Romney Predicts His Policies Will Bring Unemployment Down To 6%

[Cammmpbell]

LMAO!!

The CBO has [rojected that unemployment will be down to 5.3% by the end of the next presidential term. Romney would phuck up a two car funeral.

Obama's spending is down too....'course why wouldn't it be, one of the Bush wars ended and the other on the way out:

 

[Truthmatters]

The man is just what the republicans love a fucking bold face lair

 

[The Infidel]

LMAO!!

The CBO has [rojected that unemployment will be down to 5.3% by the end of the next presidential term. Romney would phuck up a two car funeral.

Obama's spending is down too....'course why wouldn't it be, one of the Bush wars ended and the other on the way out:

Until Barack Obama took office in 2009, the United States had never spent more than 23.5% of GDP, with the exception of the World War II years of 1942-1946.

Here’s the Obama spending record:
– 25.2% of GDP in 2009

– 24.1% of GDP in 2010

– 24.1% of GDP in 2011

– 24.3% (estimates by the White House ) in 2012

What’s more, if Obama wins another term, spending—according to his own budget—would never drop below 22.3% of GDP. If that forecast is right, spending during Obama’s eight years in office would average 23.6% of GDP. That’s higher than any single previous non-war year.

Yet financial columnist Rex Nutting of MarketWatch tries to portray the president as being downright stingy in a piece entitled, stunningly, “Obama spending binge never happened”:

Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree. As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.” Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true. Government spending under Obama, including his signature stimulus bill, is rising at a 1.4% annualized pace — slower than at any time in nearly 60 years.

And here’s the chart summarizing Nutting’s argument:

As the chart indicates, Nutting arrives at that 1.4% number by assigning 2009—when spending surged nearly 20%—to George W. Bush: “The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress. Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations.”

Let me complete the metaphor for Nutting: “Then as those runners scored, Obama kept putting more on base.”

Obama chose not to reverse that elevated level of spending; thus he, along with congressional Democrats, are responsible for it. Only by establishing 2009 as the new baseline, something Republican budget hawks like Paul Ryan feared would happen, does Obama come off looking like a tightwad. Obama has turned a one-off surge in spending due to the Great Recession into his permanent New Normal through 2016 and beyond.

It’s as if one of my teenagers crashed our family minivan, and I had to buy a new one. And then, since I liked that new car smell so much, I decided to buy a new van every year for the rest of my life. I would indeed be a reckless spender.

Here is another way Nutting could have framed the spending issue:

The Obama spending record looks a little different now, yes?

Mark Levin

 

[nodoginnafight]

As if war spending - initiated by Bush - should be attached to Obama. Like he had a choice ....

creative accounting and spin over substance ... wonder if it will work?

 

[Leweman]

I remember Obama claiming something about lowering unemployment ... When it didn't work he finally just lowered the numbers.

 

[SniperFire]

LMAO!!

The CBO has [rojected that unemployment will be down to 5.3% by the end of the next presidential term. Romney would phuck up a two car funeral.

Obama's spending is down too....'course why wouldn't it be, one of the Bush wars ended and the other on the way out:

Until Barack Obama took office in 2009, the United States had never spent more than 23.5% of GDP, with the exception of the World War II years of 1942-1946.

Here’s the Obama spending record:
– 25.2% of GDP in 2009

– 24.1% of GDP in 2010

– 24.1% of GDP in 2011

– 24.3% (estimates by the White House ) in 2012

What’s more, if Obama wins another term, spending—according to his own budget—would never drop below 22.3% of GDP. If that forecast is right, spending during Obama’s eight years in office would average 23.6% of GDP. That’s higher than any single previous non-war year.

Yet financial columnist Rex Nutting of MarketWatch tries to portray the president as being downright stingy in a piece entitled, stunningly, “Obama spending binge never happened”:

Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree. As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.” Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true. Government spending under Obama, including his signature stimulus bill, is rising at a 1.4% annualized pace — slower than at any time in nearly 60 years.

And here’s the chart summarizing Nutting’s argument:

As the chart indicates, Nutting arrives at that 1.4% number by assigning 2009—when spending surged nearly 20%—to George W. Bush: “The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress. Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations.”

Let me complete the metaphor for Nutting: “Then as those runners scored, Obama kept putting more on base.”

Obama chose not to reverse that elevated level of spending; thus he, along with congressional Democrats, are responsible for it. Only by establishing 2009 as the new baseline, something Republican budget hawks like Paul Ryan feared would happen, does Obama come off looking like a tightwad. Obama has turned a one-off surge in spending due to the Great Recession into his permanent New Normal through 2016 and beyond.

It’s as if one of my teenagers crashed our family minivan, and I had to buy a new one. And then, since I liked that new car smell so much, I decided to buy a new van every year for the rest of my life. I would indeed be a reckless spender.

Here is another way Nutting could have framed the spending issue:

The Obama spending record looks a little different now, yes?

Mark Levin

Obama spends like Michelle eats.

 

[Sokar]

As if war spending - initiated by Bush - should be attached to Obama. Like he had a choice ....

Oh, so now he didn't have a choice despite the fact he campaigned on it heavily last time? Blame Bush!

creative accounting and spin over substance ... wonder if it will work?

Worked in 2008, didn't it? There's no shortage of brain dead voters out there that will snarf up whatever falls out of the novelty presidents ass.

 

[SniperFire]

As if war spending - initiated by Bush - should be attached to Obama. Like he had a choice ....

'For the record, here are Obama’s votes in favor of war funding bills. We count 10 votes on five separate measures.'

FactCheck.org : The Truth on Troop Support?


But of course, you have no dog in the fight.

