Snipes William A. Jacobson after digesting Krugman's new column. But what Krugman said was: "So let’s not be civil. Instead, let’s have a frank discussion of our differences."
It seems that Krugman is associating civility with affecting agreement when there is and should be none. What's wrong with that? Rush Limbaugh says the same thing on practically every show. Let's speak clearly about the different ideologies and policies so people can see what they are and judge. Don't obfuscate with the pretense of agreement and friendliness.
Do we the people really give a damn whether our representatives in Congress and the state legislatures like each other and get along socially?
ADDED: Here's the link to Krugman's column.
১৮ এপ্রিল, ২০১১
এতে সদস্যতা:
মন্তব্যগুলি পোস্ট করুন (Atom)
পোস্টগুলি
১০৬টি মন্তব্য:
If I was a freshman Senator or Congres critter, could I have respect for the long-serving members who have f-ed up the country's finances over the last 20-40 years? No way in hell.
This doesn't really address whether Krugman is a hypocrite.
Let's see.
When the Dems won in '08 it was "we won; sit down and shut the f&%k up, 'cause now we're in charge".
When the Republicans won in '10, Krugman and his ilk said, "can't we just be civil? Stop the violence & demonizing!"
I'd say that makes Krugman plenty hypocritical.
Wasn't ALWAYS Patriotic to Call Paul Krugman a !@%$#%@ Hypocrite?
How about a !@%$#%@ idiot?
I need clarity, people. I want to be a good American.
OK, I gave Krugman's column a try.
He's still a shmegegge.
Do we the people really give a damn whether our representatives in Congress and the state legislatures like each other and get along socially?
Not one damned bit.
What Krugman has done here is basically done a Curly Fine into the seemingly uncharted waters of non-politically correct speech. In this respect, he's rhetorical Columbus, discovering a "new land" where people ALREADY FREAKIN' LIVE.
If Krugman wants a frank discussion on issues confront this nation, he needs to let all the multi-culti baggage and tyrannical language tut-tutters ride the pine. Otherwise, it's impossible and, like Columbus, Krugman's side will continue to wipe out real debate with a hodge-podge plague of various protected issues,non-starters and third rails.
Margaret Thatcher once said: "If you set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time, and you would achieve nothing."
I feel the same way about civility. What's the point if it means surrendering your principals.
It seems that Krugman is associating civility with affecting agreement when there is and should be none.
It seems that way because that is precisely the impression that Krugman is trying to evoke. However, what he is *actually* calling for in that column is more effective propaganda.
I don't really care if they get along socially...but in our "frankness" to get out "our" side's point, we create a dynamic that is not conducive to any agreement.
If you repeat, over and over, how healthcare for the nation is unamerican and might destroy the economy, how can you ever agree to a compromise that includes it?
If you repeat, over and over, how necessary Medicare and Medicaid are - how can you ever agree to reduce spending on it?
Getting our points out in a manner that is frank, accurate and acknowledges that the other side might be valid too, is the civility that I search for in our politicians.
Demonizing gets more viewers, listeners and votes though.
I bet Krugman gets along real nice with Maureen Dowd, for example.
Right after Jared Loughner(C-communist) went on his crazed shooting spree and killed a child, innocent by-standers and a congress person (who, by the way, is not leftwing enough for the radical new left(D)) - we were all scolded by our leftwing betters that Jared's actions were due to OUR incivility.
It didn't take long for the angry left to discard this advice. Of course we all know the advice wasn't meant for leftwing consumption - but another way for the media to help the left out with blame and hints that certain people should "shut up".
Paul Krugman (D-hack) resided over this media meme.
There's always something enervating about realizing that I'm worlds smarter than an actual Nobel laureate.
Then I remember it's only Krugman.
When was it ever unpatriotic to call Paul Krugman a hypocrite?
Dose notwithstanding (and he parrots the cheerily hypocritical cynicism ("We'll try to make you look like hypocrites using false examples, but laugh about how we regularly flout the rules") found in the drivel of PB&J/shiloh/some phony folksy), one can have a vigorous debate and still remain civil in the objective sense.
Civility to the Lefties, as I've noted, is what world peace was to the Soviets - "Do what we say, let us have our way in all things, don't object, and act like you're happy about it".
You can be perfectly civil while disagreeing with someone completely, you just have to stop at personal insults. It's really not that hard.
He is saying that it is OK to harshly condemn opponents. Krugman is following the Obama Gang's newest marching orders and pivoting from cooperation in Congress to chanting that GOP budget cutters are evil rich who are wrecking everything. This is timed to re-label blame for the tsunami of inflation being sent upon us by Obama Administration. The recent discussions have been about wrecking the world our grandchildren will have to live in, but that is wishful thinking. The economic apocalypse is here now. It has been designed by Soros using Obama to destroy the US Dollar's hegemony. They must finish us off before January 20, 2013. Wisconsin showed the way things will go everywhere this year.
