Paul Krugman's Preposterous Statement Of The Day (re: the Tea Party)

The Federalist ^ | March 17, 2014 | David Harsanyi

[1rudeboy]

In yet another column lamenting the imaginary dog-whistle politics that permeates the conservative movement, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman offers what could be one of the most easily disprovable sentences he’s ever written – and that’s saying something.

Or we’re told that conservatives, the Tea Party in particular, oppose handouts because they believe in personal responsibility, in a society in which people must bear the consequences of their actions. Yet it’s hard to find angry Tea Party denunciations of huge Wall Street bailouts, of huge bonuses paid to executives who were saved from disaster by government backing and guarantees.

Let’s for a moment concede that roughly half the country is focused on punishing the poor. Let’s say they communicate this viewpoint via thinly-veiled racist rhetoric that apparently anyone can hear. Still, is it really “difficult” to find a Tea Party denunciation of bailouts? I guess asking your intern to type the words “bailout” and “Tea Party” into a Google search is problematic for a guy who insulates himself from the opposition’s arguments. Arduous as the work can be, though, Krugman would have first found a Wikipedia page that cited all larger 2009 Tea Party protests and found around a dozen of them were partly or explicitly aimed at denunciating Wall Street bailouts.

Who knows? He might have pulled up the 2012 CBS poll that took a deep dive into the inclinations of the average Tea Partier, and found out that 74 percent of them opposed bank bailouts. Some argue, and with reason, that the Tea Party was spurred by Bush and Obama bank bailouts.

I get it, not high profile enough. Will Rand Paul –the guy who wrote a book called “The Tea Party Goes to Washington” — do? Because he said this:

Federal bailouts reward inefficient and corrupt management, rob taxpayers, hurt smaller and more responsible private firms, exacerbate our budget problems, explode national debt, and destroy our US dollar. Even more importantly, any bailout of private industry is in direct violation of the Constitution. It is a transfer of wealth from those who have earned to those who have squandered.

Actually, nearly every Tea Party-affiliated candidate had come out strongly against TARP, many of them making it the centerpiece of their runs against establishment Republicans — including Mike Lee and Marco Rubio.   Is there no editor on the Times’ opinion page editor that can email the professor and ask him whether he wants to make such a ludicrous claim?

(Hat tip: Russ Roberts)

Update: As Joel Gehrke points out, Tea Party opposition to bailouts is still a live issue.

David Harsanyi is a Senior Editor at The Federalist and author of the The People Have Spoken (and They Are Wrong): The Case Against Democracy. Follow him on Twitter.

[1rudeboy]

Krugman ping

[GeronL]

Bailouts was one of the chief reasons for the Tea Party

[mulligan]

It is impossible to reason with stupid and ignorant people. And ‘klugman’ is in a league all by himself.

[Robert357]

Krugman is an unabashed spin-meister for the Democratic party. While a renowned economist, his approach to writing at the NYT is much more as an advocate for the Democratic party and a presenter of half or partial truths, than an objective commentator or things economic.

[Servant of the Cross]

Bailouts was one of the chief reasons for the Tea Party

Rick Santelli, and many others, would completely agree with you!

a referendum ... to see if we really want to subsidize the loser's mortgages ... or would we like to at least buy cars, buy houses in foreclosure, and give them to people who might have a chance to actually prosper down the road and reward people that carry the water instead of drink the water ... how many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgages .....

[C. Edmund Wright]

Indeed, the Santelli rant, which did launch the movement officially - was about bailing out the n’ere do wells who do NOT pay their mortgages. This tied into a govt gone wild and Obama Care theme.

That day, Feb 19, 2009 - about 905 in the morning….

[driftless2]

Some libs are liars...some are just ignorant....and of course, many are both. Krugman falls into the last category. He’s not nearly as smart as he thinks he is, and he also likes to lie.

[Servant of the Cross]

That day, Feb 19, 2009 - about 905 in the morning….

Snerdley, if you happen across this thread, exactly three hours after 905, Rush used this topic for his entire three hour program that very afternoon ... based on some great intel.

[C. Edmund Wright]

Snerdly knows…now….and yet, he won’t whisper so much as a syllable…..

[C. Edmund Wright]

…oh, almost forgot….Snerdly’s boss FW it to a guy named Matt….in South Florida…runs a HUGE website….who featured it in RED LETTER END OF THE WORLD headlines…..

First time RL or Drudge had EVER mentioned Santelli - and tick tick BOOM!

[expat_panama]

Being both a Nobel laureate and an extreme leftist means that Krugman’s immune to criticism and can say anything. It’s kind of like having a community chest “get out of ridicule’ card.

[ozzymandus]

Even most leftists admit krugman is stupid.

[Milton Miteybad]

Sure, Krugman got in the stupid line for a second (and third) helping. But he's also obviously a racist, as is anyone who talks about racist "dog whistles." You see...the whole point of the "dog whistle" analogy is that supposedly only racists can hear the sound.

And, just as obviously, Krugman heard it, because he chose to comment on it. Ergo, Krugman is a racist.

But, just as tellingly, about 100 million Tea Party types didn't hear the "dog whistle." But Krugman did. And if you hear the "dog whistle," well...you're the dog.

[RinaseaofDs]

Agreed. He’s not looking hard enough.

If you limit your search to Wall and Broad Sts. in Manhattan, then you’ll find a good many RINO’s there not complaining a whole lot about $25B in cheap capital in 2008.

Even the mainstream is pissed about bailing out GM AND THEN finding out their ignitions were killing the people who were bailing them out.

[Baynative]

The little weasel, Paul Krugman is nothing more than a political who who has become rich selling himself to the highest bidder.

In 1999 Paul Krugman was paid $50,000 by Enron as a consultant on its “advisory board,” and that same year he wrote a glowing article about Enron for Fortune magazine. Enron collapsed in 2001.

[Baynative]

nothing more than a political WHORE who

[lentulusgracchus]

Krugman doesn't care whether what he writes is true or not, as long as it slides down well with liberadom's morning toast and coffee.

[lentulusgracchus]

Actually, I liked the first version better.

Krugman is a political "who". Well, well. Getting saucy in here.

[4Liberty]

Exactly. "...hard to find angry Tea Party denunciations of huge Wall Street bailouts, of huge bonuses paid to executives who were saved from disaster by government backing and guarantees."