Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JBTFD who wrote (1905)	9/27/2006 4:51:20 PM
From: JBTFD	Respond to of 10087

"Lies, damn lies, and statistics."

To: JBTFD who wrote (1905)	9/27/2006 5:50:00 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

Other than that particular sentence, both statements are just a recitation of the same true and easily available data in different ways. The first paragraph spins the facts to make it seem like the rich are making out like bandits, the 2nd paragraph spins it to imply that the rich are getting a lower than equivalent share of the tax cuts. As of the sentence you quote - "As a result of these changes, the top 1% paid a larger share of the tax burden in 2004 than it did four years earlier, and the bottom 50 percent paid a smaller share." These changes happened. The observed result also happened. But "post hoc" doesn't imply "propter hoc" The net result of all influences including the specified changes was correct as stated. Also the implication that the changes had some effect on the net results is also clearly correct. But if you think the statement implies that the change was the only, or the overwhelming, reason for the observed results, than your correct, there is no direct support for it in the quoted statement. In fact in the statement itself, there is no direct support for the assertion that the changes in tax law didn't exert an effect towards increasing the the percent of the tax burden paid by the poor, or decreasing the share paid by the wealthy. The blog post was not an analysis of the statement. Also it doesn't seem that it was posted in order to support the sentence you quoted. It was posted in order to show how you can spin the same set of facts in different directions. I think it successfully achieved that objective. It may have had a secondary purpose of showing that the percentage tax cut for the lowest earning tax payers was higher than the percentage cut for the highest earners.

To: JBTFD who wrote (1905)	9/27/2006 6:43:18 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

Also I think your claims of "lying with numbers" is rather unsupported. The claim you object to is not a conclusion of the other reported facts. Its just another reported fact. If you want to claim its a lie then I think the burden of proof falls on you. If you want to just state that you don't believe it than fine. Either way it isn't manipulation of statistics or faulty logic. Its a specific claim of fact that could be checked if you had access to the raw data, and the time and skill to properly extract the correct information and make the right conclusions. Its possible that he's a liar and figures that people wont bother to check his facts. Its also possible he is mistaken, but I don't think either is the case.