Only in mittens-land...

In case there are any doubts, this has the benefit of being true. During
Romney’s only service in public office, his state’s record on job creation was
“one
of the worst in the country.” Massachusetts really did rank 47th
out of 50 states in jobs growth on Romney’s watch (and unlike President
Obama, Romney didn’t inherit an economic crisis). There was a reason Romney
served one term and then quit — he was not all popular with his constituents and
probably would have lost a re-election bid.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alternet.org%2Fnewsandviews%2Farticle%2F635096%2Fmitt_romney_close_to_worst_in_country_at_job_creation%2C_ranked_47th_out_of_50_states%2F&ei=h1YnTtfoBoaIsQKi06w7&usg=AFQjCNFqma3YHHuhDRRCc4ZnYIUo0SApew

Romney cannot beat President Obama and the GOP/TP knows it. Why do you think they are trying to get everybody and their brother to run for President. Perry is not going to far any better when his track record comes out on how he fixed the budget using stimulus money and there were at least 23 states that created more jobs than his per capita and the real number for their exploding budget. Perry will be exposed as a fraud and Romney is not much better either.

President Obama in 2012 -

Romney cannot beat President Obama and the GOP/TP knows it

Ain't that the truth Navy! There isn't a candidate in the entire field who can beat President Obama & they know it!

Is it any wonder the RWNJ's are in overdrive spreading their lies & hate?

"will be exposed as a fraud..."

Huh, let's see if we can apply that to anyone else, shall we Navy?

He said that to raise the debt ceiling would be a failure of leadership.

Obama's team said unemployment would not go about 8.5% if we spent $1.0 trillion. We did and it is much higher, and getting worse.

Obama said he close Gitmo. He also talked about ending wars, bring troops back, and yet he has failed to do so.

Now Navy you and I both know I could go on and on about what he said, the promises he made, and the falsity of each, but that really is not needed, again, is it?

So navy, you have an actual track record. THese are objective facts, no spin.

So you tell me - who has been exposed as a fraud? He said "elect me and I will fix it." He has not. In fact it is well documented that it is getting worse.

"Perry will be exposed as a fraud"

------------------------------

USNVR, It will be more fun to expose his genuine traits: a genuine card carrying Bilderberger and the genuine inhuman face of world domination. I'll take the One World Order Burger to go please.

I'll take the One World Order Burger to go please.

With the works please... lol

Speaking of burgers, here's one thing I vehemently disagree with the President about - Five Guys is the worst excuse for a cheeseburger I've ever had the misfortune of ordering! ;o)

Well, at least now we know what happened to Cenk Uygur:

Cenk Uygur's run at MSNBC sure was short. The news network says that it has "decided to make a change" at 6:00 PM ET, the time slot when since January Uygur has hosted MSNBC Live. "It's unfortunate that Cenk has declined our offer to have him develop and host a program for another time slot," MSNBC adds

http://www.deadline.com/2011/07/cenk-uygur-out-at-msnbc/

Thanks, Feisty. I've been wondering about that. I wonder if Cenk ends up at Current with Keith Olbermann. That would probably be better for him.

No Am - better for us, cause now the ratings kings at MSNBC came bring in Sharpton.

Let the entertainment begin.

It does make you wonder - why in the world would they keep Matthews and can anyone, even Unger.

So Navy, how about we get back to that fraud discussion, shall we. Records my man, let's talk accomplishments.

let's talk accomplishments.

K

• saved one economy from oblivion/Depression *check*
• snapped a cap on the world's lead terrorist dirtball *check*
• helped 32 million people get health care *check*
• snapped a cap on Somali pirate twerps (becoming a habit with you BHO?) *check*
• saved an industry crucial to American economic prosperity/security *check*
• helped clean up the financial industry *check*
• elected to second term *check* (sorry, getting ahead of myself)

He sure wasn't as Progressive as I wanted him to be, but I think in his 2nd term you will see the true Progressive come out, and with the Democratic seats we pick up in 2012 they may actually get a public option passed, or present some other very, very Progressive legislation.

Howzat Spanks?

