Dumb And Dumber - Your Congress At work

[dales]

http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/ ... level.html

.


Members of Congress on average speak at the same level as high school sophomores and almost a full grade lower than in 2005, a new report says.

The independent Sunlight Foundation, a watchdog group, says some people will view its findings as "a dumbing down of Congress" while others will interpret the report as "more effective communications" from lawmakers.

By comparison, the average American reads between an eighth-grade and ninth-grade level.

Rep. Mick Mulvaney, a freshman Republican from South Carolina, rates the lowest in the Sunlight Foundation report. He speaks at a 7.94 level, meaning at a level between the seventh and eighth grades.

Sunlight plugged every word spoken by members of Congress into a searchable database and then applied the widely used Flesch-Kincaid test to determine a lawmaker's score. Longer words and longer sentences are equated with a higher grade level, according to Flesch-Kincaid.

Sunlight found that members of Congress, on average, talked at a 10.6 grade level. In 2005, they were at 11.5 on the Flesch-Kincaid scale.

Mulvaney, who earned a bachelor's degree at Georgetown University and a law degree at the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill, told National Public Radio that he follows a simple rule: Don't use big words when a little one will do.

"Gosh, I guess I should be disappointed that I'm not using my higher education to better use, but, oh well," Mulvaney told NPR. "I hope people don't take it as a substitute for lack of intellect, but small words can be just as powerful as big words sometimes."

Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., a former state attorney general, rated the highest in the Sunlight Foundation report. He speaks at a 16.0 level on the Flesch-Kincaid scale.


Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/ ... z1welVDhBn

[Scooter]

They are speaking for the soundbite crowd. The press attempts to write at ninth grade level and they have learned that is where they need to speak at in order to get quoted.

[Lord Jim]

I think this says more about the audience they think they're talking to, than it does about them personally....

It's been painful to watch some of the speeches Obama has been giving on college campuses over the past few months...

He's sounded to me like he was addressing a room full of third graders...

[rubato]

It's a race to the bottom.

The worst sort of demagogues have accepted that "hunker down and act stupid" gets votes from people who are averse to education and intelligence; explains a lot about the Republican party.

yrs,
rubato

[Andrew D]

He's sounded to me like he was addressing a room full of third graders...

I.e., a room full of people smarter than the republican base ....

[dales]

Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., a former state attorney general, rated the highest in the Sunlight Foundation report. He speaks at a 16.0 level on the Flesch-Kincaid scale.

[dgs49]

Many, if not most, American voters are suspicious of any politician who uses big words or sophisticated concepts in political forums.

When I have had occasion to hear politicians speaking to groups of businessmen or lawyers, their vocabulary and the level of communication has been appropriate for that forum and the audience.

Rather than implying that they are unsophisticated for using common language, it might be more correct to give them credit for being able to reduce complex issues to a level that an unsophisticated audience can understand.

Or in the case of Barry and the Progressives, to campaign in a manner that is intended to sway the opinions of morons. They may not understand the difference between a capital gain and a paycheck, but they can sure understand that,"...the rich ain't payin' their FAIR SHARE!"

[Andrew D]

To the surprise of exactly no one:

Congress now speaks at almost a full grade level lower than it did just seven years ago, with the most conservative members of Congress speaking on average at the lowest grade level ....

And so we see, yet again, a fundamental truth about American politics: Were it not for the ignorant and the stupid, no Republican would hold elective office.

[dales]

Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., a former state attorney general, rated the highest in the Sunlight Foundation report. He speaks at a 16.0 level on the Flesch-Kincaid scale.

[Andrew D]

Congress now speaks at almost a full grade level lower than it did just seven years ago, with the most conservative members of Congress speaking on average at the lowest grade level ....

Is there some purpose to our quoting ourselves?

[dales]

I was responding to your broad-based accusation.

And so we see, yet again, a fundamental truth about American politics: Were it not for the ignorant and the stupid, no Republican would hold elective office.

btw: I voted today at the Golf Club, did you?

[Andrew D]

I was responding to your broad-based accusation.

And so we see, yet again, a fundamental truth about American politics: Were it not for the ignorant and the stupid, no Republican would hold elective office.

And the fact that "the most conservative members of Congress speak[] on average at the lowest grade level" is considerably broader than the fact that a single Republican speaks well.

btw: I voted today at the Golf Club, did you?

No.

[dgs49]

Isn't it ironic how Dems love to spread the fiction that Republicans are somehow intellectually inferior, and yet...

Dems are the ones who are constantly seeking to register and support the votes of:

People who are so insubstantial as to not have any photo ID,

People who cannot be bothered to register to vote, and must be allowed to do so while getting their drivers' licenses renewed or visiting a state liquor store,

People who don't speak English,

People who have so little resources that they must be picked up and carried to the polling place,

College students who are away at school and have no vested interest in any of the issues being contested in local elections (where they go to school).

Truly, there is one political party in this country that substantially represents the clueless and worthless, and it is manifestly not the Republican Party.

[rubato]

Anyone whose family income is less than $150,000/ yr and votes Republican is opposing their own interests.

And if that is not brute stupidity in an absolute sense it will do operationally.

yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

Your underlying assumption says more than you realize.

Why do you assume that every voter is motivated by HIS OWN PERSONAL access to the government's teats?

I would personally vote to curtail SS payments to match revenues, increase SS taxes on higher incomes, and raise the retirement age. All of this works against me, personally.

Republicans want what is best for America, and vote that way. In your mind this is "stupid."

Democrats - like you - apparently vote for what is best for themselves, individually, and if your postings are any indication, cannot imagine why anyone else would vote otherwise.

This thought process is persistent in all of your postings on the subject. If you don't vote for your own personal best interest, you are "stupid."

You probably don't even recognize it.

[Andrew D]

Why do you assume that every voter is motivated by HIS OWN PERSONAL access to the government's teats?

Because suckling at the governmental teat is what Republicans do best.

Productive America is progressive America. Right-wing America is leeching America.

Republicans want what is best for America, and vote that way.

So George W. Romney is what is best for America? Maybe in the wet dreams of right-wingers, but not to anyone else.

[dgs49]

Andrew, you are truly off your game. Meds not working?

There was a time when you would have been embarrassed to post such a vacuous rant as this.

[rubato]

Your underlying assumption says more than you realize.

Why do you assume that every voter is motivated by HIS OWN PERSONAL access to the government's teats?

I would personally vote to curtail SS payments to match revenues, increase SS taxes on higher incomes, and raise the retirement age. All of this works against me, personally.

Republicans want what is best for America, and vote that way. In your mind this is "stupid."

Democrats - like you - apparently vote for what is best for themselves, individually, and if your postings are any indication, cannot imagine why anyone else would vote otherwise.

This thought process is persistent in all of your postings on the subject. If you don't vote for your own personal best interest, you are "stupid."

You probably don't even recognize it.

I am not a member of any political party and never have been. So I am not a Democrat.


We routinely vote to raise our own taxes and not those on people making less than we do, like you.


Someone failing to act in their financial interest who makes $50,000 a year (or less, like 1/2 of the country) and has less than $50,000 in assets is making a different sort of decision than someone who makes more than $300,000 /yr and has more than $1,000,000 in assets failing to act solely in their financial interest. That is probably too difficult a point for you to understand. I try to be compassionate about stupid people but its not easy.


An entire class of people who are voting for a party which is fucking them and their children into wretchedness and poverty is being wholly stupid.

People making minimum wage are not generally on the 'governments teats'; the Ken Lays and other rich Republicans of this world are on the government teats and sucking hard.


yrs,
rubato

[Andrew D]

There was a time when you would have been embarrassed to post such a vacuous rant as this.

Really? When was that?

Over and over and over, we have seen that right-wing States are consistently subsidized by centrist States. Years ago, I laid out a carefully detailed demonstration that the parts of America which are the most Republican are the parts of America which have the most welfare recipients. I even made that demonstration specifically down to the county level in California -- the State where roughly one of every eight Americans lives.

I was not embarrassed then; I am not embarrassed now.

If you want to talk about embarrassment, take a look at this:

Republicans want what is best for America, and vote that way. In your mind this is "stupid."

Democrats - like you - apparently vote for what is best for themselves, individually, and if your postings are any indication, cannot imagine why anyone else would vote otherwise.

It is progressive Americans who have a conception of the common good as something more than the mere aggregation of individual goods. It is right-wing Americans who -- with respect to economic issues but, stunningly hypocritically, not with respect to other issues -- conceive good only in terms of individual affluence.

[dgs49]

Andrew, it is "Progressive Americans" who are pushing to create a welfare state using OPM. Why do you think Barry keeps harping on the point of The Rich not paying enough in taxes? When even he knows that the "millionaires and billionaires" of whom he speaks could not fund his welfare state even if the marginal tax rate over $1.0MM were 100%.

Oddly, I read your last paragraph above and find that I am basically in agreement. Progressives see the "common good" as a munificent Government-sponsored safety net that protects all citizens from severe want from cradle to grave - such as the ones that exist in Germany, France, and Scandanavia. Conservatives see the common good as a minimal safety net reserved for those who are truly in need (for reasons not of their own making), with the maximum opportunity for everyone else brought about by low taxes, and minimal Government oppression and interference. "Good" manifests itself in optimized individual opportunity for success, with mindless government regulation and "progressive" taxation being impediments to success.

And that's what November's election is all about: two different visions of America's "greatness."