Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 61 to 71 of 71

Thread: More great economic news!

  1. #61
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;4486549]At a time of nearly record job growth in the country, the state he was governor of was at the bottom (47th of 50). That coming from a man who claims he knows how to create jobs is a bit scary dont you think?[/QUOTE]

    It would be scary if not for the fact that when Romney became Governor the unemployment rate in Mass was 5.6% and when he left office it was 4.7%. If 4.7% unemployment or "full employment" as most economists would refer to it scares you how do you feel about 8.2% national unemployment.

    Seriously though what REALLY scares you about Romney because I doubt it is Mass's 4.7% unemployment rate?

  2. #62
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;4486549]At a time of nearly record job growth in the country, the state he was governor of was at the bottom (47th of 50). That coming from a man who claims he knows how to create jobs is a bit scary dont you think?[/QUOTE]

    So your claim then, is that the President is the leading and primary factor in private sector job growth in our economy?

    I would disagree with that claim myself, but with that said, how do you reconcile the exceptionally poor job growth under Obama the past four years with your fear that Romney will, as Chief Jobs Officer, be unable to create jobs?

    Personally, no, I don't find it scary. I do not see the President as even a tertiary force in private sector job creation. Congress has vastly more power in that regard than the President does. And generally, it is my view that Government can only hurt job creation in the private sector via taxation and regulation, and only the removal of such things (or more specificly, the reduction of some, correction of others, and perhaps additions of yet others) can assist in job creation.

    So, outside Presidential Job creation, what do you fear Romney will actually do/not do? I have to assume there is more.

  3. #63
    [QUOTE=shakin318;4486530]That wooosh sound was his point sailing over your head. He's suggesting (rightfully so) that a WWII vet who died in 1975 probably voted for Obama in 2008. And will probably vote for him, twice, in 2012.[/QUOTE]

    Ah, you're right. Did not see it that way. Daly's influence in Chi and ill. Now the charming and very honest Rahm Emanuel.
    Other areas are subject to the "dead" vote. Hence the objection by Holder to voter ID.

  4. #64
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4486524]I just got off the phone with Mitt Romney's campaign manager Matt Rhoades and after letting him know that I'm tapped out as far as donations go he said that I should let you know that I don't get my talking points from him. He also told me to tell you that I just want a better America where I have the same opportunities for success that my parents and grandparents had. He also said that I should point out that some of us are sick of losing money in stocks and real estate and small business that open and quickly fail. He said I should tell you that the real and fundamental unfairness in our country is not what the rich people pay in taxes......[/quote]

    :rofl: Good sport Chiefs, as usual. :D

    [QUOTE]I don't agree with everything Romney has said in his campaign. But I do like his resume. As a small business guy I believe that a person that spent a career building businesses large and small has a better perspective on the challenges our economy faces then a community organizer that spent his career rabble rousing and organizing protests.[/QUOTE]

    I do not disagree with the very strict limit fo topic expressed in this quote.

    My issue is with claims of "what he will do" that are, in the best case, pure fantasy in anything other than a filibuster proof majority in both houses on Congress. For example, repealing Obamacare. Cutting Govt. Or lowering taxes.

  5. #65
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4486565]It would be scary if not for the fact that when Romney became Governor the unemployment rate in Mass was 5.6% and when he left office it was 4.7%. If 4.7% unemployment or "full employment" as most economists would refer to it scares you how do you feel about 8.2% national unemployment.

    Seriously though what REALLY scares you about Romney because I doubt it is Mass's 4.7% unemployment rate?[/QUOTE]

    When compared to the rest of the country, job growth in MA during these years was amongst the worse. Non-farm work growth was 1.3% vs the national average of 5.3%. On every economic indicator Mass underperformed badly compared to the rest of the country. I suggest you read Professor Andrew Sun's commentary on this. Hes written extensively on Mass' underachieving while Mitt was in power. He was terrible. I guess thats why by the end of his term his approval rating was about 30% and Mass had the 3rd highest rate of population loss during his term

    8.2% unemployment is bad. I agree.
    Hows the rest of the world doing right now? Yes, context, everything has to be looked in terms of context.

  6. #66
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4486589]:rofl: Good sport Chiefs, as usual. :D



    I do not disagree with the very strict limit fo topic expressed in this quote.

    My issue is with claims of "what he will do" that are, in the best case, pure fantasy in anything other than a filibuster proof majority in both houses on Congress. For example, repealing Obamacare. Cutting Govt. Or lowering taxes.[/QUOTE]

    After 12 years of broken promises and ineptitude in government I don't blame you for being skeptical. I have found however that in the first two years of a new presidency the winner generally gets the opportunity to enact their agenda. I am not for new tax cuts so the whole idea of lowering taxes seems a bit overreach to me. I can see some sort of revenue neutral reforms which reduce rates and eliminate loopholes and deductions but thats as far as I see it going. Corporate tax reform appears to me to be something both parties could be on board for.

    With Obamacare there is no way the Senate Dems could resist the will of the people after a general election. If Romney wins they will be forced to concede Obamacare. I'm more skeptical about what they might do in its place. Have to have faith that they will attack the real issue of the high cost this time around.

  7. #67
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4486583]So your claim then, is that the President is the leading and primary factor in private sector job growth in our economy?

    [QUOTE][B]Nope not at all. Thats your claim[/B][/QUOTE]

    I would disagree with that claim myself, but with that said, how do you reconcile the exceptionally poor job growth under Obama the past four years with your fear that Romney will, as Chief Jobs Officer, be unable to create jobs?
    [QUOTE][B]
    Look at whats going on economically in the rest of the world today vs whats happening in the USA. Look at what was happening in the rest of the nation when Mitt was governor vs what was happening in Mass. Its all about context [/B][/QUOTE]

    Personally, no, I don't find it scary. I do not see the President as even a tertiary force in private sector job creation. Congress has vastly more power in that regard than the President does. And generally, it is my view that Government can only hurt job creation in the private sector via taxation and regulation, and only the removal of such things (or more specificly, the reduction of some, correction of others, and perhaps additions of yet others) can assist in job creation.

    So why do you find a second Obama term so scary? I mean why do you really find him so scary?

    How does taxation hurt the private sector job creation? I mean everytime we have massive tax cuts we dont have significant job growth (see Bush I and II)? Govt regulation of the private sector has not shown to slow job growth either. These are nice slogans but in reality are not true.
    So, outside Presidential Job creation, what do you fear Romney will actually do/not do? I have to assume there is more.
    [QUOTE][B]
    I also fear his foreign policy after listening to what he has to say about Iran, the Mid East and Europe[/B][/QUOTE]
    [/QUOTE]
    .

  8. #68
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;4486633]Nope not at all. Thats your claim[/QUOTE]

    Then I'm confused, as you appear to be contradicting yourself. You've just said your fear was that Romney did not create jobs in Mass and would not create jobs as President.

    When asked, you've now said that you've never claimed that creating jobs was a job for the President.

    So if the President is not the primary driving force responsible for creating jobs, why do you fear a President not being able to create jobs?

    And beyond that, why are you not already exceptionally fearful with Obama on the same issue, given the documented track record of job creation/loss the past 4 years?

    [QUOTE]Look at whats going on economically in the rest of the world today vs whats happening in the USA. Look at what was happening in the rest of the nation when Mitt was governor vs what was happening in Mass. Its all about context[/QUOTE]

    And you've not really provided any as yet.

    What you have done is used a very standard logical fallasy, the fallacy of false cause and concurrent events. Romney was Gov. Jobs did not grow. Therefore it's Romney's fault jobs did not grow? You'd be kicked off your High School debate team if you tried to make that case without further evidence.

    You're a very smart man Ken. You know you need more than concurrence.

    [QUOTE]I also fear his foreign policy after listening to what he has to say about Iran, the Mid East and Europe[/QUOTE]

    Perhaps I missed it. How does it differ from Obama's War for Euro Oil and Masacre-Stopping in Libya (ignorig the actual massacre in Syria), his ending of Iraq only on the Bush timeline after he (Obama) failed to reach a diplomatic agreement to extend it, his double and triple down in Afghanistan, the worsenign situation in Afghanistan, under whom the majority of US troops have been lost, his undeclared Wars and breaches of sovreignty of a half dozen nations with drones, E-War vs. Iran and others, and/or special forces, his assassination of American Citizens abroad without trial or due process, and his quadrupling down on teh Patriot Act and similar policies here in the US?

    What would a President Romney do, specificly, that President Obama would not do in the same circumstance? Given your views under Bush, I'd have expected you to want Obama tried for War crimes tbqh, he's done everythign Bush did, and then some.

  9. #69
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,538
    [QUOTE=palmetto defender;4486446]There ain't many left. Some may have voted for him, but his values do not match those of WWII guys. Even the youngest are 86 years old. Not his target.[/QUOTE]

    urr, I was making a joke about dead people voting for (D).

    I wouldn't expect B. Hussein to commemorate the 6 Day War or RFK getting his head blowed off by a Fakeistinian, but failing to note D-Day and Midway is par for the course for people who don't believe in or like American exceptionalism.

    Speaking of voter fraud, there were some anedoctal stories of folks rolling up to the WI polls with only utility bills to show as proof of age/residence and getting the OK. Not enough apparently :P

  10. #70
    [QUOTE=Jungle Shift Jet;4486723]urr, I was making a joke about dead people voting for (D).

    I wouldn't expect B. Hussein to commemorate the 6 Day War or RFK getting his head blowed off by a Fakeistinian, but failing to note D-Day and Midway is par for the course for people who don't believe in or like American exceptionalism.

    Speaking of voter fraud, there were some anedoctal stories of folks rolling up to the WI polls with only utility bills to show as proof of age/residence and getting the OK. Not enough apparently :P[/QUOTE]


    Sorry, missed the joke as I posted earlier. Should have taken the time to realize we're on the same page usually.
    Fraud: Eric Holder is sueing SC (among others) because the stae is trying to enforce voter ID.
    In a recent election, in onne area, there were more votes than registered people in the voting district. Seems the black ministers had buses bring in voters. They would have won the seat anyway, but drew attention to their fraud.

  11. #71
    [QUOTE=palmetto defender;4487168]Sorry, missed the joke as I posted earlier.[COLOR="Red"][/COLOR] Should have taken the time to realize we're on the same page usually.
    Fraud: Eric Holder is sueing SC (among others) because the stae is trying to enforce voter ID.
    In a recent election, in onne area, there were more votes than registered people in the voting district. Seems the black ministers had buses bring in voters. They would have won the seat anyway, but drew attention to their fraud.[/QUOTE]

    Took me a quick reread, but got it.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us