Oddball
Unobtanium Member
Whatever.
An increasing budget is not a cut budget.....Period.
An increasing budget is not a cut budget.....Period.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Where did you get that my free market would have no regulation? You speak of talking points by many here but you make talking points, name some regulations that would have prevented the bubbles from happening or bursting since derivatives made up less than 1% of the losses.
Whatever.
An increasing budget is not a cut budget.....Period.
Where did you get that my free market would have no regulation? You speak of talking points by many here but you make talking points, name some regulations that would have prevented the bubbles from happening or bursting since derivatives made up less than 1% of the losses.
Not allowing commercial banks to roll their loans into worthless investment vehicles would have been a good start.
Where did you get that my free market would have no regulation? You speak of talking points by many here but you make talking points, name some regulations that would have prevented the bubbles from happening or bursting since derivatives made up less than 1% of the losses.
Not allowing commercial banks to roll their loans into worthless investment vehicles would have been a good start.
And the ending of the Federal Government propping up worthless investment vehicles like Freddie and Fannie with our tax dollars would be a good move as well.
I only got halfway through this thread but I doubt any righty managed to do anything other than attack the messenger for the second half either.
What else is there?
I mean really, the guy points out that politicians are unprincipled, opportunistic whores and Dante wants to give him a pulitzer prize. If that's not a message worthy of derision, what is?
true datI only got halfway through this thread but I doubt any righty managed to do anything other than attack the messenger for the second half either.
So we not only get your usual attack on the source and not the arguments, we get an attack on the Original Poster and a Show & Tell of Baruch's English Skill...an English Lesson?
so Baruch is a frustrated/failed academic ..a constipated pedantic?
Thats a common technique.
I issue you the same challenge I gave Dante.... Find an actual thesis and argument that we can discuss beyond the level of `Republicans are _______________` (Fill in pejorative de jour. )
Until then, I will respond in kind. Paul Krugman is a Sirocco... A hot dry desert wind that goes on forever and makes for madness.
what up Baruch? No English lesson from the USMB pedant today?So we not only get your usual attack on the source and not the arguments, we get an attack on the Original Poster and a Show & Tell of Baruch's English Skill...an English Lesson?AND still no repudation of WHAT Krugman said.
I am becoming more convinced he is correct.
But what did he say? If you try and pull an argument out of the OP you get air. It is just like a Dante post.. There are words and they are arranged into grammatical sentences, but as for real discussion, all you have is hot corrosive wind.
It is like building mad libs from refrigerator magnets. We will put Republican at the end of the sentence, put a pejorative adjective in front of that, arrange a predicate, find a animate noun for the subject, and hey, we got a Krugman/Dante argument.
Like so:
"Soybeans are oppressed by homophobic Republicans."
That has the same degree of rationality as what was posted at the front of the topic.
so Baruch is a frustrated/failed academic ..a constipated pedantic?
Conveniently ignored, eh, Dante?As I said before, Krugman is a drunken Keynesian, unable to accept that both Nixon and Obama's administration have disproven Keynesian stimulus theory.
To Krugman, the reason why Obama's attempt at Keynesian stimulus failed is because Obama didn't spend enough. He cannot even imagine that the Austrian school may be correct. Further, Krugman's argument is unfalsifiable...no matter how much we spend in so-called stimulus, Krugman can always claim that "we didn't spend enough". No matter what happens, he's always right, in his mind.
He refuses to accept evidence contradicting his theory and makes unfalsifiable claims...nothing more needs to be said.
Where did you get that my free market would have no regulation? You speak of talking points by many here but you make talking points, name some regulations that would have prevented the bubbles from happening or bursting since derivatives made up less than 1% of the losses.
Not allowing commercial banks to roll their loans into worthless investment vehicles would have been a good start.
I can't hear you when you have so much shit in your mouth. Just spit IT out as you always do and maybe I'll be able to make some sense out ofyour shit talking.Conveniently ignored, eh, Dante?As I said before, Krugman is a drunken Keynesian, unable to accept that both Nixon and Obama's administration have disproven Keynesian stimulus theory.
To Krugman, the reason why Obama's attempt at Keynesian stimulus failed is because Obama didn't spend enough. He cannot even imagine that the Austrian school may be correct. Further, Krugman's argument is unfalsifiable...no matter how much we spend in so-called stimulus, Krugman can always claim that "we didn't spend enough". No matter what happens, he's always right, in his mind.
He refuses to accept evidence contradicting his theory and makes unfalsifiable claims...nothing more needs to be said.
Wow...You came up with a new, albeit pretty wimpy, insult!How many times do you have to be told not to take the brown acid?
USMB's Frank Burns stand in (Mash), character utters yet another of his dopey nitwitticisms?
go figure
Hope the effort didn't keep you awake at night. z
I apologize for paying less than full attention to you post. This thread has been so filled with idiocies that I did a diservice to your honest effort.Where did you get that my free market would have no regulation? You speak of talking points by many here but you make talking points, name some regulations that would have prevented the bubbles from happening or bursting since derivatives made up less than 1% of the losses.
let me try again (in another post).
peace
D.
AND still no repudation of WHAT Krugman said.
I am becoming more convinced he is correct.
But what did he say? If you try and pull an argument out of the OP you get air. It is just like a Dante post.. There are words and they are arranged into grammatical sentences, but as for real discussion, all you have is hot corrosive wind.
It is like building mad libs from refrigerator magnets. We will put Republican at the end of the sentence, put a pejorative adjective in front of that, arrange a predicate, find a animate noun for the subject, and hey, we got a Krugman/Dante argument.
Like so:
"Soybeans are oppressed by homophobic Republicans."
That has the same degree of rationality as what was posted at the front of the topic.
I have been following a bit of what Krugman has been saying for the last sveral years.
in my opinion he does not have everything correct.
One thing iin his favor with me is he did start seeing the system falling apart before most of the right wing oriented ones did. He has been pretty close on it's effects and cuase and effect as well.
Now with the right haviing difficulty in defeating his statements...
Well... that just gives more evidence in my opinion that he is closer to correct than the right wingers are.
As I suspected, you have no argument.I can't hear you when you have so much shit in your mouth. Just spit IT out as you always do and maybe I'll be able to make some sense out ofyour shit talking.Conveniently ignored, eh, Dante?
When your general opinion is that everything is always on the verge of utter collapse, you'll eventually be right.I have been following a bit of what Krugman has been saying for the last sveral years.
in my opinion he does not have everything correct.
One thing iin his favor with me is he did start seeing the system falling apart before most of the right wing oriented ones did. He has been pretty close on it's effects and cuase and effect as well.
Now with the right haviing difficulty in defeating his statements...
Well... that just gives more evidence in my opinion that he is closer to correct than the right wingers are.
As I suspected, you have no argument.
Perhaps you ...
tffWhen your general opinion is that everything is always on the verge of utter collapse, you'll eventually be right.I have been following a bit of what Krugman has been saying for the last sveral years.
in my opinion he does not have everything correct.
One thing iin his favor with me is he did start seeing the system falling apart before most of the right wing oriented ones did. He has been pretty close on it's effects and cuase and effect as well.
Now with the right haviing difficulty in defeating his statements...
Well... that just gives more evidence in my opinion that he is closer to correct than the right wingers are.
The broken clock and all that......