Paul Krugman is an Idiot

September 11, 2011
By

Krugman’s contribution to the 10th anniversary 9/11 observations is this predictably despicable screed. This man should be forced to resign, even from the New York Times. In his paradoxically titled blog, The Conscience of a Liberal, he proves that he has no conscience at all. He is actually living proof of my previous post.

The Years of Shame

Is it just me, or are the 9/11 commemorations oddly subdued?

Actually, I don’t think it’s me, and it’s not really that odd.

What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. The atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.

A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?

The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.

I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.

I’ll tell you the main reason that there are no comments allowed, he is a fool and a coward.

Via Drudge.

Please comment here.

60 Responses to Paul Krugman is an Idiot

  1. hope and change on September 11, 2011 at 7:00 am

    Krugman is a steaming turd.

    Steven Hayward provides some rebuttal:

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/09/ten-years-on.php

  2. artist on September 11, 2011 at 7:17 am

    Krug is a coward.

    And the NYT is Tokyo Rose.

  3. ken_phd on September 11, 2011 at 7:26 am

    Utah:

    Krugman is filled with hate. He is a danger to himself as well as others.

  4. Sadie on September 11, 2011 at 8:27 am

    “The Years of Shame” – an autobiography of Krugman.

    He really should be charged with a “hit (piece) and run”

  5. Armi Vee on September 11, 2011 at 9:02 am

    Krugman, I hope your reading this you worthless piece of !?XT. I’ve often thought, what purpose do you have in this world, simple, you don’t.

  6. » More politicization of 9/11 by the left on September 11, 2011 at 9:57 am

    [...] RedState, Atlas Shrugs, Althouse, Suburban Guerrilla, The Raw Story, The Lonely Conservative and PoliPundit.com // Share:DiggRedditStumbleUponPrintFacebookEmail Posted by Patrick on September 11, 2011 at [...]

  7. LJ on September 11, 2011 at 10:03 am

    As usual, Krugman is spot on.

    Instead of a unifying event, 9-11 *has* been used as a wedge issue. The only thing about it to be proud of is the heart shown by those who responded at great personal risk and out of sheer human compassion, not for a political or nationalistic agenda, a display that should remind us that we do have goodness in us.

    But when we talk of the event, 9/11 cannot be divorced from the misguided over-reaction that has been the last 10 years of war, a war that produces a 9/11-level of casualties very 3 weeks for Iraqis.

    America is a great nation, but America’s leaders have badly misled us and squandered our resources (as in $10b/mo). We should be ashamed for what has been done in our name, and if you’re not, then that says more about you than Krugman having the audacity to speak his conscience.

    America is a great place full of really great people, but we are served poorly by our leaders. Those who died at the WTC on that day are in no way honored by the violence and hate that has erupted since. Krugman is right.

  8. jan on September 11, 2011 at 10:03 am

    …the unfortunate aspect of all this is that Krugman’s words are being posted all over the internet. In other words, his vile and twisted perspective has gained a huge audience by his audacity to post it on a day such as 911. Sad…..

  9. speedstan on September 11, 2011 at 10:06 am

    [I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.]

    The fact he refuses to allow comments in his original post in the NYT is proof that he can’t accept criticism. The lefties really miss the days when there were only 3 major news networks, no talk radio, no internet, and no way to respond other than “Letters to the Editor” which where often cherry-picked to reflect the editor’s point of view. Liberals celebrate all sorts of “diversity” except that which is a diversity of opinion…

  10. Fred on September 11, 2011 at 10:11 am

    9/11 could have been prevented had President Bush and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice not misdirected the priorities. Richard Clarke, who reported to Rice, had the courage to apologize and set the record straight. Bush and Rice continue to be cowardly in their denial of responsibility.

  11. Michael Harris on September 11, 2011 at 10:13 am

    Why post such a controversial article and then not allow comments? He’s just trying to piss off conservatives / right. Small minds and politics as usual. I don’t read Krugman anyway.

