Mitt Romney sat down with CNBC's Larry Kudlow, and made a curious observation. He said voters who want a strong economy should vote for him, but Americans "ought to give, whichever president is going to be elected, at least six months or a year to get those policies in place."
At first blush, that may sound fairly reasonable. A president takes office, he or she needs time to put a team in place, craft an agenda, and get to work. What's more, we generally don't see the results of economic policies immediately; the agenda needs time to take effect. In Romney's mind, six months to a year seems fair.
But let's go ahead and apply this standard to President Obama, who took office in the midst of the worst global economic catastrophe since the Great Depression. Hey, look, here's a new chart I put together.
Throughout the presidential campaign, Romney has said the clock should start in February 2009, Obama's first month in office. If that's fair -- if the president deserves the blame for every job lost on his 11th day in office -- it's true that under Obama, the economy is still in a deep hole and hasn't fully recovered from the losses of early 2009.
But look what happens when we start the clock, as Romney suggests, six months to a year after President Obama was sworn in. In fact, if we don't hold Obama's first year against him, the economy has added over 3.7 million jobs overall during his presidency, and over 4.2 million in the private sector.
That's not the count by my standard; that's the count by Romney's standard.
What's more, I'd be remiss if I neglected to mention this great video put together by our friends at "Up with Chris Hayes," judging Obama's jobs record by the standard Romney applied to his term as governor. At this rate, I half-expect Romney to simply endorse Obama and celebrate the president's economic successes.
Leave a Comment:
No, thAt's not what he's saying. It's 6 months to a year after a Republican is sworn in. It's 6 months to a year before a Democrat is sworn in.
phuauauahahahahaha! right!
Exactly !
Well put Linda!
Good one! Exactly. I wish Romney would read this.
It becomes clearer every day that Romney not does have a campaign plan, let alone one on governing if he his elected.
I do think he's got a campaign plan: say as little as possible about himself, his plans, his policy preferences, or much of anything other than "Obama bad" and hope he can convince people whose minds aren't made up yet that the devil they don't know is preferable to the one they do.
I totally agree on the second part. I don't think he's got a single, solitary concrete idea of what he wants to do as president. He just wants to be president because its something he doesn't have. He's got some vague notions about "simplifying" the tax code because it is insufficiently friendly to our Galtian overlords, I'm sure he really wants to do to Dodd-Frank and the CFPB what Rome did to Carthage, and I'm sure there's a bunch of stuff he thinks needs privatizing and deregulating, like, say everything.
But other than that, I think he's just an amiable empty vessel into which every Bush hack whose disastrous policies have been undone right wing extremist crackpot who even Bush wouldn't listen to can pour their crackpot ideas and have them squirted out the other end as policy. The man thinks John Bolton is a crackerjack foreign policy and security hand, for God's sake.
Funny how guys like that have a tendency to stumble into disastrous wars.
I'm beginning to suspect that the driving force behind this is that Ann wants to be First Lady.
It could be that, or it could be that, like Bush 43, he wants to finish off his daddy's legacy. Well, perhaps "finish off" is an unfortunate choice of words...
"Hey, I get to trash people, I get to travel the country, I get to say anything I want, I get to make myself look good, and I get to do it with other people's money."
Sounds like Bain II.
Of course he has a governing plan. It is called trying to suck as much cash out of the system as he can for himself and his cronies, just like he did at Bain. After all, they are the "job creators." Anybody who can make themselves rich by throwing companies into debt so that they can pay huge consulting fees to you for having put them in debt and then not caring whether they succeed or not because you have made your money clearly has no consideration for anybody but themselves. This was Bain Capital's business model and what Romney claims makes him qualified to be president. Sorry, I'm not buying it.
D.C., Ann DID say it was "their turn"!
"You people" can just go right back to the back of the bus and wait for us entitled elite to throw you a few crumbs.
OK ... so I have a new name for Mitt. It's called Retcon Romney. You know, retcon as in "retroactive continuity". It's a term used a lot by comic book fans, and it's when a storyline changes course by stipulating to established facts but reworking the entire narrative.
