How much has Obamacare saved the American people?

Oneuli said:
Anyway, federal debt in Reagan's first month was $934 billion. In his last month it was 2,698 billion. That's much more than a doubling. Reagan's not the only example, either. Under FDR, national debt rose almost ten-fold. So, now that you know that you're wrong about the doubling of the national debt only happening under two presidents, Bush and Obama, does it change any of your political opinions? Again, I'm betting not, because I'm betting your opinion has nothing at all to do with the facts, and thus that finding out you were mistaken about the facts cannot alter your opinions. Am I right?
Click to expand...

PP said Bush and Obama. Let's add Reagan. How does that make Obama look better in any slight way? At least Reagan saw a GDP rate of 3.5% What did Obama have? An anemic 1.48%.

As for FDR; he was fighting a massive global war you moron. What massive global conflict was Obama fighting? Bush was fighting two wars in the ME.

Grow a brain snowflake.

Debt when Bush came into office = $5.716 trillion
Debt when Bush left office = 10.632 trillion
Debt when Obama came into office = $10.632 Trillion
Debt when Obama left office = $19.937 Trillion

Reagan = 289% increase in debt.
Bush = 186% increase in debt.
Obama = 188% increase in debt.

https://www.hudson.org/research/12714-economic-growth-by-president
 
Truth Detector said:
PP said Bush and Obama. Let's add Reagan. How does that make Obama look better in any slight way? At least Reagan saw a GDP rate of 3.5% What did Obama have? An anemic 1.48%.

As for FDR; he was fighting a massive global war you moron. What massive global conflict was Obama fighting? Bush was fighting two wars in the ME.

Grow a brain snowflake.

Debt when Bush came into office = $5.716 trillion
Debt when Bush left office = 10.632 trillion
Debt when Obama came into office = $10.632 Trillion
Debt when Obama left office = $19.937 Trillion

Reagan = 289% increase in debt.
Bush = 186% increase in debt.
Obama = 188% increase in debt.

https://www.hudson.org/research/12714-economic-growth-by-president
Click to expand...

Oneuli said:
No clue what you're trying to say.
Click to expand...

:rofl2:
 
Oneuli said:
I find that right-wingers tend to react with unthinking incredulity, when the tropes they've been brainwashed into accepting crash up against verifiable real-world facts.
Click to expand...

you wouldnt know a real world fact even if it jumped and bit you in the aura.
 
Althea said:
Most who make his argument, never mention that the coverage in the new policy was much greater than the bare bones policy he had previously.

Now, he can debate whether he thinks he needed 'free' preventive procedures included in the new policy or not.

For me, my premiums halved, while my coverage doubled.

Until House Republicans de funded risk corridors, and my ins. company went out of business. Along with 12 others across the country.
Click to expand...

you lying huzzy, no ones premiums went down, PERIOD
 
cawacko said:
The numbers are the numbers, you are correct. But building a story around the realities of the time is not wrong, any economist would do so. You can't look at GDP of years during the fighting of WWII and say it's comparing apples to apples with two non fighting years at some later point.
Click to expand...

Agreed. In a similar, sense, at the end of Obama's time in office we weren't neck-deep in Afghanistan and Iraq like we'd been through most of his predecessor's presidency. And during Clinton's presidency, we didn't have Desert Shield and Desert Storm (and the Panama War) as we did on his predecessor's watch. But you'll notice it's never those on the left who have to pull out these "you have to ignore the results cuz things were different" arguments. Even with the demobilization of the Clinton and Obama years, the economy out-performed their predecessors. In fact, back in the day, conservatives tried to discount the Clinton success by saying it was the "peace dividend" from the end of the Cold War.

Basically, the rule is simple: poor Republican economic performance in peacetime doesn't count, because they didn't have the stimulus of a war, and poor Republican economic performance in wartime doesn't count, because they had the burden of financing a war effort. Similarly, good Democratic economic performance in peacetime doesn't count, because they were just enjoying the peace dividend won by earlier Republican efforts, and good Democratic economic performance in wartime doesn't count because they had the artificial stimulus of a war.

It's ALWAYS got to be dismissed as apples and oranges by the Republicans, because the very act of checking the evidence is contrary to what they'd like to be true. Things are simpler for people like me, since I form my opinions based on the evidence, rather than forming my opinions then working to blot out the evidence that is convenient.

Technology, the rise of China, globalization all play, and played, a major role on the economy of the U.S. Our shift from an industrial economy to an information economy has played a major role and has had a major disruption.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's another good example. In the Clinton years, the great economic performance doesn't count, because the rise of China, the passage of NAFTA, the start of the WTO, and the explosion of the Internet were all artificial stimulus, which Clinton just had the dumb luck of surfing. Likewise, in the Bush years, the terrible economic performance doesn't count, because the further rise of China, the further expansion of free trade, and the further expansion of the Internet were all a "major disruption" and he just had the bad luck of being president at a time when those things were weighing us down.

The fact this requires the Republicans to argue the exact opposite points from one minute to the next doesn't seem to bother them. They start with an absolute and unshakable faith in the correctness of their economic faith, so everything else, including logic, must bow to those "truths."
 
Last edited:
Obama doubled the nations debt. PERIOD
Obama lied about Obamacare. PERIOD
Obamacare caused my premiums to rise, again and again and again. PERIOD
And Obamacare is unable to survive financially. PERIOD

please do not dispute facts

Oneuli said:
Agreed. In a similar, sense, at the end of Obama's time in office we weren't neck-deep in Afghanistan and Iraq .
Click to expand...

is there a point there?

please tell me you are not crediting Obama for getting out of Iraq.
And Afghanistan was basically exactly how he found it when he left.

are you a serious poster? I'm seeing a lot of trolling, and to in anyway shape or form claim Obama was a success story is beyond belief.
you need to read more
 
Oneuli said:
You lost track of the question (or you're playing the coward again and dodging the question). The question was about which two-term president can it not be said that national debt went UP eight times in the eight years of his presidency. Can you locate your manhood long enough to answer?

Anyway, federal debt in Reagan's first month was $934 billion. In his last month it was 2,698 billion. That's much more than a doubling. Reagan's not the only example, either. Under FDR, national debt rose almost ten-fold. So, now that you know that you're wrong about the doubling of the national debt only happening under two presidents, Bush and Obama, does it change any of your political opinions? Again, I'm betting not, because I'm betting your opinion has nothing at all to do with the facts, and thus that finding out you were mistaken about the facts cannot alter your opinions. Am I right?
Click to expand...

you trying to explain away $10T in deficits will not alter my opinions.......
 
Truth Detector said:
You fucking moron; that wasn't the GDP growth rate. If these were factual, it would have be phenomenal.

Grow a fucking brain you clueless dumbfuck:

1900's = 3.9%
1910's = 2.9%
1920's = 3.4%
1930's = 1.0%
1940's = 5.6%
1950's = 4.2%
1960's = 4.5%
1970's = 3.2%
1980's = 3.1%
1990's = 3.2%
2000's = 1.8%
2010's = 2.1%
OBAMA =1.48%

https://www.crestmontresearch.com/docs/Economy-GDP-R-By-Decade.pdf

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017...resident-history-never-have-year-3-gdp-growth
Click to expand...

You lost track of the argument, dumb dumb. You've posted annualized rates. I posted the total growth for each decade. You can equate the two with elementary-school-level math. For example, if the growth is 3.1% annualized, over ten years, total growth is 1.031^10, or 35.7%. As you can see, your 3.1% annualized rate for the 80s and the 35.8% total growth I quoted are the same thing (allowing for a fraction of a point from rounding). Now, try not to be such an imbecile in the future. You embarrass yourself.
 
Oneuli said:
I'll be happy to move on to your question, but first I'd like you to answer mine. Now that you know you were wrong about the 80s having explosive economic growth, has it altered any of your political opinions?
Click to expand...

ranks right up there with every other decade in the last fifty years except for the dismal showing that Obama had.......
 
Oneuli said:
You are, indeed. But you have a choice about whether you want to remain a coward. You can always answer the questions:

What was the deficit when Bush left office? What was it when Obama left office? Was that an improvement or not?
Click to expand...

around $9.7 T........around $19.7T.......no, it was twice as bad......
 
cawacko said:
And let's be clear no one is arguing these decades don't count, that's a strawman
Click to expand...

I'd call it a "rhetorical flourish," but that's fine. The semantics aren't important. The point I'm making is that time and again the conservatives look at the data, realize they don't like what is suggests and then they go searching for a way to put an asterisk beside it, so they can go on believing what they've always believed. For any one instance, you could argue they're right or wrong to put that asterisk on it and to do their little mental adjustments. But the high frequency with which they must play the same game, always in the same direction, should tell you something. It's not like sometimes they come along and say "well, as mediocre as the Reagan-era economic growth was, it really would have been even worse if you discount for the fact there was a massive decrease in interest rates by the Fed on his watch, an unprecedented peace-time explosion of deficit stimulus, and the Baby Boomers were just entering their peak productivity years." No, that kind of asterisk never comes up. Instead, it's always about pushing in a particular direction. By comparison, I can simply present the data plainly and fairly, as I did with the rankings of decades, without any asterisks, and let the facts make their own argument.
 
Oneuli said:
Then I'd recommend reading more carefully. Very honestly, the question of how much Obamacare saved the American people is different from the question of whether Obama was an economic success overall.
Click to expand...

not really.....the answer is the same.......he was a disaster.......
 
Oneuli said:
The problem was in the writing. However, if you think you know what the point was, feel free to translate it into English for me.
Click to expand...

1. Stop stealing my stuff.
2. You haven't actually explained your position on this. How did Obamacare save American money?
 
Truth Detector said:
PP said Bush and Obama. Let's add Reagan. How does that make Obama look better in any slight way?
Click to expand...

The point wasn't to make Obama look better. The point was to correct the lie. I realize that from a conservative perspective, a "fact" is "whatever one needs to say to support the conservative dogma." But for me, facts matter. If we're to understand economic history, we cannot allow howlingly ignorant statements like his stand unchallenged.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top