Isn't the only metric used by Republicans and Tea Partiers? Just because you don't like the facts doesn't mean you can ignore them and make up your own.
I am not saying I like the republipigs either, but if you know that is a flawed metric why continue the use of it? Politics shouldn't be a game of us vs them. Furthermore, Obama isn't the only actor influencing the economy. Everyone seems to think the president is in some godlike all powerful position. I do think his policies have positively impacted the economic situation. We cannot, however, attribute all of those new jobs to Obama alone. So yes, Romney could be (and most likely is) wrong in his statement that Obama made the recession worse. The evidence presented though does not support nor refute the claim. Also remember that correlation does not imply causation.
If you were to assume that the jobs were wholly a result of Obama's work, there would still be a cause for doubt on whether the statistic supports the statement or not. Is every job a net positive to the economy? There may exist cases in which a job or many jobs are a net loss for the economy.
All I am trying to say is that people should be careful as to what they say and what they use to support what they say. Approaching politics with an 'us vs them' type of attitude encourages disingenuous reporting and shortcircuited logic. People are more than happy to accept anything that they perceive as beneficial to their stance at face value, and then only blindly dispute other issues if they do not support a personally held stance or political perspective. In both cases people lose sight of the truth.
3 comments:
Right, because private sector jobs are the only metric that can be used.
Isn't the only metric used by Republicans and Tea Partiers? Just because you don't like the facts doesn't mean you can ignore them and make up your own.
I am not saying I like the republipigs either, but if you know that is a flawed metric why continue the use of it? Politics shouldn't be a game of us vs them. Furthermore, Obama isn't the only actor influencing the economy. Everyone seems to think the president is in some godlike all powerful position. I do think his policies have positively impacted the economic situation. We cannot, however, attribute all of those new jobs to Obama alone. So yes, Romney could be (and most likely is) wrong in his statement that Obama made the recession worse. The evidence presented though does not support nor refute the claim. Also remember that correlation does not imply causation.
If you were to assume that the jobs were wholly a result of Obama's work, there would still be a cause for doubt on whether the statistic supports the statement or not. Is every job a net positive to the economy? There may exist cases in which a job or many jobs are a net loss for the economy.
All I am trying to say is that people should be careful as to what they say and what they use to support what they say. Approaching politics with an 'us vs them' type of attitude encourages disingenuous reporting and shortcircuited logic. People are more than happy to accept anything that they perceive as beneficial to their stance at face value, and then only blindly dispute other issues if they do not support a personally held stance or political perspective. In both cases people lose sight of the truth.
Post a Comment