Posted on 08/24/2009 7:25:00 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The debate over the “public option” in health care has been dismaying in many ways. Perhaps the most depressing aspect for progressives, however, has been the extent to which opponents of greater choice in health care have gained traction — in Congress, if not with the broader public — simply by repeating, over and over again, that the public option would be, horrors, a government program.
Washington, it seems, is still ruled by Reaganism — by an ideology that says government intervention is always bad, and leaving the private sector to its own devices is always good.
Call me naïve, but I actually hoped that the failure of Reaganism in practice would kill it. It turns out, however, to be a zombie doctrine: even though it should be dead, it keeps on coming.
Let’s talk for a moment about why the age of Reagan should be over.
First of all, even before the current crisis Reaganomics had failed to deliver what it promised. Remember how lower taxes on high incomes and deregulation that unleashed the “magic of the marketplace” were supposed to lead to dramatically better outcomes for everyone? Well, it didn’t happen.
To be sure, the wealthy benefited enormously: the real incomes of the top .01 percent of Americans rose sevenfold between 1980 and 2007. But the real income of the median family rose only 22 percent, less than a third its growth over the previous 27 years.
Moreover, most of whatever gains ordinary Americans achieved came during the Clinton years. President George W. Bush, who had the distinction of being the first Reaganite president to also have a fully Republican Congress, also had the distinction of presiding over the first administration since Herbert Hoover in which the typical family failed to see any significant income gains.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Did Paul Krugman just refer to the public option as the one giving greater choice? He’s a bald faced liar because no one is that dumb. Government monopolies are the death of choice.
Put. The. Bong. Down.
Mischaracterization...
Is PK really this stupid???
Real disaster, vs. savior Zerobama's C4C genial program fixing everything!! Insane taking over asylum. GHU! (God help US)
Our country was founded on the Principle of Limited Government, and quite frankly that is why our little experiment turned into the greatest country this planet has ever seen. It is amazing that such highly awarded people don't get that.
John Kass in the Chicago Trib nailed this issue last week, all these pantywaist libs would have to do to understand this is to head to their nearest large city’s post office and see what care they could provide.
Krugman advocates more deficit spending while managing to say that they are dangerous. He says that the free markets need government involvement when government involvement has caused massive distortions in the equity, credit and commoditiy markets. He ignores Clinton’s actions and the mess that they made for us during Bush’s term and then goes on to ignore the fact that a decreasing % of the population are paying an increasing % of the income taxes.
How did this a-hole manage to win a Nobel prize?
You have to be a slimy liberal to win one except for the
sciences.
If all tax cuts at all times created more revenue than lost, then you could cut all taxes to zero and the government could be expanded to provide for every need.
Paul Krugman, the same guy who was on the Enron payroll at $50,000 per year as a paid shill. Pffft...
Krugman is now nothing more than a paid shill for this administration. Same job, different employers, same results.
Krugman is an obnoxious condescending effete bucket of swill who managed to put one over on the Nobel judges. I hope the Gray Lady goes down soon and drags him down to the depths with her.
You are correct.
By the time John Adams was President, there had already been 3 large scale rebellions, all related to taxes.
We.
Need.
Another.
One.
No, but being the “progressive” he is, he is a shill and he is being paid...:)
Sadly enough.
This crybaby actually prefers today's economy, where the rich and the poor have both lost out but the rich have lost a larger percentage of their income. It's okay with Krugman if obama hurts the poor, as long as he hurts the rich even more. This man is one sick democrat (I know, that's redundant).
If this guy is a serious economist, I’m one of the Twelve Apostles.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.