National Debt Info-Graphic by President 1945 – 2012

By president, starting with Truman in 1945, this info-graphic shows the growth of the national debt, the growth of the interest on the national debt, the lowest and highest tax rates at the beginning of each president’s term, the average GDP per president and the average unemployment rate during each president’s term.

In addition, at the bottom, the senate and house majorities are included for each president. Red is for the GOP (Republicans) and blue is for the Democrats. This way, anyone may see which party held the majority in one or both houses of Congress during periods where the debt increased the fastest. Starting with Reagan to Obama but not including Obama, the fastest gains were when a Republican was president and the GOP held a majority in one or both houses of Congress.

Using all of the data on this info-graphic, you may discover who holds the most responsibility by president and/or Congress for the growth of the national debt.

Starting with President Carter, pay attention to the growth of the debt in comparison to the changing tax rates and you may discover one of the reasons for the more than $16 Trillion national debt.

Also pay attention to the average unemployment rates of each president and you will learn that as the taxes went down, federal spending went up, and unemployment climbed (on average).  Growth of annual GDP also started to drop as taxes dropped. From Truman – Ford, annual GDP averaged 3.85%, but from Carter to G. W. Bush, GDP averaged 2.96%.

Unemployment also went up as taxes went down. Truman to Ford, the average unemployment rate was 5.41% (and that includes the 8.09% under Ford).

From Carter to G. W. Bush, the average unemployment rate increased to 6.17%.

In fact, starting with Reagan, the total debt each president is responsible for includes the interest to December 2012.

Infographic on National Debt by President

– CLICK on INFO-GRAPHIC for LARGER IMAGE! –

* Reagan was responsible for lowering taxes from seventeen brackets to two brackets and those rates appear in G. H. W. Bush’s column

** The G. W. Bush tax cuts appear in President Obama’s column. However, in 2008, his last year in office, it was the worst year for jobs since 1945 and the unemployment rate was 7.2% in December. The total number of jobs lost in 2008 was 2.6 million. In addition, under-employment reached a record high from 715,000 to 8 million people, the highest since such records were first kept in 1955.  Source: CNN.com

Then in 2008, G. W. Bush’s last year as president, the average GDP for the 4th quarter dropped to almost a minus10%. Source: Treasury.gov

*** Unemployment reached a high of 10% in October 2009 while GDP retreated to a minus 2.6%.  The lowest unemployment rate reached 7.8% in September 2012 (Obama’s presidency does not end until 2016 so we do not have average unemployment for his term or a final average GDP). Source of data: bls.gov

Total GDP growth since 2009 to the first quarter in 2012 has been + 6.8%. Source: Treasury.gov

Data and facts mostly from primary sources:

Note: Deductions are not accounted for

  • Tax Rate in 1945 under Truman (listed tax rates and brackets apply to all taxpayers with twenty-five tax brackets) – average unemployment during his term was 4.26% while GDP grew + 4.82%. Note: During the Great Depression, unemployment reached as high as almost 25%.

23% on earnings up to $2,000 but not over – adjusted for inflation $24,931
50% on earnings of $14,000 to $16,000 – adjusted for inflation $174,517 – 199,499
75% on earnings of $44,000 to $50,000 – adjusted for inflation $174,517 – 199,449
94% on earnings over $200,000 – adjusted for inflation $2,493,107

  • Tax Rate in 1953 under Eisenhower (married filing separately with twenty-four/twenty-six tax brackets) – average unemployment was 4.89% during his term while GDP grew + 3%.

22.2% on earnings up to $2,000 but not over – adjusted for inflation $16,807
53% on earnings of $14,000 to $16,000 – adjusted for inflation $117,652 – 168,882
75% on earnings of $44,000 to $50,000 – adjusted for inflation $369,764 – 420,187
92% on earnings over $200,000 – adjusted for inflation $1,680,746

  • Tax Rate in 1961 under Kennedy (married filing jointly with twenty-four/twenty-six tax brackets) – average unemployment was 5.97% during his term while GDP grew + 4.65%.

