Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (103651)	2/9/2009 7:06:24 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 541994

One of my main arguments with the Obama team is though, to me, they are acting like they have some kind of mandate to change the basic social safety net WITHOUT DEBATING IT. Ouch!. You should back that up. So far as I've read the House version, their version made provisions to take care of the expected growth in the need for unemployment insurance and health care. So that's not changing the contract; simply trying to take care of the increase already there (state's are having a hard time on these scores already) and throwing a chip or two in the direction of the expected increase in unemployment. So what's new in this bill? What creates some new feature of the welfare state? See, you can do this stuff without using all caps.

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (103651)	2/9/2009 8:53:57 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 541994

<<<I don't think it is possible to really understand what economists are basing there conclusions on without doing some economic course work--and then the light will probably only begin to shine if one has some facility with statistical equations>>> In some ways I agree with you. Under the strictist interpretation of your assertion there was no way that Ronald Reagan had any understanding of supply side economics. I doubt Ronald Reagan ever did course work in economics, had any facility with statistcal equations, and/or ever had hands on computer or spread sheet experience. I would venture to guess that George H W Bush and George W Bush would fall into the same category. Only George H W Bush had some degree of honesty when he called Reaganomics Voodoo economics. But I digress. Nevertheless Reagan developed Reaganomics. That is what I think most republicans understand of economics and are promoting as their parties economic policy. Ronald Reagan has proven that you do not need any understanding of economics to develop economic policies that economists can embrace. <<<As to this very interesting piece of Krugman's you posted, I don't think of this as much as an economic piece, but as a political opinion by someone who is an economist. It is a policy argument. It goes to the heart of what one thinks the role of government is and should be. Reasonable minds can differ on that question.>>> I agree with everything you say here but I think you will get vast argument as to what constitute "reasonable minds". <<<One of my main arguments with the Obama team is though, to me, they are acting like they have some kind of mandate to change the basic social safety net WITHOUT DEBATING IT>>> Here I would disagree with you. I think the Obama team is fully willing to reach across the aisle to debate or discuss the rationale for their stimulus program. I just don't think republican legislators are up to the task. John Boehner has publicly asked, on his website, for economists to step forward and help support repubican economic policies.