http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090210/ap_on_go_pr_wh/fact_check_obamaTheme to this story - Obama is a liar.
My memory may be faulty, but I cannot remember them doing this when Bush was going around telling lies about his tax cuts in 2000, 2001, and 2003. Back then, only Krugman was doing this while millionaire Ted Koppel claimed, he didn't understand the math.
Now AP writes an editorial and passes it off as "news".
"Obama's sales pitch on the enormous package he wants Congress to make law has sizzle as well as steak. He's projecting job creation numbers that may be impossible to verify and glossing over some ethical problems that bedeviled his team."
Start with negative language "sales pitch" and then emphasize the "sizzle" in a bill that Obama said was "not perfect".
"Obama told his Elkhart audience that Indiana will benefit from work on "roads like U.S. 31 here in Indiana that Hoosiers count on." He added, "And I know that a new overpass downtown would make a big difference for businesses and families right here in Elkhart."
U.S. 31 is a north-south highway serving South Bend, 15 miles from Elkhart in the northern part of the state."
Oooh, look at that, apparently Obama does not even know that US 31 doesn't go through Elkhart. It's way over in the northern part of the state!!
(just like, uh, Elkhart?)
"OBAMA: "My bottom line is, are we creating 4 million jobs?" he told the news conference.
He said in Indiana, "The plan that we've put forward will save or create 3 million to 4 million jobs over the next two years."
THE FACTS: Job creation projections are uncertain even in stable times, and some of the economists relied on by Obama in making his forecast acknowledge a great deal of uncertainty in their numbers."
Uncertainty. There's uncertainty. You mean, like the uncertainty whether it will be 3 million or 4 million? Because that seems to be a statement THAT ACKNOWLEDGES A WHOLE BUNCH OF UNCERTAINTY!!!
Uncertainty that Bush never acknowledge in his tax cut plans.
"We need tax relief that creates the greatest number of jobs. (Applause.) The goal is to create a million new jobs by the end of next year. I've submitted a good, strong plan that will help meet that goal. The United States Congress must not only listen to your voice, but must listen to the voice of somebody looking for work. We need aggressive action out of the United States Congress now." May 6, 2003
Although Bush was calling for fast and aggressive action, I don't remember the AP calling him on it in 2003. Now, they like to push the RNC idea that "this is not as bad as Reagan had it".
"OBAMA: "We also inherited the most profound economic emergency since the Great Depression."
THE FACTS: This could turn out to be the case. But as bad as the economic numbers are, the unemployment figures have not reached the levels of the early 1980s, let alone the 1930s — yet. A total of 598,000 payroll jobs vanished in January — the most in nearly 35 years — and the unemployment rate jumped to 7.6 from 7.2 percent the month before. The most recent high was 7.8 percent in June 1992.
And the jobless rate was 10.8 percent in November and December 1982. Unemployment in the Great Depression ranged for several years from 25 percent to close to 30 percent."
Let's just put that little myth to rest. For one thing, the unemployment rate was 5.4% in January 2008. There were 144,607,000 Americans employed in January 2008 and only 140,436,000 employed a year later. That's 4.1 million lost jobs. In Reagan's term employment numbers went from a high of 100,378,000 to a low (after some ups and downs) fifteen months later of 99,032,000. I guess 1.3 million lost jobs is almost as bad as 4.1 million. Wait, let's use the Bush trick and talk about the PERCENTAGE of lost jobs. Then it's 1.3% for Reagan compared to 2.9% for Bush and we can say they are almost the same.
And unemployment rate went to 11% in 1983, this is true, but it was also 8.5% in 1981 and 8.3% in 1983. So 10.8% is not the same now as it was then. We hit record lows of unemployment in the 1990s that most economists thought was impossible. Economists used to say that a 5% unemployment rate was "full employment". On the other hand, way back in 2003, somebody (in the Oval Office) was pushing the idea that 6% unemployment was a serious problem.
"The unemployment number is now at 6 percent, which should serve as a clear signal to the United States Congress we need a bold economic recovery package so people can find work. (Applause.) That 6-percent number should say loud and clear to members of both political parties in the United States Congress, we need robust tax relief so our fellow citizens can find a job. (Applause.)" May 6, 2003
And unlike Republicans today, he didn't think the deficit was a reason to block his plan - jobs came first!!
"Yes, I'm worried about the deficit. I'm worried about the deficit, but I'm more worried about the fellow looking for work. I'm worried about the deficit, but I'm more worried about the single mom who's worried about putting food on the table for her children, so she could find work. And that's where the focus of this administration is going to be." May 12, 2003
Of course, that plan was gonna "create jobs" partly by giving $46 billion in tax breaks to 111,000 people making over $2,000,000 a year, an another over $10 billion to people making over $500,000, and then that would trickle down or something. Fortunately, the AP called him on this lie or millionaires would have been getting huge tax breaks for the last five year - What's that? It passed? Well I am sure the AP did their best to derail it and discredit the President back then too.
I am also sure that flying pigs break the sound barrier on a regular basis at the hidden testing grounds of the Pig Improvement Corporation.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
