The “new” spin from the White House is fresh off the presses. Of course it’s nothing new, just the same ole same ole “Republicans are evil” crapola. And speaking of crapola, here is Krugman and the spin:
What do the government of China, the government of Germany and the Republican Party have in common? They’re all trying to bully the Federal Reserve into calling off its efforts to create jobs. And the motives of all three are highly suspect.
~~~So what’s really motivating the G.O.P. attack on the Fed? Mr. Bernanke and his colleagues were clearly caught by surprise, but the budget expert Stan Collender predicted it all. Back in August, he warned Mr. Bernanke that “with Republican policy makers seeing economic hardship as the path to election glory,” they would be “opposed to any actions taken by the Federal Reserve that would make the economy better.” In short, their real fear is not that Fed actions will be harmful, it is that they might succeed.
~~~No doubt some of Mr. Bernanke’s critics are motivated by sincere intellectual conviction, but the core reason for the attack on the Fed is self-interest, pure and simple. China and Germany want America to stay uncompetitive; Republicans want the economy to stay weak as long as there’s a Democrat in the White House.
Hilarious.
Republicans aren’t upset that the fed is printing money out of thin air. No. What the evvvvviiiiiillllll Republicans want is to keep everyone out of work, to keep the economy in shambles. Never mind the fact that Republicans everywhere are calling for the extension of the Bush tax cuts. Never mind the fact that the Republicans understand that a tax increase during this economic crisis will just exacerbate the situation and they want to fix it.
Krugman makes the case that a weaker dollar will boost exports since our goods will be cheaper and this will reduce the deficit. Ok. But does he really believe the rest of the world won’t respond in kind and as Palin noted, create “the kind of currency wars economists are warning us about.”
Peter Schiff last week on the defense of QE2:
On July 24, 2009, just as the Federal Reserve unleashed its first quantitative easing campaign (now called “QE1” – an echo of the reclassification of the Great War after still more destructive subsequent developments), Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal to soothe growing concerns about excess liquidity. He assured the public that the Fed had an “exit strategy.”
In a response entitled “No Exit for Ben”, I called the Chairman’s bluff. I argued that the Fed had no exit strategy, and that Bernanke was trying to fool the market into believing that quantitative easing was not debt monetization.
Just 16 months later, Bernanke is at it again, penning another op-ed to defend his second round of QE. Except this time, instead of feigning an exit strategy, he just outlines a path to expand the program in perpetuity.
In recent months, Fed economists have taken great pains to tell us how much better off the economy is now than it was in the first half of 2009. Given this supposed good news, what prompted the current turnaround in policy? Could it be, perhaps, that perpetual easing was the policy all along?
~~~In his most recent op-ed, Bernanke rather envisions a “virtuous circle” in which QE2 causes stock prices to rise, which then “boost[s] consumer wealth, and increase[s] confidence.” The wealth effect, in turn, “spur[s] spending and produce[s] higher incomes and profits,” which finally “support[s] economic expansion and promote[s] increased employment.”
Despite the devastation of the Fed’s previous burst bubbles (stocks in ’99 and real estate in ‘08), Bernanke still believes in the virtue of pumping. His current policy is to inflate another stock market bubble to cure the recession that resulted from the bursting of the housing bubble, which was itself inflated to counter the effects of the bursting tech stock bubble.
~~~In the 16 months since Bernanke assured us that QE1 would not jeopardize price stability, oats prices are up 40%, concentrated orange juice up 45%, gold and rice up 50%, corn up 55%, coffee up 60%, copper up 70%, sugar up 90%, and cotton and silver up 100%! (The sluggish Dow Jones Industrials are “only” up 30%.)
~~~Given that QE2 will also push down the dollar against foreign currencies, companies exporting to the US will face the same bind as Kraft. If foreign suppliers don’t raise prices, a weaker dollar will cut into their profits.
My guess is that neither foreign nor domestic companies will take the hit, but pass the costs along to consumers. Rising prices will soon became a daily occurrence on Main Street, not just in the stock market.
For all the wrangling over extending the Bush tax cuts, no one seems bothered by the continuation of the Bernanke tax increases. For the typical American wage earner, the inflation tax will more than offset the benefits of slightly lower income taxes. Savers and retirees will suffer the most as the interest paid on their assets continues to fall and the purchasing power of their principal is eroded.
And yesterday he spoke on inflation, both in China and in the US:
Look at what’s going on in China. You know China is making a lot of noise now of trying to fight inflation in China. Now, you know inflation is America’s greatest export to China. China gets it’s inflation from us, we print money, we use it to buy Chinese products and now to keep the Chinese currency low the Chinese government prints money and buys up our dollars to maintain the currency peg and now we get inflation in China.
