As far as Krugman goes, he said
...the only way we could have anything resembling a middle-class society — a society in which ordinary citizens have a reasonable assurance of maintaining a decent life as long as they work hard and play by the rules — would be by having a strong social safety net, one that guarantees not just health care but a minimum income, too.
The fact that he is applauded by the authoritarian, statists, says enough, but Paul, who are you going to force to provide this "minimum income"? Or are you just going to print the money to secretly steal the money from everyone? Or is there some magic tree you intend to pick it from? The world tried forcing people to provide for others and it was rejected nearly everywhere as abhorrent. It still is. Merely changing the name does not make it palatable. The fact that he believes that the life of one person is his to do with as he pleases merely because he thinks he knows best says enough about his morality and ethics that everything he writes should be immediately suspect.
Buffett has an issue, as does Krugman, when they say it is a war and the rich are winning. It isn't that "the rich" are winning, it is the educated that are being rewarded. Instead they like to turn things into a class-warfare, "us-vs them" situation, while doing the opposite of what they want everyone else to do? (e.g. Buffett creating a huge tax-exempt foundation to protect his wealth while advocating everyone else who has much fewer assets than he does are to be taxed at much higher rates.).
