Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues The Trump Administration AP Fact Check SOTU

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Associated Press is fact-checking remarks from President Donald Trump’s State of the Union speech. A look at some of the claims we’ve examined:
MANUFACTURING

TRUMP, in prepared remarks: “We are restoring our nation’s manufacturing might, even though predictions were that this could never be done. After losing 60,000 factories under the previous two administrations, America has now gained 12,000 new factories under my administration.”

THE FACTS: Not quite.
Manufacturing has slumped in the past year, after having advanced in the prior two years. The president’s tariffs regime and slower growth worldwide hurt the sector in ways that suggest that Trump’s policies robbed it of some of its previous strength.
Factory output fell 1.3% over the past 12 months, according to the Federal Reserve. Manufacturing job gains went from more than 260,000 at the end of 2018 to a paltry 46,000 for the 12 months ended in December, according to the Labor Department. Manufacturers lost jobs last year in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — the older industrial states where Trump had promised a renaissance.
___
JOBS and ECONOMY

TRUMP: “In eight years under the last administration, over 300,000 working-age people dropped out of the workforce. In just three years of my Administration, 3.5 million working-age people have joined the workforce.”

THE FACTS: Trump is being misleading with numbers to tarnish his predecessor’s record. It’s not clear what he means by “working-age.” But the total size of the U.S. labor force shows that the president is just wrong.
During the eight years of Obama’s presidency, the labor force rose by 5.06 million, according to the Labor Department. The improvement reflected a rebounding economy from the Great Recession and population growth.

As the unemployment rate has fallen, more people are finding it attractive to work and joining the labor force. This has enabled the labor force to climb by an impressive 4.86 million in just three years under Trump.
___
TRUMP: “From the instant I took office, I moved rapidly to revive the U.S. economy — slashing a record number of job killing-regulations, enacting historic and record-setting tax cuts, and fighting for fair and reciprocal trade agreements.

THE FACTS: The U.S. economy indeed is healthy, but it’s had plenty of hiccups during the Trump administration.

Trump never quite managed to achieve the liftoff he promised during the 2016 election. Instead, gains have largely followed along the same lines of an expansion that started more than a decade ago under Barack Obama.

Total economic growth last year was 2.3%. That is roughly in line with the average gains achieved after the Great Recession — and a far cry from growth of as much 3%, 4% or more that Trump told voters he could deliver.

The tax cuts did temporarily boost growth in 2018 as deficit spending increased. But the administration claimed its tax plan would increase business investment in way that could fuel lasting growth. For the past three quarters, business investment has instead declined.

It’s too soon to judge the impact of the updated trade agreement with Mexico and Canada as well as the pact with China. But Trump premised his economic policy on wiping out the trade gap. Instead, the trade deficit has worsened under Trump.

AP FACT CHECK: Trump's claims in his State of Union address

I watched his speech, and all I heard was a variation on "Buy now or be priced out forever, the gains are permanent."

Every single time you hear people bellowing out that kind of hubris, s*** turns upside down quick. 2000, 2006, etc. Nobody learns, nobody gets smarter, we just do the same dumbass crap over and over again.

You missed one, the so-called tax-cut and how it has effected the running deficit verging on 1 trillion dollars. Trump promised that the tax-cut would reduce the deficit and pay for itself. It has not (in spades).

My fond hope is that the Dems will mention all this stuff on a really regular basis. I have heard many talking heads advising that the Dems should not do that but just put forward their 'plans'. I don't buy that one. Most of the 'promises', being made by Democratic candidates, will never come to be and can't even be passed by congress!

I also keep wondering, is Medicare For all" the Medicare I am now on? The one where medigap is not exactly cheap. Or are they saying that there will be NO medigap, If so that that will mean that Medicare will be, basically, a single payer system, paid pay taxes that will have to be raised. That, in turn, will mean that healthcare, if we are not going to go bankrupt, means that ALL of healthcare will have to be seriously regulated. That will include; hospitals, drugs, devices, doctors, EVERYTHING!

As an aside I would be for that but it would need serious study of the concept, other nations doing it, etc. There are a LOT of options and, so far, I haven't heard a word about that one.

Step one: Do not take tactical advice from your enemy.

Cheaper than not having insurance at all and still, even in a lot of single payer countries, there's sometimes some kind of gap policy happening, plus there's almost always an elite Cadillac plan for those who want to fork over and jump in front of the line to the private sector.

Doctors and hospitals in those countries seem to do well enough but if we're talking about the well being of the patients, seems they do much better than we do.

It's obvious we will likely wind up with some kind of tiered hybrid and not exactly pure M4A, no matter how badly Sanders wants it.

I think people hear Medicare for All and think Single Payer. But friends who are on Medicare say it's not free and the amount you pay is based in how much you made. So anyone who tried to be responsible will probably get screwed again.

Americans will want it all, and free. Every technology we can invent but not afford.

Trump at least didn't promise that yet.

Depends on if you want the minimal version or the full care version. Mine is about $120 per month. Minimal version (Part A) is free.

A hundred twenty a month? Sorry but that's cheap.
Daryl's health coverage is now $920 a month and Brianne's WAS $250 a month but now that she turned twenty-six it is seventeen dollars a month.

Full price ACA is a hell of a lot more than subsidized ACA. Most of these 18-26 year old kids riding on their parent's ACA policies would be far better off with their own, as long as their income is low enough. Brianne could have got the same policy for nothing, if you had just done some research.

Of course, it's pretty damned complicated to figure out what your yearly income will be and the consequences for guessing wrong can be devastating. All screwed up indeed!

Believe me when I say we did do our research.
If there was a way to lower the rate, we would have found it.
That's why Brianne's subsidy kicked in, she is working full time and she's past the 26 year threshold.

Daryl will most likely be shunted over to Medicare in about another year due to his favorable SSDI status.
That took two years.

Seventeen bucks a month is a bargain for Bri.