How much has Obamacare saved the American people?

[Oneuli]

All of them. Thanks.

It's not hard to do your own legwork. Just Google the terms. I'll get you started, though. Here's the historical poverty rate:

https://www2.census.gov/programs-su...-series/historical-poverty-people/hstpov2.xls

As you can see, in Clinton's last year, the poverty rate was 11.3%. That was just slightly higher than the all-time low of 11.1% and 11.2%, set in 1973 and 1974. It was the third-lowest all time. So, as you can see, Clinton left "near-record-low" poverty, just as I said.

 

[cawacko]

It cost $100 billion between 1995 and 2001, according to the Commerce Department. So, a bit under $17 billion in spending per year. That's significant, but in the context of an economy worth about $10,000 billion, at the time, we're talking about less than one fifth of one percent. It's about equivalent to the stimulus of building a single aircraft carrier. And it's not like that was putting to work unemployable people. It was putting to work people who'd have had jobs doing more productive coding if they hadn't been fixing old oversights.



If the economic footing wasn't solid, how do you explain how resilient that economy was? Remember, even when the first of Bush's recessions arrived, it was unusually short and unusually shallow, and even the additional knock of 9/11 didn't extend it much.



That's not so much a fact as a tautology. You just said a bubble created a bubble. Do you mean the dotcom bubble and Y2K created a larger bubble in the economy? If so, that's not a fact, it's an assertion. If you have support for the assertion, I'd be happy to listen to it. But, keep in mind there are ALWAYS bubbles happening, of one sort or another: gold, real estate, bank stocks, bitcoins, beanie babies, etc. When an economic boom happens that doesn't fit with right-wing economic religion (e.g., the Clinton boom, following the upper-class tax hikes), there's a strong urge to explain it away with reference to bubbles, etc. But the mere existence of a bubble doesn't create wider economic prosperity, or we'd always have prosperity, just as we always have isolated bubbles. Putting a few thousand old Cobol coders to work isn't enough.



He raised interest rates to fairly high levels at a time of low inflation. It was either political meddling or incompetence. Either way, it brought about a recession.

Remember Greenspan was considered "the Maestro" who masterfully managed the economy in the '90's so his incompetence didn't show up until the early 2000's when he left interest rates too low which had a large responsibility for the housing bubble.

The dot com bubble didn't create the largest recession we've experienced but it was a bubble that burst nonetheless. You're a fan of the stock market, the market peaked in March 2000 and went downhill from there. (the stock market isn't the economy)

 

[Legion]

It's not hard to do your own legwork. Just Google the terms.

The burden of proof rests upon the claimant. That would be you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

Now, get busy and substantiate the rest of your statements.

 

[Oneuli]

Doesn't that depend upon your own confirmation bias?

No. It depends on a rational analysis of the available facts.

Unless I'm mistaken, it appears that you decided that Obamacare saved the American people money and then looked for statistics that might support that contention if interpreted with that foregon conclusion in mind.

No. Keep in mind, I'm not a fan of Obamacare. I'd like to replace it with a much more liberal solution. However, I believe that before deciding how we want to proceed, we need a good sense for where we are and where we've come from. So, I go to the data not to bury Obamacare nor to praise it, but merely to understand it. Was it a counter-productive half-measure? A big step in the right direction? Well, it turns out it was the latter, according to the best available data.

If it was a fact that Obamacare saved the American people money you could prove it.

I adopted a dog. I am pretty much certain it was born of another dog. I can't prove it though.... it's just the reasonable best guess based on the evidence we have of the world.

 

[Legion]

No. It depends on a rational analysis of the available facts.

Who told you that?

 

[Truth Detector]

Spending has increased over every significant period in US history, as have revenues. What makes the difference between eras with rising deficits (e.g., Reagan, Bush, Bush, Trump), and eras with falling deficits (e.g., Clinton, Obama) is whether the rate of revenue increase or the rate of spending increase is greater. You should read more about economics so you can engage on the topic intelligently. Good luck!

Dear dunce; you are the moron claiming that Obamacare is the reason the deficit declined which is laughably stupid on your part. Spending INCREASED every year after it was in effect you moron. Learn how to read a chart.

 

[Truth Detector]

That's not how semicolons work.

Look, a bunny!

 

[Truth Detector]

If by "mess" you mean record high GDP, record high incomes, near-record-low poverty, record budget surpluses, the lowest crime rates since the early 1960s, sky-high approval ratings abroad, and a situation of peace, then yes, it was quite a mess.

The only reason the deficit was reduced was the historic loss of the House and the Senate to the republicans who brought fiscal sanity back to the Congress; an accomplishment only Obama managed to eclipse. BillyBob also handed Bush a recession; thanks!

Fears of inflation waned and interest rates fell, making money cheaper to borrow for homes, cars and investment. What had been a slow economic recovery turned into a roaring boom, bringing in so much unanticipated tax revenue from rising incomes and stock-market gains that the government actually was running record surpluses by the time Clinton left office.

But many other factors, having little or nothing to do with government, also were at work during the Clinton years. Personal computers and the Internet came of age, bringing a revolution in the efficiency of processing information and making workers more productive. Manufacturing companies embraced more efficient production methods. A massive reduction in military spending, begun during the George H.W. Bush administration following the collapse of the former Soviet Union, allowed capital to be deployed to more economically productive ends. No major war disrupted the world’s rapidly growing trade.

Good luck also played a role. Oil prices declined during much of Clinton’s presidency, partly because of squabbling and cheating among the OPEC oil-producing nations. As late as 1999 crude oil was selling for less than $10 per barrel and gasoline hit a low of 95 cents per gallon at the pump, a price that included the 4.3-cent-per-gallon tax increase that Clinton had supported and Republicans had denounced.

Here's a challenge for the moron: quote any material from me in this thread claiming Obama didn't lie. Good luck, dumb dumb.

Find a quote from me where I said that you claimed Obama didn't lie you brain dead hack. I said quit PRETENDING he didn't lie which is what you are doing trying to move the goalposts here dumbfuck.

 

[Truth Detector]

What do you think the average spending growth rate was before Obama -- let's say, in the half century leading up to his taking office? What do you think it was during his presidency?

Since we've established you can't do junior-high-level math, I'll do it for you. In FY 2009, spending was $3,517,677 million. In FY 1959, it was $92,098 million. So, the annualized growth rate was about 7.56% in that era. By FY 2017, the spending was $3,981,554 million. So, the annualized growth rate was 1.56% on Obama's watch. So, we're talking about spending growth being about one fifth its normal level when Obama was president. Was that "way above normal"?

Facts matter, pumpkin.

Dear moron; spending increased 13.18% during Obamunism. The point being you claiming that Obamacare caused the deficit to decline. How is that possible if SPENDING INCREASED?? REVENUE increases were the reason, not spending decreases.

I wish you had a brain; really I do. Instead, we get this moronic Obama cheer leading as if he had the greatest Presidency on the planet. How fucking stupid are you? That, of course, was rhetorical.

 

[Truth Detector]

Since you wrongly thought that spending growth was "way above normal" when, in fact, it was vastly below normal, why should anyone take you seriously?

Since you moronically claimed that Obamacare caused the deficit reductions, when spending actually INCREASED why should anyone take you seriously? Rather, they should point at your Obama cheer leading and laugh.

 

[Truth Detector]

For a good discussion on Obamacare where the hateful deniers get it stuffed right up their snouts, come on over to the APP section. I'm the Canadian over there who is happy to talk about the facts of universal health care in a safe environment where the rabid rightists aren't allowed to shit on everything that embarrasses them!

 

[Truth Detector]

If the economic footing wasn't solid, how do you explain how resilient that economy was? Remember, even when the first of Bush's recessions arrived,

So Bush was responsible for the dot.com implosion under Clinton's watch? STFU you moron.

....it was unusually short and unusually shallow,

What Ended It
The Bush administration helped to end the recession with expansionary fiscal policy. Immediately upon entering office in January, President Bush began working with Congress to cut taxes.

On June 7, 2001, he signed the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. It gave income tax relief to families retroactive to January. That covered them for the entire 2001 tax year. The administration believed they would spend the extra money and boost economic growth.

EGTTRA lowered the maximum tax rate from 39.6 percent to 35 percent. It reduced the 36 percent rate to 33 percent, the 31 percent rate to 28 percent, and the 28 percent rate to 25 percent. It reduced some of the 15 percent rate to 10 percent. It also expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit.

EGTTRA doubled the standard deduction and raised the threshold for the 15 percent tax bracket for married couples. It gave families additional tax breaks. It doubled the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000.

... and even the additional knock of 9/11 didn't extend it much.

Idiot:

The 9/11 attack worsened the downturn. The New York Stock Exchange closed for four trading days after the attacks. That was the first time since the Great Depression. The stock market reopened on September 17, 2001. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 7.13 percent, closing at 8,920.70. The 617.78 point loss was the Dow's worst one-day drop at that time.


https://www.thebalance.com/2001-recession-causes-lengths-stats-4147962

 

[Truth Detector]

That's the right-wing method: since the economy almost always does better under Democrats than Republicans, there must always be an excuse for why it doesn't count. Wilson doesn't count because of WWI. FDR and Truman don't count because of WWII and Korea. Kennedy and Johnson don't count because of Vietnam. The titanic job creation rate under Carter doesn't count because it was just women entering the workforce. Clinton's economy doesn't count because of the dotcom bubble (and before that bubble was obvious, it didn't count because of the "peace dividend.") The across-the-board improvement on Obama's watch doesn't count because he inherited an economy at such a low point that improvement was inevitable. Etc. When the next Democratic president gets elected and we again get nearly across-the-board improvement, I assure you, that won't count either. We don't know yet what spin the Republican apparatchiks will hand to their minions to explain away the success, but they'll come up with something.

So according to your moronic nonsense; BillyBob engineered the dot.com boom and got out just in time to blame the bust on Bush. STFU you partisan hack moron.

 

[Oneuli]

Remember Greenspan was considered "the Maestro" who masterfully managed the economy in the '90's

Yes. Clinton's incredible success posed an enormous problem for the right-wingers. How could one explain away that across-the-board rapid improvement? How could one explain away the fact unemployment had dropped far below levels the conservatives were insisting were "full employment" when they were a floor beneath which Reagan couldn't take us? How could they explain away the fact that so many indicators that had seemed permanently stagnant (e.g., real median incomes) were suddenly improving rapidly, or how what seemed like permanently rising deficits had given way to record surpluses in a few short years?

Some of the dumber ones tried to attribute it to the Internet. But the smarter ones realized that was a trap. The Internet was inherently global, and the across-the-board improvement the US enjoyed in that era emphatically wasn't reflected around the globe. Quite the contrary. Japan was in the midst of a brutal "lost decade." Germany was having its worst run since before the economic miracle of the 50s and 60s. The once promising tiger economies of Southeast Asia were suffering a horrific financial meltdown. Russia had its ruble crisis and Mexico had the peso crisis. Even the UK and Canada weren't doing very well. Attributing the brilliant Clinton economy to the Internet was just a recipe for looking stupid. So, what was a right-wing drone to do?

That's where the myth of the maestro came in. Dunderheads like Bob Woodward, who just couldn't handle any praise going to someone like Clinton, needed to create a mythology around a prominent Republican. Some wanted to make Newt Gingrich fit the bill, but since pretty much all the positive economic trends of the Clinton years were already underway before the first budget passed by a Republican Congress went into force, Greenspan was a better fit. And they put a HUGE amount of effort into trying to make that halfwit seem smart. Of course, it only took a few years after Clinton left office for people to realize how bad a spin job that was. Without Clinton, the magic of the 90s economy disappeared, even as "The Maestro" stayed in place. And then we had a Depression-like economic collapse that took "The Maestro" totally by surprise. But right-wing talking points are like zombies. It doesn't really matter how long ago they lost any real intellectual life -- they'll go shambling along to the apocalypse.

You're a fan of the stock market, the market peaked in March 2000 and went downhill from there.

Yes, stock values did peak in late March 2000. But the economy didn't. It didn't peak until a full year later.

 

[cawacko]

Yes. Clinton's incredible success posed an enormous problem for the right-wingers. How could one explain away that across-the-board rapid improvement? How could one explain away the fact unemployment had dropped far below levels the conservatives were insisting were "full employment" when they were a floor beneath which Reagan couldn't take us? How could they explain away the fact that so many indicators that had seemed permanently stagnant (e.g., real median incomes) were suddenly improving rapidly, or how what seemed like permanently rising deficits had given way to record surpluses in a few short years?

Some of the dumber ones tried to attribute it to the Internet. But the smarter ones realized that was a trap. The Internet was inherently global, and the across-the-board improvement the US enjoyed in that era emphatically wasn't reflected around the globe. Quite the contrary. Japan was in the midst of a brutal "lost decade." Germany was having its worst run since before the economic miracle of the 50s and 60s. The once promising tiger economies of Southeast Asia were suffering a horrific financial meltdown. Russia had its ruble crisis and Mexico had the peso crisis. Even the UK and Canada weren't doing very well. Attributing the brilliant Clinton economy to the Internet was just a recipe for looking stupid. So, what was a right-wing drone to do?

That's where the myth of the maestro came in. Dunderheads like Bob Woodward, who just couldn't handle any praise going to someone like Clinton, needed to create a mythology around a prominent Republican. Some wanted to make Newt Gingrich fit the bill, but since pretty much all the positive economic trends of the Clinton years were already underway before the first budget passed by a Republican Congress went into force, Greenspan was a better fit. And they put a HUGE amount of effort into trying to make that halfwit seem smart. Of course, it only took a few years after Clinton left office for people to realize how bad a spin job that was. Without Clinton, the magic of the 90s economy disappeared, even as "The Maestro" stayed in place. And then we had a Depression-like economic collapse that took "The Maestro" totally by surprise. But right-wing talking points are like zombies. It doesn't really matter how long ago they lost any real intellectual life -- they'll go shambling along to the apocalypse.



Yes, stock values did peak in late March 2000. But the economy didn't. It didn't peak until a full year later.

I wasn't kidding when I said earlier you should work for the DNC. You do a hell of a job writing from a partisan perspective and I say that as a compliment. Ultimately the President isn't a king. Presidents always get more credit and more blame than they deserve. In this case you think the President controls the entire economy when that is not the case.

There's a reason Presidents are judged years and decades after they leave office and it's because we get to see the full results of their work and all policies they implemented. Clinton signed major deregulation in '99 and '00. Those policies didn't leave because he left the Presidency. It works that way for all who hold the office.

Back to the original point, there was a dot com bubble in 2000 that burst. It led to the '01 recession. That's just economic fact.

 

[Oneuli]

The burden of proof rests upon the claimant

If you could prove genuine curiosity about these things, I'd happily comply. But, I think you're being disingenuous. I think you're just looking to sidetrack me with running down websites for you, when you know it would take you just a few seconds to confirm with Google.

For example, take another claim from my list:

"record high GDP"

How long does it take to find that info? I type in "real GDP by year" into Google. The first link comes up:

http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-inflation-adjusted/table

The figure for December 31, 2000 (just shortly before Clinton left office) is listed at $13.26 trillion. Before that, the highest in history was $12.88 trillion. So, it was the record high GDP at the time. That literally took me 12 seconds to confirm. Similarly, Googling "budget deficit by year" pulls this up as the first link:

https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306

One glance at that confirms the largest surplus was in 2000. Another 12 seconds of work.

It took an extra five seconds to find this regarding crime rates:

https://www.infoplease.com/us/crime/homicide-rate-1950-2014

The murder rate in 2000, 5.5, was the lowest since 1965.

Regarding approval ratings abroad:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/05/goodwill-deficit/

All told, that was about 1 minute of Googling.

 

[Oneuli]

Who told you that?

Reason. It tells me many things. If you'd consult with it from time to time, it would do the same for you.

 

[TTQ64]

Within hours of being sworn in last year, President Trump signed an executive order aimed at minimizing Obamacare's financial burden on the nation. It was his first attempt to dismantle his predecessor's landmark health reform law.


You should all stop calling it Obama care. This is the republican care act.

they, the media, call it Obama care so when it starts to fall apart because of the republican changes.....they can blame President Obama and you all will follow.

It's the GOPdoesntcare.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

How much has Obamacare saved the American people?l]

which American people.......taxpayers or leeches?......

 

[Oneuli]

Dear dunce; you are the moron claiming that Obamacare is the reason the deficit declined which is laughably stupid on your part. Spending INCREASED every year after it was in effect you moron. Learn how to read a chart.

As you now know, spending increased at a very low rate in the Obama years -- about 1/5 the average rate of the preceding half century. Now that you know that your previous assumption about spending rising unusually fast was wildly incorrect, has it altered any of your analysis? Of course not -- because you don't actually do analysis. Unlike me, you aren't looking to the data to decide what to conclude about the world. Rather, you're deciding what you'd like to be true, and then simply asserting that it is. So, when you find out you're dead wrong, it makes no difference to you at all.