Forget Econ Stats, Do Americans Feel Economic Exhuberance or Malaise?

[EconChick]

The biggest falsehood on this thread is "You haven't debunked a thing."

The OP has been a failure from page one.

Period.

The only failure here is you, genius. PERIOD. Let's talk in November.

If Democrats take the Congress, I'll be happy to say I was wrong. I'll mea culpa for days if you want.

But you know how I know they won't? Because I know the overwhelming feeling in this country is one of malaise no matter how much you Dems try to spin it.

The well known malaise is what I keep trying to get one of you libs to admit. But since you won't, we'll know in just 3 months.

There's the big picture. Take it to the bank. PERIOD.

Who wins Congress does not validate your OP.

And if the consumer confidence has reached the pre-recession heights of early 2007 as is being reported, we may not get the Senate (yet once again, due to you clueless lunks).

You are as senseless as Edward Baimonte and that is saying quite a bit.

Faith does not replace data, and you are long on the first and short on the second.

Sure it does dumbass. If people are exuberant, they'll vote this dumbass president's party into power. If the feeling of malaise is still there in 100 days, your party's out.

Get a clue. Learn to read the OP.

 

[EconChick]

The biggest falsehood on this thread is "You haven't debunked a thing."

The OP has been a failure from page one.

Period.

The only failure here is you, genius. PERIOD. Let's talk in November.

If Democrats take the Congress, I'll be happy to say I was wrong. I'll mea culpa for days if you want.

But you know how I know they won't? Because I know the overwhelming feeling in this country is one of malaise no matter how much you Dems try to spin it.

The well known malaise is what I keep trying to get one of you libs to admit. But since you won't, we'll know in just 3 months.

There's the big picture. Take it to the bank. PERIOD.

Yeah, because a midterm is SOOO indicative right? What happened to Prez Mittens again?

See that? Take away your charts and you can't construct a sentence that makes any sense. See my reply to Jake.

What do the midterms have to do with Romney?

The answer is nothing. Go back to sleepwalking.

 

[EconChick]

Dad2three, I admire your tenacity but your problem is you keep repeating things from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

CBPP is a well know LEFT WING think tank. Just like AEI is a RIGHT WING think tank. I don't take what any of them say as gospel. I take AEI with as much a grain of salt as the left ones.

That's why you fail in your analysis. You need to draw from many sources, left and right, to get an honest answer.

Everyone of your graphs looks pretty, but the assumptions are botched.

I've gotta go soon but when I have a chance later, I'll talk about the assumptions in your graph showing alleged Bush commitments during O's tenure.

And I will concede right here that it's not 100% Obama, just as it never is for the guy before him, and so forth. (in fact in one sense that's why it comes out in the wash.)

But when I have time, I'll discuss why CBPP's assumptions are way off.

Got it, more crap without saying a thing

Weird how Dem Prez bring in more revenues but the GOPers GUT revenues and leave the country hanging right? Almost like they had a plan or something

"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.

Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."


Starve the beast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.
P. J. O'Rourke

LOL. Look, you're a liar AND an idiot. The number of Americans buying your bullshit is hardly measurable at this point.

You wanna put money on the mid terms? I'm sure you don't. You can run off at the mouth but when it's time to put up or shut up, I doubt you'll deliver.

That will be the true test of what people think of you and President Blowhard's economic theories.

 

[Dad2three]

The only failure here is you, genius. PERIOD. Let's talk in November.

If Democrats take the Congress, I'll be happy to say I was wrong. I'll mea culpa for days if you want.

But you know how I know they won't? Because I know the overwhelming feeling in this country is one of malaise no matter how much you Dems try to spin it.

The well known malaise is what I keep trying to get one of you libs to admit. But since you won't, we'll know in just 3 months.

There's the big picture. Take it to the bank. PERIOD.

Yeah, because a midterm is SOOO indicative right? What happened to Prez Mittens again?

See that? Take away your charts and you can't construct a sentence that makes any sense. See my reply to Jake.

