Paul Krugman, "Zombies, Vampires and Republicans": Incendiary Language at Precisely the Wrong Time

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Zombies, Vampires and Republicans," Paul Krugman begins:

"Zombies have long ruled the Republican Party. The good news is that they may finally be losing their grip — although they may still return and resume eating conservative brains. The bad news is that even if zombies are in retreat, vampires are taking their place."

Krugman concludes:

"So this isn’t a Trump story; it’s about the cynicism and corruption of the whole congressional G.O.P. Remember, it would take just a few conservatives with conscience — specifically, three Republican senators — to stop this outrage in its tracks. But right now, it looks as if those principled Republicans don’t exist."

Of course, it's perfectly legitimate to argue against Republican taxation and healthcare proposals, and even argue vehemently against them. Heck, I'm no fan of Donald Trump. But label all Republicans zombies, vampires, corrupt and unprincipled? You need to curb your language, Paul. Didn't you learn anything from the shooting of U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise last week?

Paul Krugman, "America Becomes a Stan": What About the Clintons, Rosatom and Uranium One?

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "America Becomes a Stan," Paul Krugman would have us know that "America is rapidly turning into a stan." Claiming that James Comey's "intervention almost surely swung the election," Krugman writes (my emphasis in red):

"I know that many people are still trying to convince themselves that the incoming administration will govern normally, despite the obviously undemocratic instincts of the new commander in chief and the questionable legitimacy of the process that brought him to power.

. . . .

Everything we know suggests that we’re entering an era of epic corruption and contempt for the rule of law, with no restraint whatsoever.

. . . .

People tend to forget how much of the 2016 playbook had already been used in earlier years. Remember, the Clinton administration was besieged by constant accusations of corruption, dutifully hyped as major stories by the news media; not one of these alleged scandals turned out to involve any actual wrongdoing."

Give me a break! Obama was Mr. Clean? Have another look at his real estate deal with Tony Rezko.

"[T]he questionable legitimacy of the process that brought [Trump] to power"? Care to be more explicit, Paul? Comey? Russian hacking? The electoral system?

None of the Clinton administration's scandals "turned out to involve any actual wrongdoing"? Oh really? What about Monica Lewinsky, or was this just a "vast right-wing conspiracy," as Hillary told the nation. In fact, Bill was disbarred from practicing law before the Supreme Court.

Let's get real. Hillary was not elected because she was distrusted, and rightfully so. She lied about her emails, and the Clinton Foundation took donations from countries just as bad as the "stans." Moreover, as reported in an April 23, 2015 New York Times article entitled "Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal" concerning Rosatom's acquisition of Uranium One," Jo Becker and Mike McIntire wrote (my emphasis in red):

"At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

. . . .

The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side.

The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined with the authoritarian president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton handed the Kazakh president a propaganda coup when he expressed support for Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid to head an international elections monitoring group, undercutting American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, his wife, then a senator.

. . . .

Amid this influx of Uranium One-connected money, Mr. Clinton was invited to speak in Moscow in June 2010, the same month Rosatom struck its deal for a majority stake in Uranium One.

The $500,000 fee — among Mr. Clinton’s highest — was paid by Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that has invited world leaders, including Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, to speak at its investor conferences."

Bottom line: Enough of the sour grapes, Paul.

Paul Krugman, "The Economic Fallout": The Sky Is Falling

Tweet

I am forced to admit that for the sake of world stability, I preferred the person with the paranoid personality disorder over the world class narcissist. On the other hand, I can't help denying a perverse sense of pleasure (schadenfreude?) at witnessing the comeuppance of someone who thought she was above the law.

Shed a tear for America's would-be Evita? I don't think so. She can continue to rake in money for/from the Clinton Foundation. Or perhaps not. Now that she's no longer going to be president, why would anyone want to "donate" to this would-be philanthropic enterprise (I'm being charitable).

But more to the point, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Economic Fallout," Paul Krugman would have us know:

"It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover?

Frankly, I find it hard to care much, even though this is my specialty. The disaster for America and the world has so many aspects that the economic ramifications are way down my list of things to fear.

Still, I guess people want an answer: If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never."

Come on, Paul, don't be a sore loser! I suggest you make an appointment with the Donald and suggest your platinum coin idea for rescuing the American economy. What, even the Donald wouldn't buy into such a stupid idea? Well, I've got a suggestion for you: Have the US Treasury mint the coin with Donald's face etched onto it, and he just may agree.

Paul Krugman, "Working the Refs": Krugo Cries Foul

Tweet

Accusing FBI Director James Comey of "appeasing the modern American right" in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Working the Refs," Paul Krugman declares:

"Mr. Comey apparently had no evidence suggesting any wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton; he violated longstanding rules about commenting on politically sensitive investigations close to an election; and he did so despite being warned by other officials that he was doing something terribly wrong.

So what happened? We may never know the full story, but the best guess is that Mr. Comey, like many others — media organizations, would-be nonpartisan advocacy groups, and more — let himself be bullied by the usual suspects. Working the refs — screaming about bias and unfair treatment, no matter how favorable the treatment actually is — has been a consistent, long-term political strategy on the right. And the reason it keeps happening is because it so often works."

Comey let himself be bullied? Sorry, Paul, but this is bullshit. Hillary was coasting toward an easy victory, and Comey has now placed himself on the Clintons' enemies list. The expedient move on the part of Comey would have been to reopen the investigation, if at all, after the election.

Believe me, Comey already knows what's in those emails.

So now there are two horrifying possibilities in play: A man with a severe narcissistic personality disorder could become America's next president, or equally bad, Hillary could be impeached, and America could be stuck with Tim Kaine.

Ugh! Or perhaps double ugh!

Paul Krugman, "Thugs and Kisses": Is America's Media Spin-Doctoring a Hillary Clinton Neurological Problem?

Tweet

Hillary Clinton collapsed yesterday owing to the deplorable 79 degree heat, as MSNBC would have us believe? I don't think so. How many other people collapsed at the event in New York City commemorating the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers?

Hillary collapsed as a consequence of pneumonia? What kind of pneumonia? Walking pneumonia (Mycoplasma pneumonia)? Again, highly unlikely. Hillary's coughing fits have persisted for far too long, and walking pneumonia is ordinarily self-limiting, i.e. it will run its course after several weeks or, at most, a few months. Also, if she had pneumonia, why did she hug that little girl with her germy hands after emerging from Chelsea's apartment (all staged, of course)?

At the risk of being accused of promoting a conspiracy theory, my guess is that she is indeed suffering from a neurological problem, which is also partially responsible for her incessant nodding like a bobblehead doll. Not true? Then why didn't she go to the hospital after collapsing, as any reasonable person would have done, and reveal the test results?

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Thugs and Kisses" (how many people has Hillary kissed since purportedly contracting pneumonia?), Paul Krugman does not mention Hillary's medical episode yesterday. (What a surprise!) Rather, Paul is consumed with Trump's "effusive praise for Vladimir Putin," which is indeed despicable. Krugman proceeds to observe:

"Russia does, of course, have a big military, which it has used to annex Crimea and support rebels in eastern Ukraine. But this muscle-flexing has made Russia weaker, not stronger. Crimea, in particular, isn’t much of a conquest: it’s a territory with fewer people than either Queens or Brooklyn, and in economic terms it’s a liability rather than an asset, since the Russian takeover has undermined tourism, its previous mainstay.

An aside: Weirdly, some people think there’s a contradiction between Democratic mocking of the Trump/Putin bromance and President Obama’s mocking of Mitt Romney, four years ago, for calling Russia our 'No. 1 geopolitical foe.' But there isn’t: Russia has a horrible regime, but as Mr. Obama said, it’s a 'regional power,' not a superpower like the old Soviet Union."

But whereas Krugman makes note of Russian territorial designs upon Crimea and eastern Ukraine, he makes no mention of Russia's involvement in Syria or Obama's pusillanimous surrender to Putin as regards American involvement in that struggle, which affects the future of the entire Middle East. As we are told by DEBKAfile in a September 10, 2016 article entitled "Obama hands Syria over to Putin":

"The Syrian cease-fire agreement that US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov announced Friday night, September 9, in Geneva hands Syrian affairs over to Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and the country’s military.

. . . .

According to DEBKAfile’s intelligence and Mid East sources, Putin virtually shut the door on further cooperation with the United States in Syria. He highhandedly informed Obama that he now holds all the high cards for controlling the Syrian conflict, whereas Washington was just about out of the game.

Putin picked up the last cards, our sources disclose, in a secret deal with Erdogan for Russian-Turkish collaboration in charting the next steps in the Middle East.

. . . .

It now turns out that, just as the Americans sold the Syrian Kurds down the river to Turkey (when Vice President Joe Biden last month ordered them to withdraw from their lands to the eastern bank of the Euphrates River or lose US support), so too are the Turks now dropping the Syrian rebels they supported in the mud by re-branding them as 'terrorists.'"

Bottom line, Russia is no longer a mere "regional power," as Krugman would have us believe. Obama has allowed Russia to extend its power and dominance far beyond its borders.

Krugman concludes his opinion piece by declaring:

"When Mr. Trump and others praise Mr. Putin as a 'strong leader,' they don’t mean that he has made Russia great again, because he hasn’t. He has accomplished little on the economic front, and his conquests, such as they are, are fairly pitiful. What he has done, however, is crush his domestic rivals: Oppose the Putin regime, and you’re likely to end up imprisoned or dead. Strong!"

True, "Oppose the Putin regime, and you're likely to end up imprisoned or dead." Whereas if you oppose the Obama regime, you are only apt to have your taxes audited.

Paul Krugman, "Donald Trump’s ‘Big Liar’ Technique": What About Hillary's ‘Adaptive Liar’ Technique?

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Donald Trump’s ‘Big Liar’ Technique," Paul Krugman would have us examine the lies of Donald Trump, but ignore those of Hillary ("She stands accused of being overly legalistic or overstating the extent to which she has been cleared, but not of making major claims that are completely at odds with reality"). Krugman would have us know:

"Donald Trump has come up with something new, which we can call the 'big liar' technique. Taken one at a time, his lies are medium-size — not trivial, but mostly not rising to the level of blood libel. But the lies are constant, coming in a steady torrent, and are never acknowledged, simply repeated. He evidently believes that this strategy will keep the news media flummoxed, unable to believe, or at least say openly, that the candidate of a major party lies that much."

Okay, Trump employs the "big liar" technique and suffers from a severe narcissistic personality disorder; he should not be president of the United States. But what about Hillary's "adaptive liar" technique? As observed by Marc Thiessen in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Hillary Clinton fails the ABCs of handling classified information" (my emphasis in red):

"The fact is, every single person in America with even the lowest level of security clearance knows what (C) means. Clinton served on the Senate Armed Services Committee, where she regularly received classified information with a (C) marking on it. As secretary of state, she likely read classified documents with (C) markings every single day. And we’re supposed to believe she thought it was an alphabetical marking?

This was a fantastical argument for anyone with a security clearance, but it was totally lacking in credibility for someone with her proven pattern of deceit. Clinton has repeatedly changed her story: First, she told us there was “no classified material” in her private emails (which the FBI says was untrue). Then she told us there was nothing “classified at the time” (which the FBI also says was also untrue). Finally, she told us there was nothing “marked classified” in her private emails (which the FBI says was also untrue). So now she tells FBI interviewers that she does not know what (C) means, and they believe her?"

But lying is the least of it. The rule of law no longer exists in America, owing to Hillary. Allow Cheryl Mills, who had previously been questioned by the FBI, to be Hillary's legal counsel while the former secretary of state was undergoing questioning by the FBI? Ignore the destruction of Hillary's cell phones with a hammer? Sweep the erasure of Hillary's emails, which had been subpoenaed by Congress, under the carpet? Accept Hillary's 40 declarations to the FBI that she "could not recall" information relating to their questions, e.g., "any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling of classified information." This is despicable.

There is obviously one set of laws for the Clintons and another for the hoi polloi. But why should any of this trouble Paul "the conscience of a liberal" Krugman?

Paul Krugman, "Hillary Clinton Gets Gored": Want to Vomit This Morning?

Tweet

You need to vomit this morning? I have the answer. Read Paul Krugman's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Hillary Clinton Gets Gored," in which this Nobel Prize winner, who in 2011 promoted the virtues of Occupy Wall Street, attests to Hillary Clinton's character. Yes, I'm serious. Krugman writes:

"Meanwhile, we have the presumption that anything Hillary Clinton does must be corrupt, most spectacularly illustrated by the increasingly bizarre coverage of the Clinton Foundation.

. . . .

Now, any operation that raises and spends billions of dollars creates the potential for conflicts of interest. You could imagine the Clintons using the foundation as a slush fund to reward their friends, or, alternatively, Mrs. Clinton using her positions in public office to reward donors. So it was right and appropriate to investigate the foundation’s operations to see if there were any improper quid pro quos. As reporters like to say, the sheer size of the foundation 'raises questions.'

But nobody seems willing to accept the answers to those questions, which are, very clearly, 'no.'"

"[V]ery clearly, 'no'"? Consider an August 30, 2016 New York Times editorial entitled "Cutting Ties to the Clinton Foundation," which informs us:

"Mrs. Clinton became involved in State Department deals and negotiations that also involved foundation donors or board members. She prompted multiple investigations with an arrangement that allowed Huma Abedin, her deputy chief of staff at the State Department and now vice chairwoman of her campaign, to be paid simultaneously by the State Department, the foundation and Teneo, a consulting firm run by Doug Band, the former adviser to Mr. Clinton who helped create the foundation — and who sent emails to Ms. Abedin seeking favors for foundation donors.

The newly disclosed emails show that some foundation donors and friends, like Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad bin al-Khalifa of Bahrain, used foundation channels to seek access to Mrs. Clinton.

. . . .

The Clinton Foundation has become a symbol of the Clintons’ laudable ambitions, but also of their tangled alliances and operational opacity."

Oh, those nasty right-wingers from the Times editorial board, who question the "tangled alliances and operational opacity" of the Clinton Foundation, are obviously up to their nefarious tricks again!

Krugman concludes:

"And here’s a pro tip: the best ways to judge a candidate’s character are to look at what he or she has actually done, and what policies he or she is proposing. Mr. Trump’s record of bilking students, stiffing contractors and more is a good indicator of how he’d act as president; Mrs. Clinton’s speaking style and body language aren’t. George W. Bush’s policy lies gave me a much better handle on who he was than all the up-close-and-personal reporting of 2000, and the contrast between Mr. Trump’s policy incoherence and Mrs. Clinton’s carefulness speaks volumes today.

In other words, focus on the facts. America and the world can’t afford another election tipped by innuendo."

A "pro tip"? Got it! Krugman is now also an expert on "speaking style and body language." Speaking style? Apparently Krugman likes the way Hillary nods her head for hours at a time, like a bobble head doll. But more to the point, how does one judge Hillary's speaking style, when it's been 275 days since her last press conference? It is a bit akin to a quarterback taking a knee to run out the clock, but with more than two months to go before the election, this strategy could prove ill-advised.

Hillary's character? Needless to say, Krugman couldn't bring himself to mention that Hillary, a stickler for detail, told the FBI 39 times that she couldn't "recall" details concerning her email practices, or how her aides destroyed her mobile devices with a hammer.

I'm no fan of Trump, whose little fingers shouldn't be allowed anywhere the launch buttons of America's nuclear arsenal, but Hillary a paragon of honesty, integrity and transparency? Yup, Krugman's op-ed is the perfect emetic.

Paul Krugman, "Obamacare Hits a Bump": How About Falls Into a Sinkhole?

