The Man is an idiot

[BDKJMU]

Let's see some donk try to defend this.
http://nation.foxnews.com/joe-biden/201 ... on-tax-cut" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Biden actually thinks Romney is trying to give a tax cut to 120k families that is 30x larger than the entire national debt. What a moron.

[SuperHornet]

I already see the libs response:

Fox News? That's just conk "talking points." I'll take a pass.

Stupid thing is that they think it's OK to use donk "talking points," but GOP usage of "talking points" is a sign that they don't know how to think.

***elitist prigs***

[kalm]

Especially considering the real numbers don't add up in Romney's favor.

WASHINGTON — A small nonpartisan research center operated by professed “geeks” has found itself at the center of a rancorous $5 trillion debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney.
Enlarge This Image

Daniel Rosenbaum for The New York Times
Donald Marron, the Tax Policy Center’s director, contends that the nonprofit group provides reliable, nonpartisan information.
No white paper or policy manifesto put out during the presidential campaign has proved more controversial than an August study by the Washington-based Tax Policy Center, a respected nonprofit that issues studiously detailed tax analyses.

That study found, in short, that Mr. Romney could not keep all of the promises he had made on individual tax reform: including cutting marginal tax rates by 20 percent, keeping protections for investment income, not widening the deficit and not increasing the tax burden on the poor or middle class. It concluded that Mr. Romney’s plan, on its face, would cut taxes for rich families and raise them for everyone else.

The detailed paper proved kindling for a political firestorm. Mr. Romney criticized the center as performing a “garbage-in, garbage-out” analysis and his campaign accused it of partisan bias. The Obama campaign used the center’s numbers to argue that Mr. Romney had proposed a $5 trillion tax cut. Economists jumped on the bandwagon too, flinging analyses back and forth and picking apart the projections and assumptions in the report.

At the Tax Policy Center itself, responses ranged from irritation at the partisan nature of some attacks to incredulity over the political hysteria. “There was this résumé-hunting, White-House-visitor-log” searching feel to the response, said the center’s director, Donald Marron, a former Bush administration economist. “That was unanticipated,” he added dryly.
Many economists across the political spectrum have said they found the report’s conclusions convincing, like Alan D. Viard, a tax expert at the right-of-center American Enterprise Institute.

Mr. Sullivan of Tax Analysts said: “I like tax reform. I want to broaden the base. It’s something I’ve devoted my life to. And I welcome Governor Romney and the Republicans’ strong push, but the plan doesn’t work out. It’s not mathematically possible.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/busin ... .html?_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Baldy]

Especially considering the real numbers don't add up in Romney's favor.

WASHINGTON — A small nonpartisan research center operated by professed “geeks” has found itself at the center of a rancorous $5 trillion debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney.
Enlarge This Image

Daniel Rosenbaum for The New York Times
Donald Marron, the Tax Policy Center’s director, contends that the nonprofit group provides reliable, nonpartisan information.
No white paper or policy manifesto put out during the presidential campaign has proved more controversial than an August study by the Washington-based Tax Policy Center, a respected nonprofit that issues studiously detailed tax analyses.

That study found, in short, that Mr. Romney could not keep all of the promises he had made on individual tax reform: including cutting marginal tax rates by 20 percent, keeping protections for investment income, not widening the deficit and not increasing the tax burden on the poor or middle class. It concluded that Mr. Romney’s plan, on its face, would cut taxes for rich families and raise them for everyone else.

The detailed paper proved kindling for a political firestorm. Mr. Romney criticized the center as performing a “garbage-in, garbage-out” analysis and his campaign accused it of partisan bias. The Obama campaign used the center’s numbers to argue that Mr. Romney had proposed a $5 trillion tax cut. Economists jumped on the bandwagon too, flinging analyses back and forth and picking apart the projections and assumptions in the report.