 

[uscitizen]

Unemployment will drop to 6% anyway as those unabble to find jobs drop off of unemployment.

 

[nodoginnafight]

creative accounting, insults, and spinning like a top.

LOL - wonder if it will work?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Like anyone will vote to not a fund a soldier in harms way with whatever they need. The spending is on the guy who started it - period.

NEW Spending under Bush (2002 - 2009) - $5.07 Trillion
NEW Spending Under Obama (2009 - 2017 incl. projections) - $1.44 Trillion

You guys spin the books however you need to in order to express just how much you hate the guy - but facts is facts - like it or not.

 

[SniperFire]

Let your butthurt flow, 'no dog in the fight.'

LOL

 

[blastoff]

I remember Obama claiming something about lowering unemployment ... When it didn't work he finally just lowered the numbers.

Lowering unemployment? That sounds familiar. Oh, that's right. The $800 Billion stimulus was gonna provide all those shovel-ready jobs which would obviously help the unemployment numbers, but then a long time later Barry and his buddies publicly laughed it up while admitting, "Shovel-ready was not as...uh...shovel-ready as we expected."

I'm just wondering if all the unemployed folks got the joke.

 

[PredFan]

The next day after Romney is pronounced the winner, the economy will begin to imporve, and unemployment will begin to go down. Not because of anything Romney has done, because he is even sworn in yet, but because businesses will know that obama no longer stands in the way.

 

[Claudette]

Didn't Barry say that if he couldnt' get er done in one term that he didn't deserve a second??

Yes. I believe he did make that statement.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The next day after Romney is pronounced the winner, the economy will begin to imporve, and unemployment will begin to go down. Not because of anything Romney has done, because he is even sworn in yet, but because businesses will know that obama no longer stands in the way.

Employment is already going down. The economy is already improving. If Romney wins, he can try to take credit for the preceeding year's growth just like he tried to take credit for the auto industry's recovery.
Folks like you would be on board with him, right?

 

[WillowTree]

The man is just what the republicans love a fucking bold face lair

Then why don't we love ewe? You meet all the criteria!

 

[SniperFire]

The next day after Romney is pronounced the winner, the economy will begin to imporve, and unemployment will begin to go down. Not because of anything Romney has done, because he is even sworn in yet, but because businesses will know that obama no longer stands in the way.

This is the inevitable truth / realization which will swing the independent vote to Romney in the swing states, along with the realization by same voters that there is simply NO WAY Obama can ever hope to unite America.

Our job creators are just going to wait Obama out:


64% Of Small Businesses Planning To Wait Out Obama, Will NOT Be Adding New Jobs (12% Say They Will CUT Jobs) « Start Thinking Right

No economic recovery until Obama is gone and his nonsensical programs are reversed.

Time to vote responsibly.

 

[Cammmpbell]

LMAO!!

The CBO has [rojected that unemployment will be down to 5.3% by the end of the next presidential term. Romney would phuck up a two car funeral.

Obama's spending is down too....'course why wouldn't it be, one of the Bush wars ended and the other on the way out:

Until Barack Obama took office in 2009, the United States had never spent more than 23.5% of GDP, with the exception of the World War II years of 1942-1946.

Here’s the Obama spending record:
– 25.2% of GDP in 2009

– 24.1% of GDP in 2010

– 24.1% of GDP in 2011

– 24.3% (estimates by the White House ) in 2012

What’s more, if Obama wins another term, spending—according to his own budget—would never drop below 22.3% of GDP. If that forecast is right, spending during Obama’s eight years in office would average 23.6% of GDP. That’s higher than any single previous non-war year.

Yet financial columnist Rex Nutting of MarketWatch tries to portray the president as being downright stingy in a piece entitled, stunningly, “Obama spending binge never happened”:

Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree. As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.” Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true. Government spending under Obama, including his signature stimulus bill, is rising at a 1.4% annualized pace — slower than at any time in nearly 60 years.

And here’s the chart summarizing Nutting’s argument:

As the chart indicates, Nutting arrives at that 1.4% number by assigning 2009—when spending surged nearly 20%—to George W. Bush: “The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress. Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations.”

Let me complete the metaphor for Nutting: “Then as those runners scored, Obama kept putting more on base.”

Obama chose not to reverse that elevated level of spending; thus he, along with congressional Democrats, are responsible for it. Only by establishing 2009 as the new baseline, something Republican budget hawks like Paul Ryan feared would happen, does Obama come off looking like a tightwad. Obama has turned a one-off surge in spending due to the Great Recession into his permanent New Normal through 2016 and beyond.

It’s as if one of my teenagers crashed our family minivan, and I had to buy a new one. And then, since I liked that new car smell so much, I decided to buy a new van every year for the rest of my life. I would indeed be a reckless spender.

Here is another way Nutting could have framed the spending issue:

The Obama spending record looks a little different now, yes?

Mark Levin

Talk about a bold faced liar......the government's fiscal year has always run from Oct. 1 of the budget year to the next Sept. 30. Obama took office on January 20, 2009...Obama signed off on the budget that year, but it was assembled during Bush’s term, and it does not bear Obama’s imprint. Similarly, it’s possible to say that either the fiscal year 2012 budget or the fiscal year 2013 budget is Obama’s last from his first term.

 

[Leweman]

The next day after Romney is pronounced the winner, the economy will begin to imporve, and unemployment will begin to go down. Not because of anything Romney has done, because he is even sworn in yet, but because businesses will know that obama no longer stands in the way.

Employment is already going down. The economy is already improving. If Romney wins, he can try to take credit for the preceeding year's growth just like he tried to take credit for the auto industry's recovery.
Folks like you would be on board with him, right?

This is true at least.