View Full Version : The Top 100 Statistics That Every American Voter Should Know
I think this may have ruined my day, but it's definitely worth reading - AND remembering:
http://tinyurl.com/U-S-Statistics
gimmethesimplelife
10-9-11, 12:34pm
I have been reading this blog too and on the one hand, I find it very depressing reading, on the other, I wonder if a collapse is not too far off? Rob
Sometimes I wonder if our system ever really worked - or if we've just been able to game it for the past 70 years or so, and it's finally catching up with us.
Well, the Devil can cite statistics to suit his purposes. I'm not doubting that most, if not all, of those statistics have at least an element of truth, but I'm pretty sure someone else would be able to find 100 statistics to paint a rosier picture. Pretty effective, though.
I'd like to know what the inherent implication of those statistics are--a number is just a number until you assign value to it. Take the very first one: #100 A staggering 48.5% of all Americans live in a household that receives some form of government benefits. Back in 1983, that number was below 30 percent.
So, is that a good thing or a bad thing? What does it mean? More people are on government support, which conveys what? People are trying desperately for work and can't find it, or does it mean they're lazier? Or does it mean that people are getting older so more are on Medicare or SS? So is the blogger saying we should get rid of the older people to lower the statistics or we should eliminate the program?
You string a hundred of these numbers together without providing more information and people are going to rush to their own judgments, and probably none of them will be very accurate.
catherine, you are a beacon of wisdom. Thanks for being here!
Sometimes I wonder if our system ever really worked - or if we've just been able to game it for the past 70 years or so, and it's finally catching up with us.
BINGO! :D
I'd like to know what the inherent implication of those statistics are--a number is just a number until you assign value to it. Take the very first one: #100 A staggering 48.5% of all Americans live in a household that receives some form of government benefits. Back in 1983, that number was below 30 percent.
So, is that a good thing or a bad thing? What does it mean? More people are on government support, which conveys what? People are trying desperately for work and can't find it, or does it mean they're lazier? Or does it mean that people are getting older so more are on Medicare or SS? So is the blogger saying we should get rid of the older people to lower the statistics or we should eliminate the program?
Good journalism is all about citing the facts (who, what, when, where, possibly why, and how) and letting the reader draw their own conclusions. Answering questions such as you have posed in a news article is called "yellow journalism", although I don't think a lot of reporters are aware of that and pepper their "news" reports with their own or their boss's opinion.
You string a hundred of these numbers together without providing more information and people are going to rush to their own judgements, and probably none of them will be very accurate.
GASP!!! Imagine that! People actually thinking for themselves! I'm sure the Fed considers that just horrifying!
Opinions are based on both logic and emotions; therefore an opinion will never be factual. Where I grew up children were educated to make their own judgments based on the facts, a public education bias that seems to have faded away starting in the 1970s.
If your questions are serious and not just chain-yankers, you can look up more of this information on the 'Net and rush to your own judgments.
P.S. You misspelled "judgments". Yank, yank.
Good journalism is all about citing the facts (who, what, when, where, possibly why, and how) and letting the reader draw their own conclusions. Answering questions such as you have posed in a news article is called "yellow journalism", although I don't think a lot of reporters are aware of that and pepper their "news" reports with their own or their boss's opinion.
GASP!!! Imagine that! People actually thinking for themselves! I'm sure the Fed considers that just horrifying!
Are you seriously saying that the act of analyzing that statistic "48.5 % now vs 30 % of citizens 28 years ago receive government handouts" constitutes yellow journalism?
Pulling out a truth that makes sense to me from this kind of number is important. If the newspaper includes some detail, what's wrong with that? I can guarantee you that I would keep in mind that my local liberal rag, the St. Louis Post Dispatch, would have a bias. That doesn't prevent me from taking interest in some of their analysis.
Good journalism is all about citing the facts (who, what, when, where, possibly why, and how) and letting the reader draw their own conclusions.
Jemima, in that blog article, the blogger is leaving out the why and how and even a lot of the what. That's my problem with it. It's nothing but numbers that seed confirmation bias, not reasoned thought.
Are you seriously saying that the act of analyzing that statistic "48.5 % now vs 30 % of citizens 28 years ago receive government handouts" constitutes yellow journalism?
Absolutely not. Presenting an analysis as if it is news is yellow journalism.
Pulling out a truth that makes sense to me from this kind of number is important. If the newspaper includes some detail, what's wrong with that? I can guarantee you that I would keep in mind that my local liberal rag, the St. Louis Post Dispatch, would have a bias. That doesn't prevent me from taking interest in some of their analysis.
I'm all for detail. I've been a CPA for 26 years, and 14 of those years I worked as an auditor in both private industry and government, so if you want someone to drive you over the edge with requests for more detail, I'm your girl. What I said was: the questions Catherine asked (such as "What does it mean?") cannot be legitimately answered in a news article. Meaning is a matter of opinion. This article clearly presented itself as factual matter and that's all it was.
I applaud your interest in local news, analyses thereof, and your appreciation of bias in reporting. Not many people get that.
I would argue that a blog who's byline is "Are You Prepared For The Coming Economic Collapse And The Next Great Depression?" is not engaging in straight news, or even unbiased journalism for that matter.
I love opinion journalism as much as the next person, but let's not forget what it is.
#3 The Federal Reserve made $16.1 trillion in loans to their friends during the last financial crisis.
The wording in #3 turns me off on the whole article. Where is the proof that loans were made to friends. The wording is very inflammatory as is the wording in most of the blog.
I am sceptical of information provided by someone also promoting survival food and gold right out of the gate. No doubt some of the information "might" be good, but I saw so many of the items that were deceptive I have to doubt them all. Take for example, #4. "Our dollar is being systematically destroyed by the Federal Reserve. An item that cost $20.00 in 1970 will cost you $116.78 (http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/) today. An item that cost $20.00 in 1913 will cost you $457.67 (http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/) today." Inflation is an element of many global economies during this period, and they don't have a Federal Reserve. One could counter that the Fed actually reduced or controlled inflation. I saw similar or questionable holes in maybe a third of 100.
P.S. You misspelled "judgments". Yank, yank.
Yeah, I saw that--it was bugging me, too. I'll fix it now!
loosechickens
10-9-11, 3:48pm
Jemima. The problem, TO ME, is that first, the piece in question is NOT really a news article, but an opinion piece in and of itself. If we're going to talk about "yellow journalism", then the first order of business is to learn to separate an objective news piece from an opinion piece. Somehow, you seem to be under the impression that this person listing these 100 statistics is writing a news article. Just not so.
Not that some of the statistics quoted may not be accurate, but without context, and without analysis, most any argument can be buttressed with appropriate statistics. And with the leading paragraphs of this piece, it is painfully obvious that not only is the piece not objective in any sense, but that the statistics have been chosen to support a certain point of view. Therefore, really pretty useless for any depth of understanding.
The premise with which the piece is started by the author is (to paraphrase), "We are going to hell in a handbasket", and the statistics are picked to illustrate that premise. If one were to write a piece with the premise (again paraphrasing), "Although we have problems in this country, we have improved many things over time", then one could pick 100 statistics to illustrate that premise.
I may well agree with many of these items....others not so much.....and some where I can see that the statistics are very misleading. But to consider this list as somehow an objective view, and not an illustration of one person, the author of the piece, and his or her view of the situation is just not accurate.
And, not to nitpick, but "judgement" is not a misspelling. While the word is more commonly spelled "judgment" here in the U.S., although often seen in Britain as "judgement", "judgement" is also considered an acceptable spelling:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/judgements
Perhaps the bias that's showing is mine. I believe that our "government by the people" is actually a corrupt oligarchy that will bleed us peasants dry if they can get away with it. I believe that they lie and lie and lie some more. I believe that our constitutional rights are being eroded to a point that's frightening. I believe that fiat currency with or without a Federal Reserve is a means of controlling and manipulating citizens. I *don't* believe that Obama is solely responsible for this or the current economic crisis. No single human being could possibly engineer the breakdown we are currently experiencing.
Thanks for pointing out the error of my ways. I'm starting a blog myself, and will remember to be careful about referencing and/or footnoting any statistics I post.
catherine, your description of the # of americans on government aid and "what it means" is a fabulous way of looking at things.
here in NZ, we have socialized health care. To an extent, you can say that EVERYONE gets government benefit in NZ. Thus, 100% of the population (and everyone on various levels of work visas) is on government aid.
you are right that it can be used in any number of ways.
