: : McSpotlight: David, I don't mean to sound rude, but quoting the Cato Institute as your sole source isn't really going to persuade many of the opposition here; the Cato Institute has something of a reputation...
: If the Cato institute were to publish that 2+2=4 then it would decried as 'capitalist propaganda'. David will be annoyed that all those statistics are considered to be first and foremost propoganda without any regard to whether or not they are accurate.
: We've been through this before - BS has no monopoly on finding economic data regarding people's financial status and hasn't quite seemed to grasp that many opposing sets of data are also relevant and as credible.
Well, regardless of whether or not it is labelled propoganda or not, I stand by those statistics. If people are so closed minded that they will disregard factual data, than there is not much any of us can do.
: McSpotlight: That's not what I was pointing out; the fact was that David had quoted one source of information; whereas BS usually picks out helpful stats from all over the place. If you pick only one source as your source then you are opening yourself up to charges of faith in one source to the exclusion of all others.
I understand. However, many of those statistics were not from research done independantly by the Cato Institute, they were taken from abstracts, past U.S. Censuses (Censi?) and other studies privately and publicly funded. If you check out the actual report there are about 4 pages worth of notes citing sources for information.