Tag Archives: Paul Krugman

Romney Will Kill Medicaid – Really!

When you can’t run on a record, what is one to do? Scare the masses, of course. It’s a bonus if you can demonize the opposition at the same time. The latest, non-disaster related scare tactic falls under healthcare. Paul Krugman is leading the charge on this one, giving the public an inaccurate lesson on the inner-workings of the Medicaid system. Of course, he’s doing this because evil Mitt Romney will gut the program if elected. Obviously, that’s not the important part of what Krugman said.

DoNotLick (CC)


So, what was so blatantly wrong with Krugman’s little lesson for the masses? Well, we can start with his numbers, since offering any at all is a fallacy. Here is the one plus to not offering many details whilst on the campaign trail. When your opposition attempts to figure out exactly what the impact of your “plans” will be, they honestly can’t. They are forced to lie, because they simply don’t know. (And, in a Presidential race, it really doesn’t matter what either candidate wants to do, since everything needs to get through Congress anyway.) So, for the sake of brevity, we’ll just dispense with the numbers entirely, since there’s no way to prove or disprove them anyway, shall we?

Let’s move on to the meat and bones of this little lesson, to what Medicaid really is, and how it works. Krugman’s so cute when he tries to explain things to the masses. It would be ever so much nicer if he would at least attempt to get the facts, though. It’s really not good when even Wikipedia gets it right, and you don’t. Well, maybe it was the fact-checker’s day off at the Times. Yes, Medicaid is relatively good at keeping medical costs down, but no it is not because of the government. You see, for quite some time now, Uncle Sam has contracted out this part of the government healthcare system to the private sector. Medicaid recipients have private insurance policies with premiums that are subsidized by the government. That also blows a big gaping hold in Krugman’s other claim about governmental largesse – the real reason why the government doesn’t have as much “bureaucracy” in this whole equation is because the government doesn’t actually “do” anything but pay the bills. But, I think that most conservatives already know that. Knowing that Krugman is running about telling liberals this nonsense is useful, though. At least we can point out the errors in their sources.

Now, over at the Independent Women’s Forum, there is something of interest on this issue. They have pointed out that this really shouldn’t be a nationwide ballot issue, but a state one. Now that’s getting back into real Romney territory. That is practically straight out of a Paul Ryan stump speech on healthcare reform – or a Romney one pointing out that healthcare shouldn’t be on the Fed plate in the first place. So, when the whining liberals start claiming that Romney wants to take away their Medicaid, if you’re not just going to smack them (verbally since we don’t want folks going to jail), point out that he wants to let the states handle that program, because they know better what their residents need. It’s simple math and geography here. It’s better to have someone closer to you managing these things, than it is to have some pencil pushers far away, right? Who knows? Maybe you’ll actually get a few fence pole sitters with that logic in the next few days!

Barack Obama: The Anti-Keynesian?

New York Times columnist and economist Paul Krugman thinks Barack Obama is an “anti-Keynesian” when it comes to economic matters.
video platform video management video solutions video player

 

PAUL KRUGMAN: Can I just say, on the Reagan thing, if public-sector employment had continued to expand the way it did during Reagan’s first term, instead of falling by about 600,000 as it has, right there we’d have something like 1.4 million people working in this country.

So if you actually look at the actual track record of government spending, government employment, Reagan is the Keynesian and Obama — mostly because of political constraints, although a little bit of lack of conviction on the part of his own people, has been the anti-Keynesian. He’s been the one who’s been doing what Republicans say is the right answer.

Ronald Reagan was not a Keynesian.  As Milton Friedman noted in his speech at the opening of the Cato Institute in 1993, “Reaganomics had four simple principles: lower marginal tax rates, less regulation, restrained government spending, noninflationary monetary policy.  Four cornerstones that led to the following:

Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years. Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years. Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency. The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.

Yet, Obama is anti-Keynesian after spending $830 billion dollars on a failed stimulus program that had left the unemployment rate over 8% for over 38 months.  A program that would never allow unemployment to rise above 8% and would produce robust economic growth.  All of this would be induced by deficit spending. The president stated that the stimulus would create 2.5 million “shovel ready jobs” for infrastructure projects.  In fact, in an interview with Peter Baker of The New York Times, the president admitted that “he let himself look too much like “the same old tax-and-spend Democrat, realized too late that there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects and perhaps should have let the Republicans insist on the tax cuts in the stimulus.”  In addition, his Vice President, Joe Biden, reiterated the Keynesian approach of this administration three years ago by stating that we must spend our way out of bankruptcy.

