Chronicling Mitt Romey's Lies

[gunnut]

krugman had a post today (linking to another which made the statement).

asking the question "are you better off today than you were four years ago", is like a journalist asking a firefighter who just put out a fire, "is the house in better shape than when you got here?"

in this case, the worst recession since the Great Depression, one that was worldwide and involved trillions of dollars across an ever-more-tightly-interlaced world economy.

So, using that logic, we can say that people at the beginning of the Bush recession was better off than they were 8 years ago because they have enjoyed 8 years of good times. Now it's time to clean up after the party and go home. We all want the party to last forever, but we know that won't happen. However, we had a great 8 years and it will be like that Hawaiian vacation we took last summer. It was fun. The memories will last forever. Now let's get back to work and hopefully we can take another vacation soon.

[Doktor]

krugman had a post today (linking to another which made the statement).

asking the question "are you better off today than you were four years ago", is like a journalist asking a firefighter who just put out a fire, "is the house in better shape than when you got here?"

Even if you got the best firefighter on the scene, are you going to hire him to rebuild your house?

[bigross86]

Mr. Republicans Are Liars But Democrats Are Saints, what do you have to say about this little piece of creative number crunching?

Fact Check: 4.5 million new jobs created under Obama?

Fact Check: 4.5 million new jobs created under Obama?
By Eric Pfeiffer, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – 56 mins ago

With the Democratic National Convention in full swing, a number of party leaders are attempting to boost President Obama's re-election effort by asserting that 4.5 million new jobs have been created during his term.

President Obama himself has recently claimed more job growth in the past 29 months than President George W. Bush created "during the entire seven years before this crisis."

"Despite incredible odds and united Republican opposition, our president took action, and now we've seen 4.5 million new jobs," San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro said in his keynote address at the DNC on Tuesday night.

That statistic was echoed by virtually all of Tuesday night's speakers, including First Lady Michelle Obama, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who previously served as Obama's chief of staff.

However, CNN fact-checked that claim and found it to be "not the whole picture." Instead, CNN found that there has been a net increase of just 300,000 non-farm payroll jobs since Obama took office. And if you count government jobs, there are actually 400,000 fewer people working today than in January 2009.

When Democrats use the 4.5 million jobs number, they're referring to jobs created after the economy bottomed out in January 2010, one year after Obama took office. That timeframe excludes the worst job losses, which took place in 2009, and which many Democrats argue were the result of Bush policies.

CNN concludes: "The figure of 4.5 million jobs is accurate if you look at the most favorable period and category for the administration. But overall, there are still fewer people working now than when Obama took office at the height of the recession."

Still, a historical analysis of job growth percentages shows that Obama still fares better than some recent presidents. As of July, Obama is averaging +0.84% annual job growth in his term. That places him ahead of Bush, who saw +.051% growth in his first term and -0.84% in his second term. Obama is also tracking better than George H.W. Bush, who presided over +0.64% growth during his one term in the White House.

However, Obama's job growth percentages trail far behind some other recent presidents, including Bill Clinton (+2.60% and +1.60%), Ronald Reagan (+1.75% and +2.53%) and even Jimmy Carter (+2.30%).

[Chunder]

If people are dirty these hoops don't mean much. It might even contribute to creating a false impression to the contrary. So its a potential white wash too.

I'm reading a book called spy the lie at the moment (Actually, to tell you the truth, I got half way through it, my 95 year old grandfather took an interest, so commandeered the book from me). I can't proffer what that particular book has to say about whitewashing/grey areas. At the moment though, I'm liking where the book is heading. Thats the thing with pollies, they have to walk a tightrope of public opinion, where they try and catch all in appeal, but what they realise, and their target audience doesn't realise, is that lies of omission must occur to net as many as possible - I.E the target audience does not truly appreciate just how impossible a proposition (given the politicians background) really is if one searches for clarity in grammar & fact.

When one finally has enough of all that omission then politics really is stressful to be bothered taking part in. I feel this is probably what has become of our beloved Sniper!

Lets clarify that though, depending on your leanings, your either less likely, or more likely to accept verbatim or overlook/point out trends. If you lean to the left it goes without saying you'll be critical - vice versa of course as well.

That some don't want to show their tax returns, seems a rather moot point You couldn't ever keep everyone happy if you disclosed it, regardless of what existed within it.

