Romney's Failed Governership

Boy, if Barry could only get unemployment in America down to under 5%. Romney, had it below 5%, your hero BHO, has it at 8.2%, who are you going to vote for? Maybe the man from Occidental can get unemployment down to 8% if we give him another record stimulus plan, right?

I'm going to vote for Obama. Do you really think all of your right-wing attacks, lies, distortions and throw-it-on-the-wall-and-see-if-it-sticks crap is going to make me vote for that flip-flopping job-killing sociopathic robotic moron?

Let the attacks continue... You're not changing any minds here.

The funny thing about your attacks on Romney is that it onlay makes him look better compared to BHO.

Obamacare vs Romneycare? Romneycare passed and is working. Obamacare is still waiting to be approved 2 years later.
Unemployment? 5% vs. 8.2%
Debt? Trillions, new all time global record for Obama. Romney, not nearly as much.
Analytical introverts? Both men are, but Mitt is getting better and Obama in bunkering up in the White House micromanaging a drone war deciding who lives and dies. And falling to pieces in the rare presidential press conferences.

In your opinion...

From 36th to 47th in jobs looks better? Raising fees by $500million (and saying that "he didn't raise taxes") looks better? Leaving the state more in debt that it was when he came in looks better?



Rave on...

Oh, and we THANK YOU for "RomneyCare"...Without it where would we be....

rofllol Comparing the Romney debt to Obama's? Priceless.

More Obama accomplishments, increase in poverty level among the poor. Increase in people dependent on food stamps. Middle class shrinks under BHO. What exactly has this guy done for the people who voted for him? Black unemployment at record levels. Barry is the unintended racist?

Yeah, you're right... comparing the raw numbers of a state to a nation is pretty stupid statement for a Rightie... Thanks for making my day.

The truth must still hurt: From 36th to 47th in jobs looks better? Raising fees by $500million (and saying that "he didn't raise taxes") looks better? Leaving the state more in debt that it was when he came in looks better?

You can thank the Bush economy for the increase in the number of people on food-stamps...(which the teabaggers are trying to cut. You can thank the transfer of wealth from the middle-class to the richest for the shrinkage...(which the teabaggers are trying to extend and increase...) What has this guy done?...He's tried to stifle the knuckle-draggers at every turn.

Yet another reason that he will likely win reelection. Jus' keep doin' what yer doin'...

The nation has already moved on from blaming W excepting you and Barack. Even the media.

Democracy4Sale wrote:

pineinthegrass wrote:

Democracy4Sale wrote: Fact: He took MASS from 36th in the nation in jobs down to 47th...

Where do you get that Mass was 36th? I don't see that in the articles you posted.

I suggest you Google "Romney Mass 36th to 47th" You'll find several pages... I got it from the same sources you get your stuff about Obama.

OK, I looked into this.

Factcheck.org looked into job growth by comparing job growth the year before Romney took office (50th place) to the final year he held office (improved to 28th place) using BLS figures.

The Romney campain does something similar, but they look at job growth his first year in office (51st place including Washington DC) and say it improved by 19 spots his final year.

Either way is a common way to look at performance; compare what was going on his first year to what the numbers were his final year.

It appears the source for your 36th place to 47th comes from the Obama campaign. The reason you see it a lot when you Google is that many publications simply took it at face value and copied it.

The Obama campaign uses BLS figures as well, but they look at it over a full term of office (and I still haven't seen it fully explained just how they figure it), which is not standard from anything I've seen before.

http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/06/03/president-obama-and-mitt-romney-campaigns-battle-over-mass-job-growth-numbers-bureau-labor-statistics-supports-both/0g61oknM3KB9h1E0VWDlbP/story.html

But as I earlier pointed out, the job growth numbers are pretty meaningless if you already have low unemployment, as Mass did. Low unemployment would generally mean low job growth because you don't have that many people out of work and hence will not create a lot of new jobs.

Let's look at couple of hypothetical examples:

Suppose Governor A had 9% unemployment when he took office and reduced it to 7% his final year. That's a nice 22% improvement. But his state still has a bad 7% unemployment rate.

Suppose Governor B had 5% unemployment when he took office and reduced it to 4.5%. That's just a 10% improvement and he'd rank well below Governor A in job growth, but which state would you rather live in if you are looking for a job? And who really performed better?

When Romney took office Mass unemployment was about 5.6%. When he left, it was about 4.7%. When Obama took office national unemployment was 8.3% (Feb '09) and last month it was 8.2%.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

This is why the Obama campain is giving out their own calculations to the press. Again, it is based on BLS data, but they are spinning it by calculating it differently in order to cover up the fact that Romney had a much lower unemployment rate (yes, times were better back when Romney was Governor) and the unemployment rate also reduced more under Romney than it has so far under Obama. And it should of been easier for Obama to reduce unemployment because his rate was so high to begin with.

Let's face it, if Obama had reduced unemployment to around 6% by now as he had predicted he would, that's what he'd be bragging now about as he should be. But it never happened, so now his campaign is in major spin mode to somehow make Romney look bad (not that he was bad), because it's tough to make Obama look good in regards to the unemployment rate.

Nah... Let's look at from the facts: The truth must still hurt: From 36th to 47th in jobs looks better? Raising fees by $500million (and saying that "he didn't raise taxes") looks better? Leaving the state more in debt that it was when he came in looks better? But y'all keep spinning his sorry record all you want.

And Romney's hit-squad is free to spin it however they like...

Democracy4Sale wrote: Nah... Let's look at from the facts: The truth must still hurt: From 36th to 47th in jobs looks better? Raising fees by $500million (and saying that "he didn't raise taxes") looks better? Leaving the state more in debt that it was when he came in looks better? But y'all keep spinning his sorry record all you want.

And Romney's hit-squad is free to spin it however they like...

OK, I understand you better now. You've made it much clearer. I've explained the job figures and you just ignore it rather than put real thought into it.

You are the Outdoor of the left (though meaner). You just post from your blogs and believe it. No further research from you. What a waste of my time even trying to communicate.

You want to talk about Obama improving the unemployment rate from 8.3% when he started to 8.2% now (and he predicted 6%)? Of course not.