Paul Krugman slams Art Laffer & Ayn Rand-type economics

[Rshermr]

One of many pet names that the poster came up with. When unable to discuss a topic, some of weak mind simply move off into name calling. Which, of course, has no value in the world of economic argument. Just something that prepubescent boys tend to do.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oh, my God!!! It's Tommy Flanagan...the Board's resident "expert" on economics...the only man known to have taught college level classes as an undergrad due to his expertise in the subject.

Hey, Tommy...your "private secretary" messed up the spelling of juvenile. She's making you look stupid, dude!

Who is Tommy Flanagan?

Saturday Night Live - Tommy Flanagan Season: 11 - Video

Here he is, Toro...

 

[Oldstyle]

Rshermr says he taught college economics as an undergrad but amazingly didn't know what I was referring to when I asked him what school of economics his contentions were based on. "Tommy Flanagan" thought I was talking about brick and mortar college campuses. So now I either call him Tommy or George Costanza because he's prone to telling whoppers like that one.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaFmJsEIMyQ]Not a lie, if you believe it. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Dot Com]

anyone seen Krugman's latest column? He rips into Republicorp like a buzz saw

 

[Uncensored2008]

No problem, Ed. My point remains, neither VC companies nor other investors will invest in start-ups (or plant expansion, or new hires) unless such a move will reasonably result in increased profits. That is not the case right now because of inadequate product demand.

What is it that makes you think product demand is "inadequate?"

 

[Uncensored2008]

VC returns suck. There's too much money chasing it as it is. Taxes don't really matter.

Venture capital returns as an aggregate might not do well, but most of this is based on a poor "risk/reward" calculation. Anything that increases the risk or lowers the reward curtails the available capital for new ventures. Taxes mitigate reward, and very much do matter.

 

[Dot Com]

lets stay on- topic Uncensored2008 - Krugman eviscerating his rw opponents

 

[Uncensored2008]

lets stay on- topic Uncensored2008 - Krugman eviscerating his rw opponents

I block video feeds at my firewall, so it took days for me to actually watch this - while Krugman is loud, he certainly did not eviscerate anyone.

 

[Dot Com]

What r u talking about? He mopped the floor w/ them like he always does. You read his article today?

 

[Uncensored2008]

What r u talking about? He mopped the floor w/ them like he always does. You read his article today?

Krugman? He falls below the horoscope and fortune cookies on the priority list.

 

[Oddball]

What r u talking about? He mopped the floor w/ them like he always does. You read his article today?

Krugman? He falls below the horoscope and fortune cookies on the priority list.

Ferret Face is the funniest thing in the NY Slimes since Bill Watterson quit writing Calvin and Hobbes.

 

[GWV5903]

Here. Read these. They help to explain your malady:
University Study Shows People With Lower IQ's Are Political Conservatives
University Study Shows People With Lower IQ's Are Political Conservatives


Brock University Study Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice | Racism, Bias & Politics | Right-Wing and Left-Wing Ideology | LiveScience


New Study Reveals That Stupidity Can Make You Conservative And Racist

U of Arkansas study Study ?Proves? Conservatism Linked To Stupidity - The Ulsterman Report

British Cohort study Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says controversial study - and conservative politics can lead people to be racist | Mail Online

LiveScience study Social conservatives have a lower I.Q.? (probably) - Gene Expression | DiscoverMagazine.com

Watching Fox makes you stupid Study: Watching Fox News Actually Makes You Stupid | Jillian Rayfield | Politics News | Rolling Stone

Alterman Study: Conservatives Display Ignorance | Nel's New Day

Geez, I didn't realize you where so weak...

Did you call your mom first, is that how you found these links?

If you can't handle the forum debate boards, you then turn to a grown up?

There as many if not more quoting how stupid liberals are, but since you took this route, I do not have to say anymore...

Let me translate your drivel for those trying to understand it. Someone (in this case, me) tried to help GWV, and it has him all out of source. And since GWV can find no studies saying that cons like him are smarter than liberals. So it makes him nuts. And he starts with the juvinile attacks. Poor guy can not help himself. He is a con. Not his fault. Just plain bad luck.

At this point one thing is clear, you have no clue what Krugman stands for, but you continue to follow, dumb loyalty is defiantly one of your stronger points...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

lets stay on- topic Uncensored2008 - Krugman eviscerating his rw opponents

so present the very best example or admit as a typical liberal you lack the IQ to do so.

 

[Dot Com]

What r u talking about? He mopped the floor w/ them like he always does. You read his article today?

Krugman? He falls below the horoscope and fortune cookies on the priority list.

he corners the "let them die AKA- Paul Ryan wing" of the party lol:

snip

Something terrible has happened to the soul of the Republican Party. We’ve gone beyond bad economic doctrine. We’ve even gone beyond selfishness and special interests. At this point we’re talking about a state of mind that takes positive glee in inflicting further suffering on the already miserable.

more here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/opinion/krugman-hunger-games-usa.html?ref=paulkrugman&_r=0

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

At this point we’re talking about a state of mind that takes positive glee in inflicting further suffering on the already miserable.

of course to Krugman there never is enough welfare no matter how many millions the liberals have already bailed out without any expectation of repayment.


Recently, Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, testified before the House Budget Committee on the growth of the 10-largest “means tested” federal programs that serve people who qualify by various definitions of poverty.


Here’s what Haskins reported: From 1980 to 2011, annual spending on these programs grew from $126 billion to $626 billion (all figures in inflation-adjusted “2011 dollars”); dividing this by the number of people below the government poverty line, spending went from $4,300 per poor person in 1980 to $13,000 in 2011. In 1962, spending per person in poverty was $516.


Haskins’s list includes Medicaid, food stamps (now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP), the earned-income tax credit (a wage subsidy for some low-income workers), and Pell Grants. There are other, smaller programs dedicated to the poor. A report from the Congressional Research Service estimated the total number at 83; Haskins puts the additional spending on programs below the 10 largest at about $210 billion. The total of all programs for the poor exceeds $800 billion.

To be sure, some spending reflects the effects of the Great Recession. But most doesn’t. As Haskins shows, spending on the poor has increased steadily for decades. Consider food stamps. There are now about 45 million Americans receiving an average of $287 a month in food stamps, up from 26 million in 2007, according to a new Congressional Budget Office report. But the number in 2007, when the economy was healthy, was roughly 50 percent higher than in 2001.

And programs for the poor pale beside middle-class transfers. The giants here are Social Security at $725 billion in 2011 and Medicare at $560 billion. Combine all this spending -- programs for the poor, Social Security and Medicare — and the total is nearly $2.1 trillion. That was about 60 percent of 2011 non-interest federal spending of $3.4 trillion.

 

[Dot Com]

your IQ is not high enough to post in this thread Bia

you can also get the forum in trouble by not providing sources/hyperlinks for that mat'l you posted

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

your IQ is not high enough to post in this thread Bia

you can also get the forum in trouble by not providing sources/hyperlinks for that mat'l you posted

no substance from typical liberal who lacks IQ for substance but finds ad hominem meaningful.

 

[Dot Com]

you better post links to your cut 'n paste jobs or you could get the board in trouble Bia

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

you better post links to your cut 'n paste jobs or you could get the board in trouble Bia

no substance from typical liberal who lacks IQ for substance but finds ad hominem meaningful.

 

[Rshermr]

you better post links to your cut 'n paste jobs or you could get the board in trouble Bia

Ed is paid to post conservative dogma from right wing bat shit crazy conservative sites. They WANT him to post their stuff. Most of the other theft of information by ed is so distorted that few can find it's actual source. Mainly, ed just tries to kill threads that are not libertarian friendly. And, that is simple enough for him. He just posts, others see it was ed who posted last, and why would they want to read what ed posted???