The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community

The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/index.php)
-   War, Religion and Politics Thread (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   The Dangers of Denying Evidence (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=108165)

Rohirrim 10-22-2012 07:47 AM

The Dangers of Denying Evidence
 
The Romney economic team is treating evidence about this recession the same way they treat evidence about climate change - they're ignoring it. Worse yet, they're taking advice from Phil Gramm. Remember him? He's the guy who pushed through the repeal of Glass-Steagle, telling everybody that it would turn our economy into a dynamo and release the horses of capitalism. It sure did. Of course, he then bailed before the wreck and got a cushy job at UBS, one of the banks that prospered greatly from Gramm's shenanigans.

The main point, however, is that the Romney team is willfully, nakedly, distorting the record, leading Ms. Reinhart and Mr. Rogoff — who aren’t affiliated with either campaign — to protest against “gross misinterpretations of the facts.” And this should worry you.

Look, economics isn’t as much of a science as we’d like. But when there’s overwhelming evidence for an economic proposition — as there is for the proposition that financial-crisis recessions are different — we have the right to expect politicians and their advisers to respect that evidence. Otherwise, they’ll end up making policy based on fantasies rather than grappling with reality.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/op...ess.html?_r=1&

We're already living through the economic destruction created by decisions made based on fantasies. Just remember, when they talk about how their ideas will make huge amounts of profit, they're not talking about for you. They're talking about for themselves and their pals - the one percenters. For them, this economy is doing just fine, just as it is. All they have to do now is depress wages some more, get rid of the expensive safety net, kill the unions once and for all, and give themselves some nice, fat tax breaks.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN 10-22-2012 04:47 PM

Evidence has absolutely no place in the world of the right-wingnut - only ideology and brand loyalty.

DAN_BRONCO_FAN 10-22-2012 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN (Post 3704723)
Evidence has absolutely no place in the world of the right-wingnut - only ideology and brand loyalty.

YOU ARE SO RIGHT just like that lybian embassy attack it was started by a youtube video obama hilliary and rice said it was no terrorist attack none what so ever
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kklWr1CnAXs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
oops my bad it was a terrorist attack the intelligence agency said it was no wait it was outrage over a video obama said so :thumbsup:

Jetmeck 10-23-2012 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAN_BRONCO_FAN (Post 3704726)
YOU ARE SO RIGHT just like that lybian embassy attack it was started by a youtube video obama hilliary and rice said it was no terrorist attack none what so ever
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kklWr1CnAXs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
oops my bad it was a terrorist attack the intelligence agency said it was no wait it was outrage over a video obama said so :thumbsup:


So full of chit..............what part of that crazy part of the world over there do you think is so simplistic. There was no cover up.

Info given out exactly as gave to the white house.

Sad thnig is your party trying to make a political gain over people dying. Thats the real story.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN 10-23-2012 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetmeck (Post 3705103)
So full of chit..............what part of that crazy part of the world over there do you think is so simplistic. There was no cover up.

Info given out exactly as gave to the white house.

Sad thnig is your party trying to make a political gain over people dying. Thats the real story.

Yep.

Dan and the rest of the Romney sheep on this board are mirror images of their candidate when it comes to telling the truth.

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphot...40374197_n.jpg

DAN_BRONCO_FAN 10-23-2012 11:22 AM

and then theres the tax breaks for moving business over seas lies

DAN_BRONCO_FAN 10-23-2012 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetmeck (Post 3705103)
So full of chit..............what part of that crazy part of the world over there do you think is so simplistic. There was no cover up.

Info given out exactly as gave to the white house.

Sad thnig is your party trying to make a political gain over people dying. Thats the real story.

oh so it was started by a youtube video ok gotcha yup your right whatever makes your happy wappy cap lock boy

DAN_BRONCO_FAN 10-23-2012 11:52 AM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...jobs-overseas/

Pony Boy 10-23-2012 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetmeck (Post 3705103)
So full of chit..............what part of that crazy part of the world over there do you think is so simplistic. There was no cover up.

