We'll hear from the opposition that it's the slowest recovery on record. But what the opposition won't admit is that President Obama managed this 31 months of job growth without any help from the GOP, and with the GOP obstructing everything he's tried to do to hasten the recovery. And despite the GOP announcing that their first and most important goal was to make Mr. Obama a one-term president. Notice that their primary goal was not putting Americans back to work? The GOP's most pressing goal was self-aggrandizement, not helping our country recover.
But the indisputable fact is that we have experienced 31 straight months of job growth. And there isn't a drop, an iota, a scintilla of any evidence whatsoever that exists for the opposition to point to and say they could do better. In fact, the man who wants Mr. Obama's job had one of the WORST job creation records as Massachusetts' governor.
"But...but...,"his people will point out, "he inherited a bad economy, and the Massachusetts legislature is Democratic, while Gov. Romney was the opposition! And when he left office, the jobs were beginning to come back to Massachusetts and after 4 years, job growth was improving!"
Yes. They will point that out. And we will all laugh.
- The Romney ad claims that as governor, “Romney had the best jobs record in a decade.” Yes — Massachusetts added more net jobs during Romney’s four years in office than during the four-year period of either his predecessor or successor. But — that ignores the national recessions before and after Romney’s time in office. If you look at how Massachusetts stacked up on job creation compared with other states, Romney actually fared worse than his predecessor and successor.
- The ad claims Romney “reduced unemployment to just 4.7 percent.” Yes — Massachusetts’ unemployment rate went from 5.6 percent to 4.6 percent under Romney. But — the state’s unemployment rate was slightly lower than the national rate when he took office, and was roughly the same as the national rate when he left office.
- The ad claims Romney “balanced every budget without raising taxes.” Yes — Romney never raised personal income taxes. But — in order to balance the budget, Romney increased government fees by hundreds of millions of dollars."
Here's an interesting analysis of the first "debate" between Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama.
23 comments:
Obama should thank those millions that gave up and left the workforce, otherwise, he never could have achieved this.
So, what Obama policies do you attribute to this job growth?
No matter who wins the debate the press will declare Obama the real winner. How could he fail to win even with an impartial moderator who is on record with saying a Romney/Ryan win would be disastrous for the country. Of course this followed the non partisan moderator of the VP debate who's husband went to school with Obama and he attended their wedding, no biased there either.
Maybe we should have Sean Hannity moderate one of the debates.
Mitt had a record of working with both sides of the aisle and got a lot accomplished. How can anyone expect the anointed one to work with Republicans when he doesn't even meet with his own side or his economic advisers.
It is difficult to deny that the policies of the current administration have resulted in one of the slowest recoveries in decades. There were 133,563,000 employed in January 2009. There were 133,500,000 employed in September 2012. (Department of Labor, CES) Somehow that does not agree with your or Obama's version of how many jobs he has created. Lets give him the benefit of the doubt, employment is flat at best.
As we head into the final stretch, I'll admit Shaw, I am nervous.
Here is yet another piece, from David Stockman of the Reagan Admin, summarizing the Romney plan and his "experience" as a job creator.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/14/david-stockman-mitt-romney-and-the-bain-drain.html
The Obama Camp is getting a bit nervous, and the Romney Camp has some reasons to be optimistic.
Seems some of the women in the Swing States are pushing Romney "Forward."
http://rationalnationusa.blogspot.com/2012/10/women-voters-in-swing-state-push-romney.html
It is finnally getting interesting. Perhaps the debates will actually matter. No?
Dave,
Keep the faith. ;)
SF and skud,
31 straight months of job growth. You can try to spin that, but it won't change the fact that we've had 31 straight months of job growth.
This is what Republiscums call destroying America
The policies Obama put in place to stop the crash, save and add jobs, and give Americans more confidence in America. Retail sales were up more today (latest stats) than since 2008. Bush's last year in office.
In early (absentee ballots) voting Obama is ahead by 28 points.
The Republicans immediately said the poll was bogus, fixed, and had a liberal bias.
Skud, we try to at least have people that resemble legitimate news people moderating these.
Hannity is an opinion person, not a news reporter.
Maybe Chris Wallace or Shepherd Smith, but Hannity? About as soon as Rachel Maddow will be doing it.
Looking at the DOL stats I'd say it depends on what the definition growth is Shaw.
"It is difficult to deny that the policies of the current administration have resulted in one of the slowest recoveries in decades."
It's difficult to deny that the solid, unyielding wall of Republican obstruction in both houses of Congress has done plenty to make this the slowest recovery since the one George W. Bush presided over not that long ago. The difference being that more jobs have been created during three and a half years thanks to Obama and Democrats' efforts than were created during eight years with two wars going on and multiple applications of tax-cut stimulus to goose consumer and business spending — and help expand the housing bubble — during the Bush years.
But that's not all. Recovery during Bush's term wasn't hampered by having several European countries teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. Nor was it affected by repeated regime changes and rebellions across the Mideast, causing unprecedented fuel price increases.
Every time the economy has started to build up something approaching rapid momentum the past three years, along came another scare about Greece or Spain going under, causing investors and consumers to draw in their horns, both contributing to an atmosphere of anxiety and fear. Likewise, there was the Mideast turmoil and concern oil supplies could be interrupted, driving prices higher, that repeatedly chilled things. Then, there were little dirty tricks, like Republicans holding the unemployed hostage repeatedly, and refusing to raise the debt ceiling until the country's credit rating suffered.
No president since FDR has had to deal with an economic collapse of the magnitude of the one that began in the summer of 2007. Nor has any president since Roosevelt had to contend with a recession when the international environment was so negative. Finally, no president since Truman has been confronted with such total, politically self-serving obstruction and subversion of his every effort to restore the economy and enact reforms to prevent a repeat as has Obama.
That Obama and congressional Democrats managed to reverse an 800,000/month job-loss rate in so short a time after Obama took office and since have helped generate 2.5 million jobs in the face of all-out obstruction and other adversity is a remarkable achievement.
Partisanship and ideology are blinding, though.
RN, re: those polls in the swing states and women? Obviously, as the conservative noise machine would say, those are skewed and biased.
RN, re: job growth? The definition of job growth is right in front of your eyes. Partisanship makes you want to deny that we've had 31 straight months of job growth. Somehow, in your partisan eyes, that's not growth. We understand why you wrote your comment: It was your way of denigrating anything positive and encouraging from the Obama administration, and your way of putting a negative spin on 31 straight months of job growth.
Yes, as SW Anderson stated, partisanship and ideology are blind.
The WSJ poll shows Obama still has lead with women voters
"The definition of job growth is right in front of your eyes"
Shaw Again you are right, sorry correct. 133563000 when he took office, 133500000 now = zero job growth.
See we can agree on something.
Dave, just kidding about Hannity but to have the last two moderators be far leftists is a little biased. One who is a personal friend of Obama's and the other who made the statement about Romney/Ryan being terrible.
Maybe we could have Sharpton or Wallace to balance the field.
Partisanship Shaw? How so, since I am NOT voting Romney.
Returning to post "crash" levels is not growth. Beyond that point it is.
Partisanship? Do tell.
On SW's comment; I agree.
skud, your not taking into account how deep and disasterous the bleeding of jobs was until that turned around in 2009, nor the combination of economic downturns, housing bubbles, and even what was happening in Europe. For you to come here and mock the job growth numbers shows a lack of any understanding of how terrible a crash this country experienced, and is nothing more than partisan hackery of the worst sort.
Since it is also a fact that Romney had a less than stellar record as a job creator in Mass. while he was governor, on what evidence would you base a guess that he, or anyone, could have done a better job under the circumstances?
None.
How so, RN?
"Looking at the DOL stats I'd say it depends on what the definition growth is Shaw."
Look at the chart again, RN, and then tell us all with a straight face that it doesn't show growth. Saying that it depends on what the definition of growth is, is not an impartial statement--the chart clearly shows a slow but steady increase in job growth. You and skud and SF just hate to admit it.
Shaw, we can take everything you mentioned into account, but the numbers don't lie. Less people working. Again, the only reason for the "job growth" is because so many people have given up and left the work force. Nothing to be proud of.
People are hurting, and chest thumping like this of statistics makes a mockery of their pain and misery.
Shaw,
You said job growth and there has been none.
Lets see, Romney worked with a dominate democratic legislature and got something done. It is more difficult to have job creation when unemployment is in the 4.5 range than when it is in the 8.2 range.
I agree with you again, anyone can do a better job than the current administration.
"People are hurting, and chest thumping like this of statistics makes a mockery of their pain and misery."
Tell that to Mitch McConnell and John Boehner.
skudrunner's imaginary Romney.
Here are the facts from FactCheck.org:
The Romney ad claims that as governor of Massachusetts, “Romney had the best jobs record in a decade.” Well, best or the worst, depending on how you want to measure it.
The Romney campaign bases its claim on the fact that during Romney’s four years in office, Massachusetts added a net 49,100 jobs (an increase of about 1.5 percent). In the four years under Romney’s predecessor, Republican Jane Swift, the state added 19,000 jobs (an increase of 0.59 percent). In the next four years under Romney’s successor, Democrat Deval Patrick, Massachusetts lost a net 66,400 jobs (a decrease of 2.03 percent).
But that ignores national employment trends that largely drive state employment. In particular, it ignores the national recessions both before and after Romney was in office.
So how did Massachusetts do compared with other states? As the Obama campaign has repeatedly noted, Massachusetts ranked 47th out of 50 states over the entirety of Romney’s four years as governor in terms of job creation. By comparison, Massachusetts ranked 37th in job growth under Swift, and it ranked 10th in Patrick’s first term.
By that measure, Romney had the worst record in a decade.
Romney had the worst record in a decade.
So how is he going to be the big job creator, skud? He sucked at it while governor of Mass.
Post a Comment