Jumat, 12 Agustus 2016

Video: Obama, Clinton Not ISIS ‘Founders’

Video: Obama, Clinton Not ISIS ‘Founders’


In this week’s fact-checking video, CNN’s Jake Tapper refutes Donald Trump’s claim that President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “founded ISIS.”

Trump points to the withdrawal of troops from Iraq in 2011, under Obama, as “the founding of ISIS.” But experts say the creation of the Islamic State terrorist group dates to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the expansion of ISIS can’t be pinned on the troop withdrawal alone — if at all. And there’s the fact that President George W. Bush had signed the agreement and set the date for that withdrawal.

For more on the origins of ISIS, read “Trump’s False Obama-ISIS Link.” Visit our website to see all of the videos from FactCheck.org’s collaboration with CNN’s “State of the Union.”



Source by [author_name]

FactChecking the Economic Speeches

FactChecking the Economic Speeches


FactCheck.org Deputy Managing Editor Robert Farley appears on WHYY’s “Radio Times with Marty Moss-Coane” to discuss the economic speeches given this week by Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

To read our coverage of the speeches, please see “Clinton’s Economic Speech” and  “Trump’s Economic Speech.”

[soundcloud url="https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/277998280" params="auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true" width="100%" height="450" iframe="true" /]

 



Source by [author_name]

Trump’s Economic Speech, Clinton’s Emails

Trump’s Economic Speech, Clinton’s Emails


As part of our partnership with NBCUniversal Owned Television Stations, FactCheck.org Director Eugene Kiely discusses the facts about Donald Trump’s economic speech and Hillary Clinton’s emails.

Click here to watch our report as it appeared on NBC 5 in Chicago.



Source by [author_name]

Groundhog Friday

Groundhog Friday


This week’s edition of Groundhog Friday, our wrap-up of repeated claims we’ve debunked before, includes claims on guns, health insurance premiums, wages and income inequality.

Groundhog2Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s gun proposals, Aug. 9 rally in Wilmington, North Carolina: “Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment. … You’re not going to be able to protect yourselves. … The bad guys aren’t going to be giving up their weapons, but the good people will say, oh but that’s the law.”
National Rifle Association’s Political Victory Fund, TV ad launched Aug. 10: “[Clinton] doesn’t believe in your right to keep a gun at home for self-defense.”

Trump, and the NRA, have continued to distort Clinton’s position on guns. She hasn’t called for banning all guns, or doing away with the Second Amendment. Instead, Clinton’s gun violence prevention proposal calls for expanded background checks and a ban on semi-automatic “assault weapons.”

Clinton has, in fact, talked about the constitutional rights of gun owners. In February, for instance, she said: “If we can’t figure out how to respect the constitutional rights of responsible gun owners, but keep guns out of people who have felony records, who are fugitives, stalkers, have domestic violence restraining orders against them, are dangerously mentally ill, shame on us.”

The NRA Political Victory Fund’s press release on its ad points to a comment Clinton made last year saying that “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment,” a reference, her campaign confirmed, to the 2008 high court decision that found Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban was unconstitutional. Clinton “believes Heller was wrongly decided in that cities and states should have the power to craft common sense laws to keep their residents safe,” spokesman Josh Schwerin told us.

“Trump Distorts Clinton’s Gun Stance,” May 10

https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/b537dd59-628d-47cc-9588-1ac9d1df84f2

 

Trump on health insurance premium increases, Aug. 10 rally in Abingdon, Virginia: “Premiums are going up at a rate that nobody has ever seen before. You know, in Texas, through Blue Cross Blue Shield, they just had almost a 50 percent increase.”

Blue Cross Blue Shield in Texas has requested rate increases for Affordable Care Act marketplace plans of 57 percent and 59 percent. But that’s a proposed increase for 2017 that has yet to be approved. Any increase above 10 percent has to be submitted and approved by government regulators for plans purchased by those buying their own insurance.

