|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) |
jgraz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 09:15 AM Original message |
Krugman is proved right again. (Sad day for us) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BeyondGeography (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 09:21 AM Response to Original message |
1. Krugman PREDICTED that Mitch McConnell would say bad things about Obama and the gubmint?!?!?!? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dionysus (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 09:26 AM Response to Reply #1 |
2. yes, woe is us, mitch fucking mcconnell doesn't like the stimulus. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OHdem10 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 09:37 AM Response to Reply #2 |
6. The serious point here is the Mitch McConnells (GOP) have succeeded |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
alcibiades_mystery (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 09:40 AM Response to Reply #6 |
8. A President's rating dropped after the first six months in office |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
nolabels (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 10:05 AM Response to Reply #8 |
14. And two undeclared wars that are winding down and a MSM owned...... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OHdem10 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 10:16 AM Response to Reply #14 |
19. You do not surrender---First know your enemy and their strategy. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jgraz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 09:27 AM Response to Reply #1 |
3. That begs the question: why didn't Obama see it coming? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RUMMYisFROSTED (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 09:33 AM Response to Reply #3 |
4. Even if the stimulus worked wonders, McPiehole would say the same thing. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jgraz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 09:48 AM Response to Reply #4 |
11. Of course, if the stimulus was working, we wouldn't care |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Teaser (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 11:22 AM Response to Reply #11 |
47. who says it ain't working? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jgraz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 11:27 AM Response to Reply #47 |
48. And your evidence would be...? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RaleighNCDUer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 09:34 AM Response to Reply #3 |
5. Because nobody pays any attention to anything the left says. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Forkboy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 09:38 AM Response to Reply #5 |
7. But they listen to the Right. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Moochy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 09:43 AM Response to Reply #7 |
10. What part of bipartisan don't you get? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Occam Bandage (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 10:23 AM Response to Reply #3 |
21. Why do you think he didn't? nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jgraz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 10:39 AM Response to Reply #21 |
30. Because it was easily defended against, and Obama did nothing |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Occam Bandage (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 10:47 AM Response to Reply #30 |
35. "Easily defended against?" Your plan for defense would only weaken his position. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jgraz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 10:51 AM Response to Reply #35 |
39. You think Obama would have put it in such simplistic terms? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Occam Bandage (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 10:56 AM Response to Reply #39 |
42. You can bet the Republicans would have put it in such simplistic terms. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jgraz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 11:00 AM Response to Reply #42 |
45. And Obama could have done the same to them |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Occam Bandage (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 12:39 PM Response to Reply #45 |
56. Er, yes, but only if he had couched his first bill as a failure before it had passed, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jgraz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 09:46 PM Response to Reply #56 |
65. nope, he could have just couched it as a qualified success |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
JVS (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 10:49 AM Response to Reply #30 |
37. Hey, maybe having it look like an embarrassing failure is a chess move. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Marsala (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 09:42 AM Response to Original message |
9. Even if the stimulus was twice as big (like Krugman wanted), unemployment would still be waaay up |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jgraz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 09:49 AM Response to Reply #9 |
12. How do you figure that? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mkultra (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 10:06 AM Response to Reply #12 |
15. krugman doesnt debate the speed of the stimulus |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
stevenleser (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jul-10-09 12:19 AM Response to Reply #15 |
67. Bingo. The reality is, by June of 2010, it will be apparent that the stimulus has worked... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dkf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 09:58 AM Response to Original message |
13. We don't know if Krugman is right because the problem may not be the amount |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
scheming daemons (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 10:10 AM Response to Original message |
16. You mean the same Krugman that is 100% gung-ho behind Obama's health care plans? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jgraz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 10:25 AM Response to Reply #16 |
23. Or maybe this post is about the *economy*, not *healthcare* |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Jennicut (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 10:10 AM Response to Original message |
17. How much bigger a stimulus did you think we we would get with Nelson and other conservadems |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jgraz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 10:14 AM Response to Reply #17 |
18. It's more about how they set up the politics |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Jennicut (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 10:23 AM Response to Reply #18 |
22. Right. Lets blame Obama once again. Sorry, but its obvious with health care where the real problem |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jgraz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 10:26 AM Response to Reply #22 |
25. You're right. It's not like he's in some position of leadership with broad access to the media |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Jennicut (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 10:43 AM Response to Reply #25 |
32. So you merely want him to be the one that said "Told you so." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jgraz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 10:45 AM Response to Reply #32 |
33. No, I want our country to get another stimulus package if it's needed |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Jennicut (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 10:50 AM Response to Reply #33 |
38. Another one? With what money? Not any time in the next year or two |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jgraz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 10:53 AM Response to Reply #38 |
40. With the same money they used for the first one. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Jennicut (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 11:02 AM Response to Reply #40 |
46. I appreciate your uncompromising |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Occam Bandage (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 10:22 AM Response to Original message |
20. "Republicans will say Obama's plans aren't working." Who could have seen that coming? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jgraz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 10:27 AM Response to Reply #20 |
26. Apparently not Obama. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Occam Bandage (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 10:33 AM Response to Reply #26 |
27. The only people who ever suggested Obama thought Republicans wouldn't attack him |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jgraz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 10:35 AM Response to Reply #27 |
29. Yet, somehow, he's handed them this golden opportunity to say "I told you so" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Occam Bandage (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 10:41 AM Response to Reply #29 |
31. For Republicans, there's nothing that isn't a golden opportunity to say "I told you so." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Jennicut (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 10:46 AM Response to Reply #31 |
34. Exactly. Half the time they lie anyway....Like John Boner lied about not getting funds in Ohio |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jgraz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 10:48 AM Response to Reply #31 |
36. Oh really? How many of them are saying "I told you so" about the pirates? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Occam Bandage (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 10:55 AM Response to Reply #36 |
41. If unemployment had come in under our predictions, they'd say he sandbagged the predictions, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jgraz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 10:58 AM Response to Reply #41 |
44. And they'd look like fools. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Occam Bandage (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 12:39 PM Response to Reply #44 |
57. They already do. It seems your argument is nothing more than "the Republicans are right!" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jgraz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 09:49 PM Response to Reply #57 |
66. I have to believe you're being willfully obtuse. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mkultra (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 01:59 PM Response to Reply #36 |
59. their view of well handled is meaningless |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Life Long Dem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 10:25 AM Response to Original message |
24. Krugman was low on unemployment figures as well. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jgraz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 10:34 AM Response to Reply #24 |
28. You might want to read the article again |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Life Long Dem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 10:57 AM Response to Reply #28 |
43. No but's |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
grantcart (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 11:29 AM Response to Original message |
49. Krugman for President 2012 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jgraz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 11:30 AM Response to Reply #49 |
50. Krugman for Sec. Treas. 2009 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
grantcart (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 12:05 PM Response to Reply #50 |
52. and have him sullied by implementing the policies of the man you detest so much |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jgraz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 12:11 PM Response to Reply #52 |
54. Oh please, you're too smart to play those petulant little games |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
grantcart (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 02:03 PM Response to Reply #54 |
60. Your posts speak for themselves, whether that is your real opinion it is clearly what is perceived |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jgraz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 09:04 PM Response to Reply #60 |
63. I do not like many of the choices Obama has made |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
applegrove (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 01:04 PM Response to Reply #50 |
58. No we need Krugman's columns to continue. We'd be nowhere without them. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Occam Bandage (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 05:01 PM Response to Reply #50 |
62. He's already said he'd be no good at the job. I believe him. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
zulchzulu (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 11:33 AM Response to Original message |
51. BREAKING! Mitch McConnell in the hospital to get the marbles in his piehole removed! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BlooInBloo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 12:11 PM Response to Original message |
53. It's funny when DUers approvingly quote republicans. And then bitch about Democrats... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jgraz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 12:12 PM Response to Reply #53 |
55. Even funnier when DUers are incapable of reading for context. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 04:24 PM Response to Original message |
61. Krugman calls out Bush economist for false statement on Obama's stimulus |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
vaberella (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-09-09 09:06 PM Response to Reply #61 |
64. +1. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
masuki bance (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jul-10-09 02:14 AM Response to Original message |
68. Isn't it correct to say "proven"? nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jgraz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jul-10-09 08:14 PM Response to Reply #68 |
69. Both are correct, "Proved" seems to be winning out in common vernacular. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Wed Apr 24th 2024, 06:04 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC