Krugman: U.S. Needs Death Panels, Sales Taxes.

[I invented that]

krugman admits ya can't kick the can forever. he says the end game is increased taxes on middle class and death panels. well, the government knows what's best for the little people. when krugman was asked about growing deficits and increasing debt he replied,


"Eventually we do have a problem. That the population is getting older, health care costs are rising…there is this question of how we’re going to pay for the programs. The year 2025, the year 2030, something is going to have to give…. …. We’re going to need more revenue…Surely it will require some sort of middle class taxes as well.. We won’t be able to pay for the kind of government the society will want without some increase in taxes… on the middle class, maybe a value added tax…And we’re also going to have to make decisions about health care, doc pay for health care that has no demonstrated medical benefits . So the snarky version…which I shouldn’t even say because it will get me in trouble is death panels and sales taxes is how we do this."








kind of reminds me of the twilight episode "the obsolete man".

[HeinousMark]

By then, there won't BE a middle class to tax! Oooooooops!

[JDs tees]

What is the difference between a death panel and cutting Medicare to the point where a senior cant get all their necessary treatment?

[I invented that]

What is the difference between a death panel and cutting Medicare to the point where a senior cant get all their necessary treatment?

silly statement, people get the medical treatments needed even if they don't have the money. prisoners get heart transplants, sex changes and other procedures with no way of paying for the services.

[MatthewT]

What is the difference between a death panel and cutting Medicare to the point where a senior cant get all their necessary treatment?

we have both now

[Goo For You]

So Krugman favors more taxes down the line? How's this newsworthy?

[I invented that]

So Krugman favors more taxes down the line? How's this newsworthy?

i thought the krugster was a proponent of "the debt doesn't matter" philosophy because it's money we owe ourselves. now krugman admits there is a point where the debt will matter and at that point we must increase taxes. if the debt doesn't matter now it shouldn't matter in the future either because it'll still be money we owe to ourselves.

[Goo For You]

i thought the krugster was a proponent of "the debt doesn't matter" philosophy because it's money we owe ourselves. now krugman admits there is a point where the debt will matter and at that point we must increase taxes. if the debt doesn't matter now it shouldn't matter in the future either because it'll still be money we owe to ourselves.

First, the level of debt can affect productivity (even though there's very little evidence of this), and therefore is something that needs to be taken into account if, like Krugman, you foresee big downward pressures on demand. (The point about debt not mattering at all is in the context of "fiscal cliffs", which simply do not exist.) Second, you're reading too much into his statement if you think this is his primary concern; I don't think I've ever heard him say "let's not go more into debt"; I think he's talking about tax increases mostly because he thinks he can rally more support for them. Third, the natural and constructive pro-market right-wing response is to call for open borders (i.e. to counter ageing with immigration), instead of bitching and moaning about the usual GOP concerns that are, as always, only marginally relevant.

[I invented that]

I don't think I've ever heard him say "let's not go more into debt"

exactly, he states debt doesn't matter because it's money we owe to ourselves.


“I believe in a relatively equal society, supported by institutions that limit extremes of wealth and poverty. I believe in democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law. That makes me a liberal, and I’m proud of it.”
― Paul Krugman

the institution he's talking about is the government, more specifically the irs. he is pro wealth redistribution and his preferred tool is taxing the haves and giving it to the have nots. some people exert more time and effort pursuing their dreams while others coast and expect to reap similar rewards, what liberals really want is to stifle competition because competition produces winners and losers. when the rewards are taxed in a punitive manner there is less incentive to be a winner. to krugman, tax collection isn't about funds to operate a budget it's about redistribution of wealth because the debt doesn't really matter.

[Goo For You]

exactly, he states debt doesn't matter because it's money we owe to ourselves.

Read my post again three times and you'll understand what he means when he says it. And if you have questions about what I wrote, please ask and try to be specific.

“I believe in a relatively equal society, supported by institutions that limit extremes of wealth and poverty. I believe in democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law. That makes me a liberal, and I’m proud of it.”
― Paul Krugman

In the paragraph below this quote you try to paint this very reasonable, restrained, and commonly held position as radical. Doing so you come off as a complete kook.

[HeinousMark]

the institution he's talking about is the government, more specifically the irs. he is pro wealth redistribution and his preferred tool is taxing the haves and giving it to the have nots. some people exert more time and effort pursuing their dreams while others coast and expect to reap similar rewards, what liberals really want is to stifle competition because competition produces winners and losers. when the rewards are taxed in a punitive manner there is less incentive to be a winner. to krugman, tax collection isn't about funds to operate a budget it's about redistribution of wealth because the debt doesn't really matter.

We hear this a lot nowadays.... How the dedicated, tireless, hard-working billionaires roll up their sleeves and break rocks 14 hours per day, eat bologna and Ramen and save their pennies in a jar..... while the bad old parasites of society ride around in limousines eating caviar and smoking crack, all on the backs of the aforementioned, and simply refuse to work at all the great living wage jobs with room to grow and great benefits, that are desperate for workers.

I dunno, I just think if you enjoy 100x of the benefits of living in this country, maybe you should pay a little more than someone who maintains a subsistence (and usually is working their ass off for even that). Bazillionaires tend to get richer and richer not because they perform Herculean feats of labor and genius, but because they have shittons of money, and that money does the work for them; money makes more money.

I used to scoff at the whole New World Order paranoia, but the fact is, we are rapidly becoming a feudal society, where a very few individuals/corporations, will own and control EVERYTHING, and the rest of us will be peasants fighting over a moldy potato. And it will all be "legal"... It's just hard for me to believe the "Founding Fathers" intended that, and it doesn't seem like it's gonna be very nice for the vast majority of us...

[I invented that]

First, the level of debt can affect productivity (even though there's very little evidence of this), and therefore is something that needs to be taken into account if, like Krugman, you foresee big downward pressures on demand.

i have a question. first you say there's little evidence of debt affecting productivity, then you say krugman has a ouija board that tells him when enough downward pressure is affecting his model. how can a variable that isn't proven to have any affect be used to massage the economy?

I don't think I've ever heard him say "let's not go more into debt";

the krugster is a big supporter of debt, i don't know if debt is the answer?

I think he's talking about tax increases mostly because he thinks he can rally more support for them.

if ya took all the income of the middle class, would it put a dent in the debt?

Third, the natural and constructive pro-market right-wing response is to call for open borders (i.e. to counter ageing with immigration), instead of bitching and moaning about the usual GOP concerns that are, as always, only marginally relevant.

now ya sound like a kook.

[Goo For You]

i have a question. first you say there's little evidence of debt affecting productivity, then you say krugman has a ouija board that tells him when enough downward pressure is affecting his model. how can a variable that isn't proven to have any affect be used to massage the economy?

Krugman's "ouija board" is actually a simple alteration to ubiquitous growth trend analyses (based on his own estimates of downward pressures from ageing etc). From this he derives a dollar figure for how much "more" money is needed to keep up with the trend.

This amount can be financed either through debt or through taxes.

What "isn't proven" is that the former will have much of an effect on productivity. The same can be said of latter, but at least with that, we get negative incentive effects. Also, it's no secret that tax increases go over well in leftist circles, and in the current climate, "more debt" may be a non-starter even there. Hence my interpretation of Krugman's statement.

the krugster is a big supporter of debt, i don't know if debt is the answer?

if ya took all the income of the middle class, would it put a dent in the debt?

Dollars earned through labor that are in middle class' pockets, and dollars that are on Fed's balance sheet are two very different things. Economists are able to do wonders with the latter, while keeping their hands off the former.

now ya sound like a kook.

[Bro]

The affordable Health care act needed the public option to really drive down health costs.

[I invented that]

The affordable Health care act needed the public option to really drive down health costs.

please explain how the public option would "really drive down healthcare costs".

[newcastlefan]

please explain how the public option would "really drive down healthcare costs".

"the public" would make so many bad health decisions that the resulting deaths would exceed those of the black plague. with > 75% of the population dead, the cost of affordable health care for the remaining 20-25% would have to be lower.

[Bro]

"the public" would make so many bad health decisions that the resulting deaths would exceed those of the black plague. with > 75% of the population dead, the cost of affordable health care for the remaining 20-25% would have to be lower.

Bullshit.

[Bro]

please explain how the public option would "really drive down healthcare costs".

It wouldn't pander to insurance companies which is what it does now.

[I invented that]

It wouldn't pander to insurance companies which is what it does now.

wrong, it would compete with insurance companies.

[RiotGrip]

please explain how the public option would "really drive down healthcare costs".

Very simple, obamacare states that insurance companies can make only up to 15% profit--you can bet your ass most of them will hit that target or be close under Obamacare. Now a public option would force those insurance companies to compete with it while it drew little to no profit(Medicare runs at 3 to 4% of cost). Therefore the primary goal of insurance companies would switch from trying to stay at that 15% profit to trying to keep as many of their customers as possible from switching to the public option by trying to offer a better product to them. A public option combined with the individual mandate on 100 or less pages of legislation would have done as much if not more to drive down health care costs than Obamacare, and insurance companies would be forced to provide better coverage to adequately compete.