boards of FL wrote: Markle wrote:Yes, you posted facts and I posted the MEANING of those very figures as articulated by the far lefts favorite Progressive economist, Paul Krugman. The year was different, but the figures are the same.
You didn't post the meaning of my figures. You posted a snippet from a Paul Krugman opinion piece discussing the economy of a decade ago. That you can't seem to wrap your head around this, and that you can't seem to discuss or form any original opinions about anything on your own and instead defer to your copy-and-paste word file, which often is completely irrelevant, is not my problem.
Obviously this is something contrary to what you WANT to believe and therefore incomprehensible. I get that.
You boasted of a GNP of 2.5% and cheered about the economic growth.
It is a well accepted FACT that we need at least 3.0+% for the economy to be in a growth cycle.
Back in the last administration far left's Progressive HERO Dr. Paul Krugman said this about a much HIGHER GNP we have today. PLEASE show me where the figures I...and Paul Krugman are discussing is not true.
On October 31, 2003 this is what your Paul Krugman said about the current [Third quarter of 2003] 3.1% growth rate at the Liberal Oasis.
From the former adviser to ENRON and Socialist darling, of the far, far left, Paul Krugman. This from October 31, 2003. Wow…talk about a different tune today. For reference, the GDP for 2011 was 1.7%. The GDP for the third quarter of 2012 was 3.1%, the second quarter for 2013 was revised up to 2.5% that is A SHRINKING ECONOMY. The Obama Administration is “forecasting” 3.2% by 2013. What did Paul Krugman say about such a rate of growth. [Oops…not even close]
Now please read carefully what far left economist Paul Krugman had to say about that rate of growth when a REPUBLICAN was in the Oval Office.
###
Progressives and Democrats may want to revisit the LiberalOasis interview with Paul Krugman from August 2003, after the last GDP number was released:
LiberalOasis: Second quarter GDP was just revised to 3.1% annual rate of growth [2003] . That’s near the point where many economists say job creation will kick in. Does that mean the economy is turning around, and Bush can credit the tax cuts for doing it?
Paul Krugman: Well, it’s quite possible that we will see some positive job growth. But, I still don’t see anything in there that says we’re going to have jobs growing fast enough to keep up with the growth in the population, let alone make up all the ground that’s been lost.
And the main thing to say is: gosh, if you let me run a 500 billion dollar deficit, [President Barack Hussein Obama’s has been over $1.2 TRILLION EACH YEAR FOR FOUR YEARS] I could create a whole lot of jobs. That's roughly [$500 BILLION DEFICIT] equal to the wages of 10 million average workers.So the fact that we've managed to go from a 200 billion surplus to a 500 billion deficit, while losing three million jobs, is actually a pretty poor verdict on the policy.
http://www.liberaloasis.com/krugman.htm
###
PLEASE show us all ANYTHING I posted which is not true. If Dr. Krugman was being honest in his statement, would that same statement NOT be true about WORSE figures today?
Keep in mind that the GDP averaged 4.7% during the administration of President George Walker Bush and the GDP continued to GROW after Dr. Krugman made the above, pessimistic statement. As you know too, the rate of unemployment continued to DECREASE. Although it was never as high as it has been for the entire administration of President Barack Hussein Obama.
Home
