Monday, September 13th, 2010 @ 11:48 pm | Election crap, Politics

If he were a Republican, Republicans would never shut up about how he saved America. Democrats, get your shit together. BTW, I loved this piece: Fighting liberals have nothing to fear in November.


5 Responses to “Perspective.”

  1. ladk Says:

    Where’d you get the data for that poll? Because I’m pretty sure shenanigans needs to be called on it.

    Also I’m not sure if the HP knows this but Grayson is only ahead in a poll that his campaign paid for and Boxer is losing more and more ground by the day in normal polls and outliers have her losing.

  2. Henry Whistler Says:

    You call shenanigans? Why? Because it interferes with the Fox News narrative going on in your head? I offered a link that could be traced to here:

  3. ladk Says:

    Actually I call shenanigans because you apparently didn’t learn how to correctly cite information in college. Putting up a graph and then expecting someone to follow your train of thought because you think it so it must be awesome isn’t the way to cite something.

    Also Shapiro plays with those numbers to make it seem like Obama is the savior of all men. See, if you read the article then you’d have seen that he just takes the total amount of jobs lost under Bush and puts it in its own little corner without adding any jobs that might have been created by Bush’s stimulus. Then he takes the total amount lost under Obama and says that he gets his own equation because he’s added jobs. Most of them are completely temporary and government jobs because of the census so they don’t count in reality. However he adds them anyway to get a net loss of -41,000 jobs.

    Now even the Bureau of Labor Statistics says that the number of jobs lost is higher at -54,000 as a net loss. Also, just so I can say I cited this correctly here:

    It’s right there on the first paragraph so you can see it.

    So according to this I really have no idea what the hell Shapiro is talking about.

    Also, if you were to take Shapiro’s standards that he made up for Bush in his article and then applied it to Obama. Obama would have lost a total of 3.4 million jobs total since he took office. 2.7 million of since the stimulus was passed.

    And if you were to go one step farther he’s 7.7 million in the hole because his administration promised that’d we’d stay in the range of 138.6 million and we’re currently at or around 130.9 million.

    It’s all in the way you take the data and then manipulate it by adding where you want to.

    Oh and I don’t really watch Fox News. Stop assuming that everyone you talk to that has a differing view than you is automatically a wingnut. You’ll make more friends that way.

  4. ladk Says:

    No I called Shenanigans because you apparently didn’t learn how to cite properly in college. Posting a graph with no apparent clarification of the stats used and then expecting someone
    to follow the links because you think that way and what you think must necessarily be awesome isn’t the correct form of citation.

    As for that graph, Shapiro uses different math for Bush and Obama respectively. For Bush he takes the total jobs lost and says that number is the total jobs lost without bothering to add any jobs that may have been added during his stimulus. For Obama he takes the jobs
    lost till December ’09 and then adds whatever he sees as being a job generator to his total to bring his total to around -41,000.

    That’s two different ways of saying something.

    If he were to actually carry the data out to August when he actually posted and then used the same standard he applied to Bush then Obama would have lost a total of around 3.4 million or more with
    2.7 million of those being lost after the stimulus.

    And just so you know we’re currently sitting at -54,000 jobs lost according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    Here’s the link:

  5. Henry Whistler Says:

    First of all, this is a blog. I linked to where I got the graph. That’s proper citation, in blogland. This is not an academic paper. I clicked through to the link you couldn’t find in approximately ten seconds. Chill the hell out.

    From December 2007 to July 2009 – the last year of the Bush second term and the first six months of the Obama presidency, before his policies could affect the economy – private sector employment crashed from 115,574,000 jobs to 107,778,000 jobs. Employment continued to fall, however, for the next six months, reaching a low of 107,107,000 jobs in December of 2009. So, out of 8,467,000 private sector jobs lost in this dismal cycle, 7,796,000 of those jobs or 92 percent were lost on the Republicans’ watch or under the sway of their policies. Some 671,000 additional jobs were lost as the stimulus and other moves by the administration kicked in, but 630,000 jobs then came back in the following six months. The tally, to date: Mr. Obama can be held accountable for the net loss of 41,000 jobs (671,000 – 630,000), while the Republicans should be held responsible for the net losses of 7,796,000 jobs.

    It’s rather clear, as the piece explains, that the metric is pre-stimulus and post-stimulus, with a few months added after the stimulus was passed to allow it to take effect. Not necessarily Obama vs. Bush, although it is indisputable that Bush left the nation in freefall after an economic collapse and that Obama was left with the task of keeping the ship from sinking.

    The economic collapse of 2008 was so massive that everybody knew a bleeding was coming. Job losses into Obama’s term were to be expected. People weren’t even sure Obama could rescue the country in two or even four years, it was so profound a disaster. I openly stated my fears at the time that Obama’s first term would be stained by the enormity of the crisis.

    It’s also clear that he’s talking about total number of jobs, so any jobs gained back because of, um, TARP (is that the Bush stimulus you speak of?) are included.

    The point is that while Obama’s recovery policies haven’t been the best, certainly not in my estimation as it was too focused on not upsetting Wall St. (only to see Wall St. upset anyway) and not focused enough on directly stimulative measures that would have put people to work right away, he’s still done a fairly solid job of taking over a sinking ship and keeping it afloat.

    That’s something real that he’s not been given enough credit for, and it’s something much more substantial than the GOP idea that if we’d only had MORE TAX CUTS AND SLASHED (domestic) SPENDING we’d be recovered.