Tomorrow, we'll wake up and discover that all this footage of Romney agreeing with Obama on substantive issues is really a Romney from a parallel universe. You see, that universe was destroyed by a slide of the government into a socialist dystopia with Sharia law, gun control, marriage equality and an individual mandate. Retcon Romney can't let that happen, he has to save this universe from that fate. You see, unbeknownst to us Parallel Universe Romney used his evil powers to change into Barack Obama, and is now set to destroy our entire existence. Other than Retcon Romney, there is only one person in all the government who knows the depth of this conspiracy from a parallel universe. Right now, Michele Bachmann is furiously penning a letter to the Pentagon asking for their intervention in this most pressing matter.
It's really telling about Romney's character that in everything - business, politics - he thinks he should be granted a favorable advantage at others expense.
Romney sure doesn't weigh himself by the same scales he uses to weigh others.
Okay, doesn't the 4.2 million translate into about 140,000 per month (4.2/30 months) which is barely enough to keep up with new young people entering the job market (population growth) much less make a dent in unemployment.
It sounds good when you look at the total but when apply the numbers in the real world it is very anemic. And, of course, that's not holding him accountable for anything during his first year.
Well also take into account the 'do nothing' congress who actually are the one who 'creates' jobs in this country. They stated plain as day their only job was to make sure Pres. Obama was a one term president. This is all a part of thier plan at the expense of the american people. I think the blame is being thrown to the wrong person(s)
But, it's obviously enough to bring the unemployment rate from 10.0 to 8.2, wouldn't you say? Is that not an improvement?
And it's 29 months and 144.8K per month. We don't yet know the July 2012 numbers. July 2012 would be the 30th month. Forgive me, but I like to be accurate.
I don't know what you mean by "real world".
But I do know this. From Feb. 2002 through June 2004, George W. Bush created a net total of 851,000 jobs. Check for yourself:
Total net jobs: 851,000 (I even did the avg. for you 29.3K per month)
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth
Private sector total: 786,000 (Avg. 27.1K per month)
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001
You described Obama's 29 (not 30) months as anemic. So, what was that 29 month period of GW Bush's?
AND GW Bush was giving a MUCH better situation than Barack Obama.
AND he got reelected.
It is barely enough to keep up with a growing population, but perhaps you'd prefer the job decline of yesteryear, as opposed to any kind of increase?
You are correct, it's not enough, but if you look at the graph you will also notice that while private sector jobs have increased, public sector jobs have decreased over the same periods as indicated by the fact that total job growth is less than private sector growth. If Congress and State governments hadn't cut so many government jobs the job growth number would be significantly higher and unemployment would be at least a point lower. The reason for the anemic numbers is therefore republican administrations in the States cutting everything partially because Congress has refused to pass any of the president's proposals to support their need for funding or any other jobs bill.
RobDon, 140,000 jobs gained each month (on the average) is certainly better than the 250,000 jobs this country was losing at the end of the Bush administration.
Craig, right on point! The jobs bill that Obama was pushing and the Republicans are filibustering is estimated to hire enough firemen, police officers, and teachers that the bill's passage would lower the unemployment rate an additional 1%. But Republican obstructionism has put party politics ahead of country.
Because what's sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander.
Let's try this example... You decide to buy a computer and you see two similar computers by two manufacturers. One has been out for a year with specs and reviews to read while the other is a picture of a machine with an ad that says how bad the other computer is... would you buy the one in the ad?
Republicans would. They love boogie men.
I thought he was gonna do everything on Day 1. Now he wants 6 months? Meh.
Oh that's right, wasn't he going to repeal Obamacare and destroy China, all on Day 1. Given his excuses I guess after a year he'll have retroactively done everything!
lets not forget what Norquist said and it fits Romney to the T (extra large T to be exact)
"We only want someone with enough digits to sign the Ryan plan into law"
They want a robot, i.e. Willard Mitt Romney, who will just do whatever Norquist and his cronies want him to
Norquist the unelected. Norquist the man behind the curtain. Norquist who so needs to be marginalized! He was 12 when he came up with the no-tax pledge. Must we be held hostage to an adolescent's economic wet dream?!
We need more than 4 years more with Obama. Time for a super majority in congress, write a bill similar to the enabling act and give Obama unprecedented powers to rule this country. Obama is the only answer.
He needs to take over health care and insurance, banking, automotive, technology, and energy. THe profits from these industries can then be passed down the the people in social programs.
No one should make millions a year, that money can go to hire more employees. Imagine how many people could be hired at IBM if Sam Palmisano was not pulling in $25 million a year.
what i would like to see is some news reporter and reporter is the operative word, take all these contradictions romney gives and challenge him on them one by one. he has so many of them. is that the key to business success? lie to people then lie about the people you lie to? Come to think of it, I know a minister like that. works for them, too.
I would like to read that newstory. If Dubya nailed Kerry's nuts to the wall about flip flopping, then Obama can nail Romney's whole BODY to the wall and totally rename it in his honor...Romney is the poster boy for FLIP FLOP!!!
Seeing what we are seeing with Romney it is apparent the R's thought the healthcare law would be overturned and they could ride that "failure" to the WH, and they were probably right. Except that didnt happen.
Steve, thanks for bringing up John Bolton. He was in the State Dept. He's vindictive. Who else would have had the wherewithal to out Valerie Plame?
Romney is the poster boy for FLIP FLOP!!!
So... has journalism stopped reporting on all of Romney's flip flops the same way they eventually grew tired of Bush's mistakes and stopped reporting on all the words he could not pronounce and facts he got wrong?
There are too many to keep track of, so probably.
The world could not find anymore paper to list all of Romney's lies on.
I keep telling people that Mormans are allowed to lie and look it up. But I can't get anyone to report on that. They should let people know this us indeed true.
One more thing - not only does this conflict with his estimation of the Obama administration, but it seems to conflict with his own plan.
As far as his "Day One" ads make it sound, as President, it WON'T take him any time to start effecting change.
some of his "Day 1" stuff can only be inacted by congress.
Remember? Romney saying Obama did not take care of this Economy on day one comes a man who wanted to let the auto industry to go under and fail is rich, indeed.
Considering his shifting views, secretive financial history and his willingness to say anything he thinks the 'sheeple' want to hear, it amazes me that anyone could trust, support or vote for this liar. I can't even beleive the (b)millionaires can trust him not to change from one minute to the next.
I have long used 9 months as the yardstick. One of the reasons is what Romney states here. The other is that the new President's 1st budget starts on October 1st. Yes, an incoming President can augment the budget he inherited as Obama did with his stimulus bill but most of the spending was set before the new President was sworn in. I'm guessing a 9 month chart would pretty much split the 6 and 12 month charts. Romney needs to be careful with what he asks for because it often backfires, as it has here.
Maybe somone should bring up the fact that President Reagan once said, "The first six months of a President taking office are the most important six months in a President's four year term"?
So what would Bush's 8 year chart look like if the period started October 2001 and ended September 2009? And put that beside Obama's nearly 3 year chart starting in October 2009 and ending June 2012. Fair is fair. I'm willing to let the chips fall where they may.
It would mean 911 did not happen under Bush's watch.
The August 6, 2001 PDB memo puts 9/11 clearly in Bush's lap. Besides, what we are addressing here is just lag time between a policy being implemented and when the results can be measured. The one ironic thing about 9/11 is that the stimulus spending in the immediate aftermath actually caused a measurable improvement in the economy.
Cool!!!! Mitt Romney endorses Barack Obama for President. Retroactively of course!
I'm confused. When you say (and your chart says) "Overall", what does that mean? Does that mean total number of jobs, both private sector and elsewhere? That's how I would interpret "over all". If that's what it means, then how can the number of "overall" jobs be lower than those only in the private sector? You aren't expressing this in terms of percentages, but rather in number of jobs, according to the y-axis on your chart. So, can you define your terms, please?
Did you mean jobs requiring that workers wear overalls?
I'm not a Romney supporter at all, but really, it's not clear to me what you're talking about here. I skipped my morning espresso, so maybe that has something to do with it?
If you take the private sector jobs + the public sector losses over the same period you get the overall number. Since Obama took office, there have been 600,000+ public sector jobs lost. This is why "overall" is lower than "public sector".
You just scared the crap outta me :O