About This Blog
The Akron Beacon Journal printed an editorial by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman in the sunday newspaper. The column was called Obama, played for a sucker like many in the Beltway. I've always been confused by Krugman, one reason being that he is a professor of Economics at Princeton University, but nothing he writes about economics ever makes any economic sense. You'd think even liberal Economists would be able to add and subtract, but not Krugman. His latest column is a case in point.
Krugman takes the position that Social Security isn't going broke, and he cites as his sole proof the contention that our country's financial health will be determined by the growth of health care costs..........???????? I'm not kidding, that's what he said. Here's the relevant passage:
...But the “everyone” who knows that Social Security is doomed doesn’t include anyone who actually understands the numbers. In fact, the whole Beltway obsession with the fiscal burden of an aging population is misguided.
As Peter Orszag, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, put it in a recent article co-authored with senior analyst Philip Ellis: “The long-term fiscal condition of the United States has been largely misdiagnosed. Despite all the attention paid to demographic challenges, such as the coming retirement of the baby-boom generation, our country’s financial health will in fact be determined primarily by the growth rate of per capita health care costs.”
How has conventional wisdom gotten this so wrong? Well, in large part it’s the result of decades of scare-mongering about Social Security’s future from conservative ideologues, whose ultimate goal is to undermine the program
If that doesn't make any sense to you, you're not alone. I had to read that part of Krugman's column like three times to make sure I read it correctly, because the growth rate of health care costs doesn't have one single thing to do with the solvency or insolvency of Social Security, but Krugman pretends he just settled the whole issue with that fatuous statement, and then he just moves on to how the Republicans misled everybody about Social Security the whole time. It is so astoundingly illogical that I think Krugman is misleading us intentionally and hoping we are too dumb to notice. He HAS to be. HE TEACHES ECONOMICS AT PRINCETON, for crying out loud. He HAS to know that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. He has to know it's going broke. He HAS TO KNOW ! Either that, or he cannot add or subtract and ended up as a Princeton professor anyway. I don't know what Krugman's students at Princeton are learning, but it sure isn't economics. They are probably learning Anti-Conservatism 101.
Krugman says Social Security is a small problem, way down the list of american problems. Never mind that your SS payroll taxes are put into the general fund and immediately spent. Never mind that there is no SS Trust Fund. It doesn't exist. It never did. Never mind that it is nothing but IOU's, a claim on future taxpayers. Never mind that in about 10 years, SS will be paying out more than it takes in. Never mind that such a ponzi scheme would be highly illegal if a private industry tried it (Enron DID). I wrote a previous column about Social Security that you can find here. Paul Krugman says never mind, it's all just Republicans trying to scare you. AND HE'S SUPPOSED TO BE A ECONOMIST !?!?!?!? In a pig's eye, he is ! If Paul Krugman is an Economist and can still write utter nonsense like this, then I'm Elvis Presley, and I'm -- All Shook Up.
- 2013 (55)
- 2012 (125)
- 2011 (167)
- 2010 (185)
- 2009 (228)
- 2008 (195)
- 2007 (72)