Krugman Nails GOP Lunatic Hypocrisy

[Procrustes Stretched]

Well Krugan himself is a lunatic, so I guess he can speak on it, not that it would make any sense.

Wow! Another RWL @ USMB enters the fray shooting blanks?

Still no reasonable and rational refutatiion of Krugman's arguments from the Lunatics?

go figure


D.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dissapointment is too light a phrase for what I feel here. I thought you, Baruch, came armed with argument and all you have is a foreskin in your hand.

tsk, tsk, tsk...

Paul beats you all. Page 2, and still no rational or reasoned refutation of Krugman's words.

Ferret Face writes partisan loon op-eds, not dispassionate and factually based analyses of policies...He's very much like you disgorging your usual inane spittle about Reagan and Rand.

One need go no farther than the byline to disprove him.

Still avoiding offering a reasonable and rational refutation of Krugman's arguments? LOL

If as you say Krugman offers no ''dispassionate and factually based analyses of policies.'' it should be very easy for a self professed genius like yourself to reasonably and rationally refute the arguments.

Yet you fail to show you can adequately do so.

 

[rdean]

Let me make sure I understand. Republicans on this board DON'T want to dismantle Social Security? After all, it's a Democratic Program and it helps the middle class. Two reasons that Republicans would hate it.

 

[driveby]

RWL @ USMB Alert!

another empty attack. proof positive again that without a talking point memo, the right is bankrupt of ideas and a defense .

and

thank you for sharing


D.

That's rich coming from m00nbat @ USMB .......

yet another ...another empty attack. proof positive again that without a talking point memo, the right is bankrupt of ideas and a defense .

The RWL @ USMB is bankrupt intellectually as well.

again...thank you for sharing


D.

Your idea of intellect is an OP ED from a progressive wingnut and RWL @ USMB, color me unimpressed .......

 

[Oddball]

Dissapointment is too light a phrase for what I feel here. I thought you, Baruch, came armed with argument and all you have is a foreskin in your hand.

tsk, tsk, tsk...

Paul beats you all. Page 2, and still no rational or reasoned refutation of Krugman's words.

Ferret Face writes partisan loon op-eds, not dispassionate and factually based analyses of policies...He's very much like you disgorging your usual inane spittle about Reagan and Rand.

One need go no farther than the byline to disprove him.

Still avoiding offering a reasonable and rational refutation of Krugman's arguments? LOL

If as you say Krugman offers no ''dispassionate and factually based analyses of policies.'' it should be very easy for a self professed genius like yourself to reasonably and rationally refute the arguments.

Yet you fail to show you can adequately do so.

What would be the point?

You'd just continue with your juvenile sneering and self-proclaimed victory, no matter what anyone says.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I'm starting to like Paul Krugman more and more as time goes on.

Of course you do. He is a scamster, dealer in half truths and out right lies, a fraud, a sneak, he changes the past on a daily basis to suit his needs. It is obvious you would admire him. Just like every sand lot little leager admires Cal Ripkin, Joe Dimaggio, Ted Williams and Hank Arron, you admire the modern Elmer Gantry types like Krugman and Olberman

Dissapointment is too light a phrase for what I feel here. I thought you, Baruch, came armed with argument and all you have is a foreskin in your hand.

tsk, tsk, tsk...

Paul beats you all. Page 2, and still no rational or reasoned refutation of Krugman's words.

I am a loss to find any argument he is making here, except Republicans are inconsistent. and have a hard time coming to terms with the Medicare beast. it is an obligation, so it must be paid, it is out of control, so it must be regulated, it is a political hot potato, so it is hard to touch.

What exactly did he say that made any point that anyone can argue for or against?

One can argue with it as well as you can argue with this statement:

It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents, except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness.

Both statements are as wise as the other, and as worthy of attention.

 

[Polk]

Without Googling, I recall that Newt wanted to slow the growth and the LMSM called that a "CUT"

Because it was a cut. If you reduce the rate of increase to below the rate of inflation, that's a cut in real terms. If it cost you every dollar you made to live, and then the next year, you made $1.02, but your cost of living went up to $1.05, you'd be seeing a reduction in what you could afford even though your income increased. Same principle at play here.

 

[Oddball]

It's not a cut when budget totals increase.

Hack.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"Don't cut Medicare. The reform bills passed by the House and Senate cut Medicare by approximately $500 billion. This is wrong." So declared Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, in a recent op-ed article written with John Goodman, the president of the National Center for Policy Analysis.

...the process of dismantling would begin with spending cuts of about $650 billion over the next decade. Math is hard, but I do believe that's more than the roughly $400 billion (not $500 billion) in Medicare savings projected for the Democratic health bills.

What I'm talking about here is the "Roadmap for America's Future," the budget plan recently released by Representative Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican member of the House Budget Committee.

Other leading Republicans have been bobbing and weaving on the official status of this proposal, but it's pretty clear that Mr. Ryan's vision does, in fact, represent what the G.O.P. would try to do if it returns to power.

The broad picture that emerges from the "roadmap" is of an economic agenda that hasn't changed one iota in response to the economic failures of the Bush years. In particular, Mr. Ryan offers a plan for Social Security privatization that is basically identical to the Bush proposals of five years ago NYT/Krugman

 

[Toro]

Six pages of virulent personal attacks on Paul Krugman yet not a single post refuting what he says.

Anybody want to try?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I really am starting to like this guy...at least lately I am

"Don't cut Medicare. The reform bills passed by the House and Senate cut Medicare by approximately $500 billion. This is wrong." So declared Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, in a recent op-ed article written with John Goodman, the president of the National Center for Policy Analysis.


And irony died.


Now, Mr. Gingrich was just repeating the current party line.

Furious denunciations of any effort to seek cost savings in Medicare - death panels! - have been central to Republican efforts to demonize health reform.

What's amazing, however, is that they're getting away with it.

Why is this amazing? It's not just the fact that Republicans are now posing as staunch defenders of a program they have hated ever since the days when Ronald Reagan warned that Medicare would destroy America's freedom.

I'm starting to like Paul Krugman more and more as time goes on.

Today's NYT:

Republicans are now posing as staunch defenders of a program they have hated ever since the days when Ronald Reagan warned that Medicare would destroy America's freedom.

Nor is it even the fact that, as House speaker, Mr. Gingrich personally tried to ram through deep cuts in Medicare - and, in 1995, went so far as to shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those cuts.

After all, you could explain this about-face by supposing that Republicans have had a change of heart, that they have finally realized just how much good Medicare does.

And if you believe that, I've got some mortgage-backed securities you might want to buy.


No, what's truly mind-boggling is this: Even as Republicans denounce modest proposals to rein in Medicare's rising costs, they are, themselves, seeking to dismantle the whole program.

The RWL @ USMB Is Bankrupt of Ideas & Reasonable and Rational Responses.

 

[Oddball]

Six pages of virulent personal attacks on Paul Krugman yet not a single post refuting what he says.

Anybody want to try?

I'd sooner try to refute the little boy who cried wolf.

 

[manifold]

You'd just continue with your[Dante] juvenile sneering and self-proclaimed victory, no matter what anyone says.

That could be the most astute thing I've ever seen you post.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Of course you do. He is a scamster, dealer in half truths and out right lies, a fraud, a sneak, he changes the past on a daily basis to suit his needs. It is obvious you would admire him. Just like every sand lot little leager admires Cal Ripkin, Joe Dimaggio, Ted Williams and Hank Arron, you admire the modern Elmer Gantry types like Krugman and Olberman

Dissapointment is too light a phrase for what I feel here. I thought you, Baruch, came armed with argument and all you have is a foreskin in your hand.

tsk, tsk, tsk...

Paul beats you all. Page 2, and still no rational or reasoned refutation of Krugman's words.

I am a loss to find any argument he is making here, except Republicans are inconsistent. and have a hard time coming to terms with the Medicare beast. it is an obligation, so it must be paid, it is out of control, so it must be regulated, it is a political hot potato, so it is hard to touch.

What exactly did he say that made any point that anyone can argue for or against?

One can argue with it as well as you can argue with this statement:

It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents, except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness.

Both statements are as wise as the other, and as worthy of attention.

at least you've attempted to refute.

clap, clap, clap...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Ferret Face writes partisan loon op-eds, not dispassionate and factually based analyses of policies...He's very much like you disgorging your usual inane spittle about Reagan and Rand.

One need go no farther than the byline to disprove him.

Still avoiding offering a reasonable and rational refutation of Krugman's arguments? LOL

If as you say Krugman offers no ''dispassionate and factually based analyses of policies.'' it should be very easy for a self professed genius like yourself to reasonably and rationally refute the arguments.

Yet you fail to show you can adequately do so.

What would be the point?

You'd just continue with your juvenile sneering and self-proclaimed victory, no matter what anyone says.

gawd, you're a tool.

But defending the idiotic idea that the GOP is a friend of medicare and Social Security makes you look like a.....ah......hmm.....uh....a dope.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'm starting to like Paul Krugman more and more as time goes on.

Today's NYT:

Republicans are now posing as staunch defenders of a program they have hated ever since the days when Ronald Reagan warned that Medicare would destroy America's freedom.

Nor is it even the fact that, as House speaker, Mr. Gingrich personally tried to ram through deep cuts in Medicare - and, in 1995, went so far as to shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those cuts.

After all, you could explain this about-face by supposing that Republicans have had a change of heart, that they have finally realized just how much good Medicare does.

And if you believe that, I've got some mortgage-backed securities you might want to buy.


No, what's truly mind-boggling is this: Even as Republicans denounce modest proposals to rein in Medicare's rising costs, they are, themselves, seeking to dismantle the whole program.

Krugman an easy guy to admire if you aren't hynotized by the group-think of partisans' propaganda.

Krugman also recently hammered Obama as being clueless, too.

Tell ya' another economist I much admire... Robert Shiller

Shiller warned us the meltdown was coming, and more importantly, he and told us why it was coming, too.

Go Elis!

Come to think of it.. Go saltwater economists!

thank you

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yeah the 6th intellectuall in the entire world and dude and frank think they are smarter...

Well one's a dope and the other is a dick.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Let me make sure I understand. Republicans on this board DON'T want to dismantle Social Security? After all, it's a Democratic Program and it helps the middle class. Two reasons that Republicans would hate it.

true dat.

like Krugman says...history shows us where they have always stood.

asswipes still talking about privatizing social security.

gawd, what assholes.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Dissapointment is too light a phrase for what I feel here. I thought you, Baruch, came armed with argument and all you have is a foreskin in your hand.

tsk, tsk, tsk...

Paul beats you all. Page 2, and still no rational or reasoned refutation of Krugman's words.

I am a loss to find any argument he is making here, except Republicans are inconsistent. and have a hard time coming to terms with the Medicare beast. it is an obligation, so it must be paid, it is out of control, so it must be regulated, it is a political hot potato, so it is hard to touch.

What exactly did he say that made any point that anyone can argue for or against?

One can argue with it as well as you can argue with this statement:

It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents, except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness.

Both statements are as wise as the other, and as worthy of attention.

at least you've attempted to refute.

clap, clap, clap...

What do you mean, refute? it is like trying to refute the Namibian desert, just hot corrosive wind and emptiness. it is like trying to refute interstellar space. it is a vacuum that I, like nature, find abhorrent.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

With a screen name like yours you expect to be taken seriously?

That's rich coming from m00nbat @ USMB .......

yet another ...another empty attack. proof positive again that without a talking point memo, the right is bankrupt of ideas and a defense .

The RWL @ USMB is bankrupt intellectually as well.

again...thank you for sharing


D.

Your idea of intellect is an OP ED from a progressive wingnut and RWL @ USMB, color me unimpressed .......

You keep attacking Krugman and not his arguments.

what a loser