Krugman starts out saying the press isnt going after Romney hard enough for his mistruths, and he gets laughed at for thinking the press is somehow not being hard enough on Romney, then when presented with all of Obama's mistruths he says "yeah well those are minor compared to Romney's" You know you have went off the left wing deepend when James Carville is forced to correct you. Basically the whole "This week Sunday" segment was krugman making a fool of himself, but here is one of highlights of his stupidity. <iframe title="MRC TV video player" width="640" height="360" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/117304" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Here is the entire debate where Krugman makes an ass of himself as everyone on the panel from both the right and left points out just how much of a partisan fool he is. <iframe id="kaltura_player_1349679394" height="221" width="392" style="border: 0px solid #ffffff;" src="http://cdnapi.kaltura.com/index.php/kwidget/wid/1_1usscs6z/uiconf_id/3775332/st_cache/29619?referer=http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/roundtable-debate-fallout-17417164&autoPlay=false&addThis.playerSize=392x221&freeWheel.siteSectionId=nws_offsite&closedCaptionActive=true&">Unfortunately your browser does not support IFrames.</iframe> <div style="text-align:left;font-size:x-small;margin-top:0;"> <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/video">Watch More News Videos at ABC</a> | <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/">2012 Presidential Election</a> | <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/entertainment">Entertainment & Celebrity News</a> </div> <iframe id="kaltura_player_1349679411" height="221" width="392" style="border: 0px solid #ffffff;" src="http://cdnapi.kaltura.com/index.php/kwidget/wid/1_nud8hmzl/uiconf_id/3775332/st_cache/48583?referer=http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/roundtable-ii-this-week-politics-2012-presidential-debates-obama-romney-joe-biden-paul-ryan-17417194&autoPlay=false&addThis.playerSize=392x221&freeWheel.siteSectionId=nws_offsite&closedCaptionActive=true&">Unfortunately your browser does not support IFrames.</iframe> <div style="text-align:left;font-size:x-small;margin-top:0;"> <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/video">Watch More News Videos at ABC</a> | <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/">2012 Presidential Election</a> | <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/entertainment">Entertainment & Celebrity News</a> </div>
Truth About Jobs By PAUL KRUGMAN http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/opinion/krugman-truth-about-jobs.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0 "If anyone had doubts about the madness that has spread through a large part of the American political spectrum, the reaction to Fridayâs better-than expected report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics should have settled the issue. For the immediate response of many on the right â and weâre not just talking fringe figures â was to cry conspiracy. Leading the charge of what were quickly dubbed the âB.L.S. truthersâ was none other than Jack Welch, the former chairman of General Electric, who posted an assertion on Twitter that the books had been cooked to help President Obamaâs re-election campaign. His claim was quickly picked up by right-wing pundits and media personalities. "It was nonsense, of course. Job numbers are prepared by professional civil servants, at an agency that currently has no political appointees. But then maybe Mr. Welch â under whose leadership G.E. reported remarkably smooth earnings growth, with none of the short-term fluctuations you might have expected (fluctuations that reappeared under his successor) â doesnât know how hard it would be to cook the jobs data. "Furthermore, the methods the bureau uses are public â and anyone familiar with the data understands that they are ânoisy,â that especially good (or bad) months will be reported now and then as a simple consequence of statistical randomness. And that in turn means that you shouldnât put much weight on any one monthâs report. "In that case, however, what is the somewhat longer-term trend? Is the U.S. employment picture getting better? Yes, it is. "Some background: the monthly employment report is based on two surveys. One asks a random sample of employers how many people are on their payroll. The other asks a random sample of households whether their members are working or looking for work. And if you look at the trend over the past year or so, both surveys suggest a labor market that is gradually on the mend, with job creation consistently exceeding growth in the working-age population. "On the employer side, the current numbers say that over the past year the economy added 150,000 jobs a month, and revisions will probably push that number up significantly. Thatâs well above the 90,000 or so added jobs per month that we need to keep up with population. (This number used to be higher, but underlying work force growth has dropped off sharply now that many baby boomers are reaching retirement age.) "Meanwhile, the household survey produces estimates of both the number of Americans employed and the number unemployed, defined as people who are seeking work but donât currently have a job. The eye-popping number from Fridayâs report was a sudden drop in the unemployment rate to 7.8 percent from 8.1 percent, but as I said, you shouldnât put too much emphasis on one monthâs number. The more important point is that unemployment has been on a sustained downward trend. "But isnât that just because people have given up looking for work, and hence no longer count as unemployed? Actually, no. Itâs true that the employment-population ratio â the percentage of adults with jobs â has been more or less flat for the past year. But remember those aging baby boomers: the fraction of American adults who are in their prime working years is falling fast. Once you take the effects of an aging population into account, the numbers show a substantial improvement in the employment picture since the summer of 2011. "None of this should be taken to imply that the situation is good, or to deny that we should be doing better â a shortfall largely due to the scorched-earth tactics of Republicans, who have blocked any and all efforts to accelerate the pace of recovery. (If the American Jobs Act, proposed by the Obama administration last year, had been passed, the unemployment rate would probably be below 7 percent.) The U.S. economy is still far short of where it should be, and the job market has a long way to go before it makes up the ground lost in the Great Recession. But the employment data do suggest an economy that is slowly healing, an economy in which declining consumer debt burdens and a housing revival have finally put us on the road back to full employment. "And thatâs the truth that the right canât handle. The furor over Fridayâs report revealed a political movement that is rooting for American failure, so obsessed with taking down Mr. Obama that good news for the nationâs long-suffering workers drives its members into a blind rage. It also revealed a movement that lives in an intellectual bubble, dealing with uncomfortable reality â whether that reality involves polls or economic data â not just by denying the facts, but by spinning wild conspiracy theories. "It is, quite simply, frightening to think that a movement this deranged wields so much political power. "
Max, You had to know Krugman's acolyte would show up here to post a meager defense of the High Priest of Keynesian Theory himself. The problem, of course, being the defense he posted came from Krugman. What a fucking joke, Ricter is. But don't question him on it, he'll just El Matador himself out of the thread. Here is Gallup saying that it is time to replace the BLS data with something accurate. http://behavioraleconomy.gallup.com/2012/10/time-to-replace-unemployment-rate.html?m=1
Ricter, the funny thing about religion is that you are so dismissive when your messiahs are wrong. Here is what Krugman said about the stimulus in 2009: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/10/romer-and-bernstein-on-stimulus/ Now a rational person would say that Krugman cannot calculate or predict that stuff any better than most, that he should have lost his credibility by now. He is in fact a well known partisan and not a respected authority on the honesty of the government. You zealots however have you quran and that's all that matters. Just be honest about it, that's all.
Krugman and Obama need to return their Nobel prizes to restore faith in the Nobel Prize system. Bill Clinton is on the nominee list for the Nobel Peace Prize this year. Geez.
Does Krugman even know that everyone except for the dickheads at Columbia despise his nasty ass shit he writes? What a loser. Why doesn't he move to Paris if he has such a hard on for socialism?