The Hazards of Watching Fox News

[Ugg]

Link (http://alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16892)

The more commercial television news you watch, the more wrong you are likely to be about key elements of the Iraq War and its aftermath, according to a major new study released in Washington this week.

And the more you watch the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News channel, in particular, the more likely it is that your perceptions about the war are wrong, adds the report by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA).

Based on several nationwide surveys it conducted with California-based Knowledge Networks since June, as well as the results of other polls, PIPA found that 48 percent of the public believe US troops found evidence of close pre-war links between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist group; 22 percent thought troops found weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq; and 25 percent believed that world public opinion favored Washington's going to war with Iraq. All three are misperceptions.

The report, "Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War," also found that the more misperceptions held by the respondent, the more likely it was that s/he both supported the war and depended on commercial television for news about it.



So much for a liberal left-leaning media in the US.

For each of the three misperceptions, the study found enormous differences between the viewers of Fox, who held the most misperceptions, and NPR/PBS, who held the fewest by far. Eighty percent of Fox viewers were found to hold at least one misperception, compared to 23 percent of NPR/PBS consumers. All the other media fell in between.

[zimv20]

so the "moderate" fox news is feeding propaganda, while the "liberal" NPR is simply reporting the truth.

good find, sir.

[mactastic]

It's really funny to watch how the network personalities bash on the competitors networks. It even unites liberal and conservative! I was watching Crossfire, and both Carlson and Begala were raking Scarborough over the coals for some unflattering story he ran about a guy his law firm was suing. I've seen it happen with the Geraldo scandal, the Roger Ayers - White House non-story, and a few other embarrasments for one network or another. It's particularly obvious in the extreme-liberal vs extreme-conservative shows like crossfire, hannity and colmes, press and buchanan etc where the hosts that would normally be at each others throat unite to destroy the competition. Very amusing to see IMHO.

[Waluigi]

Originally posted by mactastic
I It's particularly obvious in the extreme-liberal vs extreme-conservative shows like ..... hannity and colmes..... Very amusing to see IMHO.

HANNITY and colmes, a case of an extreme conservative, and very moderate 'democrat'...

But still, the shows like crossfire are amusing if you watch them once in a while, but if you watch them too much, you'll get a head ache, and become really angry.

--Waluigi

[vwcruisn]

Originally posted by zimv20
so the "moderate" fox news is feeding propaganda, while the "liberal" NPR is simply reporting the truth.

good find, sir.

good find indeed

[Desertrat]

Whether Fox or NPR, anybody who depends mostly on one source for news is gonna have problems with understanding what's going on. Too much slanting, too much spin.

What I've found is that in general any news source is reasonably reliable in reporting that some event(s) happened. The problem lies in the given interpretations of the meanings of events.

For instance, Fox reported that some Army/Marine guys had found evidence of nuclear stuff. Okay, fine; I imagine the GIs did indeed believe what they said. Fox reported what they said, and then added their own editorial commentary. Bad on Fox.

Anyhow, I'll watch most any old news broadcast; check out a newspaper article or two, and browse around on the Net. After the usual delays in getting details, I generally figure I've got a handle on what did occur or not occur.

But I'm uninterested, generally, in some talking head's conclusions as to the meaning of the events. Not always, of course, but often enough...

And to me, it matters not if it was any of the alphabet newsies or Fox...

'Rat

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Whether Fox or NPR, anybody who depends mostly on one source for news is gonna have problems with understanding what's going on. Too much slanting, too much spin.

The problem with that notion is that the study showed that those getting info from public broadcasting knew the facts while those watching the commercial network news did not. So regardless of whether or not you get your facts from one source or many, it would be better to avoid the commercial news networks altogether.

But I'm uninterested, generally, in some talking head's conclusions as to the meaning of the events. Not always, of course, but often enough...

I couldn't agree more. I wish the talking head shows would go away. Forever.

You'd figure a 24-hour cable news network could be doing feature stories and breaking news from all over the world. It's a big world with plenty of interesting things going on everyday.
Plus, there's three of them!

But I guarantee if I turn each one on right now, all I'll see is the inside of a news studio with someone (or several people, point and counterpoint) running their mouth(s) about Arnold or a white tiger.

They're not news reporters, but they're cheaper than paying real money for real journalists to dig up real stories all over the real world. It's easier and cheaper to stick a few artificial talking heads inside a studio and talk about something someone else did or wrote about.

[mactastic]

I like a little analysis from people who aren't yelling at each other, but there is way to much of it. The big 3 cable networks are too profit-conscious to do anything more than they absolutely have to.

The Christian Science Monitor is one of the few truly business-independant news organizations around.

[Desertrat]

For way too many reporters, the end of objective reporting was the Watergate era. They all wanted to emulate Woodward and Bernstein. "Investigative reporters, that's what we wanna be when we grow up!" Way too many can't investigate, and the old 5-W stuff went down the toilet.

Look at the emotive language that's used. Objectivity, my left hind foot!

And I could go into a squalling fit rant about the lack of knowledge of anything technical/mechanical/scientific. :D

'Rat

[Ugg]

Link (http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,1058680,00.html)

Well, according to this Gallup poll, almost half of Americans believe US TV news is too liberal.

Nearly half of Americans think its news media is too liberal despite the rise of controversial hard-right cable channel Fox News.

TV news channels in the US came under fire during the war on Iraq - including criticism from some of their own reporters - for their unquestioning support of the White House during the conflict.

But this criticism is not shared by viewers at home, some 45% of whom believe their country's news outlets are too liberal.

Only 14% of Americans believe the media to be too conservative, according to a poll by Gallup carried out around the second anniversary of the September 11 attacks.

Who are these people and why do they believe this?

[Desertrat]

All in all, I think I refer the word "Statist" to "Liberal". That is, a Statist is one who is pretty strong in believing the government should and can solve social problems. And/or a strong believer in government regulation, beyond what mostly-conservative types believe.

In reading newspapers or watching TV news, the way things are phrased is an indicator. To oversimplify, there is a regular tone of approval at new government regulations. Another clue--IMO--is the concept that a tax or fee foregone "costs" government money, and this I have noted in many articles.

And, polls tell us that some 86% of major newsfolks are registered Democrats.

I see it as a sort of human-nature thing. People who are inherently more conservative by nature tend toward the hard sciences in college. Those who are more liberal or statist by nature tend toward the Liberal Arts, which includes Journalism School. This is a "most" but definitely not "all" view...

My observations through the years have me believing that in general, people in the areas of fine arts, philosophy and political science tend toward comfort with a statist view--so long as their First Amendment rights are paramount.

And I imply no moral "good" or "bad" in all this viewpoint of mine.

While not a regular reader of cross-country newspapers, I've read a heckuva lot during my travels. I note that most editorials take what is usually called the liberal position on issues. The Orange County Register and the Las Vegas Review-Journal are rather uncommon for their editorial opinions.

'Rat

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Desertrat
All in all, I think I refer the word "Statist" to "Liberal". That is, a Statist is one who is pretty strong in believing the government should and can solve social problems. And/or a strong believer in government regulation, beyond what mostly-conservative types believe.


there are different kinds of regulation. i know a lot of conservatives who want the gov't to regulate how people behave.


And, polls tell us that some 86% of major newsfolks are registered Democrats.


where can i see this poll?

People who are inherently more conservative by nature tend toward the hard sciences in college. Those who are more liberal or statist by nature tend toward the Liberal Arts, which includes Journalism School.


proof?

my degree is in computer science, fyi.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Desertrat
And, polls tell us that some 86% of major newsfolks are registered Democrats.

And virtually 100% of them work for the huge multinational corporations who own increasingly lopsided shares of the world's media. "Liberal media" is a canard. Time to drive a stake through it's sorry heart. The only term that makes any sense anymore is "corporate media."

[mactastic]

Heck, my degree's in architecture, which has a healthy dose of both hard science and fine arts. I guess I should wind up a moderate then huh?:p

And besides hard sciences, let's don't forget that the majority of our business leaders tend toward the republicans, yet I don't hear too much from conservatives complaining how unfair that is!

[wwworry]

All of AM radio is hard core conservative.
56% of major newspapers endorsed bush.
Fox news is domonstratable conservative.
Other tv networks are centrist.
Most reporters are conservative on economic issues and liberal on social issues.

I do not see how that adds up to a liberal media.

Also the network with the most overseas corespondents is NPR. They spend and hour on the news with no commercials. They bring on knowledgable people from different sides of an issue and let them discuss it. It is how news should be but some people want rah rah politics as sport... and they watch fox.

This study shows if you want the facts you are going to have to watch "the liberal media". So, the truth is now "liberal"?

[charboneau]

This link (http://truthout.org/docs_03/100403F.shtml) has a handy chart (scroll down about halfway) that makes it easy to see just how misinformed Fox viewers are versus NPR/PBS, with the other corporate networks also doing pretty badly.

We report. You decide. Incorrectly.

[Desertrat]

As far as a computer science person here, or an architect, please remember I said "most"; I specifically said NOT "all". I'd say that it would be a majority, but not an abnormal "90%" thing.

The 86% deal came from somebody who'd gone to the trouble to check voter registrations, and do interviews. There was a newspaper article about it which I believe I read in the Atlanta Constitution. If not there, then the Tallahassee Democrat. I believe this was not long after the 1996 elections. Could have been one of the weeklies; Time, etc.

It was just one of those little "bits" that sorta supported my notions about the type of folks who tend toward certain areas of education.

And, my notions of what's "liberal" is probably different from most here. It's an age thing. To me, what a lot of folks see as centrist is really more left than they realize. My comparing left/right began decades ago.

Today's "center" is very far left of the center of 1960, e.g. The main planks of "less taxes, get government off the back of business" were common to Kennedy's platform of 1960 and Reagan's platform of 1980. Yet, Reagan was thought to be so horribly conservative.

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

He said, ignoring all of the other points that have been made...

[charboneau]

This 86% figure is urban legend. Produce some proof. It is highly doubtful that 86% of media people are registered to any party.

A majority of Washington media people did vote for Clinton in one self-reported study. Um, Dole was a dud who ran a crappy campaign.

I don't want to pick on you, but your assertions seem to be opposite of reality. Political debate in this country has skewed far to the right since the 60s. You know, back when (I'm not sure of the exact figures, but you like to throw unsubstantiated numbers around) CEOs made 400% more money than the corporation's lowest paid employee, as opposed to today's 10,000%. The Nixon administration was a boon to social programs and Walter Cronkite opposed the Vietnam war on the evening news. Today, Ann Coulter is on The Today Show.

There is now a major news network (Fox) that is so ideologically biased that it leads its viewers away from the truth. Look at the study, it's hard to argue that fact.

[mactastic]

Hey 'Rat, you got any figures on what percentage of CEOs/heads of companies are registered or vote republican? My guess is that it is pretty heavily skewed toward them. But I never hear any complaining about how "conservative" the business community is, and how it is warping our poor young minds by exposing them to nothing but conservative philosophy. I'd be curious to know, if you can actually find any numbers.

On a nifty side note, I was walking around campus yesterday and happened to catch a glimpse of a flyer on the campus republican board advertising a talk on "Why the left hates America". Didn't see who was giving it (I was in a hurry) but I'll go back and see more info today. Yeah all colleges are liberal bastions.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by mactastic
On a nifty side note, I was walking around campus yesterday and happened to catch a glimpse of a flyer on the campus republican board advertising a talk on "Why the left hates America". Didn't see who was giving it (I was in a hurry) but I'll go back and see more info today. Yeah all colleges are liberal bastions.

Interesting. I may be dating myself again, but I remember when people on the left wrapped themselves in social justice issues and figured that they owned the debate over right and wrong. Now people on the right wrap themselves in the flag and claim to own love of country. I know pendulums are going to swing, but do they need to swing that far?

[Desertrat]

Yeah, IJ, I've used the pendulum analogy on more than just one issue. Seems to me in this country we can't get that sucker to hang around the middle. Way too much amplitude to the swings. :)

mac, I'd imagine a great majority of CEO types are conservative. But wouldn't that sorta come with the middle-aged territory for folks in that line of work? It's real easy to get into a "dance with who brung ya" mindset, so a successful businessman is not really wired up for change. Ergo, conservative to some degree or another. In general, the political party which caters to business is the Repubs. Isn't it proper for folks to vote for candidates who best represent their own interests?

Look: I'm not interested in "proving" anything about the political bias of any part of the media. I believe from observation that most editors are generally liberal. Most talk radio hosts I've ever heard are conservative. Most TV and newspaper reporters' commentaries or phrasings strike me as more statist than otherwise. Since I see statism as pretty much being a liberal position, well, there I am with my general opinion that there are more liberal-view reportings than otherwise.

This comes from input over a lengthy period of time, as opposed to a "snapshot" view of broad-spectrum media support of Bush's policies in the post-9/11 period. I don't assess the media by short-term reportings/editorializing...Bandwagons come and go.

As far as corporate ownership of media outlets, all the Big Guys give a tinker's dam about is the bottom line. Absent wild-eyed points of editorial view, few are concerned about political bias, other than maybe Murdoch. (I guess he's as good an example as there is, but he strikes me as anomalous.)

'Rat

[Taft]

Originally posted by Desertrat

As far as corporate ownership of media outlets, all the Big Guys give a tinker's dam about is the bottom line. Absent wild-eyed points of editorial view, few are concerned about political bias, other than maybe Murdoch. (I guess he's as good an example as there is, but he strikes me as anomalous.)

But this is exactly why many of us feel that corporate influence is, if anything, creating a more conservative media.

If all the media corporations care about is the bottom line, then they will try to influence their reporters/editors to report things which will help their bottom line, no? And as you admit, most CEO's/corporate types tend to be conservative and think that conservatism (which I'm equating to little government control over business) is good for business.

Assuming all of those things are true, wouldn't that mean that corporate influence is creating a more conservative media?

Taft

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Desertrat
As far as corporate ownership of media outlets, all the Big Guys give a tinker's dam about is the bottom line. Absent wild-eyed points of editorial view, few are concerned about political bias, other than maybe Murdoch. (I guess he's as good an example as there is, but he strikes me as anomalous.)

This is a bigger issue then I think you will allow. I happen to write for a largish local newspaper (freelance), so I have some experience here. The editorial policy for local issues comes from the paper's in-house editorial committee, but where national issues are concerned, such as presidential elections, the editorials are written in the paper's corporate offices 2,000 miles away. Corporate is reliably conservative, and I would say much more so then the paper's audience here in California. Corporate media consolidation causes news outlets to be less responsive to local concerns, and I have yet to find a large multinational corporation that I could call "liberally minded."

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Desertrat
mac, I'd imagine a great majority of CEO types are conservative. But wouldn't that sorta come with the middle-aged territory for folks in that line of work? It's real easy to get into a "dance with who brung ya" mindset, so a successful businessman is not really wired up for change. Ergo, conservative to some degree or another. In general, the political party which caters to business is the Repubs. Isn't it proper for folks to vote for candidates who best represent their own interests?


Then why complain about the "liberal media" and the "liberal education system" if they are simply a reflection of the culture at the top levels? And if, as you say, it's not a bad thing in the business world, why would it be any different in academia? Why do so many conservatives like to tee off on the press and the schools? Is it possibly politically motivated?

[Phil Of Mac]

Fox News is neocon (not even true conservatives).

CBS and Dan Rather are quite liberal.

ABC and NBC are left-leaning.

New York Times is liberal, Wall Street Journal is conservative.

NPR is probably liberal.

CNN was liberal, but is trying to shift to the right.

Yes, there is a liberal media. Yes, there is a conservative media. No, there's no contradiction here. Various media outlets have different perspectives.

Oh my god! What a concept! It's too much for my simple one-dimensional mind to comprehend! :rolleyes:

[IJ Reilly]

It's not really a liberal or conservative thing. When a group's self-assurance about the correctness of their views turns into arrogance, the silencing of all sources of contrary information is just a short logical step away.

[Code101]

That so called study is a Lie! Fox News reports are positive and they support America. NPR likes to spread how much it hates America. This is why there is more and more of a push so stop funding our public schools and do private schools.

[mactastic]

I challenge you to find any NPR host who explicitly stated that they hate America. Find it or stop saying such ridiculous things.

[Daveman Deluxe]

Originally posted by Code101
That so called study is a Lie! Fox News reports are positive and they support America. NPR likes to spread how much it hates America. This is why there is more and more of a push so stop funding our public schools and do private schools.

I suspect that the desire to bring up problems in the United States and to seek solutions for them demonstrates that the person in question wants to make the United States a better place--thereby suggesting a love of the U.S. rather than a hatred for it.

Edit: I would also like to add that news reports that generally only report what's popular to its demographic (which I believe is generally true of most news networks) displays apathy about the true state of the U.S. rather than a desire to make our country better.

[Desertrat]

IJ, the Atlanta paper is owned by Cox; Cox is a pretty big corporate owner in the news bidness. While not a daily reader, I've read it quite often since 1989. The editorials, regardless of issue, are mostly on the liberal side of the fence. Tom Teepen, Cynthia Tucker...No ditto-heads, they. The paper rarely runs syndicated columns written by conservatives such as George Will. There is the occasional Thomas Sowell column, for which I am properly grateful. :)

Re mac's "Then why complain about the "liberal media" and the "liberal education system" if they are simply a reflection of the culture at the top levels?"

I don't believe I have complained. I've pointed out how I see things, in general, and why I believe it's that way. If you'll recall in an earlier post, I said I assign no moral right or wrong to these political viewpoints.

'Rat

[zimv20]

Originally posted by mactastic
I challenge you to find any NPR host who explicitly stated that they hate America. Find it or stop saying such ridiculous things.


Troll code101_the_troll = new Troll("Code101");
code101_the_troll.stopFeeding();

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Code101
That so called study is a Lie! Fox News reports are positive and they support America.

Go team!

:rolleyes: trolls...

[Daveman Deluxe]

Originally posted by Code101
That so called study is a Lie! Fox News reports are positive and they support America. NPR likes to spread how much it hates America. This is why there is more and more of a push so stop funding our public schools and do private schools.

Code: do you HONESTLY think that things are going fine in the United States?

Consider:
-There are over forty million people without health insurance.
-Nearly fifteen million people are below or very near the poverty line despite living in households headed by full-time wage earners.
-Long after the recession was declared over, the unemployment rate still hasn't gone down.
-We let Afghanistan fall by the wayside before the job was even finished.
-The U.S. military invated Iraq due to allegations of ownership of weapons of mass destruction. Said WMDs have yet to be found and the future discovery is becoming more and more uncertain.
-The Bush family has well documented liasons with the Bin Laden family.

Now, the light at the end of the tunnel is that there is hope for change, thanks to the electoral process. The good thing about living in America is that there is always hope for change. That is why I bring issues to light: not out of a hatred for the United States (if I hated the U.S. I'd move) but because I want to help make the U.S. better.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Daveman Deluxe
Code: do you HONESTLY think that things are going fine in the United States?

Consider:
-There are over forty million people without health insurance.

I think what's more of a problem is the fact that health insurance apparently has to pay for everything now, so it's increased the cost of medical care.

Originally posted by Daveman Deluxe
-Nearly fifteen million people are below or very near the poverty line despite living in households headed by full-time wage earners.

The "poverty line" is a complicated thing that shouldn't be accepted on faith. It's increasingly used as justification for more welfare programs, so it skews things to the point where it seems like more people are in poverty.

Originally posted by Daveman Deluxe
-Long after the recession was declared over, the unemployment rate still hasn't gone down.

They are two marginally related things. Unemployment is excess supply of labor (more supply than demand), recession is a net loss in the gross national product. They aren't necessarily related.

Originally posted by Daveman Deluxe
-We let Afghanistan fall by the wayside before the job was even finished.
-The U.S. military invated Iraq due to allegations of ownership of weapons of mass destruction. Said WMDs have yet to be found and the future discovery is becoming more and more uncertain.
-The Bush family has well documented liasons with the Bin Laden family.

