#46 President Joe Biden

josevolution

cincybearcat said:

static111 said:

Today the local right wing radio in Austin was complaining that we have shot down the three more recent smaller "balloons" without knowing enough about them. And perhaps are purposefully destroying the evidence to protect China.  And that every American should be very outraged about several small balloons floating around...And Karl Rove said that it is the duty of the president to speak to the American people to ease their fears about china and or Russia and these balloons.  Speaking of loons

Do you not think Biden should be talking about this though? Seems strange to me. 

Apparently he agrees with you 
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-may-give-speech-balloon-unidentified-objects-source-2023-02-15/

Halifax2TheMax

josevolution said:

cincybearcat said:

static111 said:

Today the local right wing radio in Austin was complaining that we have shot down the three more recent smaller "balloons" without knowing enough about them. And perhaps are purposefully destroying the evidence to protect China.  And that every American should be very outraged about several small balloons floating around...And Karl Rove said that it is the duty of the president to speak to the American people to ease their fears about china and or Russia and these balloons.  Speaking of loons

Do you not think Biden should be talking about this though? Seems strange to me. 

Apparently he agrees with you 
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-may-give-speech-balloon-unidentified-objects-source-2023-02-15/

He better tell us the locations of our nuclear submarine fleets as well. And dammit Brandon, better include all the launch code passwords too!

mrussel1

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

static111 said:

Mcincybearcat said:

static111 said:

Today the local right wing radio in Austin was complaining that we have shot down the three more recent smaller "balloons" without knowing enough about them. And perhaps are purposefully destroying the evidence to protect China.  And that every American should be very outraged about several small balloons floating around...And Karl Rove said that it is the duty of the president to speak to the American people to ease their fears about china and or Russia and these balloons.  Speaking of loons

Do you not think Biden should be talking about this though? Seems strange to me. 

I couldn't care less about these balloons and think it is the biggest non story of my lifetime

I appreciate your correct use of “couldn’t care less.” I hate when people say “I could care less.”

Irregardless of that the balloon story is overhyped

Bad news,  irregardless is now officially a word.  

static111

mace1229 said:

static111 said:

Mcincybearcat said:

static111 said:

Today the local right wing radio in Austin was complaining that we have shot down the three more recent smaller "balloons" without knowing enough about them. And perhaps are purposefully destroying the evidence to protect China.  And that every American should be very outraged about several small balloons floating around...And Karl Rove said that it is the duty of the president to speak to the American people to ease their fears about china and or Russia and these balloons.  Speaking of loons

Do you not think Biden should be talking about this though? Seems strange to me. 

I couldn't care less about these balloons and think it is the biggest non story of my lifetime

I appreciate your correct use of “couldn’t care less.” I hate when people say “I could care less.”

A pet peeve of mine as well

static111

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

static111 said:

Mcincybearcat said:

static111 said:

Today the local right wing radio in Austin was complaining that we have shot down the three more recent smaller "balloons" without knowing enough about them. And perhaps are purposefully destroying the evidence to protect China.  And that every American should be very outraged about several small balloons floating around...And Karl Rove said that it is the duty of the president to speak to the American people to ease their fears about china and or Russia and these balloons.  Speaking of loons

Do you not think Biden should be talking about this though? Seems strange to me. 

I couldn't care less about these balloons and think it is the biggest non story of my lifetime

I appreciate your correct use of “couldn’t care less.” I hate when people say “I could care less.”

Irregardless of that the balloon story is overhyped

Bad news,  irregardless is now officially a word.  

If you do something wrong long enough it becomes right by default. USA!

OnWis97

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

static111 said:

Mcincybearcat said:

static111 said:

Today the local right wing radio in Austin was complaining that we have shot down the three more recent smaller "balloons" without knowing enough about them. And perhaps are purposefully destroying the evidence to protect China.  And that every American should be very outraged about several small balloons floating around...And Karl Rove said that it is the duty of the president to speak to the American people to ease their fears about china and or Russia and these balloons.  Speaking of loons

Do you not think Biden should be talking about this though? Seems strange to me. 

I couldn't care less about these balloons and think it is the biggest non story of my lifetime

I appreciate your correct use of “couldn’t care less.” I hate when people say “I could care less.”

Irregardless of that the balloon story is overhyped

Bad news,  irregardless is now officially a word.  

After leaning that "literally" has two contradictory definitions, I can no longer be disappointed about the evolution of our language.

mickeyrat

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

static111 said:

Mcincybearcat said:

static111 said:

Today the local right wing radio in Austin was complaining that we have shot down the three more recent smaller "balloons" without knowing enough about them. And perhaps are purposefully destroying the evidence to protect China.  And that every American should be very outraged about several small balloons floating around...And Karl Rove said that it is the duty of the president to speak to the American people to ease their fears about china and or Russia and these balloons.  Speaking of loons

Do you not think Biden should be talking about this though? Seems strange to me. 

I couldn't care less about these balloons and think it is the biggest non story of my lifetime

I appreciate your correct use of “couldn’t care less.” I hate when people say “I could care less.”

Irregardless of that the balloon story is overhyped

Bad news,  irregardless is now officially a word.  

After leaning that "literally" has two contradictory definitions, I can no longer be disappointed about the evolution of our language.

which way did you lean?

mrussel1

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

static111 said:

Mcincybearcat said:

static111 said:

Today the local right wing radio in Austin was complaining that we have shot down the three more recent smaller "balloons" without knowing enough about them. And perhaps are purposefully destroying the evidence to protect China.  And that every American should be very outraged about several small balloons floating around...And Karl Rove said that it is the duty of the president to speak to the American people to ease their fears about china and or Russia and these balloons.  Speaking of loons

Do you not think Biden should be talking about this though? Seems strange to me. 

I couldn't care less about these balloons and think it is the biggest non story of my lifetime

I appreciate your correct use of “couldn’t care less.” I hate when people say “I could care less.”

Irregardless of that the balloon story is overhyped

Bad news,  irregardless is now officially a word.  

If you do something wrong long enough it becomes right by default. USA!

That's exactly it

OnWis97

mickeyrat said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

static111 said:

Mcincybearcat said:

static111 said:

Today the local right wing radio in Austin was complaining that we have shot down the three more recent smaller "balloons" without knowing enough about them. And perhaps are purposefully destroying the evidence to protect China.  And that every American should be very outraged about several small balloons floating around...And Karl Rove said that it is the duty of the president to speak to the American people to ease their fears about china and or Russia and these balloons.  Speaking of loons

Do you not think Biden should be talking about this though? Seems strange to me. 

I couldn't care less about these balloons and think it is the biggest non story of my lifetime

I appreciate your correct use of “couldn’t care less.” I hate when people say “I could care less.”

Irregardless of that the balloon story is overhyped

Bad news,  irregardless is now officially a word.  

After leaning that "literally" has two contradictory definitions, I can no longer be disappointed about the evolution of our language.

which way did you lean?

Correct: (Guy who marries women he grew up next door to) "She was literally the girl next door."

Incorrect: (Woman talking about how large she was when she was pregnant) "I was literally a whale." (I chose this example because I actually saw it used once).

As far as I can tell, the first way was the correct way, but people used it to mean it's opposite (figuratively) as a point of emphasis so much that dictionaries now point to both as correct.

static111

OnWis97 said:

mickeyrat said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

static111 said:

Mcincybearcat said:

static111 said:

Today the local right wing radio in Austin was complaining that we have shot down the three more recent smaller "balloons" without knowing enough about them. And perhaps are purposefully destroying the evidence to protect China.  And that every American should be very outraged about several small balloons floating around...And Karl Rove said that it is the duty of the president to speak to the American people to ease their fears about china and or Russia and these balloons.  Speaking of loons

Do you not think Biden should be talking about this though? Seems strange to me. 

I couldn't care less about these balloons and think it is the biggest non story of my lifetime

I appreciate your correct use of “couldn’t care less.” I hate when people say “I could care less.”

Irregardless of that the balloon story is overhyped

Bad news,  irregardless is now officially a word.  

After leaning that "literally" has two contradictory definitions, I can no longer be disappointed about the evolution of our language.

which way did you lean?

Correct: (Guy who marries women he grew up next door to) "She was literally the girl next door."

Incorrect: (Woman talking about how large she was when she was pregnant) "I was literally a whale." (I chose this example because I actually saw it used once).

As far as I can tell, the first way was the correct way, but people used it to mean it's opposite (figuratively) as a point of emphasis so much that dictionaries now point to both as correct.

I'm going to walk around and start saying I was figuratively....in the way that people wrongly use literally and see if people think I am crazy

The Juggler

Haha....there are people who use "literally" wrong on purpose for the comedic effect though. Those people are literally the worst. 