~~~Now the one thing in our CPI that I heard a lot about today is about the core. Apparently the year over year is only up six tenths of one percent, which is the lowest since 1957. Now the fact that the media even talks about year over year core is a propaganda victory by the US Government because if you think about the core CPI, which is prices x food and energy, the reason you take food and energy out is they’re volatile. So on a monthly basis you don’t want to make any major decisions based on one volatile month so they take out food and energy. But of course when you’re looking at year over year numbers that smooths out the volatility automatically. So if food prices are higher, energy prices are higher today then they were a year ago it’s got nothing to do with volatility. It’s inflation. It’s a trend. To try to dismiss it is just pure propaganda.
Look, if the Republicans really wanted our economy to stay weak all they have to do is….do nothing. Obama and pals will ensure that the economy tanks further with their big brother, Socialist policies. Instead The Republicans want to rein in spending, oppose a job killer in ObamaCare, and ensure our taxes don’t get raised.
See author page
Good post Curt. The fact that Krugman has an ego that he needs to feed from the moment he wakes, and he appears to be personally rather insecure may not make him a fool, but it prevents him from ever admitting that he is just wrong.
Since 1971 when the U.S. dollar was disconnected from the price of gold, the dollar has floated. Currency depreciation has historically been recognized as a tool used to recover from financial crisis. If you’re a banana republic, no one cares, if you control the “world’s currency,” everyone cares, and everyone with capacity to influence, reacts.
China did not want to heed Geithner/Bernanke demands to let its currency rise against the dollar, so Bernanke took action that affected ALL foreign currencies. In so doing, he also flipped the inflation switch which has no micro-joy-stick-like controls, the way interest rates can be tweaked for example. Even soy bean prices are at new highs at the same time as crops present record harvests. From corn to copper, commodities are on a tear.
Depreciating the dollar is a form of protectionism. Bernanke is not pumping money into the system so that your local entrepreneur can get a loan, so let’s not believe the pretence. There’s an abundance of money out there looking for a good home. Bernanke is poking a stick into the eye of the dragon. The Chinese government is doing what it wants, and what it wants is to stay in control over a tenuous, and disparate population. It will “adjust” it currency to minimize the impact of The Fed’s move on its economy.
Bernanke floating freshly minted hundreds of billions will do nothing for the American consumers, other than decrease the strength of their currency. Long term, we have seen a degradation of our purchasing power. Prior to the Bretton Woods disconnect, one income could comfortably support one family. Today, almost every home requires two incomes, sometimes more, to remain solvent. Inflation has had a very definitive impact on all our lives.
You can’t fight The Fed. It does what is in its own, private best interest. The biggest question, that no one ever answers, ever, is the following: Is what is good for The Fed, Good for America?
Fortunately, regardless what Washington and The Fed do, there appears to be one truth which has grown in decibels over the past half century:
The U.S. is TOO BIG TO FAIL.
Now now, James… that’s pre-Obama think stuff. LOL
But there’s nothing in your commentary I can disagree with. But I roar when I hear some economist pundits state that Bernanke is “the only adult” in the admin, when it comes to assessing economic woes. If that’s “the adult”, we’re all in a world of excrement.
Krugman is a glowing example of the phenomenon that if you have the right political views, you will be rewarded for them by like minded individuals. The left is notorious for such things. What’s ironic to me is that they do it not for the person they reward, but for themselves and their egos.
Krugman is a flaming hack, but the left likes to pretend he is an unimpeachable expert. They cite his Nobel Prize as if it means he cannot be challenged. Fortunately some of us know better.
Krugman, lacking a neck, does not take in the lateral view nor look behind. Just looks straight ahead at Candyland in the distance.
Look back at the failure of the quasi-Keynesian Stimulus? Can’t. Anyway, God told him that the road to Candyland is paved with still more stimulus.
Look aside to see the business people drawing the quite reasonable conclusion that investing their trillion-plus dollars in hoarded cash on expansion and hiring is a bad idea with a rather lawless and highly reckless government changing the rules every few months? Can’t see it, he’d have to turn his whole body 90 degrees and he does not have time for that. He insists that we must beat on business with sticks until morale improves – after all, those sabotaging bastards are blocking us from reaching Candyland.
What does getting a Nobel Prize in Economics really mean these days? That you got your name in the paper a certain number of times? It really seems like a close cousin to the Peace Prize.
@ Mata,
The noise from media, and self-proclaimed experts all over the world for a couple of years has been that China was going to overtake the U.S. economically, and equal it in world power, presence, influence, etc.
There is no country, or even group of countries (a la the E.U.) that in the foreseeable future can possibly supplant America. Not even an anemic, apologetic Administration can bring that about.
