economists favor spending cuts

[Azazello1313]

Spending Cuts, Not Tax Hikes, Best for Deficit: NABE

 

The majority of economists surveyed by the National Association for Business Economics believe that the federal deficit should be reduced only or primarily through spending cuts.

 

The survey out Monday found that 56 percent of the NABE members surveyed felt that way, while 37 percent said they favor equal parts spending cuts and tax increases. The remaining 7 percent believe it should be done only or mostly through tax increases.

[Seahawk37]

Time to give government workers their pink slips and tell them we'll call them back when business picks up...

[evil_gop_liars]

Tell these guys.

[Ursa Majoris]

Tell these guys.

There's one reason and one reason only that the GOP opposes this - the people that benefit the most are more likely to vote Democrat. There is no other explanation.

[Azazello1313]

There's one reason and one reason only that the GOP opposes this - the people that benefit the most are more likely to vote Democrat. There is no other explanation.

 

well, I actually think the main reason is that Obama is the one proposing it. the republicans opposing it (there are many republicans supporting it, including romney) are being incredibly short-sighted and stupid.

[wiegie]

It is no suprise that most of them think that spending cuts should be a bigger driver of deficit reduction than tax increases. That is pretty much standard. What should be noted is how few of them thinking that the deficit should be reduced solely by spendig cuts. So, even the members of the NABE, which are generally more conservative than academic economists, think that the base plan of a particular unmentioned political party is not a good idea.

 

I will note that on the actual NABE website, the headline for their survey results reads:

 

"NABE Economic Policy Survey, August 2011

NABE Economists Concerned About Rising Deficits, Favor a “Balanced” Approach that Mixes Spending Cuts with Revenue Increases"

 

(I'll also note that I am friends with one of the lead authors (Chad Moutray) of this survey. He and I shared an office in graduate school. (He had a poster on the wall that had a picture of Dan Rather which was titled "Rather Biased"; I, on the other hand, had a poster on the wall of this.)

[Azazello1313]

What should be noted is how few of them thinking that the deficit should be reduced solely by spendig cuts.

 

only 56% of them?

[westvirginia]

There's one reason and one reason only that the GOP opposes this - the people that benefit the most are more likely to vote Democrat. There is no other explanation.

 

And there's one reason and one reason only that the obamessiah wants to raise taxes on th evil, filthy, disgusting, putrid rich - they DON"T vote democrat and he loves class warfare. There is no other explanation.

[bushwacked]

A business organization opposes tax increases on businesses?. This is truly a groundbreaking and thread worthy revelation.

[wiegie]

only 56% of them?

uh, if someone thought that the deficit should be reduced 51% by spending cuts and 49% by tax increases, then they would fall into that 56%.

 

If my hand-counting of the actual survey responses is correct, the % that favor only spending cuts is 12%.

[Azazello1313]

uh, if someone thought that the deficit should be reduced 51% by spending cuts and 49% by tax increases, then they would fall into that 56%.

 

somehow I am thinking a person who felt that way would place him or herself in the 37% who favor an "equal mixture" rather than the 56% who say they favor "only or primarily" spending cuts.

 

you're probably better off going with bushwacked's slightly-less-disingenuous spin on this one ("aha, business economists!")

[wiegie]

somehow I am thinking a person who felt that way would place him or herself in the 37% who favor an "equal mixture" rather than the 56% who say they favor "only or primarily" spending cuts.

I will grant you that the 51-49% was a spur of the moment (likely) exaggeration, but your claim that 56% of those surveyed wanted only spending cuts is ridiculously incorrect

 

Again, the NABE's own title to their survey should take away any misinterpretations that you have concerning the data:

 

"NABE Economists Concerned About Rising Deficits, Favor a “Balanced” Approach that Mixes Spending Cuts with Revenue Increases"

[Azazello1313]

I will grant you that the 51-49% was a spur of the moment (likely) exaggeration, but your claim that 56% of those surveyed wanted only spending cuts is ridiculously incorrect

 

only claim I made comes directly from the article itself, "only or primarily spending cuts". you want to parse out what "primarily" one thing means, hey fine, whatever. it doesn't mean 51%, and sure as chit does not have the same meaning as a "balanced mix" of two things. and it particularly does not have that meaning when a "balanced mix" is perfectly defined in the very next poll option -- the option that 63% of respondents specifically did NOT choose.

