Krugman implies Mississippi elected Republican governor b/c of racism

New York Times ^ | November 7th, 2003 | Paul Krugman

[Gdzine]

So did Mississippi voters support the Republicans, even though they get very little direct benefit from Bush-style tax cuts, because they — unlike New Jersey's voters — understand the magic of supply-side economics? If you believe that, I've got an overpass on the Garden State Parkway you may be interested in buying.

Now maybe New Jersey voted Democratic because of irrational Bush hatred. But I think it's a lot more likely that white Mississippi voters, unlike their counterparts up north, are still responding to Republican flag-waving — and it's not just the American flag that's being waved.

[Question_Assumptions]

New Jersey voted for Democrats (A) because New Jersey is infested with immigrants from New York like Krugman, (B) because the voters of New Jersey can be pretty stupid about (they did, after all, elect the corpse of Frank Lautenberg and don't seem to notice the giant sucking sound that is tax dollars leaving NJ because our representatives have no clout in the Congress), and (C) because there isn't much difference between the Democrats and the RINOs in NJ. On that last point, the Democrats were running ads in rapid rotation about the mess the Republicans left behind after running the show for about a decade and they weren't that wrong. There isn't much difference between our tax-and-spend Democrats and tax-and-spend socially leftist Republicans. When they had the chance to elect a real conservative Republican (Bret Schundler), the NJ Republican party preferred seppuku to backing an outsider that beat the favorite in the primary. A part of me would actually like to see NJ clean house and lose most of the Republicans currently in power so we can start over fresh.

[dirtboy]

If I've seen this line once, I've seen it a dozen times in the past week.

The latest front, eh? The Cracker front, I suppose.

[goldstategop]

The people of Mississippi voted to reject liberal VALUES. They didn't vote their pocketbooks or racism. As usual, liberal elitists like Paul Krugman have it exactly backwards. Any one notice the continuing condescension towards Southerners? That's good cause it means liberals still don't know why they're despised by a good third of the country.

[kevao]

Howard isn't wearing a very presidential tie.

Howard's tie lacks gravitas.

[RJL]

So did Mississippi voters support the Republicans, even though they get very little direct benefit from Bush-style tax cuts, because they — unlike New Jersey's voters — understand the magic of supply-side economics?

So in Krugman's little mind, it's always greed; what is the government going to give me, that drives all voting. How progressive, how liberal, how Democrat of him.

One would think that a supposedly trained economist would understand that the government creates no wealth.

If the government gives you $1.00 it first had to confiscate at least $1.50 (overhead in Wash DC is not cheap) from someone else, and we are all better off if we send as little as possible to Washington thereby avoiding the high overhead in DC.

[okie01]

"The Cracker front, I suppose."

You got it.

Jeez, they got Krugman, too. Whooda thunk...???

Wasn't Krugman actually in attendance at that Democrat Senatorial Policy meeting from whence the Imminence Front was spawned? Along with the oh-so-wronged Joseph C. Wilson IV?

I suppose we can use Krugman's sorry butt as a "leading indicator", can't we?

[dirtboy]

I suppose we can use Krugman's sorry butt as a "leading indicator", can't we?

A canary in a fart farm?

[CFC__VRWC]

Actually, Rush Limbaugh quoted a statistic in one of his books (See, I Told You So, IIRC) that put the government's overhead at 72 cents per every dollar spent being "compassionate." So that owuld work out to $3.57 collected by Washington for every dollar spent "helping the ______ (insert favorite group being starved by Republicans here)".

Rush's books are pretty old (going back to the early days of Toon misrule), but I can't imagine things having improved very much since.

[RJL]

Actually, Rush Limbaugh quoted a statistic in one of his books (See, I Told You So, IIRC) that put the government's overhead at 72 cents per every dollar spent being "compassionate." So that owuld work out to $3.57 collected by Washington for every dollar spent "helping the ______ (insert favorite group being starved by Republicans here)".

Rush's books are pretty old (going back to the early days of Toon misrule), but I can't imagine things having improved very much since.

Thanks, I knew it was higher but didn't have any figures handy.

[CobaltBlue]

My family has lived in the South since around 1700. The article makes me laugh.

It's the Democrats who have been race-baiting for decades, and it's starting to backfire.

[deport]

Has anyone seen any exit polls on the MS governor race? If so can you post a link........

[William McKinley]

the Imminence Front was spawned

I like it!

