via Media Matters:
Fox News host Brian Kilmeade falsely claimed that the economy has lost 8.8 million jobs under President Obama’s stewardship, a staggeringly false comment devoid of any relationship to reality.
The Associated Press report Kilmeade was referring to stated:
The economy shed a staggering 8.8 million jobs during and shortly after the recession. Since employment hit bottom, the economy has created just over 4 million jobs. So the new hiring has replaced 46 percent of the lost jobs…
That recession began in 2007 and concluded in 2009. Obama’s tenure began in 2009. There are currently more private sector jobs in the economy than when Obama came into office.
In reality, the Bush administration presided over the first net loss of jobs since Herbert Hoover. From January 2001 through March 2004, America lost more than 1.6 million jobs overall, and more than 2.4 million jobs in the private sector. And that was only Bush’s FIRST recession. By comparison, the Obama administration has turned the massive job losses from Bush’s Great Recession into gains. At the same point in President Bush’s term, the total number of private sector jobs was still down 1.7 percent from where it began.
Source: Think Progress
Yes, the economy is struggling under the continuing burden of tax cuts for the rich and public sector layoffs. The Obama administration could have done, or at least attempted, much more in the way of economic recovery. But the Faux News can’t get away with blaming Obama for Bush’s Great Recession. The Republicans must answer for that!
#1 by brewski on August 17, 2012 - 3:58 pm
Starting in Jan of 2009 through July 2012, total employment under Obama has increased by 33K jobs.
Starting in Jan of 1981 through July of 1984, the exact same time period, under Reagan, there were 5.5MM jobs created.
Obama keeps lying about him creating 4 million jobs. He is a liar and he needs to answer for that.
#2 by cav on August 18, 2012 - 8:15 am
Here’s my dream line-up for the moderators in the upcoming ‘debates:
Soledad O’Brian
Ward Churchill
Susan Block
Steven Colbert or Ishmael Reed (You choose)
Candy Crowley can sit this one out, thank you very much.
And Good Morning.
#3 by cav on August 18, 2012 - 3:30 pm
Well ‘trickle-down’ may need a face lift – let’s hear the pigs squeal, Obama, demand that we treat all income as taxable income at the progressive tax rates that working people enjoy.
Can you imagine?
#4 by Richard Warnick on August 18, 2012 - 4:16 pm
brewski–
Tell us your source. Was it AEI?
CNN tells it differently:
Unemployment will probably still be at 8 percent or more by Election Day. The Obama administration could have done a lot more to recover the economy, starting with an immediate repeal of the Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich and a big government hiring program. Instead, there was too much emphasis on tax cuts, which don’t do much for people without jobs.
#5 by cav on August 18, 2012 - 4:25 pm
It’s well known by now that the republicans goal from day one has been to make President Obama a one term president.
With that in mind is it possible that the states controlled by republicans have been laying off public workers like teachers, policemen and firemen, etc, etc, to help keep unemployment numbers high, to hurt President Obama????
#6 by brewski on August 18, 2012 - 6:48 pm
My source is looking at the raw monthly data in the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I started on Jan 2009 through July 2012.
I did not look at AEI at all.
The -4.3 million, plus 4.0 million as reported by CNN, nets to a minus 300K. So CNN says Obama is worse that I do. So what is your point?
#7 by Larry Bergan on August 18, 2012 - 7:35 pm
The war mongers have always been successful in duping us into thinking FDR’s New Deal had nothing to do with helping our economy because in the decades since WWII they’ve always managed to get the media parrots of that view to say that the war was the only thing that saved us.
Now that the media has been completely taken over by the right, and it’s obvious that Bush’s wars have drained the economy, the subject of war being a factor never even comes up. Grandma wreaking the economy comes up all the time. Why is that?
What about taking Grandma off the books like they did with Bushes wars?
What about delivering pallets of money to Grandma’s door?
#8 by brewski on August 18, 2012 - 8:29 pm
According to Bernanke, the Depression was caused by the Fed.
#9 by cav on August 18, 2012 - 8:56 pm
And, because the Fed had been missing goals almost as a matter of course for thirty years, it was a long time coming. Hence not so easily dealt with.
Of course, I blame Obama.
#10 by cav on August 18, 2012 - 9:22 pm
It’s ironic that the rich assholes who toss around huge amounts off dough while hiding behind, such things as Citizens United 1st Amendment speech protection, and PNAC types who would tell any lie to promote WMD Eradication program activities – delivering pallets of money fresh from the presses, don’t seem to want anybody to know what they’re doing.
