|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Debunking the Reagan Myth by Americas' leading writer
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Debunking the Reagan Myth by Americas' leading writer
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| Bronks Breasts |
Debunking the Reagan Myth
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: January 21, 2008
Historical narratives matter. That’s why conservatives are still writing books denouncing F.D.R. and the New Deal; they understand that the way Americans perceive bygone eras, even eras from the seemingly distant past, affects politics today.
Skip to next paragraph
And it’s also why the furor over Barack Obama’s praise for Ronald Reagan is not, as some think, overblown. The fact is that how we talk about the Reagan era still matters immensely for American politics.
Bill Clinton knew that in 1991, when he began his presidential campaign. “The Reagan-Bush years,” he declared, “have exalted private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family. The 1980s ushered in a Gilded Age of greed and selfishness, of irresponsibility and excess, and of neglect.”
Contrast that with Mr. Obama’s recent statement, in an interview with a Nevada newspaper, that Reagan offered a “sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”
Maybe Mr. Obama was, as his supporters insist, simply praising Reagan’s political skills. (I think he was trying to curry favor with a conservative editorial board, which did in fact endorse him.) But where in his remarks was the clear declaration that Reaganomics failed?
For it did fail. The Reagan economy was a one-hit wonder. Yes, there was a boom in the mid-1980s, as the economy recovered from a severe recession. But while the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans. By the late 1980s, middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before — and the poverty rate had actually risen.
When the inevitable recession arrived, people felt betrayed — a sense of betrayal that Mr. Clinton was able to ride into the White House.
Given that reality, what was Mr. Obama talking about? Some good things did eventually happen to the U.S. economy — but not on Reagan’s watch.
For example, I’m not sure what “dynamism” means, but if it means productivity growth, there wasn’t any resurgence in the Reagan years. Eventually productivity did take off — but even the Bush administration’s own Council of Economic Advisers dates the beginning of that takeoff to 1995.
Similarly, if a sense of entrepreneurship means having confidence in the talents of American business leaders, that didn’t happen in the 1980s, when all the business books seemed to have samurai warriors on their covers. Like productivity, American business prestige didn’t stage a comeback until the mid-1990s, when the U.S. began to reassert its technological and economic leadership.
I understand why conservatives want to rewrite history and pretend that these good things happened while a Republican was in office — or claim, implausibly, that the 1981 Reagan tax cut somehow deserves credit for positive economic developments that didn’t happen until 14 or more years had passed. (Does Richard Nixon get credit for “Morning in America”?)
But why would a self-proclaimed progressive say anything that lends credibility to this rewriting of history — particularly right now, when Reaganomics has just failed all over again?
Like Ronald Reagan, President Bush began his term in office with big tax cuts for the rich and promises that the benefits would trickle down to the middle class. Like Reagan, he also began his term with an economic slump, then claimed that the recovery from that slump proved the success of his policies.
And like Reaganomics — but more quickly — Bushonomics has ended in grief. The public mood today is as grim as it was in 1992. Wages are lagging behind inflation. Employment growth in the Bush years has been pathetic compared with job creation in the Clinton era. Even if we don’t have a formal recession — and the odds now are that we will — the optimism of the 1990s has evaporated.
This is, in short, a time when progressives ought to be driving home the idea that the right’s ideas don’t work, and never have.
It’s not just a matter of what happens in the next election. Mr. Clinton won his elections, but — as Mr. Obama correctly pointed out — he didn’t change America’s trajectory the way Reagan did. Why?
Well, I’d say that the great failure of the Clinton administration — more important even than its failure to achieve health care reform, though the two failures were closely related — was the fact that it didn’t change the narrative, a fact demonstrated by the way Republicans are still claiming to be the next Ronald Reagan.
Now progressives have been granted a second chance to argue that Reaganism is fundamentally wrong: once again, the vast majority of Americans think that the country is on the wrong track. But they won’t be able to make that argument if their political leaders, whatever they meant to convey, seem to be saying that Reagan had it right. |
|
|
| patcracker |
| Blasphemy..... Reagan was Godly..... He sucked ass. I served in the Army with that asshole as President and his policies fucked over alot of Vietnam veterans. Im glad he had a slow and painful death. Its Karma bitch. |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
| Krugman is a Clinton hack |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
Krugman is a Clinton hack |
But why would a self-proclaimed progressive say anything that lends credibility to this rewriting of history — particularly right now, when Reaganomics has just failed all over again?
He's absolutely right about that.
....for me its still:
1. K-dog
2. Edwards
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
V
3. Obama
Obama hasn't given Progressives much to work with. Still waiting..... |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Now progressives have been granted a second chance to argue that Reaganism is fundamentally wrong: once again, the vast majority of Americans think that the country is on the wrong track. But they won’t be able to make that argument if their political leaders, whatever they meant to convey, seem to be saying that Reagan had it right.
:ps: :ps: :ps:
Thus the Democratic Establishment continues to fail us.
Is Obama "closer" to Hillary/establishment or Kucinich/Edwards/progressives?
:dontknow: |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
Krugman is a Clinton hack |
Hence his blasting Obama on health care (even though the only difference between both plans is a mandate) and this, which feeds into Bill and Hillary's slamming of Obama's praise for Reagan's ability to build a coalition.
