Romneycare vs Obamacare

@revelette,

revelette wrote:

Pretty lame argument since the same could be said for any fedeal law or tax.

Republicans must be figurativily tearing their hair out for picking Romney about now.

Well, they didn't precisely "pick" Romney, the way I see it...

In fact the impression I was left with during and after that long, arid GOP primary season was not that they selected anyone, but that they were sort... of left with no one else but Romney.

2 Replies

@snood,

True! Willard was one of the worst choice for the conservatives, but when he won out in the primaries, they had no choice.

Conservatives still believe Willard created jobs.

Quote:

We reported earlier that Mitt Romney, who ran for Governor on his ability to create jobs, was totally unable to fulfill that promise, and his state was ranked 50 out of 50 at job creation after a full year of his “expertise.”

Source: http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/mitt-romney-didn%E2%80%99t-create-jobs-as-a-businessman-he-destroyed-them/

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

Did people leave Massachusetts as a result of Romneycare?

No idea. It's a pretty liberal state and it was probably good for their state. I doubt Mass has the poor population say Louisiana or Arkansas has. Sure Boston and some of the other bigger cities have their share, but most of the die hard conservatives have probably left long before this became a thing.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

I believe McG missed the whole point of his own post. A liberal state voted a conservative as their governor. The people of MA understands what a democracy is all about.

0 Replies

Actually he spent ten or twelve years trying to convince us here in MA that he was a progressive Republican, tried to out-Teddy Teddy. Then he got in and started getting delusions of President-ness and promptly disowned everything he'd told us for a decade and reinvented (i.e. flipflopped) himself as a conservative to try to get the Republican nomination. Republicans in '08 had the sense to reject him. They were more gullible this time around.

We're not the abject failure that some of the southern Red State states are, but the western part of the state and a lot of the city population could definitely use more jobs. As ebeth noted, Romney's record at job creation here was abysmal. He pretty much became an absentee governor when he started running full-time for President in '06. He is not looked on with any fondness here. All chin wind and good hair about sums him up.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Mass was hit hard when the Tech bubble popped. Right around the time Romney came into office. A whole lot of those jobs never came back so Mass had a low rate of regrowth. The tax policies in Mass also affected the rates of growth and that is how states like NC was able to grow faster. Mass is burdened by taxes on both the populace and the businesses there.

Also, despite how much we like to think so, Gov's and the President don't really have that big an impact on job growth or lack there of. It is sure fun to talk about though.

0 Replies

Actually the tech bubble predated Romney by several years. He didn't do anything to alleviate the lingering effects, or any other sectors of the economy. I agree with you that the effects of gov and pres on job creation are limited. However one interesting correlation is that job growth during all democratic presidencies outpaces job growth under any republican president, all the way back to Hoobert Heever. And of course Romney talks incessantly about how good he is at job creation and how he'll restore the economy and jobs (specifics of exactly how he will do this, are, like all of his "plans", notably lacking). And the whole Taxachusetts thing is mostly folklore, or actually fakelore, rather than reality.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

However one interesting correlation is that job growth during all democratic presidencies outpaces job growth under any republican president, all the way back to Hoobert Heever.

Mostly due to the policies put in place by the Republican who had to fix all the issues from the previous Democrat in office. Then a new Dem comes in, F's it all up and the a Rep has to come fix it up so the next Dem can benefit from the fixes. It's just a cycle.

1 Reply

Like the way W. Bush "fixed" the surplus he inherited when he took office? Like the way he "fixed" the economy? Gods save us from Republican "fixes".

1 Reply

Yeah, that sounds... a little backwards from reality, there.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

Wow! That's a new twist; reverse all the facts and figures to give all the credit to the republicans. The only problem with this attempt to rewrite history is that historians have already recorded the facts and figures under each president.

From Wiki:

Quote:

Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The economic policy of the George W. Bush administration was a combination of tax cuts, expenditures for fighting two wars, and a free-market ideology intended to de-emphasize the role of government in the private sector. He advocated the ownership society, premised on the concepts of individual accountability, less government, and the owning of property.
During his first term (2001–2005), he sought and obtained Congressional approval for tax cuts: the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. These acts decreased all tax rates, reduced the capital gains tax, increased the child tax credit and eliminated the so-called "marriage penalty", and were set to expire in 2011.
The last two years of his presidency were characterized by the worsening subprime mortgage crisis, which resulted in government intervention to bail out damaged financial institutions and a weakening economy.
The U.S. national debt grew significantly from 2001 to 2008, both in dollar terms and relative to the size of the economy (GDP),[1] due to a combination of tax cuts and wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq.[2]

From dkosopedia:

Quote:

Job Loss or Gain by President and Party

(D) Roosevelt 5.3
(D) Johnson 3.8
(D) Carter 3.1
(D) Truman 2.5
(D) Clinton 2.4
(D) Kennedy 2.3
(R) Nixon 2.2
(R) Reagan 2.1
(R) Coolidge 1.1
(R) Ford 1.1
(R) Eisenhower 0.9
(R) G. Bush 0.6
(R) G.W. Bush -0.7
(R) Hoover -9.0

[/color]

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Like the way W. Bush "fixed" the surplus he inherited when he took office? Like the way he "fixed" the economy? Gods save us from Republican "fixes".

Right... Bush's term didn't have anything major happen to change the rosy outlook left to him. I keep forgetting that you folks forget about the wars and stuff. I can't help myself in remembering every day still. I wish I could forget like you guys seem to. Must make life so much better.

3 Replies

@McGentrix,

Quote:

I keep forgetting that you folks forget about the wars and stuff.

How could we forget about the unfunded wars?

You seem to forget about the "unfunded" part.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

You,

Quote:

I keep forgetting that you folks forget about the wars and stuff.

The two unfunded wars that GW Bush started was longer than WWII. Obama inherited those two unfunded wars, and the Great Recession that started during GW Bush's term. The deficit increased during Obama's term, because he had to provide tax cuts to the middle class after the disastrous economy left by GW Bush. They didn't call it the Great Recession for nothing!

It seems you're the one forgetting some of the worst actions of the previous president, but then, conservatives don't have factual memories.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Bush's term didn't have anything major happen to change the rosy outlook left to him. I keep forgetting that you folks forget about the wars and stuff.

wars? invasions perhaps. unwarranted invasions.

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

They were actually "illegal" invasions of a sovereign country, and GW Bush chased out UN Weapons Inspectors to start his war.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

Quote:

Ok, so no discussion about states rights to be seen. Just the usual stuff.

I was hoping we would be done with the "states rights" bullshit after we decided that black people could eat at Woolworth's lunch counter.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Bush's term didn't have anything major happen to change the rosy outlook left to him. I keep forgetting that you folks forget about the wars and stuff.

wars? invasions perhaps. unwarranted invasions.

Wow. Just wow. From Parados I would have expected that reply.

No sense continuing with that one... unwaranted... wow. I mean my mind is blown.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
Ok, so no discussion about states rights to be seen. Just the usual stuff.

I was hoping we would be done with the "states rights" bullshit after we decided that black people could eat at Woolworth's lunch counter.

Oh right, you are the minority champion as nothing else matters. States shouldn't have rights because of black people. Rolling Eyes

Give it a rest. We are a federal republic, pretending that we are something else is idiotic on your part.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

You wrote,

Quote:

Give it a rest. We are a federal republic, pretending that we are something else is idiotic on your part.

ROFLMAO

0 Replies

Romneycare vs Obamacare

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know