ANOTHER TRUMP FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION
COMPILATION AND COMMENTARY
BY LUCY WARNER
AUGUST 5, 2018


TRUMP SKEWS THE POVERTY NUMBERS IN THE USA IN AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON BY THE UNITED NATIONS. WHAT ELSE IS NEW? BUT WHY? TO MAKE US LOOK BETTER ON THE WORLD STAGE, AND MAYBE TO AVOID GIVING THE LEFT-WING AN EXCUSE TO MAKE NEW LAWS THAT GO AGAINST THE WEALTHY. AS THE OLD 1970S PHRASE GOES, “FAKE IT ‘TIL YOU MAKE IT.” RIGHT, MR. PRESIDENT?


https://www.commondreams.org/tag/bernie-sanders?gclid=CjwKCAjwwJrbBRAoEiwAGA1B_TFSt0dwMdoPD8-1qhp_XXM77x3bqxiKySh8VX67OT6-qtZErpxgPRoCTJMQAvD_BwE
Bernie Sanders
'Insidious': Emails Show Trump White House Lied About US Poverty Levels to Discredit Critical UN Report
Debunking Pundits and Corporate Democrats, New Poll Finds 'Unabashedly Left' Agenda Extremely Popular
Jake Johnson, staff writer

PHOTOGRAPH -- President Donald Trump shows an executive order after signing it beside members of his cabinet in the Oval Office of the White House on March 17, 2017 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Michael Reynolds-Pool/Getty Images)

"This is not as dramatic as Trump's tweets or bald-faced lies at press briefings. But in a way it is far more insidious; the contempt for facts is pervasive and maddening."
—Jeff Greenfield

Infuriated by a scathing United Nations report estimating that over 18 million Americans are living in "extreme poverty" and accusing the Trump administration of "deliberately" making such destitution worse with its tax cuts for the rich, the White House insisted in its June response to the U.N. analysis that the United States is overflowing with "prosperity" and that claims of widespread poverty are "exaggerated."

But internal State Department emails and documents obtained by Foreign Policy and the non-profit journalism website Coda Story show that the Trump administration ignored advice of White House economic analysts and knowingly lied to the public about the severity of American poverty, which the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights Philip Alston described as "shocking."

Foreign Policy reported on Thursday that officials who were consulted last-minute on a draft of the White House's rebuttal of the U.N. findings "questioned the accuracy of the data the administration was citing."

Despite the fact that the U.N. analysis cited government statistics to bolster its claims about poverty in America, the Trump administration opted to draw from a report by the right-wing Heritage Foundation, which concluded that 250,000 Americans are living in extreme poverty—a stark contrast to the U.N.'s conclusion that the correct number is 18.25 million.

The Heritage report cited by the White House also concluded that the conditions of the poor must be improving because many families living in deep poverty own cell phones and DVD players.

"What is your source for stating material hardship is down by 77 percent since 1980?" Trudi Renwick, an economist at the Census Bureau, wrote in an email questioning the Trump administration's rebuttal to the U.N.

Foreign Policy reports that it is unclear whether Renwick received a response, and the White House kept references to the Heritage report in the final version of its response.

One economic adviser also urged the White House to "not get into" America's steady economic growth, writing: "Already 8-9 years long... which started under Obama and we inherited and then expanded. But it will end prob[ably] in 1-2 years." The Trump administration ignored this advice, touting a "new era of economic growth."

While the White House brushed aside the concerns of some officials, they did modify parts of their response to the U.N. after advisers questioned how truly prosperous the American economy is under Trump.

"Wages haven't really picked up, other than for supervisors," an official from the Council of Economic Advisers wrote in response to a line in an early draft about workers' salaries rising. "This triggers the left—best to leave it off."

The line was deleted from the final document.

In contrast to the officials who raised questions about the White House's economic claims, Mari Stull, a senior State Department adviser, attacked the U.N. report as "propaganda" in emails and mocked the U.N.'s accurate claim that American child poverty rates are among the highest in the industrialized world.

"Based upon my own experience, my sons are destitute poor and living off the welfare state of Mom—so guess they contributed to the 'youth poverty' crisis in America," Stull wrote.

