[We continue posting evidence in the comments section so read on! – Editor]
Today’s column will be presented in a different manner than what you would expect. It will be comprised of mostly the raw economic data with sources with a few comments from yours truly. If you are a hyper-partisan, the facts presented here may prove to be most inconvenient.
The Bush administration inherited a recession. After the tax cuts government revenue went up and we had 55 months of uninterupted job growth, which is a record.
Mr. Bush signed the most recent tax cuts into law in the spring of 2003. In the past 33 months the size of America’s entire economy has increased by 20%–or, as National Review Online’s Larry Kudlow put it, “In less than three years, the U.S. economic pie has expanded by $2.2 trillion, an output add-on that is roughly the same size as the total Chinese economy.”
Reducing the capital gains tax rate from 20% to 15% increased capital gains tax receipts by 79% from 2000 to 2004. Cutting the dividend tax rate by more than half–from 39.6% to 15%–increased dividend tax receipts by 35% from 2002 to 2004. And corporate tax receipts have nearly tripled since 2003, reaching $250 billion for the past nine months, 26% higher than the same period last year. (WSJ July 25, 2006)
WASHINGTON — The federal deficit in the budget year that just ended fell to a four-year low of $247.7 billion _ a figure President Bush touted Wednesday as “proof that pro-growth policies work.” The deficit for the budget year that ended Sept. 30 was 22.3 percent lower than the $318.7 billion imbalance for 2005, handing Bush a welcome economic talking point as Republicans battle to hold onto control of Congress in the midterm elections. (AP Oct. 11, 2006)
Tax collections have increased by $521 billion in the last two fiscal years, the largest two-year revenue increase — even after adjusting for inflation — in American history. If you’re surprised to hear that, it’s probably because inside Washington this is treated as the only secret no one wants to print. On the few occasions when the media pay attention to the rise in tax collections, they scratch their heads and wonder where this “surprise-ing” and “unexpected windfall” came from. (WSJ – Human Events)
One place it has come from are corporations, whose tax collections have climbed by 76% over the past two years thanks to greater profitability. Personal income tax payments are up by 30.3% since 2004 too, despite the fact that the highest tax rate is down to 35% from 39.6%. The IRS tax-return data just released last month indicates that a near-record 37% of those income tax payments are received from the top 1% of earners — “the rich,” who are derided regularly in Washington for not paying their “fair share.” (WSJ Oct. 6 2006) The rich are paying more in real dollars since the tax cuts.
A flood of income tax payments pushed up government receipts to the second-highest level in history in April, giving the country a sizable surplus for the month. In its monthly accounting of the government’s books, the Treasury Department said Wednesday that revenue for the month totaled $315.1 billion as Americans filed their tax returns by the April deadline. The gusher of tax revenue pushed total receipts up by 13.4 percent from April 2005. (AP May 10, 2006)
The U.S. economy grew at a revised 5.6 percent annual rate in the first quarter, as the fastest pace of growth in 2-1/2 years generated robust corporate profits, the Commerce Department said on Thursday. (Reuters June 20, 2006)
WASHINGTON, July 8 — An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief. (NYT July 9, 2006)
Hiring perked up in August as employers added 128,000 jobs, pulling down the unemployment rate to 4.7 percent, sending a Labor Day message that the economic expansion still has staying power. The latest snapshot, released by the Labor Department Friday, was a bit brighter than expected and should ease any fears that the expansion that began in late 2001 is not in danger of fizzling out. (AP Sept. 1, 2006)
In the 2 1/4 years before the 2003 tax cuts, economic growth averaged 1.1% annually; in the three years since it has averaged 4% per year, and in the first quarter of this year it was 5.6% on an annualized basis. Inflation-adjusted per capita GDP has grown 7.8% from 2003 through the first quarter of this year.
According to the government’s establishment survey, in the 36 months since the tax cuts became law, 5.3 million new jobs have been added to the economy. According to its employment survey, 288,000 jobs were added in May and 387,000 in June. The unemployment rate dropped from 6.1% when the bills were signed to 5.4% at the end of 2004 and 4.6% today, and the rate has gone down for men, women, blacks and Hispanics. Hourly wage rates for workers are up 3.9% in the past year, and they increased at an annualized rate of 4.6% in the second quarter of this year, the highest quarterly rate in nearly 10 years.
Incomes are up too. As Stephen Moore noted in The Wall Street Journal, “the percentage of Americans earning more than $50,000 a year rose from 40.8% to 44.2%” between 2002 and 2004. As for very wealthy families, the portion of total income “captured by the richest 1%, 5% and 10% of Americans is lower today than in the last year of the Clinton administration.”
All this has been good news for the government. Federal tax receipts increased by 15%– $274 billion–last year and 13%– $206 billion–in the first nine months of this fiscal year, which, as the Journal points out, means the nine-month increases for the past two years represent the highest growth rates in 25 years. Looking ahead to the end of this fiscal year, total inflation-adjusted government receipts will likely be 23% above 2003 when the Bush tax cuts were signed into law.
Check out the Vision weblog for the numbers going even further back to 2004.
Chuck Norton
News Analyst
UPDATE – More evidence –
Many Leaving Welfare for Jobs
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100301483_pf.html
By Mary Otto
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 4, 2006; B06
A decade after welfare reform, tens of thousands of poor families in Maryland have left the rolls of public assistance for jobs.
“I’m making it. I’m doing okay,” said Melitta Fulton, 32, a mother of three in Baltimore who is now an administrative assistant in a child-care center and a nursing student.
She doesn’t have much money after she pays her bills, but her children are thriving, and she is proud of her progress, she said. She is one of many former welfare recipients across the region climbing out of poverty, according to a detailed new report presented to state legislators yesterday.
****
US Treasury Sets New 1-Day Tax Receipt Record Of $85.8 Billion
Tuesday September 19th, 2006 / 0h04
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The U.S. government recorded record-high overall and corporate tax receipts on Sept. 15, which was a quarterly deadline for tax payments, the Treasury said Monday.
Total tax receipts were $85.8 billion on Friday, compared with the previous one-day record of $71 billion on Sept. 15 of last year, the Treasury said.
Within the overall figure, corporate tax receipts Friday were $71.8 billion, up from $63 billion in September of last year.
Treasury Undersecretary for Domestic Finance Randal Quarles said Friday’s numbers provided a “continuing demonstration of the strength of the U.S. economy.”
“In fact, Friday’s gross receipts were the largest in a single day in the nation’s history – 20% higher than receipts on the same quarterly tax payment date last year,” Quarles said in a statement.
http://www.easybourse.com/Website/dynamic/News.php?NewsID=58170&lang=fra&NewsRubrique=2
****
Spending provides cheer on US economy
By Daniel Pimlott in New York
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/d35dc740-390b-11db-a21d-0000779e2340.html
Published: August 31 2006 17:27 | Last updated: August 31 2006 17:27
US consumers delivered good news to the economy on Thursday, as data for July showed spending on goods and services was growing more quickly than at any time this year.
Meanwhile, tame inflation over the month made an interest rate increase by the Federal Reserve in September increasingly unlikely.