  12. Fishsnot on September 11, 2011 at 10:15 am

    Krugman is a POS COWARD. Wished the hell HE was in the collapse of either of the 2 World Trade Towers. This guy deserves to have his throat cut wide and frequently. His is worthless and is breathing oxygen that others deserve to be breathing, he is a useless mass of cells.

  13. [...] blogosphere, most of it quite negative. The column is being called unconscionable. Krugman himself, an idiot.  Red State’s Erick Erickson says the [...]

  14. edward on September 11, 2011 at 10:37 am

    “Suppose you are a liberal, now suppose you are an idiot….. but I repeat myself.”

    The American Left – cowering before terrorists; killing the innocent unborn.

  15. Chicago Conservative on September 11, 2011 at 10:47 am

    Fred. If any leader is responsible for 9/11 it’s Bill Clinton and his group. Totally ignored Bin laden and let him run wild throughout the 90s. And NO retaliation for the US Cole in 2000 was a disgrace.

  16. [...] Shrugs, The Gateway Pundit, RedState, Althouse, Suburban Guerrilla,  The Lonely Conservative and PoliPundit.com (via [...]

  17. edward on September 11, 2011 at 11:13 am

    Conservatives in Chicago? Really?
    Con in Chi-town, you must be about as rare as unicorns (i’m from Janesville WI)

  18. Evan3457 on September 11, 2011 at 11:40 am

    Krugman is a moronic leftist treasonworm, and anyone supporting what he said is one, too.

    And that includes the two trolls replying above.

  19. Mad Dog on September 11, 2011 at 12:48 pm

    LJ and MikeyW–two peas a pod and two turds in a toilet. Krugman wouldn’t know the truth if it bit him on the ass. I’d say pecker, but Krugman doesn’t have one.

  20. Mad Dog on September 11, 2011 at 12:49 pm

    …and Fred continues to be a prime candidate for Moron of the Year….

  21. utahprez on September 11, 2011 at 1:50 pm

    I’ve often wondered what idiots like LJ and Fred would have had Bush do.

    There was certainly quite a bit of rancor from the left about the Bush Doctrine of preemption after 9/11. Are we to believe that Fred and LJ would have excused a preemptive strike of any magnitude before an actual terrorist event? Sorry guys, but the performance of the left AFTER 9/11 proves that you wouldn’t. Clinton couldn’t even get that, that is why we bombed pill factories with cruise missiles.

    How much responsibility for 9/11 does Clinton/Gore bear? If it is true that Bush had all this actionable intel, the BJ boys must have had it too. Based on the delay in getting a government set up due to Gore’s mindless court challenges of the election, the Bush administration was months late in completing the transition. Since Gore was VP, wouldn’t he also been aware of an imminent threat? If so, why did an elected official in the second highest office in the land ignore that threat to pursue his personal ambitions? What of Clinton? He was president until January 20th, 2001…

    Before you trot out your accusation that “Bush knew and did nothing”, you might want to think about all the facts that you have to ignore to make those statements.

  22. Siggy Freud on September 11, 2011 at 1:59 pm

    Do you suppose there’s something going on between LJ, Fred, Paul Krugman and an underage male goat?

  23. archtop on September 11, 2011 at 2:36 pm

    “…raced to cash in on the horror…”

    Like – say – Michael Moore. So how much did HE make for “Fahrenheit 911″?

  24. ATTILA on September 11, 2011 at 2:49 pm

    LJ on September 11, 2011 at 10:03 am said:
    As usual, Krugman is spot on.

    As usual both of you are crapweasels of the first order.

  25. Muggins on September 11, 2011 at 4:07 pm

    It is the duty of leaders, such as Presidents and Mayors, to make public statements to assure citizens that the nation will not tolerate attacks , and then take action. This is not profiting. Did FDR profit from his speech to Congress after the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor? Looking back, at I am thankful that Guiliani was mayor of New York City, and that Bush was President. Consider if Gore was President during 9/11. What would have been his response? I’m certain that no matter what it was, it would have be driven to gain the approval of the likes of Paul Krugman, and that means al Qaeda would still be using Afghanistan as a safe haven, and Saddam Hussein would still be bribing U.N. officials, making oil deals with France and committing terror inside and outside of his country.

