My last blog detailed the slander against Romney, and why it was false. Now, I'll focus on facts about Obama that liberals have claimed was merely slander, and detailing why it is in fact true.
Disclaimer: The original plan for this plan was to research on liberal pages for examples of this slander, however, I can't seem to find a whole lot of specific examples, so many of these will just have to be negative facts. (It is interesting that it was so much easier for me to find specific examples of slander against Romney and the RNC, but incredibly difficult to find specific examples of slander against Obama. I would speculate that this is due to a lack of actual slander, and is perpetuated by nothing more than when negative things are said against Obama, that his supporters can only be responded with by saying it's not true, and further debate would only prove that it were true, or at least likely true. If these things were true, and those that were educated on the subject knew they were true, they would avoid mentioning them like the plague, even to dispute them. It's would be far easier to make a blanket accusation that there is a lot of slander out there without specifying where, and keeping conversations on the subject as short as possible.)
Let's start with his famous "You didn't build that" speech. There are two claims. One is that he never said that. Not true. I heard it.
So, as you can see, he clearly said exactly what people are saying he said.
The other claim is that it was taken out of context. Also not true. I just posted him elaborating on what he meant. He explained how you don't deserve credit for your success because government provided great teachers, roads and bridges, and the internet. He elaborated on how government was the reason that you were able to succeed. He didn't talk about how these businesses give that government the money to hire teachers, build and maintain bridges and roads, etc. Government can't accomplish anything without funds provided by these businesses. It's quite the contrary. If a government is successful, it didn't get their on it's own. It got their on the backs of it's people. But I digress. I've already proven that he both said it, and meant it. If you want a further argument on how this speech was so wrong, I'll be doing a blog more specific to the subject at a later time.
I've heard it claimed that it isn't true that Obama slashed medicare to pay for Obamacare. This is most definitely true. Over the next ten years, it cuts $716 billion from medicare, and that still doesn't come close to covering the costs of Obamacare, which he claimed wouldn't cost anything. Although, to be fair, most of this doesn't cut current spending, but rather slows the increase in the budget, but the claim that Obamacare cuts $716 biillion from medicare over the next 10 years is absolutely true.
Obama supporters like to refute the claim the unemployment is way out of control as slander as well. They're wrong on a few levels. When Bush left office, unemployment was at 7.8%. Today, it is at 8.1%, and that certainly isn't the peak. I can go further than this, though. 368,000 workers have left the work force since Obama took office. This means that some amount of those have given up hope in ever finding a job. If you adjust the numbers, and add 368,000 workers back into the workforce, we actually have unemployment over 11%. So, not only is unemployment higher now than when Obama took office, if you count that people that just gave up hope, it's astronomically higher.
There's the famous "this economy is bad because Obama inherited it, and it's not his fault". Really? You're still saying that? It's been nearly four years, and growth is horrible. When Reagan was president, he was creating 500,000 jobs a month, and he was doing it by promoting small businesses. Obama creating 80,000 jobs by spending astronomical amounts of money, often costing millions per job, and there are still fewer jobs today than there were when he took office.
There's been a report that Obama is the smallest spender since Eisenhower. This report uses skewed data to come up with this, and this should be obvious to any objective person. Our debt has nearly doubled in less than four years, so to suggest he's somehow spending less is ridiculous. This report counts things like war spending, which is generally not intended to be spent, it's there just in case. I believe it was Rush Limbaugh (I don't care if you like the man or not, focus on the point here) that said it's like putting enough money in your budget to buy a brand new car every year, even though you intend to keep the same care for ten years. If you keep the same car for ten years, it doesn't mean that you cut all that money out of your budget, since you never really intended to spend it. it's there just in case. It wasn't an amazing feat that you didn't spend your "just in case" money. Previous presidents were not given credit for not spending that money, only Obama.
No comments:
Post a Comment