Skip to comments.Economist Admits Deficits Pose Long Term Problem, Suggests Remedies
Posted on 02/11/2013 8:47:25 AM PST by John Semmens
While Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman has been arguing that now is not the time for us to be worrying about the federal governments debt, he does admit that a long term solution is necessary.
In the short run we can always inflate the currency as a means of defaulting on federal obligations, Krugman said. But in the long term there are significant demographic problems that require a real solution.
One of the significant demographic problems cited by Krugman was the aging population. As people get older they tend to need more medical services, Krugman recounted. With our advanced technology these services can be expensive. The question is whether we, as a society, want to invest in life-saving interventions for those too old to be productive contributors to the nations wealth. Some means of easing them out of the equation is needed. Inexpensive palliative care or assisted suicide for those in this classification may be our best option.
Another significant demographic problem is the insufficient number of wealthy who can be taxed. The big money in our society is held by the huge cohort of the middle class, Krugman pointed out. I know that it is politically popular to talk about taxing the rich, but there just isnt enough money there. Well have to hit the middle class with a hefty tax hike to get at the bulk of the wealth held by private parties in this country. Most of these people have far more possessions than they need. Siphoning off a chuck of their money via a national sales tax or value-added tax is probably the easiest way to accomplish this.
if you missed any of this week's other semi-news/semi-satire posts you can find them at...
Whenever I see the name “Krugman,” the song “If I Only Had a Brain” comes to mind.
The man is positively evil.
Krugman simply has no credibility. He argues both sides of the argument - FOR Obama’s spending and FOR conservatives’ desire to cut spending and reduce the size of our bloated government.
What Krugman does is support BOTH sides of the argument so that he will be right at least 50% of the time.
A major tax hike on the upper middle class will hit the Laffer curve limit—baby boomers who are comfortable will be able to retire a few years earlier than they might have planned.
Let’s see Krugman crunch those numbers.
You know this is satire . . . right?
Either that or he supports the typical Keynesian solution of increased government spending during recessions and more austerity during boom times.
It is satire, but good satire also has a lot of truth to it. In a lefty’s mind, you are only as good as you are able to be productive. The moment you cannot be productive, they want to be rid of you.
That is an evil position.
Honestly that sounds more like the mindset of the Right since if you can't be productive then they don't want to help you out with government assistance.
While there are some people on the right, who are so Darwinian in their point of view that they will let you die in a ditch, most are much more balanced than this.
Most people on the right are happy to help out, provided that you are honestly doing everything reasonably possible to provide for yourself.
Not entirely true, if you are a member of a "protected class", illegal, single mom, SSI recipient, gang affiliated, &c, &c, ad nauseum; your guaranteed vote is highly treasured (as well as that of your dogs, cats, dead relations, minor children...)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.