"So whenever you hear Republicans say that they are the party of traditional values, bear in mind that they have actually made a radical break with America’s tradition of valuing education. And they have made this break because they believe that what you don’t know can’t hurt them."
But Krugman also writes:
"You can make the case that the self-interest of America’s elite is best served by making sure that this disconnect continues, which means keeping taxes on high incomes low at all costs."
Sorry, Paul, but I don't understand. If Republicans serve the self-interest of America's elite, and higher education - particularly higher education at America's elite colleges - is the conduit to wealth, i.e. elite status - why would Romney discourage attending the highest priced universities? It almost sounds as if those nefarious Republicans are determined to commit hara-kiri by waylaying future party enrollment.
Apparently there is a frightful Republican conspiracy to bankrupt the states, thereby forcing them to reduce funding for public universities, which in turn are compelled to close higher priced engineering and computer science departments, resulting in fewer scientists, who are more apt to be Democrats.
Sure makes a helluva lot of sense to me.
Reading Paul Krugman's column directly is a lot more informative and illuminating than reading a re-wording of his column (with your spin) that misrepresents, obfuscates, and omits many of his important points. Thanks for directing all of us to his column, though. Given the amount of right-wing spin in the media, his voice is an extremely welcome one.
ReplyDeleteFascinating. I am pro-choice, in favor of gay marriage, and have always opposed US ground involvement in Afghanistan. Right-wing spin or moderate spin? Either way, I agree that his voice is welcome, even if I rarely agree with his obsessive left-wing spin.
ReplyDeleteI applaud your more moderate or progressive stances on those social issues, but it sounds like you disagree with Krugman's stance on the economy since it directly challenges your own? My sense is that he suggests a balanced approach toward the economy -- where market forces are in effect as always, but where the government also plays a role in maintaining infrastructure, schools, health care, law enforcement, and other essential services. As a result, more jobs are created. And Krugman is saying that we are not doing enough of this. I suppose we could just let the market do its thing and see how bad things will get, but do we want to find out?
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments. Krugman suggests only one thing: more government borrowing/spending. My question: Given current debt levels, is additional borrowing/spending sustainable? My solutions are more "radical" than those of Krugman: I recommend reinstatement of the Uptick Rule (you can read about this by clicking on "Uptick Rule" on the righthand side bar of "labels") and reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, thereby forcing banks to go back to the "boring" business of lending money to creditworthy customers.
ReplyDeleteOK, thanks for sharing your thoughts on Glass-Steagall and the Uptick Rule. Agree on both points. The film "Inside Job" addresses the same and more. On a different note, I'd be curious what you thought of changing the election system to a two-round system:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-round_system
Although I definitely don't lean Republican, it's clear to me that the Democrats aren't always providing a substantial alternative when it comes to both domestic and foreign policy... Seems like the two-round system is the only hope for a third party to gain some influence in this country. Right now, a vote for the third party is as good as a 1/2 vote for a Republican (or a Democrat, depending on someone's perspective). Of course, the question is how to get the Republicans and Democrats to change the voting system when it suits their agendas.