The changing face of America’s veteran population–our lives in numbers-

-50GH.,B60

There were around 20.4 million U.S. veterans in 2016, according to data from the Department of Veterans Affairs, representing less than 10% of the total U.S. adult population.

Looking forward at the changing profile of US veterans—% of US vets by—

era of service–2016-wwII-4%, Korea-8%, Vietnam-33%, gulf-33%, other peacetime-23%

2045-vietnam-4%,Gulf-58%, post gulf-27%, other peacetime-

age–2016-<50-27%, 50-69-39%, 70+-34%

2045-<50-33%, 50-69-33%, 70+-34%

Race /ethnicity-  2016-non-hispanic-77%, hispanic-7%, blacks-12%, Asians-2%

2045-  ”         ”        -64%,       ”       -13%,   ”      -16%,         ” -3%

Gender                  2016-women-9%, men-91%

2045-    ”        -18%,  ”    -82%

Gulf War-era veterans now account for the largest share of all U.S. veterans, surpassing Vietnam-era veterans in 2016, according to Veterans Affairs’ 2016 population model estimates. As of last year, there were 6.8 million American veterans who served during the Vietnam era and 7.1 million who served in the Gulf War era. both eras.) There were also around 771,000 World War II veterans and 1.6 million who served during the Korean conflict, the VA estimates. About three-quarters (77%) of veterans in 2016 served during wartime and 23% only served during peacetime.

2The share of the U.S. population with military experience is declining. In 2016, 7% of U.S. adults were veterans, down from 18% in 1980, according to the Census Bureau.  Over the past half-century, the number of people on active duty has dropped significantly, from 3.5 million in 1968, during the draft era, to 1.3 million (or less than 1% of all U.S. adults) in today’s all-volunteer force. The military draft ended in 1973.

By 2045, the department estimates there will be around 12 million veterans, a roughly 40% decrease from current numbers. By that time, Gulf War-era veterans are projected to make up a majority of veterans, and most of those who served in the Vietnam era or earlier will have died.

3The demographic profile of veterans is expected to change in the next few decades. Currently, nine-in-ten veterans (91%) are men while 9% are women, according to the VA’s 2016 population model estimates. By 2045, the share of female veterans is expected to double to 18%. The number of female veterans is also projected to increase, from around 1.9 million in 2016 to 2.2 million in 2045. Male veterans, on the other hand, are projected to drop by almost half, from 18.5 million in 2016 to 9.8 million in 2045. Projections also indicate that the veteran population will become slightly younger by 2045, with 33% of veterans younger than 50 (compared with 27% in 2016), even as the overall U.S. population continues to age. The share of veterans ages 50 to 69 is expected to shrink from 39% to 33%, while the share of those 70 and older is predicted to be around a third of the total (34%) by 2045, similar to the current share.

Between 2016 and 2045, the share of veterans who are non-Hispanic white is expected to drop from 77% to 64%. The share of veterans who are Hispanic is expected to nearly double from 7% to 13%, while the share who are black is expected to increase from 12% to 16%.

Fewer members of Congress have prior military experience than in the past. As the share of Americans who are veterans has declined, so has the share of Congress members who have previously served in the military. In the current Congress, 20% of senators and 19% of representatives had prior military service, down drastically from just a few decades ago. The share of senators who are veterans reached a post-Korean War peak of 81% in 1975, while the share among House members peaked in 1967 at 75%. However, there are signs more veterans could run for office in the future.

The Department of Veterans Affairs receives a low favorability rating. While the public expresses favorable views of many federal agencies, the VA received the lowest rating among 10 agencies and departments in a Pew Research Center survey earlier this year. Roughly half of U.S. adults (49%) had a favorable view of the VA and 34% expressed an unfavorable view. As with all the agencies and departments in the survey, there were partisan differences. Republicans and Republican-leaning independents expressed lower favorability for the VA (40%) than Democrats and Democratic leaners (60%).

Americans continue to see veterans’ services as an important priority. In an April survey, a majority of people (75%) said that if they were making the federal budget, they would increase spending for veterans’ benefits and services – the highest share of all 14 program areas included in the survey, as well as the highest level of support for increased spending on veterans services since Pew Research Center first asked the question in 2001.

source-fact tank, bialik, kristen- pew., census bureau, va

Advertisements

from—George Roof, Chief Master Sergeant, USAF (Retired)

-14gh.,b37

Because I am a lifer in the military, I’ve seen the impact of a President more than many of you can imagine. I enlisted with LBJ and saw just what a Democrat clusterflock was all about.  I went to Vietnam and saw how we were constantly and incessantly bombarded with micro-management from Washington that got thousands of military people killed. I sometimes wonder if Ill get to heaven, but if I go to hell, I’m sure I’ll still be a few hundred floors above that bastard Robert McNamara, LB Johnson, John Kerry, Jane Fonda, and yes, even the “hero”‘ John McCain.

After Johnson abdicated rather than having his ass waxed, I lived through Nixon who was hawkish but allowed the generals (and there WERE a few real generals back then versus now) run the show.  Nixon was so out of touch that he never knew North Vietnam was about to surrender when the Paris Accord was presented.

Only God could help us after Gerald Ford was beaten by Jimmy “Peanuts” Carter who’d been funded by Saudi money.. The military was turned into Section 8 and even the Whitehouse suffered the austerity.

Then the light began to shine and Ronald Reagan swept into the fray..  He not only loved the country and the military, they loved him back.  Esprit d’corps was off the scale during his Presidency. The Liberals were slowly turning into socialists, however, and about this time all the draft dodgers of the 1960s who’d been given amnesty by Jimmy “Peanuts”, were turning out college graduates with degrees in socialism.

Bush 1, was an enigma from the CIA and though he never did much either way, he NEVER DID MUCH EITHER WAY.

Welcome to Bill Clinton.  Clinton spent most of his two terms wagging the dog and creating the “Oral” Office, sending a bomber to blow up Quaddafi’s tent and killing a goat or two, while allowing the UN to set up the infamous Black Hawk Down situation.  He made history by becoming only the second President to be impeached.

I actually felt sorry for Bush 2.  He was doomed to infamy from the start.  He thought most of America was still the rah rah patriots of WWII when they were “simply socialists” waiting to feed him to the sharks.

Then there came the Manchurian Candidate Obama with a faked (OK Democrats, lets say of questionable origin to assuage your PC brains) birth certificate, who’d gotten a free ride through college under a foreign student exemption, and whose college records and complete life history had been “sealed”  (We know more about Thomas Jefferson’s bastard children than we do about Obama, Michelle , OR their two faked kids.)  From his Inaugural address, he slandered America and within days had begun to encourage dissention of the races as well as slandering police who acted stupidly. That was mild to the crap that would come in doubling the National debt from what had been built by ALL THE PREVIOUS PRESIDENT’S COMBINED, feeding us bullshit about how Muslims built this country, and nationalizing American industries.  Fueled by George Soros money and using the Air Force fleet as his personal charters, he appointed malcontents and traitors into positions of authority. He trashed the Constitution by installing Czars (interesting he chose a title like that) to bypass Congressional authority. By that time, Congress was completely corrupt on both sides of the aisle.  No one had balls to impeach this charlatan Obama.

Mysteriously, the lone outspoken conservative Supreme Court Justice Scalia suddenly dies in his sleep at an Obama pals hunting lodge and the Supreme Court is evenly split. Finally, Congress shows some balls and rejects Obama’s Supreme Court Justice nomination.  The Libertards aren’t worried because the fix is in. Soros “has paid” demonstrators to cause turmoil at “all the Republican gatherings”.  Obama concedes that illegal aliens should vote as they wont be prosecuted, and Soros-manufactured voting machines are caught switching votes in certain precincts.  Hillary has cheated her way to the nomination and her lies are completely ignored by the brainwashed minions of sycophants who follow her.

But a shocking thing happened on the way to the forum.

