• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

I am 100% behind Paul Harvey on this one

KBeta said:
I have to agree with argexpat. Please attack the man's arguments and not his credentials. If a person has to be a professor of economics to express his opinion on the topic, then NONE OF US have the right to discuss it.

What if we got the opinion of a professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University who has a B.A. from Yale University and a Ph.D. from MIT; who has taught at Yale, MIT and Stanford; and at MIT he became the Ford International Professor of Economics? Are those credentials good enough for you?

Then you need to start reading just what Paul Krugman has to say about this so-called crisis. Let me give you a hint: He thinks it's a scam.

Inventing a Crisis-12.7.04
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/120704.html

Borrow, Speculate and Hope-12.10.04
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/121004.html

Buying Into Failure-12.17.04
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/121704.html

Stopping the Bum's Rush-1.4.05
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/010405.html

The Iceberg Cometh-1.11.05
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/011105.html

I don't wish to be disrespectful. I respect your right to subscribe to the opinions of any person you choose.

However, I have yet to read an article written by a socialist-lib-dem apologist that presented a fair and unbiased analysis of anything having to do with the Bush Administration.

Most of them are still fighting the results of the 2000 election and can't understand how the electorate could renew his lease on the White House for four more years.

They cannot accept the reality that so many of their former students, once exposed to the real world, have renounced the inculcations that were supposed to last for life.

Call me crass, call me cynical, call me anything you like. I don't mind. What I do mind is the constant drone of the Dems who offer nothing positive, yet criticize anything and everything proposed by the Administration.

If the Dems have a better way to fix the Social Security System about which they have been complaining forever, why haven't we heard about it? If the 'private account' scheme they oppose is dropped, will they shut up?

We all know they won't, will they?

By the way, either accidentally, or on purpose, you neglected to identify Paul Krugman as an op-ed columnist for the New York Times. Given the animosity the Times has shown the president since since he first began campaigning for office in 1998, what would anyone expect to find within its pages, except barbs and harpoons, in any piece concerning the Administration.

That's what Paul Krugman gets paid to write, isn't it?
 
Last edited:
See the problem is, people are trying to convince that there was nothing wrong with the 2000 election because "It's already over so we should forget about it." That mentality is wrong. The SAME mentality is happening during this election with Ohio. "Oh well it's already decided so don't be bitter about it and forget about the facts."

Republicans continue wanting the American public to be clouded in ignorance of the actions of their party. If the republicans shut up with the propoganda, maybe the liberals would stop complaining.
 
This sort of follows from message #49.

The British Evasion
By PAUL KRUGMAN New York Times Editorial 1/14/05

We must end Social Security as we know it, the Bush administration says, to meet the fiscal burden of paying benefits to the baby boomers. But the most likely privatization scheme would actually increase the budget deficit until 2050. By then the youngest surviving baby boomer will be 86 years old.

Even then, would we have a sustainable retirement system? Not bloody likely.

Pardon my Britishism, but Britain's 20-year experience with privatization is a cautionary tale Americans should know about.

The U.S. news media have provided readers and viewers with little information about how privatization has worked in other countries. Now my colleagues have even fewer excuses: there's an illuminating article on the British experience in The American Prospect, www.prospect.org, by Norma Cohen, a senior corporate reporter at The Financial Times who covers pension issues.

Her verdict is summed up in her title: "A Bloody Mess." Strong words, but her conclusions match those expressed more discreetly in a recent report by Britain's Pensions Commission, which warns that at least 75 percent of those with private investment accounts will not have enough savings to provide "adequate pensions."

The details of British privatization differ from the likely Bush administration plan because the starting point was different. But there are basic similarities. Guaranteed benefits were cut; workers were expected to make up for these benefit cuts by earning high returns on their private accounts.

The selling of privatization also bore a striking resemblance to President Bush's crisis-mongering. Britain had a retirement system that was working quite well, but conservative politicians issued grim warnings about the distant future, insisting that privatization was the only answer.

The main difference from the current U.S. situation was that Britain was better prepared for the transition. Britain's system was backed by extensive assets, so the government didn't have to engage in a four-decade borrowing spree to finance the creation of private accounts. And the Thatcher government hadn't already driven the budget deep into deficit before privatization even began.