  26. Louise on September 11, 2011 at 5:01 pm

    I see Paul Krugman differently than most that have posted here. I feel sorry for him. He cannot truly love his country and have this view point. He is missing out on so much. While 9-11 made me very sad, there were many things that made me proud, astonished, admiring, and grateful. I was and still am proud of and have great admiration for each and every firefighter, policeman, minister, serviceman, nurse, doctor, teacher, caregiver, wife, husband, sister, brother, mother, father, politician (Giuliani and Bush especially included), and US citizen that served, fought, was hurt, left their families for extended periods, stood up to enemies (outside and within), died, reached out to help, comforted others, mended, and loved those who were directly effected and the citizens of our country in general. I am proud and grateful to know that there were many, many countries that supported us, helped us, sent relief, helped fight the fight, and stood by us.
    But now I am sad. I am sad because Paul Krugman (and I am sure he is not the only one) probably never gets a thrill from seeing an American flag standing tall in the wind. When he sees a serviceman, I doubt that the first thing in his mind is to immediately want to thank him for his or her service, to offer up a better seat on an airplane, or to honor him/her in any way possible at that moment. I am sure that he doesn’t tear up when he hears the National Anthem, I do. I wonder if he feels like he could go to war to defend our country (I do – and I am a 50-ish year old, out-of-shape woman) when he says the pledge? I have done and felt all of these things. I sing proudly and loudly along with the National Anthem at public events, I feel pride when I see Old Glory, I love my country, and I am very grateful to God that He has blessed us with such a beautiful land and a great people. And I am sad for those who don’t.

  27. ATTILA on September 11, 2011 at 5:55 pm

    And I am sad for those who don’t.

    Don’t waste any sentiments on the likes of krugman. He is a waste of air.

  28. Siggy Freud on September 11, 2011 at 5:59 pm

    Anymore info on the LJ, Fred, Krugman threesome (actually, I guess it would or could be considered a foursome) with the underage male goat?

  29. MikeyW on September 11, 2011 at 7:25 pm

    - “I’ve often wondered what idiots like LJ and Fred would have had Bush do.” – Maybe he should have started by listening to the previous administration and his trusted advisors, and maybe spent a little less time clearing brush on his fake ranch. Be serious – if Obama had been president and this happened, would you cut him the kind of slack you’re cutting Bushco? Be honest – helll no. You sure as hell wouldn’t be making that “he kept America safe” crap claim.

    – “How much responsibility for 9/11 does Clinton/Gore bear?” – This is how lame you are – not willing to man up and say where the buck stops. At least one man on the team actually apologized to America for the failure – but not the top guy. Bush=fail. Deal with it.

    – “If so, why did an elected official in the second highest office in the land ignore that threat to pursue his personal ambitions?” – Are you kidding? Bush actually went on vacation! And when he was briefed on the threat, he ragged the briefer by telling him that he had covered his backside. Bush was unserious, unaware, and unprepared. And Americans paid the price. Republicans are dangerous for this country.

    – And you guys can’t even give Obama credit for taking out the bad guy – something Bush gave up on years before (after he lost him at Tora Bora – imagine Obama doing something like that! You’d be after Obama’s head). Keep making excuses for failure; it’s telling.

  30. Those weren't bran muffins, Brainiac... on September 11, 2011 at 8:09 pm

    Krugman is trying to distract folks from the negative impact Obama had on the two special elections for Congress…

  31. Steve on September 11, 2011 at 8:27 pm

    “I’ll tell you the main reason that there are no comments allowed, he is a fool and a coward.”

    That’s just a short definition of a “liberal progressive”
    …every one of them are fools and cowards (every last one!)