Perhaps the bias that's showing is mine. I believe that our "government by the people" is actually a corrupt oligarchy that will bleed us peasants dry if they can get away with it. I believe that they lie and lie and lie some more. I believe that our constitutional rights are being eroded to a point that's frightening. I believe that fiat currency with or without a Federal Reserve is a means of controlling and manipulating citizens. I *don't* believe that Obama is solely responsible for this or the current economic crisis. No single human being could possibly engineer the breakdown we are currently experiencing.
Thanks for pointing out the error of my ways. I'm starting a blog myself, and will remember to be careful about referencing and/or footnoting any statistics I post.
I agree with the oligarchy piece - and our current situation is largely due to the powerful few voting themselves "bread and circuses". The peasants have been restricted to choosing which ones vote for those bread and circuses.
It's a pretty well known fact that 84% of statistics are made up on the spot. ;)
#3 The Federal Reserve made $16.1 trillion in loans to their friends during the last financial crisis.
The wording in #3 turns me off on the whole article. Where is the proof that loans were made to friends. The wording is very inflammatory as is the wording in most of the blog.
Here's the proof, which was easy to find on the 'Net: http://tinyurl.com/GAO-Audit-16-1-Trillion This isn't the actual source document, but you can get there from this url.
Also, this earlier article, published by CNN: http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/01/news/economy/fed_reserve_data_release/index.htm. This article was published before the GAO audit was completed.
"#98 Since Barack Obama was sworn in, the share of the national debt per household has increased by $35,835 (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-has-now-increased-debt-more-all-presidents-george-washington-through-george-hw)."
Couldn't it just as easily been stated instead:
#98 Since the Republican Controlled Congress was sworn in, the share of the national debt per household has increased by $XX,XXX (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-has-now-increased-debt-more-all-presidents-george-washington-through-george-hw).
Jemina read the GAO report on the FRB. A link is given in http://tinyurl.com/GAO-Audit-16-1-Trillion. It says nothing about loans to friends. It says FRB had protection in place to prevent abuse on loans to banks. It also required security on loans being made to prevent loses. The GAO report does say the Fed could strength it's over site. The Fed has not lost any money on these loans and does not project any loses.
The way the blog summarizes the GAO report is pure yellow journalism. There is nothing in the GAO report to support the blogs claim and the use of the word Friends.
"#98 Since Barack Obama was sworn in, the share of the national debt per household has increased by $35,835 (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-has-now-increased-debt-more-all-presidents-george-washington-through-george-hw)."
Couldn't it just as easily been stated instead:
#98 Since the Republican Controlled Congress was sworn in, the share of the national debt per household has increased by $XX,XXX (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-has-now-increased-debt-more-all-presidents-george-washington-through-george-hw).
Yup, you could say it that way. I'm neither an Obama-basher nor a Republican so it doesn't matter to me which way it's presented.
Yea, there are disturbing "statistics" in the blog. It would be difficult to argue against the facts that our middle class has shrunk and wage earners are in a less advantageous position than they were 20 or 30 years ago, but what bothers me more than obviously inflammatory lines are examples like #91...
#91 In 1980, government transfer payments accounted for just 11.7% of all income. Today, government transfer payments account for 18.4% of all income.
What is "all income"? To me the true answer to that would be the GDP. TOTAL (federal) government spending added up to 19.3% of GDP in 2010. What exactly is a transfer payment? Sure, food stamps and unemployment are, but what about social security? There are a lot more retirees in 2011 than there were in 1980. Etc.
Its just another in an endless line of pieces spinning real numbers to fit the author's ideology. Barring a catastrophic natural disaster (think super-volcano, not just a hurricane) the US economy is not going to collapse at this point in history. The US will never default on its debt. Its handy to have the press that prints the money you need to pay bills. We are borrowing too much, but it pays to remember we are borrowing very cheap money. Interest rates are at historic lows and we are borrowing 2011 dollars at those rates and we get to pay the loans back with 2021 or even 2041 dollars. Overall I'd much rather spend more time working on solutions to current issues than reading more gloom and doom.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.