Census data shows Obamacare and welfare kept millions out of poverty

[Dad2three]

It's amazing what Obama can do by printing $38 billion per month. Print the money, give it away to people who don't want to work, drive interest rates to zero, drive investment away from Main Street to Wall Street, claim that the the economy is vastly improved by negating the unemployed from unemployment figures, then blame the resultant poor on the Republicans.

The fix is in. Dog wags tail.

End of ******* story.

Yes, we remember how well the US did under Dubya/GOP 'job Creator" policies for 8 years, you know when Dubya cheered on the Banksters bubble as they used their homes as ATM's? Good job there right?

 

[Dad2three]

It's amazing what Obama can do by printing $38 billion per month. Print the money, give it away to people who don't want to work, drive interest rates to zero, drive investment away from Main Street to Wall Street, claim that the the economy is vastly improved by negating the unemployed from unemployment figures, then blame the resultant poor on the Republicans.

The fix is in. Dog wags tail.

End of ******* story.

What the **** are you talking about?
"The supplemental poverty measure data released by the US Census bureau showed that programs like food stamps, refundable tax credits and social security benefits helped keep millions of Americans out of poverty in 2014. Similarly, the data regarding health insurance coverage showed that last year the number of uninsured Americans dropped by 8.8 million.

“In 2014, the percentage of people without health insurance for the entire calendar year was 10.4%, or 33 million people, lower than the rate, 13.3%, and the number of uninsured, 41.8 million, in 2013,” Victoria Velkoff, chief of the social, economic and housing statistics division at the bureau, said on Wednesday. “The decrease in the uninsured rate was 2.9%, or 8.8 million people.”

Americans with full-time jobs were the least likely to be uninsured.

“This is dramatic proof that the Affordable Care Act is a stunning success,” said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA. “The historic decrease in the number of uninsured Americans is unmistakably attributable to the Affordable Care Act’s implementation.

“The numbers show that the greatest gains were among moderate-income families, communities of color and young people – the precise groups that most needed help in gaining health insurance. According to the report, households with incomes below $25,000 a year saw their rate of coverage increase by 4.3%, and households between $25,000 and $49,999 saw an increase of 5%. Hispanics, black people and Asians increased coverage rates by about 4%. And the rate of uninsured between ages 26 to 34 went down by 5.5%.”"
Yeah, yeah, blame obama for employers deciding to be assholes..

Smoke and mirrors, my young Padawan *****.

Obama has sold us down the proverbial river with such charades.

Before the ACA, the uninsured never ever lacked care.

More pre-born babies have died because of Roe V Wade than have Americans for lack of insurance.

Preborn? Oh you mean fetuses you whack jobs consider babies? lol


Sep 17, 2009 - ... 45000 annual deaths are associated with lack of health insurance, ...

New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage

 

[Dad2three]

Watchdog finds widespread fraud at U.S. Census Bureau
Watchdog finds widespread fraud at U.S. Census Bureau

Your fellow pubbies cite the census.

SOOOOO.....is there even one govt agency that can be trusted to be honest

Dozens of government employees at the U.S. Census Bureau have been billing taxpayers for time they never actually worked, wasting more than $1 million.


MY GAWD. PROOF RIGHT BUBS?

ENRON $78 BILLION


DUBYA CHEERING ON THE BANKSTERS SUBPRIME BUBBLE, TRILLION LOST!

 

[bripat9643]

It's amazing what Obama can do by printing $38 billion per month. Print the money, give it away to people who don't want to work, drive interest rates to zero, drive investment away from Main Street to Wall Street, claim that the the economy is vastly improved by negating the unemployed from unemployment figures, then blame the resultant poor on the Republicans.

The fix is in. Dog wags tail.

End of ******* story.

Yes, we remember how well the US did under Dubya/GOP 'job Creator" policies for 8 years, you know when Dubya cheered on the Banksters bubble as they used their homes as ATM's? Good job there right?

 

[NightFox]

Census data shows Obamacare and welfare kept millions out of poverty"

Yeah well Census Data also shows that MY PLAN would have kept BILLIONS out of poverty...

My plan you ask...

Wack all the lazy good for nothing bastages, the dead don't need food, shelter or healthcare.

 

[Meathead]

It is tragic that Obama has encouraged welfare and poverty rather than remedying it. We need a president who champions decent jobs and the creation of wealth instead.

 

[NightFox]

It is tragic that Obama has encouraged welfare and poverty rather than remedying it. We need a president who champions decent jobs and the creation of wealth instead.

