4 ms·

Where is the spin? I didn't see it. Did he mis-state any facts, or leave out something important? The author clearly has an agenda, but his opinionated-soundin

Where is the spin? I didn't see it. Did he mis-state any facts, or leave out something important? The author clearly has an agenda, but his opinionated-sounding statements (for instance, that this debt will be 'dumped in the laps of our children') are factual: these bills will come due. The statement that taxpayers have to decide if they're getting their money's worth is nearly axiomatic. Really, just the bare statement in the title, "Washington will spend $31,406 per household this year," is staggering. Call it spin if you will, but holy crap - that's about 80 percent of the average person's total earnings. How many people would really say "I'm willing to give 80 percent of my income to the federal government, and some more to the state government?"

maukdaddy 17y ago
It is an opinion article, written by the Heritage Foundation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation
- gaius 17y ago
  Again, which of the facts in it are incorrect?
- billybob 17y ago
  Ad hominem. Do you have any valid arguments?
  - dgabriel 17y ago
    I don't think identifying the source is exactly an ad hominem. I'm pretty sure you have to attack the source as unreliable or somehow bad. Understanding that the source is conservative can be helpful in understanding biases within the article itself. Note that it contains no sources or methods for evaluating the true or falseness of its claims, nor can we be sure about the broad categories the author presents. Without that information, taking such a list at face value seems like a bad idea.
    - SamAtt 17y ago
      The source is the U.S. budget itself and that's not hard to verify (harder than it should be but still). The categories again could be verified simply by looking at the budget yourself. Any information could be untrustworthy and every author has a bias no matter how hard they try not to. The problem with your statement is that you're assuming an inherent falseness based on the authors' political stance and that's an ad hominem.
      - dgabriel 17y ago
        No, I'm not assuming anything (perhaps you are referring to a different comment). I'm asking for baseline substantiation and citation. Simply this - be aware of the biases of the material you read, and be skeptical of anything that boils something as complex as the budget into a bulleted list. Especially if that list is packaged up as a press release. I would say the same if ACORN released a list like this.
        SamAtt 17y ago
        I can see your comments in the context you put them in here but keep in mind that there's an overall discussion which was a reply to the original comment which accused the article of "spin" and attributed it in a derogatory manner to the article being written by a conservative. So I took your comment to be supporting that point.
  - lutorm 17y ago
    You said "Did he mis-state any facts, or leave out something important?" The post was simply a statement of fact. It can't be ad hominem when you don't even make any arguments.
lutorm 17y ago
"that's about 80 percent of the average person's total earnings. How many people would really say "I'm willing to give 80 percent of my income to the federal government, and some more to the state government?" That's extremely misleading, because a person of average income does of course not pay anything near 80% of their total earnings.
gjm11 17y ago
Spin is not only a matter of factual misstatement and omission. In fact, I'd use a stronger term for those ("lying", for instance). The spin is in the use of slanted terms at every opportunity. Hard-earned tax dollars. Highest level in American history. Staggering budget deficit. Dumped in the laps of our children. No free lunch. System risks collapsing. Doubling all income tax rates. Unemployment costs have surged. Numerous strings attached. Are taxpayers getting their money's worth? Even if there is not a single misstatement of fact, and not a single consequential omission, even if every single one of those phrases is in itself an entirely defensible description, that's a whole lot of spin. And all that spin makes the article look much less useful to me, because -- not being an expert on US taxation or federal finances -- I don't know whether there are in fact any misstatements or omissions that are relevant, and the spin suggests that the author may be more interested in promoting a particular viewpoint than in giving as accurate an account as possible. (So: thank goodness for the spin; it saves me from being taken in from something that looks even-handed and factual when it isn't...) It's certainly not hard to think of some things that might be important omissions. For instance, it seems like there's a considerable difference between a one-off huge spend and a general policy of spending a huge amount; the US government has (reasonably enough, prima facie) been doing a lot of one-off spending in the hope of stimulating its troubled economy; so are those big increases "since 2008" and "in the last decade" systematic increases in government spending, or are they part of a short-term attempt to stop the economy collapsing? Oh, and are they inflation-adjusted? One other comparison in the article is, but curiously the author doesn't say about these conveniently scary figures. As for your final question: That figure of $31k is for spending, not taxation; the amount collected in tax is allegedly $18k per person. So, the question is more like: Would the average person say "I'm willing to give 45% of my income to the federal government, so long as I get back 70% more than I put in"? I suspect the average person probably would, although of course that might just be because they wouldn't appreciate that the difference is going to come back to bite them or their children in the ass. (Yes, I appreciate that most of that $31k/person doesn't reach them in the form of cash: some of it is in public education, infrastructure, defence spending, etc. And yes, I appreciate that it doesn't reach or benefit all people equally; but then the $18k isn't taken from all people equally, either. But a discussion that takes all that stuff into account isn't going to begin with talk like "give 80% of my income to the federal government".)

