fyp

Yeah, a consensus of academics is a pretty powerful thing. For example, I've never observed a Higgs boson, but I'm pretty convinced they exist. Why do I?

Do your own research on the Higgs Boson sheeple.

You are right about this but blaming it all on the media is missing the big picture I think. Sure, the media spreads the propaganda of "unemployment rate" when the real rate doesn't match gubmint figures, but the media isn't responsible for the rate calculation. That distinction belongs to politicians and their appointees.

Both sides encourage it. Our governor here in FL claims that unemployment in FL has fallen to 8.5% because of his economic policies while completely ignoring the fact that the real reason unemployment has fallen is because of so many leaving the workforce.

I assume that the unemployment rate has never included those who leave the job market for the reason that it might be (or might have once been) difficult to put those people into an easy category. Some, if not most, people obviously leave the job market out of despair, but others also just don't want to work.

I think it's some combination of despair, don't actually need to work, and "Dammit I applied at 10 places, have no skills, and still can't find a job. I'm moving back in with Mom."

I wish they would have polled some more questions, like will the increase in the top marginal rate hurt employment?

+1

Whether the answer is right or wrong, I think that a majority of economists would answer that such an increase would not hurt employment.

Here's the thing though. That's a fact from the natural sciences. When you have a report about how unemployment went down, that is a fact based on definitions on unemployment. But what it actually means, well it doesn't really mean much of anything, which is part of why the analogy between natural sciences and social sciences doesn't hold water.

1. Yet in a survey of leading economists conducted by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business, 92 percent agreed that the stimulus succeeded in reducing the jobless rate. On the harder question of whether the benefit exceeded the cost, more than half thought it did, one in three was uncertain, and fewer than one in six disagreed.

2. The survey found no economists willing to dispute the idea that the bailouts lowered unemployment.

3. Couldn’t find a single economist who believed that cutting taxes today will lead to higher government revenue -- even if we lower only the top tax rate.

4. Unanimous in agreeing that “long run fiscal sustainability in the U.S. will require cuts in currently promised Medicare and Medicaid benefits and/or tax increases that include higher taxes on households with incomes below $250,000.” Only one in 10 was uncertain. None objected.

5. Popular tax deductions such as that for mortgage interest didn’t fare well in the surveys and would be on almost any economist’s list of targets for reform. Yet neither party is willing to propose such policies.

1. Politicans generally should not be involved in economics or attempt to lower the unemployment rate. Thier only job is to make government as efficient as possible. The stimulus was a joke it gave jobs to existing government workers or insiders and the cost per job was $200,000 to $4 million a job. Welfare would have been better.

2. Bailouts were a joke, the GM tax cut should be offered to all companies, not to create jobs, but to give dividends, enticing more people to invest. The capital gains tax and dividends tax should be eliminated. Corporate lowered and bond and debt interest payments taxed. as for the bank bailouts, FDIC insurance should be removed and full rerve banking on a gold or limited supply standard enforced.

3. It is not suppose to. You are suppose to cut taxes and lower revenue and cut spending. The goal is not to maximize tax revenue, it is to minimize spending the true tax.

4. People should be allowed to opt out of medicare and have their check added to social security. Medicare is a bloated joke where costs are maximized by the health care barons. Social security and medicare have had massive trust funds for decades.

As for raising taxes below $250,000 a year. They should not be raised, government should be cut, people should protest a 10% tax rate on the federal level.

5. Mortgage interest deduction is just a deduction to force the poor, renters,and those with paid off homes to pay for rich peoples homes. I suggest instead of the 9-9-9 plan, how about the 9-9 plan with no income tax, except those making 250K a year.

Rich celebrities don't seem to care about the tax rate. I think the top brackets can be raised and the bottom brackets eliminated as they don't generate much income. The bottom 75% should not even file as it probably costs more in compliance.

Cut spending!!!!!

You think these guys don't know the difference between U3 and U6, how all the Us are calculated, and precisely what they mean?

I would guess the opposite but it is just a guess on my part.

Despite record corporate profits and substantial gains on Wall Street, we're not seeing record employment. Whatever they're doing with their money, it's not creating jobs. So, if the national debt is a job killer, as the GOP would have us believe, why not attend to that with tax rates back in line with the Reagan or Clinton years?

Just think if how many more jobs they wouldn't be creating if you raise their taxes!