• Krugminator2's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:03 PM
    So here's the thing. What you posted is either dishonest or really not bright. I don't even know what the New York Observer is. The Blaze is going bankrupt. Yeah you have a few major news outlets. WSJ and Fox and some local stations. That isn't exactly ABC NBC CBS New York Times, Washington Post, CNN MSNBC. In fact there is no point in trying to name them all. Here is how the media votes (or at least did in the past) https://archive.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp 89 percent of Washington-based reporters said they voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. Only seven percent voted for George Bush, with two percent choosing Ross Perot There are humanities departments at universities with ZERO conservatives on the faculty. Most university department outside of business and hard sciences have more openly identified Marxists (actual Marxists) than people on the political right.
    130 replies | 2249 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:19 PM
    The 2017 inflation rate was 2.13%. http://www.in2013dollars.com/2017-dollars-in-2018?amount=50000&future_pct=0.025
    22 replies | 404 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-21-2018, 01:03 PM
    EVERY spending restraint without exception has come about from Republicans. The Sequester was purely from the Tea Party in 2011. The budget negotiations under Clinton came about entirely because Republicans took the House for the first time in 40 years because of Clinton was a big government guy his first two years. It was Gingrich and Kasich that deserve 100% of the credit. It is true that Republicans behave poorly under Republican Presidents but that doesn't mean Democrats behave well. Democrats are even worse than Republicans under Democratic Presidents. See Obama's first two years.
    21 replies | 363 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-21-2018, 12:57 PM
    That's right. The money I won't be paying in taxes is fictional savings because the dollar isn't real. In fact nothing is real. We are all living in the Matrix. Only gold and Ron Paul are real. Amirite? Does that about sum up what you are saying?
    21 replies | 363 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-20-2018, 06:06 PM
    HHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAHHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHBWAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHBWAH LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLL I could come up with dozens of examples (literally) if I had to of cases where they were clearly wrong and chose to rate something the opposite of what is true. I am not going to Google and find all of them but I remember Ted Cruz said most violent criminals were Democrats (overwhelmingly True, like 6 to 1 ratio true) and Politifact rated it false because it had to do with minorities committing crimes and race was the reason. Or Tom Coburn said unfunded liabilities were into the hundreds of trillions (completely true) that I don't even know how they rated false. Marco Rubio had one that I have forgotten but Rubio was completely correct. There was was another one where someone made the claim that the welfare state caused single mothers (certainly debatable but a credible statement) that they rated outright false. I listed the Rand Paul example in the previous post. It is just a disgusting site. It would be like calling Paul Krugman a fact checker. It is an opinion site.
    9 replies | 184 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-20-2018, 05:54 PM
    I assume this is what you are talking about. Politifact is just liberal propaganda masked as "fact checking". https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/nov/11/rand-paul/rand-paul-says-federal-workers-paid-120000-private/ Rand's numbers were 100% correct. Everything was correct in what he said. Rand even phrased it the correct way taking into account total compensation. Reason rebutted Politicfiction but there was no retraction.
    9 replies | 184 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-19-2018, 07:13 PM
    Except violent crime has gone up in Sweden and everyone acknowledges it. Who is telling you otherwise? Sweden has more rapes https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-bombings-grenade-attacks-violent-reality-undoing-peaceful-self-image-law-and-order/ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/03/world/europe/sweden-crime-immigration-hand-grenades.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=9C20BD39717CB98F026F2B6CF18C4E4C&gwt=pay https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/sweden-crime-rates-immigration-policies/ Whereas crime is falling in the US.
    103 replies | 1147 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-19-2018, 04:33 PM
    http://freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/ He addresses crack pretty thoroughly in the middle of this post.
    103 replies | 1147 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-19-2018, 03:26 PM
    Notice how crime peaks in 1991. Roe v Wade was passed in 1973. Unpopular answer, but a lot of those kids who who would have entered their prime crime committing years were aborted.
    103 replies | 1147 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-19-2018, 12:53 PM
    1053267388337188864
    56 replies | 505 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-18-2018, 07:29 PM
    All true and that article was an old article even though it said it was from the 15th. But violent crime stats have fallen dramatically as well. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-02-12/pssst-crime-may-be-near-an-all-time-low
    103 replies | 1147 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-18-2018, 12:31 PM
    Are you asking this because you know the answer? Or do you not know one exists? Been around for a long time. Surgery Center of Oklahoma takes no insurance and has firm prices that you get like any other product.
    11 replies | 193 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-18-2018, 06:31 AM
    I'm all for concealed carry and letting just about anyone get a gun. It might be a big reason. I just don't think it is the main reason. I think abortion is the biggest cause.. Crime dropped nationwide starting in the early 90s when Roe V Wade turned 18. And it started dropping earlier for states that had approved abortion sooner. That isn't a reason to be pro-choice but the data fits pretty perfectly to explain it. Also I think the mass incarceration made law probably works. I am not saying it is moral. (It isn't.) I just think it works. Singapore doesn't have a drug problem because they just execute you if you are in the drug trades. Not moral but works.
    103 replies | 1147 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-17-2018, 08:00 PM
    https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95379&page=1 Read another article saying that it is possible violent crime is the lowest since pre-prohibition. Also noteworthy, it is much easier to get a gun now than in the past. I don't think one has to do with the other but it would seem in a normal world gun control would be less of an issue given this data.
    103 replies | 1147 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-17-2018, 05:10 PM
    Not as insignificant as people seem to think. Republicans only barely hold the Kentucky House. And they just took it for the first time in 50 years. Bevin is only the second or third Republican governor in 40 years. At least up until the last election all but one of the state elected officials were Democrats.
    6 replies | 176 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-17-2018, 03:03 PM
    Just watching this, I guess. I think Cruz killed him. O'Rourke just feels very JV no matter what race he would be in. Cruz has great answers. The only thing I will say is Cruz is looking extremely fat and sloppy. That will probably cost him more than anything. O'Rourke has a better look and that is predictive of winning but I don't think he comes across well at all when he speaks. He sounds slightly dumb. I find it highly amusing as well that he has far worse juvenile record than Kavanaugh. A DWI and burglary. Cool.
    22 replies | 820 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-17-2018, 02:54 PM
    To put it in perspective he raised the same amount in the last three months that Ron did altogether in 2012 and Ron was a pretty good fundraiser. I believe he has raised more than any Senate challenger and maybe any Senate candidate in history. It is baffling because Cruz has no chance of losing no matter how much he gets pounded on the airwaves and media. https://www.yahoo.com/news/texas-democrat-slipping-polls-crucial-us-election-race-171610481.html
    22 replies | 820 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-16-2018, 03:55 PM
    I am just curious why does almost every libertarian legal person (minus Judge Nap) support Kavanaugh? Is it really selling out when almost all libertarians who know about the law support Kavanaugh? I get that Kavanaugh is bad on metadata. I mean maybe I will be proven wrong, but I think shooting down environmental regulations, protecting religious freedom, protecting school choice, ending eminent domain abuses, curbing union power are far more important issues. If I were in the Senate, not only would I vote to confirm Kavanaugh, I would be quite pleased with it. Gary Johnson supported Kavanaugh. Mike Lee. Rand. It really was an easy vote. I would have been disappointed had Rand voted against Kavanaugh.
    149 replies | 3498 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-16-2018, 03:38 PM
    Name one First Amendment case that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was stronger on that Antonin Scalia. Besides all of the cases above, is forcing public sector union workers to contribute to Democratic candidates what First Amendment advocates? My experience is even the most flag waving meathead conservative (let's say Sean Hannity) is far better on the First Amendment that 90% of the people on the left. I guess some liberals are better on flag burning (though Hillary Clinton sponsored an amendment banning flag burning).
    149 replies | 3498 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-15-2018, 05:32 PM
    Should have said "isn't". Republicans should worry about spending. Deficits and surpluses don't matter. All that matters is spending takes resources out of the private economy. If they run deficits from a tax shortfall, that isn't a big deal at all. As far as the interest on the debt which I see you bring up, that is the best thing government can spend money on. It doesn't take any physical resources away from the private economy.
    85 replies | 3282 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-15-2018, 05:24 PM
    Okay. Notable government spending isn't the determining factor.
    85 replies | 3282 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-15-2018, 04:47 PM
    Which amendments specifically? You used that in the plural. ALL the liberal justices are horrific on the 1st Amendment compared to the conservative judges. Obviously terrible on the second. Are they even better on the 4th Amendment? All the liberal judges supported eminent domain in the Kelo decision. Seems bad. I doubt they are better than Scalia was and Gorsuch on search and seizure stuff. Obviously terrible on the 10th Amendment. I know it is a Ron Paul and Gary Johnson talking point that liberals are better on civil liberties issues. It is really isn't true though. Antonin Scalia and Thomas were faarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr better than Ruth Bader Ginsburg civil liberties. It isn't even close. Making nuns pay for contraception, bakers bake penis cakes, limiting political speech in the form of campaign contributions, seizing property for economic private economic development are issues where liberal judges are just bad. Maybe they are better on the major issue of quartering soldiers.
    149 replies | 3498 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-15-2018, 04:03 PM
    Yeah. That never happened, at least not while he has been president.
    143 replies | 11881 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-14-2018, 05:04 PM
    Yeah.... So... What am I supposed to be remembering? What are you talking about? He is the single most prominent Fed critic to ever live. It is kind of what he is famous for. He spent his career advocating ending the Federal Reserve system. 1994 2006
    143 replies | 11881 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-14-2018, 02:21 PM
    No. He's really not. Saying stuff like that should eliminate all credibility from you on anything. All three preferable (by far) to Kagan and Sotomayor I don't care. That means nothing. It is a nothing issue. Nixon wanted to ban all handguns. If this is the kind of thing that is considered "gun control" that is pretty good place to be in.
    143 replies | 11881 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-14-2018, 02:10 PM
    Fiscal conservatism is certainly part of Gary Johnson's definition of libertarianism. I do consider Gary a libertarian so I guess there is one person who agrees. Zippyjuan is big on that. Howard Dean is for balanced budgets. He says he is a fiscal conservative. Michael Bloomberg says he is a fiscal conservative. People who want smaller government like Walter Williams and Milton Friedman, not so big balanced budgets or paying down debt. https://www.creators.com/read/walter-williams/02/18/lets-limit-spending Try harder. Be better. You should post less and listen more and learn more about the philosophy.
    143 replies | 11881 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-14-2018, 12:52 PM
    When Democrats last held Congress and the Presidency, you got Kagan and Sotomayor on the Supreme Court. Obamacare. Dodd-Frank. Cash for Clunkers. And massive increases in environmental regulations. With Trump and Republicans, you get good to great judges not just on the Supreme Court but the lower courts are getting packed. A corporate income tax rate that is competitive with the rest of the world. A slowdown of the regulatory state that hasn't been seen in modern history. No transaction tax. No push for universal health care. No real gun control. On a scale of ten, Republicans are an 11 on the gun issue. They are great on guns. Not just good. They are pretty absolutist in the face of pressure on that issue. As far as paying down the debt, when did that ever become a goal of libertarians? That isn't my goal. You bitched about Amash being against crony tax loopholes on the state level where budgets have to be balanced but worry about having high taxes to pay the national debt? That is the complete opposite view a libertarian should take. The budget should always be at a deficit on the federal level. The spending is the bad part but even that is in line with what has been historically going back to the 50s as a share of GDP. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S I usually vote LP in statewide and national races but will vote Republican this year. Very pleased.
    143 replies | 11881 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-14-2018, 12:23 PM
    I missed the first two episodes. Watched the PC babies episode. The show is amazing. Never gets old. Every season is good.
    2 replies | 179 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-12-2018, 10:23 PM
    In my opinion, it never makes sense to bailout a specific business because you have moral hazard in the future. I would argue that bailing out Chrysler in the 70's contributed to the problems Ford and GM had in 2008. It probably affected how unions and management negotiated. I would have let GM fail. I get that you are arguing that the economy as a whole is the same as a micro level. You can certainly argue that the pain of the Great Depression changed behavior for the better over the next generation or two. It made people more debt averse. I would argue that a decade or more of nationwide suffering pretty high price to pay. To me having a policy of growing incomes by a fixed amount accomplishes both the Austrian goal of not having artificially low interest rates and the monetarist goals of not having debt deflation. For example say you are going to target income growth of 4%. If the economy is growing at 6% that means the inflation rate would be -2% so you would have mild deflation. If the economy contracts and shrinks at -2% that means you would want inflation of 6%. Since people know exactly what policy is going to be over the long term they should be fooled by artificially low rates.
    11 replies | 464 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-12-2018, 09:45 PM
    It is hard to know. It really depends on the specific subsidy. Hayek emphasized that you should have predictable rules even if they are suboptimal. So let's use real examples. I am strongly against the mortgage interest deduction. It is terrible policy that encourages overconsumption in housing. But people made decisions based on that policy. A lot of people who bought homes and worked as builders or real estate agents made life decisions around that policy. I would phase it out and not eliminate it immediately. Likewise with Social Security. I might reduce benefits or not let benefits keep up with inflation but I would not eliminate Social Security day one because people made decisions around receiving benefits. As far as artificially low interest rates, some people will and should go bankrupt when you have a recession. But if incomes start to fall across the board, you will have a lot of needless bankruptcies that serve no purpose and will prolong a depression. It doesn't make sense from a cost benefit standpoint. And you don't need to take my word for it. There was something called the Great Depression which was caused by letting the money supply collapse. Rothbard's policy of letting the world go to hell was tried. His only response is tariffs and raising taxes were the real cause a 15 year downturn. There is nothing to substantiate that but he had to come up with something that fit his ideology. You can believe that I guess. But the debt deflation and bank failure idea I used fits very nicely with what happened. (And it is agreed on by pretty much everyone else. Not a reason to believe something but I feel like people who have devoted their lives to a topic should be listened to in general.) There were a ton of bankruptcies and people who lost houses after 2008. Do you think the economy would have been even better served with a cleansing Great Depression Part 2 where even more people lost their houses? Ben Bernanke did a lot wrong but he is the reason 2008 was really a fairly mild recession relative to what it should have been. You can argue moral hazard but we might still be in a depression if Rothbard had his way. I am not sure that would be worth it.
    11 replies | 464 view(s)
More Activity
About Krugminator2

Basic Information

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
2,584
Posts Per Day
1.67
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 08:23 PM
Join Date
08-01-2014
Referrals
0

08-05-2018


04-06-2018


03-17-2018


06-10-2017


No results to display...
Page 1 of 68 1231151 ... LastLast

10-21-2018


10-19-2018


10-18-2018


10-17-2018


10-16-2018


10-15-2018


10-14-2018


10-12-2018



Page 1 of 68 1231151 ... LastLast