bush did what he was supposed to do as a conservative, lowered taxes on the rich, started a (unfunded) war, restricted civil liberties, fiddled as our unregulated financial system cannablized our economy....basically was a succesful president when you consider 'what he was elected to do'
obama on the other hand has been a complete failure under the same definition, basically take all the above points on bush & apply them to obama , who was elected under the (guise) slogan of 'change'
Watch, if Perry gets a huge war chest you'll see he is that guy. Obama had one too, and apparently much of that was small donations but ultimately we don't know and in fact he found a lot of support by wall street firms like GS and then you see in fact wall street is protected and not punished ultimately for the collapse and the shadowy 600 trillion derivative markets is still operating. Either Obama is legit or a wolf in sheep clothing to appear not corrupt but in the end, well.....
By that logic it means pay 200+ million and get a potential 1..3 trillion in tax relief. I would say that was good investment. It is not genius then to see of all the candidates in 2000 when you hear 'war chest 200 mil' and he doesn't have to follow rules for matching funds that clearly something suspicious is afoot, and history proved that right. What does that mean? Well look at 2012 election, and see who is bank rolled the most
I said that same thing because it was obvious. If you looked at Bush before 2000 he had a 200+ 'war chest' and it was clearly he was being heavily bankrolled by people who had a clear agenda they were willing to invest in and buy the Presidency (in effect; or at least have a seat at the table and have the 'ear of the President'. Then you hear about politicians who get a relatively small amount of money and some interest gets a major contract or kickback. Bush resulted in 1.3 trillion in tax cuts
George W. Bush performed his function, he basically eliminated taxes for the very wealthy. In every other way his presidency was a disaster for the country.
Please note that my book Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Shaped Modern Economics is published by W.W.Norton in October.
Professor John B.Taylor says that: “Nicholas Wapshott brings the Keynes-Hayek fight of the 20th century back to life, making the clash both entertaining and highly relevant for understanding economic crises of the 21st century.”
Read an extract at: sites.google.com/site/wapshottkeyneshayek/
This guy is the ultimate hypocrite....talking about Bush lying....and then there's Barry Obama who claims we will pay down the cost of the "stimulus" program and he's done nothing whatsoever to that effect. Bush, dishonest? Yes. Obama, dishonest? Yes, just as much as Bush.
@captainspirou He is a hypocrite (or dishonest is probably a better word) because he said he did his math and that is what made him realize Bush was not to be trusted. Yet he is a huge advocate of Obama's health care bill which will very obviously raise health care costs. Obama is really like "super" Bush when it comes to the economy.
@mixmastermeeks Huge advocate? You're just making stuff up. Krugman always said that the healthcare plan needed the public option and was highly critical when the president left that out. When the bill was about to pass he said it was a bad deal but that it should be passed because it was better to have a bad bill we can fix then no bill at all. I will agree with you that Obama actually isn't that much better then Bush for the economy. But you don't need to make stuff up.
@captainspirou So again, he criticized Bush for his mildley progressive policies to push for more progressive policies. Bush was not to be trusted because Krugman knew his arithmatic....but somehow Obama's math was better? was this the same math that told us if we spent 1 trillion dollars we would not go over 8% unemployment? Be honest with yourself.
@captainspirou I don't think you can even read at elementary school level. Go get your GED, you loser...i'm sure your libtard buddies will provide some free cash for your education.
@Eagles2777 He did. There isn't double counting and there never was. The entire controversy stems from a Democratic congressman misspeaking during an interview. Neither the administration or the CBO said it.
what a stupid comment to make. you can hate someone from the start based on evidence. like if the first thing you see of someone is something proving them not to be trusted. NEXT.
most americans liked george w. bush. it took the majority of americans 5 years to figure out he was bad news. how pathetic. now most americans have forgotten about him. that is pathetic too.
@exbronco1980 youre an idiot. the majority of people in the USA did NOT vote for Bush in his first election. he lost the popular vote. so much for your theory that it took 5 years to figure out he was bad news. moron.
@Tallaias um, he did win the popular vote in 2004. Nobody tried to impeach him after that, and nobody's charged him with anything. by the way, you should learn some manners.
We've been listening to the Krugmans of the world for 60 years. Where are we today? Speeding towards the abyss that will land us in back in the dark ages.
I'm very confused how someone who supposedly knows economics can be a Liberal. Goes to show you, being really learned does not make you immune to idiocy.
Krugman you are as big of a crook as Bush bigger government, steal from one group and give to another, and continue to feed the beast of corporate america. Bush, Obama, Bernanke, Krugman all part of the same seven headed dragon.
The neo-cons are self-evident frauds. But don't forget that Democrats built the ORIGINAL case against Iraq (If anything, G.W. Bush simply continued Clinton's interventionalist foreign policy, even though he campaigned on a "humble" foreign policy.) Bill Clinton made regime change in Iraq official U.S. policy in 1998 with the Iraq Liberation Act. Obama's Secretary of State voted for the Iraq War. What more do you need to know about liberal "purity?" Krugman is a petty political whore.
@ICONOCI If the neo-cons were such "self-evident frauds" then how were the two criminals: Bush/Cheney able to garner enough votes to steal not one, (but probably two) presidential elections?
@Achilles9924 Good point. I do a lot of black and white thinking. When you spend your adolesence on the internet, you expose yourself to complex issues that you have no damn clue about. Ah, to be young and naive!
@mf91007 Being exposed to issues and making your mind about issues are two different things. Honestly speaking if you spend your time on the internet a lot then you have to know where you can get reliable information from, Wikipedia and youtube are definitely not one of those sites. Youtube is filled with right-wing libertarians whose definition of liberty is based on conservative American ideas. Technically, from a certain perspective socialism can be equated with ultimate liberty as well.
Capitalism, Corporate or State dominated or In It together is the wage slavery of immense humanity for abstract process of Capital accumulation and concentration for the elite, 250 top corporations control over 1/3 of the world GDP. More than 3 billion workers are on 2 dollars a day. Capitalism is template of perpetual war,oppression,enviornmental destructions,animal cruelty and suffering, A dehumanising distorting minority imposition in thier inatiable drive for ever more Profit no matter what
Study finds Paul Krugman is the most partisan economist. Krugman was the only economist to "significantly" change his stances for partisan reasons. Krugman has even gone so far as to contradict his own findings to bash Republican politicians. - Brett Barkley, Econ Journal Watch, May 2010
Congratulations, Paul. What are your predictions on the Obama policies? Are they arithmetically adding up? Are there columns you've written on this matter? Did Congress and Obama not lie about the numbers with the healthcare bill? Finally, how accurate were your forecasts of the housing bubble and recession recovery? I mean this guy is a complete hypocrite. Liberals only genuflect upon this guy's alter because he provides them with economic backing no matter what.
I do not understand whad bush was supposed to do for the people who are now taxed at a negetive rate. yes they pay payroll taxes normally 7.65% social security and medicare plus the state income taxes, and then they get a check the following year for all that and then some. Should he have just given them a larger check in the following year. the statements that the rax cuts all went to the rich are misleading as they pay a vast majority of the taxes.
Wake up call: no politician is to be trusted, not Bush, not Clinton and not this new, sparkling jewel of false hope either. He's already proven to be a liar.
Politicians never change, don't buy the rhetoric.
Only morons win Nobel prizes in Economics. Those book reading city folks don't know anything, you can't trust them. You can only trust in your trailer and your truck.
I've never read his analysis on trade patterns, as I doubt you have either, but I know that he's a Liberal hack that believes in Keynesian economics. Keynes theories were proved disastrously wrong in the 70's when stagflation took place, but then again so has communism in the 80's. One thing we can learn from history is that we will never learn from history
Actually considering the extreme amounts of deficits Reagan ran up, turning the US from the greatest creditor nation into the world's biggest debtor nation, how can you say that Keynesian economics was ever dead after the Seventies?
You think SDI and other military industrial complex wastes of money weren't a government stimulus? Government and government spending *grew* under the very people who campaigned and pontificated that government should be small.
I wasn't for the extreme deficits that Reagan run up in the military, but the military is one of the very few things that the federal gov is actually constitutionally responsible for. Keynesian economics doesn't work, never has , never will. We were prosperous despite all the spending not because of it.
Well, first of all the contention that government is only allowed to spend money on killing people, not feeding them, makes you sound like a social Darwinist douche.
Second, even if you were right then that would make the Founding Fathers just as sociopathic as you come across. (They certainly were regarding slavery.)
And third, you are not right. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to tax and spend for COMMON DEFENSE and GENERAL WELFARE in the same line!
Anyone who has read the Federalist Papers or has even a tiny grasp of what the founders intended knows that the "general welfare" clause meant general security, which is why the common defense part is right before it. You are perverting the words to fit your cause. They certainly were not using the word welfare as we do today. I did not say that we should have preemptive undeclared wars, we should follow the constitution.
Also you were prosperous because you were (and still are) a huge, relatively underpopulated country full of natural resources in a climatic Goldilocks zone.
Even today your population density is only a fourth of that of the European Union.
But your future is one of an increasing population and dwindling resources. The crisis of the 1970s was in part a result of the fact that domestic oil had just peaked. Today's crisis is catalyzed by global peak oil.
I've heard that argument before, but it really just doesn't hold any water. There are plenty of places on the planet with more natural resources and similar climate as the US that don't have nearly the economic growth. Freedom is what makes the difference, plain and simple.
Yeah, you know I dont put much credence in the writings of Ted Kaczynski, so why would I give much to David Nobles scriblings? He's a whack job to the nth degree. Anyone that says they are against technology is an idiot, same goes for people that believe in "social justice".
@jjrglobal Well you should read his "scriblings" because even though you're confused enough to compare the quality of David Noble's writings to the Unibomber's, the arguments are what is important. Anyway, when you starting getting serious you'll realize that the American economy is driven by federal subsidies, not freedom. Btw, ever heard of Newton, Van Gough, Nash, Churchill, Poe, Beethoven? They're all people you call "whack job[s]"; please think more.
@PatrickWJ Holy shit, you're kidding right? You think our natural resources are the reason why we succeeded while others failed? The subsidies you mention are the problem, no argument here. We should do away with all them. I thought this discussion was about economics and economists, what do these people have to do with economics?Let me guess,youre an artist or a musician?Dont start trying to read my mind, I'll let you know my feelings on authors as their subject arises. No more obfuscation.
@jjrglobal I'm still waiting for those places on earth that have more geographic and natural resource advantages. The thinkers I mentioned are people that produced serious work even though they suffered from mental illness. As for your question, "What did these people have to do with economics?" Well, John Nash had a lot to do with economics. Also, if you took away federal subsidies to high-tech, what would drive the economy? There would be no internet or computers.
Which companies are getting subsidies in the tech sector, specifically?
If they are its news to me. Countries with as much or more natural resources than the US, there are so many. Lets start with the big ones, RUSSIA, South Africa, Australia, Most of Western Europe, the middle east, even Zimbabwe. Our natural resources helped of course, but there are plenty of examples of other countries that have not had nearly the success with just as much natural resources
As for Nash, he was a mathematician He came up with game theory, which I dont really consider to be part of the foundation of real economics. Lets put it this way, he's no Von Mises or Hayek, or even Rothbard or Freidman. I didnt know he was considered an economist and I've studied economics for over 20 years
@jjrglobal There is no foundation of "real" economics. Economics is a broad field of study that has artificially been consolidated into a discipline; it's very similar to "urban planning." It doesn't belong in the sciences. The countries you listed DO NOT have more resources and geographic advantages. I would need to expound upon that but it wouldn't be difficult. Zimbabwe has more resources than the United States. Also, take a look at the scholarship referencing David Noble the "whack job."
Sure there is a foundation to real economics, check out the Austrian School of Economics it is the foundation of real economics. Are you saying that Zimbabwe doesnt have natural resources? Which companies in the tech sector are getting subsidies?
@jjrglobal I'm saying that Zimb doesn't have more resources than the US nor any of the other countries you mentioned. It's not just about resources, it is also about a strategic geographic location. I don't know of another country as strategically located as the US. Pretty much every high-tech defense firm receives massive government subsidies: Raytheon, BAE, Lockhead - no secret. If something is developed from the publicly funded research, great, patent goes to prvt sctr, if not, no big deal.
On a per capita basis, all the countries I listed are richer in natural resources. Africa is the richest natural resource continent on the planet but even if they weren't you are still missing the point. Freedom from government was the main driving force behind our success, which is why almost every nation on the planet now has more economic freedom than ever before, they adopted our model. Just because the government buys products from a company does not mean that it is subsidized
You want an example of economic freedom whoopin ass with NO natural resources, look no further than Japan. What do you credit their success with, sushi?
Your conclusions about what drives economic growth border on the retarded.
I know that without looking that shit up too, and I may be completely wrong, but I'm certain you looked up something about Krugman as a smart ass question to prove your brilliance
F.A. Hayek won the nobel prize. How much of his work have you read? Your narrow-minded usage of two party trench warfare politics is cute, too. It's the kind of thing that really gets a country moving forward.
No you can't. Because Krugman didn't call for a housing bubble. Turn off Faux News and read the entire piece rather than take something out of context to support your lies. Typical Bushee Republican.
What Krugman called for was increased investment in new homes as a *temporary* measure to get out of the 2001 recession. He certainly didn't advocate for a runaway housing price inflation throughout the next seven years. Accusing him of that would be a bit like blaming someone for a traffic accident because ten intersections ago he told the driver, "go straight here!"
@Antiks72 You can trust politicians, you just can't trust them to do what they say or "hint" they will do.
But if you ever can get a politician to talk straight with you, like Bernie Sanders or Ron Paul, you can trust they will do it.
Sadly, in a political system like the one of the US, none of them will ever be allowed to become president. When Obama was elected, my first thought was "What a politician", not "What a guy, he will fix that country".
krugman was talking about WHY bush couldn't be trusted even before the 2000 election, and giving the supporting evidence. We can say no politician should be trusted, and that may get a few thumbs up. but that's not really a bold statement. on the other hand, we can do some further analysis like krugman and show that bush was one of the worst presidents this country ever had, if not THE worst, and show supporting evidence, and that would make anything Obama's done pale in comparison.
the 62,000,000 people who voted for him in 04 should be ashamed of themselves, though i doubt many of them are. he's still popular in the south and the midwest.
Perhaps from the balcony of the upper class media, recognizing Bush as a bad choice before he became President is considered a remarkable insight. From the ground view, however, it was obvious all along.
@Snoopies622 If it was so obvious from the ground then why did he win twice? I'm not a Bush supporter - I think he was one of the worst presidents in history - but it's hard not to notice the public's role in his disastrous tenure.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
So KrugMan, have you checked Obama's numbers. You said Bush was "lying. They're not being honest about what they're proposing". Is Obama being honest about what he's proposing? He is ramming his Socialist agenda down our throats at breakneck speed. But that's OK. I guess JOe the Plumber and Sarah Palin know a Socialist when they see one. I guess they're not that dumb, really.
Your ideology is getting in the way. Krugman is saying that Bush's numbers didn't add up. Obama, socialist or whatever, has been consistent. His tax plan is exactly what he promised. Krugman is right. Obama honestly stated his intentions. Bush didn't.
Hey Clay, you left wing, partison hackjob, why don't you tell me where we have been attacked since 911? Your talking points are played out and quit stale.
Well you got your wish, we now have a socialist pretending to be president. Sit back and watch as America burns. We are definately unsafe now. You morons make me sick to my stomach.
1) It was called the "solid south" because it always voted Democrat because Abraham Lincoln (the guy who freed the slaves N' all) was a Republican!
2) I agree, the war in Iraq was a complete waste and an expansion of government. Ron Paul represents true Republicanism. Look him up if you have any interest in learning : )
Are you kidding? In "freeing them" you meant that they left blacks uneducated, without rights so they could be abused in the labor market. Abolition was just a tool against the south in the civil war,the party didnt do it for moral reasons. They simply thought of a better way to exploit blacks. Lincoln made very clear in his speeches that he didnt support equal rights for blacks. Abolition wasnt even the republicans idea. They stole it from the abolishionist party.
Would you prefer we left them as slaves? What the hell is the alternative?
Okay, how can you compliment Ron Paul and bash true conservatism? Granted the Republican party today is full of war mongers and religious know-nothings but the Libertarian wing of the people is what conservatism used to be, and God willing, will be again!
I wouldnt prefer to let them be slaves, my point is that they treated colored people no better than the slave owners, and if they actually cared they would have given them equal rights...but they didnt IT WAS A SCAM. So you cant actually give them credit for "freeing slaves".
Im a liberal (not a democrap, Im a Nader guy), but I like Ron Paul's stance on foreign policy, civil liberties, immigration, gun rights, the federal reserve, & abortion.I didnt bash true conservatism.
Dude. no offense, but you just displayed an immense amount of ignorance, it's staggering
i despise socialism and left politics. I am VERY conservative, by definition of the word and believe in the Free-Market, NOT socialism OR collectivism.
What are you talking about? In my opinion, Obama is Bush on freaking steroids. Increased government, increased spending, More undeclared wars etc
Stop playing left vs. Right... it's coming down to Americans vs Government
Re-read what i said, and try to challenge ACTUAL points, not just insult.
You emotional Right-wingers and left-wingers are causing more damage to the country than you realize.
You are no longer at war, stop kidding yourself. You are now "Occupying" foreign nations... 140 of them to be exact... and you are going into a depression.
Obama isn't doing anything different than bush in terms of the Constitution.
While i agree, the troops take directives and not give orders, i think it speaks volumes that they support the candidate who wants to end their mission overseas and bring them home.
Ron Paul was the right candidate, but america has lost it's essence and has forgotten about it's constitution.
They now believe they are a democracy..
"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide." - John Adams.
regulate all you want, it won't save a corrupt system.
America's economics system is now based on a mix of Crony-Capitalism and socialism. It is not a free-market, and hasn't been in many decades.
Those who blame the free-market for America's problems, simply have no concept of what a free-market is, and why America isn't even close to one at this point in history.
WTF? You're an economic illiterate if you would label Dr. Paul's economic policies as "dangerous". Freedom, and the right to hold on to your pay check is dangerous? Tool.
Wouldn't that proposal slash the revenue the U.S. government is receiving? Due to the complexity and mathematical theory based arguing that would surely ensure if i disagreed, all I have to say is "sure" and ask why hasn't it been implemented yet.
well, I would certainly like to see revenue to the U.S. government decreased to about 10% of GDP, but implimenting the Fair Tax could produce the same, higher or less revenue. It all depends on how high you set the taxes on products. The reason it hasn't been implemented is b/c their are thousands of special interests who benefit from our progressive income tax system. Tax aternies...etc.
I do not think Troops should dictate policy, but i do believe their voices should matter when they are the ones suffering the greatest losses of this foreign policy.
Also, my take is no more meaningless than yours. You said "He wasn't" as if you're justified.
You simply touted your opinion and provided nothing of substance.
I don't get you people. A Nobel Prize Laureate is trying to explain in the simplest way possible how the Bush administration is partially responsible for the recession and all you have to say is he's a moron, and we can't trust him. He's not yelling at you or anybody, he's calmly braving your insults to tell you the truth about the Bush administration. Why don't you read a book on the subject and see for yourselves, if you don't actually want to LISTEN to what Krugman is telling everybody.
He's not telling the "truth" about anything. His economic expertise is irrelevant, because he is not an impartial expert offering a fair-minded analysis. He's a strident hyperpartisan ideologue with an opinion like everybody else.
And his moronic opinions happen to be hopelessly past their sell-by date.
A Nobel Prize winner's expertise is irrelevant?? Just because we know he's a democrat? So it's okay to listen to right wing crazy's like coulter and o'reilly about politics, but not Krugman because he's a to left wing. right. You show me a commentator who is totally neutral and I'll eat my hat.
And he's been warning people about the downfall of the Bush administration for years. His work has even been published in a newspaper. The New York TImes.
jfk you are so unbelievably stupid that I'm actually embarrassed for anyone who knows you.
1- Explain how he isn't telling the truth. Did the economy not collapse and everyone just thinks it did?
2- How is he irrelevant? He won a Nobel Prize and is ranked as the 6th MOST RELEVANT economist in the world.
3- Being partisan doesn't mean you aren't telling the truth. While you and Krugman are both extremely partisan, just because you're talking out of your ass doesn't mean he is too.
JFK, I don't understand how you can possibly think you're correct.
I asked "explain how he isn't telling the truth" you answered "[he] is an ignoramus]
I had three other questions which you ignored as well, so come down off your high horse and realize that your life doesn't matter, Paul Krugman's does, and he's had influence and correct opinions where you've had neither.
What's going on is this laraM86, The American people who voted for the outgoing gang of criminals (who just left The White House) gave them enough votes to steal the presidential election, TWICE. Many Americans are willfully ignorant, stuck in political puberty and untroubled by the possibility of Sarah Palin and "the first dude" inheriting the White House. The arrogance and the ignorance of the people in this country who voted twice for Bush, does not bode well for the future of our country!
To ask Paul Krugman his opinion of the Bush Legacy is to ask Rush Limbaugh his opinion of the Clinton Legacy - is one expected to get a non-partisan opinion?!
My local newspaper, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, picks up Krugman's columns. I've YET to read a positive sentence about President Bush written by Krugman. To receive ANY perspective about Bush by Krugman, with even a glimmer of objectivity, is absurd.
President Bush kept the country safe after 9/11 by going AFTER the terrorists - and not appeasing them. Consequently, not a single terrorist incident happened on our shores after that horrid day.
He put in two stellar Supreme Court Justices that desire to interpret the Constitution instead of making law from the bench.
He stopped the scourge of AIDS in Africa through his policies. That continent has lionized him because of his efforts.
You asked for one; I gave you three; run out of space.
You can't take credit for keeping us safe SINCE 9/11 if you don't take the blame for letting us be attacked ON 9/11.
Not a single terrorist incident? So the STILL unsolved Anthrax attacks don't count? The DC Sniper doesn't count? The shoe-bomber who was only stopped by citizens on the plane doesn't?
He appointed "stellar" Supreme Court Justices... that's an entirely subjective thing, and do you forget that he tried to appoint Harriet Meyers and that met with disaster?
'You can't take credit for keeping us safe SINCE 9/11 if you don't take the blame for letting us be attacked ON 9/11.'
Simply absurd.
The previous administration allowed Osama Bin-Laden to run roughshod for two terms, with terrorists trying to blow-up the World Trade Center in 1993 and the U.S.S. Cole several years later.
The Clinton administration did NOTHING with regards to stopping terrorism.
NOTHING.
George Bush kept them on the defensive for the last SEVEN YEARS.
Yeah it's not like in August '01 Bush received a PDB titled "Bin Laden determined to strike within the US" that mentioned he was going to attack the World Trade Center with airplanes. Yeah no one could have seen this coming.
Also, our embassies have been getting bombed overseas, if you wanna get technical about it we do count them as "American soil," so does bombing them not count because it would inconvenience the bush legacy?
The August memo was as descriptive and as specific as 'You are going to go to work today. Be on the alert.' It was a generic memo that virtually said nothing. It was pointless.
Wow you officially are retarded, it said very clearly that Osama bin Laden was determined to strike within the US, likely at the World Trade Center, and likely using hijacked airplanes.
How much more specific do you feel an intelligence briefing needs to be? At what point does it become Bush's responsibility to act based upon this intelligence? If you received a note saying someone was going to break into your apartment next week, wouldn't you at least start locking your door?
It says Bin Laden 'is determined to strike in the United States.'
It says NOTHING about bombing the World Trade Center (although it implies that Bin Laden would like to follow in the footsteps of Ramzi Yousef, the '93 WTC bomber).
it says NOTHING about hijacking airplanes.
The entire memo is vague; it's impossible to follow-up on anything it says..
I think you DO suffer from 'Bush Derangement Syndrome!'
Bush was one of the most irresponsible presidents in history however, Obama is quickly going to out-do him, in my opinion.
Regardless of how you feel about the wars, I hope you don't support these retarded "Stimulus packages" and bailouts that Washington seems to love these days.
It's time for Americans to re-read their history, their constitution and the words of their founders.
"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none" - Thomas Jefferson
'Not a single terrorist incident? So the STILL unsolved Anthrax attacks don't count? The DC Sniper doesn't count? The shoe-bomber who was only stopped by citizens on the plane doesn't?'
The Anthrax scare was days after 9/11 - nothing since.
The DC sniper wasn't a 'terrorist;' he was a mass murderer - who had NOTHING to do with terrorism (yeesh!)
The shoe bomber, like everyone since, was caught - no damage done.
Obviously, you're grasping - which only proves my original point.
The shoe bomber was caught by a citizen sitting next to them on the plane, he bypassed Bush's counterterrorism efforts and intelligence , as well as all the new airport security. To give Bush credit for that is absurd, it's like a fisherman taking credit when a bear kills a salmon.
The DC sniper was "terrorizing" people, you can't say the guy who killed American citizens to scare people wasn't a terrorist but the guys who died killing American citizens ARE terrorists, you're the one grasping.
You're correct in that the shoe-bomber was caught by other people on the plane. So what? The fact is that he was caught! The President is irrevelant to the story.
The DC sniper was a mass murderer, the kind of person who exists regardless of who's president. He wasn't an Islamofascist thug flying planes into buildings or bombing buildings - which, as I originally stated, has NOT happened since 9/11. You and I both know that, you're simply unwilling to admit it.
Explain how you can possibly credit Bush with keeping America safe when regular citizens had to save a plane full of people when counterterrorism and airport security failed. Does flight 93 not count as a terrorist attack because the passengers managed to overthrow the terrorists and cause the plane to crash in a field?
"the kind of person who exists regardless of who's president"
Well by that logic all the terrorists in the world are mass murderers and not terrorists, because they still exist.
What in the world are you talking about? Flight 93 was part of the horror of 9/11. After that heinous day, President Bush - in spite of the bile that he endured for the rest of his presidency - took the terrorists to task and kept them on the run for the next seven years.
He kept us safe - period.
A terrorist is an individual who hates America, is usually a Muslim, is foreign, and murders innocents in the name of his god.
The DC sniper is typical of an American murderer who kills.
You said that the shoebomber doesn't count as a terrorist attack because citizens stopped him.
Flight 93 was stopped by citizens, and using your logic, it was not a terrorist attack because citizens stopped it.
The oath of office includes "protect us from threats both foreign AND DOMESTIC" you can have domestic terrorists you moron, what was Timothy McVeigh? and you don't have to murder for your god, the IRA committed terrorist acts for purely political purposes. And they can hate ANY country
The #1 tool for recruiting by Bin Laden and those like him is the motivation created by Foreign Occupation
America has more enemies today than ever before, and if you read about the reasons they attack us, you quickly discover that"Foreign Occupation is a very common factor.
Robert Pape's study proved this.
America has more enemies and is less safe than ever before!
I strongly disagree with you here.
If the troops agreed with you they wouldve supported McCain or Obama, not Ron Paul.
"He stopped the scourge of AIDS in Africa through his policies."
Are you retarded? This is PATENTLY UNTRUE. Last year there were 2 million NEW cases of AIDS in just Sub-Saharan Africa, and 1.5 million deaths from AIDS, which are record highs. Explain how in any way that is stopped.
Seriously, you're saying that record numbers of new AIDS cases and deaths is Bush "stopping" AIDS... you are UNBELIEVABLY stupid
Well, I guess you'll have to call President Obama 'UNBELIEVABLY stupid' along with me since he praised Bush's work in fighting AIDS in Africa.
In Obama's words, ' I salute President Bush for his leadership in crafting a plan for AIDS relief in Africa and backing it up with funding dedicated to saving lives and preventing the spread of the disease (12/08)'
As a result of Bush's plan, 2 million people received lifesaving drugs + nearly 250,000 babies were born HIV-free.
