The Pardu

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

Wednesday, October 4, 2017

Connect The Dots USA: Guns, Guns, Guns..US Deaths





Repost from Connect The Dots USA



Here again, we see the staggering amount of gun violence casualties in America. In 2012, there were over 11,000 homicides and over 68,000 assaults involving a gun. And there were more than 21,000 suicides and another 4,000 attempted suicides with a gun. Unlike other less effective methods of suicide, tragically more than 80% of suicide attempts with a firearm are successful. You don’t get a second chance when you choose a gun.

Note: In 2015, firearm homicides rose to 12,979 and firearm suicides rose to 22,018.


In 2012, there were also 18,000 accidental gun injuries, with 500 of them resulting in death. Apparently, there are a lot of not-so-responsible gun owners out there. We hear story after story of people shooting themselves or a family member or friend because they forgot the one in the chamber when cleaning their gun, or they left it unlocked in the nightstand, under the pillow, or in a purse where a child had easy access to it.

Here are some updated charts and stats on gun violence:

No automatic alt text available.
StumbleUpon

Tuesday, July 4, 2017

Healthcare? Easier Than Republicans Can See



Of course, the title aims at the GOP. It is written as such based on the reality the GOP doesn't want to "see" healthcare for all.  We must never forget the GOP, as a party, never supported the Affordable Care Act. 

Recall the following historic minute of video for the late 1930s and its relevance to aiding people  (Americans) when they may need it most.

FDR: "Let Me Warn You"


No automatic alt text available.

Connect The Dots USA

Much has been written about how the Senate GOP “health” plan (BCRA) would gut Medicaid, cause 22 million more Americans to be uninsured by 2026, and lavish huge tax cuts on the fabulously wealthy. But what about the effect on skyrocketing insurance premiums and high deductibles in the non-group market (the exchanges)? Does it even begin to solve the very problem that Republicans have been railing about in the ACA? Not by a long shot. In fact, quite the reverse — just another GOP/Trump bait-and-switch.

Based on examples in the CBO estimates, I put together this handy chart comparing the two GOP plans to the ACA (current law) for a single individual with $26,500 of income ( = 175% of Federal Poverty Level) in 2026. I also show what that person would pay under a Medicare-For-All system based on this calculator: http://www.hcfat.org . As you might expect, Medicare-For-All is clearly the winner both in terms of cost and coverage.

Under both GOP plans, older and low-mid/income folks will get hammered the worst in the non-group insurance market (aka the “Age Tax”). That’s because the House GOP plan, unlike the ACA, does not peg the size of the premium tax credits to income or the retail price of insurance in a particular area. The Senate GOP plan’s tax credits are structured more like the ACA (taking into account income and geography), but they are much, much skimpier and pegged to a crappy 58% valued plan (a sub-Bronze “Rusty Can” plan) where deductibles will probably be as high as $8,000 to $10,000 by 2026).

Both GOP plans also eliminate the ACA’s cost-sharing subsidies, which lower deductibles, co-pays, co-insurance and max-out-of-pocket (MOOP) for folks making between 100% and 250% of Federal Poverty Level (FPL). Basically, under the ACA, a lower-income individual or family purchases a Silver plan and then the cost-sharing subsidies effectively bump them up to a Gold or Platinum plan with much lower out-of-pocket costs.

To make matters even worse for older folks, both GOP plans allow insurers to charge 5 times more for a 64-year-old compared to a 21-year-old. The ACA limited that to 3 times more.

Here we see the TrumpCare “age tax” at work. Look how the 64-year-old with income of just $26,500 goes from paying $1,700 in annual premiums for an excellent Gold-plus plan under the ACA to paying $6,500 for a skimpier Silver plan under the GOP Senate bill to a mind-boggling $14,600 for an even crappier Bronze plan under the GOP House bill. That’s nearly a quarter of her income under the Senate proposal and more than half of her income under the House bill — in premiums alone! Not to mention, she will be walloped with a $5,000 to $10,000 deductible and high co-pays. No doubt, this vulnerable senior would likely join the ranks of the uninsured. And that has nothing to do with freedom, choice or bad priorities.