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Obamacare Hits a Bump," Paul Krugman begins:

"More than two and a half years have gone by since the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, went fully into effect. Most of the news about health reform since then has been good, defying the dire predictions of right-wing doomsayers. But this week has brought some genuine bad news: The giant insurer Aetna announced that it would be pulling out of many of the 'exchanges,' the special insurance markets the law established."

Whoa, Aetna is the only bad news? As reported by Javier E. David in an August 6, 2016 CNBC article entitled "Obamacare users in New York brace for double-digit 2017 premium hikes":

"Come 2017, thousands of New York's Obamacare users will wake up to double-digit premium hikes, the latest group of consumers affected by Affordable Care Act cost increases as insurers hemorrhage money from healthcare exchanges.

In a statement on Friday announcing 2017 premiums, NY's Department of Financial Services (DFS) said after weighing insurer requests, the state settled on an average hike of 16.6 percent for individual exchange users in the state, while small group users will see a lower average increase of over 8 percent."

This comes on the heels of a July 19, 2016 Los Angeles Times article entitled "California Obamacare rates to rise 13% in 2017, more than three times the increase of last two years" by Melody Petersen and Noam N. Levey.

Problems only in New York and California? I don't think so. As we are told by Sally C. Pipes and Thomas W. Smith in an August 17, 2016 CNBC piece entitled "Aetna's Obamacare pullout means the 'insurance death spiral' has arrived":

"Insurers that haven't pulled out of Obamacare are requesting premium hikes averaging 24 percent next year. And some states have it far worse. Many Georgians could see a hike of 65 percent. The 600,000 Texans enrolled in Blue Cross Blue Shield may face a 59 percent premium increase."

Krugman goes on to say in his opinion piece:

"This doesn’t mean that the reform is about to collapse. But some real problems are cropping up. They’re problems that would be relatively easy to fix in a normal political system, one in which parties can compromise to make government work. But they won’t get resolved if we elect a clueless president (although he’d turn to terrific people, the best people, for advice, believe me. Not.). And they’ll be difficult to resolve even with a knowledgeable, competent president if she faces scorched-earth opposition from a hostile Congress."

Ah yes, a "knowledgeable" and "competent" Hillary, who has suddenly decided that the Clinton Foundation will no longer accept foreign and corporate donations if she is elected president.

Got it: It was okay for the Clinton Foundation to receive foreign and corporate donations while she was secretary of state, and it is okay for the Clinton Foundation to receive donations while she is a candidate for president, but these donations will no longer be accepted after January 20, 2017.

Or stated otherwise, if foreign governments and corporations wish to influence the executive branch of America's government after Hillary's election, they had best make their donations NOW.

Disgusting.

Paul Krugman, "Wisdom, Courage and the Economy": Honesty Is the Best Policy

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Wisdom, Courage and the Economy," Paul Krugman concludes (my emphasis in red):

"When conservatives promise fantastic growth if we give them another chance at Bushonomics, one main reason is that they don’t want to admit how much they would have to cut popular programs to pay for their tax cuts. When centrists urge us to look away from questions of distribution and fairness and focus on growth instead, all too often they’re basically running away from the real issues that divide us politically.

So it’s actually quite brave to say: 'Here are the things I want to do, and here is how I’ll pay for them. Sorry, some of you will have to pay higher taxes.' Wouldn’t it be great if that kind of policy honesty became the norm?"

Heck, wouldn't it be great if any semblance of honesty became the norm?

This in a Washington Post editorial today entitled "A porous ethical wall between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department" (again, my emphasis in red):

"Should Ms. Clinton win in November, she will bring to the Oval Office a web of connections and potential conflicts of interest, developed over decades in private, public and, in the case of her family’s philanthropic work, quasi-public activities. As secretary, she pledged to keep her official world and her family’s foundation separate, and she failed to keep them separate enough. Such sloppiness would not be acceptable in the White House."

"Sloppiness"? Heck, Hillary's "extreme carelessness" involving her home server, which placed US national security at risk, should have been enough to preclude her candidacy.

Mention of the Clinton Foundation or Hillary's home server in Krugman's op-ed of today's date? Fat chance of that coming from a partisan extremist omniscient progressive who wrote in an October 6, 2011 New York Times op-ed entitled "Confronting the Malefactors":

"Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

. . . .

It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details."

And then there was Krugman's trillion dollar platinum coin proposal, which even Jon Stewart labeled a "stupid f#cking idea."

Shakespeare wrote in "All's Well that Ends Well," "No legacy is so rich as honesty." Ah, but that was so long ago.

Paul Krugman, "Pieces of Silver": How About Pieces of Something Else?

Tweet

Interviewed by Fox News's Sandra Smith, Charles Krauthammer had this to say concerning the burgeoning scandal involving the Clinton Foundation's ties to the State Department:

"We know that even within that small sample [of emails obtained by Judicial Watch], there were at least two examples of self-dealing between the Clinton Foundation, which is a sort of a machine for siphoning money from rich, foreign, sometimes unsavory sources into an organization whose one purpose is to create a network self-funded for Clinton cronies and hangers-onners, the administration in waiting, and that it was dealing, getting favors, for the people who are contributing to it from the State Department. Now, that is so obviously, it may not be illegal, you may not be able to prove a quid pro quo, but this sort of use of the Foundation and then working with the State Department, whether it was Hillary personally or not, does not matter, to get favors is a form of corruption at the least."