A 50 percent or 60 percent jump could well be an outlier. The nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation analyzed preliminary rates and estimated a 10 percent rise on average for the second-lowest-cost silver plan on the ACA insurance marketplaces in 14 major metropolitan areas. We’d note that increases on the individual market before the ACA was passed topped 10 percent on average.

“Trump’s Press Conference,” July 27

https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/c6ea494a-6a09-45e4-9dc5-75cba10a319d

 

Trump on Sen. Tim Kaine’s record as governor, Aug. 10 rally in Abingdon, Virginia: “During Tim Kaine’s tenure as governor of Virginia, from 2006 … to 2010, the unemployment rate of Virginia more than doubled. … Now compare that with Mike Pence of Indiana. He did incredible. … He’s doing great and the state’s doing great.”

Trump is making a misleading comparison between Kaine, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, and Pence, Trump’s own running mate. Virginia’s unemployment rate more than doubled under Kaine, and Indiana’s rate has gone down under Pence, who has been governor since January 2013. But Kaine served during the Great Recession when every state saw unemployment rates rise significantly, and Pence has served during the economic expansion following that recession, when every state but one has seen job gains.

Under Kaine, the unemployment rate in Virginia was 1.5 percentage points better than the national average when Kaine took office in January 2006 and 2.4 percentage points better than the national average when he left office in January 2010. As for Pence, the unemployment rate in Indiana was a little worse than the national average when he took office and was slightly better than the national average in June. We have cautioned readers to be wary of claims about governors’ performance on jobs, because economists point out that job gains and losses, and unemployment rates, tend to track regional and national trends.

“Kaine vs. Pence on Unemployment,” Aug. 5

https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/9a971e15-8581-4035-8443-8615856e834c

 

Clinton on income inequality, Aug. 8 rally in Florida: “You know that old movie, ‘Follow the Money’ â€" well, one-tenth of 1 percent has gotten 90 percent of the income gains.”

Clinton usually says that 90 percent of the income gains have gone to the top 1 percent. This time, she narrows that to the top .10 percent. Either way, it’s an outdated figure, as we just wrote in last week’s “Groundhog Friday.”

The most recent figures from economist Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley show that the top 1 percent of families captured 52 percent of the income growth from 2009 to 2015. That’s also the case for 1993-2015.

“FactChecking Clinton’s Big Speech,” July 29

https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/e01ce19c-bbbb-4a8b-9fb9-075a397aaeb5

 

Clinton on Trump saying he “alone” can fix it, Aug. 10 rally in Des Moines, Iowa. “I also think Trump’s belief that he alone can fix America’s problems is so contrary to who we are as a nation. Our founders set up our country so that we had three branches of government that had to work together. We had the federal government, state and local governments that had to work together. And that’s what we’ve done so successfully. And along comes Trump and basically says, I can do this alone.”

Clinton is still misrepresenting remarks Trump made during his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. Trump never said he’d be the only one to fix absolutely everything. He said that ​as a political outsider only he can fix a “rigged” system.

Trump, July 21: I have joined the political arena so that the powerful can no longer beat up on people that cannot defend themselves. Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it. I have seen firsthand how the system is rigged against our citizens, just like it was rigged against Bernie Sanders â€" he never had a chance.

In that same speech, Trump went on to say “we are going to fix the system,” in talking about others joining his cause. And he talked about working with his running mate, saying, “We will bring the same economic success to America that Mike [Pence] brought to Indiana.”

“FactChecking Clinton’s Big Speech,” July 29

https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/8a2d98ad-dfee-42d6-a09b-e9169fb68cb1

 

Rep. Xavier Becerra of California on Trump and wages, Aug. 7 interview on “Fox News Sunday”: “This is a guy [Trump] who thinks — and his quote was, ‘wages are too high.'”