Come to think of it…maybe they’re the same people.
Karl Rove ought to be authority enough to settle it. What say we ask him?
#11 by Larry Bergan on August 18, 2012 - 9:49 pm
brewski says:
The Fed what: Federal Government or the Federal Reserve. Got link?
Besides, I wasn’t talking about what caused the depression, I was talking about what ended the depression. Was it war, jobs or both, because right now we’re only getting war for the most part. War brought to us by people who hoped to profit. They couldn’t care less whether we – Veterans Grandmothers Workers, or Any Other Americans live or die.
What would you call those people, brewski? Investors? Patriots?
What?
#12 by Larry Bergan on August 18, 2012 - 10:04 pm
A couple of months before the election and the election master – Karl Rove – hasn’t been under oath, or even asked to show up for a subpoena that was issued from congress.
They better let Obama win again. I’m not saying he didn’t win, but they just better let him win this time if they know what’s good for them. Two, pasty white brats just aren’t going to fly.
#13 by brewski on August 19, 2012 - 10:16 am
http://www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDDOCS/SPEECHES/2002/20021108/default.htm
In 1939, the unemployment rate was 17%. Not exactly out of the depression by the time WWII was winding up.
So I would say the war ended the depression. Not government programs.
#14 by Richard Warnick on August 19, 2012 - 3:09 pm
brewski–
My point is that the Obama administration’s job creation record has been better by far than Bush’s, despite the worst economy since the Depression. Bush had a NET LOSS of 1.6 million jobs during his first term. Then of course in his second term he blundered into Bush’s Great Recession, which resulted in 8.8 million lost jobs.
So much for trickle-down economics.
#15 by brewski on August 19, 2012 - 3:58 pm
1. No one has ever suggested trickle down economics so there can be no “so much for”
2. There was no tax reform which would have tested what is being proposed now, so there can be no “so much for”
3. I was making the comparison of Obama’s time period to Reagan’s identical time period. I didn’t mention Bush, so why did you?
#16 by brewski on August 19, 2012 - 4:10 pm
Total non-farm employment, data:
President, Jan-inauguration, July 3 years later, Change, % Change
Reagan, 91031000, 94773000, 3742000, 4.1%
W, 132466000, 131488000, -978000, -0.7%
Obama, 133561000, 133245000, -316000, -0.2%
Based on the data, I will pick Reagan.
#17 by Larry Bergan on August 19, 2012 - 7:07 pm
brewski wants to ignore George W. Bush. It’s this election season’s imperative for the candidates on the R side. But brewski, you’re just a blogger. Are you being told what to say?
#18 by brewski on August 19, 2012 - 8:45 pm
McCain ran against Obama.
Obama ran against Bush.
Romney is running against Obama.
Obama is running against Bush.
30 years from now historians will be writing how Obama was out of his depth and he had no clue as to what he was doing. Obama will still be running against Bush.
#19 by Richard Warnick on August 20, 2012 - 9:05 am
1. Trickle-down economics is the bipartisan theory that tax cuts for the wealthy will result in job creation. We know from experience that the theory does not describe reality.
2. Tax reform was tried under Reagan, and it didn’t work. Congress kept the lower rates and restored most of the loopholes.
3. I mentioned Bush because that’s what this post is about, Obama job creation versus Bush.
#20 by brewski on August 20, 2012 - 9:18 am
“1. Trickle-down economics is the bipartisan theory that tax cuts for the wealthy will result in job creation. We know from experience that the theory does not describe reality.”
Wrong. Tax reform comprises of a revenue-neutral process to simplify the tax code, to eliminate bought and paid for preferences, and lowering of the statutory rates. There are no “tax cuts for the wealthy”.
2. Tax reform was tried under Reagan, and it didn’t work. Congress kept the lower rates and restored most of the loopholes.
Wrong. It worked wonders.
If you don’t want to restore the loopholes then don’t allow them. Every time a bill comes to you desk with tax loopholes in it, veto it.
This is entirely a problem of our own making and fixable by us. If you are running against special interests and lobbyists then don’t allow it. It is entirely solvable.
3. I mentioned Bush because that’s what this post is about, Obama job creation versus Bush.
So you admit that Obama’s recovery is a pathetic sick joke compared to Reagan’s recovery. Thank you.
