The Pardu

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

Monday, April 15, 2019

As Trump's World Turns: Threat or No Threat

You decide... and recall communication involves perception. What seems innocent to you could be marching orders for others.

Over the weekend someone in Trump's cabal created a video which is hard to distinguish from the work of Joseph Goebbels and his work to advance the agenda of one Adolf Hitler. While Trump's Tweet (as follows) is void of direct threats, he has a willing sect of followers who take his veiled messages and seeks to weaponize his messages. The Congresswoman from Michigan is receiving an increasing number of death threats. Herewith is the video obviously created by some minister of messaging
Congresswoman Omar has responded. 
The White House issued a statement indicating Trump wishes "ill will" to Congresswoman Omar:  PBS.

What a statement. Trump and his message ministers know full well plausible denial after delivering messages with targeted meanings are accepted by millions. The problem; the Right has a noticeable set of people who react to Trumps messaging in the most twisted of ways.

An amalgam set of reminders regarding Trump's messaging. Time.

In Fayetteville, North Carolina, we saw and heard this.

While we could go on and one lets end with this reminder.

Do you remember Cesar Sayoc?  The avid Trump supporter and rally attendee sent more than a dozen explosive devices to media, members of Congress and liberal entertainers.  

FBI Director Wray.

Yes, Trump's messaging carries dire consequences.

According to Politifacts, and for openness and credibility Omar didn't offer an accurate set of words regarding the inception CAIR, Council on American-Islamic Relations. While the Congresswoman should seek to deliver more accurate messaging, I do not feel it worthwhile nor productive to run with the quote Trump's message developers chose to hand him over the weekend. 


Tuesday, December 11, 2018

Politifacts 2018 Lie Of The Year Reader's Poll

Image result for pinocchio

Just a few minutes ago we published a piece regarding Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer (Democrat Party congressional leaders) appearing to outfoxed Donald trump into a rambling and thoroughly embarrassing pubic (on-camera) exhibition. The central theme of the interaction was related to the pending funding of the US government in relation to Trump's quest for funding for his very unpopular border wall.

Herewith is the link to the piece.

If you visited the piece, you may have noticed our specific reference to Chuck Schumer's direct affront to Trump with the Washington Post's newly coined "Bottomless Pinnochios" as a weapon.

How about another reference to Trump's incessant and overwhelming pathology to lie.

2018 Lie of the Year Readers’ Poll results

As we close, allow a quick image of why Trump and his party as so inclined to lie with each and every utterance.

Image may contain: one or more people


Wednesday, November 22, 2017

Hard Work And Golf (Oil And Water)

Image result for false witness

Politifacts and your President 

Anyone who lies as much as Trump isn't of a normal mind.

All False statements involving Donald Trump

And it continues. As of this morning, the press was told Trump had a full schedule. I am now guessing the words were carefully chosen as it seems his full schedule includes rounds of golf. Golfing while on vacation or holiday trips is an expectation for the avid golfer. There really are not any issues with it. Issues arise when words come forth of a full schedule, and we associate such words with hard work from all previous presidents.



Friday, August 18, 2017

Trump: General Pershing And The US Economy (180 Degree Lies)


Study what General Pershing of the United States did to terrorists when caught. There was no more Radical Islamic Terror for 35 years! 

Pants on Fire!


Says that in the Philippines more than a century ago, Gen. John Pershing "took 50 bullets, and he dipped them in pigs’ blood," and shot 49 Muslim rebels. "The 50th person, he said, ‘You go back to your people, and you tell them what happened.’ And for 25 years, there wasn’t a problem."
— Donald Trump on Friday, February 19th, 2016 in a rally in North Charleston, S.C.

When will it ever end? Donald Trump is so obviously lost in a world of false reality it is no longer funny. After the recent terror attacks in Barcelona Spain, someone in Trump's White House staff posted a professional and compassionate statement regarding the terror attack. Within hours of the statement, Trump grabbed his IPhone and tweeted a few characters of a completely debunked story of an American Admiral who ordered the deaths of Islamic terror attacked via pig blood dosed bullets. Notice the bigotry and racism. "PIG" and Arabic "Isllamic" are polar opposite ideology.

The over-the-top lying doesn't stop at the top. Trump has a well oiled cadre of "presstitutes" who earn millions traipsing through cable news shows while spewing what often seems agreed upon talking points. MSNBCs powerful financial minds Ali Velshi and Stephanie Ruhle hosted one such mouthpiece earlier today. The rational viewer will recognize the Trumpeteer should not have eaccepted the invitation. The irrational Trump support (lover, sycophant or minion) will continue to accept the lies from the mouthpieces.

