snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05 February 2012, 08:24 PM
Amigone201's Avatar
Amigone201 Amigone201 is offline
 
Join Date: 11 March 2005
Location: Islip, NY
Posts: 5,852
Default Did Obama Inherit a Mess?

Here's a political screed making the rounds on Facebook.

Did Obama Inherit a Mess
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05 February 2012, 10:17 PM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 7,166
Default

I can't remember when the last time I saw $1.81 a gallon gas was, but it certainly wasn't anywhere close to Obama's election. And what the hell is this 3 wars thing, anyway? We've (mostly) pulled out of Iraq and we haven't gotten into any other wars unless they somehow managed to not attract any media attention.

As for the credit rating and budget, talk about disingenuous, since those were a direct result of the actions taken by the Tea Party politicians attempts to block Obama.

What a load of BS.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05 February 2012, 10:24 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 108,807
Read This!

Quote:
Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter View Post
I can't remember when the last time I saw $1.81 a gallon gas was, but it certainly wasn't anywhere close to Obama's election.
Actually, the average price of gasoline was at that level (or lower) between the time Obama was elected and his inauguration, but that was because crude oil prices were abnormally low at the time:

http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/gaspump_hist.cfm
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05 February 2012, 10:27 PM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,317
Default

Also, why is 99 weeks of unemployment benefits worse than 26 weeks of unemployment benefits?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05 February 2012, 10:35 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 108,807
Icon605

The point is that needing unemployment benefits to last for a maximum of 99 weeks instead of 26 weeks is an indication of a much worse job market/economy.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05 February 2012, 10:38 PM
Amigone201's Avatar
Amigone201 Amigone201 is offline
 
Join Date: 11 March 2005
Location: Islip, NY
Posts: 5,852
Default

As for the unemployment rate, it was 7.8; 7.8 and rising. Now it's 8.3 and falling. Doesn't the writer of this piece think those facts are the least bit significant?

And he has the audacity to call liberals liars!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05 February 2012, 10:45 PM
wanderwoman's Avatar
wanderwoman wanderwoman is online now
 
Join Date: 29 December 2004
Location: Elkhart, IN
Posts: 7,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter View Post
I can't remember when the last time I saw $1.81 a gallon gas was, but it certainly wasn't anywhere close to Obama's election. And what the hell is this 3 wars thing, anyway? We've (mostly) pulled out of Iraq and we haven't gotten into any other wars unless they somehow managed to not attract any media attention.
Obama's detractors like to pretend that our involvement in Libya was somehow equivalent to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05 February 2012, 10:54 PM
mags's Avatar
mags mags is offline
 
Join Date: 23 February 2006
Location: Springboro, OH
Posts: 5,096
Default

Unemployment rate at the beginning of GW Bush's presidency was 7.3, and 14.9 by Obama's inauguration. http://portalseven.com/employment/un...nt_rate_u6.jsp

Or if you prefer, 4.2 and 7.8 http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate.jsp

It had already increased a full point in his first four years, more than the net increase during Obama's first four.

Last edited by mags; 05 February 2012 at 11:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05 February 2012, 10:57 PM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 19,450
Default

Three wars?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05 February 2012, 11:01 PM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,317
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
The point is that needing unemployment benefits to last for a maximum of 99 weeks instead of 26 weeks is an indication of a much worse job market/economy.
Are you sure? I read it as "Allows scroungers to mooch off the government for nearly four times as long." Yours is a bit less cynical, though.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05 February 2012, 11:02 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 108,807
Icon605

The U.S. credit rating actually went from AAA to AA+. AA is a lower rating.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05 February 2012, 11:05 PM
mags's Avatar
mags mags is offline
 
Join Date: 23 February 2006
Location: Springboro, OH
Posts: 5,096
Default

The gas price thing is very disingenuous even if Obama had much control. Yes, gas was rather low when Obama was inaugurated, but a year before, it had hit its highest rate ever of over $4 a gallon nationally. In fact, it almost appears as though Obama being elected could have been the prompt for the price crash. http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05 February 2012, 11:08 PM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 19,450
Default

Last I checked, they were out of Iraq and Libya.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05 February 2012, 11:45 PM
fitz1980 fitz1980 is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,272
Default

Here's a more honest chart about jobs under Bush vs Obama.

Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06 February 2012, 12:04 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 108,807
Icon07

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloe View Post
Are you sure? I read it as "Allows scroungers to mooch off the government for nearly four times as long." Yours is a bit less cynical, though.
I'd assume the less cynical interpretation, since people receiving unemployment benefits are those who a) Were previously employed and b) Are actively looking for work (in contrast to welfare recipients, who are commonly perceived as moochers too lazy to work).
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06 February 2012, 12:45 AM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,317
Default

I would hope for that interpretation, but I've just been exposed to too much Rush Limbaugh. See here, for example: http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201006290036, (extending unemployment disincentivizes work) and here:http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201004120036 (Obama extending benefits to create a permanent underclass).

I dont know if the source of this comparison is necessarily as intellectually dishonest as Limbaugh, though.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06 February 2012, 04:20 AM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 7,166
Default

Maybe not the person who posted it on the Facebook page Amigone got it from, but the person who originally crafted it probably is: there's some serious misrepresentations and outright fraudulent data on here.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06 February 2012, 04:47 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 108,807
Read This!

Quote:
Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter View Post
there's some serious misrepresentations and outright fraudulent data on here.
I wouldn't say the information presented constitutes "serious misrepresentations," since it's relatively accurate (although the usefulness of raw data without any information placing it in context is questionable). And I doubt that anyone is being defrauded by it.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06 February 2012, 12:10 PM
Amigone201's Avatar
Amigone201 Amigone201 is offline
 
Join Date: 11 March 2005
Location: Islip, NY
Posts: 5,852
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
I wouldn't say the information presented constitutes "serious misrepresentations," since it's relatively accurate (although the usefulness of raw data without any information placing it in context is questionable). And I doubt that anyone is being defrauded by it.
Well, I'd say there's dishonesty in presenting information without context knowing that if you told the whole story, the information would yield the opposite conclusion.

And the part about the wars, that's just a blatant, bald-faced lie.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06 February 2012, 02:24 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 67,323
Default

I've heard some very negative depictions of people on unemployment in recent years, from people other than Rush Limbaugh.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Obama = messiah snopes Questionable Quotes 2 19 July 2010 08:02 PM
Donít mess with our cactus: Saguaro known for revenge snopes Snopes Spotting 3 25 November 2009 04:58 PM
Obama on 9/11 snopes Politics 19 14 September 2009 10:26 PM
Many modes of communicating made for Mother's Day mess snopes Snopes Spotting 1 18 May 2009 04:38 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.