Romney: How does six percent unemployment by the end of my first term sound?

posted at 7:21 pm on May 23, 2012 by Allahpundit

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.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Yea, 6 is an overly soft target. I mean, at least try to get it back to 5.5 as a goal, right?

preallocated on May 23, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Are you a 4 percenter?

nukemhill on May 23, 2012 at 7:28 PM

Major Reason To Support: 1

LOL!

Mitt gave a really strong interview to Halperin.

Tingles show today was full on panic.

aquaviva on May 23, 2012 at 7:28 PM

heck mittens could do that in the 1st year by rolling back everything baracky did.

newrouter on May 23, 2012 at 7:29 PM

The unemployment rate is meaningless unless labor participation is taken into account…the unemployment rate would be zero in this country if there are only 100 jobs in the country and they are filled with the only 100 people looking for work.

AUINSC on May 23, 2012 at 7:30 PM

This only happens if Romney and the congress critters can erase massive amounts of fed regulations and somehow kickstart energy production.

txhsmom on May 23, 2012 at 7:30 PM

Flash forward to October 2016:

“President Romney cannot win re-election with a shameful unemployment number of 6.2% American have never suffered like this before!!”

-MSNBCBSABCNNHUFFOGAWKERAOLYAHOONEWSPBS

portlandon on May 23, 2012 at 7:33 PM

Zzzzzzz.
You could promise to run around in your underwear, covered in grape jam, and paint the white house sky blue for all i care.
Just grow a pair and hit that idiot hard enough to throw him out of office.
I’m going back to the Delhi Monkey thread.

AllahsNippleHair on May 23, 2012 at 7:34 PM

txhsmom on May 23, 2012 at 7:30 PM

No biggie, just roll back the executive orders that strangled domestic drilling and kick the EPA in the butt over their energy killing regulations that 0bama told them to put into place. Then apologize (for the 0bama snub, in private) to Canada and fast track Keystone.

cozmo on May 23, 2012 at 7:36 PM

I’m willing to bet that Romney, during his time at Bain, never told the employees, “We inherited a mess, and it’s worse than we thought.” Rather, they just dug in and did the work – as opposed to the golf.

He’ll do fine creating an environment for jobs.

beatcanvas on May 23, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Why not zero percent unemployment Sketch?

Uppereastside on May 23, 2012 at 7:37 PM

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?

Simply by getting elected, especially if the GOP captures the Senate (can we dream of 60 seats there?) businesses, which have been sitting on cash, will start spending. Everyone will breathe a sigh of relief.

rbj on May 23, 2012 at 7:37 PM

There is actually a lot of cash being sat on by corporations, that is waiting to be invested once the looters of the 0bama regime are gone.

I think 6% is a very reasonable and achievable goal.

Rebar on May 23, 2012 at 7:37 PM

If Mitt got it to 6 without having to count on driving people out of the workforce to accomplish the goal we would be way ahead the game. Seriously, if I were Mitt I wouldn’t throw out a number for the media to hang on him like a noose – expectedly.

msmveritas on May 23, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Why not zero percent unemployment Sketch?

Uppereastside on May 23, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Capitalism

Schadenfreude on May 23, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Didn’t Romney suggest a few weeks ago that four percent unemployment should be the target?

Not really if you listen to exactly what he said.

Mark1971 on May 23, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Why not zero percent unemployment Sketch?

Uppereastside on May 23, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Yeah, match uppereastside’s worth, IQ score, and chances that his Chicago Jesus will be reelected.

AllahsNippleHair on May 23, 2012 at 7:39 PM

If Romney were really slick, he’d return the calculus of the unemployment number to a more realistic value which would jump it up surely, but then when it comes down he can say “Look, the last guy kept lying to you, and you know it. I’m using real figures here and brought this shit down to x%. Kiss my ass Baracky.”

smfic on May 23, 2012 at 7:39 PM

He’s baiting Obama to challenge him on it. A direct response to Obama’s NATO Summit presser:

And when you’re president, as opposed to the head of a private equity firm, then your job is not simply to maximize profits. Your job is to figure out how everyone in the country has a fair shot. Your job is to think about those workers who get laid off and how are we paying for their retraining? …And so, if your main argument for how to grow the economy is, ‘I knew how to make a lot of money for investors, then you’re missing what this job is about.’

How will you drop unemployment to 6%, Mr. President, after promising that your failed stimulus package would keep unemployment below 8%?

de rigueur on May 23, 2012 at 7:39 PM

If Romney is elected unemployment will be 6% by the 2014 midterms. All investors need to know is that there won’t be a president raising taxes, over regulating, and demonizing them.

Mark1971 on May 23, 2012 at 7:42 PM

What am I…?

… Chopped liver?

/

Seven Percent Solution on May 23, 2012 at 7:43 PM

Why not zero percent unemployment Sketch?

Uppereastside on May 23, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Too many liberals who have no intention of ever working for a living.

oceansidecon on May 23, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Next time just tell them you’ll do the best you can. Perfect milquetoast answer.

mike0993 on May 23, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Somehow I expect democrats will be much more strict on this promise than they were on Obama’s promise that it would never go over 8% if the stimulus passed.

Scrappy on May 23, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Maybe someone can help me out here…

But you had millions leave the job market and those aren’t normally counted in the unemployment numbers. But say they re-enter when hiring/economy starts to pick up under Romney; can that cause the unemployment number to actual spike due to optimism and a hiring boom?

If so, imagine trying to explain that to the average voter!

nextgen_repub on May 23, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Promise them the moon, huh? How about $2.50 a gallon gas? Is that too much to ask.

6% is not a big deal. We might be half to that by the time the election rolls around.
Again, it seems Romney is not listening to me. This election cannot be about the economy, well it can, but then O wins. Drop that as the central issue. It seems like Romney’s doubling down on making the economy the issue. He thinks sticking to the economy is a “prevent defense;” it’s actually a “fail offense.”

The central issue of this election is the runaway out of control govt, which, if not reined in, could spell our ruin for generations. It is NOT ABOUT THE ECONOMY.

The economy is a toss up issue among many independents, meaning it’s not clear that Repubs own that issue. It is clear that Repubs own the issue of fighting an out of control govt, which is a larger issue. Build themes around that larger issue.

anotherJoe on May 23, 2012 at 7:48 PM

It will beat the heII out of The 0 Economy™.

Bmore on May 23, 2012 at 7:51 PM

6% is a sorry target! He ought to discuss the other side of the argument % of Americans working. The MSM watches the number on unemployment comp (8.1%), but has yet to mention the percent of the work force unemployed growing from 34 to 36+%. Romney ought to start quoting that figure too and the millions of folks it represents.

KenInIL on May 23, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Zzzzzzz.
You could promise to run around in your underwear, covered in grape jam, and paint the white house sky blue for all i care.
Just grow a pair and hit that idiot hard enough to throw him out of office.
I’m going back to the Delhi Monkey thread.

AllahsNippleHair on May 23, 2012 at 7:34 PM

..
I nominate your post for comment of the day!

anotherJoe on May 23, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Romney knows he will hit these numbers and better. This is a case where he would rather under promise and over deliver.

steel guy on May 23, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Yeah, but can he stop the rise of the oceans?

http://www.fiscalwars.wordpress.com

stout77 on May 23, 2012 at 7:55 PM

I’m going back to the Delhi Monkey thread.

AllahsNippleHair on May 23, 2012 at 7:34 PM

…Dr. T is still at it..loving himself.
.
.
.
Oh..and shut up… Mitt!

KOOLAID2 on May 23, 2012 at 7:57 PM

Why not zero percent unemployment Sketch?

Uppereastside on May 23, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Too many liberals who have no intention of ever working for a living.

oceansidecon on May 23, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Why bitch and moan about the unemployment rate then? I mean all those unemployed folks are lazy liberals who can’t get off their lazy asses to find a job you know.

Uppereastside on May 23, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Why not zero percent unemployment Sketch?

Uppereastside on May 23, 2012 at 7:37 PM

…he didn’t want to go higher than your IQ!

KOOLAID2 on May 23, 2012 at 7:59 PM

Why not zero percent unemployment Sketch?

Too many liberals who have no intention of ever working for a living.

oceansidecon on May 23, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Yes, and remember the real unemployment rate is somewhere in the low teens. Much of that is because people have given up. With President Romney in office, those that have given up will trickle back into the job market and make the fake government ’8.1%’ hard to move.

The real numbers to watch will be the number of employed, payrolls, and federal revenue from withholding.

slickwillie2001 on May 23, 2012 at 7:59 PM

I’m going back to the Delhi Monkey thread.

AllahsNippleHair on May 23, 2012 at 7:34 PM

…Dr. T is still at it..loving himself.
.
.
.
Oh..and shut up… Mitt!

KOOLAID2 on May 23, 2012 at 7:57 PM

That’s it! I’m betting Dr. Tesla is from Delhi and is used to being worshipped!
Explains everything.

AllahsNippleHair on May 23, 2012 at 8:01 PM

nextgen_repub on May 23, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Yep. I’ve been worrying about that too. Romey is gonna be dragging along all those who re-enter th e work force if he lets it be framed by the traditional unemployment percentage rather than number of available work force who are employed. He needs to protect himself against this.

a capella on May 23, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Why not zero percent unemployment Sketch?

Uppereastside on May 23, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Too many liberals who have no intention of ever working for a living.

oceansidecon on May 23, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Why bit*h and moan about the unemployed then? They are all lazy liberals looking for a handout you know.

Uppereastside on May 23, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Too many liberals who have no intention of ever working for a living.

oceansidecon on May 23, 2012 at 7:44 PM

This has the right feel, but the wrong identity…Liberals are the ones that enable the leeches of our society to ‘flourish’…

BigWyo on May 23, 2012 at 8:02 PM

It’ll be 6% by November.

El_Terrible on May 23, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Why not zero percent unemployment Sketch?

Too many liberals who have no intention of ever working for a living.

oceansidecon on May 23, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Yes, and remember the real unemployment rate is somewhere in the low teens. Much of that is because people have given up. With President Romney in office, those that have given up will trickle back into the job market and make the fake government ’8.1%’ hard to move.

The real numbers to watch will be the number of employed, payrolls, and federal revenue from withholding.

slickwillie2001 on May 23, 2012 at 7:59 PM

Ofcouuuuuuuuuuuse.

Uppereastside on May 23, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Why not zero percent unemployment Sketch?

Uppereastside on May 23, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Too many liberals who have no intention of ever working for a living.

oceansidecon on May 23, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Why bit*h and moan about the unemployed then? They are all lazy liberals looking for a handout you know.

Uppereastside on May 23, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Because the rest of us have to work to support your schlepping lifestyle, buck tooth.

AllahsNippleHair on May 23, 2012 at 8:06 PM

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.

Whole lot easier defending not hitting the 6% target from inside the White House in 2016, than from not being there at all.

PatMac on May 23, 2012 at 8:07 PM

Somehow I expect democrats will be much more strict on this promise than they were on Obama’s promise that it would never go over 8% if the stimulus passed.

Scrappy on May 23, 2012 at 7:45 PM

True dat.

It’ll be 6% by November.

El_Terrible on May 23, 2012 at 8:02 PM

And true dat.

cajun carrot on May 23, 2012 at 8:08 PM

promises, promises sounds too much like obumbler to me

NOMITTNOBAMA 2012

Pragmatic on May 23, 2012 at 8:08 PM

Uppereastside on May 23, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Your posts are pretty lame. What a pathetic excuse for a troll.

CW on May 23, 2012 at 8:08 PM

Too many liberals who have no intention of ever working for a living.

oceansidecon on May 23, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Why bit*h and moan about the unemployed then? They are all lazy liberals looking for a handout you know.

Uppereastside on May 23, 2012 at 8:01 PM

And of course he did not say ALL but you knew that. You’re as dishonest as they come.

CW on May 23, 2012 at 8:09 PM

Why bit*h and moan about the unemployed then? They are all lazy liberals looking for a handout you know.

Uppereastside on May 23, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Because the rest of us have to work to support your schlepping lifestyle, buck tooth.

AllahsNippleHair on May 23, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Willing to bet alot more take a job than don’t. But yes, there are schlubs who will always look for the free ride, and they always come up short. Poor and ignorant fools.

cajun carrot on May 23, 2012 at 8:10 PM

By your analysis, I hope you understand why most progressives brand conservatives as people who hate minorities. In other words racists.

