Search This Blog

Friday, July 25, 2014

Propaganda Gem: Krugman Distorts History as He Grubs for More Taxes.

From 6.16.2008


Propaganda Gem:  Krugman Distorts History as He Grubs for More Taxes.

We can always appreciate the propagandistic essays of the NYT—aka the Walter Duranty Papers[1]-- as they attempt to ‘form public opinion’ by scaring the dolts that read and believe their fluff. The current experiments on   the existing disinformation methods are always a treat to read from the Times and some of their staff.  It is difficult to believe that so many people are so simple, but we have to respect their reported daily circulation numbers although they are losing money and are in danger of bankruptcy. Today, we are treated to an economic Doom prediction from their m0st famous non-economist one Paul Krugman.  Woe is us. Let us all call for a tax hike to save us!

 The theme:  An evil plot has been hatched to burden future administrations with fewer taxes! Such an outrage! Such nasty capitalism!

Here it the pitch:

A poison pill, in corporate jargon, is a financial arrangement designed to protect current management by crippling the company if someone else takes over.

The Conscience of a Liberal As I read the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center’s analysis of the presidential candidates’ tax proposals, I realized that the tax cuts enacted by the Bush administration are, in effect, a fiscal poison pill aimed at future administrations.”[2] -- Fiscal Poison Pill by Paul Krugman [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]This link references all quotes in this essay unless otherwise stated.

This is an incoherent glubberance as we must expect from a Marxian-Revisionist leftist who cannot control his rage at the mention of tax cuts. Taxes on the masses are the only source of money and power for the sordid left so we can expect an explosion of emotion whenever they are prevented from converting our society into a dung heap like their ideological brothers did in the USSR, Cuba and North Korea. Those guys knew how to properly handle the capitalists and entrepreneurs with murder, famine and death.

But, to be fair and to show some ‘sensitivity’ to the leftists in our country, we have to realize that they are frustrated, very emotional and need a way to vent their miseries in many ways. Unfortunately, the only soothing balm for a leftist is the hope for a new and wonderful tax hike so they can waste the proceeds and confirm for the tax payers their belligerent ignorance and trumpet their eternal spite. As such, they must rely on the most privative of political methods. Some have likened liberalism to the folly of probing some primate’s orifice in the glorious search for diamonds, which compares well with the up-to-date history of liberal social programs. Follies like this are absurd, but typical liberal and the eternal quest continue for wealth to waste in defiance of success. [3]

Now, the expected lies and distortions factor into the leftist logic here:

Exhibit A of the poison pill in action is the sad case of John McCain, part of whose lingering image as a maverick rests on his early opposition to the Bush tax cuts, which he declared excessive and too tilted toward the rich.

Since then the budget surpluses of the Clinton years have given way to persistent deficits, and income inequality has risen to new heights, vindicating his opposition.”

This is ancient history and a sad distortion of reality.  Krugman does not realize that McCain would be in the Executive Branch and his Senate vote would be moot.

This is also a lie for several reasons. [1] Clinton, a plurality president with only 43% of the vote, merely rode on the Reagan Revolution Prosperity Wave, but tried to spend as much as he could. His surpluses were not of his doing. His consort, Colonel Klebb[4], proposed an enormously expensive socialized medicine program that would, if allowed, have swamped our economy with inefficiencies. [2] Clinton was stopped from his wild spending in 94 when he lost control of the House, a whore house of tax mongering for 30 y ears of Democratic Party abuse. [3] Recall that Reagan spent what he did with on the promise that the left would cut spending, and they, lying as always, did not. [4] Ronald Reagan had to fight to end the useless Great Society programs that were a drag on society, [5] Clinton was forced to sign the Welfare Reform Act and that cut welfare costs by 26%, something the liberals are still fuming about.  [6] Clinton cut spending only on the military but did manage to use them in a pogrom to wipe out children in Waco because they offended and failed to respect and trust Slick Willie.

Here is some more revisionism:

But instead of pointing this out, Mr. McCain now promises to make those tax cuts permanent — and proposes further cuts that are, if anything, tilted even more toward the wealthy. And how is the loss of revenue to be made up? Mr. McCain hasn’t offered a realistic answer.”

