Krugman opinion: "Yes, he could"

[The Rabbi]

And he was completely right. It wasn't.

We have never gotten out of a major recession without a spurt of government spending. Yet this one, we did the exact opposite of what the situation called for.

No other recession elicited this much spending. And the more money spent, the worse the results. SO it is not surprising that having spent more money than ever before, we got the worst results.
Dems are losers.

Not true. In terms of spending to GDP and spending to Debt, FDR percentually spent much, much more.

You do realize that $1,000,000 in 1933 was a helluva lot more money than today, right?


So, you can never do a 1:1 dollar to dollar comparison between economies from different eras, that never works. But the percentual analysis does.

Righties who do not understand this are absolute fools. Like you.

I meant post war of course. BUt thanks for making my case. The more government spends, the worse the recession. FDR's policies, like Obama's, took a recession and turned it into calamity. Had Obama done nothing we would have had growth starting in his second quarter.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Love it when you quote that.

But most congress people and senators are returned. So they obviously are doing better than that.....or do you really believe your congressman polls that low in your district ?

Republicans own the house and will take the senate.

7% ? Really ?

You bet.....

Moron.

That has gone from a foregone conclusion to a toss-up!

If the GOP only wins 5 Senate seats the Dems will still hold the majority because Biden is the tie-breaker.

Oh, my bad.

Republicans are at 7%.....nobody likes them.

But EVERYONE agrees they will win more seats. The question is just how many.

That they might (according to you) get a majority kinda says you might want to go back and rethink the whole 7% crap argument.

I don't argue that Obama's 36% means that he'd get creamed if he were running in 2016. In fact, there are still enough morons in the country that haven't come to grips with the reality of his failure that he'd probably get re-elected.

Please provide the quote where I mentioned anything at all about your "7% crap argument".

The current credible polling suggests that the GOP is just barely going to win 6 new seats. But it only takes one of those 6 to not meet expectations. Which is why it is in the toss-up category as opposed to the "slam-dunk" that you alleged will happen.

 

[Derideo_Te]

No other recession elicited this much spending. And the more money spent, the worse the results. SO it is not surprising that having spent more money than ever before, we got the worst results.
Dems are losers.

Not true. In terms of spending to GDP and spending to Debt, FDR percentually spent much, much more.

You do realize that $1,000,000 in 1933 was a helluva lot more money than today, right?


So, you can never do a 1:1 dollar to dollar comparison between economies from different eras, that never works. But the percentual analysis does.

Righties who do not understand this are absolute fools. Like you.

I meant post war of course. BUt thanks for making my case. The more government spends, the worse the recession. FDR's policies, like Obama's, took a recession and turned it into calamity. Had Obama done nothing we would have had growth starting in his second quarter.

One thing is for certain, there is zero oxygen on Rabbi's little bubble world!

 

[TooTall]

It seems with Obama's approvals in the crapper we have a lot of NEW Obama shills just joined recently

anyone notice that?

shanty, dad2someone, etc

Congress, which has been shutdown by Republicans are in the sewer.

7%? Really?

The House passes bills, Harry Reid doesn't allow a vote on them in the Senate. I suggest that is what has shutdown Congress.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It seems with Obama's approvals in the crapper we have a lot of NEW Obama shills just joined recently

anyone notice that?

shanty, dad2someone, etc

Congress, which has been shutdown by Republicans are in the sewer.

7%? Really?

The House passes bills, Harry Reid doesn't allow a vote on them in the Senate. I suggest that is what has shutdown Congress.

Passing endless repeals of the ACA is a waste of taxpayer's time and money. Passing realistic bills that are a compromise that both sides can live with has not happened because the TP'ers in the House won't let them come up for a vote.

 

[TooTall]

Congress, which has been shutdown by Republicans are in the sewer.

7%? Really?

The House passes bills, Harry Reid doesn't allow a vote on them in the Senate. I suggest that is what has shutdown Congress.

Passing endless repeals of the ACA is a waste of taxpayer's time and money. Passing realistic bills that are a compromise that both sides can live with has not happened because the TP'ers in the House won't let them come up for a vote.

There were a lot more bills passed in the House than repeal of the ACA that are still in Harry Reids in-basket. The TP'ers do not control what comes up for a vote, the Speaker of the House does.

 

[Listening]

Congress, which has been shutdown by Republicans are in the sewer.

7%? Really?

The House passes bills, Harry Reid doesn't allow a vote on them in the Senate. I suggest that is what has shutdown Congress.

Passing endless repeals of the ACA is a waste of taxpayer's time and money. Passing realistic bills that are a compromise that both sides can live with has not happened because the TP'ers in the House won't let them come up for a vote.

Realistic: Bills that do what you want....regardless of what others want....in spite of the fact that "others" represent a significant part of the population.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Krugman? Lol.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The House passes bills, Harry Reid doesn't allow a vote on them in the Senate. I suggest that is what has shutdown Congress.

Passing endless repeals of the ACA is a waste of taxpayer's time and money. Passing realistic bills that are a compromise that both sides can live with has not happened because the TP'ers in the House won't let them come up for a vote.

Realistic: Bills that do what you want....regardless of what others want....in spite of the fact that "others" represent a significant part of the population.

Which part of the term "compromise" do you need to have explained?

 

[bripat9643]

Not true. In terms of spending to GDP and spending to Debt, FDR percentually spent much, much more.

You do realize that $1,000,000 in 1933 was a helluva lot more money than today, right?