Trump's first mental output is to push a lie or an exaggeration across his lips.  If you are a person who believes anything from the mouth of the 45th President of the United States, well.....

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

The "Debt" Vs. The "Deficit"

We at the TPI are about the business of informing educating and to a degree (much lesser degree) entertaining. When we run across a piece literally bubbling over with information, we publish, if it is within copyright considerations.

The Tampa Bay, Politifacts, recently published a piece that delineates the difference between the "deficit" and the "debt."

Debt vs. deficit: What’s the difference?

By Angie Drobnic Holan on Thursday, February 27th, 2014 at 11:36 a.m.

This chart from the Congressional Budget Office shows federal debt levels projected to rise through 2038.
This chart from the Congressional Budget Office shows federal debt levels projected to rise through 2038.

What word starts with "d" and ends with "t" and has to do with the federal budget?

You’d be right if you said "debt." You’d also be right if you said "deficit." But while the two words sound the same, they describe very different concepts. One is getting bigger, while the other is getting smaller. The politicians and talking heads don’t make things easier by confusing the two.

It’s a mistake we’re seeing more often, especially from Democrats who want to defend President Barack Obama’s fiscal policies.

The latest offender: the Senate’s second-ranking Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois. In an interview on Fox News Sunday last week, Durbin said the Obama administration was going to "reduce the overall debt of the United States by $3 trillion over the next 10 years."

Sorry, but his talk about the overall debt was ridiculously wrong. Instead of going down $3 trillion, the best estimate of the debt over the next 10 years is that it will rise by $8.6 trillion.

That's a difference of ... $11.6 trillion. That's real money to anyone. PolitiFact rated his statement Pants on Fire!

Democrats do have a point when they say that the federal deficit is going down. The deficit is a measure of a single year’s shortfall, the difference between what the government takes in and what it spends. And in recent years, the deficit has been declining, thanks to the end of the recession and lower government spending.

The deficit hit a mind-boggling $1.41 trillion in 2009 during the teeth of the recession, due to a fall off in tax revenues and an economic stimulus aimed at jump-starting the economy. It gradually declined somewhat, but still stayed north of $1 trillion in 2010, 2011 and 2012. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said those years marked the largest budget deficits relative to the size of the economy since 1946.

But with the end of the Great Recession, deficits are getting smaller. The deficit for 2013 is expected to finally drop below the $1 trillion mark, to $973 billion. The Obama administration predicts further declines through 2018, when they project the deficit will be $475 billion.

But the deficits aren’t going away. If they did go away, then there would be what’s called a budget surplus. The United States hasn’t seen budget surpluses since the days of President Bill Clinton.

So years of deficits, even deficits that are growing smaller, still means the overall debt is getting bigger.

Got it?

The fiscal future

Sometimes, though, you hear people on TV talk about the debt going down, and that’s wrong. When PolitiFact has fact-checked the claim -- usually from Obama supporters -- the explanation is typically that they said "debt" when they meant "deficit."

Back in November, for example, Al Sharpton said on his MSNBC show PoliticsNation that the national debt "has been reduced every year for the last five years." He meant deficits. PunditFact, the PolitiFact project that rates the talking heads, rated his statement False.

And even if some are feeling cheerful about declining deficits, the Congressional Budget Office warns that shrinking deficits won’t last if the nation keeps to its current spending and taxing policies. Deficits will begin to increase in years to come, and continue increasing for the next 25 years, through 2038.

Much of that deficit spending will be driven by spending on health care -- especially Medicare, the government insurance program for people over age 65 -- and Social Security, according to the CBO’s latest report. The agency issued a warning along with its usual graphs and charts:

"The unsustainable nature of the federal government’s current tax and spending policies presents lawmakers and the public with difficult choices. Unless substantial changes are made to the major health care programs and Social Security, those programs will absorb a much larger share of the economy’s total output in the future than they have in the past."

We see no end in sight to conversation and commentary about deficits and debt. So keep this in mind:

Deficit=one year.

Debt=all money owed.

The "Debt" is often a topic that cross the lips of any Republicans. President Obama's years in the White House have pushed the word "deficit" completely out of the GOP lexicon. They will not menton the word' that should tell you much about the GOP.