This Democratic talking point was a favorite of speakers at the convention in July, but it takes Trump’s words out of context. At a Nov. 10, 2015, GOP debate, Trump was asked about raising the federal minimum wage to $15, and he said he was opposed to that. “[T]axes too high, wages too high, we’re not going to be able to compete against the world. I hate to say it, but we have to leave it the way it is,” he said. When he was asked about that comment two days later, he told Fox News, “And they said should we increase the minimum wage? And I’m saying that if we’re going to compete with other countries, we can’t do that because the wages would be too high. … The question was about the minimum wage. I’m not talking about wages being too high, I’m talking about minimum wage.”

The context, and his subsequent explanation, make it clear he was talking about a $15 minimum wage being “too high,” not wages overall. (Last month, Trump supported raising the minimum wage to $10, but added that “states should really call the shots.”)

“Democratic Convention Day 1,” July 26

https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/2db7376c-fa32-4dfb-84a0-d38132fc6f00



Source by [author_name]

Kamis, 11 Agustus 2016

BTPN Hadirkan Aplikasi Jenius

BTPN Hadirkan Aplikasi Jenius

[ad_1]

 

Demi mengikuti perubahan zaman yang serba mobile dan memberikan kepraktisan optimal kepada para nasabah, PT Bank Tabungan Pensiunan Nasional Tbk (BTPN) meluncurkan Jenius, sebuah aplikasi yang dirancang dan dikembangkan untuk membantu masyarakat mengatur ‘life finance’ secara lebih mudah, cerdas dan aman melalui perangkat pintar berbasis Android atau iOS.

Diformulasikan sejak Januari 2015 berdasarkan penelitian komprehensif seputar kebutuhan masyarakat digital savvy di Indonesia, aplikasi Jenius mencoba untuk mengikuti perkembangan teknologi digital dan menjadi perbankan digital terbaik di dunia.

Bank BTPN menyadari beberapa keputusan penting dalam kehidupan memiliki konsekuensi finensial. Beberapa dari konsekuensi tersebut berupa membayar kebutuhan sehari-hari serta yang berkaitan dengan rencana masa depan. Dengan demikian bank tersebut menyebut hubungan yang tidak terpisahkan antara hidup dan keuangan sebagai ‘life finance’.

Guna menjawab keinginan tersebut, untuk pertama kalinya di tanah air, aplikasi Jenius memperkenalkan $Cashtag yang menjadikan nama nasabah sebagai nomor rekening. Aplikasi ini juga dilengkapi aneka fitur unik seperti Send It, untuk mentransfer uang baik ke rekening bank, nomor ponsel, atau alamat email dengan langkah sangat mudah. Split Bill, untuk berbagi tagihan dengan teman atau keluarga. Dream Saver, guna membantu mewujudkan mimpi dengan menabung harian secara otomatis.

Dalam membangun ekosistem ‘life finance’ lebih mudah, untuk saat ini aplikasi Jenius bermitra dengan GoJek, Spotify, BrightSpot, The Goods Dept, Indosat, XL, Telkomsel, Elevenia, Dinomarket, dan Trafique Coffee; tentu saja, dengan kemungkinan ada tambahan beberapa mitra lainnya.


[ad_2]
Source link

Trump’s False Obama-ISIS Link

Trump’s False Obama-ISIS Link


Donald Trump claims that President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “founded ISIS.” But the origin of the Islamic State terrorist group dates back to the Bush administration.

Trump points to the withdrawal of troops from Iraq in 2011, under Obama, as “the founding of ISIS,” but experts say the expansion of the Islamic State after that point can’t be pinned on the troop withdrawal alone — if at all. And there’s the fact that President George W. Bush had signed the agreement and set the date for that withdrawal.

“It’s a massively complex problem,” Clint Watts, the Robert A. Fox fellow in the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s Program on the Middle East, told us. It “goes beyond one single policy decision about keeping or moving troops.”

Furthermore, Trump himself supported withdrawing troops from Iraq as early as 2007, telling CNN in a March 16, 2007, interview that the U.S. should “declare victory and leave, because I’ll tell you, this country is just going to get further bogged down. … [T]his is a total catastrophe and you might as well get out now, because you just are wasting time.”

