John Stossel is at it again: "Cheap in America" on 20/20 tonight

[SeattleGirl]

They just did this blurb on my local ABC station about a John Stossel piece on 20/20 tonight. From what I saw, he is slanting the report to say that conservative red-stater's are more giving that liberal blue-stater's. Which, of course, is no surprise, but damn, I'm sick of this. I'm not going to watch the whole thing; the 5 minutes of it I saw on the local news was quite enough.

[yewberry]

1. We're watching the same news.

Yeah, I don't think I need to see the Stossel piece tonight.

Hey, have you heard exactly when our "wintry mix" is supposed to start?

[SeattleGirl]

4. 5 minutes of that was 5 minutes too many.

As far as the "wintry mix" (sounds like a snack food), I'm not sure. I do know that it's cold as all get out right now. Me and the dog are hunkered down trying to stay warm!

[zbdent]

2. Did anybody expect this ass to give a fair report?

Mr. "I got my bucks from being a dumbass suing the WWF?"

[SeattleGirl]

6. I certainly didn't.

And that 5 minute blurb just confirmed my thoughts about his "fair" reporting.

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. They got the right spokesman for "cheap," that is certain n/t

[SeattleGirl]

7. Hehehe!

Good one, TechBear!

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. :bow:

The real question, though: Was I referring to his reporting style, or that doormat he calls a toupe?

[SeattleGirl]

15. ROFL!!!! My guess would be, BOTH!

:rofl:

[Dammit Ann]

5. give me a break!

get it?


THE DAMMIT CHRONICLES

[SeattleGirl]

8. Oh yeah, I get it!

Maybe someone should do a give me a break segment focused on HIM!

[Dammit Ann]

10. indeed.

such a hack, my husband becomes positively unglued when he hears his voice.

[Raine]

16. That smirk on his stupid face

makes me want to punch it right off of him.:spank: :mad:

[Dammit Ann]

19. insidious.

that is what he is, he flies under the radar infecting minds. we have been vocal haters of him for years around my house. what a prick. where's jim webb when you need him?


THE DAMMIT CHRONICLES

[freethought]

9. Let him say whatever he wants

Then someone should do a counter-report that shows how many "RED" states get welfare and subsidies from the tax revenues that 'BLUE' states generate. I'm sure that would go over really well. Let's just see how Kansas would fare if the federal government stopped paying out farming subsidies?

[SeattleGirl]

13. I like your idea, freethought.

This segment I just saw came complete with a red-state/blue-state map. Plus, they put a Salvation Army bell ringer in front of Macy's in San Francisco, and then in front of WalMart in a red state (damn, can't remember which state), and played up how the blue state kettle wasn't nearly as full as the WalMart blue-state kettle was, so therefore, conservative bible-belters who shop at WalMart are more generous than them damned "librul" San Francisco-values blue-staters. However, what was left out was ANY MENTION of other ways that people give, through donations of food, clothing, money to specific charities, etc. No, no, no, they just wanted viewers to think that if you are a red-stater (thus automatically a conservative) you are so much more generous than those freakin' blue-stater's.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[Straight Shooter]

18. People who shop at Macy's carry credit cards; Wal-Mart shoppers carry cash. n/t

Edit to add, don't mean to "cast asparagus" at our DU Wally-World shoppers. I'm just saying a lot of people run into W-M to get a small item and it isn't worth buying on credit or writing out a check.

[SeattleGirl]

20. Right. And I am not trying to demean anyone who shops at WalMart

Many people don't have a choice where they live, and while I do, I'm not going to judge them. But I think what Stossel is doing with that piece, especially doing Macy's vs WalMart, is just try to ratchet up the stereotypes about liberals and conservatives, blue-staters and red-staters, trying to drive a wedge even further into the manufactured divide.

[Straight Shooter]

22. Absolutely.

I think Wal-Mart is evil, but that's my perception and we all make our individual choices based on circumstances that aren't always apparent from the outside looking in.

Stossel is a POS, and he does like to drive a wedge between people. Maybe we should call him Wedgie-Man. :7

[SeattleGirl]

26. Wedgie-Man gets my vote!

That's a good one, SS! And regarding WalMart, I've had a beef with them for years for how they treat their injured workers. I am a vocational rehab counselor and my clients are all people who got hurt on the job. WalMart and Sam's Club got in major trouble with the State of Washington Dept. of Labor and Industries over the nasty way they treat their workers after they've been injured. That's what started it for me.

[Straight Shooter]

53. GMTA.

That's my main reason for staying away from them, because the way they treat their workers borders on criminal neglect. Just because a person needs a job is no reason to treat them like a disposable unit.

I didn't know you were a voc rehab counselor. :thumbsup:

[freeplessinseattle]

27. plus I noticed that most of the wal-mart givers were kids

they were probably the ones who wanted to donate, while SF shoppers are less likely to have children.

