Romney's "Summer of Bain" = Swift Boat 2.0 ?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Now I'm reading an article suggesting that the production of the 2002 Olympic uniforms was 'outsourced' to Burma, then under the control of a brutal military regime.  This after politicians from both parties are lodging complaints about the outsourcing of the production of 2012 uniforms to China.

It certainly builds into the narrative that Mitt Romney, running on his record of job creation, seemed not to enjoy creating jobs in the USA.

Romney wouldn't have had anything to do with the the 2002 USA Olympic uniforms.  The SLOOC was not the USOC.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Both of these charts show a precipitous drop in employment lasting from early 2007 to early 2009.

AN, are you intentionally misrepresenting your statistics, or are you just really that dim?

[ajb]

The Bain-ers are almost nothing like the swift vote veterans for truth.  The Bain-ers are more like the birthers and Obama is planting the seeds of his own destruction by making himself the leader of this witch hunt.  Now for the next 4 months, Obama can be correctly portrayed as a lying, un-serious, and small person which shows he isn't much of a leader.

The Birthers also started out in the Democratic Party and they never gained the currency among conservatives that, say, the "9/11 Truthers" did among Democrats.

Anyway, "Bainers" is good, but "Bain Truthers" I think is more descriptive.

A handy list of some Republican congressmen who have either questioned whether Obama was born in the United States, or dealt sympathetically with those who claim he wasn't:

http://www.salon.com/2009/07/28/birther_enablers/

[AmericanNation]

AN, are you intentionally misrepresenting your statistics, or are you just really that dim?

I didn't use any statistics, so I have a hard time with you calling me dim for something I couldn't even mistakenly be thought to have done.  If you're talking about jobs numbers... those are the numbers I can't change that, sorry.  

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

You used these charts as evidence that Obama made the recession worse, when in fact they show nothing of the sort.
I'm sorry you can't look past a minor semantic error.

[AmericanNation]

You used these charts as evidence that Obama made the recession worse, when in fact they show nothing of the sort.
I'm sorry you can't look past a minor semantic error.

I posted the charts (didn't say anything about them).  The first one juxtaposes this recession vs. the previous 10.  The second shows the beginning of it for timeline purposes (people like to pretend dates are different).  Sorry that they bother you.   

[ajb]

You used these charts as evidence that Obama made the recession worse, when in fact they show nothing of the sort.
I'm sorry you can't look past a minor semantic error.

I posted the charts (didn't say anything about them).  The first one juxtaposes this recession vs. the previous 10.  The second shows the beginning of it for timeline purposes (people like to pretend dates are different).  Sorry that they bother you.   

You're not disputing, then, that both charts show huge numbers of job losses in the latter part of George W. Bush's second term in office? And that the second chart, in particular, stops right at the beginning of Barack Obama's term, in early 2009, saying nothing about job losses during his presidency?

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

You used these charts as evidence that Obama made the recession worse, when in fact they show nothing of the sort.
I'm sorry you can't look past a minor semantic error.

I posted the charts (didn't say anything about them).  The first one juxtaposes this recession vs. the previous 10.  The second shows the beginning of it for timeline purposes (people like to pretend dates are different).  Sorry that they bother you.   

Okay, correction -- either you're purposefully misrepresenting your sources, you fail at graph comprehension, or you put together a woefully incoherent post.
You're not helping yourself much.

[ajb]

While we're doing charts comparing recessions and recoveries, here's one comparing employment since the 2007 recession with employment since the 2001 recession:

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/studies/recession_perspective/

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Obama has created about as many private-sector jobs as were created in the same amount of time in George W. Bush's first term in office -- not a great record, in other words, but definitely positive private-sector job creation. The thing is, the size of government ballooned during the early Bush years, while it's shrunk under Obama, so while Bush also had a lot of public-sector jobs to add to his numbers, public-sector job losses under Obama cancel out private-sector gains.
In other words, conservatives should like Obama, since he's created what are, from their point of view, "real" jobs, and destroyed lots of "fake" jobs.

except "stimulus" was largely diverted into propping up government "jobs" and spending, so to call him "like(-able)" to conservatives is a complete joke.  You think your statement makes a point or sounds good, but it doesn't.   

Bush inherited a recession and a terrorist attack.  Credit markets and hiring froze up in 2001.  He worked toward fixing the problems.  He didn't make them worse like BO.  The private sector isn't "doing fine" and government isn't "shrinking."  I mean what are you talking about ?? census workers? They should be let go BECAUSE THE CENSUS IS OVER!   

 

Ok, for one that recession was very poor compared to this one. The 2007-2009 recession was caused by a financial collapse, housing bubble burst, and global recession. That's three recessions in one. And that terrorist attack occurred on Bush's watch. He had time and the intel on Bin Laden but chose not to act. And the stimulus didn't create government jobs, it was meant to stop layoffs of government workers and give tax cuts to families and small businesses. I have a few charts of my own.

What Obama meant, was while government has been laying off workers keeping the unemployment rate high, the private sector has been consistently adding jobs since 2010.
And to pull us out of recession, Bush and Clinton added jobs to the public workforce while under Obama, jobs have been cut, with the exception of the Census.
[img]http://www.moslereconomics.com/wp-content/graphs/2012/05/public-employment.png[/
We've created 4 million jobs and counting since 2009. That's more than Bushin 8 years.
http://vscdn.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Obama-vs-Bush-on-Jobs-2.png

[pbrower2a]

You used these charts as evidence that Obama made the recession worse, when in fact they show nothing of the sort.
I'm sorry you can't look past a minor semantic error.

I posted the charts (didn't say anything about them).  The first one juxtaposes this recession vs. the previous 10.  The second shows the beginning of it for timeline purposes (people like to pretend dates are different).  Sorry that they bother you.   

OK. The recent economic meltdown looked more like the first half of the economic collapse of 1929-1933. The fundamental rules after so severe an economic downturn are much different than for those of the shorter and less severe recessions.

Speculative activities that normally underpin an economic boom are no longer possible. The quick-buck, high-yield opportunities vanish, and what is left is either big government spending or the return of economic choices that look good only in desperation. Such is low-yield, bet-everything-that-you-have, slow-return activities that first build capital before they turn an attractive profit. That's small business trying to assert itself in the interstices that such giants as Wal*Mart, McDonald's, Bank of America, and Exxon-Mobil allow.

It may be tougher this time. Remember: the corporate giants own the political process, have control of media access through advertising, and have a tax structure that offers the same tax rate for a marginally-successful small business and a vertically-integrated oil company.       

[AmericanNation]

You used these charts as evidence that Obama made the recession worse, when in fact they show nothing of the sort.
I'm sorry you can't look past a minor semantic error.

I posted the charts (didn't say anything about them).  The first one juxtaposes this recession vs. the previous 10.  The second shows the beginning of it for timeline purposes (people like to pretend dates are different).  Sorry that they bother you.   

OK. The recent economic meltdown looked more like the first half of the economic collapse of 1929-1933. The fundamental rules after so severe an economic downturn are much different than for those of the shorter and less severe recessions.

Speculative activities that normally underpin an economic boom are no longer possible. The quick-buck, high-yield opportunities vanish, and what is left is either big government spending or the return of economic choices that look good only in desperation. Such is low-yield, bet-everything-that-you-have, slow-return activities that first build capital before they turn an attractive profit. That's small business trying to assert itself in the interstices that such giants as Wal*Mart, McDonald's, Bank of America, and Exxon-Mobil allow.

It may be tougher this time. Remember: the corporate giants own the political process, have control of media access through advertising, and have a tax structure that offers the same tax rate for a marginally-successful small business and a vertically-integrated oil company.     

this is the most reasonable response to my post thus far...  interesting group in here.