Krugman Falsely Claims Romney Wants to Enact Greece's Failed Economic Policies Here
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman on Sunday continued his campaign to get Barack Obama reelected by misinforming the public about the economy.
Appearing on CNN's Fareed Zakaria GPS, the Nobel laureate falsely claimed Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney wants to enact Greece's failed economic policies here in America (video follows with transcript and commentary):
FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN: All this said and done, are you enthusiastic about President Obama? You were not for him in the Democratic primary four years ago.
PAUL KRUGMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: Right. I mean, we're a long way past where I think enthusiasm is the appropriate emotion for anything here.
But he's learned a lot. And, you know, his heart's always been in the right place, and I believe his head is now in the right place. And you certainly -- of course, I can't do endorsements, right? It's a Times rule. So you have no idea who I prefer in this election.
(LAUGHTER)
But he certainly is talking sense about the economy, and Mitt Romney is talking utter nonsense. And you really do worry. In effect...
ZAKARIA: What is the single biggest piece of nonsense that Mitt Romney...
KRUGMAN: Mitt Romney is saying basically that spending cuts are how we're going to get to prosperity. Mitt Romney is saying, see what's happening in Greece and in Portugal and in Spain and in Ireland; let's do that here.
Boy -- you know, we've just had a massive test, human experimentation on a massive scale, in effect, alternative doctrines of economic management. We've just seen which doctrines are disastrous. And the Republican platform is, let's put that doctrine that has just caused collapse in Europe -- let's put that doctrine into effect right here in America.
As NewsBusters has been reporting for months, shills like Krugman and Zakaria have been continually making this same false accusation as they dishonestly withhold from the public that most of the countries in Europe including those named above raised taxes as part of their attempts to balance their budgets. In so doing, they exacerbated the economic woes in their nations.
Take Greece for example. In 2010, the highest tax bracket paid was 40 percent. In 2012, the top bracket will pay 45 percent with increases to what virtually all wage earners will pay. That nation also raised alcohol and tobacco taxes in 2010 as well as property taxes in 2011.
Are any of these tax hikes part of Romney's economic plan?
Of course not, but by ignoring these as being a huge part of Greece's plan, Krugman can claim it is similar to what the Republican presidential candidate wants to enact here.
As for Portugal, Spain, and Ireland, these countries have also increased taxes in their failed attempts to balance their budgets.
This all raises an important question: which of the two remaining presidential candidates wants to raise taxes?
As the key to Obama's economic plan is hiking taxes on the so-called rich, and Romney wants to lower taxes, it is the current White House resident's plan that more closely resembles what's been done throughout Europe.
Shouldn't journalists discussing this matter have some requirement to explain this?
I know. I know. I'm kidding myself.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
➚ Well, sort of . . .
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 7:34pm.
Greece did try austerity for what? Two months?
Wrong lesson. perfessah
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 8:19am.
KRUGMAN: Boy -- you know, we've just had a massive test, human experimentation on a massive scale, in effect, alternative doctrines of economic management. We've just seen which doctrines are disastrous. And the Republican platform is, let's put that doctrine that has just caused collapse in Europe -- let's put that doctrine into effect right here in America.
The doctrine that is collapsing is Euro-socialism. The European countries are in trouble because they can no longer pay for their vast entitlement programs.
European austerity isn't so much a Romney-esque solution to their budgets as much as it is a fiscal reality: They don't have the money, and they can't afford to borrow more. They are begging their neighbors - especially Germany -- for hand-outs.
But to a socialist economist like Krugman, there's no reason not to borrow more because, as he put it, "We essentially owe the money to ourselves." His Oz-like economic model doesn't worry about the sources of wealth -- they are apparently infinite. He concentrates on the redistribution of it.
No wonder the Nobel committee gave this guy a prize in economics.
Reagan raised taxes and
Submitted by megax5000 on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 7:36pm.
Reagan raised taxes and didn't cut spending. Seemed to work out okay.
Wow.
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 7:47pm.
You, apparently, believe everything you're told. Good luck with that. Bot.
Umm....
Submitted by megax5000 on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 7:52pm.
What part of that isn't true, sweetheart?
Ray-gun raised taxes SEVERAL times throughout his terms.
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/2154/reagans-forgott...
His highest tax rate for the rich was 15 POINTS HIGHER than that evil socialist wealth distributor Obama (50% vs. 35).
As for the spending. Holy cripes, dude (ette?)! You don't even need a link for that. It's common knowledge that Reagan TRIPLED the national debt (debt, not the deficit, which is even worse).
Oh, and he also gave amnesty to 3 million illegals and sold weapons to terrorists. Just thought I'd throw that out there.
mega BS ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 7:55pm.
Yo crap jest ain't gonna fly 'round these parts.
'Nome sayin', putz?
MD
Not gonna defend the Lord
Submitted by megax5000 on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 7:58pm.
Not gonna defend the Lord Reagan, eh?
It's okay. Why would anyone wanna defend such a RINO anyway?
Hey Smegma
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 9:41pm.
Time to crawl back into your hole.
➚ megax
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 7:56pm.
You might think Greek-Style government is wonderful, but those who pay for it should have the last say.
MegaGomer
Submitted by Trix Rabbit on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 8:13pm.
My, my, my. What we have here is yet another troll who throws out random and sundry crap and doesn't offer to present any empirical evidence to prove otherwise.
Good luck Gomer.