I'd like Krugman to answer if he really believes that another Clinton, the last one having lost the Congress in a wipeout, will be able to build the coalition that Obama is talking about.
But, as you pointed out, Krugman is a Clinton hack who would have the audacity to say yes, she would. |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
Now progressives have been granted a second chance to argue that Reaganism is fundamentally wrong: once again, the vast majority of Americans think that the country is on the wrong track. But they won’t be able to make that argument if their political leaders, whatever they meant to convey, seem to be saying that Reagan had it right.
:ps: :ps: :ps:
Thus the Democratic Establishment continues to fail us.
Is Obama "closer" to Hillary/establishment or Kucinich/Edwards/progressives?
:dontknow: |
I wouldn't put Edwards in with Kucinich - Edwards is closer to the establishment than Kucinich is, as is Obama.
That being said, Obama and Edwards are running away from the establishment (denouncing lobbyists, for example) compared to Clinton, who is the establishment (no matter how many times Bill calls her "the insurgent"). |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Oh, almost forgot -
Krugman described as "America's leading writer."
:lol: |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheTurd
I wouldn't put Edwards in with Kucinich - Edwards is closer to the establishment than Kucinich is, as is Obama. |
Yeah, thanks for the tip, Ensign Obvious.
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
Yeah, thanks for the tip, Ensign Obvious.
:rolleyes: |
Well don't toss Edwards in with Kucinich as the "progressives." Check the voting records.
Credit when due - Ensign Obvious is clever. |
|
|
| zimmie |
Why even talk about Edwards, he's done, no money, no organization, just a schill of the Trail Lawyers lobby.
Lets get back to the hair pulling, scratching and kicking that has become the 3 Democrats left, Bill/Hill versus ObamaRama.
You know, the Democrats idea of "change". One a former member of the Board of Directors at WalMart, the other an attorney who represented slum landlords in Chicago. |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
Krugman is a Clinton hack |
And former ENRON advisor....shortly before the fall......go figure... :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
But why would a self-proclaimed progressive say anything that lends credibility to this rewriting of history — particularly right now, when Reaganomics has just failed all over again?
He's absolutely right about that.
....for me its still:
1. K-dog
2. Edwards
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
V
3. Obama
Obama hasn't given Progressives much to work with. Still waiting..... |
Are you serious? First off...Obama did not say anything whatsoever about Reagan having GOOD ideas, but rather discussed him as an EFFECTIVE president.
raising the cap on SS
taxing capital gains as regular income
abolishing mandatory minimum sentences
how are those not heavily progressive ideas?
And if you really want some progressive ideas to go into effect, wouldnt you like somebody who would be able to get it passed? |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
Are you serious? First off...Obama did not say anything whatsoever about Reagan having GOOD ideas, but rather discussed him as an EFFECTIVE president.
raising the cap on SS
taxing capital gains as regular income
abolishing mandatory minimum sentences
how are those not heavily progressive ideas?
And if you really want some progressive ideas to go into effect, wouldnt you like somebody who would be able to get it passed? |
Nothing in ANY WAY positive should be attributed to Reagan if we are to ever break through the brainwashing and false history narratives. Period. Hitler was "effective" too....why not bring him up? Genghis Khan?
Obama fails to address the root cause of our problems (corporate Tyranny) with any specificity, directness or energy.
I didn't say he doesn't have ANY progressive ideas, just not enough. He is no Champion of them. I don't want scraps thrown to me. Those "issues" are fucking no-brainers.
If you know what the real problem is, say so and spend every second you can pounding away at it. If you don't know what the central problem is, then you certainly aren't worth a vote.
Believe me, I want to like him and vote for him. But he is not the most progressive candidate in the race.
The issue of corporate power is the biggest "weakness" of the GOP. Not highlighting the (supposed) difference between the parties, is the height of stupidity and folly. It is the central issue of America's future.
:dontknow: |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
Well don't toss Edwards in with Kucinich as the "progressives." Check the voting records.
Credit when due - Ensign Obvious is clever. |
Cunt,
The point I was making is that Obama isn't EVEN an Edwards. Edwards is talking about THE central issues. That is ALL THAT MATTERS. That outshines the instances of non-Progressiveness that may or may not be in his past "record".
Obama is not addressing the central issues to my liking, and therefore that overshadows the token progressive stances he HAS taken.
Follow yet, dipshit?
Kucinich is a Progressive. Edwards has been evolving into one.
:ps: |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
Hence his blasting Obama on health care (even though the only difference between both plans is a mandate) and this, which feeds into Bill and Hillary's slamming of Obama's praise for Reagan's ability to build a coalition.
I'd like Krugman to answer if he really believes that another Clinton, the last one having lost the Congress in a wipeout, will be able to build the coalition that Obama is talking about.
But, as you pointed out, Krugman is a Clinton hack who would have the audacity to say yes, she would. |
Exactly...for months Krugman has been attacking Obama at every turn. Here is another place where he essentially attacks Obama on things Obama never said. Debating whether Reagan was a GOOD president has nothing whatsoever to do with anything Obama said about Reagan. Are the Clintons and Krugman denying that Reagan won over support from Democrats who didn't necessarily agree with Reagan's politics? If so, they may want to re-look at the election results of '84.
