Ketanji Brown Jackson Made 'Mathematically Absurd Claim

1. 84

   Sharlee01posted 2 years ago

   
   Ketanji Brown Jackson made 'mathematically absurd claim' on Black newborns: WSJ op-ed
   Supreme Court Justice argued affirmative action 'saves lives'
   
   "Even Supreme Court justices are known to be gullible. In a dissent from last week’s ruling against racial preferences in college admissions, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson enumerated purported benefits of “diversity” in education. “It saves lives,” she asserts. “For high-risk Black newborns, having a Black physician more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live.”
   
   A moment’s thought should be enough to realize that this claim is wildly implausible. Imagine if 40% of black newborns died—thousands of dead infants every week. But even so, that’s a 60% survival rate, which is mathematically impossible to double. And the actual survival rate is over 99%.
   
   How could Justice Jackson make such an innumerate mistake? A footnote cites a friend-of-the-court brief by the Association of American Medical Colleges, which makes the same claim in almost identical language. It, in turn, refers to a 2020 study whose lead author is Brad Greenwood, a professor at the George Mason University School of Business.
   The study makes no such claims. It examines mortality rates in Florida newborns between 1992 and 2015 and shows a 0.13% to 0.2% improvement in survival rates for black newborns with black pediatricians (though no statistically significant improvement for black obstetricians).
   
   The AAMC brief either misunderstood the paper or invented the statistic. (It isn’t saved by the adjective “high-risk,” which doesn’t appear and isn’t measured in Greenwood’s paper.)
   Even the much more modest Greenwood result—which amounts to a difference of fewer than 10 Florida newborns a year—is flawed. It uses linear regression, appropriate for modeling continuous normally distributed variables like height or LSAT scores but not for categorical low-probability events like “newborn death.” The proper methodology would be a logistic model. The authors did one, hidden deep in an appendix rather than the body of the paper.
   
   There, the most highly specified model still shows an improvement in black newborn survival. But if you know how to read the numbers—the authors don’t say it—it also shows black doctors with a statistically significant higher mortality rate for white newborns, and a higher mortality rate overall, all else being equal.
   
   So we have a Supreme Court justice parroting a mathematically absurd claim coming from an interested party’s mischaracterization of a flawed study. Her opinion then urges “all of us” to “do what evidence and experts tell us is required to level the playing field and march forward together.” Instead we should watch where we’re going."
   https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-ja … y-4115ff62
   https://archive.ph/QzWMe#selection-293.0-347.334
   
   So, does her remarks make any sense to you at all? It seems to lack the common sense of two and owe make four. Does she do her homework -  at all?
   
   Thoughts ---

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      In my ceaseless war against America's rightwing,  I need all of the advocates on my side of the ideological divide to be at the top of their game.
      
      Justice Jackson disappoints me in this instance, taking a role of social crusader, when these folks are to avoid blatant involvement in politics. She is new and she should be careful to avoid a lot of unnecessary scrutiny or otherwise give the rightwinger any grounds to attack a more refined progressive stance on things.
      
      I have seen many articles speaking of how white obstetricians bring their biases into their practices regarding stereotypical assumptions about blacks folks in general and black patients in particular resulting in their withholding medications and treatment. But, Justice Jackson's statements may well be considered an exaggeration of the reality of that tendency.
      
      I have to dress her down for it.

      replyreport
      1. 84

         Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

         Actually, her words were nonsensical. Her equation was outrageous, as the author stated --- a moment’s thought should be enough to realize that this claim is wildly implausible.   Imagine if 40% of black newborns died—thousands of dead infants every week.   This mindset shows little rudimentary common sense.
         
         This article has nothing to do with obstetricians.  I am sure black and white obstetricians would cringe at such a statement.
         
         "She is new and she should be careful to avoid a lot of unnecessary scrutiny or otherwise give the rightwinger any grounds to attack a more refined progressive stance on things."
         
         She is a Supreme Court Justice, and all he decisions will be scrutinized. Just as the conservative Justices are. Your comment seems topsy-turvy.
         
         Her statement was hyperbolic and showed a true bias. 
         Not cool, in my view, she single handle insulted the entire practice of obstetrics and gynecology. 
         
         Her decisions need to be assessed very carefully. Nothing to do with race, all to do with does she have enough common sense to judge.

         replyreport
         1. 56

            AlexWittposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            "Her equation was outrageous,"
            
            I do not find any equation in her opinion. The equation is an extrapolation of the justices words by the article's author.

            replyreport
   2. 100

      DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      She is basing her comments on this article:
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7474610/
      
      Unfortunately, it is known by anyone who reads research papers that those that have a political bias are going to skew the facts. This works on both sides of political issues, gun control, etc. This is also a big problem in nutrition articles as you will read all sorts of studies funded by Coca-cola and other sugar hucksters that will tell you that sugar is not bad. When the funding is independent the results are very different.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

         Thanks for providing this, I could not find it and it supports her statements as not being so "far fetched" after all.
         
         This is the kind of stuff I should be hearing about more from entities within our Executive and Legislative Branches.
         
         So, Sharlee, maybe her math was not so far from the mark?

         replyreport
      2. 84

         Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

         My problem is that she could feel or believe, and actually share what she thinks -- 40% of black newborns died—thousands of dead infants every week. 
         
         This is purely illogical.  It makes me truely wonder about this Judges level of common sense. No really...

         replyreport
   3. 72

      Kathleen Cochranposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      She's a Supreme Court Justice - not an at-home blogger. I suspect she does more research that the rest of us.
      
      https://www.marchofdimes.org/peristats/ … &obj=1

      replyreport
      1. 84

         Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

         Your link provides very good information. Yet my OP was much more about a Supreme Court justice making a very non-sensible statement. As the author very well proved.
         
         'So we have a Supreme Court justice parroting a mathematically absurd claim coming from an interested party’s mischaracterization."
         
         Could not imagine the national uproar if we were losing
         40% of black newborns. — thousands of dead black infants every
         week. 
         
         I don't think the author argues that there is a difference in mortality rate among races. he points out the absurd statement the judge provided.
         
         One can clearly study the many problems of immortality rates between races, and it is very obvious many exist, as your link points out.
         
         The judge's comment (In my view) was odd and made little to no sense.

         replyreport
         1. 72

            Kathleen Cochranposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            No doubt your perspectives are different.

            replyreport
            1. 84

               Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

               My perspective is ---  I would realize that the stat the judge used, would have  40% of black newborns die—thousands of dead infants every week.
               
               The very point of this thread, and I will be at this point to be blunt --- that statement was nonsensical, and I must wonder about this woman's common sense.   I feel the OP article was very clear in context.
               
               I can see some have diverted, and that's fine with me. But the fact this judge made this non-sensible statement concerns me. 
               
               Although It is clear and undeniable, the people of color mortality rate is poor. But my thread was just not going there. That is a subject that is so intricate, and vast, it deserves a thread of its own. This is a sad unfortunate problem that should be well addressed.

               replyreport
               1. 100

                  DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  That claim is false since no babies of any race, in any country, die at such high numbers. Do you have her making that claim? If she said that black babies die at 40% (twice the rate of white babies), that would mean white babies also die at 20%, which is ludicrous. (I could not read the WSJ article as it is behind a paywall.)
                  
                  I am certainly not defeding this woman. She would not even say what a woman was when asked during her Senate confirmation, which is ridiculous. However, in this case, if she tried to defend her anti-Asian racism by citing the fact that black babies die more often than white babies she is correct.

                  replyreport
                  1. 84

                     Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                     Yes, I posted a second link that offers the WSJ article.
                     https://archive.ph/QzWMe#selection-293.265-293.394
                     
                     The statement seemed nonsensical to me. The article in no respect claims we don't have a problem with infant mortality in races of color.
                     
                     Just concentrated on the Judges statement  ---   "Ketanji Brown Jackson made 'mathematically absurd claim' on Black newborns:"

                     replyreport
                     1. 100

                        DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                        Oh, I did read that second link. This is the article:
                        " In a dissent from last week’s ruling against racial preferences in college admissions, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson enumerated purported benefits of “diversity” in education. “It saves lives,” she asserts. “For high-risk Black newborns, having a Black physician more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live.”
                        A moment’s thought should be enough to realize that this claim is wildly implausible. Imagine if 40% of black newborns died—thousands of dead infants every week. But even so, that’s a 60% survival rate, which is mathematically impossible to double. And the actual survival rate is over 99%."
                        So I do not see anything about her saying 40%.

                        replyreport
                        1. 84

                           Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                           No, the author does not quote her as saying that -- he only shares she should have been more realistic when considering the math.  Her statement jumped out at him as mathematically absurd.
                           
                           It did to me too.  It is clear some here do see the context differently.  I guess my analytical side saw what the author of the article saw.

                           replyreport
                           1. 100

                              DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                              Mine did not. If only 2 black babies die out of every 100,000 born, but only 1 white baby out of 100,000 dies, that rate of death of black babies is twice as much as white babies. (I do not have the exact numbers, am just making a point.)
                              
                              Even in villages of sub-Saharan Africa there are not 40,000 deaths for every 100,000 children born, so I think that writer was using wildly implausible numbers.

                              replyreport
                              1. 69

                                 IslandBitesposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                                 Finally! Like I said, simple logic.

                                 replyreport
                              2. 84

                                 Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                                 I believe she was talking about the mortality rate in the US.  To recap what the author shared ---
                                 
                                 "Even Supreme Court justices are known to be gullible. In a dissent from last week’s ruling against racial preferences in college admissions, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson enumerated purported benefits of “diversity” in education. “It saves lives,” she asserts. “For high-risk Black newborns, having a Black physician more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live.”
                                 
                                 A moment’s thought should be enough to realize that this claim is wildly implausible. Imagine if 40% of black newborns died—thousands of dead infants every week. But even so, that’s a 60% survival rate, which is mathematically impossible to double. And the actual survival rate is over 99%."
                                 
                                 Where do you find his logic flawed in regard to his math?
                                 
                                 
                                 Here is a full quote from Judge Jackson ---  Did will hopefully give more context.
                                 
                                 "Jackson argued in her dissent that diversity “saves lives” and that it was essential for “marginalized communities.”
                                 
                                 “It saves lives. For marginalized communities in North Carolina, it is critically important that UNC and other area institutions produce highly educated professionals of color. Research shows that Black physicians are more likely to accurately assess Black patients’ pain tolerance and treat them accordingly (including, for example, prescribing them appropriate amounts of pain medication). For high-risk Black newborns, having a Black physician more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live, and not die,” :
                                 
                                 I certainly agreed the mortality rates are not good for people of color. However, the rates are concluded after one year of life. It gets very tricky to pinpoint the causes of death, there are many.  However, please note stats of LIVE births ---  Babies that are born alive, and sent home.
                                 
                                 Stats show --   The U.S. perinatal mortality rate was essentially unchanged from 2014 through 2016 (6.00 perinatal deaths per 1,000 births and late fetal deaths in 2016).
                                 
                                 And yes, black babies account for 2 times more than white at live birth out of the 6 perinatal deaths per 1000.     https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db316.htm
                                 
                                 It appears that real problems appear to occur in the first year of life. Yes, this is alarming, the stats show these deaths are among more people of color.
                                 
                                 However, can anyone really predict in a given year the number of babies that will die?
                                 
                                 " For high-risk Black newborns, having a Black physician more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live, and not die,”
                                 
                                 In my view --- no one can predict for one thing a physician's ability to save a life, black or white... and no one can predict the number of black babies that would survive due to just having a physician of color.  Really?
                                 
