HULK SMASH
Because Kristof and Richard Cohen have a running battle on who can be the wussiest liberal in print.
The primary bias in the media is not left or right -- it's laziness.
If I could suck down the pay these guys do and do as little for it I would be tempted to write crap like this and let you all go hoot.
Yo, Nicky, next time, run your column by that guy that sits at the desk across from you... name's Krugman. He just might help you keep from embarrassing yourself in public again...
Kristoff is wrong about so many things, I've lost count. I remember thinking he was a good reporter when he was covering China(?). Now I wonder if that was just because I didn't know squat about China.
It's Kristoff's combination of ignorance, naivete and smarm that I find maddening and tiresome. The guy is never happier than when he can write a tiny, mild little criticism of Republicans but then expound at length on why Democrats are far far worse. Kristoff seems to think this proves he is Fair and Balanced.
He's part of the whole Vichy media scene. He'd be more honest if he became an openly Repug columnist
BTW, the thing that is interesting me the most in all the Social Security lying is that it's merely foreshadowing the wingnuts' hope to default on the general obligation bonds in 2018. I'd like to see more on that.
kristoff's liberal like friedman is. they both suck, and are only there to help conservatives look better.
let's face it, atrios: you're the new voice of the real moderate left. sooner or later someone is going to realize that, and if we still have any semblence of a free press, give you a job.
...not that your adorning crackden denziens would want to see you leave here.
This is all part of Bush's "ownership society". If you own a lotta stocks or bonds, or if your business is selling said financial instruments, you're gonna get rich. If not, you're gonna get owned.
Oh yeah, and when gummint talks of historical returns on the market, they should be required, as mutual funds are, to include this disclaimer, "Past performance is no indication of future performance."
Well, at least he didn't compare it to the sex slave trade.
And I haven't even touched on the survivors' and disability insurance portions of Social Security, which the 401k model wholly ignores.
Yeah. Will someone in the liberal media please touch on those portions of Social Security, please?
Adorning Crackden Denziens Unite™!
And I haven't even touched on the survivors' and disability insurance portions of Social Security, which the 401k model wholly ignores.
Yeah. Will someone in the liberal media please touch on those portions of Social Security, please?
Real simple. They want you to ignore it, because under the "401k" plan, survivor and disability cease to exist.
Unless we really do run two systems: one for investors, the rest for the "Unlucky". In which case, SS ain't broke, and this plan won't fix it. Or, we run Bush's "plan," and screw the survivors and the disabled.
Survival of the fittest, baybee!
Oops, it's only a matter of time now before "fuck knuckle moonbat" or whatever it is now morphs into CrackDenizens™.
why is it so hard for kristof to
write any column without a kind word for
the chimp-in-chief?
maybe bush knows something about those
cambodian prostitutes kristof has been
buying, oops, rescuing.
Well, at least he didn't compare it to the sex slave trade.
NTodd | Email | Homepage | 02.05.05 - 2:42 pm
It was a near thing. Same initials.
Yo, Nicky, next time, run your column by that guy that sits at the desk across from you... name's Krugman. He just might help you keep from embarrassing yourself in public again...
dave
I often think the same thing. Krugman"s expertise could be a wonderful resource for the op ed columnists at the Times. Yet they don't seem to take advantage of the situation very often.
Kristoff is weak on this, and many other important issues that he writes about, unfortunately. Do the folks at the Times consider him a "liberal"? I certainly hope not.
My 80-something year old great uncle had the best take on all this I've heard.
"I don't understand all this but it sounds like they're trying to fuck social security and give big comapanies a way out of pensions at the same time."
That may not sound that remarkable except that Uncle Bill (aka "Kid" because he was the youngest of 14) has been the only known registered republican in our family for as long as I can remember and he never ever uses the F word, never.
So, tell Bush to keep this up. It'll make those red states blue.
What's wrong with being wrong?
It can happen to any good-meaning person.
I mean, look at us...
--
Bravo Josh Marshall; he has been doing exemplary work on this issue. He makes the case that Kristoff clearly doesn't know what he is talking about. If only Josh a had column in the Times!
It's my belief that well-off "liberals" like Kristoff don't really give a shit about SS because they don't need it. Well, I don't need it either, but my mother did, and SS spared her from depending on her children in her declining years, her greatest fear.
It's my belief that well-off "liberals" like Kristoff don't really give a shit about SS because they don't need it.
Maybe so, but it's pretty pathetic if "what's in it for me?" is the *only* measure anyone can use to evaluate policies.
