patrick.net

Comparing the OP headline from the Moonie Examiner to the headline from those who conducted the poll, and the actual poll results, reminds me of an adage from when I studied stastics: “Some people,” said Andrew Lang, “use statistics as a drunk man uses lamp-posts—for support rather than for illumination.”

From the linked article:

After Secrets first published their poll, YouGov.com noted that the sample for the question was small and recharacterized the sample as "those who reported voting for Barack Obama in 2012 but would vote for someone else if the election were held again" from "those who voted for Barack Obama in 2012."

Still, given the choice of Obama versus Romney, Obama supporters said they would stick with their guy, 79 percent to 10 percent for Romney.

If you want to understand how small the sample was, consider the "100% of Hispanics" factoid was based on four Hispanic voters. Not four thousand, not even four hundred, just plain four! The poll was reportedly commissioned to see if Romney should try again in 2016, and the answer was basically no.

dublin hillz says

It remains to be seen how seriously mr bain would have pursued MID removal. Also, if he were to combine it with reducing tax burden on passive income investment ballers, it would have been rightly perceived as a class warfare attack against the middle class.

True, it's not unusual that they don't keep their promises, but you have to look whatever they are proposing, that's better than nothing. Regarding the capital gains tax, I don't think he would have lowered it, but probably kept it where it was before Obama increased it. I can see both sides of the arguments on the capital gains tax, but as long as special deductions remain, I am categorically against tax hikes. I'm sure people would like to have a car interest deduction (even if they don't use it for business), after all it's more useful than a house, you can sleep in it AND go from A to B. Or how about a brokerage interest deduction so that people can fire up their trading and get leveraged to the hilt like with their house?

zzyzzx says

“Do you regret voting for Barack Obama?”

Overall, 71 percent said yes, 26 percent no.

That's cause the other monkey isn't around anymore.

Dan8267 says

Furthermore, a link in the original article takes you to a article in which the site claims the #1 campaign donor is "unions".

Unions is not an organization; it is a term that applies to tens of thousands of organizations. If we're playing that game, the #1 campaign donor is "corporations" and the #2 is "people". Less than ten seconds on washingtonexaminer.com makes me conclude it's a right-wing propaganda machine.

Love how you have to twist yourself in knots to downplay the fact that Democrats are the biggest recipients of outside money in our politics.

What is even more corrupt is that much of that union money going straight to Democrats is our TAX DOLLARS from government workers!

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Last time I checked, unions weren't even in the top 100 campaign donors in Washington.

Dan8267 says

I call bullshit.

Article already debunked.

http://patrick.net/?p=1238546&c=1053808#comment-1053808

Heraclitusstudent says

zzyzzx says

“Do you regret voting for Barack Obama?”

Overall, 71 percent said yes, 26 percent no.

That's cause the other monkey isn't around anymore.

No, it's because the statement is untrue. Already debunked:

http://patrick.net/?p=1238546&c=1053808#comment-1053808

I looked at http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Unions are the top 7 to 14 for donors, and I include the American Federation of Teachers.

Also city and county workers are at #2.

I don't see George Soros on list but I suspect he gives to a lot of the top 10 groups like Act Blue.

Koch Brother are not even in the top 25 !

zzyzzx says

80 percent of whites said yes, 61 percent of blacks said no and 100 percent of Hispanics said yes.

This is very twisted reporting, especially when they reversed the yes response for blacks to a no response?

If reported with clarity, Obama's approval rating today would read as follows:

0% for Hispanics, 20% for Whites and 39% for Blacks.

That jells with his overall approval rating of 29% nationwide.

Nothing surprising here, except for the 0% among Hispanics, if that can be validated?

socal2 says

Love how you have to twist yourself in knots to downplay the fact that Democrats are the biggest recipients of outside money in our politics.

What is even more corrupt is that much of that union money going straight to Democrats is our TAX DOLLARS from government workers!

Don't me us laugh. You want to talk about outside money influencing politics the GOP has this down to a perfected science. The Tea Party is nothing more than a astroturf organization founded, organized, and funded by a orchestrated collection of industry and lobby groups organized under patriotic-sounding organizations, which are themselves also astroturf organizations and then pooled under the guise of this co-called "Party" and in turn used to tell the constituency that its totally real, front candidates and politicians who promote their interests, and as seen have succeeded in getting people elected to congress who in turn most recently planted the seed of shutting down the government. So don't give me that line about Democrats. Sure- the dems also accept outside contributions and its no secret that unions are contributers. But at least those unions aren't hiding behind make-believe fake astroturf movements...

socal2 says

Dan8267 says

Furthermore, a link in the original article takes you to a article in which the site claims the #1 campaign donor is "unions".

Unions is not an organization; it is a term that applies to tens of thousands of organizations. If we're playing that game, the #1 campaign donor is "corporations" and the #2 is "people". Less than ten seconds on washingtonexaminer.com makes me conclude it's a right-wing propaganda machine.

Love how you have to twist yourself in knots to downplay the fact that Democrats are the biggest recipients of outside money in our politics.

Total bullshit. It is you who is going through contortions to misrepresent reality.

There were 14.5 million U.S. workers in unions in 2013 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These 14.5 million workers are spread across over 25,000 unions of varying sizes across a multitude of industries.

To lump 25,000 independent organizations composed of 14.5 million people as a single donor and to call it the largest donor is a lie beyond ridiculousness.

The question is, are you man enough to admit you're completely wrong?

Remind me again, who put out mock websites full of "truthy" facts against whom?

http://www.nextgov.com/cio-briefing/2014/02/under-fire-gop-adjusts-fake-democratic-campaign-sites/78974/

What's wrong with that?

They are just proof, that the LIberal's voting base, Vote based on the pretty pictures, and the blubs in the Captions, and the quotes taken out of context. They don't actually READ what's in the fucking thing.

The GOP did not place any lies on their site. They simply used images and snazzy captions, that one with out further reading would construe as a Liberal web site. It would be like a Democrat candidate putting up a website with pictures of NASCAR events, and Hog kills, with "Let's Git'er Done!" in the head of the page.

Anyone would send in money to a candidate, with out actually reading who that person really is, or send money to a PAC with out fully understanding how they would benefit your Vote. Deserves to have their Life savings absconded away, by the Prince of Nigeria.

For THEY are an impediment to Democracy.

Dan8267 says

Total bullshit. It is you who is going through contortions to misrepresent
reality.

There were 14.5
million U.S. workers in unions in 2013 according to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics. These 14.5 million workers are spread across over
25,000 unions of varying sizes across a multitude of industries.

To lump 25,000 independent organizations composed of 14.5 million people as a
single donor and to call it the largest donor is a lie beyond
ridiculousness.

The question is, are you man enough to admit you're completely wrong?

Dude - I don't even know what you are trying to argue.

Are you disputing the data from Open Secrets that show unions are the top financial contributors to politics and their money goes almost exclusively to Democrats?

socal2 says

Dude - I don't even know what you are trying to argue

And that is exactly why you are poorly arguing against it. It turns out that the key to winning a debate is to address the other side's points, all of them, and the only way to do that is to first know what the hell they are.

The original article made the false claim that unions -- those damn unions, everything's their fault including cancer -- are the #1 lobbyists in terms of dollars. In contrast, the poor little Koch brothers are hardly a fly.

There are over 25,000 unions in the United States representing over 14.5 million Americans of varying professions across all 50 states and most demographics. "Unions" is hardly a single contributor. In contrast, the Koch brothers are.

The article falsely equates these two things to misrepresent how much power and influence unions have in contrast to poor little multi-billionaires. It is disingenuous and obviously a lie.

Next time you want to ague against a point, I'd recommend understand what the point is.

Dan - are you disputing the Open Secrets list of campaign contributors or not?

Unions dominate the list and many are public sector unions taking MY tax money and funneling it almost exclusively to Democrats to support big government. It is totally corrupt.

It is funny how you can say unions represent millions of people, but Corporations only represent a few fat cats like the Koch bros.

As if Corporations don't support and employ millions and millions of people like me who want to see less government in our lives.

Shit - next thing you will say is that the Teachers Unions in California don't have any poltical power.

socal2 says

Dan - are you disputing the Open Secrets list of campaign contributors or not?

No, but I reserve the right to do so. However, not once did I mention that. I only posted the article was bullshit regarding unions being the largest contributors of campaign funds.

socal2 says

Unions dominate the list and many are public sector unions taking MY tax money and funneling it almost exclusively to Democrats to support big government. It is totally corrupt.

It is funny how you can say unions represent millions of people, but Corporations only represent a few fat cats like the Koch bros.

The entire point of Citizens United was to prevent YOU and everyone else from knowing where campaign contributions come from and go to. If you want honest, accurate reporting of lobbying dollars, Citizens United must be overturned.

Oh, and guess who supports Citizens United? Republicans and rich parasites.

If you think the big bad unions are ruining elections with their big bag dollars that come from minimum wage workers, then the solution is simple: public funding of campaigns and no private contributions of any kind. Try getting that accepted by the GOP or Tea Party.

Whether you think it's money from greedy, corrupt corporations or money from greedy, corrupt unions that's ruining elections, the solution is the same. All elections are 100% funded by the public; no candidate gets any money directly; all ad time is paid by the public and each candidate gets equal time. In other words, socialize elections. The free market should not determine who wins; the popular vote should. And the popular vote, unlike the free market, is based on one vote per person, not one vote per dollar.

socal2 says

Shit - next thing you will say is that the Teachers Unions in California don't have any poltical power.

When America invades a country because the teacher's unions in California want it to, I'll concede that those teacher unions have as much power as big oil.

Dan8267 says

socal2
says

Dan - are you disputing the Open Secrets list of campaign contributors or
not?

No, but I reserve the right to do so. However, not once did I mention that. I
only posted the article was bullshit regarding unions being the largest
contributors of campaign funds.

Well hell dude - get back with me once you spend a few minutes reviewing the list of political donors.

Dan8267 says

When America invades a country because the teacher's unions in California
want it to, I'll concede that those teacher unions have as much power as big
oil.

"War for Oil"?

Big Oil can force the US to fight wars, but they are too weak to take on the environmentalists here at home to drill on public land or build the Keystone pipeline? Even though the majority of Americans want to develop our own resources as opposed to fighting overseas.

I always knew you were a 9/11 Troofer.

And yes, the California Teachers Unions has much more power over my family's life as they have total control over the public education system and spend a shit-ton of my tax money getting Democrats elected dragging California into the 3rd world.

My taxes keep going up and up and government services keep going down and down.

socal2 says

Big Oil can force the US to fight wars, but they are too weak to take on the environmentalists here at home to drill on public land or build the Keystone pipeline?

Yes, that is the way American politics works. Anyone who doesn't think oil was the primary motive of the Bush war in Iraq is self-delusional.

Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil

Yes, the Iraq War was a war for oil, and it was a war with winners: Big Oil.

Oil was not the only goal of the Iraq War, but it was certainly the central one, as top U.S. military and political figures have attested to in the years following the invasion.

"Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that," said Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Then-Sen. and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."

The entire point of Citizens United was to prevent YOU and everyone else from knowing where campaign contributions come from and go to. If you want honest, accurate reporting of lobbying dollars, Citizens United must be overturned.
Oh, and guess who supports Citizens United? Republicans and rich parasites.

And the ACLU...

Dan, I suggest you actually read the CU decision directly rather than repeat the talking points above that you obviously did not get from the decision directly. Then you can correct the propaganda you provide above. You can start with the simple fact that as far as the challenge against disclosing where funding was coming from, that part of the law was UPHELD.

Paralithodes says

And the ACLU...

http://www.youtube.com/embed/cet3NcNNSc4

http://www.youtube.com/embed/7jmfuEJdbFM

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-consequences-citizens-united

One of the biggest independent spenders is conservative Super PAC American Crossroads, along with its affiliated dark money group Crossroads GPS. In early 2012 the Super PAC, which is required to report its donors, raised only 20% of the affiliated organizations’ donations. GPS, the dark money arm permitted to keep its donors’ identities secret, raised the other 80%.

And that's just a taste of how fucked up Citizen's United is.

I await your apology.

You've got to be f'n kidding. Here is a link to the actual decision. Ask for an apology, if you actually think you can, or for me to watch Comedy Central videos, after actually reading it.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=08-205

And from the ACLU website:

https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-and-citizens-united

And

https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission

I await your acknowledgement that my claim re the ACLU was correct.

carrieon says

Nothing surprising here, except for the 0% among Hispanics, if that can be validated?

My god - does anyone here know how to read?

Homeboy says

does anyone here know how to read?

Well, I read your comments. Does that make you feel better?

Dan8267 says

When America invades a country because the teacher's unions in California want it to, I'll concede that those teacher unions have as much power as big oil.

How do you know that money squandered on the teachers union doesn't exceed war spending?

zzyzzx says

How do you know that money squandered on the teachers union doesn't exceed war spending?

There is no money (zero government money) squandered on teachers unions. Unless you are referring to the unrealistically high compensation teachers receive.

Average teacher pay is something like 40K, maybe 55K in big cities, and half don't make it more than 5 years in the profession. Sure you can cite examples representing a tiny fraction of teachers in suburbs of New York or Chicago making 90K after 17 years working their way up the salary scale. So ? This is like 1% of teachers and those suburbs choose to pay their teachers well (out of their property taxes).

Stop blaming the teachers you had for your lack of reasoning ability. Some of us just have less intellectual horse power to work with. At least you have Fox news to help you navigate the big questions.

marcus says

Average teacher pay is something like 40K, maybe 55K in big cities, and half
don't make it more than 5 years in the profession. Sure you can cite examples
representing a tiny fraction of teachers in suburbs of New York or Chicago
making 90K after 17 years working their way up the salary scale. So ? This is
like 1% of teachers and those suburbs choose to pay their teachers well (out of
their property taxes).

Here's an example of what you're point was in the Illinois teacher retirement system that all the right wingers constantly whine about:

Membership[edit]TRS membership includes all full-time, part-time, and substitute public school teachers in the State of Illinois employed outside the city of Chicago in positions that require certification by the Illinois State Board of Education.[1] As of June 30, 2010, there were a total of 170,275 active members of TRS. Another 104,222 inactive members were entitled to benefits but not currently receiving any, and 97,754 annuitants and beneficiaries were receiving benefits.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teachers%27_Retirement_System_of_the_State_of_Illinois

Guess where the long-term, highest paid teachers are in the state? They're in the right wing dominated, rural, small school districts, that's if the school district survives the revenue starvation by their very own 'conservative' school board. Ironic, huh.

And Joe the (not)plumber just got a union job at Chrysler and is now a member of the UAW, but supposedly he hates it. It's pretty doubtful that he'll quit.

marcus says

There is no money (zero government money) squandered on teachers unions. Unless you are referring to the unrealistically high compensation teachers receive.

I am, plus their luxurious retirement packages are astonishing. Plus today's smaller class sizes also squander a lot of money. I want a minimum of 35 kids per classroom!

http://boston.com/community/blogs/rock_the_schoolhouse/2011/03/how_much_is_an_average_teacher.html

What's a retiring teacher's pension worth?
Well, that's an easy one to answer. It depends on how much a retiring teacher earns at the end of his or her career. So let's start there. According to the state's department of education, in 2009 the average teacher in the Commonwealth earned $67,577 in 2009. That's the last year for which we have complete data. If you apply a reasonable algorithm, based on the lowest assumption for salary increases (just over 4.5% annually) made by the pension system itself, you get an average teacher salary in 2011 of about $74,000.

Retiring teachers, of course, reach salaries that are far beyond the average salaries. You put 30, even 35 years into a profession marked by single salary structures, and seniority acts as a law that makes it so you receive much higher salaries at the end of your career.

Last week, WCVB's Chronicle discussed the national debate on collective bargaining. I noted that a teacher in the profession for 30 years will be able to retire with a pension of just under $60,000. I've gotten lots of emails after that appearance questioning the figure and accusing me of cooking the books. Well, let's go back to the data on statewide teacher compensation. For ease of presentation, I'll present five scenarios for teachers approaching retirement age. If the average teacher salary statewide in 2009 was $67,577, which has since then ramped up to $74,000 in 2011, then the salary for the 30-year veteran approaching retirement age is quite a bit higher than that. After all the average salary includes three-, five-, 10- and 20-year veterans.

Here's my two assumptions, and I think any reasonable person will see that I am bending over backwards to present a fair case:

To figure out the average salaries in 2009 and 2010, as noted above, I've based it on a 4.69% annual increase in salaries since 2009. That's the average increase from 2004 to 2009 and well below the state pension system's assumptions which range from 4.5~8%.
To approximate the salary of a 30-year veteran teacher who is about to retire, I assumed salaries 15 percent higher than the average of all teachers statewide. I have to use some such an assumption because the state does not collect statewide data on the distribution of salaries broken down by years of service or by age. Should you find this an unreasonable assumption, I'd urge you to take a look at the Boston Herald's online database of City of Boston salaries; you can see teacher position salaries. (I’ve linked to Brighton High to be more representative; given the higher percentage of teachers with more seniority at Boston Latin, I thought that would be fairer.)

So, here is what teachers starting their careers at 25 and retiring at 55, 57, 58, 60 and 65 years of age will be able to receive as pension payouts.

For the pension geeks among you, note that the table uses a three-year top salary average, because that is how the Massachusetts pension system calculates payouts. After calculating the average salaries in 2009, 2010, and 2011 salaries ($70,797), I added 15% to approximate the top salaries for 30-year veterans ($81,417). For more on the row entitled “Retirement-plus”, see page 9 of this report. It's a benefit for teachers (sought by the unions) which added $125 million annually to the state's pension liability and induced thousands of teachers to retire early. (Remember the hue and cry about teacher shortages?)

Conclusion: If I am wrong in my assertion regarding the amount received by a 30-year veteran, it is at best a question of being off by two years.

To those people who like to repeat the tired mantra that pensions are not a real and substantive issue, take a look at the table below. It is a simple presentation of the same set of scenarios (career start at 25, retirement at 55, 57, 58, 60 and 65) for the average aged teacher today (who is 44), noting what that teacher's pension payout will be when he or she retires.

This pension discussion does not obviously include other benefits for district school teachers, which include health care benefits during employment (which is part of any private or public employment package) and also health care coverage for retirees (which is next to unheard of for private sector employees). The state and almost all Massachusetts municipalities, with the exception of perhaps a handful of localities, have not even begun thinking about how to pay down the tens of billions of dollars in retiree health care benefits.

So, finally, to those who claim that none of this sometimes too passionately debated discussion would have happened but for the financial crisis, sorry, but no. This is certainly a question of benefits for real-life people, but it is also a story about what numerically is possible. The financial sector's shenanigans merely sped up the flash point of a slow train wreck that we have watched from what seemed like afar.

zzyzzx says

Dan8267 says

When America invades a country because the teacher's unions in California want it to, I'll concede that those teacher unions have as much power as big oil.

How do you know that money squandered on the teachers union doesn't exceed war spending?

Over a million civilians -- men, women, and children -- died in the Iraq War alone. How much is each of those lives worth? Teachers unions aren't in the same league as the warfare industry. Hell, it's not even the same sport.

And once again, if you're bitching and moaning about Teacher's unions, the answer is the same. Overturn Citizen's United. End all PACs and SuperPACs. Publicly finance all elections with equal media time for all candidates. Outlaw selling political ads.

curious2 says

Homeboy says

does anyone here know how to read?

Well, I read your comments. Does that make you feel better?

If you truly knew how to read, you'd skip his comments!

Dan8267 says

Over a million civilians -- men, women, and children -- died in the Iraq War alone. How much is each of those lives worth?

Third world country lives aren't worth much, certainly way less than even the pension of one teacher.

zzyzzx says

Plus today's smaller class sizes also squander a lot of money. I want a minimum of 35 kids per classroom!

There's a guy that's out of touch. Many places have HS classes of 50 per class. Just in case you wonder why you hear some teachers unions fighting for smaller class sizes. I have had classes over 50. And averages in recent years over 40.

Learn a little more logic and reasoning, throw in a few facts, and you will understand that money is taken out of teachers salaries for their pensions instead of SS. Employers contribute as they would SS. Yes they contribute a little more than SS, but that's the extent of the cost of those great pensions. You can easily offset that with the low pay teachers get (on average). You and your employer contribute to a fund for 35 to 40 years and then account for exponential growth. That's where those pensions come from.

Fucking idiot.

If the compensation is so great, how come about half of those going in to teaching quit in the first 5 years ?

zzyzzx says

$67,577 in 2009. That's the last year for which we have complete data. If you apply a reasonable algorithm, based on the lowest assumption for salary increases (just over 4.5% annually) made by the pension system itself, you get an average teacher salary in 2011 of about $74,000.

In los angles, teacher's pay is still the same as 2007. Actually we hd pay cuts for most of the interim.

humanity says

In los angles, teacher's pay is still the same as 2007. Actually we hd pay cuts for most of the interim.

All of us non-teachers have had the same lack of wage growth.

humanity says

In los angles, teacher's pay is still the same as 2007. Actually we hd pay
cuts for most of the interim.

The pussy's data is from a blog, not the actual retirement fund or whatever it's called for that state's/city's teachers.
The giveaway was the INCLUSION of the highest yearly income.
Another right wing fail.

upisdown says

The giveaway was the INCLUSION of the highest yearly income

But teacher's pensions are calculated based upon the highest years income.

humanity says

I have had classes over 50. And averages in recent years over 40.

Not around here.

http://www.data-first.org/data/what-is-our-average-class-size/
According to the National Center for Education Statistic’s Digest of Education Statistics 2010, the national average number of students per teacher was 15.5 in 2007.

http://www.publicnewsservice.org/2014-02-20/education/does-class-size-in-arizona-matter-research-says-yes/a37671-1
In the last five years, the average class size in the U.S. has increased 5 percent, to almost 22 students per classroom.

The National Center for Education Statistics says the average class size in Arizona is just over 21 students.

Data for California:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/dr/cefteachavgclssize.asp
Shows average class size in CA being anywhere between 22.7 - 26.4, depending upon the grade level.