                                 I am sticking with my first impression -- she showed a great bias, and her statement was so nonsensical, in regards to her lack of mathematics.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 100

                                    DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                                    It wasnt the math so much as it was coming up with that 40%. Why? Where did it come from?
                                    
                                    I understand that she was talking about the US. I was using subSaharan Africa as an example because even there black babies do not die in those kind of numbers.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 56

                                       AlexWittposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                                       The 40% was inserted by the author of The Wall Street journal article. It looks to be his own mathematical extrapolation.  It's a fact that the infant mortality rate for African Americans is double that of whites. There seem to be a multitude of factors that contribute to those statistics. We also have some solid research that shows us the race of the doctor can have a positive impact on that baby's survival. I don't feel like Justice Jackson made any outrageous statements.

                                       report
                                       1. 100

                                          DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                                          I did not see any outrageous statements from her either.

                                          report
                                    2. 84

                                       Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                                       In the article, author Ted Frank is sharing his opinion, he is clearly criticizing Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's claim that having a Black physician more than doubles the likelihood of survival for high-risk Black newborns.
                                       
                                       He goes on to argue that the claim is mathematically implausible. I totally understand his calculations. So, let me explain what I see in regard to the math.
                                       
                                       The author calculates the SURVIVAL rate of Black newborns as OVER 99% and questions how it is possible to double a survival rate that is already so high. The argument presented is that even if the survival rate were as low as 60%, doubling it would result in a survival rate of 120%, which is mathematically impossible.
                                       
                                       
                                       I think it is important to read the entire article. the author's view was agreed with  ---  "How could Justice Jackson make such an innumerate mistake? A footnote cites a friend-of-the-court brief by the Association of American Medical Colleges, which makes the same claim in almost identical language. "
                                       
                                       I will leave it there.
                                       
                                       Hey, I appreciated all the views shared.

                                       report
                                       1. 100

                                          DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                                          That is not how statistics are calculated. The WSJ author does not seem to understand that.

                                          report
                                          1. 84

                                             Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                                             I will leave it there. He certainly was not using the mortality rate which is calculated after i year of life. He was just considering who lives at birth.

                                             report
   4. 75

      tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I had to do some poking about first, which is what I always do with something I am unfamiliar with. After that I got some of our media in a sense were not able to see the forest because of the trees. However, that is just me.
      
      Yes, Jackson, did make a leap in a sense to imply affirmative action would assure more black doctors lessening black newborn/infant deaths therefore should still be in affect. One would have to do a study to discover that probability or use reasoning based on knowledge whatever that is. Yet, in our times, there will be biases. That is what I feel Jackson did.
      
      But, what is the forest? The forest to me is that, yes, black newborn/infant death is lessened with black doctors. First, there is significant problem/challenge with that along with why are the results different for black doctors vs. white? What is sought is the solution. More black doctors is just one.
      
      For additional background from HHS.gov, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Minority Health:
      
      How Does Infant Mortality Affect African American Populations?
      
      **** Non-Hispanic blacks/African Americans have 2.4 times the infant mortality rate as non-Hispanic whites.
      **** Non-Hispanic black/African American infants are almost four times as likely to die from complications related to low birthweight as compared to non-Hispanic white infants.
      **** Non-Hispanic black/African American infants had 2.9 times the sudden infant death syndrome mortality rate as non-Hispanic whites, in 2020.
      **** In 2020, non-Hispanic black/African American mothers were twice as likely to receive late or no prenatal care as compared to non-Hispanic white mothers.
      
      I discovered quite a few articles and a couple of studies about black newborn/infant mortality and two studies. Here is one article from University of Minnesota, School of Public Health:
      
      https://www.sph.umn.edu/news/black-newb … k-doctors/
      
      From that article the study shares:
      
      The study team, including researchers at Harvard University and George Mason University, examined 1.8 million hospital births in the state of Florida between 1992 and 2015 and found:
      
      ** when Black newborns are cared for by Black physicians as opposed to white physicians, their in-hospital death rate is a third lower;
      ** these effects manifest more strongly in more complicated cases and when hospitals deliver more Black newborns;
      ** the size of this mortality rate reduction would correspond to preventing the in-hospital deaths of about 1,400 Black newborns nationally each year.

      replyreport
      1. 84

         Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

         Thank s for offering this well-researched comment.
         
