And then she went home and beat the shit out of her husband.
I saw that this morning, OP. Add to her annoying Germanic affection of referring to him as Doctor Professor was enough to make me want to throttle her.
Bengali in Platforms
And of course the rightwing is cheering her for this because who needs facts to win an argument when you're a party of obnoxious, lying assholes?
But it is a voucher program. How did he respond?
Of course it's a voucher program. And of course she, along with Romney and Ryan, has to lie about it, since such a program would be extremely (and justifiably) unpopular.
Morons like these just can't bring themselves to admit that Medicare is cheaper than the private alternatives, has controlled costs over the years better than the private alternatives, has better outcomes than the private alternatives, and is more popular than the private alternatives. It goes against everything they believe and when faced with a conflict between reality and their beliefs, they take their beliefs every time.
Does anyone remember when she was kicked off the Bush campaign in 1992 for making moronic inflammatory statements against the Democrats? She's always been an ass
Why would James Carville involve himself with this cunt? She's not even hot. Maybe he likes to smacked around.
Why in the hell is Carville on as the Dem voice of reason when you know he won't call out his own banshee for calling Krugman a liar and referring to him as "Professor" with disdain?
These roundtables feature the same old political hacks every week; never a fresh voice.
This is why so many of them don't like Obama. He doesn't play the same DC political games of essentially slapping each other on the back as they laugh at the "little people." Obama sure as hell ain't perfect, but they dislike him for not being like them - I include a lizard like Carville in this group.
They like their little cocktail parties where politics is all a game to them and Mitt won the debate because he stood there and spent 90 minutes telling outrageous lies to the American people, but so convincingly that he is declared the "winner" by these same cocktail party hacks.
I have to agree with one of the commentators at the link: Fuck these old people who vote Republican. If Romney wins, I hope Ryan's plan goes into effect on day one and every one of these old fucks must go around with a voucher in their hand trying to find doctors.
I LOVED her in Children of a Lesser God.
It's very interesting that during that exchange, Matalin's husband, James Carville, was sitting right beside her and didn't utter a single word in Krugman's defense of his argument that IT IS a voucher program.
Matalin and Noonan on the same panel? Poor Paul. No one deserves to deal with that much wingnuttery on a Sunday morning.
[quote] If Romney wins, I hope Ryan's plan goes into effect on day one and every one of these old fucks must go around with a voucher in their hand trying to find doctors.
Every time I'd see a Teabagger rally with Grandma and Grandpa on their government-paid scooters, I wanted to dump them out and sell their Little Rascals to help pay off the deficit.
Of course it's a voucher program. That's why Ryan is careful to make sure it doesn't affect the current generation of seniors if he wants to get it passed.
"Why would James Carville involve himself with this cunt? She's not even hot."
Neither is Carville. He's a drunk. That could be part of it.
She's pulled the same schtick for the last 10-15 years. She's always the same.
It's not informative or even interesting.
She was a total lying fuck. I didn't know she was that bad. Mocking Paul Krugman for being smart and knowing his stuff.
This is a deliberate attempt to appeal to the know-nothings who disdain the edumacated.
Good points r8. Obama is focused on fixing the country. Not on who wins these ridiculous media-hyped contests.
At one point, she put her head now in an exacerbated manner. It was a disgusting and childish display... and the right thinks she "won."
The GOP is comprised of the most silly and petulant idiots. They are scary stupid.
So how did Krugman respond to her nastiness?
Carville and Matalin haven't been relevant since the 1990s. Noonan hasn't been relevant since Reagan was president. But they keep making the rounds of all these Sunday shows, and the press keeps pretending that they have remarkable wisdom.
See... this is the kind of person that represent Republicans and the Republican party. Hateful, mean-spirited, lying sacks of shit. Mary Matalin, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, ... the list goes on and on. These are truly horrible, awful people, down to their very cores.
Why does anyone "side" with these people? I don't understand it!
Do Republicans hold educated people in such disdain to appeal to their uneducated base? Scott Brown has done this as well referring to Elizabeth Warren as "Professor" as if it's an insult.
It's not a voucher program its a premium supplement program, sheeple!!!
What a fucking cunt liar she is.
The Republicans are one step away from making it a welfare program and we know what they do to THOSE.
The Republicans want to destroy the working fabric of of the American Social Contract.
