<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Intentions and Results</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cafehayek.com/2009/11/intentions-and-results.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cafehayek.com/2009/11/intentions-and-results.html</link>
	<description>where orders emerge</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 02:06:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://cafehayek.com/2009/11/intentions-and-results.html/comment-page-1#comment-190834</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 07:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cafehayek.com/?p=7132#comment-190834</guid>
		<description>It is quite clear that Krugman is making those assumptions -- the entire statement is a staple of the liberal critique of conservatives, and certainly typical of Krugman.  Conservatives are heartless and all they care about is not paying taxes.  We liberals are more compassionate than Jesus because we want the federal government to force Peter to pay for Paul&#039;s health insurance.  (Krugman&#039;s version of the Gospels has a Roman Centurion holding a sword to the back of the Good Samaritan.)  What&#039;s more, we are so compassionate that we will coerce the purchase of health insurance by any individual who obviously doesn&#039;t know any better.  

I get a kick out of how much attention a shlock like Krugman is paid by otherwise intelligent people.  Of course, this makes it necessary for Dr. Boudreaux to send letter after letter to the Grey Lady, hoping against hope that a few of those readers who read approvingly Krugman&#039;s column the day before read his response, and further that they pay attention and think about the questions at hand, and that at least a few well-intentioned readers will recognize what a charlatan Krugman is.  The same battles have to be fought and won over and over and over again.  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is quite clear that Krugman is making those assumptions &#8212; the entire statement is a staple of the liberal critique of conservatives, and certainly typical of Krugman.  Conservatives are heartless and all they care about is not paying taxes.  We liberals are more compassionate than Jesus because we want the federal government to force Peter to pay for Paul&#8217;s health insurance.  (Krugman&#8217;s version of the Gospels has a Roman Centurion holding a sword to the back of the Good Samaritan.)  What&#8217;s more, we are so compassionate that we will coerce the purchase of health insurance by any individual who obviously doesn&#8217;t know any better.  </p>
<p>I get a kick out of how much attention a shlock like Krugman is paid by otherwise intelligent people.  Of course, this makes it necessary for Dr. Boudreaux to send letter after letter to the Grey Lady, hoping against hope that a few of those readers who read approvingly Krugman&#8217;s column the day before read his response, and further that they pay attention and think about the questions at hand, and that at least a few well-intentioned readers will recognize what a charlatan Krugman is.  The same battles have to be fought and won over and over and over again.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: wholesale kids clothing</title>
		<link>http://cafehayek.com/2009/11/intentions-and-results.html/comment-page-1#comment-189058</link>
		<dc:creator>wholesale kids clothing</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cafehayek.com/?p=7132#comment-189058</guid>
		<description>Well, you really have Don on the ropes here. You&#039;ve totally eviscerated his point. 
Good job, Dan! I&#039;m sure he&#039;ll retract the post soon.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, you really have Don on the ropes here. You&#8217;ve totally eviscerated his point.<br />
Good job, Dan! I&#8217;m sure he&#8217;ll retract the post soon.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: wholesale kids clothing</title>
		<link>http://cafehayek.com/2009/11/intentions-and-results.html/comment-page-1#comment-189057</link>
		<dc:creator>wholesale kids clothing</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cafehayek.com/?p=7132#comment-189057</guid>
		<description>Well, you really have Don on the ropes here. You&#039;ve totally eviscerated his point. 
Good job, Dan! I&#039;m sure he&#039;ll retract the post soon.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, you really have Don on the ropes here. You&#8217;ve totally eviscerated his point.<br />
Good job, Dan! I&#8217;m sure he&#8217;ll retract the post soon.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Dewey</title>
		<link>http://cafehayek.com/2009/11/intentions-and-results.html/comment-page-1#comment-188914</link>
		<dc:creator>John Dewey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cafehayek.com/?p=7132#comment-188914</guid>
		<description>Were you replying to me, ColoComment?  If so, we view the Republican proposal differently.  

The Republican Party claims its proposal will allow unfettered interstate sale of insurance.  Despite danielkuehn&#039;s arguments to the contrary, the interpretation of the Commerce Clause and the McCarran-Ferguson Act have already been settled.  If the Republican proposal is enacted, the language in this new Act would prevent a state from banning interstate sales of health insuarance.  The language in this new Act would prevent a state from imposing its own mandates on the insurance offerred by a company from another state.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Were you replying to me, ColoComment?  If so, we view the Republican proposal differently.  </p>
<p>The Republican Party claims its proposal will allow unfettered interstate sale of insurance.  Despite danielkuehn&#8217;s arguments to the contrary, the interpretation of the Commerce Clause and the McCarran-Ferguson Act have already been settled.  If the Republican proposal is enacted, the language in this new Act would prevent a state from banning interstate sales of health insuarance.  The language in this new Act would prevent a state from imposing its own mandates on the insurance offerred by a company from another state.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://cafehayek.com/2009/11/intentions-and-results.html/comment-page-1#comment-188896</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cafehayek.com/?p=7132#comment-188896</guid>
		<description>Don - don&#039;t wade into this discussion!  It&#039;s too dangerous!  Dan is an econo-Sith Lord.  You wouldn&#039;t survive the encounter!!!

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Don &#8211; don&#8217;t wade into this discussion!  It&#8217;s too dangerous!  Dan is an econo-Sith Lord.  You wouldn&#8217;t survive the encounter!!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

