Does Romney have a good jobs record?

why is it a fair question, but not fair to assess obama on jobs? you keep claiming that it is not obama's fault because jobs are a lagging indicator. yet, here, you will not apply the same standard to romney. why is that?

from what i've read, his record on jobs was just average or good, depending on the source...however, one huge contributing factor was the dot com burst. why is you keep ignoring that right after he left, they rose to 11th in the nation. are you saying romney is not responsible for that?

The ranking is a fair question - why was his state near last place? Obviously, the national economy was rebounding. We praise governors who are ahead of the curve...shouldn't a Governor who is behind the curve at least be questioned as to why that is?

With Obama, what is the curve? Are you comparing him to the world economy?
 
The ranking is a fair question - why was his state near last place? Obviously, the national economy was rebounding. We praise governors who are ahead of the curve...shouldn't a Governor who is behind the curve at least be questioned as to why that is?

With Obama, what is the curve? Are you comparing him to the world economy?

if you're not going to answer questions, then don't bother asking your own. you constantly do this in your weak attempts at debate. you ignore what is actually being discussed.

i'll wait for you get your head straight.
 
if you're not going to answer questions, then don't bother asking your own. you constantly do this in your weak attempts at debate. you ignore what is actually being discussed.

i'll wait for you get your head straight.

I answered the questions. It's weird you don't think it's fair to ask why a guy running for President had one of the worst records in the union for creating jobs - you think that should be off limits. I don't get that.
 
I answered the questions. It's weird you don't think it's fair to ask why a guy running for President had one of the worst records in the union for creating jobs - you think that should be off limits. I don't get that.
If the unemployment rate was 5.6 when he got in its obvious economics is not high on you list. Weak ass gotcha's are what you are about. Tard
 
I answered the questions. It's weird you don't think it's fair to ask why a guy running for President had one of the worst records in the union for creating jobs - you think that should be off limits. I don't get that.

really? show me exactly where you answered these questions:

you keep claiming that it is not obama's fault because jobs are a lagging indicator. yet, here, you will not apply the same standard to romney. why is that?

from what i've read, his record on jobs was just average or good, depending on the source...however, one huge contributing factor was the dot com burst. why is you keep ignoring that right after he left, they rose to 11th in the nation. are you saying romney is not responsible for that?

and i never said it was off limits liar. hence the thread retard.
 
If the unemployment rate was 5.6 when he got in its obvious economics is not high on you list. Weak ass gotcha's are what you are about. Tard

So, you agree w/ Yurt that the fact MA was ranked 47th under Romney should be off limits? It shouldn't raise any questions, or even be addressed?
 
So, you agree w/ Yurt that the fact MA was ranked 47th under Romney should be off limits? It shouldn't raise any questions, or even be addressed?

dude...you are such a dumb liar. where did i say it should be off limits? i created this thread to talk about it you fucking idiot.
 
why is it a fair question, but not fair to assess obama on jobs? you keep claiming that it is not obama's fault because jobs are a lagging indicator. yet, here, you will not apply the same standard to romney. why is that?

from what i've read, his record on jobs was just average or good, depending on the source...however, one huge contributing factor was the dot com burst. why is you keep ignoring that right after he left, they rose to 11th in the nation. are you saying romney is not responsible for that?

I answered the 1st question by asking you what curve Obama has that is similar to Romney's. With Romney, we're comparing him to the other states in the union. Would you have us compare Obama to the rest of the world?

As for the 2nd, I'm not saying that Romney is responsible, or that he isn't responsible. I'm saying it's fair to scrutinize the record, and to ask those questions.

You don't think it's fair to ask those questions. You think that topic is off limits for Mitt.
 
I answered the 1st question by asking you what curve Obama has that is similar to Romney's. With Romney, we're comparing him to the other states in the union. Would you have us compare Obama to the rest of the world?

As for the 2nd, I'm not saying that Romney is responsible, or that he isn't responsible. I'm saying it's fair to scrutinize the record, and to ask those questions.

You don't think it's fair to ask those questions. You think that topic is off limits for Mitt.

once again the lies. i never said it wasn't fair and i never said it was off limits. i started this thread to specifically talk about it you fucking retard.

comparing to other states is fine for stats, but each state is unique. if you want to compare obama to the rest of the world, have it. the fact is, you want to harp on the state of jobs in mass. when romney took office and the next few years, but....you give obama a huge pass on jobs because they are a lagging indicator. the fact is, by the time he left, the state had completely turned around.

why is it you are not willing to apply the lagging indicator standard to romney?
 
once again the lies. i never said it wasn't fair and i never said it was off limits. i started this thread to specifically talk about it you fucking retard.

comparing to other states is fine for stats, but each state is unique. if you want to compare obama to the rest of the world, have it. the fact is, you want to harp on the state of jobs in mass. when romney took office and the next few years, but....you give obama a huge pass on jobs because they are a lagging indicator. the fact is, by the time he left, the state had completely turned around.

why is it you are not willing to apply the lagging indicator standard to romney?

You ridiculed my attempt to suggest that the 47th ranking was a fair question. Really, you started the thread to defend Romney; not to have a discussion about it.

I do believe jobs are a lagging indicator, but when the national economy is doing well, it's definitely fair to ask why some states lag, and why some states excel. In fact, we could learn a lot as a nation by studying the reasons for each. There are different circumstances in each state, but historically, when the national economy is good, the states follow that lead.

I actually have no idea why MA was 47th, but I'm curious about it. Like I said, we definitely praise governors who are ahead of the curve. Why was MA so far behind? What was the reason they were 47th? These are fair questions, especially since one of the cornerstones of Romney's campaign is his record as a jobs creator.
 
And I'll post the same thing that I posted the last two times this issue came up:

Yes, that's a nonsense question.

By the way, here's a chart of unemployment and government employment (based on percentage change) in Massachusetts during Romeny's tenure:

fredgraph.png



While it's hard to envision a state going lower than 4.5%, Massachusetts got there in large part thanks to the government, not Mitt Ronmey's wonderful record as a private sector job creator.


The only caveat that I would add is that it isn't hard to envision Massachusetts going lower than 4.5% since it has been much lower than that as the peak of the past few business cycles before the last one.
 
Back
Top