What do the midterms have to do with Romney?

The answer is nothing. Go back to sleepwalking.

Weird you don't acknowledge the base of the GOP turns out in midterms but WHEN THE PEOPLE SHOW UP TO VOTE (PREZ ELECTIONS) THE GOP CRUMBLES, lol



Republicans Brag They Won House Majority Because Of Gerrymandering


A recent memo by the Republican State Leadership Committee emphasizes the party's 2010 victories in state legislatures as central to the House GOP retaining its majority in the 2012 elections.

The reason? Redistricting -- or more precisely, gerrymandering.

In the memo -- titled "How a Strategy of Targeting State Legislative Races in 2010 Led to a Republican U.S. House Majority in 2013" -- RSLC boasts that it "raised more than $30 million in 2009-2010, and invested $18 million after Labor Day 2010 alone" to ensure statehouse victories in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin.

"The rationale was straightforward," reads the memo. "Controlling the redistricting process in these states would have the greatest impact on determining how both state legislative and congressional district boundaries would be drawn. Drawing new district lines in states with the most redistricting activity presented the opportunity to solidify conservative policymaking at the state level and maintain a Republican stronghold in the U.S. House of Representatives for the next decade."

The plan worked: even as they took a beating in the races for Senate and the White House, House Republicans ended up with a 33-seat majority, thanks to friendly district maps drawn by their own state colleagues. As the RSLC memo admits, "Democratic candidates for the U.S. House won 1.1 million more votes than their Republican opponents."

GOP Memo: Gerrymandering Won Us The House Majority

 

[Dad2three]

Dad2three, I admire your tenacity but your problem is you keep repeating things from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

CBPP is a well know LEFT WING think tank. Just like AEI is a RIGHT WING think tank. I don't take what any of them say as gospel. I take AEI with as much a grain of salt as the left ones.

That's why you fail in your analysis. You need to draw from many sources, left and right, to get an honest answer.

Everyone of your graphs looks pretty, but the assumptions are botched.

I've gotta go soon but when I have a chance later, I'll talk about the assumptions in your graph showing alleged Bush commitments during O's tenure.

And I will concede right here that it's not 100% Obama, just as it never is for the guy before him, and so forth. (in fact in one sense that's why it comes out in the wash.)

But when I have time, I'll discuss why CBPP's assumptions are way off.

Got it, more crap without saying a thing

Weird how Dem Prez bring in more revenues but the GOPers GUT revenues and leave the country hanging right? Almost like they had a plan or something

"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.

Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."


Starve the beast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.
P. J. O'Rourke

LOL. Look, you're a liar AND an idiot. The number of Americans buying your bullshit is hardly measurable at this point.

You wanna put money on the mid terms? I'm sure you don't. You can run off at the mouth but when it's time to put up or shut up, I doubt you'll deliver.

That will be the true test of what people think of you and President Blowhard's economic theories.

The plan worked: even as they took a beating in the races for Senate and the White House, House Republicans ended up with a 33-seat majority, thanks to friendly district maps drawn by their own state colleagues. As the RSLC memo admits, "Democratic candidates for the U.S. House won 1.1 million more votes than their Republican opponents."

GOP Memo: Gerrymandering Won Us The House Majority


lol

 

[EconChick]

And Dad2three, I want you to tell me how much of a financial impact you think the 9/11 attack had on the economy.

That thing where Dubya ignored over 40 high level warnings and even said this:

Aug. 6, 2001, PDB

Bush to briefer: "All right. You've covered your ass, now."

9/11 cost US about 1% drop in GDP the next quarter. Dubya's left office when the economy shrunk 9%+ the last quarter

Seriously idiot? Your posts are getting dumber all the time.

Let me ask members of this board: Anyone out there that backs up Daddyo's conspiracy theory? Let's see how many people raise their hand, other than 1 or 2.

As for just a 1% drop in the next quarter's GDP, no wonder your analysis and stats are so baseless. Go research the airline industry and its many tentacles genius.

 

[Listening]

How will the dems explain the loss of the senate ?

I can hardly wait.

 

[EconChick]

Issue: starting in 2004 Fannie and Freddie gave AAA rating to subprime paper setting up a certain collapse

Sorry Bubba, ANOTHER FAIL. F/F DON'T GIVE RATINGS AT ALL

Government data show Fannie and Freddie didn’t take the same risks that Wall Street’s mortgage-backed securities machine did. Mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie.


“The idea that they were leading this charge is just absurd,” said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, an authoritative trade publication. “Fannie and Freddie have always had the tightest underwriting on earth…They were opposite of subprime.”

Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown - The Daily Beast


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

You're either lying or stupid and the odds are on lying

Got it, you are an ignorant ideologue who doesn't accept reality!

Talk about projecting.........

 

[EconChick]

Love it. We the GOP are now championing the lower 50%?

We are now a populist party?

OK, let's make it so.

We can't help that you socialist dullards won't ever grasp how it works.

 

[EconChick]

Bottom Line: No one feels this economy is going gang busters. Intuitively, Americans know something's wrong.

We econ geeks can spend hundreds of hours on this board throwing around economic statistics, but my guess is the average American/average reader doesn't read threads in the Economy section. It's too wonky.

Oldfart commented that my posts don't sound the way most macroeconomists talk. I can't stand how most macroeconomists talk. Most don't speak in a way that normal Americans can understand. They speak to out-geek the next geek. Just like every econ professor I ever had.

I'd like this to be a thread meant for "normal" Americans - those living out on main street, not Wall Street - who just want to know why they're not feeling optimistic about their economic situations and what can be done about it.

This thread is meant to involve people who want more "intuitive" answers about the economy.

Let's see if we can manage to do that.

the economy is growing for the rich, that is what the economic data tells us. Obama apologists point to the market and say, see the economy is improving. well for the rich it is. how many living hand to mouth on entitlements are invested in the market? facts are, the poor have gotten poorer. retired have gotten poorer. government tries to convince us their is no inflation, yet costs are rising steadily.

here's an interesting article that explains what is really going on


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/americas-poorest-shoppers-putting-discount-143818396.html

America's Poorest Shoppers Are Putting Discount Stores Out Of Business


Discount stores are slowly dying.

Yesterday, Dollar Tree announced it would buy Family Dollar, a chain that is in the process of closing hundreds of stores and firing workers.

Other discount stores have been struggling as well, writes Heidi Moore at The Guardian. Fashion discounter Loehmann's filed for bankruptcy, while Wal-Mart's sales have declined for the past five quarters.

"There’s just not enough money deployed by American families to keep all the discount chains in business," Moore writes.

Dollar stores saw their heyday during the recession, when middle-class shoppers came to buy smaller, cheaper packages of household necessities like toilet paper.

While middle-class shoppers have enjoyed economic recovery, America's poorest consumers have not, write Paul Ziobro and Shelly Banjo at The Wall Street Journal.

Conservative policy

Third World countries. One of the things they all had in common was a small, very rich elite, small middle class, and a large lower class. They also shared very low economic growth as a result. This has been known for at least 50 years. The US has been going in this direction for at least the last 30 years as we have gradually de-industrialized and government policies (such as trickle down economics, 'free trade', etc ) have promoted the shift of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the economic elite




In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.

In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data | Tax Foundation

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.

Yo genius, income inequality has gotten worse under Obama.

 

[Listening]

Bottom Line: No one feels this economy is going gang busters. Intuitively, Americans know something's wrong.

We econ geeks can spend hundreds of hours on this board throwing around economic statistics, but my guess is the average American/average reader doesn't read threads in the Economy section. It's too wonky.

Oldfart commented that my posts don't sound the way most macroeconomists talk. I can't stand how most macroeconomists talk. Most don't speak in a way that normal Americans can understand. They speak to out-geek the next geek. Just like every econ professor I ever had.

I'd like this to be a thread meant for "normal" Americans - those living out on main street, not Wall Street - who just want to know why they're not feeling optimistic about their economic situations and what can be done about it.

This thread is meant to involve people who want more "intuitive" answers about the economy.

Let's see if we can manage to do that.

Weird after 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator' policies why wasn't the US economy booming?

Post 2 and you derailed it....asshole.

STFU

 

[EconChick]

Bottom Line: No one feels this economy is going gang busters. Intuitively, Americans know something's wrong.

We econ geeks can spend hundreds of hours on this board throwing around economic statistics, but my guess is the average American/average reader doesn't read threads in the Economy section. It's too wonky.

Oldfart commented that my posts don't sound the way most macroeconomists talk. I can't stand how most macroeconomists talk. Most don't speak in a way that normal Americans can understand. They speak to out-geek the next geek. Just like every econ professor I ever had.

I'd like this to be a thread meant for "normal" Americans - those living out on main street, not Wall Street - who just want to know why they're not feeling optimistic about their economic situations and what can be done about it.

This thread is meant to involve people who want more "intuitive" answers about the economy.

Let's see if we can manage to do that.

Weird after 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator' policies why wasn't the US economy booming?

Post 2 and you derailed it....asshole.

STFU

Exactly. Anything to keep from talking about what's going on NOW.

Drown us with charts and links from left wing think tanks because he's used to libbies not asking about any of the assumptions in his stats. They just slurrrrrrrrrrrrp it up.

 

[Listening]

RIGHT WING CRAP. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you




Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

"For a group that claims it wants to be judged by history, there is no evidence on the economic policy front that that was the view," Holtz-Eakin said. "It was all Band-Aids."



"It's sad to say, but we really went nowhere for almost ten years, after you extract the boost provided by the housing and mortgage boom," said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Economy.com, and an informal adviser to McCain's campaign. "It's almost a lost economic decade."

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush | Vanity Fair

DEC 2007

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush | Vanity Fair




The Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts was a statement signed by roughly 450 economists, including ten of the twenty-four American Nobel Prize laureates alive at the time, in February 2003 who urged the U.S. President George W. Bush not to enact the 2003 tax cuts; seeking and sought to gather public support for the position. The statement was printed as a full-page ad in The New York Times and released to the public through the Economic Policy Institute. According to the statement, the 450 plus economists who signed the statement believe that the 2003 Bush tax cuts will increase inequality and the budget deficit, decreasing the ability of the U.S. government to fund essential services, while failing to produce economic growth.

In rebuttal, 250 plus economists who supported the tax plan wrote that the new plan would "create more employment, economic growth, and opportunities for all Americans."

Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOW WHICH SIDE WAS CORRECT?




Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse



http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html


BOTH SIDES? LOL

Bush's Homeowner Society????????????? You mean the Barney Franks and other libs in the Congress didn't want as many Americans to have homes as possible????

That's about as incorrect and disingenuous as it gets.

Both parties went whole hog on that. And their intentions were actually honorable...problem is politicians always fail to anticipate unintended consequences.

Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street

BUSH GAVE A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD SUMMER 2008

Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street : NPR

“When regulators don’t believe in regulation and don’t get what is going on at the companies they oversee, there can be no major white-collar crime prosecutions,”...“If they don’t understand what we call collective embezzlement, where people are literally looting their own firms, then it’s impossible to bring cases.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?pagewanted=all

The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.
'
William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources.

FBI saw threat of loan crisis - Los Angeles Times

Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:

Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005

FBI ? Financial Crimes Report 2005

The Bush Rubber Stamp GOP Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and GOP CONGRESS stripped the White Collar Crime divisions of money and manpower.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/washington/19fbi.html?pagewanted=all

About the 100th time you've posted this string of bullshit.

There are rules against spam.

 

[Listening]

Waiting for the facts to show the economy is not improving and is much better than in Bush's last months.

Yet another lib that doesn't understand the meaning of gradation. Do you know what I mean by that?

It means "by what percent" or by how much change.

If I make $3,000 dollars in my business, but I have $50,000 in costs, we'd all agree that's not good, right?. Now granted, perhaps part of the 50K was 10K for an investment that will pay off in 5 years.

But if next year I now make an additional $1,000 dollars while still burning $40,000 in costs..... that IS an improvement in revenue....but it's a really pathetic, shitty, laughable improvement.

That's pretty much what liberal talking points are doing here. Technically you're not lying, but in the big scheme of things, it's baloney.

Yes, you are baloney and as knowledgeable as Edward Baiamonte on the forum.

Honey, gradation is manipulable and can be used for far more than measuring disaster. Now forget your "examples" and give us hard data that supports gloom and doom.

Where did you take your degree: Liberty?

Tell you what Jake.

Why don't you STFU too.

You've never produced a piece of data to back up your dirty diapers since you've been on the board.

When you produce, you can ask others to produce.

POS

 

[Listening]

Who is stopping regulation of derivatives today?

Like the man said, "Follow the money".

Party affiliation is no indicator of who is in Wall Street's pocket and who is not. Where the money flows is a great indicator, though.

Isn't it strange how most can't see how they play the two sides against each other....and take all the money in the end.

 

[Listening]

Ignore the facts ... what's shocking when a RW'r does that ?

( and this is from 2013)

Had Bush left office one year earlier, in January 2008, his performance would have looked quite good, with 5.6 million jobs created during his tenure. But the economy tanked in 2008, hemorrhaging 4.5 million jobs during Bush's last year in office. That left total job growth during his eight years of just 1.1 million jobs—a figure the Obama ought to eclipse by this summer, if the economy keeps growing.

If the economy adds an average of 150,000 jobs per month during Obama's entire second term, which is plausible, then it will have created about 7.7 million jobs by the time Obama leaves office. Many presidents have done better, but not the one Obama replaced
.


Questions LiarChick

No questions for someone so lacking in math. The financial crash was caused by policies enacted by both parties. Anyone who is objective knows that. Moreso, anyone who is objective knows more of that came from the party with the usual handout mentality, government intervention mentality, government-fixes-all mentality.

Just because the crash happened on Bush's watch doesn't mean it was caused 100% by him. Crashes are always a result of policies that span multiple presidencies. Everyone knows that. Everyone.

And here's some other things the uninformed fail to mention:

Bush inherited the Clinton economy as it was moving into what's called the trough of the business cycle. Clinton didn't hand him the upside of the cycle, it was the downside Bush had to fix.

In 2011 we were hit by terrorists who did a lot of damage to the economy. Here's an area where you'll see liberals show what consummate know-nothings they are. Bush had to enact a number of things to bring us back from that hit, much like the way we had to recover after Pearl Harbor was hit.

Do you ever see a liberal account for that? Noooooooo. No. And No. But then a liberal's response to attack on the homeland would be just turn the other cheek anyway being the pacifists that they are.

Please one of you liberals tell me how much it costs the economy when you shut down the entire airline industry and all the secondary business connected to that. I've yet to see one do it.

Bush does take blame for adding the cost of Medicare D and the Rep Party does have it's part to blame for the financial meltdown, but for anyone trying to claim the meltdown was all Bush, they're as corrupt and brainless as they come.

"The financial crash was caused by policies enacted by both parties."

lol

Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”



The FBI has been warning of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud since September 2004. It also reports that lenders initiated 80% of these frauds



The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence. To understand the crisis we have to focus on how the mortgage fraud epidemic produced widespread accounting fraud.


Don't ask; don't tell: book profits, "earn" bonuses and closet your losses

The first document everyone should read is by S&P, the largest of the rating agencies. The context of the document is that a professional credit rater has told his superiors that he needs to examine the mortgage loan files to evaluate the risk of a complex financial derivative whose risk and market value depend on the credit quality of the nonprime mortgages "underlying" the derivative. A senior manager sends a blistering reply with this forceful punctuation:

Any request for loan level tapes is TOTALLY UNREASONABLE!!! Most investors don't have it and can't provide it. [W]e MUST produce a credit estimate. It is your responsibility to provide those credit estimates and your responsibility to devise some method for doing so.


William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis

Have you figured out that nobody pays attention to you any more ?

 

[Listening]

Once again, blame it on Bush. Even 2nd graders can see through that bullsheeet.

How's come, with you being the econo chick, you won't acknowledge what decision were made during the Bush admin. and what the consequences have been for those decisions.

When I read you first post, I thought you might know something the other right wingers don't know. But you are repeating the same debunked talking point all the rest of you guys use.

Dad23 has articles, links, chart, graphs and hell who knows what else but he can make a case.

You got;"Once again, blame it on Bush........yada yada.

We know it was Bush. We just don't understand why you don't know.

You stupid asshole.

Most cons I know detest GWB and the GOP congress he had that did such a lousy job.

You pricks just don't get it.

Obummer campaigned on "We don't need four more years of GWB".

Right now we are six more years of Mr Dumbass.

But despite the fact that what Bush did was wrong..you somehow see Obama as being O.K to do the same stupid shit.

 

[Listening]

The Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts was a statement signed by roughly 450 economists, including ten of the twenty-four American Nobel Prize laureates alive at the time, in February 2003 who urged the U.S. President George W. Bush not to enact the 2003 tax cuts; seeking and sought to gather public support for the position. The statement was printed as a full-page ad in The New York Times and released to the public through the Economic Policy Institute. According to the statement, the 450 plus economists who signed the statement believe that the 2003 Bush tax cuts will increase inequality and the budget deficit, decreasing the ability of the U.S. government to fund essential services, while failing to produce economic growth.



In rebuttal, 250 plus economists who supported the tax plan wrote that the new plan would "create more employment, economic growth, and opportunities for all Americans."

Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


NOW ONE MORE TIME, WHICH SIDE WAS CORRECT?

Ok, let's explain something here.

The overwhelming number of econ departments within universities across the United States are Keynsian Departments.

What does that mean mathematically. That means you will find an overwhelming number of people publishing in academia and the media come from that dumbass, BIG-SPENDING, debunked, corrupt-ass economic philosophy point of view when they write.

Most are so stupid they don't even know they have that bias. Some professor made them answer tests a certain way to pass so they accepted it as gospel.

You could pull up thousands of reports and articles...........and I could tell you they're all bull based on the assumptions I can tell the dumbass authors make.

It is yet another fallacy indicative of the lack of critical thinking in this country to think just because Dad2three pulls up an official looking report that it's gospel.

You've pulled up a long list of stupid ass sources on this thread. I'm sure some are stupid enough to be taken in.

I'm sure there are others that can see right through it.

"...According to the statement, the 450 plus economists who signed the statement believe that the 2003 Bush tax cuts will increase inequality and the budget deficit, decreasing the ability of the U.S. government to fund essential services, while failing to produce economic growth.



In rebuttal, 250 plus economists who supported the tax plan wrote that the new plan would "create more employment, economic growth, and opportunities for all Americans."


NOW ONE MORE TIME, WHICH SIDE WAS CORRECT?

Uuuuhhhmmmm....the 250.

 

[Listening]

you said a lot here, and you did mention medicare part d. Yeah righties tend to go to that as an example.

For the most part you just want to really blame liberals. Been there done that, and so far you havent brought anything new to the table. Our debt problems span decades. Our bubble crisis span decades, Or deregulation of the industries span decades.

That's because a liberal is in the White House. The biggest spending liberal of them all. That's who's leading the economic direction of the country right now.

Talk to me when a real fiscal conservative gets in the White House. There are plenty of big spending Republicans too, they don't get a pass either.

Best fiscal conservative since Ike was BJ Bill, second best is Prez Obama. Grow up and grow a brain...

 

[Listening]

Immigration from 1880 to 1910 was driven by labor opportunities in America.

Anybody who denies this is uneducated, mentally feeble, malignantly motivated, or a combination of any or all three.

Fuck you.