0 votes

Krugman: The Zombie That Ate Rand Paul's Brain

Aha. It seems that I was giving Rand Paul more credit than he deserved. Think Progress has the video, and it’s clear that Paul was completely shocked at the notion that government employment had fallen under Obama, rather than soaring.

How did that happen? Almost surely it’s a case of a zombie lie that has gone unchallenged in the hermetic world of movement conservatism, so that people like Paul know, just know, something that ain’t so.

NY Times:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/09/the-zombie-that-...

Also, EPJ:
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/09/why-rand-paul-n...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

"Goo goo

gah gah. Or, why I ran out the door in the middle of my televised discussion with Ron Paul" Oh! That's right, it was also the occasion of my failure to promote my stupid book. (Time to go back and watch that one again!) Thanks AH! Everytime you open your mouth you seem to lose more credibility.

I'm pretty sure that in an alternate universe

The alternate version of Krugpot chose a more appropriate career by graduating from Ringling Bros. and Barnum and Bailey Clown College, attaining the rank of "master clown," and is dazzling his audience with his juggling acrobatics and smoke and mirrors facade.

In that same universe Penn Jillette is a Nobel Prize winning economist.

Let's not ignore the elephant in the room.

Krugman caught Rand a little off balance by changing terminology. Has government expanded under Obama? It depends upon how you define "expanded". Has Federal spending expanded? Yes. But Krugman decided he would define it as the number of direct government employees at all levels of government. How can statistics be compared when they are not clearly defined? Not a problem to Krugman, when he plots his little gotcha moments.

But the elephant in the room remains unaddressed. How many indirect employees are there of the Federal government? How many contractors? How many sub-contractors? Heck, the Federal government farms out a large portion of the military these days to contractors. Just because the Federal government has obfuscated it's spending by contracting out a good portion of it's work does not change the fact that government is indeed growing. The money is being spent, and it doesn't matter how the payroll is broken down, except for that fact that contracting adds an additional middle man to take a cut.

Lies, damned lies and Paul Krugman

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sen-rand-paul-pushes-back-ag...

"But you see, there’s a problem with Krugman’s original blog post (we’ll ignore his wholly unnecessary and adolescent victory lap): His claim that the government workforce has declined under President Obama only works if we combine federal with state and local employment numbers.

Why is this a problem for Krugman? Because the only workforce the Oval Office can expand, the only part of government it has the ability to grow and keep employed, is the federal workforce. State and local — which have indeed fallen — are more or less out of his reach.

And the federal workforce has grown.

“Professor Krugman argues statistics in his usual fashion: making them up or adding in irrelevant information to prove his predetermined point,” Sen. Paul said in a statement posted to his Facebook page, “he and I were debating the size of government workforce under President Obama. The only logical number we could have been discussing was the number of federal workers. Since the last time I checked, Barack Obama was the President, not a mayor or governor.”
...
The number of federal employees has risen under President Obama. There were 2,790,000 federal workers in January 2009 when the president took office, and now there are 2,804,000 workers,” Michael R. Strain writes for the American Enterprise Institute.
...
The only part of government that has decreased during the president‘s first term is the part that’s largely out of his hands. And as for the part of the government workforce the White House can grow? That has increased."

I don't care what Rand Paul said

Krugman will always be an @ss clown.

=======
RON PAUL 2012

Krugman is a liar at best, and

once a liar, always a liar. Rand is not perfect, but in comparison to krugman, he is golden. Also, I remember when Ron and Krugman were debating the gold standard, Krugman lost the debate, then went to his blog and twisted everything around saying Ron is foolish because "the gold standard hurt the stability of the dollar and the economy resulting in over half a dozen panics in short order." I am paraphrasing here of course being that was a few months ago. So we have people posting politico links, and citing P Krugman. Geeze, what is the Daily Paul becoming?

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James

Soooo...

The FEDERAL govt went up... but LOCAL govt employees went down.. still counts as govt growing in my book

People supporting Krugman on the Daily Paul?

Sheesh, what are you guys thinking? Krugman's view of economics is responsible for more theft and more destruction than has ever taken place in the history of the world.

How's that for an overstating it?

A little checking and you would find Rand Paul's response:

Professor Krugman argues statistics in his usual fashion: making them up or adding in irrelevant information to prove his predetermined point. On Sunday’s “This Week,” he and I were debating the size of government workforce under President Obama. The only logical number we could have been discussing was the number of federal workers. Since the last time I checked, Barack Obama was the President, not a mayor or governor.

Under President Obama, the federal workforce has grown by 143,000 according to the Labor Department. That’s a lot of new federal workers, though it pales in comparison to the enormous growth of government spending and debt accrued in his same Administration.

Yet Professor Krugman added in local and state workers to inflate this number, an irrelevant point at best. In fact, it was a disingenuous argument, which he then astonishingly gloated about making on his blog.

I prefer to stick to the facts – and the facts are, there are 143,000 more federal workers since President Obama took office. I urge Professor Krugman to join me in debating actual, relevant statistics.

- http://iroots.org/2012/09/11/senator-rand-paul-vs-paul-krugman/

Check out http://iroots.org/
"If you’re into political activism, at least for Ron Paul if not for anyone else, I strongly recommend spending some time with iroots.org." - Tom Woods

That 143,000 is in fact

That 143,000 is in fact false. It doesn't account for the reduced postal workers. The total ends up being 27,000 workers.

And in a situation where Obama is responsible, according to Rand and his party, for high gas prices, high food prices, is entirely responsible for unemployment, high bank reserves, low credit, the TSA, terrorism, the rise of atheism in the USA, rising health care prices, environmental disasters, and Steve Jobs's death, why wouldn't Obama also be responsible for the loss of jobs in state and local government?

That is more of a comment on what we in America think the president is responsible for more than anything else...

Also, in the dialogue between Krugman and Paul, never is the word "federal government" used. Rand Paul had plenty of chances to say it....and he even uses the word "government" several times without prepending it.

And, in any case, an increase of 27,000 workers is hardly the "huge growth" Paul claimed.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Rand being a lying neocon...

isn't exactly breaking news.

I don't play, I commission the league.

sharkhearted's picture

You being a filthy lying troll...

That isn't exactly breaking news either.

And Rand Paul just published a groundbreaking book called Government Bullies....ordering it from Amazon as we speak...

Where's yours?

Thought so (not).

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

Really?

I'm a filthy lying troll? So Rand didn't cave on sanctions and Gitmo, endorse Willard, and announce that he would campaign for Willard?

I don't play, I commission the league.

Let me know how it reads,

planning to pick up a few more books, but there's so many to choose from.

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James

reedr3v's picture

Rand should issue an immediate, graceful

response thanking Krugman and challenging a related position of that DNC hired operative.

The problem I had with Rand

The problem I had with Rand Paul's statement is that he was so confident. Because in his mind, Obama is a socialist who wants to become the next Stalin. Under that, Obama growing government majorily would be expected.

Had he been more unsure, more willing to admit that he wasn't sure, I'd be giving him a lot more rope. But I want facts to shape ideology.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Yup. When Rand Paul said that

Yup.

When Rand Paul said that Sotomayor said that government could allow Congress to force people to eait their vegetables, he completely lied. In fact, she said the exact opposite.

But who cares about facts!

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a