Ep. 16 George W. Bush Was for Small Government, Says Krugman

2 January 2016     |     Tom Woods     |     10

Krugman says the GOP presidential candidates have all embraced the radical, anti-government views of George W. Bush. First, we were speechless. Then, we recorded an episode of Contra Krugman. Lew Rockwell joined us this week.

About the Guest

Lew Rockwell is founder and chairman of the Mises Institute, publisher of the libertarian website LewRockwell.com, and former chief of staff to Ron Paul.

Krugman Column

Doubling Down on W” (December 28, 2015)

Contra Column

The SEC Makes Wall Street More Fraudulent,” by Bob Murphy

Video Mentioned

Resource Mentioned

Learn Austrian Economics

Related Episode

Ep. 529 (The Tom Woods Show) Leftist Site Attacks Gold Standard; Here’s Our Smackdown

Need More Episodes?

Check out the Tom Woods Show, which releases a new episode every weekday. Become a smarter libertarian in just 30 minutes a day!

Share this post:Digg thisShare on FacebookGoogle+Share on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on Twitter
  • https://www.facebook.com/david.rogers.hunt David_Rogers_Hunt

    Excellent program again! I love listening to Lew calling out the statists for the monsters that they are!

    • Luke Perkins

      Who needs to imagine? =P

  • http://againstjebelallawz.wordpress.com/ Enopoletus Harding

    I thought the Krugman column this time around was half-reasonable.

  • JimD

    Rockwell comes across as a nasty guy: “liar”, “paper or lies”, “warmonger”, “creep”. Also maybe misinformed? Didn’t Bush cut taxes in 2001?

    • RobertRoddis

      Rockwell speaks the truth. And I love his style.

    • RobertRoddis

      Since the NYT is indeed the paper of lies, since Krugman is a monstrous liar, because Keynesianism is a dreadful hoax, because no Keynesian in the galaxy has ever bothered to learn the first thing about the Austrian School, or its analysis of the period 1913 to 1945 (much less the NAP), because the Keynesian and “progressive” M.O. in dealing with the Austrian School is ALWAYS nothing but name calling, what is so wrong about saying the truth out loud?

    • Luke Perkins

      All of what you cite was in Rockwell’s first comment at the beginning of the podcast. I am guessing you only listened for about ten minutes because had you listened longer, you would know Rockwell’s answer to your question “Didn’t Bush cut taxes in 2001?”

      Since you are not replying to Rockwell’s contention Bush merely prevented taxes from increasing rather than actually decreasing taxes, I can only assume you failed either to listen to the podcast or failed to comprehend the argument Rockwell was making.

      • JimD

        Thanks for commenting on my comment.

        Without getting too much more into the weeds, I don’t think there is much question that Bush cut taxes in 2001 and maybe reinforced the cut in 2003. The cut sunsetted in 2010 and Obama rolled back some of the cuts. I think Rockwell was at best confused and sort of conflated the various cuts and rollback.

  • http://klout.com/#/ilovegrover Thane_Eichenauer

    The facts are here. The emotions are not. If you could harness some of the Scott Adams energy imagine the yuuuuuuge results.

    “And that is why I should get the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.

    Paul Krugman, on the other hand, has done nothing for you lately. He is a total loser and drinks too much water. And look at that beard!”


  • Wilcynic

    I’d just like to say that Sanders has come out against NSA spying, so Rockwell’s comment at 13:12 that Sanders is a “surveillance guy” is not really true. I am actively opposed to Sanders, myself, but factual inaccuracies like that don’t make for a strong argument.