Category Archives: Paul Krugman is an idiot

Movies (or TV shows) that understand Economics #3 Ducktales


Ducktales“You can never get something for nothing”—Scrooge McDuck

So just three days into this series on movies and TV shows that show valid economic principles here at the Conservative New Ager and the guys over at run ‘SPONGEBOB’ CRITIQUES WELFARE STATE, EMBRACES SELF-SUFFICIENCY.  Stop stealing my ideas, you can’t just rely on me to keep giving you good stuff.

Well we here at the Conservative New Ager can play the children’s cartoon and economics game too.  And the cartoons I pick are better.

As surprising as it may seem the show Ducktales actually understood economics fairly well…at least better than anyone in Washington D.C.

This isn’t just because one character happens to be a billionaire who prides himself on being a self-made man (duck?). But even just understanding the virtue of earning one’s way…no the cartoon actually understood inflation better than anyone at the FED.

Take a look. (Cartoons may not be your thing, but it’s only 5 minutes and it does show that everyone in D.C. is an idiot).

“That’s exactly what I’m afraid of: easy money. I don’t trust any dollar that I haven’t earned.”—Scrooge McDuck

So regrettably, even though my entire generation was given a lesson in the fact that you can’t print money without it causing inflation, no one seems to have learned this very important lesson.

(Or worse they’ve been idiotic Austrians who think that shiny metals are somehow not fiat money and also missed the more complicated point that the money supply has to grow with the economy).

And while I probably could find a few more good economic lessons in the show if I had time enough (and didn’t mind my brain turning to mush and seeping out of my ears) but I think the most important lesson (and the one I specifically remembered after all these years) is that you can’t just print money without it having massive negative consequences.

That’s right, even the writers at Disney know that Paul Krugman is a blithering idiot who is a detriment to human society.

Leave a comment

Filed under Capitalism, Conservative, Economics, Education, Long Term Thinking, Movies, Movies for Conservatives, Paul Krugman is an idiot, Popular Culture

Stupid Liberal of the Day…Our old friend Paul Krugman


I’d say he’s the dumbest person to ever get a Nobel Prize…but have you seen some of the crap they’ve given it out to in the last couple of decades?

Paul Krugman is at it again.  After having to make up lies to try and face off against Senator Rand Paul  (He claimed the federal workforce is down under Obama…as blatant a lie as you can get…state and local employment is down, federal employment is up, way up) he further shows off his idiocy with a brand new rant of lies and desperation to keep Obama in power.


In “Obstruct and Exploit” he makes the rather farcical claim that the economy is not the fault of the Democrats (the Democrats who control the Senate and refuse to pass the budget) as good people and the Republicans are evil obstructionists.


Actually he makes several bizarre claims…like that Romney is a Keynesian who wants to use military spending to create jobs.  Paul, I know you’re a dimwitted hack, but do you know how to listen to speeches or how to read policy papers?  Romney is concerned primarily about defense spending because with Chinese expansion in the Pacific, a resurgent al-Qaeda from the Arab Spring, and Putin wanting to reestablish the Soviet Empire you’d have to be as dumb as Ron Paul or Neville Chamberlain to not see that maybe we might need an American military to deal with problems that are obviously coming.  The fact that cutting defense would cut jobs merely tangential to the discussion, but true.  The goal of Romney’s policies with defense spending are to protect America and Classical Liberalism in general, not to create jobs.  But you’d have to actually read his statements to know that.


But let’s actually deal with the heart of his argument.  You can’t blame Obama because his ideas have been stopped at every turn (let’s ignore that Obama had a Democratic Congress for two years and only did things that ruined the economy…yes I’m sure Obama would have suddenly come up with good ideas if his party was still in power…).  For instance Obama has the American Jobs Act, which Krugman implies would have saved America.  (Again let’s ignore that not all of Obama’s Democrats voted for the bill.)  As Krugman points out “Obama proposed boosting the economy with a combination of tax cuts and spending increases,” (and let’s ignore the 5.6% tax increase on the wealthy that was in the bill so we can’t call it a tax cut, chalk another lie up to Paul Krugman).  I’m personally stunned just at the statement lower taxes and raise spending…cause the raising of our debt even further is a bright idea how Paul?  Show me cut taxes and cut spending and cut regulation and then you might have a plan that would work.


But let’s go over the AJA to see what it has in it.  That Krugman in his infinite idiocy thinks would work…and for fun let’s compare the points from the Romney plan.


So here are the points of the bill according to the White House web page  (and keep in mind this bill may be dead, but these are Obama’s ideas and this is what he will have in a second term so it is relevant even if this bill died).



  • Cutting the payroll tax in half for 98 percent of businesses:
  • A complete payroll tax holiday for added workers or increased wages
  • Cutting payroll taxes in half for 160 million workers next year

So let me get this straight here, further making Social Security unsound is a good thing?  Yes I love having more money, and I would love if we were to privatize the whole thing, just paying off on benefits for everyone who is going to be on Social Security in the next 10 years…but that’s not what this is.  It’s keeping the same Ponzi scheme but simply making it more insolvent.  Good plan genius.  You know I like the extra money, and I hate social security…but under this plan it will cost me and future generations more in the long run.


Meanwhile the Romney plan offers real tax cuts that will actually spur growth of business (i.e. job growth) and actually end up putting more money in your pocket.  (All points of Romney’s are taken from his 59 point plan and are italicized…Romney has a lot more than that plan…but I’m trying to be fair here and compare one bullet pointed plan to another…if I actually compared substantive proposals of Romney to what passes as substance from Obama it would just be more embarrassing for the President and Krugman)

Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains

Eliminate the death tax

Pursue a conservative overhaul of the tax system over the long term that includes lower,

flatter rates on a broader base

Reduce corporate income tax rate to 25 percent




  • Extending 100% expensing into 2012
  • Reforms and regulatory reductions to help entrepreneurs and small businesses access capital.

So we’re going to force more banks to make more bad loans (probably to Obama cronies like every other Obama “investment”) and we’re then going to let them write off the investment they made with money that banks were forced to give them (and if every other Obama venture is any indication they’ll be allowed to pocket the money, declare bankruptcy and have the loans forgiven by Obama).  And as icing I’m sure Obama will blame the banks again for the effect on the economy.


And instead of regulations designed to help Obama supporters, Romney has real regulation reform in his plan that will help every business.



Repeal Dodd-Frank and replace with streamlined, modern regulatory framework

Amend Sarbanes-Oxley to relieve mid-size companies from onerous requirements

Initiate review and elimination of all Obama-era regulations that unduly burden the economy

Impose a regulatory cap of zero dollars on all federal agencies

Require congressional approval of all new “major” regulations



  • A “Returning Heroes” hiring tax credit for veterans

Again picking winners and losers, not what the government should be doing.  Not improving the economy to actually create more jobs, we’re just going to make it a good call for businesses to fire their existing employees, hire new ones (probably at a lower rate) and a tax write off for it.  (Now the good news is most businesses won’t behave in this terrible fashion…except, you know, the kind of bastards who pay off Obama for crony connections).


Screw helping this group or that group, Romney has the reform that will kill the single biggest killer of jobs there is:

Repeal Obamacare


  • Preventing up to 280,000 teacher layoffs, while keeping cops and firefighters on the job.
  • Modernizing at least 35,000 public schools across the country, supporting new science labs, Internet-ready classrooms and renovations at schools across the country, in rural and urban areas.

Yeah that’s it, we need the federal government getting involved in local and state matters.  Oh, and given the spectacular behavior of teachers in Chicago, getting an average of $76,000 a year (before benefits) to get 80% of students to learn nothing…it’s clear that what the education system needs is new facilities and keeping all the current teachers…and not, you know fire all the union pieces of shit who offend the very profession of teaching by daring to call their pathetic behavior teaching.

You really want to help workers and really want to get better hiring practices for not only government but all employees try these points from the Romney plan:

Appoint to the NLRB experienced individuals with respect for the rule of law
Amend NLRA to explicitly protect the right of business owners to allocate their capital as they see fit

Amend NLRA to guarantee the secret ballot in every union certification election

Amend NLRA to guarantee that all pre-election campaigns last at least one month

Or maybe let states deal with their own problems.

Give states authority to manage retraining programs by block granting federal funds



  • Immediate investments in infrastructure and a bipartisan National Infrastructure Bank

Oh great because the Fed wasn’t enough, you need a new bank to fund your own bad behavior even more.


