Krugman's Delusion: The Past Year Proves Cutting Spending Doesn't Create Jobs
Exactly what country does New York Times columnist Paul Krugman actually reside in?
Before you answer, consider the following sentence from his article Monday:
Although you'd never know it listening to the ranters, the past year has actually been a pretty good test of the theory that slashing government spending actually creates jobs.
For the past year to be a good test of this theory, there would have needed to be a slash to government spending, right?
Was this the case?
Hardly.
In fiscal 2010, total federal outlays were $3.72 trillion. In fiscal 2011 which ends September 30, we're projected to spend $3.83 trillion. That's a $111 billion increase.
Yet this Nobel laureate in economics thinks government spending was slashed.
In reality, since the last time such outlays declined year over year was 1965, we should really be testing Krugman, Obama, and the Democrats' theory that dramatic increases in government spending creates jobs.
Democrats have been radically increasing outlays since they took over Congress in 2007. During this time, as spending rose by 41 percent, the economy lost roughly seven million jobs sending unemployment skyrocketing from 4.4 percent to 9.1 percent.
If Krugman wasn't delusional, the above referenced sentence from his Monday column would read, "Although you'd never know it listening to the ranters like Barack Obama, the Democrats, Robert Reich, and me, the past four years have actually been a fabulous test of the theory that exploding government spending actually creates jobs.
Isn't that really the only conclusion that one could draw given what's happened since this recent Keynesian experiment began in 2007?
Of course, it's unfair to expect this Nobel laureate in economics to make such an obvious determination.
He thinks a $111 billion increase in spending is a slash.
Post-facto opining: Are conservatives trying to prove cutting spending produces jobs or that balanced budgets do? There is a difference.
When a government the size of ours runs up huge deficits, it has to sell additional treasury securities to make up the shortfall.
Since January 2007, the treasury has auctioned off an additional $6 trillion in debt. That takes $6 trillion away from other investments.
As unemployment has skyrocketed during this period, regardless of what Krugman and other Keynesians believe, there is absolutely no way to conclude that this money spent by government has had a positive economic impact at least as it pertains to job creation.
But what might have happened in the past almost five years if that $6 trillion had been invested in other areas?
Maybe new businesses would have been formed or existing ones expanded. Maybe the deposits at banks would be higher encouraging them to more aggressively loan money.
As $6 trillion in the hands of government didn't help the economy, maybe it would have been better served if kept in the private sector.
What's fascinating about the Krugman-Keynesian argument is how liberals demanding deficit spending today look upon the fiscally restrained Clinton era with such fondness.
They all pine for those "good old days" but want to do the exact opposite now of what was hugely successful then and continue to do so regardless of it having failed so miserably since they got control of the purse strings.
Consider that in the six years after the Republicans took over Congress in 1995 demanding fiscal restraint, a mere $1 trillion of new treasury paper was auctioned while 12 million jobs were created.
I'd suggest Krugman use that period to test his Keynesian theory but don't think his intellectual honesty is up to the challenge.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Gov Spending Cuts?
Submitted by Llewsilverhand on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 10:36am.
What can really be said to such idiocy?
This guy is not an idiot
Submitted by ArcherB on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 12:43pm.
Krugman knows the truth. He chooses to lie about it. Sure, it would say more about his ethics and make him a better human being if this were just a case of stupidity and ignorance.
Nope. Krugman is nothing more than an unethical propagandist.
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary."
--Ernesto "Che" Guevara
i think...
Submitted by retrocon on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 7:06pm.
i think that he might not know the truth. Wasn't he educated in some Ivy League school? Well, in those schools, they are taught progressive math. You know, a "cut" in "spending increases" is a progressive reduction in spending. Even better, reducing "projected spending increases" to smaller levels before a budget is even proposed, is the best yet... then, you have virtual cuts in virtual spending increases. Progressive electioneering heaven.
More airbrushing of history
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 9:58am.
We've repeatedly seen Krugman make up lies in order to fit his agenda. He's not one to let facts get in the way; he ignores them as if they never existed.
