Just a few items from alchemize's alleged proof that Krugman is a leftist.
Item 1: Krugman suggests that Bush administration appointments will lead to an explosion in spending particular business concerns such as DOD contracting. The article was written in 2002 . . . seems like Krugmen made a good call.
Item 2: Krugman in 2002 suggests the Bush administration is not dealing with the real issues in Medicare. The tool writing the blog defends Bush by saying Medicare's problems predate Bush presents for the wealthy. Hmm, I wonder what Bush did for Medicare finances in 2003? Again looks like Krugman made a good call.
Item 3: This one deserves full excerpt
He seems draw comfort from the fact that in a parliamentary system, such as that in France, the fringe e.g., Jean-Marie Le Pen, never actually ?wins.? But in the U.S., to his horror, the right fringe, by focusing their anger, can take over an entire political party (the GOP) and actually come to power.
What delusional poppycock.
Hmm, what's the legislative agenda been as of late . . . gays and flag-burning are ruining America . . . yep mainstream alright.
Item 4: Excerpt from the tool . . .
Finally Krugman points out that many EPA staffers (Carol Browner era holdovers) are leaving in frustration. He sees this as evidence of demoralization in the EPA.
We say,
a) what would you expect?
and,
b) good riddance.
Hmm, curiously Bush's first appointee to the EPA left and
wrote a book about her frustration at EPA and the Bush administration.
For instance, take the moment when President Bush reversed his campaign promise to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions and then asked her to take the heat. Or the moment when the president pulled out of Kyoto without agreeing to pursue a compromise, making her a laughingstock among environmental ministers worldwide. Or the moment when the White House refused to give her the authority to investigate the safety of the thousands of chemical facilities in America vulnerable to terrorist attack.
Or the pressures she felt from above to weaken the new-source review clause of the Clean Air Act: "People became focused on reforming NSR, with some intent on getting rid of it altogether. The vice president seemed particularly eager about the issue, and he called me on several occasions, even tracking me down when I was on vacation in Colorado, to press his view [on] NSR reform."
Most revealing of all, perhaps, is her description of her appointment to serve on the Dick Cheney's energy task force, "an eye-opening encounter with just how obsessed so many of those in the energy industry, and in the Republican Party, have become with doing away with environmental regulation."
Again, it looks like Krugman isn't a way left of center radical. He just presents an inconvenient truth. Occasionally, even the delusioned (Bushistas) have a moment of clarity during which they feel the sting of reality.
But it's interesting that you ignore my thesis and latch onto the partisan hack comment. It's well established that Krugman is as left as they get, just like you. So it's no wonder that you're all in a tizzy that I point out his obvious bias. I'm sure both of you think you're both incredibly open-minded, as you wipe your drool off with your well-stained sleeve.
Curious way to frame a discussion considering you followed it with a link to partisan hack commentary. Granted, it's not your list I only read 1-5 but given the tone it's hard to believe Weidner improves with practice.
One more gem from the "proof of bias" in Krugman . . .
His "even odds" economic growth rate of 3.5% (which he implies is barely adequate to stabilize employment) is in fact a fabulous growth rate. If the labor supply grows at 1% per annum then the implied growth rate in labor productivity must be 2.5% per annum. This is "golden age" stuff. The U.S. standard of living could double in something like 25 years. Why is he revealing this conversion (or is it a confession?) in such a ho-hum fashion?
Probably because it?s bad news for Krugman and the other class?warfare warriors in the Democratic Party. It?s tough to make political hay over "tax cuts for the rich" when most people are feeling richer every year. Likewise, scaring seniors over Social Security "cuts" is a hard sell when the CBO is projecting budget surpluses for as far as the eye can see. In fact, spinning this kind of growth into a Democratic issue of any sort will require some real ingenuity. But we suspect Krugman is up to the task.
So I read this I think, 'Krugman is either a genius prognosticator or the luckiest economist in the world!'
Since 2001 . . poverty up, household debt up, real wages not keeping pace with inflation . . . most Americans have seen a stagnation or a decrease in standard of living over the past 5 years so the economy would have to go WILD to see anything close to doubling. Think happy thoughts . . . the Bush motto. Regardless, the Americans that are
feeling richer every year is a REALLY small group.
Somebody say surplus?
Facebook
Twitter