- Joined
- Jan 2, 2006
- Messages
- 28,186
- Reaction score
- 14,274
- Location
- Boca
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I am confused. Largely because I am a simple guy, and when we get in to the weeds, I need to be helped along a bit, sorry for that.
Part of the problem in this, and it isn't necessarily a current administration invention, or problem, but part of the problem is that many of these indices have been manipulated over time to make each concurring administration look better, and have cover for real numbers not being favorable...So, maybe it is just me, but I am highly skeptical of anything at this point.
Understandable (and my apologies as well). However, i believe you would achieve better understanding if you were to view things in an objective manner as you do below.
You have to keep in mind that these updated calculations are put in place to improve accuracy. In the case of including input costs that produce intellectual property, measuring of output is that much more accurate.
No, it did not. Not even close. Day to day revenue barely covers mandatory spending items. Discretionary spending would have to get axed almost entirely. This includes:
-Roughly 90% of the DOD budget. Yes, we'd have to cut 90% of our military spending.
-NASA. All of it.
-Air Traffic Control
-The EPA
-Veterans affairs
And so on. None of these programs would function.
Well, you are not in a position to offer such expertise; it's subjective conjecture on your part.
The recession did hit! No need to regulate private mortgage securitization.
On a related note, take a look at the CBO predictions for the next 11 years:
2012
Mandatory - $2,031b
Discretionary - $1,285b
Net Interest - $220b
2023
Mandatory - $3,617b (+78%)
Discretionary - $1,415b (+10%)
Net Interest - $823b (+274%)
They have US deficit in 2013 running about $850 billion, but their assumption is that discretionary spending will only grow at 1% annually rate. So anyone hear believe that congress will only grow discretionary spending by 1% annually? Yeah, me either. One this is for sure, that debt is going to kill us.
Just as a questions of curiosity though, what gives you such confidence that the measures we are talking about are put in there for accuracy? Couldn't they just as easily be manipulated for other reasons?
You mean, ITS MY OPINION. Duh.
Changes in the calculation process emerge in the academic setting which is dictated by the empirical research regarding said calculations. It would be fairly easy to identify manipulation for the sake of political gain.
Which does not carry any support other than your partisan position.
What party would that be?
Again, your opinion carries little weight because it lacks support and a valid econometric underpinning. Therefore, it is taken with a grain of salt.
Maybe for you it is easy, but for people like me, I just glaze over, and get lost...And I think that is what most do, that don't understand it on your level...but thanks for tryin' at least...
Ditto?
If you cannot support your opinion, what good is it to push it onto others?
Not for me. Do you actually think right-wing economists like Gary Becker or Robert Lucas would sit idle if the research teams at the BLS or BEA were even suspected of manipulating data?
Show me where the Senate agreed to the House budget.
Reid would not even let it come to the floor for a vote.
Are you going to discuss the topic or me?
Stop the policy riders!!
Why did Boehner have to pull his own Farm bill and Transportation bill??
Why was Boehner unable to get a CR out of his own caucus ?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?