    Liberal progressives have etched their shameful mark into U.S. History after the tragic events of 9/11 (and they damned well know it). Krugman is not unlike the spineless 0bamabot trolls on this blog. They project their own disgrace & shame onto others because (deep down) they know that the post 9/11 actions of liberal progressives have been nothing less than disgraceful and shameful.

    The Democrat Motto since Sept. 11th, 2001:
    “Attacking those who defend America
    Defending those who attack America”

    THAT is the legacy, which liberalism has engraved onto U.S. History.
    …Krugman is the poster child for liberal progressives (fools & cowards, all).

    :roll:

  32. MikeyW on September 11, 2011 at 9:00 pm

    - “Liberal progressives have etched their shameful mark into U.S. History after the tragic events of 9/11 (and they damned well know it).” – It was a liberal that actually capped OBL, and a conservative republican that screwed the pooch – once by leeting OBL succeed, twice by letting him get away,and a third time by giving up the chase.

    – “They project their own disgrace & shame onto others because (deep down) they know that the post 9/11 actions of liberal progressives have been nothing less than disgraceful and shameful.” – Oh, the irony…

    – “Attacking those who defend America…” – Except for those who actually defend America

    – “…Defending those who attack America” – Except for those who actually attack America. Try as you might, we won’t let you forget who actually let OBL get away and who actually got him.

  33. BizzyBlog on September 11, 2011 at 9:04 pm

    [...] the Washington Times, Nice Deb, BlogProf, Powerline, RedState, Althouse, Moonbattery, Right Scoop, PoliPundit, Flopping Aces, Weasel Zippers, Tom Maguire, Bryan Preston at PJ Tatler, Comments [moderated] [...]

  34. Steve on September 11, 2011 at 9:29 pm

    Mikey LibFool: ”It was a liberal that actually capped OBL”

    So you know the political affiliation of the solider who capped UBL??
    …Heh, of course you don’t liar.
    And why can’t you admit that it was 0bamabi who opposed the counter terrorism measures that BUSH put into place, which led to the military’s ability to kill UBL?
    — Because you’re just like Krugman (a fool and a coward).
    ————

    Mikey LibFool: ”once by letting OBL succeed, twice by letting him get away, and a third time by giving up the chase.”

    It’s hilarious that you’re too blinded by your own BDS to even stop and realize that you’re basically talking about Bill Clinton :oops:
    LMAO!!!
    ————

    Mikey LibFool: Oh, the irony…

    Yes, ironic that you cannot deny the facts — so you just project, like Krugman.
    ————

    Mikey LibFool: “Except for those who actually defend America”

    Like the ACLU, BlackPanthers and LaRaza (et al), isn’t that right, you dimwit?
    ————

    Mikey LibFool: ”we won’t let you forget who actually let OBL get away and who actually got him.”

    LIBERAL TRANLATOR: …we won’t stop lying and trying to alter history to make it appear as if 0bama didn’t oppose virtually ALL of Bush’s counter terrorism measures that ultimately led to the military’s ability to kill UBL
    ————

    Aw, poor pathetic Mikey — slipping deeper & deeper into history revisionist delusions

    It would be sad, if it weren’t just so darned FUNNY!!
    LMAO!!!!!!!
    :lol: :lol: :lol:

  35. utahprez on September 11, 2011 at 10:25 pm

    Yeah, Mikey exhibits the three characteristics required to be a liberal these days:

    1. Selective memory
    2. Cognitive dissonance
    3. Confirmation bias

    He has to selectively forget things that did happen and omit them, connect unrelated events to create a new reality and then congratulate himself inside his mind about how right he is.

    The greatest validation of Bush’s policies (and the greatest aggravation of the libs) is the fact that Obama kept and expanded almost every single policy – and even expanded them (Obama has been responsible for more drone strikes across the Pakistan border in 2.5 years than Bush was in 8).

    Bush rightly took the focus off Osama when he no longer had strategic relevance and focused on greater dangers. In another validation, Obama was able to kill a pathetic old man, cowering in a couple of rooms in a house in Pakistan that looked like an episode of “Hoarders” on A&E. He was so diminished that he was relegated to watching DVD’s of his greatest hits.

    Notice that no one but committed liberals like our friend Mikey are bringing up killing bin Laden as Obama’s signature achievement. They have even stopped debating the role of enhanced interrogation in this process – typical of the “Silence of the Libs” that happens when a deeper examination of a subject would reveal how wrong they are. Rather than take the chance, they just stop talking about it.

    No point in posting refutations, it has all been said in the threads after OBL assumed room temperature.

  36. MikeyW on September 11, 2011 at 10:42 pm

    - “So you know the political affiliation of the solider who capped UBL??” – I know the political affiliation of the president that gave the order. I know the politial afilliation of the president who re-energized the effort to get OBL. I also know the political afilliation of the president on who’s watch OBL succeeded n killing 3000 Ameicans, who let OBL get away at Tora Bora, and who disbanded the task force that was established to get him.

    – “And why can’t you admit that it was 0bamabi who opposed the counter terrorism measures that BUSH put into place, which led to the military’s ability to kill UBL?” – Because they didn’t. If the measures were so effective, why didn’t Bush get OBL? Bush thought he was holed up in some cave. As usual, Bush was wrong – very wrong. Wonder how many Americans got killed chasing after OBL in caves. Bush wasn’t even using torture to find OBL – he was using it in a stupid atttempt to tie OBL to Iraq. Bush was wrong again. And you defend him – I guess fools travel in pairs.

    – “It’s hilarious that you’re too blinded by your own BDS to even stop and realize that you’re basically talking about Bill Clinton” – Too stupid for words. Republicans always blaming someone else for their failure.

    – “Yes, ironic that you cannot deny the facts — so you just project, like Krugman.” – Krugman’s right. Where do you keep your Nobel Prize, bitch?

    – “Like the ACLU, BlackPanthers and LaRaza (et al), isn’t that right, you dimwit?” – Really scared of all those brown people, aren’t you?

    – “we won’t stop lying… yada, yada, yada” – You can’t admit that the liberal progressive is keeping America safe, while the republican bozo screwed the pooch, again and again. Sucks to be you.

  37. MikeyW on September 11, 2011 at 11:02 pm

    - “The greatest validation of Bush’s policies (and the greatest aggravation of the libs) is the fact that Obama kept and expanded almost every single policy – and even expanded them (Obama has been responsible for more drone strikes across the Pakistan border in 2.5 years than Bush was in 8).” – What’s the troop count in Iraq? No expansion there. Obama always thought the war should have been in Afganistan – and that’s were the troop expansion went. Bush weakened our effort with his Iraqi adventure – then he dithered for a year before ultimately ignoring his military leader’s call to increase the troop count in Afganistan. Bush’s half-assed effort in Afghanistan has probably cost us the entire effort. Obama’s trying to salvage what he can.

    – “(Obama has been responsible for more drone strikes across the Pakistan border in 2.5 years than Bush was in 8).” – Because Obama took this seriously – Bush, not so much.

    – “Bush rightly took the focus off Osama when he no longer had strategic relevance and focused on greater dangers.” – Like Iraq. That turned out great didn’t it.

    – “Obama was able to kill a pathetic old man, cowering in a couple of rooms in a house in Pakistan that looked like an episode of “Hoarders” on A&E.” – Who was still calling the shots for Al Qada actions from all over the world. This was a devistating blow. And Bush thought he was hiding out in some cave. OBL made Bush look like a fool. And you’re not looking so hot defending him.

    – “Notice that no one but committed liberals like our friend Mikey are bringing up killing bin Laden as Obama’s signature achievement.” – Just one of many. But it just happens to be related to the topic at hand.

    – “They have even stopped debating the role of enhanced interrogation in this process” – No debate – it played very little. Mainly because Bush was only interested in using it gen up ties between OBL and Iraq. Only you die hard Bush apologists are hanging on that thread in hopes of making a failed president look… not so failed.

    – “No point in posting refutations, it has all been said in the threads after OBL assumed room temperature.” – Yes, just tell President Obama thank you, and then be on your way.

  38. Closing In On Closure | Just Above Sunset on September 11, 2011 at 11:32 pm

    [...] Deranged – and at Questions and Observations: Classless and Gutless – and at PoliPundit.com: Paul Krugman is an Idiot – and so [...]

  39. Mad Dog on September 12, 2011 at 5:15 am

    Hiya, MikeyW (or should I say Sky King). You know what’s coming next, and you also know that Mad Dog always has the last word on any thread you post on.

    “Lt Bush is an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot. After completing the F102 all weather interceptor school in November 1969, he came in this unit as a highly qualified fighter interceptor pilot. Lt Bush possesses sound judgment and is mature beyond his age and experience level…Lt Bush performed in an outstanding manner…He continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further. Lt Bush is a natural leader but he is also a good follower of military discipline. Lt Bush has outstanding growth potential and should be promoted well ahead of his contemporaries.”

    9.2% — unemployment rate for June.

    0.1% — increase since May.

    16.2% — underemployment rate for June.

    0.4% — increase since May.
    8% — conventional wisdom for the maximum allowable unemployment rate to win reelection.

    15 — remaining BLS reporting months before Election Day.

    255,000 — net jobs that must be created each and every month to reach 8%.

    18,000 — net jobs created last month.

    44,000 — downward revision to April and May job creation.

    3,825,000 — total net jobs needed before Election Day.

    2,100,000 — jobs created in the last fifteen months.

    11.2% — unemployment rate if the labor participation rate was as high as it was in January, 2009.

    290,000 — best monthly net jobs gain during Obama administration.

    231,000 — real best gain, minus temporary Census hiring.

    14 — months since best monthly gain.

    1% — decrease in DJIA in the opening minute of trading, day that jobs figures released.

    $1,200,000,000,000 — cost of ARRA “stimulus,” with interest.

    1,900,000 — net jobs lost since ARRA was signed.
    2 — quantitative easing programs since 2008.

    $2,000,000,000,000 — total of first QE program during Great Recession.

    $600,000,000,000 — total of second QE program, just ended.

    40% — increase in federal debt since January, 2009.

    30% — increase in annual federal spending since January, 2009.

    20% — decrease in federal revenues since January, 2009.

    12% — decline in value of US dollar since January, 2009.

    37% — increase in number of Americans on food stamps since January, 2009.

    62% — increase in Misery index since January, 2009.

    800 — days since the Senate passed a budget.

    1.9% — last quarterly GDP increase.

    2.5% — consensus projection for last quarterly GPD increase.

    2.7% — official White House projection.

    3.0% or better — GDP growth needed to dent unemployment.

    3.6% — official White House GDP growth projection for 2012.

    2.7% — IMF GDP growth projection for 2012.

    30% — federal debt held by public as percentage of GDP, 2005.

    60% — federal debt held by public as percentage of GDP, 2010.

    180% — federal debt held by public as percentage of GDP, CBO estimate, 2035.

    0% — odds of current path being sustainable.

    Consider the results thus far of the Obama presidency:
    Two million-private sector jobs have been lost.
    Unemployment jumped from 7.8 to 9.2 percent with a simply terrible 2011 first-quarter economic growth rate of just 0.4 percent.
    A record 1 in 7 Americans is on food stamps.
    Gasoline prices more than doubled, from $1.83 to $3.74 per gallon.
    National debt increased 35 percent, to $14.5 trillion, or $137,000 for each taxpayer.
    National unfunded liabilities increased 47 percent, to $114.9 trillion, or a cool $1 million for each taxpayer (and this does not yet include Obamacare).
    America is on the verge of losing its AAA credit rating.
    Some critics have trouble with even the most basic facts. George W. Bush was indeed president for eight years. But do Brown and her colleagues remember that Congress was fully controlled by Republicans just four of those eight years? The GOP ran the House from 2001 to 2007, Bush’s first six years in office, while Republicans only controlled the Senate from 2003 to 2007. (In Bush’s first three months, the Senate was divided 50-50 until the May 2001 defection of Republican Sen. James Jeffords gave Democrats control.)

