Krugman lays waste to Republican 'Budget'

[UnderConstruction]

More magic math, courtesy of our favorite tards.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/20/op...773522000&_r=0

[Jackie S]

When it comes to Paul Krugman, I just can't take him seriously. He sold what little credibility he ever had down the tube when he signed on to be a boot licking lackey for The Democrat Party.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

When it comes to Paul Krugman, I just can't take him seriously. He sold what little credibility he ever had down the tube when he signed on to be a boot licking lackey for The Democrat Party.

I agree, he totes their water, but that doesn't make him wrong here. The problem with republicans who want to initiate the second coming of Reagonomics is that they won't, or can't, follow through on ALL four pillars. If you're going to make it work, you've got to do all four. Lower the tax rates, income and capital gains, tighten cash supply to keep inflation in check, less regulation and reduce government spending. They just can't seem to do the last one. Now, you can also argue that Reagan put in motion the forces that would lead to a bubble 20 years later, with the lack of regulation, etc. Krugman would argue it was simply part of the business cycle and after Carter and the constriction the economy went through, it was bound to come back and Reagan was just lucky enough to not get in the way. Most of the deregulation actually started before Reagan anyway.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

When it comes to Paul Krugman, I just can't take him seriously. He sold what little credibility he ever had down the tube when he signed on to be a boot licking lackey for The Democrat Party.

Even the Dims criticize Krugman for being a "frenemy" after he's supposedly not backed Obama's policies 100%. Nobody really cares about the guy south or west of the Beltway.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

I agree, he totes their water, but that doesn't make him wrong here. The problem with republicans who want to initiate the second coming of Reagonomics is that they won't, or can't, follow through on ALL four pillars. If you're going to make it work, you've got to do all four. Lower the tax rates, income and capital gains, tighten cash supply to keep inflation in check, less regulation and reduce government spending. They just can't seem to do the last one. Now, you can also argue that Reagan put in motion the forces that would lead to a bubble 20 years later, with the lack of regulation, etc. Krugman would argue it was simply part of the business cycle and after Carter and the constriction the economy went through, it was bound to come back and Reagan was just lucky enough to not get in the way. Most of the deregulation actually started before Reagan anyway.

I agree, Republicans like to spend government money, also. They just prefer it to be spent on defense and not Obama phones.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by DSK

I agree, Republicans like to spend government money, also. They just prefer it to be spent on defense and not Obama phones.

The obama phone thing is complete bullshit. Please read the enclosed link and educate yourself. It's got nothing to do with obama and tax revenue isn't even used to fund the program. It's funded by revenue donations from telecom companies. This is the kind of thing, like Palin saying she could see Russia, that just gains momentum and keeps going, despite being false.

http://gawker.com/5947133/the-obama-...-do-with-obama

[gary5912]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

The obama phone thing is complete bullshit. Please read the enclosed link and educate yourself. It's got nothing to do with obama and tax revenue isn't even used to fund the program. It's funded by revenue donations from telecom companies. This is the kind of thing, like Palin saying she could see Russia, that just gains momentum and keeps going, despite being false.

http://gawker.com/5947133/the-obama-...-do-with-obama

who ever paid for your education wasted their money

[JD Barleycorn]

I would say that only Uber Cunt could blame Ronald Reagan for the bubble in 2008 but I know that others are tired of blaming Bush too.

The bubble was a creation of the housing loan industry (banks) who made bad loans to people who could not pay them back. Why would they do that? Because they were told to do so or they would not be allowed to merge, buy, or do any business that required the assent of the federal government. Who told them this? William Jefferson Clinton told them that. Did he pass a law? No, that law was passed under James Earl Carter. It was the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 that urged banks to make loans to people who could not otherwise afford those loans. It was voluntary then, Clinton made it almost mandatory. Where did the housing bubble come from? JImmy Carter and the democratic congress, Bill Clinton and a democratic congress, and Barney Frank who successfully prevented an accounting of Fannie and Freddie in 2005 and who then said in 2008 that Fannie and Freddie were both sound.

I'll even throw you a bone lefties, some republicans pushed for the repeal of Glass-Steagall Act under Clinton which allowed the banks to make more stupid decisions with other people's money....and Obama bailed them out.

[UnderConstruction]

Pure hocum. I said you could argue it.

[CuteOldGuy]

How is it hocum, OverCompensation? Please explain.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Now, you can also argue that Reagan put in motion the forces that would lead to a bubble 20 years later, with the lack of regulation, etc.

Wow, lookee here - After flaunting his ignorance of every other topic discussed on this board, undercunt is now showing his abject stupidity on economics! Let's see, if a President can leave office and still be blamed for a bubble (or maybe two bubbles, since underpussy doesn't specify if he means 2000 or 2008) that bursts 20 years later - how can we revise the economic history books using that daft idea?

1. Can we blame William Howard Taft for "putting in motion the forces that would lead" to the 1929 stock market crash and the ensuing Great Depression?

2. Can we blame Eisenhower for the 1974/75 recession?

3. Can we pin the 1981/82 economic downturn on JFK's actions and inactions?

See how much fun we can have with undercunt's half-baked, libtarded ideas about economics? Why should contemporaneous policy-makers bear any responsibility for not seeing a bubble coming or pursuing policies to avoid it? They can just point back two decades ago and say - it's Ronnie's fault! He put the unstoppable forces in motion!

Undercunt amazes us with the sheer breadth of his ignorance. He is ignorant about so MANY things - nuclear energy, Iran, World War II, the Crusades, the Civil Rights Act, economics 101, et cetera, ad nauseum. What will be next???

.

[Yssup Rider]

Another day, another bumphazi fest. It's on you, LLiarMan. ENTIRELY on you.

Notably, we've now got jerkall bumping. He obviously hasn't figured out why he's doing it, but maybe it came to him during one of his "head movies."