There's a difference between fighting and stopping something. Bush is fighting terrorism, he hasn't STOPPED it. He's fighting AIDS, he hasn't STOPPED it. Bush has had basically no effect on the epidemic of AIDS in Africa, he could actually be significantly more effective but he's pushing abstinence only education instead of including condoms, which is why I count this as a failure.
Does it not bother you that the closest thing to success you've come up with happened in AFRICA and not the USA?
Yes, President Bush took it upon himself to fight it - with the obvious attempt to stop it.
It's an enormous undertaking - and on the terrorism front, he was successful (no attacks), and on the AIDS front, he was also successful. Has he completely stopped the disease? Of course not - but my point is that hundreds of thousands of lives were saved - and you should offer him gratitude for that.
Are you capable of doing that?...or do you have a permanent case of 'Bush Derangement Syndrome?'
Yeah, how silly of me, I should be praising President Bush that we got horrifically attacked by terrorists only once.
Explain how a murderer who kills just to inspire fear isn't a terrorist, because that's basically the definition of a terrorist. So the anthrax attacks, DC sniper, and shoebomber ALL count as terrorist attacks.
Hundreds of thousands of lives were not saved, this past year saw record levels of new AIDS cases and AIDS deaths, how is a record high in any way an accomplishment?
Let's look at the Pros and Cons here: Con: less than useless on Katrina and Rita unnecessary war in Iraq mismanaged war in Afghanistan did not catch Bin Laden economy collapsed war crimes (waterboarding) crumbling infrastructure completely ignored Darfur pushed for Palestinian elections which Hamas won PROS apparently slightly decreased the rate at which AIDS is increasing in Africa nothing good happened here
Everybody in Mississippi and other parts of Louisiana picked themselves up and repaired their cities - and never complained. You NEVER heard ANYTHING from those areas hit by Katrina.
Yet, the people of New Orleans, accustomed and conditioned to receive government assistance cradle-to-grave (Democratic policies), complained like crazy and the media ate it up...and that's ALL you heard for months!
Katrina wasn't Bush's fault - and it's pathetic to blame him.
Katrina wasn't his fault, the complete incompetence in handling it was.
Lack of investment and upkeep in the infrastructure led to substandard levies that could not withstand the hurricane. Holland has levies that could withstand a storm 10x the size of Katrina
Severe shortage of food and water relief
Failure to communicate left people in the superdome for an extra 24 hours.
I agree with you completely - and what you saw was the incompetence of government at every level (federal/state/local); New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin blaming the President, the governor blaming Nagin and the President, etc.)
If YOU were in New Orleans, what would YOU have done? Would you have left the city DAYS before (like everybody did that I personally knew)...or would you have stayed and allowed an incompetent government to tell you what to do?!?
It's clear that you suffer from 'Bush Derangement Syndrome.' No matter what the guy did - or could do - it would never suit you. The accusations you throw at this guy are so off the mark, it's genuinely sad to think about it.
Good luck in life - I think you're going to need it...
Wait... You're saying that New Orleans was the only place that complained about Katrina? And it's because they were used to getting federal aide? You don't think it had anything to do with their city being 7 feet underwater, them being stuck on their roofs for days, not receiving enough food and water supplies, and living in general squalor for WAY longer than is acceptable?
God, what silly democratic policies, giving flood victims food and water when their homes get destroyed...
If you're stuck on your roof, then you get either get off the roof and swim - or try and find a neighbor to help. The absolute LAST thing ANY sane person would do is get ON a roof and hope that the government in Washington, D.C. - 1,500 miles away - is going to save you!! That's my point.
When you're conditioned to believe that government is going to meet every single need in your life - and you don't have to lift a finger - then you reap what you sow...and New Orleans reaped what they sowed.
Has Rush won a nobel prize or ever lectured at university level. You sound like a complete redneck to put Limbaugh in the same category as Krugman. Jackass.
Bush administration was lying? A shocker!
Thejbirdy 5 days ago
you want a medal or a cookie?
clydrobe 3 weeks ago
bush did what he was supposed to do as a conservative, lowered taxes on the rich, started a (unfunded) war, restricted civil liberties, fiddled as our unregulated financial system cannablized our economy....basically was a succesful president when you consider 'what he was elected to do'
obama on the other hand has been a complete failure under the same definition, basically take all the above points on bush & apply them to obama , who was elected under the (guise) slogan of 'change'
aztecadog 1 month ago in playlist Politics + Policy
George W. Bush performed his function: He basically eliminated taxes for the Super-Rich... Other than that, he was a complete fuck-up!
CosmicFork 1 month ago
I almost respected big think until I saw they had videos with Krugman.
daPlumber702 2 months ago
Watch, if Perry gets a huge war chest you'll see he is that guy. Obama had one too, and apparently much of that was small donations but ultimately we don't know and in fact he found a lot of support by wall street firms like GS and then you see in fact wall street is protected and not punished ultimately for the collapse and the shadowy 600 trillion derivative markets is still operating. Either Obama is legit or a wolf in sheep clothing to appear not corrupt but in the end, well.....
Foreshadow44 4 months ago
By that logic it means pay 200+ million and get a potential 1..3 trillion in tax relief. I would say that was good investment. It is not genius then to see of all the candidates in 2000 when you hear 'war chest 200 mil' and he doesn't have to follow rules for matching funds that clearly something suspicious is afoot, and history proved that right. What does that mean? Well look at 2012 election, and see who is bank rolled the most
Foreshadow44 4 months ago
I said that same thing because it was obvious. If you looked at Bush before 2000 he had a 200+ 'war chest' and it was clearly he was being heavily bankrolled by people who had a clear agenda they were willing to invest in and buy the Presidency (in effect; or at least have a seat at the table and have the 'ear of the President'. Then you hear about politicians who get a relatively small amount of money and some interest gets a major contract or kickback. Bush resulted in 1.3 trillion in tax cuts
Foreshadow44 4 months ago
How can you get more wrong than Krugman?
joesparks1 4 months ago
@joesparks1 With George Bush
JcKantelope 4 months ago
Paul Krugman is a total douche bag. I hate him.
TheDukeljk 5 months ago
George W. Bush performed his function, he basically eliminated taxes for the very wealthy. In every other way his presidency was a disaster for the country.
CosmicFork 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please note that my book Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Shaped Modern Economics is published by W.W.Norton in October.
Professor John B.Taylor says that: “Nicholas Wapshott brings the Keynes-Hayek fight of the 20th century back to life, making the clash both entertaining and highly relevant for understanding economic crises of the 21st century.”
Read an extract at: sites.google.com/site/wapshottkeyneshayek/
Nicholas Wapshott
nhwapshott 7 months ago
yeah you knew something most journalists don't. double speak works, people don't care to actually see that you've had opposing views on EVERY subject
Visfen 8 months ago
paul is not only a journalist. he's a nobel prize winning economist
2198842317 9 months ago
@2198842317 I'm so sad we gave him that one. He's such a dick.
Visfen 8 months ago
This guy is the ultimate hypocrite....talking about Bush lying....and then there's Barry Obama who claims we will pay down the cost of the "stimulus" program and he's done nothing whatsoever to that effect. Bush, dishonest? Yes. Obama, dishonest? Yes, just as much as Bush.
meccaturbo 9 months ago
@meccaturbo How is he a hypocrite? You obviously don't read Krugman because he always criticizes Obama.
captainspirou 5 months ago
@captainspirou He is a hypocrite (or dishonest is probably a better word) because he said he did his math and that is what made him realize Bush was not to be trusted. Yet he is a huge advocate of Obama's health care bill which will very obviously raise health care costs. Obama is really like "super" Bush when it comes to the economy.
mixmastermeeks 5 months ago
@mixmastermeeks Huge advocate? You're just making stuff up. Krugman always said that the healthcare plan needed the public option and was highly critical when the president left that out. When the bill was about to pass he said it was a bad deal but that it should be passed because it was better to have a bad bill we can fix then no bill at all. I will agree with you that Obama actually isn't that much better then Bush for the economy. But you don't need to make stuff up.
captainspirou 5 months ago
@captainspirou So again, he criticized Bush for his mildley progressive policies to push for more progressive policies. Bush was not to be trusted because Krugman knew his arithmatic....but somehow Obama's math was better? was this the same math that told us if we spent 1 trillion dollars we would not go over 8% unemployment? Be honest with yourself.
mixmastermeeks 5 months ago
@captainspirou I don't think you can even read at elementary school level. Go get your GED, you loser...i'm sure your libtard buddies will provide some free cash for your education.
meccaturbo 5 months ago
@meccaturbo I'm a libertarian. But I don't play around with facts. You should learn how to win an argument without resorting to lies.
captainspirou 5 months ago
@captainspirou You should learn how to win an argument without resorting to being an idiot.
meccaturbo 5 months ago
Bernanke's beard > Krugman's
Trimbler00 9 months ago
Funny how we didn't hear a peep from Krugman about arithmetic when Obama was double counting Medicare and his new program.
Eagles2777 10 months ago
@Eagles2777 He did. There isn't double counting and there never was. The entire controversy stems from a Democratic congressman misspeaking during an interview. Neither the administration or the CBO said it.
SPQRomantic 5 months ago
Paul Krugman has a very high opinion of Paul Krugman.
aaasssfffdddiii 10 months ago
how is this "big think"? unless big think means big dorky liberal whiny stuff
jonathanlippe 11 months ago
the legacy of bush won't be fully perceptible before the whole truth about the attacks in new york and washington in 2001 will be known.
zobielamouche1 11 months ago
krugman is such a tool. TONS of people hated and mistrusted Bush from the start. wtf is he talking about?
Tallaias 1 year ago
@Tallaias yes, tons of people "hated and mistrusted Bush from the start". many others wait to make judgements based on evidence
manonthemount 1 month ago in playlist Politics + Policy
what a stupid comment to make. you can hate someone from the start based on evidence. like if the first thing you see of someone is something proving them not to be trusted. NEXT.
Tallaias 1 month ago
most americans liked george w. bush. it took the majority of americans 5 years to figure out he was bad news. how pathetic. now most americans have forgotten about him. that is pathetic too.
exbronco1980 1 year ago
@exbronco1980 youre an idiot. the majority of people in the USA did NOT vote for Bush in his first election. he lost the popular vote. so much for your theory that it took 5 years to figure out he was bad news. moron.
Tallaias 1 year ago
@Tallaias um, he did win the popular vote in 2004. Nobody tried to impeach him after that, and nobody's charged him with anything. by the way, you should learn some manners.
exbronco1980 1 year ago
He was funnier in Get Him to the Greek
nickypeeps 1 year ago
Lying about the numbers is the clearest sign of not being trustworthy??
Krugman should recrunch his numbers on his 'Icelandic Miracle' aka lie, article.
123delzotto 1 year ago
youtube: fox news lies
MrBishopWalters 1 year ago
Comment removed
MrBishopWalters 1 year ago
We've been listening to the Krugmans of the world for 60 years. Where are we today? Speeding towards the abyss that will land us in back in the dark ages.
Sivels 1 year ago
I'm very confused how someone who supposedly knows economics can be a Liberal. Goes to show you, being really learned does not make you immune to idiocy.
ebeatworld 1 year ago
@ebeatworld Your confused because your a Fox News Guppie.
MrBishopWalters 1 year ago
@MrBishopWalters Um, okay? I don't even watch TV, bud.
But you seem a bit grammatically confused with how to use the proper "your" or "you're" in a sentence.
ebeatworld 1 year ago
Krugman you are as big of a crook as Bush bigger government, steal from one group and give to another, and continue to feed the beast of corporate america. Bush, Obama, Bernanke, Krugman all part of the same seven headed dragon.
meixler17 1 year ago
The neo-cons are self-evident frauds. But don't forget that Democrats built the ORIGINAL case against Iraq (If anything, G.W. Bush simply continued Clinton's interventionalist foreign policy, even though he campaigned on a "humble" foreign policy.) Bill Clinton made regime change in Iraq official U.S. policy in 1998 with the Iraq Liberation Act. Obama's Secretary of State voted for the Iraq War. What more do you need to know about liberal "purity?" Krugman is a petty political whore.
ICONOCI 1 year ago 6
@ICONOCI If the neo-cons were such "self-evident frauds" then how were the two criminals: Bush/Cheney able to garner enough votes to steal not one, (but probably two) presidential elections?
CosmicFork 3 months ago
Libertarians. Libertarians everywhere.
mf91007 1 year ago
@mf91007 I guess you mean Right-wing Libertarians!!! Remember there are some of us who tend to be more of a leftist-libertarian.
Achilles9924 1 year ago
@Achilles9924 Good point. I do a lot of black and white thinking. When you spend your adolesence on the internet, you expose yourself to complex issues that you have no damn clue about. Ah, to be young and naive!
mf91007 1 year ago
@mf91007 Being exposed to issues and making your mind about issues are two different things. Honestly speaking if you spend your time on the internet a lot then you have to know where you can get reliable information from, Wikipedia and youtube are definitely not one of those sites. Youtube is filled with right-wing libertarians whose definition of liberty is based on conservative American ideas. Technically, from a certain perspective socialism can be equated with ultimate liberty as well.
Achilles9924 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Obama = better than Bush
michmike15 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Capitalism, Corporate or State dominated or In It together is the wage slavery of immense humanity for abstract process of Capital accumulation and concentration for the elite, 250 top corporations control over 1/3 of the world GDP. More than 3 billion workers are on 2 dollars a day. Capitalism is template of perpetual war,oppression,enviornmental destructions,animal cruelty and suffering, A dehumanising distorting minority imposition in thier inatiable drive for ever more Profit no matter what
arzoyan 1 year ago
Study finds Paul Krugman is the most partisan economist. Krugman was the only economist to "significantly" change his stances for partisan reasons. Krugman has even gone so far as to contradict his own findings to bash Republican politicians. - Brett Barkley, Econ Journal Watch, May 2010
islandmuffin 1 year ago
The peer-reviewed research was published in May 2010 issue of the Econ Journal Watch (EJW), edited by Daniel B. Klein.
Seven Nobel laureates are members of the EJW Advisory Council.
islandmuffin 1 year ago
Congratulations, Paul. What are your predictions on the Obama policies? Are they arithmetically adding up? Are there columns you've written on this matter? Did Congress and Obama not lie about the numbers with the healthcare bill? Finally, how accurate were your forecasts of the housing bubble and recession recovery? I mean this guy is a complete hypocrite. Liberals only genuflect upon this guy's alter because he provides them with economic backing no matter what.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
Krugman winning a Nobel proves that the award means jack shit!
ericclaptonismygod31 1 year ago
I do not understand whad bush was supposed to do for the people who are now taxed at a negetive rate. yes they pay payroll taxes normally 7.65% social security and medicare plus the state income taxes, and then they get a check the following year for all that and then some. Should he have just given them a larger check in the following year. the statements that the rax cuts all went to the rich are misleading as they pay a vast majority of the taxes.
tubbymanbat 1 year ago
Wake up call: no politician is to be trusted, not Bush, not Clinton and not this new, sparkling jewel of false hope either. He's already proven to be a liar.
Politicians never change, don't buy the rhetoric.
nmsQ 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What a moron Krugman is
Calbenmike 2 years ago
Only morons win Nobel prizes in Economics. Those book reading city folks don't know anything, you can't trust them. You can only trust in your trailer and your truck.
ToquiGambit 2 years ago 3
If you think the Nobel Prize is nothing more than a tool used by Liberals to give credibility to leftist ideology then you are a fool
jjrglobal 1 year ago
Do you even understand Krugman's analysis of trade patterns?
ToquiGambit 1 year ago
I've never read his analysis on trade patterns, as I doubt you have either, but I know that he's a Liberal hack that believes in Keynesian economics. Keynes theories were proved disastrously wrong in the 70's when stagflation took place, but then again so has communism in the 80's. One thing we can learn from history is that we will never learn from history
jjrglobal 1 year ago
Actually considering the extreme amounts of deficits Reagan ran up, turning the US from the greatest creditor nation into the world's biggest debtor nation, how can you say that Keynesian economics was ever dead after the Seventies?
You think SDI and other military industrial complex wastes of money weren't a government stimulus? Government and government spending *grew* under the very people who campaigned and pontificated that government should be small.
OolTube02 1 year ago
I wasn't for the extreme deficits that Reagan run up in the military, but the military is one of the very few things that the federal gov is actually constitutionally responsible for. Keynesian economics doesn't work, never has , never will. We were prosperous despite all the spending not because of it.
jjrglobal 1 year ago
Well, first of all the contention that government is only allowed to spend money on killing people, not feeding them, makes you sound like a social Darwinist douche.
Second, even if you were right then that would make the Founding Fathers just as sociopathic as you come across. (They certainly were regarding slavery.)
And third, you are not right. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to tax and spend for COMMON DEFENSE and GENERAL WELFARE in the same line!
OolTube02 1 year ago
Anyone who has read the Federalist Papers or has even a tiny grasp of what the founders intended knows that the "general welfare" clause meant general security, which is why the common defense part is right before it. You are perverting the words to fit your cause. They certainly were not using the word welfare as we do today. I did not say that we should have preemptive undeclared wars, we should follow the constitution.
jjrglobal 1 year ago
Also you were prosperous because you were (and still are) a huge, relatively underpopulated country full of natural resources in a climatic Goldilocks zone.
Even today your population density is only a fourth of that of the European Union.
But your future is one of an increasing population and dwindling resources. The crisis of the 1970s was in part a result of the fact that domestic oil had just peaked. Today's crisis is catalyzed by global peak oil.
Ignore logistics at your own peril!
OolTube02 1 year ago
I've heard that argument before, but it really just doesn't hold any water. There are plenty of places on the planet with more natural resources and similar climate as the US that don't have nearly the economic growth. Freedom is what makes the difference, plain and simple.
jjrglobal 1 year ago
@jjrglobal Read David Noble's "Forces of Production" and you can see what is so special about the American system.
PatrickWJ 1 year ago
@PatrickWJ
Yeah, you know I dont put much credence in the writings of Ted Kaczynski, so why would I give much to David Nobles scriblings? He's a whack job to the nth degree. Anyone that says they are against technology is an idiot, same goes for people that believe in "social justice".
jjrglobal 1 year ago
@jjrglobal Well you should read his "scriblings" because even though you're confused enough to compare the quality of David Noble's writings to the Unibomber's, the arguments are what is important. Anyway, when you starting getting serious you'll realize that the American economy is driven by federal subsidies, not freedom. Btw, ever heard of Newton, Van Gough, Nash, Churchill, Poe, Beethoven? They're all people you call "whack job[s]"; please think more.
PatrickWJ 1 year ago
@jjrglobal Also, name some places on earth with the level of natural resources and comparative geographic advantages that the United States has.
PatrickWJ 1 year ago
@PatrickWJ Holy shit, you're kidding right? You think our natural resources are the reason why we succeeded while others failed? The subsidies you mention are the problem, no argument here. We should do away with all them. I thought this discussion was about economics and economists, what do these people have to do with economics?Let me guess,youre an artist or a musician?Dont start trying to read my mind, I'll let you know my feelings on authors as their subject arises. No more obfuscation.
jjrglobal 1 year ago
@jjrglobal I'm still waiting for those places on earth that have more geographic and natural resource advantages. The thinkers I mentioned are people that produced serious work even though they suffered from mental illness. As for your question, "What did these people have to do with economics?" Well, John Nash had a lot to do with economics. Also, if you took away federal subsidies to high-tech, what would drive the economy? There would be no internet or computers.
PatrickWJ 1 year ago
@PatrickWJ
Which companies are getting subsidies in the tech sector, specifically?
If they are its news to me. Countries with as much or more natural resources than the US, there are so many. Lets start with the big ones, RUSSIA, South Africa, Australia, Most of Western Europe, the middle east, even Zimbabwe. Our natural resources helped of course, but there are plenty of examples of other countries that have not had nearly the success with just as much natural resources
jjrglobal 1 year ago
@PatrickWJ
As for Nash, he was a mathematician He came up with game theory, which I dont really consider to be part of the foundation of real economics. Lets put it this way, he's no Von Mises or Hayek, or even Rothbard or Freidman. I didnt know he was considered an economist and I've studied economics for over 20 years
jjrglobal 1 year ago
@jjrglobal There is no foundation of "real" economics. Economics is a broad field of study that has artificially been consolidated into a discipline; it's very similar to "urban planning." It doesn't belong in the sciences. The countries you listed DO NOT have more resources and geographic advantages. I would need to expound upon that but it wouldn't be difficult. Zimbabwe has more resources than the United States. Also, take a look at the scholarship referencing David Noble the "whack job."
PatrickWJ 1 year ago
@PatrickWJ
Sure there is a foundation to real economics, check out the Austrian School of Economics it is the foundation of real economics. Are you saying that Zimbabwe doesnt have natural resources? Which companies in the tech sector are getting subsidies?
jjrglobal 1 year ago
@jjrglobal I'm saying that Zimb doesn't have more resources than the US nor any of the other countries you mentioned. It's not just about resources, it is also about a strategic geographic location. I don't know of another country as strategically located as the US. Pretty much every high-tech defense firm receives massive government subsidies: Raytheon, BAE, Lockhead - no secret. If something is developed from the publicly funded research, great, patent goes to prvt sctr, if not, no big deal.
PatrickWJ 1 year ago
@PatrickWJ
On a per capita basis, all the countries I listed are richer in natural resources. Africa is the richest natural resource continent on the planet but even if they weren't you are still missing the point. Freedom from government was the main driving force behind our success, which is why almost every nation on the planet now has more economic freedom than ever before, they adopted our model. Just because the government buys products from a company does not mean that it is subsidized
jjrglobal 1 year ago
@PatrickWJ
You want an example of economic freedom whoopin ass with NO natural resources, look no further than Japan. What do you credit their success with, sushi?
Your conclusions about what drives economic growth border on the retarded.
jjrglobal 1 year ago
I know it has something to do with goods not necessarily being made were the resources are. Like Japanese steel
jjrglobal 1 year ago
I know that without looking that shit up too, and I may be completely wrong, but I'm certain you looked up something about Krugman as a smart ass question to prove your brilliance
jjrglobal 1 year ago
@ToquiGambit, haha n1 :D
Darusdei 1 year ago
@ToquiGambit
F.A. Hayek won the nobel prize. How much of his work have you read? Your narrow-minded usage of two party trench warfare politics is cute, too. It's the kind of thing that really gets a country moving forward.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile and where are all the countries operating in libertopian bliss right now?
michmike15 1 year ago
@ToquiGambit Your comment probably sums up all the stupidity in America, sorry, there can't be any denying that.
NihilTico 1 year ago
@ToquiGambit what kind of brainwashed, degenerated inbred motherfucking white trash are you?
hahnenkampf88 1 year ago
Krugman's favourite novel is Atlas Shrugged.
fomastephanovitch 2 years ago
? no it isn't.
xlilxandyx 2 years ago
i can point out articles where Krugman called for a housing bubble
EchoesUnlimited 2 years ago
No you can't. Because Krugman didn't call for a housing bubble. Turn off Faux News and read the entire piece rather than take something out of context to support your lies. Typical Bushee Republican.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago 6
What Krugman called for was increased investment in new homes as a *temporary* measure to get out of the 2001 recession. He certainly didn't advocate for a runaway housing price inflation throughout the next seven years. Accusing him of that would be a bit like blaming someone for a traffic accident because ten intersections ago he told the driver, "go straight here!"
OolTube02 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
Antiks72 2 years ago 13
@Antiks72 You can trust politicians, you just can't trust them to do what they say or "hint" they will do.
But if you ever can get a politician to talk straight with you, like Bernie Sanders or Ron Paul, you can trust they will do it.
Sadly, in a political system like the one of the US, none of them will ever be allowed to become president. When Obama was elected, my first thought was "What a politician", not "What a guy, he will fix that country".
freedomthrough 10 months ago
@Antiks72
krugman was talking about WHY bush couldn't be trusted even before the 2000 election, and giving the supporting evidence. We can say no politician should be trusted, and that may get a few thumbs up. but that's not really a bold statement. on the other hand, we can do some further analysis like krugman and show that bush was one of the worst presidents this country ever had, if not THE worst, and show supporting evidence, and that would make anything Obama's done pale in comparison.
cciemail 7 months ago
@Antiks72
none of these selected politicians shouldn't be trusted? You realize you just said all politicians should be trusted, don't you?
GnomesAmok 4 months ago
the 62,000,000 people who voted for him in 04 should be ashamed of themselves, though i doubt many of them are. he's still popular in the south and the midwest.
exbronco1980 2 years ago
In the long run Kerry would have been far more moderate than Obama in thei psychotic spending.
FUZZYisBIG 2 years ago
Bush is in fact rather reviled in much of the Midwest.
hoodoo961 2 years ago
Perhaps from the balcony of the upper class media, recognizing Bush as a bad choice before he became President is considered a remarkable insight. From the ground view, however, it was obvious all along.
Snoopies622 2 years ago 29
i wish it had been obvious to more ground viewers
exbronco1980 2 years ago 2
@Snoopies622 If it was so obvious from the ground then why did he win twice? I'm not a Bush supporter - I think he was one of the worst presidents in history - but it's hard not to notice the public's role in his disastrous tenure.
baseballnolie34 1 year ago
@baseballnolie34 Good question. I guess it wasn't obvious to everybody on the ground (at least not in the red states).
Snoopies622 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So KrugMan, have you checked Obama's numbers. You said Bush was "lying. They're not being honest about what they're proposing". Is Obama being honest about what he's proposing? He is ramming his Socialist agenda down our throats at breakneck speed. But that's OK. I guess JOe the Plumber and Sarah Palin know a Socialist when they see one. I guess they're not that dumb, really.
johnlen3 2 years ago
Your ideology is getting in the way. Krugman is saying that Bush's numbers didn't add up. Obama, socialist or whatever, has been consistent. His tax plan is exactly what he promised. Krugman is right. Obama honestly stated his intentions. Bush didn't.
StanrickKubley 2 years ago 4
no, they are that dumb
exbronco1980 2 years ago
Hey Clay, you left wing, partison hackjob, why don't you tell me where we have been attacked since 911? Your talking points are played out and quit stale.
Well you got your wish, we now have a socialist pretending to be president. Sit back and watch as America burns. We are definately unsafe now. You morons make me sick to my stomach.
Bodoe9196 2 years ago
They are not attacking us here because now they can comfortably attack us in their neighborhood while our army is stretched into nothing.
Dont worry, you republicans still won the slave states and you'll win them again!
kanani717 2 years ago
1) It was called the "solid south" because it always voted Democrat because Abraham Lincoln (the guy who freed the slaves N' all) was a Republican!
2) I agree, the war in Iraq was a complete waste and an expansion of government. Ron Paul represents true Republicanism. Look him up if you have any interest in learning : )
TimeWarp66 2 years ago
Are you kidding? In "freeing them" you meant that they left blacks uneducated, without rights so they could be abused in the labor market. Abolition was just a tool against the south in the civil war,the party didnt do it for moral reasons. They simply thought of a better way to exploit blacks. Lincoln made very clear in his speeches that he didnt support equal rights for blacks. Abolition wasnt even the republicans idea. They stole it from the abolishionist party.
Paul is cool though.
kanani717 2 years ago
?????
Would you prefer we left them as slaves? What the hell is the alternative?
Okay, how can you compliment Ron Paul and bash true conservatism? Granted the Republican party today is full of war mongers and religious know-nothings but the Libertarian wing of the people is what conservatism used to be, and God willing, will be again!
TimeWarp66 2 years ago
I wouldnt prefer to let them be slaves, my point is that they treated colored people no better than the slave owners, and if they actually cared they would have given them equal rights...but they didnt IT WAS A SCAM. So you cant actually give them credit for "freeing slaves".
Im a liberal (not a democrap, Im a Nader guy), but I like Ron Paul's stance on foreign policy, civil liberties, immigration, gun rights, the federal reserve, & abortion.I didnt bash true conservatism.
kanani717 2 years ago
Dude. no offense, but you just displayed an immense amount of ignorance, it's staggering
i despise socialism and left politics. I am VERY conservative, by definition of the word and believe in the Free-Market, NOT socialism OR collectivism.
What are you talking about? In my opinion, Obama is Bush on freaking steroids. Increased government, increased spending, More undeclared wars etc
Stop playing left vs. Right... it's coming down to Americans vs Government
Bush wasnt your friend!
Wake up
Claytrainor 2 years ago
Re-read what i said, and try to challenge ACTUAL points, not just insult.
You emotional Right-wingers and left-wingers are causing more damage to the country than you realize.
You are no longer at war, stop kidding yourself. You are now "Occupying" foreign nations... 140 of them to be exact... and you are going into a depression.
Obama isn't doing anything different than bush in terms of the Constitution.
Do you really think Bush did a good job?
500,000+ Dead iraqi children say otherwise
Claytrainor 2 years ago
Troops and veterans also disagree with you, Bush and Obama.
They supported Ron Paul more than all of the other candidates COMBINED, during the primaries.
Time for you to stop following party lines, and read your constitution!
Claytrainor 2 years ago
Your take is meaningless. Whether troops voted for paul or not is irrelevant to whether he was the right candidate (he wasn't).
jackdav34 2 years ago
While i agree, the troops take directives and not give orders, i think it speaks volumes that they support the candidate who wants to end their mission overseas and bring them home.
Ron Paul was the right candidate, but america has lost it's essence and has forgotten about it's constitution.
They now believe they are a democracy..
"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide." - John Adams.
Claytrainor 2 years ago 2
Ron Paul believes in dangerous economic policies. But i do like his foreign policies.
MaxwellBennett 2 years ago
Ron Paul was pretty much the only man in Washington who was able to predict this recession with any accuracy at all
His policies are not dangerous, they are exactly what we need. Free-market solutions, and less government control of resources.
I agree Ron Paul's foreign policy is awesome, and is based on nothing but constitutional logic. The same goes for his Economics policies
Those who think more regulations, taxes and bailouts are some sort of "solution" will have a harsh wakeup call soon
Claytrainor 2 years ago
regulate all you want, it won't save a corrupt system.
America's economics system is now based on a mix of Crony-Capitalism and socialism. It is not a free-market, and hasn't been in many decades.
Those who blame the free-market for America's problems, simply have no concept of what a free-market is, and why America isn't even close to one at this point in history.
Claytrainor 2 years ago 3
WTF? You're an economic illiterate if you would label Dr. Paul's economic policies as "dangerous". Freedom, and the right to hold on to your pay check is dangerous? Tool.
TimeWarp66 2 years ago 2
The right to hold on to our paychecks could be considered dangerous TimeWarp66, how else would our government get money
JSimp41 2 years ago
look up the "Fair Tax"
TimeWarp66 2 years ago
Wouldn't that proposal slash the revenue the U.S. government is receiving? Due to the complexity and mathematical theory based arguing that would surely ensure if i disagreed, all I have to say is "sure" and ask why hasn't it been implemented yet.
JSimp41 2 years ago
well, I would certainly like to see revenue to the U.S. government decreased to about 10% of GDP, but implimenting the Fair Tax could produce the same, higher or less revenue. It all depends on how high you set the taxes on products. The reason it hasn't been implemented is b/c their are thousands of special interests who benefit from our progressive income tax system. Tax aternies...etc.
TimeWarp66 2 years ago
I do not think Troops should dictate policy, but i do believe their voices should matter when they are the ones suffering the greatest losses of this foreign policy.
Also, my take is no more meaningless than yours. You said "He wasn't" as if you're justified.
You simply touted your opinion and provided nothing of substance.
Claytrainor 2 years ago 2
"Hey Clay, you left wing, partison hackjob"
Interesting introduction to a hyperpartisan harangue. Can someone say hypocrite?
aaronro1234 2 years ago
I don't get you people. A Nobel Prize Laureate is trying to explain in the simplest way possible how the Bush administration is partially responsible for the recession and all you have to say is he's a moron, and we can't trust him. He's not yelling at you or anybody, he's calmly braving your insults to tell you the truth about the Bush administration. Why don't you read a book on the subject and see for yourselves, if you don't actually want to LISTEN to what Krugman is telling everybody.
laraM86 3 years ago 3
He's not telling the "truth" about anything. His economic expertise is irrelevant, because he is not an impartial expert offering a fair-minded analysis. He's a strident hyperpartisan ideologue with an opinion like everybody else.
And his moronic opinions happen to be hopelessly past their sell-by date.
jfk60 3 years ago
A Nobel Prize winner's expertise is irrelevant?? Just because we know he's a democrat? So it's okay to listen to right wing crazy's like coulter and o'reilly about politics, but not Krugman because he's a to left wing. right. You show me a commentator who is totally neutral and I'll eat my hat.
And he's been warning people about the downfall of the Bush administration for years. His work has even been published in a newspaper. The New York TImes.
laraM86 3 years ago
jfk you are so unbelievably stupid that I'm actually embarrassed for anyone who knows you.
1- Explain how he isn't telling the truth. Did the economy not collapse and everyone just thinks it did?
2- How is he irrelevant? He won a Nobel Prize and is ranked as the 6th MOST RELEVANT economist in the world.
3- Being partisan doesn't mean you aren't telling the truth. While you and Krugman are both extremely partisan, just because you're talking out of your ass doesn't mean he is too.
4- See #2.
ShinigamiKage 3 years ago
Thanks for your intelligent analysis.
Permit me to be succinct: Your pal Krugman is an ignoramus — and a bloody obnoxious one.
Do him a favor and show him a calendar.
Have a nice life.
jfk60 3 years ago
JFK, I don't understand how you can possibly think you're correct.
I asked "explain how he isn't telling the truth" you answered "[he] is an ignoramus]
I had three other questions which you ignored as well, so come down off your high horse and realize that your life doesn't matter, Paul Krugman's does, and he's had influence and correct opinions where you've had neither.
ShinigamiKage 3 years ago
What's going on is this laraM86, The American people who voted for the outgoing gang of criminals (who just left The White House) gave them enough votes to steal the presidential election, TWICE. Many Americans are willfully ignorant, stuck in political puberty and untroubled by the possibility of Sarah Palin and "the first dude" inheriting the White House. The arrogance and the ignorance of the people in this country who voted twice for Bush, does not bode well for the future of our country!
CosmicFork 3 years ago 2
To ask Paul Krugman his opinion of the Bush Legacy is to ask Rush Limbaugh his opinion of the Clinton Legacy - is one expected to get a non-partisan opinion?!
My local newspaper, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, picks up Krugman's columns. I've YET to read a positive sentence about President Bush written by Krugman. To receive ANY perspective about Bush by Krugman, with even a glimmer of objectivity, is absurd.
johnlorican 3 years ago
You're confusing objectivity and neutrality.
Objectivity is saying that a serial killer did a bad thing.
Neutralitity is representing the serial killer's point of view on the matter.
One of the reasons why you've yet to read a positive sentence is because there never was a positive event.
ShinigamiKage 3 years ago
'One of the reasons why you've yet to read a positive sentence is because there never was a positive event.'
When you believe a statement like that, it's pretty clear why you must be enamored with Krugman...
johnlorican 3 years ago
Name me ONE thing that Bush did well. ONE. I defy you.
ShinigamiKage 3 years ago
President Bush kept the country safe after 9/11 by going AFTER the terrorists - and not appeasing them. Consequently, not a single terrorist incident happened on our shores after that horrid day.
He put in two stellar Supreme Court Justices that desire to interpret the Constitution instead of making law from the bench.
He stopped the scourge of AIDS in Africa through his policies. That continent has lionized him because of his efforts.
You asked for one; I gave you three; run out of space.
johnlorican 3 years ago
You can't take credit for keeping us safe SINCE 9/11 if you don't take the blame for letting us be attacked ON 9/11.
Not a single terrorist incident? So the STILL unsolved Anthrax attacks don't count? The DC Sniper doesn't count? The shoe-bomber who was only stopped by citizens on the plane doesn't?
He appointed "stellar" Supreme Court Justices... that's an entirely subjective thing, and do you forget that he tried to appoint Harriet Meyers and that met with disaster?
there's a 2nd message
ShinigamiKage 3 years ago
'You can't take credit for keeping us safe SINCE 9/11 if you don't take the blame for letting us be attacked ON 9/11.'
Simply absurd.
The previous administration allowed Osama Bin-Laden to run roughshod for two terms, with terrorists trying to blow-up the World Trade Center in 1993 and the U.S.S. Cole several years later.
The Clinton administration did NOTHING with regards to stopping terrorism.
NOTHING.
George Bush kept them on the defensive for the last SEVEN YEARS.
johnlorican 3 years ago
Yeah it's not like in August '01 Bush received a PDB titled "Bin Laden determined to strike within the US" that mentioned he was going to attack the World Trade Center with airplanes. Yeah no one could have seen this coming.
Also, our embassies have been getting bombed overseas, if you wanna get technical about it we do count them as "American soil," so does bombing them not count because it would inconvenience the bush legacy?
