Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf the first six months don't count...
If the first six months don't count...
By Steve Benen
Mitt Romney sat down with CNBC's Larry Kudlow, and made a curious observation. He said voters who want a strong economy should vote for him, but Americans "ought to give, whichever president is going to be elected, at least six months or a year to get those policies in place."
At first blush, that may sound fairly reasonable. A president takes office, he or she needs time to put a team in place, craft an agenda, and get to work. What's more, we generally don't see the results of economic policies immediately; the agenda needs to time to take effect. In Romney's mind, six months to a year seems fair.
But let's go ahead and apply this standard to President Obama, who took office in the midst of the worst global economic catastrophe since the Great Depression. Hey, look, here's a new chart I put together.
Throughout the presidential campaign, Romney has said the clock should start in February 2009, Obama's first month in office. If that's fair -- if the president deserves the blame for every job lost on his 11th day in office -- it's true that under Obama, the economy is still in a deep hole and hasn't fully recovered from the losses of early 2009.
- more -
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/24/12926538-if-the-first-six-months-dont-count
By Steve Benen
Mitt Romney sat down with CNBC's Larry Kudlow, and made a curious observation. He said voters who want a strong economy should vote for him, but Americans "ought to give, whichever president is going to be elected, at least six months or a year to get those policies in place."
At first blush, that may sound fairly reasonable. A president takes office, he or she needs time to put a team in place, craft an agenda, and get to work. What's more, we generally don't see the results of economic policies immediately; the agenda needs to time to take effect. In Romney's mind, six months to a year seems fair.
But let's go ahead and apply this standard to President Obama, who took office in the midst of the worst global economic catastrophe since the Great Depression. Hey, look, here's a new chart I put together.
Throughout the presidential campaign, Romney has said the clock should start in February 2009, Obama's first month in office. If that's fair -- if the president deserves the blame for every job lost on his 11th day in office -- it's true that under Obama, the economy is still in a deep hole and hasn't fully recovered from the losses of early 2009.
- more -
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/24/12926538-if-the-first-six-months-dont-count
Only Romney is allowed to make that argument.
Romney Camp Defends Poor Jobs Record: He Inherited A Bad Situation
Pema Levy
Mitt Romney has been dogged by an unfortunate statistic for his entire campaign: When he was governor, Massachusetts ranked 47th in job creation. President Obamas campaign has ramped up the attack this week in response to Romneys assertion that he knows how to create jobs a fact he says is backed up by his record in the private sector. Sunday, Romneys campaign struck back with a new line of defense: Romney stepped into a serious situation and improved it.
If it sounds familiar, it should its the same line of reasoning that Obama is using to persuade voters to stick with his policies.
Twice on Sunday, Romneys advisers appeared on television armed with different numbers than the ones wielded by the Obama campaign. On ABCs This Week, Obamas deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter and top Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom duked it out over Romneys Massachusetts record.
Massachusetts did fall to 47th out of 50 in jobs creation, Cutter said on ABCs This Week. Wages went down when they were going up in the rest of the country. He left his successor with debt and a deficit, and manufacturing jobs left that state at twice the rate as the rest of the country.
- more -
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/romney-massachusetts-record-job-creation-47th-fehrnstrom.php
Pema Levy
Mitt Romney has been dogged by an unfortunate statistic for his entire campaign: When he was governor, Massachusetts ranked 47th in job creation. President Obamas campaign has ramped up the attack this week in response to Romneys assertion that he knows how to create jobs a fact he says is backed up by his record in the private sector. Sunday, Romneys campaign struck back with a new line of defense: Romney stepped into a serious situation and improved it.
If it sounds familiar, it should its the same line of reasoning that Obama is using to persuade voters to stick with his policies.
Twice on Sunday, Romneys advisers appeared on television armed with different numbers than the ones wielded by the Obama campaign. On ABCs This Week, Obamas deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter and top Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom duked it out over Romneys Massachusetts record.
Massachusetts did fall to 47th out of 50 in jobs creation, Cutter said on ABCs This Week. Wages went down when they were going up in the rest of the country. He left his successor with debt and a deficit, and manufacturing jobs left that state at twice the rate as the rest of the country.
- more -
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/romney-massachusetts-record-job-creation-47th-fehrnstrom.php
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
8 replies, 2348 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (16)
ReplyReply to this post
8 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If the first six months don't count... (Original Post)
ProSense
Jul 2012
OP
Kadie
(15,369 posts)1. K&R n/t
ProSense
(116,464 posts)2. Kick! n/t
Scuba
(53,475 posts)3. Shouldn't "overall' be larger than "private sector"?
"Shouldn't "overall' be larger than 'private sector'?"
...overall includes public sector job losses.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)5. Thank you. The vast universe of my ignorance just became a tiny bit smaller....
... perhaps you'll consider adjusting your graphs to illustrate that fact, which again shines favorably on the Obama administration.
my graph, but the explanation doesn't change the graph. I suppose Benen should have mentioned that in the piece. Still, this is how it appears on any jobs chart. For the period, you'll notice that public sector jobs for each month are more than the total jobs because of cuts to state and local government jobs. In other words, public sector losses have been a drag on the recovery. As Krugman puts it:
<...>
And once you take the effects of public spending on private employment into account, a rough estimate is that the unemployment rate would be 1.5 percentage points lower than it is, or below 7 percent significantly better than the Reagan economy at this stage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/opinion/krugman-states-of-depression.html
And once you take the effects of public spending on private employment into account, a rough estimate is that the unemployment rate would be 1.5 percentage points lower than it is, or below 7 percent significantly better than the Reagan economy at this stage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/opinion/krugman-states-of-depression.html
Scuba
(53,475 posts)7. Bottom line: private sector jobs grew while public sector jobs shrank...
... making liars out of Republicans twice.
sadbear
(4,340 posts)8. Don't blame Romney
He's used to having it both ways.