Search This Blog

Saturday, November 10, 2012

Krugman Does NOT want to Make a Deal with Republicans. He wants More and More and More Taxes

Abstract: Paul Krugman, as usual, holds out for the maximum tax penalty that can be forced upon the middle and upper classes. He advised Obama [whoever he really is] to “So stand your ground, Mr. President, and don’t give in to threats. No deal is better than a bad deal. The threat here is that costs will rise very high and the small businesses, creators of some 70% of new jobs, will not be able to continue and will fold. Krugman thinks the threat is the absence of new and higher taxes while the facts indicate that the threat is the massive and intractable debt we have now pushing more than $16.,000,000,000, dollars and average load upon our citizens in the upper half of no $250,000 since half our population does into pay taxes. Krugman is willing to have us go into the Fiscal Cliff [that Krugman calls “disaster capitalism”] than hold off on major tax hikes. Obviously, we have to stand firm on both the tax increases and the debt ceiling. We must, or we will look like Russia or Cuba. Krugman never believed that the debt was serious. Let us go over the Fiscal Cliff as the alternative is worse.

The New York Times—aka the Walter Duranty Papers[1] [anagram is appropriately ‘wet laundry rat’]—excels in propaganda[2] in all forms and hosts our famous non-economist Paul Krugman’s essays us on why the low class vote  Democrat and embrace the splendors of socialism. Today we are informed that the Republicans offer a threat to our system by not allowing massive new tax hikes to pollute our system like a rancid tumor. The debt is not a real problem and the fiscal cliff is a mere invention conjured in some Halloween skit designed to scare children.

Krugman gloats showing no shame:

To say the obvious: Democrats won an amazing victory. Not only did they hold the White House despite a still-troubled economy, in a year when their Senate majority was supposed to be doomed, they actually added seats.”[3]-- Let’s Not Make a Deal  By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: November 8, 2012

They also stuffed ballot boxes up to nearly 100% in places like Philly. [4]

But one goal eluded the victors. Even though preliminary estimates suggest that Democrats received somewhat more votes than Republicans in Congressional elections, the G.O.P. retains solid control of the House thanks to extreme gerrymandering by courts and Republican-controlled state governments. And Representative John Boehner, the speaker of the House, wasted no time in declaring that his party remains as intransigent as ever, utterly opposed to any rise in tax rates even as it whines about the size of the deficit.”-- Let’s Not Make a Deal

As is typical in the sleazy leftist arena of propaganda, we hear that the enemy is responsible for every dent in the system and the remaining obstacle is the House which was criminally constructed by the actions of the courts and Republicans in the several states. We can always depend upon an omission of the famous gerrymandering to get districts for blacks. No mention of that. The House majority being of a party not directly associated with the Democrats is a crime against humanity.

Decision time:

“So President Obama has to make a decision, almost immediately, about how to deal with continuing Republican obstruction. How far should he go in accommodating the G.O.P.’s demands?”-- Let’s Not Make a Deal

“My answer is, not far at all. Mr. Obama should hang tough, declaring himself willing, if necessary, to hold his ground even at the cost of letting his opponents inflict damage on a still-shaky economy. And this is definitely no time to negotiate a “grand bargain” on the budget that snatches defeat from the jaws of victory”-- Let’s Not Make a Deal [Emphasis is mine in all quotes unless specified otherwise]

This slimy and clearly un-American effluvium is thusly repeated for emphasis:

Nobody wants to see that happen. Yet it may happen all the same, and Mr. Obama has to be willing to let it happen if necessary.”-- Let’s Not Make a Deal

Well, that is a rather rare example of a krugmanical rant that has few other interpretations. He proudly sounds like his mentor Walter Duranty or perhaps Bernard Shaw or Marx.[5]

Krugman sums up:

Mr. Obama essentially surrendered in the face of similar tactics at the end of 2010, extending low taxes on the rich for two more years. He made significant concessions again in 2011, when Republicans threatened to create financial chaos by refusing to raise the debt ceiling. And the current potential crisis is the legacy of those past concessions.

And later in the article:

So stand your ground, Mr. President, and don’t give in to threats. No deal is better than a bad deal.“-- Let’s Not Make a Deal

We already have the corporate highest taxes in the world and now we need more taxes and want Cap and Trade and more medical programs and welfare and food stamps.  We clearly need to import more illegal aliens so they can vote for Democrats and we need to give them citizenship and welfare and whatever else they want. The future is bleak now because the ‘poor’ have been promised money for their votes and they will take any and all monies offered to them since they don’t have to pay taxes so they clearly do not care.

This is the beginning of the end of freedom in the US. We await chaos and an omnipotent government who will take our wealth by one means or another. This is Leninism in its infancy.