For the MSM: In your pomp and all your glory, you're a poorer man than me. As you lick the boots of death born out of fear.
Ian Anderson "Wind up"
Empirical evidence? I
Submitted by megax5000 on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 8:18pm.
Empirical evidence? I just..did...what the hell are you talking about? Are you blind?
I already provided a link. Why don't you provide me some "empirical evidence" that Reagan never raised taxes or actually cut spending? This is fairly common knowledge. Dear god.
MegaGomer,
Submitted by Trix Rabbit on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 8:33pm.
You call that empirical evidence? That was just more claptrap from a bucolic bureaucrat. Do you know why "Dear god" gave us Jews such big noses? It was so we can know the truth from the bullshit.
Now, allow yourself to provide empirical evidence by first looking up what the term means. Take your time with this. Don't blow a gasket over it.
True, my eyes aren't what they used to be, but you are definitely a home-grown idiot who wants us to join the sing-a-long you're having with Big Brother and admit how plusgoodly things are according to the statistics Minitruth has shown you.
For the MSM: In your pomp and all your glory, you're a poorer man than me. As you lick the boots of death born out of fear.
Ian Anderson "Wind up"
The "bureaucrat" that wrote
Submitted by megax5000 on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 8:44pm.
The "bureaucrat" that wrote that "claptrap" was one of Reagan's former economic advisors.
But whatever. Is this something more to your liking? Or is it the evil librul media again trying to pull the wool over your eyes?
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
➚ So what?
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 8:53pm.
You're an Obamarrhoid. What's your point?
My "point" isn't that hard to
Submitted by megax5000 on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 9:00pm.
My "point" isn't that hard to deduce (assuming one's not a flat earther, who believes Jesus rode dinosaurs).
It's simply to point out that Reagan had tax rates on the rich much higher, and much more socialistic, (as well as every president prior to him) than the evil Obongo will EVER even dream of enacting, and yet we have sites like Newsbusters who feed right wing twits propaganda that he's already raised taxes to some astronomical never before seen level, when he couldn't even go back to the Clinton tax rates when he had control of BOTH houses of congress.
➚ That's a thin device
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 9:30pm.
Reagan had tax rates on the rich much higher.
Couldn't bring yourself to admit Reagan lowered the tax rates on all groups, could you? Or that lowering the stifling 70% rate paid by the rich introduced job growth.
Jimmy, you need to go build another Habitat house. You want O'birther re-elected to cinch your place as the 2nd worst President in history.
Trust me, Obama has already taken your place.
Um...okay Reagan lowered tax
Submitted by megax5000 on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 9:39pm.
Um...okay Reagan lowered tax rates for everyone (guess what? so did Obama OMG!)
The point of mentioning the rich specifically was to address the complaint that Obama's been the one being too mean to them (even those he has yet to touch their tax rates, and even if he did, it would still be lower than Reagan's for most of his presidency).
Also, it's so weird to see so many right wingers blindly make fun of Carter. As much crap as he gets, fun fact: he had a higher rate of job growth than even the Gipper.
➚ Smegma5000
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 9:46pm.
Please don't think your carefully worded misleadings are believed.
mega smegma is a most ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 9:54pm.
appropriate appellation for this hoser.
Somewhere along the line he took it under advisement that typing something in a post that corresponds with lib propaganda makes it so.
Absolute personification of the liberal troll.
MD
It's getting quite annoying
Submitted by megax5000 on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 10:08pm.
It's getting quite annoying to see so many people use ad-hominem attacks without providing any evidence whatsoever.
"Oh, sure I don't have any proof, but I know for a FACT yer librul propaganda isn't true!"
Come on, even Mr. Sheppard was kind enough to post a link or two.
You are correct, mega smegma, you are a most ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 10:24pm.
annoying troll.
A clueless pontificator and a repeater of random lib twaddle; yet you actually have enough chutzpah to expect your crapola to be debated.
Waste of time, dontcha know?
Your ilk is being stomped on, skewered, and spit out in minuscule pieces around these threads on a daily basis - and you are too damned ignorant to recognize even a blinding glimpse of the obvious.
Not to mention that your idiotic posts, themselves, are perfect cannon fodder for ad-hominem attacks.
They, and you, are most deserving.
MD
And a lying troll to boot.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 10:43pm.
A lying troll.
And quite Stupid .
And disrespectful and alarmingly uneducated.
And a repeated vicious liar .
Go blow yourself, troll
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 12:07am.
Assuming you can find where it was you left your microscopic tweezers.
Government education positively sucks, and in that regard, you are not merely the poster child, but Exhibit "A."
Now run along, troll, as I think I hear comrade Soros screaming for his nightly wax job, and I believe it is your turn.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
'Carter had better job growth than Reagan'?
Submitted by Phryj1 on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 10:58pm.
The labor participation rate shot up 4 points under Reagan. His job growth not only DEMOLISHED Carter, but was even better than the miserable .3 increase under Clinton.
And you want to talk about spending? The whole reason Reagan agreed to raise taxes was because the Dems promised to make cuts, and instead spent twice as much as they promised to cut.
And that piddling payroll tax cut doesn't do jack for the middle class, particularly the self-employed and small business owners, especially compared to the Bush tax cuts.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
Yaaawn, MegaGomer.
Submitted by Trix Rabbit on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 8:58pm.
I don't care if it was written by Mother Teresa. That junk you get from Lew Rockwell's site goes only so far before it turns into collective paranoia and conspiracies.
