Douglas - one of fifty Herbert Hoovers?

[j_gluck]

As we continue the discussion about how to deal with the State's budget shortfall, Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman has some thoughts in the New York Times. We do have other options besides slashing State jobs, programs and services.

Fifty Herbert Hoovers By PAUL KRUGMAN

No modern American president would repeat the fiscal mistake of 1932, in which the federal government tried to balance its budget in the face of a severe recession. The Obama administration will put deficit concerns on hold while it fights the economic crisis.

But even as Washington tries to rescue the economy, the nation will be reeling from the actions of 50 Herbert Hoovers — state governors who are slashing spending in a time of recession, often at the expense both of their most vulnerable constituents and of the nation’s economic future.

These state-level cutbacks range from small acts of cruelty to giant acts of panic — from cuts in South Carolina’s juvenile justice program, which will force young offenders out of group homes and into prison, to the decision by a committee that manages California state spending to halt all construction outlays for six months.

Now, state governors aren’t stupid (not all of them, anyway). They’re cutting back because they have to — because they’re caught in a fiscal trap. But let’s step back for a moment and contemplate just how crazy it is, from a national point of view, to be cutting public services and public investment right now.

Think about it: is America — not state governments, but the nation as a whole — less able to afford help to troubled teens, medical care for families, or repairs to decaying roads and bridges than it was one or two years ago? Of course not. Our capacity hasn’t been diminished; our workers haven’t lost their skills; our technological know-how is intact. Why can’t we keep doing good things?

It’s true that the economy is currently shrinking. But that’s the result of a slump in private spending. It makes no sense to add to the problem by cutting public spending, too.

In fact, the true cost of government programs, especially public investment, is much lower now than in more prosperous times. When the economy is booming, public investment competes with the private sector for scarce resources — for skilled construction workers, for capital. But right now many of the workers employed on infrastructure projects would otherwise be unemployed, and the money borrowed to pay for these projects would otherwise sit idle.

And shredding the social safety net at a moment when many more Americans need help isn’t just cruel. It adds to the sense of insecurity that is one important factor driving the economy down.

So why are we doing this to ourselves?

You can read the rest here - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/29/opinion/29krugman.html

[Chris Santee]

Forgive me for finding your "expert" a nut case.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/krugman-death-panels-vat/2010/11/14/id/377008

[Chris Santee]

and another article regarding "Death Panels"

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/real-solution-us-debt-crisis-death-panel

[Thor]

So Mr. Krugman won a Nobel Prize as an economist. But is most known for his partisan politics on a platform of lending his "professional" voice to disparage Republican policies (primarily those of former President Bush). It sounds to me as though he strongly supports continuing deficits, causing moderate inflation, an adherence to continuing / increased government spending and a fondness for increased taxes to infict pain on "wealthy / greedy". His talk of shredding the "social safety net" at a time when more Americans need it, really spells out the answer (unbeknownst to him). Perhaps not increasing taxes on anyone and beginning to dismantle the social safety net is the first step. Stop paying people to do nothing. Perhaps not extending benefits continuously. I work two jobs, plus take on other jobs whenever possible. And what do I have to look forward to.... this state and our federal government contemplating how they can get more out of me to give to the next group of "needy". What is next? Can anyone tell me which group we will have to support next? We have and continue to have to support the "homeless", the "hungry", the "ill equipped", the "un-educated", criminals that need "rehabilitation" and illegal immigrents. Where does it stop?

Good will and the caring human nature can only handle so much. When it reaches the point of inflicting pain on my family in order to support non working members of a society, it is becoming much easier to draw the line.

I wonder how much of his $10,000,000 Swedish Krone prize (about $1.5 million USD) Mr. Krugman donated to charity? Hopefully he did it early on, as the value is decreasing daily with the current QE2 debacle.

[Stand Alone Defense]

Amen Thor!! and I have to Agree with Chris this Guy is a "Nut Job"!!!!

[GamingWeasel]

"Death panels?  C'mon people.

If you want real facts, check out sites such as politifact.com, which is non-partisan and un-biased.  Not like the junk-journalism that is so prevalent these days.

[Chris Santee]

The FACT is a journalist with the New York Times is calling for Death Panels on ABC.

The FACT is that this same journalist blasted Palin and others for suggesting such a ludicrous idea.

The FACT is that the New York Times has more readers AND

ABC has more viewers than politifact.

[Thor]

Chris,

     I just checked politifact. I am not sure I would use the same descriptives as non-partisan and un-biased. But everyone is entitled to their view. But speaking of non-partisan and un-biased, I wonder what the Blue Ribbon Tax Commission has been discussing.

[GamingWeasel]

The FACT is a journalist with the New York Times is calling for Death Panels on ABC.

The FACT is that this same journalist blasted Palin and others for suggesting such a ludicrous idea.

The FACT is that the New York Times has more readers AND

ABC has more viewers than politifact.

Chris, remember that  as you said, that Krugman is an opinion columnist.  He has no policy-making power, nor is he even a real reporter.  He is just another one of the talking head partisans that tries to pass off opinion as actual journalism.  I dont care if he blasted Palin or whoever else.  Nowadays, most people dont seem to look for facts, but instead look for opinions that already confirm what they think or believe.  If someone thinks "death-panels" are going to be killing people, they are going to gravitate towards writing that confirms their suspicions, no matter how improbable a particular idea is.  Opinion-journalism is sadly the prevalent form of "news" (using that term very loosely) right now.  FOX and MSNBC lead the way in this trend.

About these supposed "death panels", what about a health-insurance company?  They decide what things will cover and pay for, and if it is too expensive for their profiteering they wont do it.  Their only motivation is to make money.  If you get sick with something that will cost them too many dollars to cover, their wish for you is: "Die quickly and cheaply."  I'd much rather have a watchdog on these predatory corporations, then to leave them to their own greedy devices.  They have to be profitable & viable of course, but they dont need to make billions and billions in profits every year. 

Thor, politifact seems to call-out politicians from left, right, or center, regardless of party, on their bull-crap statements.  How is this not non-partisan?  Is it because you may not like that some of the particular people you do believe in being exposed as liars?  I'm asking honestly, not facetiously.  There are liars on all sides of every issue.  That's how politics works, sadly.

[Chris Santee]

We're getting somewhere,

First, you say:
"Death panels?  C'mon people.

Then you say:
About these supposed "death panels",

Then you go on to say:
insurance companies are death panels.
"They decide what things will cover and pay for, and if it is too expensive for their profiteering they wont do it. "

Okay, I can go along with that.
A death panel is not a firing squad, but a coverage denier.
We agree.

Now, do you know which of those evil insurance company denies the MOST claims ?
http://www.independent.org/blog/index.php?p=4459

[mirjo]

Perhaps the pundits should just shut up--they just make matters worse by distorting the facts on everything. No one knows what the real truth is, but we all have plenty of opinions about what is "right" and what is "wrong!"

If every so-called political "analyst" would take their collective opinionated partisan blinders off as well as everyone else in this country/state people would realize that every politician in the last 40 years(or more?) has led us to this mess we're in now. They share equal blame. Not just this one or that one, but ALL of them.

Hardcore Republicans have their opinions and Hardcore Democrats have theirs. Everyone else is somewhere in between. It seems best to agree to disagree, because trying to prove a point  is pointless, the press can't be trusted and opinion columns are exactly that...some Jackass's opinion on a subject because he/she  feels the need to incite an argument over something that just can't be successfully argued!!

I'm sorry, but no one is right, everyone just has opinions that fall left or right. The one with the most web sources to back up an opinion is simply the loudest, not the most right. Many web sources are barely more than opinion blogs and not necessarily credible news outlets anyway and honestly I don't believe there is a credible news outlet anymore. Everything leans left or right, which means it can't be trusted to be  accurate in its reporting of facts--which are supposed to be unbiased.straightforward, provable, and checkable. There is nothing about this HCR bill that is even in practice yet, so everything is speculation at this point--no one knows anything for certain.

I think we can all agree that something needs to be done about health care--while the thought of the government running anything is scary for anyone to think about, it seems that instead of higher powers or pundits shouting out hyperbolic things like "death panels" a better  idea would be to offer real solutions. Isn't there some old axiom that goes something like: "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem?" Partisan pundits and partisan politicians ARE the problem.

For as much as Sarah Palin runs her mouth, I have never heard a single useful thing come out of it. She's a highly opinionated, highly partisan, quasi politician turned celebrity, who never offers a single solution to anything she incites a rage over. I don't see how this is helpful to anyone?

It seems there are  several camps on the health-care issue: those who are for reform and those who are against it is the first divide.

In general, those who are for reforming healthcare see a need to do something, because they see and feel the pinch of the rising cost of health ins for less coverage. They may have reservations, but know it has to start with something, the status quo isn't really working for a lot of people.

Those who are against it  seem to line up in a few different camps:

Group A: The money: don't want to pay more in taxes to pay for healthcare that will cover people without insurance--see those people as freeloading welfare cases (regardless of whether of not this is true), it's a general consensus among this group.

Group B: Loss of Choice: Diabolically opposed to the government being in charge of healthcare, feel their choices will be limited, they will not get the care the need/deserve, believe the gov will save $$ by rationing care to the elderly (Death Panels)

Group C: Loss of Esteem: May or may not have the same feelings as Groups A & B, but  carry an unvoiced secret shame--the idea of of being on a government healthcare program makes them feel like welfare recipients and that's mostly what they don't like about it. It's an insult to this group to even consider having to be on a government run program, because they look down on it. They see that sort of thing as something for people of a lower class than themselves and if they are forced into giving up private health ins for a gov sponsored one, it will hurt their pride and they're afraid of that.

I came by these sub groups by reading numerous news stories on the internet and reading the comments-- they've followed the patterns I outlined repeatedly, since this controversy began.

I don't have any clue what the answer is, but I'm pretty certain that their isn't an accurate news source on it. And I think that's pretty sad--for the people of the U.S. and the state of American journalism.

[GamingWeasel]

Here's an interesting article on the subject of news vs entertainment.  And remember, this is an opinion piece, not a new article.  People seem to get these things confused so easily.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/12/AR2010111202857.html

Chris my use of the "death-panel" term to describe health-care providers was intended to be satirical, to demonstrate that what mirjo aptly called "pundits shouting out hyperbolic things like "death panels"...a better  idea would be to offer real solutions,"  really doesnt add anything to the conversation.  All it does is evoke reactionary anger, and not carefully considered or logical opinions, which could lead to solutions.  It seems my writing was probably too opaque.  I could probably write convincing arguments for many things to be deemed "death-panels" but that wouldnt make it true.  One thing about what I wrote that holds a kernel of truth for me is that the health-care companies do not have your best interests at heart.  Think about it this way:  Medicare denies so many claims because it cant afford to cover so many things.  Health-care companies deny so many claims because they dont want their profits to get smaller.  They could afford much more, and still make huge profits, just not quite so monumentally huge as before.  To say that there is moral equivalency with these two things is ridiculous.  If people cant see the difference, some moral compasses need some serious re-tuning.   It's my opinion that health-care companies often pursue policies that are immoral, in pursuit of dollars.

Further, following a logical progression, if you are pissed-off about Medicare denying people's claims, then you must want Medicare to cover more things.  The best solution would be to seriously increase spending for Medicare.  Problem solved!   I'm sure thats what everyone wants, right?

To me, the problem is not the size of government, but the efficiency and effectiveness of it.  It's not the size, but how you use it, as the saying goes.

Mirjo, you said some things that do provoke some interesting thoughts.  Definitely well-said.

[mirjo]

And so, among the many benefits we have come to believe the founding fathers intended for us, the latest is news we can choose...This is to journalism what Bernie Madoff was to investment: He told his customers what they wanted to hear, and by the time they learned the truth, their money was gone.

While it's an opinion piece, it's Ted Koppel's fact-based opinion. He's from the old school of real journalists  like Cronkite, Brokaw and that ilk, when integrity meant something--before networks were owned by large corporations and news divisions were expected to show profits.

My view of politics--especially the huge divide I have witnessed in the past few years (perhaps it has always been this way?) Is that it's like being on any device that requires a certain amount of balance--if you lean too far in either direction, you fall over with devastating consequences--any five-year-old who learned how to ride a bike w/o training wheels understands this fundamental concept, any one who  skis, rides a motorcycle, has been in a boat, canoe, or kayak, roller blades, or does any number of sports, understands the concept of balance.

There is balance in every aspect of everything we do in our lives--if you cook you know what things taste like if you don't get the right balance of seasonings that the recipe calls for--BAD.

This is why I am always so bewildered that otherwise reasonable, intelligent, basically balanced people get so loopy--one-sided and so stuck in a single lens POV that they  willingly believe and regurgitate even unreasonable assertions, when it comes to politics.
I honestly don't understand this "pick-a-side" concept as if one is better than the other. Not only is it divisive, it just doesn't make any sense when everything else we deal with daily dictates balance!

Think about it for just one minute--absolutely everything in our lives dictates balance and moderation for healthy living etc. balanced diet, moderate exercise, stay between the line when driving down the road--too far left or right will be detrimental--the list goes on & on, put politicians & pundits want us to believe that left or right is the only way to go! Why is that and who are these people that they live their lives so out of balance?


To return to the article that started this discussion, I found this nugget in the comment section, by a man from Texas:

...It is apparent neither the neo-conservative or the neo-liberal economic positions are capable of resolving the current fiscal and monetary policy issues separately utilizing their differing ideologies...

The comments are always where the best information is--there are a lot of fruit loops out there and also a lot of interesting intelligent people.

That one sentence  pretty much sums up the reality of our current situation.

[mirjo]

Since we're speaking of opinions and these long-winded posts are obviously just mine,  I have to address a couple of things Thor said:

Perhaps not increasing taxes on anyone and beginning to dismantle the social safety net is the first step. Stop paying people to do nothing. Perhaps not extending benefits continuously. I work two jobs, plus take on other jobs whenever possible. And what do I have to look forward to.... this state and our federal government contemplating how they can get more out of me to give to the next group of "needy". What is next? Can anyone tell me which group we will have to support next? We have and continue to have to support the "homeless", the "hungry", the "ill equipped", the "uneducated", criminals that need "rehabilitation" and illegal immigrant's. Where does it stop?

Good will and the caring human nature can only handle so much. When it reaches the point of inflicting pain on my family in order to support non working members of a society, it is becoming much easier to draw the line.

This is a prevailing attitude I see all over the internet comment sections, from local & well known large national newspapers. Since you are local, hardworking and I will presume a kind and decent person--I have to ask why it is that you assume that those "in need,"  "do nothing,"  want nothing more from life than to be lazy slags, and are simply sucking the oxygen out of the air just so they can separate you from your hard earned money? What has happened that you deeply believe that the disenfranchised have nothing better to think, worry, or care about? I'm asking not to be sarcastic, but because I really want to know the answer--no one ever says why they feel this way! We live in the same small town--we've likely passed each other in the store/on the road--so please explain your position.

I know there are some slackers out there who give social service programs a bad name and I also know there is an overall prevailing attitude that poor people are undeserving of even the simplest dignities, that they are somehow, dumb, dirty, and unworthy simply because they have not had the good fortunes that others have had. You all know what I'm saying here. We all have known a family like I'm describing. While I don't know the reasons why certain families suffer more than others,  I do know that children of these families suffer in  untold ways for many years.

What you are also not considering is that while you have a job (two & three, I think you stated), not everyone across the country is as fortunate. A lot of people are complaining about the president not doing anything about the high unemployment rate--a lot of people in other states lost jobs and with that, their way of life. Vermont has been relatively unscathed, comparatively speaking in this recession, which is probably why you have work to spare. I believe Thor, that if you and I together went out and did a Jay Leno type poll of a group in an unemployment  or  social services office and asked those people if they would rather have that unemployment check/welfare/foodstamps or a paying job, I would bet they would all want a job. I would also bet that despite how they're dressed, if you asked anyone in the "welfare" office to to give an honest personal account of their situation, they would likely tell you they had to swallow their pride to go there.

I might be foolish to think so , but I doubt the majority are sitting there because it's a lifestyle choice. Seriously, who wants to be ridiculed, rummage through charity clothing bins, stand in line for foodstamps and other aid, to be looked down upon? Not having enough money to support your basic needs in a socially acceptable style is the same as being obese, you are stigmatized. You can't tell me it isn't so. Not only does your quote speak to the homeless, the hungry, the ill equipped ( reference to the mentally ill?) and the uneducated, but I have witnessed people give clothes away to a church or other charity (that they couldn't sell at a consignment shop), because in their mind the poor people who need it,  don't care if there is a little rip, stain or button missing or if they wear clothing that is modern and not 30 years old.

Consider the next time you see some one wearing old clothes--they may have got them from a well meaning, but clueless relative  or charity, where everyone brought in their oldest clothing, because "the poor people don't  need  something nicer or newer." Which is a crock full of expletives. I get angry thinking about it, because I have seen it happen. Why else would anyone give clothes away to a charity or a needy family that clearly should go in the trash if they didn't feel it was "good enough" for them?

You may not even realize what you're implying, I'm sure most people don't. I actually believe that the majority of people have a genuine interest in the well being of others and the convoluted hateful things that are being parroted from one to another are reactionary and out of fear, because of the shaky ground we all are standing on. And, make no mistake, we ALL are standing on it.

These programs are designed to be temporary supports when people are in need of them, if you've never known anyone who was ever in temporary need of help (from friends, family), yourself included, then you've lived a rather charmed life and no wonder you look down on people in need as being leeches. Sorry, but I just don't understand the attitude that people who need help are dregs of society. I have known people who needed food stamps, ANFC, or daycare subsidies at one time or other and were able to get a leg up because of it. It wasn't permanent, those people didn't want to be in that position and  moved on as quickly as they could, just as they were supposed to. Some have gone on to have good paying jobs and I haven't ever heard any complain about what they have to pay.

I'm going to push this a little further, because what you're saying doesn't make sense to me: If you're working so many jobs just to cover your expenses, then it suggests that you aren't making enough money to live on ("good will...inflicting pain on my family...") but your stance is in-line with the republican complaint about the Bush tax cuts expiring and Obama's presidency in general.

If on the other hand, you're working numerous jobs to keep your family in high-end amenities, that's different. I just don't get where your  attitude is coming from, it's not just yours, it's many others' as well. Please explain your fears, I would like to understand--I have certainly given my perspective and would like to hear how you have come to yours, what causes you to feel this way.

I don't have a clue about the policies and I'm not convinced that any of the politicians involved do either--if they have to draft a document that is thousands of pages long--you know they aren't reading it, you know as well as I do it's too large for anyone  to realistically comprehend--even the brightest scholars in the world. So we (the little people) are all sitting here grousing about things that are  extremely complicated and I really wonder if we even know all we need to know? I can say for certain that I don't. I'm trying to figure it out, but I don't have it understood yet. I hear a lot of things, but until I have it vetted from a reliable source in terms I understand, I'm not going to say anything other than what I know and all I know is my own opinion--my guess is that's what you know too--so we are in the same boat.

We may never agree on anything other than being thankful that we live in a country where we are still able to voice our dissenting opinions. Happy Thanksgiving!

[Thor]

Let's see if I can keep this shorter than the opinions we have been reading.

I have been asked why I "feel this way" about social welfare recipients? But obviously you missed the point; I'm not down on welfare recipients... I hate the whole system, as it is nothing more than renamed method of wealth redistribution. Take from those that earn, and give to those that don't.

"These programs are designed to be temporary supports when people are in need of them". How's that working out for you (and me)?

"Why do you work so many jobs"? Is it because, a) "I am not making enough to live on" or b) "to keep my family in high-end amenities"? Quite frankly, it is none of your business why I work or what drives me. Perhaps it is because I am a driven person. But obviously taking care of my family is the most important reason. Preparing for the future (mine and my children). I certainly don't work so someone else doesn't have to! If you tax group "A" to give money to group "B", both groups will lose the incentive to work. Then what'aya got!?

Hope you all had a great Thanksgiving.

Gotta run now. Don't want to be late for work!!