Tuesdays with Eddie special: 92.3% of statistics are made up on the spot
Posted by: Pat Crowley
in Corruption
on February 09, 2010 
It is a proven fact that 92.3 % of statistics are made up on the spot. Take the so-called research Eddie Achorn relies on today in his column. It is really laughable that this person is allowed to publish in the local paper of record without ever citing sources other than Right Wing attack groups, who, in turn, do not cite their sources. And wither journalism before our eyes….
In contrast, allow me to publish other numbers, with actual citations. And hey, check them…tear the numbers apart…challenge their interpretation…show the flaws in the math (if they exist)…but don’t simply say …”yes, well. You’re a socialist.” Or do it...and maybe you too can be the deputy editorial page director of the Projo.
Comments (14)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/hide comments
written by BonDotts, February 09, 2010
But when you put up pretty pictures from the Poverty Institute, a left wing/progressive group, and there isn't a citation as to where their data came from, that's ok.
And no Harvey, Pat will not cite data to refute those. His propaganda work here is done.
And no Harvey, Pat will not cite data to refute those. His propaganda work here is done.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Pat Crowley, February 09, 2010
No, the burden is on the provider of those statistics to prove them correct. How do you prove a negative?
-
- +0
-
-
written by DeusEx, February 09, 2010
I think I'll follow Pat's advice and listen to NEITHER him nor Achorn. They're both propagandists who spout out meaningless and heavily doctored statistics for a living. The fact that Achorn and I agree on many economic issues doesn't change that. If only progressives would take the same approach toward union advocates.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Pat Crowley, February 09, 2010
Please feel free to not pay attention at anytime. Your obsession with counter posting on my stuff makes you an honorary member of the Anchor Rising club.
-
- -1
-
-
written by PinkHatLib, February 09, 2010
It only took a few seconds to check the Poverty Institute's source (so much for that one)...
Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy
Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of Tax Systems in All 50 States
http://www.itepnet.org/whopays3.pdf
Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy
Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of Tax Systems in All 50 States
http://www.itepnet.org/whopays3.pdf
-
- +0
-
-
written by DeusEx, February 09, 2010
Pat, don't feel too special. I often respond to Brian's posts and to David's posts as well. Although it is also true that your posts tend to be more "inciteful."
Objectively, I disagree with the Anchor Rising contributors around 40% of the time, usually on social issues or foreign interventionism. I'd say 50% of the time, but the economy is the most important priority right now, and progressives are to the field of economics as chiropractors are to medical science.
Objectively, I disagree with the Anchor Rising contributors around 40% of the time, usually on social issues or foreign interventionism. I'd say 50% of the time, but the economy is the most important priority right now, and progressives are to the field of economics as chiropractors are to medical science.
-
- +0
-
-
written by HarveyN, February 09, 2010
Still waiting for responses to the other issues raised in the commentary.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Pat Crowley, February 09, 2010
You tell me Harvey, who does the burden belong on, the person who makes the facutual claim or the person who says "prove it?"
-
- +0
-
-
written by HarveyN, February 09, 2010
Pat, I do believe that statistics can be manipulated to say things that might be questionable. But there were other points that were made that I have seen confirmed in many places to which you have not responded.
Are they unimportant to you? To me they seem worthy of discussion. Otherwise we're simply indulging in name calling and we get nowhere.
How will the people of RI ever move ahead with mostly insulting rhetoric? Would that it were only in Rhode Island. Sadly it appears to be infecting the entire country.
Are they unimportant to you? To me they seem worthy of discussion. Otherwise we're simply indulging in name calling and we get nowhere.
How will the people of RI ever move ahead with mostly insulting rhetoric? Would that it were only in Rhode Island. Sadly it appears to be infecting the entire country.
-
- +0
-
-
written by mangeek, February 09, 2010
OK. So this data shows the middle and upper class (top 40%) paying more property and income taxes (with income tax increases progressively all the way up into the top 1%) than the poor, who pay little or no property and income tax, but are disproportionately affected by the Sales tax.
We already have a progressive tax structure on the income side. The property tax portion for the top 20% drops because most are living in 'nice' houses, not mansions... That's a good thing. Millionaires and middle-class live side-by-side all over the cities, in similar homes.
Seems to me that the answer here is to reduce the -sales tax- that hits the poor so hard.
I have an idea... Why not lower the sales tax on basic goods? If we were just a fraction lower than Massachusetts, there would be a lot of growth in the retail sector, where so many of the people in the bottom 60% toil.
Sorry Pat, this chart isn't showing me anything that looks bad. The chart shows that middle-class people are paying $7,000 in taxes. Upper middle class pay about $11,500, the working class pay $5000, and poor pay $1,100.
It's easy to wave your hands and scream 'the poor pay proportionately more taxes!', but there is no solution I can see to that that doesn't involve dramatically ramping-up income taxes, which are already very uncompetitive with our neighbors. Your fix means fewer jobs.
We already have a progressive tax structure on the income side. The property tax portion for the top 20% drops because most are living in 'nice' houses, not mansions... That's a good thing. Millionaires and middle-class live side-by-side all over the cities, in similar homes.
Seems to me that the answer here is to reduce the -sales tax- that hits the poor so hard.
I have an idea... Why not lower the sales tax on basic goods? If we were just a fraction lower than Massachusetts, there would be a lot of growth in the retail sector, where so many of the people in the bottom 60% toil.
Sorry Pat, this chart isn't showing me anything that looks bad. The chart shows that middle-class people are paying $7,000 in taxes. Upper middle class pay about $11,500, the working class pay $5000, and poor pay $1,100.
It's easy to wave your hands and scream 'the poor pay proportionately more taxes!', but there is no solution I can see to that that doesn't involve dramatically ramping-up income taxes, which are already very uncompetitive with our neighbors. Your fix means fewer jobs.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Jim Almagno, February 09, 2010
• Salaries and benefits for police and fire departments are among the highest in the country.
I really wish I carried the salary and benefit package that Achorn tries to tell you I have.
http://www.indeed.com/salary/Firefighter.html
Type in any city/town in RI to do a quick comparative study...you will be surprised.
I really wish I carried the salary and benefit package that Achorn tries to tell you I have.
http://www.indeed.com/salary/Firefighter.html
Type in any city/town in RI to do a quick comparative study...you will be surprised.
-
- +0
-
-
written by mangeek, February 09, 2010
That's not a fair place to look for data, that's taken from job -postings-, not distributed salary data. I think if you actually dug-down into the municipal numbers and pulled-out the actual compensation, you would see that firefighters have packages that place them somewhere in the fifth group (top 80-95% category) from Pat's graph, not the third group (middle 20%) you're trying to place yourself in.
And actually, I did find a HUGE problem we should all be concerned about with this data: The median people, the folks in the middle 20% are only pulling $41,000/year. In 2010 dollars, that's not enough to own a home, take classes, or save for retirement here in RI.
And actually, I did find a HUGE problem we should all be concerned about with this data: The median people, the folks in the middle 20% are only pulling $41,000/year. In 2010 dollars, that's not enough to own a home, take classes, or save for retirement here in RI.
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
But there was a lot more in his piece which you did not address:
• government pensions, on average, are by far the highest in New England.
• state’s bridges and roads are in the worst condition in New England, and Rhode Island spends less per capita on repairs than any New England state.
• shortest eligibility wait and the longest payout time for welfare in New England
• Salaries and benefits for police and fire departments are among the highest in the country.
• costs per special-education student are 30 percent above the national average.
• decreases in students and increases in teachers from 2000 to 2006
• ninth highest teacher salaries and perhaps the lowest class sizes. Its students finish second to last in New England (before Maine) in SAT scores and tend to join the worst states in performance in standardized testing.
• decreases in students and increases in teachers from 2000 to 2006
• largest number of school districts and school administrators per capita
Can you cite some data to refute these?