No we need a President that can shut the **** up and stay out of the way of the Free Market.

Is Calvin Coolidge available ?

 

[mikegriffith1]

First off, it's "census data show," not "shows"--"data" is a plural ("datum" is the singular).

Anyway, why is the black unemployment rate higher than it was under Bush? Why is the U-6 unemployment rate still far above its average rate during the Bush years? Why has median family income barely grown at all under Obama? Why are we not $18 trillion in debt? Why has Obama's recovery been the slowest and weakest in the modern era, whereas Bush's recovery gave us 52 consecutive months of economic growth?

And on and on we can go. There is simply no getting around the fact that Obama's economic record is the worst of any president in the modern era.

 

[Dad2three]

It's amazing what Obama can do by printing $38 billion per month. Print the money, give it away to people who don't want to work, drive interest rates to zero, drive investment away from Main Street to Wall Street, claim that the the economy is vastly improved by negating the unemployed from unemployment figures, then blame the resultant poor on the Republicans.

The fix is in. Dog wags tail.

End of ******* story.

Yes, we remember how well the US did under Dubya/GOP 'job Creator" policies for 8 years, you know when Dubya cheered on the Banksters bubble as they used their homes as ATM's? Good job there right?

Oh right that recession that started UNDER REAGAN AFTER HE GUTTED TAXES ON THE RICH FROM 70% TO 50%? Weird right, the opposite of what he promised right? Took unemployment from 7% to 10% that Ronnie did

RECOVERY? Oh yes after 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator" policies, lol


Now what the Dubya/GOP left Obama was an economy dumping 700,000+ jobs a month AND had lost 9%+ of GDP the last quarter of Dubya



Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?



It's simply a fact that real government spending fell in three of President Obama's first four years.

That made me curious: How does government spending and investment during Obama's first term compare to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush's first terms? The answer is poorly. Whereas total government spending dropped in 10 out of the 16 quarters that comprised Obama's first term, it rose in 13 out of Reagan's first 16 quarters, and 13 out of Bush's first 16 quarters.

'

Or, to put it differently, over Obama's first term, falling government spending and investment snipped, on average, .11 percentage points of GDP off of (annualized) quarterly growth. During Reagan's first term, it added .68 percentage points, and during Bush's first term, it added .52 percentage points.

The point isn't that Reagan and Bush were big spenders while Obama favors austerity. If it were up to Obama, the federal government would have spent much more since 2010. Moreover, these numbers are, in large part, functions of the economies the three men inherited. Each saw a recession in their first term, but Obama's was by far the worst, and so it led to much more severe cutbacks in state and local spending.

Rather, these graphs simply establish a basic fact about Obama's term: While deficits have indeed been high, government spending and investment has been falling since 2010. This is, in recent presidential administrations, a simply unprecedented response to a recession. Just for fun, I took Obama's GDP growth, netted out the effect of government spending and investment, and then added the total government spending and investment numbers — which include state and local government — from Reagan's first term. The result is a significantly better economy, with growth since 2010 averaging 3.2 percent rather than 2.4 percent.

Basic economic theory would hold that you want a larger contribution from government spending during a big recession in which private demand is weak than you do during a mild recession or a healthy economy. But that's been the case in Obama's economy, and all signs are that the pace of government spending cuts will accelerate sharply over the next year.



Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

 

[Dad2three]

It is tragic that Obama has encouraged welfare and poverty rather than remedying it. We need a president who champions decent jobs and the creation of wealth instead.

Weird I thought we had 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies? Why's Obama inherit a steaming pile of shit at the end of it?

 

[Dad2three]

It is tragic that Obama has encouraged welfare and poverty rather than remedying it. We need a president who champions decent jobs and the creation of wealth instead.

No we need a President that can shut the **** up and stay out of the way of the Free Market.

Is Calvin Coolidge available ?

LMAOROG

Yeah, we saw the results of Harding/Coolidge's "hands off"
policies, I think FDR was elected Prez 4 times thanks to them!!!

 

[Dad2three]

First off, it's "census data show," not "shows"--"data" is a plural ("datum" is the singular).

Anyway, why is the black unemployment rate higher than it was under Bush? Why is the U-6 unemployment rate still far above its average rate during the Bush years? Why has median family income barely grown at all under Obama? Why are we not $18 trillion in debt? Why has Obama's recovery been the slowest and weakest in the modern era, whereas Bush's recovery gave us 52 consecutive months of economic growth?

And on and on we can go. There is simply no getting around the fact that Obama's economic record is the worst of any president in the modern era.

Update you talking points Bubba, unemployment for blacks isn't higher than under Dubya


Yes Dubya/GOP lived off housing bubble that gave US zero growth in 8 years, left US with fewer private sector jobs than Clinton left US with and policies that are STILL costing US revenues and tax dollars today


52 CONSECUTIVE MONTHS? Oh then the bubble popped? Hint Obama DOES have the RECORD of 64 straight months Bubba! lol

 

[bripat9643]

It's amazing what Obama can do by printing $38 billion per month. Print the money, give it away to people who don't want to work, drive interest rates to zero, drive investment away from Main Street to Wall Street, claim that the the economy is vastly improved by negating the unemployed from unemployment figures, then blame the resultant poor on the Republicans.

The fix is in. Dog wags tail.

End of ******* story.

Yes, we remember how well the US did under Dubya/GOP 'job Creator" policies for 8 years, you know when Dubya cheered on the Banksters bubble as they used their homes as ATM's? Good job there right?

Oh right that recession that started UNDER REAGAN AFTER HE GUTTED TAXES ON THE RICH FROM 70% TO 50%? Weird right, the opposite of what he promised right? Took unemployment from 7% to 10% that Ronnie did

RECOVERY? Oh yes after 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator" policies, lol


Now what the Dubya/GOP left Obama was an economy dumping 700,000+ jobs a month AND had lost 9%+ of GDP the last quarter of Dubya



Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?



It's simply a fact that real government spending fell in three of President Obama's first four years.

That made me curious: How does government spending and investment during Obama's first term compare to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush's first terms? The answer is poorly. Whereas total government spending dropped in 10 out of the 16 quarters that comprised Obama's first term, it rose in 13 out of Reagan's first 16 quarters, and 13 out of Bush's first 16 quarters.

'

Or, to put it differently, over Obama's first term, falling government spending and investment snipped, on average, .11 percentage points of GDP off of (annualized) quarterly growth. During Reagan's first term, it added .68 percentage points, and during Bush's first term, it added .52 percentage points.

The point isn't that Reagan and Bush were big spenders while Obama favors austerity. If it were up to Obama, the federal government would have spent much more since 2010. Moreover, these numbers are, in large part, functions of the economies the three men inherited. Each saw a recession in their first term, but Obama's was by far the worst, and so it led to much more severe cutbacks in state and local spending.

Rather, these graphs simply establish a basic fact about Obama's term: While deficits have indeed been high, government spending and investment has been falling since 2010. This is, in recent presidential administrations, a simply unprecedented response to a recession. Just for fun, I took Obama's GDP growth, netted out the effect of government spending and investment, and then added the total government spending and investment numbers — which include state and local government — from Reagan's first term. The result is a significantly better economy, with growth since 2010 averaging 3.2 percent rather than 2.4 percent.

Basic economic theory would hold that you want a larger contribution from government spending during a big recession in which private demand is weak than you do during a mild recession or a healthy economy. But that's been the case in Obama's economy, and all signs are that the pace of government spending cuts will accelerate sharply over the next year.



Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

Only a certified retard would try to claim that tax cuts causes a recession.

 

[Dad2three]

It's amazing what Obama can do by printing $38 billion per month. Print the money, give it away to people who don't want to work, drive interest rates to zero, drive investment away from Main Street to Wall Street, claim that the the economy is vastly improved by negating the unemployed from unemployment figures, then blame the resultant poor on the Republicans.

The fix is in. Dog wags tail.

End of ******* story.

Yes, we remember how well the US did under Dubya/GOP 'job Creator" policies for 8 years, you know when Dubya cheered on the Banksters bubble as they used their homes as ATM's? Good job there right?

Oh right that recession that started UNDER REAGAN AFTER HE GUTTED TAXES ON THE RICH FROM 70% TO 50%? Weird right, the opposite of what he promised right? Took unemployment from 7% to 10% that Ronnie did

RECOVERY? Oh yes after 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator" policies, lol


Now what the Dubya/GOP left Obama was an economy dumping 700,000+ jobs a month AND had lost 9%+ of GDP the last quarter of Dubya



Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?



It's simply a fact that real government spending fell in three of President Obama's first four years.

That made me curious: How does government spending and investment during Obama's first term compare to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush's first terms? The answer is poorly. Whereas total government spending dropped in 10 out of the 16 quarters that comprised Obama's first term, it rose in 13 out of Reagan's first 16 quarters, and 13 out of Bush's first 16 quarters.

'

Or, to put it differently, over Obama's first term, falling government spending and investment snipped, on average, .11 percentage points of GDP off of (annualized) quarterly growth. During Reagan's first term, it added .68 percentage points, and during Bush's first term, it added .52 percentage points.

The point isn't that Reagan and Bush were big spenders while Obama favors austerity. If it were up to Obama, the federal government would have spent much more since 2010. Moreover, these numbers are, in large part, functions of the economies the three men inherited. Each saw a recession in their first term, but Obama's was by far the worst, and so it led to much more severe cutbacks in state and local spending.

Rather, these graphs simply establish a basic fact about Obama's term: While deficits have indeed been high, government spending and investment has been falling since 2010. This is, in recent presidential administrations, a simply unprecedented response to a recession. Just for fun, I took Obama's GDP growth, netted out the effect of government spending and investment, and then added the total government spending and investment numbers — which include state and local government — from Reagan's first term. The result is a significantly better economy, with growth since 2010 averaging 3.2 percent rather than 2.4 percent.

Basic economic theory would hold that you want a larger contribution from government spending during a big recession in which private demand is weak than you do during a mild recession or a healthy economy. But that's been the case in Obama's economy, and all signs are that the pace of government spending cuts will accelerate sharply over the next year.



Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

Only a certified retard would try to claim that tax cuts causes a recession.

Only a certified retard would claim that was what was said Bubba

Of course without the Dubya/GOP gutting revenues via their tax cuts that tilted heavily towards the richest, we could have dealt better with the consequences of 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies!

 

[bripat9643]

It's amazing what Obama can do by printing $38 billion per month. Print the money, give it away to people who don't want to work, drive interest rates to zero, drive investment away from Main Street to Wall Street, claim that the the economy is vastly improved by negating the unemployed from unemployment figures, then blame the resultant poor on the Republicans.

The fix is in. Dog wags tail.

End of ******* story.

Yes, we remember how well the US did under Dubya/GOP 'job Creator" policies for 8 years, you know when Dubya cheered on the Banksters bubble as they used their homes as ATM's? Good job there right?

Oh right that recession that started UNDER REAGAN AFTER HE GUTTED TAXES ON THE RICH FROM 70% TO 50%? Weird right, the opposite of what he promised right? Took unemployment from 7% to 10% that Ronnie did

RECOVERY? Oh yes after 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator" policies, lol


Now what the Dubya/GOP left Obama was an economy dumping 700,000+ jobs a month AND had lost 9%+ of GDP the last quarter of Dubya



Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?



It's simply a fact that real government spending fell in three of President Obama's first four years.

That made me curious: How does government spending and investment during Obama's first term compare to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush's first terms? The answer is poorly. Whereas total government spending dropped in 10 out of the 16 quarters that comprised Obama's first term, it rose in 13 out of Reagan's first 16 quarters, and 13 out of Bush's first 16 quarters.

'

Or, to put it differently, over Obama's first term, falling government spending and investment snipped, on average, .11 percentage points of GDP off of (annualized) quarterly growth. During Reagan's first term, it added .68 percentage points, and during Bush's first term, it added .52 percentage points.

The point isn't that Reagan and Bush were big spenders while Obama favors austerity. If it were up to Obama, the federal government would have spent much more since 2010. Moreover, these numbers are, in large part, functions of the economies the three men inherited. Each saw a recession in their first term, but Obama's was by far the worst, and so it led to much more severe cutbacks in state and local spending.

Rather, these graphs simply establish a basic fact about Obama's term: While deficits have indeed been high, government spending and investment has been falling since 2010. This is, in recent presidential administrations, a simply unprecedented response to a recession. Just for fun, I took Obama's GDP growth, netted out the effect of government spending and investment, and then added the total government spending and investment numbers — which include state and local government — from Reagan's first term. The result is a significantly better economy, with growth since 2010 averaging 3.2 percent rather than 2.4 percent.

Basic economic theory would hold that you want a larger contribution from government spending during a big recession in which private demand is weak than you do during a mild recession or a healthy economy. But that's been the case in Obama's economy, and all signs are that the pace of government spending cuts will accelerate sharply over the next year.



Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

Only a certified retard would try to claim that tax cuts causes a recession.

Only a certified retard would claim that was what was said Bubba

Allow me to quote you, Bubba:

"Oh right that recession that started UNDER REAGAN AFTER HE GUTTED TAXES ON THE RICH FROM 70% TO 50%? Weird right, the opposite of what he promised right? Took unemployment from 7% to 10% that Ronnie did"​

Of course without the Dubya/GOP gutting revenues via their tax cuts that tilted heavily towards the richest, we could have dealt better with the consequences of 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies!

In other words, tax cuts cause recessions. First you deny it, then you admit it.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Middle Class Lost In Obama's 'Middle Class Economics'
Economy: After six-plus years of President Obama's big-spending, tax-raising policies, middle-class families have seen their incomes decline and more families have fallen into poverty, Census data show.

The Census Bureau's latest annual report on income and poverty in America shows that there was little to cheer about in 2014.

View attachment 50460


Read More At Investor's Business Daily: Middle Class Lost In Obama's 'Middle Class Economics'
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

Reagan tripled the national debt, obama was handed one of the worst disasters in decades. Jobs are being added rapidly.

maybe if you took obamas dick out of your mouth, his ball sack would not be blocking your view and you would see that he has done more financial harm to this country than the last 5 presidents before him combined.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Lol

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Of course it did,,,,The rich have fucked over the market place and ******* sent us into a recession...So all the people that needed help got it under Obama.

Infrastructure!

Go build some with your Legos

 

[Obiwan]

Of course it did,,,,The rich have fucked over the market place and ******* sent us into a recession...So all the people that needed help got it under Obama.

Infrastructure!

Go build some with your Legos

Toot!!! Toot!!!

 

[Dad2three]

Yes, we remember how well the US did under Dubya/GOP 'job Creator" policies for 8 years, you know when Dubya cheered on the Banksters bubble as they used their homes as ATM's? Good job there right?

Oh right that recession that started UNDER REAGAN AFTER HE GUTTED TAXES ON THE RICH FROM 70% TO 50%? Weird right, the opposite of what he promised right? Took unemployment from 7% to 10% that Ronnie did

RECOVERY? Oh yes after 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator" policies, lol


Now what the Dubya/GOP left Obama was an economy dumping 700,000+ jobs a month AND had lost 9%+ of GDP the last quarter of Dubya



Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?



It's simply a fact that real government spending fell in three of President Obama's first four years.

That made me curious: How does government spending and investment during Obama's first term compare to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush's first terms? The answer is poorly. Whereas total government spending dropped in 10 out of the 16 quarters that comprised Obama's first term, it rose in 13 out of Reagan's first 16 quarters, and 13 out of Bush's first 16 quarters.

'

Or, to put it differently, over Obama's first term, falling government spending and investment snipped, on average, .11 percentage points of GDP off of (annualized) quarterly growth. During Reagan's first term, it added .68 percentage points, and during Bush's first term, it added .52 percentage points.

The point isn't that Reagan and Bush were big spenders while Obama favors austerity. If it were up to Obama, the federal government would have spent much more since 2010. Moreover, these numbers are, in large part, functions of the economies the three men inherited. Each saw a recession in their first term, but Obama's was by far the worst, and so it led to much more severe cutbacks in state and local spending.

Rather, these graphs simply establish a basic fact about Obama's term: While deficits have indeed been high, government spending and investment has been falling since 2010. This is, in recent presidential administrations, a simply unprecedented response to a recession. Just for fun, I took Obama's GDP growth, netted out the effect of government spending and investment, and then added the total government spending and investment numbers — which include state and local government — from Reagan's first term. The result is a significantly better economy, with growth since 2010 averaging 3.2 percent rather than 2.4 percent.

Basic economic theory would hold that you want a larger contribution from government spending during a big recession in which private demand is weak than you do during a mild recession or a healthy economy. But that's been the case in Obama's economy, and all signs are that the pace of government spending cuts will accelerate sharply over the next year.



Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

Only a certified retard would try to claim that tax cuts causes a recession.

Only a certified retard would claim that was what was said Bubba

Allow me to quote you, Bubba:

"Oh right that recession that started UNDER REAGAN AFTER HE GUTTED TAXES ON THE RICH FROM 70% TO 50%? Weird right, the opposite of what he promised right? Took unemployment from 7% to 10% that Ronnie did"​

Of course without the Dubya/GOP gutting revenues via their tax cuts that tilted heavily towards the richest, we could have dealt better with the consequences of 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies!

In other words, tax cuts cause recessions. First you deny it, then you admit it.

Weird, did you read SOME causation in there Bubba, OR JUST THAT RONNIE AND COMP PROMISED THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED? oops

You dishonest POS


NEXT