Spendifferous Stimulus
- Thread starter Canceled2
- Start date
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
apparently not watermark
i'm sure you will do the right thing and apologize for calling my opinion ignorant
as i said, it does not matter if they are experts or not, it is an appeal to numbers, the only thing that matters is the appeal to the numbers, it can be both appeal to experts and numbers of experts, just because most experts think a certain way does not mean they are right <-- that is the kernel of the logical fallacy
Last edited:
You are throwing out a statement as if it is fact. I never said that spending does not help economic recovery, only that the kind of entitlement spending that makes up an unhealthy portion of this bill does.
Further Obama's and Biden's claim that "more in the field think this is a good bill" is false and therefor misleading.
Economists slam Barack Obama's stimulus package
The line from Barack Obama and Joe Biden is that all economists agree with a stimulus package to expand government spending. So they won't have been happy to see a full page advertisement in today's New York Times disagreeing, signed by around 200 academic economists, including three Nobel prize-winners.
Economists speak out against the stimulus package
According to Mr Biden: "Every economist... from conservative to liberal, acknowledges that direct government spending on a direct program now is the best way to infuse economic growth and create jobs."
Barack Obama said earlier this month that: "There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy."
But the economists who signed the advert, funded by the Cato Institute in Washington DC, say that: "we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan's "lost decade" in the 1990s."
They propose instead that: "To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth."
This is a message that, over on this side of the Pond, Gordon Brown should also listen to - but won't.
evince
Truthmatters
Like Obama said a stimulus package IS a spending package.
This is the totally failed republican partys attempt to do what they always do.
They word smith to try and lead their partsian fool base arround by the nose.
The facts are that when you do the things that bring the biggest return into the economy like infratstructure, food stamps, extended unemployment insurance, funding projects that are ready to go and the like you put the money in motion again. It worked when FDR did it and it will work again.
Why ANYONE would listen to the VERY pack of fools who got us into this is beyond me.
Where was the infrastructure spending when the Rs were in control?
The only answer they know to ANY question is a "tax cut".
This is the totally failed republican partys attempt to do what they always do.
They word smith to try and lead their partsian fool base arround by the nose.
The facts are that when you do the things that bring the biggest return into the economy like infratstructure, food stamps, extended unemployment insurance, funding projects that are ready to go and the like you put the money in motion again. It worked when FDR did it and it will work again.
Why ANYONE would listen to the VERY pack of fools who got us into this is beyond me.
Where was the infrastructure spending when the Rs were in control?
The only answer they know to ANY question is a "tax cut".
evince
Truthmatters
"Excepting 1937-1938, unemployment fell each year of Roosevelt's first two terms [while] the U.S. economy grew at average annual growth rates of 9 percent to 10 percent," writes University of California historian Eric Rauchway.
According to Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, "Only with the New Deal's rehabilitation of the financial system in 1933-35 did the economy begin its slow emergence from the Great Depression." In fact, even famed conservative economist Milton Friedman admitted that the New Deal's Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was "the structural change most conducive to monetary stability since ... the Civil War."
1937-1938 FDR had tried to balence the budget because the republicans had whined enough to make him take notice of their "concerns". The economy started to reverse so he went back the the original plan and it worked yet again.
The people are not going to just sit back and watch the republican party wordsmith and lie any more. You guys always have the WRONG plan and its purely for partisan reasons.
Your party is going to die and its will be the best thing to happen to America in many years.
According to Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, "Only with the New Deal's rehabilitation of the financial system in 1933-35 did the economy begin its slow emergence from the Great Depression." In fact, even famed conservative economist Milton Friedman admitted that the New Deal's Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was "the structural change most conducive to monetary stability since ... the Civil War."
1937-1938 FDR had tried to balence the budget because the republicans had whined enough to make him take notice of their "concerns". The economy started to reverse so he went back the the original plan and it worked yet again.
The people are not going to just sit back and watch the republican party wordsmith and lie any more. You guys always have the WRONG plan and its purely for partisan reasons.
Your party is going to die and its will be the best thing to happen to America in many years.
evince
Truthmatters
CATO is a Libertarian think tank based in DC, not a pack of partisan hacks.
There AD is here
The economists that signed on to this ad all agree that the bill, as it stands now, is not a good bill and that it will have no long term beneficial stimulus for our economy. This is not partisan, it is an educated economic position.
Last edited:
The Cato institute paid for the ad that was signed by 200 economists from around the country. These economists are of all political stripes. The only one sounding and appearing to be a partisan hack is you imo.
That you like this bill is evident. Go for it.
apparently not watermark
i'm sure you will do the right thing and apologize for calling my opinion ignorant
as i said, it does not matter if they are experts or not, it is an appeal to numbers, the only thing that matters is the appeal to the numbers, it can be both appeal to experts and numbers of experts, just because most experts think a certain way does not mean they are right <-- that is the kernel of the logical fallacy
I am not an economist. I'm guessing you aren't one either. However, we are in times that require good economic policy. Since just about anything is a crapshoot right now, I'm cool with deferring to a near consensus of opinion from people who have been studying this for ages as far as the dice I support rolling.
Their opinion actually does make sense to me, as well. Since the fall, corporations are laying off at very high rates. More homes are foreclosing. Everyone - business & individuals - are reigning in spending in dramatic way. It is easy to see how this can continue to spiral, and spending can continue to constrict, further hurting business & individuals. In the absense of outside stimulus, there is nothing, theoretically, that might be able to stop it. Ergo, the gov't steps in, spends money & provides incentives, and the ship turns itself to a point where at least some consumer confidence returns.
What are you relying on? "Oh, it just doesn't sound right to me?" Limbaugh?
See, we both have our opinions. Mine just happens to be supported by a majority of economists.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
you're free to believe whatever you want, does not change the fact it is a logical fallacy.
would you agree that even a majority can be wrong? or do you really believe that a majority is always right?
No; I think the majority can definitely be wrong.
That doesn't change the fact that - absence evidence to the contrary - majority opinion in a field of study still carries some weight.
That's why I asked what you had behind your opinion.
That's a fine sentiment if there were a majority of ecomimists that think this bill good, but there isn't one.
I don't think anyone is arguing that it's a perfect bill. But a majority of economists do agree that spending should comprise more of a stimulus under current conditions than tax cuts.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Well clearly because I found some list of economists somewhere who oppose it on this partisan hack website it means that the majority of economists oppose it.
That's a fine sentiment if there were a majority of ecomimists that think this bill good, but there isn't one. There are many who have signed on, but more than a few have likewise urged not only caution, but have outright denied its ability to really help.
An interseting article
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Proof?