The point Obama was making was in regards to expanding the playing field and reaching over and getting support from disgruntled Republicans in the same way Reagan was able to get support from disgruntled Democrats.
He said the Republicans were the party of ideas, and even Clinton agreed to that last night. She then tried to say they were BAD IDEAS, which is nothing different from what Obama said. He never once even implied they were good ideas, but rather they were new fresh ideas that the Democrats have not had in a long time. Bill Clinton was not a transformative president because a lot of the platform he ran on was as a centrist...basically he was running as a Reagan Democrat |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
Now progressives have been granted a second chance to argue that Reaganism is fundamentally wrong: once again, the vast majority of Americans think that the country is on the wrong track. But they won’t be able to make that argument if their political leaders, whatever they meant to convey, seem to be saying that Reagan had it right.
:ps: :ps: :ps:
Thus the Democratic Establishment continues to fail us.
Is Obama "closer" to Hillary/establishment or Kucinich/Edwards/progressives?
:dontknow: |
Obama favors aboloshing mandatory minimum sentences - Hillary doesn't
Obama favors taxing capital gains as income - Hillary doesn't
Obama favors a healthcare plan that can pass congress - Hillary and Edwards do not
Obama favors raising the cap on ss, making it at least somewhat more equitable - Hillary strongly opposes this
Also, its not Obama that was having a private meeting after the debate last night, a debate where Hillary and Edwards teamed up repeatedly (Although I doubt Obama will cry over it)
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-...dem_debate.html |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
He said the Republicans were the party of ideas, and even Clinton agreed to that last night. She then tried to say they were BAD IDEAS, which is nothing different from what Obama said. He never once even implied they were good ideas, but rather they were new fresh ideas that the Democrats have not had in a long time. Bill Clinton was not a transformative president because a lot of the platform he ran on was as a centrist...basically he was running as a Reagan Democrat |
But that is why it is so stupid. Feudalism and Tyranny are hardly "fresh" or "new" ideas. The Republicans aren't the party of "ideas". They are the party of ignorance and delusion, who's Ideology can be traced back to the caveman.
Obama does not know this?
Is Obama part of the establishment/compromised track of the Democratic party, or more on the Dean, Gore, Kucinich, Edwards track???
I'm telling you I don't know.
:dontknow: |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
Obama favors aboloshing mandatory minimum sentences - Hillary doesn't
Obama favors taxing capital gains as income - Hillary doesn't
Obama favors a healthcare plan that can pass congress - Hillary and Edwards do not
Obama favors raising the cap on ss, making it at least somewhat more equitable - Hillary strongly opposes this
Also, its not Obama that was having a private meeting after the debate last night, a debate where Hillary and Edwards teamed up repeatedly (Although I doubt Obama will cry over it)
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-...dem_debate.html |
I'm not comparing him to Hillary. Hillary is the best Republican candidate running.
I'm comparing him to Edwards. I'm comparing him to what I want to hear and what I know to be true.
Does he know what the central issue is or not? If he does, he should speak more on it, since it is the single most issue that could differentiate the Dem nominee from whatever goose-stepper the GOP props up.
He does want to win the general should he be nominated right???
:dontknow:
RT,
If he is the nominee, I will pull the lever for him. He, K-dog, and Edwards are the only ones I would do so for.
But I am not as excited about him as I would like to be.
:ps: |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
But that is why it is so stupid. Feudalism and Tyranny are hardly "fresh" or "new" ideas. The Republicans aren't the party of "ideas". They are the party of ignorance and delusion, who's Ideology can be traced back to the caveman.
Obama does not know this?
Is Obama part of the establishment/compromised track of the Democratic party, or more on the Dean, Gore, Kucinich, Edwards track???
I'm telling you I don't know.
:dontknow: |
privatizing social security was a new idea
Reaganomics was a new idea
welfare reform was a new idea
Whether they are good ideas or not is not the point Obama was making. Rather, the democrats have been running only against the republicans for the past 8 years, rather than pushing forward their own agenda. Obama was saying it is important to look at why and how the Republicans were able to win major control over the government and what they can learn to A - not allow it to happen again and B - see where they were effective and use those tools to help shape our own policies.
And I like that Edwards has basically apologized for his entire senate run and most of his votes, but that doesnt inspire confidence in me that he will show good judgment on future situations. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
privatizing social security was a new idea
Reaganomics was a new idea
welfare reform was a new idea
|
Fucking over the people in favor of the rich and powerful is NOT a new "idea". |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
Fucking over the people in favor of the rich and powerful is NOT a new "idea". |
so any bad idea is simply not an idea at all? |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
so any bad idea is simply not an idea at all? |
An idea can be an idea (bad or good) without it being "new" (or "fresh").
|
|
|
| zimmie |
| C'mon boyz, climb on board the Hillary train....choo CHOO! |
|
|
| Bronks Breasts |
| I have an idea.. Let's make Boots the President of the United States.... what, it is a bad idea.?.. well it is AN idea |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
Quote: Originally posted by Bronks Breasts
I have an idea.. Let's make Boots the President of the United States.... what, it is a bad idea.?.. well it is AN idea |
can you find anything incorrect with what Obama said? Do you think the Democrats have had excellent campaigns in 2000 and 2004?
I understand you want Republicans to actually die for their beliefs, so Obama saying that they are Americans too and should be reached out to is blasphemy to your ears, but there is nothing Obama said that was innacurate.
Krugman's piece is nothing more than a Straw Man argument |
|
|
| Bronks Breasts |
| Rev... If just having an idea is superior to bad ideas what is the bottom ? I mean I have an idea let's nationlize energy and pharmacuticals. To me that is a great idea others will think I am full of shit. I was in my mid 220's in the mid 1980's and all Reagan did was use a credit card to bankrupt this country. He " defeated " the USSR by allowing them to spend far too much money in their silly attempt to take over Afghanistan Reagan stood by and oversaw the murdering of nuns in El Salvador. I wish his death would have happened the day he was elected. His cabinet was as corrupt as this set of thieves Bad ideas do not trump no ideas. |
|
|
| Bronks Breasts |
| Rev,, and no the Dems ran shitty campaigns in 2000 ( which they won ), and in 2004 ( which they won again ) Hell Gore could not even win his own state and did not rely on Clinton nearly enough, and Kerry stood by and watched the swiftboat fuckers lie about him and basically said nothing, but the 2004 election was won by Kenneth Blackwell and the CEO of Diebold, and not this Thief in Chief. |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
Quote: Originally posted by Bronks Breasts
Rev... If just having an idea is superior to bad ideas what is the bottom ? I mean I have an idea let's nationlize energy and pharmacuticals. To me that is a great idea others will think I am full of shit. I was in my mid 220's in the mid 1980's and all Reagan did was use a credit card to bankrupt this country. He " defeated " the USSR by allowing them to spend far too much money in their silly attempt to take over Afghanistan Reagan stood by and oversaw the murdering of nuns in El Salvador. I wish his death would have happened the day he was elected. His cabinet was as corrupt as this set of thieves Bad ideas do not trump no ideas. |
And yet he managed to completely trounce the fuck out of Mondale...THAT IS THE POINT OBAMA WAS MAKING...That Reagan was able to get Democrats to vote against their own interests to elect Reagan. Going for a 50+1 majority is what has failed us these last 2 elections. And whatever you say about voter fraud, that is only possible when Gore and Kerry repeatedly self-sabotage their own campaigns to make it close enough to steal. |
|
|
| jigzaw |
| Rev, you're trying to make a well-thought out point to a bunch of reactionary partisans. They don't think in terms of ideas. They think in bromides and clever insults to whoever isn't a "believer". |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
And yet he managed to completely trounce the fuck out of Mondale...THAT IS THE POINT OBAMA WAS MAKING...That Reagan was able to get Democrats to vote against their own interests to elect Reagan. |
But that is still stupid, because it would be in their own better interests for repukes TO vote Dem....so the analogy is fallacious.
It isn't fooling repukes to get them to vote against the GOP....its waking them up.
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
Going for a 50+1 majority is what has failed us these last 2 elections. |
Absolutely.
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
And whatever you say about voter fraud, that is only possible when Gore and Kerry repeatedly self-sabotage their own campaigns to make it close enough to steal. |
The real sabotage took place when Gore tried to hide his progressivism by choosing LIEberman, and when Dean was submarined and marginalized by the establishment for the republican-lite Kerry.
The answer is to become more progressive, not hue to the bankrupt, failed, establishment track.
I support the most progressive candidate, and not just because that is my conscience.
I also think its the best chance to win.
Edwards is a white, southern male. Unlike with Obama and Hillary, all that leaves in the general is the issues. And as a happy coincidence, Edwards is the most thought-out on the most important issue of the day, and how it contrasts with the Fascists of the GOP.
Slam-dunk victory.
:ps: |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
| Its the point of reaching across the aisle and geting people to vote for you regardless of whether or not they agree with you on every political issue. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
Its the point of reaching across the aisle and geting people to vote for you regardless of whether or not they agree with you on every political issue. |
I'd rather educate the people as to the real issues/truth. We should all agree on the big picture political issues, yet we don't. Millions and millions of us are DUPED SUCKERS at best.
Combating the ignorance, propaganda, and false history narratives is the best way to ensure the people demand and vote for, candidates that are True.
Its not enough Obama tell/get people to vote for him. For real, permanent "change", we need for the people to understand why republicanism/conservatism/Bushism has failed and betrayed us.
Otherwise, history will just keep repeating itself. No lessons will be learned.
:ps: |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
I just want Obama to move more towards K-dog....its the moral thing to do!:
Kucinich and Obama
:jj: |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
I'd rather educate the people as to the real issues/truth. We should all agree on the big picture political issues, yet we don't. Millions and millions of us are DUPED SUCKERS at best.
Combating the ignorance, propaganda, and false history narratives is the best way to ensure the people demand and vote for, candidates that are True.
Its not enough Obama tell/get people to vote for him. For real, permanent "change", we need for the people to understand why republicanism/conservatism/Bushism has failed and betrayed us.
Otherwise, history will just keep repeating itself. No lessons will be learned.
:ps: |
You know as a Republican it's fun to watch the Democrats squabbling like this, just as you take so much joy in what you perceive to be a "failed" political ideology.
What's ironic is that you Edwards/Clinton dipshits are throwing Obama under the bus for saying something that is remotely positive about what Ronald Reagan achieved for the Republican party. What's more, Obama is simply saying that he wants to do for the Democrats (build a large coalition, not just maintain the base) what Reagan did in the 80s (ever hear the term "Reagan Democrat?"). Obama is saying that this moment is history is ripe to pull that off. Yet you toss him under the bus the way Clinton and Edwards did.
Hey, go ahead and continue to bash Obama for wanting to expand the Democrat Party - you'll find out what a terrible mistake you've made by bashing him and paving the way for the Clintons. |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
leading writer
lol
steven king is moreleading than this clinton suck ass
( are we allowed to mention clinton , dems don't like that ) |
|
|
| Bronks Breasts |
| moreleading. ? .. dude.. thanks for the incessant laughter.. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
| VaCunt isn't much for reading comp.... |
|
|
| zimmie |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
You know as a Republican it's fun to watch the Democrats squabbling like this, just as you take so much joy in what you perceive to be a "failed" political ideology.
What's ironic is that you Edwards/Clinton dipshits are throwing Obama under the bus for saying something that is remotely positive about what Ronald Reagan achieved for the Republican party. What's more, Obama is simply saying that he wants to do for the Democrats (build a large coalition, not just maintain the base) what Reagan did in the 80s (ever hear the term "Reagan Democrat?"). Obama is saying that this moment is history is ripe to pull that off. Yet you toss him under the bus the way Clinton and Edwards did.
Hey, go ahead and continue to bash Obama for wanting to expand the Democrat Party - you'll find out what a terrible mistake you've made by bashing him and paving the way for the Clintons. |
Good point but way over the heads of those mesmerized with visions of "corporate tyranny" and everybody with a few bucks in their pockets are evil and out to get them BOO!
.....such silliness, but comical to read |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by zimmietard
Good point but way over the heads of those mesmerized with visions of "corporate tyranny" and everybody with a few bucks in their pockets are evil and out to get them BOO! |
....ignorant dipshit says what?
:freak: |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Uh-oh, looks like the Liberal Media (the Washington Post) called out "America's Leading writer" for the bullshit artist and Clinton apologist that he is.
"Whoops"
Krugman vs. Krugman
By Ruth Marcus
Wednesday, November 21, 2007; A17
In liberal Democratic circles, the debate over Social Security has taken a dangerous "don't worry, be happy" turn.
The argument has two equally dishonest components. The first is to deny that Social Security faces a daunting financing problem -- one that will be much easier to fix (and less onerous for the low-income retirees that the head-in-the-sanders purport to care about) sooner rather than later. The second is to mischaracterize the arguments of those who advocate responsible action, accusing them of hyping the system's woes.
One prominent practitioner of this misguided approach is New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. "Inside the Beltway, doomsaying about Social Security -- declaring that the program as we know it can't survive the onslaught of retiring baby boomers -- is regarded as a sort of badge of seriousness, a way of showing how statesmanlike and tough-minded you are," Krugman wrote last week. "In fact, the whole Beltway obsession with the fiscal burden of an aging population is misguided."
Somebody should introduce Paul Krugman to . . . Paul Krugman.
"[A] decade from now the population served by those programs [Social Security and Medicare] will explode. . . . Because of those facts, merely balancing the federal budget would be a deeply irresponsible policy -- because that would leave us unprepared for the demographic deluge, with no alternative once it arrives except to raise taxes and slash benefits." (July 11, 2001)
"Broadly speaking, the next administration . . . will face two big economic tests. One . . . is whether it can stick to a fiscal policy, including a policy toward Social Security, that prepares this country for the demographic deluge." (Nov. 12, 2000)
"The reason Social Security is in trouble is that the system has a large 'hole' -- basically a hidden debt -- because previous generations of retirees were paid benefits out of the contributions of younger workers . . . a multitrillion-dollar debt that somebody has to pay." (Oct. 1, 2000)
"[B]ecause the baby boomers' contributions were used to provide generous benefits to earlier generations, there isn't enough money in the system to pay the benefits promised to the boomers themselves." (June 21, 2000)
In addition to this fiscal amnesia, Krugman misrepresents responsible voices in the debate.
First, he quoted a new paper by Congressional Budget Office Director Peter Orszag and CBO analyst Philip Ellis. Notwithstanding "all the attention paid to demographic challenges," they conclude, "our country's financial health will in fact be determined primarily by the growth rate of per capita health care costs."
True, but Krugman omits any mention of Orszag's latest book, inconveniently titled "Saving Social Security." Orszag and co-author Peter Diamond wrote that "Social Security's projected financial difficulties are real and that addressing those difficulties sooner rather than later would make sensible reforms easier and more likely."
Krugman then takes on The Post for an October editorial that, in his skewed retelling, castigated Hillary Clinton"for, um, not being panicky about Social Security." *Clinton Apologist
I write for the Post editorial page, including sometimes on Social Security, and, um, the editorial said nothing about panicking. It quoted one Bill Clinton, circa 1998, saying: "Every single year we avoid resolving this, it will get harder and harder and harder."
