So...how will Romney "save" our country?

[Dawgs]

Tell that to the current Ruler.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

If you ask the Repugs this will happen if romney wins:
!) Gas will be $2 a gallon
2) United States will be drilling it's own oil and large capacity that we won't even need Oil from the middle eastern.
3) Everyone will have great high paying jobs due extension of Bush tax cuts and trickle down economics
4) The great business man that Romney is - he will have UE rate at an all time low because he knows how to create jobs- even though when he was Governor his state was near the bottom in job creation but if he is over 50 states somehow he will bring UE to historic lows.

It really tickles me that people like WW. Joe Bloe and IIFFOFRDB really think their lives are going to be drastically changed LMFAo

This is Demagoguery. I don't know if you're just regurgitating Democrat propaganda, or deliberately lying; either way, you're not telling the truth.

As Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney had the best jobs record in a decade. Under Governor Romney, Massachusetts added tens of thousands of net new jobs, the best jobs record of any Massachusetts Governor in the last decade. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, accessed 5/31/12

Governor Romney reduced unemployment to just 4.7%. Massachusetts unemployment rate fell from 5.6% to 4.7% during the Romney administration. (Bureau of Labor Statistics,?www.bls.gov, 5/30/12

Massachusetts state ranking for job growth went from 50th the year before he took office, to 28th in his final year. It was 47th for the whole of his four-year tenure, but it was improving, not declining, when he left.

http://www.redstate.com/california_y...ading-attacks/

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Dawgs

Tell that to the current Ruler.

He has already learnt!

You think he would have put up this current fuc'd up Healthcare Law in its present form.

To many Chef's in the kitchen on that one.

Look , Repuke's made a political decision not to work with him at any cost. That hurts the country in the long run. But they do not care about the country, they care about power. The same can be said of the Dem's, though I think they in general are more willing to work with the other side for the good of the country. It is in a Liberal's nature, not so with Conservatives. They like to think about number one. That is just how each brain is wired. Nothing good or bad about it, it just is. .

[Dawgs]

Wasn't he the one that came in and said we don't care we're in charge now?

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

This is Demagoguery. I don't know if you're just regurgitating Democrat propaganda, or deliberately lying; either way, you're not telling the truth.

As Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney had the best jobs record in a decade. Under Governor Romney, Massachusetts added tens of thousands of net new jobs, the best jobs record of any Massachusetts Governor in the last decade. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, accessed 5/31/12

Governor Romney reduced unemployment to just 4.7%. Massachusetts unemployment rate fell from 5.6% to 4.7% during the Romney administration. (Bureau of Labor Statistics,?www.bls.gov, 5/30/12

Massachusetts state ranking for job growth went from 50th the year before he took office, to 28th in his final year. It was 47th for the whole of his four-year tenure, but it was improving, not declining, when he left.

http://www.redstate.com/california_y...ading-attacks/

Here is a site I quoted and a very neutral site.:


Jobs Created as Governor

Romney added a new wrinkle to his jobs claim in that Jan. 3 comment, comparing job creation in Massachusetts when he was governor from 2003 to 2007 to that of the whole nation under Obama:

Romney, Jan. 3: And I’m very happy in my former life; we helped create over 100,000 new jobs. By the way, we created more jobs in Massachusetts than this president’s created in the entire country. So if the President wants to talk about jobs, and I hope he does, we’ll be comparing my record with his record and he comes up very, very short.

According to employment data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, employment under Romney’s governorship went from 3,224,600 to 3,270,400. That’s an additional 45,800 jobs. And under Obama, despite recent gains, the nation as a whole still has 1.7 million fewer jobs than it did the month he took office.

But that’s a misleading comparison. It gives Romney credit for a full four years in office compared with less than three full years for Obama. And as we have noted before, most economists say market forces outside the control of governors and presidents largely drive employment gains or losses. So while policies of governors or presidents can certainly affect employment, their record of employment will be strongly influenced by the prevailing economy at the time.

Obama took office at a time when the country was hemorrhaging jobs very quickly. Economists say the business recession continued for several more months, ending in June 2009. Since then, the country has added 1.4 million jobs.

And, as usual after recent recessions, businesses (and state and local governments) continued to shed jobs long after the recession ended and business began to turn up. The job slump continued for Obama’s first full year in office and finally hit bottom in February 2010. Since that bottom, the nation has added nearly 2.7 million jobs.

Unlike Obama, Romney took office during an economic uptick. Massachusetts had a net job growth of 1.4 percent under Romney. However, that was far slower growth than the national average of 5.3 percent. As Romney’s opponents have frequently, and correctly, noted, Massachusetts ranked 47th in job growth over the entirety of Romney’s term. The only states that did worse: Louisiana, Michigan and Ohio.


So now you tell me where the TRUTH lies??? When Romney was in office there was no major recession and basically 46 Governors had better Job growth records in their respective states than Romney.

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

This is Demagoguery. I don't know if you're just regurgitating Democrat propaganda, or deliberately lying; either way, you're not telling the truth.

As Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney had the best jobs record in a decade. Under Governor Romney, Massachusetts added tens of thousands of net new jobs, the best jobs record of any Massachusetts Governor in the last decade. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, accessed 5/31/12

Governor Romney reduced unemployment to just 4.7%. Massachusetts unemployment rate fell from 5.6% to 4.7% during the Romney administration. (Bureau of Labor Statistics,?www.bls.gov, 5/30/12

Massachusetts state ranking for job growth went from 50th the year before he took office, to 28th in his final year. It was 47th for the whole of his four-year tenure, but it was improving, not declining, when he left.

http://www.redstate.com/california_y...ading-attacks/

Here is a site I quoted and a very neutral site.:


Jobs Created as Governor

Romney added a new wrinkle to his jobs claim in that Jan. 3 comment, comparing job creation in Massachusetts when he was governor from 2003 to 2007 to that of the whole nation under Obama:

Romney, Jan. 3: And I’m very happy in my former life; we helped create over 100,000 new jobs. By the way, we created more jobs in Massachusetts than this president’s created in the entire country. So if the President wants to talk about jobs, and I hope he does, we’ll be comparing my record with his record and he comes up very, very short.

According to employment data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, employment under Romney’s governorship went from 3,224,600 to 3,270,400. That’s an additional 45,800 jobs. And under Obama, despite recent gains, the nation as a whole still has 1.7 million fewer jobs than it did the month he took office.

But that’s a misleading comparison. It gives Romney credit for a full four years in office compared with less than three full years for Obama. And as we have noted before, most economists say market forces outside the control of governors and presidents largely drive employment gains or losses. So while policies of governors or presidents can certainly affect employment, their record of employment will be strongly influenced by the prevailing economy at the time.

Obama took office at a time when the country was hemorrhaging jobs very quickly. Economists say the business recession continued for several more months, ending in June 2009. Since then, the country has added 1.4 million jobs.

And, as usual after recent recessions, businesses (and state and local governments) continued to shed jobs long after the recession ended and business began to turn up. The job slump continued for Obama’s first full year in office and finally hit bottom in February 2010. Since that bottom, the nation has added nearly 2.7 million jobs.

Unlike Obama, Romney took office during an economic uptick. Massachusetts had a net job growth of 1.4 percent under Romney. However, that was far slower growth than the national average of 5.3 percent. As Romney’s opponents have frequently, and correctly, noted, Massachusetts ranked 47th in job growth over the entirety of Romney’s term. The only states that did worse: Louisiana, Michigan and Ohio.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/01/rom...ky-job-claims/





So now you tell me where the TRUTH lies??? When Romney was in office there was no major recession and basically 46 Governors had better Job growth records in their respective states than Romney.

[Submodo]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

I think he will provide leadership rather than incpmpetence.
The fact is, most anything he does will be better than what Obama has done.
If nothing else, he understands that jobs come from business and not the government.
The idea that profit is a good thing and not something evil, understanding that profit is what drives the economic engine.

Jobs don't come from government, hunh?

Ever hear of Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon or General Electric?

[CuteOldGuy]

"A business is run like a dictatorship. A government is not." Apparently, WDF knows nothing about either.

Tell Obama to quit trying to run the country like a dictatorship.

And then study business. The best business models give employees a much greater voice in management than do lesser models.

Gawd, you're an idiot.

[TexTushHog]

What he claims he's going to do is bad enough. God only knows what he'll really do. Claims he's going to give HUGE tax cuts to the very rich and cut services for the poor. Of course, there aren't enough services for the poor to make up for the tax cuts that he's going to make. He claims that the budget will balance itself because of increased business activity -- the same dynamic scoring bullshit that Reagan and Bush II peddled to the public when they cut taxes. And we all know how that came out -- they both ran up theretofore unprecedented deficits and Bush completely wrecked the economy. But I'll keep cashing my checks while all you middle class guys who voted for these fucking assholes get fucked. Damnest thing I've ever seen.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

What he claims he's going to do is bad enough. God only knows what he'll really do. Claims he's going to give HUGE tax cuts to the very rich and cut services for the poor. Of course, there aren't enough services for the poor to make up for the tax cuts that he's going to make. He claims that the budget will balance itself because of increased business activity -- the same dynamic scoring bullshit that Reagan and Bush II peddled to the public when they cut taxes. And we all know how that came out -- they both ran up theretofore unprecedented deficits and Bush completely wrecked the economy. But I'll keep cashing my checks while all you middle class guys who voted for these fucking assholes get fucked. Damnest thing I've ever seen.

And just who was it that signed NAFTA and the Financial Services Modernization Act repealing the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933?

[TexTushHog]

Nothing wrong with NAFTA.

Repealing Glass-Stegall was a mistake in my judgement. I heard President Clinton speak at a fundraiser earlier this year where he defended the repeal and faulted Bush for cutting back on post repeal regulation, which is true enough, so far as it goes. But if you ave to rely on good regulation, then it's just better to outlaw it as good regulation is never guaranteed.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

What he claims he's going to do is bad enough. God only knows what he'll really do. Claims he's going to give HUGE tax cuts to the very rich and cut services for the poor. Of course, there aren't enough services for the poor to make up for the tax cuts that he's going to make. He claims that the budget will balance itself because of increased business activity -- the same dynamic scoring bullshit that Reagan and Bush II peddled to the public when they cut taxes. And we all know how that came out -- they both ran up theretofore unprecedented deficits and Bush completely wrecked the economy. But I'll keep cashing my checks while all you middle class guys who voted for these fucking assholes get fucked. Damnest thing I've ever seen.

It's crazy. The repukes, who devote themselves exclusively to protecting the interests of the wealthy and the corporations who provide the money that gets them elected, have managed to fool a significant percentage of the middle-class into thinking otherwise. They demagogue national security, utilize abortion, welfare and all the other culture war topics to distract voters from the real issues. And, it works. By virtue of sheer repetition, they do a pretty good job of trying to control the debate. A glance at these boards tells you that....the zombies here all use the same phrases....incompetence, Biden is dumb, etc etc....talking points that the repukes feed the conservative entertainment industry (also making millions) who pass it on via Limbaugh, Hannity and the rest of the douche-nozzle liars who pervade right-wing talk radio. And the lemmings buy it and repeat it like brain-washed lemmings.

So, here we are....We had 8 years of bumbling GOP leadership, destroying the economy, leading us into unnecessary wars undermining the Constitution and America's reputation around the world... and now the same group that brought us 2000 to 2008 wants us to trust them that they know how to fix the country. (Interesting that George W. Bush's name came up not once at the RNC convention. Wonder why that was? They didn't want to remind us how the last GOP adminstration went?)

And, what's the fix? Cutting taxes on the rich, getting rid of Medicare and social security, busting the unions, cutting education, cutting social services, cutting protection for the environment, and generally fucking over the poor, the sick, the elderly and the minorities. Just like always, Republican policies that are designed to benefit nobody but the wealthy and the corporations that Mitt Romney thinks are "people too!"

It absolutely defies belief.

[Whirlaway]

Originally Posted by timpage

It's crazy. The repukes, who devote themselves exclusively to protecting the interests of the wealthy and the corporations who provide the money that gets them elected, have managed to fool a significant percentage of the middle-class into thinking otherwise.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Juvenile political analysis

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Here is a site I quoted and a very neutral site.:


Jobs Created as Governor

Romney added a new wrinkle to his jobs claim in that Jan. 3 comment, comparing job creation in Massachusetts when he was governor from 2003 to 2007 to that of the whole nation under Obama:

Romney, Jan. 3: And I’m very happy in my former life; we helped create over 100,000 new jobs. By the way, we created more jobs in Massachusetts than this president’s created in the entire country. So if the President wants to talk about jobs, and I hope he does, we’ll be comparing my record with his record and he comes up very, very short.

According to employment data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, employment under Romney’s governorship went from 3,224,600 to 3,270,400. That’s an additional 45,800 jobs. And under Obama, despite recent gains, the nation as a whole still has 1.7 million fewer jobs than it did the month he took office.

But that’s a misleading comparison. It gives Romney credit for a full four years in office compared with less than three full years for Obama. And as we have noted before, most economists say market forces outside the control of governors and presidents largely drive employment gains or losses. So while policies of governors or presidents can certainly affect employment, their record of employment will be strongly influenced by the prevailing economy at the time.

Obama took office at a time when the country was hemorrhaging jobs very quickly. Economists say the business recession continued for several more months, ending in June 2009. Since then, the country has added 1.4 million jobs.

And, as usual after recent recessions, businesses (and state and local governments) continued to shed jobs long after the recession ended and business began to turn up. The job slump continued for Obama’s first full year in office and finally hit bottom in February 2010. Since that bottom, the nation has added nearly 2.7 million jobs.

Unlike Obama, Romney took office during an economic uptick. Massachusetts had a net job growth of 1.4 percent under Romney. However, that was far slower growth than the national average of 5.3 percent. As Romney’s opponents have frequently, and correctly, noted, Massachusetts ranked 47th in job growth over the entirety of Romney’s term. The only states that did worse: Louisiana, Michigan and Ohio.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/01/rom...ky-job-claims/





So now you tell me where the TRUTH lies??? When Romney was in office there was no major recession and basically 46 Governors had better Job growth records in their respective states than Romney.

Statistics can be very confusing and demagogues love using them to fool people. Like Mark Twain said: there's lies, there's damn lies and then there's statistics. When you measure someone by how much they improve, the starting point is critical.

Let's take a hypothetical. One baseball player has a great season and bats 400. His team mate has a terrible season and bats 200. The next year, the guy who hit 400 hits 405 and the other player hits 220. If you compare the two players based on who improved the most, the 220 player wins the contest.

That's what you're doing with Romney. It's much easier to go from ten percent unemployment to nine percent unemployment than going from five percent to four percent. As you approach what economists call full employment, five percent, improvements become extremely difficult.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by Submodo

Jobs don't come from government, hunh?

Ever hear of Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon or General Electric?

Let's all work the government! We can have half the country dig holes and have the other half fill them in. Full employment! We'll make the minimum wage a hundred dollars an hour and you get to retire at thirty five with a fat pension. We'll be like Europe on steroids.