America’s strength is rooted in the words of its Founding Fathers. They have energized the indomitable and inspirational American spirit, and the freedom of thought and being that populations in Asia can only fantasize about.
Chinese leadership HAS to suppress thinking. Complaints of many in China is that while more people are getting educated, they are all thinking The Same. That does not instil greatness.
This is at the root of the most glaring contrast (that rests in the U.S. founding documents) between America and China – freedom of thought. . . . But I ramble, . . . Too Big To Fail has provided America with a great cushion through which it can redress the destructive mismanagement of its money, and the abuse it has endured at the hands of a sloppy and self-serving Congress.
Bernanke has shown no capacity to forge a path different from the one Greenspan followed for a whole generation under four presidents. The restored economic health of the country is the principal concern of all voters. The Fed has implemented decisions, and has been supportive of economic policies that brought America its housing bubble, as well as unfathomable National and personal debt levels.
Fed policy led a majority to view their homes as repositories of wealth. Homes became piggy banks, and to make things worse, the lack of regulations or restrictions on lenders turned trillions of dollars worth of real estate into a Wild West Show. . . . And Bernanke is still in charge. Obama wouldn’t know what to ask him, and is too uninterested. If he was, he would have educated himself on the critical elements impacting the economy, during his very first month in office. A crash course on Inflation would have done it.
I just wanted to say that the pic of Palin is a major example of leftist projection. They just cannot face reality. I recently had a lefty on another forum try to tell me that the reason dems lost so badly is because old white people turned out in very large numbers.
Too bad the demographics of voters in the election proved otherwise. Since I demonstrated that fact they haven’t commented. Suprising, I know. 🙄
Things are a bit tight this month, so I am going to the bank on Monday and tell them if I just spend a little more…
Hey. If it works for the Fed…
Bernanke and Obama are destroying the economy with QE2. This quantative easing that they so staunchly support will destroy the dollar, cause inflation, and best of all virtually gurantee that Obama is a one term president. We are headed down the same road we traveled with Carter. Bye bye Obama 2012 – Yes sir.
Section 2a of the Federal Reserve Act states
The Fed is mandated and empowered to “promote effectively” the goal of “maximum employment.” QE2 is intended to increase the employment rates while not spurring inflation. Contrary to what the talking head above states, overall inflation is quite low right now (even including energy and food) and has been quite low for a number of years. In part because overall economic activity is slow. So what are the GOPer cons REALLY concerned about? I think I know the answer.
A question, cons: would you rather have 6.5% unemployment going into the 2012 election cycle, or 10%? We know that 6.5% unemployment would help Obama because when he came into office, the unemployment rate was 7.6%.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2009/feb/wk2/art02.htm
A 6.5% unemployment rate would show a decreased level and permit Obama to say “When I came into office in January 2009, the unemployment rate was 7.6% and the economy lost 700,000 jobs. We are now at 6.5% unemployment and we are creating 175,000 jobs each month.” A 10% unemployment rate, in comparison, would show erosion.
Now, again, I am not saying that the GOPer cons oppose QE2 BECAUSE they want high unemployment two years from now. But I am saying that high unemployment helps the GOPers, low unemployment helps Obama, and the Feds moves are intended to push us to “maximum employment”, a goal that does not help the GOPers and helps Obama.
On second thought . . . maybe we now understand the REAL GOPer con opposition to QE2. Cons are hoping for high unemployment; Bernanke is working toward low unemployment; ergo, Bernanke is now the latest in a series of con enemies.
From Sadie, the pun-mistress on another blog:
” ‘The QE2 example is just that.’
Which has me thinking, What’s the difference between the QE II and the QE 2 ?
Tho former was the flagship of Cunard and the latter of a Canard.”
I just had to pass it on…!
auntiesrocks —
Paul Krugman got his Nobel Prize in Economics from the same people who gave the same award to Milton Friedman, Paul Samuelson, and Gary Becker, all con favorites. You are simply trying to denigrate the award because two of the latest recipients (Krugman and Fed nominee Peter Diamond) are not wingnuts.
Another thing — Obama has nominated to the Fed a guy in Peter Diamond who is an expert in labor economics. Why in the HELL is the GOP blocking the nomination of an obviously qualified expert in an area that is quite important to the managing monetary policy, i.e., its impact on the Fed’s goal of “maximizing employment”?
Since Obama’s election, there’s been abundant evidence for the truth of that statement, and none I can think of that suggests otherwise.
“I hope he fails.” (Rush Limbaugh on the Barack Obama, January 16, 2009. Obama hadn’t even been sworn in yet.)
“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” (Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell; from his October 25, 2010 interview with Major Garrett of The National Journal.)
The single thing that would keep that from happening would be indisputable national economic recovery.
