UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (15) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: fleg9bo Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 734996  
Subject: What Romney shoulda said Date: 11/15/2012 5:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 17
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2012/11/romney-and-rep...

Obama constantly harped on the fact that 3.5 million new jobs had been created on his watch. Rather than play dueling statistics, the Republicans should have taken advantage of existing red/blue data [and said this:]:

And the vast majority of these jobs were created in states like Texas which have been successful precisely because they have labor and tax policies which you, Mr. Obama, oppose. And they have been created in industries like Oil and Gas production that you, Mr. Obama, have done your best to hinder. All the jobs you claim to have helped to create were actually facilitated by a philosophy of government you oppose, by regulatory policy you would overturn if you could, and in industries you would prefer did not exist. States like Texas -- with organic growth driven by private capital -- stand in stark contrast to your investments of our taxpayer money in bankrupt companies like Solyndra. If you had had your way, Mr. Obama, few of these jobs would have been created. Yes, this country saw some job creation, but it occurred despite your efforts, not because of them.
_________________

It's so clear and obvious, even a liberal can't understand it.

--fleg
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 2828 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 655366 of 734996
Subject: Re: What Romney shoulda said Date: 11/15/2012 5:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Obama constantly harped on the fact that 3.5 million new jobs had been created on his watch. Rather than play dueling statistics, the Republicans should have taken advantage of existing red/blue data [and said this:]:

And the vast majority of these jobs were created in states like Texas which have been successful precisely because they have labor and tax policies which you, Mr. Obama, oppose. And they have been created in industries like Oil and Gas production that you, Mr. Obama, have done your best to hinder. All the jobs you claim to have helped to create were actually facilitated by a philosophy of government you oppose, by regulatory policy you would overturn if you could, and in industries you would prefer did not exist. States like Texas -- with organic growth driven by private capital -- stand in stark contrast to your investments of our taxpayer money in bankrupt companies like Solyndra. If you had had your way, Mr. Obama, few of these jobs would have been created. Yes, this country saw some job creation, but it occurred despite your efforts, not because of them.
_________________

It's so clear and obvious, even a liberal can't understand it.

--fleg
----------------
...but then a liberal would say Romney is rich and his whole comeback would've been ruined.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MadCapitalist Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 655369 of 734996
Subject: Re: What Romney shoulda said Date: 11/15/2012 6:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Romney should have said: "Oh yeah? Well, the jerk store called, and they're running outta you."

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCinOC Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 655371 of 734996
Subject: Re: What Romney shoulda said Date: 11/15/2012 6:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Romney should have said a lot of things. I yelled a lot at the TV when he was speaking, hoping by osmosis to put some words in his mouth.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 2828 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 655372 of 734996
Subject: Re: What Romney shoulda said Date: 11/15/2012 6:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Romney should have said a lot of things. I yelled a lot at the TV when he was speaking, hoping by osmosis to put some words in his mouth.
----------------------------------------------------------
I don't think that's osmosis, i believe it's active transport.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: fleg9bo Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 655373 of 734996
Subject: Re: What Romney shoulda said Date: 11/15/2012 6:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Romney should have said a lot of things. I yelled a lot at the TV when he was speaking, hoping by osmosis to put some words in his mouth.
----------------------------------------------------------
I don't think that's osmosis, i believe it's active transport.


I was thinking it was electrophoresis, but then I realized that Romney has never electrified an audience.

--fleg

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCinOC Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 655374 of 734996
Subject: Re: What Romney shoulda said Date: 11/15/2012 6:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
He could have used an acting coach to help him become more relatable in public the way he is, by all accounts, in private.

After all, Owebama is quite the actor and it worked for him.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ariechert Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 655407 of 734996
Subject: Re: What Romney shoulda said Date: 11/15/2012 10:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"I don't think that's osmosis, i believe it's active transport." - 2828


Active transport require energy to accomplish and also usually there is some kind of carrier that attaches to the information, vitamin, amino acid, fatty acid, glucose, etc. and carries it across the cell membrane into the body from the lumen of the intestines.

Art

Print the post Back To Top
Author: albaby1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 655508 of 734996
Subject: Re: What Romney shoulda said Date: 11/16/2012 2:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
And the vast majority of these jobs were created in states like Texas which have been successful precisely because they have labor and tax policies which you, Mr. Obama, oppose. And they have been created in industries like Oil and Gas production that you, Mr. Obama, have done your best to hinder. All the jobs you claim to have helped to create were actually facilitated by a philosophy of government you oppose, by regulatory policy you would overturn if you could, and in industries you would prefer did not exist. States like Texas -- with organic growth driven by private capital -- stand in stark contrast to your investments of our taxpayer money in bankrupt companies like Solyndra. If you had had your way, Mr. Obama, few of these jobs would have been created. Yes, this country saw some job creation, but it occurred despite your efforts, not because of them.

Boy, that sure sounds like it would have been an effective campaign message. And a pretty obviously effective campaign message. So perhaps there's a reason why they didn't make that argument?

Fortunately, the BLS website lets you break out employement data by state. Let's compare the same time frame that Obama used to frame 3.5 million private-sector jobs (August 2009 to most recent data), and look at the most reliably Republican states. I'll use the Cook PVI rankings to list them in order, but if you have other states, I can add them in. Here's the net change in total private sector employment - all the new private sector jobs - from August 2009 to August 2012. Since you expressly mentioned Texas, I'll list the top 13 GOP states which takes us down to there (all figures in thousands):

State Net Change - Private Sector Jobs

Utah 54.7
Wyoming 3.8
Idaho 16.3
Oklahoma 65.7
Alabama 17.2
Alaska 8.7
Nebraska 15.3
Kansas 21.8
Kentucky 65.1
Louisiana 54.5
Mississippi -0.1
North Dakota 55.3
Texas 634.6

TOTAL 1,012.9

Not bad - a million new jobs, all in rock-ribbed Republican states, with Republican governors and legislatures.

But wait - what about the most Democratic states in the country? The ones that have political philosophies shared by President Obama? How did they do for private sector job creation during that same time frame? Let's look at the ten most Democratic states:

State Net Change - Private Sector Jobs

Vermont 9.2
Hawaii 17.6
Massachusetts 105.0
Rhode Island 3.3
New York 364.9
Maryland 45.3
Illinois 120.5
California 507.7
Connecticut 24.5
Delaware 4.4

TOTAL 1,202.4

Well, suddenly that campaign message gets a little more vulnerable to counterattack. While there was certainly a lot of private job creation in Texas, there was also a lot of private job creation in Democratic bastions like California, New York, Illinois, and Massachussetts.

Given that, it's easy to see why the campaign chose to attack Obama for cherry-picking his start date and dataset (ie. beginning from the trough of employment and only looking at private-sector jobs), rather than state differences during those time frames.

Albaby

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: albaby1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 655511 of 734996
Subject: Re: What Romney shoulda said Date: 11/16/2012 2:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Replying to my own post, for those who are curious, here's the entire dataset (listed in order of total private sector jobs created during the period from August 2009-August 2012), as reported on the BLS website at: http://data.bls.gov/pdq/querytool.jsp?survey=sm

Note that Texas clearly had the largest job growth. But would the Romney camp have benefited by highlighting the geographic distribution of the lion's share of the rest of the jobs? Deep blue states like California and New York? Or emphasizing the largest job creation taking place in swing states like Michigan, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc.?


State:        Texas 634.6
State:        California 507.7
State:        New York 364.9
State:        Michigan 192.4
State:        Florida 192
State:        Ohio 188.9
State:        Pennsylvania 167
State:        Indiana 144.8
State:        Illinois 120.5
State:        Georgia 107.7
State:        Massachusetts 105
State:        Washington 93.9
State:        Virginia 92.4
State:        North Carolina 90.6
State:        Tennessee 84.4
State:        Minnesota 81.1
State:        New Jersey 66.7
State:        Oklahoma 65.7
State:        Kentucky 65.1
State:        Arizona 64.8
State:        Colorado 63.6
State:        South Carolina 58.6
State:        North Dakota 55.3
State:        Utah 54.7
State:        Louisiana 54.5
State:        Oregon 47.7
State:        Maryland 45.3
State:        Wisconsin 25
State:        Connecticut 24.5
State:        Iowa 22.4
State:        Kansas 21.8
State:        Hawaii 17.6
State:        Alabama 17.2
State:        Idaho 16.3
State:        Nebraska 15.3
State:        South Dakota 10.3
State:        West Virginia 9.6
State:        Vermont 9.2
State:        Alaska 8.7
State:        New Hampshire 8.6
State:        Nevada 8.1
State:        Montana 7.2
State:        Arkansas 4.7
State:        Delaware 4.4
State:        Wyoming 3.8
State:        Rhode Island 3.3
State:        Maine 0.2
State:        Mississippi -0.1
State:        Missouri -0.9
State:        New Mexico -3.8


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Goofyhoofy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 655606 of 734996
Subject: Re: What Romney shoulda said Date: 11/16/2012 8:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
And they have been created in industries like Oil and Gas production that you, Mr. Obama, have done your best to hinder.

Really?

http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/507e15ba69beddaf5a0...

Really?

There is no dispute that natural gas production on private lands has increased. Adam Sieminski, head of the U.S. Energy Information Administration, told a congressional subcommittee in August that it went up "by 16.4 billion cubic feet per day" from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2011, which ended September 30, 2011 -- a period that includes parts of the administrations of both President George W. Bush and Obama.

Meanwhile, natural gas production on federal and Indian lands has steadily fallen, a trend that began around fall 2002. This is due to a consistent decrease in offshore gas drilling, though such gas production onshore, on federal lands, is actually higher now than it was at the end of the Bush administration.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/politics/fact-check-oil-gas/in...

Deepwater Horizon might have had a little something to do with the slowdown in permitting on "Federal lands," at least the ones that are underwater.

It's those pesky things called "facts", again.

BTW: projections are that, at the current rates of production and increase, the US will be the #1 oil producer in the world by 2016. One can only wonder how that is possible if Obama and the big bad Federal machinery are doing "everything they can" to slow it down.
 


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: spookysquid Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 655927 of 734996
Subject: Re: What Romney shoulda said Date: 11/19/2012 8:37 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Rather than play dueling statistics, the Republicans should have taken advantage of existing red/blue data [and said this:]:

And the vast majority of these jobs were created in states like Texas which have been successful precisely because they have labor and tax policies which you, Mr. Obama, oppose.


IIRC, Texas's great record of job creation was through government jobs. The private sector actually declined in Texas, except in the Walmart greeter segment. Under Obama, the private sector rose, but was offset by government job declines, a position I believe Republicans favor. So, all that said, I'm wondering what the heck you think your criticism is and by what means you support it. Because based on my understanding, you actually appear to stand in favor of Obama and his policies.

-spookysquid

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 2828 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 655931 of 734996
Subject: Re: What Romney shoulda said Date: 11/19/2012 8:47 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Under Obama, the private sector rose, but was offset by government job declines, a position I believe Republicans favor.
--------------------------------------------------
Yes, Obama is definitely a small government type, LOL. Have a good day on planet Zongo.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MadCapitalist Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 655968 of 734996
Subject: Re: What Romney shoulda said Date: 11/19/2012 11:54 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Under Obama, the private sector rose, but was offset by government job declines, a position I believe Republicans favor. So, all that said, I'm wondering what the heck you think your criticism is and by what means you support it. Because based on my understanding, you actually appear to stand in favor of Obama and his policies.

-spookysquid


It's actually based on your *lack* of understanding, probably intentional, that you think that Republicans should be in favor of Obama and his policies.

A reduction of government employment is desirable, but only inasmuch as it leads to a *decline* in government spending and intervention in our lives rather than a *massive* increase in both.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: spookysquid Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 656016 of 734996
Subject: Re: What Romney shoulda said Date: 11/19/2012 5:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Under Obama, the private sector rose, but was offset by government job declines, a position I believe Republicans favor.
--------------------------------------------------
Yes, Obama is definitely a small government type, LOL. Have a good day on planet Zongo.


Your LOLs and references to pretend destinations aside, you did nothing to counter my point.

Government jobs declined under Obama:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/under-obama-a-r...

As measured from the low point, private sector jobs rose under Obama by over 4MM. Incidentilly, that's the same as it was for Bush. This is relevant as both Presidents protest that its not fair to measure from the beginning of their terms since they both inherited economic decline or impending economic decline:
http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-economic-sleight-of-hand...

Texas private sector jobs declined by 0.6 while public sector grew by 6.4%:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/perry-critici...

Planet Zongo indeed. Way to dodge the point.

-spookysquid

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (15) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement