Frank
If a conservative posted such biased propaganda we would immediately be attacked as being a troll and trying to inflame the participants........you should be ashamed of yourself.
Krugman is merely an educated Michael Moore, showing the same disregard for substantiated truth. You must be hard up for accolades from your back slapping buddies......of which there are hundreds on this forum.
Rayban, if it would not give you too strong an episode of gerd, I suggest you reexam Krugman's credentials. Your ad hominem dismissal does you little credit.
Oh......he's got all the credentials JL.....that's what makes it so sad; he draws all the wrong conclusions.
If I were to post something from Rush Limbaugh, there would be a similar divergence from the center of political ideology. The only problem is, I am insulting Limbaugh by even using his name in the same sentence with Krugman. Have a nice day JL :wink:
You set yourself for that one baldimo.I had to look away couldn't take the carnage.Frank is a mad dog
Oh, sorry to have wasted our time, Rayban. I didn't realize you are Ditto-head; I never talk to them.
That's OK JL-----the feeling is mutual, I can assure you. However I must point that it is you who have used the ad hominem.......temper, temper.
Temper? Moi? No chance; I'm on Oxytoxin (too high to spell it right--just like your guru).
JLNobody wrote:Temper? Moi? No chance; I'm on Oxytoncin (too high to spell it right--just like your guru).
JL, your honesty in stating that you are high on something, is exemplary. Do you suppose Krugman could use that excuse?
rayban1 wrote:Frank
If a conservative posted such biased propaganda we would immediately be attacked as being a troll and trying to inflame the participants........
Really!
So?
Quote:....you should be ashamed of yourself.
Not in the least.
Krugman has this issue right....and I only wish there were more who could see the situation as it is....and talk about it in public.
Quote:
Krugman is merely an educated Michael Moore, showing the same disregard for substantiated truth.
Nonsense. What specifically do you see as "disregard for substantiated truth" in the article. We can discuss that if you can control your snit.
Quote:You must be hard up for accolades from your back slapping buddies......of which there are hundreds on this forum.
Not at all. I get lots of back slapping from people all the time.
Amigo wrote:You set yourself for that one baldimo.I had to look away couldn't take the carnage.Frank is a mad dog
How would you like to bite my ass!
No flirting,Amigo is straight
Rayban, I was jesting about the oxytoxin. Krugman needs no such excuse, and, of course, Limbaugh both needs it and has it.
This is my last response to you. Don't miss me to much.
Frank wrote:Nonsense. What specifically do you see as "disregard for substantiated truth" in the article. We can discuss that if you can control your snit.
OK.....let's start with this from Krugman's article.....
Krugman wrote:Ultimately, this isn't just about Mr. Rove. It's also about Mr. Bush, who has always known that his trusted political adviser - a disciple of the late Lee Atwater, whose smear tactics helped President Bush's father win the 1988 election - is a thug, and obviously made no attempt to find out if he was the leaker.
Here Krugman smears Rove as a thug. There is an ongoing investigation into this matter with thousands of pages of speculation but as yet......no proof of anything. Mr. Krugman raves about the law of the land and that no politician is above the law.......obviously Krugman has never heard that the Law says......Every person accused of a crime is innocent until PROVEN GUILTY.
Lets move on to social security which Krugman mentions in passing. Krugman has written several articles declaring emphatically that there is nothing wrong with social security. On the other hand Allen Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, who I would trust with my life, says there is a problem with Social Security and it should be fixed sooner rather than later. Now who would you trust.....Krugman or Greenspan?
I have offered to wager Farmerman and anyone else that Rove will be vindicated and in the end this whole thing will prove to be embarrassing to the Dems. Another little item that I will be willing to wager on is that Wilson will come out looking like the scumbag that he really is.
rayban1 wrote:Frank wrote:Nonsense. What specifically do you see as "disregard for substantiated truth" in the article. We can discuss that if you can control your snit.
OK.....let's start with this from Krugman's article.....
Krugman wrote:Ultimately, this isn't just about Mr. Rove. It's also about Mr. Bush, who has always known that his trusted political adviser - a disciple of the late Lee Atwater, whose smear tactics helped President Bush's father win the 1988 election - is a thug, and obviously made no attempt to find out if he was the leaker.
