Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   In what surely must be shocking news, an independent analysis of Romney's budget plan concludes that it would ...wait for it... eliminate jobs   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 109
    More: Fail, Mitt Romney, Joseph Stiglitz, Office of Management and Budget, Economic Policy Institute, block grants, United States Public Debt, Medicare and Medicaid, Capitol Hill  
•       •       •

1600 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Sep 2012 at 9:51 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



109 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-27 03:17:39 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Cataholic: cameroncrazy1984: Cataholic: monoski: Damn liberal math strikes again

It's the exact same math that said the stimulus would keep unemployment under 8%.

No, that math was done under the numbers for a bigger stimulus.

ORLY??

"We have assumed a package just slightly over the $775 billion currently under discussion."

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/The_Job_Impact_of_the_Ame r ican_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Plan.pdf

"The approximate cost of the economic stimulus package was estimated to be $787 billion at the time of passage, later revised to $831 billion between 2009 and 2019"

Link

It may come as a shock to you, but the text of the stimulus bill wasn't "Here's $787 billion. Spend wisely."

The CBO estimated - at the time the bill was under consideration - what the costs of the specific items mentioned in the bill were (again, not "$X billion for a mouse-fart study"; more like "an X% or $Y increase in program Z" or "not to exceed $A or B%" or "tax cuts for activities C-F", which are notoriously hard to estimate and made up 1/2 of the stim's costs) and added the estimates accordingly. Later, after some/much of the funds were disbursed/spent (and revenues relative to un-stimmed economy dropped as a result of those tax cuts), they calculated what it did actually cost.

Do you need someone to explain the difference between projecting costs into the future and auditing expenditures once they're made?

It's like the difference between estimating a military engagement would take "six days; six weeks...I doubt six months" and an actual military engagement that took 9 years. Or, as the Yogi once said: "In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is."


This could be the best non sequitur I've ever read on fark.

Me: They said the stimulus would keep unemployment under 8%
Him: They ran that calculation for a much bigger stimulus than actually happened.
Me: They assumed a $775 billion stimulus when they ran the calculation, it passed as a $787 billion stimulus, and actually turned out to be a $831 billion stimulus.
You: Why are you criticizing the stimulus for being $831 billion instead of $787 billion?

/insert picture of your favorite quizzical dog here.
 
2012-09-27 03:43:29 PM  

Cataholic: Me: They assumed projected a $775 billion stimulus when they ran the calculation, it passed as a projected $787 billion stimulus, and actually turned out to be a $831 billion stimulus.
You: Why are you criticizing the stimulus for being $831 billion instead of $787 billion?


Why do you hate projections and math?

They said, while the stimulus was being debated: "We project this combination of programs and tax cuts will cost $775B, based on baseline figures presented in the text of the bill and the assumptions made about growth and revenues."
They said, just after the stimulus passed: "Some of those baselines have changed, and based on new growth figures from the last quarter (which weren't available during the debate, because they take time to produce/revise - and because you can't calculate things that haven't happened yet, like a quarterly GDP growth for the quarter we're still in) and some other numbers, we're revising that estimate to $787B."
They said, after the stimulus passed and they had spent a large portion of the allocated funds: "Hmmm. Apparently, things are even worse than that. We've got more data, and it looks like (for example) the revenues we thought we'd get from these tax cuts isn't in line with projections, making them more expensive (relative to baseline). Or GDP didn't grow as quickly/robustly as we expected. Or GDP growth from the previous quarter was revised AGAIN, making our initial and revised projections a bit off. So we add the money we did spend together, compare it to projections, and - lookee that! - apparently, we made some pretty rosy projections. Turns out, the economic realities of the beginning of 2009 weren't very rosy."
You: WHAAAAAR gubmint can't do nuffin' right, and always spends too much!!

// same thing happened to Med Part D, the Iraq War, and a whole host of other plans and programs
// TARP, initially projected to be a big taxpayer loss, is now in the black
// apparently, reality is under no obligation to conform to projections
// go figure
 
2012-09-27 04:17:38 PM  

Cletus C.: Carn: Cletus C.: Carn: Cletus C.: fenianfark: Is this a surprise to anyone?

Cutting government spending leads to job losses. It's not like spending cuts happen in a vacuum.

More government spending, more jobs! The end game to that is "all government jobs." We'll need to come up with a name for that magical system.

We have a name for that, it's called Strawman.

Directly addressing the issue raised by the other person - government spending means jobs - by following it to its logical conclusion?

Strawman
Projection
Drink!
False equivalency
You sound tired
So, vote Republican?

Intellectual vapidness at its finest.

And this one's called ad hominem. Very good, what other forms of logical fallacy would you like to demonstrate for the class?

Farklibs shouldn't learn words.


Why shouldn't they? Everyone should look to expand their vocabulary, it's good for ya.

