Posted on 09/22/2004 11:19:11 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
bttt
This is one of the most infamous and egregious examples of lying by ommission by the press. Another headline that comes to mind is one that John Lott pointed out in his definitive study of media bias, "Bond yields down on jobs data".
The news was a glowing account of record jobs growth. The tenth of a point downward movement in the bond yield was the only negative they could find and they ran with that as the headline. Of course this was during a Republican administration.
The NY Times still has not retracted its false article on the forged CBS TANG documents.
Middle class? What's that anyway? I just want to point out that America is not a country of "CLASSES". Why do we use that term anyway? What does that really mean? Who CARES? And most importantly if the Left wants to "celebrate diversity" why are they always pointing out diversity? If no one NOTICED you're black, white, rich, poor, we wouldn't be having these discussions sometimes, and there'd not be this society of people that want to pidgeon hole others and make them out to be something they aren't (like Gay, Straight, special, etc)... Hmmmmm just my thoughts for the day.
So this is Havoc's proof that Bush is destroying the middle class?
Bartlett must be talking about the Coolidge era.
Otherwise, a fine article.
I linked to your thread above. Check this out . . . looks like your suspicion was true.
It's whatever it's defined to be in any given discussion. In this case, it's that class of Americans with income between 25K and 75K. I think most would agree that today, this would describe those people who are reasonably comfortable materially, neither wealthy nor in danger of being on the street. Of course, you could pick another moniker for those with incomes in this range, eg. "centratodes" or "solventamids." You could even get tedious about it and just keep saying "those with incomes between $25,000 and $75,000" and p*ss off your editor.
The use of terms and expressions that convey distinctions between individuals and groups is useful and I usually see nothing wrong with this practice. It only becomes nettlesome when such terms are used to set up an exaggerated or non-existant significance, ie. when they are loaded.
It's whatever it's defined to be in any given discussion. In this case, it's that class of Americans with income between 25K and 75K. I think most would agree that today, this would describe those people who are reasonably comfortable materially, neither wealthy nor in danger of being on the street. Of course, you could pick another moniker for those with incomes in this range, eg. "centratodes" or "solventamids." You could even get tedious about it and just keep saying "those with incomes between $25,000 and $75,000" and p*ss off your editor.
The use of terms and expressions that convey distinctions between individuals and groups is useful and I usually see nothing wrong with this practice. It only becomes nettlesome when such terms are used to set up an exaggerated or non-existant significance, ie. when they are loaded.
Looks like Rush just mentioned FR on the air, and now everything's running slowly. I'll bet you a nickel this thread doesn't run to 300 replies because its title isn't sufficiently negative enough to attract the Legion of Doom.
With wages flat, college tuition is up an average of $1,207 for four-year institutions since 2000, and yearly health care premiums up $2,360 over the same period.
No mention of which sectors of the economy the government is most involved with.
Could it be that they picked a date range because the census data expressed is only available on certain time tables - showing the difference over a period of general Census counts taken. The implication would then be that because the census happens every ten years, the period of 1980 - 2000 then gives us how many hits for census data? 3 at best. I don't much think the times is the end all be all; but, It doesn't appear you much thought this through. The data is the data. It shows a downward trend which can be accounted for by tight rich guys on both sides not giving raises and helping to depress wages to reserve more profit to themselves. The money more often now goes to stock holders than to employees - ala the 'going public' of so many companies. And outsourcing ocurrs precisely because business doesn't want to pay the going rate for wages in set by the market in which they intend to compete.
Try again.
I don't have to try "again." I'd like you to try "once."
I just gave you a rundown that chokes the crap out of your motivation point. The data is the data. Who is in office during the time isn't germain to the issue. The Census data shows a decline in the time period noted.
What you are trying to say is the guy caught speeding wasn't speeding because you don't like the color of the billboards either side of him. That don't stand up to scrutiny.
Am I to understand that real dollars means that all incomes are included? Because you're showing total growth - including that of the men at the top who now make 311 times what the average worker does. What happens to the numbers if you lop off the rich who got richer while the data from census shows middle class incomes dropping. Suppose it might parallel the trend? I'm a math major. I do understand how you can fudge numbers by diluting sample. You poll 9 guys who make 10 bucks an hour and your average is 10 bucks an hour. But if you bring in Bill gates to stand next to them, they suddenly have an average income in the billions. Amazing, huh.
</p>
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.