Meanwhile, under a Medicare-For-All system, she and her entire household would be 100% covered (no out-of-pocket costs) for a mere 3% of household income or $795 per year in additional employer payroll tax. 

That’s a great deal!
StumbleUpon

Thursday, May 4, 2017

Trump and Rethuglicans: AHCA





Image may contain: text


As Trump and Rethuglicans celebrate their narrow vote in the House today to gut the ACA’s funding and patient protections, let’s not lose sight of what their plan is really all about. Bernie Sanders nailed it when he indicted the GOP’s American Health Care Act (AHCA) as not really a health plan, but rather a tax cut for the wealthy plan. In short, WealthCare not HealthCare.

The GOP rushed their vote through today before the Congressional Budget Office could score their additional cruelty — namely, gutting of pre-existing condition protections and other essential benefits. Based on the CBO’s March report, however, this chart shows the major spending cuts to programs that help low- and middle-income families afford healthcare versus the tax cuts that disproportionately benefit higher incomes and very profitable corporations — to the tune of $465 Billion in tax cuts over 10 years. 

While at least 24 million will likely lose health insurance and costs will skyrocket for older, lower-income families under the GOP scheme, the Top 1% (avg income of $1.3 million) will see an average tax cut of $50,000/year, with the Top 0.1% (avg income of $3.75 million/yr) getting an average tax cut of $197,000. Even more obscene, the wealthiest 400 households (avg income of $300 million/yr) will see an average tax break of $7 million/year.

And the recent paltry sweetner of $8 Billion more (over 5 years) for their magical high-risk pools, which are probably underfunded by at least $20 Billion PER YEAR, is not going to change the horrifying math of GOP/TrumpCare.
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: “The $8 billion falls far short of what’s needed to make high-risk pools sustainable. The $8 billion represents just a 6 percent increase in the $130 billion that the bill already includes for grants over the coming decade that states could potentially use for high-risk pools. But experts have concluded that $130 billion would leave these pools underfunded by at least $200 billion (and that estimate assumes that people would still have to pay premiums of roughly $10,000 a year)… not all of the $130 billion would likely go for high-risk pools, as states can use these funds for a variety of purposes unrelated to people with pre-existing conditions — and the House bill provides no such funding whatsoever after 2026… Historically, state high-risk pools have featured very high premiums, benefit exclusions, annual and lifetime limits, and other problems — even when the pools had enough funding to avoid waiting lists (which they often did not).”


StumbleUpon

Monday, January 18, 2016

Freedom Under The Law And Freedom In Fact: Connect The Dots USA


On a day when some in the nation celebrate the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. Connect The Dots USA, published a piece worthy of sharing. The is not about the late civil and human rights leader, but the piece is as germane to Americana as any piece I have read today.




Republicans (and especially Libertarians) narrowly define “freedom” as the mere “absence of a legal restriction.” Progressive commentator Richard Eskow indicts this as a “selfish and false freedom which the powerful offer to the powerless. Without economic justice it’s the kind of freedom a French writer (Anatole France) described over a century ago, in which ‘a poor person is as free to starve under a bridge as a rich person is to ride over it in his carriage.’” 

Instead, we need to enlarge our definition to include “freedom in fact,” including FDR’s freedom from poverty, ignorance, disease, discrimination, war and fear. Martin Luther King understood this broader definition of freedom when he asked, “What does it profit a man to be able to eat at an integrated lunch counter if he doesn’t have enough money to buy a hamburger?”


This is why, for example, regulating businesses to pay a livable wage may restrict their freedom-under-the-law to pay you less, but it enhances the freedom-in-fact for tens of millions of workers. 