Monday, January 20, 2014

GOP Allegations Of Human Services "Fraud." Comparable to GOP Allegations of "Voter Fraud."

Yesterday, we published a piece about the lack of veracity from a few top level Republicans in Congress. Our focus centered around Senator Ron Johnson (Tea Party Member of Congress) R-WI, and his false claims about his daughter's heart condition and the possibility of her death if she had faced "the provisions of ObamaCare." Johnson's claims have not been judged as prospective untruths comparable to Rand Paul's suspicious claims about his son's mistaken enrollment in Medicaid, yet his claims are not standing-up to a critical "smell test." His daughter's attending physician does not agree with Johnson's politically laced assertions. No, Johnson did not wave an un-requested Medicaid card in front of cameras; he simply made unqualified assertions without a medical opinion from a healthcare professional.  While we also mentioned Paul Ryan's (and family) invasion of a soup pantry during the latter days of the 2012 presidential campaign, our connection to Paul and Johnson was based "phoniness." Politifacts has published yet another piece that more appropriately places Johnson as a recipient of a serious "Pants on Fire."

Just over a week ago Johnson delivered a speech that included mis-information about the use of human services benefits as fraud. The Wisconsin tea party Senator joined in 
the chorus of GOP false rhetoric of the poor as "takers" who derive benefit from programs which are wrought with fraud.

Fraud? The GOP via its most verbose and less honest members of congress continue to spew false mantra regarding voter fraud and lower income benefit fraud

Who elects these people?


On average, 20 to 25 cents of every $1 spent on four government assistance programs is lost to fraud, Sen. Ron Johnson says

Once a month, the Waukesha County Republican Party hosts "Pints and Politics," a Friday evening gathering at a suburban Milwaukee restaurant that is "open to anyone conservative."
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel covered the soiree on Jan. 10, 2014, when the special guest was U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis.
When a woman asked Johnson about the Internal Revenue Service enforcing provisions of the Affordable Care Act, he expressed doubt about how effective the IRS would be.
Then Johnson made an allegation about government assistance programs that packed the punch of a beer and a shot.
"Do you realize the average rate of fraud," Johnson asked, "whether it's in the Earned Income Tax Credit or Medicare or Medicaid, across the board, food stamps -- the average rate of fraud in those programs is 20 to 25 percent?"
Fraud is sobering stuff. It’s defined as "the crime of using dishonest methods to take something valuable" from someone or something; and as the intentional use of "dishonest means to deprive another" of money, property or a legal right.
Are errors made in the programs Johnson cited -- people who aren’t eligible still getting benefits, or getting more than they should?
Sure -- tens of billions of dollars worth per year.
But in terms of fraud, there’s no evidence the rate in the four programs is anywhere near 20 or 25 percent.
Johnson’s response
When we asked for evidence to back Johnson’s claim, Johnson policy advisor Patrick McIlheran told us the senator meant error rates in the various programs, not actual fraud.
"The former is of interest to taxpayers, the latter is a matter for prosecutors," McIlheran said in an email.
The next day, however, Johnson conceded he had erred -- even though he continued to use the term fraud.
In a statement, Johnson said that when he made his claim, he was "primarily referencing fraud" in the Earned Income Tax Credit program.
But, he added:
"I made too broad a generalization to other mandatory spending programs based on reports in the press and from colleagues that are not supported by other inspector general reports. I strive hard to convey accurate information that is fully supportable, and I was mistaken in making this overly broad generalization," the statement read.
"This inaccuracy, however, should not detract from the larger point I was trying to make: Fraud is a significant and serious problem."
Johnson cited a U.S. Government Accountability Office report which said that in 2011, federal agencies estimated that $115.3 billion in improper payments were attributable to 79 programs spread among 17 agencies.
The error rate was 4.7 percent.
So, the senator admits his claim is false; let’s see just what the numbers are.
Before we review each of the four programs Johnson singled out, it’s important to note the difference between fraud and error rates.
As Malcolm Sparrow, a specialist in corruption control at Harvard’s Kennedy School, told PolitiFact National, fraud and improper payments are far from identical.
"There is a serious problem with conflating these different types of overpayment," he said.
We found that reviews done by federal agencies, as well as by independent offices such as inspectors general and the U.S. Government Accountability Office, do not cite rates of fraud. Rather, they document or estimate error rates -- how often benefits in various programs are overpaid or underpaid.
Such improper payments can include instances of actual fraud, but by and large they cover errors, which can be made by government workers, service providers such as physicians, and by the benefit recipients themselves. Some of the errors could be intentional, such as a taxpayer claiming a credit he isn’t eligible for, but the nature of fraud makes it very difficult to quantify. In other instances, a caseworker might mistakenly arrange benefits for someone who isn’t eligible.
Food stamps
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers the food stamps program, said 3.8 percent of benefits were paid in error in 2011, according to a factcheck done by PolitiFact Texas in June 2013. The error rate covers both overpayments, including fraud, as well as underpayments. Caseworker mistakes, rather than fraud, were the primary cause.
Six months later, we found, the USDA reported the error rate dropped to 3.42 percent in 2012, an all-time low.
Another June 2013 factcheck, by PolitiFact National, found Medicare has an improper payment rate of 8 to 10 percent.  
We found that the improper payments rate for Medicare, the government health insurance program for Americans age 65 and older, was 10.1 percent in 2013, up from 8.5 percent the previous year, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Fraud makes up a relatively small portion of the improper payments, according to the factcheck done by PolitiFact National. More common are improper payments that are the result, for example, of a doctor ordering too many tests, or providing a service but submitting the wrong payment code.
As for fraud in Medicare, "there are no reliable estimates" on how often it occurs, the U.S. Government Accountability Office said in an October 2013 report.
The rate of error payments in Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for the poor, is lower than it is for Medicare.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimated overpayments and underpayments for Medicaid totaled $21.9 billion in 2011, an error rate of 8.1 percent, according to a March 2013 report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office
A different GAO report said Health and Human Services estimated error payments of $19.2 billion, or 7.1 percent, in 2012. That report notes that improper payment estimates reported by federal agencies "are not intended to be an estimate of fraud."
Note: A 2012 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association offered three estimates of fraud (not error rates) in the Medicare and Medicaid programs: a low of 3 percent, a medium of 6 percent and a high of 10 percent.
Earned Income Tax Credit
The Earned Income Tax Credit gives a federal income tax credit to low- and moderate-wage workers. A taxpayer who gets the credit could owe less in income taxes or receive a larger tax refund.
A February 2013 report from the U.S. Treasury’s inspector general said the IRS estimated that 21 to 25 percent of the payments it made in the program in 2012 -- between $11.6 billion and $13.6 billion-- were issued improperly.
The IRS said faulty payments result from a variety of causes, including the complex nature of the law, the shifting EITC-eligible population and the nature of the credit.
Eight months later, the inspector general said the estimated error rates were understated.
And it bears repeating: these are error rates, not rates of fraud.
Our rating
Johnson said: "The average rate of fraud" in the Earned Income Tax Credit, Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps programs "is 20 to 25 percent."
Improper payment rates are in the 20 to 25 percent range in the tax credit program -- but are 10 percent or less in the other three programs. So, even the average among the four programs would be far less than what Johnson claimed.
More importantly, those are error rates; there are no figures on the rate of fraud, which is believed to be a small component of errors. Johnson’s remark to the group was grossly misleading.   
For a claim that is false and ridiculous, we give Johnson a Pants on Fire.
To comment on this item, go to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel website.

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

ObamaCare And The War From The Right: Death Panels, Part-time Jobs, Kill Children, Kill Grandma!

Against $200 million from the Kochs, part-time jobs lies, and why the program is not killing children and grandma!
The political and social Right has consumed more energy and expended more inertia working to destroy the first initiative towards a humane and cost effective healthcare system in the United States.  After coming out of the Great Recession and avoidance of a 2nd Great Depression, the sane mind would think the most critical initiative from the US Congress would be "jobs." Jobs and spending drive capitalist economies. If people are not working there is no prospect of a completely revived and healthy economy. yet, the US Congress has passed over 690 pieces of legislation related to women's  health while not passing one serious piece of legislation related to jobs. The House of OZ has enacted a reported 45 votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) at a cost of close to $70 million dollars. A Tea Party laden House that came to their seats with mantra of "excess and unnecessary spending."

As the House took its latest vote on repealing the ACA, you may have read a startling revelation. The New York Times received information the Koch brothers in 2012 funneled $200 million to nonprofit organizations to fight implementation of the ACA.

