Krugman Predicts Doom for the Economy and the Election of Obama II

We are so anxious to study and digest the facts presented by Paul Krugman as we examine the egalitarian minutiae from the latest political proclamations from the New York Time. Today we acquire an essay on fear-based economics. We recently were privileged to read about his bubble mania economics and new tax hikes.[1]  Of course, politics is  never based on truth and a gaggle of slobbering economists cannot even get a 50% record of predictions of market directions, so we have to sift out the politics and whines from the economic realities when we read the krugmaniacal one. Frequently, there is nothing but politics in these articles. We expect little other than crude propaganda and leftist narcotic pipe dreams from essays of the NYT—aka the Walter Duranty Papers[2]. Today, the ultimate doom of the economy is reiterated in slow motion. Will we learn about new exciting spending or more taxes or both?

“The good news, I guess, is that we’ve been experiencing a sort of slow-motion meltdown, lacking in dramatic Black Fridays and such.”[3] A Slow-Mo Meltdown By Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist Published: August 4, 2008. [Emphasis is mine in all quotes. This link references all quotes in this essay unless otherwise noted. ]

Any negative change in a capitalist economy is good news for the drooling left, I guess. Let us all guess.

“Home prices are down about 16 percent over the past year, and show no sign of stabilizing. The pain from this bust is widely spread: there are millions of American families who didn’t buy mortgage-backed securities and haven’t lost their houses, but have nonetheless been impoverished by the destruction of much or all of their home equity.”

From a previous Op-ed we read:

““But here’s a question rarely asked, at least in Washington: Why should ever-increasing homeownership be a policy goal? How many people should own homes, anyway?” [4]--By Paul Krugman Published: June 23, 2008 [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

In this reference, Krugman blathers on about the negatives of home ownership as a good socialist would do. He dreams of the high rise cement-filled ‘apartments’ in Moscow where everybody can be conveniently monitored by the Cheka and other concerned groups. The far left does not like private property[5].

So, should everybody have a private home or not? The left thinks not, but will use any negative effects of supply and demand variations to emphasize the ‘pain.’ Should we review the ‘pain’ of 100,000,000 souls being murdered by those who thought they could improve on capitalism with Marxism in the last century?

The Magical Number Massage is next:

“Meanwhile, the job market has deteriorated even more than you’d guess from the jump in the headline unemployment rate. The broadest measure of unemployment[6], which takes into account the rapidly rising number of workers forced to take cuts in paid hours and wages, has risen from 8.3 percent to 10.3 percent over the past year, roughly matching its high point five years ago.”

Arithmetic gone berserk.

Why not include the illegal aliens who were deported in this number? Wouldn’t that logical inclusion boost the number to %15. We could include all those illegals who WANT to get in here and maybe we could hit %25—depression numbers. Oh, woe is us.

Here the krugmaniacal one has to pick and choose numbers so as to make our unemployment look as bad as possible. He lies here  almost seamlessly with his praiseworthy phony number shuffling. According to the New York Times [Does Krugman read this?] the rate is 5.7% [7] Krugman is famous for ‘mixing data’ [8] to make some political point. The facts have little to do with his economics. This is crude politics devoid of any hint of economic theory.

 When Krugman talks of the Clinton Era he does not use numbers like this. Fair?

“And there’s no end to the pain in sight.”

And, that makes for great politics does it not!! Vote for Obama!! Hike taxes.

So, what is the solution to this pain?? Taxes?? Spending??

It is fear quoth the krugmaniacal one:

“The problem is fear: private-sector finance has dried up because investors, burned by their losses on securities that were supposed to be safe, are now reluctant to buy anything that isn’t guaranteed by the U.S. government. And the proliferation of special rescue packages — the TAF, the TSLF, the Bear Stearns deal, the Fannie-Freddie thing — may have staved off blind panic[9], but has fallen far short of restoring confidence.”

“What more can policy do? The Fed has pretty much used up its ammunition: nobody thinks that additional interest-rate cuts would accomplish much (and there’s a faction at the Fed that wants to raise rates to fight inflation).”

“There is, however, a case for another, more serious fiscal stimulus package, as a way to sustain employment while the markets work off the aftereffects of the housing bubble. The “emergency economic plan” Barack Obama announced last week is a move in the right direction, although I wish it had been bigger and bolder.”

Oh, let us do some more spending! We can unburst the bubble with more spending! Tax and spend?  Does Krugman criticize Bush for the current $480 bln deficit when the Demoncraps are duly bound to spend and spend and spend and attempt to hike taxes?  What shall we add to that? How about $300 bln so the deficit will rise to $780 bln. Can we blame that on Bush?? Does anybody know that only Congress can authorize spending and raise the debt limit? Are we paying attention here?

“Anyway, back to the economy. I titled that column about the early stages of the financial crisis “Very Scary Things.” A year later, with the crisis still rolling, it’s clear that I was right to be afraid.”

A billion dollars is about 8$ in taxes for each worker given there are about 130 million workers. This works out differently since the top half pays 97% of the taxes. So, the number is closer to $14 per bln, How much is 780 x 8? Well it is $6240 in taxes for this year alone or more than $500 per month per worker. At $14 it works out to almost $11,000 or nearly $1000 per month!! Does anybody want to ADD in the 9 trillion in debt Congress authorized.

Gee, thank Congress for this and we can hope that they halt drilling in North American or N.O.P.E [Not on Planet Earth].

But, Obama offers change! Let’s trash our economy and then learn how change can change our economic status!

So, as usual, the only solution to our economic problems is more spending and higher taxes?? The sordid liberals hoped for a sour economy and a humiliating loss in Iraq and they think they got half a loaf.

The big political issue of the moment is the price of gasoline so where is that figgered in here? Congress went on vacation?

Do the liberals really think that taxing Exxon will lower gas prices? Do the liberals really think that subsidizing the mortgages of people who should never have bought a home will solve anything What happens when the same home owner messes up and cannot make mortgage payments the second time. Do we continue to bail them out for their votes? Is that what is going on in the little minds of the left?? Is this like drug rehabilitation? Just saunter through the turnstile and they will forgive your debt again and again and again if you vote Demoncrap.

When does the crap from the Demoncraps stop?

The liberals will say and do anything to get more political power and grab more wealth. Anything at all.

Get ready to pay $1000 a month to pay this off, or , if we barrow, about $200 plus inflation.

O’BozoMania!! Raise Taxes!!

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com

The Old Red Lady of The Old Gray Grumbles about Hillary.

We can usually  derive some elements of the instant historical and some future political theorems from the political essays of the NYT—aka the Walter Duranty Papers[1]-- as they attempt to ‘form public opinion.’     When Maureen Dowd [Old Red Lady]of the New York Times[The Old Gray] writes we get an extra dose of literary instruction from time to time.

Today, while  saying nothing about the tax, oil and immigration issues that may decide the election in 2008, the The Old Red Lady of the Old Gray Lady supplies us with some oblique references to Hill and Bill and their shame at not bowing before The Messiah, O’Bozo the Afro-Leninist.[2]  She rolls in some stale Jane Austen writings for extenders. Apparently, she is doing this for Frank [the Crank] Rich, who is off again.

The opening act  shows us what she is after:

“It is a truth universally acknowledged that Barack Obama must continue to grovel to Hillary Clinton’s dead-enders, some of whom mutter darkly that they will not only not vote for him, they will never vote for a man again.”[3] -- Mr. Darcy Comes Courting By Maureen Dowd [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

We understand the froth The Old Red Lady as they go broke and form bastions and redoubts in their editorial staff as they split over Hillary and Barack. We can point out the Times endorsed McCain as the only remaining candidate. That must sting a bit. Nevertheless, The Old Red Lady has remained true in her steeled opposition to the Clintons and their sordid ilk. Bill Clinton’s racism echoed by Geraldine Ferraro[4] helped out in Hillary’s loss of votes but the war issue capped it off.

The Party of Democrats, not too interested in democracy it seems, is a raucous and highly divided ensemble of malcontents, drug addicts, illegal aliens, discarded and unhandsome women, at least using the term loosely defined by the DNA tests, and others. Sexism, the central issue of the FemiNazis [5], was cast to the winds as O’Bozo the Flip-Flopper[6] swept past Hillary for a while and then hung on like a rodent on a piece of road kill  until the decisions were made behind the scenes on his behalf.  He is he change he has been looking for.

We can skip the Jane Austen stuff.  So, moving on:

“Obama met for an hour Tuesday with three dozen top Hillaryites at a hotel here, seeking their endorsement and beguiling their begrudging. He opened the session by saying that he knew there had been frustration about what they saw as sexism during the primary.”

Did it occur to anybody that O’Bozo could not exactly alter his gender and make a concession to Hillary and her supporters? Jesse Jackson did offer to neuter his brother, but that was too late to persuade the superdelegates that his gender was offensive.  What else could Barack do but just gracefully bow out to please the feminists? The counterpoint, the political threat that probably convinced the pasty-assed liberal super delegates to go for O’Bozo like sheep up to loading ramps, was certainly decided using the logic of racism. She is NOT BLACK!! A loss of the black vote means a certain loss for the left. Liberals tend to work out their mental issues using a small stack of hackneyed phrases and slogans like a bag lady works only certain dumpsters in her neighborhood. This form of ‘thinking’ challenges the notion of freedom of thought, but the warring groups certainly have their narrow views and, unfortunately, their voting block. He is black and she is white. The argument is over for 1/8 of the party.

 Apart from the apparent support of certain facets of the War on Terrorism, they differed little on substantive issues. Both, defying a demarcation of gender, are tax whores. They could have suggested that to the FemiNazis as a sop.  But, that does not work—does it? It is also unclear how Barrack’s testicles floating around noticeably in one of Jesse Jackson’s jar might appease the wymen or blacks.

Here is what the Dowdy Dowd failed to mention in terms of getting votes:

High oil prices? Raise Taxes

Sluggish Economy? Raise Taxes

CA, NY and NJ are heading for bankruptcy? Raise Taxes

 Inflation? Raise Taxes

Unemployment? Raise Taxes

Back on the racism:

“Perhaps it is because feminists are still so busy cataloging past slights to Hillary that they have failed to mount a vivid defense of Michelle Obama, who has taken over from Hillary as the one conservatives like to paint as a harridan[7].”

Michelle Obama is a racist who trash-talks whites. [8] That is all a matter of record. Somebody put a muzzle on that racist.

This is a classis overuse of the group mental affliction known as cryptomisoxeny.[9] When afflicted by this collective disease, a group may howl and scream about, for instance, racism, and use overt racism in the process of attacking their enemies. [See the footnote below for an explanation]. So, when Hillary groans about the urgent a ‘woman president’ the Obama crew moans in concert about a ‘black president.’ The collision of these two conflicting nostrums avoids all the economics issues that actually determine the outcome of our political contests.

The sophomoric question is put to the mentally disnimble: Can you choose between a woman tax whore or a black male tax whore? Make your choice and then join forces.

 Would liberal female gas be cheaper than black gas or are they equally over-priced because of the EcoNazi Circus [10] [11] [12] pressure.

After comparing Obama to one of Jane Austen’s leading characters[13] [“The senator is a modern incarnation of the clever, haughty, reserved and fastidious Mr. Darcy.—Maureen Dowd”] , we are presented with this rhetorical set of propositions:

“Can America overcome its prejudice to elect the first black president? And can it move past its biases to figure out if Obama’s supposed conceit is really just the protective shield and defense mechanism of someone who grew up half white and half black, a perpetual outsider whose father deserted him and whose mother, while loving, sometimes did so as well?”

Backward. The prejudice proffered here is the narrow political optionsions to elect a black person based only on skin color or a woman based only on gender attributes. Both of these mandates are backed by the ready accusations that if voters do not vote for a woman or a black then they are misogynist or racist.

Maureen Dowd knows this and she is just stirring the race cauldron as most of the drive-by media are doing today. There is, again, some frantic effort to elect a bum, flunky like Gore, a traitor elitist like Kerry or other variant of a tax whore. The parasites McGovern, Hubert Humphrey, Michael Dukakis, Weird Walter Mondale and people like Henry Wallace [1948] and other socialists all lost because of their overt socialism. Everybody knows that Europeans were beggars, mass grave diggers and garbage eaters for decades during the last century and have now succumbed to the edicts and threats of the Islamo-Fascisti. They whimper with fright as the mullahs teach hate on the streets. 1000 cars can be burned in Paris at night without the government commenting on the glow.  That is cowardice. Europeans are now even stupider than before and waxing dumber all the time.[14] Some want us to copy their sloth, belligerent ignorance and failed social systems.

Losers deserve to lose. "Life is tough, tougher if you're stupid."
-John Wayne[15]

Losers deserve to lose. "Life is tough, tougher if you’re a leftist or one of their victims."--rycK

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com