Info given out exactly as gave to the white house.
Sad thnig is your party trying to make a political gain over people dying. Thats the real story.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/dKGNQg4T3NE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

10-23-2012 04:17 PM

In other words every economist or climatologist that disagrees with the Obama team is "ignoring evidence."

Spare us.

10-23-2012 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetmeck (Post 3705103)
So full of chit..............what part of that crazy part of the world over there do you think is so simplistic. There was no cover up.

Info given out exactly as gave to the white house.

Sad thnig is your party trying to make a political gain over people dying. Thats the real story.

No coverup? Then you can answer these

1) Why did Washington not send more security to Benghazi when the staff requested it? Why did Obama not respond to this question when asked it in debate #2?

2) Why is Obama denying that it took a couple weeks for Washington to declare it a terrorist attack and not impromptu demonstration when all evidence (including threads here) says otherwise? We were watching people on the grounds of the US Embassy in Cairo waving hundreds of Al Qaeda flags while Washington was pointing fingers at a con man in California.

3) Why hasn't Washington responded to these attacks?

4) Why are Obama and his followers responding to these legitimate questions with false moral posturing about "politics" as if the American people don't have a right to know?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN 10-23-2012 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk (Post 3705632)

2) Why is Obama denying that it took a couple weeks for Washington to declare it a terrorist attack...

L0L! Ha!

Who are you gonna believe?

EpicDramaNyuk, or your lyin' eyes and ears every time you watch the video?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN 10-24-2012 05:08 PM

More evidence for ditto heads to deny...

Stock Market Does Better under Democrats than Republicans

While there has been a lot of talk about the economy this year--especially from Republicans--one key aspect has been underreported: the stock market. While Republicans act like they are better for the economy, as measured by the Dow Jones Industrials Average, that is not true. The market was down 2% yesterday, but is nevertheless up 64% since Obama was inaugurated. Let us consider how the DJIA has performed under the last two Democratic and last two Republican Presidents, that is, from Jan. 20, 1989 until today, as shown in this graph.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp201...-1989-2012.jpg

During the two Bush administrations, the Dow went up 41% and down 26%, respectively. Under Clinton and Obama, it went up 229% and 64%, respectively. These numbers represent annualized growth rates of 9%, 16%, -4%, and 14%, respectively. So measured by the Dow, Obama has not done quite as well as the go-go '90s under Clinton, but he is not far off.

To make these number clearer, suppose Mitt Romney had invested $10,000 in the stock market on the day George H.W. Bush was inaugurated (instead of betting it on something). On Clinton's first day in office imagine Romney sold his stocks, expecting a disaster from the Democrats. He would have had $14,100 in cash. Then when George W. Bush took over, imagine he bought a Dow index fund with his $14,100. When Obama took office, Romney would have had $10,434, a net profit of $434 for 12 years of investment.

Now suppose Barack Obama had sat out the Bush 41 years and put $10,000 into a Dow fund on Jan. 21, 1993. He could have sold it for $32,900 the day George W. Bush got the keys to the White House. If he had invested his $32,900 the day he took office himself, his holdings would be worth $53,950 now, a profit of $43,950 in almost the same 12 year period. While unemployment affects about 8% of the population, more than half of all Americans have an IRA, 401(k), or other retirement fund (or in some cases a pension invested in stocks) and they are a lot better off now than they were 4 years ago. But this fairly obvious economic fact gets surprisingly little attention.

baja 10-24-2012 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rohirrim (Post 3704321)
The Romney economic team is treating evidence about this recession the same way they treat evidence about climate change - they're ignoring it. Worse yet, they're taking advice from Phil Gramm. Remember him? He's the guy who pushed through the repeal of Glass-Steagle, telling everybody that it would turn our economy into a dynamo and release the horses of capitalism. It sure did. Of course, he then bailed before the wreck and got a cushy job at UBS, one of the banks that prospered greatly from Gramm's shenanigans.

