Cliff LyonBob! Problem Solved!
Problem solved. We know longer need to explain WHY Democrats are better on economics than ‘pubs.’ We need only survey economists.
Oh looky, someone did, and the choice is clear.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
This is according to a new survey of 523 economists who are U.S. citizens and members of the American Economic Association. See a Powerpoint with methodology and detailed results here.
Click here for our list of Obama economic advisers and prominent economists who support Obama.
September 17th, 2008 at 8:04 am
Now then, since economists are predictably wrong most of the time, and were they so good they would have been able to foresee this terrible economy, helped us avoid it.
If it is all bush’s doing, lets be generous to the opposition and say they did nothing to stop it.
Why are we listening to the “e con ‘o missed”
September 17th, 2008 at 8:08 am
I was trying to think of the many things the majority of experts have been wrong about before.
Just a few to get us started:
The Earth is flat.
The Sun Orbits the Earth.
Powered flight will never work.
Anybody else want to jump in?
September 17th, 2008 at 11:09 am
The republicans have it right.
Mission accomplished.
Bob, how’m I doin’ so far?
September 17th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Cav,
That qualifies in my book. Of course, I would debate how much Bush and his people qualify as experts.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Bob, I’m with you there. I was truely hoping they’d be ‘X’ long before now.
September 18th, 2008 at 6:29 am
Bob S.
I wouldn’t fret too much. The statistics used by Cliff are from a survey of economists who almost all work in academia. They are not economists that are handling real money but part of the liberal establishment. CNN did pulled an almost identical trick in an editorial titled: Commentary: Dilbert guy’s economic poll on McCain, Obama
If you go to the Blog that Cliff uses to make his assertion, you will discover that while they take into account the fact that Obama wants to “cut” taxes for 95% of Americans, they ignore the fact that those tax cuts will ultimately be repaid in the form of high prices at the store as companies, some of whom will see their taxes go up by 100%, pass those taxes on to consumers. It is a classic bait and switch.
I would like to have a serious discussion about which economic philosophy is really better.
Republicans: Want to halt or reduce overall taxes and begin downsizing the government.
Democrats: Want to increase the overall size of Government by increasing overall taxes through a system that shifts payment of taxes from payroll to consumed products.
Ultimately the discussion is about which is better for the Economy, more government programs and regulation or less. Keep in mind that the Fanny and Freddy debacle came out of a Clinton era regulatory program.
Finally, we keep hearing about the fail Bush Economic policies. Can anyone explain EXACTLY what it was about the Bush policies that failed?
September 18th, 2008 at 6:48 am
Richard,
I’m not taking the survey very serious at all. That is the point of my “experts also believed” nonsense.
I’ve thought of a few more
Experts at one time thought there were 4 elements: Fire, Water, Earth, & Air
Experts believed the atom was the smallest unit possible.
Experts believed we would never split the atom.
And on and on, experts are consistently wrong about many things…especially academics.
September 18th, 2008 at 6:52 am
Okelberries,
So you’d like to have a discussion about economics. I think that’s great. You take trickle-down/supply-side/Milton Friedman, an academic I should mention.
We’ll take Keynsian.
Ready set GO!
September 18th, 2008 at 6:57 am
From an empirical standpoint, you just lost. Whether you look at American History or Europe today (excepting Thatchers England), you still lose.
So since you have no empirical evidence to support your side, you’ll have to go with theory.
You DO know what empirical means don’t you?
Can we agree that the Reagan and Bush(s) pursued Friedman (includes, de-regulation bonus)?
Ooops you lose again.
Ok you go!
September 18th, 2008 at 7:08 am
Bob, even as a bite, the “Republicans want…to begin downsizing government”, misses the mark by a mile. Privatization, favored tool of ‘conservatives’, may provide the eppearance of smaller govt, but the costs to consumers is skyrocketing.
Conversely, the Dems would bring back to the fold those functions that the present admin has outsourced. Hense the expanding govt meme.
The sun rises, wingnuts still abound. Ce la vie.
September 18th, 2008 at 7:10 am
Cliff,
You don’t really expect me to get into another discussion with you, that by tradition, you will just run away from again with your fingers in your ears. If you would like to participate in this discussion with me you can still make amends by answer the long standing unanswered question that I posed to you in our last bout. Somehow, I know that you won’t but I will give it another try.
If you believe that as a “wealthy” American you are not paying enough in taxes, why don’t you simply write out a check to the IRS to make up the difference? You claim that most people who are as wealthy as you believe that their taxes are too low. If this is the case, why don’t you simply pay your fair share without a demand from the government?