Reagan is now six feet under the ground and the more pressing need of this nation is to get out of the quasi-fascist snake pit that Barky and his cheerleaders have placed upon this country.
Right now, your more pressing assignment is to do your mom a favor and clean out your hamster's cage. I can imagine that it is stinking up the place.
For the MSM: In your pomp and all your glory, you're a poorer man than me. As you lick the boots of death born out of fear.
Ian Anderson "Wind up"
Wait, Obarky is a fascist
Submitted by megax5000 on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 9:02pm.
Wait, Obarky is a fascist now? Or quasi-fascist? I thought he was a socialist, marxist, communist?
Mega...
Submitted by Phryj1 on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 11:20pm.
Despite what your moron history teacher told you, fascism and Marxism aren't mutually exclusive. Fascism is a system where the government has absolute power, Marxism advocates a system where the gov't owns and controls every business on the 'people's' (meaning, the people running the gov't's) behalf. Fascism and Marxism are practically made for each other.
The idea that fascism and Marxism/socialism/communism are different is a lie told by Marxists trying to put a positive spin on a socioeconomic system that's killed over 100 million people.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
Your government - educated ignorant ass is too stoopid...
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 12:21am.
...to even begin to define the terms in your comment.
Go away, you profoundly ignorant dumbass, as you are too colossally stoopid to be posting here at NB.
No wonder you support comrade Obama, as once he is gone, you might actually have to get off your parasitic ass and get a job.
And a non-goonion one at that.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Sweetheart?
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 8:19pm.
I don't know you. Don't presume to know me.
The top tax rate (the following for comparative basis reflect "married, filing jointly") in 1980 was 70% for those making $215,400 and above. It was 49% for those making $45,800 to $60,000. There were 16 tax brackets with the lowest (non-zero) being 14% for people earning $3,400 to $5,500. In 1987, there were 5 tax brackets, the lowest being 11% for $0 to $5,926 and the top rate being $38.5% for $177,766 and above. Someone earning up to $55,305 paid 15%; for $55,305 to $88,883 paid 28%.
Reagan also trusted Senate Democrats, which was his bigest mistake. The minor increase in taxes was the result of a deal cut, and reneged on by Democrats.
And everything must be put in its proper context. The Debt in 1990 was just over $3T. Obama projected spending of $3.7T in his 2012 Budget.
Iran-Contra? That's all you got? Please. Reagan brought down the Soviet Union! The Iron Curtain folded under Ronald Reagan. The Islamist Spring has blossomed under Barack Obama. No comparison. Your guy's a foreign policy disaster.
Thank you for at least
Submitted by megax5000 on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 8:30pm.
Thank you for at least attempting a reasoned response unlike most people here.
Notice in my original post I said he had higher rates for "most" of his presidency. At the very end of his second term he did lower the rates to 28%. But what happened after? A fairly big recession that lasted into the first few years of Clinton's first term.
The spending increases that you talk about were mostly in defense, so I thought you'd be happy about that, considering later on you say that Reagan "won" the war against the Soviet Union.
And finally, I'd hope that you realize that you can't compare $3 trillion in 1990 to what we have now. They're not equivalent in real dollars. There is this little thing called "inflation". Plus a good chunk of the lower revenue is cause of the bush tax cuts + the loss in revenues from the recession.
Actually, the first tax rate drop came in
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 9:04pm.
1982 when the top bracket went from 70% to 50%. And it wasn't just the top bracket, every other bracket fell as well.
Secondly, the 1991 Recession was not a result of Reagan policies. Rather, monetary policy by the Fed in an effort to control inflation after the largest peacetime expansion of the US economy in history, combined with the general edgyness brought on by the Gulf War led to the downturn beginning in July 1990.
And yes, Defense spending, particularly in R&D and moderization of out fighting forces (I was in the Corps at the time) were the drivers of the debt. Like that or not, it did bring down the Soviet Union, even while -as I said above- we saw the largest ever peacetime expansion of the US economy.
As for other comments in this thread involving Bush's responsibility vs Obama's relative to Reagan/Bush vs Clinton- President's can play a role, but they have to work with what they're dealt. Clinton wa President during the DotCom bubble burst. His fault? Not so much. Bush 43 was president during the housing bubble burst. His fault? Of course not. Like Clinton, he didn't put policies in place that led to the bust. HOWEVER, as Bru noted above, Bush and his team did recognize the coming catastrophe and tried to head it off; Democrats would have none of it as these policies largely benefitted their constituents.
And of course I realize the the 1990 dollars to 2012 dollars issue, that's why I noted it! I mentioned the word "context"; remember?
Personally, you seem like someone with enough brainpower to actually look at the data rather than believe what is force fed to you. Frankly, I guess in a lot of ways you can't be blamed entirely. The whole purpose of this site is to document the ways the media does exactly that; force feed a gullible public the manipulated data or storylines that further their agenda. And the problem in 2012 is, these Democrats are not JFK Democrats; they're Josef Stalin Democrats and unless you're in their top tier, you stand to lose as much as the rest of us if their policies are embraced. Some might call that "cutting off your nose to spite your face."
Finally, I won't apologize for anyone's demeanor on this site. We've seen you (or your talking points) a thousand times over. They'll never make sense. They'll never win anyone -with critical thinking skills- over. They'll never convince people who love free will to give it up. The promises are empty. As I said elsewhere in this thread, today's Demcorats are offering nothing but the failed policies of statism and unfulfilled protectionsim for their followers.
