HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Who are these "130 econom...

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 08:36 PM

 

Who are these "130 economists" that endorse how Bernie pays for his proposals?

I have been looking for this list since he made the claim in the SC Townhall. I have concluded he told a big whopper. These "130 economists and healthcare experts" do not seem to exist. Please do not trot out the list that endorse his Wall street reform proposal. That has nothing to do with what he was asked.

Here is what Bernie said:

"CUOMO: Alright, in terms of what you want to provide, then you get to the wealth, will that be enough? Will that pay for it?

As you're aware, four former chairs of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, all appointed by Democrats, by the way. Say there's no credible economic research that supports the positive impacts that you're touting. One of them goes as far to say that it's like magic flying puppies with winning lotto tickets tied to their collars.

SANDERS: Those economists were organized by the Clinton campaign. It's a wild and crazy guess.

CUOMO: No, that's not true, they weren't...

SANDERS: ... We have well over a hundred, it's a 130 economists, and healthcare experts who will say the same."


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1602/23/se.01.html

NB: Here are the liberal leaning economists that say Bernie is full of it that Cuomo is referring to: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/us/politics/left-leaning-economists-question-cost-of-bernie-sanderss-plans.html?_r=0

111 replies, 12575 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 111 replies Author Time Post
Reply Who are these "130 economists" that endorse how Bernie pays for his proposals? (Original post)
MaggieD Mar 2016 OP
catnhatnh Mar 2016 #1
MaggieD Mar 2016 #2
wobble Mar 2016 #43
pdsimdars Mar 2016 #73
MaggieD Mar 2016 #3
kristopher Mar 2016 #89
NurseJackie Mar 2016 #4
MaggieD Mar 2016 #5
kristopher Mar 2016 #90
Motown_Johnny Mar 2016 #6
morningfog Mar 2016 #7
MaggieD Mar 2016 #9
Motown_Johnny Mar 2016 #10
MaggieD Mar 2016 #11
Motown_Johnny Mar 2016 #12
MaggieD Mar 2016 #15
kristopher Mar 2016 #88
pdsimdars Mar 2016 #76
Marr Mar 2016 #79
Name removed Mar 2016 #20
MaggieD Mar 2016 #25
Hoyt Mar 2016 #30
MaggieD Mar 2016 #45
pdsimdars Mar 2016 #84
Hoyt Mar 2016 #85
desmiller Mar 2016 #51
MaggieD Mar 2016 #53
Hortensis Mar 2016 #71
desmiller Mar 2016 #82
kristopher Mar 2016 #91
kristopher Mar 2016 #92
MaggieD Mar 2016 #8
taught_me_patience Mar 2016 #23
pdsimdars Mar 2016 #74
MaggieD Mar 2016 #13
NurseJackie Mar 2016 #65
MaggieD Mar 2016 #14
NurseJackie Mar 2016 #72
kristopher Mar 2016 #93
Logical Mar 2016 #16
MaggieD Mar 2016 #18
Logical Mar 2016 #33
MaggieD Mar 2016 #46
kristopher Mar 2016 #94
artislife Mar 2016 #17
MaggieD Mar 2016 #19
Name removed Mar 2016 #21
MaggieD Mar 2016 #22
Logical Mar 2016 #34
MaggieD Mar 2016 #35
Logical Mar 2016 #37
MaggieD Mar 2016 #39
Logical Mar 2016 #41
Vattel Mar 2016 #44
MaggieD Mar 2016 #54
Vattel Mar 2016 #62
840high Mar 2016 #105
kristopher Mar 2016 #95
guillaumeb Mar 2016 #80
artislife Mar 2016 #86
Vattel Mar 2016 #24
MaggieD Mar 2016 #27
Vattel Mar 2016 #29
Mnpaul Mar 2016 #32
MaggieD Mar 2016 #36
Mnpaul Mar 2016 #63
kristopher Mar 2016 #96
lunamagica Mar 2016 #26
Vattel Mar 2016 #28
MelissaB Mar 2016 #31
Vattel Mar 2016 #40
MaggieD Mar 2016 #38
Vattel Mar 2016 #42
MaggieD Mar 2016 #49
Vattel Mar 2016 #61
Glamrock Mar 2016 #47
MaggieD Mar 2016 #48
Glamrock Mar 2016 #50
MaggieD Mar 2016 #52
Human101948 Mar 2016 #60
kristopher Mar 2016 #97
Perogie Mar 2016 #55
MaggieD Mar 2016 #56
Perogie Mar 2016 #57
MaggieD Mar 2016 #58
Perogie Mar 2016 #59
Sancho Mar 2016 #64
Vattel Mar 2016 #66
Sancho Mar 2016 #67
Vattel Mar 2016 #68
Sancho Mar 2016 #69
Vattel Mar 2016 #70
Sancho Mar 2016 #75
Vattel Mar 2016 #77
Sancho Mar 2016 #78
Vattel Mar 2016 #83
Sancho Mar 2016 #100
Vattel Mar 2016 #101
Sancho Mar 2016 #102
Vattel Mar 2016 #103
guillaumeb Mar 2016 #81
MaggieD Mar 2016 #87
kristopher Mar 2016 #98
MaggieD Mar 2016 #106
kristopher Mar 2016 #99
kristopher Mar 2016 #104
NurseJackie Mar 2016 #107
MaggieD Mar 2016 #108
NurseJackie Mar 2016 #111
Motown_Johnny Mar 2016 #109
MaggieD Mar 2016 #110


Response to catnhatnh (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 09:33 PM

2. Again that is about his Wall Street Reform proposal....

 

Has nothing whatsoever to do with his plans to pay for all his proposals, which is the question he was asked.

Who are these 130 economists and healthcare experts? I would love to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #2)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 12:08 AM

43. Please

https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Wall-St-Letter-1.pdf

I was able to find the email addresses of a few of these people from a Google search.

By publicly endorsing his proposals, I assume some would be willing to explain why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #2)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 04:52 PM

73. Heard of Google? It's an internet thingy where you can go look stuff up. Try it. Learn somthing f

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 09:39 PM

3. Crickets, huh?

 

Bummer. I didn't think the list existed, but I keep hoping.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #3)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 07:51 PM

89. You are cherry picking a slip of the tongue

There are two inter-related subjects - 1) regulating Wall Street and 2) the economic impact of his policy proposals to move money from the Wall Street crowd back onto Main Street.

The first, a staple objection since day one, is addressed by the list of 170 economists. And that was the topic Bernie thought was being raised.
https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Wall-St-Letter-1.pdf

The second issue is a more recent bunch of bullshit that was concocted by a very small group of Establishment, ProTPP economists that simply lied about a researcher's (Gerald Friedman) valid work which said that Bernies economic proposals would result in a sustained economic growth rate of 5.6%.

As a recap, here is William Black on the subject:
Krugman and the Gang of 4 Need to Apologize for Smearing Gerald Friedman
Posted on February 21, 2016 by William Black
February 21, 2016 Bloomington, MN

If you depend for your news on the New York Times you have been subjected to a drumbeat of article attacking Bernie Sanders – and the conclusion of everyone “serious” that his economics are daft. In particular, you would “know” that four prior Chairs of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) (the Gang of 4) have signed an open letter to Bernie that delivered a death blow to his proposals. Further, you would know that anyone who dared to disagree with these four illustrious economists was so deranged that he or she was acting like a Republican in denial of global climate change. The open letter set its sights on a far less famous economist, Gerald Friedman, of U. Mass at Amherst. It unleashed a personalized dismissal of his competence and integrity. Four of the Nation’s top economists against one non-famous economists – at a school that studies heterodox economics. That sounds like a fight that the referee should stop in the first round before Friedman is pummeled to death. But why did Paul Krugman need to “tag in” to try to save the Gang of 4 from being routed?

Krugman proclaimed that the Gang of 4 had crushed Friedman in a TKO. Tellingly, Krugman claimed that anyone who disagreed with the Gang of 4 must be beyond the pale (like Friedman and Bernie). Indeed, Krugman was so eager to fend off any analysis of the Group of 4’s attacks that he competed with himself rhetorically as to what inner circle of Hell any supporter of Friedman should be consigned. In the 10:44 a.m. variant, Krugman dismissed Bernie as “not ready for prime time” and decreed that it was illegitimate to critique the Gang of 4’s critique.

In Sanders’s case, I don’t think it’s ideology as much as being not ready for prime time — and also of not being willing to face up to the reality that the kind of drastic changes he’s proposing, no matter how desirable, would produce a lot of losers as well as winners.

And if your response to these concerns is that they’re all corrupt, all looking for jobs with Hillary, you are very much part of the problem.


The implicit message is that four famous economists had to be correct, therefore anyone who disagreed with them must be a conspiracy theorist who is “very much part of the problem.” Paul doesn’t explain what “the problem” is, but he sure makes it sound awful. Logically, “the problem” has to be progressives supporting Bernie.

Two hours later, Paul decided that his poisoned pen had not been toxic enough, he now denounced Sanders as a traitor to the progressives who was on his way “to making Donald Trump president.” To point out the problems in the Gang of 4’s attack on Friedman was to treat them “as right-wing enemies.” Why was Krugman so fervid in its efforts to smear Friedman and prevent any critique of the Gang of 4’s smear that he revised his article within two hours and amped up his rhetoric to a shrill cry of pain? Well, the second piece admits that Gang of 4’s smear of Friedman “didn’t get into specifics” and that progressives were already rising in disgust at Paul’s arrogance and eagerness to sign onto a smear that claimed “rigor” but actually “didn’t get into specifics” while denouncing a scholar. Paul, falsely, portrayed Friedman as a Bernie supporter. Like Krugman, Friedman is actually a Hillary supporter.

Sanders needs to disassociate himself from this kind of fantasy economics right now. If his campaign responds instead by lashing out — well, a campaign that treats Alan Krueger, Christy Romer, and Laura Tyson as right-wing enemies is well on its way to making Donald Trump president.


If we combine both of Paul’s screeds we see that the only way to disagree with a prominent economist is to demonize them as either “corrupt” or “enemies.” ...

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2016/02/krugman-gang-4-need-apologize-smearing-gerald-friedman.html

This is the full text of the letter from noted economist Jamie Galbraith where he takes Krugman and the Gang of 4 ( to the woodshed.
Jamie Galbraith’s Letter to Former CEA Chairs
February 18, 2016

I was highly interested to see your letter of yesterday’s date to Senator Sanders and Professor Gerald Friedman. I respond here as a former Executive Director of the Joint Economic Committee – the congressional counterpart to the CEA.

You write that you have applied rigor to your analyses of economic proposals by Democrats and Republicans. On reading this sentence I looked to the bottom of the page, to find a reference or link to your rigorous review of Professor Friedman’s study. I found nothing there.

You go on to state that Professor Friedman makes “extreme claims” that “cannot be supported by the economic evidence.” You object to the projection of “huge beneficial impacts on growth rates, income and employment that exceed even the most grandiose predictions by Republicans about the impact of their tax cut proposals.”

Matthew Yglesias makes an important point about your letter:
“It’s noteworthy that the former CEA chairs criticizing Friedman didn’t bother to run through a detailed explanation of their problems with the paper. To them, the 5.3 percent figure was simply absurd on its face, and it was good enough for them to say so, relying on their authority to generate media coverage.”


So, let’s first ask whether an economic growth rate, as projected, of 5.3 percent per year is, as you claim, “grandiose.” There are not many ambitious experiments in economic policy with which to compare it, so let’s go back to the Reagan years. What was the actual average real growth rate in 1983, 1984, and 1985, following the enactment of the Reagan tax cuts in 1981? Just under 5.4 percent. That’s a point of history, like it or not.

You write that “no credible economic research supports economic impacts of these magnitudes.” But how did Professor Friedman make his estimates? The answer is in his paper. What Professor Friedman did, was to use the standard impact assumptions and forecasting methods of the mainstream economists and institutions. For example, Professor Friedman starts with a fiscal multiplier of 1.25, and shades it down to the range of 0.8 by the mid 2020s. Is this “not credible”? If that’s your claim, it’s an indictment of the methods of (for instance) the CBO, the OMB, and the CEA.

To be sure, skepticism about standard forecasting methods is perfectly reasonable. I’m a skeptic myself. My 2014 book The End of Normal is all about problems with mainstream forecasting.

In the specific case of this paper, one can quibble with the out-year multipliers, or with the productivity assumptions, or with the presumed impact of a higher minimum wage. One can invoke the trade deficit or the exchange rate. Professor Friedman makes all of these points himself. But those issues are well within mainstream norms.

There is no “magic asterisk,” no strange theory involved here. And the main effect of adjusting the assumptions, which would a perfectly reasonable thing to do, would be to curtail the growth rate after a few years – not at the beginning, when it would matter most.