Personal spending rose by 0.8 per cent last month, twice the June rate, a report published by the Commerce Deparment said, boosted by incentives for car sales. Personal income grew by 0.5 per cent, with disposable income up 0.7 per cent. Inflation rose by a smaller-than-expected 0.1 per cent, or an annualised 2.4 per cent.
****
Jobless Rate Dips in August
Sep 01 8:40 AM US/Eastern
By JEANNINE AVERSA
AP Economics Writer
WASHINGTON
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/09/01/D8JS2KCO1.html
Hiring perked up in August as employers added 128,000 jobs, pulling down the unemployment rate to 4.7 percent, sending a Labor Day message that the economic expansion still has staying power.
The latest snapshot, released by the Labor Department Friday, was a bit brighter than expected and should ease any fears that the expansion that began in late 2001 is not in danger of fizzling out.
The tally of new jobs last month was slightly stronger than the 125,000 that economists were forecasting. The nation’s unemployment rate dropped down a notch from a five-month high of 4.8 percent in July. Job gains for June and July also turned out to be better than previously estimated. In June, employers boosted payrolls by 134,000 positions and in July they added another 121,000.
The report comes as the nation’s work force gets ready to the Labor Day holiday and as the election season looms.
Economic conditions _ especially those where people live and work _ are likely to be on voters’ minds when they go to the polls in November.
Workers’ average hourly earnings edged up to $16.79 in August, a 0.1 percent increase from July. Economists were forecasting a bigger, 0.3 percent advance. While workers welcome strong wage growth, economists worry that a rapid and prolonged pickup in wages can ignite inflation fears.
Over the 12 months ending August, wages grew by a strong 3.9 percent. The last time this figure was higher was in June 2001.
The IUSB Vision Weblog 
Craig Chamberlin said
Chuck,
Truely a great collaboration of facts showing results to Republican Economic Policies, I’m interested to see if anyone can refute it.
Economics shows every 1 dollar invested into the economy creates 4 dollars of growth. I suppose they have held their own in this respect. Keep the money in the economy, investments go up and therefore, growth in almost every region.
Ryan said
Any sources for this Chuck?
Chuck Norton said
Ryan,
Try reading the article. The sources are listed after each quote and there is more to come. When I get a little time I will post quotes from the WSJ, NYT, AP and others showing the numbers going back to 2004.
Ryan said
I don’t want quotes Chuck. I want links and documentation on where to read the information for myself. I find the actual documents and your interpretation of them tend to be very different things.
Chuck Norton said
Those are direct quotes Ryan….. if you take the actual words I posted… and put them into a google search bar, with the source such as AP and the date, you will get all the links you want.
If you dont know how to use a search engine, I am certain that a helper in the computer labs can help you…..
One more thing, you have never been able to prove that one fact presented in my columns is incorrect, so why dont you either stop pretending that you have, or quite simply put up the proof and lets argue it out.
Chuck Norton said
Many Leaving Welfare for Jobs
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100301483_pf.html
By Mary Otto
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 4, 2006; B06
A decade after welfare reform, tens of thousands of poor families in Maryland have left the rolls of public assistance for jobs.
“I’m making it. I’m doing okay,” said Melitta Fulton, 32, a mother of three in Baltimore who is now an administrative assistant in a child-care center and a nursing student.
She doesn’t have much money after she pays her bills, but her children are thriving, and she is proud of her progress, she said. She is one of many former welfare recipients across the region climbing out of poverty, according to a detailed new report presented to state legislators yesterday.
Chuck Norton said
http://www.easybourse.com/Website/dynamic/News.php?NewsID=58170&lang=fra&NewsRubrique=2
US Treasury Sets New 1-Day Tax Receipt Record Of $85.8 Billion
Tuesday September 19th, 2006 / 0h04
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The U.S. government recorded record-high overall and corporate tax receipts on Sept. 15, which was a quarterly deadline for tax payments, the Treasury said Monday.
Total tax receipts were $85.8 billion on Friday, compared with the previous one-day record of $71 billion on Sept. 15 of last year, the Treasury said.
Within the overall figure, corporate tax receipts Friday were $71.8 billion, up from $63 billion in September of last year.
Treasury Undersecretary for Domestic Finance Randal Quarles said Friday’s numbers provided a “continuing demonstration of the strength of the U.S. economy.”
“In fact, Friday’s gross receipts were the largest in a single day in the nation’s history – 20% higher than receipts on the same quarterly tax payment date last year,” Quarles said in a statement.
Chuck Norton said
Spending provides cheer on US economy
By Daniel Pimlott in New York
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/d35dc740-390b-11db-a21d-0000779e2340.html
Published: August 31 2006 17:27 | Last updated: August 31 2006 17:27
US consumers delivered good news to the economy on Thursday, as data for July showed spending on goods and services was growing more quickly than at any time this year.
Meanwhile, tame inflation over the month made an interest rate increase by the Federal Reserve in September increasingly unlikely.
Personal spending rose by 0.8 per cent last month, twice the June rate, a report published by the Commerce Deparment said, boosted by incentives for car sales. Personal income grew by 0.5 per cent, with disposable income up 0.7 per cent. Inflation rose by a smaller-than-expected 0.1 per cent, or an annualised 2.4 per cent.
Chuck Norton said
Jobless Rate Dips in August
Sep 01 8:40 AM US/Eastern
By JEANNINE AVERSA
AP Economics Writer
WASHINGTON
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/09/01/D8JS2KCO1.html
Hiring perked up in August as employers added 128,000 jobs, pulling down the unemployment rate to 4.7 percent, sending a Labor Day message that the economic expansion still has staying power.
The latest snapshot, released by the Labor Department Friday, was a bit brighter than expected and should ease any fears that the expansion that began in late 2001 is not in danger of fizzling out.
The tally of new jobs last month was slightly stronger than the 125,000 that economists were forecasting. The nation’s unemployment rate dropped down a notch from a five-month high of 4.8 percent in July. Job gains for June and July also turned out to be better than previously estimated. In June, employers boosted payrolls by 134,000 positions and in July they added another 121,000.
The report comes as the nation’s work force gets ready to the Labor Day holiday and as the election season looms.
Economic conditions _ especially those where people live and work _ are likely to be on voters’ minds when they go to the polls in November.
Workers’ average hourly earnings edged up to $16.79 in August, a 0.1 percent increase from July. Economists were forecasting a bigger, 0.3 percent advance. While workers welcome strong wage growth, economists worry that a rapid and prolonged pickup in wages can ignite inflation fears.
Over the 12 months ending August, wages grew by a strong 3.9 percent. The last time this figure was higher was in June 2001.
Chuck Norton said
GDP Increases Slightly in Spring
Email this Story
Aug 30, 8:42 AM (ET)
By JEANNINE AVERSA
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060830/D8JQOF8G0.html
WASHINGTON (AP) – The economy grew at a 2.9 percent annual rate in the spring – better than first estimated but nowhere near the brisk pace logged in the winter, another sign of slowing business growth. Inflation marched higher.
The latest snapshot of economic activity, released by the Commerce Department Wednesday, showed that gross domestic product in the April-to-June quarter increased slightly more than the 2.5 percent pace first reported a month ago. That upgrade mostly reflected an improvement in the country’s trade picture and stronger inventory building by businesses.