You can talk infrastructure build up…or you can reduce the regulations that prevent the private sector from building that infrastructure, like in the Romney Plan

Establish fixed timetables for all resource development approvals

Create one-stop shop to streamline permitting process for approval of common activities

Implement fast-track procedures for companies with established safety records to conduct pre-approved activities in pre-approved areas



  • A New “Project Rebuild”,

I’m sure that project is shovel ready and won’t be a waste like every other thing you’ve done.


I’ll take not killing a project that will actually create jobs and improve the economy over Obama’s shovel ready BS.

Support construction of pipelines to bring Canadian oil to the United States


  • Expanding access to high-speed wireless

Holy shit, when did Internet become a right?  You want Internet you buy it or go to Starbucks like everyone else…I am not subsidizing everyone’s ability to access porn on high speed wifi


I’ll take energy over wifi any day

Open America’s energy reserves for development


 The most innovative reform to the unemployment insurance program in 40 years:

Because people need more incentives not to go find a job.

A $4,000 tax credit to employers for hiring long-term unemployed workers

Again, trying to get businesses to just create jobs isn’t going to work.  You need to improve the fundamentals of an economy to create growth (which would include lowering taxes, lowering regulation, lowering government, lowering the deficit, strengthening the dollar, and getting free trade agreements—none of which this administration has done).


Or maybe you can be responsible for your own life

Facilitate the creation of Personal Re-employment Accounts



  • Prohibiting employers from discriminating against unemployed workers

So you mean I can’t take into account whether a person was fired or not in deciding whether they’re going to be a good employee…like every other form of “discrimination” legislation in the last 30 years this is just a pay off to the trial lawyers and will result in even less growth and less jobs.


Or instead of making more bad lawsuits you could have real Tort reform.


Reform legal liability system to prevent spurious litigation


  • Expanding job opportunities for low-income youth and adults through a fund for successful approaches for subsidized employment, innovative training programs and summer/year-round jobs for youth.

“Subsidized employment.”   You’re kidding right?  You’re going to pay people to hire people.  (And keep in mind Obama was touting this plan as including tax cuts…so where exactly is the money for this coming from?  Oh I forgot Obama won’t be happy until the debt is three times the size of the GDP.)


But how about rather than subsidizing hiring people but actually making a climate where you can actually hire good people.

Support states in pursuing Right-to-Work laws

Reverse executive orders issued by President Obama that tilt the playing field toward organized labor


  • Allowing more Americans to refinance their mortgages at today’s near 4 percent interest rates

This would be a choice for the banks, not the government…which means the President is planning to control the banks even more and force them to do more stupid things…you know the behavior that got us into this mess.

There is no exact counterpart to this, but the fact is that Romney will not rule by fiat, like some people.


  • 5Fully Paid for as Part of the President’s Long-Term Deficit Reduction Plan.  To ensure that the American Jobs Act is fully paid for, the President will call on the Joint Committee to come up with additional deficit reduction necessary to pay for the Act and still meet its deficit target. The President will, in the coming days, release a detailed plan that will show how we can do that while achieving the additional deficit reduction necessary to meet the President’s broader goal of stabilizing our debt as a share of the economy.

The humor of this part speaks for itself.


But Romney does have some real plans on how to deal with the insane size of government

Immediately cut non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent
Reform and restructure Medicaid as block grant to states
 Align wages and benefits of government workers with market rates
 Reduce federal workforce by 10 percent via attrition

 Cap federal spending at 20 percent of GDP
Undertake fundamental restructuring of government programs and services

 Pursue a Balanced Budget Amendment



The fact of the matter is that Paul Krugman putting up Obama’s abysmal American Jobs Act as the better part of his proposed legislation shows you how unspeakably stupid Krugman is and how bereft of any real ideas Obama is.  Romney has real plans not just platitudes that have some conception of how the economy works.  Now I’ve breezed over a lot of Romney’s plans, I do this intentionally, I want you to go and do the research on your own and see for yourself that his plans are




Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Harry Reid, Individualism, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, Occupy Wall Street, Paul Krugman is an idiot, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Tyranny, Unions, Welfare

Paul Krugman just keeps getting dumber…

It’s been a while a since I’ve read a Paul Krugman article.  I’ve been busy with a lot at work (hence the lack of a lot of blogs lately) and well, Paul’s line of drivel you have to be in the right mood for anyway.  But I had some free time yesterday and it appears that this moron’s moron thinks he’s in a position to critique Romney’s understanding of economics (Remind me Paul, how many businesses have you created and saved over the years…zero?  Fascinating.)

So, Krugman’s critique is twofold.  First the Romney campaign had a photo-op speech at a closed plant, which they admit was symbolic of the Obama administration, but actually this plant closed during the Bush years…and it’s unfair to blame Obama for the fact that the bad economy started under Bush but has gone into a tailspin under Obama.  This is an interesting critique, because even the Romney campaign says the plant was a symbolic image not a literal one, and Krugman is throwing a hissy fit as if Romney is blaming the Obama for this particular plant closing…and not you know, using the image as a symbol.

The second part of his argument is that it’s all Bush’s fault and Obama is not to blame for anything….

“Which brings me to another aspect of the amnesia campaign: Mr. Romney wants you to attribute all of the shortfalls in economic policy since 2009 (and some that happened in 2008) to the man in the White House, and forget both the role of Republican-controlled state governments and the fact that Mr. Obama has faced scorched-earth political opposition since his first day in office.”

That’s right.  He had his hands tied “since the first day in office.”  You know the first day where he had a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate.  You have no idea the hurdles you have to clear…especially when like 10 Republicans in the Senate are RINOs.  Is Krugman the worst liar ever…or just unbelievably stupid?

“But that’s not the critique Mr. Romney is making. Instead, he’s basically attacking Mr. Obama for not acting as if George Bush had been given a third term. Are the American people — and perhaps more to the point, the news media — forgetful enough for that attack to work? I guess we’ll find out.”

Actually, Paul, he’s attacking Obama (man of higher regulation, deficit spending, increased medical entitlements, stimulus, government takeover of industries, letting the Fed get away with crippling low interest rates and inflation, over and under regulation in the wrong areas, and giving into unions at every turn) for actually acting just like Bush (man of higher regulation, deficit spending, increased medical entitlements, stimulus, government takeover of industries, letting the Fed get away with crippling low interest rates and inflation, over and under regulation in the wrong areas, and giving into unions at every turn)!  The fact that many of Bush’s policies didn’t help the economy is because they were inherently Keynesian, like Obama’s and like yours.  I liked and supported Bush at first because I liked his rhetoric of lower regulation, tort reform and less spending…but the facts are that he didn’t do any of that and in the end was just a hint of things to come with Obama.  So yes it is Bush’s fault for the start of our economic problems (and his Democratic Congress…can’t forget to blame them too)…and it is Obama’s fault for looking at a forest fire and deciding to throw kerosene on it.

But does Krugman admit that this?  That his Keynesian BS policies are to blame?  Nope.  In fact did you know we should get down on our knees and thank Obama for saving us?

“This is especially true if you focus on private-sector jobs. Overall employment in the Obama years has been held back by mass layoffs of schoolteachers and other state and local government employees. But private-sector employment has recovered almost all the ground lost in the administration’s early months.”

This is really interesting as Bureau of labor statistics say that in 2008 there were 113 million private sector jobs  and now they say there are 110 million private sector jobs.  (I’d love  to show you a single chart than can map the private sector employment month by month through the Obama administration…but the labyrinth that is the Bureau of Labor Statistics is designed not to give you raw data, only the spin of the administration in power).  So 110 million is “private-sector employment has recovered almost all the ground lost” from 113 million…if you ignore 3 million people…and all the people who entered the workforce…and ignore that a lot of those are double counted as a lot more people who have jobs have two jobs right now…and if you ignore that a lot more of the 110 million is lower paid jobs than when we had 113 million.  So if you ignore all that we’ve completely recovered.  Oh and as to his thing about teacher’s getting fired, first, lots of teachers do need to be fired, but as I doubt Krugman is going to argue to get rid of union’s favorite “last hired, first fired” policies his words ring rather hollow…the most inept teachers are still on the payrolls and still need to be fired.  And Krugman himself is one to point out that all of those state and city loses have been matched if not exceeded by the growth of federal government employment (you know the one sector that should NEVER grow during a recession, depression…or really ever under any circumstances).

