Originally Posted by AemJeff
Krugman has a specific numerical argument. You can agree with it or not, but Ryan's wasn't a serious proposal, and the political assumptions embedded in it were completely unworkable. Stating here what you think is obvious really doesn't the details of Krugman's stated point of view. McCardle has zero credibility as an analyst, and her contributions to the debate hardly counter Krugman's - why would he or his "flunkies" bother?
Claiming that a proposal isn't serious because it contains problematic political assumptions is itself unserious. Is the idea of a single payer health insurance system, something you presumbably would find attractive, "unserious" because the politics of implementing it are presently unworkable? And as for McCardle, I've already pointed out that she completely ignored the problems with the models JCT uses, even though it would help her argument.