Krugman rips von Mises up one side & down the other

[The Rabbi]

Bush is the most conservative president we've had since probably Warren G. Harding.

dear, few would claim he was a conservative and none would claim he controlled the 3 branches of govt the press and electorate. If you're not intelligent enough to be here why are you here?

Yes Bush had such conservative principles as approving massive spending budgets from Congress, instituting a drug program for Medicare that Republicans had resisted for years, pushing the No Child Left Behind bill, and of course USAPATRIOT.
Bigfuckinggreenie doesnt know what the hell he's talking about. Bush was more like Nixon and less like Reagan.

 

[Listening]

The 2000's

Hmm. Let's see. Obama was elected in 2008 ans sworn in 2009. SO that's one year off.
Bush was not a conservative. He didnt run as a conservative. He didnt govern as a conservatve.
Congress was controlled by the GOP until 2006 but for some time had a 50-50 Senate. Many of the Republicans, like Lincoln Chafee or Olympia Snowe were not conservatives.
So I guess that was just a big old ignorant fail.
But even so, would you like to trade the higher growth, low unemployment low inflation low debt environment of that time for the crap we have now? Recall that income inequality was much less then.

Pure unadulterated BULLSHIT...

Bush is the most conservative president we've had since probably Warren G. Harding—and perhaps ever. He has governed, wherever possible, fully in step with the basic conservative principles that defined Ronald Reagan's presidency and have shaped the political right for the last two generations: opposition to New Deal-style social programs; a view of civil liberties as obstacles to dispensing justice; the pursuit of low taxes, especially on businesses and the wealthy; a pro-business stance on regulation; a hawkish, militaristic, nationalistic foreign policy; and a commitment to bringing religion, and specifically Christianity, back into public policy. "Mr. Bush has a philosophy. It is conservative," wrote Peggy Noonan in 2002. Ah, but times change. Last June she complained, "What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them."

It's certainly true that Bush hasn't delivered on every last item on the conservative wish list. But what president has—or ever could? What Bush's new critics on the right don't see, or won't see, is that to credibly accuse Bush of betraying "conservatism" requires constructing an ideal of conservatism that exists only in the world of theory, not the world of practical politics and democratic governance. It's an ideal that any president would fail to meet. In a democracy, governing means taking into account public opinion and making compromises. That means deviating at times from doctrinal purity.

Indeed, Bush's presidency, far from being a subversion of modern American conservatism, represents its fulfillment. For most of the president's tenure, many of the same folks who now brand him as an incompetent or an impostor happily backed his agenda. Republicans controlled the Senate and the House with iron discipline. They populated the federal court system, built a powerful media apparatus, and, for years after 9/11, benefited from a public climate of reflexive deference to the powers that be. From 2001 to 2007, the conservative movement had as free a hand as it could have hoped for in setting the agenda. The fruits of its efforts are Bush's policies.

So while conservatives may be disillusioned with Bush, they can't seriously claim it's over his policies. Another explanation seems more likely: When the Iraq War really turned sour in 2005 and the domestic catastrophes piled up, the appeal of being linked with Bush's legacy dimmed. Like mobsters turning state's evidence before they're sent up the river, former Bushies began to testify, throwing themselves on the mercy of the court of public opinion. The reason isn't that Bush is an imperfect conservative. It's that he's an unsuccessful one.

Thanks for introducing your post as bullshit because that is just what it is.

All you need look at is the rise of the Tea Party (which didn't suddenly appear in 2010 and certainly didn't just get started in 2008 in response to Obama).

Many of us opposed the use of military force in 2003 and have always opposed it.

Bush had lots of opportunity to do some good things, but threw it all away in favor of miserable programs like the drug program and No Child Left Behind. He couldn't produce enough brain power to sell the idea of making Social Security a defined contribution program instead of an unfunded defined benefit and he just could not resist the word privatization.

The left always screams that YOU VOTED FOR HIM TWICE.

Well, let's see......

As much as I thought Bush was a bad choice.....Al Gore.......instead ?

Not a freaking prayer.

If the left had put up a centrist who didn't hate religion and would have gotten us out of the war......you'd have had the WH in 2004.

 

[ShackledNation]

The 2000's

Hmm. Let's see. Obama was elected in 2008 ans sworn in 2009. SO that's one year off.
Bush was not a conservative. He didnt run as a conservative. He didnt govern as a conservatve.
Congress was controlled by the GOP until 2006 but for some time had a 50-50 Senate. Many of the Republicans, like Lincoln Chafee or Olympia Snowe were not conservatives.
So I guess that was just a big old ignorant fail.
But even so, would you like to trade the higher growth, low unemployment low inflation low debt environment of that time for the crap we have now? Recall that income inequality was much less then.

