Liberals!

[NowhereInTime]

I didn't realize you were such a stickler for getting Hittler's name spelled right. 

Do you have his birthday circled on the calendar?

Douche.

You're the first to snark about semantics, yet want to play dumb here?

Remember this the next time you chip at someone for some tiny semantic error (like, maybe, misusing "literally"?)

Hypocritical ass-monkey.

[PB the Deplorable]

Once again, truth deflating your conflation.
You are, literally (there's that word again), lying through your teeth again.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/opinion/paul-krugman-so-much-for-obamacare-not-working.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0

And:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/zero-for-six/#

Krugman is a Left wing toadie.  Did you not notice what you linked was full of statements saying the nay-sayers were wrong, but short on facts backing it up? 

For example saying the number of signups exceeded expectations.  Well, let's see - we were told 15% of Americans were not covered, and that ObamaCare would fix that.  15% of over 300 Americans is over 45 million people.  They are telling us 8 million have signed up.

We also know a significant number of those 8 million people aren't paying their premiums and a significant number of the rest were among the millions who lost their coverage due to this reckless law.  So assuming they aren't lying about the number being 8 million (which is a stretch, they lie about everything), a net gain in the neighborhood of maybe a couple million.

Over 45 million without insurance, and a net gain of a maybe a couple million.  Now let's trot out the toadies like Paul Krugman and the rest of Big Media to tell us that has exceeded expectations. 

Even if the 8 million was accurate and they were all newly insured and paying their premiums, that is less than 20% of the 45 million plus.  How would even that figure exceed expectations, and is Obama saying he's satisfied with that??

... Not one of your (or your conservative harpies') predictions has come true.  Not. One.

But of course, it's "Wait 'till January".

"Wait Until Next Year!"  So you were a Brooklyn Dodgers fan.

Well, the one about people being thrown off their healthcare plans came true.

And that didn't come right away, it was postponed until after the 2012 election cycle.

[NowhereInTime]

Krugman is a Left wing toadie.

Actually, Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize winning economist, a professor of Economics at Princeton, a professor at the London School of Economics, a best-selling author, and, btw, a former member (albeit briefly) of the (St. Ronald) Reagan Administration. But nice try.

Did you not notice what you linked was full of statements saying the nay-sayers were wrong, but short on facts backing it up?

I was afraid you would miss the links.  The first article contains a link to the second article I posted, which itself has links to his blog page backing up every one of those assertions.  I won't criticize; go back and take a second peek.

For example saying the number of signups exceeded expectations.  Well, let's see - we were told 15% of Americans were not covered, and that ObamaCare would fix that.  15% of over 300 Americans is over 45 million people.  They are telling us 8 million have signed up.

As of now. That, btw, is applicants, including family coverage, so the number of people is higher.  Let's see next enrollment period (see? I'm using your "wait until next year" approach!) as people get more comfortable realizing you and your cohort) lied about all of this.

We also know a significant number of those 8 million people aren't paying their premiums and a significant number of the rest were among the millions who lost their coverage due to this reckless law.  So assuming they aren't lying about the number being 8 million (which is a stretch, they lie about everything), a net gain in the neighborhood of maybe a couple million.

Leaving aside the fact you are lying about people not paying premiums; the insurance companies themselves testified to this before Congress. Gee, I wish I could prove this.
Oh wait, I can!:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/08/us/politics/called-by-republicans-health-insurers-deliver-unexpected-testimony.html

Over 45 million without insurance, and a net gain of a maybe a couple million.  Now let's trot out the toadies like Paul Krugman and the rest of Big Media to tell us that has exceeded expectations.

So, to sum up, the best you got is "Krugman, liberal, blah, blah" and "Big Media, liberal, blah, blah."

And you left(y) out Alinsky.

Well, the one about people being thrown off their healthcare plans came true.

No, actually, it didn't.
People lost policies that didn't qualify as decent coverage under Obamacare and are now getting comprehensive coverage for less than those fly-by-night high school loss-of-limb ripoffs.

And that didn't come right away, it was postponed until after the 2012 election cycle.

Alinsky.

[pate]

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-obama-care/062714-706685-professors-suddenly-dont-like-obamacare-either.htm

Health Reform: After years of singing the praises of universal health care, college professors are now shocked at how badly it has turned out â€" for them.

I know, I know: Investors Business Daily is a conservative rag written for the 1% (not the Hell's Angel's 1% the other ones, the rich bastiges...) blahbity

[PB the Deplorable]

Actually, Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize winning economist, a professor of Economics at Princeton, a professor at the London School of Economics, a best-selling author, and, btw, a former member (albeit briefly) of the (St. Ronald) Reagan Administration. But nice try.

I was afraid you would miss the links...

Yes, Krugman is all of that.  Or was.  As a columnist, he's a front man for Obama. 

Just so you know, Princeton and the London School are the top promoters of Keynesian Economics.  Their theory is basically Demand side deficit spending leads to strong economies.  Our long Depression in the 1930s, the failure of the Carter years, the current 20 year recession in Japan, Obama's lousy economy - these all pretty much debunk Keynes.  I'd be a lot more impressed with Mr Krugman if he were of the Austrian and Chicago Schools.



By the way, I did follow a few of the links that most interested me.  Those seemed to be more of the same - claims the nay-sayers were wrong but short on facts backing it up, so I quit.

Just so you know, I'm happy to look at statistics, but too often people who have an agenda are going to reach the conclusion they want to reach by how they conduct the study, how they interpret data, what they leave out, what they amplify.  If they can't get to where they want to be, they'll sometimes simply lie to fill the gap. 

It's too bad it has to be this way.  I hate to say it, but in my experience it's the stats put out by the Libs and the Left, including those in Media and in government, that tend to be the most dishonest.  For them manipulating statistics is just another way to try to convince a mostly conservative nation to go along with Democrat policies.

[NowhereInTime]

Yes, Krugman is all of that.  Or was.  As a columnist, he's a front man for Obama.

No, he's still of that.  And an avowed liberal. I wouldn't go so far as front man, but, yes, far more sympathetic with Obama than, say, Sam Brownback's ongoing pillaging of Kansas:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/opinion/paul-krugman-charlatans-cranks-and-kansas.html?_r=0

Just so you know, Princeton and the London School are the top promoters of Keynesian Economics.  Their theory is basically Demand side deficit spending leads to strong economies.  Our long Depression in the 1930s, the failure of the Carter years, the current 20 year recession in Japan, Obama's lousy economy - these all pretty much debunk Keynes.

Actually, the Great Depression and the most recent crash were both products of laissez-faire (Chicago/Friedman style) approaches to the finance industry that resulted in the wolf emptying the hen house.  The various public works of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Administration and the TARP and Stimulus response from Obama stemmed the collapse, restored confidence, and turned the economies around.  We've had slow and steady growth since the stimulus, and it was a limited response given the scale of the devastation.

I'd be a lot more impressed with Mr Krugman if he were of the Austrian and Chicago Schools.

I'm grateful that one of the smartest minds in economics never followed the Absinthe fairy of the Invisible Hand (like Friedman) or the dependency on shiny metal to make money worth something (Hayek.) Interestingly, you cons always move to Hayek as the backbone of your "faith", but this Economist article shines some interesting light on the relationship between the two men:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/03/keynes-and-hayek

Funny, weren't you mocking me about a certain Austrian "freund" of yours a few posts back? What is it with you and oppressive Austrians?

For the record, my favorite Austrian is Schwarzenegger.

Just so you know, I'm happy to look at statistics, but too often people who have an agenda are going to reach the conclusion they want to reach by how they conduct the study, how they interpret data, what they leave out, what they amplify.  If they can't get to where they want to be, they'll sometimes simply lie to fill the gap.

You mean like every Romney presidential poll? Like every FOX News poll?  Like every conservative "think tank" poll?
I work a stone's throw away from the Quinnipiac University Polling institute.  Some of my employees did some work there and tell me they are exacting when it comes to monitoring the polling to ensure accuracy. Not every poll is suspect.

... a mostly conservative nation to go along with Democrat policies.

Sorry, Chris Wallace, but you have absolutely no evidence to back that statement up.  We just elected, and re-elected, a black man to the highest office in the land.  Wouldn't have happened in your youth, but this country has progressed away from your heyday.

[PB the Deplorable]

Wow, good thing we have you around to tell us what great shape health care and the economy in general are doing, because I don't think very many people would know that otherwise.

He sure as a high disapproval rating for someone so accomplished in these areas.  Must be because the people who elected him twice finally noticed he's black

[NowhereInTime]

Wow, good thing we have you around to tell us what great shape health care and the economy in general are doing, because I don't think very many people would know that otherwise.

Happy to help! I know, living in a world of hatred and suspicion,  that you are rarely exposed to the light of truth.  It brings me joy to know that this little ray of sunshine was able to brighten your day!

He sure as a high disapproval rating for someone so accomplished in these areas.  Must be because the people who elected him twice finally noticed he's black

Funny, weren't you just lecturing me on the unreliability of statistics and polling?
Besides, Ace, show me anyone sporting a better national number (not named Hillary Clinton). Certainly no one on the right.