The GOP babbles forth unintelligibly, and then wonder why people that THINK for themselves and can form opinions don't agree with them! Surprise..... :>)

Yes, and so condescending with their ignorance

Mitt wouldn't have to fall that low, having trouble making it as a pauper. I don't think he'd do very well living at the bottom of the top 1%, which is around $200,000 or so - 30% less than he makes every day.

I bet Romney will release his college transcripts...unlike Obama.

Oh please. If he released his university transcript, next the right will want Obama to disclose his vaccination details. You don't get elected president of the Harvard Law Review - or any law school review, for that matter - by being a mediocre student. And you don't get into Harvard Law School with so-so grades at Columbia, unlike the Harvard (and Yale, etc) B-school where a healthy family donation enables you to avoid the queue.

Meanwhile, we have all of Mr. Obama's tax returns going back into the early Ought's. From Romney, we have one full year's returns and one estimated return.

Charley: contessa is a fan of red herrings when arguments aren't going his way. Pay no mind ;-)

You're right, Mouzer, and I shouldn't get all in a boil at Contessa's illogical and uninformed comments. I'm willing to discuss anything a conservative wishes to discuss as long as they use facts to back up their position. But Contess took one line out of context from what Valerie Jerrett said, twisted its meaning, and went on to claim it meant everyone should go on unemployment and, later in the thread, food stamps when all Ms. Jarrett said was that unemployment benefits have more of a stimulative effect on the economy than tax cuts.

Charley you are right - Obama obviously was a brillant student, which puzzles me why he does not want his school records released. If I had those kind of college achievements I would be tooting my own horn all the time. I am not a "birther" by any means, but having his college records sealed (which I don't think any other President or candidate has ever done) peaks my curiousity. I just can't think what the reason or reasons would be to not disclose such an impressive collegiate record.

What about Romney's birth certificate? Wasn't he born in Mexico? ;-)

BTW, food stamp were originally conceived as an aid to farmers, to maintain demand for agri products.

." You don't get elected president of the Harvard Law Review - or any law school review, for that matter - by being a mediocre student"

Well then, prove it. We knew everything about Bush including all his grades. What were Obama's?? First prez of Harvard Law Review that never wrote one iota of material.

Wow Mouzer. You know how to write a pithy remark? Finally I can read one of your posts without feeling like I'm reading a book.

I'd really like to see his grades at Occidental and Columbia...the lost crackhead years.

The internet is an amazing thing. Google "Treasury securities ownership" and you get http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Estimated_ownership_of_treasury_securities_by_year.gif.

CJ's right - see for yourself

So are you saying Richie Rich Romney would save us all with budget cuts and lowering taxes for the rich?

We tried that Contessa...Forgotten Bush so soon have we?

The GOP is quick to rename the Bush economic failure after Obama, but unfortunately for Mitt, he will offer nothing more than a refaced copy of the Bush plan. Mitt will be quick to bail out Wall Street if he's elected.

No doubt bigger bonuses for his buddies too.

Might want to learn something about economics before you show that you don't know what you're talking about.

Bottom line is that demand stimulates an economy. In order to have demand, people have to have money.

As the graph shows, giving money to sectors of the economy that are not creating demand does not stimulate the economy. That's what she was talking about.

The old give money to the rich and everything will be fine has been tried for about 30 years. We've had enough examples to show that it's a disaster.

Giving a bigger bonus to a hedge fund manager doesn't stimulate anything.

Let me talk slow so you have a chance to understand. As between paying unemployment benefits and not paying unemployment benefits to unemployed people paying unemployment benefits is simply better, because people without benefits don't have money to buy stuff like food. People reeceiving unemployment benefits need every dime they receive just to pay for stuff like food, so they spend the money. That means other people have money to buy stuff like new cars. That the other people have money to buy cars is stimulative.

Given that we are going to have millions of people unemployed for a long time, we need to get them money so they can consume stuff that we make so we can buy more stuff. Otherwise our country will look like a 2nd world countriy like Mexico, India or China.

No very hard if you think about it.

Ron, you're making the assumption that Contessa is even remotely interested in understanding. She's not. She lives under a cone of silence and ignorance that only Faux News and Rush are allowed to penetrate.

Let her blather on, it makes for amusing reading.

"Bottom line is that demand stimulates an economy. In order to have demand, people have to have money."

1. For every dollar given to people as foodstamps or unemployment benefits, one dollar is taken away from someone's pocket that they cannot spend. It is a wash.

2. Demand is made by businesses that invent products that people want or need.

3. Business cycles are part of the economy and have nothing to do with government stimulus (that has failed.)

4.Economies like businesses are more healthy when they are not overloaded with debt. Having one half of the population paying no federal income tax and a big portion of those people on the dole is a dead end toward a Greek economy.

5." Bush's economy" was not caused by cutting taxes and cutting government spending (which he did not do). It was caused by years of lending mortgages to people who had no business gettng one.

1. For every dollar given to people as foodstamps or unemployment benefits, one dollar is taken away from someone's pocket that they cannot spend. It is a wash.

This is why you do a cost/benefit analysis. For every dollar taken from someone's pocket 2 dollars is put back into their pocket which means they net out at a gain. This means they make more money by spending in the short term. If it weren't for the fact that this money was going to the poor you would be calling this an investment. For instance if this money was being spent on drilling and that was the net effect you'd call it an investment. But when it's going to the poor it's a wash.

2. Demand is made by businesses that invent products that people want or need.

You already conceded on an earlier post that this is not exclusively true. If people do not have money to purchase a product then it doesn't matter what a company invents. Likewise if companies have no money to invent something no one will buy the product. Because you have acknowledged it's not an either/or this rebuttal is hypocritical by your own admission.

3. Business cycles are part of the economy and have nothing to do with government stimulus (that has failed.)

You have already conceded that the stimulus has helped create jobs. This, too, is a contradiction from your earlier posts. You argued before "the stimulus has created some jobs, but just think how many jobs would have been created if the stimulus hadn't been enacted."

4.Economies like businesses are more healthy when they are not overloaded with debt. Having one half of the population paying no federal income tax and a big portion of those people on the dole is a dead end toward a Greek economy.

First off everyone pays debt. Businesses are not the ones carrying the national debt. Debt is shared by everyone in the United States. The majority of cuts that you have personally advocated- including those to food stamp programs- wouldn't affect businesses at all since businesses do not pay these types of debt. Since no business has had their taxes increased this argument also fails to address the issue since businesses are burdening less taxation than they did before. Additionally this comment ignores how many people are unemployed and underemployed.

5." Bush's economy" was not caused by cutting taxes and cutting government spending (which he did not do). It was caused by years of lending mortgages to people who had no business gettng one.

Bush didn't cut taxes? He did not cut spending, that is true. He increased spending wildly. However the latter part of your comment is incorrect. The poor did not singularly contribute to the collapse of the housing market nor were they the main focal point. In fact the poor had little to do w/ the collapse. The majority of the collapse had to do w/ federal deregulation and proprietary lending practices by banks looking for profit. The housing collapse was the result of both corporate and government corruption.

http://newamericamedia.org/2011/02/loans-to-minorities-did-not-cause-housing-crisis-study-finds.php

http://spfaust.wordpress.com/2011/11/17/what-caused-the-financial-crisis-housing-bubble-not-the-myth-about-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-2/

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-08-30-stimulus30_CV_N.htm

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/09/did-the-stimulus-create-jobs/

That 1.73 you "get back" from food stamps...did they first subtract the dollar that was taken out of someone's pocket (and the lost stimulative effect of that) and all the money paid to bureaucrats to process and delivery the check? I highly doubt it.

i stand by what I said. Sub-prime loans were the main cause of the housing collapse. They made up 20-25% of all loans (only 5% before Clinton changed CRA rules) and 50% of all foreclosures. Without sub-prime, the housing bubble would have been less severe.

Stimulus did not help create jobs. Our unemployment is still high and many have left the unemployment roles or are underemployed.

I will say again, demand is created when there is a product that is needed or wanted. It has been that way all along. We do not need everyone to buy that product, but the demand it creates by others who have money will lower unemployment thereby bringing more people into the demand mode. Increasing food stamps does not stimulate a lackluster economy. Jobs do.

That 1.73 you "get back" from food stamps...did they first subtract the dollar that was taken out of someone's pocket (and the lost stimulative effect of that) and all the money paid to bureaucrats to process and delivery the check? I highly doubt it.

Contessa the way a cost/benefit analysis works is that you take the total cost of operations and expenditures for the cost of whatever it is you're measuring (food stamps) and compare that to the cost that would otherwise stand to the individual (if the money wasn't taken out). The net effect is a gain of $1.73. That is how a cost/benefit analysis works. That means you earn more money than you lose.

Stimulus did not help create jobs. Our unemployment is still high and many have left the unemployment roles or are underemployed.

You cannot have it both ways Contessa. You cannot state that people are unemployed or underemployed by using the labor department estimates, but then reject the labor department estimates that show employment growth. Either the unemployment numbers are inaccurate and therefore no jobs were gained OR the employment numbers are accurate and therefore jobs were gained. It cannot be both. Additionally you cannot complain about people paying taxes and then turn around and complain that the president is a food stamp president and is incompetent at his job. Either he is incompetent and therefore has created more unemployment thereby making it harder for people to pay more taxes OR people are employed and have disposable income that therefore makes it possible for them to pay taxes. It's fine for you to hold one position or the other position, but you cannot hold both to be true at the same time.

i stand by what I said. Sub-prime loans were the main cause of the housing collapse. They made up 20-25% of all loans (only 5% before Clinton changed CRA rules) and 50% of all foreclosures. Without sub-prime, the housing bubble would have been less severe.

Again you cannot make this claim unless you redact other claims that you have made. Either the congressional oversight committee is correct that the loans going to lower income individuals wasn't a huge portion of the crash OR the congressional oversight committee is incorrect, therefore you do not know what portion of the loans was due to subprime lending and therefore do not know what contributed to the crash. It cannot be both.

I will say again, demand is created when there is a product that is needed or wanted. It has been that way all along. We do not need everyone to buy that product, but the demand it creates by others who have money will lower unemployment thereby bringing more people into the demand mode. Increasing food stamps does not stimulate a lackluster economy. Jobs do.

By your own admission you stated that people who do not have money will not have demand which is true. Either you were lying the first time or you are lying now. Which one is it?

And no one stated that increasing food stamps creates jobs. The statement here is that keeping those food stamps in existence provides for relief for the economy to keep it from crashing further. No one is proposing that MORE people go onto food stamps. YOU are saying this as a means of spin in order to push your view point, but that wasn't what was actually claimed in the article (go back and re-read if you think that it was). The claim was that food stamps generate economic revenue which help create jobs during a time of economic crises which is true. Additionally how could you know what revenue is created by what if you reject the premise of a cost/benefit analysis? This, too, is a contradiction.

I did not see any cb analysis that showed that a dollar taken away from someone is more productively used (1.7 times) by someone on food stamps. A business that invests 30million in a factory which produces profit to sustain 50 jobs is much more stimulative than that 30 million given to people to use for food stamps. Saying that using this money for food stamps is 1.7 times more stimulative than using it to grow a business is a liberal fantasy.

Also,people can have plenty of money in thier pockets and if there is nothing they want to buy, it will not stimulate. The demand for the product must be there. Giving people more food stamps does not insure that they will eat more when they are already satiated. Demand comes from a product that is needed or wanted. Saying that one dollar given to food stamps stimulates 1.7 dollars, is saying that if we gave 2 bucks we'd stimulate 3.4 bucks. Pure rubbish.

Please stop writing books that go around in circles. Be more succinct in your postings and I'll read them.

I did not see any cb analysis that showed that a dollar taken away from someone is more productively used (1.7 times) by someone on food stamps. A business that invests 30million in a factory which produces profit to sustain 50 jobs is much more stimulative than that 30 million given to people to use for food stamps. Saying that using this money for food stamps is 1.7 times more stimulative than using it to grow a business is a liberal fantasy.

Again you are apparently not understanding how a cost/benefit analysis works. I will try one more time to explain it to you: if the government spends 650 million dollars on foods stamps that will return a net gain of 1.12 billion. If, however, the government spends that same amount of money on tax cuts it will only return 195 million. Therefore the one that ends up being more stimulative and better for the economy is the former and not the latter when put in terms of stimulative growth. This does not say that tax cuts serve no benefit, but that the amount of money that is gained via tax cuts is less than the amount gained via food stamps.

Giving people more food stamps does not insure that they will eat more when they are already satiated

You are not understanding the argument. You need to go back and re-read my posts and the article itself. The point is that for every dollar we spend on food stamps we get a net return of 1.73$. That is how a cost/benefit analysis works. Your argument was that the cost benefit analysis could not have possibly taken into account the cost of operations and expenditures and I was explaining to you that, that is the inherent purpose of a cost/benefit analysis. You are not giving people more money. No one proposed giving anyone more food stamps. This is a fantasy argument that you have created.

Please stop writing books that go around in circles

Contessa these are YOUR arguments. YOU are the one proposing statements that go around in circles. I am asking you to explain your thinking because your thinking is inherently contradictory. Do you understand this? You say that the sky is blue one second and then turn around and say that the sky is not blue. It can only either be blue or not blue, it cannot be both. Yet you are claiming that it is both. You need to try to be more cogent in the arguments you present.

Additionally stating that you aren't capable of reading long posts doesn't bode well for you...just as an FYI. You basically have stated 'I am not intellectual enough to read anything more than a sentence long.' That's kind've sad....

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

SHOW ME WHERE THEY COME UP WITH THESE NUMBERS and whose numbers are they. Just saying so doesn't mean they are so.

Contessa read the article. Seriously? So you just post on Maddowblog w/o reading the article first? Really? See that shiny graphic above? That's for you to read and click on and get information on. You're then supposed to comment based on what it says....this would probably explain why you always throw out arguments that are completely unrelated to the thread topic. Because you don't actually read the thread topic. I had no idea.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/03/the-impact-of-government-spending-on-economic-growth

You can stick with your "facts". I like mine. This article is very good in telling us why big government doesn't work well.

While it is true that Mark Zandi worked for the McCain campaign, he has stated previously that he is a registered Democrat

Contessa a fact is a fact. It is not an opinion or something that goes into quotes. If you dispute the data then you have to provide counter information and an argument as to why the information is correct. After reading the article that you sent this does not disprove anything given in the above statement. The Heritage Foundation is merely concluding that in the long term it is better for growth to be fixated in the private sector, which is generally true even by Keynesian economic standards. This is NOT a refutation of the above argument regarding stimulus, but is rather a refutation of the idea of long term versus short term growth in government. The fact that you'd share this as your refutation indicates you either didn't read the report or don't understand it fully.

This isn't an issue about Democrats have their set of information and Republicans have their set of information. It either is true or it is not true. Since economies are too complex the answer often requires that we exercise a combination of both short term stimulus coupled w/ long term deficit and debt reduction which has been the basis of consent among economists and political parties. The disagreement is to how to do this best. And the study you provided doesn't answer that question.

In a Democrat's view the best way to do that is through investments that will pay off in the long term. In a Republican's view the best way to do that is through short term tax cuts that may or may not pay off in the long term.

A fact us a fact unless it's not a fact but an economic theory.

Check out my link @ this point...
The Evidence: Government Spending and Economic Performance
Economic theory is important in providing a framework for understanding how the world works, but evidence helps to determine which economic theory is most accurate. This section reviews global comparisons and academic research to ascertain whether government spending helps or hinders economic performance.

There are no "facts" in zandi's theories. There is no way to block out all variables necessary to come to any facts. All we can do is compare the evidence to determine which economic theory is most accurate. You can believe the liberal Zandi. I'll stick with the great article provided by the Heritage Foundation and their economists.

So your first idiotic reply wasn't enough. You needed a second one to show that you don't know what you're talking about?

I bet not even Beck loon-a-versity or any of those far right unaccredited colleges are as dimwitted as our contessa. They might however depend heavily on people like contessa as backers or "students".

Al? Is that you, Al?

I detect the same "thought" processes behind your devastating wit. . .

Again, truth is a liability with you instead of an asset. A ha ha ah ah ah x 9/11, ar ar ha ah ar.. Teatard.

do you people think money is falling off trees?? Where does the money for food stamps and unemployment come from? It comes from taking money out of the producer's pockets. The producers then have less to spend. Or it comes from running up exhorbitant amounts of debt which, in the end, leaves our children with less money to stimulate an economy. The best way to stimulate the economy is for government to make it as easy as possible for businesses to do their thing. When unemployment is low (i.e. fewer employment benefits and foodstamps) we have more people with more money in their pockets (the producers have more money and the newly employed have more money).

One time government stimulus does not produce long term jobs. We tried the Keynesian experiment and it doesn't work.

We have been gaining jobs every single month since the stimulus took effect which you have personally admitted. Until people get a job they do not have money to spend. You have to give them unemployment to keep them from going homeless or at least to reduce the amount of people going homeless and to keep them from starving. This money, in turn, generates more economic revenue which then allows businesses to higher. This has worked effectively enough that we are seeing constant growth. The only way to get people off unemployment is to get them a job. And you cannot get people a job if there is no demand. You have conceded this before: if there is no demand than no product produced will sell; likewise if there is no product produced then there can be no demand. Businesses, by their own admission, are not struggling w/ the latter element. They are struggling w/ the former.

