The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.
Showing posts with label Brooks Jackson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brooks Jackson. Show all posts

Friday, July 4, 2014

Fact Check ...Obama's Numbers June 2014 Vs Polling And Media Facilitators



When we see polls of doom for President Obama, we heighten our search for information to validate the "horrific" (media mantra and driven) hysteria, or information that makes us wonder about polls and poll respondents.

Examples

One of the worst and most right leaning US polls, AP/GFK, posted poll results just before the 2012 General Elections. Media grabbed the polling authority headlines as such: "Majority harbor prejudice towards blacks." Wow......one would think African-Americans were doomed to prejudicial acts or racial animus from 51 to 99% of Americans whites, Latinos and Asians! Yet, a quick review of the AP/GfK methodology yielded a revealing set of data. Look closely at the table below and notice red arrow indicators added for quick reference.


TPI (October 2012)
If you never ever review poll data, you have to give a look at the AP/GfK Poll data released just a few days before the November 6th Elections. The poll's major tickler was, a"Majority harbor prejudice towards blacks". [See Link above]
Page 33 of the Growth for Knowledge (GfK) poll reads like this:
The TPI link provided in the table will take you to even more startling and ridiculous survey findings related to perceptions of candidate religion. The 1,071 survey respondents (predominately white and from the South) seem to have been comprised of a potential respondent pool stacked for achievement of desired results. The headline: "Majority harbor prejudice towards blacks," was both indicative of what many should consider flawed survey administration via GfK, and indicative of the dangers of subsequent headlining via media or political operatives.

A bit more regarding AP/GfK. GfK was forced in 2008. What took place that was tsunami-like in 2008?  GfK is a conservative poll, I ask again: "What took place in 2008 that could lead to facility for a conservative poll? AP/GfK uses methodology resembling that identified by the Washington Post as, in my words "suspect."                                            
I believe it necessary to provide additional perspective on a polling authority that will surely receive wide quoting from the Right and conservative pundits as we move into next week.


The inquisitive person is often rewarded for digging deeper, than simply waling away with flawed and disparaging messages from media and "polling with a purpose." 

Example Two

About two weeks ago the NBC/WSJ Poll gave media conservatives a literal goldmine of opportunity anti-Obama punditry.Yes, even on MSNBC supposed news hosts are often pundits for the Left or Right.  In the referenced case, Joe Scarborough and Chuck Todd along with fellow network conservative Andrea Mitchell used the NBC/WSJ Poll for gleeful Obama Derangement rhetoric. Bare with me a moment as I make a case about the NBC/WSJ Poll. A poll laced with disparaging remarks about the three aforementioned MSNBC conservatives.


Let's visit with the gleeful Scarborough and the even more excited Todd. We will present some interesting data after a few words that should help with my assertion of "News host punditry."

Based on the recent NBC/WSJ opinion poll, Joe Scarborough's conservative production team performed as expected. Show programmers booked Nicole Wallace, former Bush Administration Official, and Romney Campaign team official, and Dan Senor, noted Bush Iraq war (in country) propagandist and Romney campaign operative, along with "chopping at the bits with excitement", to leverage the NBC/WSJ poll approval ratings disparage the president and by extrapolation Democrats. Regardless of comment during the 2:42 minutes segment, the message was to influence your vote this fall and in 2016.

Chuck (with libido rhetoric intact) Todd. 
"...the public saying essentially your presidency is over."  



Chuck Todd as an MSNBC News director is encouraged ,and allowed, to declare a presidency "over?" Before we moving to the NBC/WSJ poll, a quick word on Todd: "....he is hardly a neutral news director."  

END TODD DIGRESSION


In early 2013, Todd snuggled-up over lunch with Ohio State Secretary Of State Jon Husted (R). The "pillow talk" was revealing. 
Jon Husted’s Tweet after the lunch: 
“Enjoyed having lunch today with NBC’s @ChuckTodd – he and I agree Redistricting Reform needs to happen in OH and across the US”.
How about a quick tweet thread related to Husted's Tweet.

aheadshouldroll

As informed Americans consider the deep impact of depriving large swaths of the public opportunity to vote, we realize the GOP and millions in conservative America are not about a free and open democracy (republic). Todd as news director at MSNBC and a network White House correspondent shamefully goes about his work with an obvious slant towards conservatism. A slant that is existentially anti-Obama, anti-Democrat, and frankly, anti-neutral regarding election fairness. 

END DIGRESSION

Now for a very benighted take on the NBC/WSJ Poll and a few thoughts on polling in general.

The NBC/WSJ poll was conducted between June 11 and June 15, 2014. It was conducted among 1,000 respondents with approximately on third via use of cell phone. The poll respondent group appears to have been spread among gender and ethnic groupings that reflect the US population, but (and it is a big "but") there appears to be a glaring issue. The NBC/WSJ poll was administered to demographic groups skewered towards age groups that comprise a predominate GOP voting blocs.

NBC Survey Section A pdf

Excerpt exhibit

HART RESEARCH ASSOCIATES/PUBLIC OPINION STRATEGIES 
Study #14463-- page 1

June 2014 NBC News/Wall Street Journal Survey
Date: June 11-15, 2014 

48 Male 
52 Female 

Interviews: 1000 Adults, including 300 respondents with a cell phone only and 
37 respondents reached on a cell phone but who also have a landline 

Study #14463 
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Survey 
Please note: all results are shown as percentages unless otherwise stated. 
The margin of error for 1000 interviews among Adults is ± 3.10% 
Unless otherwise noted by a “+”, all previous data shown reflects responses among all adults. 
Q2a For statistical purposes only, would you please tell me how old you are? 
(IF “REFUSED,” ASK:) Well, would you tell me which age group you belong to? (READ LIST) 

18-24 .................................................................... 11 
25-29 .................................................................... 7 
30-34 .................................................................... 11 
35-39 .................................................................... 7 
40-44 .................................................................... 11 
45-49 .................................................................... 5 
50-54 .................................................................... 10 
55-59 .................................................................... 11 
60-64 .................................................................... 12 
65-69 .................................................................... 5 
70-74 .................................................................... 4 
75 and over ...........................................................6 
Not sure/refused .................................................... - 

Q2b To ensure that we have a representative sample, would you please tell me whether you are from a Hispanic 
or Spanish-speaking background? 

Yes, Hispanic ................................................... 11 
No, not Hispanic ............................................... 88 
Not sure/refused ................................................ 1 

Q2c And again, for statistical purposes only, what is your race--white, black, Asian, or something else? 

White ............................................................... 74 
Black ............................................................... 12 
Asian ................................................................ 2 
Other ................................................................ 5 
Hispanic (VOL) ..................................................6 
Not sure/refused ...............................................1 




Other than the telling respondent age demographic group of the June 11th polling, Hart Associates seems as reputable and competent at the business of polling.

The problem with the manner in which media reports pool results is in and of itself a problem. Instead of the "Majority harbor prejudice towards blacks", could have been reported as "A majority of respondents to this survey harbor prejudice towards blacks." 


Our exercise in media reporting of "Intentionally slanted" surveys was undertaken for one very specific reason. Opportunity exist for acquisition of information critical to countering misrepresentation and media compliance in shaping our political lives. Fact checking really does work and it works well.

While Politifact occasionally riles the leader of progressive media, Rachel Maddow, but the investigatory authorities have value.  Fact Check Dot Org's weekly updates includes a graphic depiction of President Obama's numbers. 

We have inserted an excerpt from the Fact Check piece based on the length and detail in the piece. As you consider reading further, consider what you have read up to this point and realize public opinion cannot help, but fall to the level of "jaded" (lower approval ratings) if we are bombarded with politically expedient information at the level shoved upon us via conservative America.




Obama’s Numbers (July 2014 Update)

Jobs, Profits, Guns & Health Insurance: 

Our Regular Update of the Statistical Record


StumbleUpon

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Fact Check Dot Org...Obama's 2013 Numbers (Updated January 2014)




Re-post from Fact-Check Dot Org with permission.


Obama’s Numbers (January 2014 Update)

Latest statistics show stagnant wages, persistent long-term joblessness, soaring profits and stock prices, and moderating health care spending.


StumbleUpon

Saturday, July 16, 2011

Fiscal FactCheck - Long but Historically Relevant

 Of course, you know that I am a devoted fan of FactCheck.org and specifically a fan of their author/investigator and contributor Brooks Jackson.

 

The following information was delivered to my email box and probably delivered to yours as well.  Yet,  there are many who do not subscribe to FactCheck updates, so I am posting the article.  Again, I tried to cut parts of the material and supplant it with links to the original article. You have the original article linked below but I refuse to dissect this work; it is far too relevant and I posit will become part of a national archive of the Obama Administration.

 

I have retained the original font from the article to simply save space on this web page.

 

  Fiscal FactCheck

Does Washington have a spending problem or an income problem? We offer some key facts.
July 15, 2011

Summary

Washington's spending has recently been higher as a percentage of the nation's economic output than at any time since World War II. But by the same measure, Washington's revenues are the lowest in more than 60 years.

So does the U.S. have "a spending problem," as Republicans keep repeating in the current debate over how to reduce the nation's record deficits? Or is the problem that taxes are not high enough? Those questions frame a long-running partisan debate, and as usual we won't offer an opinion one way or the other. But for those seeking their own answers, we can offer some fiscal history and factual context.
Some key facts we think are worth considering:

  • Federal spending ("outlays" in budget jargon) is expected to equal 24.1 percent of the nation's gross domestic product in the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. The figure was 25 percent in fiscal year 2009, highest since 1945.

  • On the other hand, federal revenues are expected to drop to 14.8 percent of GDP this year, lower even than the 14.9 percent attained in both 2009 and 2010. There has been only one year since World War II when revenues have been as low as in any of these years: 1950, when the figure was 14.4 percent.

  • These historically high rates of spending and low rates of taxation have combined to produce a chain of deficits that are also the highest since WWII. The deficit was 10.0 percent of GDP in fiscal 2009. It declined to 8.9 percent last year as the economy started to recover, but is projected to go up to over 9 percent this year. Each of these deficits is larger than in any year since 1945, measured as a percentage of GDP.

  • The U.S. is borrowing about 36 cents of every dollar spent so far this year. It borrowed 37 cents on the dollar last year, and 40 cents in fiscal 2009.

  • The largest components of federal spending are Social Security and Medicare programs for the elderly (33.5 percent of total outlays in 2010) and national defense (20.1 percent). Interest payments on the federal debt alone accounted for 5.7 percent of all federal spending, and that percentage is rising.

  • The federal income tax accounted for 41.5 percent of federal receipts in 2010 (down from 49.6 percent prior to the Bush tax cuts of 2001 – 2003). Corporate taxes brought in only 8.9 percent, also down sharply since the recent recession. Payroll taxes and other "social insurance" payments accounted for 40 percent of total receipts in 2010.
     
It's easy to argue one side or the other by just citing facts that support a particular view, and omitting others. In the Analysis that follows, we offer some graphics, details and documentation in an attempt to give our readers a quick look at the entire picture — both where the money goes, and where it comes from.

Analysis

 

A glance at this chart quickly puts our current fiscal mess in historical context. We created it using historical budget data from the federal Office of Management and Budget, updated with the most recent estimates of the current fiscal year's outlays and receipts from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, issued June 22 as part of CBO's 2011 long-term budget outlook.

Not since the enormous effort required to defeat Nazi Germany and Japan in WWII has the gap between Washington's spending and its revenues been so large, as a portion of the economy. Then, taxes were increased sharply to pay for the war, but spending increased even faster. In recent years, Washington has increased spending while cutting taxes.

The current situation is a marked change from the booming 1990s. In those years revenues increased, due to a 1993 tax increase, which fell most heavily on those making more than $200,000 a year. Meanwhile spending decreased relative to the rapidly growing economy, partly because of an absolute decline in military spending following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Deficits were erased, and the government posted surpluses in fiscal 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001.

But then a string of deficits began in the fiscal year 2002, and there is no end in sight. For the current year, the administration originally projected in February a deficit equal to 10.9 percent, a new postwar record. The Congressional Budget Office in April, using different economic assumptions, projected that enacting the president's budget would produce a deficit of 9.5 percent of GDP, and that making no changes to current law would result in a deficit of 9.3 percent of GDP.



  • Income-tax receipts are down sharply since the Bush tax cuts. In fiscal 2000, the year before the cuts began to take effect, receipts from the federal income tax on individuals amounted to 10.2 percent of GDP. That figure was down to 6.2 percent of GDP last year.

  • Spending for the military and for homeland security has risen substantially since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Spending for national defense rose from 3.0 percent of GDP that year to 4.8 percent last year.

  • Non-military spending also has continued to rise. President George W. Bush pushed through an expensive prescription drug benefit for seniors in 2003, the largest expansion of Medicare in its history. In the financial crisis of 2008, Bush also pushed for and signed for a massive banking bailout. In early 2009, President Barack Obama pushed for and signed an expensive stimulus measure, and after a long fight in Congress he signed another expensive plan, the health care law, in March of last year, aimed at expanding coverage for millions who lack health insurance.

  • Two economic recessions have had their effect. The recession of 2001 began in March and lasted until November. And the worst downturn since the Great Depression began in December 2007 and continued until June 2009. In both cases unemployment remained high for long after business activity began to recover, holding back both wages and the taxes that jobless workers would have paid on them.
We won't attempt to assign blame to one party or the other for the deficits. There is plenty of blame to go around, some of which rests with an American public that won't accept cuts in the largest categories of public spending, and also resists tax increases on anybody but "the rich."


Where Does It Go?
The biggest share of federal spending now goes for Social Security (20.4 percent in 2010) and Medicare (13.1 percent), the two entitlement programs that big majorities of Americans want to protect from any reductions, according to a recent poll. Together these two programs for senior citizens consume more than one-third of spending, far more than national defense, which accounts for just 20.1 percent, despite the increases of recent years.

Some categories that are unpopular with much of the public turn out to represent a fairly small part of total spending. Foreign aid, for example, amounts to less than 1 percent of the entire budget — even counting in military assistance to Israel, Egypt, Iraq and Afghanistan. All agriculture programs — including farm subsidies — make up just over one-half of 1 percent.

Where Did It Go?
Major components of the $3.5 trillion spent in fiscal 2010
Social Security 20.4%
National Defense 20.1%
Medicare 13.1%
Medicaid/CHIP 8.1%
Interest 5.7%
Low-Income Assistance 5.3%
Unemployment Compensation 4.6%
Education & Training 3.7%
Federal Employee Retirement 3.5%
Veterans 3.1%
Transportation 2.7%
Other health care  2.6%
Parks & natural resources 1.3%
Space/Science 0.9%
Foreign aid 0.9%
Agriculture 0.6%
Everything else 3.5%
The wildly unpopular TARP program, used to finance banks, a big insurance company and two U.S. auto companies, is now actually bringing billions back into the Treasury, as old loans are repaid and government-owned stock is sold to the public. The nonprofit investigative project Pro Publica figures that $322 billion has now flowed back into the Treasury, of the $573 billion loaned, invested or spent originally. And even the Obama administration's $787 billion stimulus program, so excoriated by Republicans, has nearly run its course. It was enacted in 2009, and according to the official Recovery.gov website, had spent 84 percent of the total as of June 30. That included 90 percent of the tax benefits, 83 percent of entitlements, and 78 percent of contracts, grants and loans.


Borrowing 36 Cents on the Dollar
The current gap between tax revenue and congressionally approved spending is so great that so far this fiscal year the federal government has borrowed an average of 36 cents of every dollar paid out. According to the most recent "Monthly Budget Review," issued by the Congressional Budget Office on July 8, the total spent through the end of June (the first nine months of the current fiscal year) was estimated at $2.705 trillion. But government receipts fell $973 billion short of spending, CBO estimates.
The good news — if it can be called that — is that the huge deficit is running at $31 billion lower than last year at this time. Spending is higher (Medicaid is up 6 percent over last year, for example), but federal income tax receipts are running higher as well. CBO credited "higher wages and more employment" than last year for the increase in tax revenue. And borrowing 36 cents on the dollar is an improvement of sorts. For all of fiscal 2009, the deficit amounted to 40 cents of every dollar spent, and it was 37 cents in fiscal 2010.


Where the Money Comes From
Taxes make up the vast bulk of federal revenues, of course. Individual income-tax payers supplied 41.5 percent of all federal revenues in fiscal 2010, but Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes paid both by workers and their employers made up nearly as much. Combined with federal unemployment insurance taxes and a few others, these social insurance taxes made up 40 percent of revenues. The income tax on corporations brought in just under 9 percent, while excise taxes, on such things as gasoline and diesel fuel, alcoholic beverages and telecommunications services, brought in just over 3 percent.

We found a surprising bit of news buried in the "other" category, which made up 6.5 percent of all revenue.

Breakdown of "other" in 2010
(Percent of total revenues)
Federal Reserve 3.5%
Customs 1.2%
Misc 1.0%
Estate & Gift 0.9%
Total "Other" 6.5%
It turns out that in 2010, more than half of that category came from profits made by the Federal Reserve System, whose lending operations expanded dramatically to address the financial crisis that started in 2007. The Fed's payments to the Treasury made up 3.5 percent of all federal revenue in 2010 — nearly $76 billion. The rest of the "other" category is made up of customs duties (1.2 percent of all revenue), federal estate and gift taxes (0.9 percent), and miscellaneous sources.



Who Pays?
Who pays all of these taxes? The best information on that comes from the Congressional Budget Office, which has tracked the tax burden for many years. The most recent complete data cover 2007. CBO figured in that year more than half of all federal taxes was paid by the top 10 percent of income earners. They paid 55 percent of all federal taxes in 2007, CBO said.

That's a comprehensive figure, counting the income tax, payroll taxes, excise taxes and even the corporate income tax (borne by stockholders in the form of reduced dividends and appreciation). And perhaps surprisingly, the top 10 percent of earners pay a greater share of federal taxes now than they did before the Bush tax cuts, which Democrats constantly criticize as a giveaway to "the rich." The top 10 percent paid 50 percent of all federal taxes in 2001.

However, that comes in spite of lower tax rates at the top, not because of it. The reason the most affluent 10 percent pay a greater share of taxes is that they are getting a greater share of all income. Their share of all pre-tax income went from 37.5 percent in 2001 to 42 percent in 2007.

One figure that gets a lot of attention is the percentage of individuals and married couples who pay zero federal income taxes. Those figures come from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The TPC's most recent report was released June 14, and it shows that this year 46.4 percent of "tax units" (individuals or married couples) had zero federal income tax liability. That's because of various exemptions and tax credits aimed at reducing the income-tax burden on lower-income workers and families with children. The figure is down from 2008 and 2009, when the percentage topped out at 50.8 percent.

But practically all workers (and their employers) pay Medicare taxes on every dollar of wages, and Social Security taxes on every dollar of wages up to $106,800. Consequently, those who pay no federal income or payroll taxes at all amount to only 18.1 percent this year, the Tax Policy Center figures.

There's plenty more where these figures came from. We could focus more closely on what was paid and earned by the top 1 percent, for example. Or we could zoom in to examine the role of rising medical and drug costs in pushing up spending for Medicare and Medicaid. We may well visit those subjects in future articles. For now, we've tried to give a quick, accurate and balanced look at the big picture: Both where Washington spends, and where its money comes from.
– by Brooks Jackson



COMMENT:  "NO COMMENT NECESSARY"! StumbleUpon