• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 23:57
CEST 05:57
KST 12:57
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202552RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams9Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension4
StarCraft 2
General
The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing RSL Season 1 - Final Week
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2) Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava
Brood War
General
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams BW General Discussion [Update] ShieldBattery: 2025 Redesign BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Ginuda's JaeDong Interview Series
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET
Strategy
Does 1 second matter in StarCraft? [G] Mineral Boosting Simple Questions, Simple Answers
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Post Pic of your Favorite Food! Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Games Industry And ATVI
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 578 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 202

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 200 201 202 203 204 10093 Next
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.

In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!

NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious.
Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
April 17 2013 21:15 GMT
#4021
On April 17 2013 21:21 BallinWitStalin wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 17 2013 19:12 DeepElemBlues wrote:
The Keynes defenders don't seem interested in the second half of Keynes - bringing deficits down and creating surpluses when the economy is good again. Deficits seem to matter very little either now or in the future to anyone but the Republicans. And even most Republicans just envision getting the deficit under control some time ten or fifteen years from now, and the deficits being smaller during that period under their plan as opposed to Obama's and future Democratic plans. I don't think that's very radical when it comes to cutting spending.

I just want to get, at least, deficits under $100 billion by 2025, and getting surpluses so we can actually pay down - not huge amounts, but just doing it - some of the principle on our debt. That would send a very powerful message to the rest of the world, economically and geopolitically, that the US is building a foundation of financial strength in its government as well as its economy. A US government in that fiscal position is just as important to the well-being of America as an economy that is operating without debt stockpiling up.


I am all for budget surpluses in boom years. There's definitely something to be said for living within your fiscal means and paying down debt. If individuals shouldn't take on debt they can't handle, governments shouldn't either.

Don't most "keynesians" argue that one of the main problems with this boom/bust cycle is that in the last boom, America was running massive deficits when surpluses were easily achievable?

I would also just like to point out that the party you percieve as "caring" about deficits had control of the government during that boom cycle, and eroded the surpluses in place created by the party that "doesn't care"...

In hindsight I think that would be a fair complaint. Same goes for monetary policy being too loose for too long.

'In the moment' striking the right balance is quite a bit harder. Back then the economic recovery wasn't seen as very robust ('jobless recovery' and low wage growth) and a lot of spending (the war bits) was seen as temporary. When you take that into account the deficits weren't anything out of the ordinary.

I'm sure a few years from now we'll wish we did some things differently. Such is life.
DeepElemBlues
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States5079 Posts
April 17 2013 21:16 GMT
#4022
On April 18 2013 03:01 HunterX11 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 17 2013 19:12 DeepElemBlues wrote:
The Keynes defenders don't seem interested in the second half of Keynes - bringing deficits down and creating surpluses when the economy is good again. Deficits seem to matter very little either now or in the future to anyone but the Republicans. And even most Republicans just envision getting the deficit under control some time ten or fifteen years from now, and the deficits being smaller during that period under their plan as opposed to Obama's and future Democratic plans. I don't think that's very radical when it comes to cutting spending.

I just want to get, at least, deficits under $100 billion by 2025, and getting surpluses so we can actually pay down - not huge amounts, but just doing it - some of the principle on our debt. That would send a very powerful message to the rest of the world, economically and geopolitically, that the US is building a foundation of financial strength in its government as well as its economy. A US government in that fiscal position is just as important to the well-being of America as an economy that is operating without debt stockpiling up.


I guess we just need another Republican president like Bill Clinton then


Congress controls the purse strings, even for snark this is stupid. Bill Clinton's surplus: GOP Congress. George Bush deficits: GOP Congress first, Democrat Congress last two years. Obama deficits: Democratic Congress, then split Congress.
no place i'd rather be than the satellite of love
Roe
Profile Blog Joined June 2010
Canada6002 Posts
April 17 2013 21:49 GMT
#4023
On April 18 2013 06:16 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 18 2013 03:01 HunterX11 wrote:
On April 17 2013 19:12 DeepElemBlues wrote:
The Keynes defenders don't seem interested in the second half of Keynes - bringing deficits down and creating surpluses when the economy is good again. Deficits seem to matter very little either now or in the future to anyone but the Republicans. And even most Republicans just envision getting the deficit under control some time ten or fifteen years from now, and the deficits being smaller during that period under their plan as opposed to Obama's and future Democratic plans. I don't think that's very radical when it comes to cutting spending.

I just want to get, at least, deficits under $100 billion by 2025, and getting surpluses so we can actually pay down - not huge amounts, but just doing it - some of the principle on our debt. That would send a very powerful message to the rest of the world, economically and geopolitically, that the US is building a foundation of financial strength in its government as well as its economy. A US government in that fiscal position is just as important to the well-being of America as an economy that is operating without debt stockpiling up.


I guess we just need another Republican president like Bill Clinton then


Congress controls the purse strings, even for snark this is stupid. Bill Clinton's surplus: GOP Congress. George Bush deficits: GOP Congress first, Democrat Congress last two years. Obama deficits: Democratic Congress, then split Congress.


I'm reading up on some of the tax increases (1993), and supposedly every GOP voted against this particular bill I'm looking at:
Ultimately every Republican in Congress voted against the bill, as did a number of Democrats. Vice President Al Gore broke a tie in the Senate on both the Senate bill and the conference report. The House bill passed 219-213 on Thursday, May 27, 1993.[1] The House passed the conference report on Thursday, August 5, 1993, by a vote of 218 to 216 (217 Democrats and 1 independent (Sanders (I-VT)) voting in favor; 41 Democrats and 175 Republicans voting against).[2] The Senate passed the conference report on the last day before their month's vacation, on Friday, August 6, 1993, by a vote of 51 to 50 (50 Democrats plus Vice President Gore voting in favor, 6 Democrats (Lautenberg (D-NJ), Bryan (D-NV), Nunn (D-GA), Johnston (D-LA), Boren (D-OK), and Shelby (D-AL) now (R-AL)) and 44 Republicans voting against). President Clinton signed the bill on August 10, 1993.


Not sure what you make of that
DeepElemBlues
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States5079 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-04-17 21:57:08
April 17 2013 21:55 GMT
#4024
On April 18 2013 06:49 Roe wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 18 2013 06:16 DeepElemBlues wrote:
On April 18 2013 03:01 HunterX11 wrote:
On April 17 2013 19:12 DeepElemBlues wrote:
The Keynes defenders don't seem interested in the second half of Keynes - bringing deficits down and creating surpluses when the economy is good again. Deficits seem to matter very little either now or in the future to anyone but the Republicans. And even most Republicans just envision getting the deficit under control some time ten or fifteen years from now, and the deficits being smaller during that period under their plan as opposed to Obama's and future Democratic plans. I don't think that's very radical when it comes to cutting spending.

I just want to get, at least, deficits under $100 billion by 2025, and getting surpluses so we can actually pay down - not huge amounts, but just doing it - some of the principle on our debt. That would send a very powerful message to the rest of the world, economically and geopolitically, that the US is building a foundation of financial strength in its government as well as its economy. A US government in that fiscal position is just as important to the well-being of America as an economy that is operating without debt stockpiling up.


I guess we just need another Republican president like Bill Clinton then


Congress controls the purse strings, even for snark this is stupid. Bill Clinton's surplus: GOP Congress. George Bush deficits: GOP Congress first, Democrat Congress last two years. Obama deficits: Democratic Congress, then split Congress.


I'm reading up on some of the tax increases (1993), and supposedly every GOP voted against this particular bill I'm looking at:
Show nested quote +
Ultimately every Republican in Congress voted against the bill, as did a number of Democrats. Vice President Al Gore broke a tie in the Senate on both the Senate bill and the conference report. The House bill passed 219-213 on Thursday, May 27, 1993.[1] The House passed the conference report on Thursday, August 5, 1993, by a vote of 218 to 216 (217 Democrats and 1 independent (Sanders (I-VT)) voting in favor; 41 Democrats and 175 Republicans voting against).[2] The Senate passed the conference report on the last day before their month's vacation, on Friday, August 6, 1993, by a vote of 51 to 50 (50 Democrats plus Vice President Gore voting in favor, 6 Democrats (Lautenberg (D-NJ), Bryan (D-NV), Nunn (D-GA), Johnston (D-LA), Boren (D-OK), and Shelby (D-AL) now (R-AL)) and 44 Republicans voting against). President Clinton signed the bill on August 10, 1993.


