400 Independent Economists Support Romney's Plan

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
how many of these economists drive bmw's ?

how many are on food stamps ?

migfht as well say trump likes the plan, lol


The Smart economists drive Fords (turned down bailout) and would never touch a GM product. I'm sure a few do drive BMW's. BMW operates a successful business. Good minds think alike.

Funny how you equate economists to Trump. You clearly don't know any economists.


Look up the definition of Frugal....




posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   
and how many economists are out there ? every school in the country must churn out a few hundred every year

so 400 is actually a paltry number



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
and how many economists are out there ? every school in the country must churn out a few hundred every year

so 400 is actually a paltry number


M'kay.

Where's the thousands that support Obama's plan?



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
and how many economists are out there ? every school in the country must churn out a few hundred every year

so 400 is actually a paltry number


M'kay.

Where's the thousands that support Obama's plan?


They are currently running away from the Obama Plan. It's a Train Wreck.

As they are running away, they briefly glance back to watch it go over the cliff.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer


Where's the thousands that support Obama's plan?


What plan? I haven't heard about it.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


Obama doesn't even have 25%



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nite_wing

Originally posted by beezzer


Where's the thousands that support Obama's plan?


What plan? I haven't heard about it.


Obamas Plan : Spend - Baby - Spend and kick the can down the road

It's also Distract : Divide : Deceive.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Happy1
 

I've added a link to my thread with the stats on the Presidents to my signature which helps in this specific case because I really disagree on Clinton. At worst, he did no harm...and things improved only a little over 8 years. In the better categories, he did quite well and GDP is certainly one example.

As much as it would make me happy to say Clinton was a crappy President, it just isn't true in economics or in the standards I learned they use to set the 'ratings' on such things. He was vane, personally corrupt and morally repugnant...but then, show me someone who reached the level of President in the last several decades who wasn't, outside Eisenhower. The war hero status of a 5 Star General got him that one. lol


This article does a pretty good job of explaining what happened in Clinton's second term regarding the debt. Saying Clinton reduced the debt is somewhat misleading.

Bill Clinton says his administration paid down the debt



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   
You're all missing the point guys, housing prices in the basket of goods for the CPI (Consumer Price Index) was replaced by owners' equivalent of rent in 1983. In essence, when house prices rose up in the late 1990s and early 2000s, it did not inflate the CPI. If you calculated Clinton's Economy in pre-1983 terms, what you get is really high prices, relative to home ownership (American Dream). Add Global Trade to this and you get an artificially "vibrant economy."

From Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org...
The hidden change in prices of housingIn January 1983 housing prices were replaced with owners' equivalent of rent because rents are more stable. [3] Because house prices rose and fell more than rents during the housing bubble and crash, housing's effects on inflation and deflation are not reflected in the CPI.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
I wonder how they currently calculate "Unemployment Data?" Anybody?



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by RELDDIR
You're all missing the point guys, housing prices in the basket of goods for the CPI (Consumer Price Index) was replaced by owners' equivalent of rent in 1983. In essence, when house prices rose up in the late 1990s and early 2000s, it did not inflate the CPI. If you calculated Clinton's Economy in pre-1983 terms, what you get is really high prices, relative to home ownership (American Dream). Add Global Trade to this and you get an artificially "vibrant economy."

From Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org...
The hidden change in prices of housingIn January 1983 housing prices were replaced with owners' equivalent of rent because rents are more stable. [3] Because house prices rose and fell more than rents during the housing bubble and crash, housing's effects on inflation and deflation are not reflected in the CPI.



Does this mean you support Romneys Plan ?



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by RELDDIR
I wonder how they currently calculate "Unemployment Data?" Anybody?


They conveniently ignore all Americans who have dropped out of the work force.

The 8.3% unemployment rate is bogus.

According to government data, if the same people were seeking work today as in

2007 then the unemployment rate would be 11%.

- They have been cooking the books. -



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


LOL, If not ROMNEY, then who?



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Guys, I won't do all the homework all the time, but could anyone here calculate today's Current "Unemployment Rate" in pre-recession terms? My bet is that it is not that low.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Bilk22
 
In making the thread on the Presidents and working on a couple more right now, I've become familiar with the numbers at a level I never was when saying people who described Clinton's budgets as surplus were wrong.

Did Clinton reduce the National Debt? Absolutely not..... He ultimate added to it during his first years. By the last years though, he had run ANNUAL budgets into surplus numbers.

It'd be funny if it weren't serious in terms of debating factual numbers.... Funny because until I went at the latest projects with an open mind...I've been among Clinton's most vocal critics for his whole 8 years.... Now by pure fact of math and numbers, I must admit that just isn't accurate if I'm going to be intellectually honest on things.

....It's only misleading if people assume it's talking about National Debt not Budget Deficit.

*It's also probably important to note that when getting stats on a President..in my case anyway... I'm not even reading the President's OWN material (Exception is their libraries which has ALL their raw data) OR what opponents said or thought. I hunt down the indexes and the databases holding the base numbers...where who the numbers are being searched about is irrelevant to what the data says. .....You'd be amazed at how much of the week or so I put into the president thread was nothing but finding, dumping and bypassing bias self serving....or bias attack data disguised to look like raw factual results.
It's maddening.
edit on 18-8-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: Added last and trimmed another comment



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


All the numbers crunching data goes into a "SPECIFIC" formula. This "OFFICIAL" formula always changes over time to generate the most revenue for the government. "LOWER" unemployment data, means less benefits for those struggling. I wish the RON PAUL people saw this point along time ago, we had been sheeples all along. LOL
edit on 18-8-2012 by RELDDIR because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Bilk22
 

The numbers are what they are..... Clinton absolutely did run to surpluses and I was among those right in the front of the pack calling 'liar!! Untrue!' to those who said that very thing...until recently.

In making the thread on the Presidents and working on a couple more right now, I've become familiar with the numbers at a level I never was when saying people who described Clinton's budgets as surplus were wrong.

Did Clinton reduce the National Debt? Absolutely not..... He ultimate added to it during his first years. By the last years though, he had run ANNUAL budgets into surplus numbers.

It'd be funny if it weren't serious in terms of debating factual numbers.... Funny because until I went at the latest projects with an open mind...I've been among Clinton's most vocal critics for his whole 8 years.... Now by pure fact of math and numbers, I must admit that just isn't accurate if I'm going to be intellectually honest on things.

....It's only misleading if people assume it's talking about National Debt not Budget Deficit.


Yes, always spell it out.

USA National Debt $ 16 Trillion

USA National Deficit this year -- About $1.2 Trillion

----------
BTW, Paul Ryan hit a Grand Slam home run today !

He is explaining MediCare with his mom standing right next to him.

He looks like John Boy from the Waltons.

He does not look like an evil extremist.




posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


I don't care what he looks like, I am sure he can do better than Biden. LOL



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by RELDDIR
Guys, I won't do all the homework all the time, but could anyone here calculate today's Current "Unemployment Rate" in pre-recession terms? My bet is that it is not that low.


Look up U6. That should tell you how many people aren't working without all the "qualified" explanations.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 
Agreed... Ultimately and in the end, your point is the only point that matters, isn't it? 16 trillion....and the rosey 2013 budget spreadsheets from the White House have 20 trillion as the debt by 2017.... Game Over comes to mind as appropriate wording and particularly so when 20 trillion in negative numbers is just on one screen in one block of data. Summaries....which they'd be thrilled if people read, felt they learned everything and went on without opening more.. err... Yeah..

Paul Ryan doesn't look evil to me...and given what I absolutely know the current guy has planned and has deemed acceptable to plan FOR us in terms of fiscal train wrecks on-going, heck.... He doesn't look that bad at all. Why, I can even see his mother is human and not a Grey or Reptilian.





top topics
 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join