Posted on 06/23/2010 7:01:23 AM PDT by Brian Allen
What kind of man is Paul Krugman? His New York Times articles reveal a spiteful, deeply bigoted, outrageously dishonest and thoroughly hateful excuse for a human being. The bile he calls political and economic commentary would cause acute embarrassment to any newspaper with a shred of integrity. Fortunately for Krugman, integrity is the one thing you will not find at the Times. Like all truly committed Democrats Krugman's first loyalty is to the party and not his country. In fact, I sincerely doubt that he has a patriotic bone in his entire body. This has been brought out — as it has with many Democrats — in his supine attitude toward terrorism
Krugman had two courses open to him: advance the interests of the Democratic Party at the expense of his country or put his country second, if not last. As expected, he chose the former, deciding to use the war against terrorism as a means of embarrassing Republicans and putting a Democrat in the White House. The ever helpful New York Times, helpful to Democrats and terrorists, that is, cheerfully provided him with, as Lenin once put it, a "transmission belt" from which to savage the Republican forces of darkness.
Before continuing I should like to answer some of his snivelling admirers who have accused me of misrepresenting him as Democratic activist. They're right: I was far too generous. I should have called him a lying Democratic Party hack. However, they're right to demand evidence. Although, if they'd been paying attention to his New York Times propaganda pieces they would have found all the evidence they needed.
After the 9/11 atrocity Krugman said that he wondered whether any politician would have the bad taste "to exploit the horror to push their partisan agenda," a thought, he informed us, that he then treated as uncharitable (New York Times and the Melbourne Age, 17 September 2001.) But to his disgust that's what some politicians tried to do. I immediately thought: "Ah, he's sickened by Kennedy and Co using the atrocity as a cover to try and push through their very partisan pro-homosexual bill".
Silly me. What disgusted Krugman was the call by some Republicans to cut taxes, particularly capital gains taxes, to try and stimulate the economy. Krugman, being a fanatical Democrat, completely distorted the Republicans' argument. But notice how Kennedy's callous behaviour caused Krugman no distress whatever while Republican tax proposals clearly evoked a deep-seated loathing. What a sweet guy. And so fair, too.
Krugman's distaste for those who used the terrorist attack as an excuse to push their own agenda can be gauged from his silence on the ghoulish behaviour of California Democratic congresswoman Jane Harman. No sooner was the subcommittee on terrorism and homeland defence formed in response the World Trade Center than Harman, a committee member, started to use it as a fundraising tool, even though a thousand or more bodies were yet to be recovered from the rubble
One can easily imagine Krugman's outraged response if any Republican had acted in the same fashion as the callous Harman. One only has to think of those Democrats who slimed a republican ad at the time that contained brief references to the 9/11 atrocity to realise how sickeningly hypocritical the Democrats really are. Having condemned Republicans as distasteful political "opportunists" Krugman then took the high-moral ground, a natural position for two-faced pompous Democrats, and self-righteously announced that the Bush administration should become more bipartisan and drop its tax proposals.
As usual, the Democrats' idea of bipartisanship — as Obama and his band of vandals have made abundantly clear — is to demand that Republicans abandon their proposals in favour of the Democrats' proposals. That the Democrats when in power intentionally fail to practice what Krugman demanded of Republicans is not something he ever bothers to mention. That there is a genuine difference between making proposals that one believes will benefit the economy and pushing an agenda or selfishly using one's position to raise party funds while the bodies of the 9/11 victims are not yet cold is something that Krugman apparently lacks the moral substance to grasp.
The lofty-sounding Krugman finished his article with a thinly veiled attack on Republicans whom he basically accused of pushing a "partisan agenda" and of not being "true patriots" and whom "history will not forgive." Revolting humbug from a revolting man. It was the sanctimonious Krugman, not Republicans, who used the terrorist atrocities "for political gain" when he turned them into a political platform to fuel his anti-tax cut jihad and recklessly assail the Republicans' integrity while simultaneously wrapping himself in Old Glory.
After 9/11 Krugman quickly deteriorated to the point of paranoia: he then began to accuse the GOP of managing a "vast rightwing conspiracy". While being interviewed by Tony Jones from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Lateline, 11 March 2004) Krugman revealed that he had completely lost his marbles — which he is highly unlikely to ever regain — when he said, without a hint of humour: "The vast right-wing conspiracy isn't a theory, it's quite clearly visible to anyone who takes a little care to do his home work".
I'm beginning to assume that if it were not for advances in psychopharmacology he would have been hospitalised years ago. Nevertheless, in case he should forget to take his meds may I suggest that in future interviewers should keep a straitjacket at hand in case the professor turns violent if any of his pathetic delusions are challenged.
On a final note, Krugman's statement at the time that "job creation is essentially non-existent" under President Bush was rendered complete nonsense by the fact that the unemployment rate fell from its 6.3 per cent peak to 5.6 per cent, which was the same rate as when Clinton ran for a second term in 1996, while the U-6 rate stood at 9.7 per cent. Today the U-6 per cent rate is 17.1 per cent and the official unemployment rate stands at 9.7 per cent.
As Krugman well knows, the unemployment level depends on which method is used to measure. For example, the Household Survey indicated that 1.9 million jobs had been created from November 2001 while payrolls showed a weak demand for labour. The divergence was caused by the payroll approach which excludes the self-employed. The divergence between the two methods raised interesting questions, none of which appeared to bother Krugman. Now it's obvious that Krugman was giving the impression that total employment had remained unchanged under President Bush when the opposite was demonstrably true. There is absolutely no excuse for this attempted deception.
I've no idea what it is about President Bush that drove Krugman nuts, but I strongly urge him to undergo a course of psychiatric treatment because he has long since passed the point where facts or reason — or even reality — seem to matter to him.
Actually Krugman is perfectly consistent.
If the President has an R next to his name, anything that administration does is “bad economics”. If the President has a D next to their name, anything they are doing they should be doing much much more of.
He not a serious economist, he is a shameless propagandist.
Krugman always has been a scumbag. If he were a politician, I expect someone would find him in bed with a young boy.
He didn’t note Krugman’s finger-in-the-wind about-face on the “ethics” of Unemployment Compensation. Earlier this year he was pounding the table for longer and longer extensions, which directly contradicted the college Economics textbook he authored.
Krugman is a MAN?! Why isn’t this in Breaking News?
Make sure to remind your liberal friends and relatives that unemployment has DOUBLED since the Democrats took control of congress.
I’ve no idea what it is about President Bush that drove Krugman nuts,
Gee, I could tell you
and I’d bet you know too.
bump for later
Krugman is to the profession of economics what Typhoid May was to the profession of food safety.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.