Krugman: The Drywall Chronicles
So Mitt Romney gave a speech at a closed Ohio drywall factory, which he tried to use as a symbol of Obama’s economic failure. The symbolism was perfect — not as an illustration of Obama’s failure, but as an illustration of just how stupid Romney thinks we are.
Even regular reporters noticed that the factory in question closed under, yes, George W. Bush — a fact Romney failed to mention, although his campaign scrambled to cover for him afterwards.
What I didn’t see mentioned was the point that this was a drywall factory — that is, a supplier of a product largely used in home construction. It’s one thing to say that Obama should have revived the economy as a whole; it’s another to say that he should have brought back the housing bubble!
Finally, why should we believe that Romney’s policies — basically tax cuts for the rich, as usual — would yield great economic results? Well, I guess you can point to Bush’s example; how did his administration at this point compare with Obama? From BLS data:
- more -
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/the-drywall-chronicles/
= new reply since forum marked as read
factory is now example of businesses that didn't reopen under Obama. 
Massachusetts was 47th in job creation during his Governorship.
47th.
So there are a minimum of 46 people who would be better at being President, if one is looking at this economically. (how's that for "framing"?)
And Mr. Romney is a liar. Although I hear the P.C. term for that is "Flip-Flopper."
Boston Globe 7/29/07:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/07/29/romneys_economic_record/
CNN Truth Squad:
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-08/politics/politics_truth-squad-romney-jobs_1_mitt-romney-barack-obama-net-gain?_s=PM
OLITICS
And here's something from The Washington Post about Romney's "manipulation of the truth.":
Greg Sargent: “It Is Not Debatable To Claim That The Overall Net Job Loss Number Romney Cites Is A Fair Measure Of The Success or Failure Of Obama’s Policies.”
““Romney’s claim that two million jobs were lost under the Obama presidency is based on the idea that there’s been a net loss of jobs since he took office.
In other words, Romney is taking into account the fact that the economy continued hemorrhaging jobs at a furious rate after Obama took office — before Obama’s stimulus passed. But the figures show that once it became law, monthly job loss declined over time, and turned around in the spring of 2010, after which the private sector added jobs for over 20 straight months, totaling around 2.2 million of them.
You can debate whether the stimulus underperformed. You can debate whether the stimulus is the reason the economy did add private sector jobs. You can argue that public sector jobs loss should be factored in. But it is not debatable to claim that the overall net jobs loss number Romney cites is a fair measure of the success or failure of Obama’s policies.”
Washington Post, “The Plum Line” blog, 1/3/12
Watching the news you'd think these were all recent developments and everything was fine and dandy when Obama took office.