[TopHatter]

Speaking of fact-checking:

WASHINGTON (AP) — It's a fact of life in Washington that what one party considers a principled stand, the opposition considers pigheadedness. Compromise? That's the other guy's problem.
But when former President Bill Clinton took the stage at the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday, he portrayed President Barack Obama as a pragmatic compromiser who has been stymied at every turn by Republicans. There was no mention of the role that the president and the Democrats have played in grinding compromise to a halt on some of the most important issues facing the country.
That was among the lines by the former president and others Wednesday that either cherry-picked facts or mischaracterized the opposition. A look at some of them:
CLINTON: "When times are tough, constant conflict may be good politics but in the real world, cooperation works better. ...Unfortunately, the faction that now dominates the Republican Party doesn't see it that way. They think government is the enemy and compromise is weakness. One of the main reasons America should re-elect President Obama is that he is still committed to cooperation."
THE FACTS: From Clinton's speech, voters would have no idea that the inflexibility of both parties is to blame for much of the gridlock. Right from the beginning Obama brought in as his first chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel, a man known for his getting his way, not for getting along.
One of the more high-profile examples of a deal that fell apart was the outline of a proposed "grand bargain" budget agreement between Obama and House Speaker John Boehner in 2011.
The deal would have required compromise from both sides. It slashed domestic spending more than most Democrats wanted and would have raised some taxes, which most Republicans oppose.
Boehner couldn't sell the plan to tea party factions in the House or to other conservative activists. And Obama found himself accused of going too far by some Democratic leaders. The deal died before it ever even came up for a vote.
In another instance, Obama appointed a bipartisan group, known as the Simpsons-Bowles Commission, to recommend ways to fix major fiscal problems like Social Security and Medicare. The commission issued its recommendations but fell three votes short of formally endorsing them. And Obama mostly walked away from the report. He later incorporated some of the less contentious proposals from the report into legislation he supported.
But that ensured the tough compromises would not get made.
The problem with compromising in Washington is that there are few true moderates left in either party. The notion that Republicans are the only ones standing in the way of compromise is inaccurate.
___
CLINTON: Clinton suggested that Obama's health care law is keeping health care costs in check.
"For the last two years, health care spending has grown under 4 percent, for the first time in 50 years. So, are we all better off because President Obama fought for it and passed it? You bet we are."
THE FACTS: That's wishful thinking at best. The nation's total health care tab has been growing at historically low rates, but most experts attribute that to continued uncertainty over the economy, not to Obama's health care law.
Two of the main cost-control measures in Obama's law — a powerful board to keep Medicare spending manageable and a tax on high cost health insurance plans — have yet to take effect.
Under the law, Medicare has launched dozens of experiments aimed at providing quality care for lower cost, but most of those are still in their infancy and measurable results have yet to be obtained. Former administration officials say the law deserves at least part of the credit for easing health care inflation, but even they acknowledge that the lackluster economy is playing a major role.
Meanwhile, people insured through the workplace by and large have seen little relief from rising premiums and cost shifts. According to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, the average premium for job-based family coverage rose from $13,375 in 2009 when Obama took office to $15,073 in 2011. During the same period, the average share paid by employees rose from $3,515 to $4,129.
While those premium increases cannot be blamed on the health care law — as Republicans try to do — neither can Democrats claim credit for breaking the back of health care inflation.
___
CLINTON: "I know many Americans are still angry and frustrated with the economy. ... I experienced the same thing in 1994 and early 1995. Our policies were working but most people didn't feel it yet. By 1996, the economy was roaring, halfway through the longest peacetime expansion in American history."
THE FACTS: Clinton is counting on voters to recall the 1990s wistfully and to cast a vote for Obama in hopes of replicating those days in a second term. But Clinton leaves out the abrupt downward turn the economy took near the end of his own second term and the role his policies played in the setting the stage for the historic financial meltdown of 2008.
While the economy and markets experienced a record expansion for most of the rest of Clinton's two-term presidency, at the start of 2000, there were troubling signs. Then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned in February 2000 that "we are entering a period of considerable turbulence in financial markets."
Sure enough, the tech-heavy Nasdaq composite stock index and the Dow Jones industrial average both peaked in March 2000. The bursting of the high-tech bubble dragged down the economy and markets through the rest of the year. From September 2000 to January 2001 when Clinton left office, the Nasdaq dropped 46 percent. Even now, in 2012, the Nasdaq has not returned to its 2000 peak. By March 2001, the economy toppled into recession.
Also, as president, Clinton supported the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, a law dating back to the Great Depression that separated banking from high-risk financial speculation. Robert Rubin, who had been Clinton's first treasury secretary, helped broker the final deal on Capitol Hill that enabled the repeal legislation to pass. Some financial historians say the repeal of the law paved the way for banks to invest in risky investments like mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations that played a role in the 2008 financial meltdown.
___
CLINTON: "Their campaign pollster said, 'We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers.' Now that is true. I couldn't have said it better myself — I just hope you remember that every time you see the ad."
THE FACTS: Clinton, who famously finger-wagged a denial on national television about his sexual relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky and was subsequently impeached in the House on a perjury charge, has had his own uncomfortable moments over telling the truth. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky," Clinton told television viewers. Later, after he was forced to testify to a grand jury, Clinton said his statements were "legally accurate" but also allowed that he "misled people, including even my wife."
___
Associated Press writer Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar contributed to this report. Link

A nice non-partisan rebuttal to the "The GOP is the party NO" mantra that the Dems can't stop repeating.

[GVChamp]

Speaking of fact-checking:



A nice non-partisan rebuttal to the "The GOP is the party NO" mantra that the Dems can't stop repeating.

Apparently Obama wanted to call Bohener and congratulate him after the Repubs took the House in 2010.

Only...

No one in the White House had his number.

That sure sounds like bi-partisanship to me

[astralis]

JAD,

There must be a calculated limit to how much government can spend to try to stimulate economic recovery,

IIRC, debt as a percentage of GDP slows down growth significantly if it stays long-term above 90-100% of GDP.

most of our short-term issue with debt is because of decreased revenue from the recession (the percentage spiked some 20% in the year before obama took office, for instance). the long-term issue is entitlement spending. so the stimulus itself can be quite large, provided that entitlement spending undergoes reform.

Incredible financing opportunities out there. But 700 sq.ft. $560/sq/ft. Are you nuts? Come out my way...I can build you a 3,000 sq.ft. house on 2 acres for a mere $380k with top of the line amenities and... only a 90 minute commute each way...

if i ever win the lotto...:)

the missus and i were looking for a 2-bedroom place at first, but those go for around 550-650K for a 900-1000 sqft in the clarendon area. now we're scaling back to a one bd/den for the moment. cheapest i've seen in this area is ~320K for a 650 sq ft grotty place. sigh.

To be candid, I question whether your conviction is on solid ground. What specifically would Romney do to make the deficit issue worse in the long run? If you believe it's his tax cuts then you believe he would cut taxes without bringing in offsetting revenues which would be the case as employment rises.

romney has promised several things; extend the bush tax cuts, then go one further by eliminating capital gains for taxpayers below 200K AGI, 20% cuts in marginal rates, lower corporate tax rate to 25%, eliminate death tax and repeal the AMT.

then he calls for defense spending to be tagged at 4% of GDP, which is another $2 trillion in defense spending over the next 10 years.

he wants to put back the $700 billion in medicare cuts, and promises no changes for SS or medicare for the next 10 years.

as ezra klein notes:

Romney’s budget plan is a fantasy

Consider what the Romney campaign, then, is saying: If Romney is elected, then by his third year in office, every single federal program that is not Medicare, Social Security, or defense, will be cut, on average, by 40 percent. That means Medicaid, infrastructure, education, food safety, road safety, the postal service, basic research, foreign aid, housing subsidies, food stamps, the Census, Pell grants, the Patent and Trademark Office, the FDA — all of it has to be cut by, on average, 40 percent. If Romney tried to protect any particular priority, it would mean all the others have to be cut by more than 40 percent.

somehow i don't think that will be very realistic.

Romney can't succeed in creating jobs faster than Obama.

in the short-term, it's probably a wash, unless something dramatic like the euro falling apart or china going into recession happens. he'll probably be able to ram through one or two major items, as it seems every president seems to get upon getting into office. based on his priorities and ease of passage, probably some form of his tax cuts. this may spur some, but not a lot of new hiring.

which will be well and fine in the short-term but will continue to worsen the nation's long-term fiscal outlook.

[Gun Grape]

JAD,
the missus and i were looking for a 2-bedroom place at first, but those go for around 550-650K for a 900-1000 sqft in the clarendon area. now we're scaling back to a one bd/den for the moment. cheapest i've seen in this area is ~320K for a 650 sq ft grotty place. sigh.

Home that's 650 sqft? You must be mistaken.

650 SqFt is the size of a one car garage with a laundry room or work bench

[gunnut]

Home that's 650 sqft? You must be mistaken.

650 SqFt is the size of a one car garage with a laundry room or work bench

That's what happens when everyone in the area works for the federal government that hands out cash like it's burning a hole in the pocket.

[JAD_333]

Home that's 650 sqft? You must be mistaken.

650 SqFt is the size of a one car garage with a laundry room or work bench

Gunny, that's a roomy garage. A 2-car garage around here is 440 sq.ft. An 800 sq.ft, condo with 1 bedroom, bath, wee kitchen, combo living-dining is common around DC starting at around $350k in the high rent areas.

[DOR]

Even if you got the best firefighter on the scene, are you going to hire him to rebuild your house?

I'm certainly not going to hire the arsonist!

[DOR]

bigross86,

I still can’t quite get to the 4.5 mn jobs number, either, even working from Jan 2010 to June 2012.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Jan 2010 _ _ Jun 2012 _ _ change _ _ % change

Nonfarm jobs _ _ _129.3 mn _ _ 133.1 mn _ _+3.8 mn _ _ +2.9%
Private sector_ _ 104.9 mn _ _ 112.2 mn _ _+7.3 mn _ _ +6.9%
Manufacturing _ _ _11.4 mn _ _ _12.0 mn _ _+0.6 mn _ _ +6.0%
Government _ _ _ _22.4 mn _ _ _11.9 mn _ _ -0.5 mn _ _ -2.1%
-- Federal _ _ _ _ _ 2.85 mn _ _ 2.83 mn _ _ -0.02 mn _ -0.6%

Aside from government, the numbers are all up, but I still can’t get to the 4.5 mn figure.

[DOR]

Home that's 650 sqft? You must be mistaken.

650 SqFt is the size of a one car garage with a laundry room or work bench

650 sq ft will do nicely for a family of 4 where I live, and for only about US$2.5 million.

[JAD_333]

romney has promised several things; extend the bush tax cuts, then go one further by eliminating capital gains for taxpayers below 200K AGI, 20% cuts in marginal rates, lower corporate tax rate to 25%, eliminate death tax and repeal the AMT.

then he calls for defense spending to be tagged at 4% of GDP, which is another $2 trillion in defense spending over the next 10 years.

he wants to put back the $700 billion in medicare cuts, and promises no changes for SS or medicare for the next 10 years.

Romney's critics speak as if his plan is an all-at-once package deal and that conditions today will always be as they are now. They don't consider whether implementing just one or two part of the plan to begin with will alter conditions and make them ripe for the next part.

Anyway, there isn't hardly one person in a million who can plot all the permutations an economic plan will go through on its way to success or failure. That's why most of the debate among columnists and politicians is about the past and statistics.
But I believe Romney sees the dynamic internal workings of the economy and Obama doesn't. Sure, Obama is well-versed and well coached in economic issues, but he's like the rest of us, taking our cues from experts, who themselves may simply be orthodox believers in one school of economics.

So, for me, which side is right is less important than which side will put an end to gradually increasing government control of my life.

[JAD_333]

bigross86,

I still can’t quite get to the 4.5 mn jobs number, either, even working from Jan 2010 to June 2012.

Aside from government, the numbers are all up, but I still can’t get to the 4.5 mn figure.

Did you start at the deepest point of the recession? Obama also counted the jobs lost and regained under his admin.

FACT CHECK: Biden cites that 4.5 million job claim again, a misleading portrait - The Washington Post

BIDEN: “After the worst job loss since the Great Depression, we’ve created 4.5 million private sector jobs in the past 29 months.”

THE FACTS: This seems to be a favorite statistic, because many speakers at the convention cited it. But it’s misleading — a cherry-picked figure that counts jobs from when the recession reached its trough and employment began to grow again. It excludes jobs lost earlier in Obama’s term, and masks the facts that joblessness overall has risen over his term so far.

As well, in the same 29 months that private sector jobs grew by 4.5 million, jobs in the public sector declined by about 500,000, making the net gain in that period about 4 million.

Overall, some 2 million jobs were lost during the recession that began in December 2007 in President George W. Bush’s term and ended officially in June 2009 with Obama as president.

Never since World War II has the economy been so slow to recover all the jobs lost in a downturn.