Well, where is the explanation of how O’Bozo would pay for his socialized medicine and we always wonder where he Highway Trust Fund went and then there is the matter of a trillion dollars missing from Social Security that seems to exist as IOUs the taxpayers would have to pay for to get this back, thus double taxation.  What happened to the 5 trillion dollars that went into social programs since 1950? What did we get from welfare? More poor? Higher crime rates? When you offer  liberals free rein to create a city of their liking you get cesspools like Philadelphia, New Orleans, Detroit, Oakland and St. Louis.[5] The liberals refuse to answer questions like this.

Here is the big lie:

Barack Obama’s tax plan is more responsible than Mr. McCain’s: relative to current policy, the Tax Policy Center estimates, the Obama plan would raise revenue by $700 billion over the next decade, compared with a $600 billion loss for Mr. McCain.”

The problem with this picture is that leftists, animated on skinny little strings by their Marxian masters, cannot conceive of economic growth induced by lower taxes.  They believe that any tax cut is a loss and the money is lost. So, any tax hike actually raises revenues although history shows that most excessive tax hikes return less revenue. The left must pursue this lie because to tell the truth here would simply expose their lies and follies.

The rest of his propaganda screed is crap and not worth reading, but the inevitable conclusion is worth at least a cursory examination and comment:

Anyway, back to my main theme: looking at the tax proposals of the two presidential candidates, it’s remarkable and disheartening to see how effective President Bush’s fiscal poison pill has been in restricting the terms of debate.

Progressives, in particular, have to hope that Mr. Obama will be more willing [6]to challenge the Bush legacy in office than he has been in the campaign.”

A lie. There is noting to prevent the tax whores[7] from whoring the halls of Congress day and night.  The truthful part is that O’Bozo has been rather quite on his tax details as tax mongers do not usually win elections in the US as we saw from HHH, George McGovern,  al gore, Vinegar John Kerry [8] [9], Yo Yo Dukakis and other front parlor  fluffers.

As usual, we find only a sophomoric  krugmaniacal screed with the mandatory foaming at the mouth and drooling on the dingy claws from the New York Times.  To say that these themes are hackneyed and stale would be accurate but redundant. These political operatives will say and do anything to get more tax monies to waste while they celebrate and assist our enemies and purr as our brave soldiers are killed in wars protecting our county.  They love our enemies and celebrate Islamo-Fascism and excuse the freeloading criminals who cross our borders and commit felonies while condemning others of the Christian faith who live in the US but don’t vote for phony leftists disguised as liberal Democrats.

Isn’t the New York Times wonderful? Raise taxes and bring prosperity: “All the Propaganda that is fit to Print!” The New York Times is a  poison pill, but fortunately poisons the minds of the undesirables.

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com




[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.
[2] Fiscal Poison Pill  By PAUL KRUGMAN Op-Ed Columnist Published: June 16, 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/16/opinion/16krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
[Emphasis is mine in all quotes.] This link  references all quotes in this essay unless otherwise stated.

[3]It has been stated in more explicit terms than printed here that: Liberalism is like probing a baboon’s sphincter for diamonds. There is little chance for success, but there several opportunities for anger and frustration.” Whining about Taxes by the New York Times Revision #476
[4] Clinton: Rule or Ruin, the Colonel Klebb Solution to the Party of Democrats.
Posted by rycK on Sunday, March 30, 2008 12:42:38 PM

[7] The New York Times Counsels Us on Economic Fears in the Middle Class and the Urgent Need or Higher Taxes, Again.
The New York Times Essays Us on ‘Values?”!! This is Really Just a Propaganda Piece on Taxation and Control

Krugman Denies the Denials Of The Party Of Denial: Raise Taxes No Mater What.
There Is No End To The Tax-Whoring By Climate Control Lunatics.
Posted by rycK on Friday, April 04, 2008 10:43:11 AM
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

[9] Liar, Communist stooge and parasite. 

Krugman of the NYT Lets Spend Some More!!

From 1.5.2009

Krugman of the NYT Lets Spend Some More!!

