Deinonychus antirrhopus

I don't know about your last sentence. I check his site frequently, and about once or twice a week, at minimum, he's asking why we can't have a better, or more literate, press corps. I don't know if that necessarily means more "liberal." He's simply fustrated - and quite rightly so, it appears - at the lack of economic literacy that allows the Bush administration to put so much garbage - false and/or misleading statistics, ludicrous claims, and so forth - into the public debate. I don't recall him saying that this is a liberal or conservative matter. And while you will probably tell me it's strongly applied, I will disagree. If we are dealing with a conservative administration, we are going to be rebelling against conservative nonsense. You can say that he might not be open to as much fisking if the administration were liberal, but even if that's true, that doesn't mean he wants the press corp to be more liberal.

Brian,

Given this is an election year, there is plenty of economic bravo sierra from the Kerry camp in terms of economic policy that could be pointed too. Kerry's budget for one. Kerry wants to spend alot and yet the big theme was Kerry will be tough on the deficit. So you are wrong...as usual.

How does the fact that he doesn't tackle some of the nonsense coming from the left mean that he wants the press corp to be more liberal?

Well let me see...

Prof. DeLong trusts the EPI (whose numbers don't appear to add up by the way), but the Bush Administration is lying...why? Because the EPI tells us so. Circular logic that supports the Left interpretation and because the Press fails to engage in this kind of circular logic they are malfeasants.

That doesn't make any sense. The fact that he's disappointed with Greenberg's work because he believes certain sources are more credible doesn't mean he wants the entire press corp to hold certain beliefs.

As for the over time issue, perhaps you can help me. I haven't read the EPI report(s) and don't plan to in the next few days, so I am speaking at a disadvantage. Nevertheless, I'm curious, what is the economic rationale behind this? The administration claims that it's a matter of reducing litigation that adds a large cost to doing business, so then, it's efficiency, or something that is eluding me at the moment? And if that's the case, how big of a problem was that?

As for the numbers not adding up, please expand on that, unless it's something that I'll see when I finally do get around to reading the EPI report(s).

As for the numbers not adding up, please expand on that, unless it's something that I'll see when I finally do get around to reading the EPI report(s).

I'll do this one first. I read the EPI report took the numbers they had there and added them up and they came out to over 8 million, but the EPI is saying 6 million. Which is it? Six or eight?

Must be one Hell of a rounding error...yeah that's it.

That doesn't make any sense. The fact that he's disappointed with Greenberg's work because he believes certain sources are more credible doesn't mean he wants the entire press corp to hold certain beliefs.

I think you'll find DeLong's acrimony towards the Bush Admin. is more along the lines of Krugman's just not quite so un-hinged. Then factor in that the rest of the press isn't like Krugman and the picture is pretty much complete.

There are many problems I have with Bush, but to just assume everything comeing from them is a lie is silly. It is what Kerry is doing. Bush proposes X, and Kerry decries X and proposes ~X (not-X). E.g., the troop withdrawls from Europe. I agree there is a certain economic illiteracy in the press, but it has always been there.

As for the economic rationale for the change in over-time rules I don't know. One possibility is to get more people hired. Instead of working the existing workforce longer hours, now hire more people. If workers who were normally getting over-time are no longer getting it they might not be so keen on working extra-hours.

"I'll do this one first. I read the EPI report took the numbers they had there and added them up and they came out to over 8 million, but the EPI is saying 6 million. Which is it? Six or eight?

Must be one Hell of a rounding error...yeah that's it."

I'll have to read the report before I comment any more.

"I think you'll find DeLong's acrimony towards the Bush Admin. is more along the lines of Krugman's just not quite so un-hinged. Then factor in that the rest of the press isn't like Krugman and the picture is pretty much complete."

These two sentences don't make any sense at all. The first sentence is your opinion, which is fine, even though I don't agree with it, but the second sentence is nonsensical and doesn't relate to the first.

"There are many problems I have with Bush, but to just assume everything comeing from them is a lie is silly."

Most - and I said most, not all - of what comes out of the administration is lies, or more frequently, things that are distorted to the point of absurdity. To claim, for instance, that the lower and middle classes would get a tax break comparable to the upper classes was simply ridiculous. Even if you happened to agree with his plan, there's no way to argue around the fact that he was disingenuous when mentioning the $2000 average. He's documented things like this time and time again. He doesn't pretend that everything that comes out is a lie, simply because it isn't; he just points out how much of it isn't the pure truth.

"It is what Kerry is doing. Bush proposes X, and Kerry decries X and proposes ~X (not-X). E.g., the troop withdrawls from Europe."

A difference of opinion or a difference in schemes does not indicate a lie. I don't recall Kerry saying that the president was "lying" because he wanted to bring the troops home. Nor do I recall Kerry specifically challenging the factual basis of any of the administration's claim over this matter. Do you have some information that I don't have?

"I agree there is a certain economic illiteracy in the press, but it has always been there."

And DeLong will continue to rally against it as long as he has his blog, unless he gets so fed up that he just quits bothering to care. But no matter, it doesn't necessarily mean he wants the press corp to be more liberal.

As for the over time issue, you raise an interesting possibility. I wonder, though, how much over time really exists, and how many more workers could be squeezed out of the new rules.

.

These two sentences don't make any sense at all. The first sentence is your opinion, which is fine, even though I don't agree with it, but the second sentence is nonsensical and doesn't relate to the first.

So is DeLong's post. It is his opinion. Why is his above mine...oh that's right you're coming at it from the liberal point of view. Nevermind.

Most - and I said most, not all - of what comes out of the administration is lies, or more frequently, things that are distorted to the point of absurdity. To claim, for instance, that the lower and middle classes would get a tax break comparable to the upper classes was simply ridiculous.

Link please. I've never heard this claim, so provide a link.

Even if you happened to agree with his plan, there's no way to argue around the fact that he was disingenuous when mentioning the $2000 average.

So are you to use the above to imply that this means the lower and middle income households would get a decrease as large as the upper incomes. You're right that using averages is misleading due to the skewed nature of the income distribution, but your above statement does not support your initial claim.

He's documented things like this time and time again. He doesn't pretend that everything that comes out is a lie, simply because it isn't; he just points out how much of it isn't the pure truth.

Sure, but he press is just as credulous though with many of Kerry's claims. They don't say, "Kerry claimed X, but it is just flat out wrong (e.g. Kerry's budget numbers)." To complain about the credulity on the part of Bush's spin, but not when it comes to Kerry's spin suggests a bias.

And DeLong will continue to rally against it as long as he has his blog....

Uhhh no. He'll continue to rally against so long as they aren't towing the liberal line to his satisfaction. Yes it is my opinion, just as it is DeLong's opinion about the press.