As if we could afford the
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 10:41am.
3.7 trillion? When ever someone approaches Krugman, they should simply point and laugh, what a joke.
Boudin,
Submitted by Chris Norman on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 11:04am.
... and therefore a prime candidate for his own show on MSNBC. I've got to think, with his ever increasing lunacy, he's auditioning for them daily.
MSNBC would love
Submitted by Bodini on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 11:42am.
to have one more leftist looney, but fortunately for us their plate is full! I guess they could get rid of Rev. Al, but then again, they need to keep their token black lest they be called RACISTs!
Teacher! Teacher! (hand raised)
Submitted by Chris Norman on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 10:55am.
"Exactly what country does New York Times columnist Paul Krugman actually reside in?"
The great liberal money-sucking nation of Timesylvania?
Forest? Trees!
Submitted by Wildcatter1980 on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 3:34pm.
I guess you could be saying that Krugman cannot see the forest for the trees. ;-)
Honestly, though, Krugman likely has liberal secular progressive disease. Liberal secular progressive disease is characterized by extreme arrogance, self-centeredness, a belief that unless you attended an Ivy League or similar university you could not possibly be smarter or more intelligent that the patient, and that if you think differently from the patient, you are both wrong and bad. Oh, and the only think that matters is the patient's "good intentions." (I could add a comment about facts not mattering to the patient either, but that goes without saying.)
--
If you want to know what liberal secular progressives are really doing, just listen to what they are accusing others of.
Recommended reading: Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg
Krugnman
Submitted by Granite on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 10:57am.
This man needs help before he becomes violent.
Paul Krugman, the face of liberal mental illness.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 11:05am.
Poster Boy.
Drugged
Submitted by miss911ninja on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 12:51pm.
Poster Boy indeed! And the above picture would serve well as the poster, because he looks like he's heavily drugged!
In most pictures I see of him
Submitted by ant on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 1:30pm.
In most pictures I see of him he looks like some kind of demented Ewok.
Demented Ewok
Submitted by miss911ninja on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 2:07pm.
Separated at birth!
You have to remember Libs
Submitted by ThePickle on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 11:05am.
You have to remember Libs view any cuts to the proposed rate of growth to be cuts period.
When they ask for money they view anything less than what they asked for to be a "cut".
If a Lib asks to have a certain Dept.'s budget increased by 16% and the Conservatives say you can only have an 8% increase you can bet that the MSM's lead line the next day will be that the nasty Republicans CUT said Dept.'s budget by 8%
Actually
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 12:20pm.
That would be reported as a 50% cut.
Well in todays media they
Submitted by ThePickle on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 3:13pm.
Well in todays media they might, but even as few as 5 years ago they wouldn't have tried to get the public quite that big of a Shiite sandwich.
They would have report the 8% cut as if was a slash and burn by the Republicans to make sure Grandma kept eating that cat food so she could afford to buy her bills, the ones that are grossly overpriced by Big Pharma.
Today I venture to guess that all bets are off when you have the mad garden gnome Krugman trying to convince folks that after spending ourselves into a 14 TRILLION dollar debt that it PROVES that making CUTS doesn't work.
Liberal Pizza math
Submitted by almostacowboy on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 11:11am.
Pizza man: You want I should cut your pie in 4 slices or 8?
Lib: Better cut in 4. I don't think I can eat 8 slices.
Paul Weasel
Submitted by AgentAmerican on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 11:06am.
It's time make this weasel an offer he can't refuse. The #1 problem is the mainstream media, and the only thing that can stop these malevolent people on the overpass is to take the overpass away from them. Rush Limbaugh said that the only business where the customer is not right is the media.
Paul Weasel must be held accountable. Screw his Nobel prize.
If you ever needed more proof that the Nobel Prize is a crock
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 11:06am.
just put Obama next to Krudman next Yassar next to a line of racists radicals anti-semites and anti-americans and you'll have all the proof you could need.
Krudman always looks like a deer in the headlights to me. He is constantly surprised that his theories have never yielded a successful outcome. He just can't seem to get his stupid arms around that and his laughable expression shows it.
Hello, Crud Man!
Submitted by Newsbubba on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 11:06am.
We can cut spending or raise spending, cut taxes for 12 months at a time or raise taxes, give speeches or not give speeches, end the war or start a few more in the Middle East, have natural disasters or sunny shies forever, have Moochie on vacation or home in the garden, play politics or play with ourselves, etc. Are you getting the point?
NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING, is going to fix this Fascist economy until that RBFSOB in the White House is G - O - N - E, and the majority of dumbocrats and RINO's in Congress are gone with him!!!!
Econ 101, you nimrod.
So more is less and down is up and hot is cold?
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 11:11am.
I think he's from another dimension. Given that inflation has been nearly flat, he would have a hard time explaining to a freshman economics class how the massive increase in spending was a reduction. The proposed reductions in spending due to that monstrosity that increased the debt limit don't go into effect for quite a while. So spending is still increased and jobs still are lacking. Does he propose that we bring back the 40's, when movie stars were out on War Bond drives? Problem is nobody would have cash to buy them and the US does not have the credit rating to support more debt. Krugman is in a perfect storm of his own arrogance, ignorance and intransigence so very typical of the obsessed patient. He accuses Republicans of intransigence, yet his own belief that massive government spending will suddenly make the US prosperous ala the 1950s has become an obsession.
Wow.
Dr. Sam, that would be
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 11:40am.
Dr. Sam, that would be Bizarro World.
Advance Scout
Submitted by Caringwhiteguy on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 11:15am.
Maybe Krugman is actually an advance scout for those Space Aliens whose attack he has advocated as a stimulus to get the economy out of the doldrums. He's not nearly as deep undercover as the potential alien invaders had hoped. After all, he works for the New York Times.
meaning of words
Submitted by cats1cowboy on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 11:32am.
"When I use a word", said Humpty Dumpty in a rather scornful tone, "it means precisely what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less". [Through The Looking Glass and What Alice Saw There]
yes
Submitted by Bill The Bold on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 3:43am.
and that word was 'de facto'. " De facto..," he said. He didn't say anything that would indicate de jure or actual. He said, as the term's meaning supports, that there is a lot of momentum for cuts. They are all talking about them, they are cutting programs across the board and they are not initiating any new spending programs to stimulate this economy. Why is he delusional for telling the truth? Oh I see, he must be stupid because we can add.
Nobel Lauriate = Gong Show Loser
Submitted by tvhall on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 11:33am.
Arafat, Obama, Gore... nuf' said!
The Nobel Prize
Submitted by Lord-come-soon-... on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 11:35am.
And here we have yet another example of the stupidity and irrelevance of the Nobel "prize". Who are three of the most unhinged liberal whackos out there right now? Barry Soetero, Paul Krugman and AlGore. What do they have in common? Nobel prizes. What a laugh!
delete
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 11:41am.
delete
Krugman's Kredo: Grab the paycheck and RUN
Submitted by Slyrr on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 11:42am.
Yeesh - these people are so desperate to protect their black president, they've descended into delusion. It's true that Krugman, whenever he appears on a show, has a deer-in-the-headlights look at each of his pronouncements. You can tell he's thinking, 'They KNOW I'm a fake - they KNOW I'm a fraud - just keep smiling and nodding, pray to a God you don't believe in that they never challenge you, then pick up your check and RUN...'
This seems to be the Democrat/Liberal strategy for '12 - the old Nazi propaganda routine. 'Keep repeating the lie, no matter how stupid and nonsensical it may be, and eventually people will believe it.'
How long will Democrat dog-whistler politicians, and their dogs in the media, keep urinating in the faces of the American people and telling us it's rain water? How long with the American people let them get away with it?
It's laughable to see liberal media types 'questioning' Obama lately. Like they're going to pimp anyone in '12 but Obama? The 'dog whistler' analogy I read was so on the money. All Obama will have to do is whistle and yell, 'Here liberals, here liberals!' and they'll come running to him to slobber on his feet.
Not All Of The Democrat Party Mercenaries Drink The Kool-aid
Submitted by Avitar on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 11:57pm.
The standards to back Obama is so low that James Carvel has jumped off the Party bus. I think that the leaving the oil well run for so long last year was the final straw. James is a before anything a southerner. This is just one of the Party's campaign coordinators who are dropping out. My memory of the Carter disintegration is a little fuzzy but it seems that the breakup accelerated slowly and quickly into the final days. If things keep fading at the current rate this far out will there be any Democratic Party by Election Day?
I want to see him primaried
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 12:08am.
I would love to see Trump, or some other unique person run against Obama
Gee, the beard makes him so ...
Submitted by BBallleaper on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 11:53am.
professorial, so intelligent looking, so Freudian, then he opens his mouth and you suddenly realize he just another liberal pipsqueak in need of a brain transplant. Can't you just imagine all the 'progressive' morons at NYC cocktail parties dripping all over him to hear his latest brilliant point. God help us. I hope this mutant didn't procreate. Our gene pool can't it!
'Pipsqueak' is a good
Submitted by killa37 on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 1:16pm.
'Pipsqueak' is a good word................I'd forgotten about it. It also works for li'l Opie the official White House liar.............I'd use it on Boy Barry, but it's not forceful enough.
Standard liberal trick
Submitted by Bob K on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 12:02pm.
when it comes to budgets. Push for, lets say, a 25% increase in next years budget for any program and when it is either negotiated to a lesser amount or not increased (but not "cut")........begin screeching how "Republicans are gutting essential programs!!!!"
We All Have Fun Lampooning Paul Krugman
Submitted by Comrade Jim on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 12:07pm.
For his foolish comments. But when he becomes so self-caricaturing and self-mocking with crack-brained comments that are so bizarre, there is no longer any room left to add anything on the absurd side. Krugman is moving into Al Sharpton territory, impossible to mock.
Yet....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 11:38am.
Yet, unlike even the President, he seems immune to criticism (and ostracism) by more credible economists and especially by media.
Wrong Question
Submitted by IrateNate on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 12:19pm.
It's not "what country", but rather "what planet..."
You know, for a guy that smart, you think his head would be bigger...
Your missing the crux of the
Submitted by Snappy on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 12:22pm.
Your missing the crux of the argument. They could have and SHOULD have spent more. By not spending more they spent less, actually cutting spending from what they SHOULD have spent. So in that twisted Washington logic Krugman makes his absurd case.
He fails to mention domestic energy not having a demand problem
Submitted by OffTheLows on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 12:24pm.
We import $100s of billions in energy and the more of that we extract domestically, whether it be the left's dreaded oil, coal or nat gas, the more jobs that provides. And of course a political environment hostile to capital results in a capital strike. Krugman's Keynesian ideas are being identified by more and more correctly as snake oil, but he continues to double and triple down. Only govt austerity would be a problem for growth, but combined with market friendly moves with our energy policy and tax/regulatory reduction and/or simplification more than makes up for the inefficient slack demand less govt spending would result in.
This is what doing drugs in
Submitted by Vdip72 on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 12:26pm.
This is what doing drugs in the men's bathroom at the New York Times does to your brain!
I swear that man is on drugs.
Submitted by bobdog on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 12:32pm.
Krugman shows all the clear-headed logic of Palestinean jihadists and global warming freaks.
No matter what the question is, the answer is always "More spending. Lots more spending. Spending will save us all."
Krugman, Barry, Algore, . . .
Submitted by rickbren on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 12:37pm.
. . . and Arafat are good arguments for discontinuing the Nobel prize. . .
Perfect illustration as to
Submitted by eaglewingz08 on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 12:58pm.
Perfect illustration as to how liberals react to an affirmative action employee who fails to live up to his/her
expectations and responsibilities on the job. Paul Crapman should be ashamed of himself. Reducing a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit by 20 billion dollars, is not even a scalpel cut, let alone a "slash" in spending.
I nor many other economists
Submitted by rbosque on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 1:16pm.
I nor many other economists take him seriously. He's an incompetent fool, I don't care how many Nobel prizes he has around his neck.
Not big enough!
Submitted by Yarbles on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 1:40pm.
According to Krugman the Stimulus bill didn't work as promised because it wasn't big enough. Perhaps these phantom cuts didn't work because they weren't big enough?
I say....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 11:40am.
Fewer phantom cuts and more phantom spending!
Capital is what fuels the economy
Submitted by Jacksonian Libe... on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 1:47pm.
There is a reason why it's called Capitalism; it's because Capital is what fuels the economy.
When $6 Trillion has been sucked out of the fuel tank of available job creating investment capital, the economy has no fuel left to grow.
The regulations, tax and health care uncertainties don't help either.
We didn't get out of Great Depression 1.0 until after WWII when the government was quickly paying off the Debt, and filling the fuel tank of job creating investment capital.
Between 1929 and 1933 Hoover borrowed 25% of GDP which sucked the fuel tank dry and gave us Great Depression 1.0, Obama and the Democrats have now borrowed 40% (and counting) of GDP and given us Great Depression 2.0.
We won't get out of the depression until we start paying off the debt, and refilling the fuel tank as we did after WWII.
He's Right!
Submitted by heyricksander on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 2:09pm.
Because in his mind, and in Obama's, talking about something makes it happen. Just talking about "cutting the budget" is cutting the budget. Obama giving a speech is the same as passing legislation.
Can anyone say delusional!
Submitted by ironhead4099 on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 2:57pm.
Well it seems that Krugmut has lost all his marbles! This guy needs a lobotomy! He should also have his Nobel prize stuck so far up his ass, that they could use it to check his tonsils!
Why does the New York Times stop accepting comments?
Submitted by gmonsen on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 9:52pm.
Does anyone else other than me wonder why the Times shuts off comments after some indeterminate period of time? There were only a handful of comments when I read this article online (www.realclearpolitics.com) and I read it very early. Yet, the Times had already shut off comments.
The Times has a very active, aggressive, and extremely liberal "moderation" staff. They don't let much through that's well written and conservative. They never put conservative comments into their "Highlights" group of comments.
So, with the flack Krugman was getting on this, I can't help but wonder if the Times staff just said, we're taking -- Krugman's taking -- way too much flack on this piece. Let's shut it down...
Is this Krugman?
Submitted by Bill The Bold on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 10:05pm.
The following can indicate a delusion:
The persom expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force.
That idea appears to exert an undue influence on the person's life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent.
Despite his/her profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the person is questioned about it.
The individual tends to be humorless and oversensitive, especially about the belief.
There is a quality of centrality: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him, the person accepts them relatively unquestioningly.
An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility.
The belief is, at the least, unlikely, and out of keeping with the person's social, cultural and religious background.
The person is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of their psyche.
The delusion, if acted out, often leads to behaviors which are abnormal and/or out of character, although perhaps understandable in the light of the delusional beliefs.
Bill, I'm a practicing neurologist/psychiatrist.
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 11:09pm.
If you really want to start using psychobabble, be prepared to deal with my observations.
The first of which is you don't know diddly about what delusions are or how they are diagnosed clinically. My second observation is that you seem to have this need for making outrageous statements to attract attention.
Care to strike out?
This is where I got that list for delusional disorder
Submitted by Bill The Bold on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 3:30am.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder
Oh right. An actual
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 5:35am.
Oh right.
An actual practitioner tell you something, but you prefer an "online" editable "encyclopedia."
Strong views are delusional? The I guess that makes you delusional too.
And when the President and his vice-President persistently and forcefully tell us they have "created or saved" XX millions of jobs, that makes them delusional too.
Of course, they are delusional but that is the absurdity of their unempirical claim, not the force with which they keep repeating it.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Ahhhh, the poetic license so
Submitted by Bill The Bold on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 10:54pm.
Ahhhh, the poetic license so often used by the far right once again shows that there is no lengths to which delusional people wont go to maintain their beliefs.
