Thursday, September 6, 2012

The only line you need to hear from Bill Clinton's speech

"Since 1961 … our private economy produced 66 million private-sector jobs. So what's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 million."

Politifact says...
Clinton’s figures check out, and they also mirror the broader results we came up with two years ago. Partisans are free to interpret these findings as they wish, but on the numbers, Clinton’s right. We rate his claim True.


  1. What is the difference in job rates in years when AFC teams win the Superbowl vs when NFC teams when the Superbowl?

    I assume you don't know because it doesn't *bleeping* matter because economies are WAY too complex to state them in such simplistic terms.

    Seriously ridiculous partisan hackery.

  2. Clinton is not claiming that because job creation was higher during Democratic years, the Dems get the credit; rather, he is demonstrating that Dems policies work. He is not citing evidence, but proof.

    He would not have to do this if the other side did not routinely lie about the most basic facts, like, for instance, the number of jobs created during any given administration.

    There is a much larger argument for why Dems create more jobs than Reps, summed up by this sentence: "the economy is driven by demand, not supply." Followed by the sentence "government spending is a form of demand." Also summed up by the phrase "reality has a well-known liberal bias." You can look up those arguments if you want more detail: google Keynes. Clinton did not specifically mention that larger argument in his speech, but he didn't have to.

    The fundamental issue here is not that economies are complex; the fundamental issue is that one party is operating off of an irrational and absurd theory of economics. Or more accurately, as I have said before, the Reps do not do economics; they do morality. Morality derived from a bad bit of science-fiction, no less.

    I agree with you that simply stating "Dems" as one's economic policy is partisan; or rather, I would agree, if not for the fact that stating "Reps" means an economic policy derived from dreadful proto-fascist science-fantasy. Given that context, it is entirely appropriate to assert "Dems" as a superior economic policy, because it is at least based on reality.

    Like my most recent post; all the politics has ceased to matter, because one side accepts science and one side does not.