Let us go over the Fiscal Cliff as the alternative is worse.


comments:  [note: several Townhall links are broken]

[1] In honor of that celebrated Communist stooge and liar and winner of the Pulitzer Prize for the NYT. The color RED is used in my essays in honor of Walter Duranty, a saint, if there could be one, in the Marxist Archives of Honor.

He said that these people had to be "liquidated or melted in the hot fire of exile and labor into the proletarian mass". Duranty claimed that the Siberian labor camps were a means of giving individuals a chance to rejoin Soviet society but also said that for those who could not accept the system, "the final fate of such enemies is death. "Duranty, though describing the system as cruel, says he has "no brief for or against it, nor any purpose save to try to tell the truth". He ends the article with the claim that the brutal collectivization campaign which led to the famine was motivated by the "hope or promise of a subsequent raising up" of Asian-minded masses in the Soviet Union which only history could judge.”

[2] Political Lessons from the Fairy Tales by the New York Times: Propaganda at Work. [From 4.11.2008]

Propaganda Lesson: Economics and Recessions from The NYT: A Long [Sad] Story and Stern Tutorial on Tax Cuts. [Friday, February 08, 2008]

Debunking the New York Time’s Mythical Debunking of the Reagan Myth, a New Lesson In Propaganda. [From Monday, January 21, 2008 2:40 PM]
Another Lesson in Propaganda, Lies and Sleaze From The New York Times.
Wednesday, January 16, 20088:51 AM

Propaganda Lesson # 50,001 From The NYT: Krugman Advises Us About Personalities And Their Effects On Economics [Monday, January 14, 2008]

[3] Let’s Not Make a Deal  By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: November 8, 2012 848

[4] Vote was astronomical for Obama in some Philadelphia wards

In a city where President Obama received more than 85 percent of the votes, in some places he received almost every one. In 13 Philadelphia wards, Obama received 99 percent of the vote or more.

Those wards, many with large African American populations, also swung heavily for Obama over John McCain in 2008. But the difficult economy seemed destined to dampen that enthusiasm four years later.

Not to worry. Ward leaders and voters said they were just as motivated this time.”

[5] Marxism, Communism, Liberals And Progressives And Why They Will Never Change their Assault on Capitalism.
Property is organized robbery.  ~George Bernard Shaw

These characteristics were more than welcome when he joined the Fabian Society in 1884 as one of its first members. Shaw was a freethinker, a supporter of women’s rights and an advocate of income equality. He vividly fought for abolition of private property, which can be seen in his essay “Economic”, part of the famous Fabian Essays (1889), of which he was also an editor. Shaw’s pragmatic approach to politics and his welfare views along with his talents made a very distinct contribution to the society

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 workersaid to cash-strapped state and local governmentspublic 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.



[1] A new word.
[2] Responding to Recession Op-Ed Columnist By Paul Krugman

[4] April 17, 1954 Castro Letter. Ref
Op-Ed Contributor Portrait of the Maximum Leader as a Young Man by ANN LOUISE BARDACH Published: August 13, 2006 Santa Barbara,Calif.

  [7]  Ibid
 [9]  Ibid

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 9:18 AM

Thursday, December 13, 2007 3:06 PM

Saturday, January 12, 2008 2:22 PM

Propaganda Lesson: Economics and Recessions from The NYT: A Long [Sad] Story and Stern Tutorial on Tax Cuts.


From Friday, February 08, 2008 10:16 AM

We are always stimulated and enlightened by studying the logic stream of those who would give us a stale, tautological propaganda blast while never budging from their narrow political objectives. This is always an adventure; it is like a cipher and the key is always the word liberalism. In today’s screed, based solely on the usual lack of government controls of our society, in any and every form, we sift through the gloom and doom and find out that tax cuts must have caused the problems .

In an article entitled A Long Story [1] by Paul Krugman the Op-Ed Columnist at the Walter Duranty Papers and most prestigious non economist economist of our political times we are treated to a long list of sorrows from previous recessions:

The economic news has been fairly dire this week. The credit crunch is getting worse, and a widely watched indicator of trends in the service sector — which is most of the economy — has fallen off a cliff. It’s still not a certainty that we’re headed into recession, but the odds are growing greater.”

A little doubt is wise in starting off on a screed so as to give the reader the illusion that the author is not omnipotent in all matters.

And if past experience is any guide, the troubles will persist for a long time — say, into the middle of 2010.”

Now, there is no doubt. The Terror is upon us. So, how bad will it be?

On one side, the bursting of the housing bubble is playing the role that the bursting of the dot-com bubble played in 2001. On the other, the subprime crisis is creating a credit crunch reminiscent of the crunch after the savings-and-loan crisis of the late 1980s, which led to recession in 1990.”

Now, you may have heard that those recessions were short. And it’s true that the last two recessions both officially ended after only eight months.”