The New York Times—aka the Walter Duranty Papers [1] has an all-encompassing and circuitous track record of apologizing for any form of big government as long as  it involves huge spending and high taxes. Today, the Times’ famous noneconomics economist Paul Krugman grinds on with his unbridled respect for John Maynard Keynes, trumpeting a plan for more government and printing money and astronomical deficits.

In its twice weekly turn of the leftist canonical crank, their igNoble Leechette[2][3][4], blessed with insights and the arcane ability to divine the particulars of Depression government policies, will now recite for us the only words that matter to a leftist politician: Tax and Spend.
The rest of this article is hopeless stuffed to the gunwales with mind-numbing tautological fluff, but it may have some interesting twinks[5] and turns that might amuse us.  Here is what we look for in Keynesian Stooge: [1] a reduction in interest rates and [2] Government investment in infrastructure.[6]

To wit:

If we don’t act swiftly and boldly,” declared President-elect Barack Obama in his latest weekly address, “we could see a much deeper economic downturn that could lead to double-digit unemployment.” If you ask me, he was understating the case.[7]-- Fighting Off Depression By Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist Published: January 4, 2009 . [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

Where is the ‘patriotic part’ of this mindless plea? Where is the Plugs the Buffoon on this matter?
"You got it.  It’s time to be patriotic, Kate.  Time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help America out of the rut, and the way to do that is they’re still gonna pay less taxes than they did under Reagan."—Joe Biden, plagiarist and a person who cheated his way through Law School at Syracuse.  This link has Joe talking away on TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX5nlKcTzvU&eurl=http://americansforprosperity.org/index.php?id=6409
Plugs, the Buffoon, has to stay low in the current administration, apparently, because his mouth seems to utter sounds and thoughts that do not correlate with history or the current Obama shifting platforms on the economy.

Spend some more?

Is this like we did with the ‘stimulus’ package that was passed in Congress with fluff and foam and bleary eyed and did nothing to stimulate anything except the stress on the truss straps of certain liberal Democrats? Money is that easy to spend! Lets spend more!! What stimulus did we see from that 150 billion? Oh! Nothing? No effect?

But, then, a tax cut of 300 bln?? How could this happen?

WASHINGTON -- President-elect Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are crafting a plan to offer about $300 billion of tax cuts to individuals and businesses, a move aimed at attracting Republican support for an economic-stimulus package and prodding companies to create jobs[8]--Obama Eyes $300 Billion Tax Cut Huge Breaks for Firms, Individuals Are Aimed at Winning GOP Support for Stimulus By JONATHAN WEISMAN and NAFTALI BENDAVID JANUARY 5, 2009

I wonder if O’Bozo talked to either Plugs or Krugman about this? I sometimes wonder if Krugman ever reads the NYT.  He probably just submits his rants ex cathedra. Krugman has ranted on about tax cuts and called those who wanted such demons ‘Tax Cut Zombies.[9] [10] Now, we wonder, is O’Bozo might be a Tax Cut Zombie?? This is just bait for Blue Dog Democrats.

“[Milton] Friedman’s claim that monetary policy could have prevented the Great Depression was an attempt to refute the analysis of John Maynard Keynes, who argued that monetary policy is ineffective under depression conditions and that fiscal policy — large-scale deficit spending by the government — is needed to fight mass unemployment. The failure of monetary policy in the current crisis shows that Keynes had it right the first time. And Keynesian thinking lies behind Mr. Obama’s plans to rescue the economy.” Paul Krugman Published: January 4, 2009 [This is Milton Friedman not Thomas Friedman of the NYT. ed]
Keynes got a lot of criticism for his mindless fluff [except from dictators like Stalin, Hitler and FDR], some extracted below, because his phony government infrastructure spending recommendations were tried by Hoover, FDR and others in various countries and they did not work.[11] Our longest stretch of good economic times only came after the Carter Malaise and was the result of Paul Volker implementing Monetarist policies: do not the let the money supply grow faster than real growth. That worked.

The government is particularly inept in creating meaningful jobs that produce efficient goods and services and prefer to spend money to hire losers to sit on ‘education’ programs, run around and inspect things or give out free needles to drug addicts. FDR had people raking leaves in the forests.

The best response to this slowing economy would be to eliminate corporate taxes for two years and cut most of the bureaucratic crap and red tape out of the government. Agencies like HHS, HUD, Fanny Mae, EPA, Head Stop and others should be canned.