Not sure what you make of that


You'll find arguments from every angle that the 1993 tax increases slowed down the economy, or did nothing, or were responsible for the surpluses. But how many years passed in between 1993 and the time we got a surplus? 5 or 6 years? Who was in charge of Congress during that time period?

See for example here's a right-wing perspective that the Clinton tax increase slowed the economy down and the 1997 GOP tax cuts (that Clinton did sign into law, give him credit for that) got the economy really revving.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/03/tax-cuts-not-the-clinton-tax-hike-produced-the-1990s-boom

And I'm sure there are plenty of people who will tell you that is just dead wrong and give out statistics and logic of their own to prove why.

What I make of it is that you very blatantly cherry-picked something and you should be embarrassed.
no place i'd rather be than the satellite of love
Roe
Profile Blog Joined June 2010
Canada6002 Posts
April 17 2013 21:58 GMT
#4025
On April 18 2013 06:55 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 18 2013 06:49 Roe wrote:
On April 18 2013 06:16 DeepElemBlues wrote:
On April 18 2013 03:01 HunterX11 wrote:
On April 17 2013 19:12 DeepElemBlues wrote:
The Keynes defenders don't seem interested in the second half of Keynes - bringing deficits down and creating surpluses when the economy is good again. Deficits seem to matter very little either now or in the future to anyone but the Republicans. And even most Republicans just envision getting the deficit under control some time ten or fifteen years from now, and the deficits being smaller during that period under their plan as opposed to Obama's and future Democratic plans. I don't think that's very radical when it comes to cutting spending.

I just want to get, at least, deficits under $100 billion by 2025, and getting surpluses so we can actually pay down - not huge amounts, but just doing it - some of the principle on our debt. That would send a very powerful message to the rest of the world, economically and geopolitically, that the US is building a foundation of financial strength in its government as well as its economy. A US government in that fiscal position is just as important to the well-being of America as an economy that is operating without debt stockpiling up.


I guess we just need another Republican president like Bill Clinton then


Congress controls the purse strings, even for snark this is stupid. Bill Clinton's surplus: GOP Congress. George Bush deficits: GOP Congress first, Democrat Congress last two years. Obama deficits: Democratic Congress, then split Congress.


I'm reading up on some of the tax increases (1993), and supposedly every GOP voted against this particular bill I'm looking at:
Ultimately every Republican in Congress voted against the bill, as did a number of Democrats. Vice President Al Gore broke a tie in the Senate on both the Senate bill and the conference report. The House bill passed 219-213 on Thursday, May 27, 1993.[1] The House passed the conference report on Thursday, August 5, 1993, by a vote of 218 to 216 (217 Democrats and 1 independent (Sanders (I-VT)) voting in favor; 41 Democrats and 175 Republicans voting against).[2] The Senate passed the conference report on the last day before their month's vacation, on Friday, August 6, 1993, by a vote of 51 to 50 (50 Democrats plus Vice President Gore voting in favor, 6 Democrats (Lautenberg (D-NJ), Bryan (D-NV), Nunn (D-GA), Johnston (D-LA), Boren (D-OK), and Shelby (D-AL) now (R-AL)) and 44 Republicans voting against). President Clinton signed the bill on August 10, 1993.


Not sure what you make of that


You'll find arguments from every angle that the 1993 tax increases slowed down the economy, or did nothing, or were responsible for the surpluses. But how many years passed in between 1993 and the time we got a surplus? 5 or 6 years? Who was in charge of Congress during that time period?

