Sunday, October 17, 2010

AOL News Scrapes the Bottom of the Barrel

Somebody pasted an article into the comments this afternoon. It looked like it came from some rightwing propaganda site -- we get that a lot -- but I checked on it and it was from AOL News. This is unbelievable.
(Oct. 17) -- Walter Schumm knows what he's about to do is unpopular: publish a study arguing that gay parents are more likely to raise gay children than straight parents. But the Kansas State University family studies professor has a detailed analysis that past almost aggressively ideological researchers never had.

When one such researcher, Paul Cameron, published a paper in 2006 arguing that children of gay parents were more likely to be gay themselves, the response from the academic press was virulent, to say nothing of the popular press; the Southern Poverty Law Center, for instance, equated Cameron to a Nazi.

Not all of the vitriol was hyperbolic. Cameron does not tolerate gay people. He believes that "homosexual practice is injurious to society." Study: Gay Parents More Likely to Have Gay Kids

Hold on here, Nelly. Paul Cameron is not merely unpopular with academics and liberal journalists. For one thing, he is not a "researcher," as this article says. He does not publish his findings in peer-reviewed journals, he does not follow rigorous scientific procedures, he is simply someone who hates gay people and writes about it.

It is not clear to me why it matters if gay parents have a higher likelihood of raising self-reported gay children, or why this finding would be controversial. I suppose it is the difference between coming out and remaining closeted, where having gay parents makes it easier to be open about your own sexual orientation. Well, whatever, so this guy says he has some data showing an increased likelihood of gay children given gay parents.
The gay press, as far back as the 1980s, labeled Cameron "the most dangerous anti-gay voice in America." Though Cameron was the first to publish papers on the dangers of secondhand smoke, the scientific community has abandoned him. The American Psychological Association long since dropped him from its membership for an "ethical" violation.

No, they kicked him out for ethical violations. It doesn't go in quotes, it's a real thing, professional organizations enforce their ethics codes. The American Sociological Association and Canadian Psychological Association have also accused Cameron of misrepresenting social science research.
Today, Cameron is the founder and chairman of the Family Research Institute, whose "overriding mission" is to publish "empirical research on issues that threaten the traditional family, particularly homosexuality."

And that's it, that's how they will describe Paul Cameron's legacy. He heads an institute that conducts empirical research.

AOL does not see it worthwhile to mention to their readers that the Family Research Institute is categorized as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. It is not a research organization at all.
Schumm doesn't go for that sort of research. After Cameron's 2006 paper, Schumm listened as the academic community stated certainty of two things: Cameron was an idiotic bigot; and the existing literature showed little to no societal, cultural or parental influence on sexual orientation.

Schumm began investigating the second premise. "I just want to know the truth about something," he tells AOL News. And he found it strange that parents can influence so many facets of their children's lives -- but not in any way their sexual orientation.

No one knows the causes of sexual orientation. The American Psychological Association's position is that "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors."

This article should never have appeared on a reputable web site. I have the feeling it will be taken down soon.
Lawyers for the state of Florida heard of Schumm's fledgling research and invited him in 2008 to testify in a case. The state's Department of Children and Families was attempting to uphold a ban on gay and lesbian parents adopting children. Schumm's testimony actually ended up aiding the gay parents in the trial.

This was the notorious hearing leading to Florida prohibiting gays from adopting children. The two experts who testified were George Rekers, of luggage-lifting fame, and Walter Schumm. In his testimony Schumm cited data from the journal Psychological Reports, which is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal but is rather one that you pay to publish in. The ban was later declared unconstitutional.
He said: "Gay parents can be good foster parents," and "The decision to permit homosexuals to adopt is best made by the judiciary on a case by case basis."

Schumm tells AOL News that he agreed to testify as one of the state's witnesses only if his evidence was not "slanted" for or against gay rights.

Uh huh. He wants the court to review each case where a gay couple wants to adopt children, but doesn't want to been seen as for or against gay rights.

This just gets worse...
But also in his testimony was an inkling of the robust research Schumm has just completed. His study on sexual orientation, out next month, says that gay and lesbian parents are far more likely to have children who become gay. "I'm trying to prove that it's not 100 percent genetic," Schumm tells AOL News.

First of all, no scientist talks about "proving" anything with empirical research. The null-hypothesis testing model used in social science allows you to determine the amount of confidence you have in a result, but all of it is probabilistic, and nothing is ever "proven." Second, nobody has ever said that sexual orientation is "100 percent genetic." It's not a scientific hypothesis or theory, no researcher has ever published a paper suggesting that sexual orientation is 100 genetic; the 100-percent-genetic argument nothing more than a straw man. He wants to prove something that everybody assumes is true already. In fact, if there is a primary factor determining sexual orientation, it is probably the complex effects of hormones on the developing fetus.

The article describes Schumm's research in general terms. He apparently performed a meta-analysis of data from ten books on gay parenting, according to this. Meta-analysis is a statistical method for combining results of multiple studies, we won't get into the controversies about the technique here but if it's done right it is a sophisticated method. The article does not say, but it appears that Schumm's paper is being published in the Journal of Biosocial Science, a minor British journal that achieved notoriety a few years back by publishing a paper by Paul Cameron.

The AOL article concludes:
Schumm says it shouldn't have taken until 2010 to do the meta-analysis. Too often his colleagues impose "liberal or progressive political interpretations" on their studies, which inhibit further inquiry. "It's kind of sad," he tells AOL News.

As if expecting a political backlash himself, Schumm concludes his study with a quote from philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer. "All truth passes through three stages: First it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

Listen, let's say the rate of individuals born with a predisposition for homosexuality is constant across times and places. Of those who are innately homosexual, some will suppress their sexuality or distort it to conform with social norms and sanctions, and some will come to identify themselves in adulthood as gay or lesbian. If a study finds that homosexual individuals with gay parents are more likely to identify themselves as gay, who is surprised?

But that is not the issue here. Academics devote their careers to conducting research under precise conditions, subjecting their results to review by their peers according to the most rigorous standards. Professional organizations police their membership, holding them to ethical and professional standards and sanctioning them when they fall short. AOL News is talking about discredited researchers working outside the boundaries of academia, publishing in "pay to publish" journals and citing work found in those journals. This article would have you believe that Paul Cameron's ethical violations were some sort of ivory-tower technicalities, that he is unpopular with gay people, when in fact he is a notorious hate-monger who disguises his anti-gay prejudice as science and has been rejected by every professional and academic institution as a fraud.

The author discussed here, Walter Schumm, is concerned with political correctness and the influence of liberals, which should have nothing to do with scientific research. Many famous social-science studies have upset liberals, including the researchers who conducted the studies -- here I am thinking of Solomon Asch's conformity studies and Stanley Milgram's "Obedience to Authority" research, which showed that people are disappointingly sheep-like in their susceptibility to social influence. It didn't matter if those results supported a liberal or conservative world-view, it was science, not politics. Clearly this Kansas State Family Studies professor has an ideological bone to pick. AOL should be ashamed of themselves for passing his viewpoint off as science. In fact, an article discussing possible explanations for higher rates of self-reported homosexuality among the children of gay and lesbian parents could have had some value. This article undermines the effect of real science, which seeks valid information that can help all of us live better.

48 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

President Barack Obama's winning coalition from 2008 has crumbled and his core backers are dispirited. It's now Republicans who stand to benefit from an electorate that's again craving change.

Nearly two years after putting Obama in the White House, one-quarter of those who voted for the Democrat are defecting to the GOP this fall. Just half of them say they definitely will show up Nov. 2, according to an Associated Press-Knowledge Networks poll released two weeks before Obama's first midterm elections.

October 18, 2010 9:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39336

Off subject, but the democrats ran a session discussing confiscation of 401Ks again, and potentially tacking it on to a bush tax cut extension....

they would put it on the tax cut bill, that all 401K/IRA Money would be converted to GRA's (guaranteed annuities that you can't leave to your kids, like SS) and add a new 5% payroll tax.

So I realize this is just a session, but for right now they do have a super majority in the house.

Would such a bill have to be also passed by the SEnate ? They couldn't get it through there I don't believe. but after using reconciliation to pass the health care bill who knows WHAT they will do.

Considering cashing out ALL our 401Ks ....

I view this money as mine, not the governments, to be used for just about anything in the case of an emergency....minus of course the 10% penalty for pulling it out early.


The question is actually directed toward the other Anon... Mark Levine was talking about this tonight for most of the evening. I am quite worried.

I could cash them all out and pay off the mortgage. Hopefully the govt won't come after the house !

October 18, 2010 9:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

they'll never get away with but I'd love to see them try

trying to conficate 401k's would give us a jump start on 2012

I think even atheists and agnostics will start abandoning Obama now that he has declared himself a deity

you may remember when he secured the Democratic nomination, Obama solemnly declared "this is the day the oceans began to roll back and the planet started to heal"

now, as he comes to the next election, he again would appeal to our ability to recognize his vast superiority over all mankind:

"Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument do not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared. And the country is scared."

he condescends to say "we"

he actually means the rest of us

Obama views himself as the defender, not just of the stimulus package and health-care reform but also of a reasoned universe that only he is worthy to comprehend

though there is plenty of competition, these are some of the most arrogant words ever uttered by an American president

it destroys all possibility of dialogue

what could Obama possibly learn from voters who are confused and dominated by subconscious evolutionary fears?

they have nothing to teach, nothing to offer to the superior mind

it is ironic that the great defender of "science" should be in the thrall of pseudoscience

if human beings under stress are hard-wired for stupidity, how could we have climbed to the top of the evolutionary ladder?

could it be that fears of massive debt and intrusive government are not irrational after all?

the truth is that socialists must always look for a way to avoid discussion

their positions cannot withstand rational debate

stage one of the rescue of America from socialism is almost complete

yesterday, in Nevada, Sarah Palin gave us a preview of stage two:

"we can see 2012 from our house."

October 19, 2010 8:33 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

"Would such a bill have to be also passed by the SEnate ? They couldn't get it through there I don't believe. but after using reconciliation to pass the health care bill who knows WHAT they will do."

Reading comprehension 101

The recess hearing your humanevents.com piece mentioned was held in the Senate, not in the House. Only two Senators, Tom Harkin (D, IA) and Bernie Sanders (I, VT), heard testimony from a couple of witnesses, but you and the humanevents.com writer can work yourselves up into a panic about this idea becoming law if you think those two Senators will get enough of the other 98 Senators to vote in favor of such a thing.

With only 2 Senators showing up for this hearing, I don't think anyone needs to worry about Senator Bob Casey's unnamed bill going anywhere. The current Congress had already called for 123 cloture votes through Sept. 30, 2010, well on the way to exceeding the 139 cloture votes called for by the 110th Congress, and I expect if this bill comes up for a vote in the lame duck session of the 111th Senate, yet another cloture vote will table it.

Civics 101

Before any bill can become law, it has to be approved by a majority vote in both the House of Representatives and in the Senate. Then it must be signed by the President. If there's no successful vote in Congress to veto it, then the bill becomes law.

History 101

Click this link Bush tax cuts were passed with reconciliation's 50 votes so you might learn that during America's history, in total, " reconciliation was used 22 times overall and 14 times by Republicans. "

You'll also learn that "...the large tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003. We checked the votes, and both were passed by reconciliation.
The 2001 tax cuts passed 58-33. All the Republican senators (with the exception of John McCain, R-Ariz.) were joined by 12 Democrats to pass the measure."


and

"The 2003 tax cuts were also passed by reconciliation. These were more controversial, because at this point the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had started, and later the same year Congress passed a Medicare prescription drug benefit. The vote in the Senate was 51-50, with vice president Dick Cheney breaking the tie. (The vice president is technically the president of the Senate and can break ties.) In this vote, only two Democrats joined the Republicans.

The 2003 tax cuts included a number of measures, but the most significant reductions were taxes on dividends and capital gains taxes. Typically, these taxes are on investment income, and those cuts tend to give a bigger break to taxpayers with higher incomes. "


It seems you fear the use of reconciliation to alter the tax code to insure workers's retirement funds based on the money they earned from their labor, while you have not complained that the US Senate has already used reconciliation to alter tax codes to allow higher income earners to keep even more of their money they made from their extra money being invested in dividend paying ventures.

Where are the jobs the GOP says will result when higher earners get to invest their money in these ventures since this law was passed in 2003?

No wonder you are having trouble knowing WHAT they might do. You have no idea WHAT'S ALREADY been done.

they'll never get away with [it]

Careful other Anon, you're not feeding the fear factor frenzy by sounding so knowledgeable that it won't happen!

October 19, 2010 9:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And the relevance of the three comments posted by "Anonymous" in responding to the topic: "AOL News Scrapes the Bottom of the Barrel" is...?
Just one more example of the troll's efforts to pirate this site for his own ego-stroking needs.

October 19, 2010 9:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Bush tax cuts were passed with reconciliation's 50 votes so you might learn that during America's history, in total, " reconciliation was used 22 times overall and 14 times by Republicans. ""

not the point

the point is that Democrats used it to overcome the pressure of a clear verdict of their constituents on a matter of sweeping change to our entire economy

echoing the arrogance of their leader in the White House, they said that American voters would discover they, the voters, were wrong after the bill becomes law

instead, it turns out that it was the Democrats who were wrong- about a great many things

but, of course, the poor Democrats were just following the facts and science, right?

"Where are the jobs the GOP says will result when higher earners get to invest their money in these ventures since this law was passed in 2003?"

you might want to consider the average rate of unemployment during the Bush presidency vs the average rate of unemployment during the Obama presidency

then, imagine what would happen if we got hit with another 9/11 and Katrina now

has Obama got us in a position to withstand these kind of shocks?

under Bush, our economy shrugged these things off and moved on

our business community lead the way unfettered by governmental intervention until 2006

"Careful other Anon, you're not feeding the fear factor frenzy by sounding so knowledgeable that it won't happen!"

and that would feed the fear factor, how?

Obama tries to inspire a fear of Big Business and Big Oil and Big Insurance and Big Bad Rich Guys trying to buy the election by...paying for TV commercials

mwahahahaha!

Boo! it's almost Halloween

meantime, life outside the White House will go on without him

after November, his role will be largely ceremonial

like the Queen of England

October 19, 2010 10:12 AM  
Blogger Hazumu Osaragi said...

And the relevance of the three comments posted by "Anonymous" in responding to the topic: "AOL News Scrapes the Bottom of the Barrel" is...?
Just one more example of the troll's efforts to pirate this site for his own ego-stroking needs.


I'd like to see these irrelevant comments cast into a different typeface or font color or something, once they're seen to have little or no relevance to the root post. Mostly they seem to be variations on "Barry's goin' DOWN!!! Ne-ner-ne-ner-ne-ner..."

I see these irrelevant comments and I'm reminded of the behaviour of some thieves who, after making off with the flat screen TV and the heirloom silver, leave a disgusting 'calling card'.

Yes, I believe in the freedom of speech clauses in the Constitution's First Amendment. And I support this site in leaving the irrelevant comments (unlike many sites where such comments would be encouraged (think Free Republic) capriciously deleting any comment they don't like just because they can.

But it can't hurt to add a little more free speech - a comment, if you will, on the comment - change the font color to, say, a readably visible yet still readable brown, so I know to skip over that particular comment and get on to the ones that bear some relevance to the original post.

October 19, 2010 10:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hey, H.O.

why not comment on the original post yourself?

what do you think of Jim's characterization of Walter Schumm's study as "filth"?

do you agree?

why, in your opinion, is it so important to the gay agenda to preserve the idea that parenting has no effect on sexual preference?

we need your insight

October 19, 2010 10:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

America's most liberal newspaper, the NY Times, throws in the towel:

"The problem for Mr. Obama and the Democrats is the widespread sense among anxiety-riddled Americans that the country is still in very bad shape and headed in the wrong direction.

A Gallup poll last week found that 62 percent feel that economic conditions are deteriorating.

The president and his party may have racked up one legislative victory after another — on the bank bailouts, the stimulus package, the health care bill, and so forth — but ordinary Americans do not feel as if their lives or their prospects are improving. And they don’t think it’s a public relations problem.

Nearly 15 million are jobless and many who are working are worried that they will soon become unemployed. The once solid foundation of home ownership has grown increasingly wobbly, with the number of foreclosures this year expected to surpass a million. And the country is still at war.

The voter unrest that is manifesting itself in myriad ways reflects a real fear that not just family finances but the country itself is in a state of decline.

“I don’t know where we’re headed,” said a businessman named Chuck Carruthers, who chatted with me in a coffee shop in Atlanta last week. “But I’ll tell you the truth, I don’t think it’s anyplace good.”"

in other words, America feel they made a mistake in November 2008

who can argue with them?

October 19, 2010 10:51 AM  
Anonymous Insights from Wayne Besen said...

When analyzing Schumm's bogus conclusions, it is critical that people understand that he did not actually produce one shred of genuine research. He simply commented on the academic work of others, inserting his personal prejudices. So, calling this charlatan's slanted critique a "study" is like confusing a film critic's movie review with the actual production of a movie.

The study itself is betrayed by common sense and reality. If being around gay parents makes a child gay, then how does Schumm explain the inconvenient fact that the vast majority of LGBT adults had heterosexual parents?

Of course, once one starts looking at the actual paper, all of this quickly becomes academic, because the research techniques are so unprofessional that they immediately invalidate the conclusions. The fatal weakness is that Schumm does not draw his samples from other scientific studies. But instead finds them by perusing a random collection of unscientific literary books on gay parenting. This is the kind of "science" that one can do on an off day at Barnes & Noble.

Indeed, the author of one book cited by Schumm, Abigail Garner, purposely selected half of the children featured in her book to be the gay children of gay parents. Yet, Schumm idiotically used this deliberately skewed sample to show that gay parents are more likely to produce gay children.

"To run statistics on this non-statistical (or anti-statistical) sample would be like judging the ratio of giraffes to chimpanzees in Africa by comparing the populations selected by the zookeepers at your local zoo," wrote Box Turtle Bulletin Editor Jim Burroway, who carefully debunked the study.

Not surprisingly, Schumm is tied to Paul Cameron whose anti-gay junk science had him expelled from the Nebraska Psychological Association and the American Psychological Association. Cameron's disdain for LGBT people ran so deep that he wanted to brand HIV+ people and exterminate homosexuals.

Yet, knowing his disreputable background, Schumm still elected to be on Cameron's editorial board when he launched his ill-fated online publication, Empirical Journal of Same Sexual Behavior (EJSSB). Schumm also testified in a Florida gay adoption court case alongside Dr. George Rekers, who was recently caught with a male escort he met on Rent Boy.com.

The larger question is what disciplinary action does Kansas State University plan to take against Schumm, considering the unethical and dishonorable nature of his shoddy work? His unscientific screed is an academic embarrassment and blight on the reputation of this university.

Unfortunately, no matter what happens, it is too late. An AOL hack teamed up with an anti-gay quack and the damage is done. In light of the recent gay teen suicides, one would hope that more care would be taken before irresponsible and inaccurate studies are reported and celebrated in the mainstream media.

October 19, 2010 10:55 AM  
Blogger Hazumu Osaragi said...

hey, H.O.

Say that real fast, like the Led Zeppelin song title D'yer Maker becoming 'Jamaica' when you say it fast. Should I call this anonimii 'John'?

we need your insight

The only thing missing from that line is the tag at the end. Really, it's meant to be a put-down and bait, just like "Even a CHILD could do THAT."

why, in your opinion, is it so important to the gay agenda to preserve the idea that parenting has no effect on sexual preference?

Really, this is a statement phrased as a question. The hidden statements by the writer are:

-Parenting can make you gay, and parents who are gay are more likely to screw up and make a kid gay than parents who are heterosexual and anti-gay.

-There is a 'Gay Agenda', with subtle reminders of the meme of 'recruiting' necessary to to keep gayness alive in our society, and the deeper
meme that if you could fix gay, it would die out and the world would be a much purer place.

-Gays must defeat the idea that parents and parenting can make children gay, in order for there to be a steady supply of 'recruits' and to keep 'Gay' from being extinguished in our society.

-My opinion is unimportant to 'John' (the modifier 'so' does not need to be prepended to the word 'important', unless the writer meant to be sarcastic.)

-'John' tars me with this statement by phrasing it as a negative question and 'asks' it of me. I've made no such statement that would suggest that I hold any of the negative sides of the propositions he has made in his question/statement, yet he needs a strawman to say what he says, and so he uses 'HO' to be that strawman.

I think that the reader can look at the rest of 'John's post and see the vitriol in the other statements.

October 19, 2010 1:19 PM  
Anonymous johhny said...

"Say that real fast, like the Led Zeppelin song"

hey-O

is that better?

sounds kind of Ed Mcmahonish, doesn't it?

I heard Obama just went on a pleasure trip

he took his mother-in-law to the airport

hey-O!

I'll return your banter later tonight, hey-O

October 19, 2010 2:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

New numbers posted today on the Treasury Department website show the National Debt has increased by more than $3 trillion since President Obama took office.

The National Debt stood at $10.626 trillion the day Mr. Obama was inaugurated. The Bureau of Public Debt reported today that the National Debt had hit an all time high of $13.665 trillion.

The Administration has projected the National Debt will soar in Mr. Obama's fourth year in office to nearly $16.5-trillion in 2012. That's more than 100 percent of the value of the nation's economy and $5.9-trillion above what it was his first day on the job.

Mr. Obama frequently lays blame for soaring federal deficits on his predecessor.

Just last Friday, the Obama Treasury Department portrayed it as good news when it reported that the federal deficit in the fiscal year that ended September 30th was ONLY $1.294 trillion. That's less than the $1.416 trillion deficit accrued in 2009 - the largest federal deficit ever recorded. It was also less than the $1.556 trillion that Obama had wanted to spend in 2010.

The soaring debt is one of the reasons Mr. Obama adamantly wants to raise taxes.

October 19, 2010 2:26 PM  
Anonymous incredulous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

October 19, 2010 2:44 PM  
Anonymous Dubya said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

October 19, 2010 2:54 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

"The soaring debt is one of the reasons Mr. Obama adamantly wants to raise taxes."

