GrowUp Minnesota
07/25/12 11:43 am
BlockHippie ... except when it leaks out that the supposed non-partisan economist in the Congressional Budget Office who published the report, and who's not supposed to have ANY political affiliation actually gave $26,000 to MrO's reelection campaign. Dang those pesky facts.
MrO must go!
ronpaul
07/22/12 3:31 pm
Funny how everyone here basically said no.. Yet they didn't vote for Ron Paul.. They voted for corrupt Romney and Obama.. Smh..
NYevo NY
07/22/12 5:08 am
The GAO is far less politically motivated then a research think tank of a political party or ideology. That said, they're only human with their own beliefs and biasses and errors. They're not fiscally beholden to either party or leader, so that is a very good thing. They're a good source for info
O13 Alabama
07/20/12 5:58 am
Unless that economic forecaster is a computer, there will always be bias. Even then, it's only as unbiased as the data put into it.
one80 California
07/20/12 1:22 am
Kogane- that's not what the results show and that's not what the question asked.
Right now the results show 92% of respondents do NOT trust that government economic forecasts are free of politically motivated biases.
Use the exact question asked when reading and interpreting results.
NUwriter
07/19/12 7:51 pm
And economics is not really a science, in that the scientific method is sketchy at best in economics. Control groups are difficult to work out, and there are always other factors at work. Economics is the study of human action.
However, to claim that economists are unbiased is utter nonsense.
jonny323
07/19/12 7:45 pm
@blockhippie It's a science, but a corrupted one. If you think that everything an "economist" says is fact, then I have a bridge I'd love to sell you.
NUwriter
07/19/12 7:41 pm
Government economists tend to skew Keynesian, and Keynesians are terrible at forecasting. They always claim that the business cycle is fixed, and are surprised by every downturn thay comes down the pike. Austrian (the school not the country) economic forecasts are far more reliable.
nFavOfSecess Texas
07/19/12 4:51 pm
Anything that begins with, "Do you trust the government..." automatically warrants a, "NO" response from me. Without ANY further need to read.
And constitutes an additional "NO" just for gp.
prterri
07/19/12 11:52 am
It doesn't benefit them to sway economic forecasts. Then they look more idiotic than they already are.
Fresh1
07/19/12 11:50 am
The supreme court is bias. How can I trust a report.
Look at how the affordable care act they double count medicaide savings to make it look like afa saves money when it really adding at least 50billion per year to our deficit and (100trillion of) unfunded health program liabilities.
JustSaying
07/19/12 10:46 am
We all agree there is bias in government reports.
Follow up question: Do you feel Obama and Romney are equally biased or is one more than the other?
kytoaltoky
07/19/12 9:45 am
Economics is a complex topic, and the forecasters are almost always wrong. I think the Farmer's Almanac has a better record of predicting weather. Nonetheless, we can glean useful data for economic planning when examining historic trends...then let policy makers muddle it up!
anarchy GET OFF MY LAWN
07/19/12 9:25 am
I mean, good grief. The real unemployment rate is something like 16%+...these clowns show 8% because they get to just "forget" about those who gave up looking for work. If it's from DC it's politically motivated...this is across party lines. They're all liars and criminals.
Zod Above Pugetropolis
07/19/12 9:17 am
Many of the reports seem valid, as far as they go, but the scope and focus often seems restricted by politics. The timing of the release, or delayed release, also seems political. In general, there is no single source I'd trust to be unbiased. I'd rather have the data and draw my own conclusions.
dflem Arizona
07/19/12 9:10 am
It's amazing when a question of trusting the govnt or congress no one does. So can we start voting these people out yet?
Comments: Add Comment