ryck'Z rantZ: Propaganda Lesson # 50,001 From The NYT: Krugman Advises Us About Personalities And Their Effects On Economics

Saturday, November 10, 2012

Propaganda Lesson # 50,001 From The NYT: Krugman Advises Us About Personalities And Their Effects On Economics

From 1.14.08

Paul Krugman with his typical krugmaniacal [1] rants against raising taxes and keeping with his uncontaminated credentials as the Tax Hike Zombie of the Old Gray Lady, we see a deviation from the usual number twisting frolics and now he instructs us about the ‘personalities’ of the candidates.[2] Really? This is propaganda [3]—not economics and fits well within the narrow purview of stilted cant sheets like the New York Times, aka the Walter Duranty Papers.

In his current essay on recession he cites McCain confessing as “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should,…”[Underlining is mine for emphasis in all quotes below.]

We could add a lot of liberal Democrats to this list as well. Was Kerry an economist? Dukakis? McGovern? Mondale? It appears that Krugman is using Castro’s reasoning here: “First, we cannot for a minute abandon propaganda, for it is the soul of our struggle. Ours must have its own style and match our circumstances.”[4] This fits.

He rants on:

“Rudy Giuliani wants us to go for broke, literally: his answer to the economy’s short-run problems is a huge permanent tax cut, which he claims would pay for itself. It wouldn’t.”[5]

It has in the past as we found out from the JFK-Johnson, Reagan and Bush2 tax cuts increased jobs and growth and new wealth in theUS. These must be contrasted with lousy economy we got from Jimmy Carter and his tax hikes with 70% marginal tax rates or the last Clinton Administration where corporations were punished and limits placed on CEO earnings. Here we see success and growth from tax cuts clearly contrasted with the monotonous methods of the left: we saw stagnation, inflation and unemployment from high taxes. All these fears and declines in housing value favor the left so they can ‘solve’ the social problems by hiking taxes.

Krugmaniacal Rants are necessary here not for the economic value of their content, but for the political mandate to never allow tax cuts that will put money back into the hands of the citizens. A dollar spent by a citizen is a dollar lost to the bureaucracy hence control is lessened.

“Since this is an election year, the debate over how to stimulate the economy is inevitably tied up with politics.”[6]

Is that new? And we can learn from this:

“About Mike Huckabee — well, what can you say about a candidate who talks populist while proposing to raise taxes on the middle class and cut them for the rich?”[7]

About Mitt Romney we read “Fears of recession might have offered him a chance to distinguish himself from the G.O.P. field, by offering an economic proposal that actually responded to the gathering economic storm.”[8]

What storm is that? We can have a really serious recession if we hike taxes, particularly for corporations so that jobs are lost or exported globally.

The Republicans offer only economic failure, we are educated, but all the Democrat hopefuls all seem to offer urgent and benevolent relief from our problems:

“John Edwards, … proposed a stimulus package including aid to unemployed workers, aid to cash-strapped state and local governments, public investment in alternative energy, and other measures.”[9]

And paid for how?? By raising taxes!! How else?

“Hillary Clinton offered … proposal..[that] includes aid to families having trouble paying heating bills, which seems like a clever way to put cash in the hands of people likely to spend it.”[10]

Where is this clever cash coming from? The tax base? What is the investment here? What is the marginal propensity to save that provides new investment and new jobs? Nowhere! Is Hillary just trying to buy votes with tax handouts?

Apparently Mr. Obama’s top economic proposed a “…long-term tax-cut plan ...[that would be] “just what we need to keep the slump from “morphing into a drastic decline in consumer spending.” The tax cut is, obviously, the wrong way and we must incessantly perform this maudlin mantra in keeping with the standard tautological rants of this paper. So it was ‘corrected’ by the good Senator but retained some tax cuts, and, as such, “…he really is less progressive than his rivals on matters of domestic policy.”[11]

Progressive was Stalin’s word for US far left liberals as we learn from Whittaker Chambers in his book Witness.

The author properly uses this word in its precise Communist context, definition and usage. The Times does not stray too far from Marxism. They have a sold 70 year history of apologetics for Communism in any and all of its disgusting variants.

Note that Obama is not exactly the NYT’s choice.[12] The Times has questioned his economic policies before.[13] The attack on Obama is on.[14]

Apparently, the personality attribute premise of this article morphed into the eternal howl for tax hikes as and good socialist would grunt and grab for and the final krugmaniacal comment is: “In short, the stimulus debate offers a pretty good portrait of the men and woman who would be president. And I haven’t said a word about their hairstyles.” [15]

Krugman has not said a word about economics or tax policy either. We have to thank the Tax Hike Zombie of the Old Gray Ladyfor another meaningless essay in tax mongering propaganda. We expected little of substance from this ‘economist’ and were rewarded with nothing but tax mongering, thus fulfilling our expectations. We should never be disappointed with the New York Times.

Paul signs off with: “In short, the stimulus debate offers a pretty good portrait of the men and woman who would be president. And I haven’t said a word about their hairstyles.”

He didn’t mention a word about economics either. Viewing his picture, I wonder if he has a hairstyle.

These people at the NYT will say or do anything to grunt and grab taxes anytime, anywhere and from anybody. That is their sole mission.

From Fidel Castro’s immortal words we read: “There will be enough time later to squash all the cockroaches together.”[16]

The NYT will be there to celebrate the squashing of all Hillary’s enemies.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

[1] A new word.

[2] Responding to Recession Op-Ed Columnist By Paul Krugman

Published: January 14, 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/opinion/14krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[3] The New York Times Returns to Mindlessly Advocating Tax Hikes: Propaganda Lesson #50,001. Part 1 of this series.

[4] April 17, 1954 Castro Letter. Ref http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/13/opinion/13bardach.html?scp=8&sq=castro.

Op-Ed Contributor Portrait of the Maximum Leader as a Young Man by ANN LOUISE BARDACH Published: August 13, 2006 Santa Barbara,Calif.