The brunt of Krugman's ire is directed at Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama for daring to suggest an increase in the amount of income subject to Social Security payroll taxes -- and using the "c" word (crisis) in an interview with National Journal's Linda Douglass. Krugman says the Illinois senator is being "played for a fool" by raising concerns about Social Security and criticizing Hillary Clinton for ducking the issue. *Doing Clinton's Bidding By Slamming Obama
Hard to square with Krugman of 1996, who praised "sensible proposals" to "slow the growth in benefit levels, gradually raise the retirement age . . . and -- last but not least -- raise taxes moderately now, rather than massively later."
I acknowledge: Medicare is a bigger problem than Social Security. It's also harder to solve, both because it is more complicated and because it involves the larger question of rising health-care costs. That doesn't argue for ignoring Social Security but for tackling it first.
Also, Social Security's problems may not be as large as projected if economic growth is better than anticipated. Likewise, my salary might increase faster than I expect in the next 20 years. Yet that doesn't mean I should stop saving for retirement.
"Where is the crisis? Just over the horizon, that's where. . . . Responsible adults are supposed to plan more than seven years ahead. Yet if you think even briefly about what the Federal budget will look like in 20 years, you immediately realize that we are drifting inexorably toward crisis; if you think 30 years ahead, you wonder whether the Republic can be saved."
Another Beltway doomsayer? No, Paul Krugman, responsible adult.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...2001651_pf.html
FRAUD |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
....more thrice (at least) debunked bullshit from VaCunt....:
They hate me! They really hate me!
Paul Krugman
November 21, 2007, 9:02 am
Wow. Early in my tenure at The NYT, I was advised that it’s a bad idea to devote a column to attacking another columnist — not just at The Times, but anywhere. Why? Because it makes you look small — as if you have nothing better to do than snipe at other commentators, rather than trying to deal with real problems.
But I’ve obviously touched a nerve with my recent writing on Social Security. The Beltway crowd loves their Social Security crisis, and they won’t give it up without a fight.
I won’t waste scarce column inches on this, but I guess this needs a reply somewhere.
Part of Ruth Marcus’s attack involves selective quotation from my writings circa 2001. Mark Thoma has already done the spadework here. What I was arguing then was not that Social Security itself was in crisis, but that the rest of the government budget should be run responsibly — basically, that the lockbox should be honored. As I explained later,
Four years ago, I and many other economists urged policymakers to think about the future cost of Social Security benefits, not because we thought there was anything wrong with Social Security itself, but because we regarded the future costs as a compelling reason not to cut taxes even if the overall budget was in surplus.
Four years ago, I and many other economists urged policymakers to think about the future cost of Social Security benefits, not because we thought there was anything wrong with Social Security itself, but because we regarded the future costs as a compelling reason not to cut taxes even if the overall budget was in surplus.
As for what I wrote in 1996: the world looked very different then. On one side, Social Security projections were much more pessimistic than they are now, basically because the projections assumed that the 1973-1995 era of very slow productivity growth would go on forever. On the other side, the 90s were the era of the great pause in health expenditures, the (it turned out) brief era in which the rise of managed care stabilized health spending as a share of GDP. So Medicare and Medicaid looked less important as sources of fiscal problems than they do now.
John Maynard Keynes is supposed to have said, “When circumstances change, I change my opinion. What do you do?”
:ps:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/20...really-hate-me/ |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
As for what I wrote in 1996: the world looked very different then. |
Right, Krugman. Back in 1996 your boytoy Clinton was in office.
Then President Bush entered into the picutre, and you flip-flopped on your position.
Now we have another election coming up, and your boytoy's wife is running, hence your slamming of Obama via your contradictions.
Bottom line - Krugman is just another Clinton apologist and will sacrifice his core beliefs to get Clinton back into the White House. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheTurd
Right, Krugman. Back in 1996 your boytoy Clinton was in office.
Then President Bush entered into the picutre, and you flip-flopped on your position. |
Illiterate fucktard...
:rolleyes:
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheTurd
Bottom line - Krugman is just another Clinton apologist and will sacrifice his core beliefs to get Clinton back into the White House. |
LIAR.
:sleep: |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
And I like that Edwards has basically apologized for his entire senate run and most of his votes, but that doesnt inspire confidence in me that he will show good judgment on future situations. |
I didn't see or hear Edwards apologize. He damn well should though because when he was in office, you never heard a peep out of him and he voted very conservatively.
Nothing like the rabid populist he morphed into and gets fdumbya all hot and bothered. |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
| Anyone wanna bet that Krugman's next article is yet another hit piece on Obama? Probably that Obama has the gall to attack Bill Clinotn, an admirable man with no faults. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by BC-Stupid-Mark
I didn't see or hear Edwards apologize. He damn well should though because when he was in office, you never heard a peep out of him and he voted very conservatively.
Nothing like the rabid populist he morphed into and gets fdumbya all hot and bothered. |
Beggars can't be choosers, Stupid. Progressives and progressive policies are shut out of the process or marginalized in our ignorant, craven society.
:ps:
....I think your friends in the Lounge are calling for you....run along....
:giggle: |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
Beggars can't be choosers, Stupid. Progressives and progressive policies are shut out of the process or marginalized in our ignorant, craven society.
....I think your friends in the Lounge are calling for you....run along....
|
Since you're so smart and a nifty, modern progressive and all that, can you explain why the entire country has shit on your political beliefs?