It is not fair or honest to claim that Professor Friedman’s methods are extreme. On the contrary, with respect to forecasting method, they are largely mainstream. Nor is it fair or honest to imply that you have given Professor Friedman’s paper a rigorous review. You have not.

What you have done, is to light a fire under Paul Krugman, who is now using his high perch to airily dismiss the Friedman paper as “nonsense.” Paul is an immensely powerful figure, and many people rely on him for careful assessments. It seems clear that he has made no such assessment in this case.

Instead, Paul relies on you to impugn an economist with far less reach, whose work is far more careful, in point of fact, than your casual dismissal of it. He and you also imply that Professor Friedman did his work for an unprofessional motive. But let me point out, in case you missed it, that Professor Friedman is a political supporter of Secretary Clinton. His motives are, on the face of it, not political.


For the record, in case you’re curious, I’m not tied to Professor Friedman in any way. But the powerful – such as Paul and yourselves – should be careful where you step.

Let’s turn, finally, to the serious question. What does the Friedman paper really show? The answer is quite simple, and the exercise is – while not perfect – almost entirely ordinary.

What the Friedman paper shows, is that under conventional assumptions, the projected impact of Senator Sanders’ proposals stems from their scale and ambition. When you dare to do big things, big results should be expected. The Sanders program is big, and when you run it through a standard model, you get a big result.

That, by the way, is the lesson of the Reagan era – like it or not. It is a lesson that, among today’s political leaders, only Senator Sanders has learned.


Yours,

(Jamie)

James K. Galbraith
Executive Director, Joint Economic Committee, 1981-2


Your "question" fits right in with the rest of that dishonest clusterf%$k.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 09:40 PM

4. Great question ...

... a closer examination of his foreign policy "advisors" revealed some surprises too, didn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #4)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 09:44 PM

5. Exactly - they didn't exist either

 

Another flat out falsehood from him and his campaign. SMH.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #5)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 07:53 PM

90. You are seriously confused about who is lying

First, you are cherry picking a slip of the tongue in that interview.

Second, there are two inter-related subjects - 1) regulating Wall Street and 2) the economic impact of his policy proposals to move money from the Wall Street crowd back onto Main Street.

The first, a staple objection since day one, is addressed by the list of 170 economists. And that was the topic Bernie thought was being raised.
https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Wall-St-Letter-1.pdf

The second issue is a more recent bunch of bullshit that was concocted by a very small group of Establishment, ProTPP economists that simply lied about a researcher's (Gerald Friedman) valid work which said that Bernies economic proposals would result in a sustained economic growth rate of 5.6%.

As a recap, here is William Black on the subject:
Krugman and the Gang of 4 Need to Apologize for Smearing Gerald Friedman
Posted on February 21, 2016 by William Black
February 21, 2016 Bloomington, MN

If you depend for your news on the New York Times you have been subjected to a drumbeat of article attacking Bernie Sanders – and the conclusion of everyone “serious” that his economics are daft. In particular, you would “know” that four prior Chairs of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) (the Gang of 4) have signed an open letter to Bernie that delivered a death blow to his proposals. Further, you would know that anyone who dared to disagree with these four illustrious economists was so deranged that he or she was acting like a Republican in denial of global climate change. The open letter set its sights on a far less famous economist, Gerald Friedman, of U. Mass at Amherst. It unleashed a personalized dismissal of his competence and integrity. Four of the Nation’s top economists against one non-famous economists – at a school that studies heterodox economics. That sounds like a fight that the referee should stop in the first round before Friedman is pummeled to death. But why did Paul Krugman need to “tag in” to try to save the Gang of 4 from being routed?

Krugman proclaimed that the Gang of 4 had crushed Friedman in a TKO. Tellingly, Krugman claimed that anyone who disagreed with the Gang of 4 must be beyond the pale (like Friedman and Bernie). Indeed, Krugman was so eager to fend off any analysis of the Group of 4’s attacks that he competed with himself rhetorically as to what inner circle of Hell any supporter of Friedman should be consigned. In the 10:44 a.m. variant, Krugman dismissed Bernie as “not ready for prime time” and decreed that it was illegitimate to critique the Gang of 4’s critique.

In Sanders’s case, I don’t think it’s ideology as much as being not ready for prime time — and also of not being willing to face up to the reality that the kind of drastic changes he’s proposing, no matter how desirable, would produce a lot of losers as well as winners.

And if your response to these concerns is that they’re all corrupt, all looking for jobs with Hillary, you are very much part of the problem.


The implicit message is that four famous economists had to be correct, therefore anyone who disagreed with them must be a conspiracy theorist who is “very much part of the problem.” Paul doesn’t explain what “the problem” is, but he sure makes it sound awful. Logically, “the problem” has to be progressives supporting Bernie.

Two hours later, Paul decided that his poisoned pen had not been toxic enough, he now denounced Sanders as a traitor to the progressives who was on his way “to making Donald Trump president.” To point out the problems in the Gang of 4’s attack on Friedman was to treat them “as right-wing enemies.” Why was Krugman so fervid in its efforts to smear Friedman and prevent any critique of the Gang of 4’s smear that he revised his article within two hours and amped up his rhetoric to a shrill cry of pain? Well, the second piece admits that Gang of 4’s smear of Friedman “didn’t get into specifics” and that progressives were already rising in disgust at Paul’s arrogance and eagerness to sign onto a smear that claimed “rigor” but actually “didn’t get into specifics” while denouncing a scholar. Paul, falsely, portrayed Friedman as a Bernie supporter. Like Krugman, Friedman is actually a Hillary supporter.

Sanders needs to disassociate himself from this kind of fantasy economics right now. If his campaign responds instead by lashing out — well, a campaign that treats Alan Krueger, Christy Romer, and Laura Tyson as right-wing enemies is well on its way to making Donald Trump president.


If we combine both of Paul’s screeds we see that the only way to disagree with a prominent economist is to demonize them as either “corrupt” or “enemies.” ...

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2016/02/krugman-gang-4-need-apologize-smearing-gerald-friedman.html

This is the full text of the letter from noted economist Jamie Galbraith where he takes Krugman and the Gang of 4 ( to the woodshed.
Jamie Galbraith’s Letter to Former CEA Chairs
February 18, 2016

I was highly interested to see your letter of yesterday’s date to Senator Sanders and Professor Gerald Friedman. I respond here as a former Executive Director of the Joint Economic Committee – the congressional counterpart to the CEA.

You write that you have applied rigor to your analyses of economic proposals by Democrats and Republicans. On reading this sentence I looked to the bottom of the page, to find a reference or link to your rigorous review of Professor Friedman’s study. I found nothing there.

You go on to state that Professor Friedman makes “extreme claims” that “cannot be supported by the economic evidence.” You object to the projection of “huge beneficial impacts on growth rates, income and employment that exceed even the most grandiose predictions by Republicans about the impact of their tax cut proposals.”

Matthew Yglesias makes an important point about your letter:
“It’s noteworthy that the former CEA chairs criticizing Friedman didn’t bother to run through a detailed explanation of their problems with the paper. To them, the 5.3 percent figure was simply absurd on its face, and it was good enough for them to say so, relying on their authority to generate media coverage.”


So, let’s first ask whether an economic growth rate, as projected, of 5.3 percent per year is, as you claim, “grandiose.” There are not many ambitious experiments in economic policy with which to compare it, so let’s go back to the Reagan years. What was the actual average real growth rate in 1983, 1984, and 1985, following the enactment of the Reagan tax cuts in 1981? Just under 5.4 percent. That’s a point of history, like it or not.

You write that “no credible economic research supports economic impacts of these magnitudes.” But how did Professor Friedman make his estimates? The answer is in his paper. What Professor Friedman did, was to use the standard impact assumptions and forecasting methods of the mainstream economists and institutions. For example, Professor Friedman starts with a fiscal multiplier of 1.25, and shades it down to the range of 0.8 by the mid 2020s. Is this “not credible”? If that’s your claim, it’s an indictment of the methods of (for instance) the CBO, the OMB, and the CEA.

To be sure, skepticism about standard forecasting methods is perfectly reasonable. I’m a skeptic myself. My 2014 book The End of Normal is all about problems with mainstream forecasting.

In the specific case of this paper, one can quibble with the out-year multipliers, or with the productivity assumptions, or with the presumed impact of a higher minimum wage. One can invoke the trade deficit or the exchange rate. Professor Friedman makes all of these points himself. But those issues are well within mainstream norms.

There is no “magic asterisk,” no strange theory involved here. And the main effect of adjusting the assumptions, which would a perfectly reasonable thing to do, would be to curtail the growth rate after a few years – not at the beginning, when it would matter most.

It is not fair or honest to claim that Professor Friedman’s methods are extreme. On the contrary, with respect to forecasting method, they are largely mainstream. Nor is it fair or honest to imply that you have given Professor Friedman’s paper a rigorous review. You have not.

What you have done, is to light a fire under Paul Krugman, who is now using his high perch to airily dismiss the Friedman paper as “nonsense.” Paul is an immensely powerful figure, and many people rely on him for careful assessments. It seems clear that he has made no such assessment in this case.

Instead, Paul relies on you to impugn an economist with far less reach, whose work is far more careful, in point of fact, than your casual dismissal of it. He and you also imply that Professor Friedman did his work for an unprofessional motive. But let me point out, in case you missed it, that Professor Friedman is a political supporter of Secretary Clinton. His motives are, on the face of it, not political.


For the record, in case you’re curious, I’m not tied to Professor Friedman in any way. But the powerful – such as Paul and yourselves – should be careful where you step.

Let’s turn, finally, to the serious question. What does the Friedman paper really show? The answer is quite simple, and the exercise is – while not perfect – almost entirely ordinary.

What the Friedman paper shows, is that under conventional assumptions, the projected impact of Senator Sanders’ proposals stems from their scale and ambition. When you dare to do big things, big results should be expected. The Sanders program is big, and when you run it through a standard model, you get a big result.

That, by the way, is the lesson of the Reagan era – like it or not. It is a lesson that, among today’s political leaders, only Senator Sanders has learned.


Yours,

(Jamie)

James K. Galbraith
Executive Director, Joint Economic Committee, 1981-2


Your "question" fits right in with the rest of that dishonest clusterf%$k.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 09:46 PM

6. 170, not 130.

 

Why do you think anyone is going to respect your opinion concerning numbers when you can't even get this one right?????







http://progressiveissue.com/170-top-economists-back-bernie-sanders-plan-to-break-up-the-biggest-banks/

^snip^

170 Top Economists Back Bernie Sanders’ Plan To Break Up The Biggest Banks


Following on the heels of the Nation magazine’s endorsement (only their third ever) and new polls showing Sanders within striking distance of his rivals in Iowa and New Hampshire, it’s clear that not only the average people but also our academia are seeing the logic and necessity in Sanders’ proposals. This election will shape the future of our nation for decades to come; it is absolutely critical that we do not allow dark money and entrenched political establishments to preserve the plutocratic status quo. The fate of the middle class depends on it.

Click here to see the full list of names of the intellectuals who place the betterment of our nation over the ravenous greed of hypercapitalism and the demands of American oligarchy.



http://www.occupydemocrats.com/2016/01/14/170-top-economists-pen-letter-backing-bernie-sanders-plan-to-break-up-the-biggest-banks/

^snip^


In our view, Sen. Bernie Sanders’ plan for comprehensive financial reform is critical for avoiding another “too-big-to-fail” financial crisis. The Senator is correct that the biggest banks must be broken up and that a new 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, separating investment from commercial banking, must be enacted. Wall Street’s largest banks are now far bigger than they were before the crisis, and they still have every incentive to take excessive risks.


No major Wall Street executive has been indicted for the fraudulent behavior that led up to the 2008 crash, and fines imposed on the banks have been only a fraction of the banks’ potential gains. In addition, the banks and their lobbyists have succeeded in watering down the Dodd-Frank reform legislation, and the financial institutions that pose the greatest risk to our economy have still not devised sufficient “living wills” for winding down their operations in the event of another crisis.

Secretary Hillary Clinton’s more modest proposals do not go far enough. They call for a bit more oversight and a few new charges on shadow banking activity, but they leave intact the titanic financial conglomerates that practice most shadow banking. As a result, her plan does not adequately reduce the serious risks our financial system poses to the American economy and to individual Americans. Given the size and political power of Wall Street, her proposals would only invite more dilution and finagle.

The only way to contain Wall Street’s excesses is with reforms sufficiently bold and public they can’t be watered down. That’s why we support Senator Sanders’s plans for busting up the biggest banks and resurrecting a modernized version of Glass-Steagall.








Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #6)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 09:59 PM

7. They never get anything right. When you bust them in a flat out lie,

 

they slink away with their tail between their legs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #7)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 10:01 PM

9. They didn't say one damn thing about how he pays $18 trillion

 

He's not telling the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #9)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 10:06 PM

10. Is English not your first language?

 


They are supporting his plan to regulate Wall Street.


Why do you think that will cost $18 trillion?


If you have trouble with this letter then maybe try a translation program.



http://www.occupydemocrats.com/2016/01/14/170-top-economists-pen-letter-backing-bernie-sanders-plan-to-break-up-the-biggest-banks/

^snip^


In our view, Sen. Bernie Sanders’ plan for comprehensive financial reform is critical for avoiding another “too-big-to-fail” financial crisis. The Senator is correct that the biggest banks must be broken up and that a new 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, separating investment from commercial banking, must be enacted. Wall Street’s largest banks are now far bigger than they were before the crisis, and they still have every incentive to take excessive risks.


No major Wall Street executive has been indicted for the fraudulent behavior that led up to the 2008 crash, and fines imposed on the banks have been only a fraction of the banks’ potential gains. In addition, the banks and their lobbyists have succeeded in watering down the Dodd-Frank reform legislation, and the financial institutions that pose the greatest risk to our economy have still not devised sufficient “living wills” for winding down their operations in the event of another crisis.

Secretary Hillary Clinton’s more modest proposals do not go far enough. They call for a bit more oversight and a few new charges on shadow banking activity, but they leave intact the titanic financial conglomerates that practice most shadow banking. As a result, her plan does not adequately reduce the serious risks our financial system poses to the American economy and to individual Americans. Given the size and political power of Wall Street, her proposals would only invite more dilution and finagle.

The only way to contain Wall Street’s excesses is with reforms sufficiently bold and public they can’t be watered down. That’s why we support Senator Sanders’s plans for busting up the biggest banks and resurrecting a modernized version of Glass-Steagall.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #10)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 10:13 PM

11. What does that have to do with single payer, free college, etc?

 

Nothing. And you can continue to pretend all day long that we can't read and those invisible words are there. But reality is that is not the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #11)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 10:15 PM

12. Exactly, You are confused.

 


There are 170 Economists supporting his plan to regulate Wall Street.

You seem to think that some claims have been made that there are 130 Economists supporting his single payer plan and when you can't find that list you start calling Bernie a liar.

You are simply confused.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #12)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 10:59 PM

15. I'm just quoting him - see the OP

 

I didn't make it up. I copied and pasted his words from the town hall. I'm not confused - Bernie is confused.

I thought you all wanted these debates and town halls. Are you trying to tell me once you got them you didn't watch them???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #15)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 07:48 PM

88. No, you aren't "just quoting" you are cherry picking a slip of the tongue

There are two inter-related subjects - 1) regulating Wall Street and 2) the economic impact of his policy proposals to move money from the Wall Street crowd back onto Main Street.

The first, a staple objection since day one, is addressed by the list of 170 economists. And that was the topic Bernie thought was being raised.
https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Wall-St-Letter-1.pdf

The second issue is a more recent bunch of bullshit that was concocted by a very small group of Establishment, ProTPP economists that simply lied about a researcher's (Gerald Friedman) valid work which said that Bernies economic proposals would result in a sustained economic growth rate of 5.6%.

As a recap, here is William Black on the subject:
Krugman and the Gang of 4 Need to Apologize for Smearing Gerald Friedman
Posted on February 21, 2016 by William Black
February 21, 2016 Bloomington, MN

If you depend for your news on the New York Times you have been subjected to a drumbeat of article attacking Bernie Sanders – and the conclusion of everyone “serious” that his economics are daft. In particular, you would “know” that four prior Chairs of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) (the Gang of 4) have signed an open letter to Bernie that delivered a death blow to his proposals. Further, you would know that anyone who dared to disagree with these four illustrious economists was so deranged that he or she was acting like a Republican in denial of global climate change. The open letter set its sights on a far less famous economist, Gerald Friedman, of U. Mass at Amherst. It unleashed a personalized dismissal of his competence and integrity. Four of the Nation’s top economists against one non-famous economists – at a school that studies heterodox economics. That sounds like a fight that the referee should stop in the first round before Friedman is pummeled to death. But why did Paul Krugman need to “tag in” to try to save the Gang of 4 from being routed?

Krugman proclaimed that the Gang of 4 had crushed Friedman in a TKO. Tellingly, Krugman claimed that anyone who disagreed with the Gang of 4 must be beyond the pale (like Friedman and Bernie). Indeed, Krugman was so eager to fend off any analysis of the Group of 4’s attacks that he competed with himself rhetorically as to what inner circle of Hell any supporter of Friedman should be consigned. In the 10:44 a.m. variant, Krugman dismissed Bernie as “not ready for prime time” and decreed that it was illegitimate to critique the Gang of 4’s critique.

In Sanders’s case, I don’t think it’s ideology as much as being not ready for prime time — and also of not being willing to face up to the reality that the kind of drastic changes he’s proposing, no matter how desirable, would produce a lot of losers as well as winners.

And if your response to these concerns is that they’re all corrupt, all looking for jobs with Hillary, you are very much part of the problem.


The implicit message is that four famous economists had to be correct, therefore anyone who disagreed with them must be a conspiracy theorist who is “very much part of the problem.” Paul doesn’t explain what “the problem” is, but he sure makes it sound awful. Logically, “the problem” has to be progressives supporting Bernie.

Two hours later, Paul decided that his poisoned pen had not been toxic enough, he now denounced Sanders as a traitor to the progressives who was on his way “to making Donald Trump president.” To point out the problems in the Gang of 4’s attack on Friedman was to treat them “as right-wing enemies.” Why was Krugman so fervid in its efforts to smear Friedman and prevent any critique of the Gang of 4’s smear that he revised his article within two hours and amped up his rhetoric to a shrill cry of pain? Well, the second piece admits that Gang of 4’s smear of Friedman “didn’t get into specifics” and that progressives were already rising in disgust at Paul’s arrogance and eagerness to sign onto a smear that claimed “rigor” but actually “didn’t get into specifics” while denouncing a scholar. Paul, falsely, portrayed Friedman as a Bernie supporter. Like Krugman, Friedman is actually a Hillary supporter.

Sanders needs to disassociate himself from this kind of fantasy economics right now. If his campaign responds instead by lashing out — well, a campaign that treats Alan Krueger, Christy Romer, and Laura Tyson as right-wing enemies is well on its way to making Donald Trump president.


If we combine both of Paul’s screeds we see that the only way to disagree with a prominent economist is to demonize them as either “corrupt” or “enemies.” ...

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2016/02/krugman-gang-4-need-apologize-smearing-gerald-friedman.html

This is the full text of the letter from noted economist Jamie Galbraith where he takes Krugman and the Gang of 4 ( to the woodshed.
Jamie Galbraith’s Letter to Former CEA Chairs
February 18, 2016

I was highly interested to see your letter of yesterday’s date to Senator Sanders and Professor Gerald Friedman. I respond here as a former Executive Director of the Joint Economic Committee – the congressional counterpart to the CEA.

You write that you have applied rigor to your analyses of economic proposals by Democrats and Republicans. On reading this sentence I looked to the bottom of the page, to find a reference or link to your rigorous review of Professor Friedman’s study. I found nothing there.

You go on to state that Professor Friedman makes “extreme claims” that “cannot be supported by the economic evidence.” You object to the projection of “huge beneficial impacts on growth rates, income and employment that exceed even the most grandiose predictions by Republicans about the impact of their tax cut proposals.”

Matthew Yglesias makes an important point about your letter:
“It’s noteworthy that the former CEA chairs criticizing Friedman didn’t bother to run through a detailed explanation of their problems with the paper. To them, the 5.3 percent figure was simply absurd on its face, and it was good enough for them to say so, relying on their authority to generate media coverage.”


So, let’s first ask whether an economic growth rate, as projected, of 5.3 percent per year is, as you claim, “grandiose.” There are not many ambitious experiments in economic policy with which to compare it, so let’s go back to the Reagan years. What was the actual average real growth rate in 1983, 1984, and 1985, following the enactment of the Reagan tax cuts in 1981? Just under 5.4 percent. That’s a point of history, like it or not.

You write that “no credible economic research supports economic impacts of these magnitudes.” But how did Professor Friedman make his estimates? The answer is in his paper. What Professor Friedman did, was to use the standard impact assumptions and forecasting methods of the mainstream economists and institutions. For example, Professor Friedman starts with a fiscal multiplier of 1.25, and shades it down to the range of 0.8 by the mid 2020s. Is this “not credible”? If that’s your claim, it’s an indictment of the methods of (for instance) the CBO, the OMB, and the CEA.

To be sure, skepticism about standard forecasting methods is perfectly reasonable. I’m a skeptic myself. My 2014 book The End of Normal is all about problems with mainstream forecasting.

In the specific case of this paper, one can quibble with the out-year multipliers, or with the productivity assumptions, or with the presumed impact of a higher minimum wage. One can invoke the trade deficit or the exchange rate. Professor Friedman makes all of these points himself. But those issues are well within mainstream norms.

There is no “magic asterisk,” no strange theory involved here. And the main effect of adjusting the assumptions, which would a perfectly reasonable thing to do, would be to curtail the growth rate after a few years – not at the beginning, when it would matter most.

It is not fair or honest to claim that Professor Friedman’s methods are extreme. On the contrary, with respect to forecasting method, they are largely mainstream. Nor is it fair or honest to imply that you have given Professor Friedman’s paper a rigorous review. You have not.

What you have done, is to light a fire under Paul Krugman, who is now using his high perch to airily dismiss the Friedman paper as “nonsense.” Paul is an immensely powerful figure, and many people rely on him for careful assessments. It seems clear that he has made no such assessment in this case.

Instead, Paul relies on you to impugn an economist with far less reach, whose work is far more careful, in point of fact, than your casual dismissal of it. He and you also imply that Professor Friedman did his work for an unprofessional motive. But let me point out, in case you missed it, that Professor Friedman is a political supporter of Secretary Clinton. His motives are, on the face of it, not political.


For the record, in case you’re curious, I’m not tied to Professor Friedman in any way. But the powerful – such as Paul and yourselves – should be careful where you step.

Let’s turn, finally, to the serious question. What does the Friedman paper really show? The answer is quite simple, and the exercise is – while not perfect – almost entirely ordinary.

What the Friedman paper shows, is that under conventional assumptions, the projected impact of Senator Sanders’ proposals stems from their scale and ambition. When you dare to do big things, big results should be expected. The Sanders program is big, and when you run it through a standard model, you get a big result.

That, by the way, is the lesson of the Reagan era – like it or not. It is a lesson that, among today’s political leaders, only Senator Sanders has learned.


Yours,

(Jamie)

James K. Galbraith
Executive Director, Joint Economic Committee, 1981-2


Your "question" fits right in with the rest of that dishonest clusterf%$k.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #11)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 04:56 PM

76. Here you go

 

Maybe this'll make it clear. But you can't mix everything up. There are a lot of plans and issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #11)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 05:17 PM

79. Need a hand with that?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #10)


Response to Name removed (Reply #20)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 11:32 PM

25. So is that a thumbs down on holding Bernie accountable?

 

I'm wondering if ANY of you watched the town halls and debates you demanded. Did you not see this at the time? If you did, why didn't you ask yourself who these supposed "130 economists and healthcare experts" are?

Don't you care if they exist? How about the fake FP advisors? Did the fact that those didn't turn out to exist bother you at all?

Those are pretty big falsehoods to tell the voters, don't you think?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Name removed (Reply #20)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 11:41 PM

30. The "voters" seem to be favoring Clinton.

 

Last edited Fri Mar 4, 2016, 05:17 AM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #30)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 12:44 AM

45. By a mile

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #30)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 05:38 PM

84. Look at polls much

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pdsimdars (Reply #84)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 05:56 PM

85. Yes, and I can multiply and add.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #9)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:20 AM

51. MaggieD can't get facts straight and loses it. Check.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to desmiller (Reply #51)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:22 AM

53. I am ready for you to prove me wrong

 

Have at it. LOL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to desmiller (Reply #51)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 04:46 PM

71. These people can. Bernie promises single payer

and can't produce. That is called an empty promise, but these people are worried that that could be the least of it.

"The critics — many of whom support the concept of single-payer plans, including Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist and Op-Ed columnist for The New York Times — note the difficulty that Mr. Obama has had in winning and putting into effect his less-ambitious law, which keeps the private insurance and health care sectors in place. They worry that Mr. Sanders, as president, would exhaust his political capital on what they call a fool’s errand, at the expense of other initiatives on education, infrastructure, climate change, worker benefits — and the Affordable Care Act itself."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #71)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 05:27 PM

82. Well, it sounds like that "these people" are confusing Bernie for Republicans. I'm sure that even

Sanders understands that developing single payer takes time. He's been fighting fights like this for years. Even Hillary herself was for single payer, until Big Pharma starts paying her and she changed for vision. Every president had at least one empty promise. Even Obama himself made empty promises. For example, he said that he'll crack down Wall Street. As you can see, he bailed them out on our expense, and they remained untouched while continuing their criminal activities. Even Eric Holder, on his last days as AG said we'll crackdown Wall Street, and didn't do it. Now those are a little more than empty promises. Those are called "lies." If "these people" are afraid to aim for something better for themselves, then they deserve the status quo. Some others, like myself, don't think that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #9)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 07:57 PM

91. Actually I believe you are parroting a lie

Since you saw fit to call Sanders a liar without doing any research, I'm posting this where you've chosen to make that slur against an honest person. Each time you falsely accuse him of lying I think it's fair to show you why that is wrong.

There are two inter-related subjects - 1) regulating Wall Street and 2) the economic impact of his policy proposals to move money from the Wall Street crowd back onto Main Street.

The first, a staple objection since day one, is addressed by the list of 170 economists. And that was the topic Bernie thought was being raised.
https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Wall-St-Letter-1.pdf

The second issue is a more recent bunch of bullshit that was concocted by a very small group of Establishment, ProTPP economists that simply lied about a researcher's (Gerald Friedman) valid work which said that Bernies economic proposals would result in a sustained economic growth rate of 5.6%.

As a recap, here is William Black on the subject:
Krugman and the Gang of 4 Need to Apologize for Smearing Gerald Friedman
Posted on February 21, 2016 by William Black
February 21, 2016 Bloomington, MN

If you depend for your news on the New York Times you have been subjected to a drumbeat of article attacking Bernie Sanders – and the conclusion of everyone “serious” that his economics are daft. In particular, you would “know” that four prior Chairs of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) (the Gang of 4) have signed an open letter to Bernie that delivered a death blow to his proposals. Further, you would know that anyone who dared to disagree with these four illustrious economists was so deranged that he or she was acting like a Republican in denial of global climate change. The open letter set its sights on a far less famous economist, Gerald Friedman, of U. Mass at Amherst. It unleashed a personalized dismissal of his competence and integrity. Four of the Nation’s top economists against one non-famous economists – at a school that studies heterodox economics. That sounds like a fight that the referee should stop in the first round before Friedman is pummeled to death. But why did Paul Krugman need to “tag in” to try to save the Gang of 4 from being routed?

Krugman proclaimed that the Gang of 4 had crushed Friedman in a TKO. Tellingly, Krugman claimed that anyone who disagreed with the Gang of 4 must be beyond the pale (like Friedman and Bernie). Indeed, Krugman was so eager to fend off any analysis of the Group of 4’s attacks that he competed with himself rhetorically as to what inner circle of Hell any supporter of Friedman should be consigned. In the 10:44 a.m. variant, Krugman dismissed Bernie as “not ready for prime time” and decreed that it was illegitimate to critique the Gang of 4’s critique.

In Sanders’s case, I don’t think it’s ideology as much as being not ready for prime time — and also of not being willing to face up to the reality that the kind of drastic changes he’s proposing, no matter how desirable, would produce a lot of losers as well as winners.

And if your response to these concerns is that they’re all corrupt, all looking for jobs with Hillary, you are very much part of the problem.


The implicit message is that four famous economists had to be correct, therefore anyone who disagreed with them must be a conspiracy theorist who is “very much part of the problem.” Paul doesn’t explain what “the problem” is, but he sure makes it sound awful. Logically, “the problem” has to be progressives supporting Bernie.

Two hours later, Paul decided that his poisoned pen had not been toxic enough, he now denounced Sanders as a traitor to the progressives who was on his way “to making Donald Trump president.” To point out the problems in the Gang of 4’s attack on Friedman was to treat them “as right-wing enemies.” Why was Krugman so fervid in its efforts to smear Friedman and prevent any critique of the Gang of 4’s smear that he revised his article within two hours and amped up his rhetoric to a shrill cry of pain? Well, the second piece admits that Gang of 4’s smear of Friedman “didn’t get into specifics” and that progressives were already rising in disgust at Paul’s arrogance and eagerness to sign onto a smear that claimed “rigor” but actually “didn’t get into specifics” while denouncing a scholar. Paul, falsely, portrayed Friedman as a Bernie supporter. Like Krugman, Friedman is actually a Hillary supporter.

Sanders needs to disassociate himself from this kind of fantasy economics right now. If his campaign responds instead by lashing out — well, a campaign that treats Alan Krueger, Christy Romer, and Laura Tyson as right-wing enemies is well on its way to making Donald Trump president.


If we combine both of Paul’s screeds we see that the only way to disagree with a prominent economist is to demonize them as either “corrupt” or “enemies.” ...

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2016/02/krugman-gang-4-need-apologize-smearing-gerald-friedman.html

This is the full text of the letter from noted economist Jamie Galbraith where he takes Krugman and the Gang of 4 ( to the woodshed.
Jamie Galbraith’s Letter to Former CEA Chairs
February 18, 2016

I was highly interested to see your letter of yesterday’s date to Senator Sanders and Professor Gerald Friedman. I respond here as a former Executive Director of the Joint Economic Committee – the congressional counterpart to the CEA.

You write that you have applied rigor to your analyses of economic proposals by Democrats and Republicans. On reading this sentence I looked to the bottom of the page, to find a reference or link to your rigorous review of Professor Friedman’s study. I found nothing there.

You go on to state that Professor Friedman makes “extreme claims” that “cannot be supported by the economic evidence.” You object to the projection of “huge beneficial impacts on growth rates, income and employment that exceed even the most grandiose predictions by Republicans about the impact of their tax cut proposals.”

Matthew Yglesias makes an important point about your letter:
“It’s noteworthy that the former CEA chairs criticizing Friedman didn’t bother to run through a detailed explanation of their problems with the paper. To them, the 5.3 percent figure was simply absurd on its face, and it was good enough for them to say so, relying on their authority to generate media coverage.”


So, let’s first ask whether an economic growth rate, as projected, of 5.3 percent per year is, as you claim, “grandiose.” There are not many ambitious experiments in economic policy with which to compare it, so let’s go back to the Reagan years. What was the actual average real growth rate in 1983, 1984, and 1985, following the enactment of the Reagan tax cuts in 1981? Just under 5.4 percent. That’s a point of history, like it or not.

You write that “no credible economic research supports economic impacts of these magnitudes.” But how did Professor Friedman make his estimates? The answer is in his paper. What Professor Friedman did, was to use the standard impact assumptions and forecasting methods of the mainstream economists and institutions. For example, Professor Friedman starts with a fiscal multiplier of 1.25, and shades it down to the range of 0.8 by the mid 2020s. Is this “not credible”? If that’s your claim, it’s an indictment of the methods of (for instance) the CBO, the OMB, and the CEA.

To be sure, skepticism about standard forecasting methods is perfectly reasonable. I’m a skeptic myself. My 2014 book The End of Normal is all about problems with mainstream forecasting.

In the specific case of this paper, one can quibble with the out-year multipliers, or with the productivity assumptions, or with the presumed impact of a higher minimum wage. One can invoke the trade deficit or the exchange rate. Professor Friedman makes all of these points himself. But those issues are well within mainstream norms.

There is no “magic asterisk,” no strange theory involved here. And the main effect of adjusting the assumptions, which would a perfectly reasonable thing to do, would be to curtail the growth rate after a few years – not at the beginning, when it would matter most.

It is not fair or honest to claim that Professor Friedman’s methods are extreme. On the contrary, with respect to forecasting method, they are largely mainstream. Nor is it fair or honest to imply that you have given Professor Friedman’s paper a rigorous review. You have not.

What you have done, is to light a fire under Paul Krugman, who is now using his high perch to airily dismiss the Friedman paper as “nonsense.” Paul is an immensely powerful figure, and many people rely on him for careful assessments. It seems clear that he has made no such assessment in this case.

Instead, Paul relies on you to impugn an economist with far less reach, whose work is far more careful, in point of fact, than your casual dismissal of it. He and you also imply that Professor Friedman did his work for an unprofessional motive. But let me point out, in case you missed it, that Professor Friedman is a political supporter of Secretary Clinton. His motives are, on the face of it, not political.


For the record, in case you’re curious, I’m not tied to Professor Friedman in any way. But the powerful – such as Paul and yourselves – should be careful where you step.

Let’s turn, finally, to the serious question. What does the Friedman paper really show? The answer is quite simple, and the exercise is – while not perfect – almost entirely ordinary.

What the Friedman paper shows, is that under conventional assumptions, the projected impact of Senator Sanders’ proposals stems from their scale and ambition. When you dare to do big things, big results should be expected. The Sanders program is big, and when you run it through a standard model, you get a big result.

That, by the way, is the lesson of the Reagan era – like it or not. It is a lesson that, among today’s political leaders, only Senator Sanders has learned.


Yours,

(Jamie)

James K. Galbraith
Executive Director, Joint Economic Committee, 1981-2


Your "question" fits right in with the rest of that dishonest clusterf%$k.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #9)


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #6)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 10:00 PM

8. But they don't endorse his "pay fors" on his proposals

 

They don't say one word about ANY of that. And he said 130. I did not claim 130. So it does not seem like he is even citing this bullshit about the people who signed on to his wall street reform proposal.

Be honest, you know damn well none of those Wall Street Reform proposal endorsers said a damn thing about how he pays for:

- Single payer
- Paid family leave
- $1 Trillion in infrastructure
- Free college
- Expanded SS

$18 trillion in spending. Where are the 130? They don't exist - right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #6)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 11:28 PM

23. That's for his wall street reform plan

 

but not about his plan to pay for his proposals of universal single payor, 1T for infrastructure, SS expansion, or free college.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #6)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 04:54 PM

74. Just like some clueless GOP voters, they seem averse to facts.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 10:24 PM

13. Still looking for the 130 economists and healthcare experts

 

Anybody seen them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #13)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 10:06 AM

65. Now ... if you really want to discuss "low-information" voters ...

... it's things like this that those people pay very little attention to. They're casual observers who hear "130" and assume it's true. Later, when it's questioned or completely disproved, there's little mention of it except in "hardcore" corners of the Internet and obscure references in analytical news coverage. Definitely not the kind of thing that makes "front page" news.

While "the record" may eventually be corrected for posterity, the "low information voter" never hears about it or reads about it. In their mind/s the original "misspoken" assertion or exaggeration remains "fact". Whether it's intentional deception or an honest mistake, those voters continue to believe the original incorrect or exaggerated statement.

As an aside: I think this is one of the reasons that Trump continues to be successful. His supporters tune-in to hear him, then turn OFF the tee-vee and miss the commentary and analysis and fact-checking. Trump's lies and exaggerations and half-truths have been officially debunked, but none of his followers ever hear about it.

Watching international news programs, I often think that the rest of the world is BETTER INFORMED about our political system (and our candidates) than most Americans are. Sad, isn't it?


Go, Hillary! We love you!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 10:52 PM

14. Anybody got the list?

 

Anybody? Still in search of the "130 economists and healthcare experts" that agree that Bernie's pay fors on his proposal are realistic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #14)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 04:50 PM

72. I found this online ... I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for or not.




Go, Hillary! We love you!




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #14)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 08:02 PM

93. Twist things much, Maggie?

Since you saw fit to call Sanders a liar without doing any research, I'm posting this where you've chosen to make that slur against an honest person. Each time you falsely accuse him of lying I think it's fair to show you why that is wrong.

There are two inter-related subjects - 1) regulating Wall Street and 2) the economic impact of his policy proposals to move money from the Wall Street crowd back onto Main Street.

The first, a staple objection since day one, is addressed by the list of 170 economists. And that was the topic Bernie thought was being raised.
https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Wall-St-Letter-1.pdf

The second issue is a more recent bunch of bullshit that was concocted by a very small group of Establishment, ProTPP economists that simply lied about a researcher's (Gerald Friedman) valid work which said that Bernies economic proposals would result in a sustained economic growth rate of 5.6%.

As a recap, here is William Black on the subject:
Krugman and the Gang of 4 Need to Apologize for Smearing Gerald Friedman
Posted on February 21, 2016 by William Black
February 21, 2016 Bloomington, MN

If you depend for your news on the New York Times you have been subjected to a drumbeat of article attacking Bernie Sanders – and the conclusion of everyone “serious” that his economics are daft. In particular, you would “know” that four prior Chairs of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) (the Gang of 4) have signed an open letter to Bernie that delivered a death blow to his proposals. Further, you would know that anyone who dared to disagree with these four illustrious economists was so deranged that he or she was acting like a Republican in denial of global climate change. The open letter set its sights on a far less famous economist, Gerald Friedman, of U. Mass at Amherst. It unleashed a personalized dismissal of his competence and integrity. Four of the Nation’s top economists against one non-famous economists – at a school that studies heterodox economics. That sounds like a fight that the referee should stop in the first round before Friedman is pummeled to death. But why did Paul Krugman need to “tag in” to try to save the Gang of 4 from being routed?

