That's a nice spin, but . . . -- SPEAK UP

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 00:50:58 03/22/03 Sat
Author: Richard
Author Host/IP: cpe-gan-68-101-88-174-cmcpe.ncf.coxexpress.com / 68.101.88.174
Subject:

That's a nice spin, but . . .
In reply to: Arkady 's message, "Re: Gloom, despair, woe, and President Bush" on 11:19:45 03/21/03 Fri

Hi Michael,

I accept your position that an honest part of the debate is to point out the weakness in your opponents argument. Certainly the strongest point you can make is to point to hard evidence. As an example, let's take a debate on healthful living. If I can point out that a diet low in fiber was historically unhealthy and then say the current recommended diet follows suit, it is a valid point. Having said that, I can say that Krugman doesn't even go that far. It seems his entire argument is that the current economic situation isn't perfect. One can always find fault. If you hit the lottery, I could always say that money doesn't buy happiness.

The first thing Krugman should do is acknowledge that the economy is not something that can be controlled like a manufacturing process. The federal government can encourage economic activity through tax and monetary policy. But monetary policy is controlled by the Federal Reserve which is an apolitical institution. Remember Greenspan was wrongly accused of making a political decision with the economy during the term of Bush 41.

Krugman correctly points out that we have a looming problem with Social Security and Medicare. I'm glad he finally woke up and smelled the coffee. Read what he says:

The latest official projections acknowledge (if you read them carefully) that the long-term finances of the U.S. government are in much worse shape than the administration admitted a year ago. But many commentators are reluctant to blame George W. Bush for that grim outlook, preferring instead to say something like this: "Sure, you can criticize those tax cuts, but the real problem is the long-run deficits of Social Security and Medicare, and the unwillingness of either party to reform those programs." Why is this line appealing? It seems more reasonable to blame longstanding problems for our fiscal troubles than to attribute them to just two years of bad policy decisions. Also, many pundits like to sound "balanced," pronouncing a plague on both parties' houses. To accuse the current administration of wrecking the federal budget sounds, well, shrill � and we don't want to sound shrill, do we? There's only one problem with this reasonable, balanced, non-shrill position: it's completely wrong. The Bush tax cuts, not the retirement programs, are the main reason why our fiscal future suddenly looks so bleak.

That is a totally unfair and partisan view of President Bush's economic policy. Yes, tax cuts are a major part, but they aren't the only part. Second, the SS and Medicare problems have been growing for years. To try and now blame these problems on one aspect of Bush's tax policy is to debate from a position of partisan politics and not the truth.

In this case, Republicans have fielded one proposal. That is the one recommended by Danial Patrick Moynahan and his commission on Social Security. They recommend more privatization. You may not agree with privatization. But you have to then offer an alternative. That is where the Democrats lose the debate.

Richard

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: That's a nice spin, but . . . -- Arkady, 15:55:44 03/24/03 Mon
- And that is where you depart from other liberals -- Richard, 09:28:41 03/25/03 Tue
  - Re: And that is where you depart from other liberals -- Arkady, 18:58:18 03/25/03 Tue