Rich people can afford to pay for medical care for cash and do not need health insurance.
Ask Romney who provides HIS health care coverage.
Fuck them, fuck them all.
r21 - in the modern GOP, book larnin' is a bad thing unless it's the Good Book, from which you can cut and paste as you like. If that doesn't work, you can just attribute anything you believe to the Bible and no one cares.
Republicans want the middle class stupid and sick.
If not stupid, then enslaved to ed loan payments.
They got their war with stupid/chained but sick is off the table.
Vote ALL DEMOCRAT!
Paul Krugman: The Press Doesn’t Know How To Handle Political Lies
Unfortunately, many do side with them R20.
I went to a friend's 40th birthday party last night and was seated with a group of oldsters (over 70). They were crowing about Obama bombing at the debate and fudging the job numbers.
I didn't want to make trouble so I sat there seething. I wanna be there to see the look on their faces when Obama hits 270 on election night. Luckily this is Illinois so their Romney love doesn't matter here.
The sickening part is reading the tweets from rightwing morons who just like the idea of Krugman being slapped down and they think Matalin won the debate simply by saying bullshit with no basis in reality.
R21, it's usually the other way around. Republicans despise lowly working class people that have too many children and want government hand-outs. Their beef about Obama is that he doesn't know what he's doing because he's a teacher. Those who can, do, those who can't teach.
Krugman came off really weak. He's not used to be challenged because everyone always kisses his ass. It was sad.
You people need to believe what you're told.
[quote]Why does anyone "side" with these people? I don't understand it!
Because hateful, mean-spirited, lying sacks of shit are drawn to their own kind?
[italic]Republicans despise lowly working class people that have too many children and want government hand-outs.[/italic]
Have you been to any red state? You're describing the Republican base.
r33, they have co-opted the stupid and created internal class warfare that has the red state middle-class Republicans waging war for the rich.
[quote]Why in the hell is Carville on as the Dem voice of reason when you know he won't call out his own banshee for calling Krugman a liar and referring to him as "Professor" with disdain?
This is what I hate about Carville, I watch him on CNN sometimes and he's no help to Obama, I don't think he actually likes him either because he's bitter about Hillary losing to him or something, but he spends most of his time criticizing him and agreeing with the lying right wingers talking points and I think that's why these news program likes having him on because they KNOW he's not really going to be supportive of the President, those are the kind of political contributors who get the most airtime there.
Mary Matalin would defend a right winger if one of them killed her mother. I'll never forgive her for backing Rush Limbaugh when he went after Sandra Fluke. Matalin is a disgusting right wing hack, ugly inside and out.
[quote]See... this is the kind of person that represent Republicans and the Republican party. Hateful, mean-spirited, lying sacks of shit. Mary Matalin, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, ... the list goes on and on. These are truly horrible, awful people, down to their very cores.
PREACH R20, this is EXACTLY what I've been thinking throughout this campaign.
I don't trust Carville. I know that couples don't always agree on politics, but I can't understand why anyone who is supposedly passionate about being a Democrat and a liberal would marry a nasty right-wing cunt like Mary Matalin. I don't think that either Carville or Matalin has any real beliefs or core values. They're just interested in politics as a sport -- a sport that has made them wealthy.
Caville is one of those old Democrats, the ones who sold out because of the Reagan revolution. They didn't want to rock the boat with voters, so to speak.
Matalin was tolerable years ago, but she has become more and more vile and ignorant.
[quote]Krugman came off really weak. He's not used to be challenged because everyone always kisses his ass. It was sad.
He came off "weak" because he doesn't want to respond to the political equivalent of a Jerry Springer guest. People don't kiss his ass and she isn't even fit to wipe it.
He wasn't challenged, he was insulted by a lesser person. She said nothing that was factual. These people just lie over and over again, so how does one challenge the GOP when they're a party who are more comfortable with lies than honesty?
She was never tolerable. Don't kid yourself.
[quote]This is what I hate about Carville, I watch him on CNN sometimes and he's no help to Obama, I don't think he actually likes him either because he's bitter about Hillary losing to him or something, but he spends most of his time criticizing him and agreeing with the lying right wingers talking points
All you need to know about this snake and people like him:
Mary Matalin calling Paul Krugman a "Liar" is like Kim Kardashian calling Stephen Hawking "Stupid".
She looks like a MTF.
How did that nut become such a go-to talking head? Krugman was rightfully pissed. He has no discernible reason to lie about this issue.
Thank you R45.
I get her and that deaf actress mixed up..
[quote]If Romney wins, I hope Ryan's plan goes into effect on day one and every one of these old fucks must go around with a voucher in their hand trying to find doctors.
Romney and Ryan have that covered. Ryan's budget doesn't have Medicare converted to a voucher program for ten years, which is why in his budget there is zero deficit reduction in that first ten years. After that ten year reprieve, the voucher system kicks in and everyone who is 55 and under today will get screwed. They want to be able to tell all of those retirees in Florida that their Medicare benefits are unaffected by their proposals so that they can get their votes.
Krugman does play pretty loosely with the facts - not unlike anyone who has a strong opinion
He is a "Johnny One Note" where government spending is the solution to all problems even where there are cases at the state level and in other countries that this approach is no panacea
He is playing to an audience and that audience is many of the people on this board. Better to keep you happy than to present a balanced viewpoint
[quote]Krugman does play pretty loosely with the facts - not unlike anyone who has a strong opinion
No, actually, he doesn't, which is why you couldn't dig up any examples.
[quote]He is a "Johnny One Note" where government spending is the solution to all problems
And, again, no, he's not. He is an advocate for a specific economic model, a model that has proven to be remarkably accurate over the past five years, in particular. In simplified terms, the government needs to spend counter-cyclically: increasing spending during a downturn to reduce both the length and severity of the downturn, and then cutting back and paying it back after the economy has recovered. This is basic economics.
[quote]even where there are cases at the state level and in other countries that this approach is no panacea
Sigh.... And yet you can't think of any, can you? What we do know is that austerity is failing miserably everywhere in the world it has been tried.
[quote]He is playing to an audience and that audience is many of the people on this board.
Telling the truth is "playing to an audience?" Interesting point of view you have.
[quote]better to keep you happy than to present a balanced viewpoint
And yet you couldn't identify a single inaccurate statement or lie that Krugman made. Why is that?
Krugman's post on Estonia
[quote]Since Estonia has suddenly become the poster child for austerity defenders — they’re on the euro and they’re booming! — I thought it might be useful to have a picture of what we’re talking about. Here’s real GDP, from Eurostat. So, a terrible — Depression-level — slump, followed by a significant but still incomplete recovery. Better than no recovery at all, obviously — but this is what passes for economic triumph
It is useful to look at the post (linked below) and the graph
A different and more fulsome look at the facts on Estonia
[quote]My negative reaction is that Krugman is very guilty of cherry-picking data. If you look at the chart that accompanies his post, Estonia’s economic performance isn’t very impressive, but that’s because he’s only showing us the data from 2007-present. The numbers are accurate, but they’re designed to mislead rather than inform (sort of as if I did a chart showing 2009-present).
[quote]But before exposing that bit of trickery, there’s another mistake worth noting. Krugman presumably wants us to think that the downturn coincided with spending cuts. But his own chart shows that the economy hit the skids in 2008 – a year in which government spending in Estonia soared by nearly 18 percent according to EU fiscal data! It wasn’t until 2009 that Estonian lawmakers began to reduce the burden of spending. So I guess Professor Krugman wants us to believe that the economy tanked in 2008 because of expectations of 2009 austerity. Or something like that.
Also worth looking at the overall post to get the context
krugman didn't lie but did present a distorted point of view by selectively using data and selectively releasing data on government spending
I wasn't very clear in my last post
Krugman is definitely a smart guy. You don't become a professor at Princeton and win a Noble Prize if you're not smart
But he does have an agenda.
Estonia was getting a lot of press about being a successful case of austerity working. He felt his argument against austerity was threatened so he wrote his post.
Either his research was pretty poor based on the other article (which is unlikely given his research background) or he selectively presented data to support his argument (which is more likely)
I have the same issue with the Nobel Prize winners in Economics who have a heavy bias towards the other side (think Milton Friedman)
Basically, I am skeptical of anyone who presents a black and white view of the world with no nuances (like Krugman). if only the world was that simple....
But Krugman and Friedman (and Smith and Keynes) have their loyal followers who buy into it all, avoid any publications or research that might disagree and blast anyone who might not totally agree.
Too bad, it is this form of blind advocacy that has put us in the ditch
Give it a rest, scary Krugman hater. No one cares what some random internet mental case thinks about a brilliant economist.
[quote]Give it a rest, scary Krugman hater. No one cares what some random internet mental case thinks about a brilliant economist
There was also an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal recently on some academic research about people who make posts like yours
It does turn out that the individuals making these posts are much more likely to have a large amount of debt, be obese and have a substance abuse problem
Lol I love how nutjobs like r51/r53/r54/r55/r57 think they "win" if they respond to themselves and post the most drivel.
[quote]But he does have an agenda.
Not really. What he has an "agenda" for is defense of his economic model. And he bases that defense on reality and on solid mathematical models.
[quote]Either his research was pretty poor based on the other article (which is unlikely given his research background) or he selectively presented data to support his argument (which is more likely)
Did you actually read and think about that article from the Cato Institute? And did you really think that a post from the Cato Institute, of all places, deserves to be taken seriously, given their track record? Hell, they're just about as bad as AEI. Talk about an "agenda!"
Krugman was making a point about austerity as a model for economic recovery and pointing out that the best that the idiots at Cato could come up with was a single country that hadn't even actually recovered! And the idiot at Cato, since he couldn't actually defend austerity or respond to Krugman, created a strawman argument, attacking something that Krugman didn't actually say, pretending that this was somehow an answer to Krugman's post. And we're supposed to take this seriously?
The post was not entirely a surprise, given Mitchell's track record and his hatred of Keynes. I love how he pretends that Keynesian policies "failed for Roosevelt in the 1930s, failed for Japan in the 1990s, failed for Bush in 2008, and failed for Obama in 2009."
Of course, out here in the real world, Keynesian policies succeeded for Roosevelt, weren't tried in Japan in the 1990s, and succeeded for Obama in 2009. But hey, you keep pretending that this moron is someone I should take seriously and that he's not presenting a "black and white view of the world" and doesn't have an "agenda."
[quote]Basically, I am skeptical of anyone who presents a black and white view of the world with no nuances (like Krugman). if only the world was that simple....
Sigh.... Krugman has not, in any way, in any post, ever "present[ed] a black and white view of the world."
[quote]Too bad, it is this form of blind advocacy that has put us in the ditch
Oh, bullshit. There is "blind advocacy" that ignores reality, which is what is practiced by such notables as Romney, Ryan, and Matalin, and there is advocacy based on economic models, such as Krugman. There is nothing "blind" about the latter.
Back on topic, there is no ambiguity about the exchanges between Matalin and Krugman. She is blatantly and clumsily lying and he is telling the plain and simple truth. Her "agenda" is to elect Republicans; his is to point out that her bullshit is, in fact, bullshit. Make of it what you will.
R58, he's quoting a "senior fellow" at a Libertarian think-tank, one not exactly noted for accuracy and one that is definitely noted for having an "agenda," something that he decries in Krugman. Hard to believe that anyone takes Cato seriously but I guess there are fools everywhere.
R51, you're a fucking moron.
It's got to be difficult to be a human cigarette dressed in Alexis Carrington garb.
Her cunt is so dry they wouldn't let her in Texas this summer because of the fire hazard.
First, I watched this exchange yesterday (or, rather, monologue) and Matalin interrupted Krugman, calling him a liar after he correctly stated that Ryan's Medicare plan was a voucher program. Ryan himself used that word before it became unpopular. Now he uses the term "premium support". Honestly, Krugman could not get a word in edgewise. I agree with the poster who said that having Matalin and Noonan on the panel with Krugman was a waste of Krugman.
Second, Matalin didn't used to be so bad. Now she is a crone both in appearance and speech. I think Carville thought he was getting one thing and ended up with another. She was always political, but deferential with his mother, etc. I really think she badly henpecks him at home now. I think he's afraid to speak around her anymore.
Third, Krugman isn't a Johnny one-note. However, the economic situation continues to need the same fix. Unlike Romney, who changes his mind weekly, Krugman is consistent. Furthermore trickle down economics was disproved years ago. Rich people who get more money don't use it to start businesses. But strapped families who get more income will put it into the economy and people who have reasonable access to education and welfare will use that to qualify for and work. That's the whole point of a stimulus package.
The Republican Party has become the party of tin-hat conspiracy theorists and racists.