Paul Krugman Recommends 'Death Panels' to Help Balance Budget
UPDATE AT END OF POST: Krugman tries to clarify what he said.
Although he was likely taking a swipe at former governor Sarah Palin with the reference, Paul Krugman on Sunday recommended "death panels" as a means of helping to balance the federal budget.
In a Roundtable discussion on ABC's "This Week," the New York Times columnist said of what recently came out of the President's deficit commission, "Some years down the pike, we're going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
RUTH MARCUS, WASHINGTON POST: Right now, 75 percent of people believe you could balance the budget without touching Medicare or Social Security; 75 percent of people believe that you can balance the budget without raising taxes. Well, you could, but it would be extraordinarily painful.
People need to get a little bit of reality therapy. There's going to be another dose coming on Wednesday when another group is going to submit their recommendations, very concrete recommendations about how to do it. That's the conversation we need to have before we start picking apart solutions.
PAUL KRUGMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: If they were going to do reality therapy, they should have said, OK, look, Medicare is going to have to decide what it's going to pay for. And at least for starters, it's going to have to decide which medical procedures are not effective at all and should not be paid for at all. In other words, it should have endorsed the panel that was part of the health care reform.
If it's not even -- if the commission isn't even brave enough to take on the death panels people, then it's doing no good at all. It's not educating the public. It's not telling people about the kinds of choices that need to be made.
A few minutes later:
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, HOST: But what is going to happen? I mean, are you clear on where a compromise is going to be? It's got to be discussed before the end of the year, no?
KRUGMAN: No. Some years down the pike, we're going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes. It's going to be that we're actually going to take Medicare under control, and we're going to have to get some additional revenue, probably from a VAT. But it's not going to happen now.
So, we've got to get Medicare under control by deciding "what it's going to pay for...which medical procedures are not effective at all and should not be paid for at all."
AKA "death panels."
Now, to be sure, Krugman was likely being derisive using that term. However, the point Palin and others were making during the ObamaCare debate - and getting great criticism from folks in the media for doing so - was that once government gets involved in these decisions, it's a slippery slope to federal officials determining who lives and who doesn't.
There are many medical procedures today that are costly and might preserve life for a short period of time. When Medicare decides it's not going to cover them, the government has indeed made a life and death decision for a citizen.
With that in mind, I imagine Sarah Palin will be smiling somewhere when Krugman's comments are brought to her attention.
*****Update: Sensing he may have opened up a can of worms, Krugman posted a rather hapless clarification at his blog Sunday.
*****Update II: Our good friend Gary Hall reminds us in the comments section that former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich made a similar observation back in 2007:
We're going to have to, if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive...so we're going to let you die.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Hopefully he's volunteering
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 2:40pm.
We already have the Death Panel it's called ObamaCare.
I agree with him
Submitted by williamhenley on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 3:29pm.
and I volenteer to be on his "death panel".
The next step....
Submitted by nonncom on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 10:25am.
"Soylent Green is people!"....
If Krugman continues with his
Submitted by Thalpy on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 2:50pm.
If Krugman continues with his mindless blather, he may become one of the chosen who is selected to provide an answer. Given the quality of his recent work and contribution to our civilization, he appears to be qualified for death panel selection-sooner than later.
Road to Perdition
Submitted by jon_torlin on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 2:50pm.
It's a dark time in this country if we have people going on TV that are actually advocating Death Panels as a means to an end instead of what it really is, a horrific plan.
These people need to be treated as Enemies of Life, they place no value on life.
Sounds like another bunch of people......who were they again....oh yeah, Muslims who worship Islam.
-Jon
Death Panel for gov programs
Submitted by Tjexcite on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 3:10pm.
All government programs need to be put in front of death panel. If that program and it advocates can justify its continuing inflated budget and why they need the 6 figure income for those who lead it then it can stay. By looking at, if the problems that they where created to end has worked they stay and if they have not just made it worse the money is declined, and all of it.
Krugman, the ultimate hypocrite.
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 3:11pm.
Krugman is the ultimate hypocrite. He speaks of the "need" for the government to decide what is "effective" treatment for MILLIONS of people while , undoubtedly, not wanting to rely upon the government to make decisions regarding his own health care. You can't tell me that he doesn't have PRIVATE insurance, one provided by his employer.
Come on, Paul. If you're insisting that the government should make decisions for the health care of others, in order to drive down costs, shouldn't YOU be willing to be subject to the same government oversight in YOUR health care issues?