The primary bias in the media is not left or right -- it's laziness...alan
Alan: Noted. Disagree.
The fundamental bias of the Corporate/State media is the status quo. It is NOT laziness. It takes a great deal of work, effort, and money to maintain the illusion that, whatsoever it may be, it is always already the best of all possible worlds.
This is the near-final step in the project of imaginally anaesthetizing and functionally straight-jacketing the People and crippling democracy, through the constant iteration of the same drumbeat: danger, fear, death, accident, injury, tragedy, loss, inadequacy, etc.
These are the stock-in-trade of the Corporate/State media. their job is two-fold: 1)to create an atmosphere of utter chaotic ambivalence, and 2) to normalize it. Thorazine doesn't cure crazy people, it just narcotizes them. The Corporate/State media, especially the entertainment branches, are just electronic thorazine...
This project began with the appearance of mass media about 100-120 years ago, and it advanced into a theoretical, intentional program with the explosion of "public relations" in the 19-teens and 20s.
We are now immersed in it so wholly that there are almost none today alive who remember life which was NOT mediated by the manipulations of special interest...the process is, for that reason, practically irreversible...
it's pretty pathetic if "what's in it for me?" is the *only* measure anyone can use to evaluate policies.
Eli | Email | Homepage | 02.05.05 - 3:19 pm
Yeah, but I'm really thinking this is the defining difference between Dems and Repubs. Dems actually think about how things work for everyone -- even the Repubs -- and the Repubs say they do, but somehow everything gets tweaked for maximum profit to the detriment of others. "The greatest good for the greatest number" and "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one" are concepts lost on them.
WGG -- ahhh, Helen Thomas, early Daniel Schorr, Lars-Erik Nelson, and the inestimable Cronkite....
I think that the Times has completely caved in to the right-wing watchdogs. Rather than hiring smart, well-informed people who can write, they're hiring to point-of-view quotas.
Conservativism is part of Brooks' job description, for example, so from here on out he has to support the conservative POV, even when he knows it's ridiculous. People have noticed a decline in the quality of his work, and while I never liked him to begin with, I think that this is the reason why. His gymnastics can be ridiculous at times, when he tries to write something conservative that doesn't look bone dumb.
One branch of the VRWC demands parity among the opinion people, and the other branch viciously attacks the pundits in the liberal quota. Krugman can take the heat (mostly because he has another job and he's slumming at the Times). Kristoff can't. Applebaum is like Kristoff.
Someone should take Kristoff aside and tell him that his job is not to make everyone happy, but to make some people happy and others angry. Krugman figured that out on his own.
(Actually, Kristoff is hopeless. They should just feed him his favorite meal and give him a nice rubdown, and then take him out behind the barn and shoot him. Then they could hire Atrios or Marshall, like chicagodyke says.)
Yeah, but I'm really thinking this is the defining difference between Dems and Repubs.
I agree - I probably should have said "someone" instad of "anyone".
Man, the "Only losers depend on Social Security - I've got my retirement all planned, why haven't you" wankers piss me off.
Eli -- well, that's why I've got the one Cafe Press shirt that just says "Milton Friedman collects Social Security". The hypocrisy is... right in keeping with everything else they do.
Or they could hire me, of course.
I think that there is a real top-down behind the scenes center-right bias in all the major media. News is not completely suppressed, but it is downplayed or highlighted according to policy. The issues involved aren't the complete range of conservative issues, but the specific ones of interest to management. (Not social issues, for one example).
People blame the individual reporters, but they are peons writing to explicit or implicit instructions. Reporters know that they can end their careers by doing too good a job, and they trim accordingly. The cynicism of the ground-level media isn't a cause, it's an effect.
ahhh, Helen Thomas, early Daniel Schorr, Lars-Erik Nelson, and the inestimable Cronkite....
filkertom
I admire all of 'em. Met the inestimable Cronkite once. (There'll NEVER be permitted to exist another national voice as critical and universal as his, as I'm sure you know)...If they are offered to rebut my theory, recall that i said "almost none alive who remember..."
Those you name are all who remain of that breed, and even they do not remember life before public relations...and they are as good as silenced...Schorr is a doddering irrelevance, Thomas is studiously and viciously ignored, when was the last time you heard from Nelson? only Cronkite plays the role of nagging memory, and he's not long for this world...Did you ever hear of Geroge Seldes?
I am not here to praise Ceasar but to bury him...
Wasn't trying to rebut, WGG. Merely remembering fondly a bygone era.... *sigh*
Those you name are all who remain of that breed
Lars-Erik Nelson does not remain among those who remain; he died many years ago.
Those you name are all who remain of that breed
Lars-Erik Nelson does not remain among those who remain; he died many years ago.
monica_nyc
There ya go...that'd sure explain it...thanks monica...you've probably heard of Seldes, too; but if not, you deserve it to check him out, too...
Lars-Erik Nelson does not remain among those who remain; he died many years ago.
Shortly after the Impeachment Follies, IIRC.
Wait a sec... is it wrong to suggest that Dems, in addition to opposing Bush's proposals, offer a different (or even better) one?
One of the key issues facing the democratic party is self-definition. It's great that we're united against Bush, but opposition isn't a platform, and as the last election showed, opposition isn't enough for the American people.
Social security, now that it's out there, presents an opportunity for dems to reclaim the mantle of social progress and positive government programs. But we have to do more than nay-say.
Yes, Bush's goal goes against the very nature of social security. So let's take back the debate! Show why he's wrong, acknowledge that now is a good time to effect positive change in the system, and come up with a good way to do so! It would be good policy and good politics rolled into one. How often do those go hand-in-hand?
Demonizing someone for pointing out a thus-far-missed opportunity is hardly a way to get the ball rolling.
WGG -
Thanks for giving me cause to think of Geroge Seldes today.
I've had Randolph Bourne much in mind lately. "Mount a mad elephant and you go where the mad elephant takes you." Or some version of that quote anyway.
Kay:
Funny you should mention it...I was thinking of Bourne while i was naming Seldes...and neglected to type the thoughts...great minds, and all that?
Daniel wrote, So let's take back the debate! Show why he's wrong, acknowledge that now is a good time to effect positive change in the system, and come up with a good way to do so! It would be good policy and good politics rolled into one. How often do those go hand-in-hand?
It's not at all clear it's good politics.
Note that Bush hasn't actually revealed the details of his plan. That way he can makes claims (however misleading) about its "good" points and dodge when someone makes accusations regarding its bad points.
Of course, it's an empirical question what the right tactics should be, but my sense is that right now, the best chess move is to go negative on Bush and not offer a detailed counterplan.
Josh has been doing terrific work. That was probably the clearest explanation of what social security is and what Bush is planning to do that I've seen.
Daniel, for what it's worth you're completely wrong. Now is NOT the time to agree that there's something fundamentally wrong with social security. There's not anything fundamentally wrong with it, beyond the fact that the fuckers in crongress have spent the trust fund and would like to default on the bonds. But that's a separate issue.
We don't need columnists telling us to play ball with the thug who's in the process of trying to loot the treasury.
Time to go on offense. The emperor ain't got no clothes. Haven't you noticed? He's wrong on this like he's wrong on everything else.
End of story.
Oh yeah, and fuck Nick Kritoff.
One of the key issues facing the democratic party is self-definition. It's great that we're united against Bush, but opposition isn't a platform, and as the last election showed, opposition isn't enough for the American people.
What's wrong with the Democrats being the party that invented Social Security 70 years ago and defends it today?
Daniel, there are all kinds of things Kristoff could have written, and what he chose to write was crap.
Democrats have proposed all kinds of solutions, but they don't get air time.
The thing is, this whole thing is playing exactly to the Iraq script, where Bush is portraying the Democrats as complacent do-nothings for saying the status quo is okay and no action is needed.
Not sure how much hay there is to be made by pointing out that they turned out to be *right* about Iraq - the Republicans will just spin that as churlish sour grapes in light of the recent Triumph Of Democracy (roll eyes) over there.
But if they can make the point that Bush's plan will put the US even *deeper* in hock to China without actually *fixing* the problem, well, maybe that might be helpful. I also really like the dissonance between the SS-is-doomed growth assumptions and the privatization-will-make-everyone-rich assumptions, but that might just put the electorate to sleep.
If they can float a very small-scale proposal, tinkering at the tax revenue (i.e., raising the income cap a wee bit) that makes SS solvent in perpetuity, that might help. I would love to see some kind of official economics think-tank or government budget agency validate it. I think being able to show that a tiny incremental change would be more effective than a dangerous, radical gamble, might be a very effective way to demonstrate just how radical and destructive the preznit is.
And yeah, the more I think about it, the more I think it's worthwhile to remind everyone what happened the *last* time the administration went on the warpath like this. Maybe even start referring to it as "The War On Security."
What's wrong with the Democrats being the party that invented Social Security 70 years ago and defends it today?
Absolutely nothing.
Eli, I like that slogan, except I'd call it. "The War on Social Security"
Just so it doesn't get confused with the War on Terra.
Also, maybe give people an idea of just what kind of consistent growth is needed for them to do well with privatization, as compared with historical stock market performance. I.e., does it require a period of stock market growth that is utterly unprecedented, or merely once-in-a-blue-moon?
I think we need to make hay of the fact that GW Chimpy wants to change it from a Defined Benefit Plan to A Defined Contribution Plan.
That's an easy case to make, and doesn't get us all tangled up in actuarial tables etc. that make people's heads hurt because they're too lazy to figure it out.
None of this is that complicated.
I.e., does it require a period of stock market growth that is utterly unprecedented, or merely once-in-a-blue-moon?
It does, and it requires you to take on ALL the risk.
Your benefits get cut whether you do better in the investment portion or not. So why bother? who would actually take that deal?
Eli, I like that slogan, except I'd call it. "The War on Social Security"
Just so it doesn't get confused with the War on Terra.
Well, I'd kinda like to see them work it into a larger framework of all the many ways in which Bush is making us *less* safe, like radicalizing the Middle East while balking and foot-dragging at reasonable safety measures like plant & port safety, and securing Russian loose-nukes. Could also potentially work environmental protections, worker safety, and tort reform in there as well. Bush is gutting or trying to gut a *lot* of things that keep us safe, not just SS.
If you fudge the issues well enough, no one'll know what you're talking about or what you stand for.
There should be no compromise on this. We have values too and part of those values include not consigning a generation to poverty once it hits retirement. That was the record before Social Security and we're not going to let it happen again.
Non pasaran!
I would like to see something along the lines of, "If the stock market performs as it has over the last 30-40 years, then this is how much you would end up with, as compared with what you would end up with under SS as it is today."
I think people don't realize that the rosy privatization projections are rosy and not historical or reality-based.
Maybe also throw in some "And if you should happen to retire right after a crash..." scenarios as well.
Hooray Josh Marshall for all his work on Social Security, and in this post telling what really happened in the nineties.
The Republicans are drunk with victory. That's the only way to explain this attempt to dismantle Social Security
It's time to land them a defeat so crushing that its effects will be felt all the way to the next general election.
Non pasaran!
It's time to land them a defeat so crushing that its effects will be felt all the way to the next general election.
I sure as hell hope so. And as I think was pointed out a few weeks ago, it's not enough just to rescue SS - we have to take every opportunity to remind the American people that the Republicans were trying to destroy their retirement, and the Democrats saved it.
We have to take advantage of these opportunities when Bush & the Republicans reveal their true colors and intentions in such a naked and high-profile way.
Just wait till next week, when the new budget comes out. Social Security isn't the only thing he's targeting.
Make the tax cuts permanent and shrink the government -- didn't Grover Norquist want to drown it in a bathtub?
The primary bias in the media is not left or right -- it's laziness.
I disagree.
The primary bias in the media is $$$$$$$.
The corporations who own it are colored by it, the well paid hacks and lackies who work in it are colored by it as well.
And this particular bias comes in a variety of different forms and operates at numerous different levels.
In Kristoff's case, he's just a complacent, New York limosine liberal who:
a) Gets paid real well by the Times,
b) Hasn't had a real anti-status quo thought since he was in college, and
c) The last time he did, he dismissed it as the idealistic and naive rantings of a bunch of young Deaniacs.
Fuck Kristoff.
Piece of shit that he is.
Yeah... how dare Kristof suggest that Democrats come up with a plan instead of just opposing Bush's plan.
All month, Krugman has written nothing but criticisms of Bush's plan. While welcome, where is HIS plan? What does he think of that omnibus plan by that group that took ad space right next to his article?
Instead of being a wussy, Kristof is rather brave by pissing off liberals because he's keeping them from their mental ejaculation.
I thought the Democratic Party was the party against the status quo. I guess I was wrong.
It's ok Daniel, I agree completely with you. Just being the anti-Bush isn't enough. Democrats need to lay out real, and concrete plans. I rather like that Omnibus reform laid out by the Institute of Socioeconomic Studies.
www.socioeconomic.org
The explanation for Kristof, Friedman and most of the alleged pundits:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
Personally, Kristof stopped bothering me quite so much when I realized he's a space alien and can't quite get his head around 'Earth reality'.
...Or maybe Brooks has been sharing his Kool-Aid with him.
casino real time casino real time casino real time. casino free game line casino free game line casino free game line.
73 Visitors Online
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