The upward revision, though, didn’t change the big picture of the economy: In the spring, it slowed sharply from the first quarter’s 5.6 percent pace, the strongest growth spurt in 2 1/2 years, as consumers and businesses tightened the belt.
Gross domestic product measures the value of all goods and services produced within the United States and is considered the best barometer of the country’s economic standing.
The second-quarter’s showing was slightly less than the 3 percent pace that analysts were expecting.
————————————————————————————-
Here is a great example of how the media takes good news and spins it bad, the first quarter of 2006 saw a 5.6% increase in GDP…. that is an insanely high growth rate that no one expected to maintain, so two quarters later, after the gas prices summer spiked… the economy still grew 2.9% that quarter which is very good performance (2.55 to 4.5% growth is where you want it). Inflation was a tad higher that quarter due to the gas price spike, which of course makes perfect sense.
Chuck Norton said
Here is that CNBC financial show guy Larry Kudlow
August 14, 2006, 9:08 a.m.
Alive and Kicking
Twenty-five years after the Reagan tax cuts, the economy is still cruising along.
By Larry Kudlow
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjIxNDVlYmZhZjI4ODk3ZDMzMjViZjdhMTE3NjMwZjA=
The great American consumer has been written off so many times in the last couple of years, just like the rest of the economy. But he/she is alive and kicking. Another great story never told.
Retail sales came in at 1.4 percent for July, way above Wall Street expectations, while core sales excluding autos, gas, and building materials — a number that feeds directly into GDP — increased 0.6 percent. Over the past 3 months core sales rose 6.7 percent at annual rate, and in the past year they’re up 7.4 percent. Excluding autos alone, sales have gained 9.2 percent in the last 12 months. That’s big time.
Sales of consumer durables also were strong. Some economists sounded the death knell for consumers when durable sales dropped in the second quarter. But in the newly released July report, durable-goods sales rose across the board: 3.1 percent for cars, 1.9 percent for electronics and appliances, 1.8 percent for building materials, and 0.5 percent for furniture. These are fat monthly gains.
Chuck Norton said
You gotta love this, economy booming, deficits dropping, GDP growth rates doing great, consumer disposable income up etc etc etc… as a result the government takes in more money….but the biased media tries to make you think this is bleak news…..
—————————————————————————–
Smaller Budget Deficit Projected
Tax Cuts Credited; Long-Term Outlook Still Seen as Bleak
By Paul Blustein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 11, 2006; Page D01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/10/AR2006071001330.html
The Bush administration is planning to trumpet today a midyear revision of its budget estimates projecting that a recent surge in tax revenue will help to shrink this year’s federal deficit below $300 billion, according to sources familiar with the estimates.
Chuck Norton said
http://www.nysun.com/article/35673
July 10, 2006 Edition
Laffer’s Victory
New York Sun Staff Editorial
July 10, 2006
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/35673
It’s official — Arthur Laffer wins. New data show federal revenues surged in the first three quarters of the current fiscal year. Corporate tax receipts are up more than 26% over the same period last year, ringing in at $250 billion. Individual income tax collections, at $791 billion, are up 14% over the first nine months of fiscal 2005. The Congressional Budget Office projects corporate tax receipts will total $330 billion by the end of the fiscal year. As a result, the deficit for the year is expected to be about $300 billion, down from $318 billion last year and $412 billion the year before.
What, you ask, has led to this miraculous event? A tax cut, it turns out. Or rather, an array of tax cuts, on corporate income, personal income, and capital gains. These tax cuts, passed in 2001 and 2003, appear to be having the desired effect of spurring economic growth by creating addition incentives for work and entrepreneurship. The latest numbers, moreover, offer some hard data to challenge some of the charges leveled against President Bush and congressional Republicans in respect of tax cuts. These tax cuts haven’t exactly benefited “the rich.” A third of those higher income-tax revenues came from the highest-earning 1% of households, according to the New York Times.
That said, the deficit is still projected to be $300 billion, even if that’s lower than it might have been. The latest budget estimates, then, throw down a gauntlet to the alleged Republicans in Congress. Thanks to the incentives provided by the tax cuts, the rest of the economy is doing the best it can to make up the deficit through economic growth. But non-defense discretionary spending has increased by a third under President Bush. Supply-side tax cuts will not grow us out of a deficit unless the Congress can keep federal spending increases from outpacing economic growth. At least Republicans now have hard data to rebuff Democratic claims that tax increases are the solution to federal budget woes or that tax cuts favor “the rich.” Thank you, Professor Laffer.
Chuck Norton said
Once again, economy booming, GDP up, tax revenues from wealthy and business up in spite of the tax cuts…. yet its all bad news… LOL
————————————————————————-
Budget Deficit Drops $296B Under Estimate
Jul 11, 11:01 AM (ET)
By ANDREW TAYLOR
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060711/D8IPRQVO2.html
WASHINGTON (AP) – President Bush touted new deficit figures Tuesday showing considerable improvement upon earlier administration predictions, saying it shows the wisdom of his tax cuts.
Bush himself announced the figures – a task that for the most part has been left to lower-ranking administration officials in the past. The new figures show the deficit for the budget year ending Sept. 30 will be $296 billion – much better than the $423 billion that Bush predicted in February and a slight improvement over 2005.
Bush said the improvement is due to tax cuts he pushed in 2001 and 2003 and his clampdown on domestic agencies funded by Congress.
“These tax cuts left nearly $1.1 trillion in the hands of American workers and families and small business owners. And they used this money to help fuel an economic resurgence that’s now in its 18th quarter,” Bush said. “Economic growth fueled by tax relief has sent our tax revenues soaring.”
Impressive profits and big income gains by the wealthy are largely responsible for the surge in revenues and, in turn, the deficit drop.
However, the results are less impressive when compared to the $318 billion deficit posted last fall for fiscal 2005. Despite strong revenues, the high costs of the Iraq war and Gulf Coast hurricane relief have weighed on the deficit – as have higher interest payments paid on the national debt.
Chuck Norton said
Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: July 9, 2006
WASHINGTON, July 8 — An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief.
Graphic: Mixed Signals On Tuesday, White House officials are expected to announce that the tax receipts will be about $250 billion above last year’s levels and that the deficit will be about $100 billion less than what they projected six months ago. The rising tide in tax payments has been building for months, but the increased scale is surprising even seasoned budget analysts and making it easier for both the administration and Congress to finesse the big run-up in spending over the past year.
Tax revenues are climbing twice as fast as the administration predicted in February, so fast that the budget deficit could actually decline this year.
The main reason is a big spike in corporate tax receipts, which have nearly tripled since 2003, as well as what appears to be a big increase in individual taxes on stock market profits and executive bonuses.
On Friday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that corporate tax receipts for the nine months ending in June hit $250 billion — nearly 26 percent higher than the same time last year — and that overall revenues were $206 billion higher than at this point in 2005.
Congressional analysts say the surprise windfall could shrink the deficit this year to $300 billion, from $318 billion in 2005 and an all-time high of $412 billion in 2004.
Chuck Norton said
U.S. first-quarter growth strong, profits up
Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:59 AM IST
http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=businessNews&storyID=2006-06-30T024539Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_India-257475-3.xml&archived=False
By Glenn Somerville
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. economy grew at a revised 5.6 percent annual rate in the first quarter, as the fastest pace of growth in 2-1/2 years generated robust corporate profits, the Commerce Department said on Thursday.
The department pushed its estimate of first-quarter growth in gross domestic product up from 5.3 percent it reported a month ago.
But the core personal consumption expenditures price index was unrevised at up 2 percent, slowing from a 2.4 percent gain in the fourth quarter and implying controlled inflation.
Growth has slowed since the first quarter because higher gasoline prices and interest rates have nipped Americans in the pocketbook, while slower rates of appreciation in housing prices are expected to heighten caution about spending.
First-quarter GDP growth was more than triple the 1.7 percent pace posted in last year’s fourth quarter and was the strongest since 7.2 percent in the third quarter of 2003. [tax cuts kicked in – Chuck]
Paul McCulley, managing director of bond fund PIMCO, told a Chicago investment conference the rousing 5.6 percent first-quarter rate of expansion was “probably the highest quarter you’ll see for years” because growth was slowing.
Ryan said
“One more thing, you have never been able to prove that one fact presented in my columns is incorrect, so why dont you either stop pretending that you have, or quite simply put up the proof and lets argue it out.”
Your article on schools and civics is a prime example, though Craig actually tackled that more than I did. But we can move on to the Plame affair, and any number of other articles you’ve written where your version of events specializes in half truths. You do a lot of research, but you make your decision then do your research, its the only way to explain why someone as bright as you consistently has such skewed interpretations of facts.
Chuck Norton said
Ok Ryan, lets debate Plame in the cafeteria.
And for the record, Craig didnt defeat my argument, he misunderstood it from the getgo and I corrected him. It was one of the pitfalls of writting such a short column without the space to really dig in, which I was able to alleviete in the web log.
You sit there and accuse me of all this dishonesty, but you can never defeat me or present any facts that defeat what I said in any of my columns. So are you just going to call names or are you willing to put your reputation where your mouth is.
All the time its the accusations and name calling from the hyper-partisans, but where is the varifiable refutation?
Chuck Norton said
USA Today – Center for Media and Public Affairs : Evening News Analysis 77% Stories on Dems Positive vs 12% for GOP
[http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/life/20061031/d_mediamix31.art.htm]
Page 6D
Heavy coverage at midterm favors Democrats, study says
The media mix By Peter Johnson
Network news coverage has favored Democratic candidates in the midterm election, and the page scandal involving former congressman Mark Foley has been the main story line, drawing almost as much coverage as Iraq and terrorism combined, a new study finds.
An analysis by the Center for Media and Public Affairs of midterm election stories aired on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts Sept. 5-Oct. 22 found that 2006’s coverage has been almost five times as heavy as in the 2002 midterm elections: 167 stories, compared with 35 four years ago.
The study found that three out of four evaluations of Democratic candidates’ chances of winning — such as sound bites — were positive, compared with one out of eight for Republicans. Coverage has been dominated by two major themes: the effects of the Foley scandal, and the impact the Bush presidency is having on the party’s congressional candidates.
The Foley scandal produced 59 stories alone, compared with 33 on Iraq and 31 on terrorism/national security issues. “What’s hurting Republican candidates is the media’s focus on two non-candidates: Mark Foley and George W. Bush,” says center director Robert Lichter.
Because of the focus on Foley, the re-election race of House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., was featured in 42 stories. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was featured in 10 stories, even though he’s not up for re-election this year. Sen. Hillary Clinton’s possible 2008 presidential run was grist for nine stories.
Dr. Lichter was just interviewed on OReilly and elaborated on the study. – Chuck
Chuck Norton said
Video: NPR’s Juan Williams says CNN’s in the tank for the Democrats
[http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/31/video-juan-williams-says-cnns-in-the-tank-for-the-democrats/]
When the self admitted partisan democratic analyst at NPR says that CNN is in the tank for the democrats…. you know its gotta be bad. Watch the video at the above link.
Sam said
Chuck,
You are incorrect in describing media outlets such as CNN, NPR, NYT, CBS, NBC, and the like – or any one of them – categorically as “antique media” and/or “liberally-biased” sources.
Let me ask you a question upfront. What if the staff at NPR actually DID lean subtly against Bush’s policies? Does that amount to “bias”? Not necessarily. It is entirely possible for someone like Jim Lehrer to acknowledge, from a very collective, objective standpoint – or anyone else in that capacity – to state the obvious, such as: the war in Iraq was based upon false pretenses, it has compromised the reputation of our country tremendously, resulted in the deaths of thousands of U.S. soldiers (and at least tens of thousdand of innocent Iraqi citizens), cost many billions of dollars and worst of all, has not attenuated U.S. fears of terrorism or he reality of it. If anything, the U.S. likely stands a greater threat of same. That’s necessarily an opinion, held by most, that you cannot “refute” or “disprove” by the kind of statistics you typically proffer.
Well, maybe they are simply ACCURATE in terms of categorizing the majority opinion of the American people despite outrageous right-wing propaganda sites like Fox news.
All this talk on your part about the “liberal media” sickens the stomach, and that is because you construe this so-called collective, conniving “antique media” as some kind of political ploy aimed skewing reality on behalf of the country. Nothing could be further from the truth.
You are so far off, in terms of being “hyper-partisan” yourself, that I wonder if this is all an act on your part geared to foster complete discord among the readers of this weblog.
There is one major national source of misinformation and diabolical drive to skew everything the other way, and that is Fox News.
Have you watched it lately, or ever?
What planet are you from, Chuck?
When the country is going down the tubes in terms of international relations, as we have been doing, and the vast majority of U.S. news outlets are simply conveying reality, this does necessarily lead to your assertion that they represent “antique media” with a “left-wing bias”.
They are doing all of us a favor (save for people like you) by calling a spade a spade.
Despite your glowing reports of how awesome the U.S. is doing economically (whoops, forgot about the MASSIVE federal deficit that the Bush administration alone is responsible for producing, determined failure to consider global warming, reluctance to follow through with No Child Left Behind, obvious indifference to the poor, catering to corporations and the richest sector of our country), guess what? People generally aren’t happy about our own economy. Why? Because this is reality. It’s not diabololical spin engineered by almost all of the U.S. media. The COUNTRY is in a very bad fiscal position right now. And, people hate us. Why? Because we’ve been acting like jerks under the Bush administration.
Iraq is a pathetic disaster for our country and do you know why? Three letters: GWB.
Hey – if CNN thinks we need a change in this country, good for them. They have a FREAKING BRAIN, at least. They are reporting reality.
So go back to your fact source, i.e. a place like Fox News. Read up. Learn and remind us again how misinformed most of us are. Remind us how we are all “hyper-partisan” whereby in contrast, people lime Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Chuck Norton and Ann Coulter are there to set us all straight and convince us that actually, the U.S. is doing a stellar job in Iraq, the U.S. is doing wonderfully economically, we are better off in terms of security now that we have bludgeoned Iraq into a never-ending abyss of international conflict, national security is under control, etc.
Sam
Chuck Norton said
Sam,
If I am incorrect, check the other thread. You have lots of evidence from a variety of sources that you would have to refute effectively before your statemnt could be taken seriously.
———————————————————————————————-
By the way more good news
[http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-11-03T142328Z_01_N02359086_RTRUKOC_0_US-ECONOMY-JOBS.xml&src=rss&rpc=22]
Unemployment rate lowest in nearly 5-1/2 years
Fri Nov 3, 2006 9:23 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. unemployment rate dropped to its lowest in nearly 5-1/2 years during October as 92,000 more jobs were added and hiring in each of the two prior months was revised up, a government report on Friday showed.
The October new-jobs figure was below Wall Street economists’ expectations for 125,000 but the Labor Department said a total 139,000 more jobs were created in August and September than it had previously thought. It revised up September’s job-creation total to 148,000, or nearly three times the 51,000 it reported a month ago, and said there were 230,000 new jobs in August instead of 188,000.
H. Scott said
The problem with Mr. Norton’s “News Analysis” column is not that he provides inaccurate facts, but that he does not provide reasonable analysis. Typically, the facts he presents are either irrelevant to his thesis or are selectively chosen to support a preconceived conclusion.
I’ve attempted to make this point before and apologize for being repetitive. However, he continues a refrain that none of his factual evidence has been refuted. Yet that is not a necessary step for a reader to question his analysis. Furthermore, he goes out of his way to antagonize his reader. Not surprisingly, much of the criticism he receives is aimed at his interpretation and tone, rather than the veracity of his cited facts.
In “Economy Booming, Rich Paying More $$$ Since Tax Cuts!”, Norton simply summarizes recent news articles, albeit with some unnecessary and intentionally inflammatory language in his brief introduction. Accordingly, I don’t fault his analysis in this case, but I am struck that his summaries are entirely one-sided and do not acknowledge any potentially negative aspects of the country’s economic health. This is ironic coming from someone so quick to accuse his critics of being “hyper-partisan”.
What value does this article provide beyond what one could obtain by searching for “U.S. economy” in Google News, other than selective filtering of dissenting viewpoints? Perhaps the economy is booming; I’ve read compelling analysis that it is elsewhere, but a selectively-chosen list of facts does not effectively make this case.
Rather than inform its readers, the Vision “News Analysis” feature serves as a propaganda piece. As I’ve mentioned before, I enjoy reading the Vision and wish it and its staff the best; that said, I believe Norton’s articles would be more effective if he were to strive for quality rather than controversy.
Chuck Norton said
H. Scott,
I assume that you know how to use a library?
I invite you to examine the last 7 quarterly treasury reports. You will see that the news is quite good as I have indicated. You see, sometimes the raw data just has to speak for itself. This is the one disadvantage of using google, you will get the same numbers I gave you but you will also see many editorialized comments spinning the numbers bad in what are supposed to be straight news articles.
In several aspects of the economy that are performing better than under the Clinton administration where the “unbiased” press added all sorts of editorialized praise.
This is why I post that I love it when the press posts economic numbers that are really very good and follow it up with “outlook bleak” which always gives me a chuckle.
You will also notice that with many of the sources I have listed, that the best news is almost always buried deep in the paper, or posted on the wire service but not on the front page.
There are indeed areas of the economy that are having trouble. Namely the IT industry that has been flooded by L1 Visa temporary workers from overseas which has caused wages to decline. Construction wages have also fallen due to the exploitation of illegal aliens. Of course, these aspects of the economy are a result of bi-partisan stupidity in that neither party has been very excited about fixing these particular problems.
All in all though, the economy has grown very well, we have almost doubled spending on poverty programs over the Clinton administration, spent 200 billion on Katrina and paid for the Iraq war, and revenue has been so good that we STILL cut the deficit in half. It is truly a testament to the hard work of the American people when the government gets out of the way and lets them produce, and produce they have.
In either case H. Scott, with your personal shots aside, and with all due respect because we do enjoy sparring like this, ….. on second thought instead of stating the obvious with my usual rhetorical sting…… how about you just go read those treasury reports.
Chuck Norton said
By the way H. Scott,
You said that my analysis was “unreasonable”..
Well what was my analysis?
The first point was to just let the numbers speak for themselves, which you have conceded are accurate.
The second point was that certain hyper-partisans would find this data to be most inconvenient – well by any casual observation of this thread right here, the far left hyper-partisans and yourself, have indeed found them to be inconvenient. It is most obvious that they dont like this information being discussed. Of course rather than attack the information, they use the tired old tactic of attacking the messenger. Cry me a river.
The third point is that the rich are paying much more tax money in real dollars since the tax cuts, the data proves this beyond reasonable doubt. Tax cuts happened and revenue increased massively.
The fourth point is that even though government spending has gone up , even after the shock of 9/11, Katrina, increased poverty spending and the war, the deficit has been cut down significantly because economic growth has caused revenue to shoot through the roof. Even though the capital gains rate was dropped significantly, the revenue from capital gains has increased far beyond most anyones expectations. This too is proven by the data beyond reasonable doubt.
Unemployment down, consumer spending up, average wages up etc etc
I am still trying to find the “unreasonable” part you mentioned, but I’m sure that it made you feel better to attack me and not my argument or the facts presented.
H. Scott said
Mr. Norton,
If you’re going to use quotation marks to quote my post, please do it accurately. I did not say your most recent analysis was “unreasonable”; what I said was, “he does not provide reasonable analysis”. I chose those words carefully so that they could be applied both generally to your column and specifically to this installment (in which you did not provide any meaningful analysis). That said, I do indeed think it is unreasonable to call a list of selectively-chosen news summaries a “New Analysis”.
What I’ve apparently failed to convey to you is that I’m not trying to argue with you about the state of the economy or the likelihood that some faculty are ideologically biased. I’m trying to encourage you to state a clear thesis, back it up with relevant supporting evidence and provide a critical yet reasonable account of alternative interpretations. Given the energy you put into your articles and responses I suspect you are capable of doing this, and I believe that if you do you articles will become much more effective. Rather than preaching to the choir or alienating those who hold opposing viewpoints, you may actually educate your readers.
-H. Scott
Chuck Norton said
H. Scott
With all due respect – what a crock – I completely destroy your thesis, that my analysis was not reasonable, and the best you can do is try a draw a semantic distinction without a difference between “not reasonable” and “unreasonable” as if they mean two totally different things.
Here is a novel idea H. Scott, try and tackle my arguments on the meat of their substance. With you its the smear, the name calling, the general critique with zippo evidence to back it up, or the cute but unsubstantive semantic point that fails to address the heart of the issue.
At this point, after watching this behavior be repeated over and over, it seems clear that you base your arguments on blind ideology rather than anything of substance. I have really been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt up to this point, but after so many examples of empty arguments like you have presented here it is becoming harder and harder to give you that benefit of the doubt.
As far as your final argument, that I am alienating people with opposing viewpoints, let me be clear….
I have absolutely no interest in casting my seeds upon stone by trying to convert blind ideologues (or as some people describe them as Kool-Aide drinkers ala Jim Jones) or those who cant seem to make a substantive argument. My only interest is to defeat you rhetorically and substantively for the education and entertainment value of others and to expose those others to the facts and analysis that they cannot get in the antique media.
Perhaps you should confess that you dont like what I write because you are a partisan. If it was anything other than that you would be able to field better arguments than you have.
H. Scott said
It is not clear to me if Mr. Norton is unable or unwilling to understand my point, but he clearly does not get it. Of course there’s also the possibility that my criticism of his column is indeed invalid — obviously I don’t think that is the case, but it is possible. In any event, we’ve gone several rounds without progress so I’m going to bow out of this discussion. I wish you all the best (Mr. Norton included); it is great to see so much debate on these forums.
Chuck Norton said
All I want to see, is verifiable evidence that shows me that the left is right, that the tax cuts have caused greater deficits and that the rich have paid less in real dollars since the tax cuts. This evidence would need to be superior to the evidence I have presented, and the last 7 treasury reports, that seem to prove otherwise beyond reasonable doubt.
The reason that people attack me and not my evidence is that to most partisans, their partisan assumption against tax cuts means more to them than verifiable facts that prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.
Craig Chamberlin said
Chuck and H. Scott,
Haha.. I think I could watch you guys go back and forth for days. It appears H. Scott was more critiquing your writing style than your actual article Chuck. I think he agreed with the facts that were posted.
Some readers prefer a balance of viewpoints when a writer conveys an argument. I think this is where H. Scott’s problem with your articles comes in (I could be wrong). For example: Many academics including science, philosophy and psychology consider a strong argument one that sets up the strongest opposing arguments and is able to disprove them. If it can be illustrated as to how the argument is incorrect, individuals are more inclined to accept the initial argument.
In this sense, I think he was just suggesting this as a option for writing your articles. Setting up the opposing arguments and refuting them with justifyable reasoning and facts.
Of course, many journalists attempt to do this but usually stick to straw-man arguments and ad-hominems. The consensus in academia writing has always been those who can give complete justice and evidence to the opposing viewpoint, and then prove why it is invalid.
I don’t know if I clarified anything or made matters worse… haha, I suppose time will tell.
Erkki KochKetola said
I, for one, think that Chuck ought to stick to issues that have significance to people’s lives on campus. Naturally, he’s free to talk about whatever he wants, but I can get the sort of “analysis” that he provides from the mainstream media. Why would I want to read it in a campus newsletter?
The Vision is supposed to offer a student perspective; inherent in that is the idea that it should talk about things that are of significance to us as students. Tax cuts, unfortunately, are not that significant. At a guess, I’d say most of us don’t really make enough money to pay income tax.
Maybe that’s something Chuck could look into; exactly how are the tax cuts benefitting us directly? It’s a well-known fact that the benefits of economic policy are not evenly distributed, and the benefits become scarcer on the ground as you move down the wealth ladder (and minorities are disporoportionately likely to be lower on this ladder). Perhaps Chuck could show us how these tax cuts are directly helping us as students.
I would be interested to see what he has to say about the matter. Should I disagree with his arguments, however, can I trust that Chuck will respond reasonably, and not instantly accuse me of disagreeing with him because I’m “hyper-partisan” (a charge which I’m afraid I’m unable to deny, but I submit that it’s difficult not to be “hyper-partisan” and still pay attention to politics these days)? I don’t have to say what I think, but Chuck might surprise me.
Please, Chuck; by all means, surprise me.
Sam said
Craig is accurate in his assessment of what H. Scott attempted in vain to point out (I also recall “A. Reader” once making a very similar point). Chuck’s uniquely extreme hyper-partisanship, i.e. the basis for cherry-picking a laundry list of positive economic data without comment as though they prove an infallibe thesis, is the lesser of two problems chronically afflicting his prose. The greater concern many readers have (if they have one) is with his profoundly arrogant tone, such as his tendency to accuse anyone who dare disagree with him as being hyper-partisan BY DEFINITION.
H. Scott’s comments are the very definition of balance, politeness and humility combined with sound intellect, to which Chuck Norton answers with:
“I assume that you know how to use a library?”
“With all due respect – what a crock – I completely destroy your thesis”
“Thanks, your suggestion has been noted and rejected. ” (This was actually in response to Craig in another thread.)
Chuck Norton: you are utterly clueless when it comes to effective writing. You have no concept of persuasive tone.
Here, the straw-man element is manifest in typing out a list of economic data and then challenging readers to “refute” any particular data point. Worse, Chuck manages to deliberately insult those who might disagree even before they have a chance to read the laundry list (“If you are a hyper-partisan, the facts presented here may prove to be most inconvenient”).
Chuck’s mere use of the redundant phrase “hyper-partisan” (why not just partisan) it itself problematic. What he means, when using the term, is someone left-leaning or liberal. He is not referring to right-wing conservatives. He is referring only to those who disagree with his unwaveringly arch-conservative viewpoint. Is Chuck Norton a conservative blowhard? Well, to insinuate that Bush has done more for the impoverished than Bill Clinton is the sort of assinine comment that only a blatantly biased, truly extreme conservative such as Chuck Norton could make with a serious face.
In that context, Chuck’s deliberate replacement of “liberal” with “hyperpartisan” is not only inaccurate, but cowardly as well.
Chuck Norton said
Erkki,
I know how to get readers, judging by the response I have gotten in the last few years of writing and since that even more publications outside of IUSB want me to write for them, I will keep my own council when it comes to what I write about.
You are such a hyper-partisan that your real motive is to censor or otherwise stop my message if you can, and you cant. In this thread I have my news analyst hat on, so I can have at you all I like :-)
Hey Erkki, tax cuts work!
Chuck Norton said
Now lets deal with Sam’s nonsense,
Sam, point 1, if I am such a coward, how come you will not debate me in the cafeteria? So let us all have no illusion as to who the coward is, it is you. If you had a residue of intestinal fortitude and ability, you would walk the walk and debate one of my columns with me in the cafeteria.
Also Sam, you make the assumption that I am out to persuade you….. please. Why would I cast my seeds upon stone? Let me be clear, to a hyper-partisan little things like facts do not penetrate the manufactured ideological bubble. All the verifiable facts in the world will not convince someone like Charlie Rangel or the hyper-partisans that post here that the rich have paid more taxes in real dollars since the tax cuts.
There is no persuading a blind ideologue Sam, and that is why I am not out to persuade you, I am out to defeat you. And normal people who come here and read this blog, can see that you don’t have what it takes to challenge the thesis or evidence presented in my column. You attack me because you are so punked out that you wont argue the meat of the issue.
You do serve me though, you and others like you act as an example to normal people just how nuts you far left hyper-partisans are and in that regard, you do have my appreciation.
What I find most amusing is that you dare try to mainstream yourself by trying to equate your flavor of hyper-partisan with liberal… LOL. I have news for you Sam, there is nothing liberal about you. You insult liberals everywhere when you make such comparisons. While Ann Coulter may lump people into the label of “liberals” I do not.
WHY??
The average Joe who tends to vote Democrat or the average guy who is somewhat liberally minded in the American vernacular, is not a hate spewing, fact evading, messenger attacking sophist like you. In fact, it has been my experience that most people who would describe themselves as liberally minded, are disgusted by stalinistic tactics, sophistry and the blind devotion to an ideology that blocks out facts like an iron plate.
Traditionally liberal people in America Sam are disgusted by the tactics you use and your blind ideology and judging by demographic voter behavioral shifts of women, black Americans, union members and old school democrats who would like to vote for someone like JFK, or Sam Nunn or Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman are now voting GOP in greater and greater numbers….. and Sam I have people like YOU to thank for it. (Maybe that is why Nancy Pelosi has been in hiding as of late)
Hate is not a family value, but you are so beholden to yours that even this warning from me will likely fall upon deaf ears.
And just as I have said before, there are hyper-partisans on all sides, even the conspiracy people have theirs like Alex Jones from infowars.
In the mean time, The economy is growing very nicely, the deficit is down, GDP is up, government revenue is up even though the tax rates are down. The rich are paying more taxes in real dollars now since that tax cuts. Welcome to real world economics.
Sam said
On one of Chuck Norton’s replies to H. Scott above (my comments are in upper case, not to come across as shouting but for visual distinction from what was quoted):
“By the way H. Scott, You said that my analysis was “unreasonable”.. Well what was my analysis?”
I BELIEVE H. SCOTT’S POINT WAS THAT YOU DID NOT PROVIDE AN ANALYSIS, REASONABLE OR OTHERWISE. THAT IS, IN FACT, COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM AN ACCUSATION THAT AN UNREASONABLE ANALYSIS WAS PROVIDED.
“The first point was to just let the numbers speak for themselves, which you have conceded are accurate.”
NO, HE DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR LIST OF POINTS AS NECESSARILY BEING ACCURATE.
“The second point was that certain hyper-partisans would find this data to be most inconvenient – well by any casual observation of this thread right here, the far left hyper-partisans and yourself, have indeed found them to be inconvenient.”
SO ONLY THE FAR LEFT FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF HYPER-PARTISANSHIP. WRONG. ALSO, YOU ARE NOT EXACTLY BI-PARTISAN. EVERYTHING I’VE READ FROM YOU IS VERY STRONGLY RIGHT-LEANING AND THUS HYPER-PARTISAN.
“The third point is that the rich are paying much more tax money in real dollars since the tax cuts, the data proves this beyond reasonable doubt. Tax cuts happened and revenue increased massively.”
WHERE IS THE OUTLINE IN YOUR ARTICLE ADDRESSING “FOUR POINTS”?
BY THE WAY, I WILL TAKE UP YOUR CHALLENGE ON THIS ONE POINT. I DO FIND IT INTRIGUING THAT BUSH MANAGED TO PROVIDE TAX CUTS BUT ALSO MADE SURE THAT THE RICH PAID MORE TAXES, NOT LESS, AT LEAST IN TERMS OF “REAL” DOLLARS. LOOK FOR A RESPONSE.
“The fourth point is that even though government spending has gone up , even after the shock of 9/11, Katrina, increased poverty spending and the war, the deficit has been cut down significantly…”
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE “PROJECTED” DEFICIT – NOT THE ACTUAL DEFICIT – HAS BEEN REDUCED. AT ONE POINT WE HYPOTHESIZED THAT OUR FUTURE DEFICIT WOULD BE A PARTICULAR NUMBER. WE WERE INCORRECT. THAT ISN’T THE SAME THING AS AN ACTUAL DEFICIT REDUCTION.
“Unemployment down, consumer spending up, average wages up etc etc”
WHAT ABOUT THE MINIMUM WAGE? WHY HAS THAT NOT CHANGED FOR SO MANY YEARS? THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. THIS WAGE IS MOST RELEVANT TO UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS SUCH AS AT IUSB. THE REASON FOR THE LACK OF MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE IS THAT THE REPUBLICAN-CONTRTOLLED CONGRESS ALWAYS MAKES SURE TO TIE THE PROPOSAL TO SOMETHING LIKE ELIMINATION OF THE ESTATE TAX. THEY REFUSE TO ALLOW FOR AN INCREASE IN THE MINIMUM WAGE IN AND OF ITSELF.
“I am still trying to find the “unreasonable” part you mentioned, but I’m sure that it made you feel better to attack me and not my argument or the facts presented.”
HE NEVER SAID THAT YOU PROVIDED AN UNREASONABLE ARGUMENT. YOU PRESENTED SUPPOSED FACTS (AND I DOUBT SOME OF THEM) WITHOUT AN ACCOMPANYING ARGUMENT, REASONABLE OR OTHERWISE.
“With all due respect – what a crock – I completely destroy your thesis, that my analysis was not reasonable”
WHAT ANALYSIS? YOU DID NOT PROVIDE ANY ANALYSIS WHATSOEVER. YOU PROVIDED SELECT DATA. RAW DATA REQUIRES ANALYSIS. YOU ELECTED NOT TO DO SO AND ALLOW THE DATA TO SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. THAT IS NOT AN ANALYSIS.
“and the best you can do is try a draw a semantic distinction without a difference between “not reasonable” and “unreasonable” as if they mean two totally different things.’
YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE NEEDS WORK. THE LACK OF A REASONABLE ANALYSIS IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM THE PRESENSE OF AN UNREASONABLE ANALYSIS. THEY MEAN TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS. REALLY.
“Here is a novel idea H. Scott, try and tackle my arguments on the meat of their substance. With you its the smear, the name calling, the general critique with zippo evidence to back it up, or the cute but unsubstantive semantic point that fails to address the heart of the issue.”
YOU DID NOT PROVIDE ANY ARGUMENTS OR HYPOTHESES TO TACKLE (E.G., “THE U.S. IS CLEARLY BETTER OFF AS A WHOLE NOW THAN IT WAS SIX YEARS AGO”, OR, “ECONOMY BETTER UNDER BUSH THAN UNDER CLINTON”). I CAN SEE WHY H. SCOTT BOWED OUT OF THIS. IT ISN’T POSSIBLE TO “ARGUE” AGAINST NON-EXISTENT ARGUMENTS OR HYPOTHESES. AN ANALOGY (THIS MAY BE OVER YOUR HEAD, HOWEVER) WOULD BE TO PRESENT INDIVIDUAL IQ SCORES FROM SELECTED WOMEN AND MEN, FOLLOWED BY A “CHALLENGE” TO REFUTE ANY PARTICULAR IQ SCORE. WHAT IS THE UNDERPINNING THEORY HERE? WHERE IS THE ANALYSIS? THERE ISN’T ONE.
“At this point, after watching this behavior be repeated over and over, it seems clear that you base your arguments on blind ideology rather than anything of substance. I have really been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt up to this point, but after so many examples of empty arguments like you have presented here it is becoming harder and harder to give you that benefit of the doubt.”
WHERE IS H. SCOTT’S “BLIND IDEOLOGY”? WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE FOR THAT?
WHY DO YOU CITE ONLY U.S. ECONOMIC REFERENCES THAT ARE POSITIVE? WHAT ABOUT THE OTHERS THAT ARE NEGATIVE? CAN THEY REALLY BE ELIMINATED BY YOUR CLAIM THEY ARE NECESSARILY ALL FOUND WITHIN THE BIASED, “ANTIQUE MEDIA”?
COULDN’T I JUST AS WELL PROVIDE A LIST OF FACTOIDS, COMPLETE WITH CITATIONS, THAT ALL JUST SO HAPPEN TO SUPPORT A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE (THOUGH I’LL CONVENIENTLY LEAVE OUT THE UNDERLYING PERSPECTIVE, SO I DON’T LOOK BIASED)?
“As far as your final argument, that I am alienating people with opposing viewpoints, let me be clear….”
NO, LET ME BE CLEAR: YOU HAVE MOST DEFINITELY ALIENATED PEOPLE WITH SUPPOSED “OPPOSING” VIEWPOINTS.
“My only interest is to defeat you rhetorically and substantively – ”
I’LL AGREE WITH THAT PARTICULAR SELF-ASSESSMENT.
“for the education and entertainment value of others”
WELL-PUT, CHUCK.
“and to expose those others to the facts and analysis that they cannot get in the antique media.”
I’D LIKE TO READ YOUR THESIS OF WHY THE MEDIA OUTLETS YOU DISAGREE WITH ARE ALL ANTIQUE.
“Perhaps you should confess that you dont like what I write because you are a partisan.”
SEE ABOVE.
“If it was anything other than that you would be able to field better arguments than you have.”
THERE WAS NO STATED ARGUMENT TO FIELD.
Sam said
Chuck,
I work at another university. Sorry I am unable to debate you in your high school cafeteria.
Sam
Chuck Norton said
I love it when the nut jobs just gleam with nuttiness :-)
Sam is a real person folks, nope I did not invent him nor is anyone I know playing him just for comedic value.
Sam said
Chuck,
It’s a good thing you are not an undergraduate student at the university where I work as a professor, specifically in my college and school.
You would be dismissed as a student. Not because of your hyper-partisan views, but due to the profound lack of respect you have for university faculty irrespective of bipartisanship or partisanship – i.e., irrespective of politics.
It would not surprise me if you have experienced problems at IUSB related to this issue.
Probably you have never heard of the concept of professional asymmetry. The concept is a key underpinning of undergraduate as well as graduate education (what I do). On the one hand, students are encouraged to state their views, think critically, challenge prevailing theories or any theory opposed to their own, and the like. On the other hand, students are expected to be professional and constructive in their interactions with members of the faculty, just as we mandate ourselves to do so with our students.
You violate every principle above. Your demeanor is deplorable irrespective of the status of the recipient. You make a mockery of the IUSB Vision. You give it a bad name.
In fact, I strongly believe that you have a personality disorder.
Where you cross the line lies in the attitude and tone of your prose, if one might be so generous as to elevate your chicken-scratch to such a level.
You have serious psychological problems.
Sam
——————–
Sam had his posting priveledges suspended for posting profanity – Those posts have been deleted. While attacking the messenger and abandoning the argument is tolerated to a degree, cuss word laden posts are not – IUSBVISION
Frank Duffy said
Allways use a good tax attorney. He can save you more than he costs and maybe even worse (fines, Jail) !
Watch Racheal Maddow Lie About Tax Cuts and Reconciliation « The IUSB Vision Weblog said
[…] cuts. When Maddow says tax cuts caused deficits she is lying and below is a small sample [I have MUCH more] of the evidence of the increased […]
Wesley Ray said
See, being able to concede that which is painfully obvious gives me enough philosophical courage to debate this stuff and not lash back like this. I said partially from the get-go because no one would look at it as the prime cause of the crash, and I didn’t think you would take it so seriously. I’m saying that there was a bubble. People you defend as innocent were encouraging it. It is a widely established fact that this bubble provided disposable income and increased business profits in the financial sector. If you can’t, for the life of you, see how maybe that massive bubble was responsible for increased tax receipts, then I’m not all convinced that YOU know what you’re talking about.
[IUSB Vision Editor Responds
Well Wes, thanks for demonstrating to us that denial is more than just a river in Egypt. By the way. property taxes are local and not federal …. and the capital gains generated by flipping was small because flippers were only a small part of the market.
Having a homestead tax credit doesn’t create a bubble. There is tax credit for giving to charity, is there a charity bubble? There is a tax credit on making your home energy efficient with certain improvements, is there a weather stripping bubble? There is a tax credit for using solar energy, is there a solar panel bubble?
What creates bubbles? Things like the mark to market rule, artificially keeping interest rates below market levels, banks being afraid of being punished for not making high risk loans, and Fannie Mae buying high risk loans and making high risk loans profitable in the short term….since the govt was backing those mortgage securities its too big to fail time and who gives a damn about risk the govt will just pay it when it blows up… Read Dr. Hayak and get back to me….
Bottom line, if the govt just let the market do what it knows how to do, none of this would have happened.]
*********
[IUSB Vision Editor Responds –
Hey Wes I see that you are one of the KOS Kids,
How nice of you to pluck months worth of conversation mostly out of context and publish them.
How nice of you not to tell them that after weeks and weeks of mischaracterizing my arguments, presenting arguments that you could not back up, not putting a dent in the evidence presented that I started getting flippant with you because you had gone off into silly land with your comments.
After a while of being flippant I started rubbing how bad your arguments were in your face because the more facts I placed in front of you that went unrefuted the more out on a limb you got.
I enjoyed this in particular.
You wrote:
First of all, the level of evidence and reasoning I bring is vastly superior to what you have brought. You have been able to introduce next to no verifiable evidence backing up most of your claims. In all seriousness if we were in Lincoln/Douglass style debate you would have no chance. I judge debates at the high school level and while I would not get cute with you in a real debate as I do here (largely for entertainment purposes) if verifiable and or sourced information was the standard you would have very little to stand on.
Bush did improve the economy, I have dozens of economic reports, treasury reports and dozens of sourced elite media sources who make that crystal clear.
While some Republicans like Mike Oxley and the Federal Reserve deserve some credit for the crash, it is factually undeniable that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were largely ran in a corrupt manner by mostly Democrat appointees. It is undeniable that they spent $200 million in partisan activities most of which went to Democrats. You cannot deny that that Bush and some Republicans tried repeatedly to get mortgage reform and Barney Frank fought it or years and Chris Dodd made sure reform was filibustered in the Senate over and over again.
As far as the left being responsible for segregation – Hello – Woodrow Wilson. Dude seriously start reading some history.
Two more things…
You quote lecture people at Daily KOS about being “mainstream” – are you kidding. Daily KOS is not mainstream and is anything but.
And speaking of racism, would you like me to start listing the antisemitic comments that have appeared on DailyKOS? Hadassa and Joe Lieberman sure got the treatment from you guys didn’t they.
I find it amusing that the people you polled on your page mostly agreed with me. Perhaps they came here and saw that what you posted had several of my flippant comments towards you but not much of the substance I presented to you.
For weeks I asked you for some honest to goodness real refutation with some evidence I can verify, over and over that is what you steadfastly failed/refused to do.]
IUSB Vision makes the Daily KOS. « The IUSB Vision Weblog said
[…] Comments Wesley Ray on Economy Booming, Rich Paying More $$$ Since Tax Cuts!thomas k. hamlin on Charles Krauthammer: Obama’s Narcissism is Unbounded.Paul Geer on UN […]
Moody’s to USA: Change Course on Deficit Spending By Mid-July or Else… « The IUSB Vision Weblog said
[…] but you can see the results. In spite of increased spending the deficit was dropping in fact the “rich” paid more taxes in real dollars (that is in dollars and inflation adjusted dollars) after the tax cuts were passed. For more […]