Apparently with a straight face, Obama told The New York times recently, “I actually compare our economic performance to how, historically, countries that have wrenching financial crises perform. By that measure, we probably managed this better than any large economy on Earth in modern history.”
When the April jobs report revealed an anemic 160,000 new jobs being created for the month, he boasted about 74 straight months of private-sector job creation and said the economy had created 14.6 million new jobs during the recovery.
He did not mention that from March to April 562,000 left the labor force — gave up looking for work.
As for those new 14.6 million jobs, an Investor’s Business Daily editorial notes that during that job growth the working-age population grew by 16 million, leaving Obama’s record 1.4 million shy of breaking even.
The editorial further notes that Obama starts his job count from February 2010, when the economy hit the bottom, not from the beginning of the recession when jobs were at a peak.
“There are today only 5.5 million more jobs than there were when employment peaked at the start of the last recession,” IBD relates. “Over these following eight-plus years, however, the working-age population has climbed by 20.4 million. That leaves Obama with a 14.9 million jobs gap.”
But look at all the people who have health insurance under ObamaCare, right?
Down and to the right on the same page of IBD is a report by Stephen Parente, a professor of health finance and an associate dean at the Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota, who notes that everyone focuses on the 12.7 million health insurance policies obtained through ObamaCare, but seldom look at how the 151 million Americans with employer-sponsored health plans are being affected.
Using government data, Parente projects that employees in the most common plan, a midlevel PPO, will see their share of premiums increase by 78 percent for individuals and 71 percent for families.
But it is even worse for employers. Parente writes, “That 78% increase for midlevel PPO plans will cost employers an additional $2,800 per individual plan, and $8,000 more per family by 2025.”
Many firms will not be able to afford to continue coverage, he suggests.
His op-ed piece concludes:
Meanwhile, 11 million fewer Americans will receive health insurance through their employers by 2025. These families and individuals will then have to choose between purchasing insurance on state or federal exchanges — where premiums for comparable plans may be three to four times more expensive, according to a similar study I conducted — or pay a penalty equal to 2.5% of their taxable income. These higher costs and penalties will crush low- and middle-income families already living paycheck to paycheck.
First quarter weekly earnings in 2016, adjusted for inflation, are $1 higher than in the first quarter of 2009.
There’s little mention of the Affordable Care Act, the formal name for “Obamacare”, now simply called health care. I wonder how much the IRS has taken in or is owed by individuals that failed to take “advantage” of this “affordable” program? That’s also never mentioned. I also wonder if some of the negatives about Trump from Democrats and many establishment Republicans have something to do with the possibility that he would change this atrocity,that he would appoint supreme court justices to oppose it and override Chief Justice John Roberts dubious decision that it’s a tax. Given Hillary Clinton’s scurrilous history she would be Bill Clinton, Bush 43, and Barack Obama Redux. It’s time for an outsider with business acumen and an actual sense of what the people need and want.
Yes, good old Gary (the “real” option) may get one and a half percent of the total presidential votes cast instead of .99…be still my beating heart.
Defeatism is good for you?
Vern Clayson is what the Republican Party is all about now.
I’ll take good ole’ Vern’s perspectives over nyp’s and Patrick’s progressive leftist socialist politically correct “kool aid” views any old day…
I’ll take all views; makes the world go around I think. Eliminated one, or even several, would be like eliminating a “color” in life. We’d all be a little less enriched.
Plus, what fun is it to be around people all the time that just agree with everything everyone says and thinks. Eventually, everyone just stops talking and then where would this blog be?
On that we agree…(I let nyp’s condescension get the better of me before sipping a good cup of coffee…that’s my story, and I’m stickin’ to it).