re: CBO doing their best to get rid of our President

quote:

---

You need an exact number to be satisfied?

---

you're definitely amongst the ranks of those shitting on CBO here, but want to be able to give yourself margins of error that big?

don't be a baby. the same level of specificity provided by the group you disparage is good enough

quote:

---

You do realize they have a very good reason for being inaccurate, right? It doesn’t change the fact they are inaccurate.

---

They are required to answer questions in very specific ways, although their answers are often used to answer questions that are different than what they are actually asked, it's true. And their exact answers often come in a form that isn't useful for those doing the using.

But who are they inaccurate relative to? Can you say anyone at all? If so, I'd agree maybe it's fair to call them inaccurate, maybe even "wildly" so, as you do.

quote:

---

who are they inaccurate relative to?

---

l
Depends upon which forecast you want to consider.
And while you are correct about how they answer questions, often they are also united in what data they can use. Which leads to their inaccuracies

quote:

---

Depends upon which forecast you want to consider.

---

well let's consider some that back up your claims of wild inaccuracy

quote:

---

while you are correct about how they answer questions, often they are also united in what data they can use. Which leads to their inaccuracies

---

you mean which assumptions they can use? well, the question they are assessing is the question they are assessing. if you're going to judge their accuracy, you have to judge them on how they answer the question they are asked

unless you want to use them as a pinata for partisan purposes, of course, instead of a high-quality decision aid for legislators

quote:

---

Is that your opinion or can you back that up?

---

i can back it up quite easily, by noting the deafening silence every time i ask to be shown a better track record

quote:

---

The accuracy of the posters here is not important.

---

claims of "accuracy" are meaningless without a benchmark. my meta-point here is that no one ever wants to provide one while disparaging the group's work. and they don't have to provide their own prediction; they could just show someone else's that we should rely on instead

We were told under Obama that the new normal is 1% to 2% growth so not sure what the issue is?

It'll go up

quote:

---

i can back it up quite easily, by noting the deafening silence every time i ask to be shown a better track record

---

Your answer backs up nothing.

CBO has a track record. That's the question. How accurate are they?

Whether some are better or some are worse makes no difference. That's what was quoted on the OP

quote:

---

Your answer backs up nothing.

---

it most certainly does back up everything i've said, which you might note doesn't include arbitrary claims about accuracy, other than me denying that they are "consistently wildly inaccurate".

you attempt to pin me on some measure of accuracy which you have not provided. in fact none of you have provided any at all. i offer the basis of the consistent performance of any comparable group. if you don't like that measure because you can't find anything comparable, suggest an alternative basis that you believe is fair. what basis would you like to see instead?