Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

April 21, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

POLLING FOLLIES....Via Steve Benen, this is really too funny to pass up. In the annals of loaded poll questions, the latest from Fox News is hard to beat. Be sure to read all the way to the end. I hope they got fully reimbursed by the Republican National Committee for doing this work for them.

(And check out question 10 on immigration too. No bias there!)

Kevin Drum 12:26 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (103)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Full-tilt Spiro Agnew mode.

Posted by: honestpartisan on April 21, 2006 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

Since Bush took office 63 months ago, the Standard and Poors 500 index is actually down, the US dollar is down against the currencies of our major trading partners, the deficit has grown enormously, and a smaller percentage of Americans of working age are holding full-time jobs. But the economy is great for defense contractors.

Posted by: Maxwell on April 21, 2006 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

Surely they will follow up with something along the line of "actually, no hijackers on 9/11 were of Iraqi descent. Does this make you feel better or worse about the war in Iraq?" and "actually, 15 of the hijackers were Saudi. Does this make you feel better or worse about the Administration's close ties to the Saudi government."

What else can we come up with?

Posted by: Doug-E-Fresh on April 21, 2006 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

And they are biased because...?

Oh right, this is what passes for persuasion in the Reality-Based Community. Bald assertions with no argumentation whatsoever.

Posted by: Al on April 21, 2006 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

"After accounting for inflation, the stock market increase of 3 percent counts as 'staying about the same,' and is much, much lower than the levels recorded during the presidency of Hillary Clinton's husband. Does that make you feel (a) better, (b) worse, or (c) about the same towards our CEO president?"

Posted by: Boots Day on April 21, 2006 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

I love it! Kevin Drum is afraid of actual facts - doesn't like info on the unemployment rate (objective), the DOW (objective), growth in jobs (objective), disposable income (objective).

Posted by: Frequency Kenneth on April 21, 2006 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

"President Hillary Clinton" would force us all to have abortions, get gay-married, and fellate Osama on the White House lawn. Then what would you say?

Posted by: IOKIYAR on April 21, 2006 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, the stock market is up 3% in a year!!!! What an amazing performance. I guess I'll go buy that Hummer I had my eye on.

Posted by: Col Bat Guano on April 21, 2006 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

Real DPI is up 2% over the past year. But 2% growth is extremely weak by historic standards
and almost every time it has fallen below 2% growth the US has experienced a recession.

Posted by: spencer on April 21, 2006 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

As far as you know, are we at war with Eurasia or Eastasia?

In fact, we have always been at war with Eastasia. Does the prospect of a trip to Room 101 terrify you?

Posted by: Matt on April 21, 2006 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

Maxwell, you can't judge over all of Bush's tenure. You can only look at the last X months, where "X" is where the news is good.

C'mon -- someone is getting hundreds of millions a year. And at some point, some measure of unemployment has gone down. All is grand!!

Posted by: Freedom Phukher on April 21, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

From the White House Press Release: "Real disposable income has risen by 2.9 percent in the past 12 months and 12.7 percent since December 2000. Tax relief is responsible for half of the increase in real per capita income since 2000. Real household wealth is currently $49 trillion, or 5.4 times disposable income, above the long-run average ratio of 4.8. Increased wealth reflects primarily gains in the values of homes and equities rather than personal saving, which remains low." (http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/cea-wp-20050809.html)

First off, is this an average or a median disposable income, because growth in average income reflects largely the gains of the wealthy CEO "workers" rather than hourly workers. But, for the benefit of the doubt, call it average hourly wages are up for the year.

Note that it is after-tax disposable income, so perhaps the question should be, "Knowing that the US Govt. is incurring massive debt to raise your income by 2.9% something that raises your confidence in our economy, or lowers it?"

Posted by: chuck on April 21, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

Anytime somebody feels the need to begin a sentence with "In fact" or "The fact is," they're probably not going to tell you facts.

Just as you would not trust "Honest Abe's Used Cars."

Posted by: Matt on April 21, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

What, you just noticed polls have biases based on wording?

Tell me Kevin, is this the first poll you have been inspired to track down yourself instead of having to have me or someone else drop in a link to the original document?

After a large number of posts here quoting columnists and economists one after the other, all showing the obscure mathematical reasons why the economy sucks despite all the statistics, somebody goes out there and makes the point that it's about perception, and that people have been fed negative news, and you don't like it.

Note that the approval rating from this poll has been widely touted across the country. Apparently that question was okay.

In point of fact, polls are made and broken by phrasing, and if you look at some of them, answers sometimes contradict each other, even in the same poll. Look at the Iran questions. Look at questions 44 and 45. I almost think that was done to make this point.

Some other interesting numbers...

20 percent of Democrats support Rumsfeld? Surprised it's that high.

Did question 8 bother anybody else as much as it bothered me?

Posted by: tbrosz on April 21, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

To me, the most telling (and saddest) was question 43:

Do you think the United States will eventually have to take military action against Iran.
And the high numbers of "yes" votes. "have to take military action" - doesn't that feel like the American people have already given-up in the fact that we have a say in what our country does in our names? I guess we'll have to go to war - that's the only option that I'm seeing on FOX News...

Sounds like Bush can drive the country to hell in a schoolbus, and a good number of us would just sit and quietly bitch to our neighbor about the heat.

Thanks, Bush. You're a real piece of shit!

Posted by: rusrus on April 21, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

Er, am I the only one worried about the responses to #8?

I mean, is it really good that a majority of Republicans, a majority of Democrats, and a plurality of independents think the US military should be free of civilian control?

(And, on immigration, while #10 is a loaded question with a spun premise, #14-15 is a lot slicker -- using one question to produce the desired response on the subsequent one. Actually, the whole poll could be a useful educational tool in a class on "Propaganda via polling".)

Posted by: cmdicely on April 21, 2006 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

As far as question 10 is concerned:

I have rarely heard the word "illegal" mentioned in any speech on the issue given by a Democrat, although that is the root of the entire issue.

