Paul Krugman, I'm told, is someone who, like Barry, has apparently achieved that highly desperately sought, but rarely achieved, God-like stature amongst the more liberal simpletons among us. He is, I’m also told, looked upon as being some brilliant economist, whose opinion seems to be highly valued by those presently heavily involved in the bankrupting of our country. But if one would genuinely listen to what it is that he advocates, it seems very difficult to take anything that he says seriously. The fact that he is a Professor of Economics and International Affairs at, of all places, the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, should in itself tell you exactly on which end of the political spectrum he enthusiastically resides. He is also a Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics, and, as most of us are aware, an op-ed columnist for The New York Times. He is also, most certainly a certifiable, kook and a card carrying, charter member of the leftwing menagerie. In 2008, it was decided by those who determine such things, to give Krugman the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, supposedly for his contributions to New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography. Wikipedia describes the rationale for his being bestowed with the Nobel Prize as being, "According to the Nobel Prize Committee, the prize was given for Krugman's work explaining the patterns of international trade and the geographic concentration of wealth, by examining the impact of economies of scale and of consumer preferences for diverse goods and services. Krugman is known in academia for his work on international economics (including trade theory, economic geography, and international finance), liquidity traps and currency crises. According to the IDEAS/RePEc rankings, he is among the thirteen most widely cited economists in the world today." I think we have gotten to a point where I think most of us can agree that the importance of the Nobel Prize has now been effectively degraded to the point where it has become something akin to being about as noteworthy as being awarded your favorite cup of coffee from Starbuck's. To me, if it meant that I'd be in the company of such luminaries as, Jimmy Carter, Algore, Yasser Arafat, Barry "Almighty" and of course Krugman, I believe that if I were ever to be deemed worthy of being awarded with such a supposed honor, I'd gladly turn it down. That's just not a crowd that I'd like to have my name associated with.
In truth, this guy is nothing but one more blatant hypocrite in a very large group of many, and one that ranks right up there with other such notables in the outlying leftwing fringe, such as "linguist" Noam Chomsky. These great minds of the left possess a unique level of hypocrisy and wholeheartedly agree in an apparent hatred for America as designed by the Founders. To show the level of his being an out and out fanatic, as well as a dedicated leftist, one really need look no further than his most recent interview just this past Sunday in which the esteemed Mr. Krugman quite matter-of-factly referred to using “death panels” as a way to rein in our present runaway deficits. Ya know, if guys like Krugman are such strong advocates for these death panels, which he initially claimed didn't even exist back when healthcare/insurance “reform” was being shoved down the throats of the American people, lets start by subjecting him and his Liberal buddies to them. For example, shouldn't that fat slob of a drunk Teddy Kennedy have been reviewed by one of these death panels. Just how much of the taxpayer's money was needlessly wasted on keeping his waste-of-skin-blow-hard self alive and breathing? Most likely, much more than what should have been. In a blog post written after what was a rather contentious participation in a panel discussion on “This Week with Christiane Amanpour,” Krugman said that he had used such language before and linked to a single column of his that mentioned death panels, but only in passing. But what our leftist buddy, Krugman, neglected to mention was the fact that over the course of the last year or so, he has devoted at least a half dozen columns mocking conservatives, especially former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, over the use of the term “death panels.” He said such accusations were nothing more than "smears." Palin used the term in reference to language in the Obama healthcare plan that urged seniors to plan for their deaths. That, coupled with Medicare cutbacks in the plan is what resulted in the "death panel" coinage. In a review of Krugman's columns over the last two years, "Newsmax" uncovered these rather scathing references to death panels in which our highly respected Nobel laureate, Mr. Krugman, frequently calls Republican leaders liars for using the term:
August 13, 2009 "Right now, the charge that’s gaining the most traction is the claim that health care reform will create “death panels” (in Sarah Palin’s words) that will shuffle the elderly and others off to an early grave. It’s a complete fabrication, of course."
August 20, 2009 “It seems as if there is nothing Republicans can do that will draw an administration rebuke: Senator Charles E. Grassley feeds the death panel smear, warning that reform will “pull the plug on grandma,” and two days later the White House declares that it’s still committed to working with him.”
February 25, 2010 “So what did we learn from the summit? What I took away was the arrogance that the success of things like the death-panel smear has obviously engendered in Republican politicians. At this point they obviously believe that they can blandly make utterly misleading assertions, saying things that can be easily refuted, and pay no price. And they may well be right.”
August 30, 2009“Moderate Republicans, the sort of people with whom one might have been able to negotiate a health care deal, have either been driven out of the party or intimidated into silence. Whom are Democrats supposed to reach out to, when Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who was supposed to be the linchpin of any deal, helped feed the “death panel” lies?”
October 4, 2009 “The Republican campaign against health care reform, by contrast, has shown no such consistency. For the main G.O.P. line of attack is the claim — based mainly on lies about death panels and so on — that reform will undermine Medicare. And this line of attack is utterly at odds both with the party’s traditions and with what conservatives claim to believe.”
March 21, 2010: “Politicians like Sarah Palin — who was, let us remember, the G.O.P.’s vice-presidential candidate — eagerly spread the death panel lie, and supposedly reasonable, moderate politicians like Senator Chuck Grassley refused to say that it was untrue. On the eve of the big vote, Republican members of Congress warned that “freedom dies a little bit today” and accused Democrats of “totalitarian tactics,” which I believe means the process known as “voting.”
Krugman is just another typical anti-American crackpot, who has achieved a rather dubious kind of celebrity. He one of those individuals who seem to think that simply because they have achieved some level of notoriety, they are smarter than the rest of should therefore be listened to whenever they're pushing some favorite cause. He, as with many others of his ilk, is nothing more than hardcore disciple of the failed economic and political theory of Socialism/Communism that has as its premise, the notion that the almighty "state" is the center of the universe and is much better equipped to ensure a fair and equitable society where all are said to benefit. Nothing could be further from the truth. The evidence is everywhere, and it has repeatedly shown, that this system so coveted by the likes of Krugman, is completely unworkable and unsustainable. The only thing such a system of government is capable of producing is a bureaucracy that is nearly lethal in its ability to bring about abject poverty and to spread misery equally amongst those who comprise the lowly citizenry. A big factor in the most recent election was that a majority of people feel that the government has encroached much too far into the private lives of the American people. And that it definitely has no role to play in such matters as deciding when an individual has ceased to be a contributing member of society. As far as I'm concerned, Krugman ceased to provide anything beneficial to society some time ago, so I think at the first opportunity that is presented to us, we should just pull his plug! Look, it is a fact that Liberalism, as a rule, is focused primarily on nothing more than the complete dehumanizing of those who are subjected to it. Such a thing is its primary goal. Of course, those in the ruling class are exempt and considered as being immune to the effects of the environment that they themselves create, but those who make up the unwashed masses, well, they must work to maintain their ability to remain a contributing member of the collective. And once they are no longer capable of doing so, they have effectively outlived their usefulness to that society, and are therefore no longer worth the expense of being kept alive. They then have the responsibility to go off into the wilderness and to cease being a burden on the collective. In true "It takes a village" fashion, monies must be focused only on those still able to assist in furthering the goals of the collective. Rationing of such resources as those needed for healthcare, according to Krugman and his fellow leftists, would contribute considerably to the reduction of our rapidly increasing amount of debt. Thus is the premise fully supported by corrupt ideologues like Krugman. It is these folks who have ceased to provide any useful service to their fellow man. His efforts are concentrated more on the spreading of falsehoods through outright lies and deception, and distortions while he portends to be for the advancement of all. But his true goal, I fear, is just a bit more sinister.
No comments:
Post a Comment