Comments on: Paul Krugman on the new Supreme Court ObamaCare case

By: Thanksgiving Post » Right Thinking

Thanksgiving Post » Right Thinking — Fri, 28 Nov 2014 16:42:04 +0000

[…] “corruption” in the courts, a claim the indispensable Walter Olson demolishes here. As several bloggers noted, Krugman was a big supporter of the Platinum Coin Caper, where he said, […]

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Fri, 28 Nov 2014 14:40:28 +0000

A different view here.

By: Amy

Amy — Sun, 23 Nov 2014 18:21:53 +0000

You are completely wrong about the ACA’s language. My state had a debate about whether to set up an exchange and no one, and I mean no one, every brought up the possibility that subsidies’ availability would be affected depending on what was decided.

In addition, the CBO created estimates consistent with what the Obama administration is arguing.

The claim that this is a real thing and not a drafting error is wholly specious.

By: Justice Kagan: Paul Krugman using "just ridiculous language" on courts - Overlawyered

Sun, 23 Nov 2014 15:15:52 +0000

[…] claim that the higher federal courts are “corrupt.” It is just ridiculous, as we noted the other day, and it’s nice to hear Krugman called out for it at his own university by someone in a […]

By: Joe Steel

Joe Steel — Wed, 12 Nov 2014 09:11:46 +0000

… Paul Krugman’s commentary, which instead seems almost designed to serve the function of pre-gaming a possible defeat in Kingby casting the federal judiciary itself as “corrupt” and illegitimate.

The federal judiciary are political appointees. If politicians write legislation which isn’t transparent and relies on the stupidity of the American voter, why are we to think their appointees aren’t as corrupt?

By: Hugo S. Cunningham

Hugo S. Cunningham — Wed, 12 Nov 2014 04:39:36 +0000

Krugman was one of my favorite columnists when he exposed the flimflam of the G.W. Bush years. With his own side in office, however, he has become a sycophant and hack.

By: Hogbody Spradlin

Hogbody Spradlin — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 19:56:57 +0000

Another gem of a quote from Krugman’s column:

“Just as an aside, so far this system seems to be working very well. Enrollment is running above expectations, premiums well below, and more insurance companies are flocking to the market.”

This guy will say anything. He could make Bill Clinton blush. And he’s the cream of the crop of liberal pundits! Oy.

By: great unknown

great unknown — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 18:28:36 +0000

Actually, Krugman may be correct about the deed. Recently, a reporter obtained [fradulent] title to the Empire State Building simply by going to the Registrar of Deeds office and convincing a clerk to issue it to him. Any legal system is only as good as the least competent/corrupt link. As evidence, I submit the DOJ.

By: mx

mx — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 18:04:25 +0000

Here’s the problem. If subsidies were intended to only be offered on state-operated exchange as a threat to get the states to operate their own exchanges, why did absolutely no one know this? It’s not much of a threat if it’s a secret.

Had anyone been aware of the threat, surely it would have come up in the debates that every state underwent when deciding whether to start a state-run exchange. States had to weigh the potential costs and benefits of starting their own exchanges, a highly politicized task in many states. In that debate, absolutely no one even mentioned that by not starting an exchange, their constituents would miss out on the benefit of one of the central pieces of the law: subsidies.

Even if you believe this was all kept a secret to get the bill passed, why did no one mention it later when the ACA’s champions were encouraging states to start their own exchanges?

By: Robert

Robert — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 17:58:03 +0000

Krugman tells whoppers all the time. I remember during the housing collapse he’d misstate the deductibility of mortgage interest for “the rich”. (Turns out it’s not deductible due to AMT and other phase-outs. Only the poor and middle benefited from it.)