We have a crisis in which the right is making insane demands, while the president and Democrats in Congress are bending over backward to be accommodating — offering plans that are all spending cuts and no taxes, plans that are far to the right of public opinion.Etc. etc. You know the argument. It's quite familiar really. I remember it from 1964:
So what do most news reports say? They portray it as a situation in which both sides are equally partisan, equally intransigent...
July 27, 2011
Paul Krugman denounces "the cult of balance, of centrism."
It's "a true moral failure," he says:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
170 comments:
Been there, done that.
You coulda checked, y'know.
It does have the word "cult" in it,...
Krugman plays from and for only one side. I don't know how a Nobel prize winning economist--who supposedly did good theoretical work at one point--became the crazy uncle in the attic for the left.
Reading Krugman can give you an "incapacitating migraine".
Simply raise the debt ceiling in the blue states. Eliminate SS, Medicare, and Medicaid to the red states. That's how people vote. Give 'em what they want!
Hmmm, lessee...
Little Zero wants a bunch of new taxes that will torpedo the economy before he'll even look at a plan, or he throws a tantrum and walks out. More Harry Hopkins, but this is "balance, centrism". And he says Zero is "bending over backwards to be accommodating"?
The Republicans have now offered 6 (7, if you count Go6), most of which cut spending and taxes, while the Demos have offered, in the last couple of days, only 1.
This guy belongs at the Gray Lady.
National insolvency doesn't bother Krugman if it keeps liberal Democrats in power.
Has PK actually seen a plan from BO? What a scoop! Seems like he buried the lede there, doesn't it?
Of course Reagan increased the deficit but ignore that, and ignore that closing tax breaks and asking the very rich to pay a bit more in taxes, while agreeing to cuts and compromise on entitlement programs should make the Republicans happy, and as David Brooks suggested on July 21, we all need to embrace a bargain, but ignore that too, and you then realize yes there is a cult factor here.
Bizarre!
I saw a documentary on History Channel that was fascinating: The Kennedy Assassination 24 Hours After. Goldwater lost the 64 election to LBJ.
What was really interesting was the depth of hatred between LBJ and RFK. The theme of the liberal northeast versus the hated flyover country was already well established.
In retrospect, especially after watching this documentary, I no longer believe RFK ran against LBJ in the '68 Dem primaries because of deep seated political differences.
RFK loathed LBJ, thought he was a crude hick, and believed that Kennedys were ordained by God to rule.
As some point in the future Krugman opinion pieces will all begin with the following paragraph:
Winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics. Yes, that's right WINNER OF THE NOBEL PRIZE. A Nobel prize winner's opinion on all things is VERY IMPORTANT and to be considered true and correct. I am Paul Krugman, that man, that man who won the Nobel Prize in Economics; I'm the guy. And so here's my thoughts for today.....But before I start, lets make sure I made one thing PERFECTLY CLEAR: I won the Nobel Prize in Economics
(PS Paul Krugman rapidly becoming the thinking man's Miss Ann Elk)
How did those rape stats work out for you yesterday, R-V?
In the 60s it was the silent majority.
Is there a silent Centrality that should be making a lot more noise?
In Krugman's lifetime as a pundit the left has always been accommodating and the right has always been intransigent and yet, somehow, the government only gets larger and more invasive. Like UFO abductions or David Hasselhoff's career, it's a mystery that only the true believers understand.
If Congress mirrors the Governors, then the trend is toward ideological clustering farther right among Republicans, which is not reflected in the ideology of their constituents, whereas Democrats have a broader ideological spectrum, which more closely mirrors the ideology of their home states. Nate Silver made nice graphs of the phenomenon.
"We have a crisis in which the right is making insane demands"
This just shows the insanity of Paul Krugman. He may disagree with what the Tea Partiers want but there is no rational world in which someone who wants a balanced budget and a reduction in bloated spending can be said to be making "insane" demands. Every single family that lives within their budget and pays their bills at the end of the month would then have to be considered insane. What kind of world would that be?
Q. What’s the difference between the GOP and the Taliban?
A. Obama is willing to negotiate in good faith with the Taliban.
Scott, I posted a response yesterday on the stats, and here some on this issue:
It has been a bipartisan exercise. By the Treasury Department’s count, Congress has acted 78 times since 1960 to raise, extend or alter the definition of the debt limit — 49 times under Republican presidents, and 29 times under Democratic presidents. The Obama administration has taken pains to note that President Ronald Reagan, a hero to many Republicans in Congress, raised the debt limit.
Note roesch-voltaire's attempt to invoke the Gipper. That's become a standard tactic. I'm old enough to remember when the Gipper was as stoopid as Palin.
Then, the usual invocation of just a wee bit more taxes!
r-v's childish love of ever expanding government is so cute.
Krugman is another Journolist member. Which makes him a liar and a fabricator. Don't not believe anything that he says.
The Obama administration has taken pains to note that President Ronald Reagan, a hero to many Republicans in Congress, raised the debt limit.
Circumstances have changed, i.e., Obama's tsunami of spending.
How is Obama "bending over backwards to be accommodating" when he threatens to veto anything whatever that Congress - House or Senate - passes on their own?
And that is even before any such bill has passed in either place?
Wv: diedew - White House Kool-Aid
@R-V: Reagan increased the deficit for many reasons, but a prime reason was that he couldn't get Congress to follow through with spending cuts.
Fiscal conservatives know their history. Maybe that explains their intransigence.
Voltaire--
You do understand that the very rich are unaffected by rising income tax rates, right? The Rockefellers, the Kennedys, the Kerrys--even Bill Gates and Warren Buffet--pay minimal income taxes. Unless we institute some kind of general wealth tax (or we do away with tax-free munis and start taxing capital gains as income) they remain unaffected. Does that piss you off?
Mike, I agree--Krugman's Nobel is no more serious than Obama's. His work from decades ago was apparently pretty decent (and counters anything you hear him saying these days about trade), but so was the work of hundreds of other successful academic economists. In fact, I've never actually come across his work throughout several years of graduate studies in the area and wouldn't have heard of him if not for his ridiculous op-ed pieces.
The fact that he was the sole winner and in 2008 was not a coincidence. There were so many more deserving candidates. I'm still disgusted by the whole thing.
We must remind ourselves over and over again:
1) The response to the statement that the Republicans have brought us to the brink is that the House proposed and passed a budget in April
2)The President's budget was unanimously defeated (yes, every available Republican AND Democrat voted against it)in May
3)Also in May, Harry Reid (theoretically the Leader of the body that would foster compromise between a Democratic Administration and a Republican House) declared “There’s no need to have a Democratic budget, in my opinion,”
So here we are in July without a Budget nor a debt plan. Clearly the Republicans have been the problem all along!
The Obama administration has taken pains to note that President Ronald Reagan, a hero to many Republicans in Congress, raised the debt limit.
I have not seen the Obama administration taking pains to explain his stance in 2006 that the necessity of raising the debt ceiling was tantamount to a lack of leadership. I don't recall anything in that speech mentioning defaults or credit rating downgrades.
Simply raise the debt ceiling in the blue states. Eliminate SS, Medicare, and Medicaid to the red states. That's how people vote. Give 'em what they want!
I'd go for this, but you know every state is purple, correct?
The debt limit raises under Reagan were done in a period of scary inflation. Today we have - and have had for some time - 0 inflation (according to the Fed, not necessarily Kroger's) and some fears of deflation.
To bring that in is most tactfully described as disingenious.
Wv: hessy - Obama in a corner.
"...asking the very rich to pay a bit more in taxes..."
As the top 5% already pay upwards of 50% of income tax, I would like one of the resident liberals to simply state what the 'fair' percentage the rich should bear. 60%? 70%?
How much money should someone be able to earn before you determine its enough and the State should get the rest?
JFK was shot dead. Could'a been an inside job. With a giant cover up.
But LBJ won in 1964. In a landslide. Nixon would win landslides.
So, maybe, landslides and popular opinion get ya drunk on poewr; but give you a terrible hangover!
I'm reminded, when Truman fired General Douglas MacArthur. Who wanted to win in Korea by killing the overflow of chinese that were coming into korea to kill Americans ... MacArthur was told NO. Korea was going to be a stalemate.
Yes. Truman, the president, won the argument. MacArthur, in his departure address said:
Old Soldiers Never Die, They Just Fade Away.
Like the grass at Vurdun. It covers the carnage.
MacArthur was right! IF we're gonna fight ... THEN we should go ALL IN.
But I understand the problem. Israel, if it went all in would be forced to return it's victories. And, slink away in defeat.
So, we get charlatans; dipolomats from our state department through to the UN ... using the world as their giant toilet.
Diplomatic pants dancing. Care to dance?
Goldwater didn't even come close in 1964.
And, the speech that actually won the day and the distance went to Ronald Reagan ... who hadn't even run to be the governor of California, yet.
Ronald Reagan far surpassed Goldwater! But the stupid party never learns.
"...The Obama administration has taken pains to note that President Ronald Reagan, a hero to many Republicans in Congress, raised the debt limit...."
Indeed, however what you and others fail to grasp is we are fast approaching the point where we will not be able to service the debt. So invoking Reagan raising the limit 30 years ago really doesn't mean jack shit today.
But I understand math is hard for liberals.
Indeed, however what you and others fail to grasp is we are fast approaching the point where we will not be able to service the debt. So invoking Reagan raising the limit 30 years ago really doesn't mean jack shit today
Republicans did it, too! no longer means shit to me.
I agree. Republicans and Democrats have conspired to borrow and spend us into bankruptcy.
We need to force both parties to cease this madness.
Krugman is the worse sort of liar. A biased partisan one who is a true believer, so things the ends justifies the means.
Krugman wants to see a more efficient Rip Off Crew at work in DC.
All money is stolen money according to a community re-distributor.
Therefore it is totally moral to steal it back.
Everyone knows that it is easier to steal from the weak and the helpless.
But the Tea Party's attitude refuses to be weak and helpless. Ergo, they are supporters of economic immorality.
Point of view is critical here.
Krugman is a commie.
tits jiggling while walking the debt ceiling.
jiggle jiggle, tits.
debt tits.
Another effect of raising the marginal tax rates on "the rich," is that they start paying more attention to their taxes and invest according to how they will lose the least to the IRS, rather than to where their investments could earn the highest returns.
This tends to have very perverse effects on the economy and society in general. Sometimes in your very own neighborhood in ways you would not immediately think of.
The one percent of the population, 67,000 who make over a million paid on average $707,000 a piece or about 10percent of the tax. Between 1986 and 1987 the effective tax rate on millionaires fell from 40 percent to 29 percent, and as a result they paid $3.6 billion less in tax. Meanwhile people making from $50,000 to $75,000, a reasonably prosperous but hardly rich crowd, paid $7.6 billion more. And those like me, 200,000 and under pay 40 percent of the taxes.(taken from The Straight Dope) So, as a "liberal" I guess I would say 40 percent is fair under a much simplified tax code.
C'mon people, this is a convincing argument! Because if anyone knows 'insane', it's Paul Krugman.
Rumpletweezer,
"...or we do away with tax-free munis..."
Indeed. (The financial devastation this would cause our cities and counties is left as an exercise for the reader.)
Times change. The new big thing is to be partisan as hell while claiming to be a centrist or non-partisan.
On a recent business trip, a number of the conference attendees went out for drinks after the final night. This guy was waxing philosophic on matters of politics, stating repeatedly that he "does not take sides", is a "free thinker", that he "is neither conservative nor liberal", and that he has nothing against anyone. The longer the conversation went on, the more clear it became that he absolutely hated religion and the religious, that on every single issue of the day he was to the left of the President, and that he was as partisan as they come.
But he "doesn't take sides", and just wants "what is reasonable".
It was as believable as "I won't come in your mouth."
Sue D'Nhym said...
Times change. The new big thing is to be partisan as hell while claiming to be a centrist or non-partisan.
On a recent business trip, a number of the conference attendees went out for drinks after the final night. This guy was waxing philosophic on matters of politics, stating repeatedly that he "does not take sides", is a "free thinker", that he "is neither conservative nor liberal", and that he has nothing against anyone. The longer the conversation went on, the more clear it became that he absolutely hated religion and the religious, that on every single issue of the day he was to the left of the President, and that he was as partisan as they come.
But he "doesn't take sides", and just wants "what is reasonable".
It was as believable as "I won't come in your mouth."
Even more, "I'll pull out before I come", but the point about the partisanship thing is right on.
WV "menesses" The place where the first battle of the Civil War was fought.
Or what women have every month.
Reading Krugman, garage, R-v, I can come to only one conclusion. They're bat-shit fucking insane and there is no point in talking to them anymore.
Thanks Ann, for the troll, flame-bait article! You really know hot stir people up.
A good article that nicely sums up the myth of the reasonable, scientific left: An Alien Pod Person in a Room Full of Leftists.
roesch-voltaire said...
Congress has acted 78 times since 1960 to raise, extend or alter the definition of the debt limit — 49 times under Republican presidents, and 29 times under Democratic presidents."
Spending initiates from the legislature, so who was President is less important. Let's look at that:
Since 1960:
Democratic majority/House: 38-14-0
Democratic Majority/Senate: 34-16-2
Figures
Recognizing we can't deficit spend into eternity is "far to the right of public opinion." It just makes me shake my head.
"...Meanwhile people making from $50,000 to $75,000, a reasonably prosperous but hardly rich crowd, paid $7.6 billion more...."
Was this a result of higher taxes or because the number of people making a prosperous wage simply increased?
"...The one percent of the population, 67,000 who make over a million paid on average $707,000 a piece or about 10percent of the tax."
Of course I said the top 5% which according to the Tax Foundation includes those with an AGI of $160k and up. The problem with your desire to soak the rich for an even large portion of the pie is there just arent enough of them.
I would have no problem with paying more taxes if Congress would show some semblance of responsibility with the revenue. And thus far, I am not convinced.
All Kabuki theatre. Politics as professional rasslin'. The outcome is already known, and will favor their masters, the Central bankers, who finance their campaigns, and funnel special interest money to them.
Until the Central Bankers are removed from their unconstitutional ability to create our money from debt, where we the people pay interest on that money, there will be no change. He who creates the money makes the rules.
The FED, is no more "federal" than Fed Ex. They are a cabal of private bankers.
Neither plan does ANYTHING about the $14.3 Trillion deficit. How can $1.7 or $2.7 Trillion over 10 years do anything? The "Extremism" of holding fast on the debt ceiling is sanity.
Krugman is the Central Banker water carrier. He is a joke. That he Obama and Arafat won Nobel prizes is a bigger joke.
At least 25% of the behemouth government beaurocracy can be immediately cut off the top. Tax barriers should be set up to prevent companies from moving plants and production abroad. Take away the money creation power of the Fed. These 3 things solve most of the problem. Krugman, the idiot nobel laureate would rather continue on the debt saturation path from which no escape is possible. Debt incurred by the system is already making it impossible for the system to grow. The end game is near. The bankers have continually grown the money supply 40 years, thus they have continually grown the amount of debt. Continual growth is the ideology of the Cancer Cell said Edward Abbey. Cancer left to grow always kills it's host.
ST - thanks for the link. Of course the comments left on that article were mostly nasty. What can you expect from vulgar leftists.
garage - why are you willing to punish the 40% of Democrats in red-states?
"Krugman decided, over a decade ago, that he would defend the Welfare State at all costs.
He sacrificed his integrity to the cause."
I really, truly don't understand how someone of his apparent intelligence can do that. My best answer, and I guess it's a story as old as the hills, is he does it for the money.
I would have no problem with paying more taxes if Congress would show some semblance of responsibility with the revenue. And thus far, I am not convinced.
This. There is far, far, far too much fraud, waste, and sheer stupidity in Congressional spending for me to be anything but borderline militant about giving them any more of my money.
So Anthony Bourdain wants to skin Glenn Beck alive. Can we bring him up on charges, hate crimes?
"I would have no problem with paying more taxes if Congress would show some semblance of responsibility with the revenue."
Me too. But the current plans are the same old, same old. And until that changes (and I have no reason to think it ever will), this is one of the few constraints available. It may look like intransigence, but what it really is, i) the only way to get the reforms that are absolutely essential and, ii) a lot of people are sick and tired of being played for fools.
As the top 5% already pay upwards of 50% of income tax, I would like one of the resident liberals to simply state what the 'fair' percentage the rich should bear. 60%? 70%?
Of course the people with the greatest income pay the most tax. It is a tax on income, not persons.
I don't know how a Nobel prize winning economist--who supposedly did good theoretical work at one point--became the crazy uncle in the attic for the left.
Some of us are pretty sure that his articles are ghost written by his wife now days......
Who is Paul Krugman's wife?
@ Hoosier Daddy: Poor people do pay all sorts of taxes: FICA, sales, social security and a bunch of others. True, the fed income tax is progressive. But it's the exception rather. The poor and middle class in this country still pay a greater share of their overall income in taxes than do the wealthy, who pay a lower effective rate than the rest of us when all is said and done.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-wells
The argument that past congresses raised the debt limit as giving justification to doing it now is utterly specious. In the past congress repeatedly lied when raising the debt limit. That includes both Democrats and Republicans. Both parties have repeatedly proven that they aren't serious else they could be making massive cuts right now.
"Poor people do pay all sorts of taxes: FICA, sales, social security and a bunch of others."
FICA and Social Security are not taxes and it's a (very common) subterfuge to claim they are. They're enforced retirement savings. A really crappy retirement plan, but a retirement plan, in which the benefits supposedly accrue to the payer, nontheless.
Krugman's inherent craziness is apparently exacerbated by his environment. Here's a description of how members of the Princeton community behaved at PK's election night party in 2008:
“I was nervous until they finally called it on Election Night,” Krugman says. “We had an Election Night party at our house, thirty or forty people.”
“The econ department, the finance department, the Woodrow Wilson school,” Wells [PK's wife, editor, and co-author] says. “They were all very nervous, so they were grateful we were having the party, because they didn’t want to be alone. We had two or three TVs set up and we had a little portable outside fire pit and we let people throw in an effigy or whatever they wanted to get rid of for the past eight years.”
“One of our Italian colleagues threw in an effigy of Berlusconi.”
“I put out some coloring paper and markers so that people could write stuff on it and throw it into the fire. People really felt like there was stuff they wanted to shed! I had little hats and party whistles.”
Coloring paper! Hats and whistles!
Wow.
I would have no problem with paying more taxes if Congress would show some semblance of responsibility with the revenue.
Exactly this. The problem is that Congress will want to cut (or change) revenue streams, when priority #1 should be chopping down the size of government and eliminating programs. But no one in Congress wants to go on record as doing this, as far as I can tell.
After you ash-can, say, DOE or DHS, then -- and only then -- can you adjust revenue streams. Otherwise, the revenue just flows into the bureacracy, vanishing.
"Some of us are pretty sure that his articles are ghost written by his wife now days......"
OK. So above I speculated that Krugman writes things that an intelligent person can't possibly believe for a motive as old as the hills; money. So another possibilty is that he does it for an even older motive; sex.
For the past 8 years [Wells] has been a committed yogini.
Write 'em if ya got 'em.
"...@ Hoosier Daddy: Poor people do pay all sorts of taxes: FICA, sales, social security and a bunch of others. True, the fed income tax is progressive. But it's the exception rather. The poor and middle class in this country still pay a greater share of their overall income in taxes than do the wealthy, who pay a lower effective rate than the rest of us when all is said and done...."
I didn't say they didn't. I was referring to fed income tax. I'll say that again so it sinks in: Fed. Income tax which is the driving form of revenue in the country. Also bear in mind that wealthy as defined by this administration is $200k annually.
Also consider that the poor and middle class will always spend a greater proportion of their earnings in taxes, or groceries, gas, entertainment.
My point is at what point can you no longer rely on high incomes to shoulder the funding of the state?
Republicans did it, too! no longer means shit to me.
Yes. Exactly. And so when Tea Partiers declare that "both Republicans and Democrats have been spendthrift and it needs to stop!" the liberal response is "Crazy! Radical" (and I'm not a Tea Partier)
I would have no problem with paying more taxes if Congress would show some semblance of responsibility with the revenue.
Well, I would have no problem if Congress could cut expense, not cut the rate of increase in spending, not cut the possible future spending that was never going to happen (i.e. saving the cost of war in Iraq 2015), not establishing a task force, not pushing "efficiency" but true honest to God, everyone can understand, "7 is less than 10" cuts. And then later on, more cuts so that you have two points on a trend line.
then we can discuss "revenue enhancement"
Also bear in mind that wealthy as defined by this administration is $200k annually.
Regardless of zip code. Don't forget that.
And I'm ok with Democratic/liberal anger around cuts now.
Its better than riots in the street a la Greece that will come in the future
Madison Man appears to be the only reasonable liberal around here.
"...But the current plans are the same old, same old. And until that changes (and I have no reason to think it ever will),.."
It makes me think of the illegal amnesty bill Reagan signed. A major component of that bill required strict enforcement of immigration laws but we saw how that turned out.
That's why any tax increase will never have a corresponding spending reduction.
MadisonMan's not a liberal. He just thinks he is.
President Ronald Reagan, a hero to many Republicans in Congress, raised the debt limit to $3.1 trillion.
In the spirit of bipartisanship, I am willing to see the debt limit raised to twice that amount.
"I would have no problem with paying more taxes if Congress would show some semblance of responsibility with the revenue." I agree, too bad they didn't start by putting a brake on our continual wars which spend more to not create jobs, and waste money in other countries than we do our own,
"Regardless of zip code. Don't forget that..."
Yep.
FICA is a tax and Social Security is a welfare program. The two are separated and no one knows where the money has been in the meantime, but we do know there is a bunch missing that has been used for other purposes having nothing to do with either Social Security or Medicare.
Even NPR, the supposed "liberal" news source seems to be spinning the crisis as a failure of the President and the Dems. Even though they have given into almost all of the Reps demands and still, for purely political reasons, the House Leader wants to prolong the crisis and give nothing in return. If the government defaults it is the fault of the Republicans and the Tea Party. But I am sure that is not what the spin will be.
our continual wars which spend more to not create jobs
I've heard from at least two Nobel prize winners that government spending is inherently stimulative.
R-V: The debt limit was raised multiple times during the Gipper's presidency. He was not afraid to debate the necessity of the action notwithstanding imminent elections. Not so much Obama.
Pragmatist: The Dems have given in to nothing other than the necessity of discussing spending cuts, an idea that would never in a million years have occurred to them to bring up.
They would prefer to have their little fantasy extended forever with taxes from millionairesandbillionaires even though there are not enough millionairesandbillionaires to cover the cost.
A nice feature of the president's campaign against millionairesandbillionaires and their private jets is that he has virtually, singlehandedly, killed the sale of new private jets. Job creator.
It would be helpful to distinguish between entitlements as contributory and non-contributory (i.e., welfare). Both the intended recipients and the providers of welfare have a vested interest in retaining non-contributory entitlements. It also offers an incredible incentive to supporters of an ideological bloc.
It would be helpful to consider that funding through involuntary exploitation (i.e., coerced redistributive change) is a principal contributor to progressive corruption.
It would be helpful to consider the policies which did and do sabotage America's ability to compete globally. Either that or trade only with first-world nations.
It would be helpful to consider the over 10 million (and likely more) illegal aliens who displace American men, women, and children; and are the beneficiaries of funding recovered through involuntary exploitation.
It would be helpful to consider the massive criminal population that injures society and their victims twice, as they remain idle and enjoy the benefits of progressive policies in prison (loss of liberty excepted), including funding through involuntary exploitation.
It would be helpful to consider that unions exist to enforce structural inequality in the labor market.
It would be helpful to consider that public unions are effectively the illegal fourth branch of government; interfering with representation of citizens, and taxpayers specifically, by their duly elected representatives.
It would be helpful to consider the consequences of preventing Americans from domestic resource recovery and energy generation.
It would be helpful to consider the significance of a dwindling population as a contributor to diminishing revenue.
As for cult, it is a primitive order that seeks to normalize the sacrifice of virginal human life, and other deviant behaviors, which are negative contributors to the fitness of our species and of our society. There is also the concern with denigrating individual dignity, and for profit, no less.
Yes. America has a comprehensive problem, and it starts with the fundamentally flawed variants of left-wing ideologies. Not only do they corrupt individuals and society, but they also hamper our efforts to deal with corruption in the exception.
My point is at what point can you no longer rely on high incomes to shoulder the funding of the state?
Do you want the tax structure from circa 1988? What would work for you?
"FICA is a tax ..."
I understand where you're coming from, but it is important not to concede the point. Liberals claim the poor are burdened with the FICA "tax", but SS and MediCare are their holy programs that they claim are not welfare, but self funded retirement safety for the individual. Ergo, FICA is not a tax. It is money that the payer gets back in his retirement (with, whoop dee do, 1% interest).
According to Roeschie since Prince Obama has raised the new baseline of Federal spending to 25% of GNP that is sacrosanct! And those attempting to reduce that % just a wittle wittle bit are a cult.
"...I agree, too bad they didn't start by putting a brake on our continual wars which spend more to not create jobs, and waste money in other countries than we do our own,..."
Well I thought President Hope and Change was supposed to have ended those wars two years ago.
So you see my reluctance in wanting to let them take more of my earnings.
Two videos of two AZ Senators in one day.
You can say a lot about AZ politics but we certainly
keep it interesting!
(and here's a nice piece with AZ's next Senator.)
"..Do you want the tax structure from circa 1988? What would work for you?..."
A sensible budget? Removing useless government agencies? Spending within our means?
Or is that too radical?
Thank you, Hagar.
All my life (28 years) I've been told I can't count on Social Security because 1) the money goes out as soon as it comes in, 2) any extra is spent on general expenses, 3) those collecting get far more than they ever paid in (e.g., my great-grandmother who never paid in but collected benefits from 1948-2006) and 4) by the time I'm old enough to collect, there won't be enough workers to pay for my benefits. It is nothing more than an "old people tax."
I've been told much the same thing about Medicare and Medicaid (sick old people and poor sick people taxes, respectively).
And most viscerally, don't tell me that those programs aren't taxes when I have to cut a check every month to the bloody IRS for back-self-employment taxes because my husband's employer illegally switched him from an employee to a contractor. Sure, we didn't owe "income" taxes because the amount was so low, but the IRS still wants their $3K and will seize our bank accounts and put a lien on our house to get it.
I guess I'm unaware of a "cult of balance, of centrism." This is an obvious straw-man argument.
That is, surely everyone knows that if you go to a car dealer, and the dealer offers to sell you a car for $1,000,000. that you think is worth $20,000. you're not going to say, "OK, let's split the difference- here's $510,000. !"
The real question is, why does Krugrman bother, when surely it's been a decade or more since he convinced anyone who was not already convinced?
Krugman's position on just about anything is absolutely predictable, and the arguments tend to be un-original. Could you not write a Krugman column at least as well as Krugman does? Couldn't most bright and literate high-school students?
Has there ever been such a gap between reputation ("Nobel-prize winning economist!") and performance?
Can someone actually say with a straight face that going back to say, the 2008 spending level would be the apocalypse? What is the liberal mindset that accepts as an article of faith that any spending by the government is sancrosanct.
And I am not giving up on mine.
When the Gov't takes money out of my pocket, that is a tax, and when they 50 years later take to sending me a check every month, that is a welfare program.
There is going to be a Social Security system, and as things are, I am glad there is.
However, we are not going to get a rational system until we call things by their right names. Talking about "enforced savings program," "old age insurance," "lock-boxes," etc. is just smoke and mirrors.
And I think the best way to get people to think seriusly about it as well as to prevent the politicians from looting the system for their own purposes, is to specify by law that the FICA be adjusted annually so as to pay for the estimated SS and Medicare payments of the current year, no more and no less.
God damn blogger.
"And most viscerally, don't tell me that those programs aren't taxes when I have to cut a check every month to the bloody IRS for back-self-employment taxes ..."
I don't think you're getting the point. The people who SUPPORT the system claim it is not a tax. Except when it is in their political interest to claim it IS a tax. I'm fucking tired of it.
"And I think the best way to get people to think seriusly about it as well as to prevent the politicians from looting the system for their own purposes, is to specify by law that the FICA be adjusted annually so as to pay for the estimated SS and Medicare payments of the current year, no more and no less."
That ship has sailed. As of last year, SS now pays out more than what it takes in.
"Can someone actually say with a straight face that going back to say, the 2008 spending level would be the apocalypse?"
Did you detect a smirk on Jug Ears? I didn't.
Precisely. And FICA needs to be adjusted upward or Social Security and/or Medicare needs to be adjusted downward.
I don't see that we have any other option, Hagar, but then I'm (apparently) a right-wing extremist.
You do understand why it's so important to the left to obsficate how SS works, correct? They have believed (and admitted, quietly) for decades that if they acknowledge that it is not you getting your "own" money back at retirement, it will be seen for the welfare program that it is and popular support will fall. That's why it's the left, not the right, that is so opposed to means testing SS.
No, what is offensive is when fiscal conservatives like to condemn people like me as freeloaders. Yes, I haven't made enough money to pay "income" taxes, and people like me make up 52% of the population. But we do lose part of our paychecks to the federal government.
And because that money is not actually going into an account marked "Amy Schley" but is instead going out to my grandparents and others, how can anyone possibly claim it is not a tax?
(More aggravatingly, that money is getting paid to people who had their chance at life, who could have saved for retirement if they'd bothered, while I sit in a foreclosed house with my JD hoping I'll get a halfway decent job before Chase gets around to scheduling an auction.)
Who's calling you a freeloader, Amy?
The argument about whether FICA is or isn't a tax rages on because it's partly a tax and partly not.
FICA is different from, say, the federal excise tax on gasoline because the amount you eventually receive in SS payments is determined by a formula that correlates your benefits with your FICA payment history. It's not a complete "forced contribution" because that correlation is both imperfect and subject to change by future legislation.
"And because that money is not actually going into an account marked "Amy Schley" but is instead going out to my grandparents and others, how can anyone possibly claim it is not a tax?"
The people who set up the system (and that certainly wouldn't be me) claim it's not. I just get pissed off when they change their tune when it suits their argument.
It's a Ponzi scheme, is what it is. I agree with Amy 100% that there should be an account with your name on it that you have a legal claim to. But that would be "privatization", and we can't have any of that, now can we?
"who could have saved for retirement if they'd bothered"
But they were saving, via the contributions they made to Social Security, a method of savings that was forced on them, as it is to you.
By recharacterizing it as a tax, you are helping lay the groundwork for taking your savings away from you when you get old.
You're being enlisted in this recharacterization, and I can see why you're eager to do that, because you've already lost hope that you'll get your Social Security, and you want to fight against having to pay what are unquestionably taxes.
We should all see everything that is going on here, rather than to keep picking the part of it that fits the argument we want to make right now.
"...No, what is offensive is when fiscal conservatives like to condemn people like me as freeloaders..."
I think it'd offensive to insist that the 5% who pay over 50% if the federal income tax aren't paying their fair share.
I think it'd offensive to insist that the 5% who pay over 50% if the federal income tax aren't paying their fair share.
I think it's offensive that 2% of the country owns 90% of the wealth.
"By recharacterizing it as a tax, you are helping lay the groundwork for taking your savings away from you when you get old.
You're being enlisted in this recharacterization,"
Bingo.
That should also include you, Professor.
Saving is something I do; "enforced savings" is like miltary intelligence, it is a contradiction in terms.
Further, "savings" belong to me and passes to my heirs. SS payments goes into the General Fund, and you will never see a penny of them if you die before age 65.
So, here is where, like a good little Democrat, you say, "Oh, it's not really savings, it's - it's insurance!"
You might as well say, "It's d'Giorno!"
With OriginalMike, I hate arguing with Democrats!
"...No, what is offensive is when fiscal conservatives like to condemn people like me as freeloaders..."
Stating a fact is not the same as condemnation. And this is a particularily important fact. When you reach the point that 50% of voters have no skin in the game, have no vested interest in not raising taxes, you have reached a dangerous, unstable situation. Was it de Tocqueville who commented on this as the point at which a democracies fail?
I think it's offensive that 2% of the country owns 90% of the wealth.
Why?
""who could have saved for retirement if they'd bothered""
I saved twice. I "saved" through my Social Security "contributions" (that's what there called by the system, Amy), and then I saved again for myself. I am unlikely to collect a dime of SS. And I'm fine with all that. Had to do, and I have no objection in principal to welfare. What sticks in my craw is when liberals call me cruel and heartless while their taking my money.
They could at least say thank you.
"...I think it's offensive that 2% of the country owns 90% of the wealth...'
Tough. Then again there isn't anything but your lack of ambition that prevents you from joining their ranks either.
Then again there isn't anything but your lack of ambition that prevents you from joining their ranks either.
Well, that used to be true. These days, it's my impression the difficulty is ramping up significantly. It's more a feature than a bug, though.
Couldn't it be argued that it was GW's failing that he compromised on spending to appease the left and that is why we are where we are at?
Haven't we just watched 10yrs of compromise by the horse committee ending up with a giraffe?
What part of "we are one day away from fundamentally changing the country" sounds like compromise?
I am unlikely to collect a dime of SS.
Lots of people say this--hell, I myself have said it on occasion--but I don't really think it's true.
The amount that any generational cohort receives in SS is determined as much by politics as economics. The question will always be, what is the best balance politically between the size of the checks sent to retirees and the amount of taxes collected from workers? The answer is almost certain not to be to send $0 to retirees who were promised much more than that.
One thing retirees have lots of is time on their hands to go to their local congresscritter's office and yell.
None of this is to say that there's not a big problem looming. But it is to say that intelligent planning for that problem involves figuring out ways to get the economy back on its historical growth path rather than the EuroTrack we're on now.
Garage...how wonderful, you've become a Tea Party member, states rights and all.
It's unfair, un-egalitarian and unjust for 2% of the households to control 90% of the wealth. Back in 1955, the top 2% owned only 50% of the wealth.
"...Well, that used to be true. These days, it's my impression the difficulty is ramping up significantly..."
Maybe more due to government regulation. I mean some 20 something dweeb became a billionaire by making a webpage for people to stay in touch.
Then again I know the couple who opened up a pub in my neighbourhood and I got an earfull on the amount of fees and government bullshit it required.
Isn't it just as un-egalitarian and unjust for 2% to hold 50%?
Wouldn't it be just as un-egalitarian and unjust for 2% to hold 25%?
Regardless of the percentages involved, you're going to have to explain the unjust part.
Imagine if Mark Zuckerberg had to wade through a sea of regulations before getting Facebook off the ground...
Scott - yes everyone should own an equal share of society's wealth. Just like in the days of Ugg.
Maybe more due to government regulation
My point exactly. Bars aren't websites, but they've been around a LOT longer and been exposed to government involvement a lot longer. Give websites another couple decades and it might be along the same lines.
"...It's unfair, un-egalitarian and unjust for 2% of the households to control 90% of the wealth..."
Move to Cuba then. I hear they have a great health care system there. Say hi to Hugo for me.
Scott - yes everyone should own an equal share of society's wealth. Just like in the days of Ugg.
Ah...levity. I get it. I'm just not very experienced with humor, I'm afraid.
In days of Ugg, everyone was equal. Then Ugg Prime thought he could live a bit better, applied himself and made some wealth out of what seemed to be nothing. Ugg Prime's neighbors were envious and killed him for his wealth. Safe to say, a few more iterations and Ugg's descendents figured out how to defend their newly attained wealth.
"Lots of people say this--hell, I myself have said it on occasion--but I don't really think it's true."
My oncologist thinks it's true.
Original Mike, et al.,
There is going to be a Social Security system of some kind, so you are going to "collect," except that it is going to be someone elses money and not derived from what you originally "contributed."
All I am saying is that we are never going to get a rational system and get a handle on costs and benefits until we call things for what they are.
That is provided you live past 65, or 68, or whatever.
That is provided you live past 65, or 68, or whatever.
The EMP is going to shorten that expectancy significantly.
Ann,
"You're being enlisted in this recharacterization, and I can see why you're eager to do that, because you've already lost hope that you'll get your Social Security, and you want to fight against having to pay what are unquestionably taxes."
I'm 28. Should I retire at 68 (2050), the Social Security Administration's own data show that there will be no trust fund and that there will have been no trust fund for retirees for 14 years.
Social Security Trust Fund Report
After the trust fund is eliminated, "tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2085."
Trustees Report Summary
Of course, this is also after my Social Security tax rates have jumped from 11.5% to 17% in 2035.
So when I am roughly 52 (assuming SS's intermediate projections and no change in laws) SS won't have a trust fund, the tax will eat 17% of my paycheck regardless of any other taxes, and I can expect to get 75% of what I involuntarily "invested" in the system.
And all this ignores the massive Medicare and debt crises and assumes that the American economy gets back to normal levels. Can you think of any reason why I should expect to see a penny of it?
As for my comment about "already having a chance," somehow all three of my living grandparents managed to save enough money that they don't need their SS checks. They never went to college and worked blue color jobs to do it, too. They had their chance, and they did something with it. Why couldn't other people?
Original Mike, my comment about the freeloader characterization is less about this blog, and more frustration with Glenn Reynolds et al's recent "Broaden the Base" meme.
I guess it was Franklin: "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
"I'm 28. Should I retire at 68 (2050), the Social Security Administration's own data show that there will be no trust fund and that there will have been no trust fund for retirees for 14 years."
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but there's no trust fund now.
Oh, I know. But at least there is a stack of IOUs. After 2036, there won't even be that.
Amy, I predict in ten years you'll be a conservative (understand, I consider that a compliment).
Jim DeMint (I think it was DeMint) had an interesting idea a few days ago. I've always considered those Trust Fund IOUs as completely worthless (and maybe I still will after I've mulled this point over some more), but he suggested, as an answer to Obama's threat to not pay out Social Security until the Repubs raise the debt ceiling, that the Social Security Administration sell bonds in the Trust Fund to the general public. Sure, he said, they'd sell at a discount, but they would sell.
"Will be a conservative?" I'm one now. :D Well, more like libertarian.
I don't disagree with the notion that everyone needs to pay her fair share; I just object to the idea that somehow my $3K self-employment tax bill for a $14K/yr salary doesn't count because it doesn't include "income" taxes.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but there's no trust fund now.
Republicans wanted to privatize something that doesn't exist, eh?
"I just object to the idea that somehow my $3K self-employment tax bill for a $14K/yr salary doesn't count because it doesn't include "income" taxes."
Well, again, I don't think that's what people are saying. I think we're on the same page, but you don't realize it. Give Althouse's post some thought.
Paul Krugman says it like it is, but only those who don't have their heads covered by their ass can hear it. The stock market is reacting, Boehner got stabbed in the back by the Teahadists, the Republican Party is in disarray and the Tea Party is imploding. The Democrats will make sure the Debt Ceiling gets raised. While the Teahadists and Republicans are in a circular shooting spree,lol.What a good day it is.
Having problems figuring out this "true moral failure"?
Let's let Ray Stevens explain it to YOU.
garage, Privatizing "social security" has meant allowing people to divert a part of their FICA taxes to what would essentially be IRAs. Believe it or not, it's been done successfully in several countries. But it has nothing to do with the SS trust fund. The assets in the SS trust fund are a special type of nonmarketable Treasury debt, which means right now they are simply promises by the Treasury to cover any SS deficits.
But I guess you could distribute those SS bonds to people in a declining proportion to the present value of their future benefits net of taxes, and let people get their checks from the Treasury as interest on those bonds. There'd be some cutoff age below which people like Amy got nothing, but in exchange they'd get to stop paying FICA. That's never been part of any actual SS privatization proposal, but I've gotta say that I think it's far more radical--and better--than the old Bush proposal.
So "privatizing something that doesn't exist" may just be a brilliant idea, allowing for the immediate shutting down of the entire SS system through something that worked out to be equivalent to the Ryan plan. Brilliant, actually. Thanks, gm!
The govt borrows $1.6 T a year (and ends up lending money to themselves to do it) and Krugman thinks it's "insane" to cut spending a couple hundred billion a year?
It's "insane" to restructure entitlement plans that are clearly unsustainable?
Just heard about the GOP's "insane" plan: a cut of $22 billion the first year. Heartless.
When I read Alex's comments, I think of this recent piece from Norway:
I, as editor of the conservative Norwegian website Minerva, ......, I have often worried about the increasingly aggressive tone that characterizes too many not only in our forum, but everywhere that the multicultural society is debated.
Yes that aggressive tone which labels anyone who does not share the core belief system as crazy or commie etc is at the heart of the problem and a block into reasonable compromise.
I must add that thanks to my so-called forced savings, I now collect my earned SS, and in the future so will you be able to do that. But my private savings, invested in mutual funds and stocks, just took a huge hit, in this market as soon as you make a small profit it is best to sell, and if folks here think gambling on the stock market is the way to ensure their future well good luck.
"I must add that thanks to my so-called forced savings, I now collect my earned SS, and in the future so will you be able to do that. But my private savings, invested in mutual funds and stocks, just took a huge hit, in this market as soon as you make a small profit it is best to sell, and if folks here think gambling on the stock market is the way to ensure their future well good luck."
There is so much stupid in this, I don't know where to begin. Best just to log off and go home.
r-v, That's a fine sentiment you've quoted, but I don't think it survives travel to the US w/ respect to the Social Security debate or its short-term manifestation, the debt-ceiling impasse. Maybe other stuff, but not that.
The source of the SS problem in the US is demographic: The claims of future retirees will be made against a labor force that is dwindling relative to its dependents. The only way to lessen the future pain will be through growth in wages. The way to do that is by stimulating increased capital accumulation now.
Bush proposed a plan to do just that. It was a pretty moderate plan, but it got completely demagogued by the Democrats. Now we're further along toward the economic cliff, growth has stalled, and the Democrats are focused almost exclusively on redistribution. The uncertainty that the Obama Administration has fostered among potential investors is almost certainly the reason for the jobless non-recovery we are stuck in.
Your Norwegian observer values the security of his SS payments. But in the US, for people at middle age and younger, SS is more of a risky asset with very low or even negative returns. It's the complete denial of this reality by the Democrats that those of us on the other side find infuriating.
It's the complete denial of this reality by the Democrats that those of us on the other side find infuriating.
Be infuriated. But conservatives have dominated the public discourse with this bogus crap the past 30 yrs. All the "it's broke!" zombie lies that come straight from the mouths of right wing hack tanks that perfected them. The media is utterly incapable of explaining any of it, and even many liberals don't know how to combat the honed misinformation. To suggest people would have been better giving their money to the criminals on Wall St that fucked up trillions in stupid trades is preposterous.
One thing I've noticed lately about conservatives is that killing bedrock Democratic inititiaves is really a higher motivation that I ever thought. Maybe the highest. It would just fucking kill them, say, looking at that Obama train as part of his legacy in Wisconsin. What I don't know is if they even know their own pettiness.
One thing I've noticed lately about conservatives is that killing bedrock Democratic inititiaves is really a higher motivation that I ever thought.
Why, exactly, does this surprise you? If people think that Obamacare is a terrible idea, why shouldn't they want to kill it?
I don't think most conservatives think ObamaCare is a terrible idea. They don't want his name on what should be a popular program. Minor insurace reforms like keeping college students on until 26 yrs, no pre-existing conditions, etc. What moron paying insurance would be against it?
You're right. It can't be that "most" conservatives oppose Obamacare. It's got to me more like "all conservatives and most independents" oppose Obamacare in order to explain a 57-36 margin favoring outright repeal. You can apply your preferred Rasmussen Adjustment Factor to those numbers and still won't be able to make this law popular.
And I'm one of those morons who oppose it. Because it will lead quite predictably to increased government control of both insurance and health care. But then you seem quite happy with those fiscal success stories Social Security and Medicare, so I understand your enthusiasm for much, much more of that.
Because it will lead quite predictably to increased government control of both insurance and health care.
Which would be.....bad? For who?
Be infuriated. But conservatives have dominated the public discourse with this bogus crap the past 30 yrs. All the "it's broke!" zombie lies that come straight from the mouths of right wing hack tanks that perfected them..... It would just fucking kill them, say, looking at that Obama train as part of his legacy in Wisconsin. What I don't know is if they even know their own pettiness.
Short response:
We don't have the money
I know that sucks but wishing it weren't so doesn't make it go away.
We don't have the money
If that were true those troops around the world would be long home. We wouldn't have the money to open up the treasury to banks upside down by 16T dollars. And a million other things.
On top of that horeseshit, it turns out Reid's plan cuts more than Boehner's. We should just call up the Chinese and have them take us over.
Democrats in Congress are bending over backward to be accommodating — offering plans that are all spending cuts and no taxes,
?
There's a Congressperson in NC who says repealing Obamacare would fix our current problem.
True or false.
Shrink the economy.
??????
Profit!
Shrink the economy.
Whew, it turns out you're joking.
I should have realized that from your 7:10 comment.
"...To suggest people would have been better giving their money to the criminals on Wall St that fucked up trillions in stupid trades is preposterous..."
Yes better it is given to the government which had squandered trillions more than wall street dreamed of. Great fucking idea. The jackass you voted for will see to it that we won't even bring in enough tax revenue to service the debt but Allah forbid we can't cut anything.
I have a hard time believing you can be so dumb but then I remember you're a Democrat.
"...If that were true those troops around the world would be long home...."
Wasn Obama supposed to have ended the wars garage? I recall you bitching a storm about it a few years back but since the Kwisatz Hadderach was anointed I don't hear much from your ilk about the two wars he was supposed to end much less the third one he got us into.
Oh that's right, its ok when a Democrat does it.
Mike said...
Reading Krugman can give you an "incapacitating migraine".
His existence gives me an incapacitating migraine. I wish he would just shut up and die. He's a fucking idiot. Truly, a simpleton of colossal proportions. How he got to the heights he has gotten to is a complete mystery to me. I see nothing in his 'pedigree' that should denote that he deserves any of the accolades that have been heaped upon him when you have to endure the sheer drivel that he spews in such volumes.
"...asking the very rich to pay a bit more in taxes..."
This shows r-v has no idea what he's talking about. The very rich paying a bit more makes no difference at all. Raising taxes to solve the deficit problem requires large increases on the middle class. If he read honest economists rather than political attack dogs masquerading as economists maybe he'd know that.
I don't think most conservatives think ObamaCare is a terrible idea.
Garage was on the dark side of the moon during late '09 and most of '10, apparently.
It's quite obvious that conservatives just LOVE that individual mandate...you know, that thing that President Obama actively campaigned AGAINST. Your pretty big on holding politicians to what they campaigned on, Garage. Why not this?
Oh, and to OM's point, you simply must not know any conservatives.
Post a Comment