September 18th, 2008 at 7:21 am
Cav,
I agree that both parties are trying to do the same things but with different approaches.
What I try to point out is we forget to ask the basic questions.
Should the government be trying to do this?
Is there a Constitutional basis for the government trying to do this?
Is the government the most efficient agency to be doing this?
September 18th, 2008 at 7:59 am
Bob. pondering. btw, good morning.
September 18th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Supply side vs Keynsians: The blind battling the blind.
September 18th, 2008 at 8:25 am
This is for Bob– foreign policy expert Senator John McCain seems to believe that Spain is in Latin America.
September 18th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Richard,
It’s a pointless game but since I’m in a cantankerous mood, here goes:
* Last May, he claimed that Kansas tornadoes killed a whopping 10,000 people: “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.” The actual death toll: 12.
One of my favorites:
*Earlier this month in Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States: “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”
Barack Obama: Gaffe machine
By Michelle Malkin • May 21, 2008 07:43 AM
Here’s my syndicated column this week. Hardly a comprehensive list–and sure to grow.
***
Barack Obama: Gaffe machine
Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2008
All it takes is one gaffe to taint a Republican for life. The political establishment never let Dan Quayle live down his fateful misspelling of “potatoe.” The New York Times distorted and misreported the first President Bush’s questions about new scanner technology at a grocers’ convention to brand him permanently as out of touch.
But what about Barack Obama? The guy’s a perpetual gaffe machine. Let us count the ways, large and small, that his tongue has betrayed him throughout the campaign:
* Last May, he claimed that Kansas tornadoes killed a whopping 10,000 people: “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.” The actual death toll: 12.
*Earlier this month in Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States: “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”
*Last week, in front of a roaring Sioux Falls, South Dakota audience, Obama exulted: “Thank you Sioux City…I said it wrong. I’ve been in Iowa for too long. I’m sorry.”
*Explaining last week why he was trailing Hillary Clinton in Kentucky, Obama again botched basic geography: “Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it’s not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle.” On what map is Arkansas closer to Kentucky than Illinois?
*Obama has as much trouble with numbers as he has with maps. Last March, on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Alabama, he claimed his parents united as a direct result of the civil rights movement:
“There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.”
Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965. His spokesman, Bill Burton, later explained that Obama was “speaking metaphorically about the civil rights movement as a whole.”
*Earlier this month in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, Obama showed off his knowledge of the war in Afghanistan by honing in on a lack of translators: “We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then it’s harder for us to use them in Afghanistan.” The real reason it’s “harder for us to use them” in Afghanistan: Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish. The Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi, or other non-Arabic languages.
*Over the weekend in Oregon, Obama pleaded ignorance of the decades-old, multi-billion-dollar massive Hanford nuclear waste clean-up:
“Here’s something that you will rarely hear from a politician, and that is that I’m not familiar with the Hanford, uuuuhh, site, so I don’t know exactly what’s going on there. (Applause.) Now, having said that, I promise you I’ll learn about it by the time I leave here on the ride back to the airport.”
I assume on that ride, a staffer reminded him that he’s voted on at least one defense authorization bill that addressed the “costs, schedules, and technical issues” dealing with the nation’s most contaminated nuclear waste site.
* And in perhaps the most seriously troubling set of gaffes of them all, Obama told a Portland crowd over the weekend that Iran doesn’t “pose a serious threat to us”–cluelessly arguing that “tiny countries” with small defense budgets can’t do us harm– and then promptly flip-flopped the next day, claiming, “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.”
Now, do you want to trade this type of tripe all day long or do you want to address the issues?
How about explaining to me, using examples if necessary, how Obama’s MiddleClass income tax break ($500 per person or $1,000 per family) won’t be quickly negated by his multiple increases in taxes on corporations? Taxes paid by consumers, the very people he’s trying to cut taxes on.
September 18th, 2008 at 9:11 am
OK Okelberries. Let me try to answer your question.
My position however NOT, “If you believe that as a “wealthy” American you are not paying enough in taxes,…”
My position is “as a “wealthy” American
youWE are not paying enough in taxes,”So the question “why don’t you simply write out a check to the IRS to make up the difference?” is not really relevant.
Both the problem and the solution, however, lie in the term ‘fair share’. John Mill authored a concept called…are ya ready for this?
…’fair play’.
This is for instance, the basis of the current call by corporate America for more regulation. Corporations WANT to pollute less, provide better health care, pensions etc. BUT they will not do it if their competitors won’t, so they know that gov’t imposed regulation is the only way. It levels the playing field.