At the Tax Policy Center itself, responses ranged from irritation at the partisan nature of some attacks to incredulity over the political hysteria. “There was this résumé-hunting, White-House-visitor-log” searching feel to the response, said the center’s director, Donald Marron, a former Bush administration economist. “That was unanticipated,” he added dryly.
Many economists across the political spectrum have said they found the report’s conclusions convincing, like Alan D. Viard, a tax expert at the right-of-center American Enterprise Institute.

Mr. Sullivan of Tax Analysts said: “I like tax reform. I want to broaden the base. It’s something I’ve devoted my life to. And I welcome Governor Romney and the Republicans’ strong push, but the plan doesn’t work out. It’s not mathematically possible.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/busin ... .html?_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Please.

The Tax Policy Center is a joint venture between the Brookings Institute (left leaning) and the Urban Institute (extreme far left-wing). They may claim to be "non-partisan", but there is no doubt to their bias.

[kalm]

Especially considering the real numbers don't add up in Romney's favor.



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/busin ... .html?_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Please.

The Tax Policy Center is a joint venture between the Brookings Institute (left leaning) and the Urban Institute (extreme far left-wing). They may claim to be "non-partisan", but there is no doubt to their bias.

That's why their analyst quoted in the article came from the Bush administration, and a fellow from the AEI is agreeing with it.

[Baldy]

Please.

The Tax Policy Center is a joint venture between the Brookings Institute (left leaning) and the Urban Institute (extreme far left-wing). They may claim to be "non-partisan", but there is no doubt to their bias.

That's why their analyst quoted in the article came from the Bush administration, and a fellow from the AEI is agreeing with it.

So?

The analyst quoted also came from the Obama administration, too. Your point?

The guy from the AEI worked in the Bush White House too, but that doesn't mean anything, either. Those are staff positions. I promise you there are people working in Obama's administration just like this guy.
The AEI might be right of center, but they have people from all along the political spectrum working there.

[kalm]

That's why their analyst quoted in the article came from the Bush administration, and a fellow from the AEI is agreeing with it.

So?

The analyst quoted also came from the Obama administration, too. Your point?

The guy from the AEI worked in the Bush White House too, but that doesn't mean anything, either. Those are staff positions. I promise you there are people working in Obama's administration just like this guy.
The AEI might be right of center, but they have people from all along the political spectrum working there.

Government Service
Marron was a member of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers in 2008 and 2009. Earlier, he was the deputy director (2005–2007) and acting director (2006) of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
Marron’s White House experience includes stints as a senior economic adviser and consultant to the Council of Economic Advisers (2007–08) and as its chief economist (2004–05). He was with Congress’s Joint Economic Committee from 2002 to 2004, first as the Senate minority’s principal economist and later as the committee’s executive director and chief economist.[1]
Before his government service, Marron was chief financial officer of a medical software start-up in Austin, Texas and a principal with the Washington, D.C., office of Charles River Associates, where he provided business consulting and litigation support to companies in a variety of industries.
He is also President of Marron Economics, LLC, through which he does consulting and public speaking.
Marron served as a member of the Debt Reduction Task Force at the Bipartisan Policy Center.[2]

Cry bias all you want, I'm going to go with the M.I.T. dude.

[Baldy]

So?

The analyst quoted also came from the Obama administration, too. Your point?

The guy from the AEI worked in the Bush White House too, but that doesn't mean anything, either. Those are staff positions. I promise you there are people working in Obama's administration just like this guy.
The AEI might be right of center, but they have people from all along the political spectrum working there.

Government Service
Marron was a member of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers in 2008 and 2009. Earlier, he was the deputy director (2005–2007) and acting director (2006) of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
Marron’s White House experience includes stints as a senior economic adviser and consultant to the Council of Economic Advisers (2007–08) and as its chief economist (2004–05). He was with Congress’s Joint Economic Committee from 2002 to 2004, first as the Senate minority’s principal economist and later as the committee’s executive director and chief economist.[1]
Before his government service, Marron was chief financial officer of a medical software start-up in Austin, Texas and a principal with the Washington, D.C., office of Charles River Associates, where he provided business consulting and litigation support to companies in a variety of industries.
He is also President of Marron Economics, LLC, through which he does consulting and public speaking.
Marron served as a member of the Debt Reduction Task Force at the Bipartisan Policy Center.[2]

Cry bias all you want, I'm going to go with the M.I.T. dude.

Nothing wrong with that, I'll just take it from the guy from Moody's and Penn and and the guy from Princeton.

It sounds like a very big number — 12 million jobs — especially coming out of a deep recession followed by three years of what many have described as lackluster job growth.

But it's not as ambitious as it sounds.

"The 12 million jobs has been my forecast for quite some time," says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics.

Zandi is in the economic forecasting business, and he expects the economy to add an average of 3 million jobs a year over the next four years, which would total 12 million jobs.

Zandi adds that he doesn't know who will win the presidency. And for the purposes of this projection, it doesn't much matter.

"Cold hard facts. Politics completely aside. I'm just doing the numbers," says Zandi. "I feel confident that we're going to create 12 million jobs over the next four years and we're going to feel a lot better about this economy, regardless of who is president."

What makes him so confident? A lot of modeling and a deep dive into industry-level economic data. In particular, he expects the housing market to finally break out of the deep freeze it's been in since the financial crisis hit.

"The housing cycle's going to kick into gear. A lot more homes are going to be built, office buildings, retail space. House prices are going to rise," says Zandi. "That's going to lift consumer spending and retailing and leisure and hospitality, and this is going to create a lot of jobs."

Zandi isn't the only one predicting robust job growth. Joel Prakken, senior managing director of Macroeconomic Advisers, forecasts 11 million jobs added over the next president's term.

"That is not based on anyone's particular set of economic policies," Prakken adds.

When he first heard Romney's 12 million jobs claim, Prakken says he scurried to his calculator. And what he found was Romney's campaign promise fit well with broad economic trends.

"It's not a projection that's incredible. It's just that it might happen anyway," Prakken says.

Romney economic adviser John Taylor takes this and other similar forecasts as validation that the candidate has set a realistic goal.

"It's a solid estimate. It's a robust estimate. It's something that can be done with the right policies," Taylor says.

Taylor, a professor at Stanford, and three other prominent conservative economists wrote a white paper making the case for Romney's economic plan. The argument in short — this economic recovery has been weaker than those in the past because of Obama's policies. For his part, Obama isn't setting many specific economic goals for his second term, though he has said he'd create a million manufacturing jobs.

Taylor says a Romney presidency — with his plan for economic growth — would lead to a more typical recovery.

[kalm]

Cry bias all you want, I'm going to go with the M.I.T. dude.

Nothing wrong with that, I'll just take it from the guy from Moody's and Penn and and the guy from Princeton.

It sounds like a very big number — 12 million jobs — especially coming out of a deep recession followed by three years of what many have described as lackluster job growth.

But it's not as ambitious as it sounds.

"The 12 million jobs has been my forecast for quite some time," says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics.

Zandi is in the economic forecasting business, and he expects the economy to add an average of 3 million jobs a year over the next four years, which would total 12 million jobs.

Zandi adds that he doesn't know who will win the presidency. And for the purposes of this projection, it doesn't much matter.

"Cold hard facts. Politics completely aside. I'm just doing the numbers," says Zandi. "I feel confident that we're going to create 12 million jobs over the next four years and we're going to feel a lot better about this economy, regardless of who is president."

What makes him so confident? A lot of modeling and a deep dive into industry-level economic data. In particular, he expects the housing market to finally break out of the deep freeze it's been in since the financial crisis hit.

"The housing cycle's going to kick into gear. A lot more homes are going to be built, office buildings, retail space. House prices are going to rise," says Zandi. "That's going to lift consumer spending and retailing and leisure and hospitality, and this is going to create a lot of jobs."

Zandi isn't the only one predicting robust job growth. Joel Prakken, senior managing director of Macroeconomic Advisers, forecasts 11 million jobs added over the next president's term.

"That is not based on anyone's particular set of economic policies," Prakken adds.

When he first heard Romney's 12 million jobs claim, Prakken says he scurried to his calculator. And what he found was Romney's campaign promise fit well with broad economic trends.

"It's not a projection that's incredible. It's just that it might happen anyway," Prakken says.

Romney economic adviser John Taylor takes this and other similar forecasts as validation that the candidate has set a realistic goal.

"It's a solid estimate. It's a robust estimate. It's something that can be done with the right policies," Taylor says.

Taylor, a professor at Stanford, and three other prominent conservative economists wrote a white paper making the case for Romney's economic plan. The argument in short — this economic recovery has been weaker than those in the past because of Obama's policies. For his part, Obama isn't setting many specific economic goals for his second term, though he has said he'd create a million manufacturing jobs.

Taylor says a Romney presidency — with his plan for economic growth — would lead to a more typical recovery.

[dbackjon]

Yes, Romney is an idiot.

[Baldy]

Nothing wrong with that, I'll just take it from the guy from Moody's and Penn and and the guy from Princeton.

Quoting the NY Times presenting a study from a far left wing think tank as a credible source.

[kalm]

Quoting the NY Times presenting a study from a far left wing think tank as a credible source.

It's far left now!

[BlueHen86]

I already see the libs response:

Fox News? That's just conk "talking points." I'll take a pass.

Stupid thing is that they think it's OK to use donk "talking points," but GOP usage of "talking points" is a sign that they don't know how to think.

***elitist prigs***

Don't worry. I doubt if anyone will try and discredit the source. We don't do that sort of thing here.

[Baldy]

Quoting the NY Times presenting a study from a far left wing think tank as a credible source.

It's far left now!

Now?

[Chizzang]

It's far left now!

Now?

The NY Times news paper is owned by "NY Times Company"
and is part of a group of News Papers - it's mostly liberal

[JohnStOnge]

The "allegation" by the Obama campaign is discussed among other claims by both sides at this "FactCheck.org" page:

http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-de ... larations/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm not sure about "FactCheck.org." But it does seem to offer criticisms of both sides.

Here is an analysis that does not appear on the surface to be overtly partisan:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Let’s review again the math of Mitt Romney’s proposed tax cuts to show why — contrary to the rhetoric from President Obama’s campaign — they do not amount to a $5 trillion tax cut for the rich. We all understand that campaigns involve self-serving exaggerations, simplifications and partial truths. But if politics is to retain any integrity, a line must be drawn at statements and innuendoes that are demonstrably false.

Look, I realize that both sides distort things and engage in outright falsehoods during campaigns. That's why I don't think any of us should think that's remarkable or let it affect our decisions. The things they predict they're going to do are wild guesses. Look at the overall world view of each side and make your decision on that basis. If you make your decision based on the specifics they spout you're making your decision based on bad information.

[kalm]

Now?

The NY Times news paper is owned by "NY Times Company"
and is part of a group of News Papers - it's mostly liberal

I was referring to the think tank.

[kalm]

The "allegation" by the Obama campaign is discussed among other claims by both sides at this "FactCheck.org" page:

http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-de ... larations/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm not sure about "FactCheck.org." But it does seem to offer criticisms of both sides.

Here is an analysis that does not appear on the surface to be overtly partisan:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Let’s review again the math of Mitt Romney’s proposed tax cuts to show why — contrary to the rhetoric from President Obama’s campaign — they do not amount to a $5 trillion tax cut for the rich. We all understand that campaigns involve self-serving exaggerations, simplifications and partial truths. But if politics is to retain any integrity, a line must be drawn at statements and innuendoes that are demonstrably false.

Look, I realize that both sides distort things and engage in outright falsehoods during campaigns. That's why I don't think any of us should think that's remarkable or let it affect our decisions. The things they predict they're going to do are wild guesses. Look at the overall world view of each side and make your decision on that basis. If you make your decision based on the specifics they spout you're making your decision based on bad information.

Or in Mitt's case "overall world(s) view."

hint: He thinks there's more than one.

[houndawg]

The "allegation" by the Obama campaign is discussed among other claims by both sides at this "FactCheck.org" page:

http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-de ... larations/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm not sure about "FactCheck.org." But it does seem to offer criticisms of both sides.

Here is an analysis that does not appear on the surface to be overtly partisan:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Let’s review again the math of Mitt Romney’s proposed tax cuts to show why — contrary to the rhetoric from President Obama’s campaign — they do not amount to a $5 trillion tax cut for the rich. We all understand that campaigns involve self-serving exaggerations, simplifications and partial truths. But if politics is to retain any integrity, a line must be drawn at statements and innuendoes that are demonstrably false.

Look, I realize that both sides distort things and engage in outright falsehoods during campaigns. That's why I don't think any of us should think that's remarkable or let it affect our decisions. The things they predict they're going to do are wild guesses. Look at the overall world view of each side and make your decision on that basis. If you make your decision based on the specifics they spout you're making your decision based on bad information.

That line has been drawn for 30 years, John. Its what this election is about.

[JohnStOnge]

You know, one thing I think would be interesting would be to pick some people who are considered top economists for validation experiment. Have them all predict what's going to happen over the next five years or so. Maybe 10 years. Establish some metrics to measure how well they do. Then see how their predictions compare with reality.

Kind of different but kind of related: I think somebody should do a report on Congressional Budget Office projections and how they ended up comparing with reality. I suspect the record wouldn't be very good at all. Yet when a CBO report comes out everybody acts like it's some kind of authoritative source or something. Like the CBO saying something means it must be true when in reality, I suspect, it hardly ever is.

EDIT: I should've known there is plenty on the CBO thing. Here is an example:

research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/12/01/21-40Kliesen.pdf

I think Figure 6 is a good one. Unfortunately I can't reproduce it here but you can go to the document, look at it and read the description. I can quote the description and here it is:

Figure 6 shows that the 5-year cumulative projections are highly inaccurate: The average absolute projection error is 2.65 percent of GDP. Moreover, most observations lie below the 45-degree line (20 of the 30 observations are below the line), indicating a strong bias in underprojecting the deficit (overprojecting the surplus).

If you look at the figure and consider that complete accuracy would mean the points representing the actual deficits and surpluses would fall on the 45 degree line referenced you will get the impression that the CBO projections are little better than wild guesses.

[JohnStOnge]

Below is a good one from http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-k ... e_wer.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . The author makes a bunch of excuses for the CBO. But still. How on Earth can we think of what CBO economists say is validated in the face of stuff like this.

[Chizzang]

Below is a good one from http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-k ... e_wer.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . The author makes a bunch of excuses for the CBO. But still. How on Earth can we think of what CBO economists say is validated in the face of stuff like this.

From the same article John....
"But more important, the CBO in 2000 did not know that we were going to invade and occupy two foreign countries. They did not know two major tax cuts representing trillions in lost revenue would be passed. They did not know Medicare would start covering prescription drugs. They definitely did not know that the financial sector would collapse in upon itself, leading to a dramatic drop in revenues and necessitating trillions in spending to fuel a recovery."

[kalm]

Below is a good one from http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-k ... e_wer.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . The author makes a bunch of excuses for the CBO. But still. How on Earth can we think of what CBO economists say is validated in the face of stuff like this.

From the same article John....
"But more important, the CBO in 2000 did not know that we were going to invade and occupy two foreign countries. They did not know two major tax cuts representing trillions in lost revenue would be passed. They did not know Medicare would start covering prescription drugs. They definitely did not know that the financial sector would collapse in upon itself, leading to a dramatic drop in revenues and necessitating trillions in spending to fuel a recovery."

Yeah, that's pretty much it in a nut shell. Conks...they suck at even recent history.