Middle America had had enough and although the pollsters and the pipers tried to convince middle America not even to bother to vote, they were fed up with the denizens of the swamp.  It was time.  Florida was designated a swing state ignoring that all those old retirees living in St. Petersburg, and the fed up Cuban Americans of Miami weren’t interested in their platform. Ohio and Pennsylvania , where coal production was blacklisted and where Obama had ridiculed them for clinging to their Bibles and their guns, lay awaiting this supposed landslide Hillary vote … and creamed it

The Socialist world of the Democratic Party disintegrated.  An American who expressed unbridled love of country and respect for police, firemen, and military steamrolled across the heartland and the liberals realized their scheme was trashed.  A CONSTITUTIONALIST would be nominated to the Supreme Court and if the old hag Ginsburg who’d claimed to retire if Trump were elected would actually retire and leave, the Supreme Court would have a massive majority of CONSTITUTIONALISTS for the next 40-50 years.

Now, the same party who’d ridiculed Trump on his comments about the election being rigged, started screaming that the election “was rigged”. They even advocated having the election repeated.  They created mobs that burned and pillaged, stopped traffic, threatened murder, battery and rape of Trump supporters, and became the anarchists that the socialist dream thrives upon.  They ran like castrated pigs for safe zones and use diaper pins as their national symbol.

This is exactly what happens when political correctness takes over and participation trophies are awarded to everyone.  They can’t conceive how disgusting and subservient they have become. Donald Trump may NOT be the best person for the job, but he’s such a welcome respite from the candy-assed whimps who’ve been running the swamp that its refreshing to see. At the very least, Donald Trump derailed the Socialist train and bought us precious time.  If he only does half of what he’s promised, we’ll still be legions ahead of where Obama had dragged us. Already countries who held us in contempt are lining up to be found in the favor of America.

Donald Trump has done more in his short time in the public eye … he prevented Hillary Clinton from becoming president!

So for you liberal lurkers and you half-assed fence-sitters, Tough Shit!  You had your big hurrah and now your party is over.  For you staunch Republicans in office, don’t gloat so much yourselves. You’ve been put on notice by the American people that were fed up with ALL YOU BASTARDS and if you don’t start putting America first, you do so at your own peril.You might want to buy a copy of George McGoverns autobiography and see how shocking and humbling it can be for a professional politician to have to try to find legitimate work once he falls from grace.

This election was pure, unadulterated AMERICAN.  Hillary got beat and AMERICA WON THE ELECTION.  You can claim he’s not your President all you want, but unless you “forfeit” your American citizenship …. YES, HE IS YOUR PRESIDENT!!!!

 

source-master sergeant george roof

 

 

Sharia law enthusiast to receive prestigious award 11/28/2017

–5ih.,b6

A new report claims that an anti-Trump leftist – Linda Sarsour, who once called for “jihad” against the president, and has pushed for Sharia law in the United States – will be Time Magazine’s “Person of the Year.”

Jack Engelhard, who is familiar with Time’s editors, claims in an article for Israel National News that Sarsour is the frontrunner for the coveted spot, describing her as Time’s “most likely pick to represent 2017.”

Engelhard warned that, if the editors choose Sarsour, the magazine “will ascribe to her, this so-called Palestinian American, all the glories of the women’s movement, whatever that is anymore. But they do march for ‘equality,’ of the sort we find in certain Islamic countries where all women are equally put to death for disobedience.”

Engelhard, who also slammed Sarsour for being anti-Semitic, claimed that Time’s likely pick was part of a concentrated effort among those in the mainstream media who want to see “America re-cast in the image of Linda Sarsour.”

Sarsour famously co-founded the “Women’s March” that protested President Trump the day after his inauguration. Since her early success, she’s continued to court controversy by calling for “jihad” against Trump and for her ties to the terrorist group Hamas.

source-strelivo, remington aan- sarsour, linda-

Doomsday will not follow repeal of obamacare’s individual mandate

-23IH.,B13.14

Congressional repeal of Obamacare’s individual insurance mandate penalty is not tantamount to pressing the button on the doomsday machine. Critics of the Senate tax bill say repeal of the mandate penalty to buy Obamacare coverage will result in a spike in premiums, an increase in the numbers of the uninsured, and a “collapse” of the health insurance markets. In other words, the individual mandate is the “glue” that holds Obamacare together.

The assumption: Millions of Americans will buy Obamacare coverage—regardless of whether they want it or like it—because the government forces them to do it, and penalizes them if they do not.

Do we have compelling evidence that this is, in fact, the case? No. Do we have evidence that the mandate is not the “glue” holding everything together? Sure do. No human behavior is inevitable, of course. That is why, in the case of the individual mandate, the certitude of its supporters is unwarranted. If the mandate were such a powerful force in reducing the numbers of the uninsured, restraining premium growth, and contributing to a robust expansion of choice and competition in the health insurance markets, then almost four years of empirical evidence would verify that proposition. It does not.

Consider coverage. In its November assessment, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that repeal of the individual mandate would result in 10 million fewer insured Americans over the next 10 years, including 5 million persons who are getting “free” care through Medicaid. Accessing even “free” goods and services requires federal coercion, apparently in the uniquely weird world of federal health policy. Since 2010, as noted by the White House and others, the Congressional Budget Office’s coverage projections—upon which future coverage reductions are based—have not only been wrong, but in many cases, spectacularly wrong.

Curiously, in its assessment, the Congressional Budget Office reports that the agency is now revising its methodology, and says the “estimated effects on the budget and health insurance coverage would probably be smaller than the numbers reported in this document.”

That is progress. The crucial policy question is this: Does the law’s individual mandate—and its penalties—drive coverage increases? Examining coverage data from 2012 through 2014, researchers writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, including professor Jonathan Gruber, observed:

When we assessed the mandate’s detailed provisions, which include income-based penalties for lacking coverage and various specific exemptions and penalties, we did not find that the overall coverage rates responded to these aspects of the law. Gruber and his colleagues further noted that the tax penalties in place in 2014 ($95, or 1 percent of household income) were “modest” and that with the imposition of the 2016 penalties ($695, or 2.5 percent of household income), “the mandate may play a larger role over time.”

Well, no. When the 2017 option is, say, paying $695 or an average monthly premium of $393 combined with an average deductible of $4,328, the mandate is no more powerful as an economic incentive today than it was in 2014, when Gruber rendered his assessment. Meanwhile, despite the individual mandate, coverage levels have not only fallen dramatically below the Congressional Budget Office’s earlier projections, but they also appear to be levelling off.

Independent analyses, based on raw insurance data, show a continuing poor performance in private insurance enrollment. Over the 2014-2016 period, public and private enrollment grew by 15.7 million persons, according to a Heritage Foundation analysis, but 89 percent of that growth was attributable to Medicaid and Child Health Insurance Program enrollment. Between 2014 and 2016, there was a significant drop in the number of “unsubsidized” persons in the individual market from 11.1 million to 9.4 million.

According to a recent report in The New York Times, in 2015, 6.7 million tax filers (representing themselves or their families) simply paid the mandate penalty rather than buy the Obamacare coverage, and over 12 million tax filers claimed an exemption from the mandate penalty.

In 2016 alone, individual market enrollment actually declined by 583,000. The mandate, whatever else it is accomplishing, is not preventing the decline. Consider also premiums. When Congress enacted Obamacare, the law’s supporters believed the individual mandate would compel dramatic participation in the markets, and the influx of new enrollees would stabilize premium growth. Beginning in 2014, the first year of the law’s full implementation, consumers in the individual markets, with very few exceptions, were stunned by rate shocks. In 11 states, for young 27-year-olds, premiums more than doubled. And the same was true for older enrollees, aged 50, in 13 states.

Surveying the uninsured that year, Bankrate.com found that one-third of the uninsured planned to remain uninsured, and 41 percent of those responding claimed the Obamacare coverage was “too expensive.”

The big “no shows,” from the beginning, were the younger and healthier enrollees that were supposed to enroll in the exchanges and spread the risk, and therefore restrain or even reduce the premium costs. Obama administration officials initially expected 40 percent of their initial enrollment to be comprised of persons 18 to 34.

Never happened.

In 2015 and 2016, premiums continued to rise—a direct contradiction of President Barack Obama’s silly promise that the law’s enactment would mean that “typical” families would see a $2,500 reduction in their premiums. In 2017, once again, Americans trapped in the Obamacare markets faced a 25 percent increase in the premium costs of both the standard and most popular plans in the exchanges. For 2018, based on the preliminary data, analysts with Avalere are projecting a 34 percent increase in the standard plans.

The big premium picture is depressing. Since 2013, Obamacare’s premiums for single coverage have averaged an increase of 99 percent, while family premiums have increased 140 percent. Whatever impact the mandate is having on the insurance markets, it is not restraining premium growth The anticipated “market collapse” has, in fact, already happened, and the individual mandate did not prevent it. In 2013, there were 395 insurers in the individual markets. That number declined to 307 in 2015, and down to 218 in 2017.

Preliminary data indicates that insurer participation will fall further down to just 181 in 2018. The Obamacare exchanges were never real “markets” in the first place, but federally supervised regulatory agencies where private coverage is “private” in name only.

The individual mandate with its penalties is not, in fact, the “glue” that is holding Obamacare together. It never was. The lifeblood of the law is the generous taxpayer insurance subsidies, which attract and maintain the historically sluggish enrollment. The muscle and bone of Obamacare is the massive federal regulatory regime that governs the state health insurance markets.

The state exchanges have not blossomed into robust insurance markets, rich in choice and competition, but have declined to the point that they are, in effect, stagnant, heavily subsidized federal risk pools, disproportionately populated by the poor and the sick. While Obamacare has reduced cost shifting to hospital emergency departments through exchange subsidies and Medicaid expansion, the levels of private insurance enrollment that Obamacare’s defenders anticipated did not occur.

The vast majority of exchange enrollees getting taxpayer subsidies will continue to get the subsidies and retain their coverage, regardless of the mandate. But the danger for those middle-class Americans who don’t get subsidies is that they won’t be able to continue to afford coverage, regardless of the mandate. The job of Congress is not to maintain a monumental policy failure. Rather, Congress needs to strike out in a new direction and make policy changes that will allow state health insurance markets to flourish, and create conditions that will encourage millions of Americans to purchase coverage because they value that coverage—not because the IRS threatens them with penalties.

source-moffit, robert- the daily signal-cbo-journal of medicine- nyt-bankrate.com-

 

Here are the top 10 provisions in the senate tax reform bill

:-16gH.,b32

#1 — Lowers tax rates for hard-working Americans.

#2 — Nearly doubles the standard deduction for individuals and married couples.

#3 — Eliminates the “marriage penalty” that causes married couples to pay more in taxes than unmarried.

#4 — Doubles the child tax credit to $2,000 per child.

#5 — Preseves the adoption tax credit and allows parents to save for eduction of children during pregnancy.

#6 — Repeals the punitive alternative minimum tax.

#7 — Greatly reduces the Death Tax.

#8 — Lowers the corporate tax rate to 20%, making America competitive with the world again.

#9 — Reduces the tax burden on America’s small businesses by reducing taxes on “pass through”‘ income and allowing more deductions for business expenses.

#10 — Fixes punitive double taxation on overseas income to bring investment capital back to America.

(and one bonus….)

#11 — Eliminates the ObamaCare Mandate tax that hits lower to middle income families the most.
The average family of four will save over $1,000 in taxes in the first year of implementation, and businesses will be set free to grow.
SOURCE=GRASSFIRE

DACA is not what the democrats say it is. here are the facts.-

-37kH.,b40-the daily signal–Hans von Spakovsky December 04, 2017

Some members of Congress are threatening to block government funding unless Congress provides amnesty to so-called Dreamers—the illegal aliens included in President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which President Donald Trump is ending.

Responsible members of Congress should not give in.

Such an effort would be fundamentally flawed and would only encourage even more illegal immigration—just as the 1986 amnesty in the Immigration Reform and Control Act did.

Democrats portray the DACA program as only benefitting those who were a few years old when they came to the U.S. illegally, leaving them unable to speak their native language and ignorant of their countries’ cultural norms. Therefore, the reasoning goes, it would be a hardship to return them to the countries where they were born. Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can’t be done alone. Find out more >>

Obama himself gave this rationale when he said DACA beneficiaries were “brought to this country by their parents” as infants and face “deportation to a country that [they] know nothing about, with a language” they don’t even speak. While this may be true of a small portion of the DACA population, it certainly is not true of all of the aliens who received administrative amnesty. In fact, illegal aliens were eligible as long as they came to the U.S. before their 16th birthday and were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012.

DACA also required that beneficiaries enroll in school, graduate from high school, obtain a GED certificate, or receive an honorable discharge from the military; have no conviction for a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more other misdemeanors; and not pose a threat to national security or public safety.

However, the Obama administration appeared to routinely waive the education (or its equivalent) requirement as long as the illegal alien was enrolled in some kind of program. Only 49 percent of DACA beneficiaries have a high school education—despite the fact that a majority of them are adults.

The Myths Surrounding the Program: How thorough was Homeland Security vetting? In February 2017, after the arrest of a DACA beneficiary for gang membership, the Department of Homeland Security admitted that at least 1,500 DACA beneficiaries had their eligibility terminated “due to a criminal conviction, gang affiliation, or a criminal conviction related to gang affiliation.”

By August 2017, that number had surged to 2,139. In fact, based on documents obtained by Judicial Watch, it is apparent that the Obama administration used a “lean and light” system of background checks in which only a few, randomly selected DACA applicants were ever actually vetted.

Additionally, DACA only excluded individuals for convictions. Thus, even if a Homeland Security background investigation—which apparently was almost never done—produced substantial evidence that an illegal alien might have committed multiple crimes, the alien would still be eligible for DACA unless Homeland Security referred the violation to state or federal prosecutors and the alien was convicted.

DACA had no requirement of English fluency either. In fact, the original application requested applicants to answer whether the form had been “read” to the alien by a translator “in a language in which [the applicant is] fluent.” The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that “perhaps 24 percent of the DACA-eligible population fall into the functionally illiterate category and another 46 percent have only ‘basic’ English ability.”

This is a far cry from the image of DACA beneficiaries as all children who don’t speak the language of—and know nothing about the culture of—their native countries.

In fact, it seems rather that a significant percentage of DACA beneficiaries may have serious limitations in their education, experience, and English fluency that negatively affected their ability to function in American society. Providing amnesty to low-skilled, low-educated aliens with marginal English language ability would impose large fiscal costs on American taxpayers resulting from increased government payouts and benefits, and would be unfair to legal immigrants who obeyed the law to come here.

Any congressional amnesty bill providing citizenship for DACA beneficiaries could significantly increase the number of illegal aliens who will benefit unless Congress amends the sponsorship rules under federal immigration law. Providing lawful status to millions of so-called “Dreamers” will allow the extended families of those aliens to profit from illegal conduct. The U.S. accepts about a million legal immigrants every year. According to a recent study, of the 33 million legal immigrants admitted over the last 35 years, about 61 percent were chain migration immigrants.

The average immigrant has sponsored 3.45 additional immigrants, but for DACA beneficiaries, that number is likely to be much higher. This is because, according to an analysis by the Department of Homeland Security, 76 percent of the DACA beneficiaries were from Mexico. Mexican immigrants sponsor an average of 6.38 additional legal immigrants—the highest rate of any nationality for chain migration.

Providing amnesty would simply attract even more illegal immigration and would not solve the myriad of enforcement problems we have along our borders and in the interior of the country. Congress should concentrate on giving the federal government (with the assistance and help of state and local governments) the resources to enforce existing immigration laws to reduce the illegal alien population in the U.S. and stem entry into the country.

Until those goals are accomplished, it is premature to even consider any DACA-type bill.

source-the daily signal, SPAKOVSKY, HANS VON-

 

Hillary Clinton personally overturned visa ban for islamist figure now accused of rape–

47jH.,b43

SOURCE–poole, patrick- pl media- nyt-hillary-,-the nation-

European Islamist scion Tariq Ramadan was banned from the U.S. by the Bush administration in February 2004 for his financial support of a charity that funded terrorist groups. In January 2010, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton overturned that ban. Clinton personally approved a visa for the controversial grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Now, Tariq Ramadan is facing multiple accusations of rape and sexual assault of minors. Hillary Clinton’s visa for Tariq Ramadan was seen as part of the new Obama administration policy of embracing more hardcore Islamists. Six years after using the Patriot Act to revoke the visa of a prominent Muslim academic, the United States State Department reversed itself and said Wednesday that it would no longer bar the scholar from entering the United States.

The decision came in the form of an order signed by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. It paves the way for the scholar, Prof. Tariq Ramadan, to apply for a new visa free of the authorities’ former accusation that he had contributed money to a charity connected to terrorism.