Where can I find unbiased facts about political issues?

[RoughCollie]

Today, my sons asked me where we can find unbiased facts that upon which political issues are based.

 

These issues include, but are not limited to, health care, amnesty for illegal aliens, a flat tax rate, small federal government, and states rights. Toss into the mix God, abortion, LGBT issues, moral relativism, the belief systems of a bunch of dead philosophers, women's issues, race issues, professional baseball, and the content of a person's character, and you've got a handle on the many directions one very, very long conversation can consist of. (Yes, I know one should not end a sentence in a preposition. I just hope "of" is a preposition, so the former sentence makes sense.)

 

I can read and comprehend the actual health care bill, but that would take a huge amount of time. I am thinking of doing it anyway, at the rate of 30 pages per day. I've got a handle on the abortion issue.

 

If you have some ideas of where I can find unbiased, straight facts, please let me know. I know how to find the arguments on all sides of the issues -- but the boys want to make certain that the facts upon which the opinions are based are the Truth.

 

The boys will be voting in the next presidential election. To prepare, they want to form their own opinions about the issues. They will also be studying the history of American government, the Constitution, economics, and politics.

 

The whole thing makes me tired just thinking about it. This is the second night this week that DS3 and I have been up talking all night about these things. It is 4:53 a.m. and I've just sent him off to bed after a 6-hour long conversation marathon. I was the one who had to stop the discussion -- he was still going strong.

 

I guess it's a teen thing, that they are just revving up right when I am ready to sleep. I don't want to dampen their enthusiasm or not be ready to listen when they are ready to talk, but I am going to try to steer them in the direction of starting these conversations much earlier in the day.

 

Part of the problem is that the middle of the night is the prime time that one of the boys can get me aside to talk to me by himself. When one of them wants to talk about these things when the rest of the family is awake, the entire crew participates and arguments break out, or we are continually interrupted. Plus, they like having my undivided attention. They are all thinkers who talk too much.

 

I thank my lucky stars that DD is a morning person and goes to bed early.

 

Thank you for your help,

RC

Edited April 1, 2010 by RoughCollie

[Melissa in Australia]

The only source I could think of, would be from somewhere out of the country you live in, like some coverage from a media that wasn't American ( or whatever country you are in), that way it isn't swayed by propaganda.

I don't think I am explaining myself well.

sorry

[Pippen]

I don't think you can find totally unbiased sources, but you can seek out sources that seek to achieve that goal.

 

When it comes to current issues, I like to check this site.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't think it's possible to get unbiased facts about political issues, not when it comes to the question of political philosophy, which is what it sounds like you are asking about.

 

You could go to politifact or factcheck and see what their articles have to say about specific issues. I think that's a pretty good place to start if you are seeking facts about the health care bill and what it says, etc.

 

As far as political philosphies go, you can watch Congress on CSPAN; you can read The Federalist Papers and The Anti-Federalist Papers, or specific essays from each; you can read a variety of new sources and opinion pieces. You can read Drudge and Media Matters. You can't get an unbiased opinion, it just doesn't work that way. But you can seek a variety of opinions from all sorts of different sources and start finding where your beliefs lie.

 

And it's fine to end a sentence with a preposition. :)

[RoughCollie]

Well, the political issues are based on facts, from which opinions are derived.

 

The trouble is that we need accurate sources for those facts.

 

For example, I have read in many places that over 40% of adults in this country (not including non-earning spouses who are married to taxpayers) do not pay any income tax.

 

Is this true? How do I find out?

[RoughCollie]

it's fine to end a sentence with a preposition. :)

 

Well, good. I was thinking about your apostrophe crusade when I wrote that. :D

[Mrs Mungo]

Well, the political issues are based on facts, from which opinions are derived.

 

The trouble is that we need accurate sources for those facts.

 

For example, I have read in many places that over 40% of adults in this country (not including non-earning spouses who are married to taxpayers) do not pay any income tax.

 

Is this true? How do I find out?

 

I can find reference to it in news articles like this one (Wall Street Journal, pretty respected):

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB105398237190213100.html

but it doesn't contain in references.

 

Here's an about.com article, it doesn't specifically mention the figure you did but it does reference the Treasury Department's Office of Tax Analysis:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/whopaysmost.htm

 

So, now that we know they used the Office of Tax Analysis, we can see if we can track down that info for ourselves. I looked up the site. It wasn't particularly user friendly but a couple of searches and I finally managed to come up with this:

http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/factsheetwhopaysmostindividualincometaxes.update.pdf it does not contain the specific statistic that you asked about but it does give a pretty good idea of who pays the most in income tax.

 

I also found these two articles, which explain more about this statistic and the FIRST one gives references (and more complete information, imo):

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/do_40_percent_of_americans_pay_no.html

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/dec/13/fred-thompson/thompsons-tax-numbers-add-up/

Edited April 1, 2010 by Mrs Mungo
gah!!! typos

[KrissiK]

Well, you get the facts, and then you have to get the facts behind the facts. People always throw out "facts" and they may be true, but there's always reasons behind those facts or statistics that can give a totally different picture besides the one the fact-giver may want to paint.

[Mrs Mungo]

Well, you get the facts, and then you have to get the facts behind the facts. People always throw out "facts" and they may be true, but there's always reasons behind those facts or statistics that can give a totally different picture besides the one the fact-giver may want to paint.

 

Right, I agree.

However, being exempt from income tax does not mean you're exempt from federal taxes. Everyone who works is liable for payroll taxes, contributions to Medicare and Social Security that come out of every paycheck. There are also excise taxes on some goods and services, most notably the 18.4 cents per gallon tax on gasoline. The Congressional Budget Office found that earners in the lowest quintile, where most of those with no income tax liability fall, shouldered 4.3 percent of the payroll tax burden in 2005 and 11.1 percent of the excise taxes. Their effective tax rate (which is calculated by dividing taxes paid by total income) in those categories, according to the CBO, was in fact significantly higher than the rate of the top quintile, although that top one-fifth of the population had a much higher effective tax rate for individual and corporate income taxes.

[RoughCollie]

Thank you, Mrs. Mungo. Are factcheck.com and politifact.com highly reputable, non-partisan, sources? If so, how do you know that? I am asking the questions of you that my boys will ask me. Source integrity is extremely important, as I'm sure you realize.

 

KrissiK, I see your point. The facts can be spun to support a view which may not be accurate.

 

My boys want to know the Truth. I'm not sure that can be ascertained with 100% accuracy, in matters such as these.

 

They want to write a list of these facts, and then come up with what they think should be done politically after they have studied and thought about all the other subjects that tie into this. After all is said and done, they think they will have a pretty good basis for determining who to vote for in 2012.

 

Thank you for your help,

RC

[Spy Car]

They want to write a list of these facts, and then come up with what they think should be done politically after they have studied and thought about all the other subjects that tie into this. After all is said and done, they think they will have a pretty good basis for determining who to vote for in 2012.

 

Thank you for your help,

RC

 

It's not so simple. Take the financial rescue measures. One could assemble a list of Federal expenditures, and loans. And one could look a the monies returned (in some cases at a profit) and the monies still outstanding, and look a the ways the economy has recovered and the ways it has not.

 

But you can't know exactly what would have happened if the government had failed to act. Now most mainstream political economists will tell you an absolute disaster was avoided, and that we, instead, had a painful enough recession. This is the position of both the outgoing Bush Administration officials, and the incoming Obama Administration.

 

But still one will never be able to PROVE we are better off for the government interventions. At best economists can make reasoned estimations of what might have occurred. Most respected economists agree that things would have bee very dire. But try telling that to the Tea Partiers, because they won't have it.

 

And you'll never be able to prove it with "facts", because you can't prove things that never happened. KWIM?

 

Bill

[RoughCollie]

It's not so simple. Take the financial rescue measures.

Bill

 

The task the boys have set out for themselves seems insurmountable to me.

 

They will do what they can, with my guidance and participation. In the end, they will have learned a lot that will stand them in good stead in the future.

 

I don't think they will be able to compile a list of facts that are absolutely true, no matter what, and which cover every major issue thoroughly.

[Spy Car]

The task the boys have set out for themselves seems insurmountable to me.

 

They will do what they can, with my guidance and participation. In the end, they will have learned a lot that will stand them in good stead in the future.

 

I don't think they will be able to compile a list of facts that are absolutely true, no matter what, and which cover every major issue thoroughly.

 

The issue, however, is not whether they can assemble an assortment of "correct" facts (or not). What they will need is the wisdom of trying to weigh the costs and benefits of alternative courses that will never come to pass.

 

Otherwise all political judgements become "retrospective" in nature, and even these can't be weighed against alternative scenarios than never played out.

 

I hope I'm being clear?

 

Bill

[Vida Winter]

I can only tell you what I often use as a source of information:

National Review online, www.nationalreviewonline.com

 

Naysayers will immediately put this down as a right-wing publication, but I have seen a level of integrity that is rare these days. There is much discussion and dissent but it is discussed for the most part intelligently, sometimes with large doses of humor, satire, and irony, and biases are routinely acknowledged up front.

 

I will say that sources like the CBO and other governmental agencies are not at all credible. Look at the way they change the way they "count" unemployment figures each month to make them look more favorable. Every governmental agency is now under pressure to do whatever they can to shape statistics into a pre-ordained political outcome. This is not at all hard to do; one of the gems in my own library is called "How to Lie with Statistics" and it lays it all out in simple terms. I'm sure you can find a copy on Amazon.

 

The mainstream media that we grew up with and trusted (network television, newsweek, time, etc...) have lost all credibility when they ceased to be news publications and became all-editorial vehicles (only they never acknowledged that fact). Their readership and ratings reflect the current public rejection of them as well.

 

You are not going to be able to go to a completely unbiased source for your news. The best you can hope for is to know the bias as you read it, and make your own decisions. It helps to have a core set of values going into this to help you wade through your choices. I for one have rejected most news sources as they raise my blood pressure (both left and right wing) and rely on selected sources that are subject to my own analysis which is based for the most part on my life experiences for the past 48 years.

 

Having said all that, kudos to you for having the discussions with your kids! Those discussions are vital. I still remember discussions I had with my dad (who passed away long ago) when I was a teen. I didn't understand all he tried to tell me back then but I do now, thirty years later. Sometimes the payoff comes late in the game.

Edited April 2, 2010 by Dana in OR
wrong link

[Mrs Mungo]

Thank you, Mrs. Mungo. Are factcheck.com and politifact.com highly reputable, non-partisan, sources? If so, how do you know that? I am asking the questions of you that my boys will ask me. Source integrity is extremely important, as I'm sure you realize.

 

They are both .org addresses. This is important because at times other groups have controlled the .com address and they *have* been partisan groups (George Soros controlled one at one time, for example). They are highly reputable sources. Dick Cheney has even quoted factcheck in debates. I like politifact better because it is better about listing its own sources of information. eta: But, by no means take my word for it. Read their about us page, look them up on wiki, etc.

 

My boys want to know the Truth. I'm not sure that can be ascertained with 100% accuracy, in matters such as these.

And that's really something they need to understand. There are many, many layers of truth. Just like the income stat. Yes, close to 40% of people pay no income tax but they actually pay a bigger percentage of their income in federal taxes than the top income brackets. There are many truths and that fact has nothing to do with relativism.

 

They want to write a list of these facts, and then come up with what they think should be done politically after they have studied and thought about all the other subjects that tie into this.

I think this is a really bad idea, for the reasons that Bill states. It's impossible to ascertain. Politics is not something that can me armchair quarterbacked after the fact. There are WAY too many variables.

 

Should we have gone to war in Iraq? I think Bush had a noble mission. I think he truly believed in what he was doing. There are military leaders (retired and now outspoken) who spoke against disbanding the Republican Guard, they warned it would lead to lawlessness-there was lawlessness, it's true. Is it true there would not have been lawlessness if that had not happened? Would the Republican Guard have committed atrocities, seemingly with our blessing? We don't know what would have happened.

 

To give an idea of this, you might get the game Chrononauts for them.

 

The National Review Online isn't at nro.com though. It's here: http://www.nationalreview.com/ it is most definitely a far right wing site. It doesn't make money off of subscribers or advertisers, it holds political fundraisers to fund its publication. That doesn't mean you shouldn't read it. Maybe you should, but maybe you should balance it with Huffington Post, Daily Kos or some other left wing site.

 

I'm not sure why the CBO is getting flack. It is a non-partisan, independent organization within the legislative branch of the government. They provide analysis that is used by both parties.

Edited April 2, 2010 by Mrs Mungo

[Gretchen in NJ]

You are not going to be able to go to a completely unbiased source for your news. The best you can hope for is to know the bias as you read it, and make your own decisions. It helps to have a core set of values going into this to help you wade through your choices...

 

:iagree:Every source has some bias. I think you need to know the news behind the news. If you are watching a reporter interview a "panel of experts," you need to know the bias of each panel member. You need to know their history. History could include: whether they belong to the democrat, republican party or are they independent, which party do they support, who did they stomped for during the last election, and what is their voting record.

After considering the previous, I then listen to the question the reporter asked and I ask myself the following: Did the panel member answer the question or fall back on their party's talking points? Did they let the other members of the panel speak when it was their turn? Did they try to shout down the other panel members? Has the reporter tried their best to give each panel member equal time? How were the questions worded to each member?

 

Just because it is written in a book, doesn't make it true. A quote from one of me college professors. I think the same can be said about what is said on TV news programs.

[Gretchen in NJ]

The only source I could think of, would be from somewhere out of the country you live in, like some coverage from a media that wasn't American ( or whatever country you are in), that way it isn't swayed by propaganda.

I don't think I am explaining myself well.

sorry

 

If you meant to say that the American media spreads propaganda, then you have explained yourself well. If I followed your advice, I would be reading another country's propaganda. It doesn't make the information (aka propaganda) correct. It is just a different country's propaganda (aka bias.)

[lauracolumbus]

I asked a good friend of mine who is a high level Senate staffer this same question during the last election (we're in different political parties), and she told me she gets her news from BBC America as it's the most unbiased news source she can find. I do watch more of the BBC during contentious times when I get tired of everyone's spin, but I can still see their bias as well, but it is significantly less than other news outlets. Sometimes I just like keeping my head in the sand.:D

 

Laura

[Gretchen in NJ]

I asked a good friend of mine who is a high level Senate staffer this same question during the last election (we're in different political parties), and she told me she gets her news from BBC America as it's the most unbiased news source she can find. I do watch more of the BBC during contentious times when I get tired of everyone's spin, but I can still see their bias as well, but it is significantly less than other news outlets. Sometimes I just like keeping my head in the sand.:D

 

Laura

 

I have watched BBC America. I found it to be one of the most biased news sources I have ever watched. I would put it in the same category as MSNBC.