Economists Endorse Edwards

I saw this and figured I'd pass it on.

Economists pick Edwards because he will fight for sustained growth, full employment and an end to poverty

Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Today, the John Edwards for President campaign announced that more than 30 leading U.S. economists have endorsed John Edwards for president.

"Economists for John Edwards" includes such notable scholars as James K. Galbraith from the University of Texas at Austin; Deirdre McCloskey from the University of Illinois at Chicago; Thomas Palley, founder of the Economics for Democratic & Open Societies Project; Clyde Prestowitz, president of the Economic Strategies Institute; Harley Shaiken from the University of California, Berkeley; and Edward Wolff from New York University.

"I'm proud to endorse John Edwards and his campaign to build One America.," said James Galbraith, the Lloyd M. Bentsen, Jr. Chair in Government/Business Relations at the LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin. "Edwards understands that in order for America to prosper, our economy needs to reward work as well as wealth – and he's proposed detailed and comprehensive policies to address the growing income gap, the health care crisis, job loss and the other critical social issues facing our nation."

"I am honored to have earned the support of this distinguished group of economists," said Senator Edwards. "Today, families across the country are working harder than ever, but struggling to make ends meet. To help middle-class families get ahead, we need a president who will fight for universal health care, smarter trade policies and a new energy economy."

In their endorsement of Edwards, the "Economists for Edwards" signed on to the following statement:

"As professional economists, we support John Edwards for President of the United States in 2008 because we believe that John Edwards has best demonstrated the capacity and the policies to be the next president of the United States.

"We support John Edwards because we believe his campaign is the single best expression of progressive political values in American politics today.

"We support John Edwards because we believe that as president he will best wage the hard fight that lies ahead for the principles and programs we endorse.

"We support John Edwards because as economists, we seek effective public policy aimed at sustained growth, full employment, an end to poverty, and progress toward solving the major social and environmental problems associated with health care, education, trade, taxation and climate change.

"John Edwards' approach to these issues has been uniquely serious, honest, and far-reaching. We urge all Americans – and particularly the Democratic voters of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina - to join us in supporting John Edwards for president."

A complete list of the members of "Economists for Edwards" is included below...(click link to read the rest)
< Cauc Talk - The IoWAY! | Live Web Coverage of the Iowa Caucus >
 Display:
I don't really care what the dems do....but for the record...go Obama *cheer.*

by acroso on 01/03/2008 11:22:18 AM EST

I thought you wanted Hillary (because you assume she'll be easier to beat)?  Why the sudden change of heart?

by Tom Hanc on 01/03/2008 11:38:34 AM EST

[ Parent ]
No, I just like laughing at Hillary, and I figured she'd force her way in, but that's not gonna happen apparently.

by acroso on 01/03/2008 11:50:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]
...I just like laughing at Hillary...

Then you'll get a kick out of Santa in a pantsuit.

I like how one leading Socialist economist, a couple fairly well known economists, an economist best known for undergoing a sex change operation and a bunch of no-name academic economists are "more than 30 leading U.S. economists."

by Twba on 01/03/2008 02:41:49 PM EST

I know you're upset there are no Cato Institute/Heritage Foundation/Ayn Rand style economists on the list. :(

by Tom Hanc on 01/03/2008 02:49:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I know you're upset there are no Cato Institute/Heritage Foundation/Ayn Rand style economists on the list. :(

Not at all. I didn't expect to see a classical liberal, paleoconservative or objectivist on the list.

by Twba on 01/03/2008 03:03:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I love how you bring up totally irrelevant points to demean someone that you disagree with. Get busy pasting some insanely bias "reports" from one of your emails or the Heritage foundation, at least thats more fun to refute.

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 01/03/2008 03:24:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I love how you bring up totally irrelevant points to demean someone that you disagree with.

It is relevant to point out that "more than 30 leading U.S. economists" are anything but leading.

Get busy pasting some insanely bias "reports" from one of your emails or the Heritage foundation...

You're the master of the cut and paste job around here, Leeberal. How many times have you cut and pasted without giving credit to the original author? Don't be a plagiarist, Leeberal.

by Twba on 01/03/2008 04:04:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It IS relevant to state your (incorrect) opinion on the subjective matter of "leading" or "not leading".

Of course that's my opinion.

by Tom Hanc on 01/03/2008 04:20:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
They aren't leading economists. If you knew anything about economics, you would know that most of them are nobodies. One person on the list is not even an economist. He's a sociologist. And he's one of the biggest names on the list. He's a leading sociologist.

by Twba on 01/03/2008 05:23:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Generic statements about your (supposed) knowledge base vs (your assumption about) mine are to be taken seriously?

