The Romney campaign’s surreal arguments about the economy

[jaxx]

Posted at 12:55 PM ET, 05/30/2012
The Romney campaign’s surreal arguments about the economy
By Greg Sargent

You really couldn’t make this one up if you tried.

<..> In the same release attacking Obama over “net” job loss, the Romney camp also defends Romney’s jobs record as Governor of Massachusetts by pointing out ... that Romney inherited a state economy that was losing jobs when he took office.

<..>

Quote:Governor Romney Inherited An Economy That Was Losing Jobs Each Month And Left Office With An Economy That Was Adding Jobs Each Month. After taking office at a time when the state was losing thousands of jobs every month, Governor Romney’s focus on fiscal responsibility helped create an environment where job growth returned to Massachusetts. Job growth increased throughout his term and the state added over 40,000 payroll jobs during his final year in office —the best year of job growth in Massachusetts over the past decade. Household employment grew by nearly 50,000 under Governor Romney and the unemployment rate declined to well under 5%.

<..> All this is more than just a gotcha. It goes directly to the heart of Romney’s entire case against Obama. The claim that “net” jobs were lost on Obama’s watch is absolutely central to Romney’s whole argument, and the Romney team has repeated it for months and months in every conceivable forum. But the new standard the Romney campaign wants applied to him — i.e., that the focus should be on jobs added after jobs losses were reversed — would seem to completely undercut this entire case.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum..._blog.html

Does Willard think he's going to get by with this? He is blatantly saying only his jobs matter......the freaking hypocrite.

[sandnsea]

Speaking of Mass and its low unemployment rate today - are there any studies that show business is moving back to Mass to take advantage of the fact that health coverage is more equally spread across all payers - or whether wages have risen as the cost of benefits has dropped - or if local govt has benefited - or whether there has been no net affect - OR what exactly?