It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Poll: Liberals, Democrats flunk Economics 101

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Source: MichaelSavage.com June 08, 2010
MODS: If in wrong thread please move, thank you.

By DANIEL B. KLEIN
Self-identified liberals and Democrats do badly on questions of basic economics.

Who is better informed about the policy choices facing the country—liberals, conservatives or libertarians? According to a Zogby International survey that I write about in the May issue of Econ Journal Watch, the answer is unequivocal: The left flunks Econ 101.

Zogby researcher Zeljka Buturovic and I considered the 4,835 respondents' (all American adults) answers to eight survey questions about basic economics. We also asked the respondents about their political leanings: progressive/very liberal; liberal; moderate; conservative; very conservative; and libertarian.


The article is at: econjwatch.org...

WHO'S in-charge of our Government currently? Come on spit it out, you can say it, YES, The Progressive Liberals.
And Our Economy is Where right now? The Crapper You Say. Correct You when the Green Winnie Award.
The last time you had a good job was when? Don't start blaming this on Bush, Most real Conservatives consider Bush Liberal leaning.
OK, I've said my 2 cents, Now Lamb Bast Me.


 


Mod edit: Trimmed external content and added external content tags.

[edit on 6/8/2010 by AshleyD]




posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by guohua
 


Stopped reading at "Source: MichaelSavage.com"


Really?



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Here's the original source: Wall Street Journal

OP, when posting an article that you found on a news aggregating website, give us the original source, not the aggregating site.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Savage is on the radio and the internet. We better shut them all down.


Here's the report from the journal itself in PDF format: PDF report

Havent read it. Never heard of the "journal" it's from. If you're going to dismiss a thing dismiss it because it's source is bunk. Not because some guy who's bunk talked about it. The logical extension of that mentality is to accept something that is bunk because someone who you do not view as bunk talked about it. Silly.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   
If I were to answer those questions I would get them wrong. But that is only because I could not explain to, Mr. Savage(?) how with a plain statement I would be wrong, but with an explanation I would be right.

That is how they try and get you with these questions. Take for example the question about 2) Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago

I would have answered disagree. But when explaining my answer like this.

The standard of living judging by Gross Domestic Product fixed at Purchasing Power Parity per capita has greatly increased over this period of time combined with more average spending money and technological advancement our quality of life has increased. But when you take into consideration the costs of electricity, food, heating, gasoline, health insurance, and car insurance for example they have been on the increase exceeding the growth in GDP(PPP) Per Capita.

Then we must analyze who we are talking about in terms of standard of living. We have been on an upward trend in our Income Inequality leading to a concentration of wealth in the hands of a few leaving the rest of us with less purchasing power and income. So in order to truly understand our standard of living change we can't just factor GDP(PPP) Per Capita growth but also the growth in Income Inequality. And once we do that we get a larger picture which clearly shows the overall standard of living for most people has dropped, while the standard of living for the wealthy has risen.

END OF STORY.

[edit on 6/8/10 by Misoir]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   
well I think at this point we all know, the left has no real knowledge of economics.
right now, I believe that are kicking around the idea of dumping the morgage tax deduction. which well destroy the housing market, even more. If they had any basic understanding of economics...they would have not done anything, they did.
all their ideas are job killers.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by indianajoe77
 


Thank You for reminding me that so many people think Michael Savage is an aggregating web site. I of-course find his articles and links informative some times. But he is a lot like Hannity and all about himself too.

I also read Drudge and numerous other new sources.
How am I going to say, I'll just say it. OK, don't get all butt hurt.
If I'm reading an article on Savage, Drudge, Wall Street Journal or one of the numerous news outlet web sites and I find the same article on other news web sites, I will use the site that is easiest for me to use.
OMG! That might mean I will use Michael Savage.com as a source.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Thank You, I appreciate that.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by guohua
 


Stopped reading at "Source: MichaelSavage.com"


Really?

Narrow minded or Afraid?
I read left leaning web sites. To help keep things balanced.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by guohua
 


No, I understand that it was easier to link from Savage. I read his site/listen to the show everyday.

The thing I'm pointing out is a lot of posters see the source and dismiss things based on the source, and rightly so a lot of the time. That's why it's important to link the original source, in this case a respectable rag called the Wall Street Journal, which is a source I don't think alot of people would dismiss out of hand.

It's the same as if someone linked an article found on a frequently discreditted UFO site that was actually issued from NASA. People would dismiss the UFOsite link, but not a link from NASA. See what I'm saying?



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Nothing surprising here.

It;s doubtful liberals could even run a successful lemonade stand, let alone any other business given their ignorance about economics.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by indianajoe77
 


Sorry, I did misunderstand your post, I really thought you were ragging on me for using a site I enjoy reading.
Please accept my Apologies.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by guohua

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by guohua
 


Stopped reading at "Source: MichaelSavage.com"


Really?

Narrow minded or Afraid?
I read left leaning web sites. To help keep things balanced.


