You'd think they'd be a little self-conscious about being this blatant but it's truly a party with neither any shame or a lick of good sense.
"Appearing before Congress for a second consecutive day, Ms. Yellen offered no new insights into the likely course of monetary policy, and the committee members made little effort to elicit any. The hearing instead was devoted to questions about financial regulation and to questions about the proper relationship between the central bank and the rest of the federal government."
"Republicans expressed particular anger about a speech on rising economic inequality that Ms. Yellen delivered in October, a few weeks before the midterm elections, in which she questioned “whether this trend is compatible with values rooted in our nation’s history.”
"Representative Mick Mulvaney, a South Carolina Republican, criticized Ms. Yellen for speaking about “issues outside your jurisdiction,” which he said undermined the Fed’s political independence."
“You’re sticking your nose in places that you have no business to be,” Mr. Mulvaney said.
"Ms. Yellen, visibly unsettled, responded that she considered the issue important, that all of her predecessors as Fed chairman had from time to time used that pulpit to address broader economic issues, and that “I feel that I am entitled to do the same.”
"Representative Sean Duffy, a Wisconsin Republican, said the speech showed political bias because Democrats were campaigning on the issue at the time."
“I am not making political statements,” Ms. Yellen responded. “I am discussing a significant problem that faces America.”
When Mr. Duffy, his voice rising, said that Ms. Yellen in the speech had appeared to advocate the kinds of policy solutions generally favored by Democrats, Ms. Yellen snapped, “I didn’t offer any policy recommendations whatsoever in that speech.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/business/economy/house-republicans-press-janet-yellen-on-stimulus-campaign.html?rref=politics&module=Ribbon&version=context®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Politics&pgtype=article
Note the total hypocrisy-they say she's not allowed to mention economic inequality unless both parties mention it then they demand she criticize financial regulation.
They blatantly admit that only the Democrats care about economic inequality in the process. Meanwhile, in 2001 George W. Bush had Greenspan speaking before Congress to advocate his tax cuts for the rich. No one thought to complain about him sticking his nose where it didn't belong.
They became, hard as it is to believe, even less rational in complaining that she meets with Obama officials-the Fed always meets with Administration officials no matter which party is in the White House.
We have yet more proof if it's needed, that the GOP simply doesn't care about the business of the country apart from their own narrow partisan agenda. They see everything in terms of partisan gain which is why they're sticking their own noses where they don't belong in having Netanyahu speak to Boehner's Congress without the President's invitation.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/02/john-kerry-on-netanyahu-hes-been-wrong.html
Greg Sargent has a very good way to improve U.S.-Israeli relations: Bibi loses his election.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/02/25/happy-hour-roundup-549/
By the way: Netanyahu is not just on bad terms with the Obama Administration but with the Administrations of 6 other countries in Western Europe that are usually allies.
Meanwhile, Sumner as usual tries to get everyone to forget about economic inequality by claiming it's too hard to see whether it exists or not. It's all just a puzzle. Let's just forget about it and do some supply side reforms-ie, cut taxes for the rich, cut their regulations, but raise taxes on teh poor-via the consumption tax.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/14/upshot/states-consider-increasing-taxes-on-poor-cutting-them-on-affluent.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1
Here is Sumner up to his old tricks:
"Suppose nominal income and the CPI rose at roughly the same rate between 2004 and 2014. In that case real income would be roughly unchanged. But let’s also suppose it wasn’t completely unchanged, just roughly unchanged. More specifically, assume real income rose from $15,000,000,000,000 to $15,000,000,010,000. That is, real income rose by $10,000.
"Appearing before Congress for a second consecutive day, Ms. Yellen offered no new insights into the likely course of monetary policy, and the committee members made little effort to elicit any. The hearing instead was devoted to questions about financial regulation and to questions about the proper relationship between the central bank and the rest of the federal government."
"Republicans expressed particular anger about a speech on rising economic inequality that Ms. Yellen delivered in October, a few weeks before the midterm elections, in which she questioned “whether this trend is compatible with values rooted in our nation’s history.”
