Thursday, December 30, 2010

American Voters Are Poorly Informed: Why?

Speaking of the media, Jonathan Stray has a good article online addressing the fact that Americans were misinformed about important facts at the time they went to the polls to vote in the 2010 mid-term elections. Stray quotes from the report on this survey by World Public Opinion.org:
The poll found strong evidence that voters were substantially misinformed on many of the issues prominent in the election campaign, including the stimulus legislation, the healthcare reform law, TARP, the state of the economy, climate change, campaign contributions by the US Chamber of Commerce and President Obama’s birthplace. In particular, voters had perceptions about the expert opinion of economists and other scientists that were quite different from actual expert opinion. By the numbers, American journalism failed to inform voters.

The survey also showed Fox viewers to be the most misinformed of all, which generated some comments in the blogs, but Stray directs our attention to the more general point:
I think this Fox thing is a terrible diversion from the core problem: the American press did not succeed in informing the public. Not even right before an election, not even on the narrow set of issues that, by survey, voters cared to base their votes on.

Stray reviews the survey report findings:
  • 68% of voters thought that “most economists” believe that the stimulus package “saved or created a few jobs” and 20% thought most economists believe that the stimulus caused job losses, whereas only 8% correctly said that most economists think it “saved or created several million jobs.” (The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the stimulus saved several millions jobs, as do 75% of economists interviewed by the Wall Street Journal.)

  • 53% of voters thought that economists believe that Obama’s health care reform plan will increase the deficit, while 29% said that economists were evenly divided on this issue. Only 13% said correctly that a majority of economists think that health care reform will not increase the deficit. (The Congressional Budget Office estimates a net reduction in deficits of $143 billion over 2010-2019, and Boards of Trustees of the Medicare Fund also believe that the Affordable Care act will “postpone the exhaustion of … trust fund assets.”)

  • 12% of voters thought that “most scientists believe” that climate change is not occurring, while 33% thought scientists were evenly divided on the issue. That’s 45% with an incorrect perception, as opposed to the 54% who said, correctly, that most scientists think climate change is occurring. (Aside from the IPCC reports and virtually every governmental study of the issue worldwide, an April 2010 survey of climate scientists showed that 97% believe that human-caused climate change is occurring.)

Stray discusses the idea that individuals might consider the facts and come to a different conclusion from the experts. It might even be that the experts are wrong. But that isn't what this survey was about, it asked voters what they thought the experts believed about certain important topics, topics that should affect their decision about who to vote for.
...voting contrary to the opinions of economists may be a fine thing, but voting without any awareness of their work is just silly. Yet that seems to be exactly what happened in the last election.

This is a very even-handed essay, he's not in a hurry to judge anyone or score cheap political points. The question has to do with the function of journalism in informing the public, and more specifically the fact that primary information sources are available to every citizen on the Internet -- the Congressional Budget Office has a blog, fer cryin' out loud!

So in this world where "the truth is out there," just a mouse-click away, why are people so poorly informed?

32 Comments:

Anonymous Robert said...

There's this idea that when people adopt a political point of view, they adopt the "whole cloth", so to speak: conservatives tend to agree with most opinions labelled conservative, and liberals tend to agree with most liberal positions.

I think Jim did a blog on it; it's a genuine phenomenon. It explains why so many people disagree with the idea of climate change, when very few of us are in fact in a position to be able to form any independent opinion. Denial of global warming is part of the "cloth."

December 30, 2010 2:34 PM  
Anonymous Maximus Intelligentsia said...

pay no attention to Robert

"So in this world where "the truth is out there," just a mouse-click away, why are people so poorly informed?"

I know. Pick me, pick me.

It's because they don't trust pollsters any more than any other parts of our media-industrial complex so when they feel the questions are being gamed to be used for political purposes, they'll answer in ways that reflect their intent regardless of whether the answer is technically correct.

It's similar to the difference between statistics in a meteorology textbook vs poetry about the weather. The line between technical empirical correctness and an accurate relation of the phenomena are blurred. Which is better?

Discuss amongst yourselves.