The "hypocrite" bit probably needs to be discarded from political discussion.
Humans aren't intellectually consistent. They probably shouldn't be, either.
Since the gist of all politics is: "I should get mine. Tough luck with you getting yours," hypocrisy is almost the essence of politics.
Krugman is an asshole. That's for sure. He tried to pin the Arizona massacre on Sarah Palin. Did anybody think he was doing that for any other reason than because he despises Palin and wants to hurt her in any way that he can?
There's way too much civility, primarily on the conservative side. What would happen if we returned to the age when an insult (such as the one delivered by the President against Paul Ryan) could be followed by a slap and a demand for satisfaction?
Dose notwithstanding (and he parrots the cheerily hypocritical cynicism ("We'll try to make you look like hypocrites using false examples, but laugh about how we regularly flout the rules") found in the drivel of PB&J/shiloh/some phony folksy), one can have a vigorous debate and still remain civil in the objective sense.
What?
Krugman is a schmuck. Always has been.
Rush is a political entertainer. Krugman, a member of the Times op-ed staff, fancies himself a serious commentator and economist.
@Lincoln,
At least Krugman writes in coherent sentences.
To wit:
"There's always something enervating about realizing that I'm worlds smarter than an actual Nobel laureate."
en·er·vate
/v. ˈɛnərˌveɪt; adj. ɪˈnɜrvɪt/ Show Spelled [v. en-er-veyt; adj. ih-nur-vit] Show IPA verb, -vat·ed, -vat·ing, adjective
–verb (used with object)
1.
to deprive of force or strength; destroy the vigor of; weaken.
–adjective
2.
enervated.
Next time you want to get all polysyllabic on those "dumb" lefties, perhaps you should reference a dictionary first.
As to the topic at hand, who cares if someone's panties get in a bunch. Krugman's argument is basically, interpret things as you see them and tell it like it is. Who could argue against that?
If you follow Krugman at all, you'd already know what a hypocrite he is. Find out what Krugman thought about the fillibuster when Bush was president. Contrast that with his thoughts about it now that obama is POTUS POS.
What does patriotism have to do with a !@%$%@ hypocrite? Krugman has been a hypocrite his whole life. Just like the Democratic Party pooches he nurtures with his specious economic theories.
"Do we the people really give a damn whether our representatives in Congress and the state legislatures like each other and get along socially?"
Goddamn right we care about it.
And listen up: We don't want Republicans fraternizing with America's enemies - the Democrats.
Any Republican who wants to "cross the aisle" to "seek bipartisanship" with these fucking traitorous Democrats is never going to get my vote. Or my campaign donation.
Next Republican sticks his foot across the aisle should have it fucking stomped on. Twice as hard.
We don't want bi-partisanship. We demand that Republicans put a fucking S.T.O.P. to the outrageous spending on Democrat Party initiatives that goes on with federal tax dollars.
If Republicans can't figure out a way to do that, we'll fucking fire them and replace them with candidates who CAN get the job done.
@Biddy - I bet Rush sees himself as serious too.
@ "Playa" (You son of a beach) - Enervate would work just fine as he used it. It makes more sense than alternates, given the rest of his post.
Krugman is on a streak of incredibly weak, tedious columns. His method is to divine greatness in Obama's vague ventilations, while attacking Ryan analytically.
It's like talking up Harry Potter for its Visual Effects while picking apart The Kings Speach for continuity errors.
It's pathetic.
@ UT - Thank for illustrating why I think civility is needed, and why it is so damn hard for them to do.
As to the topic at hand, who cares if someone's panties get in a bunch. Krugman's argument is basically, interpret things as you see them and tell it like it is. Who could argue against that?
Well, you're right... who cares?
First, the grammar cop is one of the stupidest comment poses. Drop it. You understood what the commenter meant.
Second... let me explain this real slow...
Some weeks ago, Krugman argued that blunt language cause the murder of six people and the wounding of a congress woman.
Yesterday, he reversed course and said "let the blunt language" fly.
The civility bullshit no longer served his purpose, which was to try to silence his opposition.
As I said, the word "hypocrisy" should probably be dropped from political discourse, since hypocrisy is the very cornerstone of such discourse.
Lincolntf,
There's always something enervating about realizing that I'm worlds smarter than an actual Nobel laureate.
Then I remember it's only Krugman.
No, seriously, isn't that amazing? Is this what growing up is - fuel for riots?
Even worse, and more confounding, I still can't fathom how someone like him holds down a job. Get that shit: Gets a Nobel, yes. Holds a job, no.
I'm bouncing from one to the next, trying to be a good guy and a hard worker, but over and over, getting sabotaged by imbeciles who just don't seem to get how it's done - Idiocracy, remember that? But nutjob Krugman, who I can see through in three sentences - maybe two on most days - he keeps chugging along, probably well-paid, pissing off no one but people like me.
