I loved seeing this in the paper this morning. Both the "surprising" part, and the "true" part.

This is such a bullshit number... Why not run the job numbers from say FDR on and see who created more jobs... 61 is an obviously arbitrary date chosen because it fits his narrative. A less arbitrary date he threw around a lot was 1994... The year of the Republican Revolution (something he neglected to mention).

And, according to the fact checking of Ronald Bailey, it’s a claim that’s been made before and it’s NOT true:

“In 2008, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama crowed that ‘when Democrats have been in charge of the economy, the economy has grown faster, and it’s also been fairer in the sense that everybody benefits.’ The other team’s record, he said, was not as strong: “When the Republicans have been in charge, the economy has grown slower, and there’s been greater inequality.”

Obama’s claim was based on research by Princeton University political scientist Larry Bartels. But according to a recent study by State University of New York at Buffalo political scientist James Campbell, it’s not true. In fact, he says, Democratic and Republican administrations correlate with roughly equal economic outcomes once you adjust for the impact of prior administrations.

Writing in the April 2011 issue of the applied politics journal The Forum, Campbell says Bartels failed to take into account the fact that Democratic presidents generally have bequeathed economies that were in or near recession to their Republican successors. If anything, Campbell suggests, Democrats’ policies may have contributed to the poor economic conditions that led to their ouster.

‘Once the lagged effects of the economy in the six months leading into a year are taken into account,” Campbell concludes, “there are no significant differences in the records of Democratic and Republican presidents with respect to economic growth, unemployment, and income inequality.’”

-"Partisan Economy," published in the December 2011 issue of Reason

You can always create a job...that lasts a day and then goes away (Christmas).

Are they talking about full time private sector permanent positions paying middle class wages?

By the way -- I am a job creator...as are you all.

I shop. I spend. And I always tip 20%. That puts more money directly into the economy than taxes. And things like tips go directly into the hands of workers who will then spend and use the money well, directly back to the retail economy.

Supreme ruler of the universe, I actually agree with you there.

If course, to me this means that to boost the economy, we need to put money in the hands of people likely to use it, not invest it: poor, working class, low middle class. The most direct way to do this is for the government to fund projects which will employ these folks: infrastructure, construction, health care etc.

Of course, the need to pay for this sort of spending forces us to look at areas least benificial to the economy as revenue, in other words people primarily funding investments and earning wealth in great enough quantities it no longer acts as economic stimulus.

Shorter @4:

"That's not fair! He chose things to fit his narrative... he should have chosen things to fit MY narrative!"

" NYT surprised by facts." Thanks media... you are now irrelevant.