The main point, however, is that the Romney team is willfully, nakedly, distorting the record, leading Ms. Reinhart and Mr. Rogoff — who aren’t affiliated with either campaign — to protest against “gross misinterpretations of the facts.” And this should worry you.

Look, economics isn’t as much of a science as we’d like. But when there’s overwhelming evidence for an economic proposition — as there is for the proposition that financial-crisis recessions are different — we have the right to expect politicians and their advisers to respect that evidence. Otherwise, they’ll end up making policy based on fantasies rather than grappling with reality.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/op...ess.html?_r=1&

We're already living through the economic destruction created by decisions made based on fantasies. Just remember, when they talk about how their ideas will make huge amounts of profit, they're not talking about for you. They're talking about for themselves and their pals - the one percenters. For them, this economy is doing just fine, just as it is. All they have to do now is depress wages some more, get rid of the expensive safety net, kill the unions once and for all, and give themselves some nice, fat tax breaks.

All in plain sight cocky basturds

L.A. BRONCOS FAN 10-24-2012 07:35 PM

http://www.bartcop.com/mitt-twist.jpg

El Minion 04-16-2013 12:57 PM

How an Excel error fueled panic over the federal debt

http://www.trbimg.com/img-516d8e69/t...130416-001/600
Rep. Paul D. Ryan ponders the federal budget. (J. Scott Applewhite / Associated Press)

By Michael Hiltzik
April 16, 2013, 11:23 a.m.

One of the most fearsome statistics in the war against the federal deficit has always been the country's ratio of debt to gross domestic product. When this ratio reaches 90%, the argument goes, watch out -- lower economic growth is on the horizon. And that's scary, because that's where the U.S. has been heading.

This idea comes from Harvard economists Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart, who featured it in a 2010 paper and popularized it in a book entitled "This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly."

Since then, the stat has been cited countless times, including by Rep. Paul D. Ryan in rationalizing the draconian spending cuts in his proposed budgets. Now it turns out the authors may have counted wrong.

A new study by three researchers at the University of Massachusetts finds that Rogoff and Reinhart made several mistakes that invalidate their thesis.

In their analysis of growth rates of 20 industrialized countries, including the U.S., from the postwar period through 2009, Rogoff and Reinhart excluded data for three countries that had both high debt-to-GDP and high economic growth, which contradicted their finding. They tweaked other figures in a way that minimized overall growth rates for some high debt/GDP countries.

Most important, they made a spreadsheet error that resulted in their leaving five countries out of an all-important average of countries with higher than 90% debt-to-GDP ratios. By restoring the full average, the UMass authors say, the growth rate for countries in that range becomes 2.2%, not the -0.1% cited by Rogoff and Reinhart. That makes the average growth rate at that ratio "not dramatically different than when debt/GDP ratios are lower."

Rogoff and Reinhart haven't yet responded to the UMass paper. But if the new analysis holds up, it knocks a key leg out from under the argument that our economic growth depends on cutting the deficit and reducing the national debt without delay.

One irony of the finding stems from the fact that the debt-to-GDP ratio always was something of a heffalump. As economist Robert Shiller pointed out in 2011, yoking the two statistics together doesn't necessarily tell you anything useful. Debt is measured in currency, he observed; GDP is measured in currency units per year. But there's "nothing special about using a year.... A year is the time that it takes for the Earth to orbit the sun, which, except for seasonal industries like agriculture, has no particular economic significance."

If GDP were conventionally measured not over a single year but over five years, or 10, the ratio would look much lower -- indeed, that ratio might make more sense, because debt typically comes due over the long term, not in a year.

The one-year juxtaposition, however, did make for a convenient rhetorical yardstick because it generated big numbers, and as we all know, extreme numbers are the devil's debating tools.

04-16-2013 12:58 PM

An old Romney thread which was crusty and irrelevant when it was first posted to begin with?

Bleh. Pass the No-Doz.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.