I just don' "get" how that's happening.
I just don' "get" how that's happening.
Pumping out the party line is a great way to further your career goals.
You'll be surrounded by people telling you how brilliant you are.
"followed by a slap and a demand for satisfaction?"
I get that all the time.
Perhaps it would be informative to examine exactly what was said in Obama's speech that so upset the Republicans, and prompted calls for civility:
"America’s finances were in great shape by the year 2000. We went from deficit to surplus. America was actually on track to becoming completely debt free, and we were prepared for the retirement of the Baby Boomers.
But after Democrats and Republicans committed to fiscal discipline during the 1990s, we lost our way in the decade that followed. We increased spending dramatically for two wars and an expensive prescription drug program — but we didn’t pay for any of this new spending. Instead, we made the problem worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts — tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country; tax cuts that will force us to borrow an average of $500 billion every year over the next decade.
To give you an idea of how much damage this caused to our nation’s checkbook, consider this: In the last decade, if we had simply found a way to pay for the tax cuts and the prescription drug benefit, our deficit would currently be at low historical levels in the coming years.
But that’s not what happened. And so, by the time I took office, we once again found ourselves deeply in debt and unprepared for a Baby Boom retirement that is now starting to take place. When I took office, our projected deficit, annually, was more than $1 trillion. On top of that, we faced a terrible financial crisis and a recession that, like most recessions, led us to temporarily borrow even more."
@ Playa - Yes, that's language I like. No, that's not his whole speech.
You know they are going to quote the attack on Ryan's budget now. Citing half a speech is awful - it's bad practice and lying. It's what leads to these debates in the first place.
Do Better.
@Dose,
Oh that wasn't it?
Feel free to excerpt any portion of his speech that you thought was uncivil. I thought that was the most damning to Republicans, was there something more damning?
Yes, Conservative Player, that's what he said.
What he did was to double the federal budget.
So, what in the hell difference does it make what he said?
And, yes Bush was financially irresponsible. But on nowhere near the scale of Obama.
@conservative playa:
Instead, we made the problem worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts — tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country; tax cuts that will force us to borrow an average of $500 billion every year over the next decade.
In other words: not taking money out of our pockets = giving us money. Not collecting taxes = spending money.
Why does this equivalence never go the the other way? Why government spending never called "tax cuts"?
It's because the Left thinks that our labor and capital belong of right to the State, and anything the State lets us keep is a gift.
It's fascism.
Althouse said...
It seems that Krugman is associating civility with affecting agreement when there is and should be none. What's wrong with that?
Notice, the reason Althouse felt she had to hedge with "it seems" is precisely because Krugman is a hypocrite. (All she left out was "it seems right now that Krugman...")
Krugman "associates civility with affecting agreement" when it comes to conservative governance: "So let’s not be civil. Instead, let’s have a frank discussion of our differences."
No, Krugman only invokes the defense civility when it comes to liberal governance.
And that is the very embodiment of a hypocrite.
What would happen if we returned to the age when an insult (such as the one delivered by the President against Paul Ryan) could be followed by a slap and a demand for satisfaction?
Gabriel beat me to it. There's no such thing, if you want to talk serious about issues instead of hurl ideological bullshit at each other, as "unpaid for tax cuts". Unless, of course, you don't believe people's earning belong to them first and last. Otherwise, you have to buy into the Micheal Moore-ish, "their money is a natural resource" argument.
@conservative playa:
To give you an idea of how much damage this caused to our nation’s checkbook, consider this: In the last decade, if we had simply found a way to pay for the tax cuts and the prescription drug benefit, our deficit would currently be at low historical levels in the coming years.
Obama never acknowledges that spending--real spending and not the Orwellian usage meaning "not collecting revenue"--is part of the problem.
Obama never acknowledges that since his party took charge of Congress in 2006 they have tripled deficits because they have increased spending. Instead he lays it all at the feet of his predecessor.
His party approved the tax cuts, too.
A civil speech, yes, an honest one, no.
@ Playa
One vision has been championed by Republicans in the House of Representatives and embraced by several of their party's presidential candidates. It's a plan that aims to reduce our deficit by $4 trillion over the next ten years, and one that addresses the challenge of Medicare and Medicaid in the years after that.
And the next 10 paragraphs after that are pretty bad. I would be angry if I put forth a budget plan that was attacked like that.
@shouting thomas,
Care to reference any numbers, in regards to:
"What he did was to double the federal budget."
Note you might want to see what the CBO said in January 2009 about the short term budget shortfall.
Obama's sole spending initiative of consequence was the stimulus (a 1/3 of which were tax cuts). Spread out over 3 years it was approximately $250 billion a year. Just about every economist agrees that it raised GDP and saved countless jobs. I would think that in an environment of 10% unemployment the single most important domestic policy initiative should be job creation. Perhaps you disagree...?
