Krugman: GOP batshit insane, no coherent economic solutions except: "B-b-but socialism"

[syndicalist]

Comments

[schmiss]

This article is badass.

[syndicalist]

This is why I {{{{{love}}}}} him...

[erunamiryene]

Rove declared that liberals wanted to offer “therapy and understanding” to the 9/11 terrorists

Damn, I missed that bit of silliness.

I love Krugman, he doesn't pick sides much, that I've seen.

[syndicalist]

Well, he is pretty much always anti-GOP, even though once upon a time he used to be conservative, apparently, and he did favor Hillary in the presidential elections, but basically everything he criticizes in US domestic policy is from a "liberal" standpoint, which means criticizing even Obama when he feels it's called for. But the GOP he's basically always against.

[erunamiryene]

That's true ... I'm just impressed that someone with media connections actually DISAGREES with Obama, as I don't see that happen very often unless it's on Fox News.

I tend to be against the GOP, but that's cause, unfortunately, most of their spokespeople come across as completely insane. I didn't have a problem with McCain this election year until he picked Palin (who scared the hell out of me). Still voted for him (two wars, I'd prefer a president with a military background), but yeah.

*shrug* Just my opinion, though. YMMV.

[leprofessional]

"And it doesn’t feel right to make fun of crazy people."

That's some noble-prize winning badassery y'all.

[syndicalist]

heh :)

[mollywobbles867]

I still don't get the tea parties. I don't think most of the people who have/will participate in them get them.

[syndicalist]

I don't either. I think it is just emotional grief therapy for power-hungry GOP supporters who are used to believing and thinking they have a right to rule and dominate everything, and when they can't that it is tantamount to 'facsism.'

[c_yo_yus]

I thought it was a celebration for railing against "Only Three Months In Office" Black Guy and for burning college books about evolution?

[syndicalist]

It doesn't make sense to me, either.

My take on it is that is basically a phatic, therapeutic thing for conservatives mourning that Obama won and the GOP got snubbed big-time in the elections. It is their therapy session to express grief, but they have to cloak it in something that seems patriotic, because ... they are just like that.

Otherwise it is a vague kind of "anti-socialist," free floating anti-this and -that sort of display, not very pointed or targeted at anything specific.

[happythree]

On talk radio the other day someone who was supporting the tea parties explained that the lack of representation comes from legislative oversight and formation being delegated to committees (as opposed to individual representative upholding each task enumerated in the constitution, I suppose?) as well as the involvement of special interests and the 'backroom deals' that tend to come from that. And then there's also the b'awwwwing about Pelosi running a one-party congress. But hey, it's not her fault that the Republican congress was fail and were thus voted out rather decisively by their constituents. That's just Democracy :)

[syndicalist]

By that logic Dems would have been justified holding 'tea parties' since the GOP had majorities congressionally. They are stretching it a WEEEE bit.

I liked someone else's comparison of this to the 'Whiskey Rebellion" -- that was an anti-tax rebellion that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and other venerated founding fathers crushed, basically citizens petulantly pissed that the legitimate new federal government had raised taxes on whiskey, so George Washington trotted out the old Revolutionary Army to get them to stand down.

I would laugh my ass off if much of these conservatives faced something similar today. Becaue they are acting like they are disenfranchised, but they probably all voted. It's just their guy didn't win.