« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Infographic: The Obama Economy

By: Caleb Howe (Diary)  |  May 9th, 2012 at 06:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

The Romney campaign has released a good new infographic detailing the truth about Obama’s promised “green economy” job gains. (Click on the graphic to view full size.)

Facts are facts, Mr. President. Numbers don’t lie.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • The_Gadfly

    the infographic proves he has kept one promise: gas prices have skyrocketed.

    • sciencequiche

      Taking the gas price after the 2008 economic collapse is disingenuous. It’s just like saying the Dow has nearly doubled under Obama’s administration from a low of 6,547.05 on March 9, 2009 to 12,891.22 today (up 97%). He doesn’t deserve the credit for that growth or the blame for the gas prices doubling.

      The more accurate number is to compare gas prices to number 4 years ago around the same time. About 3.70 in May of 2008, about 3.80 now. Not much escalation there….and that’s a bad thing because oil prices are typically tied to the health of the global economy.

      Another commenter pointed out inflation in food prices – a much more legitimate criticism of the president – though a bumper corn crop may result in some reductions this fall.

  • bach49

    Numbers lie all the time, especially these numbers, because they were carefully selected to make a particular point. In any given scenario, there will be at least one thousand salient data points. When you select three data points only and claim to have made your case, that is a prime example of using numbers to lie. Attorneys do this in court constantly; so do pundits. Misusing statistics to lie is a particular skill, which makes an interesting study in itself.
    Of course, people on both sides of the political aisle constantly use numbers to tell lies. Perhaps we can all agree it would be a good idea to stop lying, but then, we would be left with the truth, and the truth is that none of us, on either side of the aisle, can handle the truth, because the real truth is so simple that it’s scary.
    Oh well.

    • napensnake

      Okay, I get that these numbers lie. Please explain the truth. I am just a simple conservative and have a hard time keeping up with brilliant liberal thinkers so I would ask that you use small words when explaining the “true” numbers.

      Or is it possible that these numbers are true but don’t convey the full story? In that case please enlighten us. I want the truth. (Trust me, I can handle the truth.)

      By the way, according to your comments, this will require more than three data points. I would also think that four data points might be a bit sketchy too.

      Thank you in advance for your time in bringing my consciousness to an appropriate level.

      • justperhaps45

        The meaning of critical words can be changed for the purpose of winning the argument. I’ll means You’ll (taxpayers) and loan means gift (present a present). Does that help you understand?

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      just saying

    • edintexas

      NT

    • funwithknives

      How about ‘drawn out a hopper,randomly’ ?

      It’s a one-panel ad, and none of the talking points are really refutable.
      Iffin’ it was a 3-page screed would you call it ‘boring’, ‘pedantic’ , or ‘silly’, given that documented truths were in evidence?

      Seeing your history here , and your really thin gruel, one thing is clear: Nothing to see or taste, here. MUSH is the operative term.

    • spolson

      that you find so simple, what is it?

    • trimulchio

      the September 2008 economic melt-down, much lower than when you had solid growth. That is a false metric.

      • trimulchio

        debacle, it was only 1,100 jobs (currently about 12.5 million are unemployed, so this accounts for 00.0088% of US unemployment),

        I think the comparison to make is the growth rate seen since the “recovery” in 2009, as against the recovery of the early 1920s or teh Reagan years.

    • siquijorisland

      sounds like your cloud dancing in liberal land.
      So many words to say nothing

  • annarbor

    The numbers in the infographic are simplistic, like the bottom line of a profit/loss statement, stock index, etc.

    The number reflect items that specific points that the public can understand. Romney did not need to point out the irregularities of the Solyndra finances, except that Obama squandered a half-billion dollars like chump change.

    Romney did not need to point out that the resilient jobs created for his wind energy investment are mostly foreign (thank you GE).

    Romney did not need to point out that the price of gasoline is decoupled from the price of oil, or that we have lost 3 major refineries this year alone due to the economics of Obama’s czars’ regulation.

    Romney did not need to point out that the price of “fast” food has risen 20% in the last 18 months. Nor did he need to point out that a $4.50 jar of peanut butter in 2009 is now $7.00. (Only mothers can relate to that.)

    Romney took three data points that the public would recognize.

    • siquijorisland

      you get it

  • bob570

    The Natural Gas industry has proven that Drilling in America works. Just four years ago Natural gas was selling for $25.00 per thousand cubic feet in the north east. Now it’s below $10.00 in many places. We could do the same with oil, if the Leftist Lunies in Washington would allow it.

  • ascrowe

    In order to be at all competitive with each other, solar panel companies needed to have the panels built overseas, mostly in China. Manufacturing was ultimately outsourced. Regardless, they still can’t be competitive with oil/gas and that will guide the economics.

  • cldonley

    right on the bottom line. You have to massage the numbers to say that it isn’t Obama’s fault. If you focus like a laser on the bottom line, you know where the blame lies. So read ‘em and weep, troll.

  • siquijorisland

    you got it