Where is the US economy headed?

@Builder,

Not gone; most have already seen it based on another a2k thread.

0 Replies

Did you ever go fishing?

0 Replies

Yet again we see CI getting chopped of at the knees, as he has been clear that Romney is much more economically delusional than is Obama.

Quote:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Economists think Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney would be better for the economy than President Obama. But they're not very enthusiastic about either of them.
Nine of 17 top economists surveyed by CNNMoney picked Romney when asked who's election would help the economy grow more. Only three picked Obama.
But the remaining five made no pick, with several suggesting neither would provide much of a lift to the sagging economy

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/30/news/economy/romney-obama-economists/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

OOPS!

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

So, your thinking is that 9 out of 17 "top" economists know how Romney will improve our economy when 100% of the people don't even know where Romney stands on anything. Your and those economists are crazy; do you know how many "top" economists are in this world? On top of all that, no republican president has ever outperformed a democrat to improve the lives of most Americans. That's a FACT, that you can shove up your arse.

Your approval of that article also shows you know very little about economics; "top" economists do not agree on most future performance of any economy.

BTW, how about naming those 17 "top" economists? I'd also like to see what they say about Romney vs Obama. Is that asking for too much?

NO economy is improved by giving more tax breaks to the wealthy. None.

Romney also promised to create 12-million jobs in four years. That goes to prove that those "top" economists are leaning republican, not facts.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

You need to also consider the following; very important to determine whether Obama has done his job or that congress is stopping any progress.

Quote:

03:30 PM ET
Share
Comments (237 comments)
Economists give the president and Congress a 'D' on the economy. How would you grade them?
By CNN's Jack Cafferty:

President Obama and Congress get a big fat "D" when it comes to their handling of the economy.

CNNMoney asked 20 economists to grade our leaders, and both the president and Congress received "D" averages.

It's hard to imagine any other profession where you could perform at this level and keep your job.

These experts say Congress is more interested in scoring political points than in helping the economy. They're also worried about the so-called fiscal cliff and the looming disaster if Congress can't get its act together.

But Congress doesn't seem too worried about any of this. Bloomberg news reports that congressional leaders may delay the $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts until March. These cuts are scheduled to start in January.

At the same time they might temporarily extend income tax cuts and other tax breaks.

In other words, kick the can down the road some more without making any serious choices. That "D" grade is looking a little generous.

Meanwhile, ordinary Americans continue to suffer under the weak economy.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

BTW, how about naming those 17 "top" economists?

they should have been named, but I dont see where CNN other than the five listed in the story.

Quote:

I'd also like to see what they say about Romney vs Obama. Is that asking for too much

that is what the link to the story was for.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

You wrote,

Quote:

they should have been named, but I dont see where CNN other than the five listed in the story.

So, it could have been more or less? LOL Why 17? There are literally thousands of "top" economists.

Didn't my response already answer those "top" economists? If not, please explain why?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

See if you comprehend the following from The Economist.

Quote:

8) Complicated economic policies whose rationale is hard to explain usually fail.
9) Some of the biggest, and most important, economic issues remain unresolved.
10) Just because professional economists don't always have a confident answer, it does not follow that all proffered solutions have equal validity. ...often the biggest contribution [they] ..can make is to demonstrate why the current fad or nostrum is wrong and will fail.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

From Examiner.com.

Quote:

Romney's economic plan explained

SEPTEMBER 26, 2012BY: ROBERT LEESubscribe

RomneyEconomic plan

Romney would lower everyone's taxes 20% lower than Bush.

Why it will fail: Every group that has seriously studied the budget says that we have to increase revenue somehow. You cannot fix the budget deficit through cuts alone.

Does this make sense to you, or are you with the 9 "top" economists?

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Hawkeye, it's clear that CI is the only person on this board who knows anything at all about macro economics.

Just follow his lead, and the nation will be well on its way to financial recovery. Drunk

There's a plethora of evidence out there to refute CI's fertile imagination, but we won't let that stand in the way of economic recovery.

1 Reply

@Builder,

You too are too stupid; why don't you address what I wrote rather than make ridiculous statements?

Bring it on~!

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

You don't ever acknowledge when you get proven to be wrong, CI.

Pompous pretentious and idiotic simpletons like you, pretending to be superior, deserve every bit of flak they get served. Get used to it, or start accepting the fact that you can't always be right when making assumptions based on one region (silicone valley, wasn't it?), rather than the whole nation.

Your research is crap, because you rarely find anything to back up your assumptions. Get over yourself.

1 Reply

@Builder,

Yes, I have. You just missed all those that I have been wrong and apologized for.

You are small minded; only know how to attack me rather than what I write.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I can be one of the most polite and understanding people you will ever encounter, CI, but I simply won't be tolerating condescension and arrogance, and you display both to the max.

Find somewhere else to play. Your input here is ineffective.

1 Reply

@Builder,

Says you; I'm one of the "old timers" on a2k who was invited here many years ago by the developer of this site.

If you learn how to discuss any topic intelligently by challenging what I say, you might grow up! Using ad hominems only proves you can't.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

The manner in which you discuss topics, ci, leaves us with only ad-homs to go at. "There's no cure for stupid" said about 50 million Republican voters is absolutely stupid.

1 Reply

@spendius,

You're wrong; I state my case with the information that's available to all. All one needs to do is challenge my opinion with other credible sources that I'm not able to challenge. Saying there are 9 out of 17 "top economists" that agrees on any issue belongs on the laffer curve. Ask any Economics Professor.

How does one determine "top economists?" Whose definition are they using?

Challenge what I say; then we have something to talk about.

4 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Try Andrew Carnegie's essays concerning taxing the rich more.

He observed there that a foundation like the Cooper Institute, or Tilden's bequest for a public library in New York, or Enoch Pratt's gift for a similar purpose in Baltimore, promoted more happiness than would the same amount scattered as a few dollars per capita in those cities, and probably wasted in the indulgence of appetite.

There is an argument that wealth in the hands of a few is more beneficial to mankind than dividing it up among the masses. It is an argument that can't be answered by "there's no cure for stupid".

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

BTW ci, that Einstein quote you used as a sig. for a long time about the infinity of stupidity was not original. A French guy called Renan had said it 100 years before Einstein was born.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Those generalizations are useless in a world where there are no general tendencies of the wealthy. What I see more today than during my growing up years are the greed of the CEO's and officers of companies vs sharing of the profit with all the workers. That trend has been on-going for several decades.

You are blind to the realities. Most middle class and poor have lost purchasing power just on inflation. There is no such thing as the "redistribution of wealth." When all participate as equals, everybody benefits.

1 Reply

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know