Krugman nails the hypocrisy of the Republican party on taxes

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2010 8:18 PM GMT
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/opinion/22krugman.html?ref=opinion
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2010 8:23 PM GMT
    Yes, but this is too logical and obvious for the Republican fanatics here.

    "Facts??? We don't got no facts! We don't NEED no stinking facts!"

    (With apologies to Treasure of the Sierra Madre)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2010 8:32 PM GMT
    I read this today and was going to post it, but you beat me to it.

    It's the most succinct, yet devastating, example of the fact that Republicans love economic crises and don't want the American people to get out of the morass we're in.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11525

    Feb 22, 2010 8:40 PM GMT
    Red_Vespa saidYes, but this is too logical and obvious for the Republican fanatics here.

    "Facts??? We don't got no facts! We don't NEED no stinking facts!"

    (With apologies to Treasure of the Sierra Madre)
    also, with apologies to "blazing saddles" icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2010 8:44 PM GMT
    rnch saidalso, with apologies to "blazing saddles" icon_lol.gif

    Much as I worship Mel Brooks, and love Blazing Saddles, I owe him no apologies when he's merely being derivative.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2010 8:57 PM GMT
    Eventually, even the Plains states and southern americans will see what's going on...and the Wall St bull will be replaced by a guillotine.

    At what point does trying to destroy the gov't from within become treason? Or does it, as along as you leave the Constitution. But that wont work because eventually people will vote them into oblivion. They will have to subvert the Constitution eventually.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11525

    Feb 22, 2010 8:57 PM GMT
    Red_Vespa saidrnch saidalso, with apologies to "blazing saddles" icon_lol.gif

    Much as I worship Mel Brooks, and love Blazing Saddles, I owe him no apologies when he's merely being derivative.even when MB was being "derivative" he was still better than many other hollywood "superstars" icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2010 9:13 PM GMT
    rnch said
    Red_Vespa saidrnch saidalso, with apologies to "blazing saddles" icon_lol.gif

    Much as I worship Mel Brooks, and love Blazing Saddles, I owe him no apologies when he's merely being derivative.even when MB was being "derivative" he was still better than many other hollywood "superstars" icon_lol.gif

    Agreed, and Brooks is just amazing, a true American phenomenon. And he alternates between sheer genius and pure drek. I watched him on TV in 1960 when he and friend Carl Reiner created the "2000 Year Old Man" routine with Brooks in the title role. And laughed to the material he wrote for TV shows before that in the 1950s, like Sid Caesar's Your Show of Shows.

    Equally amazing to me was his long marriage to the late Anne Bancroft, an actor of incomparable nobility, grace & class, paired up with one of the coarsest clown-princes of American TV & movies. God bless them both.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2010 9:15 PM GMT
    Red_Vespa said
    rnch said
    Red_Vespa saidrnch saidalso, with apologies to "blazing saddles" icon_lol.gif

    Much as I worship Mel Brooks, and love Blazing Saddles, I owe him no apologies when he's merely being derivative.even when MB was being "derivative" he was still better than many other hollywood "superstars" icon_lol.gif

    Agreed, and Brooks is just amazing, a true American phenomenon. And he alternates between sheer genius and pure drek. I watched him on TV in 1960 when he and friend Carl Reiner created the "2000 Year Old Man" routine with Brooks in the title role. And laughed to the material he wrote for TV shows before that in the 1950s, like Sid Caesar's Your Show of Shows.

    Equally amazing to me was his long marriage to the late Anne Bancroft, an actor of incomparable nobility, grace & class, paired up with one of the coarsest clown-princes of American TV & movies. God bless them both.


    I wonder when SouthBeach is going to come by and yell at your both for not staying on topic. icon_razz.gif
  • rnch

    Posts: 11525

    Feb 22, 2010 9:17 PM GMT
    Red_Vespa said
    rnch said
    Red_Vespa saidrnch saidalso, with apologies to "blazing saddles" icon_lol.gif

    Much as I worship Mel Brooks, and love Blazing Saddles, I owe him no apologies when he's merely being derivative.even when MB was being "derivative" he was still better than many other hollywood "superstars" icon_lol.gif

    Agreed, and Brooks is just amazing, a true American phenomenon. And he alternates between sheer genius and pure drek. I watched him on TV in 1960 when he and friend Carl Reiner created the "2000 Year Old Man" routine with Brooks in the title role. And laughed to the material he wrote for TV shows before that in the 1950s, like Sid Caesar's Your Show of Shows.

    Equally amazing to me was his long marriage to the late Anne Bancroft, an actor of incomparable nobility, grace & class, paired up with one of the coarsest clown-princes of American TV & movies. God bless them both.


    perhaps "pure drek" is what the current crop of viewers want? (hope not....)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2010 9:50 PM GMT
    rnch saidperhaps "pure drek" is what the current crop of viewers want? (hope not....)

    Drek in the sense that sometimes Brooks swings between the inspired and the insipid. Drawing a parallel between him and many great literary authors, I'd propose what he needs most is a good editor to channel his genius, to avoid the poor judgment that often plagues those whose creative thinking tends to be a bit scatter-shot.

    But to get back on topic: the weakness of an analysis like the one that Krugman has made is that it has no meaningful audience. It won't be read by the vast majority of Republican supporters, nor could they comprehend it if they did.

    So that this becomes like preaching to the choir. And while I support things that energize the troops, and help to educate us in our crusade against Republican oppression, what disappoints me are the many well-meaning articles that fail to persuade our opponents.

    Until we learn how to make converts, having confrontations alone will accomplish nothing. While the logical presentation of Krugman is impressive, it will not impress the audience we need to impress most: the US electorate. Until someone learns how to tap into that audience, we remain fucked.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2010 10:01 PM GMT
    @RedVespa -

    The problem with progressives is that they don't know how to translate populist proposals into an agenda that would attract working people and the poor. In the absence of this, culture takes over and, particularly religion offers them a way to understand and feel better about their plight.

    This is why Obama's campaign was SO attractive to the Democratic base. Even independents and some Republicans were attracted to Obama. Then, the economy went in the shitter and many progressives and particularly the poor and working people of the country saw the administration bailout the banks (which was necessary) while they all lost their jobs.

    I don't know if we blame Geitner or Summers or all of them, but this really took the steam of out the administration's plans.
  • metta

    Posts: 39169

    Feb 22, 2010 10:11 PM GMT
    kind of related:

    Hypocrisy Alert: 91 House Republicans Take Credit for the Economic Bills They Opposed
    http://www.dccc.org/page/content/hhof/
  • rnch

    Posts: 11525

    Feb 22, 2010 10:30 PM GMT
    i'm amazed that south beach hasn't responded here with some canned GOP dis-information. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2010 10:32 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidThe problem with progressives is that they don't know how to translate populist proposals into an agenda that would attract working people and the poor. In the absence of this, culture takes over and, particularly religion offers them a way to understand and feel better about their plight...

    A wonderfully astute observation, IMHO. I might add, however, that attracting the "working people and the poor" alone is not enough of a coalition upon which to build a political movement. The poor vote rather unreliably, and working people are easily misled by shallow sound bites and hollow platitudes. When your mind is too preoccupied with the challenges of your own daily struggles, you let others do your deep thinking for you. Whoever has the most attractive slogan is the one you support come election day.

    This is why Republicans attempt to undermine higher education for the masses, to make it the exclusive domain of the privileged, as it once was. And why they view schooling in terms of indoctrination, particularly for pro-Republican Christian values, rather than as neutral education. Broad education brings critical thinking, the last thing Republicans want the masses to possess, lest they lose their willingness to be led like sheep.

    This result is what many of the Founders of the US feared would happen in a democracy: the people unwittingly led by deception and false promises, by ignorance and distracted by preoccupation with their own problems. Some argued for a monarchy, that would checkmate a "tyranny of the majority" against the rights of the under-represented, as for instance we gays.

    The reply was that any monarch is human, and might oppress his own people as likely as protect them equally. Better to leave sovereignty to the people, our inalienable right, rather than put all our eggs in the basket of a single monarch.

    But the tyranny of the majority has become our reality. A bare majority of 52% in California denied gay rights, that their own court had approved according to their laws. I am less concerned about the hypocrisy of the Republican Party, per this thread subject, than about its goals: the elimination of gays from American society, one way or the other. And "the other" should give us pause for concern.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14395

    Feb 22, 2010 10:33 PM GMT
    Now Christian73 and myself are finally in agreement on something. You are absolutely right when you said about the progressives ability to sell their ideas and programs to the American public and how religion always ends up replacing the progressives message with theirs of condemnation. This is why independent minded people like myself became very disillusioned with the Obama Administration and the way he was handling things last year. Hey I am no supporter or mouthpiece for the GOP but at the same token I am not always in full agreement with the democrats.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11525

    Feb 22, 2010 10:34 PM GMT
    metta8 saidkind of related:

    Hypocrisy Alert: 91 House Republicans Take Credit for the Economic Bills They Opposed
    http://www.dccc.org/page/content/hhof/


    Louisiana govonor/presidential wannabeez bobby jindahl has spent a big chunk of LA taxpayer's money helicoptoring around the state, handing out stimulus checks (with his name on the check!) after making a grandstand public play initially oposing the plan. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14395

    Feb 22, 2010 10:37 PM GMT
    Why aren't the progressives and moderate members of both the GOP and the democrats not taking on and exposing the hidden truths of these ultra conservative, fringe group tea baggers and their so-called protest agenda? I find these tea bagger groups to be quite scary to say the least, why are they getting mostly positive press? Where is the progressive backlash to these extreme right wing lunatics?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2010 10:50 PM GMT
    roadbikeRob said...but at the same token I am not always in full agreement with the democrats.

