Way to go Mitt, you know your facts
Newch91
Posts: 17,560
Trying to rewrite history. Picture on the link.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/ ... 2007-2008/
To accompany his jobs speech in Nevada this afternoon, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) released a packet that laid out his plans. On page 16 of the packet is a chart highlighting statistics from past economic recoveries and is presumably supposed to show how poor Obama’s record compares to past presidents. The chart, however, calls the period of time from 2007-2009 the “Obama recovery,” blaming him for the poor job numbers over that three-year period. As Romney surely knows, however, George W. bush was serving as president in 2007 and 2008, and Obama did not take office until January 2009.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/ ... 2007-2008/
To accompany his jobs speech in Nevada this afternoon, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) released a packet that laid out his plans. On page 16 of the packet is a chart highlighting statistics from past economic recoveries and is presumably supposed to show how poor Obama’s record compares to past presidents. The chart, however, calls the period of time from 2007-2009 the “Obama recovery,” blaming him for the poor job numbers over that three-year period. As Romney surely knows, however, George W. bush was serving as president in 2007 and 2008, and Obama did not take office until January 2009.
Shows: 6.27.08 Hartford, CT/5.15.10 Hartford, CT/6.18.2011 Hartford, CT (EV Solo)/10.19.13 Brooklyn/10.25.13 Hartford
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Let me go slowly - the red bar is the jobs lost in the recession. The gray bar is the "recovery" following said job losses. You can't have a recovery before a recession. That would happen AFTER a recession. So, that section shows the recession and the resulting "recovery." Well, the recession happened in 07-08, the recovery would happen in 09. Thus, Mitt was on the money with his graph.
Now, you can blame Bush for the slow recovery. But you have to blame the writer and yourself for the slow interpretation of what someone else is trying to say.
I love this stuff. Too good.
Godfather.
Nice try... It's clearly jobs lost and jobs added during a period from 07-09 with a large heading above that period saying "obama recovery". If you talk to any economist with half a brain you'd know that the recovery from Bush's failures is just barely getting underway. So yes, the graph is 100 percent misleading.
The graph is fine. The recovery part is clearly the gray bars on each set of bars. Would you have liked him to use 1 size font, so he could fit that heading over the last gray bar?
Now, you can argue (incorrectly) the latter point about how long it should take to recover, but the fact is, Mitt's graph is just fine.
(and I say incorrectly b/c the place Carter left Reagan in was MUCH deeper and Reagan dug out MUCH quicker. It's all rationalization to say it should take this long or that long. That's the very point of Mitt's graph. Nobody took this long before. Why now? Oh, yeah - it's Bush's fault.)
there are emergency meetings in the EU now with many economies on the brink ... there are like 2 or 3 countries that are experiencing any kind of real growth ... and they are pretty much doing it on the back of resources and exploitative labour ...
All fair points. And I probably should have saved my final commentary for another thread.
I just wanted to point out the error of reading these political rags (on both sides) and not thinking for yourself. It only leads to embarassment.