Go Beavers

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

static111 said:

Mcincybearcat said:

static111 said:

Today the local right wing radio in Austin was complaining that we have shot down the three more recent smaller "balloons" without knowing enough about them. And perhaps are purposefully destroying the evidence to protect China.  And that every American should be very outraged about several small balloons floating around...And Karl Rove said that it is the duty of the president to speak to the American people to ease their fears about china and or Russia and these balloons.  Speaking of loons

Do you not think Biden should be talking about this though? Seems strange to me. 

I couldn't care less about these balloons and think it is the biggest non story of my lifetime

I appreciate your correct use of “couldn’t care less.” I hate when people say “I could care less.”

Irregardless of that the balloon story is overhyped

Bad news,  irregardless is now officially a word.  

If you do something wrong long enough it becomes right by default. USA!

I’m considering just changing over to speaking German full time now. If my friends and co-workers don’t like it, I could literally care less. 

Halifax2TheMax

Go Beavers said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

static111 said:

Mcincybearcat said:

static111 said:

Today the local right wing radio in Austin was complaining that we have shot down the three more recent smaller "balloons" without knowing enough about them. And perhaps are purposefully destroying the evidence to protect China.  And that every American should be very outraged about several small balloons floating around...And Karl Rove said that it is the duty of the president to speak to the American people to ease their fears about china and or Russia and these balloons.  Speaking of loons

Do you not think Biden should be talking about this though? Seems strange to me. 

I couldn't care less about these balloons and think it is the biggest non story of my lifetime

I appreciate your correct use of “couldn’t care less.” I hate when people say “I could care less.”

Irregardless of that the balloon story is overhyped

Bad news,  irregardless is now officially a word.  

If you do something wrong long enough it becomes right by default. USA!

I’m considering just changing over to speaking German full time now. If my friends and co-workers don’t like it, I could literally care less. 

This should help.

Gern Blansten

https://twitter.com/AP/status/1626632167160676359

Dark Brandon takin bitches down

TJ25487

It's a sad day for democrats when CNN criticizes Sleepy Joe:

Fact check: Biden’s latest false statistical claims

By Daniel Dale, CNN

Published 3:59 PM EST, Fri February 17, 2023

President Joe Biden addresses the National Association of Counties Legislative Conference in Washington, DC, on February 14.

Leah Mills/Reuters

CNN — 

President Joe Biden has made another series of inaccurate claims in an economic speech.

In late January, CNN fact-checked Biden’s false and misleading claims in an economic speech to union workers in Virginia. In a speech this Wednesday to union workers in Maryland, Biden repeated one of those claims and made three other incorrect statements – all of them about statistics.

Trump and the national debt

In the Wednesday speech, Biden criticized the fiscal management of former President Donald Trump. After correctly noting that the federal budget deficit increased every year of Trump’s term, Biden said, “And because of those record deficits, no president added more to the national debt – that’s a 200-year debt – never added more to the national debt than my predecessor.”

ADVERTISING

Facts First: This claim is false. More debt was added in the eight years under President Barack Obama, with Biden as vice president, than in the four years under Trump. The Trump era set the record for most debt added in a single four-year presidential term, but Biden made it sound here like the Trump era set the record even when you include two-term presidents like Obama. (Biden correctly said in his State of the Union address last week that he was referring to a record for debt added in a four-year period.) Also, while Biden mentioned “record deficits,” plural, under Trump, only one Trump-era deficit, in pandemic-era fiscal 2020, was actually a record; the deficits in fiscal 2017, 2018 and 2019 were all lower than every deficit in Obama’s first term, when the country was emerging from a major recession and Obama approved some policies that increased deficits.

There are various ways to measure the debt. Using the basic headline measure, total public debt, the debt increased about $9.3 trillion over Obama’s eight years, from about $10.6 trillion on the day he was inaugurated in 2009 to about $19.9 trillion on the day Trump took office in 2017. The debt increased by about $7.8 trillion over Trump’s four years, to about $27.8 trillion when Biden replaced him in 2021.

It’s also important to note that it is an oversimplification to blame presidents alone for debt incurred during their tenures.

A significant amount of spending under any president is the result of decisions made by their predecessors – such as the creation of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid decades ago – and by circumstances out of a president’s control, such as an inherited recession for Obama and the global Covid-19 pandemic for Trump.

And while some debt can fairly be attributed to a single party – Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, unanimously opposed by congressional Democrats, were a significant contributor – other debt is bipartisan. Notably, the debt spiked in 2020 after Trump approved trillions in emergency pandemic relief spending that Congress had passed with overwhelming Democratic and Republican support.

Biden was right when he said that the deficit increased every year under Trump. But the deficits in fiscal 2017, 2018 and 2019 under Trump were all below $1 trillion – lower than the deficits in fiscal 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 under the Obama-Biden administration. The deficit then roughly tripled, to a record level of about $3.1 trillion, in pandemic-era fiscal 2020.

Biden and the national debt

In another part of the speech, Biden said, “We cut the debt by $1.7 billion the last two years.” The White House made a correction to the official transcript to make it “$1.7 trillion” instead of “$1.7 billion.”

Facts First: This claim is inaccurate even if you ignore Biden’s billion-versus-trillion mixup. The national debt has continued to increase under Biden. It is the deficit that has declined by about $1.7 trillion – and experts say it is misleading for Biden to take credit for that reduction.

The debt has increased about $3.7 trillion during Biden’s time as president, rising to about $31.5 trillion. As Biden also did in speeches during the 2022 midterms, his claim in this speech conflated the debt (the accumulation of federal borrowing plus interest owed) with the deficit (the one-year difference between spending and revenues).

The deficit did fall by roughly $1.7 trillion between fiscal 2020 and fiscal 2022, from about $3.1 trillion to about $1.4 trillion. But as CNN has repeatedly noted, it is highly questionable how much credit Biden deserves for the decline – which overwhelmingly occurred because the emergency pandemic spending from the end of the Trump era expired as planned. In fact, independent analysts say Biden’s own new laws and executive actions have significantly added to current and projected future deficits, not reduced those deficits. You can read more here and here.

Medicare and the Inflation Reduction Act

Biden made a confusing remark about prescription drug costs and the Inflation Reduction Act he signed into law last year.

He said the law “saves seniors a lot of money” on prescription drugs, then added that, by bringing down the cost of these drugs, the law “will cut the federal deficit, saving taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars over time.”

Both of these assertions are fair. But then Biden added that if Republicans repealed this law, they would be getting rid of “$159,000 a year in savings on lower drug costs.”

Here’s a fuller quote: “Now, our Republican friends want to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act. They’d get rid of the savings on prescription drugs that we buy, like Medicare – I mean, we buy from – through – through Medicare. And it would eliminate, today, right now, $159,000 a year in savings on lowered drug costs. Now, that just means your tax dollars are going to save – be saved $159,000 to do what we’re doing right now.”

Facts First: The Inflation Reduction Act does not provide “$159,000 a year in savings on lowered drug costs.” A White House official made clear to CNN on Thursday that Biden was attempting to say that government savings of $159 billion over 10 years would be lost with a Republican repeal of two key Inflation Reduction Act provisions on prescription drugs.

Viewed one way, Biden’s “$159,000 a year” figure significantly understated the total savings from these two provisions. (One allows Medicare to negotiate the price of certain prescription drugs. The other requires pharmaceutical companies to pay rebates to Medicare for price increases over the rate of inflation.) But his use of such a modest number may have led some listeners to believe that he was talking about giant savings to particular seniors or families rather than modest savings to the government. And his figure was incorrect regardless of how it was perceived.

The White House corrected this section of the official transcript of the speech after CNN inquired about the “$159,000” figure.

Billionaires and taxes

Biden reprised an inaccurate figure he used in the Virginia speech in late January. He said of billionaires in the United States: “You know what their average tax they pay is? About 3%.”

Facts First: Once more, Biden’s “3%” claim is incorrect. For the third time in less than a month, Biden inaccurately described a 2021 finding from economists in his administration that the wealthiest 400 billionaire families paid an average of 8.2% of their income in federal individual income taxes between 2010 and 2018; after CNN inquired about Biden’s “3%” claim in the late-January speech, the White House published a corrected transcript of that speech to make it “8%” instead. Also, it’s important to note that even the 8% number is contested, since it is an alternative calculation that includes unrealized capital gains that are not treated as taxable income under federal law.

