This is the graph:

The red lines represent when Bush was president; the blue is for Obama.

These are the monthly job gains/losses for each month since January 2008 to last month.

Romney and company would like to tell you that, if you take all the job gains under Obama (where it goes up) and add them to the job losses under Obama (where it goes down), you get what they call a "net job loss".

Heck, they may be right.  Except it's a disingenuous lie.

For example, who gets the butcher's bill for the job losses of February, March and April of 2010?  Yes, Obama was president, but simply occupying the White House doesn't mean the turnaround would happen right away.  Even Mitt Romney recently said it's only fair to give a new president "at least six months or a year" to get put together an economic plan, assemble a team, and put his or her "policies in place."

With that in mind, if we acknowledge President Obama took office in the midst of catastrophic conditions that weren't his fault, and we don't include his first year against him, 3.88 million jobs — and 4.44 million private-sector jobs — have been created in less than three years.

That's not using Obama's standard; that's using Romney's standard.