“I guess accusing Mr. Obama of not doing enough to promote recovery is a better argument than blaming him for the effects of Bush policies. However, it’s not much better, since Mr. Romney is essentially advocating a return to those very same Bush policies. And he’s hoping that you don’t remember how badly those policies worked.”

Actually Romney isn’t advocating returning to Bush’s big government, spending craze.  But let’s look at what Obama could have done, which had he done these things we would be well into real recovery by now.

Cut spending. If Obama had cut every Department and Office by 5% on day one (which Romney is going to do) and then set down to finding out what can be further cut and keep cutting until we actually didn’t spend more than we take in (which Romney has also promised to do) the dollar would be stronger, inflation would be lower and we wouldn’t be feeling as many ripples from much of Europe’s imminent collapse (and keep in mind it’s collapsing for doing all the things Krugman has always said we should do over here…except maybe Sweden which has been becoming more and more capitalistic and oddly enough more and more economically stable).

Lengthen the time for medical patents…instead of regulating drug companies and the companies that make the chemicals that are needed to make those drugs to the point where most of them are planning to leave American shores forever if this jackass is reelected, thus causing massive shortages in the nation’s drug supplies…if you had cut regulations and extended the time to hold a drug patent you would have spurred further investment into private R&D (you know the kind that actually yields results).

Letting insurance cross state lines…hmmm actually allow insurance companies to have to compete.  As I recall competition always lowers costs.  Which would be much, much better than a government take over which will skyrocket costs.

Pass right to work. Instead of kowtowing to the unions which drive up costs and produce some of the worst teachers conceivable, maybe passing a right to work law in this country (which I believe Romney wants…and on a side note Santorum, like Obama would fight to the death to stop).

Cutting Fannie and Freddie loose. Instead of wanting MORE sub-prime loans which caused the housing bubble…maybe we could fire sale what these two horribly disastrous companies own and bring some sanity and stability to the market.

Reducing or ending all student loan programs…like the housing market, the government has over inflated the cost of college.  College loan programs needed to be gradually reduced and then ended.  Yes this will probably kill funding into theoretical physics, causes causing T.A.’s to be a thing of the past, and make professors actually teach their courses instead of writing useless journal articles that no one reads…I’m just so broken up by this.  Oh it will likely reduce every college student’s tuition costs, which means the middle class will no longer enter the work force already under crippling debt.

Cut regulation…in general there are too many regulations on the books. You know that expression that ignorance of the law is no excuse…well that was in a day and age when most laws were seemingly common sense…at this point there is no way that every American is not violating 50 U.S. regulations that they know nothing about nor could conceivably know.  Regulation is a just and necessary function of the government, but what the government is doing these days isn’t regulation, it’s tyrannical insanity.

Cut the minimum wage (or just end it).  Yes I know this is a long long shot, and not even Romney is proposing this…but it would actually spur hiring, especially for low skill workers who could, oh I don’t know get skills and experience.

Drill.  ANWAR, oil shale, Keystone, drill, drill, drill.  Even if it doesn’t immediately boost production it lowers the fears that oil speculation thrives on.  If you know what that there will be supplies for years to come then prices in any commodities market goes down.

Support border patrol and sane immigration and guest worker programs.  The fact is that the open border breeds both crime from the cartels (which have been supplied with a great deal of firepower by Eric Holder and Barack Obama…who if they weren’t who they were, would be guilty of aiding and betting in murder…or at least you would be if you knowingly ran guns for the cartels) and it breeds massive government expense in healthcare costs for illegal immigrants (which have crippled some border states) and education costs for the children they bring.  This needs to stop. Close the border, and allow guest workers (not their families) to come in.

Support democracies not terrorists…oh and maybe if we supported democratic revolts (like the Iranian protesters Obama just let get slaughtered) and not fascist juntas (like the Arab Spring) it might help stabilize the world economy, which would always be good for us.

Lower the capital gains tax.  Hell, do away with it.  Any first year economics student could tell you how this will be the economic equivalent of shooting adrenaline into the heart…it takes a Nobel Prize winning Yale economist (and he won for research in microeconomics…he knows less than anything about macro) to not know this basic fact of reality.

Tort Reform—I can’t beat this drum enough. Tort Reform. Tort Reform. Tort Reform!  Kill the ABA and their ambulance chasers, reducing insurance and overhead costs at EVERY level of every industry…you think that might have a cascade effect to spur investment and the economy.

Let’s go back to Krugman’s statement:

“I guess accusing Mr. Obama of not doing enough to promote recovery is a better argument than blaming him for the effects of Bush policies.”  Actually I blame Bush for not doing a lot of this too.  I just think that Romney will try to do a lot of this, and assuming he gets a GOP House and Senate he will be able to accomplish a lot of it.

“However, it’s not much better, since Mr. Romney is essentially advocating a return to those very same Bush policies.”  Well there’s a lie if ever I heard one.  Please, Paul could you give me a specific Bush policy that Romney wants to return to?  Because I think Ryan’s plan that Romney has endorsed is about as un-Bush as you get.

“And he’s hoping that you don’t remember how badly those policies worked.”  No, he’s not hoping that.  He’s knows that “It’s about the economy…and we’re not stupid” like you are Paul.


Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, Paul Krugman is an idiot, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Tyranny, Unjust legislation

Stupid Liberal Quote of the Day…our old friend Paul Krugman

So I tried to stay away from writing any political blogs for a few days, but as you can see that didn’t work.


Because Paul Krugman decided once again to spew his mentally challenged word out to the public. This time he tried to libel Mitt Romney. I’d even go as far as saying Romney should sue, but as I have serious doubts Krugman would be found mentally competent to stand trial for his actions, I know that won’t happen.

What did he say?

Well at the start of a long argument full of inane claptrap, he states:

Speaking in Michigan, Mr. Romney was asked about deficit reduction, and he absent-mindedly said something completely reasonable: “If you just cut, if all you’re thinking about doing is cutting spending, as you cut spending you’ll slow down the economy.” A-ha. So he believes that cutting government spending hurts growth, other things equal.

He then goes on to use this quote and some other random facts to suggest that Romney is a closet Keynesian. I won’t bore you with the whole set of facts, I’ve frankly seen better arguments from rabid conspiracy theorists on the moon landing (just so no one takes that quote out of context, I do believe that we landed on the moon numerous times).

Okay so before I get to what Romney actually said (I know what a shock that this quote was grossly taken out of context) let’s talk about something that Paul Krugman knows less than nothing about: Macro-Economics.

There are three main schools that are relevant to this discussion. Keynesians who argue that when an economy suffers the government should infuse cash into the economy and fiddle around with the prime interest rate to boost growth. Then you have the Austrians (Hayek) and Monetarists (Friedman) who while they would argue on a lot of things would both agree that the government should have little to no influence in the economy (beyond providing a bare bones safety net at local levels…and for Monetarists too at a regular rate increase the amount of currency in the system to prevent deflation). (This is of course grossly simplified but you don’t want me to get into the math of it, it would just bore you to death).

Now our government, and most governments since the Great Depression, have embraced Keynes to one degree or another and most have yielded the same problems that Austrians and Monetarists said they would. The problem with infusing cash into the economy through stimulus programs is that it works great in the short run, but the minute you pull the money back it stops working. Stimulus is a lot like black coffee, as long as you keep drinking it, it works…but the longer you go the more you need, and the minute you stop, you crash. No Austrian or Monetarists I know of would say that stimulus doesn’t have an immediate effect. It does. What Austrian and Monetarist economists point out is that you need an ever increasing level of stimulus to keep having the same effect and with that comes an ever increasing amount of public debt (see Greece, Spain, Italy, and Ireland…and possibly most of Europe and China pretty soon). No sane person argues that it doesn’t have an effect in the short run. What Austrians and Monetarists do argue is that (1) that ever increasing debt is often worse than the recession where you spent money you didn’t have in an effort to avoid (2) that you can’t avoid the recession, but the longer you delay it, the worse it will be (again back to my coffee analogy if you just got sleep when you were first tired you would only need 6-8 hours sleep, but after a full all-nighter you will now need 9-11 hours sleep to recover) and (3) the government interference during your stimulus package actually hurts the mechanisms for growth and improvement within the economy making the long term effects truly disastrous. (All other things being equal). So if you have a massive spending program, say spending $4 Billion more than they take in every day, and you suddenly just cut that spending, even Fredrick Von Hayek and Milton Friedman would say, yeah the economy would slow down in the short term. They would argue in the long term that would be a pro-growth plan (but long term is something Keynesians aren’t very good at, or seeing the big picture which is why no Keynesian has ever won a Nobel Prize for macro-economics…because Keynesian ideas don’t work long term in the big picture). Now Hayek and Friedman would probably also argue that to help mitigate this problem of short term loss, since any Keynesian government has probably also mucked things up with bad tax policies and too many regulations, that you should cut the regulation and improve the tax policy which hopefully will balance out the short term hit from cutting the stimulus. (…it’s a stretch of the analogy but think of when you cut the caffeine but immediately go to the gym and thus are able to push through to your second wind).