Here Krugman smears Rove as a thug. There is an ongoing investigation into this matter with thousands of pages of speculation but as yet......no proof of anything. Mr. Krugman raves about the law of the land and that no politician is above the law.......obviously Krugman has never heard that the Law says......Every person accused of a crime is innocent until PROVEN GUILTY.
THIS you want to pass off as an example of "disregard for substantiated truth."
What the hell are you smoking?
If this is the best you can come up with to substantiate your charge that Krugman has a "disregard for substantiated truth"...you really ought warn a person. I might be taking a sip of soda while reading what you wrote...and the gaffaw might spew that stuff all over my keyboard.
Boy...you kneejerk conservatives sure are funny.
Quote:Lets move on to social security which Krugman mentions in passing. Krugman has written several articles declaring emphatically that there is nothing wrong with social security.
Really!
Could you provide three quotes?
Frankly, I have not lseen anyone, anywhere declaring emphatically that there is nothing wrong with Social Security. But most people with a brain...and that actually includes some conservatives....think George Bush's proposed solution for what is wrong not only is not a solution for what is wrong....but may actually make things MUCH WORSE.
Krugman certainly feels that way.
So do I.
Quote:On the other hand Allen Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, who I would trust with my life...
This is either hyperbole...or you are a fool
Your choice!
Quote:I have offered to wager Farmerman and anyone else that Rove will be vindicated and in the end this whole thing will prove to be embarrassing to the Dems. Another little item that I will be willing to wager on is that Wilson will come out looking like the scumbag that he really is.
My...aren't you brave!
Goddam kneejerk conservatives will be the death of this country if we don't get them under control. But I guess we don't have sufficient psychiatrists to really do the job.
Frank Apisa wrote:rayban1 wrote:Frank wrote:Nonsense. What specifically do you see as "disregard for substantiated truth" in the article. We can discuss that if you can control your snit.
OK.....let's start with this from Krugman's article.....
Krugman wrote:Ultimately, this isn't just about Mr. Rove. It's also about Mr. Bush, who has always known that his trusted political adviser - a disciple of the late Lee Atwater, whose smear tactics helped President Bush's father win the 1988 election - is a thug, and obviously made no attempt to find out if he was the leaker.
Here Krugman smears Rove as a thug. There is an ongoing investigation into this matter with thousands of pages of speculation but as yet......no proof of anything. Mr. Krugman raves about the law of the land and that no politician is above the law.......obviously Krugman has never heard that the Law says......Every person accused of a crime is innocent until PROVEN GUILTY.
THIS you want to pass off as an example of "disregard for substantiated truth."
What the hell are you smoking?
If this is the best you can come up with to substantiate your charge that Krugman has a "disregard for substantiated truth"...you really ought warn a person. I might be taking a sip of soda while reading what you wrote...and the gaffaw might spew that stuff all over my keyboard.
Boy...you kneejerk conservatives sure are funny.
Quote:Lets move on to social security which Krugman mentions in passing. Krugman has written several articles declaring emphatically that there is nothing wrong with social security.
Really!
Could you provide three quotes?
Frankly, I have not lseen anyone, anywhere declaring emphatically that there is nothing wrong with Social Security. But most people with a brain...and that actually includes some conservatives....think George Bush's proposed solution for what is wrong not only is not a solution for what is wrong....but may actually make things MUCH WORSE.
Krugman certainly feels that way.
So do I.
Quote:On the other hand Allen Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, who I would trust with my life...
This is either hyperbole...or you are a fool
Your choice!
Quote:I have offered to wager Farmerman and anyone else that Rove will be vindicated and in the end this whole thing will prove to be embarrassing to the Dems. Another little item that I will be willing to wager on is that Wilson will come out looking like the scumbag that he really is.
My...aren't you brave!
Goddam kneejerk conservatives will be the death of this country if we don't get them under control. But I guess we don't have sufficient psychiatrists to really do the job.
Talk about kneejerk hyperbole........take a hard look at the bullshit you have wasted paper on. You know Krugman is a lying sack of **** ...... you just won't admit it
Just because he is your lying sack of **** doesn't make it any less true :wink:
Edited one time for clarity
rayban1 wrote: Lets move on to social security which Krugman mentions in passing. Krugman has written several articles declaring emphatically that there is nothing wrong with social security.
No, he hasn't. He said that it is going to run into a mild shortfall of 0.4% GDP, and that we need to look at plans to address that. He makes it clear that Bush's "privatization" will be a disaster for the system, and making sure that Bush's "reform" does NOT pass is the best thing you can do for Social Security right now.
From Lou Dobbs show, Feb 3, 2005:
Quote:DOBBS: Next, a critic of President Bush says Social Security is a problem much smaller than the president wants you to believe.
DOBBS: My guest has been one of the most vocal critics of President Bush and his plan to reform Social Security. Paul Krugman is columnist for "The New York Times," professor of economics in international affairs at Princeton. And it's good to have you with us.
PAUL KRUGMAN, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS: Good to be on.
DOBBS: A crisis, we have to get it fixed. Why don't you buy that?
KRUGMAN: Mild long-run shortfall. You know, any number that you do on Social Security, it ends up being three times or five times as big for the tax cuts. You know, leave aside Medicare, but just the tax cuts. CBO estimate of the Social Security shortfall over 75 years is 0.4 percent of GDP. The tax cuts, the Bush tax cuts, are 2 percent. Why is this the crisis? And the really important thing is the privatization -- whatever they're calling it now, the latest euphemism...
DOBBS: "Personalization."
KRUGMAN: Right. You can get your benefit cuts in any color you want, right? But they don't address the problem. I mean, whatever the problem you think is -- there was a briefing by a senior administration official yesterday, a background briefing, in which he conceded, well, actually, the privatization is net neutral in its effect on the long-run budget. Now, I would say actually net negative, but he conceded that this has nothing to do with the problem.
DOBBS: It buffaloes me completely. And you're the economics professor. You tell me how you fix a problem without raising taxes, or cutting benefits, or extending the age at which you're eligible.
KRUGMAN: My version of this is you can, you know, private accounts will solve whatever you think the problem is if they go along with big benefit cuts, which is like saying that you can kill sheep with witchcraft as long as you also feed them arsenic. I mean, it's really -- it's completely irrelevant. They're using this as a blind, and they themselves admit it, when you push them hard on it.
DOBBS: All right. You're the hard analyst, the economic expert. You tell me. Is Social Security in need of reform in the next five years?
KRUGMAN: No. I mean, given what's been happening -- remember, if you look over the last seven years, the date of Trust Fund exhaustion has been receding about two years a year.
DOBBS: Right.
KRUGMAN: So the prudent thing would actually be to say, well, let's look at it. Let's think about some plans, but let's see if those estimates keep on improving.
DOBBS: And the idea that we would be able to put private accounts in, which would effectively -- everyone talks about 4 percent, but let's talk about it in other terms, because the total money, we're talking about pulling a third of the money out of the system itself.
KRUGMAN: Right. You're building up enormous debt. And what they say is, well, OK, it doesn't matter, because we're going to make it up in lower benefit payments. But that savings is 50 years away.
DOBBS: Because we're going to make it up in what?
KRUGMAN: Lower benefit payments.
DOBBS: Ah.
KRUGMAN: But that savings -- you know, what -- you're taking on cold, hard debts. You're taking on bonds issued to the bank of Japan, the reserve bank of China, and you're saying it doesn't matter, because whoever is running the United States in 2050 is going to spend less money on Social Security.
DOBBS: Isn't this constant with the entire, sort of, faith-based economics that's abroad, not only in Washington and the Bush administration, but in academia, too. Because we have economists saying these huge trade deficits, and $4 trillion in external debt, and $8 trillion national debt, they don't matter.
KRUGMAN: It's harder...
DOBBS: There is a whole "it doesn't matter" crowd now that sort of grabbed the center of economic thought.
KRUGMAN: If you showed me our numbers, as shares of GDP, and didn't tell me what the country was, I'd say, "Argentina." That's what we look like.
DOBBS: Absolutely. And a host of reasons to be concerned.
KRUGMAN: Yes.
DOBBS: Social Security not preeminent in your judgment at all?
KRUGMAN: Fifth or so on my list of priorities of things to worry about. Way down there.
DOBBS: Come back soon, we'll get through to numbers one through four.
KRUGMAN: OK. Have a good time.
DOBBS: Paul Krugman. Good to have you with us. Still ahead, we'll have the results for you of tonight's poll and a preview of what's ahead tomorrow. Stay with us. Now the results of our poll tonight. Ninety-four percent of you do not believe that President Bush will succeed in revamping Social Security, or, if you prefer, reforming Social Security. Six percent of you say he will. We'll see. Thanks for being with us tonight. Please join us here tomorrow, when I'll be talking with one Democrat who will pay a key role in the president's push for Social Security reform.
Source.
Boy, is this sliding downhill.
A government report on jobs during the past several years. Although we are experiencing some (net) job growth, wages are dropping. If that is an indication of a successful economy according to the republicans, I wonder how many Americans really wish that upon themselves or their children?
http://www.usmayors.org/uscm/news/press_releases/documents/metroeconsummary_111003.pdf#search='job%20expansion%20in%2020012005'
According to the following report, job growth after the past three recessions, the current recession is the slowest in job growth.
Updated July 8, 2005
Growth in full-time employment lags previous business cycles
By Elise Gould with assistance from Gabriela Prudencio
According to today's report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, total full-time employment was 117.2 million and part-time employment was 24.5 million in June 2005 (see data note below). The vast majority of U.S. employment (83%) is in full-time work, but unfortunately growth in full-time work in this business cycle is weaker than that of previous ones.
Figure A shows full- and part-time employment since the start of the most recent recession in March 2001. Full-time job creation and destruction is more stable over time than part-time employment. Following the economic peak in March 2001, full-time employment in the household survey fell until June 2002, and it took 40 months (July 2004) to regain its pre-recession level.1 Since the peak, full-time employment has grown by 2.4% or 2.6 million.
The trend in part-time work has been substantially different. After an initial decline, part-time employment increased by 5.4%, or 1.2 million, but after about two years it leveled out.
But how do these trends compare to other business cycles? Figures B and C compare the 51-month period following the peak (i.e., March 2001 to June 2005) to the same length periods following the 1990 and 1981 recessions.
In the recession which began in July 1981, the U.S. economy experienced a larger decline in full-time employment accompanied by a quicker recovery. By the 27-month point, full-time employment had recovered to its pre-recessionary level. However, the next recession in 1990 saw even slower growth, taking 34 months to regain pre-recession employment levels. Worse yet was the recovery after the 2001 recession, which took a full 40 months to recover the jobs lost since the last business cycle peak. Unfortunately, that sluggish growth is persisting far longer than it did in either of the previous two recessions. Fifty-one months after the last business cycle peak, full-time employment levels stood 7.1% (1980s), 4.2% (1990s), and 2.4% (2000s) higher than at the start of their respective recessions. If recent growth in full-time employment had matched the rate following the 1990 recession, we would have 2.1 million more people with full-time jobs today.
As for part-time work, those numbers rose steeply for about 14 months after the onset of the 1981 recession before flattening out. In the 1990s, there was a slow rise through the recession and recovery. And, in the most recent recession and recovery, there was an initial decline followed by a slow rise. Fifty-one months after the start of the recession, part-time employment was up 10.7% (1980s), 4.2% (1990s), and 5.4% (2000s) from pre-recession levels. If the current trend had followed the pattern of the 1990s recovery, there would be 280,000 fewer part-time jobs today.
Comparing just the 2001 and 1990 recessions, growth in full-time work was stronger in the previous recovery, whereas growth in part-time work was stronger in the most recent recovery. The large share of part-time jobs created in this recovery may be evidence of a "just-in-time" approach to hiring, employers' hesitancy to hire full-time workers with higher fixed benefit costs, and an overall weaker-than-usual demand for labor.
Moreover, the Republicans are NOT trying to "save" Social Security. They are trying to SCRAP it.
There is no huge disaster facing us in the near future.
According to official figures by the Trustees of the Social Security Trust Fund-the fund which gurarantees payouts-the date for exhaustion of the trust fund keeps moving
back, as Paul Krugman pointed out.
Quote:From 1994 to 2004, the exhaustion date rose from 2029 to 2042, after it had declined from 2048 in the 1987 trustees' report.
Source
By introducing this "reform", the Republicans are trying to take money out of the system, which will CAUSE a crisis instead of SOLVING one.
The rich would like to see Social Security disappear. It is in their financial interest to have it disappear. So the Republicans introduce these "reforms" which will soon make the system unworkable. When that happens, they will be telling us that the system collapsed under it's own weight-it's nobody's fault.
