Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKrugman: Flimflam, The Next Generation
Flimflam, The Next Generation
I took Paul Ryans measure almost four years ago, back when everyone in Washington was determined to see him as the Serious, Honest Conservative they knew had to exist somewhere. Everything weve seen of him since then has confirmed that initial judgment. When you see a big report from Ryan, you shouldnt ask Is this a con job? but instead skip right to Wheres the con?
And so it is with the new poverty report.
Give Ryan some points for originality. In his various budgets, he relied mainly on magic asterisks unspecified savings and revenue sources to be determined later; he was able to convince many pundits that he had a grand fiscal plan when the reality was that he was just assuming his conclusions, and that the assumptions were fundamentally ridiculous. But this time he uses a quite different technique.
What he offers is a report making some strong assertions, and citing an impressive array of research papers. What you arent supposed to notice is that the research papers dont actually support the assertions.
In some cases were talking about artful misrepresentation of what the papers say, drawing angry protests from the authors. In other cases the misdirection is more subtle.
- more -
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/04/flimflam-the-next-generation
I took Paul Ryans measure almost four years ago, back when everyone in Washington was determined to see him as the Serious, Honest Conservative they knew had to exist somewhere. Everything weve seen of him since then has confirmed that initial judgment. When you see a big report from Ryan, you shouldnt ask Is this a con job? but instead skip right to Wheres the con?
And so it is with the new poverty report.
Give Ryan some points for originality. In his various budgets, he relied mainly on magic asterisks unspecified savings and revenue sources to be determined later; he was able to convince many pundits that he had a grand fiscal plan when the reality was that he was just assuming his conclusions, and that the assumptions were fundamentally ridiculous. But this time he uses a quite different technique.
What he offers is a report making some strong assertions, and citing an impressive array of research papers. What you arent supposed to notice is that the research papers dont actually support the assertions.
In some cases were talking about artful misrepresentation of what the papers say, drawing angry protests from the authors. In other cases the misdirection is more subtle.
- more -
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/04/flimflam-the-next-generation
Paul Ryans Audit Of Federal Anti-Poverty Programs Finds Many Are Actually Very Effective
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024602121
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 598 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (7)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Krugman: Flimflam, The Next Generation (Original Post)
ProSense
Mar 2014
OP
ProSense
(116,464 posts)1. Steve Benen:
Paul Ryans unfortunate poverty report
<...>
The Fiscal Times Rob Garver, for example, interviewed some of the same economists cited in Ryans paper in support of his thesis. Many of the experts had reactions ranging from bemusement to anger at Ryans report, claiming that he either misunderstood or misrepresented their research.
Waldfogel told Garver, Its technically correct, but its an odd way to cite the research. In my experience, usually you use all of the available data. Theres no justification given. Its unfortunate because it really understates the progress weve made in reducing poverty.
- more -
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/paul-ryans-unfortunate-poverty-report
The Fiscal Times Rob Garver, for example, interviewed some of the same economists cited in Ryans paper in support of his thesis. Many of the experts had reactions ranging from bemusement to anger at Ryans report, claiming that he either misunderstood or misrepresented their research.
Ryans paper, for example, cited a study published in December by the Columbia Population Research Center measuring the decline in poverty in the U.S. after the implementation of Lyndon Johnsons War on Poverty.
One of the studys authors, Jane Waldfogel, a professor at Columbia University and a visiting scholar at the Russell Sage Foundation, said she was surprised when she read the paper, because it seemed to arbitrarily chop off data from two of the most successful years of the war on poverty.
Waldfogel and her colleagues looked at an alternative measure of the poverty rate known as the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), which factors in government benefits like food stamps and programs like the earned-income tax credit. That alternative measure is thought to present a more accurate and realistic gauge of the poverty and the real-world effects of government programs aimed at combatting it.
The Columbia researchers found that, using their model of the SPM, the poverty rate fell from 26 percent in 1967 to 15 percent in 2012. Ryan only cites data from 1969 onward, ignoring a full 36 percent of the decline.
Waldfogel told Garver, Its technically correct, but its an odd way to cite the research. In my experience, usually you use all of the available data. Theres no justification given. Its unfortunate because it really understates the progress weve made in reducing poverty.
- more -
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/paul-ryans-unfortunate-poverty-report
ProSense
(116,464 posts)2. Kick! n/t