Seeking Alpha

Paul Krugman hopes that Pres. Obama's reported consideration of entitlement cuts as part of a...

Paul Krugman hopes that Pres. Obama's reported consideration of entitlement cuts as part of a debt ceiling deal is just theater, that "the goal may be... making Republicans look like intransigent extremists - which they are." But he's growing disenchanted: "It’s getting harder to trust Mr. Obama’s motives in the budget fight, given the way his economic rhetoric has veered to the right."
Comments (78)
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    I'm pretty disenchanted with Krugman too.
    8 Jul 2011, 06:17 PM Reply Like
  • tunaman4u2
    , contributor
    Comments (2741) | Send Message
     
    Krugman & his money printing can take some blame too
    8 Jul 2011, 10:53 PM Reply Like
  • Kristian
    , contributor
    Comments (48) | Send Message
     
    In 2002 Krugman stated that we needed a housing bubble to offset the tech bubble. The idiocy of Keynesianism knew no more boundaries then, than it does now.

     

    quantumpranx.wordpress.../
    11 Jul 2011, 03:36 AM Reply Like
  • new slang
    , contributor
    Comments (163) | Send Message
     
    With austerity devastating other countries, I don't see how everyone is so sure it's the answer for us.
    8 Jul 2011, 06:22 PM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (734) | Send Message
     
    Austerity will come, one way or another. We either accept it now, or have it forced on us later when the numbers are much worse.
    8 Jul 2011, 06:53 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4009) | Send Message
     
    Austerity is just another word for living within your means.
    8 Jul 2011, 08:35 PM Reply Like
  • GotLife
    , contributor
    Comments (1214) | Send Message
     
    Check out New Zealand.

     

    Austerity is a solution when you're broke and have to meet current operating expenses by credit card. Why is this hard for people to grasp?

     

    Broke as in default if we can't borrow. That kind of broke broke.
    8 Jul 2011, 11:16 PM Reply Like
  • TrueConservative
    , contributor
    Comments (70) | Send Message
     
    OH goodie! The semi-daily 6:15 Obama/Krugman troll-bait thread!

     

    Thanks SA! I was beginning to worry that you had stopped leaning in the right direction!
    8 Jul 2011, 06:23 PM Reply Like
  • spald_fr
    , contributor
    Comments (2702) | Send Message
     
    Not quite true, TC. My "Casey Jones 0bama" comment has been deleted. It was originally the fourth comment on this thread. Even the Krugman/Frank pillow talk post survived.
    9 Jul 2011, 10:18 AM Reply Like
  • dcortex
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    You say "his economic rhetoric has veered to the right."
    So appointing a Republican treasurer was ????
    8 Jul 2011, 06:37 PM Reply Like
  • enigmaman
    , contributor
    Comments (2686) | Send Message
     
    Funny- Obama hated on the right and hated on the left, all he has left is to work towards the middle
    8 Jul 2011, 07:11 PM Reply Like
  • The Patriot
    , contributor
    Comments (320) | Send Message
     
    No, the middle hates him too
    8 Jul 2011, 07:43 PM Reply Like
  • buyitcheap
    , contributor
    Comments (1848) | Send Message
     
    Agreed with The Patriot, and pretty much any incumbent.
    All pols and bankers are socialists.
    8 Jul 2011, 08:55 PM Reply Like
  • RiskAverseAlert
    , contributor
    Comments (174) | Send Message
     
    It seems the most provocative observation to be made per debt showdown, both in the U.S. and Europe, is that Glass-Steagall's restoration could be a lot closer than most presently imagine.

     

    tinyurl.com/3vzwnqc
    8 Jul 2011, 07:37 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    No problems for nearly a century. Repeal Glass-Steagall. Worse financial disaster in nearly a century. What idiot wouldn't restore Glass-Steagall.

     

    I know I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but, I'm starting to feel brilliant compared to the idiots that are running this railroad.
    10 Jul 2011, 09:39 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    What "Idiot" Repealed it to begin with?
    11 Jul 2011, 05:43 PM Reply Like
  • dkonline
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    New slang has a point, austerity might not work at this point, but neither does make-work government spending. Look at Japan. It's like pushing on a string.

     

    We have to deleverage slowly and that takes time. Politicians have to pretend to care.
    8 Jul 2011, 07:39 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    I agree. There are quicker ways to get to the end of the rainbow. Many of them advocated here, but, they are all so painful I don't think they can pass. Whatever happens, its going to be a long term approach with deleveraging taking years.
    10 Jul 2011, 09:44 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4009) | Send Message
     
    Krugman understands that the future of the Democrats/Liberals/Soc... requires ever increasing entitlement spending. Without a meaningful number of parasites, Democrats cannot be sure of electoral success. The base is composed of too few fruitcakes to swing an election on their own. The Republicans are only marginally better. They don't want to kill the host. Both parties are statist. Under the Democrats, whatever freedom we have left will just disappear faster than under the Republicans. If enough people would stand up for The Bill of Rights, we could run the statists out, but I'm not betting on it.
    "Any nation that thinks more of its ease and comfort than its freedom will soon lose its freedom; and the ironical thing about it is that it will lose its ease and comfort too."
    W. Somerset Maugham
    8 Jul 2011, 08:58 PM Reply Like
  • Marlin Keith DeBramaletta
    , contributor
    Comments (262) | Send Message
     
    Obama edicate has a brand of Harvard Law and has a Columbia undergrad in foreign policy which is symbolic of politics. In addition he has within his posts and board, the highest levels of academias in economics. I think Obama handles the political representation aspect well. The economics of it is not right or left, but just economics. Economics has a supreme hand in the decisions of this debate. The issue is less a political issue and more an economics issue that needs political consensus, and that is being reflected in his speeches.
    8 Jul 2011, 09:18 PM Reply Like
  • Serious Cat
    , contributor
    Comments (22) | Send Message
     
    The best efforts in economic modeling and nonlinear thinking by economists got us a 40% deficit and 14T in debt. Basically, their models did not represent the real world properly, and their predictions were wrong.

     

    Perhaps it's time for some linear thinking. Isn't a 40% deficit high enough? Much is made of the damage done by cuts, but does Dr. Paul Krugman believe that we can reduce a 40% deficit with tax increases alone? Oh right, we need a balanced approach which the economic models predict will eventually get us out of this mess just about the time the debt is 28T.
    8 Jul 2011, 09:43 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4254) | Send Message
     
    Problem is, with a $28 trillion debt, the interest alone would be $1 trillion or more. Not a good thing.
    8 Jul 2011, 09:54 PM Reply Like
  • Marlin Keith DeBramaletta
    , contributor
    Comments (262) | Send Message
     
    Economist did not handle the budget deficit or resulting debt owed to the budget deficit. The current theatrical stage of politics in tax increases versus spending cuts indicates the root cause of the deficit and subsequenting debt. Ignoring the budget situation and borrowing to fund overspending relative to tax cuts lead to the budget deficit. Economist have done a great job. LInear thinking is for computer programmers.
    8 Jul 2011, 10:09 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    USC-Col 2006

     

    If we had Ignored the likes of Krugman, we would likely have less of a budget deficit.
    8 Jul 2011, 10:14 PM Reply Like
  • frosty
    , contributor
    Comments (689) | Send Message
     
    If we had not invaded Iraq and cut taxes we would likely have less of a budget deficit.
    9 Jul 2011, 09:04 AM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    Frosty,

     

    Not saying the Iraq War was was wise nor inexpensive.

     

    But the entire cost of the Iraq war is less that 10% of the oustanding debt.
    Tax cuts were instituted for a reason at the time, and are another form of fiscal stimulus for which keynesians feel is necessary.

     

    They were approved by a democratic Congress along with the Iraq War.

     

    Your comments ignore the problem and the Arithmetic.

     

    www.poetpatriot.com/ti...

     

    Spending along with the revenue losses from severe recession are the culprits.

     

    The top 10% presently pay 86% of all taxes. If you raised that to 100%, you would not even put a dent in the deficit.
    9 Jul 2011, 09:34 AM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3979) | Send Message
     
    2 cents, here's a number: Iraq war cost = $1.2 trillion
    9 Jul 2011, 09:56 AM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    KMI,

     

    Yes, Like I said, less than 10% of the oustanding debt.

     

    Unlike Gulf War 1, which had oustanding ROI, GWB's Iraq war was expensive, and certainly with the benefit of hindsight, not worth the costs. (both Human & Financial)

     

    It would be interesting however to see an analysis of how much of that $1.2T actually gets recycled back into the economy, tax revenues to suppliers etc, to actually assess a true Net Cost.

     

    This would be interesting, as conventional wisdom in the past were that war can be beneficial and stimulative to the economy.

     

    No doubt the Human Legacy costs are likely enormous however. (disabled veterans, etc)
    9 Jul 2011, 10:17 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4254) | Send Message
     
    I have always wondered just how they figure the cost of those wars - is it only the extra cost, or do they include things we would be paying for anyway, even if the troops were back in Ft Bragg etc.
    9 Jul 2011, 10:32 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Wars are stimulative no doubt about it but they also crowd out private investment and can rack up debt. Typically unfunded wars result in inflation.

