What would be the best part about Romney creating 500,000 new jobs a month?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Lincoln Republican]

The best part, he would be reelected in 2016 in a landslide.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

The best part, he would be reelected in 2016 in a landslide.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

[Brittain33]

I don't think so, at some point the Romney economy would have to start exploiting child labor and the elderly or sending out press gangs to beat people over the head and lock them into their workplaces to prevent absenteeism. It could get ugly, folks, and it only gets harder with time. Stay-at-home-mothers would face real pressure to contribute and leave their kids unattended.

[EmersonAdams]

Well, if Romney invades Iran... Another decade of occupation would open up more than 500,000 military jobs! What could possibly go wrong?

[opebo]

I voted for the magical, but its a better point that job creation has been abysmal since Carter and the demise of proper demand-based government policy.

[King]

Combine his 500,000 jobs a month plan with advisor Tim Pawlenty's 5% GDP annual growth plan and, by the end of his second term, poverty will be defined as only being able to wipe your bum with $1 bills.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Combine his 500,000 jobs a month plan with advisor Tim Pawlenty's 5% GDP annual growth plan and, by the end of his second term, poverty will be defined as only being able to wipe your bum with $1 bills.

Interestingly, that situation will also occur if Obama wins re-election. Dollar bills will be so worthless that they'll be the more economical alternative to toilet paper.

[opebo]

Combine his 500,000 jobs a month plan with advisor Tim Pawlenty's 5% GDP annual growth plan and, by the end of his second term, poverty will be defined as only being able to wipe your bum with $1 bills.

I also have a plan that involves turning dollar bills into toilet paper.. but I've no doubt its quite the opposite of the platform of those worthies.

[opebo]

Combine his 500,000 jobs a month plan with advisor Tim Pawlenty's 5% GDP annual growth plan and, by the end of his second term, poverty will be defined as only being able to wipe your bum with $1 bills.

Interestingly, that situation will also occur if Obama wins re-election. Dollar bills will be so worthless that they'll be the more economical alternative to toilet paper.

Gosh Darnit!  You beat me to it.  At least mine was self-deprecating though.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

haha, mine definitely took the snooty approach

[King]

I thought about saying gold bricks, but that would just be uncomfortable.

[opebo]

I thought about saying gold bricks, but that would just be uncomfortable.

Perhaps we'd be so rich we could have ourselves genetically engineered buttless?

[Averroës Nix]

Other: With so many jobs, even Politico could find gainful employment.

[Oakvale]

Why doesn't Romney vow to create 1,000,000 jobs a month? It's not like he's going to win and have to keep this hilarious promise, so he might as well go for increasingly sillier numbers.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why doesn't Romney vow to create 1,000,000 jobs a month? It's not like he's going to win and have to keep this hilarious promise, so he might as well go for increasingly sillier numbers.

The silly number strategy didn't exactly work for Newt.

[Lincoln Republican]

Why doesn't Romney vow to create 1,000,000 jobs a month?

Now, even Mitt couldn't do that. 

[wan]

i'm confused i thought presidents and government can't create jobs only the private sector could

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I'll use the example of the EPA to show that you're oversimplifying this.

1) This useless government agency employees people. This useless government agency exists because of government. Thus, government created jobs.

2) On the flipside, this useless government agency imposes restrictions on business, making it more difficult for the private sector to create jobs. Thus, if this useless government agency didn't exist, the private sector could create more jobs than it is currently able to create.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Except the EPA is not useless.  Unless you happen to like having rivers catch fire that is.  The EPA is overstepping its mandate by trying to use existing environmental law to clumsily deal with the potential effects of emissions on climate change, but that does not make the EPA useless.

[Person Man]

I thought about saying gold bricks, but that would just be uncomfortable.

Perhaps we'd be so rich we could have ourselves genetically engineered buttless?

No one at the New Yorker has an anus...

[Person Man]

Except the EPA is not useless.  Unless you happen to like having rivers catch fire that is.  The EPA is overstepping its mandate by trying to use existing environmental law to clumsily deal with the potential effects of emissions on climate change, but that does not make the EPA useless.

What if you do like fire in rivers? What about the tourism that a "fire and water" interactive art performance could attract?