"The only way to get people off unemployment is to get them a job. And you cannot get people a job if there is no demand"

And demand comes from offering them a product that is needed or wanted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The people that DO have money, buy the product, increasing the profit for the company that then employes more people.

If no one had money, then of course there would be no demand. But that is NOT the case. I am not against giving people who are in dire need a support system. What I am against is this foolish notion that increasing these entitltment payments stimulates the economy. What a bunch of horse manure.

What I am against is this foolish notion that increasing these entitltment payments stimulates the economy

No one has proposed this

And demand comes from offering them a product that is needed or wanted

Correct. My point was to show how circular your thinking is. You state that demand is the only way to create jobs in one breadth and then you state that income is the only means. You have already stated that it is not an either/or. So which is it? Is it not an either/or therefore both are essential OR is it that demand is the only essential element and people have disposable income to spend on products if they'd just be produced?

The people that DO have money, buy the product, increasing the profit for the company that then employes more people.

But how can this be true if the president has created so many unemployed people, if so many people are carrying debt from the government, and if so many people are on entitlements which costs them so much money according to all your other arguments? Either you are telling the truth now and lying then OR you are lying now and were telling the truth then?

"unemployment benefits are good for the economy" Second to last paragraph. ahahahahahah
The basic premise of this article!!!!!!! which is pure BS.

Demand creates jobs. Without income there is no demand. With lots of income, no demand is guaranteed if there is no product that is wanted.. got it yet?

Unemployment is 8%, more if you include those that gave up or are underemployed. That still leaves a huge chunk of people that are working and stimulating the economy.

Demand creates jobs. Without income there is no demand. With lots of income, no demand is guaranteed if there is no product that is wanted.. got it yet?

Unemployment is 8%, more if you include those that gave up or are underemployed. That still leaves a huge chunk of people that are working and stimulating the economy.

So then you were lying the first time or you are lying now? It cannot be both.

So then you concede that Obama has added jobs to the economy?

If people have money to spend then, by your logic, they would already be investing that money into products and thus creating demand. Problem solved.

But it's so fun! You can almost hear the gears grinding to a stop.

Well now they both deplete the revenue but of course tax cuts to the upper one percent usually buy toys or go into offshore accounts whereas food stamps and unemployment go into food and other essentials that help keep people from going hungry or becoming criminals. Tax cuts for working stiffs might go into saving for retirement or even towards paying off credit card debt but it gives more people a little extra that will wind up in the economy sooner or later.

Hmmm. I ain't no economist but I know that telling folks to suck it up while the rich get richer and taxed less is a good way to risk revolution.

Tax cuts is putting money back into people's pockets. Government handouts are taking money from one person's pocket and putting it into another's pocket. It is as simple as that.

But tax cuts also take money from one person's pocket and put it into another person's pocket. When you cut 1$ in taxes you only generate 30 cents in revenue. Which means you took 70 cents from someone else's pocket in order to cut that tax. Do you not understand how the cost/benefit analysis works? What it is saying is that if you spend a dollar on a tax cut then you gain 70 cents back into the economy. Whereas if you spend a dollar on food stamps you get almost $2 back into the economy. Therefore spending money on a tax cut doesn't put nearly as much money back into people's pockets as spending money on food stamps does. That is what the chart is saying.

Tax cuts take money from one person's pocket and puts it back into their pocket.

Tax cuts take money from one person's pocket and puts it back into their pocket.

This. makes. no. sense.

Tax cuts cost money, Contessa. For every dollar you spend in tax cuts you get 30 cents back in growth. Which means a net loss of 70 cents. That is how tax cuts works. Again I do not think you understand how a cost/benefit analysis works...

Taxes take money out of one pocket. A tax cut puts that money back into the pocket it was taken from..

For every dollar you spend in tax cuts you get 30 cents back in growth??? I guess you are one of those liberals that think government is much more efficient than the private sector.

Hopeless. Truely hopeless.

Taxes take money out of one pocket. A tax cut puts that money back into the pocket it was taken from..

No. Your tax revenue goes to the federal government to support federal programs and likewise to your state and local government. When you give a tax cut that money then has to be compensated from somewhere else in the economy. The net effect of which means that, in general, a tax cut on upper brackets (which is what you propose) ends up only generating about 30 cents worth of revenue. This is what the study has provided. If you have counter information then provide your evidence. Otherwise you are calling me hopeless simply because you do not understand how to read a cost/benefit analysis.

whose money is it when a tax cut is given? it is money taken from that taxpayer.

IT"S NOT THE GOVERNMENTS MONEY

IT"S NOT THE GOVERNMENTS MONEY

.......seriously do people just not understand the basic elements of economics anymore?

Contessa your money has no inherent value. The government is the only thing that gives your money relevancy. Your taxation is a price that you pay in exchange for your currency property. That's the basic understanding of currency as it was originally created. Seriously? You do not know this?

Additionally you are incorrect here when we're talking about it in terms of stimulative effect. Lower income tax breaks do have a higher value stimulative effect, but the tax breaks that you are specifically talking about do not typically generate revenue. This is because the money is far more likely to be saved than it is anything else. The net effect of the exchange of currency on upper income brackets is 30 cents gained for every 1 dollar spent.

Tax cuts cost money, Contessa. This is why our deficit and national debt have exploded. We have cut taxes to the point that our revenue stream has been seriously depleted and the only other option has been to borrow. If you cut taxes there is an exchange to that.

Here is how it works:

Revenue/Cost=Deficit. Understand? Revenue=taxes. Every dollar that the government cuts ends up getting spent in some other area as a compensation. And that ends up costing more money and raising deficits. When you cut a dollar in federal or local revenue you have to pay 70cents to make up for that difference. Do you understand now?

Well said mouzer-"Contessa your money has no inherent value. The government is the only thing that gives your money relevancy"

Dang, even I understood it put that way.

FYI. There aren't any "facts" on this thread. Your opinions aren't any more scientifically proven than are mine.

We tried the Keynesian experiment and it doesn't work.

Then you need to redact this statement.

There are two elements of economic study: research/observational and theoretical/applied. In the former you are simply using different models to create projections based on data sets and historic information at your disposal. You can test and use the scientific method to come to an exact answer in this type of economic research. That is what institutions like The Center on Budget and Policy prioritize themselves w/. You then have the other division of economics which is when someone produces a theory based upon that available data set. This theory takes the available information out there and attempts to explain why it exists or what made it happen.

The information produced here on Maddowblog was in regards of research and data available.....so making this statement seems...strange given the context.

There are plenty of economists that are highly thought of, that do not believe in Keynesian theory. I happen to agree with them.

So either A. economists are people who do not enact a science and therefore shouldn't be taken whole heartedly or B. economics is an exact science which is why we can measure and therefore access the successes or failures of different economic belief systems. It's fine to hold either of these positions, but you cannot believe both at the same time when the belief in one immediately annexes out the belief in the other. So either your last post is telling the truth and your first post was a lie or your first post was telling the truth and now you are lying. Which one is it?

I know you find it difficult to get out of your black and white thinking bubble, (The entire Maddow articles are chocked full of black and white thinking..a very liberal trait), but economics is not an exact science. That does not mean I cannot be persuaded to find some common sense and belief in a certain economic theory. For example, it is common sense (and fact) that if we tax at 0% or 100% there would be no revenue. And taking human psychology into consideration, one can see where the Laffer curve would make sense. It is not a proven theory backed by scientific evidence, but there is enough common sense for me to agree with it.

It is not a proven theory backed by scientific evidence, but there is enough common sense for me to agree with it.

This doesn't make any sense. If it is not a theory backed w/ evidence then you have no reason to believe it to be true or false since there is no data from which the belief is formulated upon. That's like saying that if people wore green t-shirts it would end up stimulating the economy more than red t-shirts. Your common sense dictates that this is true, but you have no evidence to support your claim other than it makes sense to you.

Additionally I am not the one framing these arguments in terms of black and white statements. Yet again here is what you are uncomprehending: YOU are making black and white statements that are contradictions and I am pointing them out. You claim that thing A is true and then in the next sentence you claim that thing A is not true and it cannot be both. You cannot claim that Keynesian economics has failed and then turn around and claim that there is no evidence by which to evaluate that Keynesian economics has failed. Either there is or there isn't. This is a simple process of logic and reasoning, Contessa. You can certainly state that you believe that Keynesian economics has failed or you can state that you believe other economic theories work better. That, of course, would preference the word "belief." Meaning that it is something you personally hold to be true, but that you don't pretend to represent as being a fact. However this is NOT what you do. You claim that things are facts and then when you are asked to provide evidence or explain how you are concluding they are facts you immediately say 'well it isn't based in fact it's just common sense (i.e. your belief).' That is the problem. You cannot claim something is true when something is a belief or vise versa. You are confusing fact w/ opinion.

A theory can be backed by some evidence yet if not all variables are accounted for and controlled, then it cannot be proven.