The Armchair Economist strikes again!

by Tom Hanc on 01/03/2008 07:43:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
No, Twba never said he knew anything about economics in his post.  Nor am I insinuating that he doesn't.  That all remains to be seen at this point.  The suspense is terrible.  I hope it lasts.

by OneHitKill on 01/04/2008 02:19:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]
If a couple well known economists and a short list of nobodies endorsed Rudy Giuliani, you would not be singing the same tune. Your man-crush on Edwards is clouding your judgment.

As for my knowledge base vs. yours, I don't see you making a serious attempt to disagree that the list is "one leading Socialist economist, a couple fairly well known economists, an economist best known for undergoing a sex change operation and a bunch of no-name academic economists."

by Twba on 01/04/2008 07:31:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
 You arent near as smart as you fancy yourself as you totally missed The POINT . Which was that you actually typed that somehow a persons statistics are less reliable if they have a sex change operation or dont agree with you.  

Plagerize? Oh you meant that one satirical troll union post. I'm sure that thread got ya since it was dead on about you and the other trolls. To bad .. oh so sad.. for you troll boy I did put the link gladly.  I never once attributed anything to me. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about yet again.

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 01/03/2008 08:27:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What "set me off" was the fact that he/she/it used that as a reason the persons statistics would be somehow less accurate. He/she/it posted it not me you fucking twit. It could have been anything as stupid and the point would be the same.

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 01/04/2008 07:18:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I knew that comment would set him off.

KenTX, when I scanned down the list of economists and saw that name, it was like being handed an extra Christmas present. Not only did I get to ridicule Ihavenobias' irrational man-crush on Edwards, I got to push Leeberal's buttons with the same sentence. That's two for the price of one.

by Twba on 01/04/2008 07:35:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
TRUE! Ignorance always bothers me.

I'm glad you are impressed with yourself. Its just that no one else is .

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 01/04/2008 12:55:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You arent near as smart as you fancy yourself as you totally missed The POINT . Which was that you actually typed that somehow a persons statistics are less reliable if they have a sex change operation or dont agree with you.

This is what I actually typed:

I like how one leading Socialist economist, a couple fairly well known economists, an economist best known for undergoing a sex change operation and a bunch of no-name academic economists are "more than 30 leading U.S. economists."

If your reading comprehension skills were any good, you would see that I pointed out that one of the economists on the list is better known for having sex change surgery rather than for quality of research and writing.

by Twba on 01/04/2008 07:41:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
If Al Gore got a sex change this weekend, going forward he *wouldn't* be known for global warming, rather he'd be known as (fill in the blank pejorative phrase).

That's how our society works.  It doesn't matter how brilliant you are, if there is some pop culture nuggest, *especially* what some would consider to be scandalous and or strange (justifiably or not), THAT is what you will be known for.

On an unrelated note, it'll be interesting to see if Bill Clinton inhaled deeply to avoid another blow job for fear of a whitewater scandal breaking out.

by Tom Hanc on 01/04/2008 12:26:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Your problem is I have no problem comprehension ...

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 01/04/2008 12:51:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I enjoyed Michael Moore's non-endorsement endorsement of Edwards (largely due to his health care plan).


by Tom Hanc on 01/03/2008 02:51:34 PM EST

I read that too.. and now Im more interested in learning more about Edwards. I counted him out as I figured it was ultimately between Obama and Hillary. Now it seems its not that way at all.

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 01/03/2008 03:25:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I can see why Edward's pledge to withdraw form Iraq immediately pulls liberals in who only think about this issue.

by acroso on 01/03/2008 04:36:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ya this crowd looks to farmerish for a RP third place finish. I was hoping for something that looked more like the Star Wars Cantina if were to hold out hope for victory.

by acroso on 01/03/2008 08:00:41 PM EST

The economists who support Edwards are a real powerhouse group, across the spectrum, naturally excluding the ones who got us into the disastrous debt death-spiral--Cato and Heritage.

Edwards recognizes that the economic decisions about going to war in two countries primarily to steal oil and transfer money to friends surruptitously [and otherwise], and the incompetent BushCo government allowing huge portions of the US economy to be sold to foreign entities, have created a painful long-term burden on the American people.

That enormous debt is theft in more than one way. First, it's stealing from the middle class and our children who will have to repay the debt that the wealthy 1% and corporations stole from us. Second, by deliberately devaluating/crashing  the dollar, BushCo and accomplices are stealing from the creditors who lent us the money that BushCo is squandering. By crashing the dollar, the money that's repaid is worth considerably less than the money lent by creditors. That's the same crooked scam/scandal perpetrated by Reagan and his amoral cabal of thieves and murderers. And Americans ignorantly ask of the world, "Why do they hate us?"

I don't like Bill Clinton [DLC, NAFTA, WTO, dereg. FCC, triangulation], but at least he was right about this:

"It's the economy, stupid." 

Edwards understands that, too. By comparison, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are with the corporations, until they can prove otherwise--and they haven't yet. 

by zenie on 01/04/2008 06:43:45 PM EST

 Display: