If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic Wire)   Paul Krugman swats down every Tea Party/GOP argument on the economy ever made. Bonus: On live TV   (theatlanticwire.com) divider line 489
    More: Hero, Paul Krugman, GOP  
•       •       •

7570 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Jul 2012 at 10:47 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



489 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-12 12:47:23 AM
Excellent.
 
2012-07-12 12:55:04 AM
He could tattoo it into the insides of the eyelids of every Teabagger in fluorescent ink, and they still wouldn't get it, because everyone's opinion is equal, except their opinion is right, because of Gut Feeling and lots of flags.
 
2012-07-12 01:01:17 AM
And it all boils down to him thinking he can take what is mine. He can DIAF.
 
2012-07-12 01:05:27 AM

kmmontandon: He could tattoo it into the insides of the eyelids of every Teabagger in fluorescent ink, and they still wouldn't get it, because everyone's opinion is equal, except their opinion is right, because of Gut Feeling and lots of flags.


This. There are no supreme "facts" in the Teabagger universe. There are only opinions. It is your opinion that climate change exists. It is only the opinions of 98% scientists that climate change exists. Evidence is just another form of "opinion".
 
2012-07-12 01:06:38 AM
I don't think Krugman did what you think he did, subby.

He just spouted his usual, tax "the rich" and more gov't spending argument. Nothing new there. He writes that in almost every one of his columns.
 
2012-07-12 01:10:27 AM

MeinRS6: I don't think Krugman did what you think he did, subby.

He just spouted his usual, tax "the rich" and more gov't spending argument. Nothing new there. He writes that in almost every one of his columns.



And here we have Exhibit A.
 
2012-07-12 01:20:06 AM

RobertBruce: And it all boils down to him thinking he can take what is mine. He can DIAF.


I don't think "he" is trying to take anything. Put the shotgun down, angry.
 
2012-07-12 01:35:46 AM

MeinRS6: I don't think Krugman did what you think he did, subby.

He just spouted his usual, tax "the rich" and more gov't spending argument. Nothing new there. He writes that in almost every one of his columns.


Er. Since you're disagreeing with subby, please enlighten us. What do you think he did?
 
2012-07-12 01:40:32 AM

RobertBruce: And it all boils down to him thinking he can take what is mine. He can DIAF.


Pfffttt... as if you had anything.
 
2012-07-12 01:58:57 AM

Bontesla: MeinRS6: I don't think Krugman did what you think he did, subby.

He just spouted his usual, tax "the rich" and more gov't spending argument. Nothing new there. He writes that in almost every one of his columns.

Er. Since you're disagreeing with subby, please enlighten us. What do you think he did?


Defended the same, tired, Keynesian crap that he always does.

Are you new to Mr. Krugman?

If you watch the vid from the event in Spain, he calls the US "an insurance company for the elderly with an army". He is, no doubt, referring to the large budget expenditures on these items, but more importantly that's how he actually views the US. He thinks that the role of gov't is to take wealth from people and have the gov't run healthcare for all of the old people. In short, he's a libby idiot. He will have a lot of friends on Fark.
 
2012-07-12 02:04:18 AM

MeinRS6:
Defended the same, tired, Keynesian crap that he always does.



Feel free to explain how you can break the Paradox of Thrift on a nation-scale level without Keynesian economics.

Pro-tip: You can't.
 
2012-07-12 02:07:14 AM

kmmontandon: Feel free to explain how you can break the Paradox of Thrift on a nation-scale level without Keynesian economics.


A bit unfashionable, perhaps; but might there be an angle via Georgism?
 
2012-07-12 02:10:47 AM

MeinRS6: Bontesla: MeinRS6: I don't think Krugman did what you think he did, subby.

He just spouted his usual, tax "the rich" and more gov't spending argument. Nothing new there. He writes that in almost every one of his columns.

Er. Since you're disagreeing with subby, please enlighten us. What do you think he did?

Defended the same, tired, Keynesian crap that he always does.

Are you new to Mr. Krugman?

If you watch the vid from the event in Spain, he calls the US "an insurance company for the elderly with an army". He is, no doubt, referring to the large budget expenditures on these items, but more importantly that's how he actually views the US. He thinks that the role of gov't is to take wealth from people and have the gov't run healthcare for all of the old people. In short, he's a libby idiot. He will have a lot of friends on Fark.


And by not answering the question, I'll take that as a sign that your reading comprehension skills are inadequate for this discussion.

Subby's argument is that he takes the basic tea party arguments and rebuts them.

You claimed to have watched the video and disagree with subby. The burden of proof is on you. It's your turn to say, "Subby was wrong on claim x because of example y."

After watching the video, I can say that subby was right. Krugman rejected common conservative economic theories using other countries as examples, models, and evidence.

Now, you may disagree with Krugman's conclusions. However, that's an entirely different disagreement than the one you claim to be having with subby. Subby was right. Krugman addressed and rebutted the theories. Unless, of course, you have a clip in which Krugman isn't analyzing the theories?
 
2012-07-12 02:13:51 AM

MeinRS6: Defended the same, tired, Keynesian crap that he always does.

Are you new to Mr. Krugman?


How was he wrong, per se? Is his point about England incorrect? No? Huh. Odd, that.
 
2012-07-12 02:19:56 AM

abb3w: kmmontandon: Feel free to explain how you can break the Paradox of Thrift on a nation-scale level without Keynesian economics.

A bit unfashionable, perhaps; but might there be an angle via Georgism?



I'm not seeing how that applies here, especially since it requires a validation of claims to resources, which requires an authority, which will be biased towards existing wealth.
 
2012-07-12 02:20:48 AM

cameroncrazy1984: MeinRS6: Defended the same, tired, Keynesian crap that he always does.

Are you new to Mr. Krugman?

How was he wrong, per se? Is his point about England incorrect? No? Huh. Odd, that.


I think you're expecting a little too much out of this one. MeinRS6 is already 12 comments in.
 
2012-07-12 02:20:58 AM

Bontesla: Subby's argument is that he takes the basic tea party arguments and rebuts them.


Right. And I'm saying that Krugman's tired bullshiat is not a reasonable rebuttal to anything.

If Krugman was correct, then the US would be right back on track from all of the recent gov't spending. But wait, he says that that didn't work because Obama/congress didn't spend enough. So his own main talking point has been disproven already, and his response to that is "not enough spending".

So one can never find out if Krugman is actually correct in his rebuttal, because Krugman will just keep moving the ball as his bullshiat theories fail. "It would have worked too if it hadn't been for those damn Tea Party people" is the end of a Scooby-doo episode, not a coherent economic argument.
 
2012-07-12 02:59:55 AM

MeinRS6: Bontesla: Subby's argument is that he takes the basic tea party arguments and rebuts them.

Right. And I'm saying that Krugman's tired bullshiat is not a reasonable rebuttal to anything.

If Krugman was correct, then the US would be right back on track from all of the recent gov't spending. But wait, he says that that didn't work because Obama/congress didn't spend enough. So his own main talking point has been disproven already, and his response to that is "not enough spending".

So one can never find out if Krugman is actually correct in his rebuttal, because Krugman will just keep moving the ball as his bullshiat theories fail. "It would have worked too if it hadn't been for those damn Tea Party people" is the end of a Scooby-doo episode, not a coherent economic argument.


That wasn't your argument. Your argument was that Krugman didn't swat down Tea Party economic theories. You disagreed with subby's assertion that Krugman did.

You seem to be making a content argument now (you disagree with Krugman). Your original argument was the negation of an alleged action (you said Krugman did not argue against Tea Party economic theories).

If your intention was a content argument the entire time, you should have stated so.
 
2012-07-12 03:05:06 AM

RadioAaron: RobertBruce: And it all boils down to him thinking he can take what is mine. He can DIAF.

I don't think "he" is trying to take anything. Put the shotgun down, angry.


Nah, he needs to pick up the shotgun. And clean it.
 
2012-07-12 03:48:10 AM
To pretend a unified push of government funds towards a Keynesian style stimulus occurred is either willful ignorance or disingenuous. For example, you had any gains from QE2 offset by the need to create new debt do to the renewal of the Bush tax cuts
 
2012-07-12 04:12:35 AM

Bontesla: MeinRS6: Bontesla: Subby's argument is that he takes the basic tea party arguments and rebuts them.

