Actually, not so much dumb as mislead. In a World Opinion poll of voters in the 2010 midterms, (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/671.php?nid=&id=&pnt=671&lb=)
". . .9 in 10 voters said that in the 2010 election they encountered information they believed was misleading or false, with 56% saying this occurred frequently. Fifty-four percent said that it had been more frequent than usual, while just three percent said it was less "
Big deal, you say?
Quote"Equally significant, the poll found strong evidence that voters were substantially misinformed on many of the key issues of the campaign. Such misinformation was correlated with how people voted and their exposure to various news sources.
Voters' misinformation included beliefs at odds with the conclusions of government agencies, generally regarded as non-partisan, consisting of professional economists and scientists."
Some of the things that people believed erroneously in the last election include:
Quote• Though the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concluded that the stimulus legislation has saved or created 2.0-5.2 million jobs, only 8% of voters thought most economists who had studied it concluded that the stimulus legislation had created or saved several million jobs. Most (68%) believed that economists estimate that it only created or saved a few jobs and 20% even believed that it resulted in job losses.
• Though the CBO concluded that the health reform law would reduce the budget deficit, 53% of voters thought most economists have concluded that health reform will increase the deficit.
• Though the Department of Commerce says that the US economy began to recover from recession in the third quarter of 2009 and has continued to grow since then, only 44% of voters thought the economy is starting to recover, while 55% thought the economy is still getting worse.
• Though the National Academy of Sciences has concluded that climate change is occurring, 45% of voters thought most scientists think climate change is not occurring (12%) or that scientists are evenly divided (33%).
• 40% of voters believed incorrectly that the TARP legislation was initiated under Barack Obama, rather than George Bush
• 31% believed it was proven true that the US Chamber of Commerce spent large amounts of money it had raised from foreign sources to support Republican candidates
• 54% believed that there were no tax cuts in the stimulus legislation
• 86% assumed their taxes had gone up (38%) or stayed the same (48%), while only 10% were aware that their taxes had gone down since 2009
• 53% thought that the bailout of GM and Chrysler occurred only under Obama, though it was initiated under Bush
Turns out that (surprise!) a key source of misinformation was a single news outlet: Fox News.
Quote"Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely), most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points), the economy is getting worse (26 points), most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points), the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points), their own income taxes have gone up (14 points), the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points), when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points) and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points). The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican."
(See also: internal Fox News memos regarding methods of reporting on healthcare, climate change, etc. (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012090003))
So: if our political system and our economic philosophy both rely on individuals making enlightened choices with the best information available, it would follow, then, that both our political system and our economic philosophy are being undermined by this sort of thing, wouldn't it?
That's why it's a good idea to get news from multiple networks.
I'm glad we have the freedom to change channels any time we wish and get news from whatever source we wish. It's like Jelly Bellies. . .so many flavors. What a great country!
World Opinion Poll. Funded by the Calvert Foundation and The Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
Calvert Foundation's mission is to maximize the flow of capital to disadvantaged communities in order to create a more equitable and sustainable society.
The Rockefeller Brothers Fund advances social change that contributes to a more just, sustainable, and peaceful world.
I am to believe a poll funded directly by these two organizations? Thats like a FOX news watcher asking you to believe a poll funded directly by The Heritage Foundation.
Quote from: we vs us on December 22, 2010, 12:24:18 PM
Actually, not so much dumb as mislead.
Quote
• Though the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concluded that the stimulus legislation has saved or created 2.0-5.2 million jobs, only 8% of voters thought most economists who had studied it concluded that the stimulus legislation had created or saved several million jobs. Most (68%) believed that economists estimate that it only created or saved a few jobs and 20% even believed that it resulted in job losses.
• Though the CBO concluded that the health reform law would reduce the budget deficit, 53% of voters thought most economists have concluded that health reform will increase the deficit.
• Though the Department of Commerce says that the US economy began to recover from recession in the third quarter of 2009 and has continued to grow since then, only 44% of voters thought the economy is starting to recover, while 55% thought the economy is still getting worse.
• Though the National Academy of Sciences has concluded that climate change is occurring, 45% of voters thought most scientists think climate change is not occurring (12%) or that scientists are evenly divided (33%).
