Columnist for former newspaper NYT implies Trump lied in unemployment report

The nice thing about being a leftist is that you never have to let facts get in the way of your claims. You can keep your doctor. Colin Kaepernick is a true American hero. Joe Biden is a brilliant and fully sentient human being. And Paul Krugman has the inside scoop on the Labor Department jobs report, thus knowing Trump falsified the numbers.

The economic genius tweeted:

This being the Trump era, you can't completely discount the possibility that they've gotten to the BLS, but it's much more likely that the models used to produce these numbers — they aren't really raw data — have gone haywire in a time of pandemic 3/
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) June 5, 2020

Does Krugman think for one second that the Bureau of Labor Statistics would protect Trump if he made a false claim?

The May jobs report, released last Friday, was expected to show a 19.8 percent unemployment rate.  Instead it revealed a rate of 13.3 percent.

Even Jason Furman, an Obama-era chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, blasted Krugman within half an hour, saying Trump could not have doctored the report. He added that Krugman's implication undermined the integrity of career Labor Department officials.

It also shows us that Krugman is a liar or a total fool. Of course, both of these things can be true at the same time.

There is absolutely no way that Trump could have compromised the BLS. None.

Furman tweeted:

BLS has 2,400 career staff of enormous integrity and one political appointee with no scope to change this number. https://t.co/Cden6rQyN6 

— Jason Furman (@jasonfurman) June 5, 2020

New York Times contributor and Brookings Institution fellow Justin Wolfers also denounced Krugman's claim:

This is a bad tweet.
Paul, you're right to point out that the underlying models/processes used to produce jobs numbers are less reliable during a pandemic.
But these data weren't tampered with and Paul knows it. The economic debate doesn't need this garbage innuendo. Do better https://t.co/R6tLHldF00
— Justin Wolfers (@JustinWolfers) June 5, 2020

Krugman, realizing nobody was taking his part even on the left, later apologized:

"I was just covering myself, because so many weird things have happened lately," he wrote.

Getting a lot of outraged pushback over even allowing the possibility of something amiss at BLS. I was just covering myself, because so many weird things have happened lately. But I apologize for any suggestion that a highly professional agency might have been corrupted. 1/
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) June 5, 2020

President Trump took to the bully pulpit to announce the jobs numbers. Who could blame him?

"They thought the number would be a loss of nine million jobs, and it was a gain of almost three million jobs," the President said. "This leads us on to a long period of growth. We'll go back to having the greatest economy anywhere in the world … and I think we're going to have a very good upcoming few months."

Or a very volatile upcoming few months, as the market seems to indicate.


Please consider following this blog, and remember, every time you click on an ad, an angel gets its wings and a dead terrorist gets his virgins.




Tweet

'Worst prediction of the year'

Paul (aka Paulie) Krugman's November 9, 2016 prediction of a miserably failed economy under President Trump is the "Worst prediction of the year," according to White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

But why are we surprised?

Krugman, The New York Times scribbler and winner of the Leftist Award known as the Nobel Prize winning economist, (economist, ha) looks like he should actually quit his day job and take up singing or something.

Sanders tweeted Friday:

"Greatest story of the year: booming @realDonaldTrump economy. Worst prediction for the year: pic.twitter.com/b6PGzp48zM. --Sarah Sanders (@PressSec) December 29, 2017

The world famous "economist" wrote back shortly after midnight as election results were coming in: 

"It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover? Frankiy, I find it hard to care much, even though this is my specialty."

Paulie's mom should have told him to say nothing when you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

So I know that I'm not going to take Krugman's advice about economic trends.

Tweet

Paul Robin Krugman is a Coward Sissy Boy Communist Butt Munch: That's Why Liberals Love Him

I always feel sad on 9-11; I worked with families who lost loved ones and worked with victims who lost a piece of their lives. Unlike many people, I do not see 9-11 as a day of reflection, a day of understanding and forgiveness, a day of trying to comprehend why this happened to us--I'm just not built that way. 

No, I see 9-11 as a day of remembering who did this to us. I see it as a day of commitment and a solemn promise to never allow this to happen again by spreading the word and enlightening others about who our enemies are, and not caring about b.s. political correctness.

Ties his tie like in junior high

Some people actually blame the United States for what happened on that sunny Tuesday, ten years ago. These are the same people who would, if captured by an enemy, give their captors information about fellow prisoners, just to curry favors and be spared. I find Paul "I sleep with a nightlight" Krugman to fit this category of slimeball coward and traitor. I also find him to be a crummy economist, Nobel Prize aside, and an even worse writer.



Krugman, a columnist for the New York Times (you know, the anti-American socialist rag), went on his predictable anti-patriotic rant on the 10th anniversary of 9-11 in which he labeled G.W. Bush, Rudy Giuliani, and Bernie Kerik as "fake heroes." He stated on his "Conscience of a Liberal" blog: "What happened after 9/11--and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not--was deeply shameful. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons."

Of course if GW Bush, Rudy Giuliani, and Bernie Kerik did not go to the scene of the mass murder, committed in the name of Islam, Krugman would be calling them cowards, saying they failed to do what was expected of them. This is the tactic liberals like Paul Robin Krugman use against conservatives--Krugman is like a woman whose man is never right about anything. I  imagine he pees sitting down while reading "Town and Country." I can see him in high school as a pimply-faced kid who always had his lunch money taken away and who went and told the teacher on the girl that took it.

So why did Krugman write such repugnant crap in his blog? It seems to me, he was using 9-11 as a platform to advance his hatred of anyone better than him, anyone with real courage, and the guts to make decisions that might be wrong, but that had to be made.The only people who never make mistakes are those who don't do anything to make them. People like Krugman, for example.

If you disagree with what I've said here, you just might be a liberal.

If you are interested in terrorism and suspense, I have provided 2 links (below) for a hard copy (soft cover) edition and an eBook edition of my latest novel, Jihad Joe.  It's a story about Zed Nill, a New York based reporter, taken hostage by Islamic terrorists.  He must escape, or be beheaded the following day . . . the clock is ticking.

click here for softcover Jihad Joe                     

click here for ebook version

Tweet