I listen to that nutjob all the time...so that is how I know not to take anything he says (or is associated with) seriously.


But I did read through the article...and like I guessed...it is a joke.

These aren't right/wrong questions...these are questions that the answers will depend on what school of thought you subscribe to.

The "researcher" knows this...it's a hit piece to influence people who are easy to manipulate (read: YOU).

The answers to the questions are not "right" or "wrong"...they will in fact show which direction you are leaning. And the "researcher" nicely declare all left leaning answers as "wrong"...in his opinion. If this was done by a left leaning researcher...he would of labeled all the right leaning answers as "wrong"...and BOOM...then all right wingers flunk this "econ" quiz.

Here is a perfect example from the "quiz"

5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree).


So if I think that workers are being exploited for profits...then I am "wrong" and I have flunked "econ 101"???? So the only way to pass this test is to agree that companies should do ANYTHING for a profit???



Do you really not see what is at play here? Or do you just willingly eat it up without a thought?

[edit on 8-6-2010 by OutKast Searcher]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Here is the actual Intro to the Survey..


A number of controversial interpretive issues attend our measure, including: (1) our designation of enlightened answers; (2) an asymmetry in sometimes challenging leftist mentalities without ever specifically challenging conservative and libertarian mentalities; (3) our simple eight-question test is merely a baseline and does not gauge the heights of economic enlightenment; and (4) a concern about response bias (namely, that less intelligent people would be less likely to participate in the survey).

econjwatch.org...

From the Actual Survey..in PDF on the page above


Here again we should acknowledge that none of the eight questions
challenge typical conservative or libertarian policy positions, and that had some such questions been included, the measured economic-enlightenment means by ideological groups may well have been somewhat different.


A survey, by it's own admission, that is tailored to show a weakness in those leaning left will show just that.

Carry on with the circus of idiotic rhetoric....



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by guohua
Source: MichaelSavage.com June 08, 2010
MODS: If in wrong thread please move, thank you.


Poll: Savage listeners routinely fail basic logic.
Source : Gary Buzzz (with 3 z's) and the morning shenanigan show!!!!!

Seriously? You let a guy who does not know Nixon resigned give you information? You expect the author of "Liberalism is a Disease" to present fair and balanced information?

Poll: Rush Limbaugh agrees that Oxycontin is a super vitamin!
Source: Biased Rush hater.

See how that works?

Good ol' "Get AIDS and die" Weiner Savage. Got anything for Sorcha Faal or John Titor to share?



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Target Earth
well I think at this point we all know, the left has no real knowledge of economics.
right now, I believe that are kicking around the idea of dumping the morgage tax deduction.


No, we are just so busy swimming in piles of money from the amazing right wing "trickle down" policy that has been enriching all of us lo these 30 years.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


One, the correct source was posted. The article did not originate with Savage, but The Wall street Journal.

Two, the book's title is "Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder". If your going to be sarcastic and insulting, get your info correct atleast.

And really, there are no biased sources in the news on the left like Olbermann and Madoww? C'mon man, they are all biased one way or another, and that way is usually whomever is signing the checks.

By the way, this is why I said it's important to cite the original souce, not a 2nd or 3rd.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by brainwrek
 


For some reason I think a Liberal Lemonade Stand would be a good political cartoon. I'm no right winger, but I appreciate their stances on finance and limited government. Although, in my opinion, to take any side in the stupid Red Vs. Blue sham is to remain ignorant of what is really going on.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   
This all goes back to the Robin Hood theory. If you "steal from the rich to give to the poor", you create a perfect society. The problem is that Robin Hood eventually runs out of rich people to steal from. At that point it does not matter though, because Robin Hood, the hero of the people has the backing of the poor, who at this point is pretty much everybody. Just as Kim Jung of North Korea. This way of thinking worked just perfectly for him. Just a couple of problems though. One third of North Koreans are starving. They are condemned by everyone in the world except for those that are on the same path ie Cuba, Venezuella, China, ect.. , and the people although scared are becoming more defiant every day. Communism/socialism (same thing), Eventually creates tyranny no matter what. I dare any ATS member to give me one example where overall Sociallism/communism, has survived long term, without strict martial law like conditions. It doesnt happen. It is a simple idea. "Liberalism is socialism", "Socialism is a weak form of communism that is bound to strengthen and consume". Anybody concerned with liberty, personal rights, personal freedom and personal property should condemn sociallism every time it rears ists ugly head. A famous Russian Communist leader once banged his shoe on a platform in defiance of the United states, stating "we will get you through your children". He was definitely a prophet. Please people, hold on to your individual rights for as long as possible. Deny all forms of sociallism and all forms of govenment involement in your lives. If you get lazy and turn to the dark side you may (just like North Korea) be one third of the starving population in the new third world America.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 

I see you have nothing to add the thread itself, only to belittle the source an OP.

You think all things coming from any source leaning right is degrading to your school of thought?



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join