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
Then debunk their arguments. If they are so hopelessly biased, it shouldn’t be too hard.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.
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: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.
Examples? Which of Krugman's students have denouced him? I'm not saying they haven't. I just have seen their arguments.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.
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: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.
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: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?
Probably not because the Republicans will try to slime up the 'fix' in some other way to benefit their corporate paymasters.Fantasea said:We all know they won't, will they?
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: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.
Krugman is still a fulltime professor at Princeton. He writes for the NYTimes on the side. Princeton cuts his checks.Fantasea said:That's what Paul Krugman gets paid to write, isn't it?
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.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 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.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.
That will teach you to think.Fantasea said:I don't recall having seen respones to any of the above. Somehow, I don't think I will.
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?
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?
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.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.
It's called a 'debate.' You should try it sometime.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?
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:Most adults stopped worrying about the Boogey Man while they were still in the first grade.
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: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.
Again, you ignore the question and toss a barb.Fantasea said:You are still smarting over the 2000 election, aren't you?
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: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?
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: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?
I'd love to see your reference with Krugman saying, "Hi, my name is Paul, and I'm a socialist-lib-dem apologist."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?
So you sat in on one of his courses? No? Then your comment is just another baseless smear.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.
He is saying, “In my opinion, it won’t work.” My response is, “In my opinion, it will.”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.
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.”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.
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.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.
Barb? Is that all you call it? I was hoping for, at least, ‘harpoon’. I guess I’ll have to try harder.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.
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.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?
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.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.
So, you want it both ways?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.
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
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.
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.
Is it POSSIBLE for you to comment intelligently on the ISSUES he raises. Shoot them down if they just more liberal rhetoric.
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?
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.
I accept your confession that you have absolutely no idea of any of the attributes of the plan to reform social security.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
ViperX83 said:Just wanted to make sure every knew that the first post was not in fact penned by Paul Harvey.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/prayer.asp
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?