Also, to say”[Obama’s] been the one who’s been doing what Republicans say is the right answer” is patently false.  Republicans aren’t for class warfare legislation, like the Buffet Rule tax reform, that institutes a mandatory 30% tax on millionaires, but leaves the charitable donation deduction.  Hence, the rich, also known and the job creating and investing class, could donate their way out of taxation.  Furthermore, Republicans never were for spending a trillion dollars on a new health care entitlement, Obamacare, that will cut 20 million Americans from their coverage while making 49 million more citizens dependent on government run medical services.

Nevertheless, it didn’t stop Paul Krugman from making more patently false remarks on ABC’s This Week.

KRUGMAN: Can I just — these are — these are — we’re talking as if $1 billion was a lot of money, and in $15 trillion economy is not. Solyndra was a mistake as part of a large program, which has been — by and large had a pretty 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.

But this is — this is ridiculous, that we are taking these tiny, tiny missteps which happen in any large organizations, including corporations, including Bain — 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. He — it’s terribly unfair that he’s being judged on the failure of the economy to respond to policies that had been largely dictated by a hostile Congress.

First of all, concerning clean energy initiatives, Solyndra is the tip of the iceberg.  Furthemore, it’s not just $1 billion dollars as:

CBS News counted 12 clean energy companies that are having trouble after collectively being approved for more than $6.5 billion in federal assistance. Five have filed for bankruptcy: The junk bond-rated Beacon, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, AES’ subsidiary Eastern Energy and Solyndra.

SunPower landed a deal linked to a $1.2 billion loan guarantee last fall, after a French oil company took it over. On its last financial statement, SunPower owed more than it was worth. First Solar was the biggest S&P 500 loser in 2011 and its CEO was cut loose – even as taxpayers were forced to back a whopping $3 billion in company loans. Nobody from the Energy Department would agree to an interview.

How safe were the loans?

[Economist] Peter Morici replied… It’s, it is a junk bond…but it’s not even a good junk bond. It’s well below investment grade. Was the Energy Department investing tax dollars in something that’s not even a good junk bond? Morici says yes. This level of bond has about a 70 percent chance of failing in the long term,” he said.”

Furthermore, Robin Millican, Policy Director for the Institute for Energy Research, has stated how the Section 1603 program has allocated $20 billion dollars in cash payments, not loans that need to be repaid, to companies that install solar, wind and geothermal properties.  Congress wants to extend this program for an additional year at the tune of $3 billion dollars.

Lastly, the president has achieved most of his domestic agenda.  Obamacare was the signature achievement in the president’s first term.  In addition, there was Cash for Clunkers, Dollars for Dishwashers, Cash for Caulkers, and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.  If Mr. Krugman thinks the president is dealing with a hostile congress, he only needs to look at the docket that shows this hostility has produced a multitude of legislation aimed at creating jobs and curbing the debt and deficit.  Most of the bills have been blocked by the Democratic controlled senate.

(h/t Noel Sheppard)

Paul Krugman: “Natural Born Liar”

Paul Krugman, he of the once-great N.Y. Times recently penned the article  Natural Born Drillers , in which he makes completely outlandishly false claims about the number of jobs created by the oil and gas industry, to go along with his usual fallacy-floundering Liberal propaganda punditry. Mr. Krugman finished up his latest ( and already discredited) propaganda piece with the following lines: (emphasis added)

“The rest of the answer is simply the fact that conservatives have no other job-creation ideas to offer.  And intellectual bankruptcy, I’m sorry to say, is a problem that no amount of drilling and fracking can solve.”

Speaking of blatant intellectual bankruptcy, here is a great example of it, pulled right from Krugman’s latest puff-piece masquerading as holier-than-thou opinion-speak from the great Liberal “Doctor of Propaganda” of the N.Y. Times:  “Employment in oil and gas extraction has risen more than 50 percent since the middle of the last decade, but that amounts to only 70,000 jobs, around one-twentieth of 1 percent of total U.S. employment. So the idea that drill, baby, drill can cure our jobs deficit is basically a joke.”

A person would in fact, have to be worse than intellectually bankrupt to print that piece of propaganda right there, when we look at these facts from Steve Maley:

  Indeed, the industry subsector called “Oil and Gas Extraction: NAICS 211″, (part of the Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction sector) shows the gain in jobs he describes, from roughly 120,000 jobs in 2004 to about 190,000 now. And he apparently stopped there.  190,000 jobs? Doesn’t that seem kinda low for an industry that comprises 8% or so of the economy?