Krugman gets around handing out money like this:

This is a problem with which Keynes was familiar: giving money away, he pointed out, tends to be met with fewer objections than plans for public investment “which, because they are not wholly wasteful, tend to be judged on strict ‘business’ principles.” What gets lost in such discussions is the key argument for economic stimulus — namely, that under current conditions, a surge in public spending would employ Americans who would otherwise be unemployed and money that would otherwise be sitting idle, and put both to work producing something useful. Paul Krugman Published: January 4, 2009

This is an extra special statement and quite predictable from the New York Times or one of the lackeys who scrawl messages on the walls therein.  It says:

[1] There is money to spend when there is a huge deficit and falling tax revenues and the Fed is just printing ‘money.”  So, that is false.

[2] Idle people would have freshly printed money to spend not tied to any budget. That is foolish.

[3] That idle people raking leaves or howling at the moon or sharpening used syringes would be doing something useful.

And this is supposed to be ‘economic’ advice?

So this is our moment of truth. Will we in fact do what’s necessary to prevent Great Depression II?” Paul Krugman Published: January 4, 2009

So, our economist ends with the gloom and doom threat that if we do not spread money around so idle people can do some thing useful that we will fly face-forward in to The Great Depression II?

I have a cost-cutting scheme for the NYT as they are going broke because they publish little but political fluff so here it is: Whenever they want to publish an article by Krugman that it read like this:

Krugman Says: Raise Taxes for Any and All Reasons #1 Paul Krugman Published: Month, day , year. 

And just update the little pink number. That would be more efficient as it would [1] put aside some news print and spare a few trees, [2] would be concise and to the point, [3] would be easy for the dumbest liberal to understand and [4] would not violate any leftist belief.

Progress.

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com




[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.
[5] New political definition of the word: A sudden pinch of a Twinkie for enlightenment.  Previously,  twink is defined only as  "memorable for his outer packaging", not his "inner depth". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twink_(gay_slang)
[7] Fighting Off Depression By Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist Published: January 4, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/opinion/05krugman.html
[8] Obama Eyes $300 Billion Tax Cut Huge Breaks for Firms, Individuals Are Aimed at Winning GOP Support for Stimulus By JONATHAN WEISMAN and NAFTALI BENDAVID http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123111279694652423.html JANUARY 5, 2009
[10] The Tax-Cut Zombies  By PAUL KRUGMAN Op-Ed Columnist. Published: December 23, 2005. http://select.nytimes.com/2005/12/23/opinion/23krugman.html?hp
[11] Monetarist criticism
One school began in the late 1940s with Milton Friedman. Instead of rejecting macro-measurements and macro-models of the economy, the monetarist school embraced the techniques of treating the entire economy as having a supply and demand equilibrium. However, they regarded inflation as solely being due to the variations in the money supply, rather than as being a consequence of aggregate demand. They argued that the "crowding out" effects discussed above would hobble or deprive fiscal policy of its positive effect. Instead, the focus should be on monetary policy, which was largely ignored by early Keynesians.
Monetarism had an ideological as well as a practical appeal: monetary policy does not, at least on the surface, imply as much government intervention in the economy as other measures. The monetarist critique pushed Keynesians toward a more balanced view of monetary policy, and inspired a wave of revisions to

The Lucas critique
Another influential school of thought was based on the Lucas critique of Keynesian economics. This called for greater consistency with microeconomic theory and rationality, and particularly emphasized the idea of rational expectations. Lucas and others argued that Keynesian economics required remarkably foolish and short-sighted behavior from people, which totally contradicted the economic understanding of their behavior at a micro level. New classical economics introduced a set of macroeconomic theories which were based on optimising microeconomic behavior, for instance real business cycles.

Krugman of the NYT Confuses Wealth Transfers with Job Creation and Calls for Higher Taxes or More Spending

From 12.1.2009

Krugman of the NYT Confuses Wealth Transfers with Job Creation and Calls for Higher Taxes or More Spending

Abstract: Krugman tediously advocates more and more spending and bigger and bigger government with higher and higher taxes for all known government problems. There is nothing else of interest in this current blurb from the New York Times. The old stale leftist clich├ęs are artfully twisted into a circular argument that is unassailable. This is the same old Tax and Spend song with new notes in a place or two. Our economy will probably collapse.

Today, we are treated to an amusing circular essay on jobs and non jobs and phony jobs and government jobs and the quest for more money to create jobs by an inefficient and costly wealth transfer process. The notion of tax cuts, the process that brought us up from the Jimmy Carter Malaise, is belligerently absent here. We need to spend more! The mumbos and jumbos of government job creation are neatly explained by the teachings and guiding counsel of one Paul Krugman[1][2][3][4] of the New York Times--known affectionately as the Walter Duranty Papers[5] in honor of their Pulitzer Prize winner whose portrait proudly hangs on the wall in New York City to inspire all leftist journalists. The theme is that although jobs were promised they didn’t materialize so the only solutions are, as usual, more taxes and more government spending.

Getting up to date:

If you’re looking for a job right now, your prospects are terrible.[6] --The Jobs Imperative Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist

This comment seems to present evidence that American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, better known as the Stimulus Package or the pedestrian notion of redistribution of wealth[7]—aka Stimulus [or porkulus] has failed to stimulate the job markets. We were promised better by President Obama. What happened? It seems Obama promised “…to create or save 600,000 jobs by the end of the summer.”[8]Then we observed some strange accounting gimmicks from recovery.gov that purported to list where the new jobs came from and we find that the government paid out $92,000 per new job.[9]  Many of these jobs were ‘created’ in nonexistent congressional districts? We are thus informed of those facts on the government website recovery.gov. This is a great way to create new jobs: just print money and spread it all around.

Hindsight reconstruction of the need to spend more:

To be fair Krugman was originally in favor of more spending than the mere .787 trillion dollar outlay—the biggest in the history of the know world--and what that insufficient stimulus would be doing would ”... provide only 600 bln in a 2 trillion dollar hole.” He got that right.

On the question of double digit unemployment he comments: “It would peak out to 9%.” [10]  But to be more fair, there is no discussion I could find where Krugman tells us how we handle such massive debt and what it might do to the economy. Spending is just a one note of a two note song for Paul Krugman. Spending rings properly and delightfully in the leftist economic ear in all keys and octaves. He was all for nationalizing at least some banks in Feb 2009: “Why not just go ahead and nationalize? Remember, the longer we live with zombie banks, the harder it will be to end the economic crisis.”[11] Krugman argued in that reference that government support to the banks to rescue them from their zombie status: “To end their zombiehood the banks need more capital. But they can’t raise more capital from private investors. So the government has to supply the necessary funds.” What permeates this circular essay is that Krugman fears that the stockholders [dreaded capitalists] might get some unearned profits or other benefits here. This is just printing money.  As an aside, all our banks are zombies now.

Humming right along…..

You might think, then, that doing something about the employment situation would be a top policy priority. …. There’s a pervasive sense in Washington that nothing more can or should be done, that we should just wait for the economic recovery to trickle down to workers. --The Jobs Imperative Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist

Can we ignore the other stimuli that failed to do much and wasted money as in the cases where we spent $92,000 per job![12] And, then,  we spent $24,000 per car on the Clunker Follies and a mere $43,000 per house on the housing scam. [13] Now, that is ‘serious’ by liberal standards. We are stunned and mortified that these measures failed. This is how liberal Democrats think:--they avoid direct job creation with tax cuts and stimulation to small businesses by printing money to redistribute the wealth[14] and are surprised that this doesn’t work. That becomes the excuse to spend more!

This essay goes nowhere as Krugman will never acknowledge that small business with appropriate tax cuts and fewer government regulations can create real 70% of the desperately needed jobs—not the phony ones we read about every day. So, he is partially correct but heard in a different pitch that there is no priority in job creation if we have cut taxes and offer profits to capitalists. Thus, our economy is collapsing from massive debt and the bubble machine[15] will make more noises in the near future.

The hopelessness drones on:
The Federal Reserve, for example, expects unemployment, currently 10.2 percent, to stay above 8 percent — a number that would have been considered disastrous not long ago — until sometime in 2012….So it’s time for an emergency jobs program.” --The Jobs Imperative Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist
We anxiously wait for the crescendo and the economic solution!

So our best hope now is for a somewhat cheaper program that generates more jobs for the buck. Such a program should shy away from measures, like general tax cuts, that at best lead only indirectly to job creation, with many possible disconnects along the way. ” --The Jobs Imperative Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist

The ‘Tax Cut Zombies[16] [17] are thus detuned and thrown out of the band![18]

One such measure would be another round of aid to beleaguered state and local governments, which have seen their tax receipts plunge and which, unlike the federal government, can’t borrow to cover a temporary shortfall. ” --The Jobs Imperative Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist

Translated as: “Let’s bail our California[19][20][21]!”

Meanwhile, the federal government could provide jobs by ... providing jobs. It’s time for at least a small-scale version of the New Deal’s Works Progress Administration, one that would offer relatively low-paying (but much better than nothing) public-service employment. --The Jobs Imperative Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist

Gather the chorus: “The government should be the employer of last resort!!”

First, let us peek deep down into a bottle of J&B Scotch to view the proper role of government:

Last week Lyndon Johnson surprisingly came out hard for making the U.S. Government the employer of last resort for the "half million hard-core unemployed in our principal cities." In his television interview, he declared: "I am going to call in the businessmen of America and say one of two things has to happen: you have to help me go out and find jobs for these people, or we are going to find jobs in the Government for them. I think it will have to be done, as expensive as it is."[22] Friday, Dec. 29, 1967 when LBJ was quoted in the Nation: Employer of Last Resort [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

What a way to keep more voters happy![23] How about jobs for illegal aliens too?

Finally, we can offer businesses direct incentives for employment. It’s probably too late for a job-conserving program, like the highly successful subsidy Germany offered to employers who maintained their work forces. But employers could be encouraged to add workers as the economy expands.” --The Jobs Imperative Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist

Here Krugman refers to the phony German Kurzarbeitergeld [24]that pays workers for not working.[25] In our society that is termed a ‘government’ job.

Here is another thought:

“"...and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."[26]Margaret Thatcher

The echo from the brass section:

All of this would cost money, probably several hundred billion dollars, and raise the budget deficit in the short run. But this has to be weighed against the high cost of inaction in the face of a social and economic emergency” --The Jobs Imperative Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist

Honking aloud in B-Flat and wheezing in C# over undefined deficits and costs with no firm numbers? Short term?? “High Cost”?? “Incentives to business?”

Later this week, President Obama will hold a “jobs summit.” Most of the people I talk to are cynical about the event, and expect the administration to offer no more than symbolic gestures. But it doesn’t have to be that way. Yes, we can create more jobs — and yes, we should. --The Jobs Imperative Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist

Symbolic gestures like the words ‘stimulus?’ I an cynical about that too.

Predictably, Krugman offers nothing else other than tax and spend and never a tax cut to create real jobs in the private sector. Toot1 for new taxes and then a blast off a hearty Toot2 for more spending or reverse theme for retoots.[27] Let us re-sing the songs of depression.

Liberalism never changes.

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com





[1] Krugman Confuses Bacchus, Baucus and Baloney with the Threshold for Healthcare.  Not Enough Big Government in the Latest Episode


[5] 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.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty

[6] The Jobs Imperative By Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist Published: November 29, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/opinion/30krugman.html?_r=1&em  [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

[17] The Tax-Cut Zombies  By Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist. Published: December 23, 2005. http://select.nytimes.com/2005/12/23/opinion/23krugman.html?hp
[18] Krugman Exhausts His Vocabulary by Monotonously Reciting the  Only Two Words He Understands In Economics: Tax And Spend. Let’s Tax the Stock Markets!!

[22] Friday, Dec. 29, 1967  where LBJ was quoted in the Nation: Employer of Last Resort http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,844296,00.html

[25] Paul Krugman Juggles Apples and Oranges until He has the Perfect New Economic Stew:  Government Subsidies for Idle Workers.

[27] Krugman Exhausts His Vocabulary by Monotonously Reciting the  Only Two Words He Understands In Economics: Tax And Spend. Let’s Tax the Stock Markets!!