Krugman proclaimed that the Gang of 4 had crushed Friedman in a TKO. Tellingly, Krugman claimed that anyone who disagreed with the Gang of 4 must be beyond the pale (like Friedman and Bernie). Indeed, Krugman was so eager to fend off any analysis of the Group of 4’s attacks that he competed with himself rhetorically as to what inner circle of Hell any supporter of Friedman should be consigned. In the 10:44 a.m. variant, Krugman dismissed Bernie as “not ready for prime time” and decreed that it was illegitimate to critique the Gang of 4’s critique.

In Sanders’s case, I don’t think it’s ideology as much as being not ready for prime time — and also of not being willing to face up to the reality that the kind of drastic changes he’s proposing, no matter how desirable, would produce a lot of losers as well as winners.

And if your response to these concerns is that they’re all corrupt, all looking for jobs with Hillary, you are very much part of the problem.


The implicit message is that four famous economists had to be correct, therefore anyone who disagreed with them must be a conspiracy theorist who is “very much part of the problem.” Paul doesn’t explain what “the problem” is, but he sure makes it sound awful. Logically, “the problem” has to be progressives supporting Bernie.

Two hours later, Paul decided that his poisoned pen had not been toxic enough, he now denounced Sanders as a traitor to the progressives who was on his way “to making Donald Trump president.” To point out the problems in the Gang of 4’s attack on Friedman was to treat them “as right-wing enemies.” Why was Krugman so fervid in its efforts to smear Friedman and prevent any critique of the Gang of 4’s smear that he revised his article within two hours and amped up his rhetoric to a shrill cry of pain? Well, the second piece admits that Gang of 4’s smear of Friedman “didn’t get into specifics” and that progressives were already rising in disgust at Paul’s arrogance and eagerness to sign onto a smear that claimed “rigor” but actually “didn’t get into specifics” while denouncing a scholar. Paul, falsely, portrayed Friedman as a Bernie supporter. Like Krugman, Friedman is actually a Hillary supporter.

Sanders needs to disassociate himself from this kind of fantasy economics right now. If his campaign responds instead by lashing out — well, a campaign that treats Alan Krueger, Christy Romer, and Laura Tyson as right-wing enemies is well on its way to making Donald Trump president.


If we combine both of Paul’s screeds we see that the only way to disagree with a prominent economist is to demonize them as either “corrupt” or “enemies.” ...

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2016/02/krugman-gang-4-need-apologize-smearing-gerald-friedman.html

This is the full text of the letter from noted economist Jamie Galbraith where he takes Krugman and the Gang of 4 ( to the woodshed.
Jamie Galbraith’s Letter to Former CEA Chairs
February 18, 2016

I was highly interested to see your letter of yesterday’s date to Senator Sanders and Professor Gerald Friedman. I respond here as a former Executive Director of the Joint Economic Committee – the congressional counterpart to the CEA.

You write that you have applied rigor to your analyses of economic proposals by Democrats and Republicans. On reading this sentence I looked to the bottom of the page, to find a reference or link to your rigorous review of Professor Friedman’s study. I found nothing there.

You go on to state that Professor Friedman makes “extreme claims” that “cannot be supported by the economic evidence.” You object to the projection of “huge beneficial impacts on growth rates, income and employment that exceed even the most grandiose predictions by Republicans about the impact of their tax cut proposals.”

Matthew Yglesias makes an important point about your letter:
“It’s noteworthy that the former CEA chairs criticizing Friedman didn’t bother to run through a detailed explanation of their problems with the paper. To them, the 5.3 percent figure was simply absurd on its face, and it was good enough for them to say so, relying on their authority to generate media coverage.”


So, let’s first ask whether an economic growth rate, as projected, of 5.3 percent per year is, as you claim, “grandiose.” There are not many ambitious experiments in economic policy with which to compare it, so let’s go back to the Reagan years. What was the actual average real growth rate in 1983, 1984, and 1985, following the enactment of the Reagan tax cuts in 1981? Just under 5.4 percent. That’s a point of history, like it or not.

You write that “no credible economic research supports economic impacts of these magnitudes.” But how did Professor Friedman make his estimates? The answer is in his paper. What Professor Friedman did, was to use the standard impact assumptions and forecasting methods of the mainstream economists and institutions. For example, Professor Friedman starts with a fiscal multiplier of 1.25, and shades it down to the range of 0.8 by the mid 2020s. Is this “not credible”? If that’s your claim, it’s an indictment of the methods of (for instance) the CBO, the OMB, and the CEA.

To be sure, skepticism about standard forecasting methods is perfectly reasonable. I’m a skeptic myself. My 2014 book The End of Normal is all about problems with mainstream forecasting.

In the specific case of this paper, one can quibble with the out-year multipliers, or with the productivity assumptions, or with the presumed impact of a higher minimum wage. One can invoke the trade deficit or the exchange rate. Professor Friedman makes all of these points himself. But those issues are well within mainstream norms.

There is no “magic asterisk,” no strange theory involved here. And the main effect of adjusting the assumptions, which would a perfectly reasonable thing to do, would be to curtail the growth rate after a few years – not at the beginning, when it would matter most.

It is not fair or honest to claim that Professor Friedman’s methods are extreme. On the contrary, with respect to forecasting method, they are largely mainstream. Nor is it fair or honest to imply that you have given Professor Friedman’s paper a rigorous review. You have not.

What you have done, is to light a fire under Paul Krugman, who is now using his high perch to airily dismiss the Friedman paper as “nonsense.” Paul is an immensely powerful figure, and many people rely on him for careful assessments. It seems clear that he has made no such assessment in this case.

Instead, Paul relies on you to impugn an economist with far less reach, whose work is far more careful, in point of fact, than your casual dismissal of it. He and you also imply that Professor Friedman did his work for an unprofessional motive. But let me point out, in case you missed it, that Professor Friedman is a political supporter of Secretary Clinton. His motives are, on the face of it, not political.


For the record, in case you’re curious, I’m not tied to Professor Friedman in any way. But the powerful – such as Paul and yourselves – should be careful where you step.

Let’s turn, finally, to the serious question. What does the Friedman paper really show? The answer is quite simple, and the exercise is – while not perfect – almost entirely ordinary.

What the Friedman paper shows, is that under conventional assumptions, the projected impact of Senator Sanders’ proposals stems from their scale and ambition. When you dare to do big things, big results should be expected. The Sanders program is big, and when you run it through a standard model, you get a big result.

That, by the way, is the lesson of the Reagan era – like it or not. It is a lesson that, among today’s political leaders, only Senator Sanders has learned.


Yours,

(Jamie)

James K. Galbraith
Executive Director, Joint Economic Committee, 1981-2

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 11:00 PM

16. Lol, ok, once again staying classy! Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #16)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 11:03 PM

18. So you got nothing? It's not classy to hold Bernie accountable?

 

I'm trying to figure out who these "130 economists and healthcare experts" are agree with him about how he pays for his proposals.

Isn't that what a responsible voter would do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #18)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 11:48 PM

33. IMO, You are the Hillary fan that I thing hurts her the most here.....

 

And seem to love the attention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #33)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 12:48 AM

46. LOL - because the folks here would vote for her if not for me?

 

Sorry, but this is Smear Dems Centrai. 24/7/365. It's embarrassing for actual Dems. Nothing anyone posts to hold Bernie accountable will save this site from the reputation it has earned. And support for Hillary is not the problem. Last I checked the news media were not writing articles about how Hillary supporters are hurting Hillary. Those articles seem confined to Bernie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #46)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 08:03 PM

94. Smear Dems Central is what the Clinton Campaign is all about

In fact, you've dug up a great example that proves exactly the opposite of what you thought.

Since you saw fit to call Sanders a liar without doing any research, I'm posting this where you've chosen to make that slur against an honest person. Each time you falsely accuse him of lying I think it's fair to show you why that is wrong.

There are two inter-related subjects - 1) regulating Wall Street and 2) the economic impact of his policy proposals to move money from the Wall Street crowd back onto Main Street.

The first, a staple objection since day one, is addressed by the list of 170 economists. And that was the topic Bernie thought was being raised.
https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Wall-St-Letter-1.pdf

The second issue is a more recent bunch of bullshit that was concocted by a very small group of Establishment, ProTPP economists that simply lied about a researcher's (Gerald Friedman) valid work which said that Bernies economic proposals would result in a sustained economic growth rate of 5.6%.

As a recap, here is William Black on the subject:
Krugman and the Gang of 4 Need to Apologize for Smearing Gerald Friedman
Posted on February 21, 2016 by William Black
February 21, 2016 Bloomington, MN

If you depend for your news on the New York Times you have been subjected to a drumbeat of article attacking Bernie Sanders – and the conclusion of everyone “serious” that his economics are daft. In particular, you would “know” that four prior Chairs of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) (the Gang of 4) have signed an open letter to Bernie that delivered a death blow to his proposals. Further, you would know that anyone who dared to disagree with these four illustrious economists was so deranged that he or she was acting like a Republican in denial of global climate change. The open letter set its sights on a far less famous economist, Gerald Friedman, of U. Mass at Amherst. It unleashed a personalized dismissal of his competence and integrity. Four of the Nation’s top economists against one non-famous economists – at a school that studies heterodox economics. That sounds like a fight that the referee should stop in the first round before Friedman is pummeled to death. But why did Paul Krugman need to “tag in” to try to save the Gang of 4 from being routed?

Krugman proclaimed that the Gang of 4 had crushed Friedman in a TKO. Tellingly, Krugman claimed that anyone who disagreed with the Gang of 4 must be beyond the pale (like Friedman and Bernie). Indeed, Krugman was so eager to fend off any analysis of the Group of 4’s attacks that he competed with himself rhetorically as to what inner circle of Hell any supporter of Friedman should be consigned. In the 10:44 a.m. variant, Krugman dismissed Bernie as “not ready for prime time” and decreed that it was illegitimate to critique the Gang of 4’s critique.

In Sanders’s case, I don’t think it’s ideology as much as being not ready for prime time — and also of not being willing to face up to the reality that the kind of drastic changes he’s proposing, no matter how desirable, would produce a lot of losers as well as winners.

And if your response to these concerns is that they’re all corrupt, all looking for jobs with Hillary, you are very much part of the problem.


The implicit message is that four famous economists had to be correct, therefore anyone who disagreed with them must be a conspiracy theorist who is “very much part of the problem.” Paul doesn’t explain what “the problem” is, but he sure makes it sound awful. Logically, “the problem” has to be progressives supporting Bernie.

Two hours later, Paul decided that his poisoned pen had not been toxic enough, he now denounced Sanders as a traitor to the progressives who was on his way “to making Donald Trump president.” To point out the problems in the Gang of 4’s attack on Friedman was to treat them “as right-wing enemies.” Why was Krugman so fervid in its efforts to smear Friedman and prevent any critique of the Gang of 4’s smear that he revised his article within two hours and amped up his rhetoric to a shrill cry of pain? Well, the second piece admits that Gang of 4’s smear of Friedman “didn’t get into specifics” and that progressives were already rising in disgust at Paul’s arrogance and eagerness to sign onto a smear that claimed “rigor” but actually “didn’t get into specifics” while denouncing a scholar. Paul, falsely, portrayed Friedman as a Bernie supporter. Like Krugman, Friedman is actually a Hillary supporter.

Sanders needs to disassociate himself from this kind of fantasy economics right now. If his campaign responds instead by lashing out — well, a campaign that treats Alan Krueger, Christy Romer, and Laura Tyson as right-wing enemies is well on its way to making Donald Trump president.


If we combine both of Paul’s screeds we see that the only way to disagree with a prominent economist is to demonize them as either “corrupt” or “enemies.” ...

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2016/02/krugman-gang-4-need-apologize-smearing-gerald-friedman.html

This is the full text of the letter from noted economist Jamie Galbraith where he takes Krugman and the Gang of 4 ( to the woodshed.
Jamie Galbraith’s Letter to Former CEA Chairs
February 18, 2016

I was highly interested to see your letter of yesterday’s date to Senator Sanders and Professor Gerald Friedman. I respond here as a former Executive Director of the Joint Economic Committee – the congressional counterpart to the CEA.

You write that you have applied rigor to your analyses of economic proposals by Democrats and Republicans. On reading this sentence I looked to the bottom of the page, to find a reference or link to your rigorous review of Professor Friedman’s study. I found nothing there.

You go on to state that Professor Friedman makes “extreme claims” that “cannot be supported by the economic evidence.” You object to the projection of “huge beneficial impacts on growth rates, income and employment that exceed even the most grandiose predictions by Republicans about the impact of their tax cut proposals.”

Matthew Yglesias makes an important point about your letter:
“It’s noteworthy that the former CEA chairs criticizing Friedman didn’t bother to run through a detailed explanation of their problems with the paper. To them, the 5.3 percent figure was simply absurd on its face, and it was good enough for them to say so, relying on their authority to generate media coverage.”