This was the same Krugman who took money from Enron to flog their company, wasn't it? And, if I remember right, he took that money when the company was already in serious cover-up and Ponzi scheme mode.
Conservative Playa said...
Krugman's argument is basically, interpret things as you see them and tell it like it is. Who could argue against that?
Krugman could, as soon as he thought doing so would be in the best interests of liberals.
Just about every economist agrees that it raised GDP and saved countless jobs.
I can agree to unicorns and the tooth-fairy too. "Countless" is about as meaningful, and just as verifiable.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/
Federal revenues in 2005 dollars, billions:
2002 2,028.6
2003 1,901.1
2004 1,949.5
2005 2,153.6
2006 2,324.1
2007 2,411.9
2008 2,286.8
2009 1,898.3
2010 1,919.0
Only in 2008 and 2009 did Federal revenues decrease. From 2003 to 2007 they increased every year despite the tax cuts.
The defict increased because neither party chose to rein in SPENDING.
@gabriel,
Care to reference what spending the Dems initiated from 2007 onwards?
("Obama never acknowledges that since his party took charge of Congress in 2006 they have tripled deficits because they have increased spending.")
The stimulus is the only one of consequence, perhaps I'm overlooking something.....
Conservative Player,
Obama has raised the Fed budget from around $2 billion in 2008 to $3.8 billion in 2011. He's effectively doubled the Fed budget.
He's effectively spending a new "stimulus" every year.
The stimulus was a pork barrel hand out to his political constituents. Unemployment rose from 7.3% to around 10% under Obama's watch. Serious inflation and $4 a gallon gas now beset the economy.
The CBO bases its calculations on the figures politicians provide them. Thus, it has calculated that Obamacare will actually save us billions of dollars. The assumptions behind that are, of course, completely bogus, and Obamacare will raised Fed spending by trillions.
@conservative playa:
Care to reference any numbers, in regards to
Yeah, I notice YOU don't.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/
I posted revenue, here's spending, again in constant 2005 dollars, billions:
2002 2,010.9
2003 2,159.9
2004 2,292.8
2005 2,472.0
2006 2,655.0
2007 2,728.7
2008 2,982.5
2009 3,517.7
2010 3,456.2
In 2006 Congress changed to Democratic controlled. In 2009 they had a Democratic president as well.
Revenues dropped die to the recession, but spending kept going up and up. And he has the gall to blame this on tax cuts.
@conservative playa:
Care to reference what spending the Dems initiated from 2007 onwards?
Done. And in the future why don't you cite something in support of what you say, before demanding cites of everyone else?
Gee, and all these years I've been calling Krugman a !@%$#%@ hypocrite because he says one thng in his economic textbooks and then things completely different in his columns while wearing the cloak of "economist."
He's not just a !@%$#%@ hypocrite, he's a !@%$#%@ whore.
The problem, always, is that many more on the right are civil than on the left (all you have to do is look at Ann's Madison posts over the last month to see this). So, this leaves the Republicans in particular vulnerable to the argument that they should be nice and get along.
For many on the left, winning is everything, or, rather, in the end, the only thing. So, civility is fine when it helps, and incivility is fine the rest of the time.
I might think that some of this comes from a feeling of moral superiority on the part of liberals, but never having been one, I can't confirm that.
If you look closely though, and look through how the MSM hides this, there are a lot of really vicious people at the top of the Democratic party, and esp. in elected office. Chuck Schumer , who was shooting to take Harry Reid's position in the Senate if he lost comes immediately to mind.
Things are changing though, and many on the right are losing their patience with leadership and elected representatives who are more interested in getting along than getting things fixed. Just listen to the end of Palin's speech this week, and you can hear that sentiment. And, I would suggest, that is part of why she is so hated by the left, and part of what the Tea Party is about. Being nice is good when you can do it, but not at the expense of solving our problems, esp. when they are to a fairly decent extent due to this going along to get along attitude.
@conservative playa:
I don't know if you're new or another of Ritmo's incarnations or what. I'm not the nicest of commenters, and I'm not the smartest, but I think if you polled people here they would agree that I am very good with cites.
So, if you want to play the "cite please" game, be warned. I quoted the numbers from the White House.
LOL - "S&P Revises US Outlook to Negative"
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/stunner-sp-revises-us-outlook-negative
I don't know if you're new or another of Ritmo's incarnations or what.
I don't think so. Ritmo's creche doesn't let out until around 4pm or so, it seems.
CP said,
...we made the problem worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts...
Excellent analysis, except for one thing: Revenue rose on average during the Bush years until the economy tanked.
Federal Tax Revenue, 2000: $2.025 trillion
Federal Tax Revenue, 2008: $2.524 trillion
(both figures adjusted for inflation)
For the mathematically challenged, that's an average annual rate of increase of over 2.75%.
And anyone who thinks that there'd be no problem with Social Security or Medicare funding if we'd kept the Clinton-era tax code knows nothing whatsoever about the most basic demographics and their implications.
First, I am not the one making ridiculous claims: "He's effectively doubled the Fed budget."
You want numbers, here is a chart of spending as well as revenue:
http://blog.wvpolicy.org/2010/10/21/is-federal-spending-out-of-control.aspx?ref=rss
You will notice that the slope of the red line is fairly constant, except for during the recession which includes the Stimulus and Tarp etc...
Also the social safety net costs money (unemployment insurance etc..)
Once we are out of the recession the slope of spending increases will return to historical norms. As it is, it is just a bit steeper for 2010, predominantly due to 9% unemployment.
The main driver of our deficit is the recession and a distant second is the Bush tax cuts (alternatively the Obama tax cut extensions if you want to be partisan).
Professor Niall Ferguson disagrees with Paul Krugman and could teach him a thing or two. "Empires on the Edge of Chaos"
http://fora.tv/2010/07/28/Niall_Ferguson_Empires_on_the_Edge_of_Chaos
You will notice that the slope of the red line is fairly constant, except for during the recession which includes the Stimulus and Tarp etc...
Hilarious.
Yes, it's fairly constant.
Obama doubled the Federal budget from $2 billion to $3.8 billion.
And he's now established $3.8 billion as the new benchmark for the budget.
You're not serious.
So, the argument in 2008 was that we were in an emergency that justified doubling the budget. Apparently, we are now in a permanent emergency.
If the justification for doubling the Fed budget was that we faced a temporary emergency, why hasn't the budget returned to pre-emergency levels?
Because the stimulus was a pork barrel project. And Obama wants to keep handing out the pork.
I actually agree with CP's 11:04 AM post (despite the lacuna in his and his source's history of the 2002-2003 recession) but it's all whistling past the graveyard.
Go the White House OMB and check out the historical spreadsheets. I found spreadsheet 6.1 Composition of Outlays: 1940–2016 to be fairly informative. If you look at 2009 & 2010 you can see the stimulus and TARP show up. But forget them. Look at direct payments to individuals, as projected through 2016.
These are the costs Obama will not touch, and yet the whole game is there.
Apparently, we are now in a permanent emergency.
Isn't this how tinpots maintain power long after their revolutions have put their predecessors up against the wall?
@CP said of the "stimulus:"
Just about every economist agrees that it raised GDP and saved countless jobs.
True, except for all the ones who disagreed, as reported at the time in the NYT.
For example, Nobel prize winner Gary Becker said that:
...Mr. Obama’s transition team economists may “overestimate the effects of this stimulus package on the economy, and that the same techniques would similarly overestimate the employment effects of other types of government spending and tax reduction policies.”
I'll second Gabriel Hanna's advice to CP: try cross-checking your beliefs with reality before posting.
IF the Fed stops printing, no one will buy the Treasuries and the markets will collapse, along with the entire economy. If the Fed raises interest rates every penny in revenue will go to debt service. We are now locked in a debt death spiral for which there is no escape. Tears and a currecny revaluation follow the bank holiday.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/obama-confirms-leadership-failure-pulls-out-mother-all-mutual-assured-nukes-raise-debt-ceili
The main driver of our deficit is the recession and a distant second is the Bush tax cuts (alternatively the Obama tax cut extensions if you want to be partisan).
You're a virtual centrifuge of political spin.
Conservative Playa,
Jon Stewart - who supports Obama - compared the speech you're defending as "Orwellian".
How am I - someone who never supported Obama - supposed to think about that?
And, if Stewart is correct, what are you defending?
One of my favorite commentators, Dennis Prager, points out that he prefers "clarity over agreement."
But as Althouse (and Prager) indicate, you can be both clear and civil.
Krugman may be a brilliant economist - people smarter than me say he is - but his political judgment is just awful.
Clear and to the point.
To piggyback on the numbers Gabriel provided:
Fed spending was 18% of GDP in 2000..$1789/ $9951.
GDP grew by 47% by 2010 to $14,508 yet Fed spending ballooned by almost 100% in those ten years. And it was now 24% of GDP ....$3456/ 14508.
Obviously we can't double the size of govt when the economy only grows by 50%. It's simple arithmetic.
@Sh.Th.
We seem to have a communication problem. What does "double the budget" mean?
The budget for a given year addresses revenues and outlays.
Do you mean outlays were doubled, or outlays and revenues doubled, or the difference between outlays and revenues doubled, etc...?