I'm a centrist in case you were wondering, although I can understand that from where you're sitting on the political spectrum, it's such a far distance to the center that it's hard to tell the difference between the center and the left, or anything that isn't reactionary right. In this instance, you reactionaries are hoping to change the world back to either A) the age of the robber barons, B) the dark ages (in terms of social issues), or C) a world that never existed.

Reactionary is the proper political term for what the GOP has become, and we need to start using it.
 
2012-09-27 05:16:11 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Cataholic: Me: They assumed projected a $775 billion stimulus when they ran the calculation, it passed as a projected $787 billion stimulus, and actually turned out to be a $831 billion stimulus.
You: Why are you criticizing the stimulus for being $831 billion instead of $787 billion?

Why do you hate projections and math?

They said, while the stimulus was being debated: "We project this combination of programs and tax cuts will cost $775B, based on baseline figures presented in the text of the bill and the assumptions made about growth and revenues."
They said, just after the stimulus passed: "Some of those baselines have changed, and based on new growth figures from the last quarter (which weren't available during the debate, because they take time to produce/revise - and because you can't calculate things that haven't happened yet, like a quarterly GDP growth for the quarter we're still in) and some other numbers, we're revising that estimate to $787B."
They said, after the stimulus passed and they had spent a large portion of the allocated funds: "Hmmm. Apparently, things are even worse than that. We've got more data, and it looks like (for example) the revenues we thought we'd get from these tax cuts isn't in line with projections, making them more expensive (relative to baseline). Or GDP didn't grow as quickly/robustly as we expected. Or GDP growth from the previous quarter was revised AGAIN, making our initial and revised projections a bit off. So we add the money we did spend together, compare it to projections, and - lookee that! - apparently, we made some pretty rosy projections. Turns out, the economic realities of the beginning of 2009 weren't very rosy."
You: WHAAAAAR gubmint can't do nuffin' right, and always spends too much!!

// same thing happened to Med Part D, the Iraq War, and a whole host of other plans and programs
// TARP, initially projected to be a big taxpayer loss, is now in the black
// apparently, reality is under no obligation to confo ...


"We have assumed a package just slightly over the $775 billion currently under discussion."

Do you even read? They didn't project how much it would cost. They projected what the unemployment rate would be based on the ASSUMPTION that it would cost a little more than $775 billion. That assumption was based purely on a multiplier of the spending contained within the stimulus. My response was to the claim (made by the poster I was quoting) of that projection being based on the assumption of a much bigger stimulus package than what was actually passed.

/no wonder you people are voting for Obama.
 
2012-09-27 05:27:44 PM  
Cataholic

The fact that the administration was ASSUMING what an unemployment rate WOULD look like IN THE FUTURE - regardless of what it's based on - should indicate that this is a PROJECTION.

Even if it's based on hope, it's a projection. The fact that it hadn't happened yet means it is by definition a projection. This is true of both the costs of the stimulus and the PROJECTED unemployment rate from that now-infamous graph. No matter how much stimulus Obama was calling for, there would have been a PROJECTION of the unemployment rate (again, we assume it was based on the data from the bill), and it would likely have been off the mark by at least a tenth percentage point or more. No matter what the unemployment rate was, is or would be with/without the stimulus, the PROJECTED costs of the stimulus would likely have changed as the bill moved from proposal to committee to full floor vote to law.

// I have no idea what you're arguing
// but I'm going home for the day
 
2012-09-27 05:28:08 PM  

Carn: Farklibs shouldn't learn words.

Why shouldn't they? Everyone should look to expand their vocabulary, it's good for ya.

I'm a centrist in case you were wondering, although I can understand that from where you're sitting on the political spectrum, it's such a far distance to the center that it's hard to tell the difference between the center and the left, or anything that isn't reactionary right. In this instance, you reactionaries are hoping to change the world back to either A) the age of the robber barons, B) the dark ages (in terms of social issues), or C) a world that never existed.

Reactionary is the proper political term for what the GOP has become, and we need to start using it.


I think you're also reading me wrong but OK then.
 
2012-09-27 08:00:02 PM  
Did anyone read the PDF from the think tank?

Obama's is an actual factual document with cool things like "numbers" and "summary tables" while Mitt's is just a general plan with no details so they have to interpret it as best they can.

So lay off Mitt for having a crappy plan and rail on him for having a second graders version of a plan instead.

Even third grades understand the concept of citing your research in your data.
 
2012-09-27 08:02:39 PM  

Cletus C.: I think you're also reading me wrong but OK then.


That's nobody's fault but your own.
 
2012-09-30 02:02:56 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: i.huffpost.com

"And then the doctor told me to bend over the table and..."




It must have been Dr. Proctor.

I keep getting the feeling that it may not make any difference who gets elected this time; either way, we may all wind up having to bend over the table. (Sigh)Might as well be prepared to assume the position.
Presidential campaigns can be so exhilarating and depressing at the same time.
 
Displayed 9 of 109 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report