I’ve never said anything about supporting Paul’s assertions about the moral contagion of unemployment benefits.
Please provide a link where I did.
Thank you.
Because of that brilliant reply where you state that a cite from 2009 and 2010 trumps one from 2013.
Yep, timelines are a bitch for conservatives. 
Sure, Spanky, no problem:
Are you drinking?
Well, no, they seem to agree very precisely. Both assert that “generous” (whatever the definition of that is) unemployment benefits can lead to people actually not looking for work. The data appears to show that in 35 states the welfare benefits actually exceed the minimum wage (getting more money for not working, than working? I’d call that generous, wouldn’t you?).
You are drinking, aren’t you?
In my quote that you provide
“Rand Paul is absolutely correct. Taking your unemployment benefits away from you is good not only for you, but for society in general.”
there’s absolutely no mention of
“the moral contagion of unemployment benefits”.
There’s not a single word about morality whatsoever. Please stop lying.
Why wouldn’t one quote from Paul Krugman trump another quote from Paul Krugman?
Do you have a magic ball that proves that Paul Krugman was telling the truth in 2013, but was lying in 2009 and 2010, and not the other way around?
Because your “brilliant” reply is is even worse when one realizes that in the past he was specific, none of his previous quotes contradict the one is making now: that the background was different for the issues he mentioned early. The main point stands, if you want to claim Krugman is correct you can not pick and choose.
I’m ready and willing to compromise here.
How about we adopt any of the below formulaes.
Paul Krugman of 2009 and 2010 agrees with burunduk34
Paul Krugman of 2013 agrees with GIGOBuster
Paul Krugman of 2009 and 2010 disagrees with GIGOBuster
Paul Krugman of 2013 disagrees with burunduk34
Paul Krugman of 2009 and 2010 disagrees with Paul Krugman of 2013
There ain’t enough :rolleyes: in the world.
How about the most reasonable one: Krugman from 2013 is clarifying Krugman from 2009/2010
But feel free of finding even more ways to sound more silly.
Exactly. That’s why I’m somewhat puzzled by you choosing to believe that Krugman was correct about not curtailing unemployment benefits in 2013, when economy was in much better shape that in 2009 and 2010, when Krugman was advocating curtailing the same benefits.
There might not be. All you have to do is to find a single word of mine where I even made a mention about morality or immorality of unemployment benefits.
If you can’t find one, I’ll have to assume you’re under influence of crack.
You know, sometimes for answering too fast you can sound even more silly by missing posts.
It’s not the most reasonable one. The more reasonable one is that Krugman of 2013 contradicts Krugman of 2009 and 2010.
You know, I trust your opinion on this one, since you seem to be quite an export when it comes to sounding silly.
Or that I was, yanno, hyperbolizing for effect?
But sure, fine. It obviously struck a nerve, so you have my apologies. My use of the term “moral contagion” was hyperbole. While it seems quite clear based on his record that Senator Paul believes unemployment benefits to involve morality and moral decay, you did not explicitly discuss the matter. I apologize unreservedly.
However, your ginned-up faux outrage over my choice of words does not change the fact that in your eagerness to support Paul you misrepresented Krugman. Again, please do your best to avoid doing that in the future. Thanks!
Or supersedes, but I do not think so on both cases, the context shows that the great recession modifies what he said in the past, in any case the point stands, he agrees with other economists:
Nah, others that I respected for a long time also did notice here how you fell on your face.