ShinigamiKage 3 years ago
The August memo was as descriptive and as specific as 'You are going to go to work today. Be on the alert.' It was a generic memo that virtually said nothing. It was pointless.
johnlorican 3 years ago
Wow you officially are retarded, it said very clearly that Osama bin Laden was determined to strike within the US, likely at the World Trade Center, and likely using hijacked airplanes.
How much more specific do you feel an intelligence briefing needs to be? At what point does it become Bush's responsibility to act based upon this intelligence? If you received a note saying someone was going to break into your apartment next week, wouldn't you at least start locking your door?
ShinigamiKage 3 years ago
I just looked at the entire memo on the internet.
It says NOTHING of what you said.
It says Bin Laden 'is determined to strike in the United States.'
It says NOTHING about bombing the World Trade Center (although it implies that Bin Laden would like to follow in the footsteps of Ramzi Yousef, the '93 WTC bomber).
it says NOTHING about hijacking airplanes.
The entire memo is vague; it's impossible to follow-up on anything it says..
I think you DO suffer from 'Bush Derangement Syndrome!'
johnlorican 3 years ago
Bush was one of the most irresponsible presidents in history however, Obama is quickly going to out-do him, in my opinion.
Regardless of how you feel about the wars, I hope you don't support these retarded "Stimulus packages" and bailouts that Washington seems to love these days.
It's time for Americans to re-read their history, their constitution and the words of their founders.
"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none" - Thomas Jefferson
Claytrainor 3 years ago
'Not a single terrorist incident? So the STILL unsolved Anthrax attacks don't count? The DC Sniper doesn't count? The shoe-bomber who was only stopped by citizens on the plane doesn't?'
The Anthrax scare was days after 9/11 - nothing since.
The DC sniper wasn't a 'terrorist;' he was a mass murderer - who had NOTHING to do with terrorism (yeesh!)
The shoe bomber, like everyone since, was caught - no damage done.
Obviously, you're grasping - which only proves my original point.
johnlorican 3 years ago
The shoe bomber was caught by a citizen sitting next to them on the plane, he bypassed Bush's counterterrorism efforts and intelligence , as well as all the new airport security. To give Bush credit for that is absurd, it's like a fisherman taking credit when a bear kills a salmon.
The DC sniper was "terrorizing" people, you can't say the guy who killed American citizens to scare people wasn't a terrorist but the guys who died killing American citizens ARE terrorists, you're the one grasping.
ShinigamiKage 3 years ago
Sorry, my friend.
You're correct in that the shoe-bomber was caught by other people on the plane. So what? The fact is that he was caught! The President is irrevelant to the story.
The DC sniper was a mass murderer, the kind of person who exists regardless of who's president. He wasn't an Islamofascist thug flying planes into buildings or bombing buildings - which, as I originally stated, has NOT happened since 9/11. You and I both know that, you're simply unwilling to admit it.
johnlorican 3 years ago
Explain how you can possibly credit Bush with keeping America safe when regular citizens had to save a plane full of people when counterterrorism and airport security failed. Does flight 93 not count as a terrorist attack because the passengers managed to overthrow the terrorists and cause the plane to crash in a field?
"the kind of person who exists regardless of who's president"
Well by that logic all the terrorists in the world are mass murderers and not terrorists, because they still exist.
ShinigamiKage 3 years ago
What in the world are you talking about? Flight 93 was part of the horror of 9/11. After that heinous day, President Bush - in spite of the bile that he endured for the rest of his presidency - took the terrorists to task and kept them on the run for the next seven years.
He kept us safe - period.
A terrorist is an individual who hates America, is usually a Muslim, is foreign, and murders innocents in the name of his god.
The DC sniper is typical of an American murderer who kills.
johnlorican 3 years ago
You said that the shoebomber doesn't count as a terrorist attack because citizens stopped him.
Flight 93 was stopped by citizens, and using your logic, it was not a terrorist attack because citizens stopped it.
The oath of office includes "protect us from threats both foreign AND DOMESTIC" you can have domestic terrorists you moron, what was Timothy McVeigh? and you don't have to murder for your god, the IRA committed terrorist acts for purely political purposes. And they can hate ANY country
ShinigamiKage 3 years ago
The #1 tool for recruiting by Bin Laden and those like him is the motivation created by Foreign Occupation
America has more enemies today than ever before, and if you read about the reasons they attack us, you quickly discover that"Foreign Occupation is a very common factor.
Robert Pape's study proved this.
America has more enemies and is less safe than ever before!
I strongly disagree with you here.
If the troops agreed with you they wouldve supported McCain or Obama, not Ron Paul.
Claytrainor 3 years ago 2
So true, I cant stand these idiot neocons that think Bush has made us "safer".
kanani717 2 years ago
"He stopped the scourge of AIDS in Africa through his policies."
Are you retarded? This is PATENTLY UNTRUE. Last year there were 2 million NEW cases of AIDS in just Sub-Saharan Africa, and 1.5 million deaths from AIDS, which are record highs. Explain how in any way that is stopped.
Seriously, you're saying that record numbers of new AIDS cases and deaths is Bush "stopping" AIDS... you are UNBELIEVABLY stupid
ShinigamiKage 3 years ago
Well, I guess you'll have to call President Obama 'UNBELIEVABLY stupid' along with me since he praised Bush's work in fighting AIDS in Africa.
In Obama's words, ' I salute President Bush for his leadership in crafting a plan for AIDS relief in Africa and backing it up with funding dedicated to saving lives and preventing the spread of the disease (12/08)'
As a result of Bush's plan, 2 million people received lifesaving drugs + nearly 250,000 babies were born HIV-free.
Who's stupid??
johnlorican 3 years ago
There's a difference between fighting and stopping something. Bush is fighting terrorism, he hasn't STOPPED it. He's fighting AIDS, he hasn't STOPPED it. Bush has had basically no effect on the epidemic of AIDS in Africa, he could actually be significantly more effective but he's pushing abstinence only education instead of including condoms, which is why I count this as a failure.
Does it not bother you that the closest thing to success you've come up with happened in AFRICA and not the USA?
ShinigamiKage 3 years ago
Yes, President Bush took it upon himself to fight it - with the obvious attempt to stop it.
It's an enormous undertaking - and on the terrorism front, he was successful (no attacks), and on the AIDS front, he was also successful. Has he completely stopped the disease? Of course not - but my point is that hundreds of thousands of lives were saved - and you should offer him gratitude for that.
Are you capable of doing that?...or do you have a permanent case of 'Bush Derangement Syndrome?'
johnlorican 3 years ago
Yeah, how silly of me, I should be praising President Bush that we got horrifically attacked by terrorists only once.
Explain how a murderer who kills just to inspire fear isn't a terrorist, because that's basically the definition of a terrorist. So the anthrax attacks, DC sniper, and shoebomber ALL count as terrorist attacks.
Hundreds of thousands of lives were not saved, this past year saw record levels of new AIDS cases and AIDS deaths, how is a record high in any way an accomplishment?
ShinigamiKage 3 years ago
ShinigamiKage 3 years ago
Katrina was a natural disaster.
Everybody in Mississippi and other parts of Louisiana picked themselves up and repaired their cities - and never complained. You NEVER heard ANYTHING from those areas hit by Katrina.
Yet, the people of New Orleans, accustomed and conditioned to receive government assistance cradle-to-grave (Democratic policies), complained like crazy and the media ate it up...and that's ALL you heard for months!
Katrina wasn't Bush's fault - and it's pathetic to blame him.
johnlorican 3 years ago
Katrina wasn't his fault, the complete incompetence in handling it was.
Lack of investment and upkeep in the infrastructure led to substandard levies that could not withstand the hurricane. Holland has levies that could withstand a storm 10x the size of Katrina
Severe shortage of food and water relief
Failure to communicate left people in the superdome for an extra 24 hours.
ShinigamiKage 3 years ago
I agree with you completely - and what you saw was the incompetence of government at every level (federal/state/local); New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin blaming the President, the governor blaming Nagin and the President, etc.)
If YOU were in New Orleans, what would YOU have done? Would you have left the city DAYS before (like everybody did that I personally knew)...or would you have stayed and allowed an incompetent government to tell you what to do?!?
johnlorican 3 years ago
CON
It's clear that you suffer from 'Bush Derangement Syndrome.' No matter what the guy did - or could do - it would never suit you. The accusations you throw at this guy are so off the mark, it's genuinely sad to think about it.
Good luck in life - I think you're going to need it...
johnlorican 3 years ago
Wait... You're saying that New Orleans was the only place that complained about Katrina? And it's because they were used to getting federal aide? You don't think it had anything to do with their city being 7 feet underwater, them being stuck on their roofs for days, not receiving enough food and water supplies, and living in general squalor for WAY longer than is acceptable?
God, what silly democratic policies, giving flood victims food and water when their homes get destroyed...
ShinigamiKage 3 years ago
If you're stuck on your roof, then you get either get off the roof and swim - or try and find a neighbor to help. The absolute LAST thing ANY sane person would do is get ON a roof and hope that the government in Washington, D.C. - 1,500 miles away - is going to save you!! That's my point.
When you're conditioned to believe that government is going to meet every single need in your life - and you don't have to lift a finger - then you reap what you sow...and New Orleans reaped what they sowed.
johnlorican 3 years ago
Has Rush won a nobel prize or ever lectured at university level. You sound like a complete redneck to put Limbaugh in the same category as Krugman. Jackass.
stewart0312 2 years ago 3