Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Eduardo Cantoral
1730 Followers
Phil Perspective
9366 Followers
Equinox2012
433 Followers
Janine Wallace
4729 Followers
Humphrey King
723 Followers
Sean Mulligan
348 Followers
Hugh Byrne
6443 Followers
badqatSep 6, 2010
Have to register to read the article?
No thanks, NYT.
spiderman121Sep 6, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
superkendallSep 6, 2010
Yes, we're all aware that the old Digg power user liberal groups used to be able to bury anything that displeased them. What a shame you cannot continue using your friend network to censor things you dislike, eh?
This story being on the front page? It's called "freedom of speech and opinion". Get used to it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
canpantherSep 6, 2010
Sounds a lot more like the method used by the Digg Patriots, a conservative group.
Both sides gamed the system, whanker, so take your self-righteous indignation somewhere else.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
twinklyjesusSep 6, 2010
Canpanther, even Kevin Rose admitted that Libs were gaming Digg the same way they were claiming the DP's did. Go back and watch on last weeks TWIT episode with Leo Laporte. At the end of the podcast, on video... it's all there.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
canpantherSep 8, 2010
I do believe I stated that in my previous comment, twinkly :)
gianpoSep 7, 2010
@spiderman121
You are 100% wrong this is not the first time a new york times piece got to the front page with a log in screen I've seen it dozens of times on the old Digg so quit hating and go to Reddit already so we don't have to listen to your whining any more.
canyoucountSep 7, 2010
New York Times has the longest lived cookies evar. I have logged into my account like four times in the last few years, once per new computer or browser..
If you were talking a site other than, like, the predominant American newspaper, and it had short lived cookies, I'd see your point. :)
novenatorSep 6, 2010
It takes 10 seconds and is so well worth it considering the excellent content on the site. Besides, it is a random prompt, so I went to the NYT site over 100 times before it cropped up.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mydiggloginSep 6, 2010
I wonder if gwbisaterrorist for user and password still works....yep. Got that one from bugmenot.com a while ago.
4heavenssakeSep 7, 2010
You don't have to register yet. You can just read it online.
Closed AccountSep 9, 2010
born yesterday ?
realeskimopimpSep 6, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/06/opinion/06krugman.html?_r=1&ref=paulkrugman
superkendallSep 6, 2010
Direct link - thanks.
hipmanSep 6, 2010
For a worthless article.
realeskimopimpSep 6, 2010
"Here’s the situation: The U.S. economy has been crippled by a financial crisis. The president’s policies have limited the damage, but they were too cautious, and unemployment remains disastrously high. More action is clearly needed. Yet the public has soured on government activism, and seems poised to deal Democrats a severe defeat in the midterm elections.
The president in question is Franklin Delano Roosevelt; the year is 1938. "
The biggest difference between 1938 and 2010 is the Republican Southern Strategy.
Instead of people voting for their economic interest, the Republicans have scared white peopleComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
superkendallSep 6, 2010
Because obviously voting for Democrats instead of Republicans is in people's financial interests, as demonstrated oh so well over the past four years or so (thats how long the Democrats have controlled the house and senate).
Oh wait.
Obviously the best thing we can do is split power and bog both parties down in arguments, while arguing they cannot spend all of our money.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
realeskimopimpSep 6, 2010
Yeah pretty much. If you make less than $250,000 a year, voting for a democrat is in your economic interest.
Closed AccountSep 6, 2010
Are we aware that WWII had a huge part to play in America's comeback at that time?
And why would a person who makes 150,000 a year...who finds themselves most aligned with the Republican Party platform vote Democrat?
(If you're not rich, you should vote Democrat....)
Holy s**t. There's much more to political ideology than who wants to give you stuff?!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
seltaeb4Sep 8, 2010
I've never sure what to make of the Republicans' love/hate relationship with government spending.
By their calculations, Hoover Dam, the TVA, Social Security, the WPA, the CCC et al were pure socialism; every penny spent was a waste, because "throwing money at problems never works."
But seize the entirety of private American industrial production and then spend exponentially more than the New Deal years of 1932-1941, and all of a sudden conservatives will claim that massive government World War II spending ended the Depression.
They'll also shout "tax cuts increase tax receipts!" at anyone who will listen. "Reagan cut taxes, and tax revenue tripled!" they say, never noting that Reagan tripled government spending simultaneously.
So, by their reckoning, government spending never works, unless it's spent on war. Also, tax cuts cause rapid economic growth, not a 300% increase in government spending.
What's more, why do they seem so boastful about government revenue rising in the Reagan Era? Isn't giving Big Government more money to spend supposed to be a *bad* thing?
charlescheeseSep 7, 2010
Yeah, you got it all figured out now. People who disagree with you fall into 2 categories in your mind, morons, and racists. That must be comforting to you. If you really believe that, and people of your political ideology agree with that, you are in for a much bigger shellacking in November and the years to come. That is such a supreme underestimation of your political rivals, and it gives conservatives like me a supreme advantage. We're talking about the issues, the debt, the taxes that will kill jobs, the government that ignores the will of the people, and your brilliant reply is..."racists". OoooooooKAY! Good luck with that one. At least it makes you feel superior and better in your own mind!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hipmanSep 6, 2010
stfu Krugman.
ryanisnotsuperSep 6, 2010
Seriously, go win another Nobel prize and leave us ignorant folks alone!
realeskimopimpSep 6, 2010
WTF I can't edit my own comment? f**k this I'm going back to reddit.
uv0001Sep 6, 2010
Dude, why the hell did you ever decide to come back to this wasteland? Once I joined Reddit, I've never turned back. I'm only here right now for the s**ts and giggles of watching Digg die and the sad fanboys trying to form some kind of community that won't last.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nsapraSep 6, 2010
register to read an article... buried.... is there a way to bury digg v 4?
langfordSep 6, 2010
The report link maybe?
4heavenssakeSep 7, 2010
You don't yet have to register to read anything in the New York Times.
number23Sep 6, 2010
Politely put, the stimulus has been an unmitigated (dare I say miserable?) failure. A package of tax cuts, budget cuts and additional quantitative easing is what's required.
Don't be afraid of some inflation, it's necessary to get money moving again.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lordbeefSep 6, 2010
Budget cuts would just increase the rate of disinflation though. We're already very close to deflation as it is
number23Sep 7, 2010
True, but it would serve to ease public concerns regarding budget deficits and improve consumer confidence.
youareretardedSep 7, 2010
Obviously the public, is in general, stupid.
number23Sep 7, 2010
You're not concerned about obozo's budget deficits? You libs couldn't shut up about Bush's.
youareretardedSep 7, 2010
Of course I'm concerned, its just that I realize that in order to clean up Bush's colossal mess requires us to spend money in order to create a non bubble based economy.
As Bush would say, there is no magic wand to magically clean up this mess.
geenopeSep 6, 2010
Digg is finished. v4 has so many problems that it's unthinkable of how Kevin Rose could f**k up a website like this. Did he not even think of its users? "I GETZ MONEY f**k THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY KEEP THIS WEBSITE ALIVE"
cawpinSep 7, 2010
Really? You think he's getting money from publishers? God, you're f**king stupid.
think4yourselffSep 6, 2010
More like...New York Turds? Amirite?
Ahh f**k this digg is an excuse of a website now...they should just start with the porn banners if they don't want to be bankrupt in three days.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ddrskataSep 7, 2010
New York Turds? You're so clever. You should write for the New Yorker, or maybe a BBC comedy. Your wit, sir, is overwhelming.
superkendallSep 6, 2010
Krugman has no clue what can end the current recession, and no clue as to what caused the one in 1938 to end. For a complete counterpoint to Krugman's stack of revisionist history, read here:
http://www.krugmaniswrong.com/2010/09/06/lets-p...
Cut taxes and lower spending. It only works every single time it's ever been tried in history.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
stolemybikeSep 6, 2010
Like in the Bush years, right?
akchrsSep 6, 2010
Because the president can introduce bills and send pork to his home state <face palm>
stolemybikeSep 6, 2010
The president proposes the budget, and during the 2000 election Bush ran on his tax plan, which he signed into law after Congress passed it. If you think the president didn't have a hand in the tax and spending cuts, you're quite frankly wrong.
Source: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6621
superkendallSep 7, 2010
I never said Bush wasn't responsible either. Just that the Democrats had control and they decided if it got done.
What the hell is the deal with you people and Bush? He's out of office, while the Democrats AND Republicans who passed the stimulus still are. ALL OF THEM need to go and be replaced by people with sane fiscal policy. And we are starting to see GOP members lose primaries, which is exactly how that will happen.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pfs1Sep 6, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
digsuckSep 6, 2010
Haha, well if that's the case you'll have to spam alot harder than I did.
mbraynardSep 7, 2010
Since I've been banned a few times, here are some techniques:
1) On the question submission discussion for an Digg Interview with a woman, type "TOGTFO. "
2) Question someone's sexual orientation with the use of slurs.
3) Post a link to porn. There's website with naked photos of Obama's mother called Mofopolitics.com and I would recommend you go with that. Remember to say it is something other than porn so people open it at work and get fired, leading to your thread getting flagged.
Good luck, hombre!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
freelancerSep 7, 2010
Pure Evil, LOL LOL
gianpoSep 7, 2010
@pfs1
You are 100% wrong this is not the first time a new york times piece got to the front page with a log in screen I've seen it dozens of times on the old Digg so quit hating and go to Reddit already so we don't have to listen to your whining any more.
rolfSep 7, 2010
@mbraynard
Those pics aren't of Obama's mom.
http://www.snopes.com/photos/risque/dunham.asp
They're an identified 1950s pinup model.
Otherwise, carry on.
mbraynardSep 7, 2010
@rolf - Thanks for clarifying.
4heavenssakeSep 7, 2010
You don't yet have to register to read NYT articles, including opinions.
ghostalkerSep 7, 2010
Go out with a bang dude.
thegreenspanputSep 7, 2010
I joined reddit too and the content is so much better. Their users are a bit high & mighty about being original reddit users, but they are cool nonetheless. Digg 4 is a trainwreck, I can't believe they are so stubborn as to keep it.
bubbashineSep 6, 2010
Becoming more clear all the time what the Party of NO had planned for the country after the election of our new Democratic president -- Republican goal numero uno: handcuff any adequate economic recovery measures in order to improve their chances in the next election.
hipmanSep 6, 2010
too bad they don't control Congress.Your point is moot.
bubbashineSep 6, 2010
When not in a voting majority, they obstruct by adding thousands of procedural hurdles. Basically whatever they can do to buy some time for the communication wing over at Fox to execute a smear campaign.
twinklyjesusSep 6, 2010
Dude, its what they're supposed to do. Otherwise, they'd be f**king democrats, too.
idiot.
gianpoSep 7, 2010
@twinkyjesus
I've never seen a dumber comment in my life that's not what there supposed to do. What there supposed to do is what's best for the country not what's best for republican party. Jesus I can't believe how dumb you are I'm surprised that you even have enough brain power to work a computer well enough to leave that retarded comment.
Closed AccountSep 6, 2010
People are so stupid.
"handcuff any adequate economic recovery measures in order to improve their chances in the next election."
The dems own stimulus. It hasn't worked. Don't blame the Republicans. Seriously...you CONTROL the government.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
u2canfailSep 6, 2010
That is exactly the point, do everything you can to "stall recovery". Politics at it 's best. Obstruct, deny, and do not help. And the economy is still growing. The GOP was able to slow things down, keep a public plan out of health care reform. What a shame.
hackwrenchSep 7, 2010
Is there any chance that anyone could convince you that the reason the Republicans are doing what they are doing because they actually think that those steps are harmful and not beneficial for Americans, and not just to improve their chances in the next election?
Or even that the reason they will get elected is that there are plenty of people who also think that these are bad for America?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
youareretardedSep 7, 2010
Fortunately for those that don't believe that, facts are on our side.
Show me a low tax rate for the upper rich any time in US history along with a roaring economy and then you might have my attention.
exboatsSep 6, 2010
hi, iam newbi... say hello 1st.... ^_^
Closed AccountSep 6, 2010
hello
akchrsSep 6, 2010
What?? You have to register?? (I never read the articles anyways, I just commented)
inajeepSep 7, 2010
It shows.
irvman21Sep 6, 2010
Unmitigated failure, at a price tag of $5 billion per day being added to the national debt. The only possible explanation for 42% of the country still supporting Barry is that they are spectacular racists.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rssejSep 6, 2010
this is where we need the bury button.
cory849Sep 7, 2010
How is the hide button any different from the bury button?
obamayouthSep 6, 2010
This account has been closed.
web2pointblowmeSep 6, 2010
How are this ass-hat's articles constantly hitting the front page? And register-wall links at that! Is NYT engaging in pay-per-click with Digg or what?
As far as the article itself goes ...Krugman needs to pull his head out of his ass.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kennmacSep 6, 2010
A well constructed argument...
web2pointblowmeSep 7, 2010
I'm tired of writing lengthy and cogent rebuttals to Krugman's B.S. to only get it dug down by some anonymous d-bags that probably didn't even take the time to read past the first few lines where I typically call him an ass-hat.
At least you took the time to bust my balls and leave a calling card.
Closed AccountSep 6, 2010
He's a har-left ideologue. He recommends spending spending. It has failed. So what does he do...recommends more spending spending.
DOOM2012Sep 6, 2010
buried for krugman asshat
diggv4 is DEAD
principleSep 6, 2010
Obama finally got the message!
http://digg.com/news/politics/obama_promotes_new_jobs_program
yurmutha412Sep 6, 2010
Problem is, it's not 1938. Demand side stimulus doesn't work at all anymore because we have a completely global economy and the US is running large trade deficits so demand side stimulus helps China and India more than the US even though the US has to pay back all the money. We don't need more of that. China and India are doing quite well. We need to continue the supply side stimulus because it affects businesses in this country but those are going to be left return to higher taxesComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lazymojoSep 6, 2010
Krugman is a good economist, but he's willing to ignore any evidence that doesn't support his predetermined prescription for the economy. So I guess that makes him a bad policy advisor. Pumping money into the economy via debt is fine as long as the end goal is to create an economy that's better positioned to change the import/export ratio. The problem is that officials elected every 2 years would rather pump money into keeping inefficient state employees employed and increasing benefits for non-productive members of the population. Pumping up Social Security benefits, unemployment benefits, etc is great for the recipients, but it doesn't lead to a stronger economy because it's essentially consumption now rather than building capabilities. Its the difference between running up your credit card to buy a new plasma TV instead of starting your own home business.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
youareretardedSep 7, 2010
I agree with you but just who do think will get the economy going? The poor or jobless spending money on basic things and a few luxury items or a rich business person who may or may not have a business idea that will employ people?
Before you answer, keep in mind that there are more poor/unemployed than there are above average rich people.
In the long term we definitely need small businesses to grow but in order for that to happen we need to feel safe that the economy is getting better. Without the latter people looking to open up new businesses will be thinking twice.
madman666Sep 7, 2010
how bout... we start reporting stupid s**t like this and see what happens...
linuxpersonSep 7, 2010
An lolcatz article is more informative than this Krugman spam.
laptopsandpartSep 7, 2010
Oh, sorry strict website. hope you succeed. good luck
hblaskSep 7, 2010
Krugman: Always Wrong, All The Time (tm)
potherSep 7, 2010
Don't know about all the time, but it doesn't take too much thinking to see what he's missing.
WAR... the jobs created... manufacturing, and military soldiers/sailors/airmen.
So is there going to be a World War this time? Probably not.
Are there going to be thousands of manufacturing jobs created as steel plants and factories ramp up? Nope... besides the fact that our corporate execs have shipped most of the equipment overseas to factories in China.
And are we going to bulk up our military? Nope... in fact the last two wars used and reused Reserves instead of tremendously increasing our main forces.
So is a WAR going to get us out of this depression? I don't think so.
Nor is fixing the interstate/road system build primarily AFTER that last World War.
(Somehow I think the President misses the difference of scale between BUILD and REPAIR.)
This bit from the article was quite interesting:
"Consider Gallup polling from March 1938. Asked whether government spending should be increased to fight the slump, 63 percent of those polled said no. Asked whether it would be better to increase spending or to cut business taxes, only 15 percent favored spending; 63 percent favored tax cuts."
Hmm... seems some people in 1938 knew who actually makes jobs, and what might improve the economy to help them make those jobs... short of WAR... cut taxes sufficiently such that there is an incentive to start businesses HERE and NOW, instead of ELSEWHERE and LATER. But then WAR came, and provided the forced opportunity of HERE and NOW.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
youareretardedSep 7, 2010
Interesting, except for that fact that the marginal tax for the super rich was at an incredibly high level starting in 1932 all the way till 1963. Even still it wasn't till Reagan was in office that the top money makers had some of the lowest tax rates in history, interestingly it was the late 20's that had the lowest rates.
All you have proven is that the American public has always been stupid with regards to economics.
So again please show me some evidence that shows tax cuts leads to more job creation.
smashtaskerSep 7, 2010
Oh boy a log in page. Either way f**k you republicans and george w bush for ruining this country.
jrequenaSep 8, 2010
This was actually a really article for anyone who read it.
duncan202Sep 8, 2010
Really?
hattrick1369Sep 9, 2010
krugman=asshat
davidkincaSep 9, 2010
Why are people so naive to think the government is capable of helping the economy? Protect private property and stay out of the way of business - that's it. The government pushes inefficient financial activity through stimuli while crowding out more naturally occurring (and efficient) private sector activity. It's clearly prolonging the recession/depression we're in. If Bush, Obama, and Congress did absolutely nothing for the last 3 years we would be in better shape, especially in the long run.