As comedian Chris Rock explains, “I used to work at McDonald's making minimum wage. You know what that means when someone pays you minimum wage? You know what your boss was trying to say? "Hey if I could pay you less, I would, but it's against the law.”
StumbleUpon

Friday, January 8, 2016

Connect The Dots USA: Gun Control Part Deux


Despite Republican and conservative reticent and angst about President Obama's very basic gun control measures, we are beyond excited about the President's leadership on this critical issue.

Connect The Dots USA





Here again, we see the staggering amount of gun violence casualties in America. In 2012, there were over 11,000 homicides and over 68,000 assaults involving a gun. And there were more than 21,000 suicides and another 4,000 attempted suicides with a gun. Unlike other less effective methods of suicide, tragically more than 80% of suicide attempts with a firearm are successful. You don’t get a second chance when you choose a gun.

What’s more, there were 18,000 accidental gun injuries, with 500 of them resulting in death. Apparently, there are a lot of not-so-responsible gun owners out there. We hear story after story of people shooting themselves or a family member or friend because they forgot the one in the chamber when cleaning their gun, or they left it unlocked in the nightstand, under the pillow, or in a purse where a child had easy access to it.

StumbleUpon

Thursday, January 7, 2016

Connect The Dots On Gun Control And CNN Polling Results (VIDEO)


Connect The Dots USA...Gun Control?

 

After more than three years since 20 first-graders were gunned down at Sandy Hook and the do-nothing, NRA-bought Republicans (along with a few Dems) continuing to block any small effort to curb gun violence, President Obama recently announced some common-sense executive actions to promote firearm safety:
• Expand the background check requirement to include more sellers — especially online and gun show sellers.
(95% of Democrats, 87% of Republicans and 92% of gun owners support closing this gigantic, illogical loophole).

• Hiring more ATF agents to enforce our existing gun laws (because having a law on the books does not mean you have enough resources to enforce it adequately).
• Tightening rules to report and track stolen guns.
• Make it easier to include mental health records in background checks.
pld keep bad guys or children from being able to fire a gun that isn't theirs.


As with most complex societal problems, there won’t be any full-proof solution that will end all gun violence, but we can and must do a lot better than the status quo. It's a routine tragedy that every day in the U.S., an average of 90 people die from gun violence — 31 from intentional homicide, 58 from suicide, and at least one from accidents. Eight of those 90 gunshot fatalities are children or teenagers. Then there are the average 219 non-fatal gun injuries per day, which often still wreak havoc on people’s lives and livelihood.

America is awash in guns. We have almost as many civilian firearms as people. While there is no official registry keeping count, estimates range from 270 million to 320 million firearms. The U.S. comprises only 5% of the world’s population but owns 50% of the world’s civilian guns. If more guns were the answer...

Gun ownership is now concentrated in only 34% of U.S. households, down from 50% of households in the 1970s. The fact that two-thirds of the guns are owned by only 20% of the households shows that gun manufacturers are marketing and selling to an ever shrinking base of repeat customers. Remember that when you hear that gun and ammunition sales are soaring. It’s not that a lot of new people are running out to get a gun for protection. Rather, it’s the same ol’ paranoid crowd stockpiling for “black helicopter” day. And as we’ve recently seen with the armed, right-wing terrorists in the Oregon wildlife refuge standoff, they are hardly “good guys” with guns. On the contrary, they are criminal thugs/terrorists threatening to shoot police and federal authorities if they try to enforce the law.


Also shocking is the sheer number of bullets and amount of carnage that an AR-15 type weapon and/or high-capacity ammunition clip can accomplish. Compare 45 shots in a minute to the 3 to 4 rounds that a musket could fire at the time the Second Amendment was written.
_____________________________________

CNN on American polling results related to President Obama's executive action on gun control.








StumbleUpon

Monday, December 14, 2015

Medicaid Expansion...WHY NOT?


Repost from Connect The Dots dot com
Unfortunately, the drafters of the ACA did not anticipate the Supreme Court ruling that states could opt out of the Medicaid expansion, so no tax credit provisions were included for folks below 100% of Federal Poverty Level. Remember, they were supposed to get Medicaid instead.
Currently an estimated 3.1 million folks who fall in the Medicaid coverage gap (below 100% of Federal Poverty Level) are just doubly screwed until those 20 Republican state legislators and/or governors cave like cheap tents to get their hands on all that federal money — once the politics of Obamacare dies down and the pressure from the monied hospital interests ramps up. Or alternatively, Democrats could take back the House and Senate and at least provide federal tax subsidies to those below 100% of FPL living in those 20 mean Republican-controlled states. Boy do elections have consequences!
If you fall into the Medicaid coverage gap, how about voting you and your family some healthcare coverage? And if you’re fortunate enough to live in a state that accepted the Medicaid expansion, don’t vote for Republicans (like newly-elected Gov Matt Bevin of Kentucky) who plan on taking that away from you. That’s what voting SMART is all about. Wealthy people vote for their economic self-interest all the time, so should poor people.



StumbleUpon

Monday, October 5, 2015

Tax Policy As Middle Class Killer: Connect The Dots USA, Bush Tax Policy And Reaganomics

I find myself starting another piece with a video. 

The vast majority of readers have no intimate firsthand knowledge of Ronald Reagan's supply side/trickle-down economics. While you may know Trickle-down economics has failed the nation with each Republican Administration since Reagan's terms, you may also side with those who ignore its deleterious impact on the nation and the future.

Trickle-down economics does to work for any American who earns below the Top 20% level. Moreover, it offers obscene earning potential and wealth grow for Top 1% (ers).

https://youtu.be/fK4sNtNmWMU



An absolute farce economic theory!

Earlier today we published  Tax Cuts? The Trickle-down Gift To The Wealthy  from Connect The Dots USA. 
Let's again visit with Connect on this most critical issue: The Vote. Your vote for the GOP is a vote for trickle-down supply side economic policy.
Supply-side economics
Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomic thought that argues that overall economic well-being is maximized by lowering the barriers to producing goods and services (the "Supply Side" of the economy). By lowering such barriers, consumers are thought to benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices. Typical supply-side policy would advocate generally lower income tax and capital gains tax rates (to increase the supply of labor and capital), smaller government and a lower regulatory burden on enterprises (to lower costs).
Ronald Reagan "Fathered' the flaw and failed economic theory deep into the psyche of the GOP. Even today we see and hear nothing other than Reaganomics from potential presidential candidates who speak of tax policy. The super "slick" GOP presidential candidates avoid the issue as if they were avoiding influenza. They know the following graphics truly represent the affects of Reaganomics.


Excerpts
Exhibit I.
On the other hand, the greatest periods of economic progress and stability in our nation have been when unions and the middle class were strong. Wages were fair and on the rise putting money in the hands of Americans who in turn spent that money. This benefited the wealthy and the middle class and thereby the entire nation.
We Grew Together

Exhibit II.
..... the facts of the last 30 years don’t support our national experiment with trickle down economics. What was once a legitimate idea to be tested based on the work of Laffer, has become a laughable mythology of the modern right. 
Since the 1980s, and even dating back to the 60s and 70s, we have been slowly but steadily lowering taxes. Taxes on the wealthy have been reduced almost 60% since 1961. Corporate taxes have been reduced and are now at an effective rate around 15%. In fact, Sally Kohn notes "corporate tax receipts accounted for 30 percent of US federal revenues in the mid-1950s. In 2009, they made up just 6.6 percent of federal revenue streams." While corporate rates have dropped along with the tax rates of the wealthy, the effective rate for everyday Americans has actual increased over that same period.

Income Gains Since 1971

As Connect adroitly shows us, Bush economic policy was the ward of Reaganomics and it failed this nation miserably.



October 4, 2015
You can see here that the Bush tax cuts were skewed heavily to the Top 1% and especially the Top 0.1%. In the first decade, the Bush tax cuts cost $2.5 Trillion in lost revenue and would have cost $3.7 Trillion from 2013 to 2022 (not including debt service). Instead of letting them all expire on Dec 31, 2012, Obama’s 2013 tax deal made permanent all the Bush tax cuts except for the extra tax cuts for the top 0.7% — recouping just $624 Billion over ten years. 
Of course, the GOP tax-cutting obsession is on full display in the GOP presidential primaries. Jeb! wants to double-down on his brother’s tax plan — leading to $3.6 Trillion in additional lost revenue over the next decade. Even taking into account voodoo economics’ “dynamic scoring” nonsense and a pie-in-the-sky 4% GDP growth that Jeb! appears to have pulled out of thin air (or his nether region), you’re still looking at adding $1.6 Trillion to the deficit/debt. And like his brother’s tax cuts, Jeb’s cuts are skewed heavily in favor of the super-rich, with the middle class getting an average 2.9% decrease in taxes and the Top 1% like him getting an average 11.6% decrease. 
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/fox-host-corners-bush-for-giving-tax-cuts-to-the-1-does-jeb-bush-need-a-3-million-tax-cut/ 
Not to be outdone, Trump’s tax plan would drop the top rate down to 25% (from 39.6%) and the corporate rate down to 15% — resulting in a HUGE loss of revenue of $12 Trillion over the next decade. Under this scenario, even his populist plan to go after the hedge fund guys loses any punch — barely increasing the tax on carried interest from the current 23.8% to Trump’s maximum 25%. Factoring in other aspects of Trump’s plan, most hedge fund managers would actually see an overall tax cut. 
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/is-trumps-tax-plan-revenue-neutral/ 
Self-financed Trump may not be a puppet of the wealthy donor class, but his tax policies nonetheless reflect that of the most privileged plutocrat. And they didn’t even need to donate a dime for it.
If you think your vote doesn't count think of America without the successful interventions of Democrats in late 2008 and early 2009.
When you view the data, even you must admit, your GOP vote is a social vote. 
StumbleUpon

Tax Cuts? The Trickle-down Gift To The Wealthy


Your GOP will never cease to provide wealthy garnering tax breaks to the nation;s wealthy.  Sad tax relief for the nation's Top !% means trickle-down economics hell for the rest of the nation.

Connect The Dots USA offers a picture of that the GOP wishes you would simply not view.





October 3, 2015


Most folks are surprised to learn that before Reagan starting slashing tax rates in 1982, income in the top bracket was taxed at 70% and before that, 91%! What does this mean? In 1956 under Eisenhower, for example, any amount over $400,000, which equals $3.5 million in today’s dollars, was taxed at a 91% rate for a married couple. So if you had the equivalent of $4.5 million in taxable income, you paid $910,000 in taxes on that last million and anywhere from 50% to 90% on the amounts over $276,000 in today’s dollars. 

With the tax act of January 2013, any taxable income over $457,601 married is now taxed at only 39.6% (up from a decade of 35%). And if you get your money from capital gains dividends, you pay at most a 20% income tax rate. As we see, the overwhelming majority of tax cuts have been skewed to the super-rich. Our measly tax cuts are just so we’ll carry the water and make the argument for the billionaire bonus cuts.
StumbleUpon

Wednesday, September 23, 2015

The GOP's 2016 Budgets And Its Long Range Inhumanity



If you appreciate the perfect mix of information laced graphics with deep messages and cogent commentary, you really should visit the Connect The Dots USA Facebook Page or website. (I prefer the website).

The illustration genius of Connect The Dots USA is only surpassed by the cogent verse of its creator and developer. She is a committed progressive who worked tirelessly in support of the Affordable Care Act; the life sustaining legislation was enacted to law and has withstood two significant SCOTUS challenges. Her work of late has been in education about the US Debt, Deficits and refuting Right-wig manipulation regarding both.


Connect The Dots USA


Well, it’s looking more and more like we may have another federal govt shutdown in nine days. Not only are the right-wingers threatening to hold America hostage over their Planned Parenthood crusade, the savage austerity budget that passed the Republican House and Senate last May has no chance of getting a signature from President Obama or garnering many Democratic votes (which Speaker Boehner will desperately need once the Planned Parenthood scheme goes awry).

In this graphic, I illustrate the GOP’s slash & burn dream budget. The ten-year budget proposal that passed both chambers last May is a down payment on that scorched earth vision. Here are some of the low-lights:
Cuts domestic spending $5 Trillion over ten years, with nearly two-thirds of cuts from programs for low to modest incomes — shrinking them an average 38% by 2025. (Hey, how else could they pay for their billionaire tax cuts?) 
• Cuts Medicaid by $135 B/yr and repeals ACA subsidies of $85 B/yr, kicking 27 Million Americans off health insurance. Ultimately, they want to block grant Medicaid and kill it. 
• Cuts $43 B/yr from Medicare, but repeals the ACA’s prescription drug benefit. Even worse, Republicans want to voucherize Medicare, shift more costs to seniors, raise the eligibility age to 67 years, and ultimately kill it. 
• Cuts Income Security programs by $60B/yr, including $13 B/yr from SNAP (food stamps). 
• Cuts Non-Defense Discretionary by $50 B/yr more on top of the 2013 draconian sequester cuts of $37 B/yr, including $19 B/yr from Transportation, $22 B/yr from Higher Ed and $2 B/yr from Veterans’ Health. 
• But it boosts base Pentagon $38B/yr by using a backdoor gimmick through emergency OCO (Overseas Contingency Operations = the Wars) funding to blow through the sequestration caps. Because... of course it does. (Note: Today, the word is Republicans are trying to get $87B for the OCO slush fund).

Nearly every Republican in the House and Senate voted for this brutal budget, except for the ones who wanted even more cuts like presidential candidates Senators Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. So don’t talk to me about moderate Republicans — they are as non-existent as unicorns.



It reveals their priorities that Republicans are willing to spend an endless amount of money on wars but will not invest in America’s infrastructure, schools or people. Oh no, we can’t afford that! As President Obama lamented, they paint a deeply pessimistic vision of America’s future: ”It’s a vision that says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapse, we can’t afford to fix them. If there are bright young Americans who have the drive and the will but not the money to go to college, we can’t afford to send them...” To quote Van Jones, that’s some “cheap patriotism”!



End Connect The Dots USA

Information for "Informed People."
StumbleUpon

Friday, September 18, 2015

Connect The Dots USA: Spending, Deficits, Debt et al



During the run-up to the 2010 signing of the Affordable Care Act, (ACAConnect The Dots USA, was a frequent read. The ACA was signed into law and has managed to readout $100 million plus in frivolous US House of Representatives and US Senate votes. The life sustaining law has also withstood two major Supreme Court cases; sadly the GOP still speaks of repealing ;the law.


Connect was also instrumental in galvanizing social media towards participation 2014 mid-term elections. A gallant effort, but the effort was unfortunately met with progressives and Independent stay home (itis) and handed the GOP moderate wins in 2014. Maybe Connect among others of us (on social media) helped to whittle away at the GOP seat dominance in the House and may have helped to ward-off even more US Senate seat losses.

During the recent GOP debate, Donald Trump again mentioned the reality of excessively high US Debt. If someone has an article or video of Donald Trump ;berating the US Debt before Barack Obama won the US Presidency, please share the details. 


Let’s zoom in on the deficit graph to see what happened since this devious “tax cuts” strategy took off in the 1980s when the GOP got control of the White House. President Reagan started slashing tax revenues and discovered it was a lot harder to cut spending (because folks like those govt programs). And the deficit gap widened.


Note that the last five times we’ve had budget surpluses (four of them were Clinton budgets), revenue was near 20% of GDP. But the Clinton surpluses were squandered in the Bush years when revenue dropped to below 15% of GDP and spending soared to 25%.

Remember, GDP in 2014 was about $17 trillion, so each 1% is a $170 billion — a huge difference. Last year, the deficit was just under $500 Billion or 2.8% of GDP, which is down from the whopping 10% of GDP deficit ($1.4 Trillion) when Obama took office. Note that the deficit gap was closed by both bringing down spending AND bringing up revenue.



This bar chart illustrates Obama’s rapidly shrinking deficit as a percent of GDP — that’s the size of the gap between the red spending line and the yellow revenue line in our last graph.
Unfortunately, according to a recent poll in reality-free America, a whopping 73% mistakenly thought the deficit was getting bigger over the last six years. Geez, I sure hope they don’t vote based on that issue!
    Connect The Dots USA
                              September 15 
Here we see all those deficits added together to form the long-term debt. We were paying down the old WWII debt and only had less than $1 Trillion to go. Then Reagan came in with his wild tax cuts and kicked the doors off, leaving a $2.9 Trillion debt to Papa Bush, who quickly ran it up to $4.4 Trillion in just four years.
Clinton was bringing it down with higher taxes and more sane policies. Had “Dubya” done the fiscally responsible thing by consistently applying the then $130 Billion annual surplus toward the country’s “credit card,” we would have had the $5.7 Trillion debt paid off years ago.
d the debt, gave us more tax cuts, two wars, a Medicare drug benefit, a Wall Street bailout (all unfunded mind you), an economy on the brink, a $10.6 Trillion debt with the juice compounding, and a projected 2009 deficit of $1.4 Trillion there to greet Obama on day one.
Republicans are fiscal conservatives? Hello! Three-plus decades ago, they abandoned “balanced budgets” for tax cuts and endless war. Don’t let them get away with invoking the old GOP brand anymore.



During the GOP clown show debate this week, you heard many of the candidates complain about our $18 Trillion in debt and then — sometimes in the same sentence — insist on how we must spend endlessly on more and more military. No one ever mentions a reasonable budget, audit or tax offset for the Pentagon or war activities— just more, more, more. Apparently, under GOP logic, only military spending is not subject to “pay fors” or the law of diminishing returns.

Most folks who scream about the debt don’t realize that we owe more than half of that $18 Trillion debt to ourselves — not to China. And Social Security — far from adding to the deficit or debt — is America’s largest creditor. Failure to grasp this distinction is like not understanding the difference between your home loan and the bank to whom you owe the money.

Social Security gradually redeems its treasury bonds as needed to make up any shortfall from payroll taxes. The rest sits there earning interest — just like if you own treasury bonds in your portfolio. What the federal govt chooses to spend that loan on — waging senseless wars or investing in worthwhile infrastructure — is the debt driver, NOT the Social Security trust fund.

For a quick review of the Social Security balance sheet, see my post on 8/15/15:

As is the model on the TPI: we believe in information feed the brains of those who care to adsorb and assimilate information we no long find on network and cable news.

Yes, President Obama has added to the US Debt. Is it feasible to consider the nation's 44th President's first order of business upon assuming the White House was to reverse the killing years of George W. Bush?

Let's take a look at history as it relates to US Presidents and their debt accumulation.  


The US Deficit and the US Debt are different, but related economic "animals" that feed off each other. 

ederal Deficit

Definition

The amount by which a government's expenditures exceed its tax revenues. The difference is made up for by borrowing from the public through the issuance of debtalso called Federal Debt.

Read more: investorwords.com





As we watched and listened to a number of Republican hopefuls rail about the need to increase US militarism, we should wonder: "How are they going to pay for it?"
StumbleUpon