Now, we are given three clichés and the notice that the actual lifetimes of the economic tumors were much longer than what the official numbers showed. Apparently, the books were cooked and the truth will be revealed by Professor Krugman. We can wring our hands and promise to vote Democrat as a partial solution.

The propagandist now sifts through the numbers, carefully selecting those features that suits his little sad story here and then sums up:

“Since the current problems of the U.S. economy look like a combination of 1990 and 2001, the shape of this episode of economic distress will probably be similar to that of the earlier episodes: even if the official recession is short, the bad times will linger well into the next administration.”

This is something like a double whammy in economic terms. Oh, woe is us!

Our vaulted economist then relies on ‘experts’ to support his vision:

And some highly respected economists are issuing dire warnings. There has been a lot of buzz about a new paper by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff that compares the United States in recent years to other advanced countries that have experienced financial crises. They find that the U.S. profile resembles that of the “big five crises,” a list that includes, for example, Sweden’s 1991 crisis, which caused the unemployment rate to soar from 2 percent to 9 percent over a two-year period.”

Ken Rogoff [2] was a very formidable chess opponent at the New Haven Chess Club when he was majoring in Russian Economics at Yale in the early 70s. The Russians taught us much about economics, the value of an hour’s work and how well Moscow Central Planning was the key to the howling success of the USSR. I never won a game on the boards against Ken, even when he was blindfolded,  I wonder if he ever learned anything about capitalism. Rogoff is famous for attacking the 2001 Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz,[3] [4] for his criticism of World Bank policies [5] and debt,  for which Rogoff called snake oil as he reflexively reacted to “…debt…printing more money… inflation.. and such.” Stiglitz was offering a criticism of neoliberal [6] assumptions that may have wrecked the Asian economies. Stiglitz stressed that emerging countries should focus on “…macroeconomic issues, such as the budget deficit, its monetary policy, its inflation, its trade deficit, or its borrowing from abroad…” and not rush to free trade until they were ready to compete. Here we are reminded of the Adam Smith absolute advantage.[7] Don’t do this until you have a true market advantage for your products. Stiglitz railed against those elitists who would fly into a place like Ethiopia, spend some time in luxury hotels and fly off to Europe and their friends while the money was sucked out of the victim country.

This is all very complicated and tends to show us that Ivy League graduates cannot fully understand macroeconomics, as they demonstrated to us recurrently, but they do understand their left-liberal political objectives.

Now, we get to hear the solution and salvation of our woes.

Maybe we’ll be lucky, and that won’t happen. But what can be done to limit the damage?”

Tell us!!

But, first we need to hear what will not work and we get a list:

[1] Interest rate cuts did not work very well in the past.

[2] The stimulus package will not work because the Republicans refused to give extra money for unemployment and food stamps, all critical measures in our economy.

Should we raise interest rates or stop the stimulus package? What? Now, we get the solution:

In particular, now would be a good time to think about the possibility of going beyond tax cuts and rebate checks, and stimulating the economy with some much-needed public investment — say, in repairing the country’s crumbling infrastructure.”

Didn’t Hoover and FDR try this and it didn’t work? FDR’s WPA, CCC and other programs did little to curb unemployment that ranged from 24% in 1933 to 14% in 1940. Social Security, the glittering star of the New Deal is going broke. So, let us wonder about fixing our ‘… the country’s crumbling infrastructure’ as the NYT Tax Hike Zombie[8] advocates. This didn’t work.

Then we are treated to the necessary intellectual attributes of the next President:

[a] He/She should be “…free of the ideological blinders..[that ruined our economy]…” and

[b] The need for the proper economic advice.

What does this mean? Oh, the next President needs economic advice? And, what better place to learn economics than from the New York Times?!! How do we pay for this?? Tax Hikes?

Whatever happens here, we need to learn that tax cuts are evil, that the  government can provide a proper life for us all and that neoliberal economists can guide us our of the looming recession into the Golden Age. We also have to slow the growth of the US!

University of Maryland economist Carmen Reinhart and Harvard University economist Kenneth Rogoff agree. They say the current crisis appears on track to be at least as bad as the five most catastrophic financial crises to hit industrialized countries since World War II.

If those past experiences are any guide, the economy is in trouble, they argue in a recent paper. Indeed, "if the United States does not experience a significant and protracted growth slowdown, it should either be considered very lucky or even more 'special' than most optimistic theories suggest," they write.[9]

Let’s go with Hillary’s 800 billion new spending adventures and balance the budget and tax ourselves into prosperity! Let us slow down growth and give jobs to the unions to fix the bridges and potholes.

Raise taxes, discourage capitalism and get on with some real slow economics.