    Do you think I am? I'm a total pragmatist, but tempered by political realities.

    The Democrats have proven themselves totally inept at organizing. I therefore see many parallels with them and gays, who couldn't put aside their personal agendas and agree on something together if their lives depended on it. As today it may well do. "Fuck gays, it's all about ME!" is their mantra.

    But I also recognize my enemies, the Republicans. They seek to outlaw me, to deny me my civil rights, to punish me for who I am. This is in their official party platform, it's what they campaign on, how they energize their base.

    So what do I do? I've got incompetent fair-weather Democratic friends on the one hand, and fanatical Republican enemies on the other. Because I've been let down by the one, should I embrace the other? That's what southbeach1500 and some others here recommend.

    Well, no. I'll do my best to prod the few people who do support me, and oppose those who oppose me. Not as directly as I'd like, but true to the pragmatic approach I take. Bottom line: at the end of the day, have I won or lost? And I rarely lose.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Feb 22, 2010 10:58 PM GMT
    theatrengym saidhttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/opinion/22krugman.html?ref=opinion



    Oh SNAP! I was just talking about this on this thread: http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/840475/ aimed at southbeach, of course.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2010 11:06 PM GMT
    roadbikeRob saidWhy aren't the progressives and moderate members of both the GOP and the democrats not taking on and exposing the hidden truths of these ultra conservative, fringe group tea baggers and their so-called protest agenda? I find these tea bagger groups to be quite scary to say the least, why are they getting mostly positive press? Where is the progressive backlash to these extreme right wing lunatics?

    What is their motivation to expose anything? They can ride the coat tails of the teabaggers and other extremists into power. They may not approve of what teabaggers represent, but hey, if someone opens the door for you as a courtesy, do you decline?

    Politics is all about power. The teabaggers are a source of political power at the moment (and, I believe, carefully orchestrated by Republican operatives). People see where their interests lie, and very, very few have any core principles to worry about. If something serves their own purpose, they go with the flow.

    The flow at the moment is teabaggers. When it no longer is, people will move on to something else. Republicans can be called on all the hypocrisy Krugman likes: they're winning the game, and that's all that counts.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Feb 22, 2010 11:11 PM GMT
    ^Very astute, Red_Vespa. The buzz of 2004 was the religious right. Now it's the tea party. What's next is left to the imagination?

    And remember how the religious right and Republicans were disappointed that the Bush administration stiff-armed them after getting re-elected? The same thing is going to happen to the tea party.


    And they are winning their efforts at regaining power. The CPAC straw poll picked Ron Paul for the Republican leading presidential candidate. Ron Paul was involved in the tea party before FOX news and the republicans took it over for their purposes.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Feb 22, 2010 11:40 PM GMT
    Ah but you see .... ( and I cited this article in another thread)
    Paul Krugman doesn't get up in front of a TV camera and cite little factoids without any explanation or context
    an he doesn't use his hands like some worrisome mime
    or get weepy on cue

    Paul Krugman states the facts
    You might not like the facts but they ARE the facts

    The republican party DID purposefully bankrupt our government through a a slow attrition process
    by doling out huge tax cuts and defunding everything else

    You think the gov't's broken?
    Well those are the boys who broke it
    Them there are the facts .... if you have followed recent political history you would Know that already
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 23, 2010 12:44 AM GMT
    GQjock saidYou think the gov't's broken?
    Well those are the boys who broke it
    Them there are the facts .... if you have followed recent political history you would Know that already

    And when did US voters ever follow political history? They have memories about as long as the last piss they took during a TV commercial for American Idol.

    Americans have become people who want to be told what to think. But once they think they've thought it for themselves, they'll fight to the death to defend it.

    Republicans have out-maneuvered Democrats in this regard. Democrats foolishly base their political premise on people thinking for themselves, and making wise choices. Republicans realize that Americans prefer to delegate that responsibility to someone else, so they can get back to the important stuff, like stuffing themselves with junk food in front of the television, and praying each Sunday that God grants them more junk food and good NFL tickets.

    Republicans have learned that "panem et circenses" (bread & games) is what the people want, if given the choice. And in return the people will, like gullible children, surrender their birthright to have them.

    The US was founded on the Enlightenment assumption that humans would always aspire to higher goals. The modern reality has taught that only a very few humans aspire, while all the others accede, to being led like sheep.

    Yet this doesn't surprise me, is you look at a bell curve for intelligence. And I imagine there's also a bell curve for ruthless ambition, as well. Where those 2 curves intersect, that's where you'll find our leaders, demonstrating equal amounts of political smarts and megalomaniacal drive.

    The distinguishing party characteristics are that Republicans are more selfish & unprincipled, Democrats more altruistic & ethical. But few satisfy the purity of public purpose upon which the Framers of the US Constitution trusted. It is that failure which will undo us, more than any foreign enemy could ever hope.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 23, 2010 12:53 AM GMT
    Wow!!! Where is he?