He doesn't "want to raise taxes." He has to.

Only people with incomes -- whether earned for work they perform or from investments -- pay income tax. People who are unemployed and without investments have no income to tax.

Find the National Debt by date

10/18/10---13,668,894,473,093.42

1/20/09---10,626,877,048,913.08 Bush to Obama

1/20/07---8,675,085,083,537.48

1/20/05---7,613,215,612,328.37 Bush's second term

1/20/03---6,388,587,973,011.41

1/19/01---5,727,776,738,304.64 Clinton to Bush

1/20/99---5,623,807,213,463.02

1/20/97---5,309,774,506,681.99 Clinton's 2nd term

1/20/95---4,796,537,934,595.60

1/20/93---4,188,092,107,183.60 Bush to Clinton

October 19, 2010 7:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bea -
where is the TARP bailout counted ? In the Bush years ? And where is the TARP money coming back counted ... in the Obama years ?

Though I guess it didn't really come back, we are just finding other ways to spend it.

So we can all agree that is it official, over 2 years Obama added 3 trillion to the national debt. 3 trillion over 1.8 years is 1.6 trillion a year, and going to get worse next year apparently.

Bush added 5 trillion over 8 years, 612 billion a year. Also horrible, but not 1.6 trillion !

Maybe the government should cut spending instead of raising taxes. What a concept !

But no, Pelosi not only thinks the govt is entitled to your income, she believes the govt is entitled to your assets. Wow. Just wow.

We're talking about addressing the disparity of income where the wealthy people continue to get wealthier and some other people are falling out of the middle class when we want to bring many more people into the middle class. But that disparity is not just about wages alone, that disparity is about ownership and equity. It's all about fairness in our country," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said to the United Steelworkers on Monday.

October 19, 2010 8:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

People with incomes.

People with incomes typically HAVE incomes in this economy Bea because they made themselves so valuable to their companies that they would be the last to be let go.....

Don't you get that concept ?

It is not just stupid luck.

October 19, 2010 8:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

last question Bea.

Do you believe that folks who work harder deserve to make more money ? Or should everyone be paid the same regardless of effort contributed ?

October 19, 2010 8:58 PM  
Anonymous go Barry go said...

Barry keeps pushing for the pro-family vote:

"Top level guidance has gone out giving the go-ahead for acceptance of gay recruits, but also cautioning that the moratorium on the ban on openly gay service members could be lifted at anytime if the judge rules for Obama, a Defense Department spokeswoman told the AP and other news agencies Tuesday.

A federal judge in California ordered the military last week to stop enforcing the Clinton-era law, which requires gays to keep their sexual orientation private. Obama has appealed and asked for a stay of the order.

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips said she had decided tentatively "to deny the application for a stay." If Phillips officially turns down the request, Obama has promised to take the appeal to a higher court."

October 19, 2010 9:16 PM  
Anonymous follow that dream said...

"In the congressional district that's home to the Kennedy family compound, a Kennedy public skating rink and a Kennedy museum, the heart of liberalism is beating uneasily.

Republican Jeff Perry is making a serious bid to take over a seat held by Democrats for nearly 40 years — and it's just one of nearly 100 seats across the country that now appear under threat of slipping away from the majority party and giving control of the U.S. House to the GOP.

At least 75 House seats — the vast majority held by Democrats — are at serious risk of changing hands, and roughly 25 more where Democrats were assumed to have the upper hand have tightened in recent weeks, raising the possibility that some could flip to the Republicans as well.

Perry, a Massachusetts state representative, is in one of those contests here in the 10th Congressional District, which stretches from Quincy, just outside Boston, along Cape Cod and across to the vacation playgrounds of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket. He is talking tough on taxes, immigration reform and the health care law, and he's locked in a competitive race with Democrat William Keating for the open seat.

It's a surprising turn in Massachusetts and just one of nearly a dozen contests across the country illustrating trouble in Democratic paradise.

Republicans have long believed they have a chance to win back the House, and possibly the Senate. Now, emboldened by polls showing even more of their candidates running strongly, they're reaching into territory where Democrats were thought to be safe, in races from New York to Georgia to Wisconsin and Arizona."

October 19, 2010 9:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

bea... hello Bea.

Do you think that folks who work harder should be paid more ?

and if so, why do you think that it is okay for the govt to later confiscate those folks savings to give to folks who didn't necessarily work as hard...

Let's boil it down for you Bea.
Are you a socialist ?

I think you are....

10 am flight tomorrow, so need to leave and be packed at 7:30. awaiting your reply..

October 20, 2010 1:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's try this another way.

Why should I work and sacrifice to make money to pay YOUR BILLS Bea.

why ?

October 20, 2010 1:59 AM  
Anonymous countdown said...

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup finds 21% of Americans satisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time. If that figure does not improve considerably in the next two weeks, it would be the lowest level of U.S. satisfaction Gallup has measured at the time of a midterm election in more than 30 years of tracking this measure.

October 20, 2010 3:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"First lady Michelle Obama asked women on Monday to support Democrats in next month's midterm elections, urging them not to lose faith in her husband's vision."

HA HA HA!

What vision would that be, Michelle?

Sorry, but Americans don't put "faith" in politicians.

We look at records and Barack didn't have one two years ago.

Unfortunately for you, he has one now.

All the cool women politicians are Republicans: Sarah Palin, Nikki Haley, Sharron Angle, Chris O'Donnell, Meg Whitman, Michelle Bachman, Carla Fiorni, et al

Then, there's Barbara Mikulski.

yuck!

You've lost the woman vote.

October 20, 2010 4:33 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Golly, Theresa, still asking me questions at 1:53 AM? How touchingly obsessive of you.

Why is it that you think people who don't make much money don't work very hard? Apparently you don't know many people who don't make very much money. A lot of them work a lot harder, and sleep a lot better, than you do.

At the tea baggers BOE candidate forum last night, the plan to save money in our public schools that got the biggest applause was to fire administrators, of course, but they also want to fire janitors and have the students clean their own toilets, hallways, and classrooms, even if they didn't mess them up. Is that what they call "fair" at your kids' private school, Theresa?

Couples who earn $250,000 per year bring home nearly $5,000 per week, $4807.69 to be precise. People who earn the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, bring in $15,080 per year, or $290.00 per week, which is amazingly above the US DHHS's poverty line

And yes, I think the $5K a week folks should pay a lot higher income tax rate than the $290 a week folks.

I agree with Teddy Roosevelt

"No man should receive a dollar unless that dollar has been fairly earned. Every dollar received should represent a dollar's worth of service rendered, not gambling in stocks, but service rendered. The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective, a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate."

October 20, 2010 7:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A vigorous post-Labor Day Democratic offensive has failed to diminish the resurgent Republicans' lead among likely voters, leaving the GOP poised for major gains in congressional elections two weeks away, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

Among likely voters, Republicans hold a 50% to 43% edge, up from a three-percentage-point lead a month ago.

In the 92 House districts considered most competitive, the GOP's lead among registered voters is 14 points, underscoring the Democrats' challenge in maintaining their hold on the House. The poll was taken Oct. 14-18.

"It's hard to say Democrats are facing anything less than a category four hurricane," said Peter Hart, the Democratic pollster who conducts the Journal poll with Republican pollster Bill McInturff. "And it's unlikely the Democratic House will be left standing."

The heightened energy among Republican-leaning voters has been a feature of public opinion for months, with many voters anxious about the economy and unhappy with the Democratic-led Congress.

"A good chunk of [the Democrats'] base is disillusioned by what they've done, and Republicans believe the policies have taken us in the wrong direction," said Scott Jennings, a former Bush White House political aide now monitoring campaigns in Kentucky. "They've spawned a great conservative awakening."

Democratic leaders accept the "enthusiasm gap" between the parties, but are trying to counter it with tens of millions of dollars aimed at getting out the vote.

Mr. Obama taped a radio advertisement, released Tuesday by the Democratic National Committee, aimed at black audiences.

"We can't let this country fall backward because the rest of us didn't care to fight," the president said in the ad that begins Wednesday.

Mr. Obama will hold a backyard town-hall style meeting, for women only, Thursday in Seattle.

Such efforts come as views of the president are hardening. In all, 69% of voters are saying their vote is a signal to the president.

The Republican edge in intensity of support is now at 20 percentage points.

"After seven weeks of a powerful counteroffensive, the dynamics haven't changed," Mr. McInturff said of Democratic efforts to diminish GOP momentum.

October 20, 2010 8:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Couples who earn $250,000 per year bring home nearly $5,000 per week, $4807.69 to be precise. People who earn the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, bring in $15,080 per year, or $290.00 per week, which is amazingly above the US DHHS's poverty line

And yes, I think the $5K a week folks should pay a lot higher income tax rate than the $290 a week folks."

they already do

Democrats want to keep jacking the amount confiscated to solve every problem

in your scenario, Bea, let's say both of those couples have two kids under 14 and each take the standard deduction

guess how much tax each would pay

October 20, 2010 8:15 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

guess how much tax each would pay

The more telling number, Anon, is how much would each keep.

To answer your question, the $5K a week folks would pay a lot less than they did in 2002, before Bush gave them the $700 billion-over-10 years-deficit-increasing-tax-cuts, passed under reconciliation with Dick Cheney casting the tie breaking fifty-first vote, which will expire this year.

The more important issue is what has happened to our once surplus producing economy. The Bush tax cuts increased the deficit as the national debt nearly doubled under his watch.

Tax cuts for the rich are supposed to create jobs. Well if that's true, how come Obama has created more jobs in his less than two years of stimulus spending than Bush did in his entire eight years of tax cutting?

Fun and games are over for now kids, I'm off to work my second job.

October 20, 2010 8:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In the scenario where a couple is both working and making the minimum wage, they wouldn't pay any taxes, they would receive an Earned Income Credit and get a check back from the government.

As opposed to having the government take 1/2 of every dollar they make.

two folks working, each making 100K, right now the second earner works for 30K a year after you factor in the increased taxes.

after the bush tax cuts expire, that number decreases enough that you can't even take home enough to pay for the child care you will need with both parents working.

That's nuts.
that's counter productive.

again, you continue raising them and folks will simply say "screw this" and stay home.

then we have a nation on the govt dole. and Obama will have achieved what he was after all along - socialism.

October 20, 2010 11:18 PM  
Anonymous read my lips said...

under Obama's vision, we slowly shift from a nation getting paychecks to a nation getting food stamps

he also envisions increased public employment with a corresponding reduction in private employment

that's part of the socialist agenda

in addition to getting a tax refund despite not paying any tax, the hypothetical couple would likely receive myriad other benefits from governments at every level and churches

nothing wrong with that but the idea that wealthy people in America should be compelled by the government to contribute more is ridiculous

keep attacking those who create jobs and it won't be long before the only jobs available are government employment

and isn't that Obama's ultimate goal?

October 21, 2010 12:26 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

keep attacking those who create jobs and it won't be long before the only jobs available are government employment

I see none of the Anonymi has answered this question:

Tax cuts for the rich are supposed to create jobs. Well if that's true, how come Obama has created more jobs in his less than two years of stimulus spending than Bush did in his entire eight years of tax cutting?

October 21, 2010 9:24 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

The silence is deafening.

The inability or the Anonymi to answer my question about what private sector jobs the 2003 Bush tax cuts have created is as telling as John Boehner's statements on Fox News with Chris Wallace after the GOP announced their Pledge with great fanfare. The Examiner reports:

In response to Wallace's question, Boehner said that the American public is not ready to talk about potential solutions and just wants to have an "adult conversation" about the magnitude of American's problems. Wallace again challenged Boehner, pointing out that it seems appropriate to present the GOP's solutions before the elections so that voters know about the proposals.

Right, Bonehead, Americans who have lost their jobs and homes don't need any one to tell them how bad off they are. American voters need to know what cuts to Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare the GOTP will be proposing to lower government spending, but the GOP's pledge remains mute on specifics.

October 21, 2010 3:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

actually I don't believe that is true Bea. I have personally paid about 100K into SS already and would be very unhappy if they try to cut it and NOT give it back.

Since I have been paying for kids colleges and schools I don't that much saved and was counting on this money.

At least the Ryan plan does have specifics, they are talking about not changing anything for 55 and over, 55 and under you can make a decision how you want your money allocated going forward and still get the old plan if you want.

I don't believe that is an option further down with younger folks that are just starting.

the problem is SS is that we have been raiding the funds. I was actually anal enough to take my husbands and my expected income (plus the 1/2 for our companies), and shockingly, if we lived to the expected life expectancy the amount we would get back was exactly equal to what we would have contributed, without any interest. That is if we keep working until 62.

On the obama jobs - I find that extremely difficult to believe. Are you referencing a statistic somewhere, if so, please quote it.

October 21, 2010 6:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

uh, Bea, I thought we were giving you a break not responding to you

here's a link to jobs created by presidential term:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

you may notice that during George W's second term, when the tax cuts had taken effect, 1.1 million jobs were created

during Obama's first full year, 3.1million jobs were lost

let's give Barry a chance though

from August 2009 to 2010, 214,000 jobs were created

of course, 119,000 of those jobs were created in Texas

what does Austin know that Washington doesn’t?

don’t overtax and overspend, keep regulations to a minimum, avoid letting unions and trial lawyers run riot, and display an enormous neon sign saying, “Open for Business”

it's Dubya country!

so, technically, can a question be a lie?

how about this one?

"how come Obama has created more jobs in his less than two years of stimulus spending than Bush did in his entire eight years of tax cutting?"

when Bush was President, few people who wanted a job couldn't find one

can you say that now?

btw, the Republican Party in West Virginia's website crashed this week because of demand for their most popular yard sign

it says simply:

"Obama Says 'Vote Democrat'"

simple and effective

October 21, 2010 10:02 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Socialists believe that people who work harder should make more money. They may believe that people with unearned privilege shouldn't earn more.

October 22, 2010 1:33 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Oh brother, Anon. What a great wikipedia page you found....NOT! It says:

"This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2010)"


At least the authors admit "for at least the first eight months of a President's term, he inherits a budget proposed and implemented by his predecessor (as well as an overall economy which may be in decline or recovery)." The numbers this wiki page cites for Obama cover his first 18 months in office, so the first 8 blue lines on the bikini graph are the result of Bush's budgets per this wiki page you've cited.

This later version of the bikini graph shows the dramatically increase in private sector job since Obama came into office continuing right through September 2010. And this version of the bikini graph shows that overall jobs have downturned because private sector job creation has been overwhelmed by government job losses now that local and state governments are laying-off teachers, policemen, firefighters, etc., because the GOP refuses to pay states any more stimulus money to prevent more lay-offs.

October 22, 2010 5:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What a great wikipedia page you found....NOT!"

yes, and thanks for the credible link to an obscure blog called chasingevil.com as your source

"This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2010)"

well, the wikipedia page seemed to coincide with the numbers you linked for the period you cherry-picked

pick a small enough period of time and you could probably prove just about anything

it's a typical tactic of the lunatic fringe

maybe you should consider climate change research

you're their kind of scum

"At least the authors admit "for at least the first eight months of a President's term, he inherits a budget proposed and implemented by his predecessor"

you may recall that I posted Obama's record from eight months to eighteen months to give him the benefit of the doubt

turned out over half of the employment gains in America during that period were in Texas, a state without an income tax

if you'll look at the statistics, you'll find during the Reagan era (1980-2006) recessions were followed by periods of intense growth that averaged twice Obama's "recovery" rate

indeed, the deeper the recession, the greater the comeback

didn't happen this time because of Obama's Keynesianism, socialism and anti-business demogoguery

"This later version of the bikini graph shows the dramatically increase in private sector job since Obama came into office continuing right through September 2010"

I don't see anything dramatic

there are two months of fairly good growth but it couldn't be sustained because of Obama's Keynesianism, socialism and anti-business demogoguery

"And this version of the bikini graph shows that overall jobs have downturned because private sector job creation has been overwhelmed by government job losses now that local and state governments are laying-off teachers, policemen, firefighters, etc., because the GOP refuses to pay states any more stimulus money to prevent more lay-offs"

so you think that we should borrow even more money to pay people salaries so we can say they are employed?

we're headed for bankruptcy already

now, this:

"how come Obama has created more jobs in his less than two years of stimulus spending than Bush did in his entire eight years of tax cutting?"

the charge that this is lies, still applies

you're guilty as charged

October 22, 2010 9:33 PM  
Anonymous holla said...

looks like that shut her up!!

October 23, 2010 2:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Either that, or Aunt Bea has a life and found something better to do on one of the most beautiful days of the year than argue on the Internet with a loser like you.

October 23, 2010 3:11 PM  
Anonymous I think I shut her up said...

that's true

I know Mrs Bea Winner enjoys the "bounty" of the forest

she's probably getting down to some quality time with the shrooms, snails and shrubs

plus, economics is not exactly her forte anyway

nothing to be embarassed about

a lot of people are ignorant

October 23, 2010 3:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...shut her up"
And you. no doubt, enjoyed the day at the country club with your other plutocrat friends...probably enjoying a drink and a laugh or two about how unreliable the staff who is hired to wait on you at the club have become these days. Imagine...the nerve of asking for something comparable to a living wage. Where do they get off?

October 24, 2010 1:31 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

"from August 2009 to 2010, 214,000 jobs were created

of course, 119,000 of those jobs were created in Texas"


The CBO reports:

CBO estimates that ARRA’s policies had the following effects in the second quarter (April, May and June) of calendar year 2010:

They raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 1.7 percent and 4.5 percent,

Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points,

Increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million, and

Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 2.0 million to 4.8 million compared with what would have occurred otherwise (see Table 1). (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers)."


turned out over half of the employment gains in America during that period were in Texas, a state without an income tax

Texas is not the only state that collects no income tax.

Nevada doesn't collect state income tax either, yet Nevada has the highest unemployment rate in the nation -- 14.4%.

if you'll look at the statistics, you'll find during the Reagan era (1980-2006) recessions were followed by periods of intense growth that averaged twice Obama's "recovery" rate

If anyone looks at statistics, they'll see that the Bush Depression has more in common with the Great Depression than the recessions during Reagan, Daddy Bush, and Clinton administrations and it was the massive spending during World War Two that ended it after a decade of misery.

I don't see anything dramatic

there are two months of fairly good growth


Maybe you didn't notice that the downward trend of the bikini graph *reversed direction* when Obama took over or maybe you don't know that "dramatic" means "highly effective; striking" in addition to your usual MO "characteristic of or appropriate to the drama, esp. involving conflict."

October 25, 2010 8:48 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

History reminder from the FOX News transcript of George W. Bush's final White House Press Conference:

...QUESTION: The first $350 billion is out the door. It's been spent.
QUESTION: Are you satisfied that it's been spent wisely?

And, for the second $350 billion that's under consideration, do you think -- are you supportive of Congress putting some restrictions on it?

BUSH: I'm supportive of the president-elect working out a plan with Congress that best suits him and Congress. That's what he's going to have to do. He's going to have to go up there, and he's going to have to make his case as to why the $350 billion is necessary.

And he knows that; this is nothing new.

And in terms of the first $350 billion, I am pleased with this aspect of the expenditure: and that is that the financial markets are beginning to thaw. In the fall, I was concerned that the credit freeze would cause us to be headed toward a depression greater than the Great Depression. That's what I was told, if we didn't move.

And so, therefore, we have moved, you know, aggressively.

And, by the way, it just wasn't with the TARP. You know, if you think about AIG, Fannie and Freddie, a lot of the decisions that were made in this administration are very aggressive decisions, all aiming at preventing the financial system from -- from cratering....

...QUESTION: Mr. President, you spoke of the moment that the responsibility of the office would hit Barack Obama.

The world's a far different place than it was when it hit you. When do you think he's going to feel the full impact?

And what, if anything, have you and the other presidents shared with him about the effects of the sometimes isolation, the so-called bubble of the office?

BUSH: Yeah. That's a great question...

..."I believe the phrase "burdens of the office" is overstated. You know, it's, kind of, like, "Why me?"

(LAUGHTER)

"Oh, the burdens," you know. "Why did the financial collapse have to happen on my watch?"..."


Words to ponder. Bush cut taxes so "Why did the financial collapse have to happen on [his] watch?"

October 25, 2010 8:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

geeez, Bea

I thought we shut you up

if you think Obama is doing a great job with the economy, you better find a way to get the word out because, in about a week, the American voter is poised to turn the rest of his lame duck presidency into a ceremonial function unless something changes drastically

whining on TTF doesn't seem to be affecting the polls

October 25, 2010 12:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's clear who's whining and who's pointing out facts, "Anonymous"

Reagan and Clinton got themselves reelected after becoming "lame ducks" after their party's first mid-term drubbings.

Next year when the GOP overrides Obama's veto of their cuts to Social Security and Medicare, the Democratic era will resume in earnest, and the GOP will languish in the deep depression they left at the end of the "Reagan era (1980-2006)."

October 25, 2010 6:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Reagan and Clinton got themselves reelected after becoming "lame ducks" after their party's first mid-term drubbings."

they both had the ability to connect with the average American

Obama is a self-righteous elitist, combining the worst characteristics of Jimmy Carter and John Kerry

he really hasn't a prayer

because of some fortunate timing, he slid into the Presidency and should have taken the opportunity to show his party can be trusted

instead, he showed the socialist intention of his party

he just made some really poor judgment on priorities but what it revealed about his intent can't be undone

"Next year when the GOP overrides Obama's veto of their cuts to Social Security and Medicare, the Democratic era will resume in earnest, and the GOP will languish in the deep depression they left at the end of the "Reagan era (1980-2006).""

the Tea Party won't have the numbers to override any Obama veto and no one will concern themself with bills that don't pass

Obama has already made significant cuts to Medicare, which is part of his problem

unless he plans to repeal Obamacare, he'll never to bring up Medicare cuts against anyone else

I wouldn't worry about the Tea Party

they've shown they can triumph in PR battles with liberals

October 25, 2010 6:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

looks like that shut her up!!

October 25, 2010 9:08 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home