Posted by Kromey at 12:30pm Sep 12 '12So it's certainly unfair to count the early losses against him, as if he had anything to do with causing them.
Kind of like it's unfair to double-, triple-, quadruple-count -- and more! -- people hired multiple times for short-term temp work when figuring out how many jobs you've "created"?
King of like it's unfair to crow about "creating" 4.5 million jobs, but leave out the fact that on the whole not only are there fewer jobs to go around, but the ones that are there are by and large lower-wage than they were? I mean, he's playing up this 4.5 million jobs stat, as if the jobs created were comparable to the ones lost, and even putting aside the question of how many jobs we've actually gained since [some arbitrary point during his term], they're quite plainly not comparable.
Interesting how two people chose to argue over this point, yet both refuse to address the fallacies intrinsic in the stat in the first place...
*you don't put an extra $800 billion into the economy and not get at least some stimulus, but people do seem to try to debate it.
Isn't it interesting how "trickle-down economics" is always so bogus when the Republicans want to do it, but when the Democrats do it in a far more extreme way it's somehow "inevitable" that it will boost the economy and help the little guy who didn't get squat from them?
Kind of like it's unfair to double-, triple-, quadruple-count -- and more! -- people hired multiple times for short-term temp work when figuring out how many jobs you've "created"?
King of like it's unfair to crow about "creating" 4.5 million jobs, but leave out the fact that on the whole not only are there fewer jobs to go around, but the ones that are there are by and large lower-wage than they were? I mean, he's playing up this 4.5 million jobs stat, as if the jobs created were comparable to the ones lost, and even putting aside the question of how many jobs we've actually gained since [some arbitrary point during his term], they're quite plainly not comparable.
Interesting how two people chose to argue over this point, yet both refuse to address the fallacies intrinsic in the stat in the first place...
*you don't put an extra $800 billion into the economy and not get at least some stimulus, but people do seem to try to debate it.
Isn't it interesting how "trickle-down economics" is always so bogus when the Republicans want to do it, but when the Democrats do it in a far more extreme way it's somehow "inevitable" that it will boost the economy and help the little guy who didn't get squat from them?
added on 12:31pm Sep 12 '12:
Crap, missed a closing tag -- sorry folks!
Re: On the jobs topic - Kromey