John Boehner's 'Naked Lunch' Moment

Mr. Corn

One would expect a level of accuracy in a piece by a nationally known columnist.

I would suggest that you #1 accurately portray what Speaker Bonner said - he was referring to FEDERAL bureaucrats that got make-work jobs, NOT productive jobs that actually contribute to the economy. Typically the Federal government jobs are a HINDRANCE to the creation of REAL jobs.

#2 Instead of parroting the Administrations line of the fictitious "created or saved" statistic, why not hold them to the SAME standard you used with previous Presidents?

#3 If the Administrations policies lowered unemployment by 1.8% as you claim, why is the unemployement rate HIGHER than when Obama took office?

#4 If you are going to claim that those jobs lost were due to Bush's policies, why did you not give Bush the same benefit instead of trumpeting 2 MILLION jobs lost in the early Bush years - when ALL of those 2 million were lost BEFORE Bush's first policies were in effect. (2 million were lost by Feb 2002 before ANY Bush policy had been put in place EXCEPT the direct payments in the rebate portion of the tax cut - and since you argue in favor of such things that immediately put money in low income peoples hands, like that did, you are on shaky ground there)

#5 If you now hypocritically cling to that line of thinking but excuse Obama for a MUCH longer carry-over, how do you reconcile that with the FACT that the current recession ENDED BEFORE any of Obama's policies were in place? The stimulus money had not yet been spent so you certainly cannot credit the stimulus for THAT.

Perhaps you should be a bit more objective in your analysis of things.

The best use for this article, is to print it out and use it for T.P.

david, you have no concept of reality. you say in one sentence that the Speaker's number of 200,000 is too high and way off target. Then in the next sentence you say it might be as high as a million jobs lost because of his policies. you can't have it both ways, either the jobs were created by odumbo or not? If odumbo created 200,000 jobs within the government, why would cutting their funding cause the loss of 650,000 jobs?

David is right on.....I would go further.....if you want to cut governmental costs make it more efficient.....realign states, counties and municipalities.
Our governments need to be "recreated" as distances and communications have evaporated and these two issues drove the creation of government entities.
We have too many of these entities.

Right now....for every 1 million citizens there is 1 billion in deficits on the state level not to address the deficits in counties and municipalities.

This article lost it's credibility when The CBO was used to make Boehner look like a hypocrite. Everyone knows that Obama uses the CBO the way a butcher uses his meat grinder. The butcher can tell what is going to come out of the grinder by what he puts into the grinder. The CBO uses Obama's figures to reach a result that is favorable to Obama. The CBO simply crunches numbers and they have no control over the numbers that they are given to work with.

as for "created or saved"... it is a completely new statistic created by the Obama administration which doesn't use math, but theory in order to be generated... so it can't be verified independently by anyone. Those who believe this stuff are being blindly partisan or intellectually dishonest or both.

You can't cut federal spending and even entertain balancing a budget unless you shrink government, which means cutting public jobs. That money is then retained in the private sector and since the private sector is the only way to grow the economy and produce jobs... and since the private sector is incredibly more efficient and effective at producing jobs, we get to have growth and steer away from the edge of a banana republic... too many posters on here are giving knee-jerk reactions and not thinking this through.

Please don't talk that way about Speaker Boehner. If you do. It will make him cry. If he does cry. "Read my lips". "So be it".

"His "where are the jobs" tag line was designed to suggest that there were no jobs -- to shortcut the facts"

Fact is the unemployment number was above 9% for all of this time period, a fact you conventiently forget to mention

Does article writer David Corn have any shame. You don't have to answer. That's a rhetorical question. How hypocritical! After that opening remark, Corn goes on to show nothing but a left wing/liberal nastiness, that is becoming the norm with the Democrat Party. Just to post this article on PD shows a far left leaning that is alarming. Reading the few comments that have been allowed is fighening. PD and AOL calls for civility, but posts this article which steps far over the line of civility and by posting it, shows approval. Scary. I hope the censors allow this comment just to show the other viewpoint. If not, well I am used to being censored.