Children’s Savings Accounts 68%

By Steve Zehngut33%

12/7/2009, 3:29:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, False Dilemma, and Bandwagon, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 17.9% saturation with 34 hits. Analysis detected 250 faulty-reasoning hits from 190 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 62.1% and a BS Rank of 68% (6,329 of 19,485 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 67.50% of the article peer group.

The Case for Creating a Lifelong Savings Platform at Birth as a Foundation for a “Save-and-Invest” Economy 
December 7, 2009 
Reid Cramer 
David Newville 
A growing chorus, including President Obama, now believes that a prosperous future for our country will depend on the creation of a save-and-invest economy that will enable all Americans to accumulate savings and assets. 
While in the short-term, public investment should be expanded in order to stabilize the economy, any long-term plan for sustainable economic growth will have to involve increased household savings over an extended time horizon. 
One promising approach to that goal is children’s savings accounts (CSAs), which would be established at birth for every American. 
This paper makes the case for establishing a universal system of children’s savings accounts (CSAs) in the United States. 
It provides a brief overview of the essential components of a CSA and how they would work, and the rationale and evidence for a CSAs plan. 
To read the policy paper, click here, or on the Related Files link to the right. 
Attachments: 
Children’s Savings Accounts: The Case for Creating a Lifelong Savings Platform at Birth 
Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
0%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
10.5%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
10.5%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
17.9%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
0%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
17.9%
False Dilemma
17.9%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
17.9%
Appeal to Emotion
10.5%
Begging the Question
10%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
10%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
8.4%

190 words analyzed.

Analysis

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