         So, I must ask --- the OP was virtually about the judge's comment. I am a nurse, and in my view, it is more than true that we have a true problem when it comes to racial mortality rates in the US. A subject that deserves a thread of its own.
         
         What was your opinion in regard to what the judge's statement projected ---.  40% of black newborns died—thousands of dead infants every week.?
         
         Is this a logical statement or does it appear to be void of common sense?
         
         Would such numbers not give one pause to be sure they had their figures straight at best?
         
         In my view, her statement lacked all common sense. Her comment is not what I have come to expect from A Supreme Court Judge.

         replyreport
         1. 75

            tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Particular to the that logically fallacious conclusion, yes she was way off base. From the last five or so years I see many public figures more specific to politicians doing it. Then, the media comes in with fact checkers and researchers doing there thing to disprove them and publish a ridiculing article on that particular 'tree'. That's the name of the game.
            
            That happened a lot with Trump. His 'trees' would be many times way off base, yet the forest was definitely apparent when viewed across the meadow on a hill. And, you didn't need binoculars.

            replyreport
            1. 84

               Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

               Yes, this did happen frequently with Trump, (should have put that at the bottom of the OP. Sort of saved some energy.
               
               So are you saying this is ok? We just need to spend hours fact-checking statements that seem not to make common sense, and then just work like hell to in any respect make a given statement make sense?  Seems we might become a very befuddled society.
               
               Or are we already at that point?
               
               Hopefully, this does not revert to another Trump thread. But, that is a good piece to play in this game.
               
               For me, I like some form of clarity from those that represent my government. Not much for word games.

               replyreport
               1. 75

                  tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  "For me, I like some form of clarity from those that represent my government. Not much for word games."
                  
                  C'mon Shar, you are an 'Astute Logician'. Just kidding about.
                  
                  "So you are saying this is ok?" Not really.
                  
                  "Seems we might become a very befuddled society."
                  
                  The majority aren't befuddled about politics because they are a team member rah-rah No matter how they got there. Now, about information that is a different story.

                  replyreport
                  1. 84

                     Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                     Yes, agree -- I do appreciate your info on infant mortality. I love how you delve deep into any subject you tackle.

                     replyreport
                     1. 75

                        tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                        Thanks! As said earlier her reasoning that affirmative action would lead to more black doctors leading to lessening black newborn/infant deaths has logic to it, however it is not a practical solution as I see it, thus does not support affirmative action remaining. But, there is a problem seeking a solution set.
                        
                        With her statement being off the wall with infant deaths leads me to give her an A- for effort and a C- for reviewing and editing content.

                        replyreport
                        1. 84

                           Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                           " As said earlier her reasoning that affirmative action would lead to more black doctors leading to lessening black newborn/infant deaths has logic to it,"
                           
                           Not so sure of that --- I feel the best of the best need to be considered when it comes to Med-school. Best qualities in my book.
                           
                           But yes it would be wonderful, and help with the problems that plague black mortality rates if more black Docs' were available. But I feel this field should look at solely the best qualified. Yes and try to consider a quota among those that are equally qualified.

                           replyreport
                           1. 75

                              tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                              Okay . . .

                              replyreport
      2. 72

         Kathleen Cochranposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         tsmog: Great research.

         replyreport
2. 69

   IslandBitesposted 2 years ago

   I think this is a case of another (maybe uninformed, quite possible bias) person that didnt understand what she said. Just like with Biden/african train.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, maybe  --- However, all of us don't like having the need to construct context, due to some individuals not being able to make clear sentences or sentences that are in any respect logical.
      
      Fun game, but in the end, one is just left in the dark as to what was said.
      
      I think the author of the WSJ article put it best ---   "A moment’s thought should be enough to realize that this claim is wildly implausible. Imagine if 40% of black newborns died—thousands of dead infants every week. "
      
      Yes, Trump did and does the same thing...  Save you a bit of time.

      replyreport
      1. 69

         IslandBitesposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         Funny. I remember when you used to swear by the need of context. Now you dont like it. OK.
         
         In this case, like the Biden case, it is not even a matter of context, but simple logic.
         
         But have fun!

         replyreport
         1. 84

            Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Yes very much so --- it's all about logic.
            
            I think the author of the WSJ article put it best ---   "A moment’s thought should be enough to realize that this claim is wildly implausible. Imagine if 40% of black newborns died—thousands of dead infants every week. "
            
            I am with the author of the article on this one. The judge showed no logic at all. 
            
            Not meant to be fun, but meant to wake American's up to a statement made by a woman that sits on the SCOTUS.

            replyreport
3. 72

   Kathleen Cochranposted 2 years ago

   "My perspective is ---  --- that statement was nonsensical, and I must wonder about this woman's common sense."
   
   My perspective is I'll take the statement of a supreme court justice over an at-home blogger.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Well, that is your prerogative. I question it, and that's mine. I don't believe anything I hear.  For instance, on a few issues, I have questions that Biden stated and was found to be very much incorrect. Hopefully, you might see why I question anything that is reported or verbally spoken by the many of those that Represent our government. 
      
      Source  https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/17/politics … index.html
      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.”
      
      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.
      
      Fact check: Biden’s latest false statistical claims
      
      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.
      
      Much more if you are interested  ---  Biden’s Deficit Spin (Not spin lies)
      https://www.factcheck.org/2022/04/bidens-deficit-spin/

      replyreport
      1. 72

         Kathleen Cochranposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         Another perspective:
         
         https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opi … -rcna92661

         replyreport
         1. 84

            Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I read Jackson and Sodmyere's dissent.
            
            I can agree that Jackson’s dissent should be necessary reading for all Americans.    Especially those who have accepted that race meaningfully affects American society.   Jackson does scathingly slam conservative colleagues. She provides a long history lesson —charting the policies and laws that, in her view, have upheld racial discrimination and deepened inequality in the United States.  Jackson enumerated some of the many ways Black people have been treated as second-class citizens throughout America's history, and that we have made little progress. (I disagree with that sentiment)
            
            She pointed out that “Gulf-sized race-based gaps exist concerning the health, wealth, and well-being of American citizens,” she wrote. “They were created in the distant past, but have indisputably been passed down to the present day through the generations.”.
            
            What was missing was anything that would indicate that we as a Nation have made much progress. This is where, in my view, she failed to represent pure truth. 
            
            So, yes I read the article you offered, however being a conservative, and just wired differently.  I do think her history lesson was very well-structured and accurate. I feel she showed bias from the bench, and showed no understanding at all for her colleague's views, she in my view, did not address their thoughts or did very little to address their views.
            
            She is brand new, and I am more than willing to watch as she grows into her job. It is very clear, to me, she is qualified and deserves respect.

            replyreport
            1. 82

               Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

               Well, Sharlee, in my humble opinion....
               
               My opinion is that a lot of the "progress" is superficial, the point is that Justice Jackson refers to evaluation yardsticks that are truly representative of progress.
               ---
               "She pointed out that “Gulf-sized race-based gaps exist concerning the health, wealth, and well-being of American citizens,” she wrote. “They were created in the distant past, but have indisputably been passed down to the present day through the generations.”.
               -
               
               I think that the conservatives view of a color blind society is naive in the face of reality based on the accurate yardsticks that she would employ. So, her conservative colleagues have been slamming her as well.
               
               She is new and needs to avoid mucking into politics as she is supposed to be above these things, as she is a Supreme Court Justice,  but she will season in as they all have with time.
               
               A truer statement could not possibly be made, that hits it on the head.

               replyreport
   2. 72

      Kathleen Cochranposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      https://www.npr.org/2023/07/05/11860194 … s-an-issue

      replyreport
      1. 84

         Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

         ( I did. I never disputed the mortality rate of black babies. Which is calculated after one year of life on this earth.  The author of the WSJ article seemed to me to be directly referring to the mortality of Live Births. Babies that died on the day of birth.) Yes, there is a very high rate of death in the first year of black versus white infants.)
         
         Yes, understood -- you have shared this sentiment - Now three times. I certainly got your point, all three were addressed to me. Here are the previous two posts I refer to that offer my polite reply.  So, I will decline to repeat my retort a third time. This has become overly repetitive. Feels like trolling bait. Sorry, but you have a view, and I have one that differs.  You could address others on this post, and get a fresh perspective. Or you could just keep posting to me. I can assure you my view won't change on this given issue.
         
         https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/358 … ost4299344
         https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/358 … ost4299499

         replyreport
4. 56

   AlexWittposted 2 years ago

   Non-Hispanic blacks/African Americans have 2.4 times the infant mortality rate as non-Hispanic whites.
   
   https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/brow … p;lvlid=23
   
   "We posit that these differences may be ameliorated by racial concordance between the physician and newborn patient. Findings suggest that when Black newborns are cared for by Black physicians, the mortality penalty they suffer, as compared with White infants, is halved."
   
   https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1913405117

   replyreport
5. 83

   hglickposted 2 years ago

   She is a deep state installation into the supreme court. She has no qualifications at all to be a judge let alone a supreme court justice.

   replyreport
6. 56

   AlexWittposted 2 years ago

   https://www.foxnews.com/politics/justic … rify-brief
   
   In a letter Friday filed to the Supreme Court docket, Norton Rose Fulbright wrote that the argument cited by Jackson in her opinion "warrants clarification" and sought to clear up any "confusion."
   
   "The principal cited finding of the [study] was that the mortality rate for Black newborns, as compared to White newborns, decreased by more than half when under the supervision of Black physician," the law firm's letter said. "In absolute terms, this study found that patient-physician racial concordance led to a reduction in health inequity."
   However, the letter continued, while survival and mortality may be opposites and decreased mortality generally indicates increased survival, "statistically they are not interchangeable. Thus, the statement in the [amicus brief] warrants clarification."
   
   Still, the lawyer added that the study nonetheless supports Jackson's argument in her dissent, expressing "regret" for "any confusion" that may have been caused by the statement in its brief.
   
   The letter to the Supreme Court added that a "more precise" summary of the 2020 study's findings would have been to say that "having a Black physician reduces by more than half the likelihood of death for Black newborns as compared to White newborns."
   
   The Wall Street journal writer seems to be capitalizing and extrapolating in an erroneous direction on awkward wording.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      "In other words, Jackson's claim in her opinion that having a Black physician "more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will survive" could be misleading, because the study on which her statement is based examined lower mortality rates, which is not the same thing statistically as survival."
      
      That is precisely where the author Frank was going with his math
      equation.
      
      In my view,  affirmative action is not appropriate when filling the quota for any Med-school.  Selection should be filled by ability and merit, and fairly in regard to race and gender.

      replyreport
      1. 56

         AlexWittposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         "In my view,  affirmative action is not appropriate when filling the quota for any Med-school.  Selection should be filled by ability and merit, and fairly in regard to race and gender"
         
         Yes in that spirit I hope that legacy and donor applications being given a bump in admissions criteria  will be similarly struck down.

         replyreport
         1. 84

            Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I agree

            replyreport
         2. 100

            DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            The Supreme court decision was based on the blatant racism that Harvard practices against Asian American students. Yes, I would agree that those legacy applications that are given a bump should be struck down too but why should the qualified Asians be shut out in the meantime just because of affirmative action racial qoutas?

            replyreport