The Pardu

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

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

TPI Morning Gazette: Rick Perry, Sam DuBose, O'Reilly, Sarah Palin,





Non-Progressive News...




Here is your GOP candidate for President. Rick Perry challenges Donald Trump, not to a one-on-one debate, not to a gentlemens pugilistic dual, and not to a game of Texas Hold em; he challenges....


Come at me, bro.Posted by Mediaite on Wednesday, July 29, 2015
The conservative operative Photoshop. They so disrespect your intellect and they have mastered your emotions. An image of President Obama shaking hands with India's Prime Minister and a Photoshop version with the The Iranian supreme Leader. 

The image on behalf of Wisconsin Senator, Ron Johnson's, via a conservative PAC web page.


The original image:
IndiaPrime
The image distributed by Restoration PAC:
RhouhaniObama
Factcheck.org asked Restoration PAC about the image in question and this is the response they got from spokesman Dan Curry:

TRUMP'D

TPM LIVEWIRE





President Trump Would 'Love' To Include Sarah Palin In His Cabinet

Fkin4lqktoj7axdwtzt4

AP Photo / Bill Clark
If Donald Trump wins the 2016 presidential election, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) may again grace the national political stage. 
During a Monday interview on radio show "The Palin Update," Trump said he was open to including Palin as a member of his cabinet if elected president.


When he joined the show on Monday, Trump called Palin "tough and smart," prompting the show host, Kevin Scholla, to ask the presidential candidate whether he would consider asking Palin for advice or including her in his administration.

"I’d love that," Trump responded, according to audio highlighted by Right Wing Watch. "Because she really is somebody who knows what’s happening and she’s a special person, she’s really a special person, and I think people know that."
Read more


Ben Carson proves a deteriorated state of mind and a willingness, like Huckabee, to use horrific world history fake sake of personal gain. 
What do you think? Sound off in the comments! http://on.msnbc.com/1D9UmBY

Louie Gohmert embodies the sanity of the GOP. 
We don't even know where to start with this one...Posted by Salon on Wednesday, July 29, 2015

Sam DuBose shot in the head by a campus cop. When America refuses to come down on cop killings, the sickness spreads. When a nation refuses to accept "Black Lives Matter," a nation refuses to accept "All Lives Matter." Your comfort today, will become your Achilles Heel of tomorrow. 

Embedded image permalink

                               
Images Count!
I made a promise to not share videos of people being killed by America's out of control neo slave patrollers or to...Posted by Chauncey Devega on Wednesday, July 29, 2015

O'Reilly takes the charge as a leader for white America (without permission) and relegates the weekly cop murders of American Black people to a mere reality show.  

The Raw Story:  http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/bill-oreilly-freaks-out-blacklivesmatter-wants-to-tear-down-the-country/#

https://youtu.be/hWHjoCIxSIs



Washington Post interactive graphic.  But, lest we forget we are in NON PROGRESSIVE NEWS....readers here do not care.





Editor's Choice 
StumbleUpon

Monday, February 13, 2012

Food Stamp President: a charade and complete malfeasance



The well published and very visible, "black-conservative" seems to relish in making more non-useful and non-relevant, 'jabs' at President Obama than other conservatives.  Mouthpieces such as Alan West, and Herman Cain are clear examples of the levels to which some will stoop for attention. Both have commented in ways that their non-black conservative brethren generally leave to email and private jokes.  West is a knuckled head politician and Cain is, but a self-proclaimed buffoon. "I wanna bring more humor to the White House," he once said.  "Obama is not of the black experience", another inane utterance. And, the "...Haagen Daz Black Walnut, good all the time..."  was another racial play on words. The brand of ice cream was discontinued after a short period after failure in the market; Cain's orator about the brand was a clear example of  buffoonery. If Cain wants to win favor from white voters via minstrel like moon-shining that is his prerogative, as shameful as the behavior comes across. There is, however, another group of "black conservative", who should carefully think about following people like Newt Gingrich down a path towards self humiliation.  When people such as Kevin Jackson joins Newt Gingrich in 'rolling-out" race baiting, he actually demeans himself. And, he seemingly does so for reasons far beyond simple ideology.  As an introduction, Jackson is the author of the book "The BIG Black Lie" and the owner/operator of the web page, The Black Sphere.

If you will, allow a brief digression. Code, food stamps president, and on and on.

StumbleUpon

Sunday, January 8, 2012

GOP Debate: Moderators as the main event; debaters ZZZZZZZZ



The one and only thing I like about the abundance of GOP debates is after the debate FactChecking.  Wow!

It seems after Michelle Bachmann left the arena the number of fact checks may have dropped, but still the remaining 6 candidates offer enough fodder for a full night of checking.

Another thing I like about the FactChecking post debate email; I often simply link to their website without the need for additional analysis.  If you want to read something interesting, but not surprising... Click the link below.  

First, how about a does of Santorum B/S regarding the words "Middle Class"?  His remark about Romney's use of the word Middle class was as silly as his body of comments since joining the race.  Everyone in America refers to middle income earners as the "Middle Class".  How trite, but then the source is also trite.

Santorum’s ‘Middle Class’ Inconsistency

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum chastised Romney for using the term “middle class,” even though Santorum’s own campaign uses it currently and he has used it himself not so long ago.
Here’s what Santorum said during the debate:
StumbleUpon

Sunday, December 11, 2011

FactChecK.org.... More Baloney at ABC/Yahoo! Debate



(NOTE: Factcheck formatting kept intact. FactCheck Background and template do not match.)
– by Brooks Jackson, Eugene Kiely, Lori Robertson, Robert Farley and D’Angelo Gore
We fact-check the candidates' claims at the latest presidential debate in Iowa.


Summary
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