Stephanie Cutter Lies: More Jobs created under Obama than under Reagan

[Matt1970]

I am in stitches. For anyone who doesn't know Stephanie Cutter is the deputy campaign manager for Obama. It would be one thing if it were even close to true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq2IS-dtY_M

 

[Anarchist420]

Considering how high inflation was under Reagan and how much he spent, it doesn't surprise me that Reagan created more jobs.

Reagan created a lot of jobs, but that's not necessarily good if they're created through tax increases, inflation, and borrowing. That is the only way agents of the state can actually create jobs.

 

[kage69]

Yeah, well Reagan sold way more weapons to Iran! Take that Obama! Freakin noob!



/rimshot

 

[EagleKeeper]

Considering how high inflation was under Reagan and how much he spent, it doesn't surprise me that Reagan created more jobs.

Reagan created a lot of jobs, but that's not necessarily good if they're created through tax increases, inflation, and borrowing. That is the only way agents of the state can actually create jobs.

How many jobs were created by each in the government sector?
How many jobs were created by each in the privatesector?
How much of an increase in $$ and/or percentage was the federal budget
How much of an increase in $$ and/or percentage was the GNP

 

[mshan]

Don't know if Cutter's comments are correct if qualified as she said (private sector jobs, 27 months, not the 37 month figure Fox chose to use, and she said from beginning of recovery I believe, not necessarily beginning of term?), but google search reveals this James Carville rant (his comments are from 1996):

"For example, "The U.S. economy in the 1980s was the most incredible job-creating machine the world has ever seen." Says Carville: "Cut the crap, boys and girls. Facts are facts. Reagan's job numbers weren't even as good as Johnson's, Carter's, Kennedy's or Nixon's. And Clinton's stomping all over Reagan, too." That's his "rapid response" answer, the likes of which he offers repeatedly, followed by an "Extended Version":

"Let's go to the numbers (percentage job growth per year under seven presidents): Johnson, 3.8, Carter, 3.1, Clinton, 2.4, Kennedy, 2.3, Nixon 2.3, Reagan, 2.1, Bush, 0.6." His source: The Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics Survey.

"If that doesn't take the wind out of their sails," Carville continues, "focus just for a minute on President Carter and Reagan and their private sector jobs. Under Carter, 2.3 million private sector jobs were created per year; under Reagan, only 1.8 private sector jobs were created per year. You see, Reagan's job numbers, as unimpressive as they were, got a big boost from all the public jobs--i.e., jobs for government bureaucrats--he was creating. In fact, in his two terms in office the economy added 1.4 million government bureaucrats to the payroll, including 183,000 federal bureaucrats (same source). That was one strange way of lifting the heavy hand of government off our backs."

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...0_1_public-jobs-reagan-revolution-bureaucrats

Also saw this graph: http://sethfiegerman.com/post/17140670224/soupsoup-private-sector-jobs-created-by-barack


Without digging around some more, have no idea who is closer to truth.

 

[mshan]

"On a monthly basis, Democrat Bill Clinton averaged 217,000 new private-sector jobs. Democrat Jimmy Carter had an average of 188,000, followed by Republican Ronald Reagan’s 153,000, according to Labor Department data."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...rease-more-with-democrats-in-white-house.html


Surprising.

 

[chucky2]

I have no idea if what Carville says is true or not. Do you think Carville is trustable as a source given his obvious partisanship?

 

[PJABBER]

Well, there is a counterpoint here,

CUTTER: I'M JUST GOING TO MAKE S%&T UP ABOUT JOBShttp://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/23/cutter-im-just-going-to-make-st-up-k
by MIKE FLYNN 23 Aug 2012

Stephanie Cutter, deputy campaign manager for Obama's reelection effort, seems more a character out of fiction than a real person. A high-octane spokesman, she is willing to say anything to win the 30-second sound byte cycle. She will lie, contradict herself and make up stats on the fly to get through any single cable news appearance. Its something real people, with a credibility gene, wouldn't do. Fortunately, she's a Democrat, so the media will never really hold her statements to account.

Yesterday, Cutter appeared on MSNBC and was asked about Obama's economic record. She claimed that Obama's "recovery" had created 4.5 million private sector jobs. She went on to claim that Obama has created more jobs than Reagan.