Right. And I'm saying that Krugman's tired bullshiat is not a reasonable rebuttal to anything.

If Krugman was correct, then the US would be right back on track from all of the recent gov't spending. But wait, he says that that didn't work because Obama/congress didn't spend enough. So his own main talking point has been disproven already, and his response to that is "not enough spending".

So one can never find out if Krugman is actually correct in his rebuttal, because Krugman will just keep moving the ball as his bullshiat theories fail. "It would have worked too if it hadn't been for those damn Tea Party people" is the end of a Scooby-doo episode, not a coherent economic argument.

That wasn't your argument. Your argument was that Krugman didn't swat down Tea Party economic theories. You disagreed with subby's assertion that Krugman did.

You seem to be making a content argument now (you disagree with Krugman). Your original argument was the negation of an alleged action (you said Krugman did not argue against Tea Party economic theories).

If your intention was a content argument the entire time, you should have stated so.


If Krugman's arguments are full of FAIL all around, then he didn't "swat down" and Tea Party or any other arguments, you pedantic dweeb.
 
2012-07-12 07:12:50 AM

MeinRS6: Bontesla: MeinRS6: Bontesla: Subby's argument is that he takes the basic tea party arguments and rebuts them.

Right. And I'm saying that Krugman's tired bullshiat is not a reasonable rebuttal to anything.

If Krugman was correct, then the US would be right back on track from all of the recent gov't spending. But wait, he says that that didn't work because Obama/congress didn't spend enough. So his own main talking point has been disproven already, and his response to that is "not enough spending".

So one can never find out if Krugman is actually correct in his rebuttal, because Krugman will just keep moving the ball as his bullshiat theories fail. "It would have worked too if it hadn't been for those damn Tea Party people" is the end of a Scooby-doo episode, not a coherent economic argument.

That wasn't your argument. Your argument was that Krugman didn't swat down Tea Party economic theories. You disagreed with subby's assertion that Krugman did.

You seem to be making a content argument now (you disagree with Krugman). Your original argument was the negation of an alleged action (you said Krugman did not argue against Tea Party economic theories).

If your intention was a content argument the entire time, you should have stated so.

If Krugman's arguments are full of FAIL all around, then he didn't "swat down" and Tea Party or any other arguments, you pedantic dweeb.


How are they fail? You seem to basically disagree with the Keynesian model and, I'm guessing here, would lean toward the Austrian camp, yes?

How is the Keynesian model not workable? How did Krugman fail?
 
2012-07-12 07:48:30 AM

RobertBruce: And it all boils down to him thinking he can take what is mine. He can DIAF.


It would be easier for him to DIAF if we stopped taking what is yours and giving it to the fire department.
 
2012-07-12 08:18:37 AM

dr_blasto: MeinRS6: Bontesla: MeinRS6: Bontesla: Subby's argument is that he takes the basic tea party arguments and rebuts them.

Right. And I'm saying that Krugman's tired bullshiat is not a reasonable rebuttal to anything.

If Krugman was correct, then the US would be right back on track from all of the recent gov't spending. But wait, he says that that didn't work because Obama/congress didn't spend enough. So his own main talking point has been disproven already, and his response to that is "not enough spending".

So one can never find out if Krugman is actually correct in his rebuttal, because Krugman will just keep moving the ball as his bullshiat theories fail. "It would have worked too if it hadn't been for those damn Tea Party people" is the end of a Scooby-doo episode, not a coherent economic argument.

That wasn't your argument. Your argument was that Krugman didn't swat down Tea Party economic theories. You disagreed with subby's assertion that Krugman did.

You seem to be making a content argument now (you disagree with Krugman). Your original argument was the negation of an alleged action (you said Krugman did not argue against Tea Party economic theories).

If your intention was a content argument the entire time, you should have stated so.

If Krugman's arguments are full of FAIL all around, then he didn't "swat down" and Tea Party or any other arguments, you pedantic dweeb.

How are they fail? You seem to basically disagree with the Keynesian model and, I'm guessing here, would lean toward the Austrian camp, yes?

How is the Keynesian model not workable? How did Krugman fail?


Why the fark are you bothering with one of the worst trolls on this site?
 
2012-07-12 08:30:13 AM

sweetmelissa31: RobertBruce: And it all boils down to him thinking he can take what is mine. He can DIAF.

It would be easier for him to DIAF if we stopped taking what is yours and giving it to the fire department.


WIN.

/And fave'd.
 
2012-07-12 08:34:08 AM

GAT_00: dr_blasto: MeinRS6: Bontesla: MeinRS6: Bontesla: Subby's argument is that he takes the basic tea party arguments and rebuts them.

Right. And I'm saying that Krugman's tired bullshiat is not a reasonable rebuttal to anything.

If Krugman was correct, then the US would be right back on track from all of the recent gov't spending. But wait, he says that that didn't work because Obama/congress didn't spend enough. So his own main talking point has been disproven already, and his response to that is "not enough spending".

So one can never find out if Krugman is actually correct in his rebuttal, because Krugman will just keep moving the ball as his bullshiat theories fail. "It would have worked too if it hadn't been for those damn Tea Party people" is the end of a Scooby-doo episode, not a coherent economic argument.

That wasn't your argument. Your argument was that Krugman didn't swat down Tea Party economic theories. You disagreed with subby's assertion that Krugman did.

You seem to be making a content argument now (you disagree with Krugman). Your original argument was the negation of an alleged action (you said Krugman did not argue against Tea Party economic theories).

If your intention was a content argument the entire time, you should have stated so.

If Krugman's arguments are full of FAIL all around, then he didn't "swat down" and Tea Party or any other arguments, you pedantic dweeb.

How are they fail? You seem to basically disagree with the Keynesian model and, I'm guessing here, would lean toward the Austrian camp, yes?

How is the Keynesian model not workable? How did Krugman fail?

Why the fark are you bothering with one of the worst trolls on this site?


Its early and I haven't had any coffee.
 
2012-07-12 08:36:09 AM
I like the last 20 seconds of Krugman sitting there with the "Jeez, these people really are retarded" look on his face as they do the outro free-for-all into commercial.
 
2012-07-12 08:51:15 AM

sweetmelissa31: It would be easier for him to DIAF if we stopped taking what is yours and giving it to the fire department.


taxes are legal arson
 
2012-07-12 09:21:06 AM
If government should be run like a business, then people should pay the market rate for what that business provides. Considering the cost of the military alone I'd say that we're getting a pretty good deal. Now factor in fire departments, police, schools, roads, clean air/water/food, etc. and the ≈$7k I paid in taxes last year is more than worth it.

So basically teabaggers are saying they want these services for free. They're a bunch of whiny freeloaders looking for a handout.
 
2012-07-12 09:26:24 AM

doyner: So basically teabaggers are saying they want these services for free. They're a bunch of whiny freeloaders looking for a handout.


And then when shiat hits the fan like in Colorado, they're demanding the rest of us come in and bail them out.
 
2012-07-12 09:31:12 AM
i love how the meathead at the end simply rejects krugman's reality without any justification: "i'm scared of government spending at 50 percent of GDP. i just can't accept it."

basically using the classic teabagger argument of "lalalalalalala i can't hear you!"
 
2012-07-12 09:34:40 AM

doyner: If government should be run like a business, then people should pay the market rate for what that business provides. Considering the cost of the military alone I'd say that we're getting a pretty good deal.


I get your point, but if government was run like a business, the military wouldn't be half the size it is today. If the average person did a real cost/benefit analysis of the military, it would shrink like a tire with a nail in it.
 
2012-07-12 09:35:45 AM

Three Crooked Squirrels: doyner: If government should be run like a business, then people should pay the market rate for what that business provides. Considering the cost of the military alone I'd say that we're getting a pretty good deal.

I get your point, but if government was run like a business, the military wouldn't be half the size it is today. If the average person did a real cost/benefit analysis of the military, it would shrink like a tire with a nail in it.


I agree, but from the teabagger perspective this is where their anti-tax pathology fails them.
 
2012-07-12 09:40:24 AM

doyner: I agree, but from the teabagger perspective this is where their anti-tax pathology fails them.


And the "keep your government hands off my medicare" crowd. They truly want something for nothing.
 
2012-07-12 09:43:54 AM
The 2112 Defense Budget is $671B. That adds up to about $10k per household. How many of these farkers are willing to pay that? If that's too much, then I guess they're for the rich paying more. So which is it, assholes? Smaller military, a true progressive tax (i.e. capital gains are normal income), more borrowing from China?

A society cannot live on ideology alone. Reality exists regardless of your inability to comprehend it.
 
2012-07-12 09:44:34 AM
*2012
 
2012-07-12 09:51:07 AM

Jackson Herring: sweetmelissa31: It would be easier for him to DIAF if we stopped taking what is yours and giving it to the fire department.

taxes are legal arson


That's going to be on a teabagger's truck bumper by the end of the week.
 
2012-07-12 09:51:45 AM

Aarontology: doyner: So basically teabaggers are saying they want these services for free. They're a bunch of whiny freeloaders looking for a handout.

And then when shiat hits the fan like in Colorado, they're demanding the rest of us come in and bail them out.


I still think we ought to apply my solution to Colorado Springs.
 
2012-07-12 09:56:28 AM

Vodka Zombie: That's going to be on a teabagger's truck bumper by the end of the week.


I've already copyrighted it. Taxes are legal theft, murder, arson, rape, and cattle rustling.
 
2012-07-12 10:06:25 AM
My high school!

/Krugman went there
//so did Michael Kors, the guy who created Entourage, two ESPN on-air personalities, and Amy Fisher
///do with that list what you will
 
2012-07-12 10:07:11 AM

Jackson Herring: Vodka Zombie: That's going to be on a teabagger's truck bumper by the end of the week.

I've already copyrighted it. Taxes are legal theft, murder, arson, rape, and cattle rustling.


So theft is just private sector free market tax collection.
 
2012-07-12 10:23:05 AM

RobertBruce: And it all boils down to him thinking he can take what is mine.


So in other words, he basically made the argument the Tea Party is making.
 
2012-07-12 10:27:36 AM

propasaurus: So theft is just private sector free market tax collection.


The invisible hand of the free market punching you in the face and stealing your wallet
 
2012-07-12 10:29:21 AM

Jackson Herring: The invisible hand of the free market punching you in the face and stealing your wallet


You shouldn't have been carrying around your wallet if you didn't want it to get stolen.
 
2012-07-12 10:31:58 AM

sweetmelissa31: Jackson Herring: The invisible hand of the free market punching you in the face and stealing your wallet

You shouldn't have been carrying around your wallet if you didn't want it to get stolen.


I was totally asking for it. That sensual bulge in my back pocket. Large enough to be noticed, yet slim enough to be comfortable.
 
2012-07-12 10:48:39 AM

MeinRS6: Bontesla: Subby's argument is that he takes the basic tea party arguments and rebuts them.

Right. And I'm saying that Krugman's tired bullshiat is not a reasonable rebuttal to anything.

If Krugman was correct, then the US would be right back on track from all of the recent gov't spending. But wait, he says that that didn't work because Obama/congress didn't spend enough. So his own main talking point has been disproven already, and his response to that is "not enough spending".

So one can never find out if Krugman is actually correct in his rebuttal, because Krugman will just keep moving the ball as his bullshiat theories fail. "It would have worked too if it hadn't been for those damn Tea Party people" is the end of a Scooby-doo episode, not a coherent economic argument.


Do you think all of the Bush-era tax cuts should be extended?
 
2012-07-12 10:51:43 AM
The next time Krugman wins an argument will be the first.
 
2012-07-12 10:52:28 AM

MeinRS6: He thinks that the role of gov't is to take wealth from people and have the gov't run healthcare for all of the old people. In short, he's a libby idiot.


Yes. Recognizing the existence of Medicare is totes idiotic.
 
2012-07-12 10:52:32 AM
Krugman is the one voice of reason in an exceedingly right wing pundit pool at the NY Times.
 
2012-07-12 10:54:10 AM

kmmontandon: He could tattoo it into the insides of the eyelids of every Teabagger in fluorescent ink, and they still wouldn't get it, because everyone's opinion is equal, except their opinion is right, because of Gut Feeling and lots of flags.


Well, also, it would be really, really hard to focus on any sort of text that close to your eyes. Sort of beyond the focal length, I think.
 
Displayed 50 of 489 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report