"Representative Mick Mulvaney, a South Carolina Republican, criticized Ms. Yellen for speaking about “issues outside your jurisdiction,” which he said undermined the Fed’s political independence."
“You’re sticking your nose in places that you have no business to be,” Mr. Mulvaney said.
"Ms. Yellen, visibly unsettled, responded that she considered the issue important, that all of her predecessors as Fed chairman had from time to time used that pulpit to address broader economic issues, and that “I feel that I am entitled to do the same.”
"Representative Sean Duffy, a Wisconsin Republican, said the speech showed political bias because Democrats were campaigning on the issue at the time."
“I am not making political statements,” Ms. Yellen responded. “I am discussing a significant problem that faces America.”
When Mr. Duffy, his voice rising, said that Ms. Yellen in the speech had appeared to advocate the kinds of policy solutions generally favored by Democrats, Ms. Yellen snapped, “I didn’t offer any policy recommendations whatsoever in that speech.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/business/economy/house-republicans-press-janet-yellen-on-stimulus-campaign.html?rref=politics&module=Ribbon&version=context®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Politics&pgtype=article
Note the total hypocrisy-they say she's not allowed to mention economic inequality unless both parties mention it then they demand she criticize financial regulation.
They blatantly admit that only the Democrats care about economic inequality in the process. Meanwhile, in 2001 George W. Bush had Greenspan speaking before Congress to advocate his tax cuts for the rich. No one thought to complain about him sticking his nose where it didn't belong.
They became, hard as it is to believe, even less rational in complaining that she meets with Obama officials-the Fed always meets with Administration officials no matter which party is in the White House.
We have yet more proof if it's needed, that the GOP simply doesn't care about the business of the country apart from their own narrow partisan agenda. They see everything in terms of partisan gain which is why they're sticking their own noses where they don't belong in having Netanyahu speak to Boehner's Congress without the President's invitation.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/02/john-kerry-on-netanyahu-hes-been-wrong.html
Greg Sargent has a very good way to improve U.S.-Israeli relations: Bibi loses his election.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/02/25/happy-hour-roundup-549/
By the way: Netanyahu is not just on bad terms with the Obama Administration but with the Administrations of 6 other countries in Western Europe that are usually allies.
Meanwhile, Sumner as usual tries to get everyone to forget about economic inequality by claiming it's too hard to see whether it exists or not. It's all just a puzzle. Let's just forget about it and do some supply side reforms-ie, cut taxes for the rich, cut their regulations, but raise taxes on teh poor-via the consumption tax.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/14/upshot/states-consider-increasing-taxes-on-poor-cutting-them-on-affluent.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1
Here is Sumner up to his old tricks:
"Suppose nominal income and the CPI rose at roughly the same rate between 2004 and 2014. In that case real income would be roughly unchanged. But let’s also suppose it wasn’t completely unchanged, just roughly unchanged. More specifically, assume real income rose from $15,000,000,000,000 to $15,000,000,010,000. That is, real income rose by $10,000.
Let’s suppose that in 2004 Ray Lopez worked at a car wash in LA, making $10,000/year. In 2014 he had two car wash jobs, and was working much harder. Assume his real income had risen to $18,000.
Now here’s my question: Is it accurate to say that between 2004 and 2014, 80% of the entire the gain in real income for the United States of America went to Ray Lopez, car washer in LA? You’re damn right it’s accurate! And I’m willing to assume that the cited claim by Saez is also accurate."
"But there’s another question that goes beyond accuracy; is it misleading? To me it’s obviously misleading to say that one car washer in LA received 80% of all the real income gains in America, even if my hypothetical data were true. That’s because one could say the same thing about his cousin, if she had gone from doing one house cleaning job to two, with the same $8000 gain in real income. Indeed I would have earned more than 100% of all real income gains, as my real income rose by more than $10,000 over that decade. Any time an aggregate doesn’t change very much, but there are significant changes to the components within that aggregate, there are lots of ways of slicing up the data to create misleading impressions. Presenting data that way may not be propoganda, but it certainly does more to confuse than enlighten."
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=28740
Obviously there's no trouble with inequality in the least. I'm sure he'll find this less misleading.
No comments:
Post a Comment