Obama: "Consensus Among Economists" -- Oh Really???
DriftingByTheStorm
Posts: 8,684
After listening to Obama's speech the other day (i know, "which one" right? he has like 3 a day) my biggest problem with it was his incessant and absolutely dishonest restatement of the theme, "there is broad consensus among economists that the government must do something" to jump start the economy.
Well that is an absolute load of horse shit.
The man should be ashamed for telling such an outright lie,
and his repetition of this mantra, along with his idiotic insistence that he is more than happy to come to consensus with congress as long as they don't disagree with him was beyond all absurdity.
Here, from the Cato institute (which as far as major institutions go is much higher up on my "trusted" list than most) is a full page ad that they took out in the New York Times ...
that is a list of OVER 200 UNIVERSITY ECONOMISTS who outright disagree that a stimulus bill is in ANY WAY going to help or solve this problem.
CONSENSUS, Mr President?
:roll: :roll: :roll:
Here is a short article from CATO as well.
Ho ho ho.
dbts
Well that is an absolute load of horse shit.
The man should be ashamed for telling such an outright lie,
and his repetition of this mantra, along with his idiotic insistence that he is more than happy to come to consensus with congress as long as they don't disagree with him was beyond all absurdity.
Here, from the Cato institute (which as far as major institutions go is much higher up on my "trusted" list than most) is a full page ad that they took out in the New York Times ...
that is a list of OVER 200 UNIVERSITY ECONOMISTS who outright disagree that a stimulus bill is in ANY WAY going to help or solve this problem.
CONSENSUS, Mr President?
:roll: :roll: :roll:
Here is a short article from CATO as well.
Ho ho ho.
dbts
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
still, something is better than nothing.
NO ONE HAS READ THE BILL!
NO ONE!
Patriot Act all over again.
Anyone?
Almost a trillion dollars in that bill.
Probably THE largest spending bill EVER passed (not war related), and NO ONE has read it.
This is fucking stupid.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
First of all, the word consensus means a general agreement or majority opinion. It does not imply unanimity. Therefore 200 university economists carefully selected by the CATO institute does not mean there is no consensus.
Secondly it is important to remember that while not aligned with any political party, the CATO institute is fiscally very conservative and heaped all sorts of praise and adoration on Bush in regards to his economic policies so there is no real surprise with their disagreement here.
By all means, however, carry on.
It is generally accepted that in some, in fact in most cases, you have to spend money to make money.
Lets "hope" we get some kind of return on our investment then.
Can someone please explain to me HOW this is all going to work?
Unless it is a kick to the head...I'd rather have nothing in that case.
more info on sources is cool...but I disagree with the 'consensus' semantics. I think it's a misleading term. From what I've seen, there is total confusion and disagreement over what will or won't help the economy. EVERY economist has their own, self-motivated slant to their public statements....I have to wonder the motivations of those informing Obama that there is consensus...
It isn't semantics. That's what the word means. Its only misleading if you don't understand the word. i know it seems a little foreign to have a president who can complete a sentence and has a working vocabulary of more than 15 words, but...
Does Obama have a LIST of this "consensus" of economists?
How many economists ARE in on his consensus?
At least the CATO institute (partisan or not) had the courage to SHOW THE PUBLIC a LIST of economists that were of the same opinion.
All Obama does is say, "Hey, there is BROAD CONSENSUS", but provides no evidence, names, or lists ...
and people like you are all up in a tizzy over any rebuttal, saying, "Oooh ... CHERRYPICKED LIST BY CATO" ...
and what, you think economists were just falling over themselves to be part of Obama's "consensus"
???
PS -
BTW, CATO's "Consensus" is now OVER 300 ECONOMISTS ... again, how many were part of OBAMA's ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Economies stagnate, and governments stir the pot. It's been done many times, and it works.
Uh.
Like the ad said, it was tried during the great depression, and during japan's "lost decade".
The only thing that drug us out of the great depression was a fucking world war,
and obviously by the moniker, one can tell it didn't do shit for japan.
In fact, there are a LOT of similarities between what governments around the world are doing now, and what japan did in the 90's. Actually, we hit the zero bound on our interest rates MUCH quicker than japan did. It DOESN'T work.
As for privatizing social security,
WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH GIVING PEOPLE THEIR OWN FUCKING MONEY ?!?!?
Markets or no markets, at least YOU made the choice.
As it is, the government is STEALING from you, and YOU HAVE NO CHOICE.
And to make it worse, THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE YOUR FUCKING MONEY. THEY SPEND IT EVERY YEAR!
Whose ass do you think they are going to pull all that cash out of when we all retire? A bunch of dead chinamen?
YOU THINK THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO HAVE JACKSHIT FOR YOU WHEN YOU RETIRE?????
Talk about Ponzi Schemes!
:roll: :roll: :roll:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
The only 'general agreement' I see, is that money has to be thrown at the situation....and it's coming from politicians and bureaucrats (in all countries, all parties), not economists or the public (unless you believe the politicians are acting in our interest)....also, I see NO consensus on where the money should go. Point being, I think Obama's 'consensus' is unsubstantiated, therefore misleading, and semantical because it's a vague word that will never need to be backed up.
Semantics: the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings
'general agreement' in terms of fixing the economy is a pretty novel notion.
'Consensus' is typical political doublespeak.
I've heard the term 'privatize Social Security' mean a few different things.
1) Your contributions in Social Security still go into some account that you can't touch forever, and the money is invested like a 401K in private companies, and you may or may not get to choose which ones.
2) The money is yours. You do what you want with it.
I'm all for #2, but against #1 (especially if I have no say in where the money gets invested).
I'm also not sure that governments stirring the pot actually works, or if it acts like a patch, a temporary solution that may even make the problem worse down the road... And when shit hits the fan again, another BIGGER patch! Really, all they can do is throw money at the problem. When the money becomes worth nothing as a direct result of this practice, we've run out of ways for government to stir the pot.
what is wrong with the people making a public investment for themselves? People want Social Security. They don't want to worry about how to invest their own retirement money, or at least not all of it. If there really is not enough social security money by the time my generation is ready to retire, then there will be enough public outcry to force the government to fix it.
you are too paranoid/untrusting of government. plain and simple. following the lead of nuts like Alex Jones is just going to make it worse for yourself.
i believe we should decentralize government to make it more efficient and trustworthy, but it serves a valuable purpose when it comes to making sure people have what they need.
Both of you firmly believe what you are saying. Here is the solution: We should be given the option of whether or not to participate in Social Security. Kenny can choose to contribute, Driftin doesn't have to. One day, Kenny will get a check from the government, Driftin' won't. Both people get what they want-- neither have the option of crying later either. If Driftin' blows his retirement on fool's gold and Alex Jones videos, that's his problem. If you Kenny blows his retirement by entrusting it entirely to THE MAN, and gets screwed that's his problem
Kenny's dream of being a lazy consumer who lets the figment of a free lunch misguide him into trusting that the government can make 1 minus 1 equal 3 ONLY WORKS IF THE GOVERNMENT FORCES ME TO CONTRIBUTE.
It's called a ponzi scheme.
and you can argue all day long that it ISN'T because the debts owed to everyone are in fact guaranteed by everyone, but that is the most ridiculous argument in the world. It's like having a credit card with no limit, and saying everything is okay because i owe that money to myself, so of course i am good for it.
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
The government DOES NOT HAVE THE MONEY, Kenny.
And it NEVER will.
The ONLY way the government will EVER be able to afford to make the payments on all the claims to government cheese will be to DEBASE THE CURRENCY and LOWER THE LIVING STANDARD\DOLLAR PURCHASING POWER FOR EVERYONE (even if they DIDN'T somehow contribute to SS).
And Kenny i would like to ask you to EXPLAIN what you mean by "Public INVESTMENT".
How is social security public INVESTMENT?
WE DIDN'T INVEST SHIT. WE SPENT EVERYTHING.
Again, go look up "Ponzi Scheme".
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I am sorry, but your 300 economists are not relevant to Obama's concensus. He is referring to economists in public service, not every economist is the world. Your 300 economist have other motives, not the least of which is to contradict and be heard. You can find a group of 300 anything to contradict anything. These 300 students are not charged with developing and maintaining an economy the size of the that in the United States. Nobody is! and there is no precedent. It is at least more juvinile to pretend to know exactly how this plan will fail - than to attempt to stimulate such an economy.
This economy is built on lies, and has developed into a monster never before seen. The package is a national stimulus as much as it is economic, and nobody is pretending that it will fit nicely into fundamental economic models. The fact is that our economy has not fit such a model in many many years - there is absolutely no action - including NO ACTION - that will satisfy acedemic economics. So please, unless you have an answer that does fit these 300 YAHOOOOOS! criteria for a viable solution.. lets not credit them with knowing what wont work.
you're damn right you're going to paying those FICA taxes. my dad just started collecting Social Security and needs the money.
to compare Social Security to a Ponzi Scheme misses the point of the intent of each thing. no one is stealing our FICA taxes - it's going to retirees. Social Security will have to be tweaked in order to keep it going, and we'll probably debate how to tweak for the next decade or so, and that's good. the only reason it was brought up during the Bush administration was to try to scare us into privatizing it, or part of it. well, no one's going to trust that idea anymore. i work in finance, and I've seen many clients lose tens of thousands of dollars.
Who's to say that any of my current FICA money is really even going towards retirees and those on disability? How do we know that money isn't just being "printed" to keep this system afloat for the past however-many years? Social Security exists. Some people rely on it. Let them. I do not want to put my money in a government account for myself to cash-in on one day, and I'm sure I'm not alone. How can anyone argue against giving people the choice of how to spend their own money? Money that they WORK for?