George Bush shines
And people forget

He said why, Saddam won't comply
And people forget
The UN agreed weapons he's hiding

So Bush tried
And people forget
To say don't wait, until its too late
And people forget
And so we're hiding

Behind an imminence front
Imminence front - It's a put on.

Come on join the party
Say Bush kills
Won't you come and join the Dem party
Say Bush kills

The war slows
People forget
That we just spin, with a constant din
People forget
Forget we're hiding

The news shows
People forget
With no market crash, some hopes are dashed
People forget
Forget we're hiding.

Behind an imminence front
Imminence front - it's a put on
Imminence front - it's a put on
Imminence front - it's a put on

Wont you come on say George Bush lied
Yes we will
Wont you come on say George Bush lied
Yes we
Wont you come on say George Bush lied
Yes we
Wont you come on say George Bush lied
Yes we will

And let's pray some troops get killed!

[StriperSniper]

They know what he was trying to say

Funny, I didn't hear Krugman come to Lott's defense with that same line.

[StriperSniper]

Hmmmm, never knew this. Apparently, his wife is black.

I wonder if she knows he is calling her fat:

and large African-Americans — my wife included

(I know, it's not fair out of context, but it was fun. ;-)

[Plutarch]

Mr. Dean wasn't suggesting that his party adopt the G.O.P. strategy of coded racial signals, and by and large African-Americans — my wife included — understand that.

Paul, probably not a good idea to describe your wife as a “large African-American.” Besides, she doesn’t look very African-American at all.

[Map Kernow]

Krugman: Just one of the reasons states like Mississippi are lost to the 'Rats now.
And will STAY lost.

[TexasCajun]

But the Black voters, who practically vote en masse for the Democratic candidate, would never be accused of Racism.

...There ya go!
And when Blacks like Powell and Rice achieve prominence they are ridiculed as Oreos or House Niggas.

[okie01]

I visited a welfare office once (I was looking for somebody who wanted to work).

An announcement of increased benefits in one federal program caught my eye. It cited that, due to X% improvement in administrative efficiency, recipients would experience a Y% increase in their benefit check. The program and specific percentages are lost in the mists of memory.

In any event, from this data, one can employ a little basic algebra and calculate what percentage of the total program cost is consumed by "administration".

The correct solution was: 85%.

Accordingly, for every dollar that the Congress had appropriated for this particular program, 15 cents was getting to the people whom the program was supposed to "help". The gaping maw of the bloated government bureaucracy was consuming the other 85 cents.

By any reasonable calculation, that is a baaaaaadddd deal.

[okie01]

dirt, check out William McKinley's #46.

You've been set to music. Willie Mac should give you credit as co-author. Or, at least, "from a concept by...".

[Catalonia]

For whatever you think of Bush's economic plan, it's clearly much better for New Jersey — a rich state, which gains a lot from tax cuts tilted toward the affluent — than for a poor state like Mississippi.

Tax cuts in our current system must always tilted toward the affluent. Since one-third of tax filers don’t pay taxes, and since most of these non-federal tax paying filers are poor, how can you give tax cuts to the poor?

The non-wealthy, of course, do pay payroll taxes -- Social Security and Medicare -- but according to Krugman the non-wealthy get the most benefit from these programs, which according to him means they shouldn’t be eliminated (or God forbid privatized). So to reduce these payroll taxes – to give ‘tax cuts to the non-wealthy’, which is really what Krugman means when he says ‘middle class’ -- the payroll tax system must become progressive instead of regressive, meaning that the wealthier one-half of society, in addition to providing 96% of revenue from income tax, would now come (assuming an identical system would be used for SS and Medicare) to provide 96% of revenue for Social Security and Medicare.

Extrapolating this argument to its logical conclusion, and incorporating other domains of need in addition to just merely retirement and healthcare (we must demonstrate our compassion, no?), Krugman really just wants the non-poor (upper 50%) to pay for food, shelter, clothing, transportation, healthcare, and entertainment for the non wealthy (bottom 50%) who are worse off.

It’s called communism.

Krugman deserves to have a journalistic hit squad after him. He mischaracterizes left and right and relies upon the ignorance and lack of political knowledge of his readership to spew propaganda. The guy is a walking set of clichés.

This is all a lot of hooey anyway. The middle class did indeed receive tax cuts and the poor got an increase in deductions for having children. Everybody won.