The figures are unfathomable, alarming and frankly, un-American. First, the nation cannot afford to waste millions on political votes (e.g., House repeal votes). Second, all efforts to stop progress toward cost effective medical coverage for millions who have no coverage is strikingly inhumane (many are children). On a tertiary basis, the US House is clearly pandering to the wishes of its most visible uber wealthy money-brokers (David and Charles Kochs). Finally, the utter hypocrisy of it all. Jim DeMint declared Obama administration efforts to pass the ACA as "Obama's Waterloo (and it will sink him.' Yet he was, as a US Senator, very much behind Mitt Romney's in Massachusetts healthcare plan.  DeMint resigned from the US Senate to accepted a position at the Koch brothers funded Heritage Foundation.  There is something seriously and comprehensively wrong with the optics. The figures are also somewhat metaphoric from another perspective; the influence of Right-wing media.  If the Right swings against an issue, right-wing media follows and serves as a manipulative information fountainhead

A quick walk through a gallery of Right-wing media and punditry related to the ACA is in order. 

The latest episode of a Sean Hannity subterfuge for his viewers. What we have here are pure lies to appeal to red meat LIVS (low information voters/people). One guest from the segment practically admitted in later questioning he is diametrically opposed to the ACA; his actions and comments on Hannity spoke volumes  Watch!

Chris Hayes, MSBC, All In

Should we assume Hannity viewers tune-in for daily doses of lies and manipulation?

Chris Hayes also visited another area of GOP anti-ACA front.

Lies, lies and more lies.

The cacophony has been stupefying!  Chuck Grassley followed Sara Palin with "death panels." Bachmann consistent screeching about "the end of time" and "Kill children, Kill women and Kill the elderly." Boehner's illogical rants about increasing healthcare premiums cost and increased medial cost in general.  Universal mantra about "killing jobs." Lest we forget, "turning America into a nation of part-time jobs!"

Politifacts recently ran an article on  the extent to which the "part-tie" job mantra is nothing more then convenient lies.

Bartiromo says Obamacare is turning us into 'a part-time employment country'

CNBC host Maria Bartiromo said that "as a result of Obamacare, we are becoming something of a part-time employment country."

Bartiromo has been a over-the-top Obama hater since the November 2012 election results in his winning the presidency. Some consider Bartiromo a credible pundit, we consider the pundit an instant signal (upon first mention of her name or a visual of her face) to switch to another network. If we refuse to listen to Limbaugh and refuse to view Fox News, why would we spend even a second listening to Bartiromo?

It is sad millions do not treat Bartiromo's punditry in a similar manner.

After watching conservative and GOP opposition to the ACA over the past three years, we continue to find amazement in the extent to which plutocrats pulls the strings of pundits for no other reason, but to fulfill the insensitive side of libertarian their paradigm and their personal desire for a  US plutocracy. 


Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Laura Ingraham Out Paces Limbaugh With A Gunshot Audio Effect! Gun Shot!

Queen of the Right-wing demagogues plays gunshot sound over audio tape! A shooting sound!

OK, we are not into the daily ravings of right-wing talk radio. In fact, all AM radio hosted shows have converted to conservative dogma, as it sells.  Liberals and progressives plus "high information" Independents do not need daily doses of dogma filled hatred of the Obama Administration. When we have concerns we do not hesitate to air the concerns in forums known for a much higher use of cognitive process, backed with data and without over-the-top angst and Draconian exhibitions.   If you look close, you might find the AM radio demographics are perfect for GOP and conservative income streams (revenue and host contracts).  "High information" people get information from other sources and they do not have that 'clinging need' to reinforce horrid paradigms on a daily basis.

Horrid paradigms? As is the case with most Right-wing demagogues a good portion of their programs this week have been devoted to disparaging remarks about the 50th Anniversary March on Washington DC (over this past weekend.)

"Oh, do we have fodder for our sycophants on Monday."  Laura Ingraham was classic in delivery of her "red meat." She actually go out ahead of the king Right-wing demagogue: Limbaugh.

Ingraham not only took cheap shots at the gathering, she used march speaker topics for 'dog whistles' to her festering throngs.  It took her about one minute into the embedded video below to take the killing of Trayvon Martin to right-wing dogma about killings in the black community. She mentioned statistics. Statistics exist that show the murder rates are not much different from murder in white communities. Let's face the bottom-line issue. We interact within our own ethnic groups far more than other ethnic groups. If there are going to be murders, it will take place predominantly intra-ethnic group. "Black-on-black Crime!"

Twenty-three (23) seconds of pure truism on "black on black" from someone not of the black community: Tim Wise, diversity consultant, author, educator and "One who GETS IT."

The Ingraham Show.  The  following audio tape is eight (8) plus minutes long. I skipped through the Ingraham 'ditto head' remarks.  I have too much respect for my psyche, my grey matter and I have contempt for 'low information' people who rail about positions each day. The audio segment is eight minutes long. Can you imagine sitting listening to AM radio for the full run-time of shows like Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham, Savage, Beck and others? Ingraham's gunshot antics hit at approximately the 4:40 minute mark as Lewis's comments are cut short.

Now. for a bit of background as to how propagandist like Ingraham gather their sustenance as feed for their throngs of ravenous listeners.
The linked Politifacts piece is a bit long, but full of relevant information for people who consider themselves "high information."  We will not use any article text to save your reading time and space in this piece. You have to check out the Truth-O-Meter on this one.
The Truth-O-Meter Says: 

"In the 513 days between Trayvon dying, and today’s verdict, 11,106 African-Americans have been murdered by other African-Americans."

Tweets on Sunday, July 14th, 2013 in tweets

A look at statistics on black-on-black murders

Linked article Read more after the coming break
We do not in any way challenging there is far too much killing in communities, the black community in particular. We take major exception to right-wing fear mongering and pro George Zimmermannism via use of flawed or skewered statistics.   If we are not a fully-integrated society, the relevance of the references to killings in the black community seem to accompany 'motive based messaging." 
Your Black World Dot Net published a piece this morning that encapsulates the many aspects of the truth related to "Black on Black" Crime. Chenelle A. Jones, Ph.D., Ohio Dominican University, wrote the piece. (NOTE: We realize many have disdain for long reads, but 'high information" people will read such works on an intermittent basis until done. So, we take the risk of thoroughness and delving deep)
Article excerpts
Excerpt One. There is no question that crime within the Black community is an issue.  However, there is a need to discuss and deconstruct this notion of “Black-on-Black Crime”.  The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) notes that most crime is intra-racial.  Statistics show that 84% of White victims are killed by Whites and 93% of Black victims are killed by Blacks (BJS, 2011).
Excerpt Two. So to argue that the intra-racial phenomenon of crime victimization is unique to the Black community is to demonstrate an inaccurate assessment of historical and contemporary crime and victimization trends.  Furthermore, to acknowledge the existence of “Black-on-Black” crime without equally acknowledging the existence of “White-on-White” crime is to perpetuate a myth of inherent black criminality, and Blacks are not inherently criminal.
Excerpt Three.The final issue with the “Black-on-Black Crime” argument involves the disparate treatment of Black and White offenders in the criminal justice system.  Whites represent a majority of the American population and are responsible for 54% of murders involving an intimate partner, 59% of murders involving a family member, 55% of murders involving infants, 56% of murders involving elders, 54% of s*x related murders, 53% of gang related murders, 70% of workplace related murders, 55% of arson related murders, 80% of poison related murders, and 53% of murders involving multiple victims (BJS, 2011).  Blacks comprise 13% of the population and are responsible for 59% of felony murders, 65% of drug murders, 50% of murders involving an argument, 56% of gun homicides, and 54% of murders with multiple offenders (BJS, 2011).
We will not comment additionally about the Ingraham cheap shot for her listeners. The gunshot sound effect speaks volumes about the GOP and its propagandist. they know how to play to GOP supporters. Ingraham piece linked.

Sunday, August 25, 2013

The GOP Continues to Trigger Fact Checks! ObamaCare Lies Draw Scrutiny


Politifacts allows posting of their political fact checks. We frequently post the reports, but only rarely do we find opportunity to fully experience the extent to which the GOP is going about the business of "working to killing healthcare reform." We will visit two major fact checks in a few minutes. Let's travel through an information path that will show why the House continues to conduct "silly" repeal votes and why some in the House are very vocal in their opposition to the constitutional law. Of course, you know the House has spent $58 million of our tax dollars on the "silly" repeal votes. 

CBS Miami affiliate.....May 16, 2013
The numbers translate to approximately $1.45 million per vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act in the House of Representatives. Adding in the three votes since CBS News’ report last year plus Thursday’s planned vote would add $5.8 million to the total.
In other words, since 2011, the House of Representatives has spent approximately $53.8 million attempting to repeal health care reform. In addition, the Congressional Budget Office estimated last year that repeal would add $109 billion to deficits over the next decade, according to
The repeal vote the day of the beginning of the House's 2013 five week vacation took the number of votes to 40. The numbers lead my calculator to an updated approximate cost of $58 million! Big government, Tea Party, good government it seems all GOP rhetoric is set aside when it comes to their silly repeal the ACA votes.   