Tell me what the GOP has spent the last two years working for. I can’t recall one statement they’ve made during that time that was calculated to increase confidence in the President or in national economic recovery. I can’t recall a single recovery measure they haven’t attempted to discredit and block–even those intended to provide a measure of relief to Americans most hard hit by the economic downturn.
They won’t even support policies and initiatives that were previously their own.
Sometime before 2012, a majority of American voters are going to figure this out.
The difference between recent republican campaign rhetoric and what the newly elected republican House majority actually does will make their real agenda too obvious to miss.
GREG; WHAT IS YOUR POINT HERE?, WHAT ABOUT YOU SPREADING NEGATIVES INFO
All the time you slide in unexpectedly, with a new one against this side of the fence;
OF COURSE THE CONSERVATIVES KNEW WAY BEFORE THE ELECTION,WHAT IS TO COME WITH
THIS UNKNOWN PERSON WHICH THE CROWD WENT BASURK JUST FOLLOWING THE PROPAGANDE BEFORE HE STEPT ON THE STAGE, AND A HATFULL PROPAGANDE INDEED AGAINST THE PRESIDENT BUSH, SO HYPER SOME GOONS WHERE THAT WE SAW THEM TRYING TO GET IN THE HOUSE WHERE THE FORMER PRESIDENT AND HIS FAMILY WHERE STILL LIVING IN,BECAUSE HE WAS STILL PRESIDENT AT THAT TIME.
SO NOW YOU WONT ADMIT IT, TO SAY TO THIS FA, YOU WHERE RIGHT TO PREDICT THE
NEXT 2 YEARS RIGHT ON THE NOSE. YOU ARE BASHING THE REPUBLICANS AND YOU MUST GET PAID TO DO IT, BUT DON’T TAKE THE PEOPLE HERE FOR FOOLS,
THEY SEE YOU COME IN ALL THE TIMES,
anticsrocks; hi, you cannot compare to them, DEMS?
they have found another excuse to make more money, they are spendacoholic,
it’s a sikness ,they need it to spend it, no matter where they are unstopable,sick
spending your children’s future, they don’t care for this AMERICA, EVEN LESS TO CREATE JOBS,
FOR THIS AMERICA, HEY, THE BORDERS ARE STILL OPEN, AND THE AIRLINES ARE FORCING PEOPLE TO SUMIT TO SHAMEFULL BODY SEARCH, HOW’S THAT FOR LOGIC;
BYE KEEP WELL
SUEK, THAT IS A FUNNY ONE, WHERE IS YOUR USUAL LINK ON THAT?
BYE
@Greg,
Why did Rush say he wanted Obama to fail? Was it because Rush didn’t like the color of his skin, or didn’t like the D after his name? No, it was because Rush felt that Obama wanted to turn this nation into a Socialist nation. He wanted Obama to fail at turning this nation into a Socialist failure, just like North Korea, East Germany, and the U.S.S.R.
The same is true for McConnell. Don’t you think the Democratic Party’s leadership had the same things to say about Bush, or Reagan, or _________ (fill in the blank?) There are differences in national policy objectives and Party objectives, and the American public generally understands it. We don’t always like it, since the two sets of objectives can be contradictory. That’s why many Tea Party candidates made gains nearly three weeks ago, removing incumbents of both major parties. You know this, don’t you? Or do you just like painting Republicans with a really wide brush?
I do agree with you that the proof will be in what actually happens, not so much in campaign rhetoric.
Jeff
Greg, stop projecting. When the economy under Bush was good you lefties did everything you could to talk it down-STRICTLY for political gain. You tried to torpedo our efforts in Iraq for the same reasons.
Just because it’s what someone like you would do to attain victory doesn’t mean we are doing it. If anything we want the economy to get better because we are suffering under it as well.
@ilovebees #14 – I hear ya!
@Silly Rob: You asked why the GOP is against Peter Diamond’s nomination:
Maybe because he lives in a fantasy world…
and he amazingly said –
In other words, he said that when things get better, more people will be working.
Duh.
He believes the stimulus worked
He thinks it LOWERED unemployment
He thinks Social Security isn’t in trouble
And this from 2007 –
BTW Silly Rob, auntiesrocks has a nice ring to it, thanks! 😉
@ Hard Right, #17:
I don’t seem to recall anything like that. Maybe you’re thinking of early 2008, when democrats began talking about the rapidly rising unemployment rates.
I’m not surprised Greg. You have a way of erasing reality that doesn’t agree with your worldview.
If you search this very site you will find how liberals bemoaned how lousy the economy was when we had a smidge over 5% unemployment. This was long before 2008.