“Biden’s numbers are way too low,” Howard Gleckman, senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center at the Urban Institute think tank, told CNN in late January – though Gleckman also said we don’t know precisely what tax rates billionaires do pay. Gleckman wrote in an email: “In 2019, Berkeley economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabe Zucman estimated the top 400 households paid an average effective tax rate of about 23 percent in 2018. They got a lot of attention at the time because that rate was lower than the average rate of 24 percent for the bottom half of the income distribution. But it still was way more than 2 or 3, or even 8 percent.”

Biden has cited the 8% statistic in various other speeches, but unlike the administration economists who came up with it, he tends not to explain that it doesn’t describe tax rates in a conventional way. And regardless, he said “3%” in this speech and the Virginia speech – and “2%” in another January speech.

Go Beavers

How many times have I seen a republican comment on sad days because CNN is being critical of a dem? 

Lerxst1992

TJ25487 said:

It's a sad day for democrats when CNN criticizes Sleepy Joe:

Fact check: Biden’s latest false statistical claims

By Daniel Dale, CNN

Published 3:59 PM EST, Fri February 17, 2023

President Joe Biden addresses the National Association of Counties Legislative Conference in Washington, DC, on February 14.

Leah Mills/Reuters

CNN — 

President Joe Biden has made another series of inaccurate claims in an economic speech.

In late January, CNN fact-checked Biden’s false and misleading claims in an economic speech to union workers in Virginia. In a speech this Wednesday to union workers in Maryland, Biden repeated one of those claims and made three other incorrect statements – all of them about statistics.

Trump and the national debt

In the Wednesday speech, Biden criticized the fiscal management of former President Donald Trump. After correctly noting that the federal budget deficit increased every year of Trump’s term, Biden said, “And because of those record deficits, no president added more to the national debt – that’s a 200-year debt – never added more to the national debt than my predecessor.”

ADVERTISING

Facts First: This claim is false. More debt was added in the eight years under President Barack Obama, with Biden as vice president, than in the four years under Trump. The Trump era set the record for most debt added in a single four-year presidential term, but Biden made it sound here like the Trump era set the record even when you include two-term presidents like Obama. (Biden correctly said in his State of the Union address last week that he was referring to a record for debt added in a four-year period.) Also, while Biden mentioned “record deficits,” plural, under Trump, only one Trump-era deficit, in pandemic-era fiscal 2020, was actually a record; the deficits in fiscal 2017, 2018 and 2019 were all lower than every deficit in Obama’s first term, when the country was emerging from a major recession and Obama approved some policies that increased deficits.

There are various ways to measure the debt. Using the basic headline measure, total public debt, the debt increased about $9.3 trillion over Obama’s eight years, from about $10.6 trillion on the day he was inaugurated in 2009 to about $19.9 trillion on the day Trump took office in 2017. The debt increased by about $7.8 trillion over Trump’s four years, to about $27.8 trillion when Biden replaced him in 2021.

It’s also important to note that it is an oversimplification to blame presidents alone for debt incurred during their tenures.

A significant amount of spending under any president is the result of decisions made by their predecessors – such as the creation of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid decades ago – and by circumstances out of a president’s control, such as an inherited recession for Obama and the global Covid-19 pandemic for Trump.

And while some debt can fairly be attributed to a single party – Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, unanimously opposed by congressional Democrats, were a significant contributor – other debt is bipartisan. Notably, the debt spiked in 2020 after Trump approved trillions in emergency pandemic relief spending that Congress had passed with overwhelming Democratic and Republican support.

Biden was right when he said that the deficit increased every year under Trump. But the deficits in fiscal 2017, 2018 and 2019 under Trump were all below $1 trillion – lower than the deficits in fiscal 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 under the Obama-Biden administration. The deficit then roughly tripled, to a record level of about $3.1 trillion, in pandemic-era fiscal 2020.

Biden and the national debt

In another part of the speech, Biden said, “We cut the debt by $1.7 billion the last two years.” The White House made a correction to the official transcript to make it “$1.7 trillion” instead of “$1.7 billion.”

Facts First: This claim is inaccurate even if you ignore Biden’s billion-versus-trillion mixup. The national debt has continued to increase under Biden. It is the deficit that has declined by about $1.7 trillion – and experts say it is misleading for Biden to take credit for that reduction.

The debt has increased about $3.7 trillion during Biden’s time as president, rising to about $31.5 trillion. As Biden also did in speeches during the 2022 midterms, his claim in this speech conflated the debt (the accumulation of federal borrowing plus interest owed) with the deficit (the one-year difference between spending and revenues).

