Posted by swamphawk22 on 7/13/2012 2:56:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 7/13/2012 2:53:00 PM (view original):
Posted by swamphawk22 on 7/13/2012 2:46:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 7/13/2012 2:34:00 PM (view original):
Not so much. The concept is the same. If you're going to tout Romney for "saving jobs" when 500 people lost their jobs, you can't fault Obama for making the same claims. In fact, I'd say Obama deserves more "credit" as he's doing it in the public eye. I'd never heard of Bain until Romney became a Presidential player.
The concept is not the same.
The jobs of a company are static. They exist or dont exist based on the CEO. You can examine what did or didnt happen in a vacuum.
The jobs of Americans in general are not static. Obama can find someone to claim that if it wasnt for him there would be more jobs lost, but it doesnt really stand up to analysis.
You seem to struggle with "big picture".
So....is it correct to hold Obama somewhat responsible for the high unemployment rate? If so, is it correct to give him some credit it the unemployment rate declines?
Obama should get credit for everything he is responsible for.
And if unemployment and gas prices go down he will get credit.
That doesnt mean that he should.
If you have enough money to buy 10 ice cream cones for 10 kids, but because you didnt get a carrying case you dropped 2, do you get blamed for the 2 or credit for the 8?
Depends on which kid you ask. 8 of them think you're a good guy. 2 think you're a dick.
Therefore, don't tell the 500 people who lost their jobs how great Romney is for saving 500 jobs. They didn't get their ice cream cone.
If you want to give Romney credit for that, you have to give Obama credit for counting saved jobs as created jobs. Otherwise, the unemployment rate would have gone up and he would have been given full credit for rising unemployment.