Okay so let’s look at what Romney said.

Now you know, unlike liberals I don’t like to give just clips and sound bites, but prefer to at least offer you the link to the whole speech or article…unfortunately I can’t find that…and I looked (if anyone has a full transcript please send it to me).

But it’s not really relevant because even what I could find is enlightening.

“If you just cut, if all you’re thinking about doing is cutting spending, as you cut spending you’ll slow down the economy. So you have to, at the same time, create pro-growth tax policies.”

Now notice the second part of that statement. A statement one might hear out of Friedman or Hayek. Improve the tax policy to counter the immediate hit in the short term. And he tried (didn’t always succeed) to cut regulation and taxes in Massachusetts and has said he’s going to cut regulation and taxes when in the White House. So he sounds like a Monetarist, acts like a Monetarist and behaves like a Monetarist*…so Krugman and Santorum’s idiot followers say he’s a Keynesian. How does that work.

*I didn’t say Austrian, because Ron Paul is in the Austrian school of economics and I do see a few differences between the two.

But let’s take a larger look at this. Do you notice that YouTube clip is from a liberal group? And Krugman is trying to hit Romney for being a Keynesian. And this was also heavily reported on MSNBC and a few other liberal outlets. Now if he really was a Keynesian, and therefore one of the liberals, wouldn’t they keep this to themselves, wouldn’t they try to hide something that could be used against Romney. (You know, like their complete silence on Santorum’s long history of pro-union, big government, intrusive policies). I mean if he really was that liberal, they would want him to get the nomination, that way they would be guaranteed a liberal no matter what happened. It’s almost like they’re really afraid that this guy won’t take a pen-knife to the government in a few symbolic cuts but rather take the machete to the bureaucracy. It’s almost like they’re trying to help their big government friend Santorum in any way they can. Oh, but that would mean that Santorum supporters have to be the dumbest idiots in the world to play right into their enemies hands.


Filed under Capitalism, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Paul Krugman is an idiot, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes

Stupid Liberal Quote of the Day…when liberals tell the truth…

Chris Matthews had an interesting quote…

“Steve Schmidt, my friend, you talk to a lot of Republicans out there. Are they aware that the media is basically rooting for Santorum out of sheer fear of the ennui, the boredom that will set in if it looks like Romney locks this thing up? At the moment he locks this thing up we face a long, dull summer of Mitt Romney.”

Yes, yes the media is rooting for him. How do I know? Because unlike Romney, who they’re insulting on a daily basis, they’re treating Santorum like he’s a Democrat and not vetting hit at all. Of course it’s kind of easy to make that mistake. I mean with the earmarks,  the peddling influence, the corruption, the being in bed with unions and PETA, the not supporting troops, the hatred of women…I can see where you might mistake him for a liberal.  Easily mistake him for a liberal.  In fact if a story comes out showing him in bed with ACORN I’m not going to be surprised.

But they’re not telling you how much they seem to love Santorum.  Let’s be honest here we know that Media Matters (you know that really sane organization), Alexrod, Soros and now Krugman have all come out against Romney, saying he’s weak, saying he’s liberal saying that he is not a threat.  Why would Democrats come out and say this during a primary.  After all if you had a weak candidate in the lead the last thing liberals would do is come out and say how weak he is as that might hurt him and put a stronger candidate in place….oh wait!  It’s because Santorum will be so easy to beat that they want Santorum to be the nominee.  Duh!  Yet someone how Santorum supporters don’t seem to get this.  The Left is hitting Romney and leaving Santorum alone because Santorum is the weaker candidate.  He’s the candidate that will scare the middle…why?  Because while the middle hates Obama’s mandates forcing religious people to go against their principles and give out contraceptives, they’ll hate Santorum’s desire to ban contraceptives altogether even more.  Much more…whereas Romney is going to take the middle ground and not force anyone to not do anything they don’t want to do.

They know that Romney speaking passionately and knowledgeably about the Founders and quoting from them directly is much more of a danger than Santorum talking about his wacky idea that the Founders didn’t believe in personal happiness.

Matthews is right, the media and Left want Santorum because it will guarantee an Obama victory.  And I don’t know if he’s dumb for admitting this, or just accurately confident that Santorum voters (who repeat the McCain and Mainstream Media lie that Romney isn’t conservative, and make no mistake it is a lie, a big one) won’t be clever enough to see that they’re being played.



Leave a comment

Filed under Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, liberal arrogance, Mitt Romney, Obama, Paul Krugman is an idiot, politics, Rick Santorum, Stupid liberal quote of the day, Unions

Stupid liberal quote of the day…Obama Budget Defense

“There’s pretty broad agreement that the time for austerity is not today” –White House Chief of Staff, Jack Lew defending this abysmal mess of a budget.

(By broad agreement he means Obama, Soros and that mentally retarded jackass at the New York Times, Paul Krugman…anyone who actually has a functioning brain was not included in “pretty broad agreement.”  In the real world I think there is pretty broad agreement Obama is out of his gourd.   )
15 Trillion dollars in debt already. A massively growing size of the government. The continued and destructive intrusions on the free market. The ever expanding entitlement state. (Do you think at the point that the government is attacking the Amish for selling milk it might have become too big)
Among other things it would include $800 Million for countries that were involved in the Arab Spring. Remind me which of those nations is not right now controlled by Islamists who are hell bent on destroying Israel and the U.S.? Name one, I dare you. I love that my tax money is going to support these butchers.

“It would take the economy in the wrong way” if we implemented austerity. Which wrong way would that be? Would that be the way where we stop picking winners and losers (usually making the losers temporary winners, but ending up with everyone being a loser) and allow the fundamentals and groundwork for lasting economic growth be created? Would that be the way where people are not dependant on the government for their existence. Would that be the way of prosperity, of freedom, of choice, of liberty and limited government?  Nope can’t have that.

My favorite part is this statement from center-left organization Politico: “But Obama would also go outside the box by creating new mandatory spending initiatives costing tens of billions of dollars and for the first time, openly tap war savings to fund his domestic agenda.” Even the left can’t deny what a boondoggle this pile of shit is.

And this is not the time for austerity?
In the Obama world no day is ever the day for austerity because there should be no limit to the size, power and extend of the government…not until the Ministry of Peace, Ministry of Plenty, Ministry of Love and Ministry of Truth have been fully established. Remember the Obama mantra “Ignorance is strength” “Freedom is slavery.”*

Meanwhile in the real world, every day since the 1990’s has been a day for austerity and every day we have not instituted it has been a failure and disgrace.

*And before you ask, no I do not think 1984 references are uncalled for here given the insanity of increased government spending at this point.

Leave a comment

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, Obama, Obama Ceasar, Paul Krugman is an idiot, People Are Stupid, politics, Stupid liberal quote of the day, Taxes, Tyranny, Unjust legislation, Welfare

Stupid Liberal Quote of the Day…what a shock it’s Krugman

“Why isn’t a national economy like a corporation? For one thing, there’s no simple bottom line. For another, the economy is vastly more complex than even the largest private company.”—Paul Krugman “America isn’t a corporation.”

Paul Krugman shows that he should be glad there is no minimum requirement of intelligence to biologically sustain life…

He wants to complain that a government is not a corporation.  Thank you for that truly deep insight Paul.  Next up, why don’t you go investigate where bears do their business, with your crack intellect it shouldn’t take you more than a decade (okay, I was being nice, if I was being realistic it shouldn’t take Krugman more than two or three decades…or never).

