14 Obama facts that the GOP does not want you to know or think about.
Last edited by a moderator:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
14 Facts About The Obama Presidency That Most People Don’t Know
- Thread starter Crabtownboy
- Start date
Data points don't support President Obama's claim that we're 'better off' today
The problem is that Obama’s stewardship set in motion a sluggish recovery. Unemployment has fallen, but the labor participation rate has dropped to a low not seen since 1978. Yes, that was during the Carter administration. Obama’s Department of Labor says nearly 100,000 jobless workers have given up. This pushed the unemployment rate down to its lowest level since the last summer of the George W. Bush administration.
http://newsok.com/data-points-dont-...im-that-were-better-off-today/article/5353300
Obama doesn’t mention this when he’s in his “Are you better off?” mode. To bolster a weak argument, the president repeatedly compares today’s numbers with those of January 2009. Therefore, writes Baum, “Almost anything appears better compared to the worst recession since the Great Depression.” What’s more, Baum adds, “he has a habit of taking credit for things he had nothing to do with: the energy renaissance, for example …”
Neither Obama nor the federal government is in any way responsible for the energy boom. It was created and sustained by the private sector and has occurred despite the administration’s hostility to fossil fuels.
So The Great Divider has found a way to brag about a meaningless comparison (the 2009 economy versus today), ignore a troubling statistic (the labor participation rate) and take credit for something he basically opposes.
The man’s got skills. We’ll hand him that.
But who’s really better off today? Not the jobless. Not those who are paying more for health insurance — which is most of us — or who’ve been forced to migrate from full-time to part-time status because of Obamacare. Not the middle class, for whom Obama casts himself as a champion. Baum notes that real median income was 4 percent lower in 2013 than when Obama took office. And the poverty rate is higher.
Just what set of statistics supports Obama’s “better off” boasting?
Agents of change are supposed to change things for the better. Reagan did. Obama has not only mismanaged the economy, he’s set it on a course that will plague this nation for years to come.
http://newsok.com/data-points-dont-...were-better-off-today/article/5353300/?page=2
The problem is that Obama’s stewardship set in motion a sluggish recovery. Unemployment has fallen, but the labor participation rate has dropped to a low not seen since 1978. Yes, that was during the Carter administration. Obama’s Department of Labor says nearly 100,000 jobless workers have given up. This pushed the unemployment rate down to its lowest level since the last summer of the George W. Bush administration.
http://newsok.com/data-points-dont-...im-that-were-better-off-today/article/5353300
Obama doesn’t mention this when he’s in his “Are you better off?” mode. To bolster a weak argument, the president repeatedly compares today’s numbers with those of January 2009. Therefore, writes Baum, “Almost anything appears better compared to the worst recession since the Great Depression.” What’s more, Baum adds, “he has a habit of taking credit for things he had nothing to do with: the energy renaissance, for example …”
Neither Obama nor the federal government is in any way responsible for the energy boom. It was created and sustained by the private sector and has occurred despite the administration’s hostility to fossil fuels.
So The Great Divider has found a way to brag about a meaningless comparison (the 2009 economy versus today), ignore a troubling statistic (the labor participation rate) and take credit for something he basically opposes.
The man’s got skills. We’ll hand him that.
But who’s really better off today? Not the jobless. Not those who are paying more for health insurance — which is most of us — or who’ve been forced to migrate from full-time to part-time status because of Obamacare. Not the middle class, for whom Obama casts himself as a champion. Baum notes that real median income was 4 percent lower in 2013 than when Obama took office. And the poverty rate is higher.
Just what set of statistics supports Obama’s “better off” boasting?
Agents of change are supposed to change things for the better. Reagan did. Obama has not only mismanaged the economy, he’s set it on a course that will plague this nation for years to come.
http://newsok.com/data-points-dont-...were-better-off-today/article/5353300/?page=2
During a speech at Northwestern University on Oct. 2, 2014, President Barack Obama offered a rosy -- if cautious -- view on the state of the economy. One of the statistics he touted was this one:
"When I took office, the deficit was nearly 10 percent of our economy. Today, it's approaching 3 percent."
We wondered if he was correct.
We looked at data from the Office of Management and Budget that tracks the federal deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product. Calculating it this way shows not the absolute level of the deficit but rather how big it is in relation to the size of the broader economy.
The data shows that for fiscal year 2009, the deficit as a percentage of GDP was 9.8 percent, while the projected percentage for fiscal year 2014 is 3.7 percent. But the timing of the Office of Management and Budget figures don’t coincide with Obama taking office.
The 9.8 percent figure covers fiscal year 2009 -- which runs from Oct. 1, 2008, to Sept. 31, 2009. In other words, it covers a little less than four months of President George W. Bush’s second term, and nearly eight months of Obama’s first term.
In other words, the figure looks at an entire year that covers two presidencies -- not a snapshot on the day Obama took office, Jan. 20, 2009.
That casts some doubt about the accuracy of how Obama framed the issue
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-obama-says-deficit-fell-10-percent-gdp-3-pe/
"When I took office, the deficit was nearly 10 percent of our economy. Today, it's approaching 3 percent."
We wondered if he was correct.
We looked at data from the Office of Management and Budget that tracks the federal deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product. Calculating it this way shows not the absolute level of the deficit but rather how big it is in relation to the size of the broader economy.
The data shows that for fiscal year 2009, the deficit as a percentage of GDP was 9.8 percent, while the projected percentage for fiscal year 2014 is 3.7 percent. But the timing of the Office of Management and Budget figures don’t coincide with Obama taking office.
The 9.8 percent figure covers fiscal year 2009 -- which runs from Oct. 1, 2008, to Sept. 31, 2009. In other words, it covers a little less than four months of President George W. Bush’s second term, and nearly eight months of Obama’s first term.
In other words, the figure looks at an entire year that covers two presidencies -- not a snapshot on the day Obama took office, Jan. 20, 2009.
That casts some doubt about the accuracy of how Obama framed the issue
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-obama-says-deficit-fell-10-percent-gdp-3-pe/
President Barack Obama touted the success of the Affordable Care Act after 7 million people enrolled in coverage on the marketplaces by the March 31 deadline.
"Despite several lost weeks out of the gate because of problems with the website, 7.1 million Americans have now signed up for private insurance plans through these marketplaces," he said in an April 1 address from the Rose Garden. "7.1 million, that’s on top of the more than 3 million young adults who have gained insurance under this law by staying on their family’s plan."
Since Sept. 23, 2010, young adults have been able to stay on their families’ private insurance plans until they turn 26. PolitiFact wanted to see for ourselves if 3 million people, a number we’ve seen disputed, have really benefited from that change.
The White House pointed us to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services June 2012 report for the source of Obama’s number.
Between September 2010 and December 2011, the percentage of 19- to 25-year-olds on their families’ insurance increased from 64.4 percent to 74.8 percent, according to the National Health Interview Survey. HSS then took that increase of 10.4 percentage points and multiplied it by the number of people in that age group, which, according to Census data, was 29.7 million in 2010, to arrive at nearly 3.1 million newly insured people.
Their estimate is two years old and hasn’t been updated, though they say they it will be going forward.
The administration’s calculation isn’t the only method you could use to evaluate the impact of the law’s increased coverage for young adults. Forbes opinion editor Avik Roy, a former Mitt Romney adviser and Obamacare critic, took down the 3.1 million figure and estimated that the true number is more like 930,000.
Factors that affect the estimate include:
The starting point for counting uninsured young adults, and whether that is pre-recession
The data set used for counting uninsured young adults
The year the estimate was last updated
Others have questioned Obama’s estimate as well. Our fact-checking colleague Glenn Kessler at the Washington Post published his own estimate of 2.2 million people, after using updated National Health Interview Surveys and also averaging 2010 figures instead of cherrypicking the third quarter, the year’s low point for uninsured young adults.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...says-more-3-million-young-adults-got-health-/
"Despite several lost weeks out of the gate because of problems with the website, 7.1 million Americans have now signed up for private insurance plans through these marketplaces," he said in an April 1 address from the Rose Garden. "7.1 million, that’s on top of the more than 3 million young adults who have gained insurance under this law by staying on their family’s plan."
Since Sept. 23, 2010, young adults have been able to stay on their families’ private insurance plans until they turn 26. PolitiFact wanted to see for ourselves if 3 million people, a number we’ve seen disputed, have really benefited from that change.
The White House pointed us to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services June 2012 report for the source of Obama’s number.
Between September 2010 and December 2011, the percentage of 19- to 25-year-olds on their families’ insurance increased from 64.4 percent to 74.8 percent, according to the National Health Interview Survey. HSS then took that increase of 10.4 percentage points and multiplied it by the number of people in that age group, which, according to Census data, was 29.7 million in 2010, to arrive at nearly 3.1 million newly insured people.
Their estimate is two years old and hasn’t been updated, though they say they it will be going forward.
The administration’s calculation isn’t the only method you could use to evaluate the impact of the law’s increased coverage for young adults. Forbes opinion editor Avik Roy, a former Mitt Romney adviser and Obamacare critic, took down the 3.1 million figure and estimated that the true number is more like 930,000.
Factors that affect the estimate include:
The starting point for counting uninsured young adults, and whether that is pre-recession
The data set used for counting uninsured young adults
The year the estimate was last updated
Others have questioned Obama’s estimate as well. Our fact-checking colleague Glenn Kessler at the Washington Post published his own estimate of 2.2 million people, after using updated National Health Interview Surveys and also averaging 2010 figures instead of cherrypicking the third quarter, the year’s low point for uninsured young adults.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...says-more-3-million-young-adults-got-health-/
....Our friends at the Washington Post Fact Checker gave Obama’s claim the worst rating on their scale -- Four Pinocchios. We thought we’d take a look, too.
We asked the White House if it would like to explain Obama’s claim, but the press office did not offer any additional information. (The White House didn’t talk to the Post’s Fact Checker, either.)
But we think we have a pretty good idea where the president got his number from -- a report released Jan. 22 by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, titled, "Medicaid & CHIP: December Monthly Applications and Eligibility Determinations Report."
According to that report, the cumulative number of individuals determined eligible for Medicaid (or a related but separate State Children’s Health Insurance Program) by state agencies during October, November and December 2013 was a little more than 6.3 million. That’s not 7 million, but it’s approaching that number.
However, the report notes some caveats about the 6.3 million figure. The number, according to the report, "includes those newly eligible under the Affordable Care Act and those eligible under prior law and, for some states, renewals."
In other words, the number includes people who were already eligible under the old, pre-Obamacare Medicaid rules and "came out of the woodwork," so to speak, during the last three months of 2013. This means they did not suddenly gain "access to health care for the first time" due to Obamacare, which was the standard Obama used in his speech to the governors’ group.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-obama-says-medicaid-expansion-has-brought-h/
We asked the White House if it would like to explain Obama’s claim, but the press office did not offer any additional information. (The White House didn’t talk to the Post’s Fact Checker, either.)
But we think we have a pretty good idea where the president got his number from -- a report released Jan. 22 by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, titled, "Medicaid & CHIP: December Monthly Applications and Eligibility Determinations Report."
According to that report, the cumulative number of individuals determined eligible for Medicaid (or a related but separate State Children’s Health Insurance Program) by state agencies during October, November and December 2013 was a little more than 6.3 million. That’s not 7 million, but it’s approaching that number.
However, the report notes some caveats about the 6.3 million figure. The number, according to the report, "includes those newly eligible under the Affordable Care Act and those eligible under prior law and, for some states, renewals."
In other words, the number includes people who were already eligible under the old, pre-Obamacare Medicaid rules and "came out of the woodwork," so to speak, during the last three months of 2013. This means they did not suddenly gain "access to health care for the first time" due to Obamacare, which was the standard Obama used in his speech to the governors’ group.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-obama-says-medicaid-expansion-has-brought-h/
Rev. do you remember the mess Obama inherited from Bush.
Oh I get it....you must mean the one where the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate.
Obama is very popular. His motto of Peace, Land, Bread resonates throughout Latin America. On December 25, tens of millions of new citizens will be added to the Democrat Party roles and the USA will have an endless supply of hopelessly cheap labor to fill the jobs of this boom. In short, Obama has enforced the iron law of wages on behalf of Martha's Vineyard and golf course owners everywhere.
Salty, that is one point covered, in a way. The debt is going up at the slowest rate since Eisenhower. I wish it were going down.
Hard to argue with some of them, except to say that Obama's policies are not entirely the reasons for the good news.
This is true, however, the number of jobs created is nowhere near the number of jobs created under Reagan or Clinton. If you take the number of jobs created and divide by the number of months in office Obama is the loser, compared to Reagan and Clinton. Plus, if you throw out one month of job loss from Reagan's years you would have a 71 month streak of job creation; throw out one month from Clinton's years and you'd have 85 consecutive months of job creation.
Obama's streak is currently at 55 months; George W. Bush's streak was 52 months.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ongest-uninterrupted-stretch-of-job-creation/
Boy, I sure hope so. Since WWII, Obama racked up the highest budget deficits, so reducing them by 2/3 is a piece of cake. Meanwhile the national debt keeps growing.
Income taxes are indeed lower than 30, 40, or 50 years ago, but just 2 years ago more than 97% of taxpayers enjoyed lower income taxes than just about any time in the previous 50 years. Meanwhile, other taxes have increased under Obama.
Increases in domestic oil production had nothing to do with Obama, in fact, he's hampering production by not approving the Keystone oil pipeline. As for improved fuel efficiency standards, Obama's mandates did not kick in until 2012 and they look like this for passenger cars:
2012 28 mpg
2013 28.5 mpg
2014 29 mpg
2015 30 mpg
2016 31 mpg
In other words, his fuel efficiency standards have little to do with the reduction of dependence on foreign oil.
LOL, there is one year worth of data since the ACA has been implemented. Wait until the numbers come out for this year's increases. They will be substantial.
Last edited by a moderator:
No the total mess the GOP and Bush made the last four years he was in office.
This is terrible. Talk about a misleading chart. The chart shows negative job growth under Bush because of the last 6 months of 2008 during the Great Recession.
This chart is even worse! What are we, 3rd graders learning to chart? Using two data points, 2001 and 2009?
Here is a more accurate look at unemployment rates:
CTB, how could you paste this list with a straight face?
Like all the other lies that Obama is involved in, the 14 points are exaggerated prefabrications of what is true, or in other words, liberal spin! :laugh:
Thank you thank you.....and BO still stinks:thumbs: