20
POPSAn Immoral Philosophy
More: It must be about philosophy, because it surely isn't about cost. One of the plans Mr. Bush opposes, the one approved by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in the Senate Finance Committee, would cost less over the next five years than we'll spend in Iraq in the next four months. And it would be fully paid for by an increase in tobacco taxes. So what kind of philosophy says that it's O.K. to subsidize insurance companies, but not to provide health care to children? So his philosophy says that the government must be prevented from solving problems, even if it can. In fact, the more good a proposed government program would do, the more fiercely it must be opposed. denying basic health care to children whose parents lack the means to pay for it, simply because you're afraid that success in insuring children might put big government in a good light, is just morally wrong. it seems, more basic decency in the hearts of Americans than is dreamt of in Mr. Bush's philosophy.
12
POPSKrugman: Respect for early war critics Latest column from Paul Krugman. It's an "honor roll" of people who publicly criticized the administration position on going to war in Iraq before it happened. As it turns out, most of their predictions have come true. Remarkably, the Weekly Standard piece that makes fun of "antiwar doomsayers" is still online here: http://snurl.com/14mcf
11
POPSKrugman Wins Nobel in Economics Look for the right to really hate this. It gives you an idea of just how devalued unregulated markets and supply-side economics has become. It's too bad it took a market-failure to finally kill it off.
10
POPSNeo-Cons on Iran: From Ignorant to downright Insane This is a worthy article in general - one of the better ones you'll see fro Krugman (although it is still annoyingly conversational, at least he isn't Maureen Dowd!) He makes a good point: that fear is what our leaders embrace, not courage. I'm sick and tired of Americans who are scared. I for one am not scared of terrorists, and anyone who lives their life in fear is an idiot. (Probably a manipulated idiot.) But the real gem is when Krugman calls it like it is on Iran. Podhorertz and others like him have departed so far from reality that they are basically making things ups as they go along. I expect next that Commentary will be linking Iran to Voldemort, Darth Vader, and the Dark Lord Sauron. They are so blatantly disconnected from reality, and yet, people listen to them! That's the part I don't understand. Even a student in a High School Social Studies class should be able to tell you the difference between Iran and Al Qaeda.
10
POPSPaul Krugman: The politics of spite More: How did one of our great political parties become so ruthless, so willing to embrace scorched-earth tactics even if so doing undermines the ability of any future administration to govern? The key point is that ever since the Reagan years, the Republican Party has been dominated by radicals — ideologues and/or apparatchiks who, at a fundamental level, do not accept anyone else’s right to govern. Anyone surprised by the venomous, over-the-top opposition to Mr. Obama must have forgotten the Clinton years. Remember when Rush Limbaugh suggested that Hillary Clinton was a party to murder? When Newt Gingrich shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those Medicare cuts? And let’s not even talk about the impeachment saga.… It’s an ugly picture. But it’s the truth. And it’s a truth anyone trying to find solutions to America’s real problems has to understand.
10
POPSThe Rich and The Poor From 2003 to 2004, the average incomes of the bottom 99 percent of households grew by less than 3 percent, after adjusting for inflation. In contrast, the average incomes of the top one percent of households experienced a jump of more than 18 percent, after adjusting for inflation. In fact, it’s worse than that. The CBPP explained that the enormous gains at the top of the income pyramid caused a rise of income as a whole. But median income dropped between 2003 and 2004, and has not risen appreciably since then. In short, while the rich get richer, the middle class is shrinking, as economist Paul Krugman has pointed out.
9
POPSA New America " We are not yet living in a banana republic. Here, there are no generals or death squads waiting in the wings to take over should the elected president fail at his task. But the new United States I've encountered does resemble a country like Guatemala or El Salvador in at least one important respect. The United States I returned to is a more colorful place than the one I left. And we Americans seem mellowed and slightly more humble."
9
POPSHow to Save the Middle Class from Extinction Krugman is correct in saying that this is not the middle class society that I grew up in! Maybe that's why so few people care much about "the two income family" just treading water to stay afloat.......the young families today don't have anything to compare their plight to.......they never lived in a society where one person could actually make enough money to keep his family in the necessities of life......those days are gone!
7
POPSCould Palin possibly leave the ticket? Joan Walsh, editor of Salon Magazine online, makes some very wisely observant points about the Palin candidacy, and what a sickeningly cynical choice it was for McCain to pick her as his running-mate.
7
POPSKrugman: GOP putting the nation's future at risk Nobel laureate warns of danger of deflation trap - falling wages and demand for goods, rising layoffs - could mean spell disaster: the end of the American middle class. Economy is "on the edge of catastrophe, and much of the Republican party is trying to push it over that edge" out of loyalty to "a discredited economic philosophy."
6
POPSThe Great Revulsion Its long overdue, but exhilarating just the same. Already the USA is more respected by the world community
6
POPSConservatives Are Such Jokers MORE: On Wednesday, President Bush vetoed legislation that would have expanded S-chip, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, providing health insurance to an estimated 3.8 million children who would otherwise lack coverage. In anticipation of the veto, William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, had this to say: “First of all, whenever I hear anything described as a heartless assault on our children, I tend to think it’s a good idea. I’m happy that the president’s willing to do something bad for the kids.” Heh-heh-heh. Most conservatives are more careful than Mr. Kristol. They try to preserve the appearance that they really do care about those less fortunate than themselves. But the truth is that they aren’t bothered by the fact that almost nine million children in America lack health insurance. They don’t think it’s a problem. HERE'S A REALLY SAD STATEMENT FROM OUR PRESIDENT! “I mean, people have access to health care in America,” said Mr. Bush in July. “Af
6
POPSAmerica Is Shrinking Because We Eat Too Much Crap Paul Krugman's commentary should raise a red flag as to the way we are ignoring the health and wellbeing of our children by allowing them to eat fast food crap while we are overly busy working on our jobs or other endeavours. For a nation that claims to be "family first" in its priorities, we aren't really showing it in the way we ignore the nutritional needs of our offspring. I urge my followers and anyone else reading this clip to read the entire piece.
6
POPSThe Democrats have lost the source of their passion This point by Paul Krugman is so true. Many people who voted for Obama, including myself, did so primarily out of hope that his spirit and belief in change deserved a chance to succeed. My candid perspective is that his spirit began to diminish during his swearing in and has continued to dissipate ever since. It's hard to understand and very frustrating...but i think my feelings of disappointment are shared by many in this country.
6
POPSEarth Treason Eight years later, it’s starting to look like they aren’t anymore. Think about it. Now Krugman’s tossing around the word “treason.” Sounds scary at first, a little cavalier, even dangerous. Sounds like radical left-wing hate speech. It made me worried, because the Department of Homeland Security warned against extremist political hate speech . . . Let’s be real. Krugman is an august Nobel laureate, not some frothing populist wackjob. And it isn’t like total nutcases read the New York Times. DHS was very specific about the threat. It’s from radical right-wing extremists. You don’t have to worry about the left-wing kind. With that kind of weight behind the anti-planet betrayal movement, I’m convinced. I’ve turned the corner. I’m ready to go “green,” but I’m not really interested in pussyfooting around. When someone like Krugman starts using the “T” word, that can only mean it’s time for radical action. No, I don’t mean targeted hits on Earth-hating Republicans or truck bombs
6
POPSPaul Krugman Gives it to Giuliani Right in the Prostate Giuliani is one of the most outrageous liars I have ever been aware of in politics in my entire life. And believe me, I have known some big liars. But none of them could so fluently pull facts and figures out of their ass the way Rudy can and expect everyone to believe what he says, simply because he says it forcefully. Paul Krugman elaborates far better than I could, and he asks a very urgent question. Why is Rudy's blatant pattern of lying and smearing not mentioned in the media as a character issue? Is it not as important as Edward's haircut, or Hillary's cackle?
6
POPS"Friendly Fire" ~ Obama Has A Bad Sunday . . . of the building tsunami of populist outrage. Unlike with President Bush, the Obama administration is less apt to dismiss such commentary, at least publicly, as so much carping from an out-of-touch peanut gallery. These are voices that have been sympathetic, and at times gushing toward Obama, during the campaign and in his administration’s early days. The president and his top aides read the Times closely and react quickly to its reporting and commentary.
6
POPS Rush To Judgement 19. Generally speaking, would you say you favor (smaller government with fewer services), or (larger government with more services)? The answer, it turns out, is that even in the current environment, post-Katrina and in the midst of the worst economy since the last bad economy (OK, 1982), 53% of the respondents plumped for "smaller government with fewer services", in contrast with 43% backing expanded government. Let's acknowledge a bit of momentum for the "Bigger Government" crowd: Small Government peaked at 63% in 1996, hit 62% in 2002 and has faded a bit; Government has swollen from 32% in 1996 all the way to 43% today. So Obama's huge government stimulus package combined with a Federal take-over of the health care industry may not fully embrace the majority opinion in this country. As Rush will no doubt point out. The Economy Is Bad, but 1982 Was Worse http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/21/business/economy/21leonhardt.html?_r=2&scp=2&sq=worst%20economy%201982%20&s
15
Pops
Newest Clips
Latest Comments
Most Pops
Print
Save
Turn on live update