Noel quoted Krugman as follows:
Although you'd never know it listening to the ranters, the past year has actually been a pretty good test of the theory that slashing government spending actually creates jobs.
Krugman's complete statement on this point:
"Although you’d never know it listening to the ranters, the past year has actually been a pretty good test of the theory that slashing government spending actually creates jobs. The deficit obsession has blocked a much-needed second round of federal stimulus, and with stimulus spending, such as it was, fading out, we’re experiencing de facto fiscal austerity. State and local governments, in particular, faced with the loss of federal aid, have been sharply cutting many programs and have been laying off a lot of workers, mostly schoolteachers. "
De Facto fiscal austerity being the key phrase modifying his phrase about the slashing of spending. This austerity has prevented necessary stimulus spending and has resulted in cutting funds to states which in turn results in the states having to cut jobs and service levels. Public works projects at all levels are being underfunded, cut or cancelled along with the jobs that go with them. The $111 billion increase in spending is a small amount in the context of the budget and it is largely due to non-discretionary outlay and defense. Defense alone rose more than $111 billion between last year and this year. that alone shows there were cuts elsewhere.
As to the Keynesian experiment begun in 2007 I would say what were the actions and policies begun in that year that would support your claim? I think that the experiment you are referring to began in 2008 with Bush's TARP program and was augmented with Obama's stimulus. The large bulk of job losses occurred during Bush's last year and the early months of Obama's first. Once Obama's stimulus spending programs kicked in things turned around and more than 1 million jobs were gained. The stimulus ran out and the job growth stopped. The de facto austerity and cuts in stimulus spending and state spending are further exacerbating the job losses. Krugman is pointing out that now is not the time to cut, but the time to spend more. Once things get better, as they were, then worry about cutting. His points and logic are supported by the data. Not really too delusional.
Simple minded fool
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 10:58pm.
Finds equivalence? Hey Bill, what about the fact were borrowing 1.3 of those trillion dollars.
You lib are dumb as dirt!
poetic license?
Submitted by kata on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 11:47pm.
It's not poetic license when you link the article. If a person is too lazy to go and read it, it's their own fault.
By the by- you still need to answer my question - How many people entered the workforce in that time?
Out of curiosity - do you use your Visa to pay for your groceries?
How do you equate job losses
Submitted by ant on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 12:37am.
How do you equate job losses as in the private sector as a 'defacto austerity'? Because a few public school teachers have been laid off and this loss of these teachers disposible income (if they had any to begin with) is what is hindering recovery? I did not know 'austerity' included an increase in UC, Food stamps, and other entitlements (to citizens or aliens, ain't America nice?). I did not know austerity means increased monetary aid to foreign nations and foreign companies. First Ladies spending 10 million in taxpayer dollars on vacations last year does not sound like 'defacto austerity' to me, nor does an increase in government limosines of 70%. Shall I keep going with examples? I'm sure the average working person has had to reign in his/her budget and worry is probably an everyday fact for most people, but to suggest this is some sort of policy of government and the administration is laughable. The suggestion that government itself has had to make tough cuts is laughable. Where? Unless increased regulations count as cuts or austerity. Is that why the Dems don't do budgets anymore? Hard to point out budget cuts when none have been put to paper for 800 days or so. How much worrying for the future/making ends meet do you think went on with the Obamas during 10 days at the Vineyard? Don't tell me austerity has been a consequence of the poor economy when the Fed has not only been wholly un-interested in spending restraint, but has been the largest growing sector, and that doesn't even count the increases in the personal fortunes of the engineers of this mess (See Pelosi as an example). And don't tell me an administration filled with idealogus of the sort of Krugman really know or want a successful economy when they are shutting down American guitar builders and the like. You are so full of shit, I can actually smell your comment post from here.
Testify, my bruttha!!!
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 12:51am.
Testify, my bruttha!!! Signify, my homie!!! You be layin' down some serious smack here, G...........I gots to luv it!!! Power to the peeps!!!
And those guitar makers and players??? Yeah.........we've GOT to keep them under our thumb - or they'll wreck the REGIME's plans for the continued degradation of our country!!!