Republican Congressionals blocked the closing of Gitmo, Spanky.

President Reagan raised the debt ceiling 17 times. There's an ad out now playing what he said when congressionals at the time threatened to block it. He was so incensed, he told them that if they blocked raising the debt ceiling he would VETO every bill they passed him from that point on.

He also listed the catastrophic events which would result from a US default both domestically and globally.

If you need some genuIne fip floppers, look to your own party. And please go now and stand with them. because your abuses on these threads have become beyond toxic. Not good enough Spanky.

47th out of 50. Not impressive. But 4.7% unemployment is better than 9.7%, don't you think? I think the 12 million unemployed would agree.

Where does President Obama rank compared to previous administrations? Close to last?

Read it and weep, Candice. The 4.7 number was actually slightly ABOVE the national average for the same period, and most of the increase in unemployment to which you refer actually occurred between January and December, 2008.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2009/jan/wk2/art02.htm

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2007/mar/wk1/art02.htm

There is NO DOUBT that this is a problem inherited from the Bush administration, and that the solution has been blocked by Republicans ever since President Obama took office.

They will no doubt go down in history as the least productive Congress ever. Be proud.

Sorry, Anna. I would most definitely prefer 4.7% over 9.7% regardless of what the "averages" are, wouldn't you? The increase in unemployment that you refer to surely did occur between January and December 2008. Wasn't that when the Democrats took control over Congress? Yes, I think it was.

Although President Obama decidedly inherited the mess, he certainly claimed he and the Democrats alone could fix it. Instead, it just got worse.

I agree with you, this Congress, as well as the 111th, should go down in history as the most dysfunctional and damaging ever. I think most of us are more disgusted than proud.

I checked out the table you provided, Anna. Thanks. The text states a dozen states had unemployment appreciably higher than the national average - and looks like those states had rates in excess of 6%. If a dozen states were worse, Massachusetts at 4.7% couldn't have been ranked 47. Unless there's 15 states I don't know about.......

You're confusing your statistics, Candice -- a sign of poor analytical skills. First, unemployment is now about 9.2 percent, not 9.7 percent. Next, the 47th number came from Feisty, and it represents the rank of Massachusetts under Governor Romney in actual job growth. He has bragged about being a job creator, but in fact, his record in both the public and private sector is abysmal. Venture capitalists do NOT create jobs; just the contrary, in fact. They essentially rape and destroy companies, causing many to lose their jobs. There is plenty of evidence that this is Romney's venture capital legacy. The 4.7 number is the unemployment percentage rate for Massachusetts when Romney left office. He is bragging about it, but it is no better than average -- in fact it is a little worse than average -- for 2006, the year he left office. Hardly anything to brag about, no matter if other states happened to be worse. The employment bubble under Bush turned out to be illusory, with most of the jobs created during the Bush administration disappearing totally by the end of his term, leaving a net job gain of zero during his adminstration, contrasted with 22 to 24 million net jobs gained during the Clinton administration.

To set the record straight, only one house of Congress turned democratic after the 2006 elections. Both houses did not turn democratic until after the 2008 election. By then, unemployment had jumped from 4.8 percent at the end of 2007 to 7.2 percent at the end of 2008. It continued rise until the middle of 2009. After the enactment of ARRA, steady, if modest, job growth began again and continued until recently. ARRA no doubt could have done more to fix the problem if it had been large enough -- and that I do blame on President Obama. A lot of ARRA went to tax cuts, which appear to have had no positive effect, as historically, they do not. Some of the ARRA, such as nearly $7 billion in Texas, was spent for other purposes than job creation -- such as hiding deficits under governors Perry and Pawlenty, just to name two. Most economists agree that ARRA should have been larger and more targeted at job growth. However, I doubt Republicans would have favored that had they been in power, so the point is largely moot. I shudder to think what the economy would look like today had we not bailed out the automakers and we had left John McCain and Sarah Palin in charge.

Spanky does not listen to facts, so those of you you try to reason with him are wasting your time.

