This filthy little rat-faced
"Nobel Prize winning" economist, PBS / CIArlie Rose gadfly and Slimes columnist, Paul Krugman,
(cough cough) may not know a dad-gum thing about economics - or, more than likely, pretends
not to know - but when it comes to rhetorical trickery, kosher Krugman is a magician without peer. In
this editorial, the debt-loving vampire Krugman attacks Trump's sensible suggestion about refinancing some of our soon-to-be
$20 Trillion debt, while at the same time spinning statistics to support his usual monster-lie about debt not being a big
problem for America.
suits, googles and crucifixes on, everyone -- into Count Crookman's crockpot of communist crap we go!
Krugman's love for Obongo is surpassed only
by his hatred for Trump. Note the childish T-shirt mocking Trump.
Krugman: Truly, Donald Trump knows nothing. He
is more ignorant about policy than you can possibly imagine.
Rebuttal: "Trump knows nothing." -- "ignorant".
Krugman opens the match with a classic logical fallacy -- argumentum ad hominem as the ancient philosophers
of Rome called it. It is a logical fallacy in which a case is argued
by personally attacking one's adversary without addressing the substance of the argument itself.
Krugman: But his ignorance isn’t as unique as it may seem: In
many ways, he’s just doing a clumsy job of channeling nonsense widely popular in his party...
Rebuttal: "Ignorance" -- "Clumsy job"
-- "channeling nonsense." Enough with the schoolyard taunts, punk. Explain to us why Trump is wrong about the danger
Last week the presumptive Republican presidential nominee finally revealed his plan to make America great again. Basically,
it involves running the country like a failing casino.
Rebuttal: More venom -- "running the country
like a failing casino." The intellectual arsenal of this vicious little bastard consists mainly of insults. Insults are
fine if they can be supported by facts (as your raging reporter and his fearless feline sidekick here always
do) -- but we're still waiting for Krugman's supporting logic.
great Nobel-prize-winning intellectual argues like a naughty child.
Krugman: .. he could, he asserted, “make a deal” with creditors that
would reduce the debt burden ...
Rebuttal: Why is that a
Krugman: ... if his outlandish
promises of economic growth don’t work out.
did not make "outlandish" promises of growth. His projections are totally in line with pre-Obongo growth trends.
Remove the dead weight of government from the tired shoulders of the American economy, and there is no telling what type of
growth numbers we can achieve.
Oh, and speaking of "outlandish
promises", Paulie, when are you going to call out Obongo for his broken promises to reduce the debt and cover everyone
with Obongocare? Recall this line from campaign Obongo in 2008:
"The problem is, is that the way Bush
has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving
up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents - (Bush) #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that
we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back -- $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That's
irresponsible. It's unpatriotic."
Bush ended up adding $5 Trillion -- Obongo will finish his reign of ruin having
piled on an additional $10 Trillion.
Krugman: The reaction from everyone who knows anything about finance or economics...
Rebuttal: Another fallacy: Argumentum
Ad Verecundiam -- argument from inappropriate
authority. Krugman cherry-picks other libtard economists to support his own fallacies, while dismissing other sane economists
who agree with Trump.
Krugman: ...was a mix of amazed horror
and horrified amazement.
-- "amazement". More insults and scare tactics, but still no sound argument to rebut Trump.
does not casually suggest throwing away America’s carefully cultivated reputation as the world’s most scrupulous
Rebuttal: The Federal Reserve
and Social Security are the largest holders of U.S. T-Bills (here). As a highly placed attack-poodle for the Money Masters (cough cough), what Krugman is really saying is:
"One does not casually suggest that the Rothschilds are to be negotiated with."
Krugman: — a reputation that
dates all the way back to Alexander Hamilton.
Rebuttal: We are no fans
of Hamilton, but the debt tsunami facing America is unlike anything before in our history. Something has got to done. Oh,
by the way, Paulie, even bankster-boy Hamilton would have been appalled at the level of debt that you and your commie crowd
have buried us in. Read the Hamilton quote below:
Krugman's bankster hero did indeed believe
in public debt -- but stressed that it should not be excessive and "extinguished" when possible.
Krugman: The Trump solution would, among other things,
deprive the world economy of its most crucial safe asset, U.S. debt...
Rebuttal: U.S. debt is no longer a "safe asset." With interest rates on T-Bills near 0 and the "cost-of-living"
running at 5% per year (the actual figure), we are already defaulting investors to the tune of -4% per year. That
is why China is cutting back on T-Bills and buying more and more gold.
Krugman: Of course, we can be sure that Mr.
Trump knows none of this, and nobody in his entourage is likely to tell him.
Rebuttal: Blah...blah...blah. Trump is stupid, Trump was married three times, Trump dyes his hair. Blah ... blah... blah. Grow
up and make an actual case, you putrid little worm.
Krugman: But before we simply ridicule him — or, actually, at
the same time that we’re ridiculing him — let’s ask where his bad ideas really come from.
Ridicule -- ridicule -- ridicule. Coming from a little poop-stain of an "economist"
who never actually ran a business, nor met a payroll, nor even ran a lemonade stand in his life.
Krugman: First of all, Mr. Trump obviously believes
that America could easily find itself facing a debt crisis. But why? After all, investors, who are willing to lend to America
at incredibly low interest rates, are evidently not worried by our debt.
Rebuttal: Krugman misses the point. The danger of our
debt is not to wealthy investors and foreign governments. They will get on just fine regardless of whether we default or not.
The great danger lies in the tax and inflation burden to us and our children.
Krugman: And there’s good
reason for their calmness: federal interest payments are only 1.3 percent of G.D.P., or 6 percent of total outlays.
Rebuttal: Again, Krugman shows his true colors by speaking only of the interests of
investors (money lenders) without regard to the tax and inflation burdens being placed upon the American people.
It's not a question of if we can pay the interest, but rather, how much the interest payments are hurting us.
These numbers mean both that the burden of the debt is fairly small and that even complete repudiation of that debt would
have only a minor impact on the government’s cash flow.
Rebuttal: And yet again,
Krugman -- that self-professed champion of the common man -- focuses only the investor element of the national debt while
ignoring the severe damage done to the public. Since Krugman won't explain, allow us to put the case against debt into simple
terms. Two points:
For 2016, interest
on the National Debt will costs U.S. taxpayers about $220 Billion. To put that into perspective, we estimate
that if America were not carrying a national debt, we could exempt the first $90,000 of household income from income
To help finance the National Debt,
the government sells T-Bills to the Federal Reserve. To purchase the interest-bearing bonds, the Fed creates debt-money
out of thin air. This increases the money supply. More currency chasing the same amount of goods equals inflation, and
compounding interest attached to that new currency makes it even worse.
Krugman: So why is Mr. Trump even talking about
Rebuttal: Because, unlike you and your fellow
"experts", Trump evidently understands what "ignoramus" Thomas Jefferson, "ignoramus" George Washington, "ignoramus"
Benjamin Franklin and "ignoramus John Adams all warned us about 200 years ago.
Big Four intellectual powerhouses who founded the nation ("ignoramuses" as Crookman would no doubt describe them) were
unanimous in cautioning about the very public debt that he dismisses as "not a problem."
Washington: "As a
very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly
as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, ... avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not
only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable
wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear."
"Loading up the nation with debt and leaving it for the following generations to pay is morally irresponsible. Excessive
debt is a means by which governments oppress the people and waste their substance. No nation has a right to contract debt
for periods longer than the majority contracting it can expect to live."
go to bed without dinner than to rise in debt.”
Adams: "The consequences arising from the continual
accumulation of public debts in other countries ought to admonish us to be careful to prevent their growth in our own."
Krugman: A lot of this debt hysteria ....
Rebuttal: "Debt hysteria?" Good Lord -- this
man is so frickin' evil.
Krugman: ... was really about trying to bully us
into cutting Social Security and Medicare...
Rebuttal: Crookman! You lying piece of erudite excrement! It is your inflationary debt policies that are cutting the
real value of Social Security payments.
Krugman: But Mr. Trump apparently wasn’t in on that particular
con, and takes the phony debt scare seriously.
Rebuttal: "Phony debt scare?"
Only a communist subversive would poo-poo a $20 Trillion dollar debt with an additional $80 Trillion in unfunded liabilities
coming down the road. Clearly, Krugman wants a hyper-inflationary collapse.
What's sad is that the U.S. cannot follow China's example and ban Sulzberger's subversive Slimes.
Krugman:.. ridiculous Trumpisms .... from
his claim that the true unemployment rate vastly exceeds official figures.
Rebuttal: "ridiculous Trumpisms" -- more childish insults not supported by fact. It is not "his
claim" that the unemployment numbers are rigged. The Department of Labor actually publishes, on one of its own websites,
a much higher unemployment number (the U6), while reporting a lower number (the U3) to the media. (here)
Krugman: ... to his claim that he can bring prosperity by starting
a trade war with China.
Rebuttal: He never said that, you rat-faced liar! To the contrary, it is your girl Killary
who wants to start a shooting war with China. But Trump did say this:
it be nice if we got along with Russia and China and all these countries? Wouldn't it be nice?"
Oh, and just for the record: No, it’s not the same on the other side of the aisle. You may dislike Hillary Clinton,
you may disagree sharply with her policies ...
Rebuttal: Here comes a "yeah-but."
... but she and the people around her do know their facts.
Rebuttal: So say you, Crookman. Empty claim -- still no sound argument.
Nobody has a monopoly on wisdom, but in this election, one party has largely cornered the market in raw ignorance.
And with that, cock-breath Crookman closes as he began -- with juvenile insults hurled at a man far more accomplished than
he could ever dream of being. "Sad!"
I recognized Krugman from somewhere!
1: I read
a piece by Paul Krugman in the New York Times today. He really
exposes the scary economic ignorance of Donald Trump.
2: I saw that editorial.
Krugman is very knowledgeable. He points out that the national debt is not as big of a problem as people make it out to be.
"Sso ssays the deaf, dumb and blind dope who jusst complained about sskyrocketing food pricess and ssmaller
man in one hundred can define the cause & effect dynamics between public debt, Fed money printing and debased currency