Liberal Nonsense Of The Day: Paul Krugman Edition

A big part of my job here at involves exposing the inane arguments made by big-government proponents. But every once in awhile, my job is made easier by leftists spewing their unique blend of arrogance and insanity, making their logical flaws plain to see. It is at these points that we all shake our heads, speechless, and my work appears done. Still, sometimes it’s worth digging through the madness to see if there’s a larger lesson…

Paul Krugman, Obama apologist and New York Times’ Socialism cheerleader, appeared on ABC’s “This Week” to discuss what he (supposedly) knows best: the economy. In a staggering display of nonsensical babble, Krugman stated:

“…We’re talking as if $1 billion was a lot of money. In a $15 trillion economy, it’s not. Solyndra was a mistake as part of a long program, which has by and large, it had a good track record. Of course you’re going to find a mistake. I think to be fair, that’s probably true in Massachusetts, as well. This is ridiculous that we are taking these tiny, tiny missteps that happen in any large organizations including corporations, including Bain Capital- Bain Capital had losers, too, right? Even from the point of view of its investors. So this is ridiculous and the fact of the matter is this president has not managed to get very much of what he wanted done. It’s terribly unfair that he’s being judged on the failure of the economy to respond to policies, which have been largely dictated by a hostile Congress.”

Got that? Head spinning? Don’t be alarmed, that’s a common side effect of liberal nonsense on the right-thinking brain.

Krugman is known for two things: his Noble Prize in economics for his work in trade theory, and his dogmatic championing of all things Obama. Admittedly, such a coupling is an odd pairing, but since both Al Gore and Jimmy Carter both have Nobel prizes, it’s obvious that this prize carries a fragment (at best) of the prestige it once held.

Krugman begins by dismissing $1 billion as a paltry sum, thus illustrating the basic problem with liberal thinking: the more taxpayer money they take, the more they feel entitled to. While Krugman may feel that $1 billion is nothing in the grander scheme of things, the fact remains that we are in this canyon of debt thanks to people who don’t realize that if you add a billion here and a billion there, soon you’re talking real money. If Krugman or anybody else feels that $1 billion dollars is pocket change, please feel free to heed Obama’s call to “spread the wealth around” and send checks payable to: Greg Campbell, c.o.

Krugman then attempts to defend the Solyndra debacle by citing it as a “tiny, tiny misstep” that happens in any large organization. While mistakes do happen, forgive me if I do not share Krugman’s laid-back attitude towards $535 million of taxpayer money being steered to political donors under the guise of investment in a failed business model. But, then again, if $1 billion dollars is chump change, then a half-billion dollars is truly insignificant.

As we’ve pointed out already on this site, Bain Capital is a private equity firm that has saved scores of businesses from bankruptcy and serves as both a maker of success stories as well as a success story in its own right. Meanwhile, the stimulus serves as an astounding example of government corruption and failure. Furthermore, Bain Capital infuses businesses with cash based on calculated investment risks, not based on cronyism and political connections. Finally, and most importantly, Bain Capital uses private money to create enterprise, it does not pick the pocket of taxpayers to fund its failures. As an economist, Mr. Krugman should clearly notice the difference between Solyndra and Bain Capital.

Finally, Krugman wishes for the outraged public to lay-off Obama because he hasn’t gotten everything done that he had wanted due to a hostile Congress. Not only did Obama have a Democrat-controlled House and Senate for his first two years, but the public’s disdain for his administration stems not from his inability to do anything, but his ability to crusade and achieve one catastrophe after another.

Sometimes when such lunacy is self-evident, poking holes in arguments can feel like winning at Pac-man; not particularly challenging, yet strangely satisfying.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Liberal Nonsense Of The Day: Paul Krugman Edition

  1. Sandra Freeman says:

    Any time this man opens his mouth ~ it’s to change feet!!!

  2. Jon says:

    It’s always nice to know that Krugman still has the open line to the Oval Office, so he can get his daily blast of talking points directly from the horses mouth.

  3. Mia says:

    Out here, some of my friends are hielavy involved in various strands of renewable/sustainable resources. Which shows me a grassroots element is involved. Sustainable resources are related to climate change in that oil is a finite resource that also is dirty and crisis provoking. I would assume this is not something that will go away, and promises to develop wide implications. At the very least force a shift away from cars and therefore suburban sprawl. Which offers to my mind locally some promising outlets for social change. As the major U.S. model of living grows stale and decaying most people eventually get caught up in what to do. Which then is really a community process of re-building. It’s big enough to alter the political landscape because it is so tied to changes in present living arrangements. On a large scale I think this is the answer to why right now a left is dithering. There is no practical organizable way of harnessing that currently asleep population to change that they would form a consensus around. Somewhere the left needs to abandon old forms that don’t work and concentrate on a new process of combining people.I think it is a vast cultural question. So for example, what are people’s relationship to the landscape? This is not usually a union issue. And the Soviets were notorious about ignoring environmental issues. But Cuba seems to have adapted to because of the near collapse of their system due to the collapse of the Soviets.What would that social consensus look like? Why would people unite culturally in the U.S. about how the community is made? I think by focusing their attention locally to what they felt powerless to change in relation to a much larger national debate about the consensus. The debate can’t make a culture, people locally can’t understand the problems. A synthesis of culture seems to me the likely outcome. Which is quite different from previous class related efforts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>