I assume it is the latter, though it is hard to tell with your two numbers (2 billion to 3.8 billion). As I mentioned earlier the short term deficit is due to the recession (revenue took a big hit) and measures to counteract the recession like the Stimulus (jobs bill). Both of these are short term effectors, that is they are not permanent.
Spending is returning to its historical growth rate (see my previously referenced chart).
Is it your assertion that spending should have a slope of zero? That does not take into account a growing population nor a growing economy. This is why it is common to look at both revenue and outlays as a percent of GDP.
You have yet to identify a specific spending measure put forth by the Dems that is the cause of our short term deficit. (Neither has Gabriel)
The only one is the stimulus, and I would argue that its results speak for themselves.
The only one is the stimulus, and I would argue that its results speak for themselves.
Yes, the stagflation, $4 a gallon gas and 10% employment speak for themselves.
In fact, Conservative Player, it's time to call Obama what he is:
Jimmy Carter Redux.
"Re: “Let’s Not Be Civil” Paul Krugman, New York Times
"Krugman said: “The point is that the two parties don’t just live in different moral universes, they also live in different intellectual universes…”
"Krugman is still peddling the fiction that there is some fundamental difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party."
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/04/links-41811.html#comments
Putting aside the partisan jockeying, yes, it does matter whether at a personal level, our elected representatives can get along. That's different from public civility.
A representative government ultimately works by negotiation. To get a stable coalition on ideas, you can't simply ram your agenda down the other side's throat and expect it to work. And negotiation is much more likely to work when there's shared interest and mutual respect.
When there's not, there's very little ability to negotiate.
Spending is returning to its historical growth rate--CP
Henry was kind enough to provide a link to numbers provided by the administration itself, even taking the trouble to point out the table of most interest. Now it appears that CP won't even bother to click on the link, so I'll summarize what he'd find there if he cared about facts:
From the late 1970s to 2007, "payments for individuals" fluctuated between about 10 to 12 percent of GDP. In 2010 they reached nearly 16 percent, and are forecasted (optimistically, no doubt) to stay near 15 percent through 2016.
This is not a continuation of a long-term trend. It is the beginning of a demographically-driven first-order budget crisis.
Numbers from the CBO just out, complete with chart and commentary. See here:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/obamas-budget-increases-deficit-41-over-cbo-baseline-over-next-decade
If you repeat, over and over, how necessary Medicare and Medicaid are - how can you ever agree to reduce spending on it?
I agree, let's do away with those programs. Whoever can survive without them fine, whoever doesn't that's fine too. Natural selection is a beautiful thing.
You know I was willing to go along with reforming SocSec & Medicare. But those days are OVER. I feel aggrieved and dishonored by the elderly lobby. They can go fuck themselves and I will do EVERYTHING in my power to end those programs forever.
Krugman may be a brilliant economist - people smarter than me say he is - but his political judgment is just awful.
He is a brilliant economist, if you're speaking of his academic work. But in his columns and public appearances, he continually proves that brilliant economists can also be complete partisan whores who will sell out their profession and lie about the fundamentals thereof for partisan political reasons.
CP, are you being intentionally obtuse?
The Dems increased spending 100% vs 10 yrs ago. That is unsustainable.
Obama alone has increased spending significantly from 2008 to 2009 and 2010:
CP demonstrates we have NO chance to solve the problem, if as a proxy for his party (Dems, despite the handle) he won't even acknowledge there is a problem, won't acknowledge the source of the problem, and plays dumb on the math that illustrates the problem.
If you repeat, over and over, how healthcare for the nation is unamerican and might destroy the economy, how can you ever agree to a compromise that includes it?
I think civility is important, so I'm going to consider the above paragraph to be mere sloppiness, or at worst unfathomable ignorance, rather than intentional dishonesty.
No one is opposed to "healthcare for the nation". Most of the country is opposed to the unconstitutional abomination of Obamacare, a giant power grab by wannabe tyrants. Obamacare is un-American, which is why no principled defender of American can ever agree to a compromise which preserves it.
I think civility is important, so I'm going to consider the above paragraph to be mere sloppiness, or at worst unfathomable ignorance, rather than intentional dishonesty.
No one is opposed to "healthcare for the nation". Most of the country is opposed to the unconstitutional abomination of Obamacare, a giant power grab by wannabe tyrants. Obamacare is un-American, which is why no principled defender of American can ever agree to a compromise which preserves it.
I hope that's a tongue and cheek response to my post - as the exact sort of language that stops compromise. Not to mention full of lies. I'll let you respond before I take it apart...
@Dose,
Of course, painting your side as supporting "healthcare for the nation" is the quintessence of civility, isn't it?
If you rouse yourself sufficiently to use google, you can find all the facts a rational person requires to see that the US exceeds every other nation in the level of healthcare it provides--not to the wealthy few, either.