So, you can never do a 1:1 dollar to dollar comparison between economies from different eras, that never works. But the percentual analysis does.

Righties who do not understand this are absolute fools. Like you.

I meant post war of course. BUt thanks for making my case. The more government spends, the worse the recession. FDR's policies, like Obama's, took a recession and turned it into calamity. Had Obama done nothing we would have had growth starting in his second quarter.

One thing is for certain, there is zero oxygen on Rabbi's little bubble world!

What proof do you have to the contrary?

 

[bripat9643]

Passing endless repeals of the ACA is a waste of taxpayer's time and money. Passing realistic bills that are a compromise that both sides can live with has not happened because the TP'ers in the House won't let them come up for a vote.

Realistic: Bills that do what you want....regardless of what others want....in spite of the fact that "others" represent a significant part of the population.

Which part of the term "compromise" do you need to have explained?

Explain where Democrats have proposed anything that qualifies as a "compromise."

 

[The Rabbi]

I meant post war of course. BUt thanks for making my case. The more government spends, the worse the recession. FDR's policies, like Obama's, took a recession and turned it into calamity. Had Obama done nothing we would have had growth starting in his second quarter.

One thing is for certain, there is zero oxygen on Rabbi's little bubble world!

What proof do you have to the contrary?

He doesnt. BUt the world would have been destroyed if Obama and teh Dems hadn't passed every shitty little piece of give away spending they did. To admit otherwise is to admit failure.
But the results speak for themselves.

 

[The Rabbi]

Realistic: Bills that do what you want....regardless of what others want....in spite of the fact that "others" represent a significant part of the population.

Which part of the term "compromise" do you need to have explained?

Explain where Democrats have proposed anything that qualifies as a "compromise."

"We have the votes, fuck 'em" -Rahmbo.

 

[Listening]

Passing endless repeals of the ACA is a waste of taxpayer's time and money. Passing realistic bills that are a compromise that both sides can live with has not happened because the TP'ers in the House won't let them come up for a vote.

Realistic: Bills that do what you want....regardless of what others want....in spite of the fact that "others" represent a significant part of the population.

Which part of the term "compromise" do you need to have explained?

I don't need an explanation.

Obama, on the other hand........

 

[Stephanie]

I bet Krugman thinks of Obama every day and says,

OH YES I would.......................................... do you

please please please please

 

[Dad2three]

No other recession elicited this much spending. And the more money spent, the worse the results. SO it is not surprising that having spent more money than ever before, we got the worst results.
Dems are losers.

Not true. In terms of spending to GDP and spending to Debt, FDR percentually spent much, much more.

You do realize that $1,000,000 in 1933 was a helluva lot more money than today, right?


So, you can never do a 1:1 dollar to dollar comparison between economies from different eras, that never works. But the percentual analysis does.

Righties who do not understand this are absolute fools. Like you.

We come out of a recession eventually...in spite of the government.

There have been good cases made that FDR's meddling both deepened and extended the depression.

Good cases? Oh you mean right wing 'think tanks' rewriting history and leaving out that when FDR listened to the deficit scolds in 1937, and cut spending 10%, the US went back into the GOP great depression.....

 

[The Rabbi]

Not true. In terms of spending to GDP and spending to Debt, FDR percentually spent much, much more.

You do realize that $1,000,000 in 1933 was a helluva lot more money than today, right?


So, you can never do a 1:1 dollar to dollar comparison between economies from different eras, that never works. But the percentual analysis does.

Righties who do not understand this are absolute fools. Like you.

We come out of a recession eventually...in spite of the government.

There have been good cases made that FDR's meddling both deepened and extended the depression.

Good cases? Oh you mean right wing 'think tanks' rewriting history and leaving out that when FDR listened to the deficit scolds in 1937, and cut spending 10%, the US went back into the GOP great depression.....

More bullshit assertions from the newest ignoramus on board. Average UE during Roosevelt's time pre war was over 15%. His policies directly led to the recession becoming a full blown depression. He doubled down on the progressive Hoover's failed policies.

 

[Peach]

We come out of a recession eventually...in spite of the government.

There have been good cases made that FDR's meddling both deepened and extended the depression.

Good cases? Oh you mean right wing 'think tanks' rewriting history and leaving out that when FDR listened to the deficit scolds in 1937, and cut spending 10%, the US went back into the GOP great depression.....

More bullshit assertions from the newest ignoramus on board. Average UE during Roosevelt's time pre war was over 15%. His policies directly led to the recession becoming a full blown depression. He doubled down on the progressive Hoover's failed policies.

This is untrue; Hoover was not "progressive" by any standards.

 

[Meathead]

Good cases? Oh you mean right wing 'think tanks' rewriting history and leaving out that when FDR listened to the deficit scolds in 1937, and cut spending 10%, the US went back into the GOP great depression.....

More bullshit assertions from the newest ignoramus on board. Average UE during Roosevelt's time pre war was over 15%. His policies directly led to the recession becoming a full blown depression. He doubled down on the progressive Hoover's failed policies.

This is untrue; Hoover was not "progressive" by any standards.

No, Hoover was not a progressive, but an unusually talented man at the wrong pace at the wrong time. It is not disparaging FDR to say Hoover was twice the man he was, though altogether a less successful president. Few with an iota of history would argue.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Realistic: Bills that do what you want....regardless of what others want....in spite of the fact that "others" represent a significant part of the population.

Which part of the term "compromise" do you need to have explained?

I don't need an explanation.

Obama, on the other hand........

Your posts say otherwise!