[1] A Long Story By PAUL KRUGMAN Op-Ed Columnist .Published: February 8, 2008.
[3] Joseph Stiglitz Author of Globalization and Its Discontents
(New York: W.W. Norton & Company, June 2002)
[4] An Open Letter By Kenneth Rogoff,
[6] Neoliberalism  “…seeks to transfer control of the economy from the public to private sector.”

[7] The Complicated Issue of Free Trade and Balance of Trade Explained. “Adam Smith had used the principle of absolute advantage to demonstrate that traders will attempt to find the lowest cost of items, consistent with quality, so that they can preserve wealth. The only thing that works for those who are allowed to make decisions with their money is that people actually will compare prices and choose carefully so as to not waste their resources. Note that government spending does not fit into these narrow confines. The comparative advantage theory of Ricardo shows that two partners will both increase their output when the advantage is not equal. That works in a limited sense. There is a set of serious criticisms of comparative advantage[7] and all apply today.

[8] The Tax-Cut Zombies  By PAUL KRUGMAN Op-Ed Columnist Published: December 23, 2005.


Political Lessons from the Fairy Tales by the New York Times: Propaganda at Work

From 4.11.200

There was much fluff and fervor over the Hillary Clinton sob stories about Trina Bechtel and her battles with health insurance. Clinton took this as a cause célèbre to evoke sympathy, tears and loads of tax money from the upper half and to show he had compassion and all that liberal hokum.

 Well, the ‘story’ Hillary heard was a bit phony [1] [2] and the hospital challenged her account of what really happened. Embarrassed, she had to drop the drip.

Clinton is well known for her use of alternative truths.

However the New York Times, the proud remnant of Walter Duranty’s Legacy of Marxist Propaganda [3]has decided to tell us that the essence of the story was illustrative. That is translated to mean that the lie was just fine if it could persuade some more tax whores to punish taxpayers.

The NYT chief non-economist tells us the meaning of the story is a typical glubberance in an article entitled Health Care Horror Stories by Paul Krugman.[4]

Here be the hokum:

You may think that this was an extreme case, but stories like this are common in America.”[5]

Let us think about the word stories here.

Finally, while it’s true that hospitals will treat anyone who arrives in an emergency room with an acute problem — and it’s wonderful that they will — it’s also true that hospitals bill patients for emergency-room treatment. And fear of those bills often causes uninsured Americans to hesitate before seeking medical help, even in emergencies, as the Monique White story [a second glubberance not quoted here, ed]  illustrates.”[6]

The point:

But are they really preventable? Yes. Stories like those of Trina Bachtel and Monique White are common in America, but don’t happen in any other rich country — because every other advanced nation has some form of universal health insurance. We should, too.”[7]

 And most stink as in the USSR, Italy and Cuba.[8]

We extract various elements of just about any sad story, mould it into a three act tragedy and make that an excuse to implement some more big government so things will work out like the Pentagon, HUD or Social Security or the Postal Service. Sure. How about some more federal welfare?

Here is the save:

In fact, Mrs. Clinton was accurately repeating the story as it was told to her — and it turns out that while some of the details were slightly off, the essentials of her story were correct.”[9]

 Well, that makes it okay!! This is standard propaganda based on the demagoguery variant. The facts are not important—only the outcome: bigger government and higher taxes.[10]

And even more important, Mrs. Clinton was making a valid point about the state of health care in this country.”[11]

Let us all mumble about valid points!

 Could we make similar valid points about illegal aliens burdening our emergency rooms and pushing out our citizens? Could we wonder why the D. C. Sniper was allowed to get into this country? Could we wonder how much damage the dope business has done to our society and also wonder why the drug-crazed lefties want to legalize narcotics and weed?? Gee do we need laws against murder, dope peddling and illegal immigration? Not according to the New York Times.

Here, in the best tradition of Walter Duranty who made up all kinds of wonderful stories about the USSR and had them published in the New York Times we find a politically twisted lie magically transmutated into a ‘political point.’

Tautology and propaganda are the only skills at the New York Times as we have seen in the past. [12]


Comments to:

[3] Colors are used for emphasis in my blogs with bold an italics to match      the particular political flavor of the comment or history of the reference. Duranty was a liar and Communist stooge and is an icon of the New York Times.
[4] Health Care Horror Stories PAUL KRUGMAN Op-Ed Columnist Published: April 11, 2008.

[5] Health Care Horror Stories Ibid.
[6] Health Care Horror Stories Ibid.
[7] Health Care Horror Stories Ibid.
[9] Health Care Horror Stories Ibid.
[10] Krugman of the New York Times Slaps His own Face over a New Theory to Raise Taxes.
Posted by rycK on Monday, March 10, 2008 11:19:13 AM
[11] Health Care Horror Stories Ibid.
[12] And they Whine On about Socialized Medicine.
Posted by rycK on Friday, April 04, 2008 9:33:10 AM