I realize media fact-checkers will be reluctant to dig into Cutter's statement, so I'll save them the effort. Her statement is false. It isn't true. Hell, its not even on the same continent as the truth.

When Obama took office, the US was officially emerging out of a recession. The country suffered a severe recession during the first two years of Reagan's first term, as the Fed took steps to wring inflation out of the economy.

Both men were facing very tough economic climates. Reagan responded with, first, across the board tax cuts and, after reelection, comprehensive tax reform. Obama responded by borrowing a huge pot of money and throwing it at state and local governments, renewable energy fantasies and other boondoggles and a smattering of minor tax breaks. Oh, and a new entitlement, regulations and a promise of higher taxes. In response, the economy under Reagan surged and added almost 17 million jobs during his tenure. Under Obama it has, at best, limped along.

When Obama took office, there were 142 million people employed. Last month, there were 142.2 million people employed. A tad under 200,000 more people have jobs today than had them when Obama was sworn in. In January 2009, 11.6 million people were unemployed. Today, 12.7 million are unemployed.

Those numbers are bad enough, but they are abysmal when you factor in population growth. We've added almost 10 million working age adults to the population since January 2009. The only thing keeping our unemployment rate from double-digits is that millions of people have simply given up. Since Obama took office, over 7 million people left the labor force. If the same number of adults today were in the workforce as in 2009, the unemployment rate would be 11%.

If you torture statistics long enough, they will confess to anything. But nothing in Obama's economic record supports even the most partisan spin of the numbers. Saying that Obama's recovery has added more jobs than Reagan's is pure fantasy. It is simply a made up talking point. If I were to read that in a political novel, I would shake my head thinking that, in real life, no one would have the audacity to make such a blatantly false claim. But, sadly, an objective media is the stuff of fiction today, too.

 

[Matt1970]

Don't know if Cutter's comments are correct if qualified as she said (private sector jobs, 27 months, not the 37 month figure Fox chose to use, and she said from beginning of recovery I believe, not necessarily beginning of term?), but google search reveals this James Carville rant:



Also saw this graph: http://sethfiegerman.com/post/17140670224/soupsoup-private-sector-jobs-created-by-barack


Without digging around some more, have no idea who is closer to truth.

Those numbers are a little high compared to Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms
Either way, Reagan shows over 2% gain and Obama isn't even cracking 1%.

 

[PokerGuy]

the economy under Reagan surged and added almost 17 million jobs during his tenure. Under Obama it has, at best, limped along.

When Obama took office, there were 142 million people employed. Last month, there were 142.2 million people employed. A tad under 200,000 more people have jobs today than had them when Obama was sworn in. In January 2009, 11.6 million people were unemployed. Today, 12.7 million are unemployed.

That is pretty clear, just more disgusting lies that the left is using to try to cover up the utter failure of this administration. Of course, with a few exceptions, the adoring throng of followers (aka, the media) will not call them on it.

 

[PJABBER]

Looking up some numbers myself.

Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Act in 1981, it was the largest tax cut in American history. In 15 months in the 1983-84 time frame, job growth was 4,655,000. In the comparable 15 months in 2011-12, job growth was 2,475,000.

In the meantime, per the US Census Bureau, the nation’s population has risen 33%, from 236,348,000 in 1984 to 313.417,000 today.

Yeah, Cutter's claims are meaningless, either in raw numbers or as a percentage of population.

Scary thing is the number of people that are off the "looking for work" rolls these days. That population represents real despair.

 

[mshan]

I just found those links by quick google search.

Hadn't heard about this story, so haven't read much one way or the other.

But getting back to OP's linked video, Cutter specifically said 1) private sector jobs, and 2) unclear where her starting point is (beginning of recovery or beginning of term), and 3) what is end point (27 months she referred to earlier, Fox somehow decides to use 37 months, and I guess other stats reflect full 4 or 8 years).

She may be correct, if properly qualified by what she said, may be wrong, who knows.

Ultimately, seems like another mini-outrage till something else comes up (applies equally to both Democratic and Republican position).

 

[PokerGuy]

She's obviously lying trash, but regardless, anyone who claims a president "created xyz jobs" is an idiot. At best, the president can help push legislation through congress and create an environment suitable for business growth. Idiot talking heads talk about job creation like the president has some lever in the oval office that he can just push to create jobs. The lever is connected to the "Job Creator 5000" device or something.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

People always focus on number of jobs created but, given the way things have gone the past few decades, I would tend to pay more attention to wages in the economy. That is much more telling honestly, and what it tells is that our economy has been on a downward trend for decades.

While I doubt any of the usual suspects will read it, here is an interesting and informative piece on wages in this country (just fyi, it was writting in the middle of the Bush admin):

http://www.kyklosproductions.com/articles/wages.html

 

[Matt1970]

People always focus on number of jobs created but, given the way things have gone the past few decades, I would tend to pay more attention to wages in the economy. That is much more telling honestly, and what it tells is that our economy has been on a downward trend for decades.

While I doubt any of the usual suspects will read it, here is an interesting and informative piece on wages in this country (just fyi, it was writting in the middle of the Bush admin):

http://www.kyklosproductions.com/articles/wages.html

How can he even see this thread if I am on his ignore list?

 

[Atreus21]

How can he even see this thread if I am on his ignore list?

You can see threads from ignored people. Just can't read the OP.

 

[Matt1970]

You can see threads from ignored people. Just can't read the OP.

Ahh, I did not know this. Thanks.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

You can see threads from ignored people. Just can't read the OP.

And I can read the more intelligent writers to get the gist of the thread. It's been working out awesome for me.

 

[Anarchist420]

How many jobs were created by each in the government sector?
How many jobs were created by each in the privatesector?
How much of an increase in $$ and/or percentage was the federal budget
How much of an increase in $$ and/or percentage was the GNP

Private sector vs govt sector is a false dichotomy when you have "private" defense contractors and what not. Reagan unfroze pay raises for federal employees that Democrat Carter had instituted and Reagan massively increased the national debt.

As for GNP, it is a meaningless statistic because it includes govt expenditure and also because if I break my neighbor's window and he has to order a new one, then GNP goes up... when it would've just been better if I hadn't broke his window instead. We need to see a drop in GDP actually.

I guess one could say real production = GDP - 2(govt expenditures), but even then it is not necessarily better for more expensive things to be produced.

 

[Matt1970]

And I can read the more intelligent writers to get the gist of the thread. It's been working out awesome for me.

I am honored that I have infuriated him so badly that he cannot even stand to see any of my posts. I will continue to debunk his BS whether he can see it or not.

 

[dawp]

Ahh, I did not know this. Thanks.

plus you can view individual post of those on your ignore list.


and quoted post show up too.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

I am honored that I have infuriated him so badly that he cannot even stand to see any of my posts. I will continue to debunk his BS whether he can see it or not.

No you're just a moron. Literally you are an not an intelligent human being and I think deep down you actually know that. You don't come here to engage in reasoned intellectual debate. You're nothing more than a partisan shill Fox News brainwashed zombie trying to get points for your side.

 

[werepossum]

I agree that Cutter is basically dishonest - it's a requirement for her position - but I'd point out something from Reagan's time. At that point we still manufactured most of our consumer goods, construction materials, automobiles. China had only recently been opened, had very large trade barriers, and was essentially 1950s technology at best and 18th century (or older) technology in places. Mexico was much the same. Where we had competition, it was from nations with roughly comparable standards of living. Global arbitrage was in its infancy. Tax cuts on consumers would probably be spent on American-made consumer goods or saved where it would be borrowed by other Americans for wealth-creating purposes like building homes or businesses. Tax cuts on job providers would likely spur higher salaries, modernization, and/or new ventures that would in turn increase our societal wealth. Capital and infrastructure projects still went mostly to Americans and American-made products, although the worm was already turning.

In Obama's America, most consumer goods are manufactured outside of America. I just bought a hammer drill and paid a 50% premium to get one manufactured in friggin' Mexico rather than Red China; American built isn't even a fantasy for most things today. Virtually anything one can imagine building can be more profitably built somewhere besides America, with absolutely no technological penalty for locating a factory in China - or Vietnam, or Bangladesh. (Indeed, due to our loss of our commons to China there's often now a technological penalty for locating a factory in America.) Tax cuts on consumers will probably be spent on imported goods, with much if not most of the money flowing directly out of our economy to return only as loans to our government. Tax cuts on job providers would likely not spur higher salaries, as loss of our relatively well paid manufacturing job base has greatly lowered competition for labor, and in any case modernization and/or new ventures that would increase our societal wealth are often only practical to do overseas. (Shoot, we'll even give you tax money to cover the cost of relocating as long as you don't actually admit its purpose is to close an American plant.) Capital and infrastructure projects often go to non-American companies and even more often use foreign-made products.

I'm a huge fan of Reagan, and a proponent of low taxes in general, but let's not kid ourselves. Tax cuts are not going to produce another Reaganesque recovery in today's internationalized America. The best we could hope for is something a bit less anemic than is Obama's recovery, and even that isn't guaranteed.

 

[Matt1970]

No you're just a moron. Literally you are an not an intelligent human being and I think deep down you actually know that. You don't come here to engage in reasoned intellectual debate. You're nothing more than a partisan shill Fox News brainwashed zombie trying to get points for your side.

The last resort from the desperately humiliated is to denounce intelligence.

Yep, putting Matt and Nehalem onto the ignore list along with cybrsage was one of the better moves I've made. Makes reading threads so much easier on the eyes when you don't have to look at their constant moronic robotic right wing echo chamber responses.

They are not intelligent people, like most of their GOP brethren.

You just cannot help but peek at my posts can you?

 

[PJABBER]

I agree that Cutter is basically dishonest - it's a requirement for her position - but I'd point out something from Reagan's time. At that point we still manufactured most of our consumer goods, construction materials, automobiles. China had only recently been opened, had very large trade barriers, and was essentially 1950s technology at best and 18th century (or older) technology in places. Mexico was much the same. Where we had competition, it was from nations with roughly comparable standards of living. Global arbitrage was in its infancy. Tax cuts on consumers would probably be spent on American-made consumer goods or saved where it would be borrowed by other Americans for wealth-creating purposes like building homes or businesses. Tax cuts on job providers would likely spur higher salaries, modernization, and/or new ventures that would in turn increase our societal wealth. Capital and infrastructure projects still went mostly to Americans and American-made products, although the worm was already turning.

In Obama's America, most consumer goods are manufactured outside of America. I just bought a hammer drill and paid a 50% premium to get one manufactured in friggin' Mexico rather than Red China; American built isn't even a fantasy for most things today. Virtually anything one can imagine building can be more profitably built somewhere besides America, with absolutely no technological penalty for locating a factory in China - or Vietnam, or Bangladesh. (Indeed, due to our loss of our commons to China there's often now a technological penalty for locating a factory in America.) Tax cuts on consumers will probably be spent on imported goods, with much if not most of the money flowing directly out of our economy to return only as loans to our government. Tax cuts on job providers would likely not spur higher salaries, as loss of our relatively well paid manufacturing job base has greatly lowered competition for labor, and in any case modernization and/or new ventures that would increase our societal wealth are often only practical to do overseas. (Shoot, we'll even give you tax money to cover the cost of relocating as long as you don't actually admit its purpose is to close an American plant.) Capital and infrastructure projects often go to non-American companies and even more often use foreign-made products.

I'm a huge fan of Reagan, and a proponent of low taxes in general, but let's not kid ourselves. Tax cuts are not going to produce another Reaganesque recovery in today's internationalized America. The best we could hope for is something a bit less anemic than is Obama's recovery, and even that isn't guaranteed.

Excellent points. Tax cutting will not be the magic bullet. A clarified and flattened tax structure will help as much, of course.

I would like to see Romney do what he is saying he would do in regards to regulatory reform - a top to bottom review for utility and an evaluation of the economic cost vs the benefits for all regulatory regimes.

If he does this aggressively, we will see an effect well beyond that of a pure tax rate adjustment.

Romney does seem to have a special focus on leveling the playing field re outsourced manufacturing. If our industrial base continues to be outsourced we leave ourselves with real strategic vulnerabilities. I think this will be the third leg of his economic efforts.

Here's hoping he has a Congress that will go along with such a plan. :thumbsup: