NYT's Paul Krugman: Pay For Entitlements With Death Panels

[g5000]

Let's stipulate one of these neo-Keynesians believes in lowering taxes during prosperity.

Well, so does a member of the Austrian school.

Therefore, lower taxes during prosperity is NOT what distinguishes a Keynesian, new or old.

What distinguishes a Keynesian is the shit we heard from Krugman in the OP video. Tax our way to prosperity, and a nanny state.

Quack, quack, quack.

So where were we?

Oh, yeah. Krugman is a Keynesian loser. Krugman calling for more taxes and spending is as surprising and newsworthy as the sun rising.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Oh! Not very much more taxes. That's better! That's NEW Keynesianism. BWA-HA-HA!

Cutting taxes when things stabilize is not what distinguishes a Keynesian, dipshit.

that is what Krugman is advocating and it corrected your bs


as far as what makes a new Keynesian...use a search engine and then don't bother posting again

That is NOT what Krugman is advocating. Did you even listen to the video?

He plainly says we need to raise taxes to pay down the debt. He even mentions adding a VAT to the pile.

Listen to the video, then don't bother posting again.

"We won’t be able to pay for the kind of government the society will want without some increase in taxes… (not a huge one, but some increase in taxes) on the middle class, maybe a value added tax…" - rather than rely on a Brietbrat hack-job, I did listen

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Let's stipulate one of these neo-Keynesians believes in lowering taxes during prosperity. Well, so does a member of the Austrian school.
Therefore, lower taxes during prosperity is NOT what distinguishes a Keynesian, new or old. What distinguishes a Keynesian is the shit we heard from Krugman in the OP video. Tax our way to prosperity, and a nanny state.

Quack, quack, quack.

So where were we?

Oh, yeah. Krugman is a Keynesian loser. Krugman calling for more taxes and spending is as surprising and newsworthy as the sun rising.

Krugman never says the way to prosperity is through taxation. Krugman is not anti-capitalist. Krugman believes in the markets, just not the invisible hand up your ass. All you have to do to know what Krugman says is to read what he says...not read and view hack attacks against him that take things out of context or worse...lie through omission

have some self-respect and admit you don't actually know what you are talking about when it comes to Paul Krugman

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Inflating Your Way To Prosperity

One thing I often see in comments is people attributing to me, or to others, the notion that you can inflate your way to prosperity — which is presented as self-evidently absurd.

Well, if you think that it’s self-evidently absurd, you’ve been listening to the wrong people.

Nobody thinks that an economy operating somewhere near full employment can inflate its way to higher output. But under depression conditions — which is what we have now — inflation is very much a positive thing.

Here’s a quick example from Eichengreen and Sachs showing changes in the gold value of currencies 1929-35 versus changes in industrial production; the devaluation of currencies against gold was closely related to the changes in their overall price level:

Slow Learners

The WSJ has an article today pointing out that the euro crisis isn’t really about fiscal irresponsibility:

So if public debt is your yardstick, then the Spaniards were paragons of virtue. They borrowed lightly despite the fact that their euro-zone membership gave them an all-you-can-eat buffet of financing at bargain-basement rates.

As Europe scrambles to find a solution to a debt crisis that’s threatening the world economy, it’s crucial to understand what actually happened in countries like Spain. Otherwise, policymakers will end up prescribing the wrong medicine, with disastrous results.

That’s all true, and I’m glad to see it in the WSJ. But it’s presented as a startling insight, one that runs contrary to what everyone thinks. And that’s amazing and depressing.

I mean, this was obvious from the very beginning. Here’s what I wrote in February 2010:

The biggest trouble spot isn’t Greece, it’s Spain — which was running budget surpluses just a few years ago. True, Spain is running big deficits now — but that’s because of its economic collapse. And underlying that collapse is the real problem with the euro: one-size-fits-all monetary policy, which offers no relief to countries that suffer adverse shocks.

There are two things that are frustrating about the fiscalization of our discourse. First, it’s taking place even though many, probably most good economists have been arguing strenuously for a more sophisticated view. Second, many of the people insisting that deficits are the big issue probably don’t even realize that they’re taking a questionable position — it’s just part of what everyone thinks they know.

Against conventional wisdom, the gods themselves …

Sometimes (actually, often) it feels like I’m in one of those nightmares where you’re shouting, but nobody can hear you. And you wouldn’t really expect that to happen when you’re doing your shouting from a pretty prominent platform.

Slow Learners - NYTimes.com

Inflating Your Way To Prosperity - NYTimes.com


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/26/opinion/krugman-pointing-toward-prosperity.html?_r=0

Well, as I’ve said before, Mr. Romney’s “plan” is a sham. It’s a list of things he claims will happen, with no description of the policies he would follow to make those things happen. “We will cut the deficit and put America on track to a balanced budget,” he declares, but he refuses to specify which tax loopholes he would close to offset his $5 trillion in tax cuts.

Actually, if describing what you want to see happen without providing any specific policies to get us there constitutes a “plan,” I can easily come up with a one-point plan that trumps Mr. Romney any day. Here it is: Every American will have a good job with good wages. Also, a blissfully happy marriage. And a pony.

So Mr. Romney is faking it. His real plan seems to be to foster economic recovery through magic, inspiring business confidence through his personal awesomeness. But what about the man he wants to kick out of the White House?

...

 

[Stephanie]

LOL, and you fools who voted for this administration didn't think they'd come after you (the middle class) FOR MORE TAXES they will need

tsk tsk

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

go away Stephanie

we're 47%ers...we will pay no taxes...remember?



forgot the memo talking points?

 

[Stephanie]

go away Stephanie

we're 47%ers...we will pay no taxes...remember?



forgot the memo talking points?

You probably are one of the 47%er's

 

[Rozman]

The government intends to start by taking retirement accounts. Then of course they will have to eliminate the beneficiaries of those accounts.

I'd like to see how they justify that legally. It's the same as taking people's bank accounts.

I guessed you might have missed how Health Care got the OK.

Obama argues it's a mandate when the republicans were saying it was a tax.
Obama says it's not a tax.

The Supreme court says it won't fly as a mandate...

Obama's peeps say it's not a mandate it's a tax....

Supreme Court says nicely done.
Don't ever tell me that this administration can't do things.


There is just way tooo much money sitting on the sidelines being wasted according to Libs...
That money could be put to better use in the governments hands.

 

[gwennie]

Krugman used "death panels" the way I use "homos" in gay marriage debates. He is just using a term he knows his opponents want to use, thereby stealing it from them.

Like American revolutionaries did with "Yankee Doodle".


Every insurance company has a death panel. They always have. Medicaid and Medicare have always had death panels, too. Always. The piss drinkers, though, want you to believe Obama invented them.

"Death panels" did not come into the vernacular until some right wing dumb fucks assigned that name to a provision introduced by Congressman Blumenauer of Oregon which would pay for a doctor's visit for seniors to discuss with their doctors their end of life care.

This is, of course, the exact opposite of a death panel since the patient is actually involved in the decision making ahead of time. Such counseling sessions were not covered by insurance and Blumenauer wanted to ensure they would be.

And the UnConservatives, in typical Orwellian reverse doublethink, labeled this as "death panels".

Since then, to cover up their embarrassment over this mother of all gaffes, the nutjobs assign the label to a process that has existed as long as health insurance companies have existed. "Let's call a medical due diligence process which has been around forever 'death panels' and try to get people to believe Obama invented them!"

They doubled down on their idiocy, basically.

Oh look.....a liberal defending a comment made by another liberal, who has specifically stated that killing old people will eventually be required in order to sustain liberal govt programs. Oh, and another thing.....the middle class will have to pay for it!!! The idiotic, discriminatory, intolerant, hateful liberals trying desperately to distract/deny/distort in an attempt to avoid discussing something awful that another liberal just said. Granted, they can't blame Bush for it so they have nothing else to say.

 

[francoHFW]

MassCare and every other modern country prove O-care will be a great success and save TONS of money. It's the GOP plan, if they wern't total hypocrites, not Marxism lol. The dupes believe a pile of fear mongering Pubcrappe from Big Health and its Pub charlatans.

OP- Pure crappe- What did Krugman actually say, dupes?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

go away Stephanie

we're 47%ers...we will pay no taxes...remember?



forgot the memo talking points?

You probably are one of the 47%er's

= majority of USMB

 

[francoHFW]

Krugman is smart, dupes. Too bad you're brainwashed functional idiots LOL

On the day President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law, an exuberant Vice President Biden famously pronounced the reform a “big something deal” — except that he didn’t use the word “something.” And he was right.

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Paul Krugman

In fact, I’d suggest using this phrase to describe the Obama administration as a whole. F.D.R. had his New Deal; well, Mr. Obama has his Big Deal. He hasn’t delivered everything his supporters wanted, and at times the survival of his achievements seemed very much in doubt. But if progressives look at where we are as the second term begins, they’ll find grounds for a lot of (qualified) satisfaction.

Consider, in particular, three areas: health care, inequality and financial reform.

Health reform is, as Mr. Biden suggested, the centerpiece of the Big Deal. Progressives have been trying to get some form of universal health insurance since the days of Harry Truman; they’ve finally succeeded.

True, this wasn’t the health reform many were looking for. Rather than simply providing health insurance to everyone by extending Medicare to cover the whole population, we’ve constructed a Rube Goldberg device of regulations and subsidies that will cost more than single-payer and have many more cracks for people to fall through.

But this was what was possible given the political reality — the power of the insurance industry, the general reluctance of voters with good insurance to accept change. And experience with Romneycare in Massachusetts — hey, this is a great age for irony — shows that such a system is indeed workable, and it can provide Americans with a huge improvement in medical and financial security.

What about inequality? On that front, sad to say, the Big Deal falls very far short of the New Deal. Like F.D.R., Mr. Obama took office in a nation marked by huge disparities in income and wealth. But where the New Deal had a revolutionary impact, empowering workers and creating a middle-class society that lasted for 40 years, the Big Deal has been limited to equalizing policies at the margin.

That said, health reform will provide substantial aid to the bottom half of the income distribution, paid for largely through new taxes targeted on the top 1 percent, and the “fiscal cliff” deal further raises taxes on the affluent. Over all, 1-percenters will see their after-tax income fall around 6 percent; for the top tenth of a percent, the hit rises to around 9 percent. This will reverse only a fraction of the huge upward redistribution that has taken place since 1980, but it’s not trivial.

Finally, there’s financial reform. The Dodd-Frank reform bill is often disparaged as toothless, and it’s certainly not the kind of dramatic regime change one might have hoped for after runaway bankers brought the world economy to its knees.

Still, if plutocratic rage is any indication, the reform isn’t as toothless as all that. And Wall Street put its money where its mouth is. For example, hedge funds strongly favored Mr. Obama in 2008 — but in 2012 they gave three-quarters of their money to Republicans (and lost).

All in all, then, the Big Deal has been, well, a pretty big deal. But will its achievements last?

Mr. Obama overcame the biggest threat to his legacy simply by winning re-election. But George W. Bush also won re-election, a victory widely heralded as signaling the coming of a permanent conservative majority. So will Mr. Obama’s moment of glory prove equally fleeting? I don’t think so.

For one thing, the Big Deal’s main policy initiatives are already law. This is a contrast with Mr. Bush, who didn’t try to privatize Social Security until his second term — and it turned out that a “khaki” election won by posing as the nation’s defender against terrorists didn’t give him a mandate to dismantle a highly popular program.

And there’s another contrast: the Big Deal agenda is, in fact, fairly popular — and will become more popular once Obamacare goes into effect and people see both its real benefits and the fact that it won’t send Grandma to the death panels.

Finally, progressives have the demographic and cultural wind at their backs. Right-wingers flourished for decades by exploiting racial and social divisions — but that strategy has now turned against them as we become an increasingly diverse, socially liberal nation.

Obama's Big Deal - NYTimes.com
www.nytimes.com/2013/01/21/opinion/krugman-the-big-deal.html
Jan 20, 2013 ... By PAUL KRUGMAN ... Rather than simply providing health insurance to
everyone by extending Medicare .... More in Opinion (1 of 18 articles) ...

 

[bripat9643]

Pay for pensions and SS by reducing welfare. Welfare is a gift while SS is a promise.

I didn't make the promise, so why am I on the hook for it?

 

[Clementine]

Krugman is full of good ideas. I'm still impressed with his extremely creative idea to prepare for a fake alien invasion to stimulate the economy.

Between that and this, he's a regular genius........

Wow, Krugman's are the best ideas I've heard since someone suggested electric batteries and powdered water.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obamacare crushing the life out of the private sector

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Obamacare crushing the life out of the private sector

The private sector stands to gain much under Obamacare. If Obama were in a better position he should have taken profit out of medical health insurance like Switzerland did.

Interviews - Pascal Couchepin | Sick Around The World | FRONTLINE | PBS

 

[Mad Scientist]

OP- Pure crappe- What did Krugman actually say, dupes?

Listen to what Paul "Alien Invasion" Krugman actually said, FFW to 2:00 mark:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=H9u2Lf0DdzA#"]Krugman: "Death panels and sales taxes is how we do this" - YouTube[/ame]!

(Anybody else think Luddite and Franco are the same poster? )

 

[francoHFW]

Reducing welfare will happen when we recover from the Pub Great World Recession- get the hell out of the way, Pubs and silly dupes....

 

[Mad Scientist]

Reducing welfare will happen when we recover from the Pub Great World Recession- get the hell out of the way, Pubs and silly dupes....

Oh really? So where are these jobs gonna' come from oh great Krugman Disciple!

(This should be good)

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

no, listen and read....

[Hey! Hey! Hey! Whaddya say? Paulie's let...

and I will show you why:

--------------------------------------------------

"We won’t be able to pay for the kind of government the society will want without some increase in taxes…[words left out in quoted article] = "not a huge one, but some increase in taxes" on the middle class, maybe a value added tax…"

So the snarky version…which I shouldn’t even say because it will get me in trouble is death panels and sales taxes is how we do this.

snarky: sarcastic, impertinent, or irreverent in tone or manner

[youtube]H9u2Lf0DdzA[/youtube]


and the best part = The article started out as a Brietbrat hit-piece and they never tell their wingnutyy audience the whole truth, like maybe "President Obama does not listen to and take orders from Professor Paul Krugman"