As for Iraq, I know you know what I said is true, but don’t expect you to admit it.
auntierocks —
Social Security, technically speaking, IS SOLVENT for the next 20 years or so. This is literally true and no one looking at the projections could argue otherwise. (Have you actually looked at them? I doubt you have.) Even the Paul Ryan plan works around the same assumption as Diamond’s. But what Diamond is saying IS correct — after 2030, we will need to cut benefits and raise taxes to keep it solvent. I would do what Simpson-Bowles’ report said we should do, which is do it now, rather than waiting until we are in a dire emergency.
In addition, what he is saying about labor is, basically, that he does not believe we will have a long term structural labor problem; many economists disagree with him. In short, he is optimistic on unemployment and he is thinking that Social Security should be tweaked.
Now here is what is interesting — what you call his “views” are NOT the reason the GOPers cons are opposing him. Indeed, how could they? They would be saying “We think Social Security is going to implode today” and “We think we are in a long term labor crisis” — both positions which would MANDATE that the new GOPer con majority in the House and the larger GOPer con minority in the Senate actually propose something to deal with the two “problems” they just identified. But they have neither proposed anything to address those problems, nor have they actually agreed there are such problems.
GOPer cons need to get their story straight. The aptly named Dick Shelby’s excuse for opposing Diamond (in his own words) is that he does not think he is “qualified” to be on the Fed . . . and, by the way, he is from Boston. These are, effectively, two of the dumbest arguments I can imagine, with the exception being that Diamond is “too old” to be on the Fed, maybe.
Hard Right #20,
Remember this one from 2001 when Bush first took office, “A million jobs in a hundred days”? And anyone who doesn’t believe the dems tried to undermine our war efforts in Iraq for political gain is delusional. I was there twice and can speak first hand to that crap as can Randy, OT2, and some others who post here. They did the same to the troops in Afghanistan as well.
@ Hard Right, #20:
Really? I’m of the opinion that the right is pretty much constructing an alternate version of reality and an alternate interpretation of history to suit their own political agenda. I don’t believe that agenda to be in the best interest of the vast majority of Americans.
Iraq? I tend not to bring that subject up these days. Apparently the right likes to, considering it a feather in their cap.
Over $743 billion spent to date and the meter is still running; 4,287 U.S. soldiers killed and 30,182 wounded; 107,932 documented Iraqi civilian deaths. The eventual total cost of the war to the United States over time has been estimated as high as $3 trillion.
Was it worth it? If we had it to do over, would we do the same again thing?
The answers probably depend upon which view of reality we accept.
@Silly Bob: You said:
Really? No one could argue otherwise? How about Timothy “Tax Cheat” Geithner?
Your illogic is astounding. On the one hand you say that the GOP has no plans for working on Social Security. –
But prior to the above statement, you say this –
LOL, you can’t even get your uber left rantings straight in ONE post. You comment is strewn with personal attacks, insults and utter fanatical adherence to defending the far left.
According to the Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq, the number of documented civilian executions alone by Saddam Hussein in his 24 years of power was around 600,000. The estimated average per day, which I assume included those not documented, came out to 75-125. Using this as a reference, the number of Iraqis who would have been executed by him had we not removed him would be between 210,300-350,500. The majority of the Iraqi civilian deaths since we’ve been there is compliments of the insurgents and terrorists. The U.S. military is NOT running around indiscriminately killing civilians. To imply that we are is 100% wrong. As for our dead and wounded, one is too many. Reality is: Saddam will NEVER be a threat again; he will NEVER train, finance, and harbor terrorists again; he will NEVER have WMD again; he will NEVER fire at our aircraft again, and all of those terrorists that were killed over there will NEVER be able to wage war against us either there or anywhere else (Afghanistan?). If Iraq remains a long term ally to this country, it will be a strategic victory. Truman was criticized for Korea at the time. Looking back, had he not done what he did by drawing the line in the sand, the Cold War may have turned out differently. I’m sure the South Koreans are very grateful to this day. Time will tell with Iraq.
Like I said, you are projecting. You might have some credibility if not for your response to that videofrom before. You proved that no matter how concrete the proof is that proves you wrong, you’ll ignore it. That way you don’t have to consider whether your world views are incorrect. In short, you are a raging hypocrite.
As for Iraq, you won’t mention it because you know we are right. Dems tried to undermine what were doing all for political power. Rather than address what I said, you try to attack from an oblique tangent. Again, it’s all so you can remain in your bubble of self satisfied smugness and denial.
What I love about you lefties is that I possess more insight into you than you do.
@ Greg
Hardright:
Greg:
WASHINGTON, May 20, 2003
Dems Bash Bush To Woo Women Voters
Democratic presidential candidates, courting female voters in their fight for the party’s nomination, condemned President Bush’s policies on the economy and terrorism, and pilloried his judicial nominations. Each claimed to be the White House’s harshest critic.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/28/politics/main542348.shtml
And just so you have a reference, the unemployment rate in 2003 was 6.1%
http://money.cnn.com/2003/06/19/news/economy/jobless_rate/index.htm
The Interwebz…You don’t have to find the truth, the truth will find you”
I used to have family that had businesses in China before the commies took over.
As a result I got to meet a lot of Chinese people who grew up before then during the communist rule there…..later coming here.
One thing I learned about 100% employment in China.
It isn’t work like you might ever want to have.
Old men and women are tasked to sweep the streets near their home, many times a day.
Young people are put into huge factories with a sewer down the center of the main aisle.
They live in their work spaces only going to cot rooms at night, segregated by sex.
Children are typed as to talent at an early age.
Ability AND connections to the powerful elite both play a part!
They do not get to pick their role in life.
Now, maybe it is better today than it was when the people I met got out (the 1960’s).
One can hope.
But what IS Obama’s employment dream for Americans?
If we just print money with nothing to back it up, a big paycheck is meaningless.
It leads to a limited life, near the job, too much like China’s.
@ Aqua, #27:
I read the May 20, 2003 CBS News article. I don’t find a single example in there of democrats “talking down the economy”.
Maybe we need to define our terms. “Talking down the economy” isn’t a matter of finding fault with prevailing circumstances, such as the current unemployment rate. Democrats and republicans alike agree that the current rate is unacceptable. “Talking down the economy” is a matter of constantly saying things that–through the errosion of optimism and public confidence–actually make economic matters worse, or hamper efforts to improve the situation. It’s the promotion of a negative set of expectations that come to take on the quality of a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Show me where democrats have ever consistently pitched doom and gloom across the board, and made the methodical errosion of public confidence in an already seriously weakened national economy central to a two-year political strategy. Instead of something like We have nothing to fear but fear itself, we’ve had a continuous litany of all the reasons we should be fearful, and the magnification of any and every indication, real or imagined, that things are only going to get worse.
It’s not like they’ve actually presented any specific, detailed alternatives of their own that actually add up.
I find Paul Krugman hard to believe.
Back when GWBush was president Paul was livid about a $250 Billion budget deficit.
We were ”selling out our grandchildren,” back then, according to him.
But now our deficit is over $1 Trillion every year!
But now Paul thinks that deficit is irrelevant.
In fact, according to him, we really should have the government spending MORE!
Not paying it down or cutting back.
So, what changed?
One thing.
Bush was a Republican, Obama is a Democrat.
Does anyone remember that medical doctor who also wrote science fiction?
His name was Michael Crichton.
He referred to the kind of ”intelligence” of someone like Paul as ”thinktelligence.”
Paul likes to contort facts and observations into something completely anti-factual….he calls his conclusions the result of ”thinking broadly.”
Actually, Paul takes his cues from his own political leanings: to the FAR Left, and tries to force us to think we are stupid for not agreeing with his conclusions.
I think some weak-minded people actually find it easier to just agree with him over the mental work of refuting him.
Quote from the first article Aqua linked to:
If that isn’t fear mongering, I don’t know what is from the Dems.
Another quote from Aqua’s second linked article:
This alone was a tool for many on the left to attack Bush, Jr. in his terms of office as a failed Domestic President. Daily Kos and Moveon.org members had a field day with assaulting the President almost daily for having such a, “high unemployement” in his first term of Office. A sheer case in point of, “No matter what you do, it won’t ever be good to me” within the liberal society with this man.
Nice try Greg, but dismissing the facts and using your opinions do not over-write history or facts. And as for Doom and Gloom from democrats, one has to look no further than the attempts of impeachment of former President Bush with various claims of violating American rights and out right violations of the Consititution to instill a life term leadership status.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_George_W._Bush
And who could forget the idiot Alan Grayson, Democrat, Florida who came infamous for such idiotic phrases as, “Republicans want you to die Quickly.”
Maybe Alan Grayson had a point, if Arizona’s new death panel is any indication. (I suppose the panel would consist of the Arizona state legislature.)
Oh look, Kieth! A man known as a liar and a blunt discoloring of facts! Nice going, not only do you use a clown of a man as a source but you don’t even spend the time to read about Arizona! I applaud you! Ooh Look! Google work is fun: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703436504574640711655886136.html
The issue not to be, this is “death panel” you so call it. That is a council of bureaucrats who ultimately choose if you are qualified to get treatment for a disease or to allow you to expire. It is a mechanic that happens in Canada and the United Kingdom’s systems in the form of massive waiting lists for critical operations. So your use of Kieth’s stint at comedy is a bit great for warming my night. The recently passed health care bill that was signed into law by Obama forces onto citizens to contend with a far removed council of bureaucrats by law by 2014, so I don’t understand how you view cutting medicare payments as some form of “death panel” but yet embrace the very piece of written law that forces you to such councils outside of your choice.
