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.
Sux to be you, don't it?
No, I don't believe the Romney spin-machine because every time he opens his mouth he lies.
You've been a waste of my time for a couple of years now.
Do you REALLY think that differences in spin over jobs numbers would make me have an "AHA!"-moment and vote for a Republican for ANYTHING?!?!?!? You must be joking. You clowns can post your spin, lies and outrage-of-the-day garbage all day long, and the bottom line is that I still wouldn't vote for that flip-flopping job-killing sociopathic robotic moron.
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.
Did you really expect anything different from someone like that, he is not looking for facts cause he lives in the same world as obama. The world of make believe. You know the one where Obama makes believe he is responsible for the shut down of Iraq. (Yet anyone that has a clue, knows he is not, he actually tried to cut a deal to keep us there, yet the STATUS OF FORCES AGREEMENT, signed by then President Bush, had an end date of December 31, 2011) It was signed on Nov 17 2008. But since you seem not able to do your own research here is a link so you can read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-Iraq_ ... _Agreement
Lets see Gitmo is still there, though he promised to close it, instead he authorized military commissions to resume there. That was March of 2011
Oh yea, thankfully, he continued with the Bush era intelligence gathering with eventually led to the demise of OBL, thanks SEAL TEAM 6, as I do some research it was a combination of things that got it done, some bush era stuff and other. He was not even close to be the one that got him.
Lets talk how he likes to come out with these big jobs numbers and they (must be magic) always get adjusted.
We can do recent stuff so you are able to remember things. Like Obama's "Polish Death Camp remarks, or how the private sector is doing just fine. I don't care for Romney but I sure as hell don't care for Obama.
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.
Sux to be you, don't it?
No, I don't believe the Romney spin-machine because every time he opens his mouth he lies.
You've been a waste of my time for a couple of years now.
Do you REALLY think that differences in spin over jobs numbers would make me have an "AHA!"-moment and vote for a Republican for ANYTHING?!?!?!? You must be joking. You clowns can post your spin, lies and outrage-of-the-day garbage all day long, and the bottom line is that I still wouldn't vote for that flip-flopping job-killing sociopathic robotic moron.
I quoted from factcheck.org and the Boston Globe. And the mean liberal LJ continues on. No need to even discuss the points I made. Just call me names.
The fact is when a candidate has a terrible unemployment record like Obama has, political spin theory 101 says to divert from that and attact his opponent instead. And when his opponent has a much better record in reducing unemployment from about 5.6% to 4.7%, then you divert and spin even more. If unemployment is low, then the spin machine says to look at job creation instead, because job creation will generally be low if unemployment is low. And that is what the Obama campaign is doing now. And that is what you are doing. No real discussion from you.
I never said you should vote for Romney (not sure I will either). I'm just discussing your claim that Romney's job creation shrunk from 36th to 47th. I showed you how that figure came about (just a few days ago from the Obama campaign) using two pretty reliable sources. It's spin. And all you can do is ignore my points and throw out other unrelated crap, which I could debate as well. But you are just diverting and I'm not going to be diverted until you want to discuss the true facts about the unemployment rate under Romney which was the main topic of your posts in this thread. And to be fair, it should be compared to Obama's unemployment stats because that is really what this is all about (ignore Obama, attack Romney).
Not even a good try Outdoor... err... LJ.... err whaterver.
5.6% to 4.7% is not a great drop considering the times.....the nation was doing better than that. All the governors were doing well back then, those were boom and bubble times. Much harder to bring unemployment down from over 9% to 8.2 % in bad times. That's my opinion, anyway.
If we are going to spend the next 5 months comparing Romney claims and Obama claims, it should be very entertaining. What surprises me is that anyone would think the ads being run are anything BUT spin.......and sometimes even outright lies win elections. Look at the hatchet job on Kerry....nothing in the swiftboat ads was ever proven, but they did him in just the same. That became an inportant lesson to politicians......lie all you want.....throw out whatever you can......some of it WILL stick, and you never know which lie will topple a candidate.
archer wrote: 5.6% to 4.7% is not a great drop considering the times.....the nation was doing better than that. All the governors were doing well back then, those were boom and bubble times. Much harder to bring unemployment down from over 9% to 8.2 % in bad times. That's my opinion, anyway.
Economics degree here, it is very hard to bring unemployment down by almost a full percentage point when you are around 5%. But I do agree wth you, a lot of unemployment is not due to the polticians in power either statewide or national. Sometimes the lucky pol just comes into power at the right time. FDR had to suffer through a decade of a worldwide depression and Clinton got to ride the dot com bubble.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
archer wrote: 5.6% to 4.7% is not a great drop considering the times.....the nation was doing better than that. All the governors were doing well back then, those were boom and bubble times. Much harder to bring unemployment down from over 9% to 8.2 % in bad times. That's my opinion, anyway.
Economics degree here, it is very hard to bring unemployment down by almost a full percentage point when you are around 5%. But I do agree wth you, a lot of unemployment is not due to the polticians in power either statewide or national. Sometimes the lucky pol just comes into power at the right time. FDR had to suffer through a decade of a worldwide depression and Clinton got to ride the dot com bubble.
Pretty much agree too.
And Archer, look up the BLS link I gave. You can adjust the dates to the early 2000's when Romney was Gov. The nation did not do better than Romney did on average. It's really streaching it to say Romney did much worse as LJ claims (you said the nation was doing "better than that", but I don't see it in the numbers).
And yes, it is much easier to go down from very high unemployment compared to low unemployment. Especially in bad times as you mentioned. In bad times, how could you possibly improve on Romney's 4.7%? It will just go way up in bad times.
When you are over 8%, yes it can go down much easier than if at 4.7%, even with these times. There is a certain limit on just how far down unemployment can go down (have we ever been below 3.5%?). And at over 8%, that limit does not apply.
archer wrote: 5.6% to 4.7% is not a great drop considering the times.....the nation was doing better than that. All the governors were doing well back then, those were boom and bubble times. Much harder to bring unemployment down from over 9% to 8.2 % in bad times. That's my opinion, anyway.
Economics degree here, it is very hard to bring unemployment down by almost a full percentage point when you are around 5%. But I do agree wth you, a lot of unemployment is not due to the polticians in power either statewide or national. Sometimes the lucky pol just comes into power at the right time. FDR had to suffer through a decade of a worldwide depression and Clinton got to ride the dot com bubble.
Pretty much agree too.
And Archer, look up the BLS link I gave. You can adjust the dates to the early 2000's when Romney was Gov. The nation did not do better than Romney did on average. It's really streaching it to say Romney did much worse as LJ claims (you said the nation was doing "better than that", but I don't see it in the numbers).
And yes, it is much easier to go down from very high unemployment compared to low unemployment. Especially in bad times as you mentioned. In bad times, how could you possibly improve on Romney's 4.7%? It will just go way up in bad times.
When you are over 8%, yes it can go down much easier than if at 4.7%, even with these times. There is a certain limit on just how far down unemployment can go down (have we ever been below 3.5%?). And at over 8%, that limit does not apply.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