The deficit did fall by roughly $1.7 trillion between fiscal 2020 and fiscal 2022, from about $3.1 trillion to about $1.4 trillion. But as CNN has repeatedly noted, it is highly questionable how much credit Biden deserves for the decline – which overwhelmingly occurred because the emergency pandemic spending from the end of the Trump era expired as planned. In fact, independent analysts say Biden’s own new laws and executive actions have significantly added to current and projected future deficits, not reduced those deficits. You can read more here and here.

Medicare and the Inflation Reduction Act

Biden made a confusing remark about prescription drug costs and the Inflation Reduction Act he signed into law last year.

He said the law “saves seniors a lot of money” on prescription drugs, then added that, by bringing down the cost of these drugs, the law “will cut the federal deficit, saving taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars over time.”

Both of these assertions are fair. But then Biden added that if Republicans repealed this law, they would be getting rid of “$159,000 a year in savings on lower drug costs.”

Here’s a fuller quote: “Now, our Republican friends want to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act. They’d get rid of the savings on prescription drugs that we buy, like Medicare – I mean, we buy from – through – through Medicare. And it would eliminate, today, right now, $159,000 a year in savings on lowered drug costs. Now, that just means your tax dollars are going to save – be saved $159,000 to do what we’re doing right now.”

Facts First: The Inflation Reduction Act does not provide “$159,000 a year in savings on lowered drug costs.” A White House official made clear to CNN on Thursday that Biden was attempting to say that government savings of $159 billion over 10 years would be lost with a Republican repeal of two key Inflation Reduction Act provisions on prescription drugs.

Viewed one way, Biden’s “$159,000 a year” figure significantly understated the total savings from these two provisions. (One allows Medicare to negotiate the price of certain prescription drugs. The other requires pharmaceutical companies to pay rebates to Medicare for price increases over the rate of inflation.) But his use of such a modest number may have led some listeners to believe that he was talking about giant savings to particular seniors or families rather than modest savings to the government. And his figure was incorrect regardless of how it was perceived.

The White House corrected this section of the official transcript of the speech after CNN inquired about the “$159,000” figure.

Billionaires and taxes

Biden reprised an inaccurate figure he used in the Virginia speech in late January. He said of billionaires in the United States: “You know what their average tax they pay is? About 3%.”

Facts First: Once more, Biden’s “3%” claim is incorrect. For the third time in less than a month, Biden inaccurately described a 2021 finding from economists in his administration that the wealthiest 400 billionaire families paid an average of 8.2% of their income in federal individual income taxes between 2010 and 2018; after CNN inquired about Biden’s “3%” claim in the late-January speech, the White House published a corrected transcript of that speech to make it “8%” instead. Also, it’s important to note that even the 8% number is contested, since it is an alternative calculation that includes unrealized capital gains that are not treated as taxable income under federal law.

“Biden’s numbers are way too low,” Howard Gleckman, senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center at the Urban Institute think tank, told CNN in late January – though Gleckman also said we don’t know precisely what tax rates billionaires do pay. Gleckman wrote in an email: “In 2019, Berkeley economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabe Zucman estimated the top 400 households paid an average effective tax rate of about 23 percent in 2018. They got a lot of attention at the time because that rate was lower than the average rate of 24 percent for the bottom half of the income distribution. But it still was way more than 2 or 3, or even 8 percent.”

Biden has cited the 8% statistic in various other speeches, but unlike the administration economists who came up with it, he tends not to explain that it doesn’t describe tax rates in a conventional way. And regardless, he said “3%” in this speech and the Virginia speech – and “2%” in another January speech.

If you go by inauguration date, that’s significantly inaccurate, because as you likely know, the first nine months of any presidents term occur under a fiscal year budget established by the preceding president. 

mickeyrat

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-zelenskyy-biden-f00af220669457d5ba07127c7e57a27b

 

Russia-Ukraine war Volodymyr Zelenskyy Joe Biden Kyiv United States government

Biden declares 'Kyiv stands' in surprise visit to Ukraine

By EVAN VUCCI, JOHN LEICESTER, AAMER MADHANI and ZEKE MILLER

59 mins ago

KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — President Joe Biden paid an unannounced visit to Ukraine on Monday to meet with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in a defiant display of Western solidarity with a country still fighting what he called “a brutal and unjust war” days before the one-year anniversary of Russia’s invasion.

“One year later, Kyiv stands,” Biden declared after meeting Zelenskyy at Mariinsky Palace. Jamming his finger for emphasis on his podium, against a backdrop of three flags from each country, he continued: “And Ukraine stands. Democracy stands. The Americans stand with you, and the world stands with you.”

Biden spent more than five hours in the Ukrainian capital, consulting with Zelenskyy on next steps, honoring the country’s fallen soldiers and seeing U.S. embassy staff in the besieged country.

The visit comes at a crucial moment: Biden is trying to keep allies unified in their support for Ukraine as the war is expected to intensify with spring offensives. Zelenskyy is pressing allies to speed up delivery of promised weapon systems and calling on the West to provide fighter jets — something that Biden has declined to do.

The U.S. president got a taste of the terror that Ukrainians have lived with for close to a year when air raids sirens howled just as he and Zelenskyy wrapped up a visit to the gold-domed St. Michael’s Cathedral.

ONE YEAR OF WAR:

• Key moments in a year of war after Russia invaded Ukraine
• Ukraine invasion reshaped global alliances, renewed fears
• Ukraine war saga unfolds across the lives of 5 friends
• Russia's year of war: Purge of critics, surge of nationalism

Looking solemn, they continued unperturbed as they laid two wreaths and held a moment of silence at the Wall of Remembrance honoring Ukrainian soldiers killed since 2014, the year Russia annexed Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula and Russian-backed fighting erupted in eastern Ukraine.

The White House would not go into specifics, but national security adviser Jake Sullivan said that it notified Moscow of Biden’s visit to Kyiv shortly before his departure from Washington “for deconfliction purposes” in an effort to avoid any miscalculation that could bring the two nuclear-armed nations into direct conflict.

In Kyiv, Biden announced an additional half-billion dollars in U.S. assistance — on top of the more than $50 billion already provided — for shells for howitzers, anti-tank missiles, air surveillance radars and other aid but no new advanced weaponry.

Ukraine has also been pushing for battlefield systems that would allow its forces to strike Russian targets that have been moved back from frontline areas, out of the range of HIMARS missiles that have already been delivered. Zelenskyy said he and Biden spoke about “long-range weapons and the weapons that may still be supplied to Ukraine even though it wasn’t supplied before.” But he did not detail any new commitments.

“Our negotiations were very fruitful,” Zelenskyy added. Sullivan would not detail any potential new capabilities for Ukraine, but said there was a ”good discussion” of the subject.

Biden’s mission with his visit to Kyiv, which comes before a scheduled trip to Warsaw, Poland, is to underscore that the United States is prepared to stick with Ukraine “as long as it takes” to repel Russian forces even as public opinion polling suggests that U.S. and allied support for providing weaponry and direct economic assistance has started to soften. For Zelenskyy, the symbolism of having the U.S. president stand side by side with him on Ukrainian land as the anniversary nears is no small thing as he prods allies to provide more advanced weaponry and step up delivery.

“I thought it was critical that there not be any doubt, none whatsoever, about U.S. support for Ukraine in the war,” Biden said.

Biden’s visit was a brazen rebuke to Russian President Vladimir Putin, who had hoped his military would swiftly overrun Kyiv within days. Biden, a Democrat, recalled speaking with Zelenskyy on the night of the invasion, saying, “That dark night one year ago, the world was literally at the time bracing for the fall of Kyiv. Perhaps even the end of Ukraine.”

A year later, the Ukrainian capital remains firmly in Ukrainian control. Although a semblance of normalcy has returned to the city, regular air raid sirens and frequent missile and killer-drone attacks against military and civilian infrastructure across the country are a near-constant reminder that the war is still raging. The bloodiest fighting is, for the moment, concentrated in the country’s east, particularly around the city of Bakhmut, where Russian offensives are underway.

At least six civilians have been killed and 17 more have been wounded in Ukraine over the past 24 hours, Ukraine’s presidential office reported. In the eastern Donetsk region, the Russian army was using aviation to strike cities on the front line. A total of 15 cities and villages have been shelled over the past 24 hours, according to the region’s Ukrainian Gov. Pavlo Kyrylenko. In the northeastern Kharkiv region, cities near the border with Russia came under fire. A missile strike hit Kupiansk, damaging a hospital, a plant and residential buildings.

“The cost that Ukraine has had to bear has been extraordinarily high,” Biden said. “And the sacrifices have been far too great.” But “Putin’s war of conquest is failing.”

