Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm still wondering where the OP got those numbers from, especially on only .7 trillion of the $3.7 trillion going to the top 2%. I'm willing to listen here, but those numbers were provided with no context or analysis, and I haven't been able to find it myself on a quick google search.
Krugman is an odd character. From the perspectives in his textbooks, you'd think he was a centerist, but when he goes on TV networks he sounds like a strongly left of center liberal.
Yes, but it's his lies that are so pitiful. The man is truly dishonest. And the strange thing about it is that he doesn't need to be dishonest. He's not a politician, and gets paid to write a column. Maybe that's it... he lies to create controversy and sell newspapers.
Google "Krugman lies" and you will get a lot of hits.
FDR could have learned a lesson from Harding and Coolidge, before Hoover started spending.
1920 was a depression, that was pulled out of in less than 18 months.
How and what did Harding do and Coolidge keep going, to make that happen?
Roaring 20's?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,381,135 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcopolo
The latest from Krugman parrots the party line on the Bush tax cuts: "The bulk of the cuts went to a small, affluent minority."
Yet we know that the cost of extending the Bush cuts in 2010 was $3.7 trillion in total, and only $0.7 trillion was for the hated top 2%. In any universe, 0.7 is not the "bulk" of 3.7.
Can an economist be this bad at arithmetic? Or can we finally all agree that this man is more of a liar than an economist?
Which brought on an unprecedented surge in federal spending on war materials and equipment. That, coupled with a huge government jobs program (the draft) shook off the depression.
Hamilton College led by public policy professor P. Gary Wyckoff has analyzed the predictions of 26 prognosticators between September 2007 and December 2008. Their findings? Anyone can make as accurate a prediction as most of them if just by flipping a coin.
Their research paper, “Are Talking Heads Blowing Hot Air? An Analysis of the Accuracy of Forecasts in the Political Media” will be presented via webcast on Monday, May 2, at 4:15 p.m., at Hamilton College - Pundit - Executive Summary. The paper will also be available at that address at that time. Questions during the presentation can be posed via Twitter using #hcpundit.
The Hamilton students sampled the predictions of 26 individuals who wrote columns in major print media and who appeared on the three major Sunday news shows – Face the Nation, Meet the Press, and This Week – and evaluated the accuracy of 472 predictions made during the 16-month period. They used a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being “will not happen, 5 being “will absolutely happen”) to rate the accuracy of each, and then divided them into three categories: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.
The students found that only nine of the prognosticators they studied could predict more accurately than a coin flip. Two were significantly less accurate, and the remaining 14 were not statistically any better or worse than a coin flip.
The top prognosticators – led by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman – scored above five points and were labeled “Good,” while those scoring between zero and five were “Bad.” Anyone scoring less than zero (which was possible because prognosticators lost points for inaccurate predictions) were put into “The Ugly” category. Syndicated columnist Cal Thomas came up short and scored the lowest of the 26.
Even when the students eliminated political predictions and looked only at predictions for the economy and social issues, they found that liberals still do better than conservatives at prediction. After Krugman, the most accurate pundits were Maureen Dowd of The New York Times, former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi – all Democrats and/or liberals. Also landing in the “Good” category, however, were conservative columnists Kathleen Parker and David Brooks, along with Bush Administration Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. Left-leaning columnist Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post rounded out the “good” list.
Those scoring lowest – “The Ugly” – with negative tallies were conservative columnist Cal Thomas; U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC); U.S. Senator Carl Levin (D-MI); U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman, a McCain supporter and Democrat-turned-Independent from Connecticut; Sam Donaldson of ABC; and conservative columnist George Will.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
ding ding ding!
