RNC Chair Reince Priebus says U.S. has lost 26 million jobs under Barack Obama 5APR11

MORE LIES, DECEPTION, MANIPULATION AND PROPAGANDA FROM THE GOP AND TEA-BAGGERS, IN OTHER WORDS JUST A TYPICAL DAY IN POLITICS FOR THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY CORPORATE AMERICA AND THE WEALTHY. From PolitiFact....

"We’ve lost 26 million jobs … since (Obama’s) been president."

Reince Priebus on Tuesday, April 5th, 2011 in an interview on NBC's "Today" show

RNC Chair Reince Priebus says U.S. has lost 26 million jobs under Barack Obama

Share this story:

Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus said that the U.S. has lost 26 million jobs since President Barack Obama took over. The actual number is one-tenth that.

During an interview on NBC’s Today show on April 5, 2011, Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus criticized President Barack Obama’s handling of the economy.

Asked by host Meredith Vieira whether the recent run of job growth and falling unemployment numbers "throw a real monkey wrench" into his party’s argument, Priebus said, "No, not at all. Under this president, he’s promised millions and millions of jobs. We’ve lost 26 million jobs, Meredith, since he’s been president. He promised under an $850 billion stimulus program that we’d be on a path to recovery. We’ll none of that has come true. … I think that pointing out a snail’s pace in the job (growth) numbers is not going to be enough to undo 26 million jobs that are lost, Meredith."

We wondered: Has the number of jobs really declined by 26 million since Obama has been president?

The answer: Not by any standard method of calculating job losses.

We turned to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the official arbiter of U.S. employment numbers. We found that in January 2009, when Obama was sworn in, 133,563,000 Americans were employed. Today, that number is 130,738,000. That’s a significant decline -- but of 2.8 million jobs, a number roughly a tenth of what Priebus cited.

We then looked at the difference between the highest level of employment during the recent recession and the lowest level. From its peak in December 2007 to its bottom in February 2010, a total of 8.7 million jobs were lost. That’s still only about one-third of the number Priebus gave -- and that period was split roughly evenly between the presidencies of George W. Bush and Obama.

We arrived at these figures, as economists do, by comparing job gains with job losses to determine a net total. It’s theoretically possible that 26 million jobs were lost during the Obama presidency and that 23.2 million jobs were created, leaving a net of 2.8 million jobs lost. But even if that were the case, economists across the political spectrum say it would be highly misleading of Priebus to focus on the job losses without citing the offsetting job gains.

It would not be "kosher to count only one-half of the jobs equation," said Daniel Mitchell, a senior fellow with the libertarian Cato Institute. Gary Burtless, an economist with the centrist-to-liberal Brookings Institution said it would be "absurd" to cite the gross job numbers instead of the net numbers.

Just for a sense of scale, if it were a net number, losing 26 million jobs, as Priebus indicated, would mean losing about 20 percent of the nation’s jobs -- something on the scale of the Great Depression.

We e-mailed the Republican National Committee’s press office for an explanation, but they did not reply by the time we posted this story.

Perhaps Priebus simply misspoke, or perhaps he misplaced a decimal point and ended up wrong by a factor of 10. Whatever the reason, the 26 million figure he cited on the Today show was ridiculously wrong. We rate it Pants on Fire.

About this statement:

Published: Wednesday, April 6th, 2011 at 10:33 a.m.
Subjects: Economy, History, Jobs
Sources:
Reince Priebus, interview on NBC’s Today show, April 5, 2011

Bureau of Labor Statistics, main search page for Current Employment Statistics, accessed April 4, 2011

E-mail interview with Daniel Mitchell, senior fellow with the Cato Institute, April 5, 2011
E-mail interview with Gary Burtless, senior fellow with the Brookings Institution, April 5, 2011
Written by: Louis Jacobson
Researched by: Louis Jacobson
Edited by: Martha Hamilton

The Big Republican Lie on Tax Cuts 6OKT10 & RNC Accidentally Highlights Study That Proves Dems' Tax Cut Plan Is More Generous 8OKT10

BOTH of these articles are from HuffPost....the first is from a former reagan republican, now a small business man who understands taxes and small business and explains the gop / tea-bagger lies and deception. The second is on how the rnc posted a study showing the current Democratic tax cut plan is better for lower incomes than the gop plan. Big surprise they pulled this study from their website!
 
Republicans have repeated the lie that tax cuts are always good for the economy so often that all of Washington seems absolutely convinced that it's true. The conventional wisdom is so established on this that all a Republican has to say is, "Everyone knows you don't raise taxes in the middle of a recession..." Or in good times or in mediocre times or ever. All tax cuts are always good.
Republicans add another layer of absurdity to this as they say that tax cuts always lead to more revenue for the federal government because of supply-side economics. The economy expands, people make more money and the government collects more in taxes even though it takes a smaller percentage. Great theory -- how about if we cut taxes down to 1 percent? Would the government still get more revenue?
The question isn't whether tax cuts or tax increases are always the right answer. The question is at what level of taxes do we stimulate the economy, collect enough revenue to run a functioning government and let people keep as much of their income as we can. No one, not even the world's biggest liberal, wants to pay more in taxes personally. We just want to find the right balance so that everyone wins.
When you look to see what that right level is in our history, what you find is very interesting. In our glory years between 1945-1965 (these are the years that the Republicans dream of going back to), the top marginal tax rate fluctuated between 77 percent and 94 percent. I was stunned when I first learned that. People's heads would explode if you suggested those levels now. Yet, it worked for us for decades as we built the great American middle class and our manufacturing base.
The second interesting fact is what happens when we have historically low taxes. From 1925 to1931, the highest marginal tax rate was as low as it has almost ever been -- between 24-25 percent. And between 2003-2010, the highest marginal tax rate was also at one of its lowest points -- 35 percent. So, what happened when we had these really low tax rates? The Great Depression and the Great Recession.
In fact, when you look at when the economy takes off and when it slows down, it almost perfectly matches the fluctuation of our tax rates. Except the correlation is the exact opposite of conventional wisdom -- the economy crashes after tax cuts and takes off after tax increases.
Now, conservative critics will scream that correlation does not equal causation. Yes, but it's pretty good evidence. And you have no counter evidence. If you see that every time someone jumps out of a building, they come crashing down. You can argue about causation all you want, but my guess is you're not going to jump out of the building.
Yet we do. We have been religiously cutting taxes since 1980. How has that worked out for us? We've had median wages stagnating, manufacturing disappearing and now enormous unemployment. If tax cuts are so great, why did our economy get pulverized after Bush passed the two largest tax cuts in history?
Of course, the reality is that America has been sold this bill of goods by the very people who stand to benefit the most from cutting taxes to the rich -- the rich. And it has worked for them. Since 1980, the average after-tax income for the top 1% of this country has risen by 281%. The average household in the top 1% saw their wealth go up by a whopping, unbelievable $973,100. See, the tax cuts worked for somebody. The people who pushed for them. Mission accomplished!
At this point, you have to be curious as to why the economy goes up when we raise taxes, especially at rates that seem to defy common sense. I was a Reagan Republican growing up because the top tax bracket of 70 percent seemed crazy to me and he brought that down. I thought a rate that high couldn't possibly be the right balance.
But now that I am a small business owner I get it. You see if taxes are low, like 20 percent, as a partner in my small business I am motivated to take out our profits as income for myself. Let's say my share of the business led to $100,000 in profits. If taxes are 20 percent, I pay $20,000 and keep $80,000. I can live with that split.
But what happens when taxes are high? If I have to pay 60 percent, then I'm left with only $40,000 and the government takes $60,000. That sucks. I don't want to "lose" all that money. So, what do I do instead? I re-invest it in the business, so I don't have to pay taxes!
If at the end of the year, my tax bill is zero, then I pay zero. Instead, by plowing the profits back into the business I help to grow it and make it even more profitable down the road. I might even hire more people with the extra money I kept in the business because that's a lot better option than just handing it over to the government.
So, higher taxes don't lead to more investment and higher employment because I'm a liberal who likes to give away my money to the government. They lead to those good results for the exact opposite reason -- because I don't want to give away my money to the government.
Logic, you can't beat it. Unless of course you have a lot of money and you just buy off the whole system. And that's where we stand now, with the truth turned on its head. But the next time someone claims tax cuts help the economy, don't let them get away with that bald-faced lie.
Watch The Young Turks Here

 

Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks

• Economy

Related News On Huffington Post:

Congress Will Have 7 Days To Reauthorize Jobless Aid; It Took 50 Last Time

When it returns from its mid-term break in mid-November, Congress will have only seven voting days to reauthorize extended unemployment benefits before they expire at...

Warren Buffett Calls For Tax Cuts -- For Almost Everyone Except The Rich (VIDEO)

Warren Buffett proposed a further tax cut for the middle class, upper middle class and lower middle class -- essentially, everyone except the wealthy --...

  

RNC Accidentally Highlights Study That Proves Dems' Tax Cut Plan Is More Generous

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/08/rnc-accidentally-highligh_n_756173.html

One of the promises made in the GOP's "Pledge to America" is that the party will make all legislation available for three days so that legislators can read it for clarity. One can hardly blame them for seeking to confront their own shortcomings! Perhaps they can take that promise further, and actually promise to read the studies that they circulate to the media, especially the ones that actually undermine their professed policies. This is just an idea I had!
See, yesterday morning, the Republican National Committee really wanted to stick it to Democratic legislators for that time they totally punted on holding a vote on the future of the Bush-era tax cuts. And so, they armed themselves with a shiny new study from the Tax Foundation that they thought really aided their criticism. "What excuse will the Democrats use now?"
Hey, who knows the answer to that question, right? Nevertheless, as Greg Sargent pointed out, the RNC really miscalculated:

As it happens, the study compared the actual Dem plan with the GOP one. And it found that for a family of four with an income of $40,000, the Dem plan -- continuing the low end tax cuts, plus the stimulus measures -- would cause a 7.8 percent jump in after-tax income. That jump would only be 6.8 percent under the GOP plan to continue all the Bush tax cuts.
For a single parent with two kids and an income of $20,000, that difference is even more pronounced. The jump is 8 percent under the Dem plan, and only 4.4 percent under the GOP one.
In fairness to the RNC, the study is good for the GOP in one sense. It confirms that the Bush tax cuts were helpful to the poor, despite popular belief that they only helped the rich. But the author of the study, Nick Kasprak, confirms that this finding isn't directly relevant to what Dems have proposed.
"Our study shows that the Bush tax cuts helped the poor a lot more than the popular perception, so the RNC is right to send it around for that reason," Kasprak tells me. "But the study also shows that the Congressional Democrats' plan is more generous to the poor, because it extends certain stimulus provisions into 2011, which the Republican plan does not. That isn't what the RNC wants to show."

Guess they really, really should have read that study, all the way to the end. But now you know whose tax cut plans are more generous to ordinary Americans.
 

RNC Committeewoman Kim Lehman Claims Obama Told Muslims That He Was A Muslim 23AUG10 & Obama Speech In Cairo: VIDEO, Full Text 4JUN09

TYPICAL of the tea-baggers and the gop right wing extremeist and fanatics, the continuing attacks on Pres. Obama show the ignorance and prejudice and racism of these people and their supporters. This is from HuffPost, and includes the segment from Pres. Obama's Cairo speech in which he states flay out he is a Christian. Those of faith who continue this controversy about the President should consider the 9th commandment on false witness against anyone.....I have also included a video of Pres. Obama's speech in Cairo, the transcripts have been added to the Speeches page on this blog.

The Republican ranks have, by and large, cautiously avoided weighing in on recent poll numbers showing that a healthy portion of the American public believes that President Barack Obama is a Muslim.
Wary of the cultural sensitivities such discussions entail, the de facto response seems to be the one offered by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Sunday: "The president says he's a Christian," McConnell said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "I take him at his word. I don't think that's in dispute."
There have been a few notable exceptions. Congressional candidate Tom Ganley said last week that he did not have "a position on whether he's a Muslim" only to walk back his remarks amidst the uproar. No one in the official GOP tent, however, has fully embraced the rumor. Until now.
Last Friday, a Republican National Committee woman Kim Lehman, responding to an article about the polls in Politico, accused the publication of trying "to protect Obama" by denying his true religious heritage.
"BTW he personally told the muslims that he IS a muslim," wrote the Iowa RNC member. "Read his lips."

A few Iowa progressive blogs picked up on her remarks. But beyond that they went largely ignored. Lehman, who also works for The John Paul II Stem Cell Research Institute, appears to be the first national committee member to fully endorse the Obama-is-a-Muslim view.

Story continues below

Reached on the phone Monday, Lehman stood by her initial tweet, arguing that it was during his speech that Obama let the real truth slip.
"I was watching television when he was over there talking to the Muslim world and he made it, in my opinion, clear he was partially Muslim," Lehman told the Huffington Post. "The way he was approaching that speech was, 'Hey I'm one of you. I'm with you.' He didn't have to say that... but he did."
Obama's speech in Cairo did include discussion about his father's Muslim faith. But the president also made it abundantly clear, both then and many times since, that he was a practicing Christian. Asked why she didn't believe the empirical and overwhelming evidence, Lehman replied:
"Again, going back to his speech... he would have said I'm a Christian and I'm from the Christian religion and we can work together. It didn't appear to me he said Christianity was part of his religion."
For the record, here is the relevant portion of Obama's speech (emphasis ours):

Now part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I'm a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

Obama Speech In Cairo: VIDEO 4JUN09

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/04/obama-speech-in-cairo-vid_n_211215.html
Below, the full text of President Obama's speech in Cairo, Egypt, titled "A New Beginning."
Watch video:



* * * *

The GOP's Facebook Anti-Semites 29JUL10

ANOTHER example of the racism and fascist attitudes that the gop seems to be tolerating for political gain. 

— Republican National Committee/Facebook.

After MoJo inquiries, the Republican Party promises to take down a Facebook page with offensive comments.

— By Nick Baumann

Thu Jul. 29, 2010 7:26 AM PDT

Israel is responsible for 9/11, Al Qaeda is "100% state sponsored by Zionist Jews," and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is actually an agent for Mossad, the Israeli spy agency—at least according to posts that appeared on the Republican National Committee's Facebook page. (You can see screen shots of some of the posts below.)
Several avowedly anti-Semitic commenters regularly posted on the national GOP's Facebook wall, encouraging tea partiers and "White, Black, Spanish, [and] Asian" people to "arm yourselves" and rise up against the "Zionist Jews" who, they claim, control the country and the media. They linked to a site that hosts purported versions of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and promoted 9/11 "truth" theories that allege "Israeli agents carried out the attacks."
The RNC could easily have deleted these comments—it's as easy as clicking "remove" if an administrator is signed in to the account—or blocked the users who were posting them. Even if the RNC decided it didn't have the resources to monitor its Facebook wall, it could have simply disabled the ability to comment on its wall. When Mother Jones contacted the committee for comment Thursday morning, the RNC disabled its Facebook discussion board, but not its wall containing the anti-Semitic comments. When a Mother Jones reporter explained the difference between a Facebook discussion board and a wall, RNC spokesman Doug Heye promised the wall "will be down shortly." (UPDATE, July 30: The comments have been removed, but the wall is still up.)  "We're interested in a civil debate, and any rhetoric or language that is out of bounds is not something we're interested in hosting and not something we're interested in hearing," Heye said. "We have decided we are better off closing down our discussion page." That's what Organizing for America has done with Barack Obama's Facebook page. (The White House's wall, however, is still live.) But until it was contacted by Mother Jones, the RNC allowed commenting to continue unabated—and apparently unmoderated.

The various comments—which came from Facebook users calling themselves "Jennifer Grey" and "Shelly Adams"—also included attacks on "Jew-controlled" politicians. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.), Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla.), Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.) are among those targeted. (All except Sensenbrenner are Jewish). Presidents George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama are criticized as "Zionist Puppets."
Kevin Anderson, a Californian Facebook user who describes himself as a "staunch Republican," alerted Mother Jones to the comments. Anderson says he was banned from commenting on the RNC's Facebook page after he complained about the anti-Semitic comments to committee officials. He claims that "hooked nose" style photos initially accompanied the posts. Those photos were removed when he first threatened to contact the press, he says.
At Mother Jones, interns review every comment that comes through the system, and delete the most offensive ones, along with a whole bunch of spam. Mother Jones also has an intern who monitors the magazine's Facebook wall.
Some media organizations have taken different tacks—ignoring comments entirely. But Andrew Rasiej, the co-founder of the Personal Democracy Forum, says that's not an option for politicians and political organizations. "I don't think that's acceptable," he says. "If they have comments open, then they're inviting reasonable people to comment. To allow a free-for-all means you are not respecting the reasonable commenters."
A review of the Democratic National Committee's Facebook wall during the past month reveals one commenter warning his "fellow Africa-Americans" to "be on the watch for jews with anti-black behavior." The DNC page also shows many posts from Anderson pushing Republican talking points—and trying to draw attention to the anti-Semitism on the GOP page.
"While I don't think this indicates anti-Semitism among the GOP leadership," Anderson writes. "I feel it indicates that there is a certain laxity among GOP workers in removing anti-Semitic screeds from GOP sounding boards. However, as this is an OFFICIAL GOP sounding board sponsored by the Republican National Committee and moderated by GOP employees. I think you might have room to indicate certain biases among the workers at the GOP and indicate an ethical climate of its official party organs."
This isn't the first time the RNC has gotten in trouble for the content of its Facebook page. Last October, it kept a number of racist pictures of Obama (including one saying "miscegenation is a crime against American values") on its page for nearly a week before removing them.
Screen shots of the RNC posts follow below. You can also look at a large (11.7 MB) PDF of the posts from the month of July.