Pure unadulterated BULLSHIT...

Bush is the most conservative president we've had since probably Warren G. Harding—and perhaps ever. He has governed, wherever possible, fully in step with the basic conservative principles that defined Ronald Reagan's presidency and have shaped the political right for the last two generations: opposition to New Deal-style social programs; a view of civil liberties as obstacles to dispensing justice; the pursuit of low taxes, especially on businesses and the wealthy; a pro-business stance on regulation; a hawkish, militaristic, nationalistic foreign policy; and a commitment to bringing religion, and specifically Christianity, back into public policy. "Mr. Bush has a philosophy. It is conservative," wrote Peggy Noonan in 2002. Ah, but times change. Last June she complained, "What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them."

It's certainly true that Bush hasn't delivered on every last item on the conservative wish list. But what president has—or ever could? What Bush's new critics on the right don't see, or won't see, is that to credibly accuse Bush of betraying "conservatism" requires constructing an ideal of conservatism that exists only in the world of theory, not the world of practical politics and democratic governance. It's an ideal that any president would fail to meet. In a democracy, governing means taking into account public opinion and making compromises. That means deviating at times from doctrinal purity.

Indeed, Bush's presidency, far from being a subversion of modern American conservatism, represents its fulfillment. For most of the president's tenure, many of the same folks who now brand him as an incompetent or an impostor happily backed his agenda. Republicans controlled the Senate and the House with iron discipline. They populated the federal court system, built a powerful media apparatus, and, for years after 9/11, benefited from a public climate of reflexive deference to the powers that be. From 2001 to 2007, the conservative movement had as free a hand as it could have hoped for in setting the agenda. The fruits of its efforts are Bush's policies.

So while conservatives may be disillusioned with Bush, they can't seriously claim it's over his policies. Another explanation seems more likely: When the Iraq War really turned sour in 2005 and the domestic catastrophes piled up, the appeal of being linked with Bush's legacy dimmed. Like mobsters turning state's evidence before they're sent up the river, former Bushies began to testify, throwing themselves on the mercy of the court of public opinion. The reason isn't that Bush is an imperfect conservative. It's that he's an unsuccessful one.

Although I would agree Republicans controlled policy throughout the 2000s, it is pretty silly to say that Bush is some ultra conservative. He was a big military spender, that's for sure, but his economic policy was far from free market ideals. He doubled government spending for goodness sake. I am not a conservative, and I am not fan of Bush, but calling him a radical conservative is really unwarranted and plain wrong.

 

[Dot Com]

..conservatives have NEVER given us less government.

only becuase they have never completely controlled the 3 branches of govt, the press, and the electorate. See how easy that was?

You are lying. They controlled all 3 branches of government for almost a decade. They gave us MORE government, MORE debt and MORE pollution.

Conservatives would LOVE to control everything. America would be a fascist state.

yep. They'd outsource everything to the highest for-profit bidder. Thing is, governments aren't instituted to turn a profit.

 

[Listening]

..conservatives have NEVER given us less government.

only becuase they have never completely controlled the 3 branches of govt, the press, and the electorate. See how easy that was?

You are lying. They controlled all 3 branches of government for almost a decade. They gave us MORE government, MORE debt and MORE pollution.

Conservatives would LOVE to control everything. America would be a fascist state.

A wold walks up to BFgrn and says "I'm a sheep".

And BFgrn says "If you say you're a sheep....you must be a sheep".

GWB walks up to BFgrn and says "I'm a conservative"

And BFgrn says........

***************************

Reality...

Watch out where those huskies go and don't you eat that yellow snow.......

**************************

Now, we can expect a quote from Bernie Sanders that says GWB was a conservative and THAT will seal the deal.

 

[Friends]

Face it you Austrian Poodles. Theres no science behind your cult.

Actually, Keynesianism is pure Voo Doo. None of it's claims have ever been demonstrated in any way. In fact, the empirical evidence shows them all to be false.

How so? Throughout the Roosevelt administration there was a steadily rise in the per capita gross domestic product and employment, except for a year after 1937 when Roosevelt made the mistake of cutting government spending.

 

[Bfgrn]

Hmm. Let's see. Obama was elected in 2008 ans sworn in 2009. SO that's one year off.
Bush was not a conservative. He didnt run as a conservative. He didnt govern as a conservatve.
Congress was controlled by the GOP until 2006 but for some time had a 50-50 Senate. Many of the Republicans, like Lincoln Chafee or Olympia Snowe were not conservatives.
So I guess that was just a big old ignorant fail.
But even so, would you like to trade the higher growth, low unemployment low inflation low debt environment of that time for the crap we have now? Recall that income inequality was much less then.

Pure unadulterated BULLSHIT...

Bush is the most conservative president we've had since probably Warren G. Harding—and perhaps ever. He has governed, wherever possible, fully in step with the basic conservative principles that defined Ronald Reagan's presidency and have shaped the political right for the last two generations: opposition to New Deal-style social programs; a view of civil liberties as obstacles to dispensing justice; the pursuit of low taxes, especially on businesses and the wealthy; a pro-business stance on regulation; a hawkish, militaristic, nationalistic foreign policy; and a commitment to bringing religion, and specifically Christianity, back into public policy. "Mr. Bush has a philosophy. It is conservative," wrote Peggy Noonan in 2002. Ah, but times change. Last June she complained, "What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them."

It's certainly true that Bush hasn't delivered on every last item on the conservative wish list. But what president has—or ever could? What Bush's new critics on the right don't see, or won't see, is that to credibly accuse Bush of betraying "conservatism" requires constructing an ideal of conservatism that exists only in the world of theory, not the world of practical politics and democratic governance. It's an ideal that any president would fail to meet. In a democracy, governing means taking into account public opinion and making compromises. That means deviating at times from doctrinal purity.

Indeed, Bush's presidency, far from being a subversion of modern American conservatism, represents its fulfillment. For most of the president's tenure, many of the same folks who now brand him as an incompetent or an impostor happily backed his agenda. Republicans controlled the Senate and the House with iron discipline. They populated the federal court system, built a powerful media apparatus, and, for years after 9/11, benefited from a public climate of reflexive deference to the powers that be. From 2001 to 2007, the conservative movement had as free a hand as it could have hoped for in setting the agenda. The fruits of its efforts are Bush's policies.

So while conservatives may be disillusioned with Bush, they can't seriously claim it's over his policies. Another explanation seems more likely: When the Iraq War really turned sour in 2005 and the domestic catastrophes piled up, the appeal of being linked with Bush's legacy dimmed. Like mobsters turning state's evidence before they're sent up the river, former Bushies began to testify, throwing themselves on the mercy of the court of public opinion. The reason isn't that Bush is an imperfect conservative. It's that he's an unsuccessful one.

Thanks for introducing your post as bullshit because that is just what it is.

All you need look at is the rise of the Tea Party (which didn't suddenly appear in 2010 and certainly didn't just get started in 2008 in response to Obama).

Many of us opposed the use of military force in 2003 and have always opposed it.

Bush had lots of opportunity to do some good things, but threw it all away in favor of miserable programs like the drug program and No Child Left Behind. He couldn't produce enough brain power to sell the idea of making Social Security a defined contribution program instead of an unfunded defined benefit and he just could not resist the word privatization.

The left always screams that YOU VOTED FOR HIM TWICE.

Well, let's see......

As much as I thought Bush was a bad choice.....Al Gore.......instead ?

Not a freaking prayer.

If the left had put up a centrist who didn't hate religion and would have gotten us out of the war......you'd have had the WH in 2004.

The tea party hates BIG government? The same tea party who voted 122 to 17 FOR renewal of the Patriot Act??

And the 'evil' left who would have ENDED the Patriot Act if it wasn't for the overwhelming YEA votes by the right???

House Vote Roll Call on 2006 Patriot Act Renewal on March 7, 2006

FYI...

2011

And how did the 'Tea-party 'patriots' vote?

122 Tea Party Members of Congress who voted FOR final passage of H.R. 514, reauthorizing the Patriot Act without reform

17 Tea Party Members of Congress who voted AGAINST final passage of H.R. 514, reauthorizing the Patriot Act without reform

 

[The Rabbi]

Face it you Austrian Poodles. Theres no science behind your cult.

Actually, Keynesianism is pure Voo Doo. None of it's claims have ever been demonstrated in any way. In fact, the empirical evidence shows them all to be false.

How so? Throughout the Roosevelt administration there was a steadily rise in the per capita gross domestic product and employment, except for a year after 1937 when Roosevelt made the mistake of cutting government spending.

Since government spending is a component of GDP and Roosevelt spent more than anyone else up to that point the statement is a tautology.

 

[The Rabbi]

Pure unadulterated BULLSHIT...

Bush is the most conservative president we've had since probably Warren G. Harding—and perhaps ever. He has governed, wherever possible, fully in step with the basic conservative principles that defined Ronald Reagan's presidency and have shaped the political right for the last two generations: opposition to New Deal-style social programs; a view of civil liberties as obstacles to dispensing justice; the pursuit of low taxes, especially on businesses and the wealthy; a pro-business stance on regulation; a hawkish, militaristic, nationalistic foreign policy; and a commitment to bringing religion, and specifically Christianity, back into public policy. "Mr. Bush has a philosophy. It is conservative," wrote Peggy Noonan in 2002. Ah, but times change. Last June she complained, "What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them."

It's certainly true that Bush hasn't delivered on every last item on the conservative wish list. But what president has—or ever could? What Bush's new critics on the right don't see, or won't see, is that to credibly accuse Bush of betraying "conservatism" requires constructing an ideal of conservatism that exists only in the world of theory, not the world of practical politics and democratic governance. It's an ideal that any president would fail to meet. In a democracy, governing means taking into account public opinion and making compromises. That means deviating at times from doctrinal purity.

Indeed, Bush's presidency, far from being a subversion of modern American conservatism, represents its fulfillment. For most of the president's tenure, many of the same folks who now brand him as an incompetent or an impostor happily backed his agenda. Republicans controlled the Senate and the House with iron discipline. They populated the federal court system, built a powerful media apparatus, and, for years after 9/11, benefited from a public climate of reflexive deference to the powers that be. From 2001 to 2007, the conservative movement had as free a hand as it could have hoped for in setting the agenda. The fruits of its efforts are Bush's policies.

So while conservatives may be disillusioned with Bush, they can't seriously claim it's over his policies. Another explanation seems more likely: When the Iraq War really turned sour in 2005 and the domestic catastrophes piled up, the appeal of being linked with Bush's legacy dimmed. Like mobsters turning state's evidence before they're sent up the river, former Bushies began to testify, throwing themselves on the mercy of the court of public opinion. The reason isn't that Bush is an imperfect conservative. It's that he's an unsuccessful one.

Thanks for introducing your post as bullshit because that is just what it is.

All you need look at is the rise of the Tea Party (which didn't suddenly appear in 2010 and certainly didn't just get started in 2008 in response to Obama).

Many of us opposed the use of military force in 2003 and have always opposed it.

Bush had lots of opportunity to do some good things, but threw it all away in favor of miserable programs like the drug program and No Child Left Behind. He couldn't produce enough brain power to sell the idea of making Social Security a defined contribution program instead of an unfunded defined benefit and he just could not resist the word privatization.

The left always screams that YOU VOTED FOR HIM TWICE.

Well, let's see......

As much as I thought Bush was a bad choice.....Al Gore.......instead ?

Not a freaking prayer.

If the left had put up a centrist who didn't hate religion and would have gotten us out of the war......you'd have had the WH in 2004.

The tea party hates BIG government? The same tea party who voted 122 to 17 FOR renewal of the Patriot Act??

And the 'evil' left who would have ENDED the Patriot Act if it wasn't for the overwhelming YEA votes by the right???

House Vote Roll Call on 2006 Patriot Act Renewal on March 7, 2006

FYI...

2011

And how did the 'Tea-party 'patriots' vote?

122 Tea Party Members of Congress who voted FOR final passage of H.R. 514, reauthorizing the Patriot Act without reform

17 Tea Party Members of Congress who voted AGAINST final passage of H.R. 514, reauthorizing the Patriot Act without reform

Because "Tea Party" and "Republican" are synonymous, right?
You're such a bloviating ignorant piece of shit it isnt worth engaging.

 

[Listening]

Because "Tea Party" and "Republican" are synonymous, right?
You're such a bloviating ignorant piece of shit it isnt worth engaging.

I would agree.

You have to ignore the fact that JakeTheFake is all about getting rid of the Tea Party and is gloating over their defeat in primaries.

You also have to ignore Karl Rove and his effort to defeat the Tea Party candidates at the ballot box.

Mississippi's recent Senate primary means nothing.

Never mind Tea Party challenges to people like Pat Roberts.

It's all about the issues that support the POV that is already laced through his sorry DNA.

 

[Dot Com]

Face it. Krugman has you people and your kooky mythologies nailed [MENTION=19448]CrusaderFrank[/MENTION]

 

[The Rabbi]

Face it. Krugman has you people and your kooky mythologies nailed [MENTION=19448]CrusaderFrank[/MENTION]

Face it, Krugman has never been right on anything and the stimulus failed.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Face it. Krugman has you people and your kooky mythologies nailed [MENTION=19448]CrusaderFrank[/MENTION]

Yes Krugman loved the VA and sung its praises until it was exposed as just another libcommie soviet bureaucracy.

 

[Bfgrn]

A wold walks up to BFgrn and says "I'm a sheep".

And BFgrn says "If you say you're a sheep....you must be a sheep".

GWB walks up to BFgrn and says "I'm a conservative"

And BFgrn says........

***************************

Reality...

Watch out where those huskies go and don't you eat that yellow snow.......

**************************

Now, we can expect a quote from Bernie Sanders that says GWB was a conservative and THAT will seal the deal.

George W. Bush

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

George W. Bush

dear, do you understand now that Bush was not conservative?

 

[Bfgrn]

Ronald Reagan

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Ronald Reagan

dear, nice pic, can you state your point or must you admit you lack IQ to do it???

 

[Bfgrn]

dear, do you understand now that Bush was not conservative?

"Mr. Bush has a philosophy. It is conservative," wrote Peggy Noonan in 2002. Ah, but times change. Last June she complained, "What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them."

For the last quarter century, Reagan's rhetoric and ideology have guided the conservative movement and the Republican Party, which were effectively fused during his presidency. The Reagan love-in—which includes a project led by GOP operative Grover Norquist to name something in every county in America after Reagan—has been gathering steam since his retirement. It reached an absurd peak at a Republican presidential debate earlier this year, when every candidate outdid the last to seize the late president's mantle.
What few of the GOP candidates would admit, though, is that the purest heir to Reaganism is George W. Bush. In 2003, Bill Keller of the New York Times even wrote a definitive 8,000-word article in the Sunday magazine called "Reagan's Son," which detailed striking similarities in the two men's personal styles, policies, and even staffing. Speaking to Keller, Norquist blessed the analogy. And since then the key traits that Keller identified as shared by Reagan and Bush—the "enthusiastic assumption of the role of solo superpower," "tax cuts with a supply-side bias," "a shift of responsibilities from government to the private sector, and from the federal government to the states"—have, if anything, intensified. Judging by those aspects of Reagan's record that his cheerleaders extol most ardently, Bush has actually proven more faithful to conservatism, not less, than his predecessor.

But Bush's new critics spare themselves the pain of finding fault with their hero through selective memory. They remember that Reagan was steadfast (most of the time) in his conservative rhetoric and ideology—just as Bush has been. They forget, however, that in practice Reagan veered from his official line as politics dictated or when, as invariably happened, different conservative ideals clashed.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"Mr. Bush has a philosophy. It is conservative," wrote Peggy Noonan in 2002. Ah, but times change. Last June she complained, "What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them."

For the last quarter century, Reagan's rhetoric and ideology have guided the conservative movement and the Republican Party, which were effectively fused during his presidency. The Reagan love-in—which includes a project led by GOP operative Grover Norquist to name something in every county in America after Reagan—has been gathering steam since his retirement. It reached an absurd peak at a Republican presidential debate earlier this year, when every candidate outdid the last to seize the late president's mantle.
What few of the GOP candidates would admit, though, is that the purest heir to Reaganism is George W. Bush. In 2003, Bill Keller of the New York Times even wrote a definitive 8,000-word article in the Sunday magazine called "Reagan's Son," which detailed striking similarities in the two men's personal styles, policies, and even staffing. Speaking to Keller, Norquist blessed the analogy. And since then the key traits that Keller identified as shared by Reagan and Bush—the "enthusiastic assumption of the role of solo superpower," "tax cuts with a supply-side bias," "a shift of responsibilities from government to the private sector, and from the federal government to the states"—have, if anything, intensified. Judging by those aspects of Reagan's record that his cheerleaders extol most ardently, Bush has actually proven more faithful to conservatism, not less, than his predecessor.

But Bush's new critics spare themselves the pain of finding fault with their hero through selective memory. They remember that Reagan was steadfast (most of the time) in his conservative rhetoric and ideology—just as Bush has been. They forget, however, that in practice Reagan veered from his official line as politics dictated or when, as invariably happened, different conservative ideals clashed.

dear, can you say what your point is?

 

[Bfgrn]

dear, can you say what your point is?

Have an adult explain it to you...