Not a bad return for Sheldon.
growth there - about 150,000-190,000 jobs increase during Obama's tenure.
Krugman is a cheerleader. His award has little to do with the economics he uses as political propaganda. Other Nobel laureates consider him a bit of a joke, nevermind being seen as just a pundit. This is the genius that was calling for lower interest rates during the housing bubble.
Amazing song by Killer Mike; watch the video till the end.
Last edited by Ikki; 11-09-2012 at 02:15 PM.
Local and state government jobs do matter - a huge percentage of them depend on federal funding.
And that number represents like 1-2% growth in federal jobs - not an"huge" increase like you mention (it probably kept up with population increase, if that).
Last edited by silentstriker; 11-09-2012 at 02:17 PM.
Closer to 10%. Even if you maintain the funding argument, he doesn't really control who gets cut. And I'm pretty sure the budget has increased during Obama. In any event, there haven't been cuts as Krugman has claimed.
This is the kind of **** that makes people not respect Krugman as a scholar - besides being horrifically wrong on macroeconomics.
Last edited by Ikki; 11-09-2012 at 02:32 PM.
You are quoting as true what your own article says was 'half true':
Another important note: On the federal government growth, most of the increase goes away if you include the U.S. Postal Service, which has shrunk significantly. When you do, the increase is 29,000.
Paul Krugman Debates Rand Paul on the Expansion of the Gov
and the Politifact article provide the biggest range I've seen. If 190k is 10% even the lower 143k couldn't be 1-2%?
Anyway, it's disingenuous to include state/local governments. Obama has basically no control over who gets fired there - he isn't mayor or governor. While you could argue it is a misunderstanding, the context in these debates is at the Federal level. Wouldn't be the first time Krugman's talked ****.
Last edited by Ikki; 11-09-2012 at 02:47 PM.
Quoting raw numbers as evidence of 'huge growth' is disingenous, especially in bloody eco datasets. As usual, noone seems able to agree on what the denominator should be.
I don't know a great deal about Krugman but none of the links you posted really say anything more than 'he's a douche', no even vaguely serious analysis of his work. They smell like political statistics to me, the sort which are used to make a point but dissolve it upon later and more detailed scrutiny.
Last edited by Top_Cat; 11-09-2012 at 03:46 PM.
I gave you a direct link to bls - a valid source like that, instead of some partisan hack talking **** would be nice.
In other news, 9/11.
Interesting read. I'm not a fan of this sort of revisionism, intel docs always look far more like smoking guns in retrospect and I suspect there wasn't the legal framework around at the time time to arrest Atta et al for anything. Still, one feels they could have taken a threat from Bin Laden more seriously considering his form and pretty much unlimited source of funds, two big limiting factors in how successful (or not) terrorist types are likely to be in anything they try.
Really, it's probably more an indictment of how few and far between the resources outside of the US were and how poorly those who were there were being used. I mean, a lot of info seems to have come from Terry Wrist himself instead of the usual human sources. That is massively damning of the CIA. They'll say "We tried to pass on info but no-one listened" but what info were they trying to pass on? Their info turned out to be credible in hindsight but how much of it was actionable in August of 2001? The missing context seems to be that usually provided by humint and I don't think it's outrageous to suggest they might not have had much to pass on.
That said, the response from Tenet and others should probably have been to squeeze the ever-loving **** out of every resource they did have on the ground so questions should be asked why that, at least, didn't happen (if it didn't). I know Richard Clarke said in his book he and the CIA were hamstrung by the Bush crew's focus on Iraq so I guess it was all very well for Rice, Bush, et al to demand more 'wet' intel in response to the higher-level briefings but you can only do so much when you're working with few resources.
Last edited by Top_Cat; 11-09-2012 at 06:07 PM.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 2 guests)