Keep spanking that plank and fighting for freedom!!!
"I've never had any problems with obscene notes'.................Billy F. Gibbons
On the likely chance that Bold Billy is too dense---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 1:43am.
to have noticed, ant just kicked his buns through the goalposts and right on out of the stadium.
It would appear that Sir Billy the Bold, of Balderdash, in stumbling across the phrase "de facto austerity", decided to impress all and sundry with his ability to work the phrase into a post a few times.
Genuine putz, this one.
MD
Hmmm, are those signs of delusional disorder visible here?
Submitted by Bill The Bold on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 3:34am.
The notion that the stimulus failed has hardened into Republican orthodoxy, but it doesn't hold up. A study released last week by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office confirmed that as of June, between 1 million and 2.9 million people are working who wouldn't otherwise have been, thanks to the stimulus. That study wasn't an outlier. Several others came to similar conclusions, including one by the economists Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi. As Jared Bernstein notes, the analysis by Blinder and Zandi found that the stimulus was responsible for roughly 2.7 million jobs and increased the GDP in 2010 by a healthy 3.4 percent.
Still, the stimulus has fallen short of expectations. White House officials--including Bernstein when he was there--predicted before the stimulus was passed that it would reduce unemployment to below 8 percent by the end of 2009. That didn't happen. Frum and Kaus say the problem was that it was poorly designed.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 5:44am.
Garbage in, garbage out.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
are you Zachary Roth?
Submitted by kata on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 9:45am.
if you're not, you should be giving the young man credit for his article.
At what cost per job ?
Submitted by creekrat on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 9:56am.
You want to claim government did this ? At what cost, and how long will they last...a la that green solar panel place they sunk millions into !!!
symptom # 6 of delusional disorder(if the doc validates info)
Submitted by Bill The Bold on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 3:55am.
1.The person expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force.
6.An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility.
sounds like many of the posts here, doesn't it? That is what this site is about , providing a forum run by and for delusional people who, when confronted with anything that contradicts their beliefs about liberals or Obama or conservatives, react with strong emotion and hostility. At least with irritability. Even the posts that offer cogent debate on an issue almost always interject a few insults or barbs--i guess bc they are just irritated by this lamo liberal who has the temerity to contradict their beliefs. Facts be damned, they are for idiots and Nobel Prize winners. We delusionals know whats true bc those idiots are all drinking the kool aide.
Says a guy in a post full of
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 5:28am.
Says a guy in a post full of insults.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Spoken by a true lib
Submitted by creekrat on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 9:58am.
Claims to be independant while ignoring the obvious to maintain his views...and...ATTACK ! Go away.
In a way, you are right.
Submitted by ant on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 10:18am.
In a way, you are right. Usually liars or idiots who are afraid they will be revealed as idiots must go around insulting or blaming others for their shortcomings. Kinda like Obama blaming EVERYTHING on Republicans. Then you have people like Biden, Waters, Durbin, Pelosi, insulting the American people they are supposed to represent, calling them everything from barbarians to Nazis to terrorists. So, yes, most of your DC assholes must resort to name calling to cover the fact that they, themselves, are the true fools. And I can tell you, if you sense some hostility on conservative sites these days it is probably because for 2 1/2 years now we have been threatened, insulted, repeatedly lied to, un-represented, and blamed by the very people that claim to be working for us, the 'federal family' and the press.
Thank you
Submitted by creekrat on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 10:23am.
You said it much better than did I !
More rip offs of others' work
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 09/15/2011 - 2:14am.
Naughty Bill the Bold.
Pretty bloody lazy of you to not even remove the numbered talking points.
LOSER!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
What?
Submitted by Bill The Bold on Thu, 09/15/2011 - 3:36am.
Those are the numbers from the symptom list as written in the Wiki about delusional disorder. Besides, how can you ever talk about anything without using data points?
I think that anyone
Submitted by Jimcinsc on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 11:01am.
With an associates degree in bookkeeping could figure out that this country is on the wrong path when it comes to economics.