We have all had the experience of these polls where none of the given choices seems to accurately reflect the situation.

take this gem of disingenuousness:

"•53% of voters thought that economists believe that Obama’s health care reform plan will increase the deficit, while 29% said that economists were evenly divided on this issue. Only 13% said correctly that a majority of economists think that health care reform will not increase the deficit."

Perfect example. People are fully aware that if they answer that economists believe Obamacare will make the deficit go down, pollsters will use that to imply that they support Obamacare.

The public doesn't support Obamacare, and one reason is that everyone knows full well that adding tens of millions to the health care system and expanding benefits will increase the deficit.

Economists are forced to ignore the political situation and simply deal with plan as is when everyone knows that Congress will make changes that will increase the deficit.

Indeed, they've already done so. The rosy "Obamacare-reduces-deficit" scenario, for example, assumes that Federal reimbursement of Medicare will be reduced but subsequent to the passage of Obamacare, Congress has already extended the old reimbursement rates and no reasonable observer on either side believes the rates won't be extended indefinitely. Economists, however, have to assume the rates will expire because thay haven't yet been extended long-term.

Similar analysis can also reveal propaganda aspects to the poll questions on job creation and global warming but the bottom line is that the pollsters have framed their questions for political purposes. They are paid by media organs that are now assumed to be biased and so they are considered biased themselves.

The public is not going to allow itself to be used for propaganda.

Ask it sneaky questions and you can expect to be perplexed by the answer.

December 30, 2010 2:37 PM  
Anonymous watch out for the Hamburgular! said...

"It explains why so many people disagree with the idea of climate change, when very few of us are in fact in a position to be able to form any independent opinion."

oh, if you pay attention, you can fathom all types of stuff

see how they qualify their statements, see whether they contradict themselves, how they react to questions, many things...

on the global warming front, even without a degree, you may notice that no one ever provides any proof that human activity is causing it

usually, you get statistics that the globe has warmed slightly, on average and, then, offhanded remarks about how it must be human activity

another thing you might notice is that no one can agree on why global warming would be such a horrific effect

usually, it's that sea levels will rise and certain communities on the coast may go under water...within a hundred years

not exactly the makings of a new disaster movie

gradual population migrations have happened throughout history

of course, about six or seven years ago, they were talking increasing hurricane activity and super-storms, getting worse and worse

didn't happen

so, the Earth has been significantly hotter in the past, there's no proof human activity alters the climate and no one can say why the climate change being forecast by "95% of scientists" would be all that horrible

you can tell all that without a degree in meteorology...

or even any experience dressing up as Ronald McDonald!

December 30, 2010 4:31 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

See, some people form expert opinions even on topics about which they are not expert. You can become wise just watching the Hannity show.

January 01, 2011 7:05 AM  
Anonymous grantdale said...

Deep cynicism combined with selective scepticism, profound ignorance, a woeful inability to learn, low training in logic, wracked by insecurities that will not allow me to admit being wrong, and a faith-based desire never to challenge -- let alone correct -- any of these self-perpetuating flaws.

Did I miss anything?

(It's at times like this that I quietly remind myself that 50% of people will always be below average, pick whatever measure.)

Blaming the 'media' is too easy, regardless of how grotesque I think the popular news industry to be. Things wouldn't be as they are except for basic intellectual laziness and a cheap desire to be forever entertained.

Case in point, once again wonderfully provided by the anonymous pundit:

...you can tell all that without a degree in meteorology...

Begs the question: what would you tell IF you did have a degree in meteorology? What would your opinion be if you worked hard enough to become educated and could form your own independent opinion?

Concerned that becoming better educated would cause you to alter your stance?... you already know at some level, in all your vulgar dishonesty, that you are wrong.

Hence, should probably shut your mouth and open your ears. For the time being.

Case in point, once again provided by the anonymous pundit:

Rent-R-non has a low opinion of her fellow travelers. She's already of the opinion that some people will not honestly answer a question about what the body of economists think because that conflicts with what some people WANT the body of economists to be thinking.

Yeah, sure, economists* say this, but me the doofus-on-the-street wallowing in the pig-pen of non-education somehow 'knows' better. So I cannot even bring myself to publicly admit that economists disagree with my opinion, let alone try reason through why my opinion would be at complete odds.

Uh-huh...

The very definition of basic intellectual laziness.

---------------------

* I imagine they asked about "economists" because also asking about "actuaries" would have left many people staring blankly into the void. And if you don't understand the point here... oh, never mind.

ps Happy New Year everyone!

January 01, 2011 10:36 PM  
Anonymous watch out for the hamburgular! said...

"See, some people form expert opinions even on topics about which they are not expert."

Robert, you really are quite a fool. If no one had ever questioned an "expert," we'd have a pretty nasty world, if there were a world at all. Whatever your definition of "expert" is, they are as corruptible and as open to political and social pressure as anyone else. Don't worship credentials. Take the intitiative to be informed and don't accept without understanding.

oh look, whenever it seems like I'm not posting much, Grantdale figures the coast is clear and puts up some stupid remarks

"Cynicism combined with scepticism, ignorance, an inability to learn, low logic, insecurities, and a desire never to challenge.

Did I miss anything?"

how about your marbles?

"It's at times like this that I quietly remind myself that 50% of people will always be below average."

the glass is half full, pal

50% are always above the average and you should just be grateful for us instead of resentful

keep it quiet though or else you might reveal just how far below average your intelligence is

"Blaming the media is too easy. Things wouldn't be as they are except for intellectual laziness and a desire to be entertained."

well, that and the control of the media by liberal groups over the years

have we discussed Al Franken here?

"the anonymous pundit:

...you can tell all that without a degree in meteorology...

what would you tell IF you did have a degree in meteorology? What would your opinion be if you worked hard enough to become educated and form your own opinion?"

yes, that must be the problem

I'm not opinionated enough

your mistake is to assume that you can't have an valid opinion unless you have a degree

should we just cancel democracy now or should we consult someone with a degree in political science?

let's face it, liberals, and especially those who push the gay agenda, with all their rhetoric, only support the experts when the experts provide evidence that can be used for propaganda purposes

"Concerned that becoming better educated would cause you to alter your stance?"

see, Grantdale, you're a hypocrite because you're making assumptions about my level of education when you're not an expert on that topic

are you an "expert" on anything?

we'll expect you to not make any comments on anything else from now on

I actually make it a point to become informed about all the theories and points of view I can

I even regularly read the garbage here, looking for insights I might not gain elsewhere

are you reading and participating in conservative blogs?

perhaps you are the one who fears knowledge

"... you already know at some level, in all your vulgar dishonesty, that you are wrong."

another baseless opinion by a non-expert

"Hence, should probably shut your mouth and open your ears. For the time being."

well, please let me know which degrees I'll have to have before I can gain your approval to speak again

I do so desire your approval

January 02, 2011 10:23 PM  
Anonymous watch out for the hamburgular said...

"She's already of the opinion that some people will not honestly answer a question about what the body of economists think because that conflicts with what some people WANT the body of economists to be thinking."

now, see, by speaking about something about which you are not an expert, you've made a fool of yourself

I wasn't talking about what "some people" want economists to be thinking

I was talking about becoming informed about the basis of the economists' reasoning and how liberal pollsters would like to distort the message

listen closely

the CBO projected that the deficit would fall under Obamacare because they were asked to calculate this based on the standing of legislation at that point in time

truth is, everyone knew that those assumptions wouldn't hold and they were right

Democrats pushed through an extension of old Medicare remimbursement rates which the economists assumed wouldn't be extended

wala!!

the analysis no longer applies, as anyone who still had their marbles realized would happen

"Yeah, sure, economists* say this, but me the doofus-on-the-street wallowing in the pig-pen of non-education somehow 'knows' better."

actually, most economists would agree now with what I said above

"So I cannot even bring myself to publicly admit that economists disagree with my opinion,"

see above

"let alone try reason through why my opinion would be at complete odds.

Uh-huh...

The very definition of basic intellectual laziness."

really?

why wouldn't the definition of intellectual laziness be to blindly acquiesce to the experts without an attempt to reason yourself?

coincidentally, that would also be the definition of a grantdale "comment"

"ps Happy New Year everyone!"

yeah, go snort a line of fire ants

January 02, 2011 10:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

jim, some great stuff from me didn't post

January 02, 2011 10:25 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, I didn't see that but I did find some annoying crap in the spam folder, which I published.

JimK

January 02, 2011 10:34 PM  
Anonymous grantdale said...

Infantanon,

The big people are talking ABOUT you, but it is impolite to interrupt.

When we are finished I will come and play Barbies with you. Promise.

But it is rude to interrupt.

OK hun?

January 03, 2011 7:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you didn't answer this question, big guy:

"why wouldn't the definition of intellectual laziness be to blindly acquiesce to the experts without an attempt to reason yourself?"

you'll probably need an expert to field that one, so try a PhD in philosophy at the local university

he should be able to tell you what to think

maybe someday, you'll figure out how to do that for yourself

January 03, 2011 8:31 AM  
Anonymous grantdale said...

Anonachild,

You are still interrupting the adults, so plainly you were poorly bought up. I forgive your rudeness. It's not really your fault. I've heard that happens in fatherless households (ref. Focus on the Family Sic).

'Acquiesce' is a big word I'm glad you know how to spell, but sadly you do not yet understand what it means.

When you grow up you may have the opportunity to interact (another compound word, sorry) with people who are educated. People like me. Even, people better educated than me.

We're not unlike you, really. That is, except for the fact that we happily mingle with people that know more than we do. And that doesn't bother us. We ask them stuff, they tell us stuff. Sometimes, because they are just like us, they ask us to explain stuff that we know; and we are happy to oblige.

So, no, "blindly acquiesce to the experts" is just being silly on your part. That's not how mature adults work together.

Also I'd stay away from people called 'philosophers' is I was you. Not only are they the reason 'PhD' is code for something rude, but many of them are actually religious nuts who claim to have graduated from religious nut-case colleges.

And nobody ever 'graduates' from religious nut-case colleges. All you do is be there, get some paper, and leave. If they let you.

I understand this is probably very confusing at your time of life (those brochures from "Liberty University" certainly look glossy don't they!) but I can only offer one thing more...

... Advanced Education is probably not for you.

Not only will you fail, but you'll be laughed at by older people and teased by your peers.

Stick to what you know best.

Being a stupid pest.

You don't need a piece of paper to do that. Just be yourself. You are already more than qualified.

(as an aside to the adults at TTF: its always fascinating to come here and experience what you have to deal with. Somewhat depressing, but always fascinating.)

January 03, 2011 9:38 AM  
Anonymous who's your daddy? said...

"You are still interrupting the adults, so plainly you were poorly bought up."

this is what autocrats, and their minions, generally say to democrats

free speech is just rude because it upsets the general order

"you may have the opportunity to interact with people who are educated. People like me. Even, people better educated than me.

We're not unlike you, really. That is, except for the fact that we happily mingle with people that know more than we do. And that doesn't bother us. We ask them stuff, they tell us stuff. Sometimes, because they are just like us, they ask us to explain stuff that we know; and we are happy to oblige."

see, grantdale, you must have slipped past this process because you clearly didn't talk to anyone knowledgeable about the deficit effects of Obamacare

I kept up with the conversation and understand why it will lead to higher deficits

you apparently read the CBO report during the rushed week of passage and chose to not think or inquire further

it's not too late

google it and you will find estimable economists explaining that the failure to allow the reimbursement rates for Medicare to expire, which the Pelosi Congress did after Obamacare passed, pushes the plan into the red

don't acquiesce

analyze and ask

we're now expecting big things out of you, big guy

January 03, 2011 10:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

it happened again, Jim

a really great discussion of why we need to try to understand what the experts are saying didn't post

January 03, 2011 10:43 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Its a sign from the gods bad anonymous - they want you to STFU.

January 03, 2011 11:48 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

I checked the spam folder and did not see any "really great discussions" there, but I did find an inarticulate bunch of nonsense, which I released.