Even so, it all went wrong. "Britain's experiment with substituting private savings accounts for a portion of state benefits has been a failure," Ms. Cohen writes. "A shorthand explanation for what has gone wrong is that the costs and risks of running private investment accounts outweigh the value of the returns they are likely to earn."

Many Britons were sold badly designed retirement plans on false pretenses. Companies guilty of "mis-selling" were eventually forced to pay about $20 billion in compensation. Fraud aside, the fees paid to financial managers have been a major problem: "Reductions in yield resulting from providers' charges," the Pensions Commission says, "can absorb 20-30 percent of an individual's pension savings."

American privatizers extol the virtues of personal choice, and often accuse skeptics of being elitists who believe that the government makes better choices than individuals. Yet when one brings up Britain's experience, their story suddenly changes: they promise to hold costs down by tightly restricting the investments individuals can make, and by carefully regulating the money managers. So much for trusting the people.

Never mind; their promises aren't credible. Even if the initial legislation tightly regulated investments by private accounts, it would immediately be followed by intense lobbying to loosen the rules. This lobbying would come both from the usual ideologues and from financial companies eager for fees. In fact, the lobbying has already started: the financial services industry has contributed lavishly to next week's inaugural celebrations.

Meanwhile, there is a growing consensus in Britain that privatization must be partly reversed. The Confederation of British Industry - the equivalent of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce - has called for an increase in guaranteed benefits to retirees, even if taxes have to be raised to pay for that increase. And the chief executive of Britain's National Association of Pension Funds speaks with admiration about a foreign system that "delivers efficiencies of scale that most companies would die for."

The foreign country that, in the view of well-informed Britons, does it right is the United States. The system that delivers efficiencies to die for is Social Security.
 

First, a cut & paste from one of my earlier posts:

....Paul Krugman as an op-ed columnist for the New York Times. Given the animosity the Times has shown the president since since he first began campaigning for office in 1998, what would anyone expect to find within its pages, except barbs and harpoons, in any piece concerning the Administration.

That's what Paul Krugman gets paid to write, isn't it?


Next, another cut & paste:

Is anyone out there able to remember how many years it is now that the Democrats have been moaning that the Social Security System is broken and needs to be fixed? They have been using this ploy to scare the senior citizens into voting Democratic for years. Now, when the president steals their thunder by saying, 'I'm gonna fix it' the Dems have a heart attack.

Any decisions to do anything with the Social Security System will be not come from the president directly but will be formulated by experts in the fields of accounting, finance, actuarial science and others who will carefully plan, analyze, and finally propose legislation which both houses of congress will debate to a fare-thee-well, and finally vote on it.

But you knew that, didn't you?


Now, another cut & paste:

Given the popularity of Iras, 401Ks, Self-Directed Retirement Plans, Profit-Sharing Plans, and the like, it would seem that there is a sizable segment of the population that is well equipped to make a decision on the employment of a portion of their social security taxes. Anyone who is uncomfortable with whatever any new legislation provides is still free to continue with the current system. I think that a revision to the system, offered in this manner is not only a good idea, I think it's a great idea, a smart idea, an idea that is way overdue.

And the final cut & paste:

If the Dems have a better way to fix the Social Security System about which they have been complaining forever, why haven't we heard about it? If the 'private account' scheme they oppose is dropped, will they shut up?

We all know they won't, will they?


I don't recall having seen respones to any of the above. Somehow, I don't think I will.

Any takers?
 
Fantasea said:
I don't wish to be disrespectful. I respect your right to subscribe to the opinions of any person you choose.

