Former Enron advisor and liberal "economist" Paul Krugman opines the following today in his New York Times column:
"And this third depression will be primarily a failure of policy. Around the world — most recently at last weekend’s deeply discouraging G-20 meeting — governments are obsessing about inflation when the real threat is deflation, preaching the need for belt-tightening when the real problem is inadequate spending."
I would offer this statement as Exhibit A in his involuntary commitment hearing.
The primary, secondary, and tertiary cause of the present economic condition is too much GOVERNMENT POLICY. World wide, we are suffering from too much government, too much spending, too much government economic regulation, and too much government-enforced wealth transfer, and too many government schemes designed to try to legislate around the market.
The real fix to the present economic condition is not just less government spending, but less government period.
Until liberals like Krugman come to understand the truth that governments are a net drain on the economy, they will continue to visit this government-approved pox of malaise upon humanity. Governments produce nothing and generate no profit. Every tax dollar to the government is both a market distortion and a violation individual economic rights.
More importantly to the current condition, every dollar provided to the government is worth less to the economy than a dollar left in the hands of the person that earned it.
More government, more spending, and more stealing of the wealth of the future generations is not just bad policy, it is criminal. Paul Krugman should be ashamed for suggesting otherwise. But we all know that liberals have no shame whatsoever.
Showing posts with label New York Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New York Times. Show all posts
Monday, June 28, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
NY Times Irritation of the Day
Black NYT "reporter" Charles Blow (no relation to Marion Barry) went to the Dallas, Texas Tea Party and wrote his predictable screed "A Mighty Pale Tea."
I wonder if Charles Blow has ever gone to see the line for Section 8 housing handouts or other similar government giveaways. Here is a photo from one in similarly Red-Stated Alabama: http://tinyurl.com/y435lef
And I wonder if Charles Blow wrote an article about the folks who attend government giveaways, would he title his screed "Looks like Black Tea"?
Somehow, I doubt it.
I wonder if Charles Blow has ever gone to see the line for Section 8 housing handouts or other similar government giveaways. Here is a photo from one in similarly Red-Stated Alabama: http://tinyurl.com/y435lef
And I wonder if Charles Blow wrote an article about the folks who attend government giveaways, would he title his screed "Looks like Black Tea"?
Somehow, I doubt it.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Joe Stack - Terrorist
Today, a man who claimed to be tired of watching the US Government continue to punish the productive in favor of illegal immigrants, the unproductive, labor unions, and leftist intelligentsia flew his private plane into an IRS office in Austin, Texas.
Like all terrorists, Joe Stack misdirected his attack against people who were not the cause of his angst. All he harmed were innocent people, no more at the controls of the government he came to see as opposing him as he himself was.
So for those of us who also believe the Government has grown far beyond its constitutional limitations, life just got tougher. Now, Big Sister Janet can point to Joe Stack and say "Ah-ha! I told you right-wingers were terrorists!"
But life should be a little tougher for leftists as well. Let us see if the New York Times will delve into a real discussion about whether Joe Stack was an ideologically driven murderer or perpetrated an act designed to call attention to a legitimate plight. We'll see.
Joe Stack, you died a schmuck. You died for nothing. Your act will achieve nothing positive. In short - EPIC FAIL you terrorist loser.
Like all terrorists, Joe Stack misdirected his attack against people who were not the cause of his angst. All he harmed were innocent people, no more at the controls of the government he came to see as opposing him as he himself was.
So for those of us who also believe the Government has grown far beyond its constitutional limitations, life just got tougher. Now, Big Sister Janet can point to Joe Stack and say "Ah-ha! I told you right-wingers were terrorists!"
But life should be a little tougher for leftists as well. Let us see if the New York Times will delve into a real discussion about whether Joe Stack was an ideologically driven murderer or perpetrated an act designed to call attention to a legitimate plight. We'll see.
Joe Stack, you died a schmuck. You died for nothing. Your act will achieve nothing positive. In short - EPIC FAIL you terrorist loser.
Monday, June 22, 2009
More Hypocritical Behavior From the New York Times
From publishing the Pentagon Papers to revealing the al Qaeda wiretaps to providing lengthy depictions on enhanced interrogation techniques employed by the United States, the New York Times has shown time and again they cannot keep a secret, except …
Except when it benefits one of their own.
New York Times reporter David Rohde was kidnapped and held by the Taliban in Pakistan seven months ago. Since that time, the New York Times has actively and effectively fought to have this information withheld from publication from all news sources, including al Jazeera.
The duplicity exhibited by New York Times executive editor Bill Keller of the New York Times is disgusting. Keller’s justifications for spiking the story for 7 months could apply to each of the stories the NYT was requested to withhold for national security reasons, but did not.
"All along, we were told by people that probably the wisest course for … safety was to keep it quiet." The al Qaeda wiretaps of international phone calls was providing a great deal of safety to all Americans, but the NY Times could not keep to the wise course and destroyed the program with their publication of the information.
"The more you talk about who did what ... the more you're writing a playbook for the [terrorists]." This would certainly apply to the playbook on enhanced interrogation techniques, but the New York Times wants to make sure terrorist world wide know exactly what we will do to get them to talk, and how far we will go to make sure they are not in any real danger during interrogations.
Publication "could increase the danger" to their reporter. The New York Times every day publicizes both information and misinformation that increases the danger to all Americans. Why is their reporter special?
What other information is the Times burying? I wager they are burying and not reporting who kidnapped their reporter and exactly where they were held. That might endanger the lives of the terrorists that took the kidnapper, you see.
When the New York Times published the classified Pentagon Papers, their justification was that they did not "feel like" the papers should be classified, and did not "feel like" they were giving secrets to a nation at war with the United States. Of course, they were wrong, but it really was about how they felt.
When the New York Times published details of the al Qaeda wiretaps, they did not feel the need to provide a justification for exposing a secret and effective anti-terrorist program.
Now they "feel" the need to provide a justification for NOT publishing (and spiking all other news sources from publishing) news that was indeed "Fit to Print" and in no way affected the security of the United States. Funny how things change over the years.
They certainly published stories about other journalists captured in Iran and North Korea during these past seven months ... what made the case of David Rohde special?
Except when it benefits one of their own.
New York Times reporter David Rohde was kidnapped and held by the Taliban in Pakistan seven months ago. Since that time, the New York Times has actively and effectively fought to have this information withheld from publication from all news sources, including al Jazeera.
The duplicity exhibited by New York Times executive editor Bill Keller of the New York Times is disgusting. Keller’s justifications for spiking the story for 7 months could apply to each of the stories the NYT was requested to withhold for national security reasons, but did not.
"All along, we were told by people that probably the wisest course for … safety was to keep it quiet." The al Qaeda wiretaps of international phone calls was providing a great deal of safety to all Americans, but the NY Times could not keep to the wise course and destroyed the program with their publication of the information.
"The more you talk about who did what ... the more you're writing a playbook for the [terrorists]." This would certainly apply to the playbook on enhanced interrogation techniques, but the New York Times wants to make sure terrorist world wide know exactly what we will do to get them to talk, and how far we will go to make sure they are not in any real danger during interrogations.
Publication "could increase the danger" to their reporter. The New York Times every day publicizes both information and misinformation that increases the danger to all Americans. Why is their reporter special?
What other information is the Times burying? I wager they are burying and not reporting who kidnapped their reporter and exactly where they were held. That might endanger the lives of the terrorists that took the kidnapper, you see.
When the New York Times published the classified Pentagon Papers, their justification was that they did not "feel like" the papers should be classified, and did not "feel like" they were giving secrets to a nation at war with the United States. Of course, they were wrong, but it really was about how they felt.
When the New York Times published details of the al Qaeda wiretaps, they did not feel the need to provide a justification for exposing a secret and effective anti-terrorist program.
Now they "feel" the need to provide a justification for NOT publishing (and spiking all other news sources from publishing) news that was indeed "Fit to Print" and in no way affected the security of the United States. Funny how things change over the years.
They certainly published stories about other journalists captured in Iran and North Korea during these past seven months ... what made the case of David Rohde special?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