Ouch.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Pieces of Silver," Paul Krugman doesn't dare mention the Clinton Foundation. Rather, he speculates as to why Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell continue to support Trump. Krugman begins:

"By now, it’s obvious to everyone with open eyes that Donald Trump is an ignorant, wildly dishonest, erratic, immature, bullying egomaniac. On the other hand, he’s a terrible person. But despite some high-profile defections, most senior figures in the Republican Party — very much including Paul Ryan, the speaker of the House, and Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader — are still supporting him, threats of violence and all. Why?

One answer is that these were never men and women of principle. I know that many in the news media are still determined to portray Mr. Ryan, in particular, as an honest man serious about policy, but his actual policy proposals have always been transparent con jobs.

Another answer is that in an era of intense partisanship, the greatest risk facing many Republican politicians isn’t that of losing in the general election, it’s that of losing to an extremist primary challenger. This makes them afraid to cross Mr. Trump, whose ugliness channels the true feelings of the party’s base."

Krugman proceeds to proffer yet another possible reason for the support of Ryan and McConnell: The Republican Party is all about preserving tax benefits, both income and estate, for the rich. Krugman's conclusion:

"For the fact is that right now, when it matters, they have decided that lower tax rates on the rich are sufficient payment for betraying American ideals and putting the republic as we know it in danger."

Okay, Paul, I agree that Trump could turn the entire planet into a nuclear wasteland, but in terms of catering to the rich, including foreign nationals, is what Hillary did with the Clinton Foundation any better than Republican pandering to the wealthy elite? I don't think so.

Pieces of silver? How about pieces of something else - both of them.

Paul Krugman, "Time to Borrow": Living on Borrowed Time

Tweet

Just in case you were wondering, I was unable to attend Obama's 55th birthday party owing to a bout of nausea, which came on after I learned that Barry had funded Iranian terror with a planeload of $400 million in Swiss francs, euros and assorted other currencies.

Onward and upward ... not.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Time to Borrow," Paul Krugman says of Hillary:

"The campaign still has three ugly months to go, but the odds — 83 percent odds, according to the New York Times’s model — are that it will end with the election of a sane, sensible president."

Someone who thinks she came under sniper fire in Bosnia is sane and sensible? Someone perpetuating a "marital" relationship with Bill, a serial lech, is sane and sensible? A four-Pinocchio compulsive liar is sane and sensible? Yes, I know, it's all relative ...

But Paul's opinion piece is not about Hillary. Rather, he is again demanding that the US take more debt upon itself:

"[I]nvesting more in infrastructure would clearly make us richer. Meanwhile, the federal government can borrow at incredibly low interest rates: 10-year, inflation-protected bonds yielded just 0.09 percent on Friday.

Put these two facts together — big needs for public investment, and very low interest rates — and it suggests not just that we should be borrowing to invest, but that this investment might well pay for itself even in purely fiscal terms. How so? Spending more now would mean a bigger economy later, which would mean more tax revenue. This additional revenue would probably be larger than any rise in future interest payments."

Fascinating. But now consider what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office wrote in its July 2016 Long-Term Budget Outlook:

"If current laws governing taxes and spending did not change, the United States would face steadily increasing federal budget deficits and debt over the next 30 years, according to projections by the Congressional Budget Office. Federal debt held by the public, which was equal to 39 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) at the end of fiscal year 2008, has already risen to 75 percent of GDP in the wake of a financial crisis and a recession. In CBO’s projections, that debt rises to 86 percent of GDP in 2026 and to 141 percent in 2046—exceeding the historical peak of 106 percent that occurred just after World War II. The prospect of such large debt poses substantial risks for the nation and presents policymakers with significant challenges.

. . . .

A large and continuously growing federal debt would make a fiscal crisis in the United States more likely. Specifically, investors might become less willing to finance the government’s borrowing unless they were compensated with high interest rates. As a result, interest rates on federal debt would abruptly become higher than the rates of return on other assets, dramatically increasing the cost of future government borrowing. In addition, that increase would reduce the market value of outstanding government bonds. If that happened, investors would lose money. The potential losses for mutual funds, pension funds, insurance companies, banks, and other holders of government debt might be large enough to cause some financial institutions to fail, creating a fiscal crisis.

. . . .

If a fiscal crisis occurred in the United States, policymakers would have only limited—and unattractive—options for responding. The government would need to undertake some combination of three approaches: restructure the debt (that is, seek to modify the contractual terms of existing obligations), use monetary policy to raise inflation above expectations, and adopt large and abrupt spending cuts and tax increases."

Or stated otherwise, notwithstanding Krugman's "what me worry" attitude, the US is living on borrowed time.

Paul Krugman, "Worthy of Our Contempt": The "Real Hillary"

Tweet

Okay, I agree with Paul Krugman in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Worthy of Our Contempt," that rational Republicans, or rational voters of any "denomination," should not be supporting Trump. His election could indeed lead to "irretrievable disaster." On the other hand, Krugman also uses this opportunity to suck up to Hillary:

"[W]hile we won’t know about a Clinton presidency until or unless it happens, I find much to admire in the real Hillary, who is nothing like the caricature."

Ah yes, the "real Hillary." Perhaps Krugman would care to inform us with whom she has been sharing her bed for the past decade? Bill, who repeatedly flew on the Lolita Express? I don't think so.

