Elkhart, Indiana: Obama Touts His Economic Success

Last week, while giving a speech on the economy in Elkhart, Indiana, President Obama said this:

“By almost every economic measure, America is better off than when I came here at the beginning of my presidency. That’s the truth.”

The problem with that statement is that it isn't "the truth".  The folks at Zero Hedge, a business, stock market, and economics site, presented this series of 9 graphs to refute it:

Pink Shading Obama's Term in Office...Click on image to enlarge

This is a President who has increasingly presided over one negative economic record after another.  And, there is another not included in the above records: The highest number of Americans in poverty --  nearly one in seven -- since Lyndon Johnson declared a "War on Poverty" more than 50 years ago.  Also, Obama is slated to have the 4th worst economic record in the history of the country.  Only Herbert Hoover, Andrew Johnson, and Teddy Roosevelt were worse.

This President not only thinks, but knows, that most people will believe his lies because they don't understand all the facets and facts that make up the economy, and aren't interested in researching what he says.  And, for sure, the liberal media isn't going to do their job and expose his lies.

References:

Obama visits Elkhart to discuss economy: http://www.idsnews.com/article/2016/06/obama-in-elkhart

Chart Source: These Are The 9 Zero Hedge Charts Showing "Obama's Recovery" That Angered The Washington Post: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-03/these-are-9-zero-hedge-charts-showing-obamas-recovery-angered-washington-post

Record 46.7 Million Americans Live In Poverty; Household Income Back to 1989 Levels: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-16/record-467-million-americans-live-poverty-median-houshold-income-back-1989-levels

Barack Obama's Sad Record on Economic Growth | RealClearMarkets:  http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2016/02/01/barack_obamas_sad_record_on_economic_growth_101987.html

The Iowa Caucuses: What's the Big Deal?

It seems like every time a new Iowa poll comes out, the media begins buzzing about whoever is leading.  But, history tells us that Iowa is neither a good prognosticator of who gets the nomination for either party, nor a good predictor of the ultimate President.  Cases, in point are as follows, with 40 years of data from Wikipedia.

Picking the Party's Nominee

For Democrats since 1976, Iowans -- putting 2nd term presidential runs aside -- have only picked the party's nominee 4 times; Barack Obama (2008), John Kerry (2004), Al Gore (2000), and Walter Mondale (1984).  On the Republican side, Iowans only picked their party's ultimate nominee 3 times: George W. Bush (2000), Bob Dole (1996), and Gerald Ford (1976).

Picking a First-Term President

For the Democrats, only one person has been picked to become the party's nominee, and then gone on to be President. That was Barack Obama in 2008. Similarly, for the Republicans, only George W. Bush accomplished the same feat in 2000.  This fact should scare Hillary Clinton to death, if she, as it almost seems inevitable, wins Iowa.  It should also scare whoever wins on the Republican side.  Clearly, the odds are against the Iowa victor becoming President.

I would be remiss if I did not mention that the only two sitting Presidents who won Iowa and lost the General Election were Jimmy Carter for the Democrats in 1980 and George H.W. Bush for the Republicans in 1992.

Clearly, the political junkies will find Iowa an adrenaline rush, but in reality, it is no big deal.  I mean, no offense to the people of Iowa, but being first may simply mean that people aren't really paying attention yet.

References:

The Iowa Caucuses: History: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses

pb

8 Million Signups Is Success And Talk Of ObamaCare Repeal Is Over?

I'm sorry, Mr. President, having 8 million people or 2-1/2 percent of the population signed up for ObamaCare hardly proves success. Success should only be judged on whether or not the law actually meets the goals and promises that justified a complete upheaval of the healthcare system.

For years, Democrats have argued that we need to reform healthcare in America for the following reasons:

1. People with pre-existing conditions should not be denied insurance or medical care.
2. People should not be dropped by their insurers if they become seriously ill.
3. Millions of uninsured are clogging our emergency rooms or are going without needed care. We need all Americans to be insured.
4. With the highest cost of healthcare in the world, reform is needed to bend the cost curve.

In selling healthcare reform, Obama added some additional promises.

1. If you like your insurance, you can keep it.
2. If you like your doctor, you can keep him/her.
3. The average family will see a $2500 drop in their insurance premiums.
4. No one should go bankrupt because they get sick.

Then, the title of the law -- The Affordable Care Act and Patient Protection -- implied two more  promises: (1) healthcare will be affordable and (2) patients will be protected.

Meeting those goals is the true measure of success. Not some vague number of people who are forced to signup because the law cancelled their insurance or because they are under the threat of having to pay a penalty. At this juncture, ObamaCare isn't even meeting one quarter of all of those promises.  That, to any rational person, isn't success, or a reason not to debate its repeal.  Finally, can it be viewed as a success when the President finds it necessary to delay so much of its implementation until after the mid-term elections?

Reference: Obama argues healthcare law is working, rejects Republican criticism: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/17/us-usa-healthcare-obama-idUSBREA3G24820140417

Only 7.1 Million Signups Proves ObamaCare A Failure

First of all, the 7.1 million number is highly suspect.  While the Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, can't tell us, at the federal level, how many of that number have actually paid for the insurance they signed up for and, thus, are truly insured, a review of the state exchanges shows that only about 80% have paid for their policies.  If that's true, and it holds to be true at the federal level, that means that only about 5.7 million are truly signed up for ObamaCare.

To put that into perspective, 5.7 million is only about 1.7% of our population.  So, one has to wonder why we had this total upheaval of our health care system for the benefit of less than 2% of the population.

But, it looks even worse when you look at the total uninsured number. Two separate studies of ObamaCare signups were recently conducted: one by the Rand Corporation and the other by McKinsey & Company.  Rand found that only 1/3 of the enrollees previously had no insurance.  For McKinsey, it was 27%.  Now, if you split the difference of these two studies you get 30%.  This means that only 1.7 million of the 5.7 million number previously had no insurance.  What that is really telling us is that, of the 15.9% or 50 million who don't have health insurance, 48.3 million or 97% would prefer to pay the penalty rather than buy into ObamaCare.  Hardly a success story for a law that was primarily intended to solve the uninsured problem.

Then, there's this measure of the law's failure.  From the paragraph above, we can deduce the fact that about 4 million of those signing up previously had insurance.  Logically, some number of those millions voluntarily left their existing policies because they got federal subsidies and their cost for insurance was lowered.  But, what doesn't square with that number is the fact that more than 5 million lost insurance at the beginning of the year because of mandates of the healthcare law.  The conclusion being that ObamaCare is better at kicking people off their insurance than providing them an alternative once they've lost it.

It's important to note that the Obama Administration set the 7 million number as a measure of success; and, conveniently, they not only met that goal but slightly exceeded it.  This from an Administration that lied about keeping your doctor and your insurance.  They also said that delay "was not an option" yet, there have been numerous delays.

Obviously, people aren't "door busting" to saddle up with Obama's signature healthcare plan. With what we know -- along with so much that we don't know and should -- ObamaCare is not a success and it will only become less so going forward as more and more of the damaging portions are rolled out.  In my opinion, there should be as much outrage over Obama taking a Rose Garden victory lap for signing up 7.1 million people, as there was for George W. Bush giving his Iraq invasion speech with that infamous "Mission Accomplished" sign hanging behind him.  But, as usual, the media is just dutifully and lovingly joining in the celebration.

References:

The ObamaCare Numbers Racket: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-obama-care/032614-694734-obama-delays-enrollment-deadline-hides-data-to-inflation-enrollment.htm

RAND: Only One-Third Of Obamacare Exchange Sign-Ups Were From The Previously Uninsured: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/03/31/rand-only-one-third-of-obamacare-exchange-sign-ups-were-from-the-previously-uninsured/

Gallup: Uninsured Americans: http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/b12atxiztekoguarvptywa.png

Obama Celebrates 7.1 Million Enrolled in Obamacare: http://time.com/45867/barack-obama-obamacare-affordable-care-act/

pb