Aa
Romney backs up 6% unemployment claim
(CNN) – Mitt Romney, who on Wednesday said he would bring the nation's unemployment rate to 6% as president, offered three ways he would achieve that goal in an interview Thursday.
"Well, there are a number of things," Romney said on Fox News. "You start off by saying, let's stop something that's hurting small business from creating jobs and that's 'Obamacare.' Get rid of it. No. 2, have an energy strategy that takes advantage of our natural gas and oil and coal, as well as our renewables. Those low cost energy fuels will ultimately mean jobs come back here, even manufacturing jobs that left here. And finally, get a handle on the deficit so that people understand if they invest in America, their dollars will be worth something in the future."
Romney's initial claim came in an interview with TIME Magazine.
"I can tell you that over a period of four years, by virtue of the policies that we'd put in place, we'd get the unemployment rate down to 6%, and perhaps a little lower," the presumptive GOP nominee told the magazine.
The number marked the first time Romney had talked about a specific rate during this election cycle, although he listed 5.9% as the number he would strive for in his 59-point economic plan released in September.
Economic forecasts suggest Romney may not be too far off in his prediction. Based on the current rate of growth, the jobless rate is expected to fall to around 7% by the end of 2015 and 5.5% by the end of 2017, according to reports by the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office.
In a conference call Wednesday, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt pointed to those predictions in criticizing Romney's statement.
"Government economists have been clear that under current law their projection today is that unemployment will hit 6% by that point," LaBolt said.
He went on to cite recent remarks in which Romney, chiding the president for his job creation record, said any unemployment figure above 4% was not worth celebrating.
"What I think was interesting about this is that Romney moved goal posts in a matter of weeks," LaBolt said. "He said he was going to get it down to 4% several weeks ago, now he's at 6%, he's already moved the goal posts on a critical promise he made."
In his previous remarks, Romney did not explicitly say he would reduce the unemployment rate to 4%. At a campaign stop in Pittsburgh in May, he said "anything over 8%, anything near 8%, anything over 4% is not cause for celebration."
SOURCE: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/24/romney-backs-up-6-unemployment-claim/
"Well, there are a number of things," Romney said on Fox News. "You start off by saying, let's stop something that's hurting small business from creating jobs and that's 'Obamacare.' Get rid of it. No. 2, have an energy strategy that takes advantage of our natural gas and oil and coal, as well as our renewables. Those low cost energy fuels will ultimately mean jobs come back here, even manufacturing jobs that left here. And finally, get a handle on the deficit so that people understand if they invest in America, their dollars will be worth something in the future."
Romney's initial claim came in an interview with TIME Magazine.
"I can tell you that over a period of four years, by virtue of the policies that we'd put in place, we'd get the unemployment rate down to 6%, and perhaps a little lower," the presumptive GOP nominee told the magazine.
The number marked the first time Romney had talked about a specific rate during this election cycle, although he listed 5.9% as the number he would strive for in his 59-point economic plan released in September.
Economic forecasts suggest Romney may not be too far off in his prediction. Based on the current rate of growth, the jobless rate is expected to fall to around 7% by the end of 2015 and 5.5% by the end of 2017, according to reports by the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office.
In a conference call Wednesday, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt pointed to those predictions in criticizing Romney's statement.
"Government economists have been clear that under current law their projection today is that unemployment will hit 6% by that point," LaBolt said.
He went on to cite recent remarks in which Romney, chiding the president for his job creation record, said any unemployment figure above 4% was not worth celebrating.
"What I think was interesting about this is that Romney moved goal posts in a matter of weeks," LaBolt said. "He said he was going to get it down to 4% several weeks ago, now he's at 6%, he's already moved the goal posts on a critical promise he made."
In his previous remarks, Romney did not explicitly say he would reduce the unemployment rate to 4%. At a campaign stop in Pittsburgh in May, he said "anything over 8%, anything near 8%, anything over 4% is not cause for celebration."
SOURCE: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/24/romney-backs-up-6-unemployment-claim/
Dont know what happened to my post, basically I was saying Norquist is running the show no matter who you elect. A lobbyist originally hired years and years ago to lower taxes for the rich. The pubs sign a pledge to this effect and if they break that pledge, norquist will ruin them. So who is running the sho? Romney? Nope, Grover is.
Im saying that my decision is based on a few well known facts. Fact, the demise of our econemy happened in the Bush Era. Take that any way you want but that is a fact. Fact, when bush left office we were bleeding 750thousand jobs a month. Forward to now. We have come back, at a snails pace yes, but that might be because of all the obstruction and lack of compromise in the political dont ya think? Just imagine if things had been done they just run him? Why? Because he has more power doing what he is doing. Besides, when the facts came out about him the people would thro him out the back door.
I have done much much research on this and can only urge others to do the same. Its not pretty.
We are still in fragile water. Hopefully we will not encounter another recession soon, but if we do? I would have to contribute that to a whole lot more than JUST Obama. Republicans get to share that tragedy as well.
I have done much much research on this and can only urge others to do the same. Its not pretty.
We are still in fragile water. Hopefully we will not encounter another recession soon, but if we do? I would have to contribute that to a whole lot more than JUST Obama. Republicans get to share that tragedy as well.
So it's "acceptable if there is another recession in 2013, it is "acceptable, tolerable, or okay" since Obama was in office preceeding/during it?
I mean absolutely no offense when I say this, but I guess a lot of this is about blind faith. None of that ever dawned on me until right now. Just from re-reading some of the past posts, so many people think that this president can do no wrong, or very little. Worse, if he does wrong, it is acceptable. I guess the same could be said about the republicans.
When is everyone in this country going to start holding folks accountable for their fudge ups? Thier "misspeaks"? Thier misrepresentation?
After engaging in political discussions here and elsewhere, I honestly feel that most of America thinks they've been misrepresented in DC, but will not say it when their "guy" is in office. This is the party line affiliation that so many here and elsewhere say they want to abolish.
We are in a sad state of affairs in this country.... the world for that matter.
I mean absolutely no offense when I say this, but I guess a lot of this is about blind faith. None of that ever dawned on me until right now. Just from re-reading some of the past posts, so many people think that this president can do no wrong, or very little. Worse, if he does wrong, it is acceptable. I guess the same could be said about the republicans.
When is everyone in this country going to start holding folks accountable for their fudge ups? Thier "misspeaks"? Thier misrepresentation?
After engaging in political discussions here and elsewhere, I honestly feel that most of America thinks they've been misrepresented in DC, but will not say it when their "guy" is in office. This is the party line affiliation that so many here and elsewhere say they want to abolish.
We are in a sad state of affairs in this country.... the world for that matter.
Would I say he did a good job? I think I would have to say that he did what he could. But to think of what the alternative is, yes I would still follow this president.
So if there's another recession in 2013, you'd still say that the President did a good job?
Now you've got me pegged as a hard core republican. That truly isn't the case. And Romney vs. Obama right now... this very second, I'd vote for Obama because I don't know if it can get much worse than it is, and I am looking at it as damage control.
I know Romney is a successful business man. I know some of what he did is less than ethical. (Sounds a lot like our financial industry.) I think Romney has no clue what middle America is going through, but neither does the President.
I don't like Romney. Besides not being in touch with people of my socio-economical class, the guy irks me. ($hit, he may have a tail... I don't know.) I also said this back when the republicans began the scramble... I hate voting for the person who is least likely to screw up or do the least amount of damage. I've voted that way the last 4-5 elections and I think that is pitiful. I think the political gene pool is not much more than a primordial mud hole....Until we change the way politics operate, regardless of whom is put into office, we can count on more of the same... kind of like the banks not changing practices... that garbage will be exactly the same.
Disclaimer:
The above is my usless opinion and I do approve this message.
Brice
Now you've got me pegged as a hard core republican. That truly isn't the case. And Romney vs. Obama right now... this very second, I'd vote for Obama because I don't know if it can get much worse than it is, and I am looking at it as damage control.
I know Romney is a successful business man. I know some of what he did is less than ethical. (Sounds a lot like our financial industry.) I think Romney has no clue what middle America is going through, but neither does the President.
I don't like Romney. Besides not being in touch with people of my socio-economical class, the guy irks me. ($hit, he may have a tail... I don't know.) I also said this back when the republicans began the scramble... I hate voting for the person who is least likely to screw up or do the least amount of damage. I've voted that way the last 4-5 elections and I think that is pitiful. I think the political gene pool is not much more than a primordial mud hole....Until we change the way politics operate, regardless of whom is put into office, we can count on more of the same... kind of like the banks not changing practices... that garbage will be exactly the same.
Disclaimer:
The above is my usless opinion and I do approve this message.
Brice
Not sure I'd believe anything that comes out of any politician's mouth.
First of all L, im not goading you I am simply offering up my own opinion.
Brice in answer to your question, we all know that things are still volitile because of what is going on elsewhere in the world. We just had another incident with the big banks that evidently didnt learn anything the last time as well.
Here it is in a nutshell for me personally. During the Bush administrations, two wars were started and not funded. Medicare part D for big pharma was fazed in. (Adding the tally here?) Put on top of that the Bush Tax cuts that are still in effect. Then the mortgage crisis, the automobile mess. I mean we were lucky to hit a recession and not a full blown depression.
I have been following politics particularly closely for the last few years. I have seen many things and learned many things. There are still quite a few things I still dont understand but to think it makes sense to put someone else back into the WH that has the same policies they want to re enact that caused this major breakdown to begin with is just borders on insane. I mean its common sense to me!
I also factor in that the republican party has made a point to any who would listen that they had no intention of working with this president, would in fact go out of their way to make him a failure and do nothing that would allow him to look good in the nation. The debt ceiling debacle is a good example.
So here it is for me. I have NO faith in the republicans and have noticed up front and personal how they put their rich buddies, big oil and big business before this countries business. All of them have taken pledges to Norquist and it is he who is running the show. Norquist is the one that said on 60 minutes that Romney didnt have to make decisions if elected. All he is required to do is have enuff digits to sign the legislation put before him.
So you see, for me, Obama is the only recourse for this countries survival and if he had the whole other half of government working on behalf of we the people we would not be having this discussion as things would be so much better than they currently are.
In my heart of hearts I truly feel that Obama is our only way out. Even if the econemy takes another tumble I would still trust him more than the others.
Brice in answer to your question, we all know that things are still volitile because of what is going on elsewhere in the world. We just had another incident with the big banks that evidently didnt learn anything the last time as well.
Here it is in a nutshell for me personally. During the Bush administrations, two wars were started and not funded. Medicare part D for big pharma was fazed in. (Adding the tally here?) Put on top of that the Bush Tax cuts that are still in effect. Then the mortgage crisis, the automobile mess. I mean we were lucky to hit a recession and not a full blown depression.
I have been following politics particularly closely for the last few years. I have seen many things and learned many things. There are still quite a few things I still dont understand but to think it makes sense to put someone else back into the WH that has the same policies they want to re enact that caused this major breakdown to begin with is just borders on insane. I mean its common sense to me!
I also factor in that the republican party has made a point to any who would listen that they had no intention of working with this president, would in fact go out of their way to make him a failure and do nothing that would allow him to look good in the nation. The debt ceiling debacle is a good example.
So here it is for me. I have NO faith in the republicans and have noticed up front and personal how they put their rich buddies, big oil and big business before this countries business. All of them have taken pledges to Norquist and it is he who is running the show. Norquist is the one that said on 60 minutes that Romney didnt have to make decisions if elected. All he is required to do is have enuff digits to sign the legislation put before him.
So you see, for me, Obama is the only recourse for this countries survival and if he had the whole other half of government working on behalf of we the people we would not be having this discussion as things would be so much better than they currently are.
In my heart of hearts I truly feel that Obama is our only way out. Even if the econemy takes another tumble I would still trust him more than the others.
Don't be so fast to say that we've avoided a depression. More than a few economists are predicting a real bad 2013.
www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/stocks/story/2012-02-26/.../1Cached
So, I ask this question to all of you. A lot of people here say that what the President is doing is indeed working. If there is another recession in 2013, would you have a change of opinion and why or why not?
www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/stocks/story/2012-02-26/.../1Cached
So, I ask this question to all of you. A lot of people here say that what the President is doing is indeed working. If there is another recession in 2013, would you have a change of opinion and why or why not?
MrsP and I were talking about whether or not we were PERSONALLY better off or worse off than we were 3-4 years ago.
Now, if you want to talk about better or worse off as a nation, I'm going to have to say that we are worse off than we were 3-4 years ago.
The jobless rate is at an all-time high. I'm not sure, but I think that's a key-indicator on the health of an economy.
The decline may have started under the last presidency, but the decline has steadily increased under President Obama's watch. Just as the Bin Laden initiative was started under Bush's watch, but actually happened under President Obama's watch (and he subsequently took credit for it, as it DID happen under his watch), so the unemployment numbers started their decline under Bush's watch, and have culminated in the highest jobless-rate since the early 80's (under President Obama's watch).
You can't take credit for the good stuff, then blame the bad stuff on the last guy. You can't pick and choose what you want to take credit for, and when the bad things come to light, say, "It happened under the last guy, so it's his fault".
I'm not arguing Teko, I'm simply pointing out that things were STARTED under Bush's watch, yes, but they've gotten far worse in the last 3-4 years. As I said in another post/reply, I respect the job and I respect the President, but I don't like him or the job he's doing. Please don't take it personally, just because I don't believe like you do, or think like you do.
Almost feels like you're trying to goad me into an argument here. I've had enough bashing from Mike today, to last a while, so you won't get any fight out of me today.
Now, if you want to talk about better or worse off as a nation, I'm going to have to say that we are worse off than we were 3-4 years ago.
The jobless rate is at an all-time high. I'm not sure, but I think that's a key-indicator on the health of an economy.
The decline may have started under the last presidency, but the decline has steadily increased under President Obama's watch. Just as the Bin Laden initiative was started under Bush's watch, but actually happened under President Obama's watch (and he subsequently took credit for it, as it DID happen under his watch), so the unemployment numbers started their decline under Bush's watch, and have culminated in the highest jobless-rate since the early 80's (under President Obama's watch).
You can't take credit for the good stuff, then blame the bad stuff on the last guy. You can't pick and choose what you want to take credit for, and when the bad things come to light, say, "It happened under the last guy, so it's his fault".
I'm not arguing Teko, I'm simply pointing out that things were STARTED under Bush's watch, yes, but they've gotten far worse in the last 3-4 years. As I said in another post/reply, I respect the job and I respect the President, but I don't like him or the job he's doing. Please don't take it personally, just because I don't believe like you do, or think like you do.
Almost feels like you're trying to goad me into an argument here. I've had enough bashing from Mike today, to last a while, so you won't get any fight out of me today.
Well now as far as being worse off? Do we not remember just how bad things got? I hear people say oh we are worse under Obama! Well, no we are not. We were definately worse under bush when the 750,000 jobs a month were going down the toilet. So are we better off now? Yeah, I think thats a no brainer but if we are not? Blame the Bush And Bush Administration for that one.
As far as unemployment goes, the percentage that Romney boasts about is already set to happen anyway under the current guidelines according to CBO.
So thats nothing.
He wants to repeal the very healthcare he himself constructed in Mass, so thats a hypocritical pander to the party line and we all know it.
He thinks Russia is our biggest enemy, so probably by the time he gets done running his mouth, there will be issues there as well.
And he signed the pledge to Norquist. Yeah, got nothing for the trees are all the right height guy myself.
As far as unemployment goes, the percentage that Romney boasts about is already set to happen anyway under the current guidelines according to CBO.
So thats nothing.
He wants to repeal the very healthcare he himself constructed in Mass, so thats a hypocritical pander to the party line and we all know it.
He thinks Russia is our biggest enemy, so probably by the time he gets done running his mouth, there will be issues there as well.
And he signed the pledge to Norquist. Yeah, got nothing for the trees are all the right height guy myself.
Are YOU, personally, better off now than you were 4 years ago?
I can honestly say, that I'm considerably worse off now than I was 4 years ago. In January of 2009, gas was around $1.75/gal (in my neck of the woods, anyway), and it's been on a steady rise since then.
Now, I'm not BLAMING the President, directly, for the rise in gas prices, but it's been happening on his watch. In my mind, he's marginally to blame.
I'm not sure about you, but gasoline is a large portion of my budget.
Besides gasoline, everything has gone up in price (food, retail items, etc). Again, I'm not blaming him directly, but it's happened on his watch.
MrsP... I'm much worse off, financially, than I was prior to his taking office, and that's my bottom line. When the bottom fell out of the market in late 2008, early 2009, I lost approximately 40% of my net-worth (I wasn't rish or anything, but I had retirement savings and a small portfolio).. I've been able to recover about 10% of that, but the other 30% has vanished like it never existed.
No, I'm not any better off because of President Obama. To say I'm happy with him or the job he's done would be a lie.
However, THAT'S what makes this country great. The fact that we can sit here and have a discussion about this, and not call each other names, and act in a child'like manner. Here we are, 2 intelligent adults, having an intelligent conversation (well, it's intelligent on YOUR side of the fence, I'm a moron and a dummy whose opinion matters not!).
I can honestly say, that I'm considerably worse off now than I was 4 years ago. In January of 2009, gas was around $1.75/gal (in my neck of the woods, anyway), and it's been on a steady rise since then.
Now, I'm not BLAMING the President, directly, for the rise in gas prices, but it's been happening on his watch. In my mind, he's marginally to blame.
I'm not sure about you, but gasoline is a large portion of my budget.
Besides gasoline, everything has gone up in price (food, retail items, etc). Again, I'm not blaming him directly, but it's happened on his watch.
MrsP... I'm much worse off, financially, than I was prior to his taking office, and that's my bottom line. When the bottom fell out of the market in late 2008, early 2009, I lost approximately 40% of my net-worth (I wasn't rish or anything, but I had retirement savings and a small portfolio).. I've been able to recover about 10% of that, but the other 30% has vanished like it never existed.
No, I'm not any better off because of President Obama. To say I'm happy with him or the job he's done would be a lie.
However, THAT'S what makes this country great. The fact that we can sit here and have a discussion about this, and not call each other names, and act in a child'like manner. Here we are, 2 intelligent adults, having an intelligent conversation (well, it's intelligent on YOUR side of the fence, I'm a moron and a dummy whose opinion matters not!).
Yes I did say he needs another 4yrs to get us back to normal because it took more than 4 yrs to get us into this mess...Right now we are not there yet but we are better than when he got into office.....
Wait, you said so yourself, that he's not been able to get anything done in his first 4 years, and needs ANOTHER 4 years, as he's been continually blocked by Congress whenever he tries to do anything.
Obviously, I can't pin-point EXACTLY when & where you said it, but it's been within the last several days. One of your comments, unless I read it wrong, said as much, I swear (again, unless I misread or misunderstood).
As for "If this article were about Obama, would you feel the same way"... YES, I'd feel the exact same way. I'm waiting for BOTH SIDES to get all their cards on the table (cards on the table = their plans of action).
Romney has now addressed the Unemployment-Rate from a very high-level. Yipee. I still want to hear what he has to say regarding the SPECIFICS. Just as I want to hear what Obama has to say about the Unemployment-Rate and how HE'S going to address it, and the energy crisis (it's almost a crisis, anyway, and some would say it IS), and the wars, and illegal immigration, and the spiraling-out-of-control deficit, and whether or not he's going to pull Obamacare OFF the table, as no one wants it (except a very small percentage of the population, which last time I checked the way a "democracy" worked, is that if 75 people DON'T want something, and 25 people DO want something, majority rules and the 75 get their way).
I really want BOTH candidates to address the real issues and quite talking about "fluff" trying to distract us.
Beating up hippee's? Birth certificate? School transcripts? Bain Capital? Gay marriage? Etc, etc... the list goes on.
Stop f*cking around in an attempt (by BOTH SIDES) to draw attention away from the fact that NEITHER of you have the first clue how to fix this mess we're in.
Obviously, I can't pin-point EXACTLY when & where you said it, but it's been within the last several days. One of your comments, unless I read it wrong, said as much, I swear (again, unless I misread or misunderstood).
As for "If this article were about Obama, would you feel the same way"... YES, I'd feel the exact same way. I'm waiting for BOTH SIDES to get all their cards on the table (cards on the table = their plans of action).
Romney has now addressed the Unemployment-Rate from a very high-level. Yipee. I still want to hear what he has to say regarding the SPECIFICS. Just as I want to hear what Obama has to say about the Unemployment-Rate and how HE'S going to address it, and the energy crisis (it's almost a crisis, anyway, and some would say it IS), and the wars, and illegal immigration, and the spiraling-out-of-control deficit, and whether or not he's going to pull Obamacare OFF the table, as no one wants it (except a very small percentage of the population, which last time I checked the way a "democracy" worked, is that if 75 people DON'T want something, and 25 people DO want something, majority rules and the 75 get their way).
I really want BOTH candidates to address the real issues and quite talking about "fluff" trying to distract us.
Beating up hippee's? Birth certificate? School transcripts? Bain Capital? Gay marriage? Etc, etc... the list goes on.
Stop f*cking around in an attempt (by BOTH SIDES) to draw attention away from the fact that NEITHER of you have the first clue how to fix this mess we're in.
If this article were about Obama, would you feel the same way??
"I'm waiting patiently for the articles, so if you see them before I do, be sure and post. I'm truly ANXIOUS to see how Obama plans to get us out of this royal mess, in the next 4 years, as he's not even been able to TOUCH it in his first 4 years."
We avoided another great depression, Jobs are being created every month (They may not be the amount we all want, but at least they are being created), Unemployment is at its lowest since he took office....So what has he "not been able to touch on his first 4 yrs" El?
"I'm waiting patiently for the articles, so if you see them before I do, be sure and post. I'm truly ANXIOUS to see how Obama plans to get us out of this royal mess, in the next 4 years, as he's not even been able to TOUCH it in his first 4 years."
We avoided another great depression, Jobs are being created every month (They may not be the amount we all want, but at least they are being created), Unemployment is at its lowest since he took office....So what has he "not been able to touch on his first 4 yrs" El?
Why would anyone believe anything that comes out of Obama's mouth?
Oh yeah, sorry... Obama doesn't lie. He misspeaks.
My mistake.
Oh yeah, sorry... Obama doesn't lie. He misspeaks.
My mistake.
Good god MrsP... this article was about UNEMPLOYMENT. Give the man half a chance to get a few words out of his mouth, and let a few more articles be written!
Listen, his plan to drop the unemployment-rate might be a little on the weak side, but at least he presented something and has it out there now, in writing.
As for the economy... that sort of goes hand-in-hand with the unemployment-rate. Drop the unemployment-rate and the economy will start to rebound (or is it the chicken that comes before the egg?).
Energy? He's a big supporter of drilling here in the US and reducing our reliance on foreign oil. The article even touches on it (no details, but at least it's mentioned).
"...have an energy strategy that takes advantage of our natural gas and oil and coal, as well as our renewables. Those low cost energy fuels will ultimately mean jobs come back here, even manufacturing jobs that left here".
All of this said, I'm waiting for Obama to present HIS plans for dropping the unemployment-rate, and energy, and the economy. However, instead of jumping down Obama's throat, as you just did to Romney, I'll give him a chance to speak and let some articles to be written.
I'm waiting patiently for the articles, so if you see them before I do, be sure and post. I'm truly ANXIOUS to see how Obama plans to get us out of this royal mess, in the next 4 years, as he's not even been able to TOUCH it in his first 4 years.
Listen, his plan to drop the unemployment-rate might be a little on the weak side, but at least he presented something and has it out there now, in writing.
As for the economy... that sort of goes hand-in-hand with the unemployment-rate. Drop the unemployment-rate and the economy will start to rebound (or is it the chicken that comes before the egg?).
Energy? He's a big supporter of drilling here in the US and reducing our reliance on foreign oil. The article even touches on it (no details, but at least it's mentioned).
"...have an energy strategy that takes advantage of our natural gas and oil and coal, as well as our renewables. Those low cost energy fuels will ultimately mean jobs come back here, even manufacturing jobs that left here".
All of this said, I'm waiting for Obama to present HIS plans for dropping the unemployment-rate, and energy, and the economy. However, instead of jumping down Obama's throat, as you just did to Romney, I'll give him a chance to speak and let some articles to be written.
I'm waiting patiently for the articles, so if you see them before I do, be sure and post. I'm truly ANXIOUS to see how Obama plans to get us out of this royal mess, in the next 4 years, as he's not even been able to TOUCH it in his first 4 years.
Why would anyone believe anything that comes out of this guy's mouth ?
Now he's Delusional....
" Based on the current rate of growth, the jobless rate is expected to fall to around 7% by the end of 2015 and 5.5% by the end of 2017, according to reports by the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office."
It's already going to happen Romney...Thanks to President Obama and his administration...
"Well, there are a number of things," Romney said on Fox News. "You start off by saying, let's stop something that's hurting small business from creating jobs and that's 'Obamacare.' Get rid of it. No. 2, have an energy strategy that takes advantage of our natural gas and oil and coal, as well as our renewables. Those low cost energy fuels will ultimately mean jobs come back here, even manufacturing jobs that left here. And finally, get a handle on the deficit so that people understand if they invest in America, their dollars will be worth something in the future."
HOW?????....."Obamacare" isn't even in full effect yet. What is your energy strategy Romney? How are you going to get a handle on the economy?That's what I want to hear..
" Based on the current rate of growth, the jobless rate is expected to fall to around 7% by the end of 2015 and 5.5% by the end of 2017, according to reports by the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office."
It's already going to happen Romney...Thanks to President Obama and his administration...
"Well, there are a number of things," Romney said on Fox News. "You start off by saying, let's stop something that's hurting small business from creating jobs and that's 'Obamacare.' Get rid of it. No. 2, have an energy strategy that takes advantage of our natural gas and oil and coal, as well as our renewables. Those low cost energy fuels will ultimately mean jobs come back here, even manufacturing jobs that left here. And finally, get a handle on the deficit so that people understand if they invest in America, their dollars will be worth something in the future."
HOW?????....."Obamacare" isn't even in full effect yet. What is your energy strategy Romney? How are you going to get a handle on the economy?That's what I want to hear..
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
