Fiscally Conservative, Socially tolerant, Anti-War
That's because she's one of the people that makes MSNBC into a left-wing mirror of Fox News.
That's nonsense dmarks. They have a leftwing slant, but MSNBC pundits don't lie like those on Fox.As for Paul Krugman, we all know Will doesn't like him. Case in point is the post where he totally bought the lie that Paul Krugman called for a housing bubble.So Will criticizing Rachel for believing what Paul Krugman says is no surprise. It's easily explained by his stoogely adherence to Conservative economics.I find it borderline frightening how blinded by his ideology Will is... Case in point: he really believes Paul Krugman called for a housing bubble. Ridiculous, huh?
MSNBC's pundits DO lie. Ed Schultz, for example, spliced tape to make it sound as if Rick Perry was saying that President Obama was a "black cloud hovering over the economy". It was a totally disgusting tactic/extremely Hannityesque.............Mr. Krugman's words are Mr. Krugman's words. If you buy into his lame excuse that they actually meant something else, feel free.
And I've read Mr. Krugman's comments. In the first paragraph, Mr. Krugman introduces the the concept of the "double dipper iconoclasts" and clearly states that he agrees with them. In the second paragraph, he outlines the the basic point of the double dippers and, again, he agrees with it. Then he shows how the Fed should accomplish this and, again, he supports it. Mr. Krugman said a really stupid thing (just like economists from all stripes say stupid things) and he should just admit it and move on.
'border line frightening'?Maddow is a Rhodes Scholar witha doctorate, which granted isunusual for a partisan talking head (considering Hannity and Limbaugh for instance). I guesswe can accept her acceptance ofrather mainstream economic thinking if we can accept thosewho adhere to the von Mises & Hayekschool...
WD said: "That's nonsense dmarks. They have a leftwing slant, but MSNBC pundits don't lie like those on Fox." Oh they lie alright. But of course as you have proven, whether or not you forgive/ignore the lies depends on your own slant.
Will: MSNBC's pundits DO lie. Ed Schultz, for example [nonsense about Ed Schultz "splicing" tape].Your example doesn't prove MSNBC pundits lie. Ed Schultz admits the implication was an error. In other words, an honest mistake and not a "lie".The Huffington post reported it. This is something you don't see if Fox Nooz makes a "mistake". They ignore it and move on.In regards to Paul Krugman, you're wrong. I've pointed you to the article where he explains what he meant and how ridiculous the accusations you're buying into are.I'm not buying into a "lame excuse", I'm buying into the truth. You should try it sometime, instead of gullibly believing the Rightwing spin.
An error that just so happened to make Mr. Perry look like a racist? Damn, wd, if you believe that, then you're an even bigger idiot than I thought.............Yes, I saw Mr. Krugman's cover his ass explanation and found it utterly unconvincing (talk about some spin). Next!
Will: An error that just so happened to make Mr. Perry look like a racist?No, it did not "just so happen". Ed Schultz believes Perry is racist, and he and his staff were looking for examples of Perry's racism. I do believe it was an honest mistake, and don't give a shit how big of an idiot you think that makes me.I also believe Paul Krugman. I've heard another economist make the same case... that the bush administration deliberately caused the housing bubble to make the economy look good. This economist was also not saying the housing bubble was good thing.bush did it for short term gain (to help his presidency). Why the hell would Paul Krugman call for a housing bubble? Your inane argument makes absolutely no sense. I think you just don't like Paul Krugman, which explains why you're eager to believe this nonsensical accusation about him advocating for a housing bubble.I believe that you continuing to stand by this accusation makes you an even bigger idiot than I thought.
Like I said, I've read Mr. Krugman's comments in their entirety. In the first paragraph, he introduces the the concept of the "double dipper iconoclasts" and clearly states that he agrees with them. In the second paragraph, he outlines the the basic point of the double dippers and, again, he agrees with it. Then he shows how the Fed should accomplish this and, again, he supports it. Maybe Mr. Krugman "meant" something else but it sure doesn't sound it to me.............So, you're saying that President Bush INTENTIONALLY created a housing bubble in an effort to help himself politically? Dude, it was probably the actions of the FED (under the absolute mismanagement of Alan Greenspan) that created the housing bubble; the fact that they artificially lowered interest rates and created a culture in which lending institutions KNEW that they would probably be bailed out if necessary. Greenspan is the real demon here (though, yes, Hank Paulsen, Mr. Bush's Treasury Secretary, also played a role in creating this bailout culture), IMO.
Why would Mr. Krugman call for a housing bubble? Let's see, maybe because it fits quite neatly into Mr. Krugman's procrastination/kick the can down the road/one big massive, expensive, intrusive government intervention after another system of economics.
Will: So, you're saying that President Bush INTENTIONALLY created a housing bubble in an effort to help himself politically?Economist Ravi Batra said it, on Thom Hartmann's radio program. Although, I those were not his exact words. He said (I'm paraphrasing) that, instead of advocating for polices that would increase the wages of middle class and working Americans, this was the only other thing they could do to keep the economy looking good.He was talking about the entire bush administration, including Greenspan.
Ravi Batra said it (on the Thom Hartmann Show, no less)? Oh, I definitely stand corrected then.......Greenspan expansed a number of administrations and the FED is at least supposed to be independent from government.
Post a Comment