And while he's at it, perhaps Krugman would care to explain his admiration for the foundation established by Hillary, which has been roping in donations of millions of dollars from some of world's most oppressive regimes, including some that subjugate women.

And maybe Krugman would care to justify how Hillary lied to the parents of the victims of the Benghazi attack, claiming it was all on account of the video.

And then there was that basement home server, evidencing her desire to hide her correspondence at the expense of national security. (The Washington Post yesterday gave her four Pinocchios for telling Chris Wallace that "Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails.")

Or maybe he simply admires how Hillary always backed her "husband" to the hilt, notwithstanding charges of rape.

Sorry, Paul, both candidates stink.

Paul Krugman, "Delusions of Chaos": Crime and Abortion

Tweet

In in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Delusions of Chaos," Paul Krugman refutes Donald Trump's RNC claim that crime is running rampant throughout the US, although Krugman cannot provide the reason for this improvement. Paul writes:

"[A] funny thing happened: Crime plunged instead of continuing to rise. Other indicators also improved dramatically — for example, the teen birthrate has fallen 60 percent since 1991. Instead of societal collapse, we’ve seen what amounts to a mass outbreak of societal health. The truth is that we don’t know exactly why. Hypotheses range from the changing age distribution of the population to reduced lead poisoning; but in any case, the predicted apocalypse notably failed to arrive."

Well, allow me to help Paul regarding the decline in crime rates. As observed by John Donohue and Steven Levitt in the abstract of a National Bureau of Economic Research article entitled "Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime":

"We offer evidence that legalized abortion has contributed significantly to recent crime reductions. Crime began to fall roughly 18 years after abortion legalization. The 5 states that allowed abortion in 1970 experienced declines earlier than the rest of the nation, which legalized in 1973 with Roe v. Wade. States with high abortion rates in the 1970s and 1980s experienced greater crime reductions in the 1990s. In high abortion states, only arrests of those born after abortion legalization fall relative to low abortion states. Legalized abortion appears to account for as much as 50 percent of the recent drop in crime. "

Given this reduction in crime, Krugman would have us know of Trump supporters:

"America isn’t the country they remember from their youth, and in this case they’re right — it has gotten much better."

Much better, as evidenced by the nominations of Donald and Hillary? I don't think so.

And then there's America's national debt which has reached almost $20 trillion, or $162,000 per taxpayer. In fact, an economic apocalypse is well on its way.

Paul Krugman, "Donald Trump, the Siberian Candidate": How Does Trump Differ From Obama?

Tweet

In in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Donald Trump, the Siberian Candidate," Paul Krugman says of Donald Trump:

"[W]e’re talking about a ludicrous, outrageous candidate. And the Trump campaign’s recent behavior has quite a few foreign policy experts wondering just what kind of hold Mr. Putin has over the Republican nominee, and whether that influence will continue if he wins.

I’m not talking about merely admiring Mr. Putin’s performance — being impressed by the de facto dictator’s “strength,” and wanting to emulate his actions. I am, instead, talking about indications that Mr. Trump would, in office, actually follow a pro-Putin foreign policy, at the expense of America’s allies and her own self-interest."

A "ludicrous, outrageous candidate"? You've got that much right, Paul.

But what about Obama's foreign policy vis-à-vis Putin? As observed in a July 1, 2016 Washington Post editorial entitled "Obama retreats from Putin in Syria — again" (my emphasis in red):

"FOR SEVERAL years, the Obama administration’s Syria policy has been stuck in a cycle of failure. Secretary of State John F. Kerry negotiates deals with Russia to end the fighting or create a new government in Damascus, while warning that if they are not respected by Russian President Vladi­mir Putin or Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the United States will consider other options, such as stepping up support for Syrian rebels. In every case, the Russian and Syrian regimes have betrayed their commitments, continuing to bomb civilian areas, employ chemical weapons and deny aid to besieged communities. And no wonder: Each time the U.S. response has been to return to the Russians, offering more concessions and pleading for another deal."

Moreover, as reported by The Wall Street Journal yesterday in an article entitled "Russia Bombed Base in Syria Used by U.S." by Adam Entous and Gordon Lubold (my emphasis in red):

"The Russians weren’t bombarding a run-of-the-mill rebel outpost, according to U.S. officials. Their target was a secret base of operations for elite American and British forces. In fact, a contingent of about 20 British special forces had pulled out of the garrison 24 hours earlier. British officials declined to comment.

U.S. military and intelligence officials say the previously unreported close call for Western forces on June 16, and a subsequent Russian strike on a site linked to the Central Intelligence Agency, were part of a campaign by Moscow to pressure the Obama administration to agree to closer cooperation in the skies over Syria.

The risk that U.S. and British forces could have been killed at the border garrison hardened opposition at the Pentagon and the CIA to accommodating the Russians. But White House and State Department officials, wary of an escalation in U.S. military involvement in Syria, decided to pursue a compromise."

So how does Trump differ from Obama? One admires him, while the other kowtows to him. Both empower him.

And while we're at it, let's not forget Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's infamous "reset" of relations with Putin.

A sickening sign of the times.

By the way, Krugman also makes no reference to the nuclear standoff between Obama and Erdogan involving the encirclement of the Incirlik Airbase in southern Turkey, where the US stores nuclear weapons and from which NATO launches strikes against ISIS.

SEE: "David Brooks, "The Death of the Republican Party": Ignoring the Incirlik Nuclear Crisis."