Oh, and things were going so
Submitted by megax5000 on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 9:19pm.
Oh, and things were going so well until the last quarter of your post.
See you are correct. I AM a little bit confused, because you too seem like someone who at least has SOME fundamental understanding of history and tax rates and such. You were doing a great job until you blew it by saying that current Dems are not "JFK" dems, but rather "Stalin" dems. This is confusing for many reasons.
You've stated that Reagan dropped the tax rate from what it was when he was in office, 70%. I would PRESUME you would then be aware that THAT'S what the rates were around Kennedy's time as well! Yes, it's true he also brought the rates down, but guess what, it was STILL 70%.
How do you seemingly have respect for someone like that, yet think that the current Democrats in congress and Obama are in anyway Stalin-like, when they have a top tax rate of 35%? The MOST we can expect Obama to do right now is miraculously jack up the rates to 39%, which he'll NEVER be able to do given the make up of congress. He couldn't do that when he had control of BOTH houses of congress! think about that for a minute.
I understand people who don't seem to know about this country's tax history who may think that Obama's a socialist for god knows whatever reason. It's people like you who DO seem to know this yet still think that's the case that I'm positively confused about.
Also, JFK did a MILLION things that many people on the right would absolutely despise (again, just like Reagan), such as increased spending on science and education (NASA comes to mind). So this just keeps making me curious what the rationale is.
I'd appreciate an explanation, I'm genuinely curious.
Okay mega. Point by point.
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 10:14pm.
SocialistsDemocrats. No one will make the case that the $47B over ten years projected revenue increase under the "Buffett Rule" is about either growth or debt reduction. It's about "fairness".The Soviet Union and their vast network or oppressive communist rule no longer exists -thanks to Reagan- but we're dealing with another growing global threat; completely amaturish I might add, but a real threat nonetheless. How and where we spend taxpayer dollars is critical and should fluxuate based on conditions. Rather than putting a fiscal priority on radical Islam, we put it in Global Warming (under Obama); a fantasy concocted to do nothing more than lower the financial power of the rich -individuals, companies, and nations all for the end game of rule by a minority of central planners. Karl Marx would be especially proud.
Good gravy. At the very least
Submitted by megax5000 on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 10:34pm.
Good gravy.
At the very least I'm glad your numbers are in some plane of reality, so kudos on that.
But your conclusions are absolutely fascinating! So because of some generally national programs, like education, and healthcare (which we have exactly BECAUSE it can't seem to be done individually by state, and IF the state wants it, they can build their own plan even under Obamacare), you think that's equivalent to being Stalin-esque?
When people think of Stalin, I don't think they think of Universal health care. Just a guess. They think of things being arrested indefinitely without due process, being tortured, and such. Oddly enough, things that Republicans SUPPORT., (Well, okay, in fairness, I guess they'd make a fuss if it was a white person being the victim)
Color me crazy, but that's something that scares me a lot more than say...the government forcing my insurance provider to not drop my coverage the moment I get sick. But I digress.
And the idea that Republicans want small government is ridiculous. They support the government stepping in when it comes to sexual rights, reproductive rights, marriage, religion and a whole host of other things. The only "small" involvement they want is for massive corporations to pollute freely without any recourse.
And what's this proof that Obama and the Democrats want to make concentration camps. Cause of some crap you read in a chain e-mail? Where is the proof that he wants to repeal the second amendment when he's signed laws EXPANDING those rights?
Obama wants slightly higher taxes on the rich to both spur growth and cut the deficit (which is what Republicans supposedly claim to be for). Furthermore, why would Obama have the backing of some of the most richest people on Earth if he's going to take all their money and redistribute it? Do you think Warren Buffett's unaware of Obama's policies? Has he not read the latest chain e-mails?
And furthermore, Obama HIMSELF is rich too! Why would he want to redistribute all HIS money as well? You people are INSANE.
megacrazy
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 10:46pm.
As far as being arrested indefinately without due process, http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/12/senate-clears-way-to-pass-defens...
honestly, you should make some effort to be informed before showing us how very ignorant you are.
As far as the whole rich people wouldn't support them if he was going to take their money, many of these rich supporters aren't that bright. They don't realize their money is at stake, i.e. Jon Lovitz? Or how about Will Smith http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2012/05/14/fresh-prince-will-smith-mak...
Get a big shovel, you're whole is pretty deep.
Mega can't help it.
Submitted by NC Cop on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 10:50pm.
It comes from getting your "news" from DailyKos.
come on jfrank*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 10:50pm.
Who is insane?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1393960/US-gives-billions-foreig...
Okay, now you've managed to confuse me.
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 12:09am.
I'm not sure what you're talking about vis a vis state-run healthcare. The GOP wants free market healthcare. And something similar for education. The feds don't need to be involved in either.
Universal healthcare is the control of one's health from cradle to grave. Is there any more control one entity can have over another than their physical well-being from birth to death? That's pretty controlling. The reason Stalin, and other communist dictators committed so many atrocities is simply because people revolted against their tyrannical control. If everyone would have just surrendered to it, Uncle Joe wouldn't have had to starve so many. Control is the issue. Central Planning. Control. Get it?
And if you think ObamaCare is all about pre-existing conditions, you're hopeless. What happens, under ObamaCare, if you choose not to play along? What would Stalin do?
Conservatives don't want government in your bedroom, progressives do. Progressives want taxpayer-funded abortion. They want laws created to address gay marriage and force it on people even when the majority rejects it. They want laws created to prop up certain demographics; be it race, gender, or sexual preference. Conservatives just want the government to get out of the way and let localities and free markets decide what's best for them. And the racist thing is really overdone. You can always tell when a liberal is losing an argument- they run to racism as an attempt to silence their opposition. I'm no racist, and I won't be silenced at the mere accusation by the likes of you.
I never mentioned concentration camps. Funny that you did.
Honestly, do you think slightly higher taxes will spur growth? In what way? And do you think it'll actually have a meaningful effect on the deficit? It's almost $16T dollars. I know that's hard to comprehend but look at it this way: The Buffett Rule's annual revenue, based on Obama's own estimates, would fund 11 and a half hours of federal spending. You're welcome to break out your own calculator and check my math.
How many of the rich that support Obama's higher tax plan have broken out their checkbook and contributed 70% of their AGI to the IRS? Link them. Show me. Show me that they're not just all talk. Seems to me even the Oracle owes back taxes.
And typical liberal ranting- it's not ALL their money. You can't sell "we want all your money" to voters. But you can help eliminate the threat of money against you by bleeding your opposition dry, little by little. Like radical Islamists, Progressives know this is a hundred year struggle to bring the world under their control. As I said, every policy platform in the progressive ladder is about control. Name one that ultimately isn't...
The 1991 recession.
Submitted by Phryj1 on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 11:34pm.
Don't forget, taxes were increased in 1990. That was certainly a major cause for the subsequent recession and rising unemployment.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
Exactly-
Submitted by KornKing on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 8:57am.
Remember the "Luxury Tax" that Rosty felt was so important? Generated what, $ 100K in receipts(cost more than that to administer) and put how many people out of work?
Wow!
Submitted by Noel Sheppard on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 9:10pm.
"At the very end of his second term he did lower the rates to 28%. But what happened after? A fairly big recession that lasted into the first few years of Clinton's first term."
Really? Not according to the National Bureau of Economic Research which dates that recession as having started in July 1990 18 months after Reagan left office while ending in March 1991 22 months before Clinton was sworn in: http://www.nber.org/cycles.html
According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, GDP grew by 3.2% in 1987, 4.1% in 1988, and 3.6% in 1989: http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=1&ViewSe...
Facts suck, don't they?!? ns
Good point. Still, doesn't
Submitted by megax5000 on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 9:32pm.
Good point. Still, doesn't seem those tax cuts were enough to prevent such a recession from happening down the line, eh?
Mega
Submitted by Noel Sheppard on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 9:47pm.
Mega,
That's a staggeringly stupid point. Now I know why people are asking you be banned.
You claimed the Reagan tax cuts led to a recession before he left office that lasted into Clinton's first year. When I proved you dead wrong, you came back and said the cuts didn't prevent a recession from happening.
There are still business cycles. In almost 250 years, we have yet to demonstrate that any policy be it fiscal or monetary can eliminate recessions.
Please do some homework in the future before making such absurd comments here. Adieu. ns
Haha, good Noel. I'm glad
Submitted by megax5000 on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 10:05pm.
Haha, good Noel. I'm glad when I throw you a bone, you make good use of it.
And I'm sure you'll be "doing your homework" the next time you talk about how Obama has had historically high tax rates or Reagan cut spending or some such.
In other words Noel
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 10:06pm.
mega ain't got nothing. Nada. Zilch.
So he'll try to be a smart a$$ and lie.
Now I know whou you are, smegmax5000 times a trillion
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 12:20am.
You are the goofy sh*t Burger King reject in the Statue of Liberty suit standing out in front of the local H & R Block office for the first two weeks of every April.
Sucks to be you, I guess.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Point, Set and Match.
Submitted by NC Cop on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 9:49pm.
Nicely done.
megabs*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 8:25pm.
Read your own link "sweetheart". This article is about his efforts as Gov of California to balance a budget with a huge deficit. He did what he could but from your own link the article states how he learned not to make the same mistakes.
As President, he raised capital gains taxes.
Your other idiot comments. First, SS and medicare was a carefully planned pension program for non government employees. Agree or not , it has been with us awhile. But the important thing to remember is that fiscal responsibility is of no importance to any politician. Here comes SSI, medicaid, and multiple changes, over the years, that defined disability. The premiums and medicare taxes have increased necessarily since there are now millions of people receiving benefits from these programs never, NEVER having paid a dime into the system. Add millions of illegal immigrants who are also now drawing SSI and medicaid and you see why the SS system is about to implode in about 5 yrs. Your wonderful savior has bragged about decreasing medicare premiums for those already receiving benefits but increased SS deductions for those employed. What he didnt tell was that those premiums will double in 2013, 2014 and 2015. By 2016, people paying $100 a month for medicare coverage today will be paying over $400 a month. Dont forget that he is doing all he can to destroy private insurance companies. Those who are employed, their contributions to the SS system will rise exponencially as well.
Oh, and dont forget, it was Clinton who took billions out of SS to balance the budget to make his record look good. Bush tried twice to present legislation to make SS more solvent and the Dems voted it down both times. You do know of course that the dms had a majority of both houses.
If you dont know the difference between SS and SSI, medicare and medicaid, CHIPS and dozens of other programs, please feel free to look it up. The big nanny dems have been including everyone into the SS system for decades even though they contributed nothing to the program. NOW as the SS system is about busted, lets blame the R's because they want to make it attractive to working stiffs to participate in private pension plans. The entire tax code as well as social security needs to be revamped but it wont succeed as long as liberal nanny staters want to continue to give "free" stuff away.
Secondly, Reagan increased capital gains taxes. And I have no problem raising taxes on people especially when 47% of the population pays no taxes. It would be fair even if they only paid $10 a year. The reason is because if you have nothing invested, then nothing has value. Bush's tax cuts did benefit the middle class more than anyone else as well as small businesses. They are the heart of our economy. People are unaware, but when the Bush tax cuts expire in Jan, there will be hell to pay. People have no idea how much of a tax increase will be hitting them. Then Obama doesnt want this increased revenue so he can cut the deficit and debt, noooooo, he wants to give billions to green energy programs that technically do not exist. He wants to give even billions more to those who are our professed enemies.
You can knock Reagan and Bush all you want. Spew the media lies all you care to but do it at your lib ivory tower sites where they will heartedly agree with the spew. Here, we are not so blind and fulll of lib lying kool ade.
Um... okay. 1. Unless I'm
Submitted by megax5000 on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 8:41pm.
Um... okay.
1. Unless I'm mistaken, Chairman ObaMAO wants to keep most of the tax cuts aside from the ones affecting those making $250k. I dunno how many "middle class" people that includes.
2. We did fine with those tax hikes during the Clinton years, but again, Democrat, so I guess that doesn't count.
3. Where the hell are you getting illegals collecting SS and Medicare? Most of them who pay into the programs don't get shit back. Any actual evidence or is it just something that someone told you in a chain e-mail?
4. Where exactly did Obama increase deductions for SS?
5. How does increasing medicare premiums destroy the PRIVATE insurance industry? Seriously, what the hell are you talking about? It's like when bachmann said that Obama wants to cut 500 billion from medicare (a SOCIALIZED government program) to fund Obamacare (which is handled by PRIVATE insurance)
➚ Mega
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 8:48pm.
So it's your claim, that President Obama will not raise the Bush Era Tax Rates?
I don't know if he will or
Submitted by megax5000 on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 8:56pm.
I don't know if he will or won't. If he won't get support for letting only the top rates expire (which he almost certainly won't), then I feel he'll just extend the cuts again.
➚ Mega
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 9:08pm.
Expire? Those have been the rates for 10 years now. For all those kids who have joined the workforce during that time, and everyone who has incorporated that tax reduction into their budgets, that's a tax hike, not a tax expiration.
For all the "kids" who joined
Submitted by megax5000 on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 10:06pm.
For all the "kids" who joined the work force during that time and are making six figure salaries, I'm afraid I won't be weeping too much for them.
try again mega*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 9:25pm.
I stated that illegal immigrants can receive SSI and medicaid not SS and medicare. There is a huge difference. The reason being is that every walking human being that goes into an emergency room that requires health care who has no income or cannot provide proof of income is automatically eligible for medicaid for 90 days. (Look up Obama's aunt and uncle. ) Recipients of SSI and medicaid have never paid anything into the system which is why they invented this area of special benefits to those ineligible for SS and medicare. The problem is that the money needed to fund those programs comes from the SS system. At one time, working people contributing to SS supporting SS recipients was 1 to 7, Today it is closer to 1 to 3. Illegal immigrants that are "sponsored" by a legal immigrant and is found to be disabled can draw SSI/medicaid.
The other thing is that medicaid is a state managed and funded program with federally refunded amounts dependant on current costs of medical care. Check out statistics for La and Miss after Katrina. We still owe millions to the feds. Obama has lowered the reimburseable costs of medical care. Private hospitals are taking a beating. States with high numbers of illegals are taking a beating. States like La are having to make drastic cuts in our charity hospital system because the feds have cut reimbursements.
The problem is that so many people believe that SS system is just Social Security. Far from it. So many nanny programs have been added, such as treatments (free) for STD's, disabled children income to parents, maternity care and counseling for free for lower income families and many more.
We have a forum at NB on Obama care and costs, regulations and penalties. This information is in depth studies and discussion by a number of people who work within the system and are aware of the huge costs and damage this program will do to ALL of us.
http://newsbusters.org/forums/topic-discussion/health-care-reform-la-soc...
This forum should help you understand the true effects Obama care will have on our economy and health care not from media but from people who work within the system and understand the Health Care Act.
There are many things wrong with our SS system. People like Bush, Paul Ryan and even some democrats recognize the system is busted. They have been demonized for wanting to make changes., The sad thing is we have NO CHOICE but to re work the system so no matter what changes are made, there will have to be changes. That will please no one especially those who want it to be a political agenda first rather than solutions.
We can argue the issue of taxes in the same manner. Another complexity of government intrusion, over regulation, fraud, incompetence, and loopholes. It needs to be more fair to all Americans. When 15% of our population pays 85% of all taxes, 47% population pays no taxes, people lose a true sense of what it costs to run this country. As long as the powerful in DC continue to expand their power over the people, they wont care about representing the people but increasing their power.
Continuing to spew media myths and lies about Republicans in order to place blame away from Obama's contributions to this mess is the attitude that got us here in the first place. That is not to say R;s have not contributed, that would be foolish. However, try not to forget that out of the last 56 years, the democrats have been in power in the white house, the senate and the house, 44 of those 56 yrs.
Now, carry on to the 5th diminsion of fantasy utopia.
