Will the real Paul Krugman please stand up?

Originally posted by Palynka
In 2004 wouldn't you agree with him? Republicans were ignoring the issue and the Democrats possible candidates seemed quite weak.

I generally agree more with the 2004 version of Krugman, although not quite as alarmist. It was indeed clear that the Bush and the GOP didn't take the deficit issue very seriously. Those unpaid-for tax cuts clearly put the nation in a fiscally tenuous position.

And I agree that fiscal stimulus was needed to deal with the current economic crisis. But once recovery is in place, I have little reason to believe that the Democrats are going to do much to deal with the long-term fiscal outlook and it really bothers me that Krugman has been acting like these deficits are suddenly no big deal.

The problem is that it takes a great deal of political willpower to cut spending and-or raise taxes. A major reason why there was success in the 90's was because Ross Perot made such a big issue out of it - which in turn pushed Clinton & Co. to enact the "biggest tax increase in history" in an effort to deal with the problem. We will probably need a similar campaign in 2010 or 2012 to deal with the current budget situation. I will be hoping that Krugman will be on board.

Originally posted by uzless
[/i]quote from 2004....did you not read this?


So, if you take a look, the only thing that sustains the U.S. right now is the fact that people say,[b] 'Well America's a mature, advanced country and mature, advanced countries always, you know, get their financial house in order,' but there's not a hint that that's on the political horizon[b]

Exactly!

And the same "no plan exists for the foreseeable future" applies now (or didn't you catch the recent projection of $9 trillion budget deficit for the next decade?)

So, why, all of a sudden, is planning for a perpetual deficit not a bad thing?

Incidentally, I also agree with 2004 Krugman. That this government could intentionally plan for a $9 trillion budget deficit for the next decade is, in my opinion, reprehensible.

And, I'm sure 2004 Krugman would agree with me.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
[/b]Krugman is stating nowhere on the political horizon is there a hint that America is going to get it's house in order -- as a response to those people that argue that a mature country like America is surely going to get it's act together.[/b]

Thanks, but i'm pretty sure that was my point.


The difference between the US in 2004 and the 2009 is that the 2009 version has political leaders that will get the house in order. The first leg was healthcare reform. Unfortunately, through lies, misunderstandings of the cost, and lack of knowledge for the additional health care/medicare/medicaid spending changes that are coming in the future, the general public doesn't understand how the budget is being reformed into a manageable one.

I don't think obama will make it though...the rep's are too busy trying to win back power rather than do what is right for the country. More of the same. The US needs leaders, not debaters right now.

Originally posted by sh76
Exactly!

And the same "no plan exists for the foreseeable future" applies now (or didn't you catch the recent projection of $9 trillion budget deficit for the next decade?)

So, why, all of a sudden, is planning for a perpetual deficit not a bad thing?

Incidentally, I also agree with 2004 Krugman. That this government could intentionally plan for a $9 t ...[text shortened]... decade is, in my opinion, reprehensible.

And, I'm sure 2004 Krugman would agree with me.

Who's planning for a perpetual deficit? 😕

Spending on Obama's first year was huge, but a strong fiscal expansion was needed. Stark reductions before another two years could be unadvised, although that depends on how the economy does. More importantly, it's stupid to commit now as the situation is still fairly uncertain. Still, I now agree with you that their projections for the second part of the decade show no hint of caring about fiscal solvency. Still, this could be to decrease expectations about a sharp fiscal contraction which could be counterproductive at this time. I agree that this sounds far-fetched, though.

Edited out comments: I made some comments here based on some numbers I found that cannot confirm. So I edited them out.

Originally posted by uzless
Thanks, but i'm pretty sure that was my point.


The difference between the US in 2004 and the 2009 is that the 2009 version has political leaders that will get the house in order. The first leg was healthcare reform. Unfortunately, through lies, misunderstandings of the cost, and lack of knowledge for the additional health care/medicare/medicaid spendin is right for the country. More of the same. The US needs leaders, not debaters right now.

I wish I had your confidence in the current leaders, but I don't.

The current healthcare reform package MAY be able to reduce those healthcare costs associated with wasteful practices within the private insurance industry. But there are so many issues that aren't being addressed, so regardless of what plan does or doesn't pass, healthcare costs will continue to be a major issue.

The problem is that cutting healthcare costs (and keeping Medicare from gobbling up the entire budget) is going to require some effort to reduce "excessive treatment", especially at the end of life. We've already seen the GOP play the "grandma card" for even the most innocuous proposals, so it's easy to see what their reaction would be to more serious proposals by Obama or the Democrats. But if the GOP gets back into power and makes their own cost-cutting proposals, I fully expect the Democrats to play the same "grandma card".

The best hope might be that healthcare costs hit a natural plateau, and a strong economy produces enough revenues to maintain Medicare and other programs. Seems like a lot of "alarmist" scenarios end up resolving by themselves. But there's no guarantee.

Originally posted by uzless
Thanks, but i'm pretty sure that was my point.


The difference between the US in 2004 and the 2009 is that the 2009 version has political leaders that will get the house in order. The first leg was healthcare reform. Unfortunately, through lies, misunderstandings of the cost, and lack of knowledge for the additional health care/medicare/medicaid spendin ...[text shortened]... is right for the country. More of the same. The US needs leaders, not debaters right now.

There is no reason to think that our current leadership has every thing in order. They certainly are reluctant to do things like tort reform as part of a healthcrae package (becuase trial lawyers vote for democrats).
It is not clear exactly what the Obama health care plan is. So a lot of the debate is based on guesswork.
However, I cannot see why anyone with a job that has health care would want to pay more and get worse coverage. Thus, I think a lot of union workers would be hurt by Obama's changes. I also cannot see how expenses won't dramatically increase. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid did not decrease government expenses. They created new expensive entitlements. Coverage will be worse by taxing the most expensive (best) deemed "luxury"to pay for others.
Finally, although many people want different reforms in healthcare, I have never heard medical providers complain about extra capacity. If more people have healthcare, they will overburden our system. As such everyone will need to wait longer to see a doctor or get medical care. That also is not an improvement.
To summarize, our government want me to pay more for healthcare, end up with worse coverage and wait longer to see a doctor. This is leadership we can do without.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
The problem is that cutting healthcare costs (and keeping Medicare from gobbling up the entire budget) is going to require some effort to reduce "excessive treatment", especially at the end of life. We've already seen the GOP play the "grandma card" for even the most innocuous proposals, so it's easy to see what their reaction would be to more serious pro ...[text shortened]... cost-cutting proposals, I fully expect the Democrats to play the same "grandma card".
.

Like I said, the US needs leaders not two parties vying for power.

Your country is dying. The healthcare reform package is an apt metaphor for the state of your country.

Originally posted by quackquack
There is no reason to think that our current leadership has every thing in order. They certainly are reluctant to do things like tort reform as part of a healthcrae package (becuase trial lawyers vote for democrats).
It is not clear exactly what the Obama health care plan is. So a lot of the debate is based on guesswork.
However, I cannot see why an ...[text shortened]... with worse coverage and wait longer to see a doctor. This is leadership we can do without.

Consider this story to see how insane what you just said is.

Auto worker at GM.....

"I will not accept the reforms proposed by the government and GM because it means i will make less money, have fewer benefits and many of us will be layed off"

GM exec....

"ok sir, since the reforms are not accepted, our company is now bankrupt. You don't have a job anymore because the company is out of business"

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

Do you not understand that you CANNOT keep your current system? THE US IS BANKRUPT!

One day, you guys will wake up this reality.

www.iousathemovie.com

Originally posted by rwingett
Friedman wasn't an idiot. He was conniving force for evil. The people who like Friedman are the idiots.

He does look evil on the Libertarian quiz page. Then again, his mugshot is on the same page as Ayn Rand and other evil people.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
He does look evil on the Libertarian quiz page. Then again, his mugshot is on the same page as Ayn Rand and other evil people.

I'm reading Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" right now. She has nothing good to say about Friedman.

i would have let GM go bankrupt but that isn't the issue here.
The issue is if you work for GM now would you rather keep the system we have or get worse health care and pay for a new entitlement (which gives others health care who currently do not have). There is no way I'd be for cutting my negotiated benefits so that others can have health care.

Originally posted by quackquack
There is no reason to think that our current leadership has every thing in order. They certainly are reluctant to do things like tort reform as part of a healthcrae package (becuase trial lawyers vote for democrats).
It is not clear exactly what the Obama health care plan is. So a lot of the debate is based on guesswork.
However, I cannot see why an ...[text shortened]... with worse coverage and wait longer to see a doctor. This is leadership we can do without.

It is my understanding that Obama actually did concede on tort reform and the Republicans still didn't care. I think it's pretty clear now that the the Republican party is going to vote down any bill. They're concerned with gaining political capital before the midterm elections, not with improving the system.

Originally posted by telerion
I think it's pretty clear now that the the Republican party is going to vote down any bill. They're concerned with gaining political capital before the midterm elections, not with improving the system.

I wonder if we keep repeating this over and over, these yahoo's will finally figure it out.


The Reps are only interested in gaining back power, not in solving your coming financial crisis.

Both parties are more interested in themselves than the country but to say that Obama has golden solutions and the Republican party just wants to block them is untrue. It is beneficial when a party (the Republicans now) point out that there is a limit in how much we spend. Although everyone loves to call Bush a liar, there is no bigger liar than the current administration. (1) We will have double digit inflation if we keep printing money (2) We will not be able to fund universal healthcare by making it more efficient. It will be a huge financial burden that grows and grow in expense just like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Why anyone would want to create a new huge liability now is absolutely beyond me.
One might think that since they control the excutive branch and legislature that the Democrats could stop blaming for everything (like lax lending standards since the 1980 supported by both parties) and stopped attempting to redistributing wealth even if we go bankrupt trying to it.

Originally posted by quackquack
Both parties are more interested in themselves than the country but to say that Obama has golden solutions and the Republican party just wants to block them is untrue. It is beneficial when a party (the Republicans now) point out that there is a limit in how much we spend. Although everyone loves to call Bush a liar, there is no bigger liar than the curr ...[text shortened]... th parties) and stopped attempting to redistributing wealth even if we go bankrupt trying to it.

You're right that both parties are interested in their own power. That's the way a representive democracy works. I was writing about the particular strategy of the Republican party in regards to the healthcare proposals. I think it is pretty much unarguable that the Republican party has chosen to oppose nearly any possible healthcare bill. You see it in the crazy lies that they ate spreading about the bill to their constituency. Their goal is to either defeat the bill in which case they can say that they are defending the American taxpayer or force a vote straight down party lines so that when people complain about the bill (which they surely will) the Republicans can counter that they opposed it all along.

That's unfortunate because in discussions with economists, doctors, and various citizens, I been persuaded that healthcare must be reformed. It would be great if more Republican (rather than just a handful of moderates) became vested in hammering out a consensus legislation. Something that gave Americans better healthcare than the status quo but which also came with more concrete cost savings. Basically the Republicans have left that task the conservative and moderate Democrats.