The GOP strategy is both obvious and tragic. "Obvious" as the GOP works to eliminate a policy, law and practice that will eventually benefit so many people who literally need the assistance.  "Tragic" as the GOP has no plans, interest, nor even thought of replacing the ACA with medical coverage for people who have none, for young people under age 26, and for people who exceed artificial medical coverage maximum benefits.

You and I both know why there was complete opposition solidarity to healthcare reform in 2010.  While, we generally expect opposition to "all things Obama," many in the House of Representatives have additional reasons for staunch opposition.  Before reading the table below, in 2009 the House included "Blue Dog" Democrats who were, for the most part, Democrats by name only and republican by legislative practice.

Open Secrets has archived the amount of lobbying contributions expended by Pharmaceuticals/Health Products & Insurance companies between 2000 and 2013 (half year total for 2013). Over the review period the two industries spent a combined $3.4 Trillion (rounded) lobbying members of Congress.

Open Secrets Dot Org Lobbying Top Industries  (Pharmaceuticals/Health Products & Insurance)
Industry   Total
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products2000 $100,085,942
2001   $99,684,597
     2002 $119,869,798
2003 $128,602,535
2004 $143,905,240
2005 $166,770,556
2006 $186,668,619
2007 $224,791,954
2008 $238,599,226
2009 $271,951,917
2010 $245,266,220
2011 $241,327,770
2012 $235,969,389
2013 $117,495,102
TOTAL $1,662,758,361

Industry      Total
  Insurance          2000   $75,649,768
                        2001   $81,162,529
                        2002   $88,117,067
                        2003 $111,915,575
                        2009 $163,798,953
                        2013   $77,972,400

                 TOTAL $1,733,154,478

Let's make the very safe assumption the two industries were not and are not supporters of  healthcare reform (AKA, ObamaCare, ACA): Point A.  Companies in both industries lobbied with associated contributions to members of Congress: Point B. Members of the House spend enormous amounts of time fundraising towards the next campaign. In other words, preserving "job security." In addition to the minimum $174,500 per year compensation to members of Congress, longevity in the House (and Senate) means potential wealth accumulation comparable to winning the PowerBall: Point C.  Thus, doing the bidding of companies opposed to healthcare reform and contribute lavishly to members of Congress, could lead to opposition against laws enacted for the good of the majority: Point D.

We love Syllogisms!

Major premise: Point A and Point B.
          Minor premise: Point C 

                        Conclusion: Point D

It should be noted in 2009 Charely Rangel sponsored the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (ACA).  We also want to point out  in 2008/09 no member of Congress received more health and insurance contributions from health and insurance companies than Charley Rangel. Yet, in the September 2009 vote, Rangel voted for the legislation he sponsored.  He did not vote with every Republican and 37 Democratic Blue dogs. Some will "Do The Right Thing!" 

A link to how the House voted in 2009: Open Congress.

If we jump to 2013, we find even more shameful acts from House leadership via their use of outright lies and  manipulation  of "low information" people. 

Politifacts and the GOP....

The Truth-O-Meter Says:


Under Obamacare, "The IRS will have access to the American people’s protected health care information."

Eric Cantor on Friday, August 2nd, 2013 in a floor speech.

