My God, you are an idiot.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Pawlenty must really hate Romney to do this to him.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Linkedin is suggesting that I connect to Robert Bork. Hmmmm.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Indeed. "We need to spend until the thing rights itself" is brilliant policy.

I get it. Austerity is illogical. I understand and can run with the argument for a while.

But then it gets absurd. The market sees through it. Businesses and the market become dependent upon, and learn how to predict, and goose, government intervention.

At a certain point, you have to start weaning the economy from interventions. All Krugman screams is "More, more, more." Suppose we hand the economy what he suggests. Perhaps there's an argument to be made that a monster stimulus from the start, with no set end date, or limit, would work because the actors in the system would never know when, if ever, it would end. Maybe that would work. But that's politically, and practically, impossible. All we can do is offer a one new fix after another. Stimulus, QEs, twist, refi programs. Everyone sees through, and anticipates the next govt move. The markets demand it. It becomes a pusher/junkie scenario, which undoes all the intent of the underlying policy prescription.

So fuck Krugman. His advice is for a day long past. It's as bad as severe austerity. The answer is what the answer will be: Muddle through. React, to keep a status quo that avoids widespread civil unrest, and let the debt overhang unwind as it will.

It won't be a terrible shit sandwich. When all falls, the guy on top at the outset of collapse holds that position. And you can forget all the shmucks claiming the BRICs would decouple. That's been disproven. We all fall together... And that's good for us.

Yeah, like 2009, when he was warning that Obama's half-assed "stimulus" plan, consisting of mostly tax cuts, was a recipe for a double-dip recession. He got no love back then either.

The idea that we need to pay off the national debt RIGHT NOW, at the expense of jobs in the public and private sectors, and without even considering raising taxes, is complete madness, and you don't need to think particularly highly of Paul Krugman to reach that conclusion. But that's the hymn sheet the Democrats are (mostly) singing from right now, so I guess we'll continue down this road until unemployment is at 15%.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by ironweed

Yeah, like 2009, when he was warning that Obama's half-assed "stimulus" plan, consisting of mostly tax cuts, was a recipe for a double-dip recession. He got no love back then either.

The idea that we need to pay off the national debt RIGHT NOW, at the expense of jobs in the public and private sectors, and without even considering raising taxes, is complete madness, and you don't need to think particularly highly of Paul Krugman to reach that conclusion. But that's the hymn sheet the Democrats are (mostly) singing from right now, so I guess we'll continue down this road until unemployment is at 15%.

Speaking of Krugman, his blog about Guilliani and Bush was fucking distasteful and one of the prime reasons why I hate him. He should stick to economics. Posts like that make people like me question everything he writes/says as being politically motivated.

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Speaking of Krugman, his blog about Guilliani and Bush was fucking distasteful and one of the prime reasons why I hate him. He should stick to economics. Posts like that make people like me question everything he writes/says as being politically motivated.

I didn't read it. But I find both Giuliani and Bush to be fucking distasteful, so now I probably will.

PS - why does Krugman have to be tasteful? He's not a politician, and when it comes to pundits of all stripes (and I include the more exotic fauna on FOX and MSNBC here, just so you won't question) I have to think he's trailing pretty far behind in the Fucking Distasteful sweepstakes. Also, if Hank has dedicated years of his life to imparting one lesson to all of us here, it's that it doesn't matter if you're tasteless asshole, as long as you're right. And I for one will not stand here and listen to you insult Hank Chinaski.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Speaking of Krugman, his blog about Guilliani and Bush was fucking distasteful and one of the prime reasons why I hate him. He should stick to economics. Posts like that make people like me question everything he writes/says as being politically motivated.

Well, someone ought to respond.

Giulliani of course was just another vain politican doing what he could to take advantage of the situation - I'm not sure why one calls him out for abuse, and I think his role on 9/11 itself was capable, even if what followed was a bit tawdry. But still a better brand of tawdry than Perry running on his record of executions, for example.

Bush, however, managed to turn the attack into cheerleading for an attack on a country irrelevant to the bombings, several thousand US deaths and untold numbers of Iraqi deaths, and he managed to do it with evidence that appears to be somewhere between flimsy and fabricated. Bush pretty much deserves whatever Krugman can give him. I don't think his neo-con objectives justify any of the crap he slung.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Well, someone ought to respond.

