Posted on 08/20/2012 9:29:39 AM PDT by Kaslin
NewsBusters reported Sunday that Newsweek is out with a truly shocking edition featuring a cover story entitled "Hit the Road, Barack: Why We Need a New President."
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman took to his blog Sunday excoriating the article in a piece he called "Unethical Commentary, Newsweek Edition":
There are multiple errors and misrepresentations in Niall Ferguson’s cover story in Newsweek — I guess they don’t do fact-checking — but this is the one that jumped out at me. Ferguson says:
The president pledged that health-care reform would not add a cent to the deficit. But the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation now estimate that the insurance-coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of close to $1.2 trillion over the 2012–22 period.
Readers are no doubt meant to interpret this as saying that CBO found that the Act will increase the deficit. But anyone who actually read, or even skimmed, the CBO report (pdf) knows that it found that the ACA would reduce, not increase, the deficit — because the insurance subsidies were fully paid for.
Please notice that the CBO report Krugman linked to is from March 30, 2011.
What he failed to inform his readers is the CBO revised these numbers in a March 13, 2012, report finding "the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012–2021 period."
Yet the Time columnist had the nerve to attack Ferguson:
Now, people on the right like to argue that the CBO was wrong. But that’s not the argument Ferguson is making — he is deliberately misleading readers, conveying the impression that the CBO had actually rejected Obama’s claim that health reform is deficit-neutral, when in fact the opposite is true.
Really, Paul? Who's "deliberately misleading readers?"
me thinks that once Hillary decided not to be on the ticket, signals were sent to take down Barry from the Clintonistas.
Newsweek and Politico
Unethical would be the person who allows themselves to be referred to as a Nobel Prize winning economist without mentioning that the NP was in another discipline...
I think the Great Clintons get extra political media points for “living” down the street from Readers’ Digest in Chappaqua.
Derivative of a “Clymer” I think.
This coming from the clown who called for a fake space alien invasion as a way to fix the economy.
His Nobel Prize is as worthwhile as Gaybama’s.
Better put some ice on it, Krugman.
“The media simply does not want to admit Obama looks like a loser, one who deserves to lose as badly as Carter did, because his policies have been disastrous, and his executive skills reflect his complete lack of experience running anything bigger than his mouth before entering the Oval Office as president.”
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/08/obamas_msm_shield_starts_to_crumble.html#ixzz246gtr62Z
“And, what does a Krugman know about ethics?”
I am still trying to figure out what a Krugman knows about economics.
All of a sudden he has developed an interest in facts?
Pretty late in life for such a major flip-flop.
this would never happen without the support of Weymouth and Graham...no way.
shocking actually
it really is The Economy Stupid
even over the St Albans progressive laundry list of social engineering must dos
amazing that there are elitist lefties out here that fear where Che Obama is headed economically
bet some of the staff there and WashPo and Politico are livid
i mean just roiling
The male version of Helen Thomas.
Isn’t Krugman that early-onset dementia liberal who used to write (or still does??) for the NY Times?
Yikes.. To publish this bitter old fellow’s diatribes is downright cruel at this point. I don’t know if Krugman has any friends or family who respect him, but they should take his blog away if they do. Same with Helen Thomas. People can become an embarrassment and make fools of themselves at a certain point.
A Krugman is a Clymer. Big time.
I took one just this morningYou will be needing some of this:
Somewhere, there’s a freight car just waiting for Krugman to come and spray paint his wisdom on it.
-PJ
Krugman is from the same school of economics as Nancy "Every $1.00 spent on food stamps returns $1.79 to the economy" Pelosi. I think it was called "Keynesian" economics and it was thoroughly discredited by serious economists long ago. But the model promotes big government socialism, and therefore many communist Democrats still use it to play "make believe". (shrug) With the stupid Democrats it's brain damage and with the clever ones it's just brazen lying. As far as Krugman goes, take your pick, but I would lean toward mostly brain damage tempered with lies (such as citing an out-of-date CBO report).
Not me, not in the least.
The way the game is played is like this: the liberal newsrooms will publish covers like this Newsweak one, and write columns that take Ubama to the woodshed. Nearly all of them will do this. That way, when crunch time comes and the ignorant chattering class begins to pay some attention to the upcoming election (say, the final three weeks), the Democrat newsrooms can go full tilt for their p.o.s. Ubama and point to these months-old examples of how they have been "equally critical" and "fair to both candidates".
It's just the publishing version of the ACLU going to court on behalf of Illinois Nazis every few years.
"No agenda here.. We're balanced, see?"
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.
