Via Greg Sargent, check out the headline of the Romney campaign's new defense of Mitt Romney's 47th-in-the-nation job growth record as governor of Massachusetts:
Governor Romney Inherited An Economy That Was Losing Jobs Each Month And Left Office With An Economy That Was Adding Jobs Each Month.
As Greg points out, this is exactly the sort of argument that Mitt Romney says President Obama should not be allowed to make. The two situations, however, are different: President Obama faced a much deeper recession than Romney, and while the national economy had been growing for two months when Romney took office, it was still in the midst of decline when Obama was sworn in.
Moreover, the global economy has been weak and unstable throughout the Obama presidency, but we've had more than two years of private sector job growth. Romney, on the other hand, was governor during a national economic expansion from start to finish. During his term, the number of American jobs grew by 5.3 percent. In Massachusetts, however, jobs grew by just 1.5 percent.
Perhaps the most remarkable thing is that even though President Obama took office amidst a much more difficult economic environment than Mitt Romney, an apples-to-apples comparison of job growth records starting in the second year in office shows Obama's record is stronger. Starting in January of their second year through April of their fourth year in office, Mitt Romney oversaw a 0.98 percent increase in Massachusetts while President Obama has overseen a 2.87 percent increase. And with numbers like that, if Mitt Romney thinks he had a great jobs record in Massachusetts, doesn't it mean he should admit President Obama's is even better?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...I01U_blog.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...achusetts.html
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/PAYEMS.txt
Don't confuse me with facts - my mind is already made up!!!!!
Linear Mode
