How to appeal to the lowest common denominator

[Norman Bernstein]

"What I would do? People ask me, `What would you to get the economy going'? and I say, `well look at what the president's done, and do the opposite,'" Romney told a group gathered at a warehouse in Northern Virginia.

It's really THAT simple?

[wardd]

krugman was on last night and said that we know what to do to get the economy going in the next 18 months but that if the gov did that it would demonstrate that gov can do good and some can't have that

wonder who the some is?

[Nicholas Scheuer]

Romney understands his base. He knows that the stupider he sounds, the better they like it. He understands that no matter WHAT he says, SV Airlie will continue knocking Obama instead of Romney.

[Concordia 33]

krugman was on last night and said that we know what to do to get the economy going in the next 18 months but that if the gov did that it would demonstrate that gov can do good and some can't have that

wonder who the some is?

Really Krugman is your source?

It is important to realize just how terrible Krugman’s record has been. He predicted on CNBC: “I am still guessing that we will peak out at around 9 percent [unemployment] and that would be late this year.” He assured listeners that double-digit unemployment was “not the most likely event” and “Actually, we are already seeing some positive effects [from the Stimulus].” With unemployment peaking at 10.1 percent and still above 9 percent over two-and-a-half years after he predicted it would peak, Krugman was wrong on both counts.

Krugman’s predictions were also filled with personal attacks against those with whom he disagreed. In March 2009, when Greg Mankiw, the chair of George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, and some conservative economists questioned what they called Obama’s “overly optimistic” growth predictions, Paul Krugman questioned their honesty. In a New York Times blog post titled the “Roots of Evil,” Krugman attacked Mankiw as “more than a bit of deliberate obtuseness” and that “we can expect fast growth.”

Yet, our economic growth has not even come close to what Obama and Krugman predicted. It has also been much slower than past economic recoveries. This last year Obama predicted that GDP would grow at 4 percent, while in fact it was less than half of that -- just 1.7 percent.

Mankiw challenged Krugman to a bet over whether the Obama prediction was right, but, despite all Krugman’s abusive rhetoric, he never responded. Krugman must be glad that he never bet his money to back up his claims of “evil” or “deliberate” misinformation, but he never tempered his rhetoric.

Amazingly, despite his track record against conservatives, Krugman didn’t flinch in late 2010 when he claimed: “It’s also worth pointing out that everything the right said about why Obamanomics would fail was wrong.”

Krugman’s predictions were no more accurate for other countries. He criticized the reduction in German government spending in June 2010 as a “huge mistake,” and said: “budget cuts will hurt your economy and reduce revenues [by reducing economic growth].” Yet, more than a year later, Germany’s unemployment rate continued falling, dropping by 0.7 percentage points between June 2010 and August 2011. And as of June 2011, German GDP during 2011 grew at 3 percent, almost twice as fast as our own GDP growth. Germany accomplished the lower unemployment and higher growth rates without burdening its children with the massively higher debt that Obama and Krugman advocated.

But you get some idea why Krugman predictions have so been consistently wrong by understanding that he just thinks government spending is free. He also thought that the 9/11 attacks “could even do some economic good” by stimulating the economy because “all of a sudden, we need some new office buildings” and “rebuilding will generate at least some increase in business spending.” Let’s the buildings and spend the money on something else.

[elf]

It's important to understand that Concordia 33 doesn't understand that minds are not intended to be cast in concrete.

[BrianY]

Consider the source and evaulate the validity of the comment. I think Krugman's opinions should not be taken as gospel and that there is good reason to doubt him.

That being said, what Romney said is pretty stupid.

[wardd]

Really Krugman is your source?

i don't recal all that but what i do recall of his predictions he was right more often than not

he and runini and stiglitz

[Norman Bernstein]

It is important to realize just how terrible Krugman’s record has been.

It's been a damn sight better than the last Republican presdient's economic team. Remember when the Iraq war was going to only cost $20B, and would be paid for by Iraq's oil revenues?

All economists get the numbers wrong, from time to time.... so missing the peak unemployment number by 10% is hardly what I'd call 'profoudly wrong'.

Yet, our economic growth has not even come close to what Obama and Krugman predicted.

Krugman is an economist.... Obama is a President, without economic credentials... and Obama never 'predicted' any specific economic growth (if you disagree, cite a source or link)

[Ian McColgin]

Romney says do the opposite of whatever Obama says.

Incidentally Krugman says that he knows and ascribes various reasons why it won't happen, tossing a smidge less blame at Obama than at the Republicans but really castigating both.

Krugman like most meterologists and other economists is often wrong in particulars even when right in general.

The relevance of Krugman's remarks to whether Romney makes any sense is not evident.

Back to the point, Romney appears to be saying that whatever Obama may say or try, he's against it. Fair enough. But what is he actually for? Can a wholly negative campaign built on a party record of obdurate opposition prevail?

[Concordia 33]

It's been a damn sight better than the last Republican presdient's economic team. Remember when the Iraq war was going to only cost $20B, and would be paid for by Iraq's oil revenues?

All economists get the numbers wrong, from time to time.... so missing the peak unemployment number by 10% is hardly what I'd call 'profoudly wrong'.



Krugman is an economist.... Obama is a President, without economic credentials... and Obama never 'predicted' any specific economic growth (if you disagree, cite a source or link)

So Republican President's have economic reams, but President Obama is not responsible for his prediction because he doesn't have "economic credentials".

As for the Last Republican President - he was terrible too and I've never made a secret of that.

Krugman writes editorials where he talks as if he has all the answers. Perhaps if he qualified his statements, he could crawl out from under meme that the getting of his numbers wrong, but then he would have to write a realistic editorial first.

[LeeG]

Fear, danger, food, sex, that's a common denominator. Not sure how that applies.

[JimD]

Republicans don't just passively appeal to a lowest common denominator. They actively lower it.

[BrianY]

So C33 - what do you think of Romney's statement?

[Norman Bernstein]

So Republican President's have economic reams, but President Obama is not responsible for his prediction because he doesn't have "economic credentials".

Try reading what I wrote. Obama made no numerical predictions... if you don't agree, produce the evidence. The estimate you're criticizing Krugman for was off by a grand total of 10%.... in the world of economic predictions, that's damned close.

Krugman writes editorials where he talks as if he has all the answers.

And Romney speaks as if he has all the answers. Krugman has the credentials to speak to the economy.... Romney simply says, 'Do the opposite of Obama'. Which one do you think is more credible, on the subject of economics?

[wardd]

Try reading what I wrote. Obama made no numerical predictions... if you don't agree, produce the evidence. The estimate you're criticizing Krugman for was off by a grand total of 10%.... in the world of economic predictions, that's damned close.



And Romney speaks as if he has all the answers. Krugman has the credentials to speak to the economy.... Romney simply says, 'Do the opposite of Obama'. Which one do you think is more credible, on the subject of economics?

don't forget the bush economic policy updated

[Hank Rearden]

Romney understands his base. He knows that the stupider he sounds, the better they like it. He understands that no matter WHAT he says, SV Airlie will continue knocking Obama instead of Romney.

That's a very ironic observation coming from someone with your track record as an Obama myrmidon.

[Donn]

That's a very ironic observation coming from someone with your track record as an Obama myrmidon.

Whoosh!! There goes old Moby, dashing to the dictionary.

[S.V. Airlie]

Tell me why I should knock Romney, you all are so good at doing that already? Why bother, Nicky old boy? Maybe, if I comment on Obama, I'm trying to make you see that he isn't God.

[Ian McColgin]

I was so baffeled by who could be "He" as the subject of the second sentence of #3, that the ironic myrmidon whooshed right past me.

[wardd]

Tell me why I should knock Romney, you all are so good at doing that already? Why bother, Nicky old boy? Maybe, if I comment on Obama, I'm trying to make you see that he isn't God.

we're liberals, we don't believe in god

now wright that down in your notebook of things to remember

[Nicholas Scheuer]

I make no pretense of being "open minded" when it comes to Rep/Dem politics, not as long as Carl Rove is the "voice" of the GOP. I can and will make judgements and express an opinion when a Repub politician or a pundit is playing to the most base among the electorate. I won't defend Sarah Palin under any circumstances. However, Dems don't "get a by" on everything; I won't defend boobs like Blagoyavich under any circumstances, either.

As for who "he" is in 3#, Ian, obviously I was referring to Romney.

[S.V. Airlie]

we're liberals, we don't believe in god

now wright that down in your notebook of things to remember

So when did you take it upon yourself to be the lib spokesman wardd

[Nicholas Scheuer]

I'll take this opportunity to burst your smug little bubble, Donnnn. My dictionary remains unopened today.

[Donn]

My dictionary remains unopened...

I can believe that. It's probably still in its shrink wrap.

[wardd]

So when did you take it upon yourself to be the lib spokesman wardd

yesterday at 4:37:43.75 pm, give or take a few pico seconds

[Ian McColgin]

Nicholas, by grammar it was obvious you were referring to Romney. But I don't get why he's even heard of Jamie, much less understands anything about him.

[Nicholas Scheuer]

Use your imagination, Ian. Romney "understands" that folks LIKE SV Airlie would crucify Obama first last and alway, no matter what, even before Pilate, claiming "(his) Kingdom was not of this World". That understanding is what gives him (Romney)) the power to lie, continually.

[bobbys]

I make no pretense of being "open minded" when it comes to Rep/Dem politics, not as long as Carl Rove is the "voice" of the GOP. I can and will make judgements and express an opinion when a Repub politician or a pundit is playing to the most base among the electorate. I won't defend Sarah Palin under any circumstances. However, Dems don't "get a by" on everything; I won't defend boobs like Blagoyavich under any circumstances, either.

As for who "he" is in 3#, Ian, obviously I was referring to Romney.

.

KR and SP have not been convicted of any crime so your comparison is strange. You pick out a sure winner or loser in Blogo but yet mention no Democrats that have not been convicted of a crime. Blogo is as welcome in the Democratic party as much as Jim Bouton is welcome at a Yankees reunion. So not a courageous choice

Of course a Politician talks to their base.

Which democrats do you hold the same standard for?.

Or is your " get a by" comment just a Ball four.

[Ian McColgin]

Actually Nicholas, I got it. Just making sure it was properly explicated for the myrmidons.

[Concordia 33]

It's really THAT simple?

You know Norman, I caught the video of this on the news this morning. He was making a joke that everything that President Obama was doing for the economy was the wrong thing. After watching this, it puts his words in a different light - he wasn't saying that this was all he needed to do to turn the economy around. But you probably knew that.

[Concordia 33]

It's important to understand that Concordia 33 doesn't understand that minds are not intended to be cast in concrete.

Yes, please regal me with all of the open-minded statements that you have made recently. Lets start with a description of your avatar which is stereotyping to say the least - if a similarly biased stereotype were posted involving women or minorities it would be stricken down instantly, but you pridefully display it with no sense that your are how you are labeling about 37% of the registered voters in the US.

[George Jung]

It's important to understand that Concordia 33 doesn't understand that minds are not intended to be cast in concrete.

It's important to attribute quotes, elf - I do believe the proper attribution is 'Hoffa's last words'.

[Norman Bernstein]

You know Norman, I caught the video of this on the news this morning. He was making a joke that everything that President Obama was doing for the economy was the wrong thing.

Yeah, some joke. Hysterically funny.

The problem is, I've seen his economic agenda.... and it's not in the LEAST bit funny. See the thread on the repudiation of Ryan's Medicare voucher plan, by it's own architect, for some actual context.

[Concordia 33]

Yeah, some joke. Hysterically funny.

The problem is, I've seen his economic agenda.... and it's not in the LEAST bit funny. See the thread on the repudiation of Ryan's Medicare voucher plan, by it's own architect, for some actual context.

Yet you portrayed his statement as if his economic plan was to do the opposite of President Obama and and you took it entirely out of context. His joke at President Obama's expense is no worse than any of the humorous shots President Obama has taken at several of the GOP. Perhaps if you had simply posted Romney's economic plan with specific criticism you may have been on firm footing, but it was obviously intended as a humorous remark at his opponent's expense which is not uncommon in elections. You knew this but tried to misrepresent it, and now you are trying to defend it. In your own words, you offered no "substance". Just misdirection.

[wardd]

Yes, please regal me with all of the open-minded statements that you have made recently. Lets start with a description of your avatar which is stereotyping to say the least - if a similarly biased stereotype were posted involving women or minorities it would be stricken down instantly, but you pridefully display it with no sense that your are how you are labeling about 37% of the registered voters in the US.

it's political speech not sexist or racists

[Norman Bernstein]

Yet you portrayed his statement as if his economic plan was to do the opposite of President Obama and and you took it entirely out of context. His joke at President Obama's expense is no worse than any of the humorous shots President Obama has taken at several of the GOP.

No... I was making a cynical and sarcastic joke at Romney's expense.... just like you say Romney did! Don't be a hypocrite!

Perhaps if you had simply posted Romney's economic plan with specific criticism you may have been on firm footing, but it was obviously intended as a humorous remark at his opponent's expense which is not uncommon in elections.

So, you're suggesting that Romney can make a 'humorous remark at his opponent's expense'..... but I can't?

[Art Reinhert]

I'll take this opportunity to burst your smug little bubble, Donnnn. My dictionary remains unopened today.

After reading your posts here and at the Trailer Sailor forum for 10 plus years I believe that your the dictionary is only one of many books you have not opened.
You did make that nice youtube video though. "Moby Nick's Ballad" is a HOOT!.

[Concordia 33]

No... I was making a cynical and sarcastic joke at Romney's expense.... just like you say Romney did! Don't be a hypocrite!

I don't accept your premise that it was intended as humorous. If it were why wouldn't you have said so in post #34. Instead you defended it by talking about how poor Romney's real economic plane was. There was no mention of it being a joke.

It was clear what you were doing. Denigration with no substance. Don't get me wrong, both candidates have weaknesses. I will admit that Romney is not a strong contender - wonder if you can acknowledge some poor actions by President Obama. In either case, your thread was a misrepresentation, and the video of what he said makes that pretty clear unless you are looking fro every single ambiguous situation where you create (in your words) a "nontroversy"

did you even take the time to hear his comments in context?

http://www.digtriad.com/video/defaul...AGE%7Cfeatured

[Norman Bernstein]

I don't accept your premise that it was intended as humorous.

Thatr's funny... I didn't see anything humorous in Mitt Romney's 'joke' (after all, YOU said it was a joke, didn't you?)

But somehow, I'm supposed to post a disclaimer when I make a joke?

[Concordia 33]

Thatr's funny... I didn't see anything humorous in Mitt Romney's 'joke' (after all, YOU said it was a joke, didn't you?)

But somehow, I'm supposed to post a disclaimer when I make a joke?

It's just not worth it today. You talk about wanting a discussion and then reply with this type of stuff.