Giulliani of course was just another vain politican doing what he could to take advantage of the situation - I'm not sure why one calls him out for abuse, and I think his role on 9/11 itself was capable, even if what followed was a bit tawdry. But still a better brand of tawdry than Perry running on his record of executions, for example.

Bush, however, managed to turn the attack into cheerleading for an attack on a country irrelevant to the bombings, several thousand US deaths and untold numbers of Iraqi deaths, and he managed to do it with evidence that appears to be somewhere between flimsy and fabricated. Bush pretty much deserves whatever Krugman can give him. I don't think his neo-con objectives justify any of the crap he slung.

I went to read his column just now and it's a new one about the moralization of debt and how it's fucking up the European response to their crisis. It was good. And judging from the above, I think I know what he said about Giuliani and Bush and 9-11, which is nothing that hasn't been said a thousand times before, so I'll skip reading that. Cheers.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by ironweed

I went to read his column just now and it's a new one about the moralization of debt and how it's fucking up the European response to their crisis. It was good. And judging from the above, I think I know what he said about Giuliani and Bush and 9-11, which is nothing that hasn't been said a thousand times before, so I'll skip reading that. Cheers.

Here it is:

Is it just me, or are the 9/11 commemorations oddly subdued?

Actually, I don’t think it’s me, and it’s not really that odd.

What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. The atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.

A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?

The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.

I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Here it is:

Just as I thought. And I agree with that completely, as if anyone were in any doubt.

I understand that there are adjectives in there, but do you really disagree with the part about how the Bush administration used the attack to justify the invasion of Iraq? Is anyone still defending that war on the grounds upon which it was originally sold to us?

But I guess this is the one that really got to you: "The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it." This is clearly untrue for the small number of people who acted heroically on the day, and the days after, to save lives. But I'll own up and say that I spent most of that day watching CNN and drinking bourbon, so I can't take issue with it on that basis. And I also can't really disagree that it was turned into a political football to justify a lot of shit that was just clearly wrong, and wasteful, and deadly.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ironweed

Just as I thought. And I agree with that completely, as if anyone were in any doubt.

I understand that there are adjectives in there, but do you really disagree with the part about how the Bush administration used the attack to justify the invasion of Iraq? Is anyone still defending that war on the grounds upon which it was originally sold to us?

I do.

. And I also can't really disagree that it was turned into a political football to justify a lot of shit that was just clearly wrong, and wasteful, and deadly.

Ahh, do you mean Obama's Predator murders, or his executing an unarmed Osama in front of his daughter and without trial?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

well we didn't give Iran more money, and even Carter didn't support the Iranians once he knew it was against us.

And you know the not yet extant government in Egypt is "not with us?"

Obama needs to step up now to make clear Israel is our prime ally. He should also dismiss Hilllary. fall guy? sure, but it would send a signal.

p.s. today's news from Israel

what signal? That we really don't want them to be with us?

But in all seriousness, why? What do we get out of declaring the Arab word our enemy? And why do you think that will be of greater benefit to israel than remaining engaged?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

as to your comment about anti-semetism in the mid-east, it negates any weight that can be given to your fuzzy thoughts.

yes, you generalize across multiple people and I'm the one with fuzzy thoughts. You clealy have the Cheney clarevoyance. It's amazing how simple the world is if you buy caricature wholesale.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I do.

Ahh, do you mean Obama's Predator murders, or his executing an unarmed Osama in front of his daughter and without trial?

Hey! Adder! Here's an invitation to have a one way conversation with someone who took a left turn out of reality half a life back. Enjoy!

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

weLetting the Israel embassy go is a very real sign that the bet on friendly democracies popping up is not looking good. from Israel[/url]

btw, I will expect you to revise your win record to reflect this forfeiture on 8 years of W foreign policy.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If you pull the seriously rotten apples out of the data, housing gets better quickly. At least on paper. Sure, it's not a permanent fix, but it's a good start.

just when I was going to call you full of shit.