    As far as tax cuts are concerned, Bush did indeed cut taxes for the wealthy — along with everybody else who paid income taxes. But does Brown remember that tax revenues actually increased in the years after the Bush tax cuts took effect?

    Revenues fell in Bush’s first two years because of a combination of the tech bust and the start of the tax cuts. But then things took off. After taking in $1.782 trillion in tax revenues in 2003, the government collected $1.88 trillion in 2004; $2.153 trillion in 2005; $2.406 trillion in 2006; and $2.567 trillion in 2007, according to figures compiled by the Office of Management and Budget. That’s a 44 percent increase from 2003 to 2007. (Revenues slid downward a bit in 2008, and a lot in 2009, when the financial crisis sent the economy into a tailspin.) “Everybody talks about how much the Bush tax cuts ‘cost,'” says one GOP strategist. “We’re saying, no, they led to a huge increase in revenue.”
    And deficits shrank. After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus in 2001, the Bush administration ran up deficits of $158 billion in 2002; $378 billion in 2003; and $413 billion in 2004. Then, with revenues pouring in, the deficits began to fall: $318 billion in 2005; $248 billion in 2006; and $161 billion in 2007. That 2007 deficit, with the tax cuts in effect, was one-tenth of today’s $1.6 trillion deficit.

    Deficits went up in 2008 with the beginning of the economic downturn — and, not coincidentally, with the first full year of a Democratic House and Senate.

    Finally, there’s the national debt. When Bush took office in January 2001, the debt was about $5.7 trillion, according to Treasury Department figures. When Bush was sworn in for his second term in January 2005, the debt stood at about $7.6 trillion. When Bush left office in January 2009, the debt was $10.6 trillion. He had increased the national debt almost $2 trillion in his first term and $3 trillion in his second, for a total increase of nearly $5 trillion over both terms. (Of that $3 trillion increase in Bush’s second term, $2 trillion came under a Democratic Congress.)

    The debt stood at $10.6 trillion when Barack Obama took office in January 2009. Now, it’s about $14.4 trillion. The president has increased the national debt nearly $4 trillion in his first two and a half years in office. By the time Obama finishes his first term, he will have increased the national debt by somewhere in the $5 trillion-to-$6 trillion range — more than Bush did in two terms.

    None of this is to say that George W. Bush had a good record on spending. He didn’t, and he’s fair game for criticism. But is it honest to condemn reckless spending in “eight years of Republican rule” when Democrats controlled the Senate for four of those years and the House for two? Is it honest to talk about the “cost” of the Bush tax cuts when federal revenues increased significantly while they were in effect? And is it honest to refer to Bush’s ballooning deficits when deficits actually trended down for much of his presidency — at least before Democrats won control of Congress?

    Records set on Obama’s watch so far (September, 2011)

    (1) U.S. soverign deabt downgrade—first in American history

    (2) Federal spending, at 25% of GDP, is the highest since WW II

    (3) The federal budge deficit of 10% is the highest since WW II

    (4) The federal debt, 67% of GDP, is the highest since just after WW II

    (5) Employment, in terms of the percentage of the population working, 58.1% is the lowest since 1983

    (6) Long-term unemployment of 45.9% is the highest since the 1930’s.

    (7) We currently have the slowest job growth after the official end of a recession since WW II

    (8) Home ownership has plunged to the lowest level since 1965.

    (9) The percentage of Americans paying income tax, 49%, is the lowest level in the modern era.

    (10) Individual dependency on government handouts, those receiving one or more federal benefit payments, is the highest in U.S. history.

    It can be safely predicted that MikeyW (Sky King) will have no answer to any of the above.

  40. The shame…. « The Life in Exile on September 12, 2011 at 5:21 am

    [...] PAUL KRUGMAN IS AN IDIOT – PoliPundit [...]

  41. Mark on September 12, 2011 at 5:24 am

    MikeyW = Paul Krugman

  42. ATTILA on September 12, 2011 at 6:53 am

    MikeyW = Paul Krugman=dangling hemorrhoid on the bunghole of society

  43. Steve on September 12, 2011 at 7:33 am

    LMAO!!! :lol:

    2 posts and 408 ranting BDS words later…

    …yet MikeyW STILL Cannot Admit that 0bama OPPOSED every counter terrorism measure, that President Bush put into place, which ultimately led to the killing of UBL.

    Why is that??? …Hmm???
    …Why omit such important historical FACTS ? ? ? ?

    Oh right — because you’re a history revisionist liar who is blinded by BDS insanity.

    …tsk tsk tsk :roll:

    In the future, Mikey, please note THE FACT that 0bama OPPOSED all of Bush’s counter terrorism measures (but then 0bama quietly kept them in place after he became POTUS).

    Or just keep omitting the Facts, and keep earning your title of:
    MikeyW – the “history revisionist Liar”

    …your call, chump.

    :lol: :lol: :lol:

  44. Mad Dog on September 12, 2011 at 12:54 pm

    I love the smell of MikeyW being hoisted on his own petard!

  45. Mad Dog on September 12, 2011 at 3:41 pm

    …and MikeyW has no answer to my post….As Sir Thomas More is reported to have said, silence implies consent….

  46. Evan3457 on September 12, 2011 at 6:08 pm

    …and Krugman doubled down on his moronic Leftist treasonwormousity today.

  47. JD on September 12, 2011 at 8:34 pm

    For this individual to have access to any venue to voice such a uncourageous sentiment without conscious from such a soulless being is a crime against, if not humanity, then at least America. Don’t bring up First Amendment Rights in this situation. If he wants to get out on the street and shout it out, no one would listen or care. To publish this drivel is to demean the lives of not just the lives lost on 9-11 and the wars since but all the other lives lost in giving this nation the life, freedoms and greatness it is today. I cannot find any war the USA has been involved in that did not begin in such an exact way to give comfort in becoming involved militarily. These liberals have some kind of idea that there is a way to reason with fanaticism. Obviously, Mr. Krugman’s beliefs as stated has put him perilously close to being labeled a fanatic liberal which, through reasons that are quite obvious even to the most casual observer, should require him to be removed from any capacity to espouse his vitriol to the masses who have already suffered enough. Mr. Krugman, if you have no shame at this point then at least develop a bit of character and apologize to the families who have sacrificed so much for, if you do not know, your being free.

  48. [...] the Washington Times, Nice Deb, BlogProf, Powerline, RedState, Althouse, Moonbattery, Right Scoop, PoliPundit, Flopping Aces, Weasel Zippers, Tom Maguire, Bryan Preston at PJ [...]

  49. MikeyW on September 12, 2011 at 10:44 pm

    - “…yet MikeyW STILL Cannot Admit that 0bama OPPOSED every counter terrorism measure, that President Bush put into place, which ultimately led to the killing of UBL.” – Fiction. But keep repeating it if it makes you feel better. Obama had no love for Bush’s counter-terrorism measures because even according to the interogators, they did not work. Also, Bush wasn’t using them to get OBL – he was using them to gen up ties between OBL and IRAQ. They didn’t work for him with that either. The only thing that led to to killing of OBL was Obama restarting the effort to get OBL after Bush had given up. Then it took some intelligent detective work, patience, and a lot of political courage from Obama. Amazing what can happen when serious people are in charge.

Leave a Reply

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