Election Day 2012 Thread

[JAB1985]

The source was to show the rate of "growth" since it linked to the reports. Read what Jonboy said after my post, it's spot on.

the point is its still growing. Not as fast as you may like but its not like its "stalled" or declining. 2-3% is good, we all would like more coming from a recession but its not a bad thing to have it in the "healthy" zone regardless. my statement that its continuing to grow is true, and if we continue to slow the spending and pay back the deficit, which Obama has said is going to be the focal point of this term, than i think well be alright.

Its easy to point at whos in office and say the other would have done it better or faster, but in reality we have no idea. I think where we were, no matter who was the president wed be seeing similar numbers, or if they let the auto industry fail completely, possibly worse.

Side note, the only company that still owes money is ford, who said it didnt need a bailout to begin with, odd.

[NCRAVEN]

the point is its still growing. Not as fast as you may like but its not like its "stalled" or declining. 2-3% is good, we all would like more coming from a recession but its not a bad thing to have it in the "healthy" zone regardless. my statement that its continuing to grow is true, and if we continue to slow the spending and pay back the deficit, which Obama has said is going to be the focal point of this term, than i think well be alright.

That was the focal point of his first term too, wasn't it? Slow spending, not t o be a dick, but are you living in an alternate universe?

And no 2 -3% is not real growth. That, like I said, is barely keeping your head above water.

Its easy to point at whos in office and say the other would have done it better or faster, but in reality we have no idea. I think where we were, no matter who was the president wed be seeing similar numbers, or if they let the auto industry fail completely, possibly worse

Who was going to let the auto industry fail completely?

Side note, the only company that still owes money is ford, who said it didnt need a bailout to begin with, odd.

Again, not trying to be a dick, I'd suggest searching for your own news, to confirm what you're told.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/11/news...uts/index.html

Chrysler Group. GM received $51 billion in bailout funds and has paid Treasury about $24 billion, mostly with the proceeds of its November 2010 initial public offering. Treasury still holds about 500 million shares of GM, worth about $11.5 billion at current prices. But those shares would have had to rise to almost $57 a share from its current price of $23.14 in order for taxpayers to break even.

The books are already closed on the Chrysler Group bailout. That automaker received $12.4 billion and repaid $11.1 billion, including interest on loans, leaving taxpayers about $1.3 billion short on that rescue.

[JAB1985]

That was the focal point of his first term too, wasn't it? Slow spending, not t o be a dick, but are you living in an alternate universe?

Any time somebody says, "not to be a dick" its usually followed be a completely dick headed comment. The first term was getting us out of the recession by any means. Clearly doing what he had done wasnt conducive to paying off the debt if youre adding to it. again, i dont think a Republican would have done too much different considering where we were at.

And no 2 -3% is not real growth. That, like I said, is barely keeping your head above water.

its growth. which is all i said. above water is better than below the last i checked.

Who was going to let the auto industry fail completely?

depends on who you ask and what day of the week. some were for bankruptcy before government help, while the bailout was basically the same thing but before (basically just arguing for the sake of arguing over that one). Some did just want the free market system to run its course, whether that meant they survived or not.

Again, not trying to be a dick, I'd suggest searching for your own news, to confirm what you're told.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/11/news...uts/index.html

i do research my own news, thanks. they repaid their loans as they are currently. the government still owns part of the companies, as they should per their investment. you dont make money by buying high and selling low. with the way the "original" companies were dissolved and in litigation its the only way for the government to make out on the deal. All depends on how you look at it, which is exactly why politifact considered it "half true" statement. to me, they paid back and the government has shares to sell to make back the rest. I dont look at a company I have stock in and say, the stock isnt payment for my investment. Thats pretty much exactly what it is. Youre saying because the company isnt selling for as much as they invested they still owe, i say it was a poor investment that needed to be done, and would have been regardless who was president.

[HoustonRaven]

Using your water analogy, I'd say is drowning by way of drips.

There is a reason most businesses use 3% as the standard cost of living raise because that's the statistical average of growth in the US. 2% growth is still growth, yes, but when everything is increasing at a high rate, even if it's a modest 1%, it's still a slow burn towards the bad side of the economy.

[JAB1985]

Using your water analogy, I'd say is drowning by way of drips.

There is a reason most businesses use 3% as the standard cost of living raise because that's the statistical average of growth in the US. 2% growth is still growth, yes, but when everything is increasing at a high rate, even if it's a modest 1%, it's still a slow burn towards the bad side of the economy.

and that may be better. 3 years ago we were drowning, pretty deep. how fast can you realistically expect to recover from a -4% entire year. seeing as thats where we were just a few years ago, i consider a stable 2-3% good comparatively and am not really arguing that there isnt obvious room to improve. There seems to be ebs and flow in everything, but our GDP is one thing thats basically always gone up. Taking a hit like that was unprecedented and thats why i feel people are being unrealistic with their expectations in its recovery.

[HoustonRaven]

and that may be better. 3 years ago we were drowning, pretty deep. how fast can you realistically expect to recover from a -4% entire year. seeing as thats where we were just a few years ago, i consider a stable 2-3% good comparatively and am not really arguing that there isnt obvious room to improve. There seems to be ebs and flow in everything, but our GDP is one thing thats basically always gone up. Taking a hit like that was unprecedented and thats why i feel people are being unrealistic with their expectations in its recovery.

Clinton and Reagan both managed to do it within a year and half after getting elected.

[JAB1985]

Clinton and Reagan both managed to do it within a year and half after getting elected.

neither had a negative GDP to start from though. Thats the unprecedented part.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/exp...hl=en&q=us+gdp

it continued to go up until 2008. which he did turn around within the first year and a half.

[HoustonRaven]

neither had a negative GDP to start from though. Thats the unprecedented part.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/exp...hl=en&q=us+gdp

it continued to go up until 2008. which he did turn around within the first year and a half.

Ok, but it wasn't some cavernous hole either. We were told that the stimuli would solve the issue and it did nothing but create more debt.

Things were "even" (for lack of a better word) within a year. It should not have taken this long to get back on square footing -- and we're still not on that footing as of today.

[JAB1985]

Ok, but it wasn't some cavernous hole either. We were told that the stimuli would solve the issue and it did nothing but create more debt.

Things were "even" (for lack of a better word) within a year. It should not have taken this long to get back on square footing -- and we're still not on that footing as of today.

maybe the stimulus is the only reason were even where we are now. whos to know what could have or did happen in an unprecedented situation. I dont, thats for sure. Im not saying there wasnt another way, very well could have been, I just dont think it can be said this would have worked for sure or better whether thats Reaganomics or Clintons approach because neither had this situation... and two wars on top of it.

[Sirdowski]

maybe the stimulus is the only reason were even where we are now. whos to know what could have or did happen in an unprecedented situation. I dont, thats for sure. Im not saying there wasnt another way, very well could have been.... .

Ever hear of a company called Ford Motors...?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

[JAB1985]

Ever hear of a company called Ford Motors...?

yes?

[Sirdowski]

Sorry, poor reading comprehension. I mistook the point.

Nothing to see here.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2