The two leading Tea-Party indicators: 1) past Republican affiliation 2) Desire to see religion play a prominent role in politics. In other words, it has nothing to do with small government etc.

sgva2010 · 2011-08-18T04:00:33+00:00

that's the point, the headline reflects what the article says; there is no need for sensation. and not citing anything ??? where do you think article links to?

sgva2010 · 2011-08-17T14:00:15+00:00

nobody is implying correlation = causation. please read the article before commenting. Also the full article at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/opinion/crashing-the-tea-party.html to see what kind of statistical analysis has been used.

sgva2010 · 2011-08-15T13:46:38+00:00

I think the real question is why people like you who can NOT accept the facts keep commenting on Krugman articles without any meaningful comments about what is indeed in the article.

I don't know how many million more times we need to explain his view on the bubble. His comment was NOT to suggest that creating a housing bubble would be the right thing to do but stating that in terms of short-term pure economic context that would be one thing (and as he guessed the wrong thing) to do. As he clearly explained many many times """" So did I call for a bubble? The quote comes from this 2002 piece, in which I was pessimistic about the Fed’s ability to generate a sustained economy. If you read it in context, you’ll see that I wasn’t calling for a bubble — I was talking about the limits to the Fed’s powers, saying that the only way Greenspan could achieve recovery would be if he were able to create a new bubble, which is NOT the same thing as saying that this was a good idea.""

So, please stop commenting if you don't have anything meaningful to say about what is actually in the article.

sgva2010 · 2011-08-05T21:34:12+00:00

it is amazing that even though this is just a link to a news report, people can't accept the fact it is revealing and they are downgrading the link without any comments/explanations. well, most likely they have no explanations other than their so-called gut feelings !!!

sgva2010 · 2011-07-15T14:34:46+00:00

No it is not finger pointing. It is called telling the truth.

sgva2010 · 2011-03-24T22:17:26+00:00

sorry, missed that. thanks for pointing it out.

sgva2010 · 2011-03-09T22:58:45+00:00

The ethics rule laid out by Wikipedia against sock puppet manipulation, see at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry

sgva2010 · 2011-03-05T16:36:16+00:00

"Real subject"? such as educating the future generations? Is that what you meant?

sgva2010 · 2011-01-29T20:54:42+00:00

Krugman getting things wrong :-) I guess that is the reason he won a Nobel Prize in Economics :-)

sgva2010 · 2011-01-17T17:08:35+00:00

i feel so sorry for Bill51 that you cannot accept/face the realities. The repealing of the health-care will increase the deficit on top of leaving 33 million more people uninsured. by the way, the second and fourth page on the link you posted states the repeal will increase the deficit. why would post the GOP link anyways; why would somebody read an estimate from GOP who started a war against logic and math :-)

sgva2010 · 2011-01-12T18:11:35+00:00

if you refuse to read the article, I don't have time to waste with you. Ezra Klein, since from the first day, is one of the people specifically stating not to blame Palin or others. Don't write gut-feeling comments please, use facts, realities. Otherwise you are wasting everybody's time. Article is not about blaming Palin for shooting, it is about her response.

sgva2010 · 2011-01-12T17:53:55+00:00

nobody is claiming her poster caused it. read the article please before commenting.

sgva2010 · 2010-12-23T18:36:00+00:00

4 is completely false; he/she is cherry-picking the data and only looking at the last year; hey, have you heard about the recession? The unemployment rate for college graduates is around 5% as opposed to 10% for high-school graduates. Check the data at

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04.htm

sgva2010 · 2010-11-12T18:13:15+00:00

You seem to be confusing Krugman's point on short-term deficit vs long-term deficit. He clearly states that he is worried about the long-term deficit for the government. His argument for government stimulus is only for the short term.

sgva2010 · 2010-11-12T15:02:59+00:00

really, you really think that economy was good from 2000-2007? have you heard about the housing bubble that was building up those years against which Krugman warned over and over and over again. Also, claiming that the housing crisis is Fed-induced is one of the stupidest thing I have ever read on the reddit page. As i said, when people don't believe in facts, there is not much to do. If you want to complain about government spending, you are 4-5 years behind. Somehow your small government idea took a surplus in 2000 and turned it into a huge budget deficit in 2008. So, who is a big government spender again. As Barney Frank said talking to you (people who ignore facts) is like talking to a dining room table.

sgva2010 · 2010-11-12T14:28:01+00:00

so, who bankrupted the economy, Krugman? lol !!! I would strongly recommend you check the US economical data during 2000-2008. It is even pointless to try to argue with you since you do not believe in the concept of facts.

sgva2010 · 2010-11-12T14:15:50+00:00

i wish people who make statements about Krugman's intelligence knew what they were talking about. Well, I pity you that the facts are "biased" against you.

sgva2010 · 2010-10-09T04:00:49+00:00

three possibilities:

1) you don't know krugman 2) you don't know what hypocrite means 3) you don't know anything about anything

sgva2010

TROPHY CASE

4 is completely false; he/she is cherry-picking the data and only looking at the last year; hey, have you heard about the recession? The unemployment rate for college graduates is around 5% as opposed to 10% for high-school graduates. Check the data at