So, let’s first ask whether an economic growth rate, as projected, of 5.3 percent per year is, as you claim, “grandiose.” There are not many ambitious experiments in economic policy with which to compare it, so let’s go back to the Reagan years. What was the actual average real growth rate in 1983, 1984, and 1985, following the enactment of the Reagan tax cuts in 1981? Just under 5.4 percent. That’s a point of history, like it or not.

You write that “no credible economic research supports economic impacts of these magnitudes.” But how did Professor Friedman make his estimates? The answer is in his paper. What Professor Friedman did, was to use the standard impact assumptions and forecasting methods of the mainstream economists and institutions. For example, Professor Friedman starts with a fiscal multiplier of 1.25, and shades it down to the range of 0.8 by the mid 2020s. Is this “not credible”? If that’s your claim, it’s an indictment of the methods of (for instance) the CBO, the OMB, and the CEA.

To be sure, skepticism about standard forecasting methods is perfectly reasonable. I’m a skeptic myself. My 2014 book The End of Normal is all about problems with mainstream forecasting.

In the specific case of this paper, one can quibble with the out-year multipliers, or with the productivity assumptions, or with the presumed impact of a higher minimum wage. One can invoke the trade deficit or the exchange rate. Professor Friedman makes all of these points himself. But those issues are well within mainstream norms.

There is no “magic asterisk,” no strange theory involved here. And the main effect of adjusting the assumptions, which would a perfectly reasonable thing to do, would be to curtail the growth rate after a few years – not at the beginning, when it would matter most.

It is not fair or honest to claim that Professor Friedman’s methods are extreme. On the contrary, with respect to forecasting method, they are largely mainstream. Nor is it fair or honest to imply that you have given Professor Friedman’s paper a rigorous review. You have not.

What you have done, is to light a fire under Paul Krugman, who is now using his high perch to airily dismiss the Friedman paper as “nonsense.” Paul is an immensely powerful figure, and many people rely on him for careful assessments. It seems clear that he has made no such assessment in this case.

Instead, Paul relies on you to impugn an economist with far less reach, whose work is far more careful, in point of fact, than your casual dismissal of it. He and you also imply that Professor Friedman did his work for an unprofessional motive. But let me point out, in case you missed it, that Professor Friedman is a political supporter of Secretary Clinton. His motives are, on the face of it, not political.


For the record, in case you’re curious, I’m not tied to Professor Friedman in any way. But the powerful – such as Paul and yourselves – should be careful where you step.

Let’s turn, finally, to the serious question. What does the Friedman paper really show? The answer is quite simple, and the exercise is – while not perfect – almost entirely ordinary.

What the Friedman paper shows, is that under conventional assumptions, the projected impact of Senator Sanders’ proposals stems from their scale and ambition. When you dare to do big things, big results should be expected. The Sanders program is big, and when you run it through a standard model, you get a big result.

That, by the way, is the lesson of the Reagan era – like it or not. It is a lesson that, among today’s political leaders, only Senator Sanders has learned.


Yours,

(Jamie)

James K. Galbraith
Executive Director, Joint Economic Committee, 1981-2


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 11:02 PM

17. hahahahahaha

 

Look how often she bumps her own Op.

You may not be getting responses because there may be a lot of people who are not "seeing" your posts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to artislife (Reply #17)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 11:07 PM

19. Why do his supporters want to avoid this?

 

Sounds like that "bubble" we hear about so much.

It should be easy to give a link to the list, right? I get plenty of responses on everything else. It's not that people aren't seeing it. It's that his supporters don't know the answer because Bernie is not telling the truth on this. Same with his supposed list of FP policy advisors that turned out not to exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #19)


Response to Name removed (Reply #21)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 11:16 PM

22. It's a simple question backed by HIS words

 

What is "baiting" about it? Wouldn't a responsible voter want to explore these supposed statements from "130 economists and healthcare experts" endorsing how he pays for all his proposals?

I feel like you are dissing me for trying to be a responsible voter. Should I just take his word for it? Why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #22)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 11:49 PM

34. You always love to start a fight. Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #34)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 11:50 PM

35. I love to challenge propaganda and BS

 

That's what makes me an informed voter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #35)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 11:50 PM

37. It makes you a really annoying Hillary supporter IMO. Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #37)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 11:53 PM

39. Yeah, I bet

 

Dog forbid anyone speak the truth about Bernie around here. I am sure they will figure out some way to censor it soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #39)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 11:57 PM

41. Lol, you almost make me think you are just messing with us. Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #41)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 12:20 AM

44. One has to wonder. It is obvious that Sanders was referring to the list of

 

134 economists and healthcare experts who affirm, among other things, that his single payer plan is economically viable. So there is absolutely no evidence of any dishonesty on the part of Sanders in his answer to Cuomo's question. MaggieD knows that, I suspect, but persists in accusing Bernie of lying.

The list, by the way, is here: http://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=2718707-Medicare-for-All-Plan

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #44)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:40 AM

54. This is NPR reporting on his Super Pac's claim

 

It's bullshit of course. They haven't even seen a plan from him. His super pac (the one he claims he doesn't know anything about) put this bullshit out but it's not real.

http://www.nationalnursesunited.org/pages/economists-and-health-care-experts-in-support-of-bernie-sanders-medicare

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #54)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 06:48 AM

62. lol, now the list is not real. You have an active imagination.

 

And you are saying that the people on the list didn't even look at his single payer plan? You are really embarrassing yourself at this point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #39)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 10:40 PM

105. You wouldn't know

 

truth if it bit you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #22)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 08:06 PM

95. You obviously cherry picked an ambiguous Q&A exchange

You'll find a detailed rebuttal by me scattered around this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to artislife (Reply #17)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 05:19 PM

80. Or ignoring her fact free posts.

Her position has been refuted numerous times here and she ignores it and keeps asking for proof. What she means by proof is unclear to me, and many here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #80)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 06:00 PM

86. Oh that. I keep her for the entertainment. Only. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 11:31 PM

24. Here is the link to the list. Try google next time before acusing someone of lying.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #24)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 11:37 PM

27. Sorry - that's BS put out by his Super Pac

 

http://www.nationalnursesunited.org/pages/economists-and-health-care-experts-in-support-of-bernie-sanders-medicare

That is not economists that say his plan to pay for his proposals is realistic, which is the exact question he was asked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #27)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 11:40 PM

29. lol, you are so dishonest that you cant admit that the list to which he referred exists.

 

Obviously that is the list of economists and healthcare experts he is referring to. It has just over 130 names on it, for pity's sake. Your dishonesty is stunning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #27)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 11:46 PM

32. NPR is his super pac?

I would stop digging now. You are only making yourself look foolish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MaggieD (Reply #36)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 07:31 AM

63. Yes, it is on the super pac site

but you claimed it was from his super pac.

You have not provided evidence to back up this claim and no evidence to back the BS claim either. You got what you asked for and aren't happy with that either. The NNU site only lists 27 signers. How can they be the origin when they don't even have the full list.

Do you want to go beyond foolish and try for outright silly?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #27)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 08:10 PM

96. Wrong question Maggie.

The issue is why 4 top administration economists lied about the high growth rate and solid viability of Bernies Economic Proposals.

You are so eager to work in the service of misinformation that you forget to actually learn the facts about what you are trying to distort. You'll find my reply explaining same in several places on this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 11:35 PM

26. K&R for visibility

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunamagica (Reply #26)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 11:38 PM

28. You do realize that you are making the OP's error more visible, right?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #28)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 11:42 PM

31. The OP will NEVER acknowledge it.

Thread after thread after thread..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MelissaB (Reply #31)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 11:55 PM

40. I know. It's amazing.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #28)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 11:51 PM

38. It comes from his Super Pac

 

http://www.nationalnursesunited.org/pages/economists-and-health-care-experts-in-support-of-bernie-sanders-medicare

And it says absolutely fucking nothing about his ridiculous plans to pay for his proposals. Sorry. Those are the facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #38)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 12:03 AM

42. It's a list of 134 people that explicitly sign on to a statement that says, among other things,

 

that his plan will lower the cost of our healthcare system. The question form Cuomo just asked about whether the wealth exists to pay for what Sanders wants to provide. Sanders focused on paying for single-payer in his answer to the question because, as he put it, "that's where a lot of the criticism comes from."

You accuse him of telling a whopper. Can't you have the decency to admit that he didn't tell a lie. Criticize the list all you want, but he wasn't lying when he suggested that he had 130 economists and health care experts who endorsed the economic viability of his plan. The statement those experts signed on to says that "Bernie Sanders’s single-payer system would cost less than our current system."

Show some decency here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #42)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:04 AM

49. As reported by his Super Pac

 

You know, the Super Pac he claims he has no knowledge of. That one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #49)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 06:46 AM

61. Really, now you are trying to change the subject?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 12:58 AM

47. Does it really matter?

I'm told he'll never get anything passed anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glamrock (Reply #47)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:02 AM

48. It matters that he fabricates to this extent at a town hall

 

And that his supporters then repeat the nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #48)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:14 AM

50. Do you see the irony in your statement?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glamrock (Reply #50)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:21 AM

52. I see attempts at deflection

 

We have a flat out falsehood he made at a town hall, and ironically he is relying on complete bullshit put out by the super pac he claims he does not have and has no connection with. And the fucking proof is right here:

http://www.nationalnursesunited.org/pages/economists-and-health-care-experts-in-support-of-bernie-sanders-medicare

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #52)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 06:39 AM

60. When you start using foul Trumpish language you diminish your standing...

 

The fact is that anyone who isn't pushing for national health care is carrying water for the right wingers.

There is absolutely no reason that we can't have national health care and spend less than we do now.

Simple logic and the example of other developed countries tell us it is very possible--

US Spends More on Health Care Than Other High-Income Nations But Has Lower Life Expectancy, Worse Health

New Report Finds Americans Have Fewer Doctor and Hospital Visits Than People in Other Nations; Outsized Spending Likely a Result of More Technology, Higher Prices For Care and Prescriptions Drugs

New York, N.Y., October 8, 2015— The U.S. spent more per person on health care than 12 other high-income nations in 2013, while seeing the lowest life expectancy and some of the worst health outcomes among this group, according to a Commonwealth Fund report out today. The analysis shows that in the U.S., which spent an average of $9,086 per person annually, life expectancy was 78.8 years. Switzerland, the second-highest-spending country, spent $6,325 per person and had a life expectancy of 82.9 years. Mortality rates for cancer were among the lowest in the U.S., but rates of chronic conditions, obesity, and infant mortality were higher than those abroad.

“Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits,” said Commonwealth Fund President David Blumenthal, M.D. “We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity.”

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/press-releases/2015/oct/us-spends-more-on-health-care-than-other-nations

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #48)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 08:11 PM

97. Since you saw fit to call Sanders a liar without doing any research...

Since you saw fit to call Sanders a liar without doing any research, I'm posting this where you've chosen to make that slur against an honest person. Each time you falsely accuse him of lying I think it's fair to show you why that is wrong.

There are two inter-related subjects - 1) regulating Wall Street and 2) the economic impact of his policy proposals to move money from the Wall Street crowd back onto Main Street.

The first, a staple objection since day one, is addressed by the list of 170 economists. And that was the topic Bernie thought was being raised.
https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Wall-St-Letter-1.pdf

The second issue is a more recent bunch of bullshit that was concocted by a very small group of Establishment, ProTPP economists that simply lied about a researcher's (Gerald Friedman) valid work which said that Bernies economic proposals would result in a sustained economic growth rate of 5.6%.

As a recap, here is William Black on the subject:
Krugman and the Gang of 4 Need to Apologize for Smearing Gerald Friedman
Posted on February 21, 2016 by William Black
February 21, 2016 Bloomington, MN

If you depend for your news on the New York Times you have been subjected to a drumbeat of article attacking Bernie Sanders – and the conclusion of everyone “serious” that his economics are daft. In particular, you would “know” that four prior Chairs of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) (the Gang of 4) have signed an open letter to Bernie that delivered a death blow to his proposals. Further, you would know that anyone who dared to disagree with these four illustrious economists was so deranged that he or she was acting like a Republican in denial of global climate change. The open letter set its sights on a far less famous economist, Gerald Friedman, of U. Mass at Amherst. It unleashed a personalized dismissal of his competence and integrity. Four of the Nation’s top economists against one non-famous economists – at a school that studies heterodox economics. That sounds like a fight that the referee should stop in the first round before Friedman is pummeled to death. But why did Paul Krugman need to “tag in” to try to save the Gang of 4 from being routed?

