Best op-ed I've read in awhile

indy_maico
Posts
5094
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Indianapolis, IN US
Edited Date/Time 1/22/2012 6:09pm
From NYT:

All the President’s Zombies


By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: August 23, 2009

The debate over the “public option” in health care has been dismaying in many ways. Perhaps the most depressing aspect for progressives, however, has been the extent to which opponents of greater choice in health care have gained traction — in Congress, if not with the broader public — simply by repeating, over and over again, that the public option would be, horrors, a government program.

Washington, it seems, is still ruled by Reaganism — by an ideology that says government intervention is always bad, and leaving the private sector to its own devices is always good.

Call me naïve, but I actually hoped that the failure of Reaganism in practice would kill it. It turns out, however, to be a zombie doctrine: even though it should be dead, it keeps on coming.

Let’s talk for a moment about why the age of Reagan should be over.

First of all, even before the current crisis Reaganomics had failed to deliver what it promised. Remember how lower taxes on high incomes and deregulation that unleashed the “magic of the marketplace” were supposed to lead to dramatically better outcomes for everyone? Well, it didn’t happen.

To be sure, the wealthy benefited enormously: the real incomes of the top .01 percent of Americans rose sevenfold between 1980 and 2007. But the real income of the median family rose only 22 percent, less than a third its growth over the previous 27 years.

Moreover, most of whatever gains ordinary Americans achieved came during the Clinton years. President George W. Bush, who had the distinction of being the first Reaganite president to also have a fully Republican Congress, also had the distinction of presiding over the first administration since Herbert Hoover in which the typical family failed to see any significant income gains.

And then there’s the small matter of the worst recession since the 1930s.

There’s a lot to be said about the financial disaster of the last two years, but the short version is simple: politicians in the thrall of Reaganite ideology dismantled the New Deal regulations that had prevented banking crises for half a century, believing that financial markets could take care of themselves. The effect was to make the financial system vulnerable to a 1930s-style crisis — and the crisis came.

“We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals,” said Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1937. “We know now that it is bad economics.” And last year we learned that lesson all over again.

Or did we? The astonishing thing about the current political scene is the extent to which nothing has changed.

The debate over the public option has, as I said, been depressing in its inanity. Opponents of the option — not just Republicans, but Democrats like Senator Kent Conrad and Senator Ben Nelson — have offered no coherent arguments against it. Mr. Nelson has warned ominously that if the option were available, Americans would choose it over private insurance — which he treats as a self-evidently bad thing, rather than as what should happen if the government plan was, in fact, better than what private insurers offer.

But it’s much the same on other fronts. Efforts to strengthen bank regulation appear to be losing steam, as opponents of reform declare that more regulation would lead to less financial innovation — this just months after the wonders of innovation brought our financial system to the edge of collapse, a collapse that was averted only with huge infusions of taxpayer funds.

So why won’t these zombie ideas die?

Part of the answer is that there’s a lot of money behind them. “It is difficult to get a man to understand something,” said Upton Sinclair, “when his salary” — or, I would add, his campaign contributions — “depend upon his not understanding it.” In particular, vast amounts of insurance industry money have been flowing to obstructionist Democrats like Mr. Nelson and Senator Max Baucus, whose Gang of Six negotiations have been a crucial roadblock to legislation.

But some of the blame also must rest with President Obama, who famously praised Reagan during the Democratic primary, and hasn’t used the bully pulpit to confront government-is-bad fundamentalism. That’s ironic, in a way, since a large part of what made Reagan so effective, for better or for worse, was the fact that he sought to change America’s thinking as well as its tax code.

How will this all work out? I don’t know. But it’s hard to avoid the sense that a crucial opportunity is being missed, that we’re at what should be a turning point but are failing to make the turn.
|
indy_maico
Posts
5094
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Indianapolis, IN US
8/25/2009 11:58am
CR250Rider wrote:
bunch of crap
Yeah, what's Paul Krugman know about anything?

Paul Robin Krugman (pronounced /ˈkruːɡmən/[1]) (born February 28, 1953) is an American economist, liberal columnist, and author.[2] In 2008, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics for his contributions to New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography. The Nobel Prize Committee stated that Krugman's main contribution had been to analyze the impact of economies of scale, combined with the assumption that consumers appreciate diversity, on international trade and on the location of economic activity.[3] He is Professor of Economics and International Affairs at Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics, and op-ed columnist for The New York Times.[4][5]
bana0401
Posts
220
Joined
8/10/2009
Location
Central, MN US
8/25/2009 12:04pm
So he is a Nobel Prize winner. That discredits any opinion he may have. Besides he is really reaching on this one, its a bunch of crap
flarider
Posts
25499
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Daytona Beach, FL US
8/25/2009 12:05pm
CR250Rider wrote:
bunch of crap
What a thoughtful and concise response.
So enlightening

Your responses to his points were well made and and direct.

GREAT JOB!


The Shop

CR250Rider
Posts
6706
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Moses Lake, WA US
8/25/2009 12:06pm

Krugman's New York Times column last week reveals with alarming clarity that despite his pretensions of scholarship, Krugman’s economics can be reduced to Proudhon's famous socialist slogan, "Property is robbery."

The column is called “Dooh Nibor Economics.” That's "Robin Hood" spelled backwards. Not especially witty (what's next — a column in Pig Latin?), but the idea is clear enough: According to Krugman, Bush's tax cuts steal from the poor and give to the rich.

As Krugman puts it,

Bush's tax cuts will require large cuts in popular government programs. And for the vast majority of Americans, the losses from these cuts will outweigh any gains from lower taxes … The end result of current policies will be a large-scale transfer of income from the middle class to the very affluent.

Stop for a moment and examine the language Krugman is using here: "a large-scale transfer of income." What "income," exactly, is he talking about transferring?

It's clear enough that when you tax the incomes of people who work for a living, you can transfer it to people who don't in the form of welfare payments. More generally, when you tax the 20 percent of American households that pay 85 percent of total federal income taxes, and use that money to fund government services that benefit all Americans, you've given the other 80 percent of households "income" in the form of goods and services they didn't pay for.

In other words, in Krugman's language, when you steal from the rich and give to the poor, the poor now have an "income."
jtomasik
Posts
12898
Joined
8/17/2006
Location
Golden, CO US
8/25/2009 12:07pm Edited Date/Time 4/17/2016 1:46am
Looks to me like they'll hand out Nobel Memorial prizes to anybody.


Ever hear of Medicare? Social Security?

Medicare and Social Security in deep financial trouble


I'd like to know on what we're supposed to base this trust of the government's ability. The government consistently fails at the programs it creates, and the only way it recovers is by printing money at the expense of our children to keep their failures afloat. Should we just bury our head in the sand?

Show me a fully funded plan THAT BENEFITS ALL AMERICANS EQUALLY with a contingency, and I'll consider it.
CR250Rider
Posts
6706
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Moses Lake, WA US
8/25/2009 12:08pm
CR250Rider wrote:
bunch of crap
flarider wrote:
What a thoughtful and concise response.
So enlightening

Your responses to his points were well made and and direct.

GREAT JOB!


coming from the guy who likes / wants illegal immigrants to clean his pool and scrub his toilet.

flarider
Posts
25499
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Daytona Beach, FL US
8/25/2009 12:08pm
bana0401 wrote:
So he is a Nobel Prize winner. That discredits any opinion he may have. Besides he is really reaching on this one, its a bunch of...
So he is a Nobel Prize winner. That discredits any opinion he may have. Besides he is really reaching on this one, its a bunch of crap
Another thoughtful and concise response.
So enlightening

Your responses to his points were well made and and direct.

GREAT JOB!
flarider
Posts
25499
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Daytona Beach, FL US
8/25/2009 12:10pm
CR250Rider wrote:
bunch of crap
flarider wrote:
What a thoughtful and concise response.
So enlightening

Your responses to his points were well made and and direct.

GREAT JOB!


CR250Rider wrote:
coming from the guy who likes / wants illegal immigrants to clean his pool and scrub his toilet.

Dude, I clean my own pool and toilets

But thank you for providing us some insight into your vivid imagination and how you make things up


bana0401
Posts
220
Joined
8/10/2009
Location
Central, MN US
8/25/2009 12:14pm
The truth is I only read a little bit of it. I quite reading it when he insinuated the American public was dumb for following Reganism. Which is crap. The author is an idiot, and writes crap.
txmxer
Posts
9770
Joined
8/21/2006
Location
Weatherford, TX US
8/25/2009 12:29pm
The sad part of all this is the debate over the current plan is pretty simple. How is it paid for? How will it bring costs down?

I get sick of the right wingnuts that just throw stones because it's not their team, but the issue the left needs to come clean on is money.

As far as the right goes...give us some other alternatives? How would you propose to save money? Our system costs more and the results aren't exactly stellar. Is the right willing to go along with some real regulation and controls on insurance? What about pre-existing conditions? Is it just tough shit?
indy_maico
Posts
5094
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Indianapolis, IN US
8/25/2009 12:29pm
CR250Rider wrote:
Krugman's New York Times column last week reveals with alarming clarity that despite his pretensions of scholarship, Krugman’s economics can be reduced to Proudhon's famous socialist...

Krugman's New York Times column last week reveals with alarming clarity that despite his pretensions of scholarship, Krugman’s economics can be reduced to Proudhon's famous socialist slogan, "Property is robbery."

The column is called “Dooh Nibor Economics.” That's "Robin Hood" spelled backwards. Not especially witty (what's next — a column in Pig Latin?), but the idea is clear enough: According to Krugman, Bush's tax cuts steal from the poor and give to the rich.

As Krugman puts it,

Bush's tax cuts will require large cuts in popular government programs. And for the vast majority of Americans, the losses from these cuts will outweigh any gains from lower taxes … The end result of current policies will be a large-scale transfer of income from the middle class to the very affluent.

Stop for a moment and examine the language Krugman is using here: "a large-scale transfer of income." What "income," exactly, is he talking about transferring?

It's clear enough that when you tax the incomes of people who work for a living, you can transfer it to people who don't in the form of welfare payments. More generally, when you tax the 20 percent of American households that pay 85 percent of total federal income taxes, and use that money to fund government services that benefit all Americans, you've given the other 80 percent of households "income" in the form of goods and services they didn't pay for.

In other words, in Krugman's language, when you steal from the rich and give to the poor, the poor now have an "income."
At least you can attribute this.

It was written by Donald Luskin, a college drop-out.

Yeah, he has the credentials to be criticizing something written by Paul Krugman!

Notice this bit:

Krugman talks about the transfer of income from the middle-class to the affluent through tax cuts for the rich, and the resulting lack of money to fund programs that benefit the middle class.

Luskin turns this around by saying that this transfer is to the 'people who don't' work in the form of welfare payments, always a touchy issue to conservatives.

Then his conclusion is that by stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, that is what income Krugman is talking about.

How does that make any sense to anyone who can read?
fcr
Posts
9349
Joined
12/1/2006
Location
Monkeys Eyebrow YE
8/25/2009 12:35pm
txmxer wrote:
The sad part of all this is the debate over the current plan is pretty simple. How is it paid for? How will it bring costs...
The sad part of all this is the debate over the current plan is pretty simple. How is it paid for? How will it bring costs down?

I get sick of the right wingnuts that just throw stones because it's not their team, but the issue the left needs to come clean on is money.

As far as the right goes...give us some other alternatives? How would you propose to save money? Our system costs more and the results aren't exactly stellar. Is the right willing to go along with some real regulation and controls on insurance? What about pre-existing conditions? Is it just tough shit?
This is a breath of fresh air here. I was beginning to get the supplies ready for the impending clash between the sides.
Racer92
Posts
17966
Joined
8/15/2006
Location
Central, TX US
8/25/2009 12:51pm
fcr wrote:
This is a breath of fresh air here. I was beginning to get the supplies ready for the impending clash between the sides.
Ive had mine all along. Wink
Titan
Posts
1743
Joined
8/30/2007
Location
Lehi, UT US
8/25/2009 12:59pm
CR250Rider wrote:
bunch of crap
flarider wrote:
What a thoughtful and concise response.
So enlightening

Your responses to his points were well made and and direct.

GREAT JOB!


I'd say it's just a step above your one word "bullshit" responses that you've got a patent on...
jtomasik
Posts
12898
Joined
8/17/2006
Location
Golden, CO US
8/25/2009 1:05pm
indy_maico wrote:
At least you can attribute this. It was written by Donald Luskin, a college drop-out. Yeah, he has the credentials to be criticizing something written by...
At least you can attribute this.

It was written by Donald Luskin, a college drop-out.

Yeah, he has the credentials to be criticizing something written by Paul Krugman!

Notice this bit:

Krugman talks about the transfer of income from the middle-class to the affluent through tax cuts for the rich, and the resulting lack of money to fund programs that benefit the middle class.

Luskin turns this around by saying that this transfer is to the 'people who don't' work in the form of welfare payments, always a touchy issue to conservatives.

Then his conclusion is that by stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, that is what income Krugman is talking about.

How does that make any sense to anyone who can read?
I see. So, because the guy has better credentials, it automatically makes him right? Whatever happened to subject substance?

I still wanna know how I should disregard the consistent failings of the government (such as Medicare and Social Security) in similar federally managed social programs?

Answer it.
flarider
Posts
25499
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Daytona Beach, FL US
8/25/2009 1:06pm
txmxer wrote:
The sad part of all this is the debate over the current plan is pretty simple. How is it paid for? How will it bring costs...
The sad part of all this is the debate over the current plan is pretty simple. How is it paid for? How will it bring costs down?

I get sick of the right wingnuts that just throw stones because it's not their team, but the issue the left needs to come clean on is money.

As far as the right goes...give us some other alternatives? How would you propose to save money? Our system costs more and the results aren't exactly stellar. Is the right willing to go along with some real regulation and controls on insurance? What about pre-existing conditions? Is it just tough shit?
I agree

Can anyone provide a link to a Republican healthcare bill that's been introduced in the House?


I'd really love to see the alternative plan in detail

Thank you in advance for your help on this


flarider
Posts
25499
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Daytona Beach, FL US
8/25/2009 1:08pm
jtomasik wrote:
I see. So, because the guy has better credentials, it automatically makes him right? Whatever happened to subject substance? I still wanna know how I should...
I see. So, because the guy has better credentials, it automatically makes him right? Whatever happened to subject substance?

I still wanna know how I should disregard the consistent failings of the government (such as Medicare and Social Security) in similar federally managed social programs?

Answer it.
What automatically always makes you right?


indy_maico
Posts
5094
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Indianapolis, IN US
8/25/2009 1:08pm
jtomasik wrote:
I see. So, because the guy has better credentials, it automatically makes him right? Whatever happened to subject substance? I still wanna know how I should...
I see. So, because the guy has better credentials, it automatically makes him right? Whatever happened to subject substance?

I still wanna know how I should disregard the consistent failings of the government (such as Medicare and Social Security) in similar federally managed social programs?

Answer it.
I doubt that anyone who is on Social Security or Medicare would agree with you that they are 'consistent failings' of the govt.

Where would we, as a country, be now without them?

Answer it.
SEEMEFIRST
Posts
11531
Joined
8/21/2006
Location
Arlington, TX US
8/25/2009 1:09pm
txmxer wrote:
The sad part of all this is the debate over the current plan is pretty simple. How is it paid for? How will it bring costs...
The sad part of all this is the debate over the current plan is pretty simple. How is it paid for? How will it bring costs down?

I get sick of the right wingnuts that just throw stones because it's not their team, but the issue the left needs to come clean on is money.

As far as the right goes...give us some other alternatives? How would you propose to save money? Our system costs more and the results aren't exactly stellar. Is the right willing to go along with some real regulation and controls on insurance? What about pre-existing conditions? Is it just tough shit?
I want to here some new ideas as well, and have heard bits and pieces, but you really have to dig for them.

The whole argument (or bitchfest as it were) is growing tiresome, I agree, and why the Rebubs aren't out there shouting from the roof tops is beyond me.

I realize MSNBC wouldn't air such things, but there are outlets out there who will.
fcr
Posts
9349
Joined
12/1/2006
Location
Monkeys Eyebrow YE
8/25/2009 1:10pm
Didn't the Rebubs offer a 5 page plan ? I seem to recall the perpetual tan guy presenting something awhile back.
indy_maico
Posts
5094
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Indianapolis, IN US
8/25/2009 1:12pm
indy_maico wrote:
At least you can attribute this. It was written by Donald Luskin, a college drop-out. Yeah, he has the credentials to be criticizing something written by...
At least you can attribute this.

It was written by Donald Luskin, a college drop-out.

Yeah, he has the credentials to be criticizing something written by Paul Krugman!

Notice this bit:

Krugman talks about the transfer of income from the middle-class to the affluent through tax cuts for the rich, and the resulting lack of money to fund programs that benefit the middle class.

Luskin turns this around by saying that this transfer is to the 'people who don't' work in the form of welfare payments, always a touchy issue to conservatives.

Then his conclusion is that by stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, that is what income Krugman is talking about.

How does that make any sense to anyone who can read?
jtomasik wrote:
I see. So, because the guy has better credentials, it automatically makes him right? Whatever happened to subject substance? I still wanna know how I should...
I see. So, because the guy has better credentials, it automatically makes him right? Whatever happened to subject substance?

I still wanna know how I should disregard the consistent failings of the government (such as Medicare and Social Security) in similar federally managed social programs?

Answer it.
I pointed out a flaw in Luskin's logic, going somehow from A to C without stopping by B

Interesting bit on wicki about Luskin:

Conflicts with Paul Krugman

As a public intellectual, Luskin has been controversial. Much of his blog and many of his NRO columns are devoted to arguments that economic facts, figures, and trends are distorted by politicians, pundits and the media. He has a particular animosity towards the New York Times, especially columnist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, whose economic pronouncements he has endeavored to debunk. Luskin is de facto leader of what he calls the "Krugman Truth Squad," an ad hoc group of bloggers who are dedicated to detailing and rebutting what they consider Krugman's lies and distortions.

According to Daniel Okrent, former Public Editor of the Times, "Luskin serves as Javert to Krugman's Jean Valjean. From a perch on National Review Online, he regularly assaults Krugman's logic, his politics, his economic theories, his character and his accuracy."[9] Luskin claims that his work has resulted in corrections from Krugman and "the imposition of a new and more rigorous corrections policy for the entire Times editorial page."[10]

Krugman has occasionally responded directly to Luskin's criticisms. In one instance Luskin accused Krugman of making an arithmetical error in his appraisal of the costs and effects of the 2003 tax cuts.[11] Krugman responded with a series of postings on his website.[12] In one such posting, apparently referring to the persistence of Luskin's criticisms, Krugman humorously referred to Luskin as his "stalker-in-chief".[13] Later, after Luskin appeared at a Krugman book signing, Krugman said of Luskin on the FOX News television program Hannity and Colmes, "That's a guy, that's a guy who actually stalks me on the web, and once stalked me personally".[14] The animosity between Luskin and Krugman became so intense it became the subject of a story in The New Yorker with extensive remarks from both men.[15] Krugman's characterization of Luskin as a stalker was repeated by blogger Atrios (Duncan Black) prompting a threat of legal action from lawyers representing Luskin.[15][16]
Titan
Posts
1743
Joined
8/30/2007
Location
Lehi, UT US
8/25/2009 1:13pm
I'm not for regulation nor a public option, but I'm for regulation before a public option.

I'd like the left to define, exactly, which costs they are looking to bring down with a "public option"...insurance costs, or the true costs charged by doctors hospitals pharmacutials (sp?) etc....

It seems that by addressing ONLY the insurance costs (by becoming competition they are going to give Americans a cheaper option for health insurance), it isn't going to have much impact on the actual costs (or costs of care and services). Yes, it might have an indirect effect.

And if someone could point out a government ran program that doesn't lose money and can support itself financially (like obama said healthcare would do), I wouldn't be soooo against the government stuff. But as history dictates (and history does tend to repeat itself), if the government is running it, it's going to be a money pit....cost way more than expected, and lose billion of dollars every year. Not to mention be a model of inefficiency.

I think the government needs to let the prices run their course...eventually they'll come down...when the majority of people/companies can no longer afford them and stop paying for it. There are worse things in this life than death (which would happen more often if you couldn't afford healthcare), and one of the things at the top of that list, is living in a country that the liberals are turning this country into.
jtomasik
Posts
12898
Joined
8/17/2006
Location
Golden, CO US
8/25/2009 1:16pm Edited Date/Time 4/17/2016 1:46am
indy_maico wrote:
I doubt that anyone who is on Social Security or Medicare would agree with you that they are 'consistent failings' of the govt. Where would we...
I doubt that anyone who is on Social Security or Medicare would agree with you that they are 'consistent failings' of the govt.

Where would we, as a country, be now without them?

Answer it.
They are failing.

Medicare & Social Security in deep financial trouble


Anyone can cite a myopic view and claim success. However, on a system level, these programs have some serious problems.



Answered.

Again, answer mine.
DDub8
Posts
245
Joined
8/17/2006
Location
Austin, TX US
8/25/2009 1:27pm
SEEMEFIRST wrote:
I want to here some new ideas as well, and have heard bits and pieces, but you really have to dig for them. The whole argument...
I want to here some new ideas as well, and have heard bits and pieces, but you really have to dig for them.

The whole argument (or bitchfest as it were) is growing tiresome, I agree, and why the Rebubs aren't out there shouting from the roof tops is beyond me.

I realize MSNBC wouldn't air such things, but there are outlets out there who will.
Therein lies the problem with our political system. Plan A must be completely and thoroughly destroyed before Plan B can be considered. There's no compromise or listening to ideas from the other side. Why propose a new Plan B when it will be lost in the shuffle of destroying Plan A?

Rooster
Posts
4432
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Edmonton CA
8/25/2009 1:40pm
jtomasik wrote:
Looks to me like they'll hand out Nobel Memorial prizes to anybody. Ever hear of Medicare? Social Security? Medicare and Social Security in deep financial trouble...
Looks to me like they'll hand out Nobel Memorial prizes to anybody.


Ever hear of Medicare? Social Security?

Medicare and Social Security in deep financial trouble


I'd like to know on what we're supposed to base this trust of the government's ability. The government consistently fails at the programs it creates, and the only way it recovers is by printing money at the expense of our children to keep their failures afloat. Should we just bury our head in the sand?

Show me a fully funded plan THAT BENEFITS ALL AMERICANS EQUALLY with a contingency, and I'll consider it.
So where do I go to get my nobel prize?

Hey, I'm anybody too. I want my Nobel prize!
jtomasik
Posts
12898
Joined
8/17/2006
Location
Golden, CO US
8/25/2009 1:47pm
Oh, I see. Well, if I would've invested $50,000 in Microsoft in 1989, then I'd be retired now, too. Hindsight's 20/20. Reagan might've f-ed up SS, but the government hasn't been doing a damn thing to fix it since. And, the looming baby-boomer problem is even a bigger issue.


Underfunded is failure. Having to run in the red isn't success. The point is why I can't trust the government. I've answered it. I can't trust them.
jtomasik
Posts
12898
Joined
8/17/2006
Location
Golden, CO US
8/25/2009 1:50pm Edited Date/Time 4/17/2016 1:46am
Rooster wrote:
So where do I go to get my nobel prize?

Hey, I'm anybody too. I want my Nobel prize!

Ebay, of course:

Buy It Now!
bana0401
Posts
220
Joined
8/10/2009
Location
Central, MN US
8/25/2009 1:58pm
your agruement about taking income above 97,500.00 doesnt make any sense. They would have to adjust the highest social security benefit, which would eat up any additional revenue.
Racer92
Posts
17966
Joined
8/15/2006
Location
Central, TX US
8/25/2009 2:01pm


You gotta beleive me Your Honor, Im not a failure, my bank account is only underfunded.

Cool

Post a reply to: Best op-ed I've read in awhile

The Latest