Bathsheba Crocker, a former U.S. diplomat and vice president of humanitarian policy at CARE, called Stull's comment "unbelievable" and wrote that it demonstrates once again the "contempt" the Trump administration has for poor Americans.


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License


"TURNING THESE FAVORABLE IMPRESSIONS INTO DURABLE SUPPORT WILL REQUIRE ACTIVISTS AND POLITICIANS TO PUT THESE ISSUES ON THE NATIONAL AGENDA AND MAKE A FORCEFUL CASE FOR THEM OVER TIME," DFP ARGUED.”

I HAVE BECOME MORE AND MORE CERTAIN AS TIME PASSES, THAT CORPORATE DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN HOLDING FAST TO A POLITICAL PLAN OF CYNICAL EXPEDIENCE CONCOCTED BY THINKERS OF THE BILL CLINTON PRESIDENCY, THAT WAS BASED ON FLAGGING DEMOCRATIC POLLING NUMBERS AT THE TIME. THAT IDEA WAS THAT THEY SHOULD VEER TO THE RIGHT IN THEIR CAMPAIGN RHETORIC ALONG WITH REPUBLICAN-INFLUENCED REAGAN DEMOCRATS, OR DEMOCRATS IN NAME ONLY, TO BORROW A REPUBLICAN SLOGAN “RINO,” AND THEY ABANDONED THE SOCIAL DOCTRINES OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY SINCE JFK AND LBJ TO TOO GREAT A DEGREE. THAT WAS BEFORE THEY TREATED SANDERS SO SHABBILY AFTER HE BROUGHT IN THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE TO THE PARTY. THEY WERE, OF COURSE, AFRAID OF HIM.

HILLARY CLINTON’S PROBLEM WAS THAT SHE WAS FIRMLY IN THAT CAMP, DUE PARTLY TO THE FACT THAT SHE, IN FOLLOWING THE CORPORATE MONEY IN HER CAMPAIGN AND PERSONAL FUNDS, BECAME TRULY CORRUPTED AND COOPTED. SHE WAS ALSO OUT OF TOUCH WITH THE TRUE-LIFE NEEDS OF THE MANY, FOCUSING ON PEOPLE OF COLOR BECAUSE THAT WAS EASIER TO THINK ABOUT THAN THE IDEA THAT AMERICA HAS NO RELIABLE “DREAM” THAT WILL MATERIALIZE.

THAT, I BELIEVE, IS BECAUSE MOST “MEDIAN-CLASS”* CITIZENS, WERE UNAWARE BEFORE NOVEMBER 2016 THAT THE ROAR COMING FROM UP IN FRONT IS NIAGARA FALLS. ALL OF THE CORPORATE DEMS HAVE BEEN BEHIND THE TIMES SINCE THE CLINTON YEARS, CONFIDENT IN THEIR DNC POWER STRUCTURE, AND HAVE REMAINED IN MIDSTREAM RATHER THAN STEERING THEIR BOATS TO THE LEFT, WHERE THE PEOPLE LIVING ON $40,000 OR LESS LIVE, AND NOT BY CHOICE – THOSE WHOSE LIFE IS HELD TOGETHER BY A THIN STRING. THEIR HOUSES ARE IN DECLINING NEIGHBORHOODS AND THEY OR THEIR CHILDREN MAY NOT BE ABLE TO FINANCE GOING TO COLLEGE.

THOSE WHO DID GO TO COLLEGE ARE LOOKING AT BERNIE SANDERS AND OTHER PROGRESSIVES, OUT OF GOOD REASONING. THOSE WHO, WHILE PROBABLY NOT WEALTHY, ARE “COMFORTABLE,” AND THEREFORE STILL ATTACHED TO THE BELIEF IN “A MODERATE AMERICAN DREAM.” THAT’S BECAUSE THEY HAVE BELIEVED THE PROPAGANDA THAT VOTING FOR A PROGRESSIVE AGENDA IS THE KISS OF DEATH. IT IS NOT, AND NEVER HAS BEEN, THE ROAD TO POLITICAL DEFEAT, IF THE VOTER NUMBERS ARE BEHIND IT AND THE PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS AND OTHERS ARE ENERGETIC AND MOTIVATED TO PUSH FOR THEIR CAUSE, BUT THAT TAKES COMMITMENT AND ENERGY. I DON’T SEE WHY A DONALD TRUMP IN OFFICE WON’T GIVE US THAT PUSH.

