... [t]aking on Krugman is not a smrat hing for a public pundit to do. First, Krugman is usually right. Second, Krugman does a great job of defending his positions, usually making his critic look foolish (see Brooks, David.) And now a new reason, Krugman's views get defended by a lot of smart people.

His columns also aren't solely ideologically based, surrounded by a dense cloud of rhetoric, and don't rely, as a right wing talking point does on repetition and echo for propagation. (Or the "rebuttal" of being shouted down and threatened by the flying monkey squadrons.)

When one of the Republicult apologists steps to him -- presumably to take down a prominent liberal -- of course they look assinine.

(a) They're fighting facts-up statements with hot air truthiness which, to belabor the metaphor, does the same thing my steam cleaner does to my deck. Namely, it enhances Krugman's solid facts. (Can you tell I primped it to enjoy the remains of fall weather?)

(b) As the exodus of rats deserting a sinking GOP ship grows, the remaining ones that might amble forward to defend the sacred WH hooey when taking on a smarty pants like Krugman tend to be the true believers rather than the [charitable] less insane [/charitable] bilge drinkers. (Those with any sense have stepped back to reinvent themselves, clean off the slime and get a quick comb-out for '08.)

dr. krugman is one of those secular liberals who uses fact-based arguments, the cad! frankly, he's one of the few reasons i open the nyt's, i always find him immensely interesting. being an accountant, i probably follow his logic easier than the average bear, but he is gifted with the ability to write so that even the non-professional can easily understand his points.

but because we regarded the future costs as a compelling reason not to cut taxes even if the overall budget was in surplus.

I wonder if Krugman knows that FICA is applied to pretax dollars. In fact, that is one of the reasons many leftists call it unfair.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities states that three-fourths of taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes.[1] The FICA tax is considered a regressive tax on income (with no standard deduction or personal exemption deduction) and is imposed (for the year 2006) only on the first $94,200 of gross wages. The tax is not imposed on investment income (such as interest and dividends).

So can someone explain what cutting federal income taxes has to do with Social Security?

And then from Big Tent we have:

What Marcus proved of course, is that Krugman was RIGHT to oppose the Bush tax cuts because it is the fiscal irresponisbility of the Bush Administration that COULD put Social Security in danger IF the Social Security trust fund's legal rights are not respected by the Beltway.

So, even though FICA and FIT is not connected, it was irresponsible to cut them because that could..

huh??

If we had some eggs we would have some ham and eggs if we had some ham.

Pardon me while I fall down laughing...

BTW - It is the existing fix that isn't working.

Kinda like in 1983 I put a new set of tires on my car.... years later I cut it in half and made it a stretch limo to carry more people. Guess what.

But what is the downside for Marcus?  Will she correct herself?  Is the Washington Post going to correct her?  Will their ombudsman examine this?  Will the WAPO fire her?  Will she not be invited to any TV talk shows?

What is the upside?  Can you imagine that anyone with a kill SSI agenda WILL reference her?  Interview her?  Invite her on their air?