JimK

January 03, 2011 12:18 PM  
Anonymous the laughing cow said...

you must not be an expert on great discussions, Jim

can't believe Priya is lurking out there and can only throw in obscentities when she finally speaks

I also can't believe the hypocrisy of TTFers to whine about others not staying informed when they simply refuse to listen to the facts

let's go over it slowly:

"53% of voters thought that economists believe that Obama’s health care reform plan will increase the deficit, while 29% said that economists were evenly divided on this issue. Only 13% said correctly that a majority of economists think that health care reform will not increase the deficit. The Congressional Budget Office estimates a net reduction in deficits of $143 billion over 2010-2019, and Boards of Trustees of the Medicare Fund also believe that the Affordable Care act will “postpone the exhaustion of … trust fund assets.”"

this is not exactly what economists believe

it is what economists calculate based on current law

problem is, most experts in political science, and for all we know most economists, believe the current law won't stay the same

currently the law says Medicare reimbursements to doctors will be cut 25%

actually, the law has said this for years but whenever the time comes, Congress passes a temporary extension

right now, few Dems or Repubs favor not granting extensions at any future date

good thing, because it would likely lead to a massive shortage of doctors who would take Medicare patients

still, this Medicare reduction is what makes the projections of Obamacare balance

it's a 300 billion dollar gap

so when a pollster asks a citizen if they know that economists project that Obamacare will reduce deficits, they are probably biased, maybe ignorant, but certainly irrelevant

and they get the answer they deserve

if they want to gauge something relevant, the pollsters would ask:

do you think the facts that economists base their projections of Obamacare deficit reduction on will stay the same?

try polling the economists on that one

of course, that 300 billion shortfall is just the tip of the iceberg

repeal will become absolutely inevitable when the individual mandate is declared unconstitutional and insurance companies have to raise their rates to compensate

January 03, 2011 1:28 PM  
Anonymous watch out for the hamburgular! said...

not that we've dispatched the Obamacare deficit reduction myth, here's some rumination on global warming, written by an expert thinker:

"Time present and time past

Are both perhaps present in time future,

And time future contained in time past

—T.S. Eliot

Many people have commented that climate change has come to be what philosophers and logicians call a “non-falsifiable hypothesis,” that is, a theory or belief that explains everything and is therefore impossible to be contradicted by observations or contrary evidence.

At some point, however, advocates of non-falsifiable hypotheses end up sleeping on park benches muttering about how “the Man,” or the CIA chip in his head, or international bankers, or . . . someone, is keeping the truth under wraps.

In fact, there a terrific little website, The Warmlist that tracks all of the effects attributed to global warming. My favorite was teen acne, but the original link has gone dead, so now my favorite is how global warming will cause a rise in prostitution, though I have to say, the prospect of “sea snot” makes me think of James Joyce as well as Eliot. The Warmlist is up to 839 discrete effects now, ranging from acne to zoonotic diseases.

Sometimes, such people get institutionalized, or medicated.

And some become global warming advocates.

The climate campaign establishment increasingly looks like its own self-contained and self-referential lunatic asylum, unable to exercise any self-restraint in finding positive proof of climate change in every weather surprise.

Several years back, climate campaigners in Britain, citing the latest warming models, ostentatiously predicted that snowstorms would soon be a thing of the past in Britain, something school children would read about in history books or hear tales about from their grandparents. Then this fall just past the British Met Office predicted a 60 to 80 percent change of a warmer than average winter this year.

But now Britain is having its second extremely cold winter in a row, with record snowfalls nearly strangling the nation.

Oops.

Not to worry. The climateers have swung into action, and have explained why cooling is really warming.

Judah Cohen, a private “seasonal forecaster,” took to the pages of the New York Times to explain how the warming arctic led to more snowfall over the Siberian land mass, which in turn cooled the air circulating over the northern hemisphere, and there you have it, big cold weather storms in the U.S. and Europe.

Or, as Mr. Cohen puts it, “the overall warming of the atmosphere is actually creating cold-weather extremes.”

Mr. Cohen might well be correct about this. But if he is it raises a number of troubling questions, starting with how the Met Office missed this factor, and failed to include it in the climate model they use to issue seasonal forecasts.

Needless to say if Mr. Cohen is right then a lot of other climate scientists are wrong, which means our grasp of climate dynamics is rather incomplete.

“What might have been and has been/Point to one end, which is always present,” Eliot continued.

Which reminds me of the climate record (”time future contained in time past”).

We don’t understand the climate past with reasonable precision, as the intense debate about the “hockey stick” graph showed, and the computer models predicting a 2 to 5 degree rise in the future are clearly riddled with large uncertainties, given the range of prospective temperatures they spit out.

No matter.

“What is always present” today is the cocksure certainty that catastrophic global warming is occurring, and damn the weatherman.

Think of it as the ultimate modernist free-verse, only without literary allusions, “. . . an abstraction/Remaining a perpetual possibility/Only in a world of speculation.”"

January 03, 2011 5:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"But now Britain is having its second extremely cold winter in a row, with record snowfalls nearly strangling the nation.

Oops."

Perhaps Grantdale would be kind enough to illuminate stupidAnon as to the recent massive flooding and heat wave in Australia, except where it's snowing during their summer season, that have already raised the price of wheat and sugar. Anon seems to think that a lack of hurricanes hitting the east coast of the US means that storms like those that caused the 1,000-year flooding of Nashville during the spring of 2010, or the one that flooded great swatches of Pakistan a few months later, or the snowstorms that closed the US government last winter, are not evidence of larger storms predicted by climate experts.

ABC News is showing pictures of some lovely snowcapped palm trees in Las Vegas, NV and some lovely snowcapped mudslides in southern California.

January 03, 2011 6:24 PM  
Anonymous watch out for the hamburgular! said...

"Perhaps Grantdale would be kind enough to illuminate stupidAnon as to the recent massive flooding and heat wave in Australia,"

he could try that but he's apparently finished making a fool of himself for a while

wow! a heat wave in Australia

who saw that coming

the point is that global warming advocates continually make these inane statements to try to promote the idea

they seem to motivated to make their own reality

the cold weather in Europe doesn't prove much in and of itself

but it does show that those claim to have such a handle on the weather don't really have a very good understanding of its causes and effects since they predicted a high probability of the opposite

somewhere along the line, those who believe in anthropic global warming became so crazed with trying to prove it that they went over the line into delusion

try to imagine what conditions would indicate that global warming isn't having a drastic effect on the weather

then, try to remember a time when those conditions actually existed

droughts, floods, little ice ages, dustbowls, et al

it's all part of human history

nothing extraordinary is happening now

January 03, 2011 9:55 PM  
Anonymous watch out for the hamburgular! said...

now that we've shut up the lunatics on climate change and Obamacare, let's turn to the third leg of Jim's stool of complaint:

"only 8% of voters correctly said that most economists think the stimulus “saved or created several million jobs.” The CBO estimates that the stimulus saved several millions jobs, as do 75% of economists interviewed by the Wall Street Journal."

there is actually much confusion over this

you would think spending a trillion dollars might create a few jobs

the real tragedy is how few

the first link Jim provided, from Nov 2010, said the stimulus accounts for between 2 and 5.2 million jobs

wow!

sounds like they've really got it down to a science

then his next link about the agreeing economists is from the Wall Street Journal in March 2010

it's point is that 3.3 million were saved by Fed actions rather then the stimulus

so, the CBO says the stimulus created 5 million jobs and 75% of economists say the Fed created 3.3 million jobs

and yet, if you count those who have given up, the unemployment rate reaches the upper teens

something doesn't add up

here's some interesting insight from the NY Times in Feb 2010:

"the Obama administration is still having trouble saying with precision how many jobs have been spurred so far by the stimulus package.

The administration's latest figures show the impact of the package on jobs, announcing that600,000 jobs had been financed directly in the fourth quarter of 2009. But it changed the definition of those jobs, making it hard for Congress or the public to keep score and learn how the stimulus is doing.

In the final quarter of 2009, the administration no longer asked recipients whether all of those jobs were actually created or saved by the stimulus money or whether some of those jobs might have existed without the stimulus money.

Instead, it now simply counts all existing jobs paid for with stimulus money as saved jobs, whether or not they would have been lost without the money.

The new, more expansive definition will make it more difficult to isolate the effects of the stimulus law.

Figuring out whether jobs were actually created or saved by the stimulus ultimately proved too subjective, officials said. The Obama administration originally asked states and employers receiving stimulus money to file reports detailing how many jobs they had created, and how many jobs they had been able to retain “that would not have continued to be filled” without the stimulus money.

But when the recipients filed their first reports last fall, some decided to count nearly every job that was paid for with stimulus money as a “saved” job, while others only counted the jobs that would have actually been lost without the money. Their job tallies varied wildly, even for similar work paid for with similar amounts of money.

Even with the new, simplified definition, there was some confusion.

California, for example, reported financing 71,015 jobs with stimulus money in the fourth quarter, but its Department of Education, which is claiming nearly half of those jobs, used the old jobs formula. There was even some confusion about how much money the state had actually received: while the state originally reported receiving nearly $8.2 billion through the end of September, it reported that through the end of the year it had received only $7.8 billion; a state official cited changing definitions of what it meant to actually “receive” money.

The White House estimated last month that between 1.5 million and 2 million jobs could be attributed to the stimulus package. But with unemployment at 10 percent, higher than the worst-case scenario the White House forecast when it proposed the stimulus, skepticism about the stimulus’s effectiveness has remained high."

and TTF would have is believe that this hall of mirrors is the fault of the ignorant masses?

give us a break

January 03, 2011 11:12 PM  
Anonymous Super-anon said...

ah, the sweet, sweet sounds of silence

and Rantdale rants no more

he's been banished by Super-anon to the Attention Deficit Zone with his gang of propaganda criminals

you guys tell General Zod I said hello!

"In a Public Policy Polling survey conducted in mid-November, Huckabee came within three points of Obama in a potential match-up, 48-45. A Nov. 22 Quinnipiac survey, conducted at about the same time showed Huckabee trailing the President by a statistically insignificant margin of 46-44."

Mike Huckleberry will run rings around Barry "Little Lord Fantleroy" Obama

January 04, 2011 8:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Incoming energy and commerce House Chair Upton previously claimed that “climate change is a serious problem” and that “the world will be better off” if we reduced carbon emissions. However, in the course of the past two years — as he received $20,000 from Koch Industries — Upton has shifted to oppose not only cap-and-trade legislation but any form of limits on climate pollution whatsoever, instead supporting investigations against climate scientists and lawsuits against the EPA and its supposed “unconstitutional power grab that will kill millions of jobs”:

April 2009: Climate change is a serious problem that necessitates serious solutions.

June 2009: We have a unique opportunity and a responsibility to reduce emissions and preserve our economy – the American public is desperate for solutions, but a national energy tax is not the answer.

December 2009: I think we can lower our emissions. I think the world will be better off if we did that, and we can do it without cap and trade.

January 2010: No matter what we did between now and 2050, it, there was no real science to verify that it would reduce the temperature rise that some predicted. And that’s why we do need hearings.

December 2010: Moreover, the principal argument for a two-year delay is that it will allow Congress time to create its own plan for regulating carbon. This presumes that carbon is a problem in need of regulation. We are not convinced.

“We think the American consumer would prefer not to be skinned by Obama’s EPA,” Upton and Phillips wrote in the Wall Street Journal, invoking the grisly image of the president murdering his fellow citizens. The world would be better off if Upton went back to believing instead in serious solutions to serious problems.
...
During an interview with Chris Wallace this weekend, the Fox host called Upton out on his climate change waffling. Upton largely dodged the question of how much of a problem he really thinks global warming really poses. Here's the exchange:

WALLACE: I want to follow up quickly on this with you and then I want to bring in Congressman Issa, on this question of EPA regulation. In the article that you co-wrote with the head of Americans for Prosperity, which is a group that is financed in part by oil companies, you say this -- "This presumes that carbon is a problem in need of regulation. We are not convinced."

But we checked, Congressman, on your congressional web site, and you say on the web site, "I strongly believe that everything must be on the table as we seek to reduce carbon emissions. Climate change is a serious problem that necessitates serious solutions."

So question, is carbon a problem or isn't it? And if it is, if you're going to kill the EPA regulation, what is your solution?

UPTON: We want to do this in a reasonable way. Before the end of the next decade, our country is going to need 30 to 40 more percent more electricity that we use today. So we need an all-of-the-above strategy. We need clean coal. We need natural gas.

We need nuclear -- something that has not happened. We need a whole host of things.

WALLACE: Do we need to regulate carbon?

UPTON: I don't think that we have to regulate carbon to the degree we have a carbon tax or you have a cap-and-trade system. And the House spoke pretty loudly -- you know, you take that same cap-and- trade bill that passed the House last year. Today it would lose by 50 votes and it could never come up in the Senate. This is not -- this regulation process is not the way to proceed.

The quote Wallace highlighted is no longer on Upton's website, though ThinkProgress has captured both an old version and the new one. Given the atmosphere in Congress, it's likely Upton will follow through on his pledge to use his chairmanship to thwart environmental regulation. But it's worth remembering that Upton was once considered among the most moderate members of the GOP on the issue. No longer.

January 05, 2011 10:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

he thought carbon taxes were a good thing and has changed his mind- either because he came to his sense or because he recognized the judgment of the voter

so what?

that's how democracy is supposed to work

January 05, 2011 12:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That was a monumental flip flop, paid for by Koch Industries.

January 05, 2011 4:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

another TTFer making a statement without expertise- or any knowledge at all

January 05, 2011 5:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Representative Fred Upton has reported a total of 685 contributions ($200 or more) totaling $492,356 in the current cycle.

Top 20 Contributors to Campaign Cmte and Leadership PAC

1 EnergySolutions Inc $43,800
2 DTE Energy $26,400
3 National Amusements Inc $25,600
4 Ford Motor Co $24,500
5 Pfizer Inc $23,400
6 CMS Energy $22,750
7 Verizon Communications $21,250
8 AT&T Inc $21,000
9 National Cable & Telecommunications Assn $20,000
9 Comcast Corp $20,000
9 Koch Industries $20,000
12 Automotive Free International Trade PAC $15,000
12 Time Warner Cable $15,000
12 Republican Main Street Partnership $15,000
15 Blue Cross/Blue Shield $14,500
16 National Assn of Realtors $14,000
17 Edison Electric Institute $13,500
17 National Auto Dealers Assn $13,500
17 Entergy Corp $13,500
20 National Assn of Convenience Stores $13,000

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00004133&type=C

January 05, 2011 10:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

fascinating

where's the evidence that he changed his position because of his tenth largest contribution?

January 05, 2011 11:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Certainly Mr. Issa's newfound subpoena power will connect the dots for Anonymi who have been blinded by the light, especially since Issa has expressed his great interest in exposing corruption within government. He and his committee should investigate the *coincidence* of Upton's "position change," confirmed by his co-authoring an op-ed piece with Tim Phillips who works for AFP's chairman, David Koch, along with Upton's $139,950.00 in 2010 election cycle campaign contributions from energy PACs.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americans_for_Prosperity

January 06, 2011 8:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hmmm...so, your position is that every Congressman must either vote the opposite of what their largest campaign contributors want or recuse themselves from every vote that might impact those contributors?

not sure we'd ever reach a quorum on any issue

do gay advocacy groups ever give money to the PACs of Congressman who support their causes or, especially those who switch to the gay advocacy position?

Issa has a pretty full agenda already with all the questionable ethical practices of the Obama administration

btw, carbon taxes are opposed by a broad cross section of the electorate so it shouldn't take much of a bribe to get a Congressman to oppose them

a bribe might actually be necessary to get them to support such political hari-kari

January 06, 2011 8:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My position is that a sudden position change by a politician after a large influx of campaign money from industries who want that change in position should be investigated.

January 06, 2011 9:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

too frequent an occurence and so is probably a waste of time

better solution is simply to publicize the situation and let the voters decide

in the case, I think they would decide it's irrelevant because the position is the one most of his constituents, whether contributors or not, agree with

I plan to contribute to candidates that oppose getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction

will that be a bribe?

January 06, 2011 10:01 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home