Skip to main content

Fact-checking the "Why I'm voting for Donald Trump" viral tweet

Just the other day, I saw this tweet:

"Why I’m voting for Donald Trump in 2020:

- 4 million+ new jobs
- 400 miles of Wall Built
- 450,000 new manufactuing jobs
- Biggest tax cuts in history
- Median household income highest ever
- 3.9 million Americans off food stamps

It’s not about politics. It’s about results!"

As I started to continually see this very tweet posted by numerous individuals, I soon realized the tweet had gone viral and it was time for me to research its claims. Here's what I found...

"4 million+ new jobs"

While it's true that over 4 million jobs have been created in "President" Trump's first 28 full months in the Oval Office, that doesn't tell the whole story. Here's the breakdown:

In Donald Trump's first 28 full months as "president," 5.4 million jobs have been created. In Barack Obama's final 28 full months as president, 6.171 million jobs were created. In other words, Donald Trump inherited a strong economy from Barack Obama, and even with that, he's created fewer jobs than the previous president.

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth


"400 miles of Wall Built"

Once again, this claim doesn't provide the full picture. The U.S.-Mexican border is approximately 2,000 miles long. As renowned fact-checker Politifact reports, of these 2,000 miles, 650 miles of fencing were already in place before Trump entered the Oval Office. So these "400 miles" Trump and company are taking credit for are mostly reconstruction projects of barriers that were already in place. It'd be like if all the homes in a neighborhood were hit hard with hail, a company fixed the roofs of these homes, and said company claimed, "See all those houses over there? We built every single one of them!"

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/may/15/donald-trump-says-400-miles-wall-will-be-done-2020/


"450,000 new manufactuing jobs"

Yet again, Trump takes credit for upwards trends. Manufacturing employment has been increasing rather steadily since 2010, when Obama was in office. Here are the numbers:

3/1/2010: 11.5M
3/1/2011: 11.7M
3/1/2012: 11.9M
3/1/2013: 12.0M
3/1/2014: 12.1M
3/1/2015: 12.3M
3/1/2016: 12.3M
3/1/2017: 12.4M
3/1/2018: 12.6M
3/1/2019: 12.8M

Considering the number was 12.4M when Trump was inaugurated, approximately 400,000 manufacturing jobs have been created under his watch in 2.5 years, an average of 160,000 per year or 13,333 per month. Under Obama, 900,000 manufacturing jobs were created in his final seven years as president, an average of 128,571 per year or 10,714 per month. I can hear Trumpers saying, "Oh, so you're admitting more manufacturing jobs have been created under Trump than Obama?!?" Once again, that's just part of the story. There were 12.6M manufacturing jobs when Obama was inaugurated. This was just before the Great Recession hit its peak (or low, depending on how you want to term it/look at it). That number decreased to 11.5M in just a year - a loss of 1.1 million jobs. So over an 8 year span with Obama as president, we saw a loss of 1.1 million manufacturing jobs before regaining 900,000 of them. That trend has simply continued under Donald Trump.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-05/manufacturing-jobs-boom-is-fading


"Biggest tax cuts in history"

Yeah, that wouldn't even earn a "half-true" rating from Politifact. According to analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, and reported by CNN, Trump's tax cut was the 8th largest since 1918. Since 1964, there have been four greater tax cuts than Trump's. When looking at the size of tax cuts as a percentage of the GDP, here's where Trump's stacks up since 1964:

1) Ronald Reagan (1981): -2.9%
2) Barack Obama (2013): -1.8%
3) John F. Kennedy (1964): -1.6%
4) Barack Obama (2010): -1.3%
5) Donald Trump (2017): -1.1%

So not only was Donald Trump's tax cut not the largest in history, but Barack Obama has two tax cuts bigger than his.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/15/politics/is-trumps-bill-largest-tax-cut-in-history-no/index.html


"Median household income highest ever"

Here's the median income by year. See if you notice a trend...

2010: $49,275.88
2011: $50,053.97
2012: $51,016.86
2013: $51,939.48
2014: $53,657.47
2015: $56,515.84
2016: $59,039.00

Unless there's a recession, the median income tends to increase every year. So yet again, Trump is taking credit for inheriting a strong economy and trends that started long before he entered office.

https://www.multpl.com/us-median-income/table/by-year


"3.9 million Americans off food stamps"

The use of food stamps, as could be expected, increased exponentially during the Great Recession, the largest recession since the Great Depression. It peaked in 2013 with 47.6M recipients. That number decreased to 40.3M by the time Obama exited the White House (that's a net -7.3M for math majors at home). Noticing a trend here? Trump has taken credit for that which started happening before him.

http://www.trivisonno.com/wp-content/uploads/Food-Stamps-Yearly.jpg


So now that I've tackled each of the six claims made in the viral tweet, allow me to provide a condensed rebuttal to each of them.

- 4 million+ new jobs: Trump inherited a strong economy, the trend continues.
- 400 miles of Wall Built: These barriers were built prior to Trump taking office.
- 450,000 new manufactuing jobs: Trump inherited a strong economy, the trend continues.
- Biggest tax cuts in history: False. It was the 8th largest since 1918 and the 5th largest since 1964.
- Median household income highest ever: This happens almost every year, the trend continues.
- 3.9 million Americans off food stamps: Trump inherited a strong economy, the trend continues.

So to the original poster, you haven't provided any evidence that Donald Trump deserves to be reelected. All you've done is provide evidence that Donald Trump should be sending daily thank-you cards to Barack Obama.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"