Yes a corporation and a government are two different things.  Yet, strange as it is, sometimes things that aren’t the same can learn from what works in another area.  A baseball team isn’t a company, yet running it by statistics and economics might work well enough not to just break records and curses, but even get you a movie with a top list actor.  And schools aren’t corporations either…but charter schools seem to be doing okay using that principle.  Good leadership tends to be consistent in any field.  It comes with lessons like getting rid of departments that don’t serve any purpose, cutting costs and fat, knowing what laws help business and which ones hurt…yeah can’t see how any of that could be useful in government.

But his proof is so fun (yes there were paragraphs and paragraphs of inane words, it didn’t prove anything except that the Nobel Prize Committee and the editorial board at the New York Times are clearly on heavy hallucinogenics).

His proof that this is no bottom line in a government…which is interesting because there should be.  You shouldn’t spend more than you have.  I know it’s a radical concept, one which Paul will never understand, but it actually works.  Congress should try it sometime, might do wonders for the economy.

Oh and you have to love when he says that the economy is more complex than any corporation.  This is odd, because a good little idiot Keynesian like Krugman believes the economy is simple enough to be run and controlled.  It’s Austrians and Monetarists who argue the economy is too complex for any government to control and that any attempt to control it will always end up with the Invisible Hand slapping you down for your arrogance (you know kind of like we’re living through now).   But it’s nice to see that Paul has finally realized it’s too complex for anyone to fully understand…which is why anyone who actually knows something about the economy (a statement that has never applied to Krugman or any Keynesian at any point in existence) knows to let it run itself, which it will, if you don’t get in it’s way.

1 Comment

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Conservative, Economics, Election 2012, Paul Krugman is an idiot, People Are Stupid, politics, Stupid liberal quote of the day, Taxes, Tyranny

Stupid Liberal Quote of the Day…

Stupid Liberal Quote of the day 1-3-12


…I know there are so many to choose from.

Some people have said it’s unfair to pick on Krugman so much.  After all, it’s just a little tactless to make fun of the kid on the short bus.  True.  But as Krugman is actually dumb enough to say what many liberals believe (but are at least smart enough to not say) his words offer a good look at why modern liberalism really does belong on the short bus.  I’ll try and diversify.

Today we have this wonderful little tidbit:

“Deficit-worriers portray a future in which we’re impoverished by the need to pay back money we’ve been borrowing. They see America as being like a family that took out too large a mortgage, and will have a hard time making the monthly payments.

This is, however, a really bad analogy in at least two ways.

First, families have to pay back their debt. Governments don’t — all they need to do is ensure that debt grows more slowly than their tax base. The debt from World War II was never repaid; it just became increasingly irrelevant as the U.S. economy grew, and with it the income subject to taxation.

Second — and this is the point almost nobody seems to get — an over-borrowed family owes money to someone else; U.S. debt is, to a large extent, money we owe to ourselves.”


I’m beginning to see the problem.  So apparently governments don’t ever have to pay back their debts.  I don’t about you but I’m never buying a government bond endorsed by Krugman.  And what is he talking about, American families don’t have to pay off their debt either, they have government bailouts to do that!  And you know he’s right… governments like Greece, Italy, Spain, China and the People’s Republic of California aren’t going to have to pay off their debts.  Why?  Because they’re going to file for Chapter 11 and destroy not only their economies but the economies of anyone even remotely connected to them in the short run (in a globalized economy like the one we now live in read EVERYONE).  Why worry about paying off your debts when you can trash not only your economy, your capital markets, your employment rates and your currency but everyone else’s as well!

But you have to love how he justifies this little bit of insanity.  “all they need to do is ensure that debt grows more slowly than their tax base.”  We’re spending 2 Billion more a day than we take in.  And this guy wants to spend more!  More!  Um…that’s the opposite of making sure your debt grows more slowly than their tax base.  But don’t worry we can always raise taxes.  After all the budget is about 3.5 Trillion a year and currently only taking in about $1.4 Trillion a year…so if we raise taxes on the Top 20% of wage earners (because really it’s the whole Top 20% that are evil not just the Top 1%, ask any Democrat) and raise their tax rates by a meager 35% (without any loopholes involved) that will raise an extra $1.4 Trillion…which means we would now be taking in $2.8 Trillion (and I’m sure that 35% increase isn’t going to have any negative effects on the economy as a whole, no, none whatsoever) so now we’re taking in $2.8 Trillion a year (assuming the economy doesn’t drop) to pay off a $3.5 Trillion budget every year.  Somehow, I don’t think we’re exactly ensuring “that debt grows more slowly than their tax base.”  But don’t worry Krugman wants us to spend MORE, I’m sure that will solve everything.

And then there is his other point:

“Second — and this is the point almost nobody seems to get — an over-borrowed family owes money to someone else; U.S. debt is, to a large extent, money we owe to ourselves.”

This isn’t like money we’ve taken from the saving account and put in the checking account as he seems to suggest.  The money we owe to ourselves (at least I assume this is what he is referring to, his lack of specifics makes it very hard to nail him down on anything as he can always say “oh, no I meant something else,”  it’s an age old trick used by people without an actual case) is to programs we have borrowed from (like Social Security or various other payments we will have to make in the future…it’s like raiding a pension fund to keep the company afloat, and that always works doesn’t it?)  and money owed to U.S. bond holders (and it’s not like they ever need to be paid back…I’m sure they bought those bond hoping to take a huge economic loss).

As I said this is the guy whom Democrats look to for economic theory.  And you wonder why we have unemployment problems.

1 Comment

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Debt, Economics, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Paul Krugman is an idiot, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Welfare

More idiocy from Krugman

So the title of Krugman’s latest article just made me laugh for a few minutes

“Keynes Was Right” 

Might of well have been “I had a full frontal lobotomy.”

I’m not going to go over the whole article but I want to point out this genius little statement…

“So the real test of Keynesian economics hasn’t come from the half-hearted efforts of the U.S. federal government to boost the economy, which were largely offset by cuts at the state and local levels.”

Half-hearted?  Half-hearted! 

What constitutes half-hearted?

$700 Billion for TARP

$7.77 TRILLION in secret loans from the Fed

Another 730 Billion in Stimulus already spent…all part of Obama’s 4 Trillion increase to the deficit…but let’s just count the stimulus to be fair.

So let’s see that’s about 9 Trillion Dollars in Stimulus.  $9 Trillion dollars is half-hearted?  What would be a serious attempt?  Hey, we’re only 15 Trillion in debt…why don’t we spend $18 Trillion (because $9 Trillion is rather half-hearted) and by over doubling the debt that will solve all of our problems.  It’s like when you don’t have enough money to pay the mortgage on your house, obviously the thing to do is buy another house.  ?  ?  ?  I’d say that Krguman was clearly on powerful psychedelics, but quite frankly I think people on an acid trip would still be able to see how stupid this is.

But oh wait, he said that was wiped out by states cutting their budgets…did you notice states collectively cutting their budget’s by 9 Trillion?

Hmmm…let’s take a look to see if this is true.  If cutting costs led to worse economies than the states with the lowest debt rating would be the worst economies.  So let’s take a look at the Atlantic’s (a fairly liberal resource) ranking of state economies vs. Forbe’s ranking of their debt (which includes current debt and unfunded future obligations.  Of the Top 10 economies only one gets less that a 3 star rating in debt (#10 Hawaii) …and of the bottom 10 only 3 get higher than a 2 star rating.  In fact the state with a highest economy rating but lowest debt rating of one star is Wisconsin (you know that place that recently drew a line in the sand over a lot of union BS).  And the lowest state with a 4 star rating is Texas at 35 (it scores so low according to the Atlantic because of its low high school graduation rate…it’s like there is this constant influx of uneducated people who don’t speak the language coming into the state or something, I’m sure that has nothing to do with liberal federal policies)…

(Oh by the way I could have picked some other ranking of state economies which show that states do even better with low debt…but I thought I would go with the most biased numbers and still prove my point).

Also if Krugman was right then that would mean that California which never met an entitlement or tax it didn’t like should be doing great.  And anyone who knows anything knows that state is currently riding in a hand basket for a destination that is currently unknown to the California state legislature, but known to everyone else.

So I’m not quite sure I buy his statement that state budget cuts erased the $9 Trillion dollars we pumped into the economy.

Also if he was right then a country as a whole would do well to spend and spend and spend and not worry about who would be paying for it…and then everything will be okay.

And it’s working so well in Greece…and Italy…and Spain.

But Keynesianism is working in China!  Oh wait it’s not!  They’re about to default on their debts too…and there is no one to bail them out. 

