No, I certainly see and agree with your point and the point in general, I just thought the writer made the same point, but with awful justification. Instead of pointing out specific things Republicans did to increase entitlement spending, he simply linked a weak correlation between a president being in office and something happening. It just seems an obvious case of post hoc ergo propter hoc and for this person to be writing for the WSJ is just sort of sad.
As a point of reference, Eberstadt is one of the most well respected economists in the world.
And I don't see how it's an obvious case of post hoc ergo propter hoc. I think you're reading this article as Eberstadt's belief that Republicans are responsible for the growth of entitlement spending, which isn't the case. Eberstadt is saying that the Republicans' war cry of "smaller gov't" is hogwash. They, like the Democrats, have no allegiance to big or small gov't, they have allegiance to doing what it takes to remain in office.
Post by kikosanchez on Sept 4, 2012 15:16:12 GMT -5
He may be a great economist, but maybe he needs a ghost writer. He doesn't seem to make much use of logic and is happy to present fallacies as needing no further justification. Such as:
"Irrespective of the reputations and the rhetoric of the Democratic and Republican parties today, the empirical correspondence between Republican presidencies and turbocharged entitlement expenditures should underscore the unsettling truth that both political parties have, on the whole, been working together in an often unspoken consensus to fuel the explosion of entitlement spending."
The "empirical correspondence between Republican presidencies and turbocharged entitlement expenditures" is precisely what I mean by his use of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
I wouldn't disagree with your point, just his poor reasoning that he passes off as "unsettling truth". That added to the overall "predatory feel" of the article that someone just mentioned makes me very wary. I think maybe he is trying hard to look unbiased while presenting a view very much inline with the rest of the AEI's economic views. We're just a country of moochers it seems and none of this has anything to do with the aging population, living longer, or increased medical costs.
Or to gain a quick glimpse of his basic thesis: the article is "Excerpted from "A Nation of Takers: America's Entitlement Epidemic,"
Post by kikosanchez on Sept 4, 2012 21:05:49 GMT -5
Political Compass is quite interesting for this year. They plot Obama and Romney as nearly being identical. www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012 I ended up -1.95 Econ and -6 Socially, pretty far away from anyone, but closest to Stein. Like if Jill Stein was at Bonnarroo, I'd be in down and to the east in Florida.
On further notice, it seems the site and analysis is done by one of our friends across the Atlantic, so his lens of what is left and right is certainly shaped by this. Nonetheless, he does give a full explanation as to why he plotted Obama so close to Romney and brings up a lot of reasonable points. Then again, I think it too finely glosses over the numerous and important distinctions between the two candidates, such as stating "He has extended Bush tax cuts for the wealthy" as if he pushed and wanted it.
The thunderous 45-minute address—during which the president argued for a second term so that he could “finally kill Jesus once and for all, as well as all those who worship him”—was well received by the frenzied, wild-eyed audience, whose piercing chants of “Four more years!” and “Slaughter the believers!” echoed throughout the Time Warner Cable Arena.
As someone living in a state that's in play I am already sick of the political ads. NC went for Obama last time, this time I think it's going to be closer, especially since I expect the Republican candidate For Governor to win. I like 538 but I think Nate is a little more optimistic than is realistic with his leaning states. For Democrats this is a get out the vote issue as the level of excitement is not where it was four years ago and with the voter suppression tools being put in place it may be more difficult than last time.
My feeling is that the election will go like last year, where it's technically close, but it certainly doesn't feel that way. Romney has never lead this thing and eventually the feeling of inevitability is going to catch up to his base.