AM, anything under 5% is labor shortage numbers. Full employment is between 5 and 6% - leaves room for frictional unemployment, where people seek employment in other fields- and get hired in weeks, not months- or, in the case of Obama's economy, years.

Is Romney being fair to tout this number? Perhaps not- but it is a heck of a lot better than if unemployment in Mass was, say, 8%, while the rest of the country was at 4.6%.

And it is one heck of a lot better than taking an economy with an unemployment rate of 7% , and employing policies that result in 9.2% unemployment, after removing so many people from the labor force that, if the numbers were the same as when you took office, unemployment would be around 12%.

Which begs the question - when, exactly, are any of you going to begin praising Obama for his results, rather than his wonderfulness? I mean, I get that he has none- but if you're planning to vote for him, would you not want something OTHER than killing bin Laden and repealing DADT to vote for?

Moreover- what are you going to use to convince others to vote for? Cause, his wonderfulness ain't cutting it, this time around.

And yet Obama has done what to address unemployment AM?

Was it his healthcare bill?

Is it his recent involvement in the debt ceiling negotiations?

Is it his suggestions that we do away with ATMs?

.....ATM's or the AMT?

Just sitting here reading and billing my time.

Moreover- what are you going to use to convince others to vote for? Cause, his wonderfulness ain't cutting it, this time around.

Well, no joe, you know what they say ... the proof of the pudding is always in the eating.

If Romney wants to run by claiming that although Massachusetts was only average, at least it wasn't as bad as Michigan, which President Obama later had to bail out, a bailout that Romney opposed, but which proved to be highly successful, then I guess we'll see how that goes, won't we?

As for unemployment going up when President Obama took office, I might remind you that it was actually about 4.8 percent at the end of 2007, and by the end of 2008, it had reached 7.2 percent. So, by the time President Obama took office, the trend was definitely looking UP.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2009/jan/wk2/art02.htm

In December [2008], the number of unemployed persons increased by 632,000 to 11.1 million and the unemployment rate rose to 7.2 percent. Since the start of the recession in December 2007, the number of unemployed persons has grown by 3.6 million, and the unemployment rate has risen by 2.3 percentage points.

But, of course, to follow your logic about Romney, I guess the President can run on the proposition that at least it wasn't worse.

LoL

@ Spanky: What President Obama did was ARRA, which, although it wasn't as successful as we might have hoped, probably saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of jobs -- at least temporarily, and with which my only quibble -- and that of a lot of economists -- is that it didn't go far enough and it allowed scumbags like Rick Perry to divert the money and then complain about it.

What have republicans done about it, and what EXACTLY has Mitt Romney proposed?

Saved temporarily, probably.

Yeah that was one fantastic plan. Oh, wait, except it cost $1.0 trillion up front and $$$ in future interest.

But hey it sure did rock the probably, the temporarily and all that.

And as Ira has so patiently noted on several occasions - the republicans hold just the house. Not the Senate, not the white house, and they did not just have super majorities, during which they could have, had they have seen fit, done whatever they wanted.

Sorry AM, those there are just the facts.

AM, I believe it would behoove you to seek out the GDP numbers after the last few recessions. Actually, go back to 1968- you will find a curious development. See, Nixon declared "we are all Keynesians now"- so, he stuck with a policy that produced by wildly fluctuating, if not stagnantly high, unemployment, and spiraling inflation.

And, as for Obama, you are right- the proof IS in the pudding.

He is a disaster.

The best way to get employment into the "states", yes the "states" are more responsible than the "feds". Is they have to compete to get corporations in a place that they feel as though will work to their advantage and not disadvantage. High insurance rates, labor laws and unions, property taxes, sales taxes, etc will determine if work is coming to a town near you. Income and dividends earnings which the feds generaly control are even across the board.

Spanky:

And as Ira has so patiently noted on several occasions - the republicans hold just the house. Not the Senate, not the white house, and they did not just have super majorities, during which they could have, had they have seen fit, done whatever they wanted.

Funny ... up till a month or so ago, when the numbers began going South again, Republicans were mostly declaring unequivocal victory in the 2010 elections.

Now we hear that they didn't win very much at all.

Wouldn't be hedging our bets, now, would we?

no joe:

And, as for Obama, you are right- the proof IS in the pudding.

He is a disaster.

Well, see, now there you go. I was thinking chocolate. ;-)

And yet Obama has done what to address unemployment AM?

Obama can't address unemployment Spanks,....but I can.

I plan to make as many republican politicians unemployed as I can.

That'll help America's jobs situation right there.

Now, that's the best jobs proposal I've EVER heard. ;-)

Thanks AM.

Probably very effective solution, and one that costs nothing to boot.

I say set the repubs adrift in the maelstrom of their own devising: lifetime unemployment.

LoL A maelstrom works for me.

Compared to Obama's abysmal record for the last 3 years, Romney has done an excellent job in Mass.!

BO would be wise to 'grab a Mitt' and try and get in the game! Clearly Obama has been an abject failure in creating jobs, working out an economics plan, etc. his only success was doubling the debt..... I would suggest 3 strikes and you're out, Barry!

Oops. Please excuse the double post. I tried to delete.

I forgive you, Am.

At least YOU do not think it is "cool" to make fun of peoples' disabilities.

Indeed, I do not. Thanks, no joe.

hat although Massachusetts was only average, at least it wasn't as bad as Michigan

Not to be nit-picky, .....but Michigan now LEADS the United States in job creation, so if Romney made that comment,.....even THAT ONE was wrong!!

His own home state too.

Damn! As Bugs Bunny would say, "What a maroon"!!

http://michiganradio.org/post/michigan-leads-nation-job-growth

Go ahead. See for yourself.

Guess Jenny Granholm wasn't so bad after all.......

Gotta' love those lady lawyers!!

Um, GOPisextinct? I don't know where you get your information, but it's wrong

http://www.bls.gov/lau/

Michigan has the fourth HIGHEST unemployment in the nation. Not even close to full employment- they are at 10.3%- which is OVER the national average.

Michigan has the fourth HIGHEST unemployment in the nation.

NoJo:

The article is about job GROWTH rate,.....not unemployment.

And where I got the information from is self-evident.

Ummmm, no joe .... I believe GOPisextinct was talking about job "growth," not the unemployment rate.

In fact, according to the article, last year (after the bailout), Michigan had its first positive job growth since 2000. I doubt Mitt Romney can take credit for that. Or George W. Bush, neither.

What I found interesting about those numbers is that my own state, which supposedly has this drastic deficit problem that necessitated such horrendous changes to public workers' rights in order to facilitate job creation -- changes which just went into effect about two weeks ago -- STILL has a lower unemployment rate than Texas, which supposedly has such incredible job growth and never had any unionized public workers.

So what's wrong with Texas, no joe?

Excellent observations all, AM.

People claim that the right-to-work (RTW) laws in Texas are responsible for its attractive employer environment, but Nevada, an RTW state, has the highest unemployment rate in the U.S. Texas leads the nation in job creation,...menial labor job creation.

I once jousted in a newspaper editorial with a Republican head of a trucking firm here. His name was Rakolta. Guy was worth a lot of money. He argued that Union membership in Michigan had been declining for decades (true), and that less Union membership was the path to economic prosperity. Unions, he said, were the casue of the unemployment in Michigan.

I argued that if Unions were declining shouldn't that mean meteoric job growth? Instead, Michigan's unemployment rate was very high. His logic was non-sequitur.

I used verbal ju-jitsu to strangle this idiot with his own words and opined that Union membership was

not the problem, but a SYMPTOM of the problem!!!

It is going to be a long, tough slog back for the country after the damage republicanism has done.

ON WISCONSIN!!! Hey,....where the hell did I leave my checkbook? It is time to send my pledge off to the Wisconsin Democrats. I should also call the Glass Nickel in Madison, and send another pizza to the noble Freedom Fighters in Walkerville! They can take my credit card # over the phone and deliver a meat lover's pizza right to the eye of the storm.

AM, this is a BLS page

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LASST26000003

Go down ti the labor force chart. See how it declines from 2009 to date?

Now, put that in context with the 53,000 jobs created from May 2010 to date.

