CNN already whipping out the ole' FactChecker

[Matt1970]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/05/politics/fact-check-obama-jobs/index.html

Anyone watching the Democratic National Convention on Tuesday night heard the number 4.5 million several times.

Nonfarm private payrolls hit a post-recession low of 106.8 million that month, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The figure currently stands at 111.3 million as of July.

While that is indeed a gain of 4.5 million, it's only a net gain of 300,000 over the course of the Obama administration to date. The private jobs figure stood at 111 million in January 2009, the month Obama took office.

And total nonfarm payrolls, including government workers, are down from 133.6 million workers at the beginning of 2009 to 133.2 million in July 2012. There's been a net loss of nearly 1 million public-sector jobs since Obama took office, despite a surge in temporary hiring for the 2010 census.

Conclusion:

The figure of 4.5 million jobs is accurate if you look at the most favorable period and category for the administration. But overall, there are still fewer people working now than when Obama took office at the height of the recession

Disingenuous? Hell, if that’s the way we are going to judge things then why not let the Republicans say most of the jobs were created under a Republican Congress?

 

[halik]

I'm just glad they're trying, between this and the Anderson Cooper's ownage.

 

[PokerGuy]

They should use the fleetwood mac song as the theme for the convention....

:whiste: tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Measuring from the day he took office is like pretending you can stop a rollercoaster in the middle of its big drop. Economies are cruise ships, not speedboats, and policies take time to take effect.

 

[Todd33]

Obama is not responsible for the negative trend when he took office. How would you like them to report the numbers? Maybe he should also take credit for all the deficit too? In his administration, the trend went back positive and added 4.5 million jobs, that is the truth.

 

[Matt1970]

Measuring from the day he took office is like pretending you can stop a rollercoaster in the middle of its big drop. Economies are cruise ships, not speedboats, and policies take time to take effect.

All other Presidents are measured from the day they take office. Or at least when it favors the statistics someone wants to use.

 

[diesbudt]

All other Presidents are measured from the day they take office. Or at least when it favors the statistics someone wants to use.

Wait. politicians use statistics that favor them reguardless if it is logical or not?

What a new development!

 

[Charles Kozierok]

All other Presidents are measured from the day they take office. Or at least when it favors the statistics someone wants to use.

Correct -- it's measured from the day they take office by their intellectually dishonest opponents, as is happening here.

The degree to which this is dishonest depends on how much is changing on Inauguration Day. In Obama's case, we were in a steep decline. So Republicans choose January 2009 to start measuring because they hope to deceive the ignorant.

Meanwhile, many of these people claimed with a straight face that Bush should not have been held responsible for 9/11 because he had been in power for "only" eight months at that point.

 

[cybrsage]

Obama said he would fix it, so we should measure him by his success or failure in this regard. He failed, but wants you to pretend he should only have a one term administration like he said he should have if it failed.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Measuring from the day he took office is like pretending you can stop a rollercoaster in the middle of its big drop. Economies are cruise ships, not speedboats, and policies take time to take effect.

Didn't Reagan inherit a double dip recession as well as double digit inflation and turned it around in 2 years?

 

[diesbudt]

Correct -- it's measured from the day they take office by their intellectually dishonest opponents, as is happening here.

The degree to which this is dishonest depends on how much is changing on Inauguration Day. In Obama's case, we were in a steep decline. So Republicans choose January 2009 to start measuring because they hope to deceive the ignorant.

Meanwhile, many of these people claimed with a straight face that Bush should not have been held responsible for 9/11 because he had been in power for "only" eight months at that point.

Reguardless for how long Bush had been in office you cannot blame the government for a terrorist attack of that magnitude when such attacks have never happened on that level before.

However, Democrats do the same against repulicans, and also choose their "best" statistic to show other people using the reasoning that the decline was already in motion, cannot count it.

It is all political BS. Both sides will always use the best/worst statistic they can to try and convince all the weak minded like most of that stuff makes a difference.

 

[umbrella39]

Measuring from the day he took office is like pretending you can stop a rollercoaster in the middle of its big drop. Economies are cruise ships, not speedboats, and policies take time to take effect.

And this is why the economy did not just fuck up the day Bush took office from Clinton. It took him some time to ruin us. These people are getting so desperate it is palpable...

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Reguardless for how long Bush had been in office you cannot blame the government for a terrorist attack of that magnitude when such attacks have never happened on that level before.

That's debatable, but let's leave it aside.

Answer honestly: if 9/11 had happened 8 months after Obama had taken office and there had never been an attack like it before, would Republicans have blamed him for it?

 

[diesbudt]

That's debatable, but let's leave it aside.

Answer honestly: if 9/11 had happened 8 months after Obama had taken office and there had never been an attack like it before, would Republicans have blamed him for it?

Of course they would.

Same length as democrats have blamed Bush.

But would it have been really his fault? No definitely not.

Again political people always use the best/worst stats they can on a campaign competition. The weak minded will believe the blame Obama would have gotten for it and been a stronger republican vote next time around.

 

[Ryan]

Didn't Reagan inherit a double dip recession as well as double digit inflation and turned it around in 2 years?

**ring ring**
Doc Doucebag Fan: hello?
Reality: Hi, and this is reality.
Doc Doucebag Fan: What's up?
Reality: Oh, I just wanted to remind you that the current recession is incomparably worse, and to terribly contrast the two really just makes you look like a babbling moron.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/06/news/economy/obama_reagan_recovery/index.htm

 

[soulcougher73]

They should use the fleetwood mac song as the theme for the convention....

:whiste: tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies

Oh good idea. Ill email that idea to the Romney/Ryan campaign. They'll be upset they didnt think about it earlier, but they will get over it.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

**ring ring**
Doc Doucebag Fan: hello?
Reality: Hi, and this is reality.
Doc Doucebag Fan: What's up?
Reality: Oh, I just wanted to remind you that the current recession is incomparably worse, and to terribly contrast the two really just makes you look like a babbling moron.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/06/news/economy/obama_reagan_recovery/index.htm

Nice ad hominen..."babbling moron"...really? I see that intelligent discourse is not your forte.

Obama ignored pleas by Republicans to use much more of the ARRA money to stimulate small businesses which consistently provide 60-70% of our job growth. Instead he made a huge mistake and gave us Porkulus. Then, to add insult to injury, he passed Obamacare which effectively stifled small business job growth by creating new costs and an environment of uncertainty. Obama had an opportunity to do a hell of a lot more to help our job situation and he just flat out blew it. From your link:

And both Bosworth and Penner agree that the stimulus package Obama did end up with could have been much better.

"The stimulus was poorly designed and didn't get the bang for the buck we could have gotten," Penner said.

In my opinion, Obama has shown horrible leadership through this crisis. He's had 3.5 years to implement an effective plan to create jobs and make a significant difference in improving our economy. Perhaps you think he's done a great job...that's fine by me...but I just happen to disagree. If that makes me a "babbling moron" in your world...then so be it...I think I can live with that.

 

[blankslate]

Didn't Reagan inherit a double dip recession as well as double digit inflation and turned it around in 2 years?

He also had a Congress containing Democratic members who were willing to compromise with him.

As far as I know the highest ranking Democratic member of the Senate did not come out and publicly state that the Democratic Party's goal should be to make sure that President Reagan only had one term.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTuW-a_qFlA

then take actions that pretty much make a lot more sense when looked at in light of such words.

Why wasn't the top political priority to be improve the economy?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

He also had a Congress containing Democratic members who were willing to compromise with him.

As far as I know the highest ranking Democratic member of the Senate did not come out and publicly state that the Democratic Party's goal should be to make sure that President Reagan only had one term.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTuW-a_qFlA

then take actions that pretty much make a lot more sense when looked at in light of such words.

Why wasn't the top political priority to be improve the economy?

Democrats were unwilling to compromise on ARRA or Obamacare. It appears that the Democrats version of "compromise" is to get everything they want with little to no regard for what Republicans wanted. This kind of "compromise" set the stage for highly partisan politics from the very beginning of Obama's term.

Nice link. I know this may surprise you, but both parties top priority is to win elections and limit the other party to as few terms as possible.

BTW...you do have a very good question..."Why wasn't the top political priority to be improve the economy?" in 2009. Why did pork barrel spending and Obamacare take precedent?

 

[jackstar7]

Democrats were unwilling to compromise on...Obamacare.

Lie.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Lie.

So the final version of the bill wasn't crafted by Democrats behind closed doors and Nancy Pelosi didn't say "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it"?

 

[Matt1970]

So the final version of the bill wasn't crafted by Democrats behind closed doors and Nancy Pelosi didn't say "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it"?

And Congress had all of 72 hours to read, understand, research, and discuss the 2500 page largest bill in us history. That's really working together with Republicans.

 

[werepossum]

I'm just glad they're trying, between this and the Anderson Cooper's ownage.

Agreed, although unfortunately for CNN they are finding out that not only is it difficult to be (or at least to appear to be) unbiased, there doesn't seem to be much demand for it either. We prefer to have our biases reinforced. Or perhaps non-proggies just don't yet trust that CNN is honestly trying to be unbiased.

My television news media coverage is principally listening in the morning, and I'll give them kudos for Robin Meade. Her show is more informative, her cohorts better, and their presentation probably as unbiased as it is possible to be. Even if she is disgustingly chipper at such an ungodly hour as 7AM.

 

[PokerGuy]

Why wasn't the top political priority to be improve the economy?

Getting bobo the clown out of office IS the best way to improve the economy, which was the #1 goal.

 

[werepossum]

**ring ring**
Doc Doucebag Fan: hello?
Reality: Hi, and this is reality.
Doc Doucebag Fan: What's up?
Reality: Oh, I just wanted to remind you that the current recession is incomparably worse, and to terribly contrast the two really just makes you look like a babbling moron.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/06/news/economy/obama_reagan_recovery/index.htm

I think this one is worse mainly because of our crushing debt and manufacturing outsourcing going into it, but unless you're too young or too dumb to remember the misery index, you'll know the recession Reagan inherited was certainly comparable. Double digit inflation, double digit unemployment.