maukdaddy 17y ago

It is an opinion article, written by the Heritage Foundation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation

gaius 17y ago
Again, which of the facts in it are incorrect?
billybob 17y ago
Ad hominem. Do you have any valid arguments?
- dgabriel 17y ago
  I don't think identifying the source is exactly an ad hominem. I'm pretty sure you have to attack the source as unreliable or somehow bad. Understanding that the source is conservative can be helpful in understanding biases within the article itself. Note that it contains no sources or methods for evaluating the true or falseness of its claims, nor can we be sure about the broad categories the author presents. Without that information, taking such a list at face value seems like a bad idea.
  - SamAtt 17y ago
    The source is the U.S. budget itself and that's not hard to verify (harder than it should be but still). The categories again could be verified simply by looking at the budget yourself. Any information could be untrustworthy and every author has a bias no matter how hard they try not to. The problem with your statement is that you're assuming an inherent falseness based on the authors' political stance and that's an ad hominem.
    - dgabriel 17y ago
      No, I'm not assuming anything (perhaps you are referring to a different comment). I'm asking for baseline substantiation and citation. Simply this - be aware of the biases of the material you read, and be skeptical of anything that boils something as complex as the budget into a bulleted list. Especially if that list is packaged up as a press release. I would say the same if ACORN released a list like this.
      - SamAtt 17y ago
        I can see your comments in the context you put them in here but keep in mind that there's an overall discussion which was a reply to the original comment which accused the article of "spin" and attributed it in a derogatory manner to the article being written by a conservative. So I took your comment to be supporting that point.
- lutorm 17y ago
  You said "Did he mis-state any facts, or leave out something important?" The post was simply a statement of fact. It can't be ad hominem when you don't even make any arguments.

lutorm 17y ago

"that's about 80 percent of the average person's total earnings. How many people would really say "I'm willing to give 80 percent of my income to the federal government, and some more to the state government?" That's extremely misleading, because a person of average income does of course not pay anything near 80% of their total earnings.

gjm11 17y ago

Spin is not only a matter of factual misstatement and omission. In fact, I'd use a stronger term for those ("lying", for instance). The spin is in the use of slanted terms at every opportunity. Hard-earned tax dollars. Highest level in American history. Staggering budget deficit. Dumped in the laps of our children. No free lunch. System risks collapsing. Doubling all income tax rates. Unemployment costs have surged. Numerous strings attached. Are taxpayers getting their money's worth? Even if there is not a single misstatement of fact, and not a single consequential omission, even if every single one of those phrases is in itself an entirely defensible description, that's a whole lot of spin. And all that spin makes the article look much less useful to me, because -- not being an expert on US taxation or federal finances -- I don't know whether there are in fact any misstatements or omissions that are relevant, and the spin suggests that the author may be more interested in promoting a particular viewpoint than in giving as accurate an account as possible. (So: thank goodness for the spin; it saves me from being taken in from something that looks even-handed and factual when it isn't...) It's certainly not hard to think of some things that might be important omissions. For instance, it seems like there's a considerable difference between a one-off huge spend and a general policy of spending a huge amount; the US government has (reasonably enough, prima facie) been doing a lot of one-off spending in the hope of stimulating its troubled economy; so are those big increases "since 2008" and "in the last decade" systematic increases in government spending, or are they part of a short-term attempt to stop the economy collapsing? Oh, and are they inflation-adjusted? One other comparison in the article is, but curiously the author doesn't say about these conveniently scary figures. As for your final question: That figure of $31k is for spending, not taxation; the amount collected in tax is allegedly $18k per person. So, the question is more like: Would the average person say "I'm willing to give 45% of my income to the federal government, so long as I get back 70% more than I put in"? I suspect the average person probably would, although of course that might just be because they wouldn't appreciate that the difference is going to come back to bite them or their children in the ass. (Yes, I appreciate that most of that $31k/person doesn't reach them in the form of cash: some of it is in public education, infrastructure, defence spending, etc. And yes, I appreciate that it doesn't reach or benefit all people equally; but then the $18k isn't taken from all people equally, either. But a discussion that takes all that stuff into account isn't going to begin with talk like "give 80% of my income to the federal government".)