The indirect effect of the war is lowering growth, but the potential massive increase in the federal deficit through military spend would definitely increase growth. Just not of the pleasant or useful kind.
Our military budget is bankrupting us. We need drastic cuts to it (50% cut to last year's level would not be inappropriate). We also need to learn how to mind our own damned business internationally. Full stop.
Sorkin’s book re the Black Tuesday 1929 crash is scary, the “crash” was not a one day event, preceded by years of a booming economy, and, in retrospect a long list of decisions making Black Tuesday inevitable followed by a few years of, “It’s only a glitch, give it time, it’ll correct,”. are we on the same pathway?
I love the phrase 'you're on your own' which might be reduced to YOYO. It's a great counterpoint to the neoliberal bleating about 'freedom'. It also connects extremely well with affordability and might help Americans figure out their anxiety.
On affordability, subcategory healthcare, I had posted yesterday on some analysis of the recently-available CMS 2026 open-enrollment-period public use data files, where I focused on the over-the-returned-400%-of-FPL-subsidy-cliff group of people,. (The 400%-of-FPL "subsidy cliff" returned due to the Jan 1, 2026 expiration of the expanded subsidies.)
The general loss of coverage reported on in wonk-world so far has been: for the 24 million people who had exchange ACA plans in 2026, the number dropping coverage for 2026 has been observed to be about 4.9% of those 24 million, with (Charles Gaba reports), lots and lots of the people keeping coverage in 2026 downswitching to weaker plans, to compensate for the decreased subsidy to help pay premiums.
My bottom line additional finding, on my own post, was that, restricted to people with the really big jumps in premium from being over-the-returned-cliff (often 20% to 40% of income), it looked like about 38.6% dropped.
However, I just caught this morning, in the posted data, that it looks like about 300,000 people nationwide may have understated their estimated income on the exchanges to put them below the subsidy cliff!
(You can't really blame them, when we have such a stupid, cliff-edged, means-testing here. But, the rules are, at tax time for yr 2026, in 2027, they will find they have to repay that up to $40,000 savings on this year's premiums if they can't carry forward the lie to the tax form.)
My post yesterday, with the bit about the likely lying and explaining where that comes from, is here:
After believing Charles was going to terminate his analyses from the newly-available files with that last report, he seems now to be going on to some analysis by income levels, which may or may not wind up duplicating (and helpfully more-widely-publicizing) the issues with especially-high proportions (38.6% vs the overall average 4.9%) dropping coverage in the just-over-the-returned-400%-cliff group.
I appreciate your candid, no nonsense analysis J.B.
We are at a point where what we listen to must be commentary that cuts to the core, the taproot, of this moment we are enduring.
Best… /glc
Just like everything else in this regime it's claims are pure fiction
The indirect effect of the war is lowering growth, but the potential massive increase in the federal deficit through military spend would definitely increase growth. Just not of the pleasant or useful kind.
Our military budget is bankrupting us. We need drastic cuts to it (50% cut to last year's level would not be inappropriate). We also need to learn how to mind our own damned business internationally. Full stop.
Sorkin’s book re the Black Tuesday 1929 crash is scary, the “crash” was not a one day event, preceded by years of a booming economy, and, in retrospect a long list of decisions making Black Tuesday inevitable followed by a few years of, “It’s only a glitch, give it time, it’ll correct,”. are we on the same pathway?
I love the phrase 'you're on your own' which might be reduced to YOYO. It's a great counterpoint to the neoliberal bleating about 'freedom'. It also connects extremely well with affordability and might help Americans figure out their anxiety.
I think the Heritage Foundation mailed this one in.
On affordability, subcategory healthcare, I had posted yesterday on some analysis of the recently-available CMS 2026 open-enrollment-period public use data files, where I focused on the over-the-returned-400%-of-FPL-subsidy-cliff group of people,. (The 400%-of-FPL "subsidy cliff" returned due to the Jan 1, 2026 expiration of the expanded subsidies.)
The general loss of coverage reported on in wonk-world so far has been: for the 24 million people who had exchange ACA plans in 2026, the number dropping coverage for 2026 has been observed to be about 4.9% of those 24 million, with (Charles Gaba reports), lots and lots of the people keeping coverage in 2026 downswitching to weaker plans, to compensate for the decreased subsidy to help pay premiums.
My bottom line additional finding, on my own post, was that, restricted to people with the really big jumps in premium from being over-the-returned-cliff (often 20% to 40% of income), it looked like about 38.6% dropped.
However, I just caught this morning, in the posted data, that it looks like about 300,000 people nationwide may have understated their estimated income on the exchanges to put them below the subsidy cliff!
(You can't really blame them, when we have such a stupid, cliff-edged, means-testing here. But, the rules are, at tax time for yr 2026, in 2027, they will find they have to repay that up to $40,000 savings on this year's premiums if they can't carry forward the lie to the tax form.)
My post yesterday, with the bit about the likely lying and explaining where that comes from, is here:
https://normspier828307.substack.com/p/aca-2026-enrollment-after-expanded
Any readers may find interesting the Charles Gaba posts on the downswitching of coverage, the last one of which is here: https://substack.com/@charlesgaba/p-193405746
After believing Charles was going to terminate his analyses from the newly-available files with that last report, he seems now to be going on to some analysis by income levels, which may or may not wind up duplicating (and helpfully more-widely-publicizing) the issues with especially-high proportions (38.6% vs the overall average 4.9%) dropping coverage in the just-over-the-returned-400%-cliff group.