#21 by brewski on August 20, 2012 - 10:22 am
From those right wing nuts in the EU:
More growth-friendly tax structure
A high tax burden on labour, especially on vulnerable groups, combined with low
indirect and consumption taxation may indicate a need for rethinking the structure of a
tax system. Economic literature points to the importance that tax composition plays for
economic growth and suggests a ranking of the main categories of taxes with regards to
growth, with taxes on immovable property being the least distortive to growth, followed
by consumption taxes (including environmentally-related taxes) and, finally, income
taxes (on personal and corporate income) being the most harmful.
As already stated by the 2011 AGS, shifting taxes away from labour should be a priority
for most Member States in order to stimulate demand for labour and create jobs.
http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/ags2012_annex4_en.pdf
#22 by Richard Warnick on August 20, 2012 - 12:30 pm
1. You keep claiming that you want to raise taxes on the rich, yet keep any changes in the tax code revenue-neutral. This is a contradiction.
2. The National Debt tripled under President Reagan- is that what you mean by “It worked wonders”?
3. Paul Krugman: Debunking the Reagan Myth
#23 by brewski on August 20, 2012 - 1:12 pm
1. No. My plan would lower taxes on the poor.
2. It worked wonders by creating 5 million jobs in the same time frame Obama lost 300K jobs. Do you have something against people getting jobs?
3. Inflation adjusted median household income was 10% higher at the end of Reagan’s presidency than at the beginning.
#24 by Richard Warnick on August 20, 2012 - 1:39 pm
None of that makes any sense.
#25 by brewski on August 20, 2012 - 1:54 pm
I’m sorry you don’t understand.
#26 by Richard Warnick on August 20, 2012 - 3:17 pm
1. How can you lower taxes on the poor while getting rid of the Earned Income Tax Credit and the child-care tax credit?
2. From January 2009 to date, the country gained approximately 4 million jobs. It’s not factual to say “Obama lost 300K jobs.”
3. Unemployment jumped to 10.8 percent after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut, and it took years for the rate to get back down to its previous level. Meanwhile, income inequality exploded (and yes, the median income went up).
#27 by brewski on August 20, 2012 - 4:12 pm
1. Remove all payroll taxes.
2. You are factually wrong. The 4 million number that Obama keeps lying about is not Jan 2009 to date. It is Jan 2010 to date. So Obama’s 4 million job creation lie only works if he wasn’t actually president from Jan 2009 to Jan 2010.
3. So you agree Krugman lied. Which part of 5 million jobs created in the same time period Obama lost 300K are you complaining about? What is it about 5 million more jobs and higher median income are you against?
#28 by brewski on August 20, 2012 - 4:57 pm
Couldn’t say it better myself:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/08/19/niall-ferguson-on-why-barack-obama-needs-to-go.html
#29 by Richard Warnick on August 20, 2012 - 5:12 pm
1. And what happens to Social Security and Medicare when the payroll tax goes away?
2. If you go to the Obama campaign website, you will see there is no attempt to hide the 2009 job losses.
3. Krugman was right. The Reagan administration benefited the rich at the expense of the middle class.
#30 by Richard Warnick on August 20, 2012 - 5:15 pm
Ferguson’s misleading Newsweek article has already been raked over the coals. Paul Krugman:
#31 by cav on August 20, 2012 - 6:58 pm
Niall Ferguson is a wretched fraud.
#32 by Glenden Brown on August 20, 2012 - 7:38 pm
Two responses to Ferguson:
Fisking Part one
Fisking part two
#33 by cav on August 20, 2012 - 9:45 pm
Thank you Glenden.
#34 by brewski on August 20, 2012 - 9:51 pm
1. SS, Medicare, the DOD, HHS, DOT, everything ultimately comes out of the same pot. Everything else is accounting fiction. So it doesn’t matter if revenues come from SS payroll taxes, or Medicare payroll taxes or fuel taxes or tobacco taxes or income taxes or estate taxes or soda taxes. It is all the same Federal pot. So if we repeal all payroll taxes, increase the take home pay of workers, eliminate the tax on hiring people, then close all the loopholes and tax all income and not just some income, then the whole restructuring can me revenue neutral.
2. Obama’s campaign ads says he created 4 million jobs. He doesn’t mention losing 4.3 million jobs for a net of -0.3. He also says he will pay down the debt. He lies. He makes W look like Honest Abe.
3. What would you rather have, 5 million new jobs or -0.3 million lost jobs. You would choose equal and widespread misery over uneven prosperity.
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
- Winston Churchill
#35 by brewski on August 20, 2012 - 9:53 pm
I am in moderation
#36 by brewski on August 20, 2012 - 10:23 pm
Responses to false responses:
” But the task of drawing down such massive debt was bound to lead to a slow recovery.”
Drawing down on debt? What drawing down on debt? There had been no drawing down of any debt. Fisking just proved himself to be a moron.
“Here, it’s close to 8 and declining slowly.”
The 8% unemployment rate is a lie and anyone who knows anything about this statistic knows that.
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/Labor%20Force%20Participation_1.jpg
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
Fisker is even a bigger moron.
As for ACA numbers:
It’s all a lie since it intentionally shifts more costs onto all non-medicare patients, raising their costs and premiums, and all the time calling that a “savings”.
Thank you cav.
#37 by cav on August 20, 2012 - 10:32 pm
Anytime brew – that first chart has the cliff over on the right, and just out of the screen, the train engineered by the ‘smartest’ in the room (besides the elephant that is).
Elephants will always be among us.
#38 by brewski on August 20, 2012 - 10:47 pm
That cliff is the one that Fisker and Glenden say is our economy doing so well.
Too bad Fisker is a liar and Glenden just doesn’t know any better.
#39 by cav on August 20, 2012 - 11:21 pm
It does seem to decline about the time Bush the Lesser took over. Might I suggest there’s cause for this in the policies he and his crew supported? Might I also suggest that in the face of such momentum – as would rightly be characterized as going over the cliff, that anyone elected president after the Bush years would be so entrapped by it, the time-bombs, moles left in place, AND the esteemed and honorable date rapists on the other side of the aisle, as to be burdened somewhat?
#40 by Larry Bergan on August 21, 2012 - 12:03 am
brewski:
Your moderated comment has been restored at #34.
You’ve been here long enough to know the S word will get you moderated even if it’s a Churchill quote.
Sorry I didn’t look into the moderation section earlier. I thought it had already been released.
If that is, indeed, an actual Churchill quote, it is interesting, but those were different times.
Socialism is HARDLY the threat we face today. Even Obama hasn’t touched on it to any degree that would give the unlucky or ignored workers their right to survive in a just world.
In other words: Come on!
#41 by brewski on August 21, 2012 - 9:29 am
Obama does agree with a Zocialist narrative even if not an actual legal Zocialist system. If Zocialism is where government owns the means of production and the production is shared among all society, then what Obama believes is pretty close to that. His famous “you didn’t build that” speech among many others shows that he believes that businesses only exist and are only successful because of government help, therefore, businesses don’t really own their success and that success needs to be appropriated to the government to redistribute. So that might not be the same as having state owned enterprises as in China, but as a narrative and as a philosophy it is pretty close.
Z=s
#42 by brewski on August 21, 2012 - 9:29 am
I tried to avoid moderation, but it didn’t work.
#43 by cav on August 21, 2012 - 9:35 am
Soshulizm, social(mac)ism, and Satanism are all acceptable alternatives – even in quoting.
Slud righ past the moderation scanner.
!uTah really deserves props on this. Not
#44 by brewski on August 21, 2012 - 9:51 am
Who would have thought my spelling of it wouldn’t make it past the censors?
And why is this word censored anyway?
Why is there any censorship at all?
That’s right. Lefties love to control thought and speech. Statist dictators them all.
#45 by Richard Warnick on August 21, 2012 - 10:59 am
A Full Fact-Check of Niall Ferguson
- Ferguson blames Obama for job losses that happened a full year before he took office.
- He falsely claims median annual household income has dropped more than 5 percent.
- He says half of Americans pay no taxes, which is a lie.
- He cites Larry Kotlikoff saying that the federal government has a “fiscal gap” of $222 trillion. This is only true if you make 70 years of straight-line projections, which are meaningless.
- He claims that the ACA will add to deficit spending, but the CBO says it will reduce federal deficits by $210 billion over the 2012-2021 period.
- He predicts that China’s GDP will surpass the USA by 2017, but fails to note that then they will be four times poorer than us. And why can’t other countries do well? Economics is not a zero-sum game.
There are plenty of reality-based reasons to not support President Obama. No need to make stuff up.
#46 by brewski on August 21, 2012 - 12:02 pm
1. No he doesn’t
2. You’re right, it has dropped 6.8%
3. The pay no income taxes.
4. So that isn’t factually untrue. It’s just you don’t agree with the assumptions about the future. But since Obama doesn’t have any plan to deal with the future, we can just assume we ill implode.
5. All ACA numbers are about as meaningless as your comment in 4.
6. So this isn’t false. You are just interpreting it differently, which you are free to do.
So much for “fact” checking.
#47 by Richard Warnick on August 21, 2012 - 12:14 pm
1. Yes, he compared jobs to January 2008 – a year before Obama was inaugurated.
2. Again, if you go back before Bush’s Great Recession for a baseline that’s dishonest.
3. Are you proposing to levy taxes on household incomes under $20K, tax Social Security benefits, and eliminate the earned-income tax credit or the child credit?
4. You can’t make predictions 70 years into the future.
5. You can make reasonable predictions over 10 years. The CBO is right.
6. Ferguson implies China’s economy will be better than ours in 2017, but that could only be true if their per capita GDP was better.
#48 by brewski on August 21, 2012 - 12:23 pm
1. Stating facts and the lack of a recovery is not blaming Obama for those losses.
2. Ditto
3. Doesn’t change the facts, since this was supposed to be a “fact” check and not an opinion piece.
4. Ditto
5. Ditto
6. Ditto.
#49 by Richard Warnick on August 21, 2012 - 1:04 pm
1. Job losses prior to Obama being President and before he could do anything about them did not happen on his watch.
2. Census Bureau median household income for 2011 isn’t available yet. Sentier Research analysis (PDF) indicates that the decline in income has ended and may finally be trending upward.
3. The fact is that Ferguson was wrong to divide the nation 50/50 between taxpayers and beneficiaries of government aid. He’s intentionally lying.
4-5. Ferguson got it wrong, citing the invalid projection 70 years out and ignoring the 10-year projection.
6. A lie of omission is still a lie.
#50 by brewski on August 21, 2012 - 1:18 pm
How’s that Kool-Aid tasting?
#51 by Richard Warnick on August 21, 2012 - 1:54 pm
Ferguson ought to be ashamed of himself. He wrote a dishonest article and he got called on it.
#52 by cav on August 21, 2012 - 6:52 pm
They are “not intended to be a factual magazine.”
Wow, Newsweek, in response to criticism that it had not fact checked Niall Ferguson’s cover story on why Obama should not be re-elected, said “we don’t have a fact checking department.”
#53 by brewski on August 21, 2012 - 8:54 pm
Sort of like Michael Moore.
#54 by cav on August 21, 2012 - 10:32 pm
Not at all.
#55 by cav on August 22, 2012 - 8:08 am
FAUX Nooze fought for its right to lie to its viewers in a Florida court (and won).
It’s what they do.
#56 by Richard Warnick on August 22, 2012 - 9:55 am
That’s amazing that Newsweek doesn’t bother to check facts. I can remember when they were a legitimate news magazine. Now they put an anti-Obama article by a former McCain adviser on the front cover, without anything for balance.
#57 by Larry Bergan on August 22, 2012 - 2:33 pm
cav Said:
I’m glad this came up!
During the week we were protesting ALEC, we watched a movie on the lawn of the City and County Building one beautiful night. It was called “The Corporation”. What a fantastic movie!
The movie has an update which includes much, much more information, but the producers have allowed the entire original to be placed on YouTube.
This fascinating segment tells the incredible story of how the lawsuit, which now allows Fox “news” to lie came about.
Seems as though Monsanto had some dogs in the fight too.
Whistle-blowers are heros, but they ALWAYS get the shaft.
#58 by Larry Bergan on August 22, 2012 - 2:52 pm
Someday!
Someday, all of the people who now occupy the “newsrooms” will be sent to court to make their individual cases, and depending on their complicity in creating mythology for Americans to consume, or ignoring stories of importance will be sent to the unemployment line or prison.
There are literally hundreds or thousands of people in this country who can walk right in and take their places. This would save the floundering print and television news industries and restore what’s left of America dignity.
Americans who have been lied to for decades – some of them; all their lives – will suddenly be absolutely riveted by hearing and seeing stories that actually make sense and tie into each other in believable ways.
And then Larry awoke.
#59 by Larry Bergan on August 22, 2012 - 5:42 pm
Then I woke up from my dream, to see things as they really are; people struggling to survive. How can peace hope to stay alive.
`Sir Paul mcCartney
I once had the police out because I was playing this song REALLY loud at obscene hours.
Can you see the humor?
Well, OF COURSE, I was drunk. I wasn’t stoned.
#60 by cav on August 23, 2012 - 7:52 am
It sometimes seems as if lies, innuendo and even bigger lies only create demand for yet BIGGER LIES and weirder innuendo.
And Rmoney;s gonna need to take a lesson from Texas or his lies will come in under weight.
#61 by hi on September 24, 2012 - 5:35 pm
y’all are nuts