UNFORTUNATELY, THEY ALSO TEND TO BELIEVE THAT NOT MAKING WAVES IS THE SOCIALLY VIRTUOUS WAY TO BE – GOOD CITIZENS ARE OBEDIENT CITIZENS; I.E., TRADITIONAL THINKERS ARE BY DEFINITION NOT THE LOW-CLASSED RABBLE, SO THEY ARE ADMIRABLE AS LONG AS THEY FOLLOW THAT PATH. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY BELIEVE THAT THE POOR AND PEOPLE OF COLOR ARE INDEED “LOWER CLASS” BECAUSE THEY DESERVE TO BE, AND THAT LIFE IS TRULY SIMPLE RATHER THAN A MIXTURE OF OFTEN DANGEROUS FORCES. THEY WON’T AVOW SUCH THOUGHTS PUBLICLY, BUT THEY FIRMLY BELIEVE THEM. IF YOU CAN’T BUY GOOD CLOTHES AND EAT THE HEALTHIEST TYPES OF FOOD, YOU DON’T DESERVE HELP AND CERTAINLY NOT RESPECT. YOU ALSO SHOULD NOT DISTURB THE PEACE OF THE RELATIVELY WELL-TO-DO UNDER ANY CONDITIONS.

HILLARY CLINTON LOST THIS LAST ELECTION TO A DISGUSTING EXAMPLE OF THE UBERWEALTHY PEOPLE. BECAUSE THE POOR HAD BEEN POOR FOR TOO LONG, A GROUP THAT INCLUDES THE LESS WEALTHY OF THE DEMOCRATS, WHO NO LONGER TRUSTED AND LOVED HER AS MUCH AS THEY HAD IN THE PAST – SPLIT OFF FROM THE PARTY TO FOLLOW A DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST NAMED BERNIE SANDERS. I AM PROUD TO SAY THAT I AM ONE OF HIS BELIEVERS. I DO HOPE HE LIVES LONG ENOUGH TO RUN AGAIN IN 2020.

HILLARY’S MOVE TO THE RIGHT WASN’T AN UNINTELLIGENT DECISION AT THE TIME, IF IT HAD BEEN MOTIVATED BY NEED AND NOT MERELY RACE-BASED; IT WORKED TEMPORARILY AT THE TIME, BUT THE DEMS NEVER REGAINED THEIR POWERFUL SWAT AT THE POLLS AGAIN. THEY HAD TURNED AWAY FROM THEIR OWN NATURAL BASE, THEIR “VISION” WAS DEAD, AND THEIR BELIEF IN THEMSELVES WAS, TOO. NOW, THANK GOODNESS, WE OF THE POOR DEMOCRATS, THE UNHEALTHY AND THE ELDERLY, WITH THE DEMOCRAT PROGRESSIVES AT THE FRONT LED BY A JEWISH DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST, ARE RESURGING IN CONVICTION AND POWER AGAIN. LONG LIVE THE USA, AND HEAVEN HELP US !!

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/08/01/debunking-pundits-and-corporate-democrats-new-poll-finds-unabashedly-left-agenda
Debunking Pundits and Corporate Democrats, New Poll Finds 'Unabashedly Left' Agenda Extremely Popular
The progressive policy shop Data for Progress "consistently found that voters are more likely to want big-ticket progressive agenda items that are dismissed by the pundit class as electoral doom."
byJake Johnson, staff writer
Published on
Wednesday, August 01, 2018
byCommon Dreams
byJake Johnson, staff writer

PHOTOGRAPH -- New York congressional candidate Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez speaks in support of Kansas Democrat Brent Welder at Jack Reardon Convention Center on Friday, July 20, 2018, in Kanas City, Kansas.

RELATED -- INSET -- "Turning these favorable impressions into durable support will require activists and politicians to put these issues on the national agenda and make a forceful case for them over time." —Data for Progress


As the corporate media and centrist Democrats continue fearmongering over the alleged pitfalls of running on a bold left-wing platform in the 2018 midterms and beyond, new polling data released Wednesday shows that—contrary to what elite pundits suggest—"unabashedly left" policies are "incredibly popular" among the American electorate.


Focusing on progressive policy ideas that aren't frequently surveyed but could come into play in upcoming elections—such as a federal jobs guarantee, ending cash bail, and manufacturing generic versions of life-saving drugs—the progressive policy shop Data for Progress (DFP) "consistently found that voters are more likely to want big-ticket progressive agenda items that are dismissed by the pundit class as electoral doom than policies that Republican candidates regularly commit to on the campaign trail and pursue while in office."


DFP's survey found that 55 percent of eligible voters polled expressed support for a jobs guarantee—a proposal backed by several senators, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—while only 23 percent expressed opposition. The idea of a "public option for the internet"*—one of Michigan gubernatorial candidate Abdul El-Sayed's major policy planks—garnered similarly strong support, with 56 percent of respondents saying they approve of the policy.


[SEE: “PUBLIC OPTION FOR THE INTERNET*” ANOTHER CREATIVE WAY TO IMPROVE LIFE AND MAKE THE INTERNET MORE AFFORDABLE BY A PROGRESSIVE INFRASTRUCTURE IDEA AT THIS WEBSITE:
https://newrepublic.com/article/148330/public-option-internet.”]


Crucially, DFP notes, these proposals are "popular across urban, suburban, and rural geographies"—a finding that runs counter to the common notion that a bold left-wing agenda would be rejected in regions like the Midwest. The policies were also viewed favorably across race and education lines.


Other policies DFP examined—such as a universal basic income and a 90 percent millionaire tax—were viewed less favorably across the board, but still attracted support from working class voters.


"A marginal tax of 90 percent on income over a million dollars (our version of a maximum income) had narrow support among people of color, but was opposed by whites," DFP found. "Analyzing income we see a similar trend: the universal basic income and universal basic wealth are most popular among low-income adults and least popular among higher income adults (even those who would not expect to see their taxes increase)."


Sean McElwee, co-founder of Data for Progress, noted on Twitter that "reparations, universal basic income, and 90 percent tax rates are more popular than the Republican healthcare plan. The reason one is on the agenda and the other is not is because one party will do whatever it takes to exert its ideological vision on the world."


In conclusion, DFP noted that "public opinion is inherently fluid" and that favorable attitudes among the American electorate is not sufficient to build lasting support for a progressive agenda.

"Turning these favorable impressions into durable support will require activists and politicians to put these issues on the national agenda and make a forceful case for them over time," DFP argued.



ABOUT “MEDIAN-CLASS”* -- AS YOU SUSPECTED, THIS IS INDEED A TERM I JUST CONCOCTED, BASED ON THE FACT THAT “MEDIAN” IS MOST PEOPLE’S IDEA OF “MIDDLE,” WHILE THAT ISN’T THE WAY ECONOMISTS AND MATHEMATICIANS SEE IT. POLITICIANS OF THE HIGHLY CLASS-AWARE TYPE ARE NOW CLAIMING THAT THEY WANT TO HELP THE “MIDDLE CLASS,” WHICH I TEND TO EQUATE WITH THE TRUE CENTER, OR THE MEDIAN, BUT NO, IT’S THE GROUP WHO ARE JUST UNDER THAT DELINEATED AS “UPPER CLASS,” I.E. THOSE WHOM THEY HAVE ALWAYS WANTED TO HELP ANYWAY.

THAT IS BECAUSE “HELPING THE POOR” IS EQUATED BY MANY AMERICANS WITH BEING A SOCIALIST OR “UNAMERICAN” IDEA, WHICH CAN BE THE KISS OF DEATH IN AMERICAN POLITICS. ON THE OTHER HAND, ADVOCATING GRABBING WOMEN IN A TOTALLY DISGUSTING WAY IS OKAY TO THEM. YET, JUST ASK THEM IF THEY WANT TO GET RID OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE, OR IF THEY ARE MORAL AND HONEST IN THEIR INCLINATIONS, EVEN MEDICAID, AND THEY WILL SAY NO, BECAUSE THAT WOULD HURT THEM. THEY AREN’T THAT IDEALISTIC IN THEIR RIGHTIST THINKING AS TO GIVE UP THEIR OWN PENSIONS.

SEE THE HELPFUL ARTICLE ON THE SUBJECT AT:
https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0912/which-income-class-are-you.aspx.

IT IS TELLING THAT ONLY BERNIE SANDERS AND OTHER ENLIGHTENED PROGRESSIVES REFER TO THE “WORKING CLASS” INSTEAD OF LOWER MIDDLE, WHICH IS MUCH MORE RESPECTFUL AND ACCURATE THAN LOWER MIDDLE CLASS. THAT’S BECAUSE SUCH A TERM VERGES RIGHT INTO “LOWER CLASS” IN THE PUBLIC CONSCIOUSNESS, AND NOBODY WANTS TO BE THERE. EMPATHY OR PITY ARE ANATHEMA IN THIS NATION OF COMPETITIVENESS. YOU JUST “DON’T GET NO RESPECT,” AT THAT POINT, AND HEAVEN KNOWS WE ALL WANT RESPECT. THAT FAMOUS QUOTATION IS FROM THE ROUTINES OF A FAIRLY FUNNY COMEDIAN NAMED RODNEY DANGERFIELD.

I USED THE WORDS “MEDIAN-CLASSED” BECAUSE MOST AMERICANS ARE NOT MIDDLE-CLASS BUT WORKING CLASS OR EVEN DESTITUTE. THAT’S WHERE THE HOMELESS COME FROM, MORE OFTEN THAN FROM BEING DRUG ADDICTED OR “BUMS.” AS A RESULT, CERTAIN OVERLY PROUD LOWER MIDDLE CLASS AMERICANS WHO WANT TO CONTINUE TO STRUT AROUND AND CROW, WILL VOTE FOR ONE OF AN INCREASING CROWD OF OFTEN VERBALLY VIOLENT MILITANT RIGHTISTS WHO PROCLAIM LOUDLY THE TRUMP SLOGANS LIKE MAGA AND WHITE POWER. THEY’RE CONVINCED THAT TRUMP WILL MAKE THEM WEALTHY, AND THAT IF IT WEREN’T FOR THOSE PEOPLE OF COLOR, WE WOULD HAVE A SAFER COUNTRY.

TOO MANY OF THE PRIMARILY MALE WHITE CONSERVATIVE POOR FIND MILITARISM AND RACISM EASIER TO EMBRACE THAN THEIR HIGHLY EMBARRASSING AND FRIGHTENING WHITE POVERTY OR NEAR-POVERTY. WHILE THAT’S UNDERSTANDABLE, GIVEN THE NATURE OF HUMANS, IT IS DANGEROUS TO THE NATION AND NOT IN MY VIEW ADMIRABLE AT ALL. THE FACT THAT MOST AMERICANS ARE NOT ACTUALLY PURELY “WHITE” ANYMORE, INFURIATES AND DRIVES THEM INTO THE ARMS OF DONALD TRUMP, WHO TELLS THE GOOD LIES THAT THEY WANT TO HEAR. YET, JUST ASK THEM WHAT THEY WOULD DO IF THEY SUDDENLY LOST THEIR JOB OR BECAME DISABLED. AS I USED TO HEAR IT, THEY’RE “ONE PAYCHECK AWAY” FROM LOSING THEIR USUALLY VERY “MODESTLY” PRICED HOME AND TENUOUS SOCIAL STATUS. IT IS MY PROBABLY VAIN BELIEF THAT IF WE COULD PUT EVERYONE ON A “GUARANTEED MINIMUM INCOME,” MOST OF THOSE PEOPLE WOULD COME AROUND TO GIVING UP ON THE HOSTILITY DOCTRINE, GO TO COLLEGE FREE OF CHARGE, GET A BETTER JOB, AND MOVE ON TO AN ATTITUDE OF COOPERATION AND CARING. IF HALF OF THEM WERE TO DO THAT, WE’D HAVE A MORE PEACEFUL AND PROSPEROUS COUNTRY. THAT’S WHY I HAVE FAITH IN THE BERNIE SANDERS WAY – BECAUSE IT’S THE RIGHT WAY.