Thanks for Clearing Everything Up

I found a nifty little video at At The Point of a Gun in which Paul Krugman clears up once and for all any misconceptions about "the panels" (note how everyone laughs about death panels and saving money, as if it is some kind of inside joke):



So, there you have it.  In Krugman's own words-death panels save money and we have one but it is called an "advisory board".  The panel will decide which treatments are "worth" the money and which are not and their decisions will be binding. 

A friend of mine was showing off pictures of his great niece and great nephew the other day.  The twins, who were born weighing barely a pound each at 27 weeks are cute as can be.  Their great uncled beamed at the sight of the (now) healthy and happy infants.  Whatever their care cost was worth every penny.  But of course, that is my opinion and my opinion, unlike that of a faceless advisory board, is not binding.

It wasn't too long ago that Krugman mocked the ignorant Right for believing in death panels yet  now, he embraces them as necessary to ObamaCare.  It says a lot about Krugman's honesty and the honesty of the Left who have made it clear that they are more than willing to lie to get their agenda through.

Paul Krugman has a brain fart

Is Paul Krugman suffering from selective memory loss or is he just an unprincipled hack who attacks the Right even when they are echoing his own words?  From the Wall Street Journal:

Former Enron adviser Paul Krugman takes note in his New York Times column of what he calls "the incredible gap that has opened up between the parties":

Today, Democrats and Republicans live in different universes, both intellectually and morally.

"What Democrats believe," he says "is what textbook economics says":

But that's not how Republicans see it. Here's what Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, had to say when defending Mr. Bunning's position (although not joining his blockade): unemployment relief "doesn't create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work."

Krugman scoffs: "To me, that's a bizarre point of view--but then, I don't live in Mr. Kyl's universe."

What does textbook economics have to say about this question? Here is a passage from a textbook called "Macroeconomics":

Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect. . . . In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker's incentive to quickly find a new job. Generous unemployment benefits in some European countries are widely believed to be one of the main causes of "Eurosclerosis," the persistent high unemployment that affects a number of European countries.

So it turns out that what Krugman calls Sen. Kyl's "bizarre point of view" is, in fact, textbook economics. The authors of that textbook are Paul Krugman and Robin Wells. Miss Wells is also known as Mrs. Paul Krugman.

I'm going with unprincipled  hack.

Oh, so that is what an educated idiot looks like:

Krugman gushes:

I found Obama’s health care presentation so impressive — so much command of the issues — that it had me worried. If I really like a politician’s speech, isn’t that an indication that he lacks the popular touch? (A couple of points off for “incentivize” — what ever happened to “encourage”? — but never mind.)

Seriously, it’s really good to see how much he gets it.

Yeah, he gets it. He gets that the cost will crush the economy. He gets that health care will be rationed. Most important, he gets that ObamaCare confiscates power from the individual and transfers it to the government. Krugman and Obama think of themselves as the educated elite, who, by virtue of their superior intellect, should rule over the “regular” folks. Cass Sunstein, slated to be Obama’s “Regulatory Czar” put it this way:

People often make poor choices - and look back at them with bafflement! We do this because as human beings, we all are susceptible to a wide array of routine biases that can lead to an equally wide array of embarrassing blunders in education, personal finance, health care, mortgages and credit cards, happiness, and even the planet itself.

Basically these people believe that we don't get it. They believe that we are not intellectually advanced enough to act or think for ourselves without their guidance. I would rather be free to make my own decisions, and mistakes, tahn surrender my choices to the government.

Via Memeorandum

The Fragile Conscience Of A Liberal

Via Memeorandum:

My Mom always said that if you throw a rock at a pack of dogs the one that yelps is the one that was hit. Paul Krugman let out a yelp today. Krugman is unhappy with the Wall Street Journal over its opinions on what Krugman terms the “fake scandal” at the EPA, their opinion on the current unemployment figures and their op-ed on the Minnesota Senate Race. Oh, and everything else they’ve written in the last 35 years:

I mean, they’re not stupid — life would be a lot easier if they were. So they know they’re not telling the truth. But they obviously believe that their dishonesty serves a higher truth — one that is, in effect, told only to Inner Party members, while the Outer Party makes do with prolefeed.The question is, what is that higher truth? What do these people really believe in?

It is interesting that Krugman doesn’t merely accuse the WSJ of being wrong. Because they espouse ideas that contradict his own, Krugman has labeled them liars. Krugman credits himself with a twofer; they know he’s right, but they are liars.

Krugman writes under the schticky The Conscience of a Liberal. I would change the title if I were him. Any conscience so fragile that it recoils from disagreement should not milling about we lower classes.