Paul Krugman, "Both Sides Now?": Hillary's Lies Are "Less Important" Than Trump's

Tweet

In what is probably his most despicable opinion piece ever, Paul Krugman informs us in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Both Sides Now?":

"To be fair, some reporters and news organizations try to point out Trump statements that are false, frightening, or both. All too often, however, they still try to maintain their treasured balance by devoting equal time — and, as far as readers and viewers can tell, equal or greater passion — to denouncing far less important misstatements from Hillary Clinton."

Ah yes, Hillary's "misstatements," i.e. lies, are not as "important" as those of Trump.

Don't get me wrong: Notwithstanding the fact that Hillary is reptilian and venomous, she does not threaten all life on this planet. Given Trump's serious narcissistic personality disorder (even worse than that of Hillary), I wouldn't want his little fingers anywhere near the launch buttons of America's nuclear arsenal.

But more to the point, let's have a look at FBI Director Comey's responses to Rep. Trey Gowdy questions before the House Oversight Committee on July 7:

Gowdy: “Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails, either sent or received. Is that true?”

Comey: “That’s not true, there were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents.”

Gowdy:”Secretary Clinton said, ‘I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email, there is no classified material.’ Was that true?”

Comey: “There was classified material emailed.”

Gowdy: “Secretary Clinton said she used just one device. Was that true?”

Comey: “She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state.”

Gowdy: “Secretary Clinton said all work-related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?”

Comey: “No, we found work-related emails, thousands, that were not returned.”

How serious were these lies? As reported by Breitbart's Patrick Howley, "Hillary Clinton posted and shared the names of concealed U.S. intelligence officials on her unprotected email system." Yup, I would say they're pretty serious.

Hillary's lies are "less important" than those of Donald? Sorry, Paul. That's just plain BS.

But even if they were to be deemed "less important," should such  a determination form the basis for selecting America's next president? Frightening.

Paul Krugman, "Cheap Money Talks": Borrow, Baby, Borrow!

Tweet

Telling us just how low interest rates have become in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Cheap Money Talks," Paul Krugman would again have the US take on more debt:

"Meanwhile, there are huge unmet demands for public investment on both sides of the Atlantic. America’s aging infrastructure is legendary, but not unique: years of austerity have left German roads and railways in worse shape than most people realize. So why not borrow money at these low, low rates and do some much-needed repair and renovation? This would be eminently worth doing even if it wouldn’t also create jobs, but it would do that too.

I know, deficit scolds would issue dire warnings about the evils of public debt. But they have been wrong about everything for at least the past eight years, and it’s time to stop taking them seriously."

All fine and good were it not for the fact that America's national debt now stands at some $19.4 trillion. Or stated otherwise, Obama and friends have effectively bankrupted the US. Do you remember how Obama declared in 2008:

"The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic."

Well, US debt now amounts to $60,000 "for every man, woman and child." That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic. More to the point, it's unsustainable.

It hasn't exploded over the past eight years? Well, all bad habits ultimately catch up with you. It's only a matter of time.

Money is cheap? So are drugs, when the pusher tries to get you addicted.

What happens afterwards, when interest rates ultimately go up, and the US is forced to pay the piper? As already noted, US debt is not sustainable, and the world should expect a sorry awakening.

Paul Krugman, "A Pause That Distresses": Don't Panic?

Tweet

A mere month ago, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "The Diabetic Economy," Paul Krugman wrote from Lisbon:

"Things are terrible here in Portugal, but not quite as terrible as they were a couple of years ago. The same thing can be said about the European economy as a whole. That is, I guess, the good news.

The bad news is that eight years after what was supposed to be a temporary financial crisis, economic weakness just goes on and on, with no end in sight. And that’s something that should worry everyone, in Europe and beyond."

However, according to Paul, everything was hunky-dory in the US:

"Meanwhile, the overall economic and political situation in America gives ample grounds for hope, which is in very short supply over here."

Well, today, in a Times op-ed entitled "A Pause That Distresses," Krugman seems to have changed his tune. Labelling Friday’s employment report "a major disappointment," Krugman tells us:

"Should this pause worry you? Yes. Because if it does turn into a recession, or even if it goes on for a long time, it’s very hard to envision an effective policy response."

Krugman nevertheless proposes:

"For the simplest, most effective answer to a downturn would be fiscal stimulus — preferably government spending on much-needed infrastructure, but maybe also temporary tax cuts for lower- and middle-income households, who would spend the money. Infrastructure spending makes especially good sense given the federal government’s incredibly low borrowing costs: The interest rate on inflation-protected bonds is barely above zero."

Ah yes, infrastructure spending and tax cuts, which would all be well and fine if Obama had not taken American's national debt to an unsustainable $19.3 trillion, amounting to some $60,000 of debt per citizen or more than $161,000 per taxpayer.

Did you happen to see the movie "The Big Short," which tells the stories of those who foresaw the collapse of collateralized debt obligations, which in turn brought the American economy to its knees in 2008? In fact, the American economy is also teetering, but no one wants to acknowledge it.

Paul Krugman, "The Diabetic Economy": Europe Bad, America Good

Tweet

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "The Diabetic Economy," Paul Krugman writes from Lisbon:

"Things are terrible here in Portugal, but not quite as terrible as they were a couple of years ago. The same thing can be said about the European economy as a whole. That is, I guess, the good news.

