Originally Posted by patteeu
Let's take BRC's first graph for example. Is it an unbiased fact to show that data set in isolation or should the context of a larger span of time be shown? The time span selected focuses on Obama's term, which makes sense, but if you look at the months preceding Obama's inauguration (for lack of a better chart I'll use one that projects an unlikely future as well)...
... we see that Obama's term started fairly deep in an employment trough. If anything, it should be easier to create jobs when so much labor is available than it would have been to create jobs at peak employment.
Furthermore, a bigger picture view of this data shows that Obama's "break even or so" leaves us way behind where we were mere months before he took over. Even though you can't blame him for losses that preceded him, his performance is cast in a different light if it looks like he's returned us to an employment maximum than when it looks like he's barely recovered from the losses that did happen on his watch and now, despite tepid job growth numbers, a huge hill still remains ahead to get the country back where it was 5 long years ago.
What kind of logic is this? Less people have jobs, and therefore less people have money. Why would it be easier to create jobs? Because people have money, much less disposable income to spend on goods and services?
Stopping the downward spiral of job loss and putting people back to work was a monumental task...