So in answer to your question, no, I would not unilaterally pay more taxes. That of course would not address the issue.
I think its critical that we be armed with a reasonable understanding of the three aforementioned men and their theories in preparation for this argument.
September 18th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Sorry, Bob, I thought you were familiar with Senator McCain’s pattern of making appallingly ignorant statements about foreign policy. The “Spain is in Latin America” screw-up yesterday is just the latest.
March 19: McCain skips over the whole Sunni-Shiite deal and says, “Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and is receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran.”
June 30: McCain says we can do nothing about the Darfur crisis because, “How can we bring pressure on the government of Somalia?”
July 14: McCain says, “I was concerned about a couple of steps that the Russian government took in the last several days. One was reducing the energy supplies to Czechoslovakia.” That was the second time he referred to Czechoslovakia during the campaign.
July 21: McCain says, “We have a lot of work to do. It’s a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq-Pakistan border. ”
There’s more of these, but you get the picture I’m sure.
September 18th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Richard,
I do get the picture, I am aware of his pattern. Read my comments above again.
All candidates make gaffes, yes?
Could we trade mistakes all day long, yes.
Would it make a difference to either of us, no.
So why do it?
September 18th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Bob– A gaffe is when a politician accidentally says something true that’s politically inconvenient. Senator Joe Biden does this all the time, and Senator McCain used to back in the “straight talk” days of the 2000 campaign. When politicians accidentally say something false that exposes their ignorance and superficiality, that’s not a gaffe it’s a mistake as you point out. It does make a difference, because what the candidates say when unscripted tells us who they really are.
September 18th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Cliff,
I disagree, big surprise there right, you say “we aren’t paying enough in taxes”, so the question becomes two fold. What are you doing about it and ,as I asked Glenden, are you living your beliefs?
All the advocate work, blogging, etc is great but if you truly believe that everyone should pay more…why not go ahead and do it?
Joe Biden thinks that higher taxes are patriotic
(AP) Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden said Thursday that paying more in taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans.
So, if income inequality, economic disparity, wealth gap, subsidies for the poor is really concerns you…why not give up enough of your income to bring down the gap?
If I thought feeding the homeless was important, shouldn’t I be out there feeding the homeless before I try to pass a law making you and everyone else spend 3 hours a week doing it?
There are many ways to get corporations & people to do things, legislation is only one of many. One is to buy stock and vote for change. Another is setting the example personally and asking others to follow. That way is more difficult, but it does work. Many corporations distinguish themselves by innovating social programs long before they become law; example Ben & Jerry’s and Patagonia come to mind.Why not voluntarily lead by example before asking the government to involuntarily take other people’s income?
Convince us, not force us.
September 18th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Hey look, the damn government just printed 40 billion out of thin air into treasury bonds to prop up Lehman, and you are claiming that people aren’t paying enough taxes. The way this game is being run right now, no amount of money will fix our problems. If the government keeps it up it will destroy the currency, and then we will have real problems.
If we are not careful, no one would touch our money with a 10 ft. pole. The idea that increased taxes are going to “fix” problems when the very government prints unsecured money out of thin air, is extremely amusing, and indicative of a naive approach to what is actually happening to our economy.
Gold goes up 100 dollars in a day. Money is paper, and it cannot fix anything if people have no faith in it.
September 18th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Cliff, my “fair Play” brother!
I can’t believe you didn’t run away from that question again! Well, it did take what? 4 or 5 attempts and 2 web sites to get you to respond. You must be filling lucky today. I feel like patting you on the head and giving you a little snack.
I must say though, your answer was a little disappointing and predictable. You really should be careful when holding up and quoting individuals as you concept of ideal. Before I begin, I want you to read something else that your John Stuart Mill wrote:
Doesn’t sound like he would agree with your view of the military, Cliff. Sounds to me like he called you a miserable creature that would have no chance of being free if it wasn’t for people like me who were and are willing to serve. Don’t feel too small, Cliff, we all can’t be REAL warriors. You know your place and you feel safe there. That is what matters.
Now back to our discussion. I was hoping that you would help me write my response.
Your basic philosophy about taxation and our government seems to go like this. (Please correct me if I misstate what “is” is again.)
People like you are so wealthy that the majority of you want higher taxes and therefore everyone as wealthy as you should be forced by the government to pay higher taxes, but you are unwilling to pay more to the government of your own accord unless everyone is forced to pay more also, just to make it fair to you.
Is that the gist of your argument Cliff? Now, because I am having trouble finding the actual words to respond to you, I am hoping that you can help me write them by responding either by affirmation or dismissal to the following statement. (Please don’t feel that I am changing the subject. I am merely using this as an exercise that will hopefully bring us into agreement and help tweak out your greater philosophical beliefs.)
I believe in Man Made Global Warming. I also believe that something should be done before the Earth turns into a fireball. I am willing to change my own personal habits but am unwilling to do so unless everyone is forced else to do so too. Also, I believe that governments should sign international agreements calling for the reduction of greenhouse gases but unless EVERY NATION does it, I don’t think we should either. After all doing it on our own just would do enough to help.
Is this something that would jive with you philosophic beliefs Cliff? Or maybe you find something wrong with these arguments. Choose your words carefully Cliff, they may soon become mine.
Oh… here I almost forgot… you might need a quick link to Wikipedia
September 18th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Well looks like this post got caught in Spam Limbo… So I’ll break it into two posts.
Cliff, my “fair play” brother!
I can’t believe you didn’t run away from that question again! Well, it did take what? 4 or 5 attempts and 2 web sites to get you to respond. You must be filling lucky today. I feel like patting you on the head and giving you a little snack.
I must say though, your answer was a little disappointing and predictable. You really should be careful when holding up and quoting individuals as you concept of ideal. Before I begin, I want you to read something else that your John Stuart Mill wrote:
Doesn’t sound like he would agree with your view of the military, Cliff. Sounds to me like he called you a miserable creature that would have no chance of being free if it wasn’t for people like me who were and are willing to serve. Don’t feel too small, Cliff, we all can’t be REAL warriors. You know your place and you feel safe there. That is what matters.
September 18th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Now back to our discussion. I was hoping that you would help me write my response.
Your basic philosophy about taxation and our government seems to go like this. (Please correct me if I misstate what “is” is again.)
People like you are so wealthy that the majority of you want higher taxes and therefore everyone as wealthy as you should be forced by the government to pay higher taxes, but you are unwilling to pay more to the government of your own accord unless everyone is forced to pay more also, just to make it fair to you.
Is that the gist of your argument Cliff? Now, because I am having trouble finding the actual words to respond to you, I am hoping that you can help me write them by responding either by affirmation or dismissal to the following statement. (Please don’t feel that I am changing the subject. I am merely using this as an exercise that will hopefully bring us into agreement and help tweak out your greater philosophical beliefs.)
I believe in Man Made Global Warming. I also believe that something should be done before the Earth turns into a fireball. I am willing to change my own personal habits but am unwilling to do so unless everyone is forced else to do so too. Also, I believe that governments should sign international agreements calling for the reduction of greenhouse gases but unless EVERY NATION does it, I don’t think we should either. After all doing it on our own just wouldn’t do enough to help.
Is this something that would jive with you philosophic beliefs Cliff? Or maybe you find something wrong with these arguments. Choose your words carefully Cliff, they may soon become mine.
Oh… here I almost forgot… you might need a quick link to Wikipedia
September 18th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Now back to our discussion. I was hoping that you would help me write my response.
Your basic philosophy about taxation and our government seems to go like this. (Please correct me if I misstate what “is” is again.)
People like you are so wealthy that the majority of you want higher taxes and therefore everyone as wealthy as you should be forced by the government to pay higher taxes, but you are unwilling to pay more to the government of your own accord unless everyone is forced to pay more also, just to make it fair to you.
Is that the gist of your argument Cliff? Now, because I am having trouble finding the actual words to respond to you, I am hoping that you can help me write them by responding either by affirmation or dismissal to the following statement. (Please don’t feel that I am changing the subject. I am merely using this as an exercise that will hopefully bring us into agreement and help tweak out your greater philosophical beliefs.)
I believe in Man Made Global Warming. I also believe that something should be done before the Earth turns into a fireball. I am willing to change my own personal habits but am unwilling to do so unless everyone is forced else to do so too. Also, I believe that governments should sign international agreements calling for the reduction of greenhouse gases but unless EVERY NATION does it, I don’t think we should either. After all doing it on our own just would not do enough to help.
Is this something that would jive with you philosophic beliefs Cliff? Or maybe you find something wrong with these arguments. Choose your words carefully Cliff, they may soon become mine.
Oh… here I almost forgot… you might need a quick link to Wikipedia
September 18th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Feel free to dump all those copies that got caught in your Spam Filter, Cliff.
September 18th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Richard O.
Great analogy with the Global warming. Mind if I steal it for later use?
September 18th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Hello All,
I apologize for my absence. Crazy busy.
Okelberries, I agree with Mill’s statement about war. Especially in the time he wrote that. My lord wars WERE necessary.
September 18th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
No problem Bob S.
September 20th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Hmmm.. looks like we lost CLiff again!
September 20th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Richard O.
Cliff standard tactic number 5, I think. If he can’t win an argument, he abandons it and then makes another post as a distraction.
Keep up the good work; maybe we can take these unsupportable comments and the people who make them to task.
September 20th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Hi Bob and Richard,
Again, sorry for my absence. I’ll try to spend more time sparring this weekend.
I see Richard has adopted Bob’s tactic; describing my positions for me using simplistic and erroneous anecdotes.
Unless I’ve lost track the the thread, I though we were gonna debate the opposing economic theories of out 2 parties?
September 20th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Cliff,
You do realize that an “erroneous anecdote,” could be considered an oxymoron because an anecdote is something that is generally considered an accounting of a true event.
I am sorry, that this subject has migrated to this thread, but I should remind you that it is you who have been avoiding this discussion. Also, I believe you will find that if you respond to the hypothetical statement (not erroneous anecdote) we will very quickly work towards an understanding of both our economic philosophies.
I truly understand why you would not like to respond to my hypothetical. Still I would like to give you a second opportunity to compare the two similar statements. The first describes your original position on taxation and the other describes a hypothetical statement on Global Warming. Can both be morally true and correct in your mind? If not how do you separate the two without becoming a hypocrite.
People like you are so wealthy that the majority of you want higher taxes and therefore everyone as wealthy as you should be forced by the government to pay higher taxes, but you are unwilling to pay more to the government of your own accord unless everyone is forced to pay more also, just to make it fair to you.
Vs.
I believe in Man Made Global Warming. I also believe that something should be done before the Earth turns into a fireball. I am willing to change my own personal habits but am unwilling to do so unless everyone is forced to do so too. Also, I believe that governments should sign international agreements calling for the reduction of greenhouse gases but unless EVERY NATION does it, I don’t think we should either. After all doing it on our own just would not do enough to help.
Good luck Cliff.
September 20th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Richard,
I’d like to respond to your hypothetical. How would like me to respond?
September 20th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Richard,
You definitely need to look up the meaning of anecdote. Pay particular attention to the context in which an anecdote is used.
Then reconsider what Cliff meant by ‘erroneous’ anecdote. You may also look up the word erroneous if that helps.
Cliff is VERY smart (and sexy) and doesn’t make mistakes like that. Sometimes he makes other mistakes like calling people harmless names when he should use stronger language especially with people who are more impressed with their cleverness than they should be.
September 20th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Hot braless wonder, you are easily impressed, are you a typical Salt Lake pig slut that Cliff so often refers too?
If you imagine him sexy and smart, this could be the only explanation. I mean his damn picture is on the site.
September 20th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
RO:
Why would one be a hypocrite were one of the options you propose chosen and not the other? Sorry, but I don’t see the hypocrisy in your hypothetical at all.
September 20th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Well, what a surprise Jimbo! That was earth shattering.
September 21st, 2008 at 6:09 am
Sorry JFarmer, this is an ongoing conversation that has crossed multiple threads.
You see, Cliff also gets very hot headed when people deny Man Made Global Warming. The problem Cliff has is simple; Cliff has made statements about taxes that adopt a do nothing unless everyone is forced to by government stance. I have simply injected his same reasoning into the Hypothetical statement on Global Warming. The reason Cliff has not responded to it, is because he knows that any response made towards the Hypothetical to protect his belief about Global Warming can now be made towards his do-nothing-unless forced philosophy. By discrediting one, he eventually discredits the other making himself a hypocrite which is something he hates more than anything because he believes all Republicans, especially religious ones are hypocrites.
Cliff is a crafty fellow though. I truly have expected by now for him to choose small section of my statement to attack in an effort to avoid confronting what even he knows to be a the main issue.
Cliff is particularly fond of this distraction technique and is why his 1st response was to call the hypothetical an “erroneous anecdote,” which if interpreted correctly means; a false tale about a true event that is likely humorous, Hot Bra. Perhaps Hot Bra, it would be better for you to read the definition of Oxymoron:
ox-y-mo-ron - a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in “cruel kindness” or “to make haste slowly.”
Say Hot Bra… I haven’t seen you around here much but you seem like a big fan of Cliff Lyon. You wouldn’t by chance be nothing more than an alternative personality that comes out when the meds run low, would ya?