So I guess spending when you don’t have money doesn’t ever work to actually save an economy.  The fact of the matter is that Keynesian principles have never, ever, EVER been shown to work long term, will never work in the long term, and can never work in the long term.  There is no case where they have not made the long term prospect worse.  Yeah pumping money in might solve the problem for a very short time, like drinking red bull will keep you awake for a little while longer, but to truly be healthy a body needs sleep and an economy actually needs to go through the bust without interference.

But you know what, while Krugman is wrong in quoting Keynes in saying you should spend, spend, spend when you’re down and cut when you’re up (when in fact you should cut when you’re down and cut when you’re up because government should always be kept small), Keynes was right about one thing:

“The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back. I am sure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas.”

Little did Keynes know that the defunct economist in question was himself.

Leave a comment

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, China, Conservative, Debt, Economics, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, Obama, Paul Krugman is an idiot, People Are Stupid, politics

Paul Krugman shows you can win a Nobel and not know any math



So Krugman is at is again.  This time the New York Times resident idiot is towing the new Democratic party line…I know it’s a shock to see Paul Krugman just have a knee jerk reaction to repeat Democratic talking points.  Which talking point is it today…why what else we need to tax the rich.  He even has a cute name for the article “Things to Tax”….hmm

You have the usual level of Krugman insanity, such as:

Nonetheless, at some point we’ll have to rein in budget deficits. And when we do, here’s a thought: How about making increased revenue an important part of the deal?

That line is of course coming from the man who has been against all cuts to spending, who had incessantly beat the drum for MORE spending.  But now he wants to reign in the deficit he helped created.  But of course it has to be done by raising taxes.  Which taxes?  Well he suggests “taxes on very high incomes and taxes on financial transactions.”  Don’t you like how he broke out a 5th grade thesaurus and said “high income” and not “rich.”  You’d have to be an idiot or a Democrat to think he wasn’t saying something cliché, but I repeat myself.

Try this quote:

“The I.R.S. reports that in 2007, that is, before the economic crisis, the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers — roughly speaking, people with annual incomes over $2 million — had a combined income of more than a trillion dollars. That’s a lot of money, and it wouldn’t be hard to devise taxes that would raise a significant amount of revenue from those super-high-income individuals.

Well no, highway robbery isn’t “hard” to do when you have all the power…why worry about things like ethics.  Did you notice how he mentions they have a trillion dollars?  A whole trillion.  Sounds like a lot doesn’t it?  Which means that if we taxed every last cent out of the these evil greedy bastards who have no right to earn money from their labor and took their trillion dollars…well it still won’t pay for the $3.7 Trillion dollar yearly budget.  (Won’t even cover the $1.101 Trillion shortfall…and let’s not forget that shortfall is calculated after the rich have been contributing a lot of money to the tax codes already).

But still it would raise lots of money.

For example, a recent report by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center points out that before 1980 very-high-income individuals fell into tax brackets well above the 35 percent top rate that applies today. According to the center’s analysis, restoring those high-income brackets would have raised $78 billion in 2007.

Ooooh, $78 Billion dollars! Wow, that sounds like a lot doesn’t it.  That means if we had go back to 2001 and instead of cutting taxes raising them to Krugman’s level we would have raised $780 Billion dollars…ah hell I’ll say $800 Billion to account for variance from year to year.  $800 Billion!  So let’s see, Obama has raised the national debt by $5 Trillion which means that if we had raised that $800 Billion then Obama would only have a measly $4.2 Trillion increase to his name.  Hmmmm…I’m not seeing raising taxes as being the salvation here.  Maybe we might want to try cutting something from the budget?  NO! What was I thinking I’m dealing with a Krugman article.  The fact that math shows that raising taxes won’t help the problem has nothing, not one single thing to do with the moral imperative we have to tax the rich to death (and then spend the country into death).  And clearly there would be not a single adverse effect to the economy because raising taxes has never hurt an economy (if you ignore every time in history taxes have been raised, but that’s minor caveat).

After all Krugman states

“what I get for the next decade is that high-income taxation could shave more than $1 trillion off the deficit.”

Yeah cause we’re only raising the debt by almost a trillion and a half every year.  So after a decade instead of having raised the debt by $15 Trillion, we’ll have only raised the debt by $14 Trillion.  Clearly raising taxes on the rich will solve everything.

But then it gets really fun.  Because Krugman deals with the people who claim we need to cut the budget.  Read for yourself:

“It’s instructive to compare that estimate with the savings from the kinds of proposals that are actually circulating in Washington these days. Consider, for example, proposals to raise the age of Medicare eligibility to 67, dealing a major blow to millions of Americans. How much money would that save?

“Well, none from the point of view of the nation as a whole, since we would be pushing seniors out of Medicare and into private insurance, which has substantially higher costs. True, it would reduce federal spending — but not by much. The budget office estimates that outlays would fall by only $125 billion over the next decade, as the age increase phased in. And even when fully phased in, this partial dismantling of Medicare would reduce the deficit only about a third as much as could be achieved with higher taxes on the very rich.”


Of all the cuts to spending that conservatives, libertarians, the Republican Party, the Tea Party, the GOP candidates have suggested…does anyone remember raising the age of Medicare as being a top one?  No I don’t either.  I have absolutely no problem with it.  But it’s an odd one to pick.


How about this, here is a link to a proposed budget by Tea Party organization Freedomworks .  Their budget cuts a $560 Billion in the first year and 9.7 Trillion over the next 10 years.  Now I personally don’t think it goes far enough, but I’m willing to take 9.7 Trillion in cuts over the next decade over (which will probably be more because such behavior would spur the economy and bring in larger tax receipts) Krugman’s $0.8 Trillion in new revenue (which will probably be less as it would further depress the economy and lower tax receipts).


So I don’t know if Krugman is just stupid and doesn’t get that we need to stop spending and that spending cuts are bigger than his pathetic revenue increase.


But here is my favorite line.

So raising taxes on the very rich could make a serious contribution to deficit reduction. Don’t believe anyone who claims otherwise.

Serious in this case meaning not slowing down the growth of the debt by even a little.  And yes don’t believe anyone claims otherwise, they’re using that “evil math thing” and as all good liberals know you can’t trust math, or facts, or truth…because we have faith knowing that taxing the rich will solve all our problems and that Obama is the one true god and that Krugman is his prophet.  Evil math can’t ever be trusted.


He also very competently deals with detractors with the following statement:

But wouldn’t such a tax hurt economic growth? As I said, the evidence suggests not” I have no clue what mystical evidence” he is referring to because it’s certainly not to be found ANYWHERE in the history of the world.  But again don’t let facts get in the way of taxing the rich.


And then there is just the bizarre….

“And then there’s the idea of taxing financial transactions,” he suggests that putting a tax on the sale of stock could reduce bubbles and economic instability.  Technically he’s right.  Several people have advocated for such a thing, myself included …but as far as I know the only people who have ever seriously advocated for this do it as a part of a complete tax overhaul, usually demanding that the capital gains tax be radically lowered if not completely eliminated as putting two sets of taxes on investments would be somewhere past insane (but that kind of makes it right up Krugman’s alley).  And to prove why we need this Krugman states, “and that among those who do are Hong Kong and Singapore. If some conservative starts claiming that such taxes are an unwarranted government intrusion, you might want to ask him why such taxes are imposed by the two countries that score highest on the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom.”  Yeah let’s just ignore that while these countries have such a financial transfer tax (4.45% in Hong Kong ) that they have massively reduced tax burdens, no capital gains, no death tax, no payroll tax, no sales tax.  Paul you can’t claim that Hong Kong has a good tax system in the second half of your article  when everything else about the tax system in Hong Kong is absolute proof that the first half of your article was written by someone who is functionally retarded.


But to realize this little contradiction is probably beyond Krugman’s meager intellectual abilities.  Remember he doesn’t even believe in math.



Leave a comment

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Debt, Economics, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Obama, Paul Krugman is an idiot, politics, Taxes, Tea Party, Tyranny, Welfare

Using the Paul Krugman Method to solve all our problems…

It’s been too long since I made fun of Paul Krugman (it’s also too easy, but it’s fun) so for old times’ sake I thought I’d look up what his latest argument was.

