house lib if they contain curse words)
No little animals were harmed in the typing of this post.
MD
Yeah, Jer
Submitted by ant on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 10:26am.
That seating of Scott Brown sure was a major victory for us conservative types! Not!
Oh PLEASE!
Submitted by ironhead4099 on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 3:31pm.
I would LOVE to see this idiot in a discussion with George Will and Charles Krauthammer. Krugnut would get his head ripped off and they would shit down his neck! I would almost pay to see that!
Aaaww...
Submitted by Order270 on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 3:41pm.
...is poor little Kruggy having a tough day. Then he should do what Obama does every time things get tough; go on vacation.
So Krugman is now PIMPing the rediculous notion that Obama
Submitted by djwolf12 on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 4:02pm.
would support motherhood? Obama and Biden both support and agree with China's one child policy. Obama and Biden both agree on the notion that Women should have as many abortions as possible.
Krugman once again crawled from out of his hole again to spew the most rediculous garbage.
I swear, couldn't someone that actually takes a class that is taught by this clown secretly record the lecture and broadcast it? I would actually love to hear what this rodent preaches to his students.
I think they would only
Submitted by killa37 on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 4:09pm.
I think they would only support the one-child policy as it relates to whites - specifically conservative, responsible, productive whites..........they'd probably want to downsize that number, but they've got to have somebody to tax!!!
Oh.....but the liberal, Democrat, follow the Dear Leader whites - they can have as many kids as they want.
How do you say Planned Parenthood in Chinese? PP will do
Submitted by needle on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 11:02pm.
Actually Planned Parenthood and China use essentially the same tactics to achieve roughly the same ends. Where they differ is in their underlying philosophy. In China it is economic: fewer mouths to feed. For Planned Parenthood eugenics plays an important role: fewer welfare babies to feed.
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.
Like this: 计划生育 < ;+}
Submitted by celator on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 11:15pm.
Like this:
计划生育
< ;+}
Enough of this clown
Submitted by lesterwink23 on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 4:11pm.
Screw Paul the garden gnome and the never ending string of crap that comes out of his mouth. This guy is a joke.
If Obama supported a pro
Submitted by eaglewingz08 on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 4:58pm.
If Obama supported a pro growth policy, republicans would back him. But if he wants to break the bank with gov't spending, and increasing the size of government, then thanks but no thanks, and it has nothing to do with the color of your skin, Mr. Obama, but the content of your beliefs.
Krugman
Submitted by Curly on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 5:22pm.
"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."
Alexis de Tocqueville
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
Alexis de Tocqueville
Libtards will never understand!
ahhhh, but they do!
Submitted by wizardjr on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 6:21pm.
That's why they are terrified their days of plunder may be coming to an end.
If Krugman said something intelligent...
Submitted by wizardjr on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 6:20pm.
no one would believe it happened.
/snark
Obama, elections have
Submitted by buddyc on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 6:35pm.
Obama, elections have consequences. Guess what, you lost in 2010!
First of all, in what
Submitted by fitzfong on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 7:12pm.
First of all, in what capacity would Obama be in position to officially "endorse Motherhood" and for what purpose? A complete non sequitur. Secondly, Krugman is making the dubious claim that opposition to Obama is about opposition to the man, not to the policies he stands for. Another, tortured, lazy argument that illustrates how desperate the left is in having to defend the indefensible.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
Exactly, fitzfong
Submitted by ant on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 12:05am.
ONE of the flaws in Krugman's BS is the acceptance that government/the executive should be in a position to 'endorse' or not 'endorse' something like motherhood. It is not in their job description, for Pete's sake!!!
These tools can't even do what they're supposed to, but they're happy as sh-t to take on other roles.
Krugman
Submitted by charlietexas on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 7:37pm.
He is right!!!!!! Screw all of em.
→ Krugman is a PIG
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 9:42pm.
You'll notice Krugman refuses to name the one quality most Americans can agree upon when it comes to this President.
It seems evident this President is a good dad.
But for Krugman to call attention to it, he'd also be calling attention to the absolute success of Democrats in sh&t-canning the Black nuclear family as an institution.
In a world of unnecessary black dads, President Obama seems to be a good dad to his kids.
Krugman
Submitted by batcat on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 10:13pm.
Looking at that picture of him, he even looks like a whack job.
If Obama called for endorsing Abortion...
Submitted by bigdaddy on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 12:44am.
...Oh wait...too late....
Bias?
Submitted by Nonanon on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 6:37am.
If the 'news' media are not liberal, why is it that they never demand liberals/Democrats go along with what the conservatives/Republicans want or propose? Their template is to always demand everyone go along with liberalism, which we know is their definition of bi-partisanship.
They keep pushing policies that fail every time they are implemented but never learn anything. There is truth out there but they avoid it and push new lies almost daily.
You are SO right, Paul
Submitted by TheHistorian on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 6:59am.
If there were an "Endorsing Motherhood Act"that was proposed by Obama, I would oppose it and would push for EVERY Republican to vote against it. Based on his legislative record and some of the great sounding names, here is what this would likely contain when put together by you bunch of Communist/Socialist/RedDiaperDoperBabies:
It is the way every other Obama bill has read, including the debt increase. Don't believe me, go read the Affordable Health Care Act and tell me what in there makes health care affordable, or even what 100+new bureaucracies have to do with health care.
Republicans, Obama is best described as a RedDiaperDoperBaby. Don't vote for ANYTHING he endorses. There is one word that all Republicans in Congress should use multiple times daily: NAY
Dennis Prager
Problem is Obama would never
Submitted by buddyc on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 8:31am.
Problem is Obama would never endorse "motherhood" as that would offend homos. He would endorse "parenthood".
"motherhood"
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 9:03am.
yet one more example of things the government should not be interfering with.
If President Obama miraculously proposed to follow the 'Ryan Budget' would the media and the Democrat Party listen to his reasoning and support this decision?
When there was a Republican president, did the media and the Democrat party work with the Republicans or did the media's rhetoric implore the Republicans to reach across the aisle and in the process saddle the nation with bills written or co-written by Kennedy, Feingold and Sarbanes.
The media even hold the liberal programs Bush passed during his tenure against him and Republicans even though they were basically the same programs sought by Democrats for several years. Compromise only means that the Republicans can be blamed once the liberal programs predictably fails.
This is too easy
Submitted by zachlind on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 10:18am.
Only Krugman’s mother.
Shoulda Oughta Been...
Submitted by bobdog on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 1:09pm.
"If Obama Called for bankrupting our grandchildren, Krugman in the House Would Endorse It."
I don't think we have to worry about Obama coming out in support
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 2:41pm.
...of motherhood anytime soon.
He has a decidedly different agenda.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November