Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President.

Battle won, war still ongoing.

Balloon Juice has never been a refuge for the linguistically delicate.

You can’t love your country only when you win.

Historically it was a little unusual for the president to be an incoherent babbling moron.

If you tweet it in all caps, that makes it true!

Take hopelessness and turn it into resilience.

Thanks to your bullshit, we are now under siege.

It’s always darkest before the other shoe drops.

Schmidt just says fuck it, opens a tea shop.

Their freedom requires your slavery.

When someone says they “love freedom”, rest assured they don’t mean yours.

They fucked up the fucking up of the fuckup!

Some judge needs to shut this circus down soon.

Good lord, these people are nuts.

All your base are belong to Tunch.

Nothing worth doing is easy.

Fuck these fucking interesting times.

Russian mouthpiece, go fuck yourself.

Bark louder, little dog.

Let us savor the impending downfall of lawless scoundrels who richly deserve the trouble barreling their way.

John Fetterman: Too Manly for Pennsylvania.  Paid for by the Oz for Senator campaign.

The poor and middle-class pay taxes, the rich pay accountants, the wealthy pay politicians.

Since when do we limit our critiques to things we could do better ourselves?

You are here: Home / Poor Paul Krugman

Reader Interactions

2Comments

  1. 1.

    Barney Gumble

    Here’s the whitehouse claim
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/economy/creating_jobs.html

    and here’s Krugman’s column
    http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/5702813.htm

    It reads to me that Krugman was taking exception to the administrations claim that the 10 year tax cut would create 1.4 million jobs by the end of 2004.

    He states, correctly I think, that a tax cut 8 years from now doesn’t do anything to create a job now, and that even if we took the claim at face value, that would work out to $500,000 per job created by the end of 2004.

    He sounds suspicious of a ten year plan for fixing the next two years worth of problems.

    Luskin thinks that we should divide the cost of the jobs created in the next two years over the entire ten years.

    I have no idea who is right, but I am suspicious that the Republicans have abandoned their fiscal principles (anyone remember the Balanced Budget Ammentment? Graham-Rudman?) so quietly and completely.

    Makes me nostalgic for the days when we screwed up the budget one year at a time.

  2. 2.

    Robin Roberts

    Barney, evidently you don’t understand the dishonest way that Krugman compared apples and oranges in this. Given that he waves around his economics degree, the dishonesty by Krugman is obviously intentional.

Comments are closed.