“He’s counting on us not sticking together,” Biden said. “He thought he could outlast us. I don’t think he’s thinking that right now. God knows what he’s thinking, but I don’t think he’s thinking that. But he’s just been plain wrong. Plain wrong.”

The trip gave Biden an opportunity to get a firsthand look at the devastation the Russian invasion has caused on Ukraine. Thousands of Ukrainian troops and civilians have been killed, millions of refugees have fled the war, and Ukraine has suffered tens of billions of dollars of infrastructure damage.

Biden, wearing a blue suit and at times his signature aviator sunglasses, told Zelenskyy the U.S. will stand with him “for as long as it takes.” Zelenskyy responded in English: “We’ll do it.”

The Ukrainian leader, wearing a black sweatshirt, as has become his wartime habit, said through an interpreter that Biden’s visit “brings us closer to the victory,” this year, he hoped. He expressed gratitude to Americans and “all those who cherish freedom.”

It was rare for a U.S. president to travel to a conflict zone where the U.S. or its allies did not have control over the airspace.

The U.S. military does not have a presence in Ukraine other than a small detachment of Marines guarding the embassy in Kyiv, making Biden’s visit more complicated than other recent visits by prior U.S. leaders to war zones.

While Biden was in Ukraine, U.S. surveillance planes, including E-3 Sentry airborne radar and an electronic RC-135W Rivet Joint aircraft, were keeping watch over Kyiv from Polish airspace.

Speculation has been building for weeks that Biden would visit Ukraine around the Feb. 24 anniversary of the Russian invasion. But the White House repeatedly had said that no presidential trip to Ukraine was planned, even after the Poland visit was announced.

Since early morning on Monday many main streets and central blocks in Kyiv were cordoned off without any official explanation. Later people started sharing videos of long motorcades of cars driving along the streets where the access was restricted.

At the White House, planning for Biden’s visit to Kyiv was tightly held — with a relatively small group of aides briefed on the plans — because of security concerns. Sullivan said Biden gave final approval for the trip, which had been in the works for months, on Friday during an Oval Office meeting at which he was briefed on security plans for the visit.

The president traveled with an usually small entourage, with just a few senior aides and two journalists, to maintain secrecy.

Asked by a reporter on Friday if Biden might include stops beyond Poland, White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby replied, “Right now, the trip is going to be in Warsaw.” Moments later — and without prompting — Kirby added, “I said ‘right now.’

Biden quietly departed from Joint Base Andrews near Washington at 4:15 a.m. on Sunday, making a stop at Ramstein Air Base in Germany before making his way into Ukraine. He arrived in Kyiv at 8 a.m. on Monday. He departed after 1 p.m.

Until Monday, Biden’s failure to visit was making him something of a standout among Ukraine’s partners in the West, some of whom have made frequent visits to the Ukrainian capital. White House officials had previously cited security concerns with keeping Biden from making the trip, and Sullivan said Monday that the visit was only undertaken once officials believed they had managed the risk to acceptable levels.

In June, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and then Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi traveled together by night train to Kyiv to meet with Zelenskyy. British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak visited Kyiv in November shortly after taking office.

This is Biden’s first visit to a war zone as president. His recent predecessors, Donald Trump, Barack Obama and George W. Bush, made surprise visits to Afghanistan and Iraq during their presidencies to meet U.S. troops and those countries’ leaders.

___

Madhani and Miller reported from Washington.

___

Follow the AP’s coverage of Russia’s war in Ukraine at https://apnews.com/hub/russia-ukraine.

mickeyrat

I'll chalk this up as a win for that doddering old fool brandon.....

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1630930951185244161?t=lLcrJmt69oJsqTXmlkUJ5A&s=19

https://news.yahoo.com/drugmaker-eli-lilly-caps-cost-150041872.html  Eli Lilly said it would cap the out-of-pocket cost of insulin at $35 per month. More than 8 million people with diabetes rely on insulin, which is notoriously ...

mrussel1

mickeyrat said:

I'll chalk this up as a win for that doddering old fool brandon.....

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1630930951185244161?t=lLcrJmt69oJsqTXmlkUJ5A&s=19

https://news.yahoo.com/drugmaker-eli-lilly-caps-cost-150041872.html  Eli Lilly said it would cap the out-of-pocket cost of insulin at $35 per month. More than 8 million people with diabetes rely on insulin, which is notoriously ...

Wow!  Huge win.  This is a big deal and the administration needs to celebrate it.