20% on earnings up to $4,000 but not over – adjusted for inflation $30,017
50% on earnings of $32,000 to $36,000 – adjusted for inflation $240,139 – 270,156
75% on earnings of $100,000 – 120,000- adjusted for inflation $750,434 – 900,520
91% on earnings over $400,000 – adjusted for inflation $3,001,734

  • Tax Rate in 1963 under LBJ (married filing jointly with twenty-four/twenty-six tax brackets) –average unemployment was 4.17% during his term while GDP grew + 5.05%.

20% on earnings up to $4,000 but not over – adjusted for inflation $29,331
50% on earnings of $32,000 to $36,000 – adjusted for inflation $234,645 – 263,976
75% on earnings of $100,000 – 120,000- adjusted for inflation $733,267 – 879,920
91% on earnings over $400,000 – adjusted for inflation $2,933,067

  • Tax Rate in 1969 under Nixon (married filing jointly with twenty-five/thirty-three tax brackets) – average unemployment was 5.09% during his term while GDP grew + 3%

14% on earnings up to $1,000 but not over – adjusted for inflation $6,114
36% on earnings of $24,000 to $28,000 – adjusted for inflation $164,733 – 171,644
53% on earnings of $52,000 – 64,000- adjusted for inflation $317,922 – 391,289
70% on earnings over $200,000 – adjusted for inflation $1,222,777

  • Tax Rate in 1974 under Ford (married filing jointly with twenty-five/thirty-three tax brackets) – average unemployment was 8.09% during his term while GDP grew +2.6%.

14% on earnings up to $1,000 but not over – adjusted for inflation $4,551
36% on earnings of $24,000 to $28,000 – adjusted for inflation $109,231 – 127,437
53% on earnings of $52,000 – 64,000- adjusted for inflation $236,668 – 291,284
70% on earnings over $200,000 – adjusted for inflation $910,262

  • Tax Rate in 1977 under Carter (married filing Jointly with twenty-six/thirty-four tax brackets) – average unemployment was 6.54% during his term while GDP grew +3.25%

0% on earnings up to $3,200 but not over – adjusted for inflation $11,848
36% on earnings of $27,200 to $31,200 – adjusted for inflation $100,712 – 115,522
53% on earnings of $55,200 – 67,200- adjusted for inflation $204,385 – 248,817
70% on earnings over $203,200 – adjusted for inflation $752,375

  • Tax Rate in 1981 under Reagan (married filing jointly with sixteen/seventeen tax brackets) – average unemployment was 7.54% during his term while GDP grew 3.4%

0% on earnings up to $3,400 but not over – adjusted for inflation $8,393
37% on earnings of $29,200 to $35,200 – adjusted for inflation $73,806 – 86,888
54% on earnings of $60,000 – 85,600 – adjusted for inflation $148,105 – 211,297
70% on earnings over $215,400 – adjusted for inflation $531698

  • Tax Rate in 1989 under G. H. W. Bush (married filing jointly with two tax brackets) – average unemployment was 6.3% during his term while GDP grew 2.17%

15% on earnings up to $30,950 but not over – adjusted for inflation $56,004
28% on earnings over $30,950 – adjusted for inflation $56,004

  • Tax Rate in 1993 under Clinton (married filing jointly with five tax brackets) – average unemployment was 5.2% during his term while GDP grew 3.88%.

15% on earning up to $36,900 but not over – adjusted for inflation $57,298
39.6% on earnings over $250,000 – adjusted for inflation $388,200

  • Tax Rate in 2001 under G. W. Bush (married filing jointly with five tax brackets) – average unemployment was 5.27% during his term while GDP grew 2.09%.

15% on earning up to $45,200 but not over – adjusted for inflation $57,267
39.1% on earnings over $297,350 – adjusted for inflation $376,725

  • Tax Rate in 2009 under President Obama (married filing jointly with six tax brackets) – average  unemployment reached a high of 10% in October 2009 while GDP shrunk a minus – 2.6%.  The lowest unemployment reached 7.8% in September 2012 (Obama’s presidency does not end until 2016 so we do not have average unemployment or GDP for his term). Source: bls.gov

10% on earnings up to by not over $16,700 – adjusted for inflation $17,466
25% on earnings of $67,900 – 137,050 – adjusted for inflation $71,015 – $143,338
35% on earnings over $372,950 -adjusted for inflation $390,060

____________________________

According to Dave Manuel.com, “From 1948 through to 2009, the United States economy has grown by an average of 3.28% per year. … If we exclude Barack Obama due to incomplete data, then the worst performance was turned in by George W. Bush, as the economy grew by an average of 2.09% per year during his time as president.”

“Democrats have occupied the White House in 26 of the 62 years since 1948. Average GDP growth in the country over those 26 years has been 4.01%.

“Republicans have occupied the White House in 36 of the 62 years since 1948. Average GDP growth over those 36 years has been 2.75%.”

Do you know the difference between a primary fact gathering source, the media and an opinionated radio or TV talk show or Blog?

Answer: primary fact gathering sources are where the media, talk shows and Blogs get their facts. A few examples of primary fact gathering sources are the US Treasury, the Bureau of Labor Statists, the Centers for Disease Control, the FBI, the CIA Factbook and the World Bank.

However, then what the public hears may be distorted due to political and/or religious bias or political agenda.

The US Treasury reports that, “From 2009 to the present, federal revenues relative to the economy have been at their lowest levels in 60 years.

However, “Growth in the U.S. has outpaced that of other advanced economies (Germany, Euro area, Japan and UK) affected by the global financial crisis.

“Total GDP growth since 2009 to the first quarter in 2012 was + 6.8%.” But in the fourth quarter of 2008, G. W. Bush’s last year as president, average GDP was almost a minus10%.

Then by the 3rd quarter of 2009, GDP had returned to growth instead of loss and has stayed in the growth area since then. Source: Treasury.gov

Other sources used for this post:

Tax Foundation.org

Multpl.com – Unemployment

Truthful Politics.com

World Bank.org

Discover more from The Evolution of a National Burden

______________

Lloyd Lofthouse is the award-winning author of The Concubine Saga.

To follow this Blog via E-mail see upper left-hand column and click on “Follow”

Advertisements

The Evolution of a National Burden – Part 4/7

The federal debt did not start with Presidents Ronald Reagan, H. G. W. Bush, G. W. Bush or Barrack Obama. The federal debt started in 1790 when the first Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, stabilized the dollar and refunded the debts incurred by the states fighting the Revolutionary War (1775 – 1783).

  • America’s first war cost $101 Million (equal to $2.52 Billion in 2012). The first federal debt caused by the revolution was 35% of GDP or $75.4 million ($1.885 Billion in 2012).
  • The War of 1812 (ended 1815) cost $90 million ($1.6 Billion in 2012).

By 1834, nineteen years later, the debt from America’s first two wars had been paid down to $33.7 thousand (equal to $886,984 in 2012).

  • Next came the Mexican War (1846 – 1849), and it cost $71 Million ($2.08 Billion in 2012).
  • The Civil War (1861 – 1865) pushed the federal debt to $3.2 Billion ($45 Billion in 2012).
  • The Spanish American War (1898-1899) cost $283 Million ($9 Billion in 2012)
  • The Philippine-American War also known as the Philippine War of Independence (1899-1902). During the suppression of this war of independence against the US, 200,000 to 1.5 million Filipino civilians were killed; there were 12,000 – 20,000 Philippine military casualties, and 4,165 US military dead. The US would not grant independence to the Philippine state until 1946. The cost of this war was $600 million (equal to $15.8 Billion in 2012)

To pay off debt and fund the growing pains of a nation becoming an expanding global empire, Congress passed the 16th Amendment to the Constitution on February 3, 1913 establishing Congress’s right to impose a Federal income tax.

Note: The Inflation calculator used  for this series of posts may be found at Dave Manuel.com, and the primary source for government spending was US Government Spending.com

Continued on December 6, 2012 in The Evolution of a National Burden – Part 5 or return to Part 3

Also discover Each President’s share of the US National Debt and learn more from the National Debt Info-Graphic by President 1945 – 2012

_______________________

Lloyd Lofthouse, a former U.S. Marine and Vietnam Veteran, is the award winning author of The Concubine Saga.

His latest novel is Running with the Enemy. Blamed for a crime he did not commit while serving in Vietnam, his country considers him a traitor. Ethan Card is a loyal U.S. Marine desperate to prove his innocence or he will never go home again.

And the woman he loves and wants to save was trained to hate and kill Americans.

To follow this Blog via E-mail see upper left-hand column and click on “FOLLOW!”

Each President’s share of the US National Debt

The series of posts on the National Debt keeps growing. I spent months researching the topic in an attempt to understand its history and evolution.

My first draft of this series of seven posts was at least three-times longer than the final copy. It is confusing enough, so I cut.

However, this morning I awoke wanting to know how much of the national debt each president and his congress was responsible for.

The reason I do not blame just the presidents is because each president submits the annual budget to Congress and Congress may add to or subtract from what the president requests. Then Congress must vote to enact the budget and the president signs it into law. Then there is the mandatory part of the budget and the discretionary portion. The president and Congress, without cooperation, cannot do much about the mandatory section of the budget such as Social Security.

For the sake of simplicity, I did not attempt to do the math to discover the exact amount each president (except G.W. Bush and Obama) is responsible for beyond his term in office, because if President Truman is responsible for $8.6 Billion of today’s $16.3509 Trillion national debt, then he is also responsible for the annual interest on that $8.6 Billion and the interest compounded annually on that interest for sixty years. If someone wants to figure that out, be my guest.  But first, you would have to know what the interest rate was for each year of those sixty years after Truman left office and the interest seems to change every three months.

For example, I found a post at Intellectual Take Out.org on the interest rates of the national debt starting in 1970 (you may notice that the interest rate has been as high as 14% and as low as 0.1%.  At the end of 2010, the interest was 1.7%).

Each President’s (and his Congress) share of the National Debt

  • Truman’s share of the National Debt was $8.6 Billion.
  • Eisenhower’s share was $5.6 Billion.
  • Kennedys share was $3.3 Billion.
  • LBJ’s share was $9.3 Billion.
  • Nixon’s share was $54.6 Billion.
  • Ford’s share was $48.4 Billion.
  • Carter’s share was $168.8 Billion.
  • Reagan’s share was $2.2376 Trillion.
  • G. H. W. Bush’s share was $1.143 Trillion.
  • Clinton’s share was $74 Billion.
  • G. W. Bush’s share was $6.3002 Trillion.
  • Obama’s share is currently about $2 Trillion.

THE DETAILS OF THE RESEARCH:

When Harry Truman became president (1945 – 1952), the National Debt from World War II was $260.1 Billion. The Interest on the debt during Truman’s term as president was $32.6 Billion. Truman was responsible for about $8.6 Billion of that interest.

The National debt Eisenhower (1953 – 1960) inherited from President Truman in 1953 was $266 Billion—an increase of $5.9 Billion. During Eisenhower’s term as president the interest on the debt was $44.8 Billion. Eisenhower was responsible for about $5.6 Billion.

The debt Kennedy (1961 – 1963) inherited from Eisenhower in 1961 was $292.6 Billion—an increase of $26.6 Billion. The interest on the debt during Kennedy’s years as president was $14.4 Billion.

The debt LBJ (1963 – 1968) inherited from Kennedy after his assassination in 1963 was $310.3 Billion—an increase of $17.7 Billion. The interest on the debt during LBJ’s years as president was $55.3 Billion. LBJ was responsible for about $9.1 Billion.

The debt Nixon (1969 – 1973) inherited from LBJ in 1969 was $365.8 Billion—an increase of $55.5 Billion. The interest during his term was $74.7 Billion. Nixon is responsible for about $11.2 Billion.

The debt Ford (1974 – 1976) inherited from Nixon in 1971 was $483.9 Billion—an increase of $118.1 Billion. The interest during his term was $70.9 Billion. Ford is responsible for $6.7 Billion.

