Here is your change

[Daniel]

Just got this in an email and had to share.  I'm sure that someone somewhere has put together a rebuttal list of all the things that are better now, and if you see it, I'd love to get it posted here as well.

---

 

After two years of Obama...Here's your change!

	January 2009	TODAY	% chg	Source
Avg.. Retail price/gallon gas in U.S.	$1.83	$3.104	69.6%	1
Crude oil, European Brent (barrel)	$43.48	$99.02	127.7%	2
Crude oil, West TX Inter. (barrel)	$38.74	$91.38	135.9%	2
Gold: London (per troy oz.)	$853.25	$1,369.50	60.5%	2
Corn, No.2 yellow, Central IL	$3.56	$6.33	78.1%	2
Soybeans, No. 1 yellow, IL	$9.66	$13.75	42.3%	2
Sugar, cane, raw, world, lb. Fob	$13.37	$35.39	164.7%	2
Unemployment rate, non-farm, overall	7.6%	9.4%	23.7%	3
Unemployment rate, blacks	12.6%	15.8%	25.4%	3
Number of unemployed	11,616,000	14,485,000	24.7%	3
Number of fed. Employees, ex. Military (curr = 12/10 prelim)	2,779,000	2,840,000	2.2%	3
Real median household income (2008 v 2009)	$50,112	$49,777	-0.7%	4
Number of food stamp recipients (curr = 10/10)	31,983,716	43,200,878	35.1%	5
Number of unemployment benefit recipients (curr = 12/10)	7,526,598	9,193,838	22.2%	6
Number of long-term unemployed	2,600,000	6,400,000	146.2%	3
Poverty rate, individuals (2008 v 2009)	13.2%	14.3%	8.3%	4
People in poverty in U.S. (2008 v 2009)	39,800,000	43,600,000	9.5%	4
U.S.. Rank in Economic Freedom World Rankings	5	9	n/a	10
Present Situation Index (curr = 12/10)	29.9	23.5	-21.4%	11
Failed banks (curr = 2010 + 2011 to date)	140	164	17.1%	12
U.S.. Dollar versus Japanese yen exchange rate	89.76	82.03	-8.6%	2
U.S.. Money supply, M1, in billions (curr = 12/10 prelim)	1,575.1	1,865.7	18.4%	13
U.S.. Money supply, M2, in billions (curr = 12/10 prelim)	8,310.9	8,852.3	6.5%	13
National debt, in trillions	$10.627	$14.052	32.2%	14

Just take this last item:  In the last two years we have accumulated national debt at a rate more than 27 times as fast as during the rest of our entire nation's history..  Over 27 times as fast.  Metaphorically speaking, if you are driving in the right lane doing 65 MPH and a car rockets past you in the left lane. 27 times faster, it would be doing  7,555 MPH!

Sources:

(1) U.S. Energy Information Administration; (2) Wall Street Journal; (3) Bureau of Labor Statistics; (4) Census Bureau; (5) USDA; (6) U.S. Dept. Of Labor; (7) FHFA; (8) Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller; (9) RealtyTrac; (10) Heritage Foundation and WSJ; (11) The Conference Board; (12) FDIC; (13) Federal Reserve; (14) U.S. Treasury

---

[Cherylu]

Ah yes, what price change.  We were promised change, weren't we?  Can't say that I care for a lot of this change much, (or some of the other change that is not listed here either).

[Todd]

Math check.

 

65mph x 27 = 1755mph not 7555mph

 

FAIL

 

[KG]

Regardless of your views on the president there seem to be a few issues with the data in the email. http://factcheck.org/2011/02/sorry-statistics/

[Todd]

Not only that but are we to supposed to conclude on the basis of the OP that the current U.S. economic landscape is solely Obama's fault alone?

 

Or solely Obama’s and the Dems alone?

 

In reality, imho, the cause of the current US situation was the recession that started in late 2007 when Bush was in office. So those “Obama statistics” are more the fallout of that then any policies he enacted in the last two years.

  

And that is not to say that this is all Bush’s fault. But that is another story.

[Daniel]

Thanks for the link.  I had looked for something like that before posting this and had not found anything other than some other postings of the chart.  Nothing to "debunk" it.  Just for posterity, I'll post the FactCheck "corrected" version of the chart, but I have to admit that I don't look at FactCheck as being as objective as they claim.  There were several times in the campaign when McCain would make a claim that Obama was going to do something and FactCheck would rule it as false because Obama would deny it.  They wouldn't address the documented statements that backed up the claim, but would just take the Obama side of things if they claimed otherwise.  I sent them a lengthy letter about that kind of objectivity listing a couple of examples, but never heard back from them.  Didn't really expect to though.  Anyway, for posterity, here are the "correct" figures for "change"

 

---

– Brooks Jackson, with Lori Robertson, Lara Seligman and Lauren Hitt

Sources

1. U.S. Energy information Administration, "Weekly U.S. Regular All Formulations Retail Gasoline Prices (Dollar...)" (Week ending 1/26/2009 vs week ending 1/24/2011) Accessed 19 Feb 2011.

2. U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Europe Brent Spot Price FOB (Dollars per Barrel)" (20 Jan 2009 vs. 20 Jan 2011) Accessed 19 Feb 2011.

3. U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Cushing, OK WTI Spot Price FOB (Dollars per Barrel)" (20 Jan 2009 vs. 20 Jan 2011) Accessed 19 Feb 2011.

4. The London  Bullion Market Association, "2009 London Gold Fixings" and "2011 London Gold Fixings," PM prices in U.S. Dollars, 20 Jan 2009 vs. 20 Jan 2011. Accessed 19 Feb 2011.

5. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, "Central Illinois Corn Processor Report" (Low bid price for U.S. 2 Yellow Corn) 20 Jan 2009 and 20 Jan 2011. Accessed 19 Feb 2011.

6. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, "Central Illinois Soybean Processor Report" (Low bid price for U.S. 1 yellow soybeans) 20 Jan 2009 and 20 Jan 2011. Accessed 19 Feb 2011.

7. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, "World and U.S. Sugar and Corn Sweetener Prices, Table 3a – World raw sugar price, spot, monthly, quarterly, and by ..." Spreadsheet accessed 19 Feb 2011.

8. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey," unemployment rate, Jan 2009 vs. Jan 2011. Accessed 19 Feb 2011.

9. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Table A-2. Employment status of the civilian population by race, se... " (choose "Black or African Americans – Unemployment Rate"  Jan 2009 vs. Jan 2011) Accessed 19 Feb. 2011.

10. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey" (choose Unemployed – Seasonally Adjusted – Monthly, Jan 2009 vs. Jan 2011) Accessed 19 Feb 2011.

11. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Employment, Hours and Earnings from the Current Employment Statisti..." (Choose All Employees – Government – Federal – Seasonally Adjusted) Jan 2009 vs Jan 2011. Accessed 20 Feb 2011.

12. U.S. Census Bureau, "Median Household Income by State: 1984 to 2009" ("Real" income as measured in 2009 dollars) Accessed 20 Feb 2011.

13. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service "SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
( Data as of January 31, 2011)" Accessed 20 Feb 2011. (Note: Most recent monthly data are for November, 2010.)

14. U.S. Department of Labor, "Program Statistics" (Choose "Persons Claiming UI Benefits in Federal Programs (Expanded)") Average for four weeks ending 24 Jan 2009 vs. 25 Dec 2010 (the most recent figures available) Accessed 20 Feb 2011.

15. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey, Number Unemployed for 27 Weeks & over, seasonally adjusted." (Choose "27 weeks or over – seasonally adjusted – retrieve data) Accessed 20 Feb 2011.

16. U.S. Census Bureau, "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States..." Sep 2010.

17. U.S. Census Bureau, "Table 2. Poverty Status of People by Family Relationship, Race, and..."  All People Below Poverty, 2008 vs 2009. Sep 2011; Accessed 20 Feb 2011.

18A. Heritage Foundation, "2009 Index of Economic Freedom" 13 Jan 2009; 6.

18B. Heritage Foundation, "2011 Index of Economic Freedom" 13 Jan 2011; 6.

19A. Travel Agent Central, "Consumer Confidence Index Dips In January" 28 Jan 2009.

19B. The Conference Board, "The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index® Increases" press release, 25 Jan 2011.

20A. U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. "Bank Failures in Brief, 2008," "Bank Failures in Brief, 2009,"and "Bank Failures in Brief, 2010" Accessed 20 Feb 2011.

20B. U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. "First Southern Bank, Boca Raton, Florida, Assumes All of the Deposi..." press release 7 Jan. 2011.

20C. U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. "Enterprise Bank & Trust, St. Louis, Missouri, Assumes All of th..." press release 7 Jan. 2011.

20D. U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. "Bank of the Ozarks, Little Rock, Arkansas, Assumes All of the Depos..." press release 7 Jan. 2011.

21. The Wall Street Journal Market Data Center "Exchange Rates: New York Closing Snapshot" 20 Jan 2009 vs. 20 Jan 2011. Accessed 20 Feb 2011.

22. U.S. Federal Reserve Board, "Monthly Historical Money Stock Tables, Table 1, Money Stock Measures" 17 Feb 2011. (M1, Seasonally Adjusted, Jan 2009 vs. Jan 2011.)  Accessed 20 Feb 2011.

23. U.S. Federal Reserve Board, "Monthly Historical Money Stock Tables, Table 1, Money Stock Measures" 17 Feb 2011. (M2, Seasonally Adjusted, Jan 2009 vs. Jan 2011.)  Accessed 20 Feb 2011.

24. U.S. Treasury, "The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It" Total Public Debt Outstanding, 20 Jan 2009 vs. 20 Jan 2011. Accessed 20 Feb. 2011.

---

KG said:

 

Regardless of your views on the president there seem to be a few issues with the data in the email. http://factcheck.org/2011/02/sorry-statistics/

[Daniel]

I made no such suggestion.  I don't think Bush was an effective president other than keeping us from getting attacked again after 9/11.  He is certainly to blame for his budget that carried into Obama's first year.  But the fact is that it is Congress, more than the President, that has the biggest impact on our economy.  They hold the purse-strings and are responsible for the budget.  So a lot of things Bush was blamed for in his last couple of years has more to do with Pelosi, Reed, Dodd, and Frank than the White House.  And that current state of things, including the trends it projected, was well known by Obama when he promised us "change" that would fix it.  He promised us that he knew what was going on and knew how to make it better.  Yet I'm still waiting to see how we are all better off after his election.  He's dug us into a hole.  He's not responsible for the hole's entire depth, but he's still digging it deeper and faster than any other president in our history and can't really blame his predecessor for that.  He owns that, along with the Republicans that want to dig a bit slower and the Democrats that what to dig even faster.  Nobody but Rand Paul is really speaking about stopping the digging and starting to fill in the hole.

 

Todd said:

Not only that but are we to supposed to conclude on the basis of the OP that the current U.S. economic landscape is solely Obama's fault alone?

[Daniel]

On the topic of  Repubs and Dems both responsible for spending us into a crisis, I'll post this....

 

[KG]

Just for the record I am certainly not an Obama supporter (had lots of issues with Bush as well though I found him preferable). I also do not think that FactCheck/Politifact/etc. are purely objective sources of information.

 

The effects of fiscal policy can be a very complicated thing to measure, indeed some economists doubt that it has much of a measureable effect at all. My point is that it seems that even within the Christian community that people are willing to bend the facts a bit if it will better support their views. I am not saying Daniel did this, in fact I am glad he posted this so we could bring this issue to light. We are children of the Truth. As such we should place a very high priority on honest presentation of data. To whatever extent possible in this world we should maintain the highest standard of argumentation both against us and for us. We cannot fall into an ends justifies the means mentality. In my opinion there are plenty of clear reasons to be concerned about the direction of our nation without any need whatsoever to "spin" the facts.

 

Also, I would point out that these kinds of emails do virtually nothing productive. They basically reinforce and enflame partisan feelings rather than providing the kind of information that allows voters to be informed and thus positively influence the policy decisions. We should be praying for our leaders, doing what we can to stay informed, and then voting for those who we believe will best represent us.

Daniel said:

Thanks for the link.  I had looked for something like that before posting this and had not found anything other than some other postings of the chart.  Nothing to "debunk" it.  Just for posterity, I'll post the FactCheck "corrected" version of the chart, but I have to admit that I don't look at FactCheck as being as objective as they claim.  There were several times in the campaign when McCain would make a claim that Obama was going to do something and FactCheck would rule it as false because Obama would deny it.  They wouldn't address the documented statements that backed up the claim, but would just take the Obama side of things if they claimed otherwise.  I sent them a lengthy letter about that kind of objectivity listing a couple of examples, but never heard back from them.  Didn't really expect to though.  Anyway, for posterity, here are the "correct" figures for "change"

[Daniel]

I don't think it was intended to influence policy decisions, but an election where Obama is already campaigning for 2012 with the same (or very slightly altered) logos and campaign slogans.  Look at the video posted on BarackObama.com on their home page.  The message from the lady in Colorado is that the election that is coming "needs to reflect the changes that we have seen in the last two and a half years".  As such, it is important that we know exactly what those changes have been.  

KG said:

Also, I would point out that these kinds of emails do virtually nothing productive. They basically reinforce and enflame partisan feelings rather than providing the kind of information that allows voters to be informed and thus positively influence the policy decisions. 

[Dallas]

EPIC FAIL

Todd said:

Math check.

 

65mph x 27 = 1755mph not 7555mph

 

FAIL

 

[Daniel]

I guess we should dismiss the entire piece because of the bad math in the editorial comment on it. :)