• 40% of voters believed incorrectly that the TARP legislation was initiated under Barack Obama, rather than George Bush
• 31% believed it was proven true that the US Chamber of Commerce spent large amounts of money it had raised from foreign sources to support Republican candidates
• 54% believed that there were no tax cuts in the stimulus legislation
• 86% assumed their taxes had gone up (38%) or stayed the same (48%), while only 10% were aware that their taxes had gone down since 2009
• 53% thought that the bailout of GM and Chrysler occurred only under Obama, though it was initiated under Bush
The CBO's record is not good enough to trust it implicitly.
Whether or not the economy is getting better/worse probably depends as much on ones personal situation as it does a Department of Commerce report.
Climate change.... Yep, it's always changing. How much is caused by humans is not proven in the minds of many. The zealots have not done themselves any favors in the last few years.
Tax cuts in the stimulus. I didn't need or buy a new car, storm windows, heater/airconditioner (replaced it about 4 years ago).
Income tax. Withholding changed about $5/check. I am fortunate enough that $130/yr does not make me jump and shout. (Waiting for Nathan to claim marginal utility. Although it wasn't a specific purchase, I will claim buying a bit more Marshall's with that money.) I will need to see the tax forms to determine if my income tax goes down due to rates or the fact that my investment income went from meager to almost zero.
I could believe the network news in the days of Walter Cronkite. Our family stopped watching CBS with the change to Dan Rather. Didn't he wind up in some kind of difficulty about a news broadcast?
(http://cdn.mashable.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/lead-toys-lol-retard.jpg)
It's the dumb masses Wevus.
Wow! Surprise! So Fox watchers are dumb, is that the conclusion? No spin on those poll results. Also keep in mind CBO numbers are not infallible.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 22, 2010, 01:20:51 PM
It's the dumb masses Wevus.
Wow! Surprise! So Fox watchers are dumb, is that the conclusion? No spin on those poll results. Also keep in mind CBO numbers are not infallible.
Wevsus lives in the spin zone.
Not infallible, but better than most. And depended on by both sides to rationalize their excesses.
Red, it just shows you how badly middle America gets it in the seat. While you were enjoying your $130, the 1%'ers were enjoying their $100,000 to $200,000 or $5 to $10 million extra. But then, they certainly deserve it more than the "little people".
Or in the case of the Abercrombie CEO, his extra $30 million out of the 100+ million he was paid for taking a company to the point where they made a whopping $250,000 profit that year. Well worth the money!!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 22, 2010, 01:29:31 PM
Not infallible, but better than most. And depended on by both sides to rationalize their excesses.
Red, it just shows you how badly middle America gets it in the seat. While you were enjoying your $130, the 1%'ers were enjoying their $100,000 to $200,000 or $5 to $10 million extra. But then, they certainly deserve it more than the "little people".
Or in the case of the Abercrombie CEO, his extra $30 million out of the 100+ million he was paid for taking a company to the point where they made a whopping $250,000 profit that year. Well worth the money!!
And while my $130 went to beer, their huge chunks of money sat in a honey jar on the shelf. Just goes to show that cutting my taxes didn't help the economy much although I enjoyed the beer.
I won't argue the issue of overpaid CEOs not leading their companies to insanely high profits. Stockholders should revolt.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 22, 2010, 01:20:51 PM
It's the dumb masses Wevus.
Wow! Surprise! So Fox watchers are dumb, is that the conclusion? No spin on those poll results. Also keep in mind CBO numbers are not infallible.
On the contrary. CBO numbers have proven to be fallible 100% of the time.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 22, 2010, 01:29:31 PM
Not infallible, but better than most. And depended on by both sides to rationalize their excesses.
Red, it just shows you how badly middle America gets it in the seat. While you were enjoying your $130, the 1%'ers were enjoying their $100,000 to $200,000 or $5 to $10 million extra. But then, they certainly deserve it more than the "little people".
Or in the case of the Abercrombie CEO, his extra $30 million out of the 100+ million he was paid for taking a company to the point where they made a whopping $250,000 profit that year. Well worth the money!!
So. . . to build wealth, someone must suffer? Is that how it works?
Quote from: Conan71 on December 22, 2010, 01:20:51 PM
It's the dumb masses Wevus.
Wow! Surprise! So Fox watchers are dumb, is that the conclusion? No spin on those poll results. Also keep in mind CBO numbers are not infallible.
Actually no, not dumb. I meant the title as a riff on an Onion coffee table book, "Our Dumb Century," (http://www.amazon.com/Our-Dumb-Century-Presents-Headlines/dp/0609804618) not as an actual ding on the public. My point was that there was a much-increased amount of disinformation in the air during our latest election, and that much of that disinformation informed voters choices. This is bad, IMO, not because I disagree with conservative choices, but it's bad because people are making conservative choices based on bad data pushed by a couple of significant outlets.
This study was the first good measure, post-election, of that bad data effect. It also coincides with the new Citizens United verdict, which has allowed all that corporate money into our political debate. It's not a stretch to suggest that 2012 will be far worse in terms of finding fact.
Gaspar: IMO, consumer choice and factual reporting don't always coincide . . . doesn't Fox (and MSNBC for that matter) have a responsibility to be both an economic entity (to compete for customers and attend to their bottom lines) and a civic entity (to report the news for the edification of the citizenry)? Or is the responsibility solely on the part of the consumer to judge whether the station is quality or not?
Quote from: we vs us on December 22, 2010, 03:37:18 PM
Gaspar: IMO, consumer choice and factual reporting don't always coincide . . . doesn't Fox (and MSNBC for that matter) have a responsibility to be both an economic entity (to compete for customers and attend to their bottom lines) and a civic entity (to report the news for the edification of the citizenry)? Or is the responsibility solely on the part of the consumer to judge whether the station is quality or not?
It
is the responsibility of the consumer. There are extremes on both sides. Fox News represents an obviously conservative spin and MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, NPR, The Daily Show, MTV, CNN, PBS, and CNBC offer a more liberal spin. It is the responsibility of the consumer to make their own decisions. You cannot take that away.
The whole jist of your argument to point a finger and say "you're stupid because you watch FOX." Unfortunately that is argumentum ad hominem. All of the networks are cited in fallacy and slant on a daily basis. Because it has now become FOX vs everyone else (there are no other conservative based news organizations), their inaccuracies are magnified.
I admit Fox is very conservative, and I distrust all of the spin I hear there, but I also watch CBS, and MSNBC and the spin and fallacy is also very apparent there, it just only makes news on one network. ;)
Quote from: Gaspar on December 22, 2010, 03:58:58 PM
It is the responsibility of the consumer. There are extremes on both sides. Fox News represents an obviously conservative spin and MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, NPR, The Daily Show, MTV, CNN, PBS, and CNBC offer a more liberal spin. It is the responsibility of the consumer to make their own decisions. You cannot take that away.
The whole jist of your argument to point a finger and say "you're stupid because you watch FOX." Unfortunately that is argumentum ad hominem. All of the networks are cited in fallacy and slant on a daily basis. Because it has now become FOX vs everyone else (there are no other conservative based news organizations), their inaccuracies are magnified.
I admit Fox is very conservative, and I distrust all of the spin I hear there, but I also watch CBS, and MSNBC and the spin and fallacy is also very apparent there, it just only makes news on one network. ;)
But the problem I have with Fox is their mantra of 'fair and balanced' when they aren't. I don't care so much that they are essentially the media arm of the RNC, but call a spade and spade, please. Don't try and tell people you report down the middle when it's obvious you don't.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 22, 2010, 03:58:58 PM
...you're stupid because you watch FOX...
I thought I would do to you what FOX News does to the truth.
Obviously a Fox News viewer:
As for the intelligence of the electorate, did anyone else read that 23% of Americans trying to join the military cannot pass the ASVAB?
Quote from: Gaspar on December 22, 2010, 03:58:58 PM
It is the responsibility of the consumer. There are extremes on both sides. Fox News represents an obviously conservative spin and MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, NPR, The Daily Show, MTV, CNN, PBS, and CNBC offer a more liberal spin. It is the responsibility of the consumer to make their own decisions. You cannot take that away.
The whole jist of your argument to point a finger and say "you're stupid because you watch FOX." Unfortunately that is argumentum ad hominem. All of the networks are cited in fallacy and slant on a daily basis. Because it has now become FOX vs everyone else (there are no other conservative based news organizations), their inaccuracies are magnified.
I admit Fox is very conservative, and I distrust all of the spin I hear there, but I also watch CBS, and MSNBC and the spin and fallacy is also very apparent there, it just only makes news on one network. ;)
That's actually not quite my argument. It's more that FOX is giving the you bad information and isn't a trustworthy place to get info. Not that you're stupid for trusting them. The study I cited actually points out that FOX is a standout among the cable news outlets in the level of misdirection it pushes. The other networks (liberal, centrist, or neutral) at least
mostly push the facts.
(And a note on facts: if we can't use the CBO as a place to turn to for reliable data, then who should we use? If there's no authority to turn to -- and the CBO is as reliable an authority as we're going to find -- then why trust anyone anywhere?)
As a consumer, I choose not to "buy" FOX as a product. Fair enough. I can turn the channel and get my news from anywhere else. Unfortunately, its effect on the marketplace is far greater than simply being one amongst many choices. As a civic participant, though, should I ignore the outsize role that it's playing on the shaping of my country?
Quote from: guido911 on December 22, 2010, 04:20:22 PM
As for the intelligence of the electorate, did anyone else read that 23% of Americans trying to join the military cannot pass the ASVAB?
Yes. It made me a little nauseated. The math and science sections kicked sand in their faces.
From Gaspar;
...So. . . to build wealth, someone must suffer? Is that how it works?
No, not 'must' suffer. But that IS how it works. Look around you. Why do YOU think 50% of the population doesn't make enough to pay tax on a 1040? Nothing rings a bell there??
Asked for comment on the study, Fox News seemingly dismissed the findings. In a statement, Michael Clemente, who is the senior vice president of news editorial for the network, said: "The latest Princeton Review ranked the University of Maryland among the top schools for having 'Students Who Study The Least' and being the 'Best Party School' – given these fine academic distinctions, we'll regard the study with the same level of veracity it was 'researched' with."
Quote from: we vs us on December 22, 2010, 03:37:18 PM
Actually no, not dumb. I meant the title as a riff on an Onion coffee table book, "Our Dumb Century," (http://www.amazon.com/Our-Dumb-Century-Presents-Headlines/dp/0609804618) not as an actual ding on the public. My point was that there was a much-increased amount of disinformation in the air during our latest election, and that much of that disinformation informed voters choices. This is bad, IMO, not because I disagree with conservative choices, but it's bad because people are making conservative choices based on bad data pushed by a couple of significant outlets.
This study was the first good measure, post-election, of that bad data effect. It also coincides with the new Citizens United verdict, which has allowed all that corporate money into our political debate. It's not a stretch to suggest that 2012 will be far worse in terms of finding fact.
Gaspar: IMO, consumer choice and factual reporting don't always coincide . . . doesn't Fox (and MSNBC for that matter) have a responsibility to be both an economic entity (to compete for customers and attend to their bottom lines) and a civic entity (to report the news for the edification of the citizenry)? Or is the responsibility solely on the part of the consumer to judge whether the station is quality or not?
And the 2008 elections were won with bad ideas ;)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 22, 2010, 10:51:48 PM
From Gaspar;
...So. . . to build wealth, someone must suffer? Is that how it works?
No, not 'must' suffer. But that IS how it works. Look around you. Why do YOU think 50% of the population doesn't make enough to pay tax on a 1040? Nothing rings a bell there??
No, my friend. They have learned to be dependent. They have been taught that they can survive in relative comfort with minimal effort. No one has used up a "finite" amount of opportunity.
They have been socialized not to build wealth, brainwashed that they cannot achieve success, and have surrendered to those who perpetuate those lies.
For the able bodied, "poor" is not a terminal condition, like smoking, alcoholism, and obesity, it can be cured only if the person wants be be cured. It is an addiction to certain decisions, ideas, and a lifestyles that are easily identified at the root.
For liberals the term "poor" is a label used to identify a class of people. They view the fight against poverty as shifting wealth from one person to another. This does nothing to cure the addiction. This is enabling.
The root source of wealth is human ingenuity. This has no known bounds, so the amount of wealth in existence can always be increased. That's why capitalism is called "making money". – Marc GeddesCollectivism doesn't work because it's based on a faulty economic premise. There is no such thing as a person's "fair share" of wealth. The gross national product is not a pizza that must be carefully divided because if I get too many slices, you have to eat the box. The economy is expandable and, in any practical sense, limitless. – P. J. O'RourkeProperty is the fruit of labor. Property is desirable, is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently to build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence. – Abraham LincolnLiberalism: The art of obtaining money from the rich and votes from the poor on the pretext of protecting each from the other.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 27, 2010, 07:44:36 AM
For liberals the term "poor" is a label used to identify a class of people.
Why do you think you know what liberals think? You don't, instead try to use the word as an insult for people who disagree with you politically.
Most students in college are poor. They are focused on learning not earning with the hope that the knowledge they obtain will get them a better job and a better future.
By my online dictionary, poor is defined first as "having little or no money, goods, or other means of support". It also lists poor as being "lacking in skill, ability, or training", as an example of being a poor cook or in your case, making a poor argument.
As is true for most conservatives, Gaspar seems to be fighting liberal (communist?) ideology circa 1965. Over and over and over again.
One day you'll catch up with us and we can have a real discussion . . . I know you can do it!
Quote from: RecycleMichael on December 27, 2010, 09:13:22 AM
Why do you think you know what liberals think? You don't, instead try to use the word as an insult for people who disagree with you politically.
Most students in college are poor. They are focused on learning not earning with the hope that the knowledge they obtain will get them a better job and a better future.
By my online dictionary, poor is defined first as "having little or no money, goods, or other means of support". It also lists poor as being "lacking in skill, ability, or training", as an example of being a poor cook or in your case, making a poor argument.
I don't disagree, but "poor" is a temporary state, not a class of people. Your example of college students is the perfect example. My argument was against the concept that the accumulation of wealth is finite and somehow linked to the creation of poverty.
Quote from: we vs us on December 27, 2010, 09:27:46 AM
As is true for most conservatives, Gaspar seems to be fighting liberal (communist?) ideology circa 1965. Over and over and over again.
One day you'll catch up with us and we can have a real discussion . . . I know you can do it!
I'm trying really hard but every time I get close, someone like heiron brings the discussion back to collective ideology.
No...it is a class of people. They may be temporarily poor, but they can still be defined as a subset of any population.
Poor is a description, not a penalty.
In your argument above, you used two different descriptions of people..."able bodied" and "liberal" as a class of people. You also implied (rather poorly) that they have opposite views.
My dictionary says "liberal" means open-minded, tolerant, free of bigotry and predjudice.
You just wish you were a liberal.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 27, 2010, 09:34:41 AM
I'm trying really hard but every time I get close, someone like heiron brings the discussion back to collective ideology.
Heiron's just some dude on the internet (nothing personal, Heiron), not a policy maker. He's entitled to his opinion but may or may not be within the mainstream of liberal thought.
If you're interested in a punching bag, by all means use Heiron. If you're interested in actually comparing and contrasting policy positions -- and therefore understanding what modern liberals do and do not prioritize -- you might cast a little further afield for your sources.
You know why wealth redistribution doesn't work?
The middleman keeps too much of the proceeds for himself.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on December 27, 2010, 09:40:30 AM
My dictionary says "liberal" means open-minded, tolerant, free of bigotry and predjudice.
You just wish you were a liberal.
You know, you're right. I think that we (I included) have seriously twisted the definition of "liberal." I think perhaps what we consider as the modern day liberal deserves some different classification.
By the definition above, it would follow that liberalism would promote individual freedom. Because liberalism is free of bigotry and prejudice, class warfare could not exist within the liberal mind (social classification requires prejudice). The liberal would view all people as equal. Because this ideology would promote individual freedom, it must therefore recognize individual responsibility. The last thing one of a liberal mindset would do is recognize people according to some group or classification because these would require assumptions made about the individual before having adequate knowledge to be able to do so with guaranteed accuracy (prejudice).
So now we have a problem, because the term "liberal" is used incorrectly to describe the modern a modern philosophy that applies to people who believe in the liberal application of power (more accurately government) to enforce some interpretation of equality. This is without a doubt contrary to the definition of "liberal". This modern definition requires prejudice in order to establish group identities. The rights of these groups are recognized over and above individual rights. The modern definition also requires bigotry because certain groups or races of people must be judged as incapable of advancement or success without some form of aid. The promotion of "race based hiring" is even prevalent.
My apology, I seem to be using the wrong term. Modern liberals are not "liberal" at all.
How do you know I'm a dude?
And how many liberals does anyone here know who is a lifetime member of the NRA??
Naw, guys, I am just a regular old moderate type who is fiscally VERY conservative - have been for decades - can you spell, "balanced budget amendment"?? type of guy.
And mildly socially liberal - as in Hubert Humphrey style - "a hand-up, not a hand-out".
The law, in its infinite wisdom, prohibits the rich man as well as the poor from sleeping in the streets.