Hint: You should look for survival rates for every disease you can think of, because those accurately reflect the performance of the health-care system. Don't bother jabbering about life-expectancy data, unless you're prepared to argue that DemoCare is going to give us all better genes and make us less violent, better drivers overall.
@ Chip - Wasn't trying to do anything other than make a ridiculous point about two-bit soundbites and talking points getting in the way of meaningful discussion.
Thanks for proving my point.
@Chip S. and others,
I was responding to the many comments that our immediate deficit problem is due to Democratic spending initiatives. My argument is that it isn't.
We do face a long term problem and that is rising health care costs. The costs to individuals cited by Henry pertains to S.S., Medicare and Medicaid payments. You can ignore S.S. as its effect on the deficit is negligible. Payments to individuals are quickly rising due to rising health care costs. To address outlays to individuals, we need to address health care costs. This was attempted in 2009, with ACA. Interesting that you all will jump on board with Ryan's plan (creates exchanges for the elderly) but were aghast at the ACA doing the same thing for all ages under 65.
Just out of curiosity, does Ryan's plan include an individual mandate? No? There be your missing "aghast". Why wouldn't the President go along with Ryan on this? He campaigned against the individual mandate.
Wasn't trying to do anything other than make a ridiculous point
That's the most honest self-assessment I've seen from a leftist since Barack Obama described himself as a blank slate.
the exact sort of language that stops compromise.
Democrats are always in favor of compromise - the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, anything that can preserve at least a little of their ability to take things from other people.
Not to mention full of lies
Heh. I specifically said I would assume you weren't lying. Looks like when you said
Getting our points out in a manner that is frank, accurate and acknowledges that the other side might be valid too, is the civility that I search for
you were as full of shit as usual.
Paul Krugman is to political analysis
as
William Shockley was to genetic engineering
@conservative playa:
I was responding to the many comments that our immediate deficit problem is due to Democratic spending initiatives. My argument is that it isn't.
Congress can fund or not fund anything they choose. Presidents can sign or not sign, and propose any budget they choose.
When Congress passes a a budget, and the President signs it--THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERY DOLLAR THEY SPEND.
Democrats are just as responsible for the precription drug beneift and tax cuts as Republicans. When they controlled Congress they could have changed these things but they did not. They chose to keep them.
And when they had control of both houses and the Presidency they HUGELY increased spending EVEN THOUGH THEY KNEW REVENUES WERE DROPPING. They did not raise taxes, and they did not reduce spending.
Your flackery for them is utterly transparent. You have ignored all the data I presented on revenue and spending.
You claim that spiraling healthcare costs are responsible for the defict. Wasn't Medicare a "Democratic initiative"? You can't even stick to YOUR OWN argument!
Paul Krugman is a wine-and-cheese sampling, limousine liberal hypocrite.
Paul Krugman is a wine-and-cheese sampling, limousine liberal hypocrite.
There is nothing wrong with wine & cheese sampling. It's the liberalism, dude.
@Alex
"There is nothing wrong with wine & cheese sampling. It's the liberalism, dude."
Confession; I like wine and cheese.
It just seemed to flow with the limousine.
Civility = Friendliness and Agreement? Of course not. The point of maintaining civility, especially in the political sphere, is that decorous behavior makes the harshest disputation possible without resort to violence.
Not only is Krugman an idiot. He's a fucking moron. Calling him a hypocrite is a mercy at this point. This isn't about civility. It's about talking and dealing with people who have these ideas and fantasies based on emotional wish fulfillment of rainbows and unicorns and then having them be in positions of power to distill this bullshit down to the rest of the folks who see it for the smoke and mirrors it is. We tell them hell no and here's why, then we become demonized and vilified. Why should I stand for that. Why should anyone.
Why should I have to take the castor oil of their leftard ideology as gospel when it clearly has been a failure time and time again. Leftards are dumb, dangerous people. They and their misbegotten ideas will be the ruination of this country if they are allowed to continue dragging us down this road.
Krugman's argument is basically, interpret things as you see them and tell it like it is. Who could argue against that?
Certainly not me.
What makes the article interesting is that it is a tacit admission that Krugman has not, to date, been doing that.
Has anyone else noticed that Medicaid, all of a sudden, is called an entitlement program and is lumped in with Soc Sec & Medicare programs?
Repeat after me - Medicaid is a welfare program.
I was responding to the many comments that our immediate deficit problem is due to Democratic spending initiatives. My argument is that it isn't.
Well, you can "argue" for whatever you want. There's still the fact that if US government spending returned to where it was the last time the Republicans controlled the purse strings, the yearly deficit would fall by $800 billion/year, to $470 billion.
Now let's look at the yearly costs (averaged over the next ten years) of what Bush did:
- Medicare Part D: $60 billion
- Tax cuts for "the rich": $70 billion
- Tax cuts for poor/middle class: $470 billion (includes AMT fix)
So the correct answer is that balancing the budget means BOTH rolling back what Bush did AND rolling back the spending spree of the last four years.
The problem: "rolling back what Bush did" translates to "cutting Medicare benefits while raising taxes on the poor and middle class". Good luck getting that plan through Congress; neither party is even *suggesting* it.
Repeat after me - Medicaid is a welfare program.
Who are we kidding? So are Medicare and Social Security.
@AJ Lynch
"Has anyone else noticed that Medicaid, all of a sudden, is called an entitlement program and is lumped in with Soc Sec & Medicare programs?
Repeat after me - Medicaid is a welfare program."
The books have been cooked, fried, basted, boiled, broiled, poached and steamed any number of different ways.
If you apply history, say, of government projects in the past 50 years or so - most were completed over budget and late.
It would follow that however today's gov't administrators frame the 'state' of our finances, it can be reasonably assumed that things are much worse than what is being said.
"The government version of a mouse, is an elephant'.
Rev:
I disagree. Medicare & Soc sec are / were supposed to be funded with a universal tax on payroll that everyone paid. Yes I know they screwed the pooch by spending current worker's tax payment on current retirees. While Medicaid is just pure welfare.
Civility in politics doesn't mean name calling, obscenities and putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "La la la la" so loudly than nobody can hear what the other side is saying. This is why it's so galling for those who resort to such tactics to whine about incivility. What Krugman's call for a frank discussion of our differences really means is "shut down and let us run the show."
The tea parties used the tactics of the left to dramatize the feelings of people who come to them, but I see them fighting to be heard, rather than shouting others down.
For Krugman to call for "frank discussion of our differences" without civility is what hypocritical because he doesn't really want to have a discussion any more than those anti-tea-party protesters who tried to shout out the other side.
@Gabriel,
Conflating my arguments is rather uncivil, is it not.
1. The immediate deficit is not due to democratic spending initiatives.
Rather it is due to the recession and a distant second are the Bush tax cuts. The stimulus also contributed a small amount to the deficit, but it is negligible over the long haul. Our short term deficit is not structural in nature.
2. After making that statement, commenters pointed to our long term budget problems which are structural in nature, suggesting I was ignoring that. So I responded in kind.
Conflating arguments I made in response to 2, with issue 1 is disingenuous at best.
In regards to the outlays number. First they do not demonstrate a massive increase in spending by the democrats. For this year they actually track fairly well with the historical norm of the previous decade (in which the Republicans controlled a significant portion of the government). See the slope for outlays 2009-2010 vs. the slope for outlays 2000-2008. The difference of course is revenues are much lower due to the recession.
To reiterate point 1, they did not as you say "HUGELY increased spending EVEN THOUGH THEY KNEW REVENUES WERE DROPPING." They did pass a one time stimulus, but that was not structural in nature.
See here:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036
In fact, Conservative Player, it's time to call Obama what he is:
Jimmy Carter Redux.
As Glenn Reynolds says, that's the best-case scenario. In any case, I designed the appropriate bumper stickers three years ago, when the nomination became inevitable.
I disagree. Medicare & Soc sec are / were supposed to be funded with a universal tax on payroll that everyone paid. Yes I know they screwed the pooch by spending current worker's tax payment on current retirees. While Medicaid is just pure welfare.
Regardless of what they are/were supposed to be, what they have actually always been is welfare programs. Current beneficiaries have always been paid out of current tax revenue -- with benefits that bore no resemblance to what they had actually paid into the program.
"It seems that Krugman is associating civility with affecting agreement when there is and should be none. What's wrong with that? Rush Limbaugh says the same thing on practically every show."
I see quite a bit wrong with using the word "civility" to mean pretending agreement. Does Rush really make that association? Or does he say that we ought to express our differences. I agree with *that*.
I just don't agree at all with the idea that "civility" means not expressing disagreement. I don't like, at all, that we do the same thing with the word "tolerance." Tolerance apparently means "embrace". You must embrace whatever it is in order to be properly "tolerant."
That's not what the word "tolerance" means and it's not what the word "civility" means.
And I think we lose something important when we no longer have a "place" where we can promote either tolerance nor civility since there is no longer a conceptual "place" between acrimony and fond embrace.
thar methhed do spaketh " Leftards are dumb, dangerous people. They and their misbegotten ideas will be the ruination of this country if they are allowed to continue dragging us down this road."
sarge here whatcha gona do lil crazy methhed? ? good lord yer an obnoxious fuckwit and yar- how do the kids say it- avitar is fittin as it is a a cryin lil babay...sooo babay boy meth you gona brake some shit or STFU? sarge thinks neither sarge imagines yer jest a pasty white pimple butt sittin in yon dark computer room in yer stained yeller skivvies wishing for a date or even jest a steady hand on the stickshift godamn it boy yar make the sarge sick with yer infantile snivelin
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন