September Jobs Report: unemployment at four year low

October 5, 2012

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I am sure the Romney campaign will find some little-known blogger to come up with "unscewed" labor department statistics, just like they did for "unscewed" polls which show him (not) losing this election. The right-wing lives in a closed-loop alternate reality in which facts cannot penetrate their insular bubble. I am sure we will be hearing conspiracy theories this morning — that's what the right-wing thrives on for cognitive dissonance.

Steve Benen has the monthly jobs report for September. Job market shows signs of life, unemployment falls to 4-year low:

The new jobs report released this morning was largely in line with expectations, showing a U.S. economy that added 114,000 jobs in September. As is nearly always the case, there was a gap in the public vs. private sectors — American businesses added 104,000 jobs last month, while the government shed another 10,000 jobs. [Thanks to Tea-Publican austerity measures at the state and local government level.]

* * *

[T]he new report is encouraging is the larger context: the unemployment rate dipped to 7.8%, which is nearly a four-year low, and the revisions found 86,000 additional, unreported jobs from the last two years.

And while drops in the unemployment rate are sometimes the result of Americans leaving the workforce, that's not the case in this new report — the employment-to-population ratio went up, not down.

By most measures, this can fairly be described as a strong jobs report, at least relative to where we've been.

For context, I'd note that so far in 2012, the economy has created over 1.3 million jobs over, which isn't even close to being good enough, but the total is already better than five of the eight years of the Bush/Cheney era.

Here is another chart, this one showing monthly job losses/gains in just the private sector since the start of the Great Recession. [31 consecutive months of private sector job growth.]

Big Bird was the big winner of the debate

October 5, 2012

Posted by AzBlueMeanie: h/t Daily Kos According to the AP, Big Bird is the one that got the biggest post-debate bounce: Big Bird has never been so hot. "Saturday Night Live," Jimmy Fallon, Piers Morgan, the "Today" show and "Good Morning America" all asked for appearances from the "Sesame Street" character on Thursday after he … Read more

About that McSally Push Poll

October 5, 2012

Posted by AzBlueMeanie: The Martha McSally CD2 campaign has released an internal poll for the campaign conducted by Wes Anderson of OnMessage Inc. which claims she is tied with Rep. Ron Barber. Barber: 47.3 percent   McSally: 47.3 percent   Undecided: 5.2 percent. The push poll was conducted Sept. 30-Oct. 1. The live telephone interview survey polled … Read more

The Gish Gallop

October 5, 2012

Posted by AzBlueMeanie: AmBushed writes at Daily Kos, Romney Won Using a Debate Technique Called the Gish Gallop: As fact checkers busily highlight the myriad number of lies and distortions offered by Mitt-Etch-A-Sketch-Romney during last night's debate, and the spinners spin their polls with impunity, I find it interesting that the debate tactic itself has … Read more

Obama campaign ad: ‘Trust’

October 4, 2012

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Facts are a stubborn thing. The Obama campaign is up with a new ad entitled "Trust," based upon Willard "Mittens" Romney's "pants on fire" $5 trillion tax cut lie during last night's debate.

From the ad description:

Reporter:
"I'm not in favor of a 5 trillion tax cut. That's not my plan. The non-partisan Tax Policy Center concluded that Mitt Romney's tax plan would cost 4.8 trillion dollars over ten years."

Voice-over:
"Why won't Romney level with us about his tax plan which gives the wealthy huge new tax breaks? Because according to experts he'd have to raise taxes on the middle class or increase the deficit to pay for it. If we can't trust him here how could we ever trust him here?"

Video below the fold.

WaPo editorial: Romney’s ruinous tax plan

October 4, 2012

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

It appears that not all media villagers were so easily impressed by the ease with which Willard "Mittens" Romney so shamelessly lied during last night's debate. The Washington Post has this editorial opinion today, Romney’s ruinous tax plan:

HERE IS ONE way to distill the confusing charges and countercharges of the first presidential debate:

President Obama has no adequate plan to cope with the frightening level of debt the U.S. government is accumulating.

Republican nominee Mitt Romney has a plan to make it worse.

To understand that harsh assessment, you have to spend a few minutes with some facts that Mr. Romney did his best to obscure Wednesday.

“First of all, I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut,” he said.

In fact, Mr. Romney has proposed lowering income tax rates, abolishing the estate tax and making other changes that would cost $5 trillion over 10 years. When he says he has no such plan, he means that he intends to make up for the lost revenue by closing loopholes — what’s benignly known as “broadening the base.” Moreover, he says he can close so many loopholes for rich people that the middle class will end up paying less.

But even if you close every rich person’s loophole, you don’t save enough money to do everything Mr. Romney wants to do. The Republican cites studies that he says prove that wrong, but when you look closely, they prove him wrong. For example, Harvard economist (and Romney adviser) Martin Feldstein showed that you could pay for Mr. Romney’s tax cut by taking away deductions — mortgage interest, charitable, state and local tax — from households making more than $100,000. But then Mr. Romney said he considers households earning up to $250,000 to be middle class. So the math collapses again.

Fact Check: Romney’s ‘pants on fire’ $5 trillion tax cut lie – the media villagers yawn

October 4, 2012

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

One of the points during last night's debate that struck me was that President Obama seemed taken aback, perhaps even dumbfounded, by the ease with which Willard "Mittens" Romney shamelessly lied about his tax cut plan.

In presidential debates you are not supposed to resort to calling your opponent a liar, and "Mittens" took full advantage of this debate code. Obama did try to rebut his tax lie on the facts, but this does not impress the feckless media villagers who prefer conflict and easy soundbites.

Let's be clear. Romney's tax plan has been scored by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, and they determined that it would cost $5 trillion dollars over ten years. But Romney has artfully refused to specify any of the tax "loopholes" and "deductions" he claims that he will close to make his tax plan "revenue neutral" as he claims. He has a "secret plan" that he will only reveal if and when he is elected. As I have warned you before, never trade for what is behind door number 3 — it is always a sure loser.

Independent economists have analyzed that even if we were to close all the tax loopholes and limit deductions to the extent that Romney has suggested, it would not even come close to being revenue neutral.

A simple truth: tax cuts do not pay for themselves by increasing economic activity and thus increasing tax revenue. After more than 30 years of experimentation with this conservative economic theory, there is no empirical data to support that tax cuts have paid for themselves. If this were true, the U.S. would be awash in jobs today and have no national debt. It is pure fantasy.

Romney lies, Obama takes a dive

October 4, 2012

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

There are two ways to evaluate a debate. The first is what is often referred to as the "optics" or "atmospherics" of a debate, i.e., a subjective evaluation of who won based upon such things as demeanor, body language, a memorable line, etc., an emotional response. This is what the media villagers focus on exclusively.

The second is a substantive evaluation or objective evaluation of policy positions based upon the facts. The media villagers rarely do this, and even the so-called fact checkers insert their subjective opinions into supposedly objective fact checking.

The first presidential debate was Wednesday night. The parlor game is "who won?"

On the optics or atmospherics, Willard "Mittens" Romney clearly won on a subjective evaluation of demeanor and body language. He was well prepared and appropriately aggressive. For all their denials to the contrary, Americans love a fighter. They instinctively will rate the more aggressive candidate the winner of a debate. Team Obama should be aware of this.

President Obama was far too passive and passed up numerous opportunities to correct Romney's falsehoods and to advance themes his campaign has been making in ads and in speeches for months: Bain Capital, offshore banks accounts, Romney's failure to disclose his tax returns, economic patriotism, Romney's contempt for the 47%, the success of the auto rescue, 30 months of private sector job growth, Romney's dismal Massachusetts jobs record, the benefits people have already received from ObamaCare and will lose if it is repealed. Worst of all, Obama did not constantly hammer away on the radical Ryan budget/Medicare vouchers and GOP obstruction in Congress — "give me a Democratic Congress." It was almost as if Obama took a dive in this fight. If there is a strategy here, I don't see it.

On a substantive or objective evaluation, President Obama held his own and a case can be made that he was the winner. Why? Because "Mittens" Romney doubled-down on his "big lie" GOPropaganda campaign themes and even added a couple of new lies, i.e., that he will not give tax cuts to the rich and that he supports government regulations, which is completely at odds with Tea-Publican orthodoxy. One should not score points for lying. Romney lied with a disconcerting ease, but he looked good doing it, so instead of calling him out for his lies, the media villagers declared him the winner for being such an effective liar. It's the optics. And you wonder what is wrong with our politics today.