Well, of course it is, because lots of oil industry jobs are counted in other categories. Most notably, the related subsector “Support Activities for Mining: NAICS 213″.

In NAICS 211, you find geologists, draftsmen and petroleum engineers like me, employed directly by the oil companies. NAICS 213 contains people that work for the “service companies” who work for the oil companies. These companies would include Halliburton, Transocean and Schlumberger, the companies that drill, frack, service and equip the wells. Job titles include roughnecks, roustabouts and service pump operators.

NAICS 213 is twice as big as NAICS 211: 379,100 at last count. NAICS 213 is where you find the really explosive job growth: nearly 200,000 jobs since 2004, including almost 70,000 just in the last year.

Mr. Maley is a petroleum engineer, unlike “Dr. Krugman” who, as far as anyone can prove, has never worked a day in his life, let alone worked anywhere in the energy industry. (other than trying to pass his intellectually bankrupt propaganda-punditry onto the uninformed citizenry of America under the guise of journalism)

Of course Krugman also uses his latest propaganda piece to bash Republicans for wanting to drill baby drill, by trying to make the already discredited statement that, “More and more, Republicans are telling us that gasoline would be cheap and jobs plentiful if only we would stop protecting the environment and let energy companies do whatever they want.”  Krugman makes the jaw-dropping straw man argument of implying that oil and gas companies are not regulated at all and can just “do what they want” to supposedly ruin the environment.  Colorado alone just mandated a whole slew of new rules and regulations for oil and gas extraction and environmental protection. The Marcellus Shale Corporation  exposed the ludicrous “end of pipe” water quality mandates in Pennsylvania as follows:  “There is not a single water treatment facility in Pennsylvania that could meet this unreasonable benchmark, which will not provide any additional environmental benefit.” North Dakota also has new oil regulations starting April 1st of this year. Does that information in any way point to an oil and gas industry that, as Krugman states, would “let energy companies do whatever they want?” No it doesn’t.

When it comes to actually reporting the facts, Mr. Krugman falls way short of anything even remotely connected to the truth, as we can see in his latest opinion piece claiming that oil and gas extraction of the “middle ” of the past decade has only resulted in 70,000 jobs. Krugman’s propaganda runs parallel to Obama’s recent campaign speeches in which the misinformation about oil and gas industry job creation runs rampant, as is also proven here:

A booming U.S. oil and gas sector was responsible for generating some 9 percent of all new jobs last year, with three indirect jobs for every one directly involved in the industry, a study released on Wednesday found. The report said the oil and gas industry contributed 37,000 direct jobs in 2011, which led to the creation of an additional 111,000 indirect jobs during the same period. It said the multiplier effect for solar and wind energy were lower during operation, but higher at up to 3.3 times during construction.

The U.S. oil and gas industry added 148,000 jobs in 2011 alone Mr. Krugman, which debunks your very simplistic cherry-picking of statistics from the “middle of the last decade” statistical usage to make the false-flag argument about future oil and gas industry job creation that you used in your now debunked Natural Born Drillers article. Man, these Liberals posing as intellectual academics are shameless in their neanderthalic attempts at parroting blatant lies posing as the truth today, and Mr. Krugman is obviously no exception.

 

 

Blood Letting

From Hippocrates to the 19th century, medicine was based on the theory of the four humors. It was believed that all diseases and ailments were caused by in-balances between yellow bile, black bile, blood and phlegm.  For thousands of years all treatments based on this theory did damage, the most well known treatment being blood letting. Despite obvious correlationsbetween treatment and increasing sickness, doctors, philosophers and scientists kept the same beliefs and practices. These quacks, instead of using reason and rationality, placed blame on anything available, including demons, and not because of their own failed policies and practices. This same behavior is evident with the American left and their own policies.

According to our President, our current economic problems are the fault of his predecessor, the tea party, congress, politics as usual, Japan, Europe, ATMs, Corporate Jets and so on and so forth. Never once has he thought that maybe, just maybe, his policies have failed because they simply do not work. It is true, correlation does not causation make, but when a policy produces the opposite intended effect, a reasonable person does not move the goalposts, but adjusts the policy, or finds a new policy. The quacks of our medical past moved the goalposts as well, saying that their patients would have died quicker if they had not let blood to balance the humors.

The general theories the left has pushed on us since Teddy Roosevelt’s Progressive ascendency through the Obama presidency are as wrong as the theory of the four humors. They have indoctrinated the zero-sum fallacy, fallacies of composition, Sequential Fallacies (post hoc ergo propter hoc,) Chess piece fallacies and open-ended fallacies through argumentum ad nauseam and verbosium. This leads to a mind projection fallacy where their theories must be right, regardless of complete failure. You can see this in statements such as, “rich people don’t spend money,” a statement heard often yet lacking any evidence.  This is as ridiculous as it is false.

Despite available empirical evidence, the left, including the President, Paul Krugman and many in the house and senate and the talking heads on MSNBC and CNN choose to hold onto their modus operandi. Europe, since we assisted in its rebuilding, has been spending, regulating and re-regulating and they are now near collapse because their only economically successful country can no longer bailout fellow EU member states. While the EU collapse is used as an excuse for our economy, the reasons for its collapse have been ignored. Although President G.W. Bush’s spending has been cited as an excuse for the economy; the spending of President Obama is not seen as a problem. This was like a recovery, which had nothing to do with the four humors, was touted as proof of its correctness, while in fact; a majority of those treated got worse and died.

This behavior is not new; rather, it is endemic for the left. The left’s programs have constantly failed and made problems worse, yet that has not stopped the left from trumpeting success. The left claims to be the supporter of the poor, downtrodden and minorities, yet economically the programs they boast of have caused significant damage to those they consider their wards. From 1890 to 1950 the African American population had slightly higher rates of workplace participation than whites. From 1940 to 1960 African Americans under the poverty line dropped from 87 to 47 percent, and African Americans in white collar or managerial jobs doubled. These trends slowed and reversed after the creation of Johnson’s “Great Society.” As stated previously, correlation does prove causation, but to consider these occurrences as successes is intellectually dishonest at best. Especially when considering African American unemployment is currently at 16.1 percent while President Obama’s predecessor had it down to 9.1 percent. Yet, the idea that these things might be negative will never cross the minds of the left, where their belief that they are saviors of a race or group may not work, despite the availability of factual information.

There are even more examples of obviously failed policies, “open space” laws, city planning, “smart growth” policy, ethanol, intervention in industries from automobile production to energy. There is no evidence that these policies were successful, yet they remain in the toolbox of the left. Conservative issues are deep and systematic, but the left continues to produce open-ended and undefined ideas that even taken as a whole would not dent their unsustainable course.

The reason is clear and undeniable. Like the quacks of the past , as a result of narcissism and a herd mentality, the left must keep their view of the world. Like the relationship of doctor to the patient, it is not the doctor who is dying. The movers and shakers on the left are insulated to their failures, as is our President, currently vacationing in Martha’s Vineyard; as are leftist fire brands like Paul Krugman or Al Gore, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and others too numerous to list. They do not acknowledge their failures and so choose to ignore them, much like the blood letting by quacks in the past.

Krugman: Obama Should Just Lie to Americans to Get Another Stimulus

Paul Krugman, the New York Times’ liberal with no conscience, posted an opinion piece in which he offered a solution to the current economic situation: lie to Americans to get them to buy into another round of massive stimulus spending.

Suppose that Obama announces that we face a clear and present danger from Ruritania, and that to meet that threat we need immediate investment in roads and rail (to move troops, of course). The economy surges on the emergency spending — and newly employed men and women at last get to move out of their relatives’ basements. Home construction surges.

Then Obama apologizes, says that his advisers have learned that there is no such country as Ruritania, and cancels the program. But we still have the new roads and rail links; plus, the surge in housing demand is now self-sustaining, and the economy remains strong.

Obama did enough lying to get the first round of hundreds of billions (or over a trillion depending on how it’s counted) of dollars of government spending. That round did nothing. The bigger problem with this plan is that it intentionally creates yet another bubble. What happens when Obama announces that we built all that for nothing, no war is coming, and that Ruritania is a country that exists only in works of fiction? Those family members will be right back in Mom’s basement in no time. We saw it with the first Obama stimulus, we’ll see it again.

Artificial demand is the bugle call of Keynesian progressives. Create an economy around artificial demand – a bubble. Eventually those bubbles burst (housing is a prime example of Keynesian bubble building and the eventual bust). We need to unleash the free market and give it certainty of opportunity.

Certainty does not come about by deceiving business owners and citizens. Confidence will come when the government backs off of businesses and let’s them do what they do best – invest, hire, build, make money.

Perhaps Krugman and his ilk should stop bashing the wealthy and corporations and instead get out of the way so more of us can join the ranks of the corporate jet owners.