The debt Carter (1977 – 1980) inherited from Ford in 1977 was $706.4 Billion—an increase of $222.5 Billion. The interest during his term was $160.5 Billion. Carter is responsible for about $40.9 Billion.

The debt Reagan (1981 – 1988) inherited from Carter in 1981 was $994.8 Billion—an increase of $188.4 Billion. The interest during his term was $910.6 Billion, and Reagan was responsible for about $360.2 Billion.

The debt G. H. W. Bush (1989 – 1992) inherited from Reagan in 1989 was $2.878 Trillion—an increase of $1.8832 Trillion. The interest during his term was $747 Billion, and he was responsible for about $71 Billion.

The debt Clinton (1993 – 2000) inherited from G. H. W. Bush in 1993 was $4.351 Trillion—an increase of $1.474 Trillion. The interest during his four year term was $1.6097 Trillion, and he was responsible for about $201 Billion.

The debt G. W. Bush (2001- 2008) inherited from Clinton in 2001 was $5.7699 Billion—an increase of $1.419 Trillion. The interest during his term was $1.291 Trillion, and he was responsible for about $234 Billion.

The debt Obama (2009 – ) inherited from G. W. Bush in 2009 was $11.8759 Billion—an increase of $6.106 Trillion. The interest during Obama’s first term in office was $833.0 Billion, and he is responsible for about $86.3 Billion.

In December 2012, at the end of President Obama’s first term, the National Debt had increased to $16.3509 Trillion—an increase of $4.475 Trillion.

However, President Obama inherited two wars. To be fair, the cost of those wars since he has been in office was subtracted from the total that he contributed to the national debt along with the interest that goes with the cost of the wars. Obama also inherited the 2007-08 global financial crises, and TARP funds were approved during G. W. Bush’s presidency so that amount was also added to Bush.

  • In 2009, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost $155.1 Billion.
  • In 2010, the cost was $171.0 Billion.
  • In 2011, the cost was $170.7 Billion.

G. W. Bush’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) of October 2008 started out at $700 Billion but was reduced to $475 Billion by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Act in July 2010, and President Obama signed it into federal law.

In addition, Fact Check.org says, “The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office.

“That includes spending for the bank-bailout legislation approved by President Bush. Annual increases in amounts actually spent since fiscal 2009 have been relatively modest. In fact, spending for the first seven months of the current fiscal year is running slightly below the same period last year, and below projections.

“Obama can be fairly assigned responsibility for a maximum of $203 billion in additional spending for that year. (2009).

“It can be argued that the total should be lower. Economist Daniel J. Mitchell of the libertarian CATO Institute — who once served on the Republican staff of the Senate Finance Committee — has put the figure at $140 billion.

Total spending for G. W. Bush’s last two budget years was $2.9825 Trillion for 2008 and $3.5177 Trillion for 2009 (President Bush requested $2.7 Trillion, but Congress enacted $3.518 Trillion).

For 2010, President Obama requested $3.552 Trillion, and Congress enacted $3.721 Trillion. For Revenue, Obama requested $2.381 Trillion, and Congress enacted $2.165 Trillion,

In 2011, Obama requested $3.834 Trillion, and Congress enacted $3.630 Trillion. For Revenue, Obama requested $2.567 Trillion, and Congress enacted $2.314 Trillion.

In 2012, Obama requested $3.729 Trillion, and Congress enacted $3.796 Trillion. For Revenue, Obama requested $2.627 Trillion, and Congress enacted $2.469 Trillion.

In conclusion, President Obama requested $667 Billion in revenues that Congress did not enact and Congress spent $32 billion more than Obama requested for 2010 – 2012. One could argue that Congress was responsible for $699 Billion in spending for those years—not President Obama.

Who do you think contributed the most to the National Debt?

Note: The primary source for government spending was US Government Spending.com and the US Government Printing Office

Start with The Evolution of the National Burden – Part 1

_______________________

Lloyd Lofthouse, a former U.S. Marine and Vietnam Veteran, is the award winning author of The Concubine Saga.

His latest novel is Running with the Enemy. Blamed for a crime he did not commit while serving in Vietnam, his country considers him a traitor. Ethan Card is a loyal U.S. Marine desperate to prove his innocence or he will never go home again.

And the woman he loves and wants to save was trained to hate and kill Americans.

To follow this Blog via E-mail see upper left-hand column and click on “FOLLOW!”

Discovering the four Koch Brothers – Part 2/3

In 1999, Bill Koch blew the whistle on Koch Industries when they stole nearly 2 million barrels of oil from American Indian reservations. Source: Bloomberg

Bloomberg reported, “Koch Industries is obsessed with secrecy, to the point that it discloses only an approximation of its annual revenue—$100 billion a year—and says nothing about its profits.”

“One Koch brother fought against the civil rights movement, and Charles and David Koch have supported the Tea Party. (The Tea Party movement has sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009, after Barack Obama was elected president of the US. Many of the issues that the Tea Party movement protests existed under Caucasian presidents. Where was the Tea Party movement then?)

“In 1980, David Koch ran for vice president on the Libertarian ticket, pledging to abolish Social Security, the Federal Reserve System, welfare, minimum wage laws and federal agencies—including the Department of Energy, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency.

“A Bloomberg Markets investigation found that Koch Industries—in addition to being involved in improper payments to win business in Africa, India and the Middle East—has sold millions of dollars of petrochemical equipment to Iran, a country the U.S. identifies as a sponsor of global terrorism.

“From 1999 through 2003, Koch Industries was assessed more than $400 million in fines, penalties and judgments.”

What I have quoted from Bloomberg’s story on Koch crimes is not the entire list. You will have to click on the link to Bloomberg to discover the rest. It is a VERY long list.

Continued on November 7, 2012 in Discovering the four Koch Brother – Part 3 or return to Part 1

View as Single Page

_______________________

Lloyd Lofthouse, a former U.S. Marine and Vietnam Veteran, is the award winning author of The Concubine Saga.

His latest novel is Running with the Enemy. Blamed for a crime he did not commit while serving in Vietnam, his country considers him a traitor. Ethan Card is a loyal U.S. Marine desperate to prove his innocence or he will never go home again.

And the woman he loves and wants to save was trained to hate and kill Americans.

To follow this Blog via E-mail see upper left-hand column and click on “FOLLOW!”

The Accuracy of Nate Silver’s Predictions

Nate Silver is paid to write for The New York Times, but he doesn’t favor Republicans or Democrats in his predictions, because he predicts both Republican and Democratic winners in each state and in the national elections


– see what conservatives have to say about Nate Silver –
This video was published October 30, 2012.

Nate Silver’s forecast this morning has Obama winning 307 Electoral College votes to Romney’s 231 and this prediction is based on statistics collected from every political poll in America, and there are a lot of them from the local, state and national levels. Silver also has Obama winning the popular vote 50.5% to 48.3%.

In 2008, he correctly predicted the winners of all 35 Senate races and the presidential results in 49 out of 50 states. The only state he missed was Indiana, which went for Barack Obama by 1%.

In 2008, Silver projected electoral vote totals of 349 (based on a probabilistic projection) or 353 (based on fixed projections of each state).

Obama won with 365 Electoral College votes. Silver’s predictions matched the actual results everywhere except in Indiana and the 2nd congressional district of Nebraska, which awards an electoral vote separately from the rest of the state.

In 2010, Silver predicted 36 of the winners in 37 of the gubernatorial races—97.3% accuracy rate.

For the U.S. Senate Race of 2010, Silver predicted 6 of the 7 Republican winners—85.7% accuracy rate.

For the U.S. House of Representatives, Silver predicted 53 of the 63 wins by Republicans—84.1% accuracy rate.


– broadcast October 24, 2012 –

Silver’s prediction early this morning favors Obama 86.6% to Romney’s 13.4%.  Silver bases his predictions on computed mathematical formulas and the results change daily. He does not base his predictions on a hunch or his own feelings. This is not an emotional, gut-driven biased response.

If Silver is close a third time, he will become a legend.  By next Wednesday, we will know.

Discover Spinning Numbers to Manipulate Opinions

_______________________

Lloyd Lofthouse, a former U.S. Marine and Vietnam Veteran, is the award winning author of The Concubine Saga.

His latest novel is Running with the Enemy. Blamed for a crime he did not commit while serving in Vietnam, his country considers him a traitor. Ethan Card is a loyal U.S. Marine desperate to prove his innocence or he will never go home again.

And the woman he loves and wants to save was trained to hate and kill Americans.

To follow this Blog via E-mail see upper left-hand column and click on “FOLLOW!”

The Need for Health Care Reform

All it takes is nine minutes of your time to watch this video as a way to understand why we need healthcare reform in the US.  We cannot return to the way things were in 2007-2008 as Mitt Romney says he will do if elected president. Romney has pledged he will repeal Obamacare if elected.  What does that mean?

“The percentage of people without health insurance in America in 2008 was not statistically different from 2007 at 15.4 percent. The number of uninsured increased to 46.3 million in 2008, from 45.7 million in 2007.

“The number of people with health insurance increased to 255.1 million in 2008—up from 253.4 million in 2007. The number of people covered by private health insurance decreased to 201.0 million in 2008—down from 202.0 million in 2007. The number of people covered by government health insurance increased to 87.4 million—up from 83.0 million in 2007

“The percentage of people covered by private health insurance was 66.7 percent in 2008—down from 67.5 percent in 2007 (Figure 7). The percentage of people covered by employment-based health insurance decreased to 58.5 percent in 2008, from 59.3 percent in 2007. The number of people covered by employment-based health insurance decreased to 176.3 million in 2008, from 177.4 million in 2007.” Source: Census.gov

Someone has to pay. For those without health care or those with health care that are denied care that may save a life, some will pay through death. But, if you are one of the top 5% of rich Americans, this is something you do not have to worry about. Mitt Romney’s net worth is estimated at $250 million. He doesn’t need health care reform or even health care insurance. He can pay cash for any health care he or his family needs. What about you?

Health Care.gov says, “As many as 82 million Americans with employer-based coverage have a pre-existing condition, ranging from life-threatening illnesses like cancer to chronic conditions like diabetes, asthma, or heart disease.

“A pre-existing condition is a health condition that exists before someone applies for or enrolls in a new health insurance policy. Insurers generally define what constitutes a pre-existing condition. Some are obvious, like currently having heart disease or cancer. Others are less so – such has having asthma or high blood pressure. While insurers generally determine the presence of a pre-existing condition based on an applicant’s current health status, sometimes a healthy applicant can be deemed to have a pre-existing condition based on a past health problem or evidence of treatment for a particular condition.

“One in Two Americans Has a Pre-Existing Condition … and Up to 86 Percent of Older Americans Have a Pre-Existing Condition.”

As for me, my health care provider is the Veterans Administration (VA), because I served in the US Marines, fought in Vietnam and returned home from the war with a service rated disability. However, less than 7% of all Americans are eligible for health care through the VA.

So, for me it doesn’t matter if America has Obamacare or not, but I am thinking of those I love: my wife and children who have to rely on the private sector and could be denied health care by an insurance company. If that happened, I would have to watch them suffer and maybe die when they didn’t have to. That is one BIG reason why I will not vote for Mitt Romney.

In fact, the VA medical system is a socialist program, and we who served paid for it by risking our lives and health to fight for our country.

Discover  Sick of Motor-Mouth Politicians  and learn why it is important to vote.

_______________________

Lloyd Lofthouse, a former U.S. Marine and Vietnam Veteran, is the award winning author of The Concubine Saga.

His latest novel is Running with the Enemy. Blamed for a crime he did not commit while serving in Vietnam, his country considers him a traitor. Ethan Card is a loyal U.S. Marine desperate to prove his innocence or he will never go home again.

And the woman he loves and wants to save was trained to hate and kill Americans.

To follow this Blog via E-mail see upper left-hand column and click on “FOLLOW!”

Ranking Romney and Obama: who is the better candidate?

One way to learn more about a candidate is to see how well he or she is doing in the polls for the state where he was born and grew up and/or the state where he served as an elected state and/or US official.

Mitt Romney was born and raised in Michigan where his father served as governor (1963-1969). Because his father was the 43rd governor of Michigan, one would think the state’s voters would favor the son.

However, in Michigan, Obama holds a 4 point lead in the polls and 48.8% of voters say they will vote for him compared to 44.8% that say they will vote for Romney.

Then Mitt Romney was the governor of Massachusetts (2003 – 2007), but Romney is losing the state to Obama. As a newly elected governor in 2003, Romney had a 61% approval rating but by 2007, that approval rating dropped to 34%. In addition, in 1994, when Romney ran for the US Senate in Massachusetts against Edward Kennedy, he had trouble establishing consistent positions. For example, his views on abortion kept shifting—something we have witnessed in the presidential election.

Fifty-six percent of voters in Massachusetts say they will vote for Obama but only 39.7% say they will vote for Romney.

Historically, states tend to favor presidential candidates that served or lived there, so why has Massachusetts abandoned Romney?

Now, how about Obama’s home states of Illinois and Hawaii?

In Illinois, where Obama served as a State Senator (1997-2004), than a US Senator (2005-2008), his average in the polls is 15 points ahead of Romney and 50.5% of voters say they will vote for Obama but only 35.5% say they will vote for Romney.

In Hawaii, where Obama was born and then later raised by his grandparents, his average lead in the polls is 30 points above Romney and 60.5% say they will cast votes for him while only 31% say they will vote for Romney.

If we must choose between two candidates by voting for the lesser of two evils, what is the best way to discover who is the lesser of two evil? I think one answer is knowing who exaggerates and/or uses false statements the least.

Final Malarkey Score from all Four Debates Combined

Romney and Ryan = 37 or 70%

Obama and Biden = 16 or 30%

In the 1st presidential debate, Fact Check.org caught Romney spouting malarkey almost twice the number of times Obama’s made exaggerated and/or false claims. Fact Check.org listed nine for Romney and five for Obama.

In the vice presidential debate, Ryan, Romney’s running mate, was caught by Fact Check.org spouting malarkey eleven times, and I found two more boosting Ryan’s use of malarkey to thirteen. Biden was only called out for three claims that were malarkey.

In the 2nd Presidential debate, Romney was called out by Fact Check.org for eleven examples of malarkey (exaggerations and/or false statements) compared to Obama’s three uses of malarkey.

In the 3rd and last presidential debate, Romney again won the malarkey contest by making six misleading and/or false statements to Obama’s four.

In conclusion, what is it that Romney has going for him to explain why he is running almost equal to Obama in the polls?

Is it the fact that Romney and Ryan have exaggerated and used false statements 233% more than Obama and Biden?

Has it been proven that politicians that exaggerate and lie more always win?

You may be surprised to learn that it worked for Thomas Jefferson in 1800 when he ran for president against John Adams. The key difference between the two politicians was that Jefferson hired a hatchet man named James Callendar to do his smearing for him. Adams, on the other hand, considered himself above such tactics.

To Jefferson’s credit, Callendar proved incredibly effective, convincing many Americans that Adams desperately wanted to attack France. Although the claim was completely untrue, voters bought it, and Jefferson stole the election. Source: Founding Father’s dirty campaign-cnn.com

My final question: Will Romney steal the 2012 election based or malarkey, or will the lesser of two evils win?

Discover these posts if you have not seen them:

_______________________

Lloyd Lofthouse, a former U.S. Marine and Vietnam Veteran, is the award winning author of The Concubine Saga.

His latest novel is Running with the Enemy. Blamed for a crime he did not commit while serving in Vietnam, his country considers him a traitor. Ethan Card is a loyal U.S. Marine desperate to prove his innocence or he will never go home again.

And the woman he loves and wants to save was trained to hate and kill Americans.

To follow this Blog via E-mail see upper left-hand column and click on “FOLLOW!”