It can be boiled down as such

1.        The economy has always been shit and we never really got out of the recession.

2.       The Republicans are idiots for worrying about deficits.

3.       Obama needs to focus on creating jobs (which is another way of saying spend more money).

It’s always fun to look into the universe of Paul Krugman because it’s a world where the economy is driven by pretty pink unicorns and cause and effect have absolutely no relationship to each other, and unlike the universe that you and I live in facts aren’t things that are permanent—in Krugman’s world 1+1 can equal 2 on Monday, 5 on Tuesday and whatever number the die says it does on Wednesday.  Just look at point one.  For the last couple of years Krugman insulted and ridiculed conservatives who said that Obamanomics wasn’t working, yet today, yes, the economy is shit and it’s all the GOP’s fault.

But it’s points 2 and 3 that are really funny.  Paul’s argument for the last few months has been on this line that deficits aren’t a problem, after all it’s not like a country ever went bankrupt because it went too far into debt (France before the Revolution, the Weimar Republic, Greece, Italy, Spain, Ireland, Portugal, in fact most of the EU)..nope that’s never happened.  And the Republicans are obviously idiots for looking to history (and the front page) for thinking that deficits are a problem.  Complete morons—obviously.

No our problem is jobs creation, which is a fancy way of saying more stimulus.  Because the last couple of trillion dollars stimulus packages worked so well.  Now you may look at the abysmal failures that were the last two stimulus packages (enacted by the dual team of mentally handicapped executives: Bush and Obama) and think that clearly government spending is useless at best and destructive to the very fabric of the economy at worst.  But not that genius Paul Krugman.  Paul is so much smarter than mere mortals like you and I that he knows the problem was that we didn’t spend enough.  It’s so clear when you think about it.  Nearly $2 Trillion in spending made the economy worse, got our bonds downgraded and made every company insanely afraid to do anything lest they got taxed and regulated.  But if we just spent more it would solve everything.

Having seen the wisdom of Krugman’s ways I want to know what this truly sage wisdom and line of thinking would look like in other fields…

“Your building collapsed because it had no foundation”

Architect Paul Krugman: “We just need to build 5 more stories on top and it will be fine.”

“You can’t grow citrus trees this far North.”

Farmer Paul Krugman: “Nonsense, it just needs more water.”

“Your patient died because you never bothered to actually treat his cancer.”

Doctor Paul Krugman: “Fool, you just need to put more penicillin into the corpse and it will be fine.”

“Mr. Krugman you were going 50 miles over the speed limit”

“But if I had been going faster it would have been fine, Officer.”

“The reactor is overheating!”

Nuclear Physicist Paul Krugman: “Well then we just need to open the fuel rods even further.”

“I’m 50K in debt and all my creditors are hounding me every second.”

Personal Accountant Paul Krugman: “Well isn’t it obvious, you need to buy a house several levels above what your income could ever theoretically pay for, and maybe a new Ferrari to go along with it.”

Truly we have much to learn from this near divine guru…

Or maybe we could do the exact opposite of what he says and maybe save ourselves from complete disaster


Filed under Debt, Economics, Paul Krugman is an idiot

A week on the blogosphere did nothing for my opinion of humanity

As one of the key purposes of this blog is to drum up publicity for my book Republicans and Reincarnation (you should buy it) I do have a vested interest in keeping the hit count for this blog at a high number and not be satisfied until I’m reaching Drudge Report level numbers (I can dream can’t I).

To do this, especially since the move to WordPress has strangely put me a little further down on any Google search, I have taken the advice of friends and other websites and started to comment on other blogs. This has usually not been my thing since while I would love to engage in discussions with anyone at a rational level on my blogs, I find that this is not the way of the blogosphere. For instance the other day I ran across a blog defending China’s occupation of Tibet (because we should always defend the genocidal annexation of peaceful nations by butchers apparently). One of the main arguments the person made was that now in 2011 the economics, technology and infrastructure of Tibet is much better than it was under the Dalai Lama. I put a comment up that this was a false assessment as every nation, even in the third world, is in a better place in 2011 than it was in 1950, and to assume that Tibet would have remained closed, given the desire of the 14th Dalai Lama to learn about the West, was foolish—that if China had not invaded Tibet would likely be in a better position. The twit who made the original position responded that this was only “speculation” on my part. Yeah, it’s speculation, but one based on facts, trends, and precedent. You can’t argue that a place is better because of X without even considering what it would be like if X had not happened. To argue that a logical conclusion based on history and other examples is worthless just because it didn’t happen, is the most weak minded and pathetic form of argument I can think of…just the kind you would expect from someone who supports the butchers from Beijing. So I realized quickly that I would just get infuriated communicating with this nitwit and as I was not in the proximity to slap him there was no point in making a rebuttal. This has been similar to many of my other comments. I try to make a reasoned rebuttal, I get knee jerk reactions. (My favorite being, I’m an American, what would I know…I wonder if they would have made the same statement if it was one of the American’s who was also a darling of the left.) And since I find posting, “I agree with you completely” also silly, there are few blogs I comment on where I agree with people.

I found fewer and fewer places to comment as my search for interesting blogs continued.

So I turned my direction to religion blogs, hell at least I didn’t really expect people to be reasonable. But expecting people to be irrational is not the same thing as finding out that people are freaking psychos. Atheists are still some of the most biter people I can find. My favorite for the suggestion that atheism can be correlated with being a sociopath was a blog about a guy who offered a homeless man $20 to take the words “God Bless” off the sign he was using to beg for money with. That’s right, this guy wanted to take away what is probably the only stable element in this person’s life for $20—and they say conservatives are heartless sons of bitches. Not to mention my other favorite part that almost all atheists seem to be arguing against Christianity as if the Christian Bible is the only argument in favor of God.

Oh, and Anti-Semitism appears to be quite alive and well. I used to think that that almost everyone underestimated how prevalent Ant-Semitism in this country and the world, how it was one of the greatest threats facing the growth of society, and how the world needed to grow, look around, and rip this evil weed out once and for all. After this week I think I may have been underestimating how bad a problem this actually was. No, seriously, I’m half a step away from saying screw the first amendment, Anti-Semitism needs to be made a death penalty offense. I’m not going to because I understand where that slippery slope leads, but, dear God, do these twisted little excuses for human being know how to have lots and lots of blogs. The first few I saw I thought from the titles were going to be well crafted pieces of satire making fun of the idiot by using their own words against them, after all no one could seriously believe this shit…it’s a sad moment where I find my cynical outlook on humanity may be optimistic.

But my personal favorite has to be what I’ve learned about New Agers like myself. Apparently, according to many of the blogs I’ve read, I am part of a grand conspiracy that is headed by no less than Satan himself, to destroy Christianity and make sure all souls are dammed in hell. I am worshiping demons who pose as angels (because, I don’t know, all calls and prayers I make to God are being intercepted before they get to the desired recipient). Obviously I’m going to hell. Interestingly enough, I and my pagan compatriots are in league with Glenn Beck of all people. And that I must regularly attend meetings where babies are slaughtered and massive orgies occur.

Which brings up the question: Why am I never invited to the meetings? I don’t get invited to the Black Sabbath where the damnation of all souls is planned. I don’t get invited to the Republican meetings where the enslavement of the poor is discussed. I don’t get invited to the meetings where Whitey plans to keep all minorities down. And I don’t get invited to the meetings where men plot to keep women bare foot and pregnant. I don’t get invited to the meetings. I don’t get the handbook everyone else seems to have. I don’t even know the secret handshake.

There is no real argument to this particular blog. I just needed to vent. I knew that the web is fully of crazy people, but knowing it and seeing it are two different things. As all my previous blog reading has always been through aggregate sites (Drudge, Breitbart, RealClearPolitics, etc.) I got the truly crazy weeded out. Yes there would be people I would disagree with, but even the really bad ones had a thread of logic (or in Paul Krugman’s case it was just good comic relief). So it was just a little disgusting to see how pathetic crazy people can be and I just needed to vent because there is no way to deal with these people. You can’t fix crazy and I don’t think I could even enjoy taunting these idiots.


1 Comment

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Atheism, Dalai Lama, First Amendment, Paul Krugman is an idiot, People Are Stupid

Our Treasury Secretary on the Debt, A Genius of Delusional Finance

Tim Geithner, who apparently knows less about economics than Paul Krugman, has a bright idea on how to solve our budget woes. Raise Taxes. That’s it. Because it would be “irresponsible” to cut spending.

Let me think of my own personal budget like Geithner thinks of the federal budget. Let’s say I was a moron and got so far into debt even if I didn’t have monthly expenses (no rent, no food, no electricity or phone bill) it would still take over a year to repay my debt if I spent every single dime I made during that year on my debt (because you will remember that our national debt is almost a trillion more than our 14 trillion GDP). Now if I was dumb enough to get in that position (I’m not, I freak out if my debt gets near 20% of my yearly income) what would be the intelligent thing to do? Now you might think the intelligent thing to do would be to cut your expenses at least enough that you are paying enough of your bills to cut into the principle of your debt. You might even be foolish enough to think that if I were in that position I should cut up all my credit cards and make sure I don’t take on any more debt. However, you are clearly not as wise as Tim Geithner who would recommend that I not only NOT cut my expenses but that I spend more money and go further into debt. Truly Tim is wise beyond the knowledge of us mere mortals. And how will I deal with the fact that I am even further in debt? Well, according to Tim I just need to make more money! Because apparently it grows on trees. But there’s a problem, I can’t get more money. Why? BECAUSE TIM GEITHNER WANTS TO RAISE MY !*&%ING TAXES!!!! You know if the economy is slowing down, of course raising taxes and giving less money to people is of course the greatest idea ever. And pumping more money into government projects and government jobs which have been proven time and time and time again to be nothing but a drain on the economy is of course not going to destroy it further.

To anyone who is not lobotomized the answer is clear and obvious. Massive cuts to all of these bullshit programs. To anyone who isn’t so self-centered and hedonistic as to have even a mild concern for others they would say start with the programs that they are taking money from because while a cut to what they use may hurt a little, the entire U.S. economy going into a full on depression is certainly going to hurt everyone even more.

But a truth this obvious is clearly beyond Tim Geithner and his boss, whom, as it is clear from their understanding of economics, if you added their IQ’s together you would still end up with a single digit.

You want to talk taxes after we start cutting, that’s a discussion any reasonable person would be willing to discuss…but our rampant and psychotic spending has to be dealt with first.

Leave a comment

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Debt, Economics, Government is useless, Obama, Paul Krugman is an idiot, Tyranny, Unions

Paul Krugman almost gets it right…almost….

Good lord in heaven. Paul Krugman is almost right about something…it’s a damn good thing I don’t believe in the Book of Revelation or I just might count this as a sign of the apocalypse.

Let me explain in his latest article “Falling Dollar Phobia” he points out that just because the dollar is falling isn’t necessarily bad because it can lead to more exports being bought which in turn will raise the economy. On this he is right. Although he states it as a fact and the truth is that it’s only a possibility. The problem with this is that the economy is never dependant on one single variable. Just because the dollar weakens doesn’t mean that we will export more. If for instance the rest of the world is also doing poorly, which it is, then exports might not go up.

Krugman doesn’t seem to realize that the falling dollar itself isn’t a problem, it’s a symptom of a much bigger issue. Issues like bad business policy, bad tax policy, bad spending policy, bad foreign policy, bad credit rating, and the very big possibility of more economic bubbles to come shortly. But why should Paul deal with that when he can actually sound sorta kinda like he knows what’s he’s talking about.

Then of course there is his flip statement about why should we be worried about the dollar when we have unemployment to worry about. Technically a good point. Bad point when raised by someone whose theory of how to fix the economy is to have the government throw more money at it. Has Krugman ever proposed measures that would actually lower medical insurance costs for employers? Nope, he wants ObamaCare which will bankrupt everyone. How about simplifying the tax code? No. How about less useless red tape? How about less BS environmental regulation that does nothing to help the environment? Weakening unions? Support charter schools so the American populace will be better educated? Lower welfare payments? Nope, no and uh-uh. Paul, it’s great you can see we have an unemployment problem…now all you have to do is admit that you and your cronies are part of that problem.

Leave a comment

Filed under Capitalism, Debt, Economics, Paul Krugman is an idiot

Liberals and thier wacky ideas…

It’s been a while since I’ve brought up this topic, but Paul Krugman is an idiot. I am constantly perplexed at how even a worthless rag like the New York Times could employ a man so disconnected from reality. Given the absolute insanity of his statement and the disastrous policies he preaches this man is more dangerous than Bin Laden and Julian Assange combined, primarily because he has been given a pulpit to weekly spew his drivel out to the nation. My only consolation is that almost no one reads the New York Times besides a few devout liberals and a whole host of conservatives (because we actually do like to listen to the other side and see if they have anything important to say…sadly Krugman has yet to say anything intelligent).

Before I combat his insane central argument, let’s deal with some of his side points.

“Federal salaries are, on average, somewhat less than those of private-sector workers with equivalent qualifications.” Uh-huh. You believe that don’t you. That given the obscene benefits and astronomical pension plans that government workers are making the same as private sector employees. Oh and I would love to know what he defines as equivalent qualifications, because on this planet I live on called Earth for the most part people with qualifications get jobs in the private sector, and people without qualifications get jobs in the public sector. Granted military, law enforcement, maybe even the State Department can attract some of the best and brightest…but really, do you actually believe anyone who could get a real job would be working for say…the TSA, or the IRS, or USDA, or the Department of Education or any kind of welfare program. No, didn’t think so.

Or let’s try this genius quote:
“The actual savings, about $5 billion over two years, are chump change given the scale of the deficit.” Granted it’s small in comparison to the whole budget, but $5 billion is not a small number. There is no single expenditure we can just cut to find $13 Trillion. Even I who loathe Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare with fiery passion know that it would be an economic disaster to just cut those lines from the budget—they need to be phased out over a period of 10 to 15 (maybe 20 years). This debt is only going to die a death of a thousand cuts. And while $5 Billion isn’t even a percentage point of the total debt it’s at least not another $5 Billion we have to pay off later.

How about this preposterously Keysian bit of delusional claptrap:
“Anyway, slashing federal spending at a time when the economy is depressed is exactly the wrong thing to do.” No it’s exactly what you need to do. The interference with the economy is what has caused excessive bubbles and excessive drops. Yes, if you cut the federal budget you will see a temporary slowdown but you will quickly see a major recovery. If you keep spending money you don’t have you will massive inflation, massive unemployment, and all the other wonderful trappings of the last days of the Wiemar Republic before Hitler took over. It would be comparable to a college student taking caffeine for two days to stay awake to finish their thesis. You can either keep pumping in larger and larger quantities of caffeine as Krugman seems to suggest, or you can stop the caffeine have a rest and then actually have a functioning system in the morning. Krugman seems to want to keep shoving caffeine into our economy until it has a massive coronary and can’t be revived. Who wants to follow this idiot’s plan? (Put your caffeine down Mr. President, you’ve already shown you don’t know jackshit about economics…or the Constitution…or public speaking…or diplomacy…or being anything other than an incompetent asshole…go write another children’s book and leave the economy to adults.)

But Krugman’s idiocy doesn’t stop with showing he knows nothing about economics. He has to make sure that he demonstrates he knows less than nothing about economics.
“Meanwhile, there’s a real deficit issue on the table: whether tax cuts for the wealthy will, as Republicans demand, be extended.” Yes, because heaven forbid we actually allow money into the economy. That might actually solve our problems. Couldn’t have that. Does everyone forget that when JFK cut taxes, revenue went up, when Reagan cut taxes revenue went up, and when Bush cut taxes revenue went up? What do you think will happen if we raise taxes? In Krugman’s world revenue will go up, in reality it will drop like a rock and you should start scouting out your place in a bread line.

But Krugman’s insanity doesn’t stop there:
“There were no comparable gestures from the other side. Instead, Senate Republicans declared that none of the rest of the legislation on the table — legislation that includes such things as a strategic arms treaty that’s vital to national security — would be acted on until the tax-cut issue was resolved, presumably on their terms.” One: everyone who actually has studied international relations says that this arms treaty is a joke. Two: But what’s the worst that happens? We don’t sign it and Russia begins to rapidly rebuild their military…cause that worked so well for them the last time. I can live with Putin’s regime collapsing like its Soviet predecessor, can’t you? Three: Republicans weren’t elected to cut deals this time. They were elected to stand strong, give no ground, no quarter, no mercy and utterly destroy everything Obama has done. Good for the Republicans for finally understanding what the voters wanted.

Leave a comment

Filed under Budget, Debt, Economics, Education, Evils of Liberalism, Paul Krugman is an idiot