Things can be "loaded" by omitting words, too.

Posted by: tbrosz on April 21, 2006 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, as you are fond of saying, you are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. The economy is growing and improving. If the economy was shrinking or employement diminishing, you would not consider it bias if Time asked the orthoganal questions (is the economy growing...; in fact, it shrank by 2%'). You would call that insightful analysis.... Unless it was a democrat in office, in which case you'd call it biased again.

To be clear, I want Bush impeached and thrown out of office. But I grow tired of everyone's "bias of convenience" posts.

And to be even more clear - the recent thing with Gov. Ryan and the "delicate" avoidance of his Republican affiliation was a pretty egregious example of bias.

Posted by: jb on April 21, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

I find it funny how being opposed to cherry picking misleading statistics is portrayed by the trolls as being afraid of facts.

Does some one have a good link to actual inflation adjusted data on whether these assertions are accurate?

Other possible questions:

In fact, "the vast majority of American incomes have not kept up with inflation for the past six years." Does knowing this make you feel better or worse about the nations economy or doesn't it make any difference?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0306/p16s01-coop.html

In fact, the nations savings rate dropped to -0.5% into negative numbers for the first time since the Great Depression. Does knowing this make you feel better or worse about the nations economy or doesn't it make any difference?

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-27-2006/0004327169&EDATE=

Did Fox polls include statements about the stock market when it was falling or have similar questions during the Clinton admiinistration? They also could include the "fact" that based upon historical averages, the stock market has significantly underperformed.

I wonder if in their polls last year did they include:

In fact family income declined by 2.3 percent after adjustment for inflation in 2004. Does knowing this make you feel better or worse about the nations economy or doesn't it make any difference?

Posted by: Catch22 on April 21, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

Re, #8 - tbrosz, were you bothered by the question or the responses?

Posted by: shingles on April 21, 2006 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

129. In fact, George W. Bush was appointed by God to lead the most perfect nation on Earth against the forces of tyranny, despair and liberalism. Does knowing this make you feel better or worse about "voting" for Bush for President and relying on Fox News for all of your information, or doesn't it make any difference? (If worse, ask: What would it take for you to answer the question correctly?)

Posted by: Faux on April 21, 2006 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

Scratch that, I read #9 instead of #8.

Posted by: shingles on April 21, 2006 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

MAtt....in fact, Cheney uses "in fact" all the time along with "frankly" "the fact is" and other BS.

I have never, in fact, read a paragraph from him that didn't include many "in facts."

Posted by: lilybart on April 21, 2006 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

Real tbrosz and (the good) fake tbrosz have now fully merged into one seamless entity.

If I dutifully read the e-mail addy only to discover that the real one keeps doing better parodies of himself than the fake one does, why bother even checking?

Posted by: shortstop on April 21, 2006 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

As to question 10:

"10. Do you think illegal immigrants from Mexico should be given special treatment and allowed to jump in front of immigrants from other countries
that want to come to the United States legally, or not?"

This is a complete strawman. Can anyone point to any serious consideration of any policy that seeks to treat Mexicans who have illegally entered the country, over everybody else, including those following the rules just because they are not Mexicans? Please give me a link and a sponsor so I can laugh at them.

There is no such policy seriously under consideration, and there is no plausible and legitimate reason to even ask such a complete strawman of a question. It at least implies an attempt to link discrimination and racism to the issue of immigration reforms by asking about special privileges for Mexicans that no one is actually proposing.

Who out there is plotting to give such special privileges to illegal Mexicans?

Posted by: Catch22 on April 21, 2006 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

I don't get it. Are you surprised that polling outcomes are effected by how you phrase the question? Do you think that someone who doesn't know if the stock market has gone up or down in the last year or who doesn't know if the employment rate is going up or down has anything of value to say about how the economy is doing?

If John Kerry was president, with the same economic numbers, you would be talking about how well the economy was coming back after the Bush years..

Posted by: bobinnv on April 21, 2006 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK


I think the "In fact" follow-up questions, which blatantly insult respondents who don't answer in a manner consistent with the bias of poll authors, will become ever more prevalent in proportion to Republican desperation. Thus, we should expect to see question pairs such as:

1. Do you think President Bush is doing a good job protecting our country from terrorist attacks?

2. In fact, we would all be dead if it weren't for President Bush. Does knowing this make you feel better or worse about the nation's security?

3. Do you think the U.S. economy under President Bush has improved overall?

4. In fact, you have twice as much money as you did before President Bush was elected. Does knowing this make you feel better or worse about your ability to manage finances?

Roll your own.


Posted by: jayarbee on April 21, 2006 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe the poll question should have been that after electing a Texas oil man as president or you surprised that the price of gasoline is over $3.00?

Posted by: spencer on April 21, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

jayarbee: 2. In fact, we would all be dead if it weren't for President Bush. Does knowing this make you feel better or worse about the nation's security?

This made me laugh really hard. Before the crying, that is.

Posted by: shortstop on April 21, 2006 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK
I have rarely heard the word "illegal" mentioned in any speech on the issue given by a Democrat, although that is the root of the entire issue.

Things can be "loaded" by omitting words, too.

Granting, arguendo, this is a completely accurate and fair portrayal, so f-ing what.

Politicians are trying to sell political positions and influence public opinion to promote a policy agenda.

Notionally, at least, "news" media polls are about measuring, not influencing, public opinion on policy issue.

The two shouldn't be parallel.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 21, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

I watched "Good Night and Good Luck" the other day. Can you imagine the CBS of Ed Morrow running a push poll? Neither can I. Amazing how far television "journalism" has sunk. Of course, we are talking about Fox, so we are not talking about a news channel. Sort of like Comedy Central, but without the accuracy and not very funny.

Posted by: Ron Byers on April 21, 2006 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK
Do you think that someone who doesn't know if the stock market has gone up or down in the last year or who doesn't know if the employment rate is going up or down has anything of value to say about how the economy is doing?

The performance of the stock market and the employment rate, like all economic measures, are very limited (but convenient because easy to measure) proxies used to try to divine the only really meaningful thing that makes the economy "good" or "bad", the overall amount and distribution of experienced utility among all the participants in the economy.

So, yeah, people who don't know what particular aggregates of limited utility are doing have something important to say about how the economy is doing.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 21, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

#8 didn't do a good enough job of defining 'military matters'.

Civilian leadership has authority over whether the military is used. Military leadership has authority to operate once invoked.

"Final say on U.S. military matters" could pertain to either case.

Posted by: wishIwuz2 on April 21, 2006 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK
Civilian leadership has authority over whether the military is used. Military leadership has authority to operate once invoked.

Constitutionally, and in the theory of civilian control of the military, this is inaccurate. The civilian authority has final authority at every stage; it can and in practice must delegate a lot of that on a routine basis, but its not the case that once a strategic decision is made by the civilian leadership, they lose authority over the execution and military authority becomes final.


Posted by: cmdicely on April 21, 2006 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

JB -

The economy isn't shrinking, but there are substantial problems with it. Income increases for most Americans are falling behind inflation, which is one reason why many of those Americans may not feel good about the economy. Further, job growth has been slower than the rate of increase in the number of working age Americans. Many of the jobs created have been lower paying service sector jobs (probably by real median wages are falling.) Rising tides may lift all boats, but kinda suck for those who don't have a boat.

tbrosz-

One of the things that make the 33% number compelling to me is that it is from a poll where the wording is generally republican biased; in a sense I have more faith in it than I would a DNC poll that gave the same number because I would suspect the DNC of the opposite slant.

I personally suspect that 33% number is a low outlier, though, and I will wait to see if a similar decline is echoed in other polls.

As for question #8, IMHO, it's just a bad question. The "final say in military matters" isn't really meaningful until you define it. If it's the question of "What should the military do" final say always should be with the civilians. I disagree vehemently with the Bush decision to invade Iraq, but the military did the right thing by doing it - as long as the President is not giving clearly illegal orders, it is the obligation of the military to follow those orders. However, a basic principal since the revolution has been to give the Military substantial control over how those orders are executed, because they're the ones with the relevant expertise. Given the wording of this question, it comes out more to do 'who do you trust right now question', and the military seems to have won.

Posted by: Fides on April 21, 2006 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

Does question #37 presume that Fox News is not a member of the news media?

Posted by: craigie on April 21, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

Fox is really out of touch. Stock market up? Doesn't impact the average middle class american because don't have much saved for retirement or in investments, and a 3% gain means jack when you have 8,000 debt on a maxed out credit card at over 10% (more since interest rates went up). Jobs? Most of these created jobs are service industry jobs, meanwhile the "good" jobs with pensions and great health benifits are where, exactly? At GM? Oh, and disposable income has gone up a hair, but so has the price of gas, healthcare, college tuition, adjustible rate mortgage. So is this poll supposed to make people feel better or actually, worse because they aren't as well off as the writers of this poll?

Posted by: Mr. K. on April 21, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

The latest Fox News poll has Bush at 33%.

Why has Fox News joined the enemy and turned into a liberal stronghold?

Who will conservatives tune into now that Fox has abandoned them and joined the forces of evil with false polling showing the president's approval lower than it really is (really is in Conservative Bizarro World, that is)?

Posted by: Advocate for God on April 21, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

Does question #37 presume that Fox News is not a member of the news media?

Well, sure. They have no illusions about their own status as White House flacks. They also have no illusions about their dumber-than-dirt viewership ever twigging that.

Posted by: shortstop on April 21, 2006 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

There are lies, damn lies, statistics, and polls.

Once upon a time, Republicans used to hammer Clinton for making decisions based on poll results. Polls were, according to GOP mouthpieces, innaccurate.

Now, the GOP loves them. They love them so much, they've taken them one step further - use them to buttress GOP actions and influence future decisions.

Peggy Noonan has a great article about Bush and his ass-kissing coterie.

True conservatives and GOP members should read it and distance themselves from Bush as fast as possible. Bush, Cheney, and their butt-buddies at Fox News are completely clueless.

Posted by: Monkey Butt on April 21, 2006 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

Many of the jobs created have been lower paying service sector jobs (probably by real median wages are falling.)

Until recently, all of the jobs created under the Bush presidency had been government jobs. Private sector job creation had been less than zero. The only reason there was any job creation at all was because Bush was acting like a big-spending, big-government liberal.

And actually, that may still be the case. I haven't seen any recent figures one way or the other.

Posted by: Boots Day on April 21, 2006 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

Fides:

You and others make a good point that question 8 could be taken more than one way. I thought "final say" was pretty clear, though.

***

cmdicely:

Notionally, at least, "news" media polls are about measuring, not influencing, public opinion on policy issue.

We wish. That hasn't been true for a long time, and the liberal news outlets have been cooking their polls, too. On the NSA issue, it was amazing how wide the swings were depending on what was included or left out of the questions.

***

Catch22:

Re: your suggested poll questions:

If you assume your statements are accurate, if a CBS poll had included them in a poll to drive the numbers to negatives, would you have accused CBS of cooking the poll, or just said that they were including true facts to clarify the questions?

***

I have been polled on the phone a few times, and although they don't say exactly who commissioned the polls, it's painfully obvious what answers they were looking for, and that the questions were designed to lead you that way. Most common trick: Give you a choice of A or B, when a reasonable person might pick C.

BTW, bobinnv is probably right that if Kerry were president, these same numbers would be touted as the best economy in years.

Posted by: tbrosz on April 21, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

"Based on Dow Jones Averages the stock market is up".

Sure. Let's base "The Stock Market" on an ever changing list of the 30 biggest blue chips out there. Want to know how the Dow Average did during the roaring economies of the late 90's? It stank.

A movement into safety stocks as personified by the blue chip Dow Jones Industrial Average hardly is an accurate reflection of "the economy".

But of course Fox knew that.

How's YOUR 401k doing since 2000? I sure hope it's doing better than mine because "the Stock Market" hasn't been kind to most.

Check out this chart to see that over the last 5 years the stock market is up less than 5% for a miniscule yearly return.

Posted by: Not Fooled on April 21, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

Catch22 inquires: "Who out there is plotting to give such special privileges to illegal Mexicans?"

For the past few decades our immigration policies have strongly favored Asians and Latin Americans. All those who have any sort of amnesty plan would allow millions of Mexican citizens to continue living here as legal workers or future U.S. citizens. The way they're trying to sell it to you is that they wouldn't be put ahead of those already in line for citizenship, but what they don't mention is that those waiting for citizenship might not be living in the country as all those Mexican citizens are.

On a slightly related note, here's some interesting facts:

- One of the organizers of the Chicago immigration march "serves on the Institute for Mexicans Abroad, an advisory council to Mexican President Vicente Fox."

- An organizer of the Georgia boycott is a former consul general of Mexico.

- One of the organizers of the L.A. rally - also involved on the national protests - allegedly has collaborated with the Mexican government.

Weren't Democratic politicians also deeply involved in each of those marches?

Posted by: TLB on April 21, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

Civilian leadership has authority over whether the military is used. Military leadership has authority to operate once invoked.

Christ no, not at all, that second sentence is flatly wrong. That's why the Constitution provides that the President, and not some general, is commander-in-chief of the military. The military is always, under every circumtance, subordinate to the civilian authority in the American system of government.

Posted by: Stefan on April 21, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

The only reason there was any job creation at all was because Bush was acting like a big-spending, big-government liberal.

I believe you mean big-spending, big-governmet conservative, actually. Based on their actions, and not merely their rhetoric, over the past years what conservatives love doing most of all is expanding the size of the federal government and spending (borrowed) money like drunken sailors.

Posted by: Stefan on April 21, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK
We wish. That hasn't been true for a long time,

Clearly, you don't know what the word "notionally" means.

and the liberal news outlets have been cooking their polls, too.

You know, I remember when conservatives liked to complain about the use of tu quoque, "moral equivalence", and the "everyone else does it" argument.

On the NSA issue, it was amazing how wide the swings were depending on what was included or left out of the questions.

There were a large number of salient issues in the NSA case that converged, so its not really surprising that there would be diversity in the phrasing of the questions or in the results. It was a complicated issue.

If you want to present evidence of multi-question push-polling, strawmen, or deliberate spin analogous to the examples pointed to in the Fox News poll, feel free, but I have a feeling like most of your "but, everybody does that" arguments, there will be no support forthcoming for your dismissive handwaving here.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 21, 2006 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK
For the past few decades our immigration policies have strongly favored Asians and Latin Americans.

Really? How?

Posted by: cmdicely on April 21, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz: On the NSA issue, it was amazing how wide the swings were depending on what was included or left out of the questions.

Your assumption that this was deliberate, instead of incompetent and inadvertent begs the question why, with much more evidence, it is wrong for liberals to assume that Bush was lying instead of incompetent and/or mistaken.

Oh, yeah, I forgot about IOKIYAR.

BTW, bobinnv is probably right that if Kerry were president, these same numbers would be touted as the best economy in years.

Not by conservatives, who would be shouting from the rooftops about how the smidgen of economic good news that arises from time to time is only the result of using credit to buy the appearance of economic success, sorta like Enron using fraudulent accounting tactics to make it look like the company was not floundering.

LOL.

TLB: Weren't Democratic politicians also deeply involved in each of those marches?

I see TLB is citing to very credible (not) sources again.

Aren't these some of the same people who lied about Kerry?

Posted by: Advocate for God on April 21, 2006 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

Boy howdy, what a crock. Not only is that one hell of a leading poll question, but their choice and presentation of facts is pretty slanted.

It's quite possible that the sum total of real disposable income has gone up 2% in the past year. How that benefits the average worker is a damned good question; the last figures for U.S. workers' median income were from 2004, and median income was still way down from 2000, and the percentage of people in poverty was up. (The Census Bureau currently releases the income and poverty numbers for the preceding year at the end of August each year.) And the disconnect between the Dow Jones Index and what Molly Ivins calls the 'Doug Jones Index', one that would reflect how a typical American is doing, is pretty huge these days. And the number of private-sector jobs is up by only 1.4 million since January 2001, while the number of people of labor-force age has gone up considerably more than that.

But forget all that for a moment. The deeper reality is that complaining about reporting about the economy is bullshit. Everyone knows their own economic circumstances - whether their pay is going up or down, what's happening to their benefits, whether it's a good time or a bad time for them to go looking for another job.

If you do a representative poll of how people feel about their own economic circumstances, then what you get is the truth, plus or minus 3.5 percentage points, and reporting has nothing to do with it.

Posted by: RT on April 21, 2006 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

Tbrosz:

You ask:
"If you assume your statements are accurate, if a CBS poll had included them in a poll to drive the numbers to negatives, would you have accused CBS of cooking the poll, or just said that they were including true facts to clarify the questions?"

If CBS did so, and those were only such negative cherry picked contextual facts, I would not have defended such a practice as a legitmate polling and treated the results as a biased push poll.

For you:
If CBS had done such a poll would you have just said they were including true facts to clarify the quiestions?


BTW, bobinnv is probably right that if Kerry were president, these same numbers would be touted as the best economy in years.

Why dont you say whether or not you believe that would be justified? Describing them as the best economy in years is misleading, describing them as the best since 2001 unfortunately isnt. The economy is doing better than it did during 2000 - 2004, too bad we have such a lousy baseline to compare against AND have run up such a deficit and are set on a completely reckless and unstainable path. The fact that the second term looks a little less dismal on some economic numbers than the first after tremendous amounts of government spending and unsustainable reckless tax cuts is hardly grounds to celebrate. This is especially true with the current savings rate and many other unstainable attributes of the current econonmy that may serve to provide slight short term boosts.

If Kerry had taken office in January 2005, I think it would be premature to claim credit for any improvement of 2005 over 2005, so whats your point?

If Gore had been elected in 2000, but somehow all of the policies had been the same, would you be celebrating the Gore miracle today or perhaps carping about Gores reckless failure to have exercised a single veto to stop the reckless fiscal policies of the congress? If this had been the legacy of a Gore Presidency I would be embarassed if I had supported him, would you be applauding him today?

Posted by: Catch22 on April 21, 2006 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

33% huh? Given those numbers, do the number of right wing posters here represent a statistically significant percentage of the few remaining Bush supporters?

To put it another way, are we now at the point where we can pretty much drop using percentages and just say "tbrosz, Al, and Kenneth continue to approve of the job President Bush is doing."

Posted by: moderleft on April 21, 2006 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

RT -

A great point on surveys and individual economic outlook.

One of the value points to surveys (and good statistical measurements) is that they give different perspectives which can give you a clearer view of reality. If I have 99 unemployed people in a room and Bill Gates, the median income would be quite impressive, but the median would be zero. A survey would show that 99% of the people in the room are unemployed and might reveal part of why.

I'm making a very nice income right now, and I'm darn happy about it. But I also know that my economic anxiety has increased over the times when I made less, in part because of personal reasons (mortgage, etc.) and in part because of how the changes in the relationships between employees and companies increase stress on everyone.

There are limitations to the value of surveys as they do reflect not just a strictly rational perspective but one which is shaped by the news media. If you hear that good jobs in your area of expertise are plentiful, you're economic anxiety will go down even if you keep the same job, and even if there hasn't been a significant change in your employment outlook - the reassurance on TV changes your perspective. The opposite is also true.

Posted by: Fides on April 21, 2006 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

I second Advocate for God - the Fox poll has Bush's approval at 33%

So all the Bush apologists need to get off this blog and start setting the American people straight.

The thing is that I don't really care about the employment rate. What I care about is that I didn't get a raise last year and don't see one in the future, my kid's job prospects aren't looking too good, the cost of college is up, and the price of gas is up - WAY up. Any uptick in the stock market is off in my 401k nestegg and I don't want to tap that unless I really have to.

Posted by: Tripp on April 21, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

ron byers: Amazing how far television "journalism" has sunk. Of course, we are talking about Fox, so we are not talking about a news channel. Sort of like Comedy Central, but without the accuracy and not very funny.

fox doesnt really provide journalism for all viewers...

with numerous channels and the high cost and time needed to create a first class journalistic endeavor...

they are able to make plenty of cash....creating story lines for a small segment of mostly white males that have healthy doses of bunkered aggrievement...

before fox...these were the loons that cried about clinton day after day...

ratings are both a function of cume (total number) and time spent viewing....

fox doesnt have alot of viewers per se....but of what they have, most would rarely turn away...

because that's where they get their fix of doctored information...

if its any comfort.....

its just for money....

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on April 21, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

As a pollster, I can confirm that the results of this poll will be meaningless. No respectable polling firm would ask questions that way and pretend that they had any bearing on anything. If I worded questions that way, my boss would fire me.

Posted by: Chris Marshall on April 21, 2006 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

>As far as you know, are we at war with Eurasia or Eastasia?

We are at war with Oceania.
We have always been at war with Oceania.

As far as you know.

Posted by: bartkid on April 21, 2006 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK

New question:

The Chinese government imprisons, tortures and kills dissidents, represses the practice of various religious faiths, fails to protect intellectual property, threatens Taiwan, restricts the press, restricts access to the internet.

Does knowing this make you feel better, about the same, or worse about President Bush playing host to Chinese President Hu this week and continuing to offer China favored nation trade status?

Posted by: pj_in_jesusland on April 21, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

I thought #11 was at least clever.

Posted by: Dave Ruddell on April 21, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

14. Do you think it is appropriate for immigrants who are in the United
States illegally to protest for changes to U.S. law?

15. Have the immigration protests and demonstrations made you more or less
likely to support easing immigration laws in the United States?

It doesnt take a genius to see that question 14 is going to influence the answer to question 15. Even the simple measure of reversing the order would help aleviate the problem a little IF they were not trying to influence people into concluding that most of the protestors must be illegal.

Of course this wasnt the only place Fox sought to influence opinion and spread that meme:

Fox News: Immigration Rally Is A Perfect Chance To Arrest Illegal Immigrants

Posted by: Catch22 on April 21, 2006 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK

The 90 people laid off by my company this month would like to invite Fox news to kiss their fuzzy a$$e$.

:)

Posted by: Scorpio on April 21, 2006 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK


RT: Everyone knows their own economic circumstances - whether their pay is going up or down, what's happening to their benefits

I agree that people have a better understanding of their own circumstances than they do of the country's as a whole. And I agree that their own perception of how they are doing financially is a better gauge of their feelings than is a "fact" dictated to them by a pollster. But I don't agree that "everyone knows their own economic circumstances."

I know people making $16/hr. who, when they receive a .50/hr raise, do not know that they are, effectively, making less than they did the previous year. I know people who, even when they are able to adjust for inflation, do not know that inflation for them may be much higher than its average because prices do not rise evenly across the board, being generally higher on necessities such as gasoline or heating oil. Also, people are not always aware of the details regarding whatever employee benefits they might receive and how changes impact their out-of-pocket costs.

So while it's true that people have a fairly good idea of how they are doing over the long haul, due to variable spending habits; unawareness of numerous economic intricacies; and propagandistic messages from political and corporate interests, there can be a considerable time lag between significant personal economic downturns and one's conscious perception of them.


Posted by: jayarbee on April 21, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

"The 90 people laid off by my company this month would like to invite Fox news to kiss their fuzzy a$$e$."

And how many thousands of people were hired this month by other companies? If Bush, or Fox News get get the blame for your 90 layoffs, then they must get the credit fo the thousands of new hires, too.


Posted by: bobinnv on April 21, 2006 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

Frequency Kenneth: "I love it! Kevin Drum is afraid of actual facts ..."

Apparently, you'd much rather prefer a glittering political generality devoid of actual substance, which is akin to a child demanding a dessert of frothy meringue without any of that icky lemon filling or hard crust.

Do you fear to learn, upon further examination of detail, that you've been played for a fool by political charlatans who egregiously abused Americans' innate deference to those in authority during times of crisis?

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 21, 2006 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

bobinnv: "If Bush, or Fox News get get the blame for your 90 layoffs, then they must get the credit [for] the thousands of new hires, too."

Good point. For example, although Del Monte Corp. recently announced its intention to move all of its high-intensity agricultural operations from the island of Oahu to the Philippines by the end of 2007, thus laying off over 700 workers, at least 25 Papa John Pizza Delivery outlets were opened in the City & County of Honolulu during the last two years alone.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 21, 2006 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

The poll question related to the stockmarket could just have easily used the Wilshire 5000 which is up about 16% in the last year.

Posted by: Yancey Ward on April 21, 2006 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

George Bush: Great President, or GREATEST President?

Posted by: TomStewart on April 21, 2006 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINK

"Good point. For example, although Del Monte Corp. recently announced its intention to move all of its high-intensity agricultural operations from the island of Oahu to the Philippines by the end of 2007, thus laying off over 700 workers, at least 25 Papa John Pizza Delivery outlets were opened in the City & County of Honolulu during the last two years alone."

Well, despite your cute anecdote, my point is valid, and yours is not. Even in the very best of times, companies move, people get laid off. Your story says nothing about the state of the economy, or about job creation and loss overall. Unemployment statatistics on the other hand, (not that they are perfect by any means) do tell you something about the overall economy. Lots of not so hot jobs are being created, sure. But lots of good ones are, too. As I said before, if a Democrat was president, todays economic numbers would be seen as peachy keen by most posters here.

Posted by: bobinnv on April 21, 2006 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

bobinnv,

But lots of good ones are, too.

Ooooh. Would you be a doll and point me towards them please?

Because in my personal experience my manager is AT THIS MOMENT in China working to send as many jobs as she can there. These are the high-paying - high trained computer jobs I'm talking about.

When I asked where the expected new jobs were I was told to retrain as a Nurse's aid so I could wipe some old guy's butt in a nursing home.

So don't give me this "every job is equal" bullshit. Only 33% or Americans are stupid enough to buy that anymore!

Posted by: Tripp on April 21, 2006 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK
As I said before, if a Democrat was president, todays economic numbers would be seen as peachy keen by most posters here.

If a Democrat were President, the headline numbers that have been trumpetted as good here since, oh, 2004 (low headline unemployment rate, decent GDP growth, etc.) would probably be supported by good distributional measures as well, because the policies (capital friendly tax cuts, etc.) that have direct the rewards of economic growth disproportionately to the already super-rich wouldn't have been championed by the Administration.

So, yeah, the same headline numbers probably would be "peachy keen" if a Democrat were President.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 21, 2006 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

Paul Craig Roberts, Ronald Reagans Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, doesnt think the Bush economy is so rosy.

Some excerpts from the article (for the knuckle-draggers who prefer the Readers Digest version):
 Job growth over the last five years is the weakest on record.
 The US economy came up more than 7 million jobs short of keeping up with population growth.
 Over the past five years the US economy has experienced a net job loss in goods producing activities.
 US manufacturing has lost 2.9 million jobs, almost 17% of the manufacturing work force.
 There are several hundred thousand American engineers who are unemployed and have been for years.
 The total number of private sector jobs created over the five year period is 500,000 jobs less than one years legal and illegal immigration

The occupations with the highest growth rate in the past five years have been waitresses, bartenders and government employees. To quote Roberts, No sane economist can possibly maintain that a deplorable record of merely 1,054,000 net new private sector jobs over five years is an indication of a healthy economy.

Face it, righties, trickle-down economics is an unmitigated failure and a discredited economic sham! Put a Democrat in the White House they are much better for the economy!!!

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on April 21, 2006 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

"so don't give me this "every job is equal" bullshit. Only 33% or Americans are stupid enough to buy that anymore!"

I didn't say that every job was equal - I said that good as well as not so good jobs are being created. Which is true. And lots of them. That doesn't mean there aren't places like where you work, where good jobs are being lost. But that has always been the case, no matter who was president.

As for the 33% figure: if the Iraq mess ever gets better, you can bet that a lot more people will suddenly feel better about the economy, even if nothing has changed. Much of the pessimism that people feel is really about Iraq, not the economy per se.

Posted by: bobinnv on April 21, 2006 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINK
As for the 33% figure: if the Iraq mess ever gets better, you can bet that a lot more people will suddenly feel better about the economy, even if nothing has changed.

If the Iraq mess ever gets better, it will probably mean (not necessarily "cause", the two are causally entangled, not one simply resulting form the other) more stability in the Middle East and better gas prices, which may not effect any of the headline numbers much, but will directly effect a lot of the things people cite as particularly contributing to their perception of bad economic conditions, particularly the frequently cited "gas prices".

So, yeah, without any change in the headline figures, stability in Iraq would probably make people feel better about the economy.

Conversely, if things go further downhill with Iran, people will probably feel worse about the economy even if none of the headline numbers get any worse.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 21, 2006 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

"so don't give me this "every job is equal" bullshit. Only 33% or Americans are stupid enough to buy that anymore!"

I didn't say that every job was equal - I said that good as well as not so good jobs are being created. Which is true. And lots of them. That doesn't mean there aren't places like where you work, where good jobs are being lost. But that has always been the case, no matter who was president.

As for the 33% figure: if the Iraq mess ever gets better, you can bet that a lot more people will suddenly feel better about the economy, even if nothing has changed. Much of the pessimism that people feel is really about Iraq, not the economy per se.

Posted by: bobinnv on April 21, 2006 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

As for the 33% figure: if the Iraq mess ever gets better,

Mighty big "if." I wouldn't hold my breath.

Posted by: Stefan on April 21, 2006 at 6:18 PM | PERMALINK

The assertion that real disposable income is up 2 percent is a lie.

A baldfaced lie.

Posted by: Holdie Lewie on April 21, 2006 at 6:23 PM | PERMALINK

Average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers were $553.09 in March, up 3.8 percent from $533.06 in March 2005.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t16.htm

The Consumer Price Index is up 3.4 percent in the 12 months ending in March.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm

By these measures, real disposable income went up 0.4 percent in those 12 months.

Posted by: Holdie Lewie on April 21, 2006 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINK

Curb your enthusiam.

Given that unemployed workers are rolled of the roles after 6 months, does the 5% unemployment rate make you feel better about our economy?

Given that the top .01 are up 500%, the top 1% are up 50% and the average college graduate's income is down 4% do you still feel better about this economy?

Given that the number of total man hours worked since 2000 are still down, do you feel better about this economy?

Posted by: Bubbles on April 21, 2006 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINK

The labor force participation rate is the percentage of people ages 16 to 65 who aren't in prison and who have jobs. It was:

65.8 percent in March 2006
65.6 percent in March 2005
65.8 percent in March 2004
66.2 percent in March 2003
66.4 percent in March 2002
67 percent in March 2001
67.1 percent in March 2000

Sorry, no direct link available, but you can get to it from checking the correct boxes here:
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm

Posted by: Holdie Lewie on April 21, 2006 at 6:46 PM | PERMALINK

As for the 33% figure: if the Iraq mess ever gets better, you can bet that a lot more people will suddenly feel better about the economy, even if nothing has changed.

And if up is ever down, and if down is ever up, or better yet, if water ever flows up hill, that will be the day, then you'll see the 33% figure turn into a 66%.

Ha, Ha!

A policy that consists of nothing other than shifting as much of societies wealth to the very top and smallest of percentile of people can only end where every policy like that has in the past: ?"The dust bin of History".

That's all Bush has done. Eveything else was a red herring for this policy, and this policy alone. Including the soul journ to Iraq.

In that dust bin you'll find the Western Roman Empire, Medieval Japan (both subsequently had mult centuried dark ages), Egypts Middle Kingdom, Hapsburg Spain, Bourbon France, Romanov Russia, and Herbert Hoover's second adminisitration.

Posted by: Bubbles on April 21, 2006 at 6:55 PM | PERMALINK

bobinnv,

I don't think you're right, you're simply making an assertion and stating it as fact.

Lots of folks were worried about income disparities before, even in the nineties when median household real incomes were rising. Now that they're actually going downward, things do seem worse.

During the Clinton years, lots of economists and folks like the ones on this page were also worried about a stock market bubble - right about that one.

Overall, though, we were happy with the state of the economy during the Clinton years, because by almost every stat that right wingers like to point to and the additional stats right wingers don't care for (median household income) were also doing well.

Posted by: Fides on April 21, 2006 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK

Looks like the desperado Bush administration wants to scare off any more embarrassing leaks.

Posted by: shortstop on April 21, 2006 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK

bobinnv, would you care to address Stephen Kriz's post from 5:39 pm?

No, you probably wouldn't. But I'd sure like to see you give it a try.

Posted by: vetiver on April 21, 2006 at 7:32 PM | PERMALINK

did they remember to ask the one about the democrats and blood-sucking vampires?

Posted by: supersaurus on April 21, 2006 at 7:40 PM | PERMALINK

Ahem... gas prices, buying power, personal debt.

nuff said.

Posted by: dk on April 21, 2006 at 7:49 PM | PERMALINK

Ques. 49. "Do illegal aliens have a right to be in the U.S.?

Ques. 50. "Do you believe that this poll has no validity, because liberal Democrats on an Internet blog disapprove of the wording of some of the questions?"

Posted by: NoIllegalAlienLeftBehind on April 21, 2006 at 7:52 PM | PERMALINK

"Internet blog"

As opposed to what other kind of Web log?

Posted by: cmdicely on April 21, 2006 at 8:00 PM | PERMALINK

"Weren't Democratic politicians also deeply involved in each of those marches?"


Please respect the fact that illegal alien protests are lush recruiting grounds for the Democrat party. If poor people didn't vote Democrat, then who else would? Oh that's right, I forgot that 20% of white males in America are also registered Democrats.

Posted by: jazzy on April 21, 2006 at 8:07 PM | PERMALINK

Web log?

You got me! Touch!

How about Intranet Blog?

Posted by: NoIllegalAlienLeftBehind on April 21, 2006 at 8:11 PM | PERMALINK
Please respect the fact that illegal alien protests are lush recruiting grounds for the Democrat party.

Right. Well, aside from the fact that they can't vote.

If poor people didn't vote Democrat, then who else would?

This makes sense, if your definition of "poor" includes most of the people who voted for current US Senators.

Oh that's right, I forgot that 20% of white males in America are also registered Democrats.

Without even getting into the accuracy of that number, you seem to be suggesting that "white males" are a group that is exclusive of "poor people", which seems more than a little bit misguided.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 21, 2006 at 8:11 PM | PERMALINK

"Right. Well, aside from the fact that they can't vote."

Exactly, they can't legally vote, like they can't legally be here, can't legally work, can't legally use somebody else's SSN to work, can't legally not pay taxes while illegally working. I agree, but really, are you saying the Democratic party has no foresight? After all, today's illegal alien is tomorrow's (or 5 years from now) staunch Democrat. The illegal alien class of '86 went Democrat, did it not?

Isn't what this is really all about? Winning future elections by importing votes?

Posted by: jazzy on April 21, 2006 at 8:22 PM | PERMALINK

"bobinnv, would you care to address Stephen Kriz's post from 5:39 pm? No, you probably wouldn't. But I'd sure like to see you give it a try."

Do you know anything about Paul Craig Roberts? He isn't really someone I would go to for sober, thoughful information. See, for instance:

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21704

He says there is job growth, but not as fast as before (gee, you think 9/11 had anything to do with that?) He says manufacturing jobs are going away - which they are - there is a long term shift away from manufacturing in the US, that has nothing to do with Bush being president. But I am not going to answer each point, you can find plenty of dueling economists elsewhere on the internet. You can ignore things like the employment rate, or stock market performance, and search for statistics that support your preconceptions if you wish, but you won't get a very realistic picture of the overall economy that way.

Posted by: bobinnv on April 21, 2006 at 8:37 PM | PERMALINK

Oh that's right, I forgot that 20% of white males in America are also registered Democrats.
Posted by: jazzy

... well ... the 20% of educated, nonracists white males who don't whine like pussies about being the REAL victims.

frankly, we're happy to have them.

Posted by: Nads on April 21, 2006 at 8:39 PM | PERMALINK

"... well ... the 20% of educated, nonracists white males who don't whine like pussies about being the REAL victims."


Do liberal Democrats have a copyright on the term "racist white males"? Is that not the typical reply any time Democrats feel challenged? And how ironic that a liberal is calling the non-20%'ers "pussies".

Victim. Victim? yes, yes, yes...I forgot the liberal creed, "there always has to be a victim". And if you don't know who the victim is.....then it's probably you. Who knows, I may have just written the '08 Democratic campaign slogan.

Posted by: jazzy on April 21, 2006 at 9:02 PM | PERMALINK

If you knew that real wages had dropped 1.5% from 2000 to 2005, would Frequency Kenneth get a clue?

Posted by: trifecta on April 21, 2006 at 9:13 PM | PERMALINK

sorry jazzy ... I assumed from your sentiment:

If poor people didn't vote Democrat, then who else would? Oh that's right, I forgot that 20% of white males in America are also registered Democrats.
Posted by: jazzy

... that white male america isn't poor. which, if you've seen Cops, decidely isn't so.

and your postings have the desperation of a young-ish white male who realizes that the coming america will not be the white boys' club he thought was somehow owed to him, and that he will actually have to compete against these darker (and often smarter) rabble for jobs and funds.

Pretty soon, this country will no longer be majority white. ... Presumably, you fuckers will then know what it has felt like for the past 300 years. Trust me ... the experience will be educational.

Posted by: Nads on April 21, 2006 at 9:39 PM | PERMALINK

"... that white male america isn't poor. which, if you've seen Cops, decidely isn't so."

White male America is poor, middle-class, wealthy and filthy rich. And 80% of them don't believe that the Democrats represent them.


"and that he will actually have to compete against these darker (and often smarter) rabble for jobs and funds."

Have you been living under a rock for the last 35 years? If you are a competent minority in the US, then corporate America is where you want to be, heck even the govt. practices affirmative action. Capitalism does not discriminate, except in the case of illegal labor. Would MicroSoft and Intel have dominated the tech. world by shunning the best talent, minority or not?


"Pretty soon, this country will no longer be majority white. ... Presumably, you fuckers will then know what it has felt like for the past 300 years. Trust me ... the experience will be educational."

Pretty soon? Detroit, Philadelphia, Gary, D.C., etc. Those places have a few problems, if I'm not mistaken. If whites are so bad, and you'd rather not wait for them to become the minority in the U.S., then you can always emigrate to Latin America. The only problem with that continent is that the Hispanics are fleeing their native countries to live in a white-majority U.S. Other options: How about Africa? next. Asia - Japan likes Japanese. EU - good luck getting citizenship. Do you see your dilemma? The U.S. is the best thing going for minorities, and let's give the whites a tiny, little bit of credit for that. White America ain't all that bad. You gonna watch NASCAR tomorrow?

Posted by: jazzy on April 22, 2006 at 1:00 AM | PERMALINK

The U.S. is the best thing going for minorities, and let's give the whites a tiny, little bit of credit for that. White America ain't all that bad.
Posted by: jazzy

that white man's burden must be getting heavy.

minorities in america generally succeed despite the intentions and actions of whites, especially historically. only very recently have white people, in more than token numbers, attempted to help nonwhites. ... so no, the whites don't get to pat themselvs on the back for finally acting like fucking human beings.

white america isn't bad ... the term smacks of the KKK, but that may not bother you. Imagine how much better we'll be when we dilute all that pastiness and ignorance!!!

Posted by: Nads on April 22, 2006 at 2:41 AM | PERMALINK

I'll take that as a concession that minorities can do better in the U.S., than anywhere else in the world today.

You would have been a hit in the '60's, but this is 2006 and that argument is passe. Few people buy this "keeping the black man down" sentiment any more . Minorities from all over the world come here and succeed, because of the system created by a predominantly white America. Reality is sometimes tough to handle.

Posted by: jazzy on April 22, 2006 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

How many new workers entered the workforce in the last year? The 2.1 million new jobs number is meaningless without this information.

Is real disposable income still up when you include the increased cost of health care? Gas? Our share of the national debt? I doubt it.

Posted by: sc on April 22, 2006 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK

So Kevin Drum doesn't like question 10 of the Fox poll. Sorry, but the question is an exact statement of what the Open Borders crowd in the Senate is attempting to foist on the American people. Oh yes, it would apply to all illegals, not just Mexicans. I guess it just hurts when the American people reject your Open Borders theology 90:4.

Posted by: Peter Schaeffer on April 22, 2006 at 8:37 PM | PERMALINK

You can ignore things...and search for statistics that support your preconceptions if you wish, but you won't get a very realistic picture of the overall economy that way.
Unless you work for Fox News, that is.

Posted by: sc on April 23, 2006 at 12:03 AM | PERMALINK

Nice site http://stacey-keebler.blogspot.com/

Posted by: stacey-keebler on April 24, 2006 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly