Skip to content

Fact checking the president

The New York Times is getting dragged all over lefty Twitter for this fact check:

The Times deserves whatever they get for this. Given the lower US population in 1939 and before, there's zero chance that more jobs were ever created in a single year. This is just dumb.

What's more, if they really wanted to "add context" to Biden's number they could have pointed out that his record jobs numbers depend entirely on the fact that he happened to take office near a recessionary low point. That can make anybody look good.

But there's more! Biden could then truthfully say that his $1.9 trillion stimulus bill played a key role in keeping job growth high. I wish he'd say that more often and more loudly.

38 thoughts on “Fact checking the president

  1. bbleh

    The Times interviewed several economists concerning this claim, and while some agreed that the stimulus bill could be described as "key" to sustained job growth, others demurred, preferring terms like "important to" or "a factor in."

  2. Jasper_in_Boston

    Given the lower US population in 1939 and before, there's zero chance that more jobs were ever created in a single year. This is just dumb.

    "Dumb" is far too soft. Absurd, jaw-droppingly stupid, eye-wateringly imbecilic...all work better.

    1. MontyTheClipArtMongoose

      Maga Haberman, Peter Bakshish, Blake Clownshoes, & Elaina Plotz are desperate to restore El Jefe to the presidency.

      When will we admit that the Sulzberger Advertiser is basically Stormfront with a better press agent?

      1. Jasper_in_Boston

        No. That's too facile. The reality is more prosaic: years of successful ref-working by the right mean that most mainstream journalists are overly sensitive to charges of left-wing bias, and so go out of their way to demonstrate "impartiality" — and they end up over-correcting in a way that reverberates to the advantage of the Republican Party.

        1. MontyTheClipArtMongoose

          But as the median GQP goes further right, to support them the Sulzberger Advertiser must itself leave the Q-adjency unquestioned, & therfore legitimated.

          So, maybe Stormfront was too glib a comparison. Perchance the more apt analog is Gateway Pundit.

          Artie Sulzberger as Jim Hoeft: a thread (1/732).

  3. robaweiler

    There isn't a one in a million chance they would add that caveat if a Republican had said it. Granted, they wouldn't have to as there would be plenty of out right lies to flag, but presented with a Democrat saying actually true things, they need to find some nit to pick to prove they are "objective". How many times have they published a statement from a Republican saying that modest tax increases on the wealthy, especially on capital gains, would tank the economy and destroy jobs when there is exactly 0 real world evidence for it?

    1. Salamander

      The Times has Paul Krugman, but his column alone is nowhere near able to counteract all the subtely negative "news" stories.

      1. robaweiler

        I keep hoping that the NYT will unbundle Krugman so you don't have to support the gibberish like this "fact checking" but I think they realize that Krugman's column is often the only thing in the paper actually worth reading.

  4. Martin Stett

    The Rude Pundit:
    NYT in 1969: "Fact check: Neil Armstrong is the first man on the moon. NASA is correct on the person and location, but we should note that film cameras were not invented until 1892, so we have no way of knowing if someone got there earlier. Partially True."

    1. KawSunflower

      This should be sent to the NYT - not that it would change that ludicrous behavior.

      Like trump, they are apparently shameless.

    2. Salamander

      Great example! It deserves to go to the Washington Post Fact Checker, too. "Three Pinocchios for NASA!!"

      1. MontyTheClipArtMongoose

        "Already facing calls for his resignation due to ties to the Nazi regime, Werner von Braun now must combat challenges to his credibility..."

  5. iamr4man

    Speaking of fact checking, is there any place that clarifies what he said about the Pfizer Covid pill? What I heard was him saying there would be a million “pills” this month and two million next month. Did he mean enough to administer the medication to a million people or was he being accurate in the number of pills? I ask because as I understand it, this is what is required per patient:
    “Three tablets (two tablets of nirmatrelvir and one tablet of ritonavir) taken together orally twice daily for five days.”

    So a million pills would be enough for 200 thousand people. We are currently averaging nearly 60 thousand new cases per day. I have long thought our way out of this is what Biden said last night. You go to the pharmacy to get tested and if you test positive you are immediately given the medication. But so far it seems we are pretty far from having enough for everyone.

      1. iamr4man

        Already done, including the booster. And I wear a N-95 mask and I’m pretty careful when going out. But if I get it anyway like my sister, her husband, my nephew, his wife and their two under 5 children did I’d still like to get the medication.

      2. Crissa

        Getting the vaccine doesn't mean people stop needing treatment for the disease. 4 million Americans have official immunodeficiency, 30 million heart disease, and 18 million reduced lung capacity... the vaccine alone doesn't save them.

        1. Joel

          Yes, but then the comparison isn't to how many new cases there are daily, its to how many new cases *among immunocompromised patients," which is a much smaller number.

          1. iamr4man

            And, I suppose, a rather large number of people who support the Republican clown caucus would reject the medication in favor of Ivermectin or bleach. But I’d still like to see it available to anyone who wants it as the vaccine currently is. I see no mention of anyone following up on this and I was hoping someone has. Apparently not. Instead they’d rather “fact check” stuff like the Times did regarding jobs.

  6. cld

    Another trope of news coverage is the opposition response afterward.

    I don't think tv should air this stupid thing, which seems only to get worse every year.

    More importantly though it seems to enshrine division and antagonism and do it gratuitously. The State of the Union speech is a ceremonial function, required by the Constitution, the 'opposition' response afterward is spitting on it. It's just vulgarity.

    1. Salamander

      And a double ditto for the two or three "Democratic responses" that were apparently aired later. (I turned it off when Biden finished). Just feeds that perpetual old journalistic chestnut "DEMZ IN DISARRAY!!!"

      And Dems need to get their act together, too, and support their President, while he's still in office, if they want to get anything done, and gain working majorities in Congress and nationwide. Just sayin' ...

      1. Austin

        Nothing matters. Most of midterm election results is just which side turns out to vote more. Has absolutely nothing to do with which side had the winning argument or better slogan or best speech. The party holding the presidency just loses seats in the midterm unless apparently (1) a war is going on or (2) something catastrophic happens economically.

    2. MontyTheClipArtMongoose

      Exactly.

      It's not even a response, since, barring Russia hacking the SOTU text, the GQP would not know soon enough what to respond to.

      Politicos are not extemp masters.

    1. KawSunflower

      Hope the restaurant fails, but it probably won't. The photo of Boebert & Greene booing, standing there like reverse cheerleaders, was disgusting.

  7. KawSunflower

    Yes, the Ohio governor's "response" was bad enough, but since all such speeches are written in advance - even if the WH has released part of the president's speech in advance - they are not responses at all.

    But Rep. Spartz chose to condemn Biden for not acting earlier, despite his sharing intel with Zelensky & our NATO allies & not saying one word against trump's words & actions regarding Ukraine. If she did do so previously, I guess I missed her concern.

  8. Vog46

    # of births in America for those who are now Approximately 20 to 24 years old(entering the work force)
    1998 - 3.9M
    1999 - 3.9M
    2000 - 4.0M
    2001 - 4.0M

    So, in ONE YEAR a DEM president has created enough jobs to employ almost 2 FULL YEARS of births.
    And this does NOT take into consideration those who cannot work, those who retired etc

    It looks like for every single person entering the work force NOW there has been 1.5 jobs created - JUST in the last year alone. And with Boomers leaving the work force in such high numbers - it's no wonder why we have labor shortages.
    It would be different if the boomers were dying in large numbers because that would reduce demand but retirees are over whelming the economy's ability to provide the services those retirees EXPECT to get after retirement.
    And the boomers are probably the most self entitled generation I have seen. They DEMAND to have the ability to cruise, fly, get waited on in restaurants and they will be damned if they're gonna let "a little pandemic" interfere with that - never mind the labor shortages

    1. Salamander

      One might even think it would make sense to start letting a few immigrants in, to fill some of those jobs? Like the ones Americans won't do?

      1. Vog46

        Heck Salamander we could absorb the 1M Ukrainian refugees and still have labor shortages.
        I can't wait 'till Boebert and Greene propose THAT legislation to make it happen!!!

  9. Pingback: Links 3/5/22 | Mike the Mad Biologist

Comments are closed.