posted on June 07, 2012 10:51
The Romney campaign says: “Under President Obama, the nation has lost 552,000 jobs.”
But the New York Times notes, “that statistic includes Mr. Obama’s first year in office, and especially the months of February, March and April, when monthly job losses from the economic collapse were at 700,000 or higher.
“Just leaving out February 2009 — before any of Mr. Obama’s policies, including the economic stimulus, had been put into place — would wipe away all 552,000 lost jobs, giving the president a record of creating 172,000 jobs.”
Plus, if you ignore Obama’s first year in office, then the President would have added about 3.7 million jobs to the economy.
Why, you ask, ignore the first year?
Because that’s what Romney’s campaign wants you to do with his first year as governor.
Ed Gillespie, a Romney adviser, argued on Fox News that his first year as governor, 2003, shouldn’t be counted in assessing his jobs record. Yes, he conceded, Massachusetts was 47th in job creation during Romney’s term was governor. But Gillespie argued that that calculation is reached by “diluting it with the first year in office, when he came into office, and it was 50th in job creation.”
In other words, Romney doesn’t want to be measured by the same yardstick he applies to the President.
As David Axelrod said, “breathtaking hypocrisy.”
Thursday, June 07, 2012 4:25 PM
Let's talk "net" jobs lost/gained
Got a figure on THAT?
C'mon, Gary. And, let's talk people not applying for job bennies through the Employment Office because they ran out of benefits. They're not counted, of course. So, all the figures in the world won't show what is actually happening in America with regard to employment. Both sides post a "ruse" on those numbers.....and mostly the dems because if they can (and do) skew the numbers, they think the populace believes them.
Unemployment isn't at the 8+% rate...it's FAR higher. You know it and I know it. It is M U C H higher than that...and those working part time jobs and are underemployed makes the employment figure far better than it is (even though it is horrible in the first place). If you don't think the general voting population doesn't know this, you are horribly misinformed.
Thursday, June 07, 2012 8:07 PM
So, is this jobs gained/lost a "net" figure then?
And, I think you're smart enough to know exactly WHY I'm asking.