Well darlin'
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 9:55pm.
That was a troll slapdown done politely and thoroughly.
mega, you need to read this over and over. Cajun knows of what she speaks.
For Paul Ryan and the
Submitted by megax5000 on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 10:17pm.
For Paul Ryan and the Republicans plan to "save" medicare and SS, how exactly does that work? I realize that instead of the government paying for service, the beneficiaries will instead get a voucher or a coupon to get health care. What I don't get is, current workers pay for current beneficiaries. If current workers have the ability to buy private insurance, where will the money come from to pay for current SS/Medicare beneficiaries?
And Most of the debt we've accrued was under Republican presidents, mainly Reagan and Bush, so not sure what your point about mostly blaming the democrats.
here ya' go mega*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 11:27pm.
Read this as a starting point then we can discuss further
http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2006/506/infocus/p15.htm
Read to understand the purpose, function and size of government.
http://www.akdart.com/gov1.html
http://www.allgov.com/agency/Office_of_Personnel_Management
http://www.wnd.com/2001/07/9971/
Once you understand the size, money, and power of the government this may help you to understand the other part of government. Originally government was established to provide service and protect american citizens and our sovoreingty. That has changed over time. Now the function of government is protect and benefit those who work in government. In order to do that, gov must create tax structures, fees, penalties, expenses and all sorts of revenue to fill the trough. The function of millions of bureaucrats is to provide an environment for the massive reproduction of more bureaucrats. That in essence gives more power to government. Add more dependents to the system and that too adds power over people's lives. The problem with continuing the size and power of government is quite simple.
Margaret Thatcher....Eventually you run out of other peoples money.
For your consideration Mega
Submitted by Par for the Course on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 7:31am.
PPACA's main solution to Medicare spending is IPAB.
My question, can you provide me with an example when price controls have actually worked?
So, mega opinions, blaming Bush 43 must be getting a ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 7:49pm.
tad shopworn, huh?
MD
A quesion: Is Bush
Submitted by megax5000 on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 8:03pm.
A quesion: Is Bush responsible for the financial crash of 2008?
If he's not responsible for something like that, that happened on his watch, then you agree it's equally as valid to say that Obama shouldn't be held accountable for anything bad that happened on his watch either. Right?
~No, the Dems were responsible
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 8:07pm.
and Bush and other Republicans tried to stop it.
that is quite fascinating.
Submitted by megax5000 on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 8:14pm.
that is quite fascinating. Republicans wanted to actually regulate someone MORE?
How the hell does THAT work?
And there it is.
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 8:23pm.
Proof is presented and you run to hyperbole. Nice job, sport.
It's hyperbolic to claim that
Submitted by megax5000 on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 8:54pm.
It's hyperbolic to claim that Republicans wanted increased regulation for something?
Republicans did want to add oversight to the
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 9:12pm.
banks. Are you unaware of this, or simply denying it?
From 2003:
Oversight of Mortgage Giants Sought
(Associated Press) Treasury Secretary John Snow asked Congress Wednesday for a stronger government hand over mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "we cannot be complacent" about the economically vital housing finance market.
Your argument is about as shallow
Submitted by djwolf12 on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 8:08pm.
as that liberals still claim that Bush is responsible for the gas prices in 2012. Time for you to get into THIS YEAR, not 2008.
So saying that Bush was
Submitted by megax5000 on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 8:13pm.
So saying that Bush was responsible for something that happened in 2008 is COMPLETELY different from saying Obama was responsible for something that happened in 2012?
Tell me more, plz.
You brought it up,
Submitted by djwolf12 on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 8:22pm.
not me. Here is your backpack and your Government approved lunch sack because I'm getting ready to TAKE YOU TO SCHOOL. Didn't Media Matters put out a selectively edited clip of O'Reilly saying that The President "HAS NO CONTROL" over gas prices, but iif you watch the ENTIRE CLIP he says the exact opposite? Didn't The Obama Administration just say that they are releasing oil to curb gas price hikes just this past week? Uh, YES. So in other words, the President DOES control gas prices. If this is the way that you want to use to still blame a guy you left office 3-1/2 years ago, then Obama is to blame for EVERYTHING terrible that has happened by his own volition since January 21, 2009.
Unless I'm mistaken,
Submitted by megax5000 on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 8:53pm.
Unless I'm mistaken, releasing that oil is supposed to be a last resort type thing. Not something to mess around with willy-nilly.
But it IS a fact that generally the president doesn't have much control over gas prices.
I forgot to add this too
Submitted by djwolf12 on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 9:56pm.
If you plan on counting Christmas Season part time help to this "4 million jobs" claim doesn't count because they are done away with once the season is over. So in otherwords, these people LOSE jobs.
Stimulus, The Son of Stimulus, and the Grandson of Stimulus
Submitted by djwolf12 on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 8:37pm.
Yeah, all of that rediculous deficit spending (which fiscally irresponsible liberals say is always necessary) that produced JACK SQUAT under this administration's reign since January 21, 2009 to create bankrupt companies like Solyndra is all Bush's fault too. I also guess that Newsweek's declaration that Obama is "The First Gay President" was Bush's fault too.
Uh...He created over 4
Submitted by megax5000 on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 8:52pm.
Uh...He created over 4 million jobs private sector jobs during that time (at a much faster rate in the same point of his presidency than Bush did). The major losses came from the public sector, which you guys are all for, oddly enough.
(Interestingly, Bush and Reagan both increased public sector jobs vastly)
Ok, so WHERE are these 4 million jobs?
Submitted by djwolf12 on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 9:09pm.
These jobs certainly aren't with Solyndra. They certainly aren't with General Motors Corporation. They certainly aren't down on Wall Street. They certainly aren't with Blockbuster. They certainly aren't with Best Buy. When the president says that these stimulus plans will create shovel ready jobs, then why shouldn't Obama be blamed if these jobs didn't survive?
So, here is your last chance to answer my question: where are these 4 million jobs that Obama created? And if so, then WHY are there so many people in this country on food stamps?
4 million jobs
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 9:14pm.
I've yet to see a source for that.
mega BS, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 9:17pm.
indeed.
Just another fookin' lib mook who sashays up to the counter with his trite lib talking points/handouts carried in a fold-a-file beneath his arm.
Your adherence to your lib tribe ways is understood; your lib troll stench both recognized and categorized for what it is; and your especially pitiful smarmy suck-up to bkeyser after he kicked your ass without resorting to calling you names - which as a liberal insulter of Reagan on a conservative site you most richly deserve - duly noted.
The branding iron being prepared for your sorry lib butt is even now being heated up.
Whine on, Obama loving loser.
MD
It would be nice if you dealt
Submitted by John21 on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 7:57am.
It would be nice if you dealt in reality. The Obama administration has grow the government and public sector jobs by 34% in 3 1/2 years that is the primary job increase numbers that you qoute. The positions created are normally unneeded and overpaid but allows the limited like yourself to make claims that are erronious.
Looks like j frank wilson is back.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 10:12pm.
megatroll5000: Reagan raised taxes and didn't cut spending.
j. frank wilson: Federal income taxes went up during the Administrations of Ronald Reagan.
As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), federal revenues declined only slightly from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 1990.
Yeah, the megatroll lies to us by slyly telling us at some point President Reagan raised some taxes. And he outright lies about the didn't cut spending part.
Kinda hard to raise taxes over all and then have the federal revenues GO DOWN.
And kinda hard to not cut spending and have the federal revenues GO DOWN.
J. Frank Moonbat is back?
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 10:32pm.
Yeah, sadly I think you're right.
There must have been an escape at the Psych ward he was being held at.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Troll5000, You have posted
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 12:06am.
Troll5000,
You have posted here 11 times in one year and three weeks, hit the road loser and go tell you DNC controllers you were exposed for the moron you are.
You are wrong about Reagan
Submitted by JanineC on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 2:02am.
As President, Reagan cut the marginal tax rates and most importantly cut regulations that were stifling the economy. He also held the money supply constant. With the tax cuts, revenues increased by 53% even though spending didn't go down. Reagan did get rid of some tax loopholes too. But the only taxes Reagan raised were those in California when he was Governor, and he HAD to do so because the state was in such a mess that cuts alone would not have brought the state back soon enough. Pat Brown so screwed up the state that it was on its way to where it is now--close to bankrupt.
Reagan lowered tax rates
Submitted by AFVet on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 3:16pm.
I guess facts do not mean anything to liberals. President Reagan lowered the top Federal Tax rate form 70%, to 50%, and then to 28% in the 1986 Tax Reform Act. Congress increased spending when it was supposed to be cutting spending, but liberals broke their promises over and over again and kept spending more and more. It is the US Congress that has the federal check book.
They also didn't fix the structural problems
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 7:38pm.
They pushed austerity largely on the private sector, on top of raising their taxes without doing enough about their union problem. Greece failed because they over-promised to a large sector of their citizenry that the government would take care of them forever. Greece named every Greek child born in the last fifty years, "Julia".
To paraphrase the Immortal Henny Youngman........
Submitted by djwolf12 on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 7:52pm.
Put this man on Jeopardy, PLEASE!
Krugman is as much a
Submitted by Trix Rabbit on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 8:10pm.
Krugman is as much a economist as my cat is. Romney cannot and will not enact Greece's failed economic policies.
On the other hand, Barky does. François Hollande was elected on a ticket of NO austerity, higher taxes and no spending cuts. Barky agrees with that program. 'Nuff said.
For the MSM: In your pomp and all your glory, you're a poorer man than me. As you lick the boots of death born out of fear.
Ian Anderson "Wind up"
You got that right, Trix
Submitted by djwolf12 on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 8:15pm.
Notice how those world leaders from NATO spent most of their time at Camp David while François Hollande spent time at the White House last week? I must be the only one that is doing the media's job in reporting on that story.
Ignore MegaGomer
Submitted by NascarShizzle on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 9:27pm.
Just ignore this thing and let it go somewhere else
Let's not beat up on Krugman! This is the first dishonest
Submitted by Rush Fan on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 11:36pm.
handling of the truth I've heard from a Liberal. It's a shame it came from a renowned Nobel winner whose reputation and honesty was heretofore impeccable.
The spirit of . . .
Submitted by rickbren on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 12:06am.
. . . Goebbels is alive and kicking in the DNC apparatchik.
Paul Krugman has his own problems
Submitted by needle on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 10:29am.
Krugman “Romney Wants to Enact Greece's Failed Economic Policies Here”
???
Krugman may want to tell the truth, but it seems that his innate partisanship has short-circuited his ability to do so.
Some academic ought to do a study on the collateral psychological damage caused by Nobel Prizes, starting with such notable examples as:
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.