The issue is here, “Medicare systems is causing our hospitals to go broke and we need to cut the programs where massive abuse is happening.” But that isn’t getting the stressed point it earns as malpractice suits and rampant abuse has hindered Medicare’s purposes when it was first started and have inflated its operational budget to points of unsustainable levels. Health care for all is a noble idea, but when the hospitals and the staffers who work the field go broke and shut shop… who will provide medical care? Medicare systems as of now are corrupted and costly and have been an impact on over all health care cost rises in insurance and medical equipment.
Maybe there’s a more acceptable republican spin that can be put on this same set of grim facts; something that gets around the central fact that elected officials in Arizona have established a policy that could allow up to 100 people to die, because providing the medical procedure they need is too expensive.
@Greg: You said:
I guess you forgot last year when Obama hammered consistently at the gloom and doom while the stock market plummeted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEIUbQN10d0
I could go on and on, but I am sure that now you remember when the Anointed One kept up with the chaos, catastrophe talk while watching the stock market nose dive.
And lastly Greg, you’re defending Grayson??
Really?
Aqua and Antics, notice how Greg tried to divert the conversation to something else? The AZ situation for example. He knows he’s wrong about liberals trashing the economy for political gain. He even ducked the Iraq issue. All he can do is spew the same drivel, then when it’s shot down, move on to his next attack.
That is typical of a leftist like Greg. It keeps him from facing the truth and examining his views.
Here’s more proof for those that doubt liberals bashed the economy under Bush. Moonbats like Greg will declare it propganda and remain in their bubble of stupidity.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dan-gainor/2010/10/28/spun-employment-networks-twist-unemployment-reports-boost-obama-bash-bus
As for Iraq:
Kerry calling our troops terrorists.
Durbin bashing American soldiers with his Gulag remark.
The dems trying to insist the Iraq war was lost and pull our soldiers out as quickly as possible to ensure it was.
Reid was just one of the ones saying the Iraq war was lost and could not be won.
Murtha lying about our soldiers and the state of the military.
How about General Betray-Us? Liberals again.
Greg, since I have provided a bit of evidence to debunk you how about this now: Where is your evidence over,
Searching Bing, Google, and Yahoo with 100 people to die in Arizona popped up only this:
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=100+people+to+die+in+Arizona&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=567204dc07534ddc
Sadly, the somethingawful forums do not count as a news source and the horrible heat wave event of 2005 do not count as a “death panel” for 2010. Medicare at the state level is being cut as it is costing the hospitals and those who do pay their bills a higher fee, end of story and lack of spin. “Republicans” of the state? Last I checked, Arizona’s State body has 18 Republicans and 12 Democrats (of which 10 out of 12 democrats sided with and voted with the Republicans over the medicare cuts, oh my.) Yes, it’s true Republicans have a majority in the Arizona Senate, but to say only THEY did this? What a farce of a claim.
The first story in the google link I supplied talks about organ transplants for Medicaid members. Hmm, Medicaid? Isn’t that a Government program that forces states to carry the burden of costs? Hmm, isn’t it bankrupt on a National Scale? If that’s the “death panel” of the “dirty republicans” You might want to rethink what you’re saying. Medicaid is a federal program that was praticaly crafted by BOTH political parties decades ago, and has now come to light with its own massive failures of how wrong Obamacare is going to be in practice. Medicare/caid is a failure of a system as is now and Obamacare is going to do NOTHING but to stack more corruption and sloggish politicing into the process of treating people.
And good try on swapping from QE2 to another subject in hopes of making yourself look good. Kudos on the off tangent swapping.
# Mr. Irons, #37:
The quoted 100 number originally appeared in a November 17, 2010 article in The Arizona Republic.
And guess what AHCCS is? Oh, wait… Is it Medicaid? by chance? Oh joy oh joy, it is and ooh it also is about the organ transplant story from my previous reply. Which means the State has to carry the burden of the budget for running the Federal Program that is wrought with corruption and abuse from the government side of things. What a surprise… And as it has pointed out on its own web page members of AHCCS has to meet certain income levels to qualify for the service, so ranting against Republicans holds little weight to the argument at hand as AHCCS was penned with the backing of Democrats in AZ as they were holding enough seats to filibuster when it was established.
