I don't think the fully confrontational partisanship will work, even when you're absolutely right, but I have to admire Krugman's vision and courage. Then, Krugman was the one - probably the only one - who held the progressive torch high and spoke the unspeakable all the time during the Bush dark years, while everyone else just hoped for some bipartisanship, eventually and evidently caved in to Bush's partisanship. Now, Krugman isn't afraid of being partisan or being unfair, and proclaims what he believes in.

While I don't endorse the partisan Krugman, it's a shame to see people start to go after Krugman and distort him without understanding him.

While I mostly don't disagree with you, zhiyl, it takes 2 for bipartisanship.

The Dems have already moved way too far to the right and have caved WAY to often. If the other side will not budge, we must not move to their position. That's not called bipartisanship but capitulation.

Well said. I believe that's Krugman's position as well.

I think progressives should be firmly on the progressive agenda, however, tactically, we don't have to claim to be partisan, as it's just asking for trouble.

Krugman admitted it inadvertently that America is deeply rooted in conservatism, even though we have moved towards liberal values in many aspects, such as social security and health care. Just look at much maliced word: liberal.

So - to repeat - I admire Krugman's vision and courage to speak up for the liberal values. We need someone with his vision to shine the light on the progressive movement. In the meantime, as he confessed, Krugman is unfit to serve in any administration.

A quick question. I heard that SS is going bancrupt in a few decades - and Paul Krugman was all worried about it in the 90ies. Tell me - if indeed this happens, and the American people who were paying 16% of their income into this fund get screwed - would it mean that the liberal program ultimately failed?

On social security, it was a big issue in the 90's according to the estimate then, but new estimate says not.

The last Congressional Budget Office long-term budget projection had Social Security spending rising from 4.2 percent of GDP now to 6.4 percent by 2050, a 2.2 percentage point increase – and Social Security, remember, is currently running a surplus to prepare for that eventuality. Meanwhile, Medicare and Medicaid spending are projected to rise from 4.5 percent of GDP to 12.6 percent, three times the Social Security increase – with negligible pre-funding.

<link>

I like Hillary Clinton's position: get fiscal resposibility now, and social security will become an easy problem if it indeed becomes a problem.