     

    Downsizing our military will bring a lot of people back into the private workforce looking for a job.
    9 Jul 2011, 11:05 AM Reply Like
  • petergrt
    , contributor
    Comments (326) | Send Message
     
    Where do you think the money went? It produced a lot more private economy jobs than the 0bama's $ trillion 'stimulus' pooooop.
    9 Jul 2011, 11:49 AM Reply Like
  • Marlin Keith DeBramaletta
    , contributor
    Comments (262) | Send Message
     
    The war was costly and their was no real return. Even in regards to the oil market, their was no real return. The political appeal of Saddam regime having been defeated was picturesque. The journalism and the negative framework of Saddam Huseein was a magnificent rendition of making an example of a US enemy. Outside of the media and politics of the situation, their was no economic or financial return, or production return even on the War in Iraq, just cost that went over the budget deficits.
    9 Jul 2011, 12:14 PM Reply Like
  • Marlin Keith DeBramaletta
    , contributor
    Comments (262) | Send Message
     
    As a politically neutral person, the World War and Korean War stimulated jobs, manufacturing, and the economy. In addition manpower was put to work for the armed forces, their was comraderie within the United States. A sense of pride into creating good was magnified. The Iraq War never realized any of those gains at all.
    9 Jul 2011, 12:16 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3979) | Send Message
     
    Traditionally the military industrial complex has been beneficial to the economy it was one of the reasons Bush the Senior saw a benefit to going to war. The money feeds back into the economy. Bush the Senior was part of that economic school of thought.

     

    It's a good bet Bush the Minor thought the same. But his war was a lesson in BS. He let Cheney's buddies take all the contracts for building out these huge installations in Iraq (GB Senior had our troops in standard off the shelf equipment, Bush the Minor was preparing for a long term occupation and was making it all up as he went along, buying new untested unsafe equipment and having our troops test it out).

     

    The cost for sheltering a soldier by comparison skyrocketed.

     

    Bush the Minor used Hummers which were the worst possible choice of occupation vehicle when he could have used off the shelf Gavins (read up on this on the internet) which were safer for troops and would have saved lives but he wanted to kick the economy's engine on.

     

    It goes on and on. the problem? Globalization. Since the 70s more and more of the military industrial complex's manufacturing has been offshored and the feedback into the domestic economy has been heavily reduced.

     

    It's a lengthy topic for discussion but I hope I nailed the bullet points.

     

    Your suggestion that there was some feedback into the domestic economy by having us produce more bullets is correct, it just wasn't as significant of a feedback as in prior military actions since its a different economy.
    9 Jul 2011, 03:56 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3979) | Send Message
     
    USC-guy -

     

    Iraq is now producing more oil than it ever has historically. It is also expected to continue to ramp up production.

     

    But the US doesn't get access to any of it, outside of the 19b or whatever it is these days sitting in accounts in Citibank and Chase.

     

    Also, that money - is theirs - and it isn't assisting us with rebuilding the country we destroyed, and we are still paying the bills even as they reap the benefits.
    9 Jul 2011, 04:00 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    KMI,

     

    Good thoughts.

     

    One thing's for sure.

     

    GWB's war cost about $3K per citizen

     

    Bush Sr's war about $25 dollars, less than 1 tank of gas not to mention the benefits of $20 per barrel oil for years after.

     

    www.poetpatriot.com/ti...

     

    Part of the reason was that about 88% of the US's costs were re-imbursed by the worldwide coalition in the First Gulf War. (Desert Storm)

     

    It would be interesting to see a serious analysis of how much gets fed back into the economy, vs money pissed away only to be gone forever.

     

    I would guess one of the biggest permanent losses of money may be attributed to Fuel Costs. Much of that money is likely in foreign hands never to be of much benefit to the US again.
    9 Jul 2011, 04:46 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    USC

     

    The Iraq war was not even close in scope or viciousness to either WW or the Korean War. By comparison it was more of a police action.

     

    Then we hung around for close to a decade and built schools and did a lot of state building. That does not bring people together as we transferred money from the US to Iraq.
    9 Jul 2011, 05:47 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    kmi

     

    We need to separate the cost of going to war to defeat an enemy and then using our armed forces for state building. That latter expense should not be the cost of going to war.

     

    We should go and kick butt and then leave and let our state department write checks out to other governments if they so desire.

     

    George Sr. was in and then out of the first Gulf War. George Jr. hung around forever and that is not a good use of our militiary.
    9 Jul 2011, 05:51 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    kmi

     

    If we are truly at war we should not be obligated to pay anyone's bills for reconstruction. They can pay it themselves.

