Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
#Newsweek Obama Attack Draws Intense Fire
2 views
Skip to first unread message
3149 Dead
Aug 21, 2012, 11:57:55 PM8/21/12
to
http://www.readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/13047-newsweek-obama-
attack-draws-intense-fire
Newsweek Obama Attack Draws Intense Fire
By Paul Krugman, The New York Times
21 August 12
There are multiple errors and misrepresentations in Niall Ferguson's
cover story in Newsweek - I guess they don't do fact-checking - but this
is the one that jumped out at me. Ferguson says:
The president pledged that health-care reform would not add a cent to
the deficit. But the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation now estimate
that the insurance-coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of
close to $1.2 trillion over the 2012-22 period.
Readers are no doubt meant to interpret this as saying that CBO found
that the Act will increase the deficit. But anyone who actually read, or
even skimmed, the CBO report (pdf) knows that it found that the ACA would
reduce, not increase, the deficit - because the insurance subsidies were
fully paid for.
Now, people on the right like to argue that the CBO was wrong. But that's
not the argument Ferguson is making - he is deliberately misleading
readers, conveying the impression that the CBO had actually rejected
Obama's claim that health reform is deficit-neutral, when in fact the
opposite is true.
More than that: by its very nature, health reform that expands coverage
requires that lower-income families receive subsidies to make coverage
affordable. So of course reform comes with a positive number for
subsidies - finding that this number is indeed positive says nothing at
all about the impact on the deficit unless you ask whether and how the
subsidies are paid for. Ferguson has to know this (unless he's completely
ignorant about the whole subject, which I guess has to be considered as a
possibility). But he goes for the cheap shot anyway.
We're not talking about ideology or even economic analysis here - just a
plain misrepresentation of the facts, with an august publication letting
itself be used to misinform readers. The Times would require an abject
correction if something like that slipped through. Will Newsweek?
--
Subscribe:
zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news...@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe:
zepps_essays...@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news-...@yahoogroups.com
Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!
attack-draws-intense-fire
Newsweek Obama Attack Draws Intense Fire
By Paul Krugman, The New York Times
21 August 12
There are multiple errors and misrepresentations in Niall Ferguson's
cover story in Newsweek - I guess they don't do fact-checking - but this
is the one that jumped out at me. Ferguson says:
The president pledged that health-care reform would not add a cent to
the deficit. But the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation now estimate
that the insurance-coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of
close to $1.2 trillion over the 2012-22 period.
Readers are no doubt meant to interpret this as saying that CBO found
that the Act will increase the deficit. But anyone who actually read, or
even skimmed, the CBO report (pdf) knows that it found that the ACA would
reduce, not increase, the deficit - because the insurance subsidies were
fully paid for.
Now, people on the right like to argue that the CBO was wrong. But that's
not the argument Ferguson is making - he is deliberately misleading
readers, conveying the impression that the CBO had actually rejected
Obama's claim that health reform is deficit-neutral, when in fact the
opposite is true.
More than that: by its very nature, health reform that expands coverage
requires that lower-income families receive subsidies to make coverage
affordable. So of course reform comes with a positive number for
subsidies - finding that this number is indeed positive says nothing at
all about the impact on the deficit unless you ask whether and how the
subsidies are paid for. Ferguson has to know this (unless he's completely
ignorant about the whole subject, which I guess has to be considered as a
possibility). But he goes for the cheap shot anyway.
We're not talking about ideology or even economic analysis here - just a
plain misrepresentation of the facts, with an august publication letting
itself be used to misinform readers. The Times would require an abject
correction if something like that slipped through. Will Newsweek?
--
Subscribe:
zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news...@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe:
zepps_essays...@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news-...@yahoogroups.com
Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Steve
Aug 22, 2012, 6:06:23 AM8/22/12
to
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 03:57:55 +0000 (UTC), 3149 Dead <de...@gone.com>
wrote:
>http://www.readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/13047-newsweek-obama-
>attack-draws-intense-fire
>
>Newsweek Obama Attack Draws Intense Fire
Newsweek used to support Obama...
<LOL> @ readersupportednews.org
wrote:
>http://www.readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/13047-newsweek-obama-
>attack-draws-intense-fire
>
>Newsweek Obama Attack Draws Intense Fire
<LOL> @ readersupportednews.org
Paul Wright
Aug 22, 2012, 8:05:57 AM8/22/12
to
It helps having gullible minions who only believe what they want to
hear.
The insane twist the facts to fit their world view.
The rational change their world view to fit the facts.
3149 Dead
Aug 22, 2012, 10:28:05 AM8/22/12
to
truth, as part of their "evenhandedness" approach to news. And not
identify them as lies, because if you start doing that, that's not fair
to the liars. They get singled out. To keep it fair, if you accuse liars
of lying, then you have to accuse truth-tellers of lying, too.
Eddie Haskell
Aug 22, 2012, 10:57:01 AM8/22/12
to
"Paul Wright" <caseyte...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d79b56c0-b462-46c5...@7g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Is Our Economy Healing?
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: January 22, 2012
"But there are reasons to think that we're finally on the (slow) road to
better times. And we wouldn't be on that road if Mr. Obama had given in to
Republican demands that he slash spending"
This Republican Economy
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: June 3, 2012
"What should be done about the economy? Republicans claim to have the
answer: slash spending and cut taxes. What they hope voters won't notice
is that that's precisely the policy we've been following the past couple
of years."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/23/opinion/krugman-is-our-economy-healing.html?ref=paulkrugman
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/04/opinion/krugman-this-republican-economy.html?_r=1
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Aug 22, 2012, 10:59:58 AM8/22/12
to
Sid9
Aug 22, 2012, 2:03:53 PM8/22/12
to
"Eddie Haskell" <ll...@zzz.com> wrote in message
news:Kt6Zr.21951$NM2....@fed11.iad...
I'm sorry you ran out of electrons before you could send ALL of it to your
readers.
Finally, you, Mr. Ed have come around to accepting Professor Krugman for the
economic authority he is.
Congratulations!
Eddie Haskell
Aug 22, 2012, 2:18:48 PM8/22/12
to
"Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:k136ub$8nu$1...@dont-email.me...
slash spending, or is it in the shitter because republicans did slash
spending? Which one, Sid? Why do you love and admire Krugman, who I just
proved is a partisan hack and fake economist? Oh, yeah, that's right, you're
stupid. If you had a brain you'd be offended by him treating you like a
fool, but since you are one..
0 new messages