Obama: "Consensus Among Economists" -- Oh Really???

Abuskedti

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

cornnifer wrote:

Drowned Out wrote:

more info on sources is cool...but I disagree with the 'consensus' semantics. I think it's a misleading term. ..

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 ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

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.

kenny olav

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

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".

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.

VINNY GOOMBA

Again, we should have the choice whether or not we want to pay Social Security. If I had my choice of whether or not to have that extra money in my paycheck every week to put into some other form of retirement of my own choosing, I would gladly take it. And one day, when I turn 62 or 65, (or whatever they raise the age to next, forcing us to work longer anyway) I don't get a check from the government. SIGN ME UP.

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?