FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
GOP = getting dumber by the day
Obama may be mediocure but by God are the Republicans good at making him look God like.
-
We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days. For more updates please see here.
I Dont Need To See GDP Numbers Or Listen To Economists
- Thread starter FriendlyFire
- Start date
GOP = getting dumber by the day
Obama may be mediocure but by God are the Republicans good at making him look God like.
Merkinball
Deity
Obama said the same thing when he was campaigning. He used it as justification for the stimulus bill while he rejected the opinions of the CBO and "a number of top economists."
This tone is partisan hackery at its finest for sure, and if you were to ask the question to Obama: "Mr. President, a number of top economists say that the economic stimulus isn't working and is damaging our future."
Obama would answer it verbatim to what Boehner said.
This tone is partisan hackery at its finest for sure, and if you were to ask the question to Obama: "Mr. President, a number of top economists say that the economic stimulus isn't working and is damaging our future."
Obama would answer it verbatim to what Boehner said.
Hey, I wouldn't listen to economists either; their predictive power is essentially zero, especially in macroeconomics.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Integral
Can't you hear it?
I wouldn't trust macroeconomists either - and I'm one of them! The ones doing serious research have no policy prescriptions, and the ones with policy prescriptions aren't doing serious research.
I also wouldn't trust the advance GDP report either, except as a rough indicator of the direction things are going in. Advance reports are rather hastily compiled on the barest of source data (not BEA's fault, just a fact).
I also wouldn't trust the advance GDP report either, except as a rough indicator of the direction things are going in. Advance reports are rather hastily compiled on the barest of source data (not BEA's fault, just a fact).
GhostWriter16
Deity
Well, its not all about the rich, even though they're taxes are too high when they don't use loopholes (Which only some of them can do.)
An average, middle class American pays something on the order of 20% income tax. (I think this is close, correct me if I'm wrong.) Throw in state income taxes (Let's set it at 10% for argument sake) sale's tax (I'll be generous and set it low at 5%) property tax, automobile tax, and the new taxes for UHC and we've got roughly 50% of the income paid in taxes to the government.
While I don't agree with the argument "The rich have a lot so it won't even affect them if we take half of what they have" how can you possibly justify this level of tax for the average American? (Of course, a lot of those taxes are going to the welfare bums) (And by welfare bums I mean those not willing to work.)
Taxes need to be lower than either party will go. "The GOP may be mediocre, but Obama is making them look like saints."
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Only if the expenses are also cut to the point where the debt can be eventually paid off.
Should we start with the military-industrial complex, as well as other government subsidies to corporations?
GhostWriter16
Deity
I personally think that most of the world hates us, so we need a strong military.
However, I have NEVER supported subsidies to corporations, or anyone else. I am against redistribution period.
Personally, I'm OK with high inheritance taxes because strictly speaking the inheritance wasn't "Earned" (On principle I'd rather not have them but if we need to have them to pay off the debt I'm OK with it.)
A federal sales tax of 10% would be the only other tax and that would be plenty to pay for the military, and the other essential things.
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
Not trusting the advance GDP statistics = SMART
I would not be so quick to dismiss economists when one sees a large agreement percentage.
(Not a macro-economist am I. Housing and urban instead).
Boehner presents himself as the greasiest snake in Congress. Nothing he does or says is for anything other than partisan warfare. So either side with him for political reasons. Or oppose him for political reasons. But never expect that anything he has said was not partisan motivated.
Patroklos
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Messages
- 12,721
And FF defeats himself in the opening poste yet again!
As pointed out, this has been an Obama claim for years.
We will get to that, but lets start with the actual budget busters like medicare and social security first.
Integral
Can't you hear it?
Despite the general uncertainty around the Advance report, it might be worthwhile to make a thread about it - there were a few quirks in the data (domestic demand in all categories was up over 5%, but four-fifths of it was filled through imports, not domestic supply...). Perhaps in a bit, if I can get the graphs to spit out correctly.
On macro, I think I distrust macroeconomists for very different reasons than most commentators. I've seen the sausage factory of the DSGE model, and it really isn't ready yet for making firm policy predictions (unlike, say, a really large-scale ISLM model). Macro lives in a very strange world. You might be interested in the recent Congressional hearings on DSGE -- yes, Congess had a hearing on economic models -- particularly Prof. Chari's testimony.
(The best synthesis of what's going on in macro is Woodford's 2009 article, "Convergence in Macroeconomics: Elements of the New Synthesis". It can be found via Google Scholar in pdf form, though I'll not link to it because it's still gated in most places.)
Merkinball
Deity
You could probably rattle off 50 high face time politicians that this applies to...
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Because that logic being when 1 guy says something stupid it means the entire GOP is as well.
Yeah.
Interesting testimony by Prof. Chari. Thanks for sharing it.
(Although an economist argueing for more spending for economy research is a bit dodgy.)
snakeseare
No arms nor legs
Because that logic being when 1 guy says something stupid it means the entire GOP is as well.
Yeah.
When that ONE GUY is the HOUSE MINORITY LEADER,then yes, it DOES mean the whole GOP.
But thanks for demonstrating the dishonesty inherent in the GOP. AND for acknowledging that the GOP stance is STUPID as well as DISHONEST.
Integral
Can't you hear it?
Oh yeah, that was a bit sketchy. But it was bound to happen.
Other testimonies from the same hearing, though none have the same value-added as Chari's:
Prof Solow - who seems to be stuck in 1982. If you've read Krugman, you can safely skip this one.
Prof Winter - I haven't read this entire testimony, but he's a microeconomist and spends a good deal of time talking about heterogeneity.
Prof Page - Page works on an alternative macro paradigm known as 'agent-based modeling" and complexity theory. While interesting, the main drawback of such models is that they can predict just about anything, which is to say they predict nothing. On the other hand, they're cool and can shed light on nonlinear feedback loops in economic phenomena. There is a good bet that if DSGE bites the dust, agent-based models will be the research program to fill the gaps.
Prof Colander - another really boring critique that we've seen a lot of recently and that Chari puts to rest.
[/interlude]
