Obama's Economy in 17 Charts

[Fenton]

Really?

Ellmers to Sebelius: Why Must Men Buy Maternity Coverage Under Obamacare?


Yes, really.

 

[MTAtech]

Ellmers to Sebelius: Why Must Men Buy Maternity Coverage Under Obamacare?


Yes, really.

At work, we have a group policy in which each employee pays the same rate as every other employee. That group rate averages in coverage for woman and men; smokers and non-smokers, etc. Although conservatives are trying to make hay that men are paying for maternity coverage they aren't using, it's really not much of a big deal. If you are married, why should one care if the wife has to pay more because her plan covers maternity and yours is lower because it doesn't? It all comes out in the wash.

What I noticed that you didn't address, is me completely discrediting your assertion that "Obama-Care is a tax on the middleclass through much Higher premiums for insurance they dont need." (post #47) In fact, I produced an article based upon recent research that the ACA lowers premiums. (post# 50) So, you have to pay for maternity coverage but your overall premium is lower. BFD.

 

[Fenton]

At work, we have a group policy in which
each employee pays the same rate as every other employee. That group rate averages in coverage for woman and men; smokers and non-smokers, etc. Although conservatives are trying to make hay that men are paying for maternity coverage they aren't using, it's really not much of a big deal. If you are married, why should one care if the wife has to pay more because her plan covers maternity and yours is lower because it doesn't? It all comes out in the wash.

What I noticed that you didn't address, is me completely discrediting your assertion that "Obama-Care is a tax on the middleclass through much Higher premiums for insurance they dont need." (post #47) In fact, I produced an article based upon recent research that the ACA lowers premiums. (post# 50) So, you have to pay for maternity coverage but your overall premium is lower. BFD.

Lol...yep, pre.iums have fallen by 2500.00 a year for your average American family.....


Huge lie from Obama. One of many.

And all those stories about sticker shock ? Lies, all lies.


Its impressive to see someone so devoted to a failing ideology that they've slipped into a perpetaul state of delusion.

Next thing you will say is that we're in the midst of a " economic recovery ".

Libs..

 

[274ina]

1: the first chart shows Obama giving 74,000 jobs a month to foreigners while millions of US CITIZENS get nothing.
Funny how the jobs created chart matches the new legal foreigner chart.


2: Unemployment is failling because the US CITIZEN is giving up, and not able to get a job. And so is not counted.
How do you get a job living on SNAP and the street?

3: Growth for the 1%. How about a chart of living wage jobs created?

4: great! More money for the already rich!

5: FLAT wages after 30 years of total class war............no vacation, no HC, no sick leave, no affordable homes.

6: More money for the RICH!

7: becasue of lower wages, Free Trade, and lossing 1,000,000 jobs a year to imported foreigners.

8: its higher than that............much higher.

9: Again, "output" for the rich, not number of living wage jobs created.

10: again, what good is a low interest rate on a fraudulent mortgage from a bank that can steal your home at any time?

11: How do you afford a $221,000 home on a Free trade min wage job? (again showing housing in the USA is a joke!)

12: Yes they have stollen all the homes they want from the middle class, to be held for rich people (and denied from the people)
6 million empty homes in USA..........and thye refuse to sell any of them..........ummmmm WHY?

13: So the rich are spending agian???? This helps majority of US CITIZENS how?

14: Inflation? WHO CARES? When your wages are being DEFLATED for 30 years.

15: gas needs to be $.75 to match the reduction in our wages over the last 20 years.
And where is the affordable, model T electric car?

16: Why is defence still so high? Why does the massive spending of Medicare not cover all Americans?

17: Debt is still climbing………….time for the rich to pay 80% taxes until the war debt is all paid. Should take about 8-10 years.

 

[MTAtech]

Lol...yep, pre.iums have fallen by 2500.00 a year for your average American family.....


Huge lie from Obama. One of many.

And all those stories about sticker shock ? Lies, all lies.


Its impressive to see someone so devoted to a failing ideology that they've slipped into a perpetaul state of delusion.

Next thing you will say is that we're in the midst of a " economic recovery ".

Libs..

Actually, many are lies. You remember “Bette in Spokane”, mentioned in the official GOP SOTU response? The GOP response said she could face a $700 a month increase in premiums, and used that as the conclusion that Obamacare caused tremendous premium increases. The only way that this could be true is if Bette had a junk plan that offered virtually no coverage and is now comparing it to a plan meeting ACA specs that actually provides coverage.

Yup, the truth comes out. According to, The Spokes-Man Review, her previous plan was catastrophic coverage only, with a $10,000 deductible, and the “$700 a month more” was one of the most expensive option offered by her insurer. She didn’t go to the healthcare.gov website, where she could have found cheaper plans.

 

[CalGun]

You can thank a Republican House of Representatives for that. Or you could just ask the question of your next beloved candidate: "What difference does it make?"

And by the way I am better off today thatn in January 2009. Thanks to the failure of this regime I now grow my own food, hunt for the meat I eat, and have not had to use a single dollar to eat since September of last year! Thanks to the failure of this govt I have truly become 100% self sufficient and I love it.

Are things terrific? No.
Are they better than on Jan. 19, 2009? Yes

Ironic, you demand integrity and honesty at the same time you assert 'us guys' don't care. Of course we care.

 

[upsideguy]

Neat charts and always fun. But interpretation is not always as straight forward as one should like. Economic and social cycles usually extend over years and sometimes over very many years or even decades. Correspondingly the time it takes for policy measures to actually have an impact takes time. Passing out money directly to the population like Obama did at the hight of the recession has a first wave effect relatively quickly. The second wave effects can take a few years and there can be negative impacts in later waves that are much more substantial than the employment effects of the first wave. What this means? Well only that the charts probably don't say very much about Obama's policies.

Wow! Someone with a mature perspective on how an economy actually works.

 

[MTAtech]

You can thank a Republican House of Representatives for that. Or you could just ask the question of your next beloved candidate: "What difference does it make?"

And by the way I am better off today thatn in January 2009. Thanks to the failure of this regime I now grow my own food, hunt for the meat I eat, and have not had to use a single dollar to eat since September of last year! Thanks to the failure of this govt I have truly become 100% self sufficient and I love it.

You can't have it both ways. You can't praise the Republican House for making things better and in the same breathe blame all that is bad on Obama. Every liberal would agree that the economy is weak and growing slower than it should be. We would also agree that it's far better than it was before Obama took over. But that isn't because of the Republican House, it is in-spite of the Republican House, whose agenda has been to place stumbling blocks on the path of Obama's policies. Because Obama has to negotiate with conservatives, policies have been far too aggressive than the crisis demanded and that's why recover is slow.

The fact that you are a hunter and can hunt and grow your own food has no bearing on a macroeconomic discussion for the country. Goodie for you but your scope is rather narrow.

 

[Eric7216]

Have fun.

From: Job growth - Obama's economy in 17 charts - CNNMoney

Amazing how slow the recovery has been from the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression. The recession ended in July, 2009 and normally there is a spurt in economic growth afterwards, not some slow mediocrity.

Not sure why the line is put in for "Obama enters office" in 2010. I thought that he took office in Jan. 2009.

The scariest chart is the debt as % of GDP which went from 41% to 77% in just 5 years.

FWIW, during the first 5 years of Bush 43 the inflation adjusted GDP grew 13.3% versus the 6.3% growth under Obama. And income inequality under the first 5 years of Bush rose from .462 to .469 while under Obama it grew from .466 to .477.

 

[MTAtech]

Amazing how slow the recovery has been from the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression. The recession ended in July, 2009 and normally there is a spurt in economic growth afterwards, not some slow mediocrity.

Not sure why the line is put in for "Obama enters office" in 2010. I thought that he took office in Jan. 2009.

The scariest chart is the debt as % of GDP which went from 41% to 77% in just 5 years.

FWIW, during the first 5 years of Bush 43 the inflation adjusted GDP grew 13.3% versus the 6.3% growth under Obama. And income inequality under the first 5 years of Bush rose from .462 to .469 while under Obama it grew from .466 to .477.

We know why debt:GDP grew, lower revenues and more spending on automatic safety net programs created deficits in a weak economy. That ratio shouldn't be alarming.

On GDP growth, that included a 6% drop in GDP during the great recession. Same thing with inequality, which represented slow wage growth in a weak economy.

But you are wrong about the graph showing Obama entering office in 2010.

 

[Eric7216]

We know why debt:GDP grew, lower revenues and more spending on automatic safety net programs created deficits in a weak economy. That ratio shouldn't be alarming.

On GDP growth, that included a 6% drop in GDP during the great recession. Same thing with inequality, which represented slow wage growth in a weak economy.

But you are wrong about the graph showing Obama entering office in 2010.

Well charts 16 (Federal Spending) and 17 (Debt to GDP) have a line with Obama in office between the 2009 and 2010 bars. Perhaps that is because FY2009 started in Oct 2008 and they are using fiscal years. But it seems a little biased. Congress did not pass the FY2009 budget until March, 2009 and it was signed by Obama. Fine. But it is a 2 edged sword. The recession ended during FY2009 so if you want to credit Bush for the spending that ended it go ahead.
The Debt chart is still interesting. Debt to GDP rose from 41% in 2008, 54% in 2009, 63%, 68%, 73%, finally 77% in 2013. The Great Recession ends in 2009 yet debt keeps rising. And even that is biased since it seems to only show the public debt, not the total debt which includes debt held by government agencies. The Debt/GDP really reaches scary levels when that is included, as it normally is when we talk about $17.2 trillion in debt. I understand debt rising during a recession but this continual rise?

BTW, Adjusted $ GDP dropped from 14,996.1B in Q42007 to the low of 14,356.9 in Q32009 when it ended and GDP rose. 4.2%drop. 2.2% drop in real $.

GINI coefficient for income inequality make Obama's record worse. Post recession, from FY2010 to 2012, inequality grew from .468 to .477 in just 3 years.

 

[imagep]

If you cared then you would stop hitting businesses...

When did MTAtech become president?

 

[imagep]

No things aren't better.

Poverty has been on the rise under your progressive Presidents economic policies and so has our debt.

Labor participation rates are near record low levels and a majority of new jobs are PART TIME.

The "recovery" ? Just another one of Obama's lies.

Labor participation rates are no where near record low levels. You need to spend some time studying this issue, you have been deceived.

 

[imagep]

The effective corporate tax rate in the United States is 12.6%.

GAO: U.S. corporations pay average effective tax rate of 12.6% - Jul. 1, 2013

Much lower than Germany. The problem with our corporate tax code is that its overly complicated and encourages avoidance strategies. However, if 25% doesn't impede economic growth in Germany, then half that certainly isn't in the United States. Once again, Germany has far more government intervention in its economy than the US does. So I am not sure what your point is unless you are arguing for a more liberal economic policy. Germany's criticism of the U.S. fiscal policy is that they think our tax rates should reflect our spending levels thus we should raise taxes. Is that what you want?

What Germany did in response to the financial crisis was encourage companies to keep employees on at less hours rather than lay them off. That was a great economic policy as it lead to a lot of people spending a couple of years working less than full time rather than a lot of people being laid off. Its always much better for a company to be able to keep people on during a downturn rather than laying large numbers of employees off and then when the economy finally rebounds having to hire large numbers of employees and train them.

Southern, you really need to stop posting facts. You keep on doing this over and over again, it makes you look like you have actually researched some stuff and are knowledgable about what you are talking about.

Conservatives on this forum DO NOT LIKE FACTS, they like rhetoric which focuses on only the cherry picked details which would lead one to a conclusion which is counter to real facts.

Please just start spouting some nonsense that supports your opinions with the absence of facts, we like to debate on this site, and we can't really debate about facts.

 

[winston53660]

Southern, you really need to stop posting facts. You keep on doing this over and over again, it makes you look like you have actually researched some stuff and are knowledgable about what you are talking about.

Conservatives on this forum DO NOT LIKE FACTS, they like rhetoric which focuses on only the cherry picked details which would lead one to a conclusion which is counter to real facts.

Please just start spouting some nonsense that supports your opinions with the absence of facts, we like to debate on this site, and we can't really debate about facts.

I like cherries cherries taste good

 

[imagep]

Uhg......I can't read your charts on my smart phone...

I've seen other conservatives use that same excuse when the facts don't match up to their rhetoric. you can't come up with a more original excuse?

 

[imagep]

Actually, many are lies. You remember “Bette in Spokane”, mentioned in the official GOP SOTU response? The GOP response said she could face a $700 a month increase in premiums, and used that as the conclusion that Obamacare caused tremendous premium increases. The only way that this could be true is if Bette had a junk plan that offered virtually no coverage and is now comparing it to a plan meeting ACA specs that actually provides coverage.

Yup, the truth comes out. According to, The Spokes-Man Review, her previous plan was catastrophic coverage only, with a $10,000 deductible, and the “$700 a month more” was one of the most expensive option offered by her insurer. She didn’t go to the healthcare.gov website, where she could have found cheaper plans.

I was wondering about that. It didn't make any sense when I compared that to my situation.

I purchased an Obamacare policy for my family, the entire premium is about $700/mth. so for that to have been a $700 increase, my previous insurance would have had to have been free, and even then, we are talking about a per person cost of less than $250/mth.

 

[imagep]

Usually I like to actively participate in these threads, and try to add something meaningful to them.

this time, those on the left are doing such a brilliant job of absolutely destroying the far right opposition that all I can do is make "comments from the peanut gallery'.

I was a little of a right winger when I first started participating on thus site, it's threads like this that push me further and further away from right wing extremism. Seems like NONE of the facts support the right wing rhetoric.

Now I know what people mean when they say "low information voter", they are obviously refering to the right, only I would probably better describe the extreme right as "no information voters" or "disinformed voters".

 

[MTAtech]

Usually I like to actively participate in these threads, and try to add something meaningful to them.

this time, those on the left are doing such a brilliant job of absolutely destroying the far right opposition that all I can do is make "comments from the peanut gallery'.

I was a little of a right winger when I first started participating on thus site, it's threads like this that push me further and further away from right wing extremism. Seems like NONE of the facts support the right wing rhetoric.

Now I know what people mean when they say "low information voter", they are obviously referring to the right, only I would probably better describe the extreme right as "no information voters" or "misinformed voters".

Who needs facts when one convinces oneself they're right?

 

[Fenton]

Labor participation rates are no where near record low levels. You need to spend some time studying this issue, you have been deceived.

People Not In Labor Force Soar To Record 91.8 Million; Participation Rate Plunges To 1978 Levels | Zero Hedge

"Curious why despite the huge miss in payrolls the unemployment rate tumbled from 7.0% to 6.7%? The reason is because in December the civilian labor force did what it usually does in the New Normal: it dropped from 155.3 million to 154.9 million, which means the labor participation rate just dropped to a fresh 35 year low, hitting levels not seen since 1978, at 62.8% down from 63.0%"

I have, you should send some time looking for objective sources when it comes to employment data.

 

[imagep]

People Not In Labor Force Soar To Record 91.8 Million; Participation Rate Plunges To 1978 Levels | Zero Hedge

"Curious why despite the huge miss in payrolls the unemployment rate tumbled from 7.0% to 6.7%? The reason is because in December the civilian labor force did what it usually does in the New Normal: it dropped from 155.3 million to 154.9 million, which means the labor participation rate just dropped to a fresh 35 year low, hitting levels not seen since 1978, at 62.8% down from 63.0%"

I have, you should send some time looking for objective sources when it comes to employment data.

So the 1978 level was a record low?

Once again, extremist never win an argument based on facts. Facts don't support extremist positions.

 

[Joe1991]

I was a little of a right winger when I first started participating on thus site, it's threads like this that push me further and further away from right wing extremism. Seems like NONE of the facts support the right wing rhetoric.

Now I know what people mean when they say "low information voter", they are obviously refering to the right, only I would probably better describe the extreme right as "no information voters" or "disinformed voters".

I don't think cons are "low information voters", but rather "high misinformation voters".

I would imagine it's very easy to live in the 24/7 bubble of am radio, Fox, dozens of right-wing websites and think tanks, and the religious right movement.

 

[imagep]

I don't think cons are "low information voters", but rather "high misinformation voters".

I would imagine it's very easy to live in the 24/7 bubble of am radio, Fox, dozens of right-wing websites and think tanks, and the religious right movement.

What irritates me about Fox news is that they will allow people to mistate facts, and never bother to point out that they are incorrect. Just a couple of weeks ago a fox contributor was explaining how the CWFPR was "the lowest it's been since the great depression", four other people on that panel, I'm sure that they were all knowledgeable about economic history, yet not a single one bothered to correct that lie.

In my town, we do have a new conservative talk radio station, and I love it. While they present a conservative position, they don't allow misinformation, and their afternoon host is absolutely great about slapping down some of the tea party callers that they have when they attempt to spread misinformation.

I'm really not a liberal at all, but it pisses me off when conservatives present misinformation, especially when they know that it is incorrect. I mean I understand my neighbors spreading lies, they just don't know any better, all they know is what they heard on the radio or on fox news or at the barber shop, but most of these lies are intentially started by people who know better.

 

[WhyNotWhyNot]

What irritates me about Fox news is that they will allow people to mistate facts, and never bother to point out that they are incorrect. Just a couple of weeks ago a fox contributor was explaining how the CWFPR was "the lowest it's been since the great depression", four other people on that panel, I'm sure that they were all knowledgeable about economic history, yet not a single one bothered to correct that lie.

In my town, we do have a new conservative talk radio station, and I love it. While they present a conservative position, they don't allow misinformation, and their afternoon host is absolutely great about slapping down some of the tea party callers that they have when they attempt to spread misinformation.

I'm really not a liberal at all, but it pisses me off when conservatives present misinformation, especially when they know that it is incorrect. I mean I understand my neighbors spreading lies, they just don't know any better, all they know is what they heard on the radio or on fox news or at the barber shop, but most of these lies are intentially started by people who know better.

If you yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater and people are trampled you will be convicted of murder. But if you start a Twitter lie a week before an election you will be named President, Congressman, Senator.