Go Bush Tax Cuts Go!!

[IBC]

Published on Thursday, March 29, 2007 by New York Times
US Income Gap Is Widening Significantly, Data Shows
by David Cay Johnston

Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans - those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 - receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows.The top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than $100,000, also reached a level of income share not seen since before the Depression.

While total reported income in the United States increased almost 9 percent in 2005, the most recent year for which such data is available, average incomes for those in the bottom 90 percent dipped slightly compared with the year before, dropping $172, or 0.6 percent.

The gains went largely to the top 1 percent, whose incomes rose to an average of more than $1.1 million each, an increase of more than $139,000, or about 14 percent.

The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.

Prof. Emmanuel Saez, the University of California, Berkeley, economist who analyzed the Internal Revenue Service data with Prof. Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics, said such growing disparities were significant in terms of social and political stability.

“If the economy is growing but only a few are enjoying the benefits, it goes to our sense of fairness,” Professor Saez said. “It can have important political consequences.”

Last year, according to data from other sources, incomes for average Americans increased for the first time in several years. But because those at the top rely heavily on the stock market and business profits for their income, both of which were strong last year, it is likely that the disparities in 2005 are the same or larger now, Professor Saez said.

He noted that the analysis was based on preliminary data and that the highest-income Americans were more likely than others to file their returns late, so his data might understate the growth in inequality.

The disparities may be even greater for another reason. The Internal Revenue Service estimates that it is able to accurately tax 99 percent of wage income but that it captures only about 70 percent of business and investment income, most of which flows to upper-income individuals, because not everybody accurately reports such figures.

The Bush administration argued that its tax policies, despite cuts that benefited those at the top more than others, had not added to the widening gap but “made the tax code more progressive, not less.” Brookly McLaughlin, the chief Treasury Department spokeswoman, said that this year “the share of income taxes paid by lower-income taxpayers will be lower than it would have been without the tax relief, while the share of income taxes for higher-income taxpayers will be higher.”

Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., she noted, has acknowledged that income disparities have increased, but, along with a “solid consensus” of experts, attributed that shift largely to “the rapid pace of technological change has been a major driver in the decades-long widening of the income gap in the United States.”

Others argued that public policies had played a role in the shift. Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, an advocacy group for the poor, said that the data understates the widening disparity between the top 1 percent and the rest of the country.

He said that in addition to rising incomes and reduced taxes, the equation should take into account cuts in fringe benefits to workers and in government services that middle-class and poor Americans rely on more than the affluent. These include health care, child care and education spending.

“The nation faces some very tough choices in coming years,” he said. “That such a large share of the income gains are going to the very top, at a minimum, raises serious questions about continuing to provide tax cuts averaging over $150,000 a year to people making more than a million dollars a year, while saying we do not have enough money” to provide health insurance to 47 million Americans and cutting education benefits.

A major issue likely to be debated in Congress in the year ahead is whether reversing the Bush tax cuts would slow investment and, if so, how much that would cost the economy.

Mr. Greenstein’s organization will release a report today showing that for Americans in the middle, the share of income taken by federal taxes has been essentially unchanged across four decades. By comparison, it has fallen by half for those at the very top of the income ladder.

Because the incomes of those at the top have grown so much more than those below them, their share of total income tax revenue has risen despite the reduced rates.

The analysis by the two professors showed that the top 10 percent of Americans collected 48.5 percent of all reported income in 2005.

That is an increase of more than 2 percentage points over the previous year and up from roughly 33 percent in the late 1970s. The peak for this group was 49.3 percent in 1928.

The top 1 percent received 21.8 percent of all reported income in 2005, up significantly from 19.8 percent the year before and more than double their share of income in 1980. The peak was in 1928, when the top 1 percent reported 23.9 percent of all income.

The top tenth of a percent and top one-hundredth of a percent recorded even bigger gains in 2005 over the previous year. Their incomes soared by about a fifth in one year, largely because of the rising stock market and increased business profits.

The top tenth of a percent reported an average income of $5.6 million, up $908,000, while the top one-hundredth of a percent had an average income of $25.7 million, up nearly $4.4 million in one year.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

[Jiddy78]

One thing about those from the "right" side that one must take into account:

Opportunity is more important than reality....so quit yer b*tchin'.

There's some foundation to that line of thinking....but I don't buy it completely....that's the kind of talk that a con man will run by you.

[Tom Joad]

One thing about those from the "right" side that one must take into account:

Opportunity is more important than reality....so quit yer b*tchin'.

There's some foundation to that line of thinking....but I don't buy it completely....that's the kind of talk that a con man will run by you.

Does that include thed opportunity to be born into a wealthy family? To be so lucky...

[Jiddy78]

Does that include thed opportunity to be born into a wealthy family? To be so lucky...


Eh...I'd be a spoiled brat rather than my wonderful cheery self if that was the case...I like me the way I am. Marrying into wealth seems like a better "luck" plan. Where's Lifer?

[swordfish]

Here is an idea. Let's split up all the wealth in the United States equally. Every person gets the exact same split as their neighbor. Then after 5 years when the dumbasses have squandered all of it and the smart people are back in control of the money you guys can bitch some more.

[Jiddy78]

Here is an idea. Let's split up all the wealth in the United States equally. Every person gets the exact same split as their neighbor. Then after 5 years when the dumbasses have squandered all of it and the smart people are back in control of the money you guys can bitch some more.

I call your wealth bet...and raise you honesty and fair dealings.

[Roy Munson]

Here is an idea. Let's split up all the wealth in the United States equally. Every person gets the exact same split as their neighbor. Then after 5 years when the dumbasses have squandered all of it and the smart people are back in control of the money you guys can bitch some more.
when do I get my money?

[hannitykillspuppies]

Here is an idea. Let's split up all the wealth in the United States equally. Every person gets the exact same split as their neighbor. Then after 5 years when the dumbasses have squandered all of it and the smart people are back in control of the money you guys can bitch some more.

so in your opinion, dumb people are poor and smart people are rich?

[Jiddy78]

so in your opinion, dumb people are poor and smart people are rich?

You missed the really good part..."We guys" would be whining...Guess who the "dumbass" is logically....

REPORTED.

[hannitykillspuppies]

You missed the really good part..."We guys" would be whining...Guess who the "dumbass" is logically....

REPORTED.

if being one of "yous guys" makes me a dumbass then so be it. i mean that has to honestly be one of the dumbest statements made on this board. if having the brain power to come to a conclusion like that is what makes one control all the money i'd rather be poor and have an ounce of goddamn sense than be rich and be a complete and utter moron.

[Ed Who?]

You missed the really good part..."We guys" would be whining...Guess who the "dumbass" is logically....

REPORTED.

How many poor Democrats are there in the US Congress? I'll bet it's a number somewhere near zero.

He's saying that a great number of people will immediately take their money and hand it over to someone else. Whether it be going on a cruise, buying an expensive house, getting a boob job, certain people have a propensity for shooting their wad.

You're making the mistake of thinking that the Democrats really care that the poor people have not. Just like it's easy to say the Republicans are heartless bastards who only think about the rich. It's all just pandering.

What it comes down to is that they're all politicians. They want votes. Yes, their personal beliefs factor into their allegiances, and thus to be true to yourself you end up adopting a practice that will allow you to obtain the proper votes. So a Republican will guarantee tax cuts, and a Democrat will say how awesome it would be for the rich to give their money to the government and for the poor to get that money. Problem is that the government is a horrible way to administer this type of "wealth redistribution."

Hard work is a bitch, and for most it's the only way we have a chance to make it in this world. Some are lucky, and get handed a fortune. But we shouldn't penalize someone when they worked hard to get where they are simply because someone else doesn't feel motivated to start at a minimum wage job. And I'm sure it's tough to make ends meet on minimum wage, but I'd much rather see a system that benefitted those people rather than one that seemed to benefit them more when they gave up.

[Jiddy78]

How many poor Democrats are there in the US Congress? I'll bet it's a number somewhere near zero.

He's saying that a great number of people will immediately take their money and hand it over to someone else. Whether it be going on a cruise, buying an expensive house, getting a boob job, certain people have a propensity for shooting their wad.

You're making the mistake of thinking that the Democrats really care that the poor people have not. Just like it's easy to say the Republicans are heartless bastards who only think about the rich. It's all just pandering.

What it comes down to is that they're all politicians. They want votes. Yes, their personal beliefs factor into their allegiances, and thus to be true to yourself you end up adopting a practice that will allow you to obtain the proper votes. So a Republican will guarantee tax cuts, and a Democrat will say how awesome it would be for the rich to give their money to the government and for the poor to get that money. Problem is that the government is a horrible way to administer this type of "wealth redistribution."

Hard work is a bitch, and for most it's the only way we have a chance to make it in this world. Some are lucky, and get handed a fortune. But we shouldn't penalize someone when they worked hard to get where they are simply because someone else doesn't feel motivated to start at a minimum wage job. And I'm sure it's tough to make ends meet on minimum wage, but I'd much rather see a system that benefitted those people rather than one that seemed to benefit them more when they gave up.

And the fed is a proper way? Furthermore, facilitating people purchasing items without even paying and then b*tch-slapping them on the back end (ahem, BANKS)???

Notice how neither of these two is a government agency?

Where's Vegas? How many of those fortune 500 folks are banks?

Who controls what? Who spends what how?

Don't politicize my statements until I do. I could care less what those blowhards in DC are doing...It's all smoke and mirrors anyways...and frankly, that's how they want it, so I'll just oblige so long as I "get mine." Maybe one day someone stronger than I will try to make change for the better........but doubtful...so long as we get fancy chindian-made crap, mansions and good eats made out of mutant cows.

[Vegas]

And the fed is a proper way? Furthermore, facilitating people purchasing items without even paying and then b*tch-slapping them on the back end (ahem, BANKS)???

Notice how neither of these two is a government agency?

Where's Vegas? How many of those fortune 500 folks are banks?

Who controls what? Who spends what how?

Don't politicize my statements until I do. I could care less what those blowhards in DC are doing...It's all smoke and mirrors anyways...and frankly, that's how they want it, so I'll just oblige so long as I "get mine." Maybe one day someone stronger than I will try to make change for the better........but doubtful...so long as we get fancy chindian-made crap, mansions and good eats made out of mutant cows.

The proper way to have income redistribution is to allow people to earn it themselves.

[Jiddy78]

The proper way to have income redistribution is to allow people to earn it themselves.

Earn???

Every person that has ever had money come their way qualifies it as "earning"....Even crooks...*shrugs* Earn is a pretty loosely defined term IMO.

[Vegas]

Earn???

Every person that has ever had money come their way qualifies it as "earning"....Even crooks...*shrugs* Earn is a pretty loosely defined term IMO.

So what is your solution?

[pnkpanther]

So what is your solution?

there is no solution

there are rich and poor.

and yes, many poor are exploited in this, throughout time. This country was built on the backs of poor.

with that said, i'm not for redistrubution of wealth or communism, the promise of profit is what motivates many.

I do have my beefs.

I see CEO run companies to the ground and get 30 million buy outs, while workers doing there job get the ax so company can move their company to mexico for cheaper labor. Or import products from china.

YOu keep claiming we're most productive, we dont consume more then we produce and dont produce much. Many of our consumer goods are imported. i just dont see it, rubbermaid moved out, ford has moved out, how many tv's are made in the US (not many) or any electronics?

why would they be? they can make them in china for 1/3 price due to unfair labor standards we cant/shouldnt compete with.

[ryr8828]

With
Without
And in the end, it's what the fighting's all about.

[Vegas]

there is no solution

there are rich and poor.

and yes, many poor are exploited in this, throughout time. This country was built on the backs of poor.

with that said, i'm not for redistrubution of wealth or communism, the promise of profit is what motivates many.

I do have my beefs.

I see CEO run companies to the ground and get 30 million buy outs, while workers doing there job get the ax so company can move their company to mexico for cheaper labor. Or import products from china.

YOu keep claiming we're most productive, we dont consume more then we produce and dont produce much. Many of our consumer goods are imported. i just dont see it, rubbermaid moved out, ford has moved out, how many tv's are made in the US (not many) or any electronics?

why would they be? they can make them in china for 1/3 price due to unfair labor standards we cant/shouldnt compete with.

I started out agreeing with your post. I don't care at all for the golden parachute packages that failed CEOs get, but those deals are negotiated up front when those folks are hired. It's not unlike when an athlete gets up front money and they eventually get cut. The team takes a salary cap hit, but it's a necessary evil to get rid of them.

There are many things that are imported into this country, no doubt. But they tend to be older technology like rubbermaid products and TVs. The newer more innovative items are still largely produced here. Our workers are the most productive in the world. It's a fact.

[Vegas]

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=160

[pnkpanther]

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=160



GDP = consumption + investment + (government spending) + (exports − imports)


doesnt measure what we produce per se

[Vegas]

GDP = consumption + investment + (government spending) + (exports − imports)


doesnt measure what we produce per se

Show me a reputable study that says anyone outperforms us.

[LSU]

Show me a reputable study that says anyone outperforms us.



I think it's time we figure out just exactly what reputable means. Both sides throw it around saying the other side's stuff isn't reputable...regardless of what qualifications make it reputable or not reputable.

Just a thought, now, back to economics.

[pnkpanther]

Show me a reputable study that says anyone outperforms us.

i'll see if there is one, but using GDP for "production" when it includes consumption is irrelevant for production, we're the worlds largest consumer, of course our GDP will be highest.

I just look around, look at my desk, my car, i dont see a lot of "made in america"

[pnkpanther]

hell go to shipping docks, we export raw materials and import finished goods...

[Jiddy78]

Show me a reputable study that says anyone outperforms us.

Nobody does. But they will...That's what happens when a global chindian economy meets a massive group of fat entitled people.

[pnkpanther]

well we dont' produce toys anymore:

MSNBC.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lego to lay off 1,200, end U.S. production
Toymaker, struggling to compete with gadgets, seeks to cut costs
Updated: 3:15 p.m. CT June 20, 2006
NEW YORK - Lego Group, whose iconic plastic building blocks have entertained millions of children for more than 70 years, said Tuesday it will shed 1,200 jobs to remold itself in an era when kids prefer playing with electronic gadgets.

The Denmark-based company, which is one of the last to produce toys in the United States, plans to close its U.S. manufacturing plant and lay off 300 people there in early 2007. About 900 employees in Denmark also will be sacked over the next three years.

Poduction will be moved from Enfield, Conn., to Mexico, where costs are lower, the group said in a statement. The company’s distribution facility in Enfield will also be affected, Lego said, without providing details.

At Lego’s headquarters in Denmark, up to 900 production employees will lose their jobs over the next three years as nearly a third of the domestic production will be moved to the Czech Republic, the company said.

Some Lego products, including the popular Lego Technic and Bionicle, will still be made at Lego’s headquarters in Billund, 160 miles west of Copenhagen, which presently has a staff of 3,000 employees.

The production of the basic Lego bricks will be handled by Flextronics, a Singapore-based electronics manufacturer, which operates factories in Mexico and in eastern Europe. Flextronics also is taking over Lego’s factory in Kladno, in the Czech Republic, beginning Aug. 1.

“This is the last essential element in the restructuring of the group’s supply line,” Lego chief executive officer Joergen Vig Knudstorp said in a statement. “This way we can achieve great financial advantages in a very difficult market."

Chris Byrne, a New York-based independent toy analyst, called Lego’s restructuring “an inevitable shakeout of doing business in a dynamic industry.”

Toy makers like Lego have struggled in recent years. Children are growing out of toys faster and are turning to cellphones and digital music players. Companies like Mattel Inc. and Hasbro Inc. have responded with their own versions of kid-friendly gadgets, but overall industry efforts have not reversed falling sales.

Sales of traditional toys fell 4 percent to $21.3 billion in 2005, down from $22.1 billion in 2004, according to the NPD Group Inc., a market research firm in Port Washington, N.Y.

Lego, which reported its first loss ever in 1998, has been hit hard in a variety of other ways. While sales of construction sets were one of the few hot spots — showing an increase of 16 percent in 2005 — the company in recent years has been hurt by cheaper versions from competitors like Mega Bloks from Montreal-based Mega Brands Inc., which has lower production costs. Lego said the bulk of the toys today are produced in low-cost countries, mainly in Asia.

Byrne also said that Lego had suffered as it started to offer too many types of products, like radio-controlled toys, chasing the latest fads. Under Knudstorp, who took the reins in late 2004, Lego has refocused on compelling construction toys and pared down operations.

One of Lego’s expected hot toys this year is Mindstorms NXT — a robotic kit that enables the user to create an even more powerful robot than the original Mindstorms introduced in 1998. It is due to be released this summer.

Those efforts have helped Lego’s profits. In 2005, the privately owned company reported a net profit of 505 million kroner ($86 million), compared with a net loss of 1.93 billion kroner ($327 million) n 2004.

“They are redefining themselves as a core construction brand,” said Byrne.

In September, Lego said it was considering moving all or parts of its production to Eastern Europe or China, and said the restructuring plans could affect all of its production facilities.

A month later, Lego announced that it was closing a production facility in Switzerland and five European distribution centers, and moved those operations to the Czech Republic. That move affected 540 workers.

In 2005, the company sold off its four Legoland amusement parks in Billund, Denmark; Windsor near London; in Carlsbad, Calif.; and in Munich, Germany to U.S.-based private equity group Blackstone Capital Partners

[pnkpanther]

http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2007-05-02T113011Z_01_NAT002667_RTRIDST_0_USA-ECONOMY-JOBS-CHALLENGER-URGENT.XML

NEW YORK, May 2 (Reuters) - Planned U.S. layoffs jumped 44 percent in April, led by a surge in financial sector job cuts after Citigroup announced it would eliminate 17,000 positions, an independent report showed on Wednesday.

Announced layoffs totaled 70,672 in April, up from 48,997 in March and about 18 percent more than the 59,688 announced in the same month a year earlier, according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas Inc., an employment consulting firm.

The financial sector now leads all others in job cuts for the year with 50,221. The automotive sector ranked second with 27,570 announced job cuts this year, Challenger said.

Financial sector cuts in April included more than 6,000 resulting from a weak housing market and its impact on mortgage lenders, Challenger said.

Reuters Pictures

Editors Choice: Best pictures
from the last 24 hours.
View Slideshow

"Coming on the heels of a lower-than-expected GDP reading in the first quarter, the April job cut surge is likely to further increase concerns about the strength of the economy and the job market," John A. Challenger, chief executive officer of Challenger, Gray & Christmas, said in a statement.

"Granted, job cuts were dominated by one sector -- financial. However, it is a sector that is critical to the economy and any sign of dramatic change there could indicate wider problems," he said.

Citigroup (C.N: Quote, Profile , Research) in April said it would eliminate 17,000 jobs, or about 5 percent of its work force, in a broad restructuring designed to cut costs and boost profit. For details, see [ID:nN11415488]

April marked the first time in seven months that the monthly job cuts were higher than in the corresponding month a year earlier. The April job cut figure is the highest since the 84,014 announced in February, the report said.

Employers have announced 266,658 job cuts year to date, 15 percent fewer than the same period a year ago.

The Challenger report comes as the markets await April non-farm payrolls data on Friday, the next key marker for Federal Reserve interest rate policy.

The median forecast of economists polled by Reuters calls for April job growth of 100,000 after a surprisingly strong 180,000 job gain in March, but estimates vary widely.

[Vegas]

Do we really want our economy to be based on making toys? We want to base our economy on the things that are harder to make. Things that take greater skill and innovation. That's where the bigger profits are. We shouldn't aspire to have our workforce tied up in mundane work. We should be the technological leaders, which we are.

[IBC]

Do we really want our economy to be based on making toys? We want to base our economy on the things that are harder to make. Things that take greater skill and innovation. That's where the bigger profits are. We shouldn't aspire to have our workforce tied up in mundane work. We should be the technological leaders, which we are.

I think stats show we are more of a service based economy now. I don't have time to look it up, but I can if you doubt it later.

For the record, I think that is a bad thing.

[Vegas]

I think stats show we are more of a service based economy now. I don't have time to look it up, but I can if you doubt it later.

For the record, I think that is a bad thing.

I would agree that we have too much of a service economy, although we still produce more than anyone in the world.

And on the service economy thing, I can't believe that there are those who think it's a good thing, especially when it's so hard to find good service most of the time.

[Jiddy78]

Do we really want our economy to be based on making toys? We want to base our economy on the things that are harder to make. Things that take greater skill and innovation. That's where the bigger profits are. We shouldn't aspire to have our workforce tied up in mundane work. We should be the technological leaders, which we are.

The 2005 invention of the year winner is....*drumrolls*....ZERO DOWN NO DOC 120% LTV LOANS!!!

http://blogs.smh.com.au/mashup/images/applause.gif

[Vegas]

The 2005 invention of the year winner is....*drumrolls*....ZERO DOWN NO DOC 120% LTV LOANS!!!

http://blogs.smh.com.au/mashup/images/applause.gif

That's seriously funny, jid.

[hannitykillspuppies]

I think it's time we figure out just exactly what reputable means. Both sides throw it around saying the other side's stuff isn't reputable...regardless of what qualifications make it reputable or not reputable.



i already asked this question.

[LSU]

i already asked this question.


What was the answer?

[hannitykillspuppies]

I think stats show we are more of a service based economy now. I don't have time to look it up, but I can if you doubt it later.

For the record, I think that is a bad thing.

the problem is that we create most of the innovative technology that goes into the newest and best products. instead of making those products, we sell the technology to someone else in another country so they can mass produce the end product.

[hannitykillspuppies]

What was the answer?

there wasn't one.

[LSU]

there wasn't one.


Perhaps that means everything is reputable.



Or not.

[Jiddy78]

the problem is that we create most of the innovative technology that goes into the newest and best products. instead of making those products, we sell the technology to someone else in another country so they can mass produce the end product.

It's not about the actual product...It's about SELLING that product for the best possible price...then allowing chindians to make those items for pennies (soon to be dollars) a day as cheaply and efficiently as possible...thus making that product go backwards from its originally heightened sold place.

Then we spend that product selling dough on hookers and booze until the next great innovation...holding our hands out to the bank if it takes longer than we had hoped.

Wash...Rinse...Repeat.

[hannitykillspuppies]

It's not about the actual product...It's about SELLING that product for the best possible price...then allowing chindians to make those items for pennies (soon to be dollars) a day as cheaply and efficiently as possible...thus making that product go backwards from its originally heightened sold place.

Then we spend that product selling dough on hookers and booze until the next great innovation...holding our hands out to the bank if it takes longer than we had hoped.

Wash...Rinse...Repeat.


are you talking about the end product or the technology product that makes the end product possible?

[Jiddy78]

are you talking about the end product or the technology product that makes the end product possible?


Depends on the money you can get...Whenever you cash in the most money fastest....Then it's somebody else's problem.

[Hotpapa666]

Perhaps that means everything is reputable.



Or not.



Ahhh. Another reminder of why science is the greatest method of answering question ever devised. In a few centuries science science developed a mentod of review that leads to a meaningful way to decide what it reputable: peer review....

[LSU]

Ahhh. Another reminder of why science is the greatest method of answering question ever devised. In a few centuries science science developed a mentod of review that leads to a meaningful way to decide what it reputable: peer review....



Yeah, but it apparently has reached it's nemesis when it comes to climatological data, because that shit just can't be true even though it's peer reviewed.

[Ed Who?]

Perhaps that means everything is reputable.



Or not.

The not is more like it. The problem is that nobody is completely unbiased, no matter what they try to say. That's why fans constantly get on refs, because there is the inherent possibility that they have either a) been paid off by someone, b) been directed by their superiors, or c) kept an inherent bias to rule one way or another in their contest.

The same is true with polls, studies, and news articles. Everyone has a slant. Much of the conservative ire comes from the fact that most in the media business are liberal by nature. But it honestly seems to stem from a college education.

What's the saying, believe nothing you hear and only half of what you see?

[LSU]

The not is more like it. The problem is that nobody is completely unbiased, no matter what they try to say. That's why fans constantly get on refs, because there is the inherent possibility that they have either a) been paid off by someone, b) been directed by their superiors, or c) kept an inherent bias to rule one way or another in their contest.

The same is true with polls, studies, and news articles. Everyone has a slant. Much of the conservative ire comes from the fact that most in the media business are liberal by nature. But it honestly seems to stem from a college education.

What's the saying, believe nothing you hear and only half of what you see?


I agree that nobody is unbiased in their ideas. I will, however, disagree that people can't be unbiased when they report or discuss things. That is, everyone has their own thoughts and ideas, but they can keep those thoughts and ideas from directing their work if they so choose to...and that's the key...them choosing to. I would imagine that's a little harder to do than just doing what you want based on your ideas. And today, it seems that a lot of people avoid doing what's harder, and settle for what's easiest.

[Vegas]

Yeah, but it apparently has reached it's nemesis when it comes to climatological data, because that shit just can't be true even though it's peer reviewed.

So the peer review doesn't mean anything if it doesn't support your side?

[LSU]

So the peer review doesn't mean anything if it doesn't support your side?



I don't know, you tell me.

[Ed Who?]

I don't know, you tell me.

Well, you could ask the IPCC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report), who more or less ignored the skeptics in their most recent report...

[LSU]

Well, you could ask the IPCC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report), who more or less ignored the skeptics in their most recent report...



Ignored? Or deemed it not enough evidence in the face of the evidence for global warming?

[LSU]

Ignored? Or deemed it not enough evidence in the face of the evidence for global warming?


And, on top of that, why did the IPCC "ignore" the data for global warming the previous years it met and concluded there was not enough information to connect greenhouse gas emissions to global warming?

[Vegas]

Well, you could ask the IPCC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report), who more or less ignored the skeptics in their most recent report...

What does the "I" in "IPCC" stand for again???

[LSU]

What does the "I" in "IPCC" stand for again???


Intergovernmental.