Now, the light at the end of the tunnel is that there is hope for change, thanks to the electoral process. The good thing about living in America is that there is always hope for change. That is why I bring issues to light: not out of a hatred for the United States (if I hated the U.S. I'd move) but because I want to help make the U.S. better.

I'll agree to all that.

[Daveman Deluxe]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
I think what's more of a problem is the fact that health insurance apparently has to pay for everything now, so it's increased the cost of medical care.

I'm with you on this one. A twenty-minute doctor appointment, if paid for by someone without health insurance, cost roughly $72 in 1998, and the doctor would get $35. If paid for with health insurance, the cost was $129 and the doctor would get $12.

The problem is that health insurance is expected to cover EVERYTHING. Consider auto insurance. Does your auto insurance cover oil changes and tune ups? Of course not. It only covers repairs made when something catastrophic happens. Health insurance ought to work the same way.

Still, everybody should be insured, but not everybody is. That is, in my opinion, the immediate problem. Once people are covered, we can consider the issue of what health insurance should cover. Others may disagree with me and I am at ease with that because both are serious issues and I will consider it a major victory if either problem is addressed.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Desertrat
IJ, the Atlanta paper is owned by Cox; Cox is a pretty big corporate owner in the news bidness. While not a daily reader, I've read it quite often since 1989. The editorials, regardless of issue, are mostly on the liberal side of the fence. Tom Teepen, Cynthia Tucker...No ditto-heads, they. The paper rarely runs syndicated columns written by conservatives such as George Will. There is the occasional Thomas Sowell column, for which I am properly grateful. :)

Re mac's "Then why complain about the "liberal media" and the "liberal education system" if they are simply a reflection of the culture at the top levels?"

I don't believe I have complained. I've pointed out how I see things, in general, and why I believe it's that way. If you'll recall in an earlier post, I said I assign no moral right or wrong to these political viewpoints.

'Rat

Lol, 'Rat first you complain how the Cox corporation doesn't run enough conservative columns, then you say you don't complain about the media! You know where to go to get a conservative slant on things.

I get Thomas Sowell once a week in my Sunday paper. Thankfully he is balanced by a reality check from the ever gregarious Molly Ivins, who I'm sure you are quite familiar with.;)

There is no moral right or wrong, just a lack of conservative columnists in your local paper huh. Maybe a subscription to The Weekly Standard would be right up your alley for Xmas...
:)

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Daveman Deluxe
I'm with you on this one. A twenty-minute doctor appointment, if paid for by someone without health insurance, cost roughly $72 in 1998, and the doctor would get $35. If paid for with health insurance, the cost was $129 and the doctor would get $12.

The problem is that health insurance is expected to cover EVERYTHING. Consider auto insurance. Does your auto insurance cover oil changes and tune ups? Of course not. It only covers repairs made when something catastrophic happens. Health insurance ought to work the same way.

Still, everybody should be insured, but not everybody is. That is, in my opinion, the immediate problem. Once people are covered, we can consider the issue of what health insurance should cover. Others may disagree with me and I am at ease with that because both are serious issues and I will consider it a major victory if either problem is addressed.

The problem is, without bankrupting the country, you can't give everyone full medical coverage.

Why? It's kind of like full employment. If there was full employment and we wanted to keep it there, I couldn't have the freedom to quit my job, because then there wouldn't be full employment, right? Likewise, if I want to save money and not have medical coverage and run the risks thereof, I don't get away with that. I have to pay the tax and I have to get the coverage.

And, as long as we're on journalism, I think Maureen Dowd and Ann Coulter should both be fired. That's fair and balanced: One idiot on the left, one idiot on the right.

[Daveman Deluxe]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
The problem is, without bankrupting the country, you can't give everyone full medical coverage.

I'm working on a book by Matthew Miller entitled "The 2% Solution." It discusses the idea that for an additional two cents federal tax on our dollar, everybody can have medical insurance, everybody who works full time can provide for his family, teachers' pay will be good enough to attract the top college graduates, and another issue that escapes me at the moment. I'm still early in the book but have yet to decide whether I agree with him. I'll report on it once I've decided.

Back to the topic, I'm still waiting for Code 101's response to the issues I brought up.

[Phil Of Mac]

Really.

I would like to invite you to consider that nearly every other government program ever proposed had similar promise. Nonetheless, each and every one of them now costs orders of magnitude more than anticipated.

[IJ Reilly]

Interesting contention, since the US is the only western nation that doesn't provide medical coverage for all of its citizens. I guess the rest of the world's nations are bankrupt, they just don't know it yet.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Interesting contention, since the US is the only western nation that doesn't provide medical coverage for all of its citizens. I guess the rest of the world's nations are bankrupt, they just don't know it yet.

Damn socialists.:p

[Phil Of Mac]

Compared to the US in per-capita GDP, they are.

[Daveman Deluxe]

Phil-

All of the EU member nations (except Greece) had a Gross National Income, Purchasing Power Parity of at least 70% that of the United States in 1999. Hardly bankrupt compared to the U.S.

Given the health care situation, as well as the fact that most workers get at least four weeks of vacation a year (not including sick days) in most of those nations, I suspect that they're a lot better off than we are. GNI isn't the only measure of a country's success.

[vwcruisn]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Compared to the US in per-capita GDP, they are.

why is everything always about money... since when did lending a hand to someone... hmm COMPASSION.. fall to the wayside.. all we do is take here in america, and nobody wants to give... i swear... some people would sell their own mother for...

[wwworry]

Originally posted by Desertrat
... that most editors are generally liberal.

56% of newspapers endorsed Bush for president. Also they let stand a lot of the lies about Gore that were said during the campaign.

[wwworry]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Compared to the US in per-capita GDP, they are.

Think before you write.
Almost every other industrialized nation has universal health insurance and are not bankrupt.
Consider Richard Grasso when you talk about "per-capita GDP". I don't think he was handing out medical insurance coupons.

and

The "poverty line" is a complicated thing that shouldn't be accepted on faith. It's increasingly used as justification for more welfare programs, so it skews things to the point where it seems like more people are in poverty.

You make it sound as if the statisticians are the ones writing legislation. Did you base your comment on something you saw on Fox news?

[Desertrat]

Why, thanks, mac. I now know that merely pointing out what one believes to be a fact can be defined as a complaint.

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Compared to the US in per-capita GDP, they are.

Obviously you are misusing your own terminology, but never mind that for the moment. Here's another factoid for you to chew on. Do you know why the US automobile companies assemble so many of their cars in Canada? It's because Canadian labor is significantly less expensive due to the difference in health care costs in the US and Canada. The differential figure I heard recently is $3.00/hour.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by wwworry
You make it sound as if the statisticians are the ones writing legislation. Did you base your comment on something you saw on Fox news?

No, the "poverty line" definition is invented by federal bureaucrats working for federal welfare offices.

Last I read, the "poverty line" was based on income. So, if I'm a multimillionaire and I take a couple years off of work to write a book, I'm not receiving any income, so I'm under the poverty line. It doesn't matter that I drive my Mercedes to the grocery store every week and then drive back to my Beverly Hills mansion.

My point is, we're simply accepting this definition of the "poverty line" without questioning it, when in fact it's highly questionable. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

[wwworry]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
No, the "poverty line" definition is invented by federal bureaucrats working for federal welfare offices.

Last I read, the "poverty line" was based on income. So, if I'm a multimillionaire and I take a couple years off of work to write a book, I'm not receiving any income, so I'm under the poverty line. It doesn't matter that I drive my Mercedes to the grocery store every week and then drive back to my Beverly Hills mansion.

My point is, we're simply accepting this definition of the "poverty line" without questioning it, when in fact it's highly questionable. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

In fact the Beverly Hills Millionaire does not get any welfare checks. There you go. However, the Beverly Hills millionaire does get to deduct the interest paid on the vacation home from his/her taxes which is probably more than what he/she would have made in the fictional welfare scam.

[Phil Of Mac]

I wasn't talking about whether or not he receives welfare, I was talking about whether or not he's counted in the poverty line statistics.

When you can't win, just distort the opponent's argument, right?

[Rower_CPU]

A multimillionaire will almost assuredly have income from investments, properties, etc.

The analogy doesn't hold up.

[zimv20]

edit: nevermind, point was already made...