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

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
Tue Jul 24, 2012, 10:40 AM Jul 2012

If 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


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 Obama’s campaign has ramped up the attack this week in response to Romney’s assertion that he knows how to create jobs — a fact he says is backed up by his record in the private sector. Sunday, Romney’s campaign struck back with a new line of defense: Romney stepped into a serious situation and improved it.

If it sounds familiar, it should — it’s the same line of reasoning that Obama is using to persuade voters to stick with his policies.

Twice on Sunday, Romney’s advisers appeared on television armed with different numbers than the ones wielded by the Obama campaign. On ABC’s “This Week,” Obama’s deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter and top Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom duked it out over Romney’s Massachusetts record.

Massachusetts “did fall to 47th out of 50 in jobs creation,” Cutter said on ABC’s “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


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
K&R n/t Kadie Jul 2012 #1
Kick! n/t ProSense Jul 2012 #2
Shouldn't "overall' be larger than "private sector"? Scuba Jul 2012 #3
No, ProSense Jul 2012 #4
Thank you. The vast universe of my ignorance just became a tiny bit smaller.... Scuba Jul 2012 #5
It isn't ProSense Jul 2012 #6
Bottom line: private sector jobs grew while public sector jobs shrank... Scuba Jul 2012 #7
Don't blame Romney sadbear Jul 2012 #8

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
4. No,
Tue Jul 24, 2012, 12:45 PM
Jul 2012

"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....
Tue Jul 24, 2012, 12:49 PM
Jul 2012

... perhaps you'll consider adjusting your graphs to illustrate that fact, which again shines favorably on the Obama administration.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
6. It isn't
Tue Jul 24, 2012, 12:58 PM
Jul 2012

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



 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
7. Bottom line: private sector jobs grew while public sector jobs shrank...
Tue Jul 24, 2012, 01:30 PM
Jul 2012

... making liars out of Republicans twice.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If the first six months d...