However, I have yet to read an article written by a socialist-lib-dem apologist that presented a fair and unbiased analysis of anything having to do with the Bush Administration.
Then debunk their arguments. If they are so hopelessly biased, it shouldn’t be too hard.
Fantasea said:
Most of them are still fighting the results of the 2000 election and can't understand how the electorate could renew his lease on the White House for four more years.
They understand. Bush used fear. "Vote for me or the Boogey Man will get you." Discussions of economics are too tedious for most Bush voters.
Fantasea said:
They cannot accept the reality that so many of their former students, once exposed to the real world, have renounced the inculcations that were supposed to last for life.
Examples? Which of Krugman's students have denouced him? I'm not saying they haven't. I just have seen their arguments.
Fantasea said:
Call me crass, call me cynical, call me anything you like. I don't mind. What I do mind is the constant drone of the Dems who offer nothing positive, yet criticize anything and everything proposed by the Administration.
Democrats criticize Bush because virtually everything proposed by the administration is worthy of criticism. The Bush White House has been one of the most corrupt in this country's history. Besides, what do you expect them to do? Just roll over and die? They are the party opposition (barely). They are supposed to criticize.
Fantasea said:
If the Dems have a better way to fix the Social Security System about which they have been complaining forever, why haven't we heard about it? If the 'private account' scheme they oppose is dropped, will they shut up?
Yes, probably. The 'private account' scheme (i.e., scam) is the problem. It's just a give away to the banking industry. Why do you think the WSJ is so much in favor or Bush's plan anyway?
Fantasea said:
We all know they won't, will they?
Probably not because the Republicans will try to slime up the 'fix' in some other way to benefit their corporate paymasters.
Fantasea said:
By the way, either accidentally, or on purpose, you neglected to identify Paul Krugman as an op-ed columnist for the New York Times. Given the animosity the Times has shown the president since since he first began campaigning for office in 1998, what would anyone expect to find within its pages, except barbs and harpoons, in any piece concerning the Administration.
Ah, the old 'liberal media' chestnut once again rears its ugly head. William Safire and David Brooks also write editorials for the NYTimes. Does that make them liberal too? George Will writes for the Washington Post. He must be a liberal. Spare us this oversimplification. As Krugman himself jokes, "Those of us on the left, formerly known as the middle..." Anyone who doesn't walk lockstep with the Bushies is dubbed a liberal and discounted. The NYTimes doesn't attack Bush because it is run by a pack of rabid liberals. The NYTimes attacks Bush because his administration is equal parts corrupt and incompetent. What is shameful is how so much of the media is disinclined to point out the obvious failings of Bush II.
Fantasea said:
That's what Paul Krugman gets paid to write, isn't it?
Krugman is still a fulltime professor at Princeton. He writes for the NYTimes on the side. Princeton cuts his checks.
 
Fantasea said:
Is anyone out there able to remember how many years it is now that the Democrats have been moaning that the Social Security System is broken and needs to be fixed? They have been using this ploy to scare the senior citizens into voting Democratic for years. Now, when the president steals their thunder by saying, 'I'm gonna fix it' the Dems have a heart attack.

Any decisions to do anything with the Social Security System will be not come from the president directly but will be formulated by experts in the fields of accounting, finance, actuarial science and others who will carefully plan, analyze, and finally propose legislation which both houses of congress will debate to a fare-thee-well, and finally vote on it.

But you knew that, didn't you?
The plan will been assessed by experts in the fields of accounting, finance, actuarial science and others... all of whom are on the Bushie payroll and will rubber stamp any plans as long as they get paid. Loyalty to Bush is the prerequisite for a job in this administration, not competence. Rumsfeld - in. Condi - in. Paul O'Neill - out.

BTW, have you noticed who controls both houses of congress? The Republicans might 'debate' how big of a banking industry payoff this 'fix' become. The Democrats will be ignored because the don't have to votes to make a difference.

Fantasea said:
Given the popularity of Iras, 401Ks, Self-Directed Retirement Plans, Profit-Sharing Plans, and the like, it would seem that there is a sizable segment of the population that is well equipped to make a decision on the employment of a portion of their social security taxes. Anyone who is uncomfortable with whatever any new legislation provides is still free to continue with the current system. I think that a revision to the system, offered in this manner is not only a good idea, I think it's a great idea, a smart idea, an idea that is way overdue.
The plans you listed are popular because they are the only things available to most working people. People are in them because there are so few other options. Pention programs are essentially a thing of the past.

It is not at all clear that someone can opt-out of the new system. Sure you can opt-out of the stock-based investment, but you can't opt-out of the individual account and all the associated fees that will start eating away your returns. People should not be obligated to understand investing to be the Social Security program.

Moreover, the individual account proposal does NOTHING to address the solvency issue. In fact, it promises TRILLIONS of dollar of addition federal debt to shore up the system.

The truly amazing thing is that this massive overhaul is even being considered when a modest increase in taxes on the very wealthy can fix the problem for the foreable future.

Fantasea said:
I don't recall having seen respones to any of the above. Somehow, I don't think I will.
That will teach you to think. ;)
 
KBeta said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
I don't wish to be disrespectful. I respect your right to subscribe to the opinions of any person you choose.

However, I have yet to read an article written by a socialist-lib-dem apologist that presented a fair and unbiased analysis of anything having to do with the Bush Administration.


Then debunk their arguments. If they are so hopelessly biased, it shouldn’t be too hard.

You know as well as I do that the arguments presented to kill the private account plan are nothing more than opinion. What good does it do to counter them with opinion to the contrary?

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Most of them are still fighting the results of the 2000 election and can't understand how the electorate could renew his lease on the White House for four more years.


They understand. Bush used fear. "Vote for me or the Boogey Man will get you." Discussions of economics are too tedious for most Bush voters.

Most adults stopped worrying about the Boogey Man while they were still in the first grade.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
They cannot accept the reality that so many of their former students, once exposed to the real world, have renounced the inculcations that were supposed to last for life.


Examples? Which of Krugman's students have denouced him? I'm not saying they haven't. I just have seen their arguments.

The reference was not to Krugman, per se, but to all former students of liberal professors. If you think this is not so, why are the socialist-lib-dems constantly decrying the corporations and their 'rich' stockholders? If that's not a sufficient argument for you, then ask yourself why it is the goal of Democrats to tax the wealth from any who have it, for distribution to those who don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Call me crass, call me cynical, call me anything you like. I don't mind. What I do mind is the constant drone of the Dems who offer nothing positive, yet criticize anything and everything proposed by the Administration.


Democrats criticize Bush because virtually everything proposed by the administration is worthy of criticism. The Bush White House has been one of the most corrupt in this country's history. Besides, what do you expect them to do? Just roll over and die? They are the party opposition (barely). They are supposed to criticize.

You are still smarting over the 2000 election, aren't you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
If the Dems have a better way to fix the Social Security System about which they have been complaining forever, why haven't we heard about it? If the 'private account' scheme they oppose is dropped, will they shut up?


Yes, probably. The 'private account' scheme (i.e., scam) is the problem. It's just a give away to the banking industry. Why do you think the WSJ is so much in favor or Bush's plan anyway?

You ignored the question in my first sentence. Have you a response?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
We all know they won't, will they?


Probably not because the Republicans will try to slime up the 'fix' in some other way to benefit their corporate paymasters.

Am I to understand that the Democrats have no alternative to propose? That with all of their moaning about the 'broken' Social Security System, they prefer inaction?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
By the way, either accidentally, or on purpose, you neglected to identify Paul Krugman as an op-ed columnist for the New York Times. Given the animosity the Times has shown the president since since he first began campaigning for office in 1998, what would anyone expect to find within its pages, except barbs and harpoons, in any piece concerning the Administration.


Ah, the old 'liberal media' chestnut once again rears its ugly head. William Safire and David Brooks also write editorials for the NYTimes. Does that make them liberal too? George Will writes for the Washington Post. He must be a liberal. Spare us this oversimplification. As Krugman himself jokes, "Those of us on the left, formerly known as the middle..." Anyone who doesn't walk lockstep with the Bushies is dubbed a liberal and discounted. The NYTimes doesn't attack Bush because it is run by a pack of rabid liberals. The NYTimes attacks Bush because his administration is equal parts corrupt and incompetent. What is shameful is how so much of the media is disinclined to point out the obvious failings of Bush II.

Now that you let the cat out of the bag, that Krugman is an admitted socialist-lib-dem apologist, do you still expect me to change my opinion of his writings?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
That's what Paul Krugman gets paid to write, isn't it?

Krugman is still a fulltime professor at Princeton. He writes for the NYTimes on the side. Princeton cuts his checks.

Wow! He's got everything going for him. He has a captive classroom audience that has to regurgitate his policies back to him or else flunk the course. And he has an opportunity to spread his opinions to anyone who has the inclination to read the Times.
__________________
 
Fantasea said:
...Paul Krugman as an op-ed columnist for the New York Times. Given the animosity the Times has shown the president since since he first began campaigning for office in 1998, what would anyone expect to find within its pages, except barbs and harpoons, in any piece concerning the Administration.

That's what Paul Krugman gets paid to write, isn't it?

Again, this is textbook ad hominem argumentation. So only sources supportive of the administration are credible? That's absurd. In the meantime you haven't refuted a single argument Krugman has made. Please do so or concede the point.

P.S. The NYT is home to Judith Miller, who enthusiastically parroted administration claims of Iraq WMD in its pages.

So your argument fails even as a faulty argument.
 
argexpat said:
Again, this is textbook ad hominem argumentation. So only sources supportive of the administration are credible? That's absurd. In the meantime you haven't refuted a single argument Krugman has made. Please do so or concede the point.[QUOTE/]

Professor Krugman uses many words to express an opinion. He says he doesn't think it will work.

With fewer words, I now express an opinion, "I disagree. I think it will work."

What now?
 
Fantasea said:
Professor Krugman uses many words to express an opinion. He says he doesn't think it will work.

With fewer words, I now express an opinion, "I disagree. I think it will work."

What now?

Sorry Fantasea, this doesn't fly either. The "many words" you're discounting in Krugman's articles are the very evidence and rationals upon which Krugman holds his opinion and which you keep finding new ways to ignore. You, on the other hand, have not presented a shred of valid evidence or rationals for disagreeing with him, other than your ad hominem charge that Krugman a liberal professor from a liberal college who writes for a liberal paper.

No offense, but I think I'll take Krugman's opinion over yours.
 
argexpat said:
Sorry Fantasea, this doesn't fly either. The "many words" you're discounting in Krugman's articles are the very evidence and rationals upon which Krugman holds his opinion and which you keep finding new ways to ignore. You, on the other hand, have not presented a shred of valid evidence or rationals for disagreeing with him, other than your ad hominem charge that Krugman a liberal professor from a liberal college who writes for a liberal paper.

No offense, but I think I'll take Krugman's opinion over yours.
No offense taken. However, the only difference is that his opinion contains more words than mine. This does not change the fact that it is just that, an opinion. In fact, no facts exist. In further fact, no one even knows the format for change that the legislation, when written, will propose.

For as long as I can remember, the socialist-lib-dems and their media apologists have been been scaring the hell our of senior citizens, yelling and screaming that the social security system is broken and must be fixed. You do recall that, don't you?

If they have an alternative 'fix' they consider viable, I'd love to see it. Wouldn't you?

If you are in the mood, you can go back up this thread and you will find earlier posts of mine that contain explanations that reinforce my opinion. If you are not in the mood, that's OK, too.

This business of flogging unsupported opinion is becoming tiresome.
 
Fantasea said:
You know as well as I do that the arguments presented to kill the private account plan are nothing more than opinion. What good does it do to counter them with opinion to the contrary?
It's called a 'debate.' You should try it sometime.

Fantasea said:
Most adults stopped worrying about the Boogey Man while they were still in the first grade.
So, you're denying that fear had anything to do with the way people voted? How many times did we hear “September 11th” and “terrorists” out of Bush and Cheney’s mouths during the campaign? Cheney overtly claimed, “It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States.” Tell me again that the Boogey Man didn’t work on the Bush campaign.

Fantasea said:
The reference was not to Krugman, per se, but to all former students of liberal professors. If you think this is not so, why are the socialist-lib-dems constantly decrying the corporations and their 'rich' stockholders? If that's not a sufficient argument for you, then ask yourself why it is the goal of Democrats to tax the wealth from any who have it, for distribution to those who don't.
I.E., you don't have any specific examples of Krugman's own student contradicting him. Why tax the wealthy? Because they have the money. Duh! Besides, it's high time you extract yourself from the fantasy that rich people all get rich all on their own. The wealthy take advantage of the social structure created and maintained by the government with taxes. Nobody is asking them to check into the poor house, just pay a fair share back to the society the buoys them up.

