Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It amazes me that when Obama took office we were losing a quarter of a million jobs per month, and now we are seeing some gains, yet folks wont admit things are better. Its simple math. Even if we were not creating jobs, we are not losing a half a million per month, so that is a huge improvement right there. People are such idealogues and wont admit the truth even though there are verifiable facts to back them up.
You can't believe what they say about the jobs number or about the economy. They never take into consideration the people that have given up looking for a job or those who are under- employed.
When they say that spending has risen. Of course it has risen ---DUE TO INFLATION and the devaluing of the dollar. People are just buying the same amount of things or even fewer things that just cost a lot more and have to pay more for them.That isn't any indication things are better. In real terms they are getting worse and worse. The reports from the MSM is all SPIN.
As far as military service, Romney received legitimate deferments. Whether his sons "avoided" military service is irrelevant.
As far as his record as governor of Massachusetts, he was able to work with Democrats and compromise. That should say A LOT in and of itself. He managed to get the states' unemployment rate down and get the state in a place where it could handle the recession a few years later better than most other Northeastern states.
The number of new jobs created hasn't been enough. Have there been slight improvements? Yes, but the unemployment rate has only been going down because so many people have been dropping out of the labor force.
Furthermore, if you're going to have tunnel vision and suggest that jobs created since Obama has been President are all Obama's doing, perhaps you should consider that massive job losses didn't start until after Democrats took control of Congress after the 2006 elections and that jobs didn't really start to be added consistently following the massive decline until after the Democrats lost their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate in 2010 and took control of the House after the 2010 elections.
I happen to think Romney's record as governor of Mass is admirable. He's the one who has decided, for strategic reasons, to de-emphasise those years in his campaign.
Romney has to convince a skeptical base that he is a trusted conservative. Bragging about how well he masqueraded as a liberal to get by in Mass doesn't help his cause any in the primaries. After he gets the nomination, he's going to have a difficult time switching gears, without taking a chance on p***ing off the Right all over again.
You can't believe what they say about the jobs number or about the economy. They never take into consideration the people that have given up looking for a job or those who are under- employed.
When they say that spending has risen. Of course it has risen ---DUE TO INFLATION and the devaluing of the dollar. People are just buying the same amount of things or even fewer things that just cost a lot more and have to pay more for them.That isn't any indication things are better. In real terms they are getting worse and worse. The reports from the MSM is all SPIN.
There is no spin in that chart I posted. Those are raw numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Each side can interpret the chart as they see fit, to try to make their side look good. That's where the "spin" comes in.
But the numbers are the numbers. And they do indicate a slow but steady recovery for the US economy at this point.
I don't think he has a fall back plan. I am still for him but I am not happy with his business dealings since I saw that film Newt had made. It seems that he bought lots of companies, fired lots of workers and moved jobs other countries to save money for his vulture capitalist. Not hardly a stellar record. But 4 more years of Dooder is even worse. I might not vote at all.
In any case, I don't understand how some in the GOP can cheer on the private sector as a cure to all ills and then turn around and act shocked when a for-profit company fires workers to improve the bottom line. Guess what, that's how the market works.
Last edited by rock_chalk; 01-14-2012 at 05:39 PM..
Reason: added link for further info
I wouldn't put the cart before the horse. He's quickly losing his lead in SC. I agree with your assessment of what a Republican nominee needs to do and I also agree that he can't fool as many actual conservative Republicans that he is as conservative as they think he should be. Every time I get in my car to do an errand, I hear the radio ad with Romney's voice saying that a teenage girl can get a judge's permission for an abortion if her parents don't agree. Somehow I don't think that ad is resonating with conservative Republicans.
In fact Romney is down to 29% Gingrich is at 27% and Ron Paul is at 17% as we speak with Romney losing the most and Ron Paul gaining the most in SC. They just announced it on the news.
You better look at the new Reuters poll that is out. Romney is way out ahead now and everyone else has taken a dive.
I don't think he has a fall back plan. I am still for him but I am not happy with his business dealings since I saw that film Newt had made. It seems that he bought lots of companies, fired lots of workers and moved jobs other countries to save money for his vulture capitalist. Not hardly a stellar record. But 4 more years of Dooder is even worse. I might not vote at all.
I hope you don't believe what was in that piece of propaganda Newt put out. It is full of lies an distortions. Two of those companies, Mitt Romney had nothing at all to do with...he wasn't even at Bain at the time.
The reality is the party that goes through primaries always bloodies up their own. The Dems were fortunate in '08 as Hillary acted like a grownup far more than Newt, Perry, Paul, or any of these clowns who just cannot bear losing to Romney.
There is no spin in that chart I posted. Those are raw numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Each side can interpret the chart as they see fit, to try to make their side look good. That's where the "spin" comes in.
But the numbers are the numbers. And they do indicate a slow but steady recovery for the US economy at this point.
I consider myself an independent, so I really havent lobbied for anyone, really they all make me sick, so I have no reason to 'spin' the data...however, things have started to pick up, albeit slowly. My company has a ton more openings, and if you look at the big temp agencies, manpower, kelly, accountemps, they will all tell you business is great.
I consider myself an independent, so I really havent lobbied for anyone, really they all make me sick, so I have no reason to 'spin' the data...however, things have started to pick up, albeit slowly. My company has a ton more openings, and if you look at the big temp agencies, manpower, kelly, accountemps, they will all tell you business is great.
I do hope we're moving towards recovery. I don't think the inevitable economic implosion of the EU will do us much good, but I'd like to think we make it out of the woods anyways.
As to the OP of the thread, I think Romney would do just fine as long as he sticks to his guns on gay marriage and abortion. Shifting on those would ruin him. As for the rest, there is no taboo in the GOP against selling out going for the middle class vote. All he has to do is demonstrate that he can do a better job of making life better for middle class America. Obama has done a bad enough job of there that Romney is already looking like a better option to a lot of people.
The unemployment numbers are interesting data, but it would be nice if we were actually measuring how many Americans that are old enough to work and who are physically capable are actually working. Unemployment might be one of the least bogus of all statistics to point to, but it fails to measure people who have given up looking for work. You only count as part of the US Labor Force if you have applied for work in the last month or so. It also fails to measure those who have part-time jobs who are looking for full-time. Less than perfect, but it is what it is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