It's time top put up or shut up, Krugman. Ether get on Medicare yourself or stop trying to tell others what is best for them while exempting yourself from your own "advice."
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
He's 57
Submitted by Francisco on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 8:08am.
He's 57
And you point is, what?
Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 12:08pm.
And your point is, what? He can still drop his private insurance and rely upon the government when he's retired, can he not? But we all know he won;t be doing that.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Krugman has gone off the rails
Submitted by ChrisNH on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 3:35pm.
Because the only people paying attention to Krugman's NYT pieces are like-minded Leftists, he needs to weasel his way onto TV where he can bang his whiny drum in front of a 'new' audience. What he doesn't really know is that the TV audience is still the same bunch of nodding-headed Leftists who read his columns. Krugman THINKS he's extending his reach and his message, but he most certainly isn't.
Haughty academic Leftist elites like Paul Krugman must surely be going postal. One must pray for their spouses, pets, and children.
Krugman
Submitted by Apache on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 3:47pm.
I thought Krugman had his name legally changed to "Nobel Prize winning economist". We know he is smart because he tells us he is. But that is the limit of the data.
Noel. AKA Robert Reich, on death panels
Submitted by Gary Hall on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 4:05pm.
You noted:
AKA "death panels."
There are many medical procedures today that are costly and might preserve life for a short period of time... When Medicare decides it's not going to cover them, the government has indeed made a life and death decision for a citizen.
Former Clinton Sec. of Labor, Robert Reigh On health care reform, 2007:
Thank you. And by the way, we're going to have to, if you are very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life, to keep you, maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive, so we're going to let you die.
AKA - They're all in this together.
Gee, I wonder why our MSM didn't bring Reich out last year and ask him to explain how these concepts are not AKA "death panels."
It is in the works - just pushed back a few years.
(;~/ gary
Democrats say "no death
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 7:48pm.
Democrats say "no death panels" and "20 million jobs saved" and our lapdog media do nothing but drool stupidly.
I See Krugman as a Prophet of an Idol
Submitted by Tenebrous on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 4:49pm.
Really, his prognostications make as much sense. He is also the living embodiment of the Peter principle and has become a silly man; I wonder if even those on the cocktail set snicker at him behind their sleeves. He makes no sense, promotes nothing that's feasible, has no clue about how economics works, and is a supreme hypocrite.
Liberalism is always trotting out the New and the Different, like a new cologone, to hide the fact that it's the same old unwashed trollop beneath it all.
And oh, just for grins, why is additional income for the government necessary? I thought OBAMA KNEW EVERYTHING. Aren't you just saying that his economic plans didn't work?
Visions and Principles blog
There are many medical
Submitted by dbz77 on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 4:58pm.
Not necessarily. The citizen can choose to pay for the medical procedure out of the own pocket.It breaks down in the evidence-based process.
Submitted by drsamherman on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 9:20pm.
(BTW: Still the same old Dr. Sam - albeit with a new name!)
Medical/clinical literature establishes evidence for treatment paradigms based on a confidence interval of 95%. Without boring all of you on the mechanics of biostatistics, let me say that this is a relatively large confidence interval compared to other fields that use statistics to establish standards, e.g. banking, real estate, etc. The entire field of evidence-based medicine (EBM), which is an extension of health outcomes research including epidemiology and other related areas, is built upon this 95% confidence interval, and equally the acolytes of EBM rely so heavily on the literature that they seem a bit like overzealous religious fanatics in many ways.
As a medical specialist, most of my patients lie outside of this 95% confidence interval. More often than not, this requires the use of medications and other treatments that are outside of the EBM parameters. EBM forms the core of what government medical programs and third party health insurers will pay. What they will pay for or not determines exactly what treatment options are available to the patient and to me as their physician. The process of determining medical necessity outside of the EBM parameters is so extraordinarily difficult that it makes treating the "5% margin" extremely challenging to say the least.
I routinely encounter managed care medical directors who are so far removed from direct patient care that it vexes the imagination. That means reimbursement and treatment is often guided simply by the bottom line and devoid of the individual patient care quality that so many managed care organizations advertise to the point of violating marketing regulations. Those patients who require the extended doses of antidepressants or the addition of more than one sedative or a higher dose of an atypical antipsychotic or pushing the serum levels to an extreme degree to control seizures often experience delays which ultimately cost more money because some EBM proselyte is recalcictrant to anything not in the magic 95%. That is where evidence-based medicine, and zealotry to its conflicting aims, breaks down.
Reality check
Submitted by ArrowSmith on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 5:08pm.
What will actually happen is nothing. The can will be kicked down the road to 2020 and full financial meltdown will ensue. Nobody *ever* is willing to make sacrifices anymore.
I'm afraid you may be right
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 6:41pm.
Witness the knee-jerk reactions from members of the President's own Debt Commission when the two Co-Chairs laid out a sweeping strategic perspective of what's on the table.
Crude Krugman...
Submitted by Cactus Kurt on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 6:36pm.
A Jew that's advocating death panels.
Robert Reich
Submitted by KevindF on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 7:18pm.
How much did Robert Reich's replacement hips cost taxpayers? Maybe he should just been given "a pill."
There are always going to be
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 7:55pm.
There are always going to be treatments that are too expensive given the expected outcome. It has always been thus. Right now we have panels that decide who gets the kidney or lung or heart transplant. And it's based on expected outcome. If it weren't, we'd be doing a heart transplant on an 80-year old (because his heart was in worse shape) while a 45-year-old was pushed to the back of the line.
The only argument is about who gets to make those decisions. I'm not saying that at a certain age people should be refused treatment, but let's face it...no country can possibly provide to everyone all the desired medical services, especially if those services are free.
first destroy private insurance, then ...
Submitted by stefano1 on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 12:02am.
Go try to find health insurance if you are over 65. It doesn't exist unless you are covered by an employer or you are a congressman or senator. Medicare destroyed that segment of the health insurance industry. It's amazing to hear joke senators like Claire McCaskill ask folks to raise their hands if they are on Medicare, and then ask if they would like the government to take it away. In favor of what? It's all gone for folks over 65. Obamacare will ultimately destroy all private insurance if not repealed. Then we will all be on "Medicare". Then there will be death panels and rationing and it will be too late to do anything about it. Our country stands on the edge of obilvion through socialism unless we rid ourselves of Obamacare and this terribly goofy Democrat controlled government.
JS
Concerning the "Death
Submitted by Anna on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 1:01am.
Concerning the "Death Panels" by Sarah Palin
August 12, 2009 8:55pm
Yesterday President Obama responded to my statement that Democratic health care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly, and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system these “unproductive” members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care.
The President made light of these concerns. He said:
“Let me just be specific about some things that I’ve been hearing lately that we just need to dispose of here. The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for death panels that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we’ve decided that we don’t, it’s too expensive to let her live anymore....It turns out that I guess this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, etc. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they’re ready on their own terms. It wasn’t forcing anybody to do anything.” [1]
The provision that President Obama refers to is Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.” [2] With all due respect, it’s misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context.
Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often “if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual ... or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility... or a hospice program." [3] During those consultations, practitioners must explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” and the government benefits available to pay for such services. [4]
Now put this in context. These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.” [5] Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care? As Charles Lane notes in the Washington Post, Section 1233 “addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones.... If it’s all about alleviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to “bend the curve” on health-care costs?” [6]
As Lane also points out:
Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren’t quite “purely voluntary,” as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, “purely voluntary” means “not unless the patient requests one.” Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive -- money -- to do so. Indeed, that’s an incentive to insist.
Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they’re in the meeting, the bill does permit “formulation” of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would “place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign,” I don’t think he’s being realistic. [7]
Even columnist Eugene Robinson, a self-described “true believer” who “will almost certainly support” “whatever reform package finally emerges”, agrees that “If the government says it has to control health-care costs and then offers to pay doctors to give advice about hospice care, citizens are not delusional to conclude that the goal is to reduce end-of-life spending.” [8]
So are these usually friendly pundits wrong? Is this all just a “rumor” to be “disposed of”, as President Obama says? Not according to Democratic New York State Senator Ruben Diaz, Chairman of the New York State Senate Aging Committee, who writes:
Section 1233 of House Resolution 3200 puts our senior citizens on a slippery slope and may diminish respect for the inherent dignity of each of their lives.... It is egregious to consider that any senior citizen ... should be placed in a situation where he or she would feel pressured to save the government money by dying a little sooner than he or she otherwise would, be required to be counseled about the supposed benefits of killing oneself, or be encouraged to sign any end of life directives that they would not otherwise sign. [9]
Of course, it’s not just this one provision that presents a problem. My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor to President Obama and the brother of the President’s chief of staff. Dr. Emanuel has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens....An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” [10] Dr. Emanuel has also advocated basing medical decisions on a system which “produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.” [11]
President Obama can try to gloss over the effects of government authorized end-of-life consultations, but the views of one of his top health care advisors are clear enough. It’s all just more evidence that the Democratic legislative proposals will lead to health care rationing, and more evidence that the top-down plans of government bureaucrats will never result in real health care reform.
[1] See http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/president-obama-addresse....
[2] See http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-0...
[3] See HR 3200 sec. 1233 (hhh)(1); Sec. 1233 (hhh)(3)(B)(1), above.
[4] See HR 3200 sec. 1233 (hhh)(1)(E), above.
[5] See http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-0...
[6] See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703043.html].
[7] Id.
[8] See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/10/AR2009081002455.html].
[9] See http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/letter-congressman-henry-waxman-re....
[10] See http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Demo...
[11] See http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarce-M....
Someone Owes Sarah Palin an
Submitted by Anna on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 1:04am.
Someone Owes Sarah Palin an Apologyhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_2chKkoBek&feature=player_embedded
Obama's OMB Director
Submitted by Anna on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 1:12am.
Obama's OMB Director Vindicates Governor Palin on Death Panels; Updated - April 27, 2010
By Doug Brady
Last summer ObamaCare was sailing through Congress and, given the huge majorities in both chambers enjoyed by the Democrat Party, predicted to pass by early autumn. However, in early August Governor Palin dramatically shook up the entire health care debate with her game-changing Facebook Note: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=113851103434
The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
Her brilliant use of the metaphor "death panel" to describe the inevitable rationing which must ensue in Obama's government takeover of the US health care system provided a rallying point for the many townhall meetings which occurred during the month of August. The effectiveness of that phrase was evident by the near hysteria it created within the Democrat Party and their water carriers in the mainstream media. Indeed her leadership on this issue almost killed the entire bill which was heading for easy passage last summer. It ultimately did pass (barely) but not until late March after the most corrupt legislative process in the nation's history.
The criticism of her metaphoric use of the phrase "death panels" wasn't limited to Democrat politicians and their sycophants in the media. Even normally lucid conservative pundits criticized her for its use. Charles Krauthammer, in one of the most bizarre articles I have ever read, famously told her to "leave the room" at the beginning of his piece because there were no death panels before spending the rest of his article explaining why the rationing in the bill amounted to...death panels.
In a post three weeks ago, we linked a video in which ultra-lefty New York Times columnist Paul Krugman exculpated Governor Palin's use of the metaphor:
http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2010/04/liberal-paul-krugman-vindicat...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_2chKkoBek&feature=player_embedded
More recently, Peter Orszag, Director of Obama's Office of Management and Budget (OMB), further vindicated Governor Palin. Let's go to the video and allow Orszag to explain in wonkish detail how ObamaCare's death panels will work. Via Breitbart TV: http://www.breitbart.tv/obamas-budget-director-powerful-rationing-panel-...
Amazing. First Krugman and now Obama's own OMB Director confirm what Governor Palin has been saying all along: the advisory panel within ObamaCare responsible for rationing health care will effectively be a death panel for those deemed unworthy of the cost of the care. More on Orszag's vindication of Governor Palin from Hot Air's Ed Morrissey here http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/27/video-orszag-explains-how-obamacar... and Gateway Pundit's Jim Hoft here. http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/04/sarah-palin-was-right-obama...
Exit question: When can we expect Charles Krauthammer to invite Governor Palin back into the room?
Update: Pat Archibold at the National Catholic Register writes:
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/palin_subsidiarity_and_death_panels/
Last year during the run up to the eventual passing of the Obamacare bill, President Obama had to take to the airwaves several times to promote the bill. One significant reason why was the dextrous dubbing of care rationing panels as ‘death panels’ by former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.
When Palin gave a name to the fear, the poll numbers for the bill really began to crash. President Obama and his supporters were livid. They ran to any network that would put them on air to decry the use of the term and to personally ridicule Palin for saying it. They said over and over and over again, there is no such thing as a Death Panel.
So now the deed is done and guess what? President Obama’s Director of OMB says that the unelected Medicare advisory panel can and will make binding decisions on how much care is too much. A death panel.
Gary Jackson's take on Orszag's revelation here.
http://www.thecypresstimes.com/article/Columnists/A_Time_For_Choosing/PA...
Update II: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/sar...
Peter Orszag, President Obama’s budget director, basically admitted that under Obamacare, access to doctors and medicine will be rationed. And the people on the “powerful rationing panel” making life-or-death decisions will be government bureaucrats, not medical professionals.
In January, a group of health care providers and advocacy groups sent a letter to the administration opposing the Independent Payment Advisory Board, noting that it would not be accountable to anyone but the president, who has sole power to appoint its members.
If this “powerful rationing panel” decides that you will not get the operation, medical procedure or medication your doctor says you need and you subsequently die as a result, what would your grieving family call it?
A “death panel,” perhaps?
http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2010/04/obamas-omb-director-vindicate...
Forgive me for posting so
Submitted by Anna on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 2:23am.
Forgive me for posting so many long articles, but it's important for people to understand and remember this "death panel" that really is part of Obamacare and must be defunded, dismantled and removed by Republicans next year!
Who knew the NAZI's were
Submitted by Thoreau on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 3:07am.
Who knew the NAZI's were sociialists? Oh... everyone did! My bad.
Cancel the Cures The Death Panels will Handle Healthcare.
Submitted by Avitar on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 4:33am.
We have to keep healthcare expensive or the Death Panels will have nothing to do. If the cure for cancer were on a defense department schedule the last case of cancer would be cured already and we would be saving 150 billion dollars a year.
It was found by the discovery of a caner proof lab rat in April of 2003. Over the last seven years it was bred into a commercial line of lab rats, its genes identified and sequenced the important genes transferred into other rats and lab animals which became immune to cancer and the function of the gene identified, it boost mammal immune system function into high gear.
The even spent several million dollars inducing a man with stage four melanoma to have a immune system that was in the same stat as the cure throws the system into. He got well, after seven years he is the only one.
We also have cures for diabetes published in Cell magazine Dec. 2008. And other assorted diseases. But how could anyone make money on them. The cost of curing diabetes would be perhaps 2 percent of what living with it costs. The cost of cueing cancer much less than that.
But what do you do with all those healthy old people? If they do not die of cancer or heart attack or diabeties they will be running around burning gasoline visiting Las Vegas? Worse some of those people collect government or union pensions. There isn't a thing wrong with union pension plans that people dying at forty-five would not solve. Worst of all some of the old people might want to keep working.
Any <b>Chicago Community Organizer</b> will tell you that jobs are a zero sum game and when China builds a job someone in America has to give it up.
Sarah Palin is by the
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 4:46am.
Sarah Palin is by the articles posted Presidential material.
Progressivism = Tyranny
Submitted by wascally on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 9:00am.
We have created so many entitlements that we can't possibly pay for it all. Economic collapse is inevitable! Even the fiscally born-again Republicans won't touch the entitlements despite that they represent nearly 50% of the federal budget. Once Obamacare is implemented, they will represent far more than 50%! No one is really facing the reality that these entitlements are unsustainable, even over the short term, and that they will destroy us -- SOON!
I even know a few people who have signed up for SS early now because they know they'll never get a dime from it in a few years when it collapses. They want to "get their share" before the house of cards falls!
The day of Soylent Green has arrived! I suggest we make Krugman and his progressive neo-Keynesian collectivists the test cases!
I'm now convinced that economic armageddon is certain. Believe me now or believe me later, you WILL believe me! If your believe me now, you'll prepare. If you believe me later, you will be economic road kill!
Progressivism = Tyranny!
Entitlement = Greed for the Poor!
Submitted by wascally on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 9:04am.
Entitlements are just a form of bottom-up greed. The idea that society OWES us a living is destructive and demonic. Entitlements are simply greed for the poor and middle class. They will destroy us!
Copycat!
Submitted by aposematic on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 12:10pm.
Humm, I seem to have heard this "Death Panel" thing spoken about back in 2009, by a moose hunter no less warning of these Panels. And then there was that goofball Grayson from Disney Land puting the blame on Republicans. Now Krugman, the prise winning Keynesian economic dooce bag, is exposing what everyone middle and right already knew; Obama, Pelosi, Reid, health care is a back door to saving Liberat entitlement programs by killing off the elderly...what a genious, that Krugman!
Krugman has become the Barney
Submitted by Barack_must_go..... on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 2:11pm.
Krugman has become the Barney Frank of the lame street media.
Barack_Must_Go.....