K-Dog??? :funny: |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by BC-Stupid-Mark
Since you're so smart and a nifty, modern progressive and all that, can you explain why the entire country has shit on your political beliefs? |
When polled on the issues, America is quite progressive.
And as we can all see with 20/20 hindsight, the Progressives have been right all along, and have predicted every tragic step of the last seven yrs.....
The obvious answers to your stupid question are: the corporate control of government and media, and the general ignorance of the populace. (you are Exhibit A)
People have really come around to our viewpoint. The problem is with the Democratic establishment.
(no need to mention the repukes.....progressivism is like kryptonite to Right-wing Authoritarians)
As usual, the "people" are ahead of (and ignored by) our "leaders".
Especially the RWA ones.
:hitler::ps: |
|
|
| Kill Van Kull |
REAGAN LIE DETECTOR
Reagan conducted one of the most absurd invasions of American history, targetting the tiny island of Grenada.
As president of the Screen Actors Guild, Ronald Reagan informed on fellow actors to the FBI.
The Reagan admininstration was one of the most corrupt in American history, including by one estimate 31 Reagan era convictions, including 14 because of Iran-Contra and 16 in the Department of Housing & Urban Development scandal. By comparison 40 government officials were indicted or convicted in the wake of Watergate. 47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned.
Using a looser standard that included resignations, David R. Simon and D. Stanley Eitzen in Elite Deviance, say that 138 appointees of the Reagan administration either resigned under an ethical cloud or were criminally indicted. Curiously Haynes Johnson uses the same figure but with a different standard in "Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years: "By the end of his term, 138 administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations."
Four members of the Reagan cabinet came under criminal investiation, as compared with five in the Clinton cabinet. Three top officials of the Harding administration were in indicted in the Teapot Dome scandal.
The Reagan administration had secret plans for an unconstitutional takeover of the federal government under an ill-defined national emergency. Members of the government created by the coup had been selected and included Richard Cheney.
Reagan's decision to send troops to Lebanon cost 241 lives. As the NY Times noted recently, "Mr. Reagan's decision to send marines to Lebanon was disastrous and his invasion of Grenada pure melodrama."
During the Reagan administration the number of families living below the poverty line increased by one-third.
Reagan's policies led to the greatest financial scandal in American history: the Savings & Loan debacle which cost taxpayers billions of dollars.
Julian Bond, president of the NAACP: "He was a polarizing figure in black America. He was hostile to the generally accepted remedies for discrimination. His appointments were of people as equally hostile. I can't think of any Reagan policy that African Americans would embrace."
Reagan made major cuts in Medicaid, food stamps, aid to families with dependent children, and school lunch programs.
Reagan fired 13,000 air traffic controllers in a devasting blow to government union members from which the labor movement never recovered.
Washington Post: "Reagan, during his 1980 campaign, blamed trees for emitting 93 percent of the nation's nitrogen oxide pollution -- giving rise to jokes about 'killer trees.'"
The national debt tripled under Reagan
The AIDS crisis exploded (with 20,000 deaths) before Reagan could even bring himself to address the issue six years later. In his authorized biography he is quoted as saying that "maybe the Lord brought down this plague," because "illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments."
Washington Post: "The administration in 1984 secretly sold arms to Iran -- which the United States considered a supporter of terrorism -- to raise cash for Nicaraguan contra rebels, despite a congressional ban on support for the Latin American insurgency. An independent investigation concluded that the arms sales to Iran operations "were carried out with the knowledge of, among others, President Ronald Reagan [and] Vice President George Bush," and that "large volumes of highly relevant, contemporaneously created documents were systematically and willfully withheld from investigators by several Reagan Administration officials." . . . Lawrence E. Walsh, the independent counsel who ran the inquiry, said there was "no credible evidence" that Reagan broke the law, but he set the stage for the illegal activities of others. Impeachment, Walsh said, "certainly should have been considered."
His administration was responsible for numerous brutal actions in Latin America, including massacres in El Salvador and the war against Nicaragua.
The claim that Reagan won the Cold War is pure rightwing propaganda. The Soviet Union had long been far weaker than many American leaders knew, or wished to acknowledge, thanks to CIA gross overestimates of its economy. The Soviet Union was brought down by a number of factors including the inherent weaknesses of dictatorship and ethnic divides that eventually forced its breakup.
William Blum: "[George Kennan], the former US ambassador to the Soviet Union, and father of the theory of 'containment' of the same country, asserts that 'the suggestion that any United States administration had the power to influence decisively the course of a tremendous domestic political upheaval in another great country on another side of the globe is simply childish.' He contends that the extreme militarization of American policy strengthened hard-liners in the Soviet Union. 'Thus the general effect of Cold War extremism was to delay rather than hasten the great change that overtook the Soviet Union.'"
After a major tax cut, there was a long recession and unemployment that hit ten percent.
Bill Press - "It was Reagan who first proposed a missile defense system -- immediately dubbed "Star Wars" by skeptical reporters -- in a March 23, 1983 speech from the Oval Office. However, as Frances Fitzgerald reveals in her brilliant history "Way Out There in the Blue," Reagan didn't get his plan from the scientists or the generals. The Pentagon wasn't even notified of his speech ahead of time. Reagan stole Star Wars directly from -- the movies.
In 1940, appearing in the Warner Brothers thriller "Murder in the Air," Reagan played an American secret agent charged with protecting a super weapon that could strike all enemy planes from the air. Seed planted in Reagan's brain. Then in 1966, Alfred Hitchcock released a Reagan favorite, "Torn Curtain," in which American agent Paul Newman works on developing an anti-missile missile. In words that must have made Ronnie tingle, Newman's character asserts: "We will produce a defensive weapon that will make all nuclear weapons obsolete, and thereby abolish the terror of nuclear warfare." Sound familiar? Reagan used almost the exact words in selling missile defense from the office, 17 years later.
http://prorev.com/reagan.htm |
|
|
| zimmie |
| Don't the Democrats wish they had a President that mattered.... |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
The obvious answers to your stupid question are: the corporate control of government and media, and the general ignorance of the populace. (you are Exhibit A) |
Exhibit A! :ae:
:funny: |
|
|
| Luther |
| "America's leading writer" :jj: |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by zimmie
Don't the Democrats wish they had a President that mattered.... |
you mean one that you talk about constantly and is continually interjected into seemingly unrealted conversations? you mean one that is the subject of 5 times the number of threads as any republican candidate? you mean like that? |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
And as we can all see with 20/20 hindsight, the Progressives have been right all along, and have predicted every tragic step of the last seven yrs..... |
:lol:
Nitwit, Jimmy Carter was a "Progressive" in every sense of the word. He failed miserably, thus proving that your socialist utopian idealism does not work.
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
People have really come around to our viewpoint. The problem is with the Democratic establishment. |
Nitwit, the Democrat establishment (i.e. the older Democrat base that has a memory of Jimmy Carter) is not the problem but rather the only thing standing in the way of a lunatic like Kucinich or John Edwards from getting the nomination. They don't want another Jimmy Carter because he set the party back and Bill Clinton with his pathological lying, triangulating and bimbo eruptions did little to restore the confidence of the American people.
Your far-left ideology has no chance because the majority in this country are clear-headed centrists who have no use for a nanny state.
Of course you are free to move to one of the socialist countries in Europe if you love the idea so much, but be forewarned that it is being rolled back in countries like France and England because their entitlement programs are unsustainable. |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
you mean one that you talk about constantly and is continually interjected into seemingly unrealted conversations? you mean one that is the subject of 5 times the number of threads as any republican candidate? you mean like that? |
In case you haven't noticed, he's running for a third term with his wife, so of course his name is going to be coming up quite often.
As for his Presidency, it was mediocre at best. Now, I know that Bill Clinton and his runaway ego expect to see his image chisled on Mount Rushmore some day, but he was average at best.
I have to hand it to Obama for calling out the Clinton myth that he was a great President - he wasn't. Compared to Ronald Reagan, Clinton was a lightweight. |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
Anyone wanna bet that Krugman's next article is yet another hit piece on Obama? Probably that Obama has the gall to attack Bill Clinotn, an admirable man with no faults. |
That's a pretty safe bet - Krugman does the Clinton's bidding.
Ever read op-eds or see tv appearances of Lanny Davis? That guy has one hand on Bill's joint and the other stuffed up Hillary's box. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheTurd
Nitwit, Jimmy Carter was a "Progressive" in every sense of the word. He failed miserably, thus proving that your sociaTuist utopian idealism does not work. |
The economics of the day were hardly the fault of his one term presidency. Exactly like today, they were the direct result of a failed quagmire of a "war".
Its why OBL expressed the intent to use just this strategy against us again. It worked for them against the USSR too.
Of course Dumbya played right into the "enemies" hands.
:rolleyes:
Not only that, but Carter was prescient on our dependence on foreign oil.
Too bad Reagan tore down the solar panels, just before destroying the Anti-Trust safe-guards....
:ps:
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheTurd
Nitwit, the Democrat establishment (i.e. the older Democrat base that has a memory of Jimmy Carter) is not the problem |
You fucking idiot. I'm talking about the Party establishment. |
|
|
| Kill Van Kull |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
In case you haven't noticed, he's running for a third term with his wife, so of course his name is going to be coming up quite often.
As for his Presidency, it was mediocre at best. Now, I know that Bill Clinton and his runaway ego expect to see his image chisled on Mount Rushmore some day, but he was average at best.
I have to hand it to Obama for calling out the Clinton myth that he was a great President - he wasn't. Compared to Ronald Reagan, Clinton was a lightweight. |
I'm not a big Clinton fan but denying the success of his presidency is just patently dishonest.
I never liked Mark Messier either but only a fool would deny that he was one of the greatest hockey players of all time.
I guess denying truth and reality is getting to be pretty commonplace for modern repussicans.
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| harley-davidson |
Quote: Originally posted by zimmie
Don't the Democrats wish they had a President that mattered.... |
You mean one like this....a true Republican.....Bawhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Do you have a fox stole for Republican conventions Zimmie ? |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
Quote: Originally posted by harley-davidson
You mean one like this....a true Republican.....Bawhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Do you have a fox stole for Republican conventions Zimmie ? |
Rudy does have big balls running for President when he knows pictures like that are out there. |
|
|
|
|
|
