No. You don't seem to grasp the concept. I hold everyone involved responsible for debt accumulation. The two people being discussed are George W. Bush and Barack Hussein Obama. Obviously, as president, Bush is responsible for debt accumulation. The buck stops there. The buck also passed through every Senator and House Rep's hands.
oK then Paul needs to get past his agenda and use his "smart" brain to be correct as opposed to lying. So was he an idiot or was he lying?
Your lying and moving of the bar makes it abundantly clear you know you got your ass kicked. I made no representation of my knowledge of economics compared to Krugman, nor that of Trump.
well, there is no doubt the unemployment numbers have fallen at the same rate. there is no doubt the dow has continued at the same pace. of course, deficits have risen like crazy even without us being in a real war with combat troops on the ground and a really low unemployment and huge profits for corporations, but, hey, that is what you get when you cut taxes for the rich. why wouldn't most be happy with the economy going along at the same rate as when Obama was president, just with increased deficits that most people forget about?
you are not intellligent enough or informed enough to read why the Nobel Prize picked certain winners and understand it. that is why you spew such goofy shit. a man has to know his limitations, and so do you.
what is he lying about? should we have to guess?
Yes, thanks for pointing out Obama signed for the largest increase in spending since 1952. Are you not aware it was Obama who signed that spending? Of course you're not.
Just curios given that we all got a tax cut, where do you get the "tax cuts for the rich" line from? Is it one of your fake news outlets or is it from a TDS sufferer in DC?
Actually, your problem is I AM intelligent and informed enough to make such distinctions. For example, giving Yasser Arafat a Nobel Peace Prize for saying he'll stop killing innocent people? Laughable. And Barack Hussein Obama? A prize for.... ummm.... well.... hoping he'll do something?
you could guess or you could go to the very beginning of this thread and actually read the post. I will leave that to you
Translation: I cannot possibly refute the facts you presented. I have no choice but to make a blanket denial. I just hope no one insists I tackle your facts and data individually.
you give no source at all for your ramblings...and since the CBO is the official bean counter of this country, it is the final word, the supreme court, any other source you might try is inferior. what part of that do you not understand?
I don't need to give a source. I was referring to the facts and data @Raoul_Luke pummeled you with. Rather than try to think your way through a rebuttal, you simply babbled about the CBO.
okay,**edited** let me ask you a few questions-
I proved he was wrong, with facts and sources, and you are still babbling like a brain damaged squirrel under a tree. come back when you have a clue and a source to back up your drooling bullshit.
right on...here are the 3 guys who claim Krugman is wrong, according to the original source in the first post-
So you have admitted that Barack Obama signed the 24% increase in spending in the 2009 budget? I must have missed that. Feel free to show me where you did that. Or feel free to do it now. Until then, you are clinging to at least one lie.
Of course winning a Nobel Prize means something. It means leftists like you. Duh.
The Nobel Peace Prize involves political considerations. Clearly debatable.
Fine, let's stick with Krugman's Nobel for Economics. I will sharpen my criticism. He's too much of a partisan, babbling fool to get a prize. Look how his TDS affected him. It was so bad, he made silly predictions that hopefully embarrass him at least a little bit.