"Conservative facts are non-facts" - Paul Krugman

[Oddball]

You can't draw different conclusions from the same facts.

Somebody has to be wrong. Only a liar tries to get away with that.

 

[OriginalShroom]

I don't know why you lefties keep quoting this guy as some kind of expert...

He did suggest that Obama start a war with Aliens from outspace to spur the economy.

 

[Mustang]

Every once in awhile one the smarter folks on the left says something that is extremely stupid and it gives away everything they've been doing. Paul Krugman did just that.

Paul Krugman: Conservative Facts Are ?Non-Facts? | Video | TheBlaze.com

The truth isn't the truth to the left when you take into account the source. That's the nice thing about being a lying-liberal. You don't have to listen to the truth anymore. A statement or a set of facts can be totally discounted if one single thing about them is incorrect. It doesn't even have to be germaine to the basis of the argument. Because it is a RWer saying it, it has to be false. This rationalization allows them to win any argument simply by ignoring the truth that is plain as the nose on their collective faces.

It used to be that everyone was entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts but with liberals it's both. This is why it's useless arguing with thm. They refuse to face up to reality.

In recent years, an idea has taken hold that is simply and wholly incorrect. That idea is that every opinion is valid. And in the interest of 'fairness,' some in the media have wholeheartedly embraced the idea of giving equal time to 'both sides of an issue.'

Now, maybe that makes sense in a court case. Maybe it makes sense in a political dispute. But would it be true with mathematics?

This point is that it's NOT true with everything. In the case of science, it's possible to argue about the significance of some finding. But dismissing scientific findings as being some kind of hoax just because you don't like the conclusions, that's not science at all. That enters the purview of conspiracy theory.

 

[g5000]

You can't draw different conclusions from the same facts.

Somebody has to be wrong. Only a liar tries to get away with that.

Krugman and Johnson were talking past each other.

 

[g5000]

And, yes, that $2.7 trillion rightfully belongs to retirees, and one could make the argument that preventing them from receiving the same benefits they receive now is ripping them off.

However, they are the ones who elected the government which spent all that money on them in other ways.

It is like spending your retirement nest egg before you retire.

They did it to themselves by demanding the government spend more than it takes in all these years. They did it to themselves by demanding lower taxes all their lives and more spending.

Now they want their full retirement benefits.


Gimme, gimme, gimme, and make the next generation behind me pay for it.

Oh for goodness sakes, you cannot believe that the people were choosing to allow the government to piss away money like drunken sailors.

Millions of Americans fought like hell to end the Viet Nam conflict yet it went on for 12 years.

And that is where the national debt problem REALLY started.

Blaming the spendthrift behavior of our government on "the people" is just plain goofy.

Who chose the government, if not the people?

Every politician promises that, if elected, they will shower gifts on the people.

 

[Erand7899]

"“Here’s the problem with the trust fund,” Johnson interjected. “The federal government owns U.S. Treasury Bonds. It’s the same thing as if you have $20, you spend it, and by the way, that money’s spent, it’s gone. You write yourself a note for $20, stick it in your pocket and say ‘I’ve got twenty bucks.’ No, you don’t, you have a note you have to sell on the open market. The trust fund is a fiction. It doesn’t — it has no value to the federal government.”"

Yup....that's what got Krugman so flustered

Actually, it's much worse than that because the note the Government gave to the "trust Fund" cannot be sold on the open market, only the US Government can buy those notes

Except, of course, when the Right wants to claim that the deficit was 162 billion in 2007, then the SS trust fund was an asset.

The unified budget was created in the LBJ era to hide the rapidly growing deficits caused by the great society programs. That surplus was also used to "balance the budget" during the Clinton years. You, like all screwball liberals, are very selective in your false indignation.

 

[edthecynic]

"“Here’s the problem with the trust fund,” Johnson interjected. “The federal government owns U.S. Treasury Bonds. It’s the same thing as if you have $20, you spend it, and by the way, that money’s spent, it’s gone. You write yourself a note for $20, stick it in your pocket and say ‘I’ve got twenty bucks.’ No, you don’t, you have a note you have to sell on the open market. The trust fund is a fiction. It doesn’t — it has no value to the federal government.”"

Yup....that's what got Krugman so flustered

Actually, it's much worse than that because the note the Government gave to the "trust Fund" cannot be sold on the open market, only the US Government can buy those notes

Except, of course, when the Right wants to claim that the deficit was 162 billion in 2007, then the SS trust fund was an asset.

The unified budget was created in the LBJ era to hide the rapidly growing deficits caused by the great society programs. That surplus was also used to "balance the budget" during the Clinton years. You, like all screwball liberals, are very selective in your false indignation.

Social Security has always been part of the general fund, on or off budget is just a bookkeeping way of accounting for it. SS has been "off budget" except for computing the deficit since 1986 and completely "off budget" since 1990 yet they still borrow from it and deduct it from the yearly deficit, hence the claim that Bush had a deficit of 161 billion in 2007 after borrowing 340 billion from SS. All "off budget" means is they are shown in a separate account in the federal budget.

Social Security History

Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

 

[edthecynic]

You can't draw different conclusions from the same facts.

Somebody has to be wrong. Only a liar tries to get away with that.

 

[Erand7899]

You can't draw different conclusions from the same facts.

Somebody has to be wrong. Only a liar tries to get away with that.

It is definite that somebody, or maybe even all, may be wrong, but it is not uncommon for honest, intelligent people to reach different conclusions from the same facts. A lie is not being wrong, it is being deliberately wrong.

Why? Because everyone evaluates facts in an atmosphere of preconceived notions. One sees a glass half full, and others see the glass half empty.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

March 11, 2013

Breitbart BUSTED!!!!​

"Breitbart.com ridiculed Paul Krugman for filing for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection in a since-deleted post whose claims originated with a satire website. Just last month, Breitbart.com castigated a news outlet for running with a story from that same website."

Stupid fuckin' Teabaggers​

 

[allyn211]

Investments held at end of month

Off topic: I see your avatar is that of a Weeping Angel. Are you a Dr. Who fan?

 

[mudwhistle]

You can't draw different conclusions from the same facts.

Somebody has to be wrong. Only a liar tries to get away with that.

It is definite that somebody, or maybe even all, may be wrong, but it is not uncommon for honest, intelligent people to reach different conclusions from the same facts. A lie is not being wrong, it is being deliberately wrong.

Why? Because everyone evaluates facts in an atmosphere of preconceived notions. One sees a glass half full, and others see the glass half empty.

That is a dodge. Two totally different conclusions from the same set of facts cannot be so different that they are 180 from each other as is the case with most issues between Liberals and Conservatives. Tax cuts ether help the economy or they don't. Encouraging illegals to enter the country to find work is ether right or wrong. It ether destroys health care in the state they enter or it doesn't.

 

[g5000]

Investments held at end of month

Off topic: I see your avatar is that of a Weeping Angel. Are you a Dr. Who fan?

Ayup!

 

[blackhawk]

Every once in awhile one the smarter folks on the left says something that is extremely stupid and it gives away everything they've been doing. Paul Krugman did just that.

Paul Krugman: Conservative Facts Are ?Non-Facts? | Video | TheBlaze.com

The truth isn't the truth to the left when you take into account the source. That's the nice thing about being a lying-liberal. You don't have to listen to the truth anymore. A statement or a set of facts can be totally discounted if one single thing about them is incorrect. It doesn't even have to be germaine to the basis of the argument. Because it is a RWer saying it, it has to be false. This rationalization allows them to win any argument simply by ignoring the truth that is plain as the nose on their collective faces.

It used to be that everyone was entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts but with liberals it's both. This is why it's useless arguing with thm. They refuse to face up to reality.

Paul Krugman is one of the smarter?

 

[mudwhistle]

Every once in awhile one the smarter folks on the left says something that is extremely stupid and it gives away everything they've been doing. Paul Krugman did just that.

Paul Krugman: Conservative Facts Are ?Non-Facts? | Video | TheBlaze.com

The truth isn't the truth to the left when you take into account the source. That's the nice thing about being a lying-liberal. You don't have to listen to the truth anymore. A statement or a set of facts can be totally discounted if one single thing about them is incorrect. It doesn't even have to be germaine to the basis of the argument. Because it is a RWer saying it, it has to be false. This rationalization allows them to win any argument simply by ignoring the truth that is plain as the nose on their collective faces.

It used to be that everyone was entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts but with liberals it's both. This is why it's useless arguing with thm. They refuse to face up to reality.

Paul Krugman is one of the smarter?

I was being facetious.

 

[Oddball]

You can't draw different conclusions from the same facts.

Somebody has to be wrong. Only a liar tries to get away with that.

Classic projection from comrade ferret face.

 

[whitehall]

Media Matters dug up a story originally intended as satire but was never posted on line. Next thing you know Media Matters posted the story that Breitbart spiked and pretended it was real> Krugman, who needs all the help he can get from the liberal media, also pretended the story was real and whined to everyone who would listen that he was being "smeared". The freaking Country is falling apart and the left is worried about a fake story that wasn't even posted.

 

[blackhawk]

Every once in awhile one the smarter folks on the left says something that is extremely stupid and it gives away everything they've been doing. Paul Krugman did just that.

Paul Krugman: Conservative Facts Are ?Non-Facts? | Video | TheBlaze.com

The truth isn't the truth to the left when you take into account the source. That's the nice thing about being a lying-liberal. You don't have to listen to the truth anymore. A statement or a set of facts can be totally discounted if one single thing about them is incorrect. It doesn't even have to be germaine to the basis of the argument. Because it is a RWer saying it, it has to be false. This rationalization allows them to win any argument simply by ignoring the truth that is plain as the nose on their collective faces.

It used to be that everyone was entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts but with liberals it's both. This is why it's useless arguing with thm. They refuse to face up to reality.

Paul Krugman is one of the smarter?

I was being facetious.

Thank God I was worried.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

You can't draw different conclusions from the same facts.

Somebody has to be wrong. Only a liar tries to get away with that.

And we see that with every move the R makes.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

And we see that with every move the R makes.

We also saw it with the Clown Car Candidates throughout the interminable "debates" and campaigns. Jeeeeeeez. to be fair to Etch a Sketch and Lyin'Ryan, I can't think of even one GObP/R who has even a nodding acquaintence with the truth.