The fact is blunt: There is no reserved money in the coffers for the programs designed at the Federal Level that is expected to be maintained budget wise for the current active Health programs at the State level of Arizona. Arizona is a hot bed of various issues from illegal immigration policies to school district budget crunches which is causing certain business clients out of State (such as California groups) to result to boycotts against the State of Arizona. So how do you get the money to afford these programs without economically breaking the system? As I said before, a noble idea but if you force the health care service to go broke then who the hell is going to take care of the wounded/infirm? As the Soviet Union pointed out it is not wise to allow far removed bureaucrats to choose what level of “health maintenance right” a citizen has and how far to treat them. And what really tweaks me about this organ story is how the media is not covering how the Hospitals are seeking alternative means of funding these people’s surgeries. Due to the nature of Hospitals and their history within the United States by being founded by churches or important figures like Ben Franklin, it’s utterly rare for even a person who can’t afford the bill to be denied treatment (in such cases the bill might be sliced up and applied to other clients’ bills at the time in small amounts, another reason costs have gone up.)
And to the topic on hand about QE2 and inflation, the damages this will have to State Budgets in connection to Medicaid and Medicare will be high. The expectation of people to work on Medicare/caid paients for only a fraction of one’s salary while price inflation hits for material goods needed to treat people will be a business nightmare when wages for labor are expected to stay set in stone or deflate in contrast to price inflations. We are already seeing raw materials and food rise in price as is and seeing Insurance policy package premiums rise due to Obamacare in relation to the businesses preparing for higher taxation rates due to that law. QE2 will mean to the consumer that it will take more dollars to buy a good and wages are not expected to go up but are expected to deflate which will be a disaster to planned tax revenue collections for Federal Programs.
The strongest economical policy as of now is to currently decrease amount of accessible monies in the market and increase interest rates at the Fed level and for credit/loan level while falling back to the solid rules of mandating a certain income level and amount of money required to be in possession of a borrower before a loan is given. This will hinder only those seeking to earn quick spoils, and will make the economical environment harsh to those who refuse to work and refuse to take care of themselves. Our economy got into this mess not by merely “Bush’s fault” but due to a grossly corrupt lending scheme of loans for housing to people who didn’t even have an income or an income level unable to sustain monthly payments of loans and when these loans started to default, the lenders lumped these loans(mortgages) into “securities” and sold them to mainly oversea holders to delay the collapse. And now we’re going to inflate the economy in the mindset of the Wiemar Republic of Germany in the 1930’s by printing money as fast as possible? This is insanity to the core, since apparently no one at the Fed has learned the lesson of that mistake.
And since you love CBS, MSNBC and NPR so much, “v Pravde net izvestiy, v Izvestiyakh net pravdy”
Greg, love you how you ran away from proof you were wrong about the dems talking down the economy and Iraq.
Tell me, are you even capable of being intellectually honest? You want proof, we provide it, and you launch a completely unrelated attack. Does it ever occur to you what you are doing or why? Like I said, you leftists have ZERO personal insight.
@ Hard Right
Yeah, I don’t know why I keep trying. I forgot that even if I find a video with a dem doing exactly what Greg says they didn’t do, when he says they didn’t do it, he would call it a fake because of synch issues.
Then he would move onto his next attack method and say, “Bush did it.”
Aqua, I try not to respond to them anymore so much as what they post. I feel it’s necessary to prove their claims false for those who may not follow politics as closely or ardently.
About the only time I post directly to them is to slap them around for snotty behavior.
To the liberals on this site—PROVE THAT REPUBLICANS WANT THE ECONOMY TO STAY BAD. POST PROOF THAT WE ON THIS SITE OR MEMBERS OF THE GOP HAVE SAID WE WANT THE ECONOMY TO STAY IN THE TOILET SO WE CAN GET OBAMA OUT OF OFFICE. DO IT OR STFU.
@ Mr. Irons,
“. . . wages for labor are expected to stay set in stone or deflate in contrast to price inflations.”
Great point. This should be unacceptable. Unfortunately, we have become numb, and our consciousness has accepted inflation to the point where many, like some of the trolls here, actually advocate the toxic mind screw that it’s a good thing, . . . 2%, 3%, 4.5% . . . no problem.
It isn’t OK. Even if recent inflation has been lower than historical levels, that does not make it any more acceptable.
An item you might have purchased in 1970 for $1.00, would on average now cost you about $5.64.
That means a factor of 463.7% – which means that a job you might have done for $25,000 in 1970 Should be paying you $116,000. Obviously you can use various factors to assess the march of inflation over the years, but the reality remains – it takes at least 2 incomes to maintain an average household afloat. Anyone graduating from university these days, and on the way to forming one of these households, is further saddled with a debt burden that may not evaporate for a decade or two.
I use the 1970 time point because Nixon did The Deed (IMHO) against the dollars in 1971. Our purchasing power didn’t collapse, but it didn’t keep up.