More magic math, courtesy of our favorite tards.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/20/op...773522000&_r=0
When it comes to Paul Krugman, I just can't take him seriously. He sold what little credibility he ever had down the tube when he signed on to be a boot licking lackey for The Democrat Party. Originally Posted by Jackie SI agree, he totes their water, but that doesn't make him wrong here. The problem with republicans who want to initiate the second coming of Reagonomics is that they won't, or can't, follow through on ALL four pillars. If you're going to make it work, you've got to do all four. Lower the tax rates, income and capital gains, tighten cash supply to keep inflation in check, less regulation and reduce government spending. They just can't seem to do the last one. Now, you can also argue that Reagan put in motion the forces that would lead to a bubble 20 years later, with the lack of regulation, etc. Krugman would argue it was simply part of the business cycle and after Carter and the constriction the economy went through, it was bound to come back and Reagan was just lucky enough to not get in the way. Most of the deregulation actually started before Reagan anyway.
When it comes to Paul Krugman, I just can't take him seriously. He sold what little credibility he ever had down the tube when he signed on to be a boot licking lackey for The Democrat Party. Originally Posted by Jackie SEven the Dims criticize Krugman for being a "frenemy" after he's supposedly not backed Obama's policies 100%. Nobody really cares about the guy south or west of the Beltway.
I agree, he totes their water, but that doesn't make him wrong here. The problem with republicans who want to initiate the second coming of Reagonomics is that they won't, or can't, follow through on ALL four pillars. If you're going to make it work, you've got to do all four. Lower the tax rates, income and capital gains, tighten cash supply to keep inflation in check, less regulation and reduce government spending. They just can't seem to do the last one. Now, you can also argue that Reagan put in motion the forces that would lead to a bubble 20 years later, with the lack of regulation, etc. Krugman would argue it was simply part of the business cycle and after Carter and the constriction the economy went through, it was bound to come back and Reagan was just lucky enough to not get in the way. Most of the deregulation actually started before Reagan anyway. Originally Posted by UnderConstructionI agree, Republicans like to spend government money, also. They just prefer it to be spent on defense and not Obama phones.
I agree, Republicans like to spend government money, also. They just prefer it to be spent on defense and not Obama phones. Originally Posted by DSKThe obama phone thing is complete bullshit. Please read the enclosed link and educate yourself. It's got nothing to do with obama and tax revenue isn't even used to fund the program. It's funded by revenue donations from telecom companies. This is the kind of thing, like Palin saying she could see Russia, that just gains momentum and keeps going, despite being false.
The obama phone thing is complete bullshit. Please read the enclosed link and educate yourself. It's got nothing to do with obama and tax revenue isn't even used to fund the program. It's funded by revenue donations from telecom companies. This is the kind of thing, like Palin saying she could see Russia, that just gains momentum and keeps going, despite being false.who ever paid for your education wasted their money
http://gawker.com/5947133/the-obama-...-do-with-obama Originally Posted by UnderConstruction
Now, you can also argue that Reagan put in motion the forces that would lead to a bubble 20 years later, with the lack of regulation, etc. Originally Posted by UnderConstructionWow, lookee here - After flaunting his ignorance of every other topic discussed on this board, undercunt is now showing his abject stupidity on economics! Let's see, if a President can leave office and still be blamed for a bubble (or maybe two bubbles, since underpussy doesn't specify if he means 2000 or 2008) that bursts 20 years later - how can we revise the economic history books using that daft idea?