[SeattleGirl]

30. Hey freepless! I noticed that too.

I think another implication of this report (is implication the right word???) in showing kids in the red states and not so much in the blue state is that red-staters teach their kids to give and blue-staters don't. Christ, I think I could teach an entire class on just this "report" regarding how things are spun and twisted and bent to show the outcome the reporter WANTS as opposed to any truth that might be out there.

[Neecy]

33. There's a reason for that...

Other than being "cheap". Salvation Army has gotten a ton of press in San Francisco for their homophobia and hiring practices. I NEVER give them money for this reason - and probably 90% of San Franciscans don't either. Macy's at Union Square has a large gay customer base and many of those who aren't are gay friendly.

This is no surprise that the kettle at Macy's is less filled, but of course I'm sure 20/20 is going to go into any real detail tonight - better to show liberals as 'cheap', I guess, rather than principled.

[PA Democrat]

12. So, does that mean that there is less poverty in red states?

If red-staters are more "giving" wouldn't you expect to see less poeple with unmet needs? No hunger, no homelessness, no lack of health care or services for the elderly, the disabled, etc.?

[SeattleGirl]

14. Nope. In fact, Stossel and the guy who was on the report with him

went out of their way to point out how the VERY POOR and the VERY RICH are every so much more giving that the working and middle class folks, especially of those people are liberals (in Stossel's definition of a liberal, which seems to be anyone who lives on the east or west coast.)

[Fuzz]

17. Do they count the money given to their church as charitable giving?

Most of that money is used for church upkeep, staff salaries and such.

[SeattleGirl]

21. I don't know Fuzz. Church funds are also used to help church

members who may be feeling a financial pinch, so that part of it would be charitable giving, IMO.

[Fuzz]

23. Agreed, that part should be considered

but if they included all tithing, that would account for a lot of the discrepancy.

Many of these churches are run like social or country clubs though with the tithes being God mandated dues with most members barely looking out of their church windows. Being the son of a minister, I've seen it over and over. A lot of the money that goes outside of the church is used to fund missionary salaries and support, or sent to home offices or districts, etc. I guess I'm just skeptical as to how much charitable giving is actually being done here, based on what I've personally seen.

[SeattleGirl]

28. Very understandable.

I do know that a lot of the donations or tithes are used for more administrative uses, but I also know, at least from my personal experience, that many churches do provide for their members who are in need.

[sandnsea]

37. I bet that's what it is

Giving to nonprofits based on tax returns. I would think individual organizations would have to release their own data to make any real sense of who actually helps people.

[montieg]

24. I saw stosshole in a primer this AM on ABC with his "expert" and did some research

and found that this "expert" is doing his own take on some, in my opinion, questionable data. quote from the "expert", Arthur C Brooks:


"How do religious and secular people vary in their charitable behavior? To answer this, I turn to data collected expressly to explore patterns in American civic life. The Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (sccbs) was undertaken in 2000 by researchers at universities throughout the United States and the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. The data consist of nearly 30,000 observations drawn from 50 communities across the United States and ask individuals about their “civic behavior,” including their giving and volunteering during the year preceding the survey.

From these data, I have constructed two measures of religious participation. First, the group I refer to as “religious” are the respondents that report attending religious services every week or more often. This is 33 percent of the sample. Second, the group I call “secular” report attending religious services less than a few times per year or explicitly say they have no religion. These people are 26 percent of the sample (implying that those who practice their religion occasionally make up 41 percent of the sample). The sccbs asked respondents whether and how much they gave and volunteered to “religious causes” or “non-religious charities” over the previous 12 months. "



In other words, this is SELF-REPORTED data. The surveyers asked questions and the repondents told them how the acted. Specious to begin with. And Stosshole can turn that into an entire segment on national tv attacking them goddam dirty hippie libruls.

[SeattleGirl]

29. That part really pissed me off.

It's the whole "statistics, statistics, and damned statistics" thing, and may I also say, their methodology is quite sloppy and would not pass muster with legitimate statisticians.

[freeplessinseattle]

25. I saw that komo segment too. komos is notoriously biased

remember when they refused to show any of the protestors signs during the WTO protest? but they'll gladly give airtime to stories about serial killers and such.

sod, and that crap about liberals donating less bc they expect the gov't to help. agh! what a fucking line of bull! besides, I'll bet a lot of the conservatives that do give are churchgoers who have to give a tith, and give a couple bucks to the bell-ringers to buy their way into heaven. yet bitch about taxes constantly.

[SeattleGirl]

31. I remember during the 2004 elections, when Ohio "went to Bush"

and Kathy Goertsen just checked off Ohio for him without questioning why, at the 11th hour, after Kerry pretty much lead Ohio all day, everything just "flipped" to Bush. I was sitting on my couch yelling at the TV, wanting them to wake up and QUESTION what was going on. Oh, silly me.... that is NOT going to happen at KOMO.

[cynatnite]

32. Would I be correct in assuming there are more RW rich people...

than liberal ones?

[SeattleGirl]

34. I would assume the same thing.

And this segment of this report I saw noted that the very poor and the very rich give more than the in-betweener's. But there was no breakdown, at least in what I saw, of where the money goes. I wonder if they look at obscene amounts of money going to Republicans as "charity"?

[ikojo]

35. At the HMO where I work it is the regular

employees who are more generous than senior staff and it has been said by the VP of human resources.

[SeattleGirl]

38. I'm not surprised.

It was that way at several companies I worked at in the past.

[bluedogyellowdog]

36. Stossel is a bizarre case

He put a Salvation Army bucket at Macys in San Francisco and at Wal-Mart in South Dakota. The one in South Dakota got more donations - which means nothing politically speaking - and Stossel puts a bizarre spin on it that this means conservatives are naturally more giving and liberals are greedy. Or something.

Breaking it down, point by point:
1. People who shop at Macys are more likely to be Republicans. Stossel seems to be implying that they would be more likely to be Democrats. This is a silly notion the Repubs have been trying to peddle for years. It's part of their "liberals are latte drinking Volvo driving rich urban elitists" shtik they have been trying to sell to the American public, and as the 2006 elections showed (in Virginia, Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and even Kansas and Arizona among other places in the heartland), the public isn't buying it. While I despise Wal-mart and don't go there myself, I recognize that working class folks (the Democratic base) are more likely to go there because they have driven so many local businesses out of business that in many cases they are the only game in town for affordable shopping.
2. South Dakota is as much a blue state as California. They have a Democratic senator, two until recently, a Democratic at-large Congresswoman, just voted to overturn a statewide abortion ban, and have a prairie-populist tradition that while less pronounced than that in Minnesota nonetheless gave us, for example, George McGovern. San Francisco on the other hand...wasn't that the city with the segregated hotels that turned firehoses on students protesting HUAC?
3. Stossel is one of those uber-Republican jerks who tries to hide behind the "libertarian" label (see also P.J. O'Rourke, Thomas Sowell, Glenn Reynolds, and Neal Boortz for other examples). They aren't, and their ridiculous pro-Republican partisanship is sufficient proof. Real libertarians would never run cover for the Republican Party.
4. There is a much more obvious explanation why South Dakotans gave more money than San Franciscans. It wouldn't have anything to do with the outrageous cost of living in San Fran and the relatively cheap cost of living in South Dakota now would it?

Who is he trying to fool?

More to the point, why does ABC give this clown airtime?

[SeattleGirl]

39. You make excellent points.

In the bigger picture, I would say that there are selfish and generous people of all political stripes. I really do dispise this kind of "reporting". You know, I think that if it were not for the rabid talking heads and people like Stossel, who spew biased crap under the guise of a "report" are the main cause of the divisiveness in this country. Yeah, there are people who need no prompting, who are so blinded by their own opinions that they can't see past the nose on their face, but I think a lot of what is going on in this country, regarding the "great red-state/blue-state divide" is a product of the media deliberately working to make it that way.

[treestar]

40. He is a liar of the first order

Whatever he is claiming is wrong. You can bet on it being exactly the opposite.

Total moran.

[SeattleGirl]

41. Yup.

I haven't watched him in a very long time, but when this piece came on the local news, I watched. His bias, spin, and twisting of "facts" to make them say what he wants them to say was so fucking blatant. How do people like this sleep at night?

[bobbolink]

42. Well, he said it on the teevee, it must be true.

GAK.

[SeattleGirl]

43. Then I must be punished, because I dared to question it!

(GAK is right, bobbolink).

[fencesitter]

44. The first five minutes...

the red states are the most generous 'cause they all go to church. Liberal cities are cheap givers, expect the government to provide.

[fencesitter]

45. And why is this a blue/red state thing anyway?

n/p

[SeattleGirl]

49. I don't think it is, in the real world. But in the world of spin, it is.

That's why I was saying that I think it's just another way to try and divide this country -- at least the view people have of the country -- as being very divided. Again, propaganda, plain and simple.

[SeattleGirl]

46. I know. This piece is nothing but propaganda, plain and simple.

But how many people are going to sit down tonight, watch it, and say, "Dang, them libruls sure are selfish mo-fo's"?

[EstimatedProphet]

51. What the fuck is wrong with expecting the government to provide anyway?

they're our taxes. why shouldn't we give them with the expectation that social services will be taken care of with them? and if someone gripes about thier taxes going to welfare, then aren't they the ones being stingy and not wanting to be charitable?

[SeattleGirl]

52. I have never understood the attitude that some people have about

social services. Sometimes people are in a bad way, for various reasons, and they need help. I can't stand people who have the attitude that people should "pull themselves up by their bootstraps", particularly when some people in need don't even have boots.

[VelmaD]

47. And you just know...

someone donating to send bibles to "heatherns" got counted but my donations to the ACLU and Planned Parenthood...that's not "charity" or "giving" or whatever.

[bobbolink]

48. No, just simple treason.

:evilgrin:




"Ve know who you are...."

:hi:

[SeattleGirl]

50. Oh, I'm sure you're right. This study is in no way scientific.

It's nothing but bullshit.