Paul Krugman is an op-ed columnist with The New York Times and a professor. In talking about universal, single-payer healthcare, such as Medicare for all, he said, "The perfect can be the enemy of the good here." He was making the point that holding out for the perfect in the political situation that is the current U.S. might result in no legislation to cover everyone.
The reason the perfect cannot be had is because the house is divided. The house needs to divide so that those against the Commons will be one house and those in favor will be in another together without the selfish ones ruining everything.
You see here why forced unity is such a terrible idea. Empire builders forced people to live under consolidated rule so that everyone is a slave to evil including the ruler. It is awful.
Paul also said the following:
Greenspan played essentially a game of Three-Card Monte. In fact, it's a twenty-five-year-long card game of Three-Card Monte. In 1982, there was the Greenspan Commission on Social Security, which raised payroll taxes, which is the tax that falls most heavily on ordinary working Americans, to generate a surplus in Social Security to pay for future payments. Then, in 2001 he comes out in favor of tax cuts to eliminate a surplus, which is primarily, even at that point, the surplus generated by his previous tax increase on Social Security, but he doesn't propose cutting that tax. He proposes cutting income taxes on high-income people. And then, when the surplus goes away, which it did almost instantly—and, of course, he's lying when he says that everybody believed we had these huge surpluses. I wrote a book right at the time called Fuzzy Math saying—explaining all the reasons why you shouldn't actually believe in those surpluses, those surplus projections. As soon as the surpluses went away, he said, "Oh, well, we've got to cut Social Security benefits." So it was really raise taxes to protect Social Security, use the resulting surplus to cut taxes for rich people, let's cut Social Security—an amazing story.
And he knew what he was doing in 2001. You can't — this is Greenspan. He was a Washington operator par excellence dating back to the Ford administration. When he said in his Greenspan-speak all this stuff about, you know, glide path to zero debt and all that, he understood that he was giving a full-speed-ahead for the Bush tax cuts, and then he danced around any attempt to hold him accountable for it.
Now, what Paul doesn't then go on to say though is that this is pointing exactly at the fact that the entire Federal Reserve System, which isn't either federal or a reserve, is a scheme for the rich to drink the blood of the people via interest earnings. When the budget is balanced, the private bankers don't make the money they make when the U.S. government borrows from them. Why did the U.S. government ever agree to a system of borrowing from private bankers? The people were tricked by the power elite at the time. The legislation was not with the informed consent of the governed. It was completely illegitimate.
Do we say that doing away with the Federal Reserve will fix things? No. It should be abolished though and will be. The house is divided. The greedy one will still be in it to sabotage whatever good is attempted. It's why they attack other nations who haven't done a thing to provoke them other than have the things the greedy want to steal, because the greedy have a covetousness disease and need spiritual help. Nothing else will save them.
In referring to financiers, Paul said, "I don't hate these guys. I don't want to punish them. There's no envy. I just want them to pay taxes like the rest of us." Well, if he loves them and loves truth, he'll stop accepting a certain amount of hypocrisy that is just less hypocritical in his eyes than what the Republicans call for. He's accepting the lesser of evils. It isn't right. Doing that has been the error all along. The standard is too low when it isn't as high as it can be known. We must raise the expectations and reject those who don't want to join. We must do it without coercion or bitterness or vengeance in our hearts. We must do it while warning those who will refuse to join. We must warn them without compromise of the dire consequences of continuing down their wrong path of selfishness.