Krugman's reversal shows him for the unprincipled progressive hack he is KRUGMAN FILIBUSTERS KRUGMAN What a difference five years, and a change in the majority, can make for Paul Krugman...
New York Times, March 29, 2005:
...the big step by extremists will be an attempt to eliminate the filibuster, so that the courts can be packed with judges less committed to upholding the law than Mr. Greer. We can't count on restraint from people like Mr. DeLay...
New York Times, February 8, 2010:
Senators themselves should recognize this fact and push through changes in those rules, including eliminating or at least limiting the filibuster. This is something they could and should do, by majority vote, on the first day of the next Senate session.
From the NY Times, June 23, 2005
Mr. Bush has reacted by railing against Democrats for obstruction — as if Democrats are duty-bound to breathe life into his agenda and, even sillier, as if opposing a plan that the people do not want is an illegitimate tactic for an opposition party.
HTTT, did you read Bob Herbert's column today? Do you have a suggestion for 30 percent of unemployed people in the lowest income percentile? Or the 20 additional percent underemployed? Do you think they are a myth, because I will tell I see them when I am preparing taxes at an IRS tax site. Or do you think we should just ignore them?
Right now, as far as I know, people are calling for the filibuster to be returned to actually standing up and speaking until you can't, instead of just being able to declare a filibuster and stay home. I am ok with that idea. From what I understand, the Republicans in 2005 were calling for the "nuclear option", eliminating filibusters from the rules altogether. There is a difference. I would be willing to see Democrats, once they are in the minority again at some point in the future, forced to stand up and talk for hours, possibly wetting their pants (plan ahead, wear Depends).
I gather, though, that you want to see millions of poor people die, because your party does not want them to have access to health care and jobs.
Ed, Cease with the hyperbole. 'Millions' are not going to die if they, according to you, don't have health care or jobs.
Everyone can get health care. Not everyone can afford health insurance. Big difference and you know it.
As for jobs, that is a tad more difficult. Continually extending unemployment payments is not the answer... people will have to take a job, any job.. people will have to (gasp!) move to where the jobs are.
A broad-based TAX CUT for anyone who actually PAYS Federal income taxes would help. No more credits. Obama's latest gimmick (sp?) of a $5,000 credit is laughable/tragic. Why would I hire someone if there's no business? An across-the-board tax CUT would stimulate demand.. and, therefore, create jobs.
Since your (apparently) prepare income tax returns, you know many people qualify for EIT, Food Stamps, Sec 8 housing, etc. Ask them to give up their cell phone, their color TV, etc. They're living a better life than many.
And, remember one thing - there will ALWAYS be poor and stupid people at the bottom. Always. There's nothing we can do to stop it.
Everyone can go to the emergency room and get "stabilized". Without health insurance they can't be admitted. When they do go the emergency room, they will incur a bill perhaps in the thousands of dollars. But everyone has access to health care. As long as they are willing to lose their house, and declare bankruptcy.
A new tax cut? Because that worked well for the poor during the Bush administration. When the poor and middle class lost ground, although the rich you so care about did get richer. So I can see why you want a tax cut.
And yes, there is always a bottom 20%. But the bottom 20 doesn't have to have 30% unemployment. Oh, wait, they're stupid. So it is their fault that they are unemployed. Because they are stupid (and predominately minority, at least in the cities).
Did you read Bob Herbert's column today? (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/opinion/09herbert.html)
8 comments:
Over at MyDD, Charles Lemos has a good folow-up.
.
Krugman's reversal shows him for the unprincipled progressive hack he is
KRUGMAN FILIBUSTERS KRUGMAN
What a difference five years, and a change in the majority, can make for Paul Krugman...
New York Times, March 29, 2005:
...the big step by extremists will be an attempt to eliminate the filibuster, so that the courts can be packed with judges less committed to upholding the law than Mr. Greer. We can't count on restraint from people like Mr. DeLay...
New York Times, February 8, 2010:
Senators themselves should recognize this fact and push through changes in those rules, including eliminating or at least limiting the filibuster. This is something they could and should do, by majority vote, on the first day of the next Senate session.
From the NY Times, June 23, 2005
Mr. Bush has reacted by railing against Democrats for obstruction — as if Democrats are duty-bound to breathe life into his agenda and, even sillier, as if opposing a plan that the people do not want is an illegitimate tactic for an opposition party.
HTTT, did you read Bob Herbert's column today? Do you have a suggestion for 30 percent of unemployed people in the lowest income percentile? Or the 20 additional percent underemployed? Do you think they are a myth, because I will tell I see them when I am preparing taxes at an IRS tax site. Or do you think we should just ignore them?
Right now, as far as I know, people are calling for the filibuster to be returned to actually standing up and speaking until you can't, instead of just being able to declare a filibuster and stay home. I am ok with that idea. From what I understand, the Republicans in 2005 were calling for the "nuclear option", eliminating filibusters from the rules altogether. There is a difference. I would be willing to see Democrats, once they are in the minority again at some point in the future, forced to stand up and talk for hours, possibly wetting their pants (plan ahead, wear Depends).
I gather, though, that you want to see millions of poor people die, because your party does not want them to have access to health care and jobs.
Ed, Cease with the hyperbole. 'Millions' are not going to die if they, according to you, don't have health care or jobs.
Everyone can get health care. Not everyone can afford health insurance. Big difference and you know it.
As for jobs, that is a tad more difficult. Continually extending unemployment payments is not the answer... people will have to take a job, any job.. people will have to (gasp!) move to where the jobs are.
A broad-based TAX CUT for anyone who actually PAYS Federal income taxes would help. No more credits. Obama's latest gimmick (sp?) of a $5,000 credit is laughable/tragic. Why would I hire someone if there's no business? An across-the-board tax CUT would stimulate demand.. and, therefore, create jobs.
Since your (apparently) prepare income tax returns, you know many people qualify for EIT, Food Stamps, Sec 8 housing, etc. Ask them to give up their cell phone, their color TV, etc. They're living a better life than many.
And, remember one thing - there will ALWAYS be poor and stupid people at the bottom. Always. There's nothing we can do to stop it.
Everyone can go to the emergency room and get "stabilized". Without health insurance they can't be admitted. When they do go the emergency room, they will incur a bill perhaps in the thousands of dollars. But everyone has access to health care. As long as they are willing to lose their house, and declare bankruptcy.
A new tax cut? Because that worked well for the poor during the Bush administration. When the poor and middle class lost ground, although the rich you so care about did get richer. So I can see why you want a tax cut.
And yes, there is always a bottom 20%. But the bottom 20 doesn't have to have 30% unemployment. Oh, wait, they're stupid. So it is their fault that they are unemployed. Because they are stupid (and predominately minority, at least in the cities).
Did you read Bob Herbert's column today? (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/opinion/09herbert.html)
Con Mountaineer's right in saying that there will always be poor people.
And if we listen to conservatives like him, they'll be a whole hell of a lot more of them.
htt,
I believe that Krugman's complaint is about the senatorial "hold," not the filibuster.
A single Republican, Sen. Shelby, put a "hold" on all pending Obama appointees, trying to force money for pet projects in Alabama.
I didn't find mention of cloture/filibuster in the article mentioned in this entry.
If you did, point it out.
Oh, well. Should have had my coffee first.
I'll eat it when you dish it up, htt.
Post a Comment