Does Romney have a good jobs record?

Onceler said:
Honestly, you sound like a frantic lunatic. You said I'm "constantly" saying how jobs are a lagging indicator w/ Obama. I made that argument in '09 & '10, but I'm fairly sure I haven't made it since. I doubt I've even brought it up in the past year (this site has an excellent search mechanism, so you can look that up if you'd like). In Yurtworld, that means I'm "bringing it up constantly." I mean, do you understand just how crazy something like that is?

Fact is, I don't give Obama a pass on jobs. I still think the stimulus was the right thing to do, but it wasn't enough. Employment is hurting right now.

Nor have I "blamed Romney" for everything "I can find." You're crazed - really. I have no idea where you get this shite, but it's an embarassment.
Click to expand...

you really have no idea what you say. here is a post from just last year where you are once again constantly defending obama with lagging jobs defense:

Onceler said:
I have also said that the stimulus didn't produce the jobs anticipated. That doesn't mean it didn't produce any jobs, as you repeatedly state, or disappear down a black hole, as you repeatedly state. As for "stemming the bleeding," here's a quick primer on the economy: jobs are a lagging indicator. It stemmed the bleeding in the market. In case you didn't notice, it's when the market crashed that businesses panicked & started laying off in droves. Once the market started to turn around, businesses started to slowly follow suit later on, though there is still a strong crisis in confidence.

You don't agree w/ the bailouts, which is the reason for your narrative on GM. The fact is, they worked - GM not only survived, but is doing well. I don't need to add anything to that argument. Sorry you were wrong about how effective the bailouts would be.
Click to expand...

that is just one.

now, back to the topic.

you claimed MA ranked 47th the entire time romney was in office. i've asked you multiple times to back that up and you won't. i cited a link that showed MA actually started out in last place as romney took office, then went from 47 to 32nd place. why is you can't discuss this factor anymore? you made such a huge issue out of it yesterday, but now that your claim has been debunked, all you can talk about is how "crazy" i am. in reality, what we see is that romney turned MA around. that is why 47th place matters, it proves romney handled MA economy well.

hilarious. you always meltdown when you're proven wrong.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
You act like we didn't have a bubble economy when Rmoney was governor of Massachusetts. We did. We just didn't have the jobs.

Also, too, unemployment was below 4.7% for about half of the 1980s and half of the 1990s. Pretending that unemployment lower than 4.7% isn't "normal" when it happened for about 10 years of a 20 year period is stupid.
Click to expand...
Pretending jobs are a problem at under 5 percent unemployment is retarded. Junior
 
Yurt said:
you really have no idea what you say. here is a post from just last year where you are once again constantly defending obama with lagging jobs defense:



that is just one.

now, back to the topic.

you claimed MA ranked 47th the entire time romney was in office. i've asked you multiple times to back that up and you won't. i cited a link that showed MA actually started out in last place as romney took office, then went from 47 to 32nd place. why is you can't discuss this factor anymore? you made such a huge issue out of it yesterday, but now that your claim has been debunked, all you can talk about is how "crazy" i am. in reality, what we see is that romney turned MA around. that is why 47th place matters, it proves romney handled MA economy well.

hilarious. you always meltdown when you're proven wrong.
Click to expand...


You're an interesting case, Yurt. First, I don't think Oncelor said that Massachusetts ranked 47th the entire time Mitt was governor. Second, the link that you posted says that the "ranked 47th" stat is true.

You're both right. It's just that you are an asshole.
 
Yurt said:
you really have no idea what you say. here is a post from just last year where you are once again constantly defending obama with lagging jobs defense:



that is just one.

now, back to the topic.

you claimed MA ranked 47th the entire time romney was in office. i've asked you multiple times to back that up and you won't. i cited a link that showed MA actually started out in last place as romney took office, then went from 47 to 32nd place. why is you can't discuss this factor anymore? you made such a huge issue out of it yesterday, but now that your claim has been debunked, all you can talk about is how "crazy" i am. in reality, what we see is that romney turned MA around. that is why 47th place matters, it proves romney handled MA economy well.

hilarious. you always meltdown when you're proven wrong.
Click to expand...

LOL - that is hilarious, Yurtsie. First, I think that post is from 2009 - you can correct me if I'm wrong there. Second, even if it is from "sometime last year," it embarasses the claim that I'm "constantly" defending Obama with it. Third, in the post you bumped, I even stated that the stimulus did NOT produce the jobs promised, which completely undermines your claim that all I do is defend Obama on jobs.

Wow - care to compound your embarassment any further, Yurts? Lovin' the frantic mode, btw.
 
The Dude said:
Pretending jobs are a problem at under 5 percent unemployment is retarded. Junior
Click to expand...


I don't recall ever pretending that it was a problem. The issue, hot shot, is your claim that unemployment couldn't go much lower. That's just not true. It certainly could based on past experience.
 
Derp Derp said:
They were. They were dead last in the nation when Romney took office. By the midterm of his tenure they had rose to 47th. When he left office they were 30th. Those are decent numbers to be sure but not even remotely in the class of Clinton, LBJ, Ike or Truman. All of whom are commie liberals by todays Republican standards.

Look, I'm a Keynesian. Despite it's flaws it's an equitable and stable economic system that works. You'd have to have complete shit for brains to vote for a supply sider. I know I'll never vote for another one.
Click to expand...

Keynesian economics works if applied correctly. Same thing can be said for supply side. The problem is that neither are implemented properly by the idiots in DC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top