Cantor says Obamacare gives IRS access to personal health records

During a recent floor debate, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor warned of dire consequences from the IRS implementing portions of Obamacare and collecting taxes to help pay for the health care reforms. 
"The IRS will have access to the American people’s protected health care information," Cantor, R-7th, said Aug. 2.   
He expressed distrust of the IRS, referring to disclosures earlier this year that the agency gave special scrutiny to the Tea Party and other conservative groups seeking tax exemptions. Giving the IRS access to personal medical records "is nothing short of an unwelcome big government overreach into the most personal aspect of our lives," Cantor said. 
Shortly after his comments, the House, in a party-line vote, approved the "Keep the IRS off your Health Care Act" that would bar the IRS from any involvement in Obamacare. The measure, like 39 other House-approved bills that would end or dismantle the health care act, is expected to die in the Senate. 
Cantor made a similar statement during a July 27 broadcast, saying, "The doctor’s office is the last place anyone would want to find the IRS. Your health care information is private and should remain so." 
We wondered whether Obamacare really would give the IRS access to records of our illnesses, surgeries and prescriptions. 
We asked Cantor’s office for proof. His spokesman, Rory Cooper, cited a June 18 article in the conservative about a rule issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 
Starting in January, Obamacare will require people who can afford health insurance to buy coverage or pay a tax penalty. Many who are now uninsured are expected to buy policies through insurance exchanges that are being set up. The rule requires private companies participating in the exchanges to submit information about new customers to HHS so the agency can assure that these people have bought at least the minimum levels of coverage required by Obamacare and verify those receiving federal assistance buying their policies fall into qualifying income categories. 
The Breitbart article discusses concerns by some conservative organizations and publications that HHS might share that information with the IRS. But the story stops short of Cantor’s claim that the IRS will have access to the data.
HHS officials repeatedly have said they will not be seeking intimate details from medical histories and guaranteed the department will not share the information with the IRS, as reported by this spring by our colleagues at PolitiFact National and 
Again, it should be noted that the data will not be collected on everyone, just those who buy coverage through exchanges. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that 26 million people living in the U.S. in 2020 -- less than 8 percent of population -- will be insured by the exchanges.   
Twice since May, IRS officials have testified at House hearings that they will not have access to private medical records. The agency’s website states, "Nothing in (Obamacare) allows the IRS to access individual’s health information, including information about individuals’ health status and any health care services received." 
The IRS will share tax information to help HHS determine whether low-income families and individuals qualify for assistance in purchasing insurance. A computer system is being developed that will give HHS instant access to that information. But it will be a one-way system, and the IRS will not be able to view HHS records. 
So how will the IRS identify uninsured Americans who must pay Obamacare’s penalty tax? 
"Taxpayers will get a form at the end of every year from their insurer to use when they prepare their tax returns," then-IRS Deputy Commissioner Steven Miller told a House subcommittee in September 2012. "It is important to note that the information that insurers provide to the IRS will show the fact of insurance coverage, and will not include any personal health information.
In most cases, taxpayers will file their tax returns reporting their health insurance coverage, and/or making a payment, and there will be no need for further interactions with the IRS." 
Our ruling 
 IRS officials said that under Obamacare, "the IRS will have access to the American people’s protected health care information." But he offers no hard proof, just speculation on a blog.
The IRS will play a major role in Obamacare by collecting a variety of taxes that will help support the program. But contrary to Cantor’s claim, IRS officials have repeatedly testified before Congress that they will not have access to the intimate details of anyone’s health records.
Cantor’s unfounded statement does nothing more than amp up public fear for his ongoing fight to repeal Obamacare. We rate it Pants on Fire.
Pants on Fire!


Debunked health care claims live on at Heritage town hall

By Angie Drobnic Holan
Published on Friday, August 23rd, 2013 at 6:00 a.m.
Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint appeared at a "Defund Obamacare" town hall event in Tampa on Wednesday night, and PolitiFact Florida was there. We heard some claims we’ve already put to the Truth-O-Meter. The highlights:
• DeMint called the health care law socialized medicine and said it would make the United States system like those in Britain or Canada. PolitiFact has rated similar claims False, because the health care law leaves in place the private health care system and the free market.
The law does put more regulations on health insurance companies. It also fines most large employers who fail to provide insurance for their employees, and it requires all individuals to have health insurance. In Britain, doctors are employees of the government, while in Canada, the government pays most medical bills as part of a single-payer system. President Barack Obama’s health law has neither of those features.
• DeMint said the law will intervene in decisions between doctors and patients. Though the law puts more regulations on health insurance companies, nothing in the law changes typical interactions between doctors and patients. We rate that claim is False.
• On other issues, DeMint made claims that were partially accurate, but needed additional context. He said the health care law was paid for by cutting from Medicare. He's right that lawmakers did rein in future Medicare spending and then counted the savings as deficit reduction to offset new health care spending. Specifically, the law trimmed extra payments to the Medicare Advantage program. It also set up penalties for hospitals if they don't meet good health benchmarks for Medicare patients. We've rated similar claims Half True.
• DeMint said people on Medicaid, the health insurance for the poor, are less healthy than people who have no health insurance at all. We've found mixed evidence for such claims. In some cases, Medicaid patients do have poorer outcomes, but in other cases, they do better. Experts have warned that more studies are needed. We’ve rated similar claims Half True.

There are really few words that describe the level of disgust emanating from the GOP.