Krugman proclaimed that the Gang of 4 had crushed Friedman in a TKO. Tellingly, Krugman claimed that anyone who disagreed with the Gang of 4 must be beyond the pale (like Friedman and Bernie). Indeed, Krugman was so eager to fend off any analysis of the Group of 4’s attacks that he competed with himself rhetorically as to what inner circle of Hell any supporter of Friedman should be consigned. In the 10:44 a.m. variant, Krugman dismissed Bernie as “not ready for prime time” and decreed that it was illegitimate to critique the Gang of 4’s critique.

In Sanders’s case, I don’t think it’s ideology as much as being not ready for prime time — and also of not being willing to face up to the reality that the kind of drastic changes he’s proposing, no matter how desirable, would produce a lot of losers as well as winners.

And if your response to these concerns is that they’re all corrupt, all looking for jobs with Hillary, you are very much part of the problem.


The implicit message is that four famous economists had to be correct, therefore anyone who disagreed with them must be a conspiracy theorist who is “very much part of the problem.” Paul doesn’t explain what “the problem” is, but he sure makes it sound awful. Logically, “the problem” has to be progressives supporting Bernie.

Two hours later, Paul decided that his poisoned pen had not been toxic enough, he now denounced Sanders as a traitor to the progressives who was on his way “to making Donald Trump president.” To point out the problems in the Gang of 4’s attack on Friedman was to treat them “as right-wing enemies.” Why was Krugman so fervid in its efforts to smear Friedman and prevent any critique of the Gang of 4’s smear that he revised his article within two hours and amped up his rhetoric to a shrill cry of pain? Well, the second piece admits that Gang of 4’s smear of Friedman “didn’t get into specifics” and that progressives were already rising in disgust at Paul’s arrogance and eagerness to sign onto a smear that claimed “rigor” but actually “didn’t get into specifics” while denouncing a scholar. Paul, falsely, portrayed Friedman as a Bernie supporter. Like Krugman, Friedman is actually a Hillary supporter.

Sanders needs to disassociate himself from this kind of fantasy economics right now. If his campaign responds instead by lashing out — well, a campaign that treats Alan Krueger, Christy Romer, and Laura Tyson as right-wing enemies is well on its way to making Donald Trump president.


If we combine both of Paul’s screeds we see that the only way to disagree with a prominent economist is to demonize them as either “corrupt” or “enemies.” ...

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2016/02/krugman-gang-4-need-apologize-smearing-gerald-friedman.html

This is the full text of the letter from noted economist Jamie Galbraith where he takes Krugman and the Gang of 4 ( to the woodshed.
Jamie Galbraith’s Letter to Former CEA Chairs
February 18, 2016

I was highly interested to see your letter of yesterday’s date to Senator Sanders and Professor Gerald Friedman. I respond here as a former Executive Director of the Joint Economic Committee – the congressional counterpart to the CEA.

You write that you have applied rigor to your analyses of economic proposals by Democrats and Republicans. On reading this sentence I looked to the bottom of the page, to find a reference or link to your rigorous review of Professor Friedman’s study. I found nothing there.

You go on to state that Professor Friedman makes “extreme claims” that “cannot be supported by the economic evidence.” You object to the projection of “huge beneficial impacts on growth rates, income and employment that exceed even the most grandiose predictions by Republicans about the impact of their tax cut proposals.”

Matthew Yglesias makes an important point about your letter:
“It’s noteworthy that the former CEA chairs criticizing Friedman didn’t bother to run through a detailed explanation of their problems with the paper. To them, the 5.3 percent figure was simply absurd on its face, and it was good enough for them to say so, relying on their authority to generate media coverage.”


So, let’s first ask whether an economic growth rate, as projected, of 5.3 percent per year is, as you claim, “grandiose.” There are not many ambitious experiments in economic policy with which to compare it, so let’s go back to the Reagan years. What was the actual average real growth rate in 1983, 1984, and 1985, following the enactment of the Reagan tax cuts in 1981? Just under 5.4 percent. That’s a point of history, like it or not.

You write that “no credible economic research supports economic impacts of these magnitudes.” But how did Professor Friedman make his estimates? The answer is in his paper. What Professor Friedman did, was to use the standard impact assumptions and forecasting methods of the mainstream economists and institutions. For example, Professor Friedman starts with a fiscal multiplier of 1.25, and shades it down to the range of 0.8 by the mid 2020s. Is this “not credible”? If that’s your claim, it’s an indictment of the methods of (for instance) the CBO, the OMB, and the CEA.

To be sure, skepticism about standard forecasting methods is perfectly reasonable. I’m a skeptic myself. My 2014 book The End of Normal is all about problems with mainstream forecasting.

In the specific case of this paper, one can quibble with the out-year multipliers, or with the productivity assumptions, or with the presumed impact of a higher minimum wage. One can invoke the trade deficit or the exchange rate. Professor Friedman makes all of these points himself. But those issues are well within mainstream norms.

There is no “magic asterisk,” no strange theory involved here. And the main effect of adjusting the assumptions, which would a perfectly reasonable thing to do, would be to curtail the growth rate after a few years – not at the beginning, when it would matter most.

It is not fair or honest to claim that Professor Friedman’s methods are extreme. On the contrary, with respect to forecasting method, they are largely mainstream. Nor is it fair or honest to imply that you have given Professor Friedman’s paper a rigorous review. You have not.

What you have done, is to light a fire under Paul Krugman, who is now using his high perch to airily dismiss the Friedman paper as “nonsense.” Paul is an immensely powerful figure, and many people rely on him for careful assessments. It seems clear that he has made no such assessment in this case.

Instead, Paul relies on you to impugn an economist with far less reach, whose work is far more careful, in point of fact, than your casual dismissal of it. He and you also imply that Professor Friedman did his work for an unprofessional motive. But let me point out, in case you missed it, that Professor Friedman is a political supporter of Secretary Clinton. His motives are, on the face of it, not political.


For the record, in case you’re curious, I’m not tied to Professor Friedman in any way. But the powerful – such as Paul and yourselves – should be careful where you step.

Let’s turn, finally, to the serious question. What does the Friedman paper really show? The answer is quite simple, and the exercise is – while not perfect – almost entirely ordinary.

What the Friedman paper shows, is that under conventional assumptions, the projected impact of Senator Sanders’ proposals stems from their scale and ambition. When you dare to do big things, big results should be expected. The Sanders program is big, and when you run it through a standard model, you get a big result.

That, by the way, is the lesson of the Reagan era – like it or not. It is a lesson that, among today’s political leaders, only Senator Sanders has learned.


Yours,

(Jamie)

James K. Galbraith
Executive Director, Joint Economic Committee, 1981-2

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:44 AM

55. This post would be

more interesting if you added potato salad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Perogie (Reply #55)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:47 AM

56. Another Bernie supporter with no excuse for his BS statement?

 

Come on - be honest. He was bullshitting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #56)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:49 AM

57. We just don't care what you have to say

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Perogie (Reply #57)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:52 AM

58. Odd - you all seem to care enough to respond

 

And deflect as best you can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #58)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:55 AM

59. Maybe because it takes time for you to get it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 07:41 AM

64. It is obvious that Bernie "misspoke" about the economists...

careful analysis by neutral economists have characterized Bernie's single payer and education plans as either lacking-details or simply-impossible.

Virtually no comprehensive study supports his proposals without some major caveats that are not practical:

...paying doctors and nurses 1/3 to 1/2 less while closing a bunch of hospitals
...taxing international funds with no jurisdiction to do so
...assuming that state governments will go along with Bernie's plans when they have been so uncooperative

You get the idea. Bernie has an imaginary utopia vision; but getting there is not realistic - and there's no way to pay for it in the form that Bernie has described his plan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #64)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 10:12 AM

66. No, he didn't misspeak. The list of 134 contains both economists and healthcare experts.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #66)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 10:31 AM

67. ...and it's been documented that they don't have an economic analysis that stands up....

again and again and again....

just because some people WANT some version of single payer doesn't mean that there's a practical path or budget to get there.

The lists of people who agree that some of Bernie's ideas would be nice is NOT the same thing as demonstrating how it would work.

For example ( and this is one of MANY examples), it's clear that almost all European-style models of health care pay doctors and nurses 1/3 to 1/2 less than the US. Almost all the bean-counters stumble over this assumption of Bernie plan that has not practical way to implement.

Bernie either misspoke, exaggerated, lied, or he is wrong. The lists of supporters are not serious economists with access to data who reached a conclusion though analysis that Bernie's plan actually adds up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #67)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 04:04 PM

68. You are changing the subject.

 

The OP falsely accuses Bernie of lying in claiming that such a list exists. It does. He didn't lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #68)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 04:27 PM

69. No, the OP asks for the economists that have analyzed the data and agree with the plan...

That is what Bernie is either lying or exaggerating about...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #69)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 04:33 PM

70. Sigh. Bernie didn't say that the 134 people on the list

 

all did a careful analysis of the plan. So there was no lie. But you go ahead and pretend that there was one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #70)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 04:55 PM

75. Ok...then all he has to do is say...

"There are some folks who really, really WISH that this plan would happen, but we really, really don't know if it's possible!

Meanwhile, the experts who actually analyzed the facts of the plan don't think it's possible."

No problem...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #75)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 05:00 PM

77. So you agree that he didn't lie and that the OP is wrong?

 

(It's okay, I really don't expect an honest answer.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #77)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 05:13 PM

78. No...I think he lied. That's my personal view.

Bernie has been around enough to know that he is giving a snake oil speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #78)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 05:37 PM

83. Let me break it down for you.

 

MaggieD says this in the OP:

I have been looking for this list since he made the claim in the SC Townhall. I have concluded he told a big whopper. These "130 economists and healthcare experts" do not seem to exist.


Which 130 economists and healthcare experts don't exist, according to her? The ones Sanders was referring to when he said:

... We have well over a hundred, it's a 130 economists, and healthcare experts who will say the same."

The problem for you and MaggieD is that the list does exist. It contains 134 names. Those names include the names of economists and healthcare experts. They all claim that Sanders' single payer system would cost less than our current healthcare system.

So Sanders did not lie. Deflect all you want by saying that the Friedman analysis that supports Bernie's plans is worse than analyses used to attack the plan. But there was no lie. The list exists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #83)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 09:13 PM

100. The lie is not that the list exists....the lie is what they say the cost is....

Even though there is some debate, the vast majority of analyses by neutral or bipartisan experts don't think the math adds up..and Bernie knows it. The list of experts know it too.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-false-charms-of-bernie-sanderss-single-payer-plan/2016/02/07/7b79be5a-cc25-11e5-a7b2-5a2f824b02c9_story.html

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jan/13/how-much-would-bernie-sanders-health-care-plan-cos/

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/02/11/can-america-afford-sanders-big-plans/MtEoDAEbF9EhtGeCkW8QvK/story.html

http://prospect.org/article/false-lure-sanders-single-payer-plan

http://fiscalfactcheck.crfb.org/analysis-of-the-sanders-single-payer-offsets/

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/03/pf/taxes/bernie-sanders-health-plan/

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/269786-debate-rages-over-the-cost-of-bernies-government

http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2016/02/11/single-payer_sacrifice_116_million_jobs_1551.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/us/politics/left-leaning-economists-question-cost-of-bernie-sanderss-plans.html?_r=0

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/28/10858644/bernie-sanders-kenneth-thorpe-single-payer

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sanders-health-plan-cost_us_56a8ff99e4b0f6b7d5447ee8

http://www.wsj.com/articles/price-tag-of-bernie-sanders-proposals-18-trillion-1442271511

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/17/467087858/top-wonks-take-aim-at-sanders-economic-plans

http://www.ibtimes.com/election-2016-do-sanders-economic-plans-add-cost-his-revolution-2326247

http://nypost.com/2016/01/31/bernie-and-the-high-cost-of-free-health-care/

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/02/03/Sanders-Single-Payer-Plan-Would-Add-14-Trillion-Debt

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/25/bernie-sanders-s-single-payer-health-care-plan-failed-in-vermont.html

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/03/lets-factcheck-bernies-medicare-for-all-claims/

http://whatifpost.com/the-fuzzy-math-behind-bernie-sanders-health-plan.htm

https://www.phillyvoice.com/sanders-single-payer-plan-doesnt-add-bipartisan-group-says/

https://www.oximity.com/article/The-Larger-Problems-of-the-Sanders-Sin-1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #100)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 09:32 PM

101. More deflection. MaggieD said that Sanders lied

 

by claiming that the list exists. That is what the OP was about. You are apparently not honest enough to admit that she is mistaken.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #101)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 09:45 PM

102. That's not the point of the OP....

It is not the existence of a list. Bernie knows the list doesn't really support what he implies.

He did the same thing with his foreign policy list.

He is trying to say 130 experts agree with his math - and they don't. At best a few experts think some of Bernie's plan has some good points.

Take the 130 one at a time and show all their reports and analyses; then the list breaks down into nothing but Bernie's loud claim. Some of the list are mentioned in the links I provided. Lots of references to actual breakdowns of the likely costs too.

Only a few on the list actually argue the details of the plan would work and cost what Bernie claims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #102)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 09:48 PM

103. Well, like I said, I didn't really expect an honest reply from you.

 

MaggieD: "Who are these 130 economists (and healthcare experts) that endorse how Bernie pays for his proposals? I have been looking for this list since he made the claim in the SC Townhall. I have concluded he told a big whopper. These '130 economists and healthcare experts' do not seem to exist.

I provided the list. The economists and healthcare experts on the list do exist, and they do endorse Bernie's single payer proposal, including the proposition that it would reduce the cost of our healthcare system. Bernie did not lie at that townhall in claiming that these economists and healthcare experts exist.

If MaggieD were honest, she would admit that she was mistaken. If you were honest, you would admit that she was mistaken.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 05:21 PM

81. Some people refuse to be budged from a position and never let reality get in the way.

Your position has been refuted numerous times here and you ignore it and keep asking for proof. What you mean by proof is unclear to me, and many here.

Please Google "belief perseverance" and read it carefully.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #81)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 07:33 PM

87. Refuted by what???????

 

Bernie's super PAC?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #87)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 08:14 PM

98. Still peddling that false nonsense, eh?

Unlike Clinton, Bernie doesn't have a SuperPac. But you already know that so lets move on. Since you saw fit to call Sanders a liar without doing any research, I'm posting this where you've chosen to make that slur against an honest person. Each time you falsely accuse him of lying I think it's fair to show you why that is wrong.

There are two inter-related subjects - 1) regulating Wall Street and 2) the economic impact of his policy proposals to move money from the Wall Street crowd back onto Main Street.

The first, a staple objection since day one, is addressed by the list of 170 economists. And that was the topic Bernie thought was being raised.
https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Wall-St-Letter-1.pdf

The second issue is a more recent bunch of bullshit that was concocted by a very small group of Establishment, ProTPP economists that simply lied about a researcher's (Gerald Friedman) valid work which said that Bernies economic proposals would result in a sustained economic growth rate of 5.6%.

As a recap, here is William Black on the subject:
Krugman and the Gang of 4 Need to Apologize for Smearing Gerald Friedman
Posted on February 21, 2016 by William Black
February 21, 2016 Bloomington, MN

If you depend for your news on the New York Times you have been subjected to a drumbeat of article attacking Bernie Sanders – and the conclusion of everyone “serious” that his economics are daft. In particular, you would “know” that four prior Chairs of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) (the Gang of 4) have signed an open letter to Bernie that delivered a death blow to his proposals. Further, you would know that anyone who dared to disagree with these four illustrious economists was so deranged that he or she was acting like a Republican in denial of global climate change. The open letter set its sights on a far less famous economist, Gerald Friedman, of U. Mass at Amherst. It unleashed a personalized dismissal of his competence and integrity. Four of the Nation’s top economists against one non-famous economists – at a school that studies heterodox economics. That sounds like a fight that the referee should stop in the first round before Friedman is pummeled to death. But why did Paul Krugman need to “tag in” to try to save the Gang of 4 from being routed?

Krugman proclaimed that the Gang of 4 had crushed Friedman in a TKO. Tellingly, Krugman claimed that anyone who disagreed with the Gang of 4 must be beyond the pale (like Friedman and Bernie). Indeed, Krugman was so eager to fend off any analysis of the Group of 4’s attacks that he competed with himself rhetorically as to what inner circle of Hell any supporter of Friedman should be consigned. In the 10:44 a.m. variant, Krugman dismissed Bernie as “not ready for prime time” and decreed that it was illegitimate to critique the Gang of 4’s critique.

In Sanders’s case, I don’t think it’s ideology as much as being not ready for prime time — and also of not being willing to face up to the reality that the kind of drastic changes he’s proposing, no matter how desirable, would produce a lot of losers as well as winners.

And if your response to these concerns is that they’re all corrupt, all looking for jobs with Hillary, you are very much part of the problem.


The implicit message is that four famous economists had to be correct, therefore anyone who disagreed with them must be a conspiracy theorist who is “very much part of the problem.” Paul doesn’t explain what “the problem” is, but he sure makes it sound awful. Logically, “the problem” has to be progressives supporting Bernie.

Two hours later, Paul decided that his poisoned pen had not been toxic enough, he now denounced Sanders as a traitor to the progressives who was on his way “to making Donald Trump president.” To point out the problems in the Gang of 4’s attack on Friedman was to treat them “as right-wing enemies.” Why was Krugman so fervid in its efforts to smear Friedman and prevent any critique of the Gang of 4’s smear that he revised his article within two hours and amped up his rhetoric to a shrill cry of pain? Well, the second piece admits that Gang of 4’s smear of Friedman “didn’t get into specifics” and that progressives were already rising in disgust at Paul’s arrogance and eagerness to sign onto a smear that claimed “rigor” but actually “didn’t get into specifics” while denouncing a scholar. Paul, falsely, portrayed Friedman as a Bernie supporter. Like Krugman, Friedman is actually a Hillary supporter.

Sanders needs to disassociate himself from this kind of fantasy economics right now. If his campaign responds instead by lashing out — well, a campaign that treats Alan Krueger, Christy Romer, and Laura Tyson as right-wing enemies is well on its way to making Donald Trump president.


If we combine both of Paul’s screeds we see that the only way to disagree with a prominent economist is to demonize them as either “corrupt” or “enemies.” ...

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2016/02/krugman-gang-4-need-apologize-smearing-gerald-friedman.html

This is the full text of the letter from noted economist Jamie Galbraith where he takes Krugman and the Gang of 4 ( to the woodshed.
Jamie Galbraith’s Letter to Former CEA Chairs
February 18, 2016

I was highly interested to see your letter of yesterday’s date to Senator Sanders and Professor Gerald Friedman. I respond here as a former Executive Director of the Joint Economic Committee – the congressional counterpart to the CEA.

You write that you have applied rigor to your analyses of economic proposals by Democrats and Republicans. On reading this sentence I looked to the bottom of the page, to find a reference or link to your rigorous review of Professor Friedman’s study. I found nothing there.

You go on to state that Professor Friedman makes “extreme claims” that “cannot be supported by the economic evidence.” You object to the projection of “huge beneficial impacts on growth rates, income and employment that exceed even the most grandiose predictions by Republicans about the impact of their tax cut proposals.”

Matthew Yglesias makes an important point about your letter:
“It’s noteworthy that the former CEA chairs criticizing Friedman didn’t bother to run through a detailed explanation of their problems with the paper. To them, the 5.3 percent figure was simply absurd on its face, and it was good enough for them to say so, relying on their authority to generate media coverage.”


So, let’s first ask whether an economic growth rate, as projected, of 5.3 percent per year is, as you claim, “grandiose.” There are not many ambitious experiments in economic policy with which to compare it, so let’s go back to the Reagan years. What was the actual average real growth rate in 1983, 1984, and 1985, following the enactment of the Reagan tax cuts in 1981? Just under 5.4 percent. That’s a point of history, like it or not.

You write that “no credible economic research supports economic impacts of these magnitudes.” But how did Professor Friedman make his estimates? The answer is in his paper. What Professor Friedman did, was to use the standard impact assumptions and forecasting methods of the mainstream economists and institutions. For example, Professor Friedman starts with a fiscal multiplier of 1.25, and shades it down to the range of 0.8 by the mid 2020s. Is this “not credible”? If that’s your claim, it’s an indictment of the methods of (for instance) the CBO, the OMB, and the CEA.

To be sure, skepticism about standard forecasting methods is perfectly reasonable. I’m a skeptic myself. My 2014 book The End of Normal is all about problems with mainstream forecasting.

In the specific case of this paper, one can quibble with the out-year multipliers, or with the productivity assumptions, or with the presumed impact of a higher minimum wage. One can invoke the trade deficit or the exchange rate. Professor Friedman makes all of these points himself. But those issues are well within mainstream norms.

There is no “magic asterisk,” no strange theory involved here. And the main effect of adjusting the assumptions, which would a perfectly reasonable thing to do, would be to curtail the growth rate after a few years – not at the beginning, when it would matter most.

It is not fair or honest to claim that Professor Friedman’s methods are extreme. On the contrary, with respect to forecasting method, they are largely mainstream. Nor is it fair or honest to imply that you have given Professor Friedman’s paper a rigorous review. You have not.

What you have done, is to light a fire under Paul Krugman, who is now using his high perch to airily dismiss the Friedman paper as “nonsense.” Paul is an immensely powerful figure, and many people rely on him for careful assessments. It seems clear that he has made no such assessment in this case.

Instead, Paul relies on you to impugn an economist with far less reach, whose work is far more careful, in point of fact, than your casual dismissal of it. He and you also imply that Professor Friedman did his work for an unprofessional motive. But let me point out, in case you missed it, that Professor Friedman is a political supporter of Secretary Clinton. His motives are, on the face of it, not political.


For the record, in case you’re curious, I’m not tied to Professor Friedman in any way. But the powerful – such as Paul and yourselves – should be careful where you step.

Let’s turn, finally, to the serious question. What does the Friedman paper really show? The answer is quite simple, and the exercise is – while not perfect – almost entirely ordinary.

What the Friedman paper shows, is that under conventional assumptions, the projected impact of Senator Sanders’ proposals stems from their scale and ambition. When you dare to do big things, big results should be expected. The Sanders program is big, and when you run it through a standard model, you get a big result.

That, by the way, is the lesson of the Reagan era – like it or not. It is a lesson that, among today’s political leaders, only Senator Sanders has learned.


Yours,

(Jamie)

James K. Galbraith
Executive Director, Joint Economic Committee, 1981-2

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #98)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 12:26 AM

106. Sorry - it's ludicrous to suggest GDP growth will be 5%

 

For 10 years straight. Especially given that we've never seen that in history. How? Magically? He doesn't say. It's clearly as case working backwards to get the numbers Sanders needs. Why? Because Freidman agrees with the objective and the ideology. Facts don't seem to matter.

Good thing Sanders is not going to be president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #87)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 08:45 PM

99. Beuller?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #87)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 10:19 PM

104. Bueller???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 09:10 AM

107. Still waiting ...

... this is MUCH more relevant than Hillary's speech transcripts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #107)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 12:57 PM

108. I suspect the wait will continue forever

 

Given that this is just flat out nonsense from Bernie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #108)

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 11:46 AM

111. (Sigh.) Any day now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 04:49 PM

109. Bwahahaha!!!!!

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511419234



On Friday afternoon, the Tax Policy Center (TPC) — a project of centrist think tank Brookings Institution — published a thoroughly-flawed analysis of Bernie Sanders’ tax plan. The TPC claimed that by raising $15.3 trillion in new revenue over ten years to fund Sanders’ proposals for free public college, universal health care, paid family and medical leave, and millions of new infrastructure jobs, the overall income of the average American would drop by approximately 12 percent.

However, the analysis was fundamentally disingenuous, as it analyzes the tax increases in a vacuum and does not account for the tremendous amount of savings that would be realized by families using public health insurance and colleges. It also does not account for the overall economic benefit of 13 million new public sector jobs and the resulting flow of new money into the economy.

“We do not account for the effects of the new government programs on income,” TPC co-founder Leonard Burman told Politico, in a revealing quote buried thirteen paragraphs below Politico‘s misleading headline. “We’re not really experts on the spending component.”

http://usuncut.com/news/sanders-shoots-down-tpc-analysis-of-tax-plan/


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #109)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 04:58 PM

110. Well that Bernie site is FOS - here is the actual report

 

Here is the actual report, and it slams his proposals and tax increases:

"he proposal would raise taxes at every income level, but high-income taxpayers would face the biggest increases, both in dollar amount and as a percentage of income. Overall, the plan would raise tax burdens by an average of nearly $9,000, thereby lowering average after-tax income by 12.4 percent. However, the highest-income taxpayers (the top 0.1 percent, or those with income over $3.7 million in 2015 dollars) would experience an average increase in tax burdens of more than $3 million in 2017, nearly 45 percent of their $6.9 million average after-tax income. Households in the middle quintile of the income distribution would see an average tax increase of almost $4,700, or 8.5 percent of their average after-tax income. Those in the bottom quintile would experience smaller tax increases, averaging $165, or 1.3 percent of their average after-tax income.

The increases in marginal tax rates under the plan would reduce incentives to work, save, and invest. The proposals would also raise the marginal effective tax rate (METR) on all new investments, thus significantly reducing incentives to invest and increasing tax distortions in the allocation of capital. Although the significant additional revenues would by themselves reduce government borrowing and lower interest rates, it is clear that Senator Sanders intends to use those revenues to expand government programs. If the revenues are insufficient to cover the new spending, the additional borrowing could increase interest rates, which would further raise investment costs."

http://taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/2000639-an-analysis-of-senator-bernie-sanderss-tax-proposals.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread