DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Civilrecordzz** · 09-15-2011, 08:06 PM

How are they directly equating the cost to job loss?

They are doing free association again. "Well higher cost means less jobs"

By that same token, the tax "break" for the top % also cost jobs... $700B over 10 years would be 950K jobs by this stunted reasoning.

It is a diversion; an attempt from a conservative think tank and likely Perry support group to tie Romney to 'Romneycare".

Romney's spiel is that the healthcare package he enacted in Ma was good for the state but not one he would advocate for the country. He is trying to put some distance between himself and Obamacare. Teaparty advocates do not want to let him off the hook. So now, he has to defend the MA legislation at a time when he is trying to distance himself from Healthcare Reform.

It's so mke and mirrors, but smoke and mirrors plays with this bunch.

09-15-2011, 08:06 PM	#3
Civilrecordzz Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 556 Senior Member	How are they directly equating the cost to job loss? They are doing free association again. "Well higher cost means less jobs" By that same token, the tax "break" for the top % also cost jobs... $700B over 10 years would be 950K jobs by this stunted reasoning. It is a diversion; an attempt from a conservative think tank and likely Perry support group to tie Romney to 'Romneycare". Romney's spiel is that the healthcare package he enacted in Ma was good for the state but not one he would advocate for the country. He is trying to put some distance between himself and Obamacare. Teaparty advocates do not want to let him off the hook. So now, he has to defend the MA legislation at a time when he is trying to distance himself from Healthcare Reform. It's so mke and mirrors, but smoke and mirrors plays with this bunch.
	Quote