Uppereastside on May 20, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Only one playing the race card is you and your right wing lunatics. All you do is bring race into every equation.

Uppereastside on May 2, 2012 at 12:47 PM

rogerb on May 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Hat Tip rogerb. ; )

Bmore on May 23, 2012 at 8:13 PM

Why bit*h and moan about the unemployed then? They are all lazy liberals looking for a handout you know.

Uppereastside on May 23, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Strawman alert!!..:)

Dire Straits on May 23, 2012 at 8:16 PM

That’ll be okay, but I’d rather have Bacracka, The Mooche, Jarrett, Emmanuel, Shrillary, Pelosi, Reid et. al. in orange jumpsuits.

SouthernGent on May 23, 2012 at 8:18 PM

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.

Well, those figures are probably not taking the tax increases and energy cost spikes that are in the pipeline. The way I figure it, if things are left to the way they are the economy is currently on a trajectory to crater in 2016. The power plants coming offline in January 2015 will result in businesses failing during the course of 2015 and by 2016 Obama will have scuttled the entire economy.

crosspatch on May 23, 2012 at 8:19 PM

I do hope,this doesn’t morph into a 6 6 6 type plan,
er,wait,thats moronic,h*ll,never mind!
(sarc)

canopfor on May 23, 2012 at 8:19 PM

Mitt and his consultants aren’t dumb. I think they are under promising so they can overdeliver. If they are saying 6, that probably thinks they can believe they can get it down to at least 5.5

Donald Draper on May 23, 2012 at 8:19 PM

Didn’t Romney suggest a few weeks ago that four percent unemployment should be the target?

There’s a difference between a pledge and a target. Besides, it’s pretty tough to get below 5% due to structural and frictional unemployment as they are givens regardless of how the economy is doing.

blammm on May 23, 2012 at 8:20 PM

Why bit*h and moan about the unemployed then? They are all lazy liberals looking for a handout you know.

Uppereastside on May 23, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Uppereastside:You mean,the Lizard People Voters!(sarc)

canopfor on May 23, 2012 at 8:20 PM

Strawman alert!!..:)

Dire Straits on May 23, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Dire Staits:Yuppers,Haha,9 Alarm Fire!!!(sarc):)

canopfor on May 23, 2012 at 8:24 PM

Dire Staits:Yuppers,Haha,9 Alarm Fire!!!(sarc):)

canopfor on May 23, 2012 at 8:24 PM

Bingo..Film at 11:00..:)

Dire Straits on May 23, 2012 at 8:27 PM

“I can’t possibly predict precisely…” nice alliteration there.

cheetah2 on May 23, 2012 at 8:27 PM

heck mittens could do that in the 1st year by rolling back everything baracky did.

newrouter on May 23, 2012 at 7:29 PM

..now many times you sandbag your management by inflating estimates and setting back deadlines? Romney will blow by 6% when he gets congress to o.k. drilling in the U.S., etc.

The War Planner on May 23, 2012 at 8:34 PM

It’s only 8 percent now because Obama inspires no hope of a job. If Romney becomes President then suddenly people will looking for jobs again and voila… eighteen percent unemployment.

Ukiah on May 23, 2012 at 8:41 PM

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.

Not to detract too much from this, but the reason that we have unemployment is because wages have been inflated above market level.

Count to 10 on May 23, 2012 at 8:44 PM

That sounds like runaway inflation to me…

Theworldisnotenough on May 23, 2012 at 8:45 PM

Strawman alert!!..:)

Dire Straits on May 23, 2012 at 8:16 PM

…the straw never gets changed!…It’s like the straw in my old dairy farmer rommates barn…after the cattle shat in their stalls for a while…the straw would need changing…Upyerassideways… is soaked in urine and feces…and needs changing.

KOOLAID2 on May 23, 2012 at 8:49 PM

Retire Harry Reid to Senate minority leader and, “you can do it waterboy”.

Of course there’s the inevitable, all good things that happen under Romney will be due to the Messiah’s policies just as everything bad that happened under Baraka was Bush’s fault.

antipc on May 23, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Straw and Upper are like peas in a pod.

CW on May 23, 2012 at 9:05 PM

Straw and Upper are like peas in a pod.

CW on May 23, 2012 at 9:05 PM

I’m kind of wanting to say UpperButtCrack is ernesto..but ernesto wasn’t such a snotty bitch and he made sense on the rare occasion…

Speaking of which…did he get the ban hammer?? Haven’t seen him around for awhile…

BigWyo on May 23, 2012 at 9:16 PM

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.

If we start talking about wages then we have to take a close look at corporate culture, and that’s verboten or something.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Retire Harry Reid to Senate minority leader and, “you can do it waterboy”.

Of course there’s the inevitable, all good things that happen under Romney will be due to the Messiah’s policies just as everything bad that happened under Baraka was Bush’s fault.

antipc on May 23, 2012 at 8:54 PM

It would take 60 Republican Senators to Retire Reid.

Unless we get 60 there will be little we can actually do. Though there are a few things. Budget only takes 51 for example.

Unless Obama becomes a Dictator it actually might be better for them over all if Obama lost. Then they can blame everything on the Republicans with some actual facts.

Steveangell on May 23, 2012 at 9:19 PM

Steveangell on May 23, 2012 at 9:19 PM

Uhh..I think you missed something here…

Retire Harry Reid to Senate minority leader and, “you can do it waterboy”.

BigWyo on May 23, 2012 at 9:22 PM

Romney: How does six percent unemployment by the end of my first term sound?

Lower than 6 percent sounds a lot better. But what kind of jobs? There is a large segment of the American population that is underemployed not just unemployed.

Dr Evil on May 23, 2012 at 9:26 PM

If we start talking about wages then we have to take a close look at corporate culture, and that’s verboten or something.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 9:16 PM

It is called Capitialism..Maybe you need to move to France..:)

Dire Straits on May 23, 2012 at 9:28 PM

If he got unemployment to 6% with labor participation rate up to around 65% then he would have turned obama’s mess around pretty dramatically.

Ta111 on May 23, 2012 at 9:32 PM

Why not zero percent unemployment Sketch?

Uppereastside on May 23, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Too many liberals who have no intention of ever working for a living.

oceansidecon on May 23, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Why bit*h and moan about the unemployed then? They are all lazy liberals looking for a handout you know.

Uppereastside on May 23, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Well, no. Many of the unemployed really want to work. But a fair number don’t-thus, never 0%.

Six percent should be very doable for Romney. (Difficult to imagine for Obama given the policies of his administration regarding energy, health insurance and regulation). Romney might get 4%, but it would require a lot of luck in addition to good business judgment. It would make no sense for him to publicly set a goal which relied that much on factors beyond his control.

talkingpoints on May 23, 2012 at 9:38 PM

Go get ‘em, Mitt. The problem is that Zero has been cooking the unemployment books for the last 3.5 years so good luck with it. ABO.

Philly on May 23, 2012 at 9:40 PM

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?

Absolutely nothing. But more to the point, I like the mention of a specific (what should we call it a goal?) number and not the next few months promising to lower the unemployment rate by “creating jobs.” That is too generic. If I were advising Romney, the next step would in generic terms explain how he thinks he could get to that number in four years.

Happy Nomad on May 23, 2012 at 9:44 PM

The headline number of 6$ is only the misleading tip of the ice berg. The fact is that with all of the people who have dropped out of the work force, bringing the number down to 6 while improving the participation rate to its historic levels would be quite an accomplishment. As for the CBO, who knows what assumptions, including the size of the work force, that they’ve baked in to their estimates.

MJBrutus on May 23, 2012 at 9:45 PM

Romney might get 4%, but it would require a lot of luck in addition to good business judgment. It would make no sense for him to publicly set a goal which relied that much on factors beyond his control.

talkingpoints on May 23, 2012 at 9:38 PM

Politicians overpromise at their peril. Obama and the Dems swore that their massive spending meant that unemployment would never rise above 8%. There are a lot of 99ers who would disagree with that assessment. And the claims of not knowing what mess they inherited have worn very thin. It has been Obama’s watch since January of 2009 and he has been a failure.

Happy Nomad on May 23, 2012 at 9:48 PM

Uppereastside on May 23, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Funny thing, but I’ve talked to a number of college students these days. It seems that the “hot” major course of study is social work!

It boggles my mind. When I was a kid, we dreamed of being lawyers, doctors, engineers, scientists, firemen, teachers, astronauts, electricians, mechanics, etc. Some dreamed of being artists, musicians and actors.

I can’t recall many kids dreaming of becoming a bureaucrat when they grew up. But in the age of Obama, it seems that being a government functionary in the great distribution of wealth is a very popular ambition. We’ve come a long way, baby.

MJBrutus on May 23, 2012 at 9:51 PM

Romney: How does six percent unemployment by the end of my first term sound?

Doable. Not in the realm of the miraculous, but probably (like the Romney campaign itself, if not like Romney himself) a very conservative, safe estimate.

tom on May 23, 2012 at 9:56 PM

MJBrutus on May 23, 2012 at 9:51 PM

.
Well, fraudbama did promise in his 2008 campaign he would “make government cool again ” for those lazy liberals looking to mooch on the public dole.- coming soon – 4 yr degree – BS in bureaucracy.

FlaMurph on May 23, 2012 at 10:09 PM

Not as good as 5% — but better than anything Obama will do.

J.E. Dyer on May 23, 2012 at 11:19 PM

Retire Harry Reid to Senate minority leader and, “you can do it waterboy”.

BigWyo on May 23, 2012 at 9:22 PM

Again it takes 60 votes to get almost anything passed in the Senate.

Steveangell on May 23, 2012 at 11:23 PM

The unemployment rate is meaningless unless labor participation is taken into account…the unemployment rate would be zero in this country if there are only 100 jobs in the country and they are filled with the only 100 people looking for work.

AUINSC on May 23, 2012 at 7:30 PM

Thread Winner!!
Seriously, all the arm waiving without dealing with the people that have fallen off the backside of the BLS numbers (notwithstanding them lying every month) is going to take serious work.

Simple fixes:
- Fair Tax
- Repeal O “accomplishments” (OCare, EPA, etc)
- End EMTALA, make all healthcare personally acquired (get employers out of it), interstate availability, real Tort reform.
- Remove taxation on earned non-US income – Right here would allow US employees/firms to be at least on-par with bidding for foreign contracts.

I could go on and on, but that would help a good portion of businesses I know (like mine) really quick.

SkinnerVic on May 23, 2012 at 11:53 PM

And when you’re president, as opposed to the head of a private equity firm, then your job is not simply to maximize profits. Your job is to figure out how everyone in the country has a fair shot. Your job is to think about those workers who get laid off and how are we paying for their retraining

Yeah, I was just perusing the constitution looking for the “fair shot” and “retraining” clauses in Article II (or even Article I) – so far I’ve got nothing.

kjl291 on May 24, 2012 at 12:20 AM

Why not zero percent unemployment Sketch?

Uppereastside on May 23, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Maybe you (or one of the other trolls) could explain why the unemployment rate has remained over 8% for the longest continuous stretch of time (36 months and counting) in the history of the republic? (Yes, this stretch is longer than during the Great Depression.) This despite a labor force participation rate that is dropping like a rock, and despite the Dear Leader having a majority in the House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for the first half of his term.

SubmarineDoc on May 24, 2012 at 12:37 AM

Rising wages? What is this guy, a communist?

ernesto on May 24, 2012 at 12:40 AM

heck mittens could do that in the 1st year by rolling back everything baracky did.

newrouter on May 23, 2012 at 7:29 PM

There will always be periodic market corrections and pain for some, but it’s amazing what an unfettered free market can accomplish.

swinia sutki on May 24, 2012 at 6:43 AM

Yea, 6 is an overly soft target. I mean, at least try to get it back to 5.5 as a goal, right?

preallocated on May 23, 2012 at 7:25 PM

5.5% is a farce, why President Bush was skewered for such a high unemployment, it was horrible a disaster, it’s much better at 9.7%…

If Mitt can’t get it back to under 6%, he also doesn’t deserve to be President…it’s a cake walk…most every conservative on this website knows exactly what to do…starting with the EPA…

right2bright on May 24, 2012 at 7:12 AM