Posted on 05/24/2012 6:59:17 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Normally I hate self-imposed benchmarks since there’s plenty of downside to them and little upside. But in this case, what does he have to lose?
Halperin: Would you like to be more specific about what the unemployment rate would be like at the end of your first year?
Romney: I can’t possibly predict precisely what the unemployment rate will be at the end of one year. 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. It depends in part upon the rate of growth of the globe, as well as what we’re seeing here in the United States, but we’d get the rate down quite substantially, and frankly, the key is we’re going to show such job growth that there will be competition for employees again. And wages – we’ll see the end of this decline we’re having. The median income in America is down 10% in just the last four years. That’s got to stop. We’ve got to start seeing rising wages and job growth.
What are the odds that the U.S. economy won’t be able to shave two percentage points off the unemployment rate over four years with a much more pro-business regulatory regime to encourage it? There are various “black swan” events that could intervene to make that difficult/impossible, starting with a eurozone meltdown or soaring oil prices during a standoff with Iran, but in that case Romney will simply blame the failure of his prediction on the black swan. As it is, CBO already estimates that unemployment will reach seven percent by the end of 2015 and five and a half percent by the end of 2017, putting his six-percent figure by 2016 right in the ballpark.
Plus, look at it this way: If he’s able to knock only a percentage point or so off of unemployment during his first term, from roughly eight percent to seven, then come 2016 the fact that he broke a campaign promise will be a very minor footnote to the more important fact that he, er, was only able to knock a percentage point or so off of unemployment. The Unicorn Prince has already broken his own promise from early 2009 that he’d have the economy back on track within three years lest his presidency be a one-term proposition. (He’s broken a lot of other promises too, including/especially the implied promise to the left that he’d be dramatically different from Bush on the war on terror.) Most swing voters don’t care, though, I think; all they’ll want to know is how unemployment and GDP are trending come, say, September. If anything, I think Romney’s vulnerable to criticism here that, a la the CBO numbers, he’s not expecting as much economic improvement under his administration as some of his supporters are.
Nice to see someone in the media pressing him on an important subject, though. As a counterpoint to that, via Guy Benson, here’s how the public’s greeting WaPo’s atomic bombshell about Romney forcing a haircut on a classmate 50 years ago:
Exit question: Didn’t Romney suggest a few weeks ago that four percent unemployment should be the target? Click the image to watch.
It shows that Romney knows where his bread is buttered, “It’s the Economy, Stupid.”
sounds like bullshit... smells like it too
Agreed. It can be done but Romney isn’t bold enough to do what it takes to make it happen.
Instead, we’ll get numbers manipulation.
This guy is more of an idiot than I even thought. What have we done to deserve this jerk as the nominee....Please people get on board with one of the conservatives that are running. He is making a fool of himself.
If Obama is re-elected, it will be at 20%.
Such as?
Instead, we’ll get numbers manipulation.
What he should do is qualify it by saying "If I get to calculate unemployment the way Obama has.", and turn the discussion to how phoney the figures we've been getting really are.
Instead, we’ll get numbers manipulation.
What he should do is qualify it by saying "If I get to calculate unemployment the way Obama has.", and turn the discussion to how phoney the figures we've been getting really are.
No mention of whether he’d accomplish this though private or public sector jobs.
I don’t think it is beyond Mitt Romney to increase the size of government to meet a campaign promise.
Don’t misunderstand, Obama’s goal IS to increase the size of government.
Romney => socialism is the result
Obama => socialism is the goal
It sounds impossible to achieve unless you count on even more millions dropping out of the work force.
I don't know. Consider, a lot of American companies are making a profit; but are afraid of hiring due to the unknown business climate. How much will the taxes be next year? What about the rising healthcare costs? What are my manditory expenses in hiring people? With Obamacare on the way, we have already seen healthcare grow before it's even released. The New York Daily News reports today that the cost of healtcare will exceed $20,000 per employee, with the companies paying upwards of $8,500 of that. Now, what will the costs be 'next year'? What about the deficit? How will the business be affected with the goverment meddling with the auto, banking, medical and drug industries?
Would you hire anyone more than absolutely demanded? I wouldn't. Now, with Mitt and his "claims" to abolish Obamacare, to stop the deficit spending, to cut taxes - a lot of these fears go away. I suspect that companies will start hiring again. Will it drop to 6%? Well, if Ronald Reagan was able to make a recovery as significant as he did by following conservative principles; and if Romeny can be depended on following similar Reagan principles , then he may indeed have a point.
Unlike most eveyrone in Congress (RINO and DEM), Romney has actually ran a business and generated both jobs, and a profit.
The time for this was a year ago, which was also the time for conservatives to quickly move behind one or two candidates and to move as one to quickly pull behind one. Instead some conservatives repeated 2008 and allowed the process to become balkanized with a lot of petty backbiting that served none of the real conservative candidates well and left the door open for our current, not so conservative, and presumptive candidate.
We may not like him and I still see him as mitt the twit, but what he proposes is doable, if he can take the steps to take an aggressive and sometimes dirty fight directly to the democrat party and our would-be dictator. He won't go anywhere or take any other than the wimpy approach unless ALL conservatives get behind him and put the pressure both on him and his machine as well as extreme pressure and gloves off confrontational politics directly at the democrat field.
If you're willing to drive what most probably is the final nail in the coffin of our Constitution and Republic by passively allowing der Fuehrer to have another term then you are on board for 20% unemployment as another poster noted and you are comfortable with allowing a democrat dictatorship to be established over all of us and our children.
Conservatives were balkanized in the process of selecting a good candidate and now too many are consolidated in doing nothing to help the candidate who could bring us back from the brink in favor of the dictator we have.
Too many acted like spoiled children the last time, taking their dollies and support and going home. There may be no going back this time if the POS kenyan wins again.
While I’m completely on board over the sentiment about Romney... frankly... even a RINO could probably do what he claimed if only departing from BHO2 policies. But a simple plan for economic recovery wouldn’t even be hard:
1. Kill Obamacare
2. Sign any budget proposal the House comes up with. If the Senate is still D-controlled, then just do it anyway... that’s the way they’ve been doing business the past four years.
3. Lower the capital gains tax.
4. Ease restrictions on energy exploration - fracking, the North Slope/ANWR, Gulf of Mexico.
5. Free the Keystone pipeline
Mix well, cook for 12 months: Instant economy boom.
Now will he do it?
Amazing what crap some believe to make themselves feel better. RomneyCare, the blueprint for Obamacare, and you believe mitt will abolish obamacare.
Simple approach to 6%. Do nothing to create jobs. Let the unemployment benefits run out for another 5,000,000 people. Just like Idi Obama, don’t count as unemployed those whose bennies have run out. Voila - 6%.
Sounds darn good.
Actually.
Mitt’s right about this. Stop qualifying things.
When he’s right, he’s 100% right. He’s right.
Don't kid yourself; it is already at 20% if the numbers were actual.
Our Representative is up for re-election. His current mailing lists all the wonderful things he is going to do if re-elected. My question to him if you say you can do all that the next two years, why haven’t you done it the last two years in the Republican controlled house.
To think that things would change quickly and substantially under Romney with pretty much the same people in Congress is pure folly, IMO. Plus I do believe Romney is a proponent of global warming - a strong driver behind all the increased costs, regulations and growth of government.
If he can TRULY do this that would be great! It really wouldn’t take much—tax cuts, incentives and a few other business (capitalistic) friendly actions and we’d be good to go.
An aside: You know, some people really need to decide who they are for—Obama or Romney. It’s one or the other, ‘cause if you don’t vote for one you WILL GET “the other.” You may not like that outcome.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.