The Pardu

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

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Trump Support Eroding? CBO 23 Million Coverage Loss



widely held tenet of the current conventional wisdom is that while President Trump might not be popular overall, he has a high floor on his support. Trump’s sizable and enthusiastic base — perhaps 35 to 40 percent of the country — won’t abandon him any time soon, the theory goes, and they don’t necessarily care about some of the controversies that the “mainstream media” treats as game-changing developments. 
It’s an entirely reasonable theory. We live in a highly partisan epoch, and voters are usually loyal to politicians from their party. Trump endured a lot of turbulence in the general election but stuck it out to win the Electoral College. The media doesn’t always guess right about which stories will resonate with voters. 
But the theory isn’t supported by the evidence. To the contrary, Trump’s base seems to be eroding. There’s been a considerable decline in the number of Americans who strongly approve of Trump, from a peak of around 30 percent in February to just 21 or 22 percent of the electorate now. (The decline in Trump’s strong approval ratings is larger than the overall decline in his approval ratings, in fact.) Far from having unconditional love from his base, Trump has already lost almost a third of his strong support. And voters who strongly disapprove of Trump outnumber those who strongly approve of him by about a 2-to-1 ratio, which could presage an “enthusiasm gap” that works against Trump at the midterms. The data suggests, in particular, that the GOP’s initial attempt (and failure) in March to pass its unpopular health care bill may have cost Trump with his core supporters.
Image result for trump base
Image via Business Insider

Read more: link






___________________________________________


Image result for trump baseEroding support for the irascible and zany Trump isn't a surprise for rational American voters. What is amazing is the reality the nation has about half the voting public which election after election consistently follows the GOP through its social regressivity. They vote GOP regardless of candidate and platform without caring or without knowing the GOP has a history of economic indifference towards the middle class. Actually, the preponderance of the GOPs voter support are denizens of the middle class. It only takes a quick peep at the following graphics to ascertain who in the middle class votes GOP and who placed Trump in the White House. As is always my practice, I also lay the Trump egg to third party voters, disenfranchised voters in key elections states and that sickening group of Americans who opted not to vote. Graphics aside the latter sets of demographics ad voter disenfranchisement is a much more horrific indictment against US democracy.




So, why are Trump supports starting to closet themselves? One has only to watch the news each day for reality show consistency regarding the fallacy of Trumpism.

Breaking: CBO Scoring of Trumponoimcs is in. The number of uninsured was reduced from 24 million over a ten year period to 23 million over a ten year period. We will report on the scoring as we secure more details.

While we await more details we offer another look at the CBO scoring available via a Twitter connection. What you are about to see is ugly and speaks volumes out GOP commitment to Americans who consistently hand the party election wins.
That is nothing shy of a rehash of failed Trickle-down supply-side economics. Folks, on er the long haul it doesn't work for the middle class.
StumbleUpon

Monday, March 13, 2017

Quick HIt: CBO Says 24 Million No Healthcare



Twenty-four (24) million will become uninsured with TrumpCare!



The New York Times has published the 28 page CBO Review document.





Center on Budget Policy Priorities (CBPP)



If you only care about dollars the chart above will make you completely excited. If you have even a modicum of human feelings and empathy, TrumpCare should turn your stomach.




Let's close with this:

StumbleUpon

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Estate Tax Repeals Gives TOP .05% A Real Smile




Fair Economy
April 16, 2015...A day of GOP Legislative history that should awaken voters from their almost cult-like devotion to the GOP, despite overwhelming evidence the party is not the party of the "common" people. Boehner's House of Representative repealed the Estate Tax, thus awarding the nation's 1%(ers) A $269 billion windfall (CBO figures).

Let's take a quick look at the financial impact of the GOP hand-off to its major constituency. Sometimes reports make much more sense with images that deliver a message.

On April 16th, Lefteous Indignation published this Facebook post.  How apropos?