Fantasea said:
You are still smarting over the 2000 election, aren't you?
Again, you ignore the question and toss a barb.

The Senate computer theft scandal, the DOJ's bungled terrorism case in Detroit, Cheney’s mysterious energy task force, wiretapping the United Nations, the bogus Medicare "Video News Release," the Armstrong Williams case, ground zero's unsafe air, John Ashcroft's illegal campaign contributions, the bogus case for war in Iraq, the Niger forgeries, the outing of Valerie Plame, Abu Ghraib, and more torture in Guantánamo Bay… just to name a few scandals that leap to mind. How many scandals does it take before you admit that these guys are corrupt and incompetent?

Fantasea said:
If the Dems have a better way to fix the Social Security System about which they have been complaining forever, why haven't we heard about it? If the 'private account' scheme they oppose is dropped, will they shut up?
You ignored the question in my first sentence. Have you a response?
I've heard it. It's basically a small tweak to the tax code. It's not as exciting or as flashing as the total disembowelment BushCo is proposing. The 'liberal media' has conspicuously chosen to not report on it. Go figure.

Fantasea said:
Am I to understand that the Democrats have no alternative to propose? That with all of their moaning about the 'broken' Social Security System, they prefer inaction?
The Reps have controlled the purse strings for the past 12 years. You can’t blame inaction on the Dems. Doing nothing would be, of course, inappropriate. Overreacting would also be inappropriate but completely in character with BushCo.

Fantasea said:
Now that you let the cat out of the bag, that Krugman is an admitted socialist-lib-dem apologist, do you still expect me to change my opinion of his writings?
I'd love to see your reference with Krugman saying, "Hi, my name is Paul, and I'm a socialist-lib-dem apologist."

Again, I challenge you to address his arguments… if you can.

All you do is say, "He's a liberal." Well, no kidding. Virtually EVERYONE is more liberal than BushCo. The core assumption in your statements is that all liberals are always wrong and you will not lower yourself to debate actual issues with them.

Fantasea said:
Wow! He's got everything going for him. He has a captive classroom audience that has to regurgitate his policies back to him or else flunk the course. And he has an opportunity to spread his opinions to anyone who has the inclination to read the Times.
So you sat in on one of his courses? No? Then your comment is just another baseless smear.

Is it POSSIBLE for you to comment intelligently on the ISSUES he raises. Shoot them down if they just more liberal rhetoric.
 
K-BETA:




Originally Posted by Fantasea
You know as well as I do that the arguments presented to kill the private account plan are nothing more than opinion. What good does it do to counter them with opinion to the contrary?

It's called a 'debate.' You should try it sometime.
He is saying, “In my opinion, it won’t work.” My response is, “In my opinion, it will.”
What’s left for either to say except, “Unless and until it’s tried, who can say for sure?”
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Most adults stopped worrying about the Boogey Man while they were still in the first grade.

So, you're denying that fear had anything to do with the way people voted? How many times did we hear “September 11th” and “terrorists” out of Bush and Cheney’s mouths during the campaign? Cheney overtly claimed, “It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States.” Tell me again that the Boogey Man didn’t work on the Bush campaign.
It was all over for Kerry the first time he said he was going to take back the Bush tax cuts and the Bush response was along the lines of, “I’m gonna keep the present tax cuts in place and I’m gonna give ya some new ones, too.”
Everything else was just filling in time.

This is easily proven by the fact that millions of Democratic crossover votes were needed to produce the numerical margin received by GWB. Somehow, the Dems forgot the age old axiom, “Voters vote their pocketbook.”
Originally Posted by Fantasea
The reference was not to Krugman, per se, but to all former students of liberal professors. If you think this is not so, why are the socialist-lib-dems constantly decrying the corporations and their 'rich' stockholders? If that's not a sufficient argument for you, then ask yourself why it is the goal of Democrats to tax the wealth from any who have it, for distribution to those who don't.

I.E., you don't have any specific examples of Krugman's own student contradicting him. Why tax the wealthy? Because they have the money. Duh! Besides, it's high time you extract yourself from the fantasy that rich people all get rich all on their own. The wealthy take advantage of the social structure created and maintained by the government with taxes. Nobody is asking them to check into the poor house, just pay a fair share back to the society the buoys them up.
If you continue to make remarks like this, readers will begin to think you would like to see the, currently in vogue, European system of cradle to grave socialism installed in the US. Wealth re-distribution is the key.

As it is, there seems to be a feeling of animosity toward those whom, I can only imagine, are some rungs above you on the economic ladder.

In a country in which a full half of all wage earners, because of the generous allowances, deductions, exemptions, etc., pay no income tax at all, and in many millions of instances actually receive grants or entitlements in the form of child credits or earned income credits, to say that the other half is not paying a fair share is a comical imitation of the Democratic party line. They created that ‘fair share’ fairy tale, didn’t they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
You are still smarting over the 2000 election, aren't you?

Again, you ignore the question and toss a barb.
Barb? Is that all you call it? I was hoping for, at least, ‘harpoon’. I guess I’ll have to try harder.
The Senate computer theft scandal, the DOJ's bungled terrorism case in Detroit, Cheney’s mysterious energy task force, wiretapping the United Nations, the bogus Medicare "Video News Release," the Armstrong Williams case, ground zero's unsafe air, John Ashcroft's illegal campaign contributions, the bogus case for war in Iraq, the Niger forgeries, the outing of Valerie Plame, Abu Ghraib, and more torture in Guantánamo Bay… just to name a few scandals that leap to mind. How many scandals does it take before you admit that these guys are corrupt and incompetent?
I don’t agree that these media fanned frenzies, on close inspection, with the socialist-lib-dem hype and spin stripped away, rise to the level you claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
If the Dems have a better way to fix the Social Security System about which they have been complaining forever, why haven't we heard about it? If the 'private account' scheme they oppose is dropped, will they shut up?
You ignored the question in my first sentence. Have you a response?


I've heard it. It's basically a small tweak to the tax code. It's not as exciting or as flashing as the total disembowelment BushCo is proposing. The 'liberal media' has conspicuously chosen to not report on it. Go figure.
Ah, yes. The Dems have never seen an opportunity for a tax increase that they didn’t love. If their media apologists have turned a ‘blind eye’ to it, perhaps that’s a hint that the Dems should take.
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Am I to understand that the Democrats have no alternative to propose? That with all of their moaning about the 'broken' Social Security System, they prefer inaction?

The Reps have controlled the purse strings for the past 12 years. You can’t blame inaction on the Dems. Doing nothing would be, of course, inappropriate. Overreacting would also be inappropriate but completely in character with BushCo.
So, you want it both ways?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Now that you let the cat out of the bag, that Krugman is an admitted socialist-lib-dem apologist, do you still expect me to change my opinion of his writings?

I'd love to see your reference with Krugman saying, "Hi, my name is Paul, and I'm a socialist-lib-dem apologist."

Again, I challenge you to address his arguments… if you can.

All you do is say, "He's a liberal." Well, no kidding. Virtually EVERYONE is more liberal than BushCo. The core assumption in your statements is that all liberals are always wrong and you will not lower yourself to debate actual issues with them.
I’ve tried to make it plain that a debate is not an exchange of opinions that are unsupported by facts. What we have here is merely an exchange of opinions which are unsupported by facts. There can be no facts because the subject of the debate is an idea. Until an idea is put into practice, who can tell whether it will work?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Wow! He's got everything going for him. He has a captive classroom audience that has to regurgitate his policies back to him or else flunk the course. And he has an opportunity to spread his opinions to anyone who has the inclination to read the Times.

So you sat in on one of his courses? No? Then your comment is just another baseless smear.

Come, come, get real. Have you run across the liberal college prof who does not observe the maxim, “My way, or the highway?” If so, point him out. He is rare, indeed among the species. Students understand this and play the game. Why else the concern among college administrators that such an inordinately high percentage of those who graduate do so with honors?

Is it POSSIBLE for you to comment intelligently on the ISSUES he raises. Shoot them down if they just more liberal rhetoric.

Since you are using a ‘skeet’ analogy; if you can find any facts lurking within his writings, launch a flight and I’ll attempt to shoot them down.
 
Fantasea:"Since you are using a ‘skeet’ analogy; if you can find any facts lurking within his writings, launch a flight and I’ll attempt to shoot them down."

All right. Here is a little excerpt from the Krugman editorial that you flipped off previously.

"The U.S. news media have provided readers and viewers with little information about how privatization has worked in other countries. Now my colleagues have even fewer excuses: there's an illuminating article on the British experience in The American Prospect, www.prospect.org, by Norma Cohen, a senior corporate reporter at The Financial Times who covers pension issues.

"Her verdict is summed up in her title: 'A Bloody Mess.' Strong words, but her conclusions match those expressed more discreetly in a recent report by Britain's Pensions Commission, which warns that at least 75 percent of those with private investment accounts will not have enough savings to provide 'adequate pensions'."

Now, even though it is a superliberal nogoodnik writing this, it is a presentation of objective fact and not his opinion. What is presented here is the professional finding of a senior financial reporter specializing in pension isssues , "A Bloody Mess". This refers of course to privatization of British annuities. You may notice that a report of the Pensions Commission is also included. However, since essentially the same thing is proposed here, why should it work any better? How are your qualifications for judging such things better than those of Ms. Cohen or the Pensions Commission?
 
Last edited:
Kenneth T. Cornelius said:
Fantasea:"Since you are using a ‘skeet’ analogy; if you can find any facts lurking within his writings, launch a flight and I’ll attempt to shoot them down."

All right. Here is a little excerpt from the Krugman editorial that you flipped off previously.

"The U.S. news media have provided readers and viewers with little information about how privatization has worked in other countries. Now my colleagues have even fewer excuses: there's an illuminating article on the British experience in The American Prospect, www.prospect.org, by Norma Cohen, a senior corporate reporter at The Financial Times who covers pension issues.

"Her verdict is summed up in her title: 'A Bloody Mess.' Strong words, but her conclusions match those expressed more discreetly in a recent report by Britain's Pensions Commission, which warns that at least 75 percent of those with private investment accounts will not have enough savings to provide 'adequate pensions'."

Now, even though it is a superliberal nogoodnik writing this, it is a presentation of objective fact and not his opinion. What is presented here is the professional finding of a senior financial reporter specializing in pension isssues , "A Bloody Mess". This refers of course to privatization of British annuities. You may notice that a report of the Pensions Commission is also included. However, since essentially the same thing is proposed here, why should it work any better? How are your qualifications for judging such things better than those of Ms. Cohen or the Pensions Commission?

There are apples and there are also oranges, aren't there? One must always respect the fact that although both are considered to be edible fruit, they differ in more ways than most persons can count.

In order to make certain that there is no confusion in the matter of the 'UK' plan as compared to the US plan, I need to understand the differences between the two.

Thanks to your efforts, I now know about the workings of UK plan. Now, be kind enough to complete my knowledge by explaining to me the workings of the US plan.

Once I know their similarities and differences, I will know whether the old saw referring to the mixing of apples and oranges has reasonable application in this instance.

Perhaps, then, I will be able, through your educating me, to agree with Professor Klugman.

The ball is now in your court.
 
Thanks to your efforts, I now know about the workings of UK plan. Now, be kind enough to complete my knowledge by explaining to me the workings of the US plan.

You seem to have lost your train of thought. You are supposed to be defending the US plan, remember? What a great idea it is, and all that? Now you want me to teach you what it is? Why don't you do a little studying and get back to me? :rofl
 
Kenneth T. Cornelius said:
You seem to have lost your train of thought. You are supposed to be defending the US plan, remember? What a great idea it is, and all that? Now you want me to teach you what it is? Why don't you do a little studying and get back to me? :rofl
I accept your confession that you have absolutely no idea of any of the attributes of the plan to reform social security.

If you had, you'd be quite anxious to pound upon them. As it is, you are poised to pound, but having nothing upon which to pound, you must restrain yourself from pounding the empty air.

Thus far, you are showing admirable restraint.

When some of the yet to be proposed details are eventually revealed, you then may relax your restraint and begin pounding.
 
Back
Top Bottom