But now, in the midst of a campaign to be president, Trump says the withdrawal, without leaving behind a small force, created ISIS. His comments at a rally in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, came after he has been linking Clinton to ISIS for weeks.

Trump, Aug. 10: We shouldn’t have ever, ever, ever got into Iraq. I said it from the beginning. I said it from the beginning. … I said you’re going to destabilize the Middle East and we did. And then, an even easier decision, we should have never gotten out the way we got out. … We had a president who decided he’d announce a date and he was going to get out by that date. The problem is the enemy, which really turned out to be ISIS, the enemy was sitting back and actually didn’t believe that this could be happening. … That they would actually say when they were getting out. So they sat back and they sat back …  but instead of allowing some small forces behind to maybe, just maybe, keep it under control, and we pulled it out eventually. …

And then we decimated one of the powers and we unleashed fury all over the Middle East. It was a terrible mistake. And then Obama came in and normally you want to clean up, he made a bigger mess out of it. … And then you had Hillary with Libya. So sad.

In fact, in many respects you know they honor President Obama. ISIS is honoring President Obama. He is the founder of ISIS. He’s the founder of ISIS. He’s the founder. He founded ISIS. And I would say the co-founder would be crooked Hillary Clinton, co-founder.

Trump reiterated his “founder of ISIS” comments in interviews on Aug. 11. When conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt asked him, “You meant that [Obama] created the vacuum, he lost the peace,” Trump responded: “No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS. I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton.” Trump added that “the way he got out of Iraq … was the founding of ISIS, O.K.?”

Let’s start with a quick fact-check of Trump’s position on the Iraq War: There is no evidence that Trump opposed the war in Iraq before it started on March 19, 2003, despite his frequent claims to the contrary. In fact, Trump expressed mild support in September 2002 for invading Iraq in an interview with radio host Howard Stern. The Trump campaign, in a footnoted speech, has pointed to an interview in January 2003 with Fox News’ Neil Cavuto, but, as we’ve explained before, Trump took no position in that interview, saying only that President Bush should make a decision: “Either you attack or you don’t attack,” he said.

That March 2003 invasion of Iraq — supported at the time by Clinton, who was in the U.S. Senate, and opposed by Obama, who was a state senator — marked the beginning of the rise of a terrorist group that has adopted several names over the years, most recently the Islamic State.

We’ll note that some of Trump’s comments can be taken as opinion — the “most valuable player” comment, for instance. But his claims that Obama and specifically the troop withdrawal “founded” ISIS don’t measure up to the well-documented history of this terrorist group.

The Roots of ISIS

If anyone can be called the “founder of ISIS,” it’s Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian who formed al Qaeda in Iraq, the group that became ISIS, after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

A June 27 report by the Congressional Research Service provides a timeline of “The Roots of the Islamic State,” which begins in October 2002, when Zarqawi assassinated USAID official Laurence Foley in Jordan and then relocated to Iraq. By October 2004, Zarqawi’s group was known as al Qaeda in Iraq. He took advantage of sectarian strife in Iraq — Sunni opposition to U.S. forces and the ruling Shia party — to build his organization.

“The Islamic State has its origins in the U.S. invasion of Iraq,” Princeton University professor Bernard Haykel, who heads the university’s Institute for Transregional Study of the Contemporary Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia, told us in an interview. “It is tied to a man named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who was killed in an American attack in 2006. I don’t see that Obama has anything to do with it â€" at all. He wasn’t even on the scene when the founders of ISIS set it up.”

In June 2006, Zarqawi was killed in a U.S. airstrike, but Egyptian Abu Ayub al-Masri took over the organization, calling it the Islamic State of Iraq a few months later.

In an analysis, “From Paper State to Caliphate,” for the Brookings Institution’s Center for Middle East Policy, Cole Bunzel writes that the significance of the group’s name change to the Islamic State of Iraq “was much greater than was appreciated at the time. It signaled the start of an ambitious political project: the founding of a state in Iraq– a proto-caliphate — that would ultimately expand across the region, proclaim itself the fullfledged caliphate, and go on to conquer the rest of the world.”

In 2010, Masri, and another top Islamic State official, were killed in a joint Iraqi-U.S. raid. When U.S. troops withdrew from Iraq at the end of 2011, the CRS report explains, the Islamic State of Iraq “was weakened, but not eliminated.”

CRS, “The Islamic State and U.S. Policy,” June 27: The Islamic State’s direct ideological and organizational roots lie in the forces built and led by the late Abu Musab al Zarqawi in Iraq from 2002 through 2006. … Zarqawi took advantage of Sunni animosity toward U.S. forces and feelings of disenfranchisement at the hands of Iraq’s Shia and Kurds to advance a uniquely sectarian agenda that differed from Al Qaeda’s in important ways. … Following Zarqawi’s death at the hands of U.S. forces in June 2006, AQ-I leaders repackaged the group as a coalition called the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI). ISI lost its two top leaders in 2010 and was weakened, but not eliminated, by the time of the U.S. withdrawal in 2011. The precise nature of ISI’s relationship to Al Qaeda leaders from 2006 onward is unclear.

Watts, with the Foreign Policy Research Institute, said that 2006 was when the “big governance model” of what we now see as the Islamic State was formed. There was “some divergence from the al Qaeda brand name” and disagreements between the two groups at this point.  When the U.S. troops withdrew, the terrorist group had gone underground, with members in prisons or detention camps, Watts said. In 2011 and 2012, the group was “lightly functioning,” but still in existence.

By 2013, the terrorist group was again launching attacks in Iraq and had spread to Syria, taking advantage of that country’s internal strike. Syria’s civil war started in March 2011.

Critics and experts have pointed to several actions during the Bush and Obama administrations that could have contributed to the rise of ISIS:

  • The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
  • The decisions by the U.S.-led provisional coalition government in 2003 to disband the Iraqi army and dissolve and ban the Baath Party, which drove Sunnis into militant groups.
  • The rule of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, whose Shia government further ostracized Sunnis. “By disbanding the army and making the Baath party illegal and putting in power a Shiite like Maliki, you alienated and radicalized the Sunnis, and gave rise to ISIS in the process,” Haykel told us.
  • The withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by Dec. 31, 2011 — a date set by an agreement with the Iraqi government that was signed by President Bush in 2008, and left unchanged by the Obama administration.
  • The weakening of the Iraqi army, which abandoned posts in 2014 rather than fight ISIS.
  • The Syrian civil war, which began in 2011. “This is really all about Syria,” Watts told us. “That provided the space for ISIS to rise.” The conflict inspired foreign fighters, and if it wasn’t ISIS moving into Syria, it would be some other jihadist group, he said.

Obama and Clinton were not in lockstep over how the U.S. should handle the situation in Syria: Both Clinton and former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta have said the administration should have armed rebels fighting in Syria sooner. During the 2012 presidential campaign, Watts noted, the debate was over a no-fly zone in Syria. Neither Obama nor the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, advocated a deeper military involvement in Syria.

It is, of course, unknown how any number of different decisions would have affected the creation or growth of the Islamic State, or a similar terrorist group.

Withdrawal of Troops

Since Trump has pinpointed “the way [Obama] got out of Iraq” as “the founding of ISIS,” we’ll take a closer look at that action.

As we have explained before, Republicans and Democrats differ on which president should be blamed for the withdrawal of all combat troops at the end of 2011. Trump says that “[w]e had a president who decided he’d announce the date” of withdrawal — but that president was Bush.

Bush signed the agreement, known as the Status of Forces Agreement, on Dec. 14, 2008. It said: “All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011.” Condoleezza Rice later wrote that Bush wanted an agreement for a residual force to remain, but Maliki objected.

Obama, however, had three years to renegotiate the deal, which his administration tried to do, seeking to leave an American troop force of 5,000 to 10,000. But Maliki objected again, and negotiations broke down in October 2011 over the issue of whether U.S. troops would be shielded from criminal prosecution by Iraqi authorities. Obama’s then defense secretary, Panetta, later wrote in his 2014 book that Obama didn’t press hard enough for a deal, although some experts say it would not have mattered because Iraq was more closely aligned at the time with Iran.

Maliki “wanted the Americans out of there — and the Iranians wanted the same thing,” Haykel said. “I don’t think there was a deal to be had — not one in which the Americans would have had immunity.”

Clinton, Obama’s secretary of state at the time, publicly supported the president. In a 2014 interview, she blamed the Iraqi government for the failure to reach an agreement to protect American troops. The Washington Post‘s Joby Warrick, author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning book “Black Flags: The Rise of ISIS,” said in an interview with the Post‘s Fact Checker that “[w]ithin the administration, Clinton was one of the loudest forces for keeping a residual force in Iraq.”

So, both presidents played a role in the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. ISIS did experience a resurgence after that withdrawal, but Watts doesn’t see the withdrawal as a major factor. “ISIS didn’t grow because of the troop withdrawal, they grew because there was a Syrian civil war that created a vacuum to the west,” he told us. If the U.S. had left troops in Iraq, the “best outcome” would be to still have an ISIS in Syria.

And how did Trump feel about withdrawing from Iraq at the time? He said several times that the troops should be withdrawn, and quickly. BuzzFeed unearthed several quotes from Trump, including a March 16, 2007, interview Trump gave with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.

Trump, March 16, 2007, on CNN: You know how they get out? They get out. That’s how they get out. Declare victory and leave, because I’ll tell you, this country is just going to get further bogged down. They’re in a civil war over there, Wolf. There’s nothing that we’re going to be able to do with a civil war. They are in a major civil war. …

And it’s going to go to Iran, and it’s going to go to other countries. They are in the midst of a major civil war. And there’s nothing — by the way, we’re keeping the lid on a little bit but date we leave anyway it’s all going to blow up. … So, I mean, this is a total catastrophe and you might as well get out now, because you just are wasting time.

Trump doesn’t appear to be advocating a residual force in those comments, but he’s unclear. Regardless, the withdrawal of troops, no matter when or how it happened, wasn’t the “founding of ISIS.” Nor was President Obama the “founder.” The terrorist group’s history predates Obama’s presidency.

https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/dfbd9aff-74f2-411b-9226-7d5c75adf83b



Source by [author_name]

Clinton’s Economic Speech

Clinton’s Economic Speech


Two days after Donald Trump gave a major speech on economics in Detroit, Hillary Clinton came to Michigan to offer a rebuttal. We found that Clinton stretched the facts on a few points.

  • Clinton said an independent economic analysis found that Trump’s proposals would lead to a loss of 3.1 million jobs while hers would “create more than 10 million new jobs.” The report forecast the economy would create most of those jobs under current law, and another 3.2 million if all of Clinton’s plans were enacted, which the report called unlikely. Most likely, it said, the economy under Clinton would be “similar to that experienced under current law.”
  • Clinton misrepresented Trump’s plan for a child care tax deduction, saying it benefits “rich people like him” while “hard-working families” would get “little to nothing.” But Trump aides say wealthy people wouldn’t be eligible for the deduction, and low-income taxpayers who pay no federal income tax would be able to take the deduction against payroll taxes.
  • Clinton said that “millions” of “undocumented” workers in the U.S. are paying $12 billion a year into the Social Security program. Only half of that is paid by those workers. The other half comes from their employers.
  • Clinton said the U.S. has the “most … productive workforce in the world, bar none.” U.S. workers are productive, but the U.S. ranks third behind Luxembourg and Norway by the standard measure for worker productivity.

Clinton vs. Trump on Jobs

Clinton cited analyses by the macroeconomic firm Moody’s Analytics of the entirety of the campaign proposals by Trump and Clinton, which concluded Clinton’s plans would be better for jobs. But she puts some spin on those reports.

Clinton, Aug. 11: And according to an independent analysis by a former economic adviser to Senator John McCain, if you add up all of Trump’s ideas from cutting taxes for the wealthy and corporations to starting a trade war with China, to deporting millions of hardworking immigrants, the result would be a loss of 3.1 million jobs. Now, by contrast, the same analyst found that with our plan, the economy would create more than 10 million new jobs.

Moody’s Analytics concluded that if Clinton were able to fully implement the plans she has outlined in her campaign, the economy would add 10.4 million jobs during Clinton’s presidency. But that’s just 3.2 million more than it projects would be added under current law.

Moody’s Analytics: During her presidency, the economy would create 10.4 million jobs, 3.2 million more than under current law.

Moreover, Moody’s Analytics doesn’t expect Clinton would likely be able to pass all of her proposals through a divided Congress. “Given the current political discord” Moody’s expects Congress would put up “substantial roadblocks” to Clinton’s policy proposals, and under its “most-likely scenario,” a Clinton presidency would result in employment going just “a bit higher” than it otherwise would â€" putting the U.S. on a path to create 1.5 million more jobs over 10 years than is expected under current law.

Clinton accurately described the dire economic projection Moody’s forecast if Trump were able to implement all of his proposed policies at face value. If his policies were fully implemented, Moody’s predicts the economy would suffer an extended recession beginning in early 2018. The policies would also result in 3.4 million job losses over the course of Trump’s presidency. (Given that Moody’s forecast the economy would add 6 million jobs under current law, that’s a swing of more than 9 million jobs).

The jobs projection under the “most-likely scenario” under Trump — again assuming Congress would balk at many of his proposals — is not as dire. According to this scenario, “Employment barely budges in the first two years, and over his four years as president just over 2.8 million jobs are created. This is about half as many jobs as would be created if there were no changes to current economic policy.”

Trump’s Child Care Tax Deduction

Clinton derided Trump’s announcement on Aug. 8 that he would allow people to deduct the cost of child care from their taxes. The way it is designed, Clinton argued, it would be a boon to the wealthy and of little to no value to “hard-working families.”

Clinton: Now [Trump] says he wants to exclude child care payments from taxation. His plan was panned from the left, the right, the center because transparently is designed for rich people like him. He would give wealthy families 30 or 40 cents on the dollar for their nannies, and little to nothing for millions of hard-working families trying to afford child care, so that they could get to work and keep the job.

Trump offered few details about his plan when he announced it during a speech on economics in Detroit on Aug. 8, saying only, “My plan will also help reduce the cost of child care by allowing parents to fully deduct the average cost of child care spending from their taxes.”

Based on that brief description, many economists did criticize the plan for providing little to no benefit for low-income workers. That’s because while married joint filers in the top tax bracket pay 39.6 percent on income over $466,950 in 2016, nearly half of the country’s workers pay no federal tax at all. Currently, 44 percent pay no federal income tax, according to the Tax Policy Center.

Under Trump’s plan, the top rate would be cut to 33 percent. So without any further detail than Trump provided, those in the top tax bracket could write off up to 33 percent of their child care cost — provided they spent the average cost for child care in the state. Those in lower tax brackets would realize a lower percentage deduction. And low-income people who already pay no federal income tax would see no benefit from the deduction at all.

However, Trump’s campaign has provided a few more details about the plan (and promised more to come). For one, the campaign website says the plan would be structured so that “low-income taxpayers [would be] able to take deduction against payroll tax.”

In a statement provided to the New York Times, the Trump campaign stated the plan would provide “credit to stay-at-home caregivers” and that “to provide benefits to lower-income taxpayers who may not benefit from the deduction, the plan also allows parents to exclude childcare expenses from half of their payroll taxes â€" increasing their paycheck income each week.”

Currently employees pay 7.65 percent of their pay toward Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. Companies match that with an equal amount. If low-income workers are able to deduct the cost of child care from their share of payroll taxes, that would benefit low-income workers who pay no federal income tax (but do pay payroll taxes).

As for the wealthy, Trump aides told the Associated Press there would be an income limit for eligibility. No details were provided about the cutoff, but presumably it would exclude from the tax deduction “rich people like [Trump],” as Clinton put it. Also, Clinton said the plan would allow wealthy families to write off “30 or 40 cents on the dollar for their nannies.” Trump said the deduction would be capped at the average cost of child care in a state for the age of the child. If the cost of a nanny were to exceed the average cost of child care in that state, then the household would not be able to write off the full cost of the nanny.

Still, too many details are missing to provide an accurate analysis of how the plan would affect taxpayers at various income levels, said Bob Williams of the Tax Policy Center.

For example, Williams said, will people be able to deduct the average cost of child care in the state even if they pay less than that for child care? Would families with a stay-at-home parent also be able to write off the average cost of child care in that state?

Said Williams: “The real problem is that we don’t know the details of his plan.”

Unauthorized Workers’ Social Security Contributions

Clinton said that “millions” of “undocumented” workers in the U.S. are paying $12 billion a year into the Social Security program. That’s not exactly accurate. Half of that money is paid by the employers of people working in the U.S. illegally.

Clinton: And protecting and expanding Social Security doesn’t just help older Americans retire with dignity. It helps to ease burdens on families and communities. And I also believe the same thing about comprehensive immigration reform. We already have millions of people working in the economy and paying $12 billion a year to Social Security even though they are undocumented.

In an actuarial note from April 2013, the Social Security Administration estimated that, for 2010, “the excess of tax revenue paid to the [Social Security] Trust Funds over benefits paid from these funds based on earnings of unauthorized workers is about $12 billion.”

SSA estimated that out of the 10.8 million unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. in 2009, about 3.1 million of them worked and paid payroll taxes on an average of $34,000 in earnings in 2010. Workers and employers each pay a Social Security tax rate of 6.2 percent. Therefore, “we estimate $13 billion in payroll taxes from unauthorized immigrant workers and their employers in 2010,” the administration wrote.

SSA pegged the overall contribution at $12 billion after it subtracted $1 billion in benefits paid to the “relatively small portion” of unauthorized workers eligible to receive them.

U.S. Productivity

Clinton said the U.S. has the “most … productive workforce in the world, bar none.” U.S. workers are productive, but the U.S. ranks third behind Luxembourg and Norway by the standard measure for worker productivity.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics says, “GDP [gross domestic product] per hour worked is a general measure of labor productivity for the entire economy.”

By that measure, the U.S. ranked third behind Luxembourg and Norway, as of 2014, among more than three dozen countries, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The measure was $62.40 per hour worked in the U.S., while it was $79.30 in Luxembourg and $78.90 in Norway.

BLS came to a similar conclusion in a 2012 report called “International Comparisons of GDP per Capita and per Hour, 1960-2011.” That report said the U.S. ranked third among 20 countries at $60.59 per hour worked in 2011. It trailed only Norway ($81.47) and Ireland ($66.74). BLS has since discontinued that statistical series.

The World Bank uses a different measure: GDP per employed person. By that measure, the World Bank ranked the U.S. 11th in 2014 among dozens of countries and territories. Using international dollars, which the World Bank says has “the same purchasing power over GDP” as a U.S. dollar in the United States, the World Bank ranked the Chinese peninsula of Macao, or Macau, as first at int’l $231,317, followed by Luxembourg at int’l $201,748.

The U.S. (int’l $109,314) also trailed several oil-rich countries, such as Qatar (int’l $173,967), Kuwait (int’l $158,302), and Saudi Arabia (int’l $143,968), according to the World Bank, as well as Norway (int’l $124,555) and others.

The Clinton campaign did not respond when we asked for the data to back up Clinton’s claim.



Source by [author_name]