The thing about republicans is that they tend to be vewy, vewy quiet when they're adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit. You remember the deficit? The thing republicans say that they don't want your kids and grandkids to pay for? That deficit.
Source: MSNBC

US voters continue to vote to place republican in office when there is no factual and rational reason to do so. It is not the party of the fiscal conservative, It is not a fair an balanced social engine  (during times of significant demographic changes),  It is a party that is openly espousing war across the globe and it is the party (almost exclusively) of guardians of the Defense Industry. I posit voters who religiously support right-wing candidates have fallen hook and sinker for extensive and pervasive social paradigm from the Nixon and Reagan years. In addition to Reagan's trickle-down/supply side economic policy (that never trickled), he (and Nixon) also instilled a blanket and thoroughly set of privileged e social values across many Americans. These people who vote against their own best interest to cast a GOP "social vote."

StumbleUpon

Saturday, April 5, 2014

Rubio, and Hannity Combine For A Serious "Mostly False."

Rubio says health care law fell short of goal for 30 million signups

The White House celebrated earlier this week when 7.1 million Americans signed up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act marketplaces since they opened in October 2013.
Predictably, the law’s critics were not as thrilled. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., spoke on Hannity Tuesday night about what he sees as the reform’s shortcomings.
"I mean, the purpose of Obamacare was not to get 7 million people or 6 million people, or whatever the number now is, to sign up on a website," Rubio said. "The purpose of Obamacare, according to them, was to get more people insurance. And by all accounts, it's going to fall woefully short. You're still going to have 30-some-odd million people in this country uninsured."
We wanted to know if Rubio’s claim was correct that the health care law was falling short of its goals. Rubio’s office didn’t return our request for comment.
One thing that struck us is that Rubio is mixing up numbers for the law’s first year and what policy makers hope the law achieves over the long run. No one expected to see the law’s full effects in the first year after the health care marketplaces opened.
The best authority on health care numbers is the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which regularly publishes independent estimates of the law’s effects.
In February 2013, months before healthcare.gov launched, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that 7 million people would sign up on the marketplaces by March 31, 2014, after the marketplace had been open for six months.
The CBO estimated that by 2019, 27 million people will have signed up on the marketplaces. There will still be roughly 29 million people uninsured by that time, which is close to the number Rubio mentioned. But that’s down from 55 million uninsured in 2013.
Not everyone will end up with health insurance for a variety of reasons. Undocumented workers aren’t eligible to shop on the marketplaces. People living in states that have decided not to expand Medicaid will also be among the uninsured.
The law also has a hardship exemption. That means homeless people, domestic violence victims, people caring for disabled family members and others can apply to have the penalty fee waived for not purchasing insurance under the reform’s individual mandate.
Our ruling
Rubio claimed the Obama administration’s goal for the Affordable Care Act was to get 30 million Americans insured, not the 7 million who enrolled by the March 31 deadline. Down the road, there are targets to insure millions more via the online marketplaces. But the clearly stated goal for 2014, that the White House hit just in time, was 7 million signups. By 2019, that number is expected to jump to 27 million.
Rubio does have a point that many Americans will remain uninsured under the reform, but his claim twists the administration’s timeline for enrolling uninsured Americans. We rate his claim Mostly False.
StumbleUpon

Thursday, February 6, 2014

Quick Hit: The Afterwash Of The CBO Report

 DEBUNKED
We started the week with a major tsunami for television and print media. The Congressional Budget Office had "let the cat out the bag" on ObamaCare (PPACA- AKA ACA) and the ..."hope"... scratch that, with the report of labor force hours reduction to the tune of 2.3 million jobs.  For those who like quick hits, the story was debunked by Doug Elmendorf, director of the CBO, and laid squarely in the realm of family needs for medical coverage and the availability of the ACA will reduce the need for some parents (or heads of household) to work multiple jobs (for medical coverage).  Media with one exception (actually in reality two or three exceptions) jumped all over the story and in some cases with absolute glee.  

Others like CNN's Carol Costello worked to set the record straight.  I have been very critical of Costello during a couple of past  interviews with the likes of Wayne Newton, but for a non-MSNBC personality, she availed herself very well. Linked

Since we mentioned MSNBC, let's roll with a segment from Chris Hayes's All In.

http://on.msnbc.com/1avFoYH



Now, you have to know we at the TPI as consistent. we will remain diligent in pointing-out the differences between competent news reporting (along with related story development) and that of Fox News.  

Watch and listen to Stuart Varney, Fox News Live, and his guest.  It is important to remember, Varney was railing to his viewers about the time Doug Elmendorf was responding to Congressional hearing questions and comment about the CBO report.

It is sad when facts to not work to alleviat rherotirc. It is even more sad when media rushs to press, posting an dbroadcas without verificaiton of data and associated intent.  Are we so competittive we foresake accuracy and veraicty to beat the competition. Here is nothing better than being 'dead-on" correct while others mire themselves in raitings quicksand.  

We ask media if they are aware that, follwoig the path they are choosing means they will eventually drown in the quicksand with Fox News just below them?
StumbleUpon

Saturday, July 27, 2013

Income Disparity And The Sad Politifact Reader: "Facts Are Stubborn Things"

"The income of the top 1 percent nearly quadrupled from 1979 to 2007, but the typical family’s incomes barely budged.” President Obama July 23, 2013 Knox College."

As an American of average intelligence, I was startled when I read that a reader of Politifact.com contacted the editors about the veracity of the statement from President Obama. We at the TPI have published many pieces about income disparity and we maintain a "Data Scroll" Page littered with charts and graphics reflecting the very data Obama spoke of at Knox College.  

The Politifact reader was probably one of millions who have no idea the effect of GOP economic policy since Reagan years. The reader has surly heard the words "Trickle-down" economics. 
Maybe the person was closed minded to the fallacies of "trickle-down." Maybe the reader was a conservative who had never experienced the epiphany shared by millions when we realized the Reagan Years launched a veritable economic gold mine for the nations' wealthy.  A gold mine with 'no' fissures that reached into the middle and lower income strata. My epiphany arrived as I watched Ronald Reagan announce his candidacy for the Presidency in Jackson Mississippi. 





How is it possible people live in the United States without leveraging opportunity for self education on the state of the economy and on the growing imbalance of income disparity in favor of the nation's top 1% (ers)?  Could the person who contacted Politifact be a Fox News or CNN News viewer? How about the possibility the reader was one of the 47% who voted for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan in 2012? It is without question the reader was woefully ignorant in their lack of knowledge of data that impact their lives on a daily basis. We can also assume the reader is not one who would pick-up a magazine of newspaper for a quick perusal of business related pages. The data are available and it has proliferated far beyond happenstance viewing.  "What we have here....."

MSNBC has run segments on growing income inequity throughout the Obama Administration and prior to Obama's first inauguration.   

Alas, the reader's predicament and state of shock is a revealing indictment of US electronic media.  There was a time when such data was available via Ali Velshi when employed by CNN. Since, Velshi's departure from CNN, the network has lost all resemblance of fair and balanced economic reporting as surely as its senior managers have moved the network decidedly to the Far-Right.  CNN management has embarked on a conservative agenda for the cheap price of increasing revenues. We are not so naive we do not also realize CNN senior management is also conservative in social and political personal paradigm.  

If the reader to Politifact was affirmatively motivated to seek critical economic information the following tidbits may have crossed their path. The graphic just below has been available for public viewing in many forms. One critical point , the graph is its incorporation of  a "productivity" trend line. People contributed to productivity that was commendable as indicted via the trend line. Yet, there is marked disparity in the trend lines of the Top 1% (ers) and the average employee. 

Reagn took office January 20, 1981

For those who relish stubbornly challenging empirical data, thus continuing to challenge Obama's words, the following chart lays the argument squarely in the realm of "FACT". 

Wiki Media 
File:2008 Top1percentUSA.png

Now, take a look at the mid Clinton Years through George W. Bush.  Despite the major dip in income growth of the top 1% (ers) after Clinton left office, under Bush the GOP economic policy rescued Top 1% (ers) like an elected "Man of Steel."


Bottom 90%
Top 10%
–1.5%
–12.1%
+5.4%
–22.8%
+11.2%
–36.3%
Top 1% of earners
’97
99
’01
’03
’07
’09
’11
05
95
+100%
+80%
+60%
+40%
+20%
Real income, including capital gains
Change in income since 1995
RECOVERY
RECESSION



Yes, America is pulling apart and rapidly moving towards an oligarchy. We are allowing the uber wealthy to establish a playground for Top 20% (ers) and higher, while laying the rest of us in the quick-dry pavement of their future path. 








The following video excerpts are embed for those who have not viewed the one hour speech.

MSNBC speech excerpt
White House Dot Gov speech excerpt
Politifact___________________

The Truth-O-Meter Says:
Obama

"The income of the top 1 percent nearly quadrupled from 1979 to 2007, but the typical family’s incomes barely budged."

Barack Obama on Wednesday, July 24th, 2013 in a speech in Galesburg, Ill.

Barack Obama says top 1 percent saw incomes quadruple, while typical family saw theirs barely budge

A reader asked us to check a dramatic statistic on income inequality from President Barack Obama’s recent speech on the economy in Galesburg, Ill. 

"The income of the top 1 percent nearly quadrupled from 1979 to 2007, but the typical family’s incomes barely budged," Obama said in the July 24, 2013, speech. 

When we asked the White House for supporting evidence, a spokesman pointed us to a study published in late 2011 by the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan budget-analysis arm of Congress. 

The study looked at income trends between 1979 and 2007 for various income levels, including the top 1 percent. 

CBO found that over that period, the top 1 percent’s inflation-adjusted, after-tax income rose by a cumulative 275 percent. Over 28 years, that averages to almost a 10 percent increase each year.

That’s not quite quadrupling -- a 300 percent increase would have been a quadrupling -- but Obama did say "nearly quadrupled," and we think that qualifies. 

As for Obama’s claim that the "typical family’s incomes barely budged," that seems on target, too. 

For the 60 percent of the population in the middle of the income scale -- that is, excluding the top one-fifth and the bottom one-fifth of earners -- the cumulative growth in inflation-adjusted, after-tax household income was just under 40 percent. That may sound like a healthy increase, but it actually averages to just 1.4 percent per year. 

While an income increase of 1.4 percent a year above inflation does mean the middle 60 percent advanced economically during the period studied, the increase was only about one-seventh as fast as it was for the top 1 percent. In this context, we think the description "barely budged" is reasonable.

We should point out that the CBO’s findings about the top 1 percent were a little different than the conclusions we drew in a previous fact-check. But there’s a good reason why. 

We calculated that income for the top 1 percent grew between 1979 and 2008 by 169 percent, well below the 275 percent the CBO found. Our calculation was based on data compiled by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, who are specialists in income inequality. 

However, the Piketty-Saez data set excluded capital gains. Capital gains refers to income earned from investments such as stocks, and the lion's share of the nation’s capital gains go to the very wealthy. The CBO data, unlike the data from Piketty and Saez, included capital gains income, so that explains the discrepancy. 


Obama said "the income of the top 1 percent nearly quadrupled from 1979 to 2007, but the typical family’s incomes barely budged." Calculations by the CBO, a highly credible agency, show an increase of 275 percent for the top 1 percent, which is pretty close to quadrupling. And for average households, income rose by comparatively modest amounts.  

We rate the claim True.
The reader's ignorance about the extent to which the nation is pulling apart regarding income disparity is a testament to the dangers of right-wing media and people who suffer from "information indifference."  The danger?
They vote for candidates like Romney/Ryan and McCain/Palin when it was so obvious both sets of candidates were flawed beyond belief.

StumbleUpon