Oh my. This deserves a long talk, but I think its worth mentioning that a "robust recovery" and "strong economy" have been pumped ever since 2001 with Krugman advocating the creation of a housing bubble to boost spending. The economy's fundamentals are terrible: a very large amount of money has been printed (digitally, mind), but it sitting in banks because they aren't willing to lend yet; Europe, Japan, and China are all rapidly running into problems; foreign oil is threatened by a war in the Gulf, etc etc
You and I apparently live in entirely different universes.
Krugman in fact warned about a housing bubble as it was forming:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/08/opinion/08krugman.html
And you are taking him massively out of context when he deliberately said that the Fed should not create a housing bubble:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html?pagewanted=1
And then you engage in the typical behavior of anyone who wants to attack the mainstream: throw a bunch of scary stuff against the wall without explanation and count on some of it to stick because people have genuinely no clue what you are saying.
The irony of the fact that you would portray Krugman's statements as being the diametric opposite of what they were yet claim that your chosen candidate is lied about and maligned isn't lost on me.
On the contrary, if you actually read the article, Krugman follows up the "create a housing bubble statement" with:
Judging by Mr. Greenspan's remarkably cheerful recent testimony, he still thinks he can pull that off. But the Fed chairman's crystal ball has been cloudy lately; remember how he urged Congress to cut taxes to head off the risk of excessive budget surpluses? And a sober look at recent data is not encouraging.
That isn't "Ha ha, what an idiot, trying to create a bubble", that's "He thinks he can, but he's not succeeding".
Krugman has a very long list of stupid things said, which is ironic since he talks about outside of his columns regarding free trade, etc are actually not that bad. Anyhow, here's a small list of him advocating things that led to the crash:
http://www.pkarchive.org/global/welt.htmlhttp://www.pkarchive.org/column/5201.htmlhttp://www.pkarchive.org/economy/ML082201.htmlFun quotes (Please don't insist that Krugman has a long history of drily supporting the creation of bubbles and providing arguments in the favour ironically, these aren't out of context as the sources show):
“KRUGMAN: I think frankly it’s got to be — business investment is not going to be the driving force in this recovery. It has to come from things like housing, things that have not been (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
DOBBS: We see, Paul, housing at near record levels, we see automobile purchases near record levels. The consumer is still very much in this economy. Can he or she — or I should say he and she, can they bring back this economy?
KRUGMAN: Well, as far as the arithmetic goes, yes, it is possible. Will the Fed cut interest rates enough? Will long-term rates fall enough to get the consumer, get the housing sector there in time? We don’t know”
“During phases of weak growth there are always those who say that lower interest rates will not help. They overlook the fact that low interest rates act through several channels. For instance, more housing is built, which expands the building sector. You must ask the opposite question: why in the world shouldn’t you lower interest rates?”
“Post-terror nerves aside, what mainly ails the U.S. economy is too much of a good thing. During the bubble years businesses overspent on capital equipment; the resulting overhang of excess capacity is a drag on investment, and hence a drag on the economy as a whole.
In time this overhang will be worked off. Meanwhile, economic policy should encourage other spending to offset the temporary slump in business investment. Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer. But it seems inevitable that there will also be a fiscal stimulus package”
Greatjustice:
1: DOMA also forbids the federal government from providing marriage benefits to its employees, serving or retired veterans, for tax and all other purposes, etc, even if they are legally married in a state that allows same sex marriages.
Section motherfucking 3:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-groshoff/ron-paul-homophobic_b_1171695.htmlAhem:
While Ron Paul stated that he supports DOMA, DOMA is a complex law. Evidencing DOMA's complexity is the pro-queer legal community's general strategy of attacking DOMA Section 3, not DOMA's entirety.
Because I could find nothing in which Paul specifically addressed DOMA Section 3 rather than DOMA in its entirety (including legislative history, as Paul wasn't a member of Congress during the DOMA vote), I requested comment from the Paul campaign on short notice. I did not receive a response prior to submitting this piece. (I'll include an update should I receive a response.)
My guess is that if specifically asked regarding support for DOMA Section 3, Paul would answer no. My further suspicion is that since he supports most of DOMA, Paul can justify saying that he supports DOMA, enabling him to pander to the party primary base.
Even if Paul supports DOMA entirely, President Clinton signed all of DOMA into law, despite being hailed as possibly having "courted the gay vote" more than any other prior candidate. President Clinton's campaign messages didn't equate with his "voting" as president.
So (A) One particular part is a problem but the rest isn't, making it justifiable to a point (I recall Paul saying he objected to small details of the CRAs, but still would have supported them with reservations due to the rest being fine) and (B) If you're going to lambast Paul for it, you're going to have to lambast the senate, the house, and President Clinton as being equally racist/homophobic/etc. If you are willing to admit that Clinton is a racist and homophobe and should be called out for it, then I'll give up right here and now. Otherwise, you're using double standards and shame on you.
2: The source for Ron Paul's legislative attempt to repeal the supreme courts ability to rule state laws unconstitutional? Its the god damn WE THE PEOPLE act that i have linked on page 5 of this thread. http://www.independentamericanparty.org/2011/09/1949/
Which limits the courts by link to the tenth amendment, not literally striking down all of their power (seeing as how that is probably the biggest thing they do, that would be more or less the same as simple abolition of the courts).
It also limits them in a handful of specified ways, not "THE COURTS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO INTERVENE". Most of them (privacy, etc) are things that are already covered by constitutional limits (the 4th, the 5th, etc etc) that the federal government (thanks to the SC might I add) is far more willing to bend. Even the "establishment of a religion" clause isn't especially powerful; again, the constitution overrides state laws, so either it would literally be an altogether symbolic thing or it would be unconstitutional under the first amendment, among others. Next.
I already gave you the source for all of this. It's the "We the People Act". Could you at least try here?
Finished, see above. The constitution overrides state laws, and this doesn't change that in the slightest (it doesn't even damage the power of the SC in any major terms).
I have. You ignore it, and continue to ask for "sources" that I've already given.
I make an effort to find every statement and cover it in some regard. If I haven't, its probably because I haven't seen it.
Author
Topic: American Election Megathread - It's Over (Read 771905 times)