     

    We have people in WDC that don't know how to manage money.
    9 Jul 2011, 05:52 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Kind of agree with you, but, why did we need to go into Iraq with W? Oh ya, weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi cooperation with Al Qaeda, and yellow cake. None of which existed.
    10 Jul 2011, 09:59 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Chaney's pals really made out!!

     

    Except for the one he shot of course.
    10 Jul 2011, 10:00 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    1980,

     

    Not saying the Iraq War was was wise nor inexpensive.

     

    But the entire cost of the Iraq war is less that 10% of the oustanding debt.

     

    10% here, 10% there, pretty soon your talking real money.

     

    If I got 10% of the 10% I'd be one rich SOB.
    14 Jul 2011, 03:31 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    kmi,

     

    I don't think that is taking into account all of the other costs. It's easily going to cost this nation a trillion or two to take care of the injured veterans over their lifetime. Unless we stiff them like we have other veterans.
    14 Jul 2011, 03:33 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    I want you to tell that crap to a Marine that served several tours in Iraq.
    14 Jul 2011, 03:36 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    The key figure in your discussion is Cheney and his buddies. I'm sure they made billions and billions.
    14 Jul 2011, 03:40 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    They are in my extended family and they also question nation building under fire. Take off your Dem goggles for a second.
    14 Jul 2011, 09:15 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Perhaps Obama is pulling a Clinton and reversing ground to become more fiscally responsible. It sure helped Clinton after he wasted most of his first term jacking around will all kinds of liberal pet projects and Hillary care.

     

    Krugman is a waste of time.
    8 Jul 2011, 11:57 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4254) | Send Message
     
    Clinton was never the kind of hard-Leftist that Obama is.
    9 Jul 2011, 09:51 AM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3979) | Send Message
     
    Was under Clinton that market deregulation started. I blame him for a lot of things.
    9 Jul 2011, 09:57 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4254) | Send Message
     
    I blame Bush2 for a lot of things also, but when it comes to ideology, Obama I think is about as far left as any president we have evern had.

     

    But ideology alone is not the problem - the problem is that just like Krugman - ideology acts like a filter, so you don't really "hear" any arguments from the opposing viewpoint. Obama never had any experience outside of politics or academia, which I think severely limits his whole view of the world, especially when all your advisors have similar backgrounds. Clinton surrounded himself to a large extent with people that "knew things" - Obama has surrounded himself with people that think like he does.
    9 Jul 2011, 10:39 AM Reply Like
  • spald_fr
    , contributor
    Comments (2702) | Send Message
     
    [Obama has surrounded himself with people that think like he does. ]

     

    If that is the case, we need a kid to tell the Emperor about his wardrobe.
    9 Jul 2011, 10:45 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Clinton started out pretty far left and all the liberals were gaga for a few years. Then he saw the writing on the wall and went to the center in a hurry. We will see if Obama is looking to do a Clinton II.
    9 Jul 2011, 11:03 AM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3979) | Send Message
     
    Windsun -

     

    I disagree with everything you said re Obama but I'll leave you with one thought: for every crisis dealt with by Obama, picture how McCain would have handled it.

     

    If that doesn't scare you, I don't think anything can.
    9 Jul 2011, 04:01 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4254) | Send Message
     
    I did not vote for McCain either, so it bothers me not at all. Of the 3 main front runners, I thought Hillary was the most qualified and would have been better than either one of them. I voted for some unknown 3rd party candidate in the 2008...
    9 Jul 2011, 09:18 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    I voted for Pat Paulsen.

     

    www.paulsen.com/pat/
    9 Jul 2011, 09:25 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3979) | Send Message
     
    Well prepare to repeat that in 2012 as the field hasn't improved any...
    9 Jul 2011, 10:22 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4254) | Send Message
     
    I am hoping someone better than the present field will run, like Charley Sheen or Lady Gaga.
    10 Jul 2011, 01:06 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    kmi, the Republican Congress passed it though. Gotta blame them too.
    10 Jul 2011, 10:03 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Geez, I'd take McCain over all of the Chuckleheads on the Rep side, in a New York minute.

     

    It's gotten worse, far worse.
    10 Jul 2011, 10:06 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Lady's got my vote. The Republicans would be impeaching Charley for indiscretions in the oval office the first day!
    10 Jul 2011, 10:08 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Yes it was under Clinton. But, it was a Republican Congress.
    14 Jul 2011, 03:43 AM Reply Like
  • Imes
    , contributor
    Comments (141) | Send Message
     
    Don't worry Paul K, Obama is not changing his ideology. This is just rhetoric to fool the public, but the will return to his usual left-wing class warfare methods. This is just a way of trying to divert blame to the repubs.
    9 Jul 2011, 07:58 AM Reply Like
  • frosty
    , contributor
    Comments (689) | Send Message
     
    Krugman would have Obama push policies that cannot possibly pass the House. So nothing would get done. He must believe that doing nothing will solve our problems.
    9 Jul 2011, 09:08 AM Reply Like
  • Joe Dirnfeld
    , contributor
    Comments (1128) | Send Message
     
    Krugman is a terrorist, throwing bombs at everything Republican and does it with impunity because he knows. He has a Nobel prize which assures him he knows. He just knows that he
    Knows and his vainglorious political/economics now makes him irrelevant .
    9 Jul 2011, 09:42 AM Reply Like
  • tonym
    , contributor
    Comments (61) | Send Message
     
    The modern form of socialism espoused by Krugman and the academic left has evolved and their folks require the higher standard of living the rest of us enjoy. Spending with debt by government is the new means. Now government is struggling to continue and pay for transfers to the non-tax paying bottom 50% of US citizens demanded by Krugman and the Democrats. Redistribution worked as long as the top earners continue to find growth paths and government debt levels stayed serviceable. Democrats are unable to satisfy the needs of liberals because they’re paying so much interest. Providing quality freebees like food and healthcare are not affordable especially with high interest payments on their debt. Liberals would have more to redistribute if they could figure out how to tax the bottom 50% and use less borrowing. Places like California have broken economic systems. The faculty lounge can not be a happy place for Krugman and Obama now.
    9 Jul 2011, 10:19 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    People in the faculty lounge don't even understand the problem. They still think there is a lot of money out there that should be given to them for 9 months of work. They also believe their bumper stickers that they are the smartest people in the ecosystem because they are educating tomorrow's leaders. Even though they teach the same thing every year over and over.
    9 Jul 2011, 11:10 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4254) | Send Message
     
    Forget where I saw it, but a while back someone posted scans of a professors 1990 and 2008 lesson plans, and they were almost identical.
    9 Jul 2011, 11:37 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Why not be the same? It is easy and they can do something else with their time. I don't necessarily agree with it but I cannot argue with the logic. If you teach math it really does not change.
    9 Jul 2011, 05:55 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4254) | Send Message
     
    Forgot to mention it, but the lesson plan was about marketing and advertising. I wish I had kept a copy, but I recall that the later one had about 2 sentences about the internet.
    9 Jul 2011, 09:20 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    What really freaks me out is they educated the latest crop of Republicans. Unless of course they went offshore for their education.
    10 Jul 2011, 10:11 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Yes, I had a chemistry professor that refused to let us use calculators because he wanted us to use our brains.

     

    Imagine that.
    12 Aug 2011, 11:11 AM Reply Like
  • tmcbride76
    , contributor
    Comments (6) | Send Message
     
    Gee, In the world of Paul Krugman, just keep spending as if you have it. What comes after trillions? zillions? Why not just publish the money and pay off the National debt.
    9 Jul 2011, 11:38 AM Reply Like
  • petergrt
    , contributor
    Comments (326) | Send Message
     
    All this talk about wars and their impact on the US economy fails to recognize the mother lode of all wars - the war on Capitalsm, that 0bama and his minions have been waging for much of their adult lives, but now, from the White House . . . .the fruits of the war are jut now beginning to trickle down - small business is stagnant, foreign talent is leaving, and so on . . . .
    9 Jul 2011, 01:21 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    What a perverse view of the universe!
    12 Aug 2011, 11:07 AM Reply Like
  • Imes
    , contributor
    Comments (141) | Send Message
     
    Krugman is just another Fabian who wants to use govt control of our wealth to control Americans. I presume he is a smart guy and therefore knows his methods will not work to help the economy. He just has a different agenda...destruction of wealth.
    11 Aug 2011, 04:42 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Yes, govt control of our wealth has been a monumental failure. It only made us the richest nation the world has ever seen.
    12 Aug 2011, 11:05 AM Reply Like
  • Imes
    , contributor
    Comments (141) | Send Message
     
    Don't think that the Krugmans and Obamas of the world will stop trying. Example: remember the poll done about 3 months ago that asked whether the person was in favor of redistribution of wealth? 67% of AMERICANS responded YES! I suspect even 10 years ago that number would have been 10%
    13 Aug 2011, 08:21 AM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    Imes,

     

    I suspect the Vast majority of the electorate are not even aware of the technical definition of the term.

     

    Latest I-Pad, American Idol, Biggest Loser, The Bachelor and the like, continue to keep them uninterested
    13 Aug 2011, 05:02 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|