The bad news is that eight years after what was supposed to be a temporary financial crisis, economic weakness just goes on and on, with no end in sight. And that’s something that should worry everyone, in Europe and beyond."

But not to worry. According to Paul, everything is hunky-dory in the US:

"Meanwhile, the overall economic and political situation in America gives ample grounds for hope, which is in very short supply over here."

Yup, who cares if US national debt has reached some $19.3 trillion.

Who cares if America's gross debt to GDP ratio is 105%, compared with 65% for Holland, 71% for Germany, 89% for the United Kingdom, and 96% for France.

And who cares if Apple just reported its first drop in quarterly revenues in 13 years with increasing competition from Chinese cellphone makers.

Obama and friends have effectively bankrupted the US. Do you remember how Obama declared in 2008:

"The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic."

Well, US debt now amounts to $60,000 "for every man, woman and child." That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic. More to the point, it's unsustainable.

Who will be the first to whisper that the emperor has no clothes?

Paul Krugman, "The 8 A.M. Call": Hillary Is an Economic Genius!

Tweet

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "The 8 A.M. Call," Paul Krugman informs us that "[b]arring the political equivalent of a meteor strike" (Is an FBI recommendation to indict Hillary the equivalent of a meteor strike?), Hillary will be the Democratic candidate, and she will run against either Trump or Cruz. Krugman says of each of these potential candidates (my emphasis in red):

• Clinton: "Mrs. Clinton isn’t just the most knowledgeable, well-informed candidate in this election, she’s arguably the best-prepared candidate on matters economic ever to run for president."
• Trump: "I doubt that anyone will be shocked if I say that Mr. Trump doesn’t know much about economic policy, or for that matter any kind of policy. He still seems to imagine, for example, that China is taking advantage of America by keeping its currency weak — which was true once upon a time, but bears no resemblance to current reality."
• Cruz: "He chose, as his senior economic adviser, Phil Gramm — an architect of financial deregulation who helped set the stage for the 2008 crisis, then dismissed warnings of recession when that crisis came, calling America a 'nation of whiners.' Mr. Cruz is, in other words, a man of firm economic convictions — convictions that are utterly divorced from reality and impervious to evidence, to a degree that’s unusual even among Republicans.

Got it: Only Republicans are given to fanciful economic thinking. However, it was none other than Krugman who wrote in an October 6, 2011 New York Times op-ed entitled "Confronting the Malefactors":

"Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

. . . .

It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details."

And then there was Krugman's trillion dollar coin proposal, which even Jon Stewart labeled a "stupid f#cking idea."

Or stated otherwise, there are those who might justifiably question Krugman's grip on economic reality.

But maybe Paul is correct in his claim that Hillary is the "best-prepared candidate on matters economic ever to run for president." After all, she has proven extraordinarily adept over the past few years at milking the system for millions of dollars by lecturing to multinational corporations anxious to gain the benefit of her economic acumen. (Of course, there was no possibility that her lectures amounted to one big influence peddling scheme.) And then there was the "expertise" she displayed by turning a $1,000 investment in commodities futures into a gain of nearly $100,000 within 10 months. (Here, too, there was no chance of foul play.) Hillary's just one heck of an economic wizard.

Cruz's economic adviser, Phil Gramm, helped set the stage for the 2008 crisis? Oh really? And all this while I thought that it was President Bill Clinton who repealed Glass-Steagall, thereby setting the stage for the 2008 economic debacle.

And so it goes: On Sunday, we were told by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof that Hillary doesn't lie much given the records of other politicians, and today we have Paul Krugman telling us that Hillary is an economic genius. Spare me!

Paul Krugman, "Robber Baron Recessions": Ronald Reagan Is to Blame?

Tweet

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Robber Baron Recessions," Paul Krugman addresses the recent strike of Verizon workers and informs us  that "growing monopoly power is a big problem for the U.S. economy." Krugman proceeds to conclude that "we aren’t just living in a second Gilded Age, we’re also living in a second robber baron era." And who, according to Krugman, is to blame for the lack of competition? Ronald Reagan and the Republicans, of course. Krugman's explanation:

"For Reagan didn’t just cut taxes and deregulate banks; his administration also turned sharply away from the longstanding U.S. tradition of reining in companies that become too dominant in their industries. A new doctrine, emphasizing the supposed efficiency gains from corporate consolidation, led to what those who have studied the issue often describe as the virtual end of antitrust enforcement.

True, there was a limited revival of anti-monopoly efforts during the Clinton years, but these went away again under George W. Bush. The result was an economy with far too much concentration of economic power. And the Obama administration — preoccupied with the aftermath of financial crisis and the struggle with bitterly hostile Republicans — has only recently been in a position to grapple with competition policy."

Wrong. With regard to consolidation within the financial industry, for example, it was none other than Bill Clinton who was responsible for the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which in turn gave rise to giant financial institutions, whose rapacity ultimately threatened the collapse of the global economy.

And to whom did Hillary provide a speech in May 2013 for the sum of $225,000? None other than  Verizon. This seemingly relevant information is absent from Krugman's opinion piece.

And does Krugman mention the donation of Verizon to the Clinton Foundation in an amount between $100,001 and $250,000? Not a chance.

Let there be no mistake: I am a strong advocate of corporate competition, but pin all of the blame on Ronald Reagan and the Republicans? Get real!