See for example here's a right-wing perspective that the Clinton tax increase slowed the economy down and the 1997 GOP tax cuts (that Clinton did sign into law, give him credit for that) got the economy really revving.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/03/tax-cuts-not-the-clinton-tax-hike-produced-the-1990s-boom

And I'm sure there are plenty of people who will tell you that is just dead wrong and give out statistics and logic of their own to prove why.

What I make of it is that you very blatantly cherry-picked something and you should be embarrassed.


Embarrassed about what? I ran with your assumption.
HunterX11
Profile Joined March 2009
United States1048 Posts
April 18 2013 04:02 GMT
#4026
On April 18 2013 05:38 Sermokala wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 18 2013 01:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
You know the government is broken when it's elected leaders are to afraid to pass something the 10% decry whereas the 90% support. In this case background checks.

You keep saying this like its going to change but its not. "backgound checks" being supported doesn't mean anything and you know it. Stop acting like everyone agrees on what "background checks" are.


We already have background checks for buying guns retail. The idea is not to let people buy guns without those background checks at all.
Try using both Irradiate and Defensive Matrix on an Overlord. It looks pretty neat.
oneofthem
Profile Blog Joined November 2005
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-04-18 04:50:50
April 18 2013 04:38 GMT
#4027
idk which statement is more silly, tax cuts made the 90's, or tax raises made the 90's.

tax cuts by nature are politicized, but the personal income tax's relationship with economic decisions is indirect for most people, except small proprietors and the like.
We have fed the heart on fantasies, the heart's grown brutal from the fare, more substance in our enmities than in our love
DeepElemBlues
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States5079 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-04-18 07:23:50
April 18 2013 07:17 GMT
#4028
On April 18 2013 06:58 Roe wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 18 2013 06:55 DeepElemBlues wrote:
On April 18 2013 06:49 Roe wrote:
On April 18 2013 06:16 DeepElemBlues wrote:
On April 18 2013 03:01 HunterX11 wrote:
On April 17 2013 19:12 DeepElemBlues wrote:
The Keynes defenders don't seem interested in the second half of Keynes - bringing deficits down and creating surpluses when the economy is good again. Deficits seem to matter very little either now or in the future to anyone but the Republicans. And even most Republicans just envision getting the deficit under control some time ten or fifteen years from now, and the deficits being smaller during that period under their plan as opposed to Obama's and future Democratic plans. I don't think that's very radical when it comes to cutting spending.

I just want to get, at least, deficits under $100 billion by 2025, and getting surpluses so we can actually pay down - not huge amounts, but just doing it - some of the principle on our debt. That would send a very powerful message to the rest of the world, economically and geopolitically, that the US is building a foundation of financial strength in its government as well as its economy. A US government in that fiscal position is just as important to the well-being of America as an economy that is operating without debt stockpiling up.


I guess we just need another Republican president like Bill Clinton then


Congress controls the purse strings, even for snark this is stupid. Bill Clinton's surplus: GOP Congress. George Bush deficits: GOP Congress first, Democrat Congress last two years. Obama deficits: Democratic Congress, then split Congress.


I'm reading up on some of the tax increases (1993), and supposedly every GOP voted against this particular bill I'm looking at:
Ultimately every Republican in Congress voted against the bill, as did a number of Democrats. Vice President Al Gore broke a tie in the Senate on both the Senate bill and the conference report. The House bill passed 219-213 on Thursday, May 27, 1993.[1] The House passed the conference report on Thursday, August 5, 1993, by a vote of 218 to 216 (217 Democrats and 1 independent (Sanders (I-VT)) voting in favor; 41 Democrats and 175 Republicans voting against).[2] The Senate passed the conference report on the last day before their month's vacation, on Friday, August 6, 1993, by a vote of 51 to 50 (50 Democrats plus Vice President Gore voting in favor, 6 Democrats (Lautenberg (D-NJ), Bryan (D-NV), Nunn (D-GA), Johnston (D-LA), Boren (D-OK), and Shelby (D-AL) now (R-AL)) and 44 Republicans voting against). President Clinton signed the bill on August 10, 1993.


Not sure what you make of that


You'll find arguments from every angle that the 1993 tax increases slowed down the economy, or did nothing, or were responsible for the surpluses. But how many years passed in between 1993 and the time we got a surplus? 5 or 6 years? Who was in charge of Congress during that time period?

See for example here's a right-wing perspective that the Clinton tax increase slowed the economy down and the 1997 GOP tax cuts (that Clinton did sign into law, give him credit for that) got the economy really revving.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/03/tax-cuts-not-the-clinton-tax-hike-produced-the-1990s-boom

And I'm sure there are plenty of people who will tell you that is just dead wrong and give out statistics and logic of their own to prove why.

What I make of it is that you very blatantly cherry-picked something and you should be embarrassed.


Embarrassed about what? I ran with your assumption.


Which was? I really don't know what you think it is, please tell me.

As for the rest of this post, it is not about arguments for and against gun control, it is about the politics of the issue and the political events involved, of course I'm talking about the failure today in the Senate of all gun-control bills and amendments offered by Senators of both parties.

The response from people like Mayor Bloomberg and President Obama has been nothing short of a declaration of war on the gun issue. They are announcing, more than a year ahead, that this will be a main front on the midterm battlefield.

I think this is a bad mistake by the Democratic Party. They just tried to use guns as a wedge issue against Republicans, in order to get 60 votes today, and they failed. Why do they think that escalating this is going to give a different result next time? Obama acknowledged it. The pro-gun side is better organized, more passionate, and has greater stamina. That's not going to change. The rest was just Obama being a bully, as usual. Calling people liars and using strawmen to suggest that Republicans don't want the Sandy Hook families to have a voice. Republicans are saying that 50 people, no matter how horrifying what happened to their poor little children, should not have the dominant voice on something that will effect 300 million people. And those families are being used as props. Willing props, but props nonetheless.

We saw the real Obama today. The bully who, when he loses, shows his cowardly nature and goes and runs to the teacher. The teacher being the media in this analogy. He tells the teacher how bad the victims of his bullying are, and the teacher willingly lets all the kids, the public, know. He's also an incredible narcissist, and that also caused his ragedump today.

The hubris of the Left blinded them, and today they got bit in the butt for it. Too often, liberals here at TL and everywhere seem to possess the preconception, sometimes willfully and sometimes unconsciously, that Obama won, the conservative side of this country is toast or at least so weakened that we can just ignore half the country and shove down its throat whatever we want. Obama won 51-48 over Romney. Bush won 51-48 over Kerry, and guess who was one of the people that said Bush had no mandate? Barack Obama. The Left in this country has overextended itself. 60 million people voted for Romney. Did the Democrats really think they could just run roughshod over them and their representatives in Congress because they won? Advancing your agenda is one thing, advancing an agenda you know the other party can't accept in order to whine to the media about obstructionism is another. Those 60 million still matter, they didn't just disappear. Republicans aren't just going to roll over for Obama and abandon all the people who voted for them.

Guns are an issue Democrats are not going to win on at the ballot box. Not in red or purple states. And Obamacare is coming next year. If it turns out to suck, Democratic hopes about keeping the Senate and regaining the House - which they've publicly said is basically the only way they can get anything done, an appeal to the base if there ever was one - will turn out to have been just fantasies.

Barack hasn't lost his groove just yet, but he's had a catch in the rhythm. It is just a bad mistake to escalate on guns, and if public disapproval of Obamacare doesn't drop, his second term will be The Return of Dubya: Second Term Suckfest for the Party Running 1600 Penn.
no place i'd rather be than the satellite of love
paralleluniverse
Profile Joined July 2010
4065 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-04-18 09:57:40
April 18 2013 09:56 GMT
#4029
And the Reinhart-Rogoff blow-up continues...

From the authors paper showing RR's errors: Austerity after Reinhart and Rogoff.

Some very interesting econometric analysis of the new results suggesting that reverse causality (i.e. low growth causes high debt, and not the other way around): Guest Post: Reinhart/Rogoff and Growth in a Time Before Debt.

From the NYT: With Debt Study’s Errors Confirmed, Debate on Conclusion Goes On

From the New Yorker: The Crumbling Case for Austerity Economics

From Paul Krugman: Reinhart-Rogoff, Continued

And my favorite one, Dean Baker's response to RR's response: Quick Thoughts on Reinhart and Rogoff's Response

On one hand, shit happens and I feel sorry for them that that a simple coding error has led to this. But on the other hand, this "study" has been widely cited by people like Paul Ryan and European officials to pursue austerity, and RR haven't helped by reaffirming their work in public statements, suggesting that 90% debt to GDP is a tipping point for slow growth.

Watching this massive screw up unraveling sure is fun.
radiatoren
Profile Blog Joined March 2010
Denmark1907 Posts
April 18 2013 11:25 GMT
#4030
On April 18 2013 18:56 paralleluniverse wrote:
And the Reinhart-Rogoff blow-up continues...

From the authors paper showing RR's errors: Austerity after Reinhart and Rogoff.

Some very interesting econometric analysis of the new results suggesting that reverse causality (i.e. low growth causes high debt, and not the other way around): Guest Post: Reinhart/Rogoff and Growth in a Time Before Debt.

From the NYT: With Debt Study’s Errors Confirmed, Debate on Conclusion Goes On

From the New Yorker: The Crumbling Case for Austerity Economics

From Paul Krugman: Reinhart-Rogoff, Continued

And my favorite one, Dean Baker's response to RR's response: Quick Thoughts on Reinhart and Rogoff's Response

On one hand, shit happens and I feel sorry for them that that a simple coding error has led to this. But on the other hand, this "study" has been widely cited by people like Paul Ryan and European officials to pursue austerity, and RR haven't helped by reaffirming their work in public statements, suggesting that 90% debt to GDP is a tipping point for slow growth.

Watching this massive screw up unraveling sure is fun.

On the europe-part: One of the primary reasons for austerity measures getting implemented is to streamline the economies and kick some of the unsustainable/unwanted, yet popular, grants out. It has come to a point where some politicians want to draw heartblood now and even Merkel seems to have accepted that there is a limit when it comes to starving economies...
Repeat before me
ahswtini
Profile Blog Joined June 2008
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-04-18 11:43:53
April 18 2013 11:42 GMT
#4031
On April 18 2013 01:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
You know the government is broken when it's elected leaders are to afraid to pass something the 10% decry whereas the 90% support. In this case background checks.

Are you seriously swallowing that 90% rubbish they keep spewing out? They can't even seem to agree on the number. It was 92% a few weeks ago. I could create a poll that says 90% of people are against background checks. A lot of people honestly believe (through the media) that there are no background checks at all. You will find that the more people know about gun laws and how guns work, the less likely they are to support more controls.

"As I've said, balance isn't about strategies or counters, it's about probability and statistics." - paralleluniverse
Velr
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
Switzerland10699 Posts
April 18 2013 11:46 GMT
#4032
Oh really? People that like guns (and therefore are interested in stuff about them) tend to be against gun control?

You should get a Nobelprice for this outstanding comment...
ahswtini
Profile Blog Joined June 2008
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-04-18 11:55:08
April 18 2013 11:50 GMT
#4033
Good point, it's an awful idea to let people who are actually knowledgable about guns pass laws about them.

Is it so much to ask that people who try to legislate against guns are actually informed and knowledgable about them???
"As I've said, balance isn't about strategies or counters, it's about probability and statistics." - paralleluniverse
paralleluniverse
Profile Joined July 2010
4065 Posts
April 18 2013 12:24 GMT
#4034
On April 18 2013 20:42 ahswtini wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 18 2013 01:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
You know the government is broken when it's elected leaders are to afraid to pass something the 10% decry whereas the 90% support. In this case background checks.

Are you seriously swallowing that 90% rubbish they keep spewing out? They can't even seem to agree on the number. It was 92% a few weeks ago. I could create a poll that says 90% of people are against background checks. A lot of people honestly believe (through the media) that there are no background checks at all. You will find that the more people know about gun laws and how guns work, the less likely they are to support more controls.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuvCTZ9XtrM#!

Quinnipiac Poll
"Do you support or oppose - requiring background checks for all gun buyers?"
91% support
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes--centers/polling-institute/search-releases/search-results/release-detail?ReleaseID=1877&What=&strArea=;&strTime=3

Washintgon Post-ABC Poll
"Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online?"
86% support
http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/04/16/National-Politics/Polling/release_226.xml

These are not loaded questions. They are not misleading questions. The question was NOT "do you support background checks on everyone to reduce gun violence?". These questions are about as straight, plain and unbiased as you can get,
ahswtini
Profile Blog Joined June 2008
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
April 18 2013 12:28 GMT
#4035
Yes they are. Ask those same people if they know that there are already background checks on people buying at gun shows or online.
"As I've said, balance isn't about strategies or counters, it's about probability and statistics." - paralleluniverse
aksfjh
Profile Joined November 2010
United States4853 Posts
April 18 2013 12:31 GMT
#4036
On April 18 2013 21:28 ahswtini wrote:
Yes they are. Ask those same people if they know that there are already background checks on people buying at gun shows or online.

Only for federally licensed retailers.
paralleluniverse
Profile Joined July 2010
4065 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-04-18 12:34:59
April 18 2013 12:32 GMT
#4037
On April 18 2013 21:28 ahswtini wrote:
Yes they are. Ask those same people if they know that there are already background checks on people buying at gun shows or online.

No there aren't. The amendment voted down today was for background checks at guns shows and online.

Get with the news.

Wednesday's key vote came as the Senate rejected a plan by Manchin and Sen. Patrick Toomey, R-Pa., to extend background checks — now required for transactions involving gun dealers — to sales at gun shows and online.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/background-checks-gun-buyers-win-more-backing-081148614--politics.html
ahswtini
Profile Blog Joined June 2008
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
April 18 2013 12:34 GMT
#4038
According to the same source as where they pull the "40% of gun sales do not go through a background check", only about 16% in reality actually bought or traded a gun without a background check. Department of Justice survey of convicts found that only 1.7% of crime guns were sourced from gun shows/flea markets.
"As I've said, balance isn't about strategies or counters, it's about probability and statistics." - paralleluniverse
paralleluniverse
Profile Joined July 2010
4065 Posts
April 18 2013 12:35 GMT
#4039
On April 18 2013 21:34 ahswtini wrote:
According to the same source as where they pull the "40% of gun sales do not go through a background check", only about 16% in reality actually bought or traded a gun without a background check. Department of Justice survey of convicts found that only 1.7% of crime guns were sourced from gun shows/flea markets.

You're changing the subject.
paralleluniverse
Profile Joined July 2010
4065 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-04-18 12:37:53
April 18 2013 12:37 GMT
#4040
More on the RR: http://news.yahoo.com/student-took-eminent-economists-debt-issue-won-095347790--business.html

Thomas Herndon is actually a student. That's interesting.
Prev 1 200 201 202 203 204 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 7h 4m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nina 236
RuFF_SC2 161
Livibee 65
StarCraft: Brood War
Nal_rA 1372
Sharp 325
Zeus 189
HiyA 135
Sexy 77
NaDa 72
Icarus 6
Britney 0
League of Legends
JimRising 763
Counter-Strike
Coldzera 312
Super Smash Bros
hungrybox538
Other Games
summit1g12143
shahzam865
ViBE238
Organizations
StarCraft: Brood War
UltimateBattle 38
Other Games
BasetradeTV14
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Hupsaiya 103
• davetesta35
• practicex 26
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Lourlo777
• Stunt346
Upcoming Events
Esports World Cup
7h 4m
Serral vs Cure
Solar vs Classic
OSC
10h 4m
CranKy Ducklings
1d 6h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 10h
CSO Cup
1d 12h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 14h
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
[ Show More ]
Online Event
4 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
5 days
The PondCast
6 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.