You remove that many people from the labor force, it looks like job growth is far better than it is.

It's called playing with the numbers. The unemployed know the truth.

To make it a little clearer-

4,357,538--the number ofmpeople employed in Michigan in January of 2009.

4,247,569--the number of people employed in Michgan in May, 2011.

You do the math.

The unemployed know the truth.

And so do I No Jo. Used to be a breeze going to work up Telegraph road in the morning. Remember Telegraph NoJo? Now it is becoming a big pain in the rectum. Parking used to be easily found in the Chrysler garage, now I have to circle around for 5 minutes to find a spot. I have to bake that time in to my departure time in the morning.

I see licence plates from Texas, Massachusetts, Indiana, California,......all coming to Michigan for jobs. Similar story at GM, no doubt.

No we're not out of the woods yet. But since I have to go to Bejing to work the job that used to be in Saginaw I don't look forward to America's job situation to improve none too soon.

Republicant policy sent the jobs overseas, and they are blocking all of the job repatriation bills. http://www.tradereform.org/2011/02/rep-wolf-reintroduces-job-repatriation-strategy-bill/

A republican even introduced this bill for job repatriation.

Democrats have introduced theirs.

http://www.bnasoftware.com/News/Tax_News/Articles/Democrats_Crafting_Fresh_Repatriation_Bills_Aimed_at_Job_Creation.asp

Lets see who gets to "go" first.

Just look at the chart. The number employed has seen a steady DECLINE- not incline, since 2009.

Yes, I remember Telegraph. Pain in the butt. Went sliding past my turn in February when it was so cold the ice melt did not work.

Scary winters that lasted FOREVER.

@GOPisextinct -- Glass Nickel is THE best pizza in Madison. The meat lovers' is to DIE for. Probably literally. LoL Thank you for your continuing generosity.

@nojoe -- Ummm ... You're reading the wrong chart. On the "employment" chart, you will see that actual employment (# of people employed) has in fact been on the upswing since June, 2009 (be sure to look at the table, which supports the chart), thus supporting GOPisextinct's point for the time period in question -- that is, since the bailout actually took effect.

Yes, AM- from 4,198,931, (June, 2009), to 4,247,569, (May 2011).

Not quite the 4,357,538 employed in January, 2009, is it?

They have made up about half the jobs lost since January, 2009. It is still a negative number, however.

Let me know when it's a positive number.

no joe -- of course, the numbers continued to go South during the early part of 2009 -- i.e., BEFORE ARRA was enacted. Even you can hardly blame President Obama for that. ARRA stopped the dramatic declines that had begun late in 2007 and changed the trend upward. But ARRA is mostly gone now, Bush's tax cuts are still in place, and Republicans have not come through like they promised to do.

But, notwithstanding all of that, yes, I'll let you know. Please do stick around. Believe it or not, I care about that. And from the projections I read recently for the automakers, I hope it won't be long now. God only knows it's been a long time coming.

Great points yet again AM.

Now it is off to Chrysler to make better cars.

And I am proud as hell to do a long-distance carry out to the courageous people of Madison, Wisconsin. You know "courageous" is a word derived from French. "Cour" is the French word for "heart".

I wish I could fight beside them, and one day I will.

Fight on Wisconsin!! Our hopes go with you.

Hey GOPextinct, Job creation coming back to Michigan, coincides directly with the elections in 2010 of Rick Snyder, a Republican House and a Republican Senate. Rick Snyder was able to get a BALANCED budget passed in April, Something your beloved Jen-Jen could only due using Tobacco money and Stimulus money.

See business understands that the GOP will create an environment that is beneficial to hiring. (See Steve Wynn).

Dude, you really jumped the shark in praising Granholm. She was undeniably the worst Governor this state has ever seen. Still remember the "In 5 years we are going to blow you away" line. 7 years later our state was decimated.

White Collar,

Your entry is so filled with an artificially-contrived drought of sincerity that it does not even merit notice much less serious entertainment of rebuttal or debate.

Funny as hell though.

There's a lot more to it, Ira. In fact, BOTH insurance companies are affiliated with hospitals. BOTH hospitals already existed at the time the groups putatively "merged" at the end of the 90s, which was supposed to create all these efficiencies, save costs, and make health care oh, so much better by making more efficient use of their facilities and eliminating all that useless duplication that they are now replicating. In effect, they are raiding from THEMSELVES to re-create what they willingly gave up -- and got paid for -- many years ago.

It was never a marriage made in heaven, let's just put it that way. Out where I used to live, these two technically "merged" groups are now building competing clinics less than three blocks apart. You can talk vertical integration all you want, but that's what those ol' antitrust laws were supposed to prevent, doncha know? Whatever happened to antitrust, anyway?

It is probably useful to know that in both cases, the insurance companies themselves are owned BY THE PHYSICIANS. That has something to do with this, as well.

And here's one more thing you always know for sure around here. If you want to know where the hospitals are, all you have to do is look up for the construction cranes. It's always construction season in health care.

Anna Molly..

Then what you just described is the poster child for stupidity and I can see why you got upset.

No efficiencies, just duplication of services that will never be fully utilized.

Anti trust...gone the way of ATT and Microsoft and never to be seen again.

Have a good evening AM....

You, too, Ira, and thanks for asking about it.

Good point Amy.

But not the dems' attitude - it is based solely on reality. Nothing fairy tail like about Obamacare [more of a mystery, cause we had to pass it to find out what was in it] OR Obama's last budget - you remember AMY 97-0.

Obama can't create anything Amy. The government is incapable.

When your town taxes you to build a road, but the road does not get built-
But the mayor's best friend builds a new house, buys a Ferrari, and a private jet, and goes on a Round the World cruise,

You know you've been rooked.

When your governor raises taxes to build new schools, and hire more cops, and those things don't happen, but his buddies have a lot of state contracts, you know you've been rooked.

When the president enacts almost a trillion dollars in stimulous, and you find that billions of those dollars have gone to his biggest contributors, or have gone to put them in cushy jobs, you know you've been rooked.

Unless, of course, you are as morally corrupt as the aforementioned.

By the way, Amy-

I responded to you on the Elizabeth Warren thread-

You might want to go take a look.

You might want to go take a look.

Excuse ME but why would she?

You are not the end all be all like your tiny mind suggests there NJNB!

Carry old you old bat - your nothing more then a legend in YOUR own mind! ;o))

Like he is a little elf, making jobs during the night and leaving them on some CEO's desk for him to find in the morning.

Shush Amy!! You had Spanky believing that that was how it was done!!

Now what are we s'posed to tell him? You broke his little law clerk heart.

If people bothered to think about the unemployment and jobs creation chatter, they would remember the GOP yelping in 2009 that Government could not create jobs but by campaign season 2010, the GOP was promising to create jobs. They can't have it both ways. Too many voters didn't bother to asking republicans HOW they would create jobs. Previous Presidents and Congresses have always stepped in to fill the private sector spending gap until the year 2009 when the GOP decided to block, obstruct, delay and deny anything they could. Job-creating legislation (paid for) passed by House democrats never made it to the Senate floor because of the filibuster and the hold tactics used by Senate Republicans. In 2011, the GOP demands to cut government spending has cost thousands more jobs nationwide so once again, we are asking "where are the jobs?" Government can create jobs through spending on infrastructure, clean energy investment, space exploration, research and development and many other areas but it can only do so IF both parties agree that spending for economic growth is a necessity. Sadly, the GOPTP has decided that making President Obama a one-term president is more important than doing what is right for the country.

Great points, Allen-Omaha.

Any President and any Governor can take stimulative actions to assist economic job growth with Government investment in certain areas but only if Congress helps, and only IF both parties work together to achieve it. State governments need help from the Fed to do it. Right now our Federal Congress is in total gridlock. No wonder the economy is gasping, Congress can't find its way out of a paper bag. It makes me think we will see very little legislation passed until after the Nov 2012 elections and that will only make things worse. If the House Tea Party gets its way on not raising the debt ceiling, it will be an economic disaster.