[Savage Beatings]

I wonder which 7% Comrade Wiegie subscribes to?

 

[westvirginia]

I wonder which 7% Comrade Wiegie subscribes to?

 

 

The ones with the elevator shoes and leg extensions.

[Clubfoothead]

A business organization opposes tax increases on businesses?. This is truly a groundbreaking and thread worthy revelation.

 

No $hit.

[wiegie]

only claim I made comes directly from the article itself, "only or primarily spending cuts". you want to parse out what "primarily" one thing means, hey fine, whatever. it doesn't mean 51%, and sure as chit does not have the same meaning as a "balanced mix" of two things. and it particularly does not have that meaning when a "balanced mix" is perfectly defined in the very next poll option -- the option that 63% of respondents specifically did NOT choose.

the fact remains that the whole point of my initial post was to say that only a small percentage of the NABE economists subscribe to the "no tax increases" ideology of the GOP.

 

I applaud your attempt to obfuscate that fact by throwing out a false statement (the one where you suggest that 56% of those surveyed wanted solely spending cuts) and then shifting the debate to argue about percentages and definitions of "primarily" when the issue was not "primarily" it was "solely". Well done.

[wiegie]

What should be noted is how few of them thinking that the deficit should be reduced solely by spendig cuts.

only 56% of them?

 

...

only claim I made comes directly from the article itself, "only or primarily spending cuts".

wrong

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

only claim I made comes directly from the article itself, "only or primarily spending cuts". you want to parse out what "primarily" one thing means, hey fine, whatever. it doesn't mean 51%, and sure as chit does not have the same meaning as a "balanced mix" of two things. and it particularly does not have that meaning when a "balanced mix" is perfectly defined in the very next poll option -- the option that 63% of respondents specifically did NOT choose.

 

Only AZ could take a study that summarizes the results of the study in its title and then argue against that conclusion.

[wiegie]

in case anyone cares, here is my old friend/officemate being interviewed about the survey on CNBC:

 

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000040503

 

(if needed, I will send him a facebook message asking him to define "balanced" for us) haha

Edited August 23, 2011 by wiegie

[wiegie]

I just posted this on his wall:

nice interview (I'll note that on a message board I sometimes visit there is a big debate about the NABE's headline for the survey of "NABE Economists Concerned About Rising Deficits, Favor a “Balanced” Approach that Mixes Spending Cuts with Revenue Increases"--they want to know what "balanced" means).

 

Care to speculate?

[WaterMan]

I'd have to say economists probably have never been poor, thus the majority thinks cuts are better.

[wiegie]

I'd have to say economists probably have never been poor, thus the majority thinks cuts are better.

I'd guess that the majority of economists have never been poor--however, some of them have been (and actually, some of them still are--and still others aren't, but probably deserve to be).

[Azazello1313]

I just posted this on his wall:

 

it's pretty simple. whoever writes their headlines is as in the tank as you are. the CNBC headline is a whole lot more accurate. how the hell do you take a study where a clear majority of respondents are in favor of "solely or primarily" one solution rather than another, and then portray it as respondents favoring "balance" (when the very next poll option, which was favored by a minority, offered exactly that option). it is just plain spin, and anyone should be able to see it.

 

multiple choice question on wiegie's next test:

 

which of the following descriptions is most unlike the other two::

a] "an equal mix of X and Y"

b] "solely or mostly X rather than Y"

c] "a balance of X and Y"

 

and you can have fun explaining to your class why the correct outlier is a], and that c] is a more accurate characterization of b]

Edited August 24, 2011 by Azazello1313

[wiegie]

True-False question on Az's next exam:

 

True or False: 12% = 56%

 

The answer on Az's exam key: True