Jobs and the New Growth Agenda 73%

By Steve Zehngut35%

12/2/2009, 8:54:48 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Begging the Question, Indoctrination, and False Dilemma, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 41.2% saturation with 113 hits. Analysis detected 664 faulty-reasoning hits from 274 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 65.1% and a BS Rank of 73% (5,836 of 21,175 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 72.40% of the article peer group.

December 2, 2009 
Michael Lind 
President Obama’s December 3rd jobs summit has drawn attention to the debate over policy options for job creation. 
The case for intelligent and aggressive public policy to promote job creation, in addition to the helpful but inadequate stimulus package, is overwhelming. 
The official unemployment rate is currently 10.2 percent, and rises to 17.5 percent when marginally attached workers and those working part-time out of necessity are included. 
What some call the Great Recession is no ordinary cyclical downturn to be followed in due course by a normal recovery. 
The economic emergency combines the effects of a global financial crisis with the bursting of a decade-old bubble economy driven by asset inflation. 
The recovery period will be protracted and characterized by high unemployment. 
Instead of a temporary program to be repealed pending recovery, what is needed is a sustained economic growth program in which short-term policies are converted into permanent structural reforms as the economy grows stronger. 
An effective program for creating jobs in the short term while laying the groundwork for future growth must meet several tests. 
First, public spending or tax expenditures must have high multiplier effects. 
Second, short-term policies should be of value if they are converted into long-term reforms. 
Finally, the scale should be adequate and substantial, not inadequate and symbolic. 
These tests are met by a new growth agenda with three major elements: 
 Infrastructure Investment 
 Public Service Investment 
 Pro-Growth Tax Reform 
Read the full report here (PDF, 5pp), or click on the icon in the right-hand column. 
Attachments: Jobs and the New Growth Agenda (PDF, 5pp) 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.5%Steve Zehngut: 5.7%The Daily Caller: 5.0%Confirmation Bias13.5%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.5%The Daily Caller: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.5%Steve Zehngut: 2.0%The Daily Caller: 2.7%Availability Heuristic9.5%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.3%The Daily Caller: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 8.8%Steve Zehngut: 5.4%The Daily Caller: 3.3%Overconfidence Bias8.8%This article: 16.1%Steve Zehngut: 12.2%The Daily Caller: 10.4%Framing Effect16.1%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 1.6%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 12.4%Steve Zehngut: 1.2%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Status Quo Bias12.4%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 1.2%The Daily Caller: 2.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 11.7%Steve Zehngut: 5.6%The Daily Caller: 2.5%Pessimism Bias11.7%This article: 12.8%Steve Zehngut: 11.3%The Daily Caller: 8.2%Negativity Bias12.8%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 1.2%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.2%The Daily Caller: 1.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.2%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%Steve Zehngut: 0.6%The Daily Caller: 1.6%Halo Effect1.5%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.7%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.1%The Daily Caller: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.1%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.3%The Daily Caller: 1.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.6%The Daily Caller: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 3.2%The Daily Caller: 4.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 16.8%Steve Zehngut: 3.1%The Daily Caller: 2.9%False Dilemma16.8%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 5.1%The Daily Caller: 2.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 4.7%Steve Zehngut: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Circular Reasoning4.7%This article: 16.1%Steve Zehngut: 6.9%The Daily Caller: 6.3%Hasty Generalization16.1%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.7%The Daily Caller: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.4%Steve Zehngut: 4.8%The Daily Caller: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion8.4%This article: 22.3%Steve Zehngut: 1.7%The Daily Caller: 2.1%Begging the Question22.3%This article: 8.4%Steve Zehngut: 6.0%The Daily Caller: 3.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.4%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.3%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 7.7%Steve Zehngut: 0.5%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Burden of Proof7.7%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.2%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.5%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 1.5%The Daily Caller: 1.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.0%Steve Zehngut: 2.7%The Daily Caller: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.3%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.1%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.5%The Daily Caller: 2.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.8%The Daily Caller: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 41.2%Steve Zehngut: 12.9%The Daily Caller: 8.5%Biased Writer Voice41.2%This article: 20.8%Steve Zehngut: 2.7%The Daily Caller: 3.6%Indoctrination20.8%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.3%The Daily Caller: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 1.4%The Daily Caller: 5.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.8%Steve Zehngut: 0.3%The Daily Caller: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…5.8%

274 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker0.7%attributed speech272writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Lind • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Michael Lind

0%flagged-word coverage
2 attributed words100% of attributed speech86% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Biased Writer Voice-41.5 ptsWriter: 41.5%Michael Lind: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-21.0 ptsWriter: 21.0%Michael Lind: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -5.9 ptsWriter: 5.9%Michael Lind: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.