Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It really is pathetic when achieving European-style "prosperity," 2% GDP growth, is cause for celebration among the shortsighted.
Some of us believe we need to change things so that the economy actually generates jobs, higher incomes, and the traditional American exceptionalism in economic growth.
The growth rate has gone up to 2%, which shows the economy to be moving in the right direction. This positive news has pushed Obama's chances of winning reelection to 73%. Of course, you will not here this on Fox.
Why not eleventy billion percent? Can you show me the statistical analysis that was used to arrive at that 73% number?
This stuff just makes you libs look ridiculous, as Obama has already lost the election. When you show fanciful , fraudulent "statistics" it is more funny than anything.
The good news is that with Obama losing, he probably will not be impeached in his last few months for Libya- there will not be enough time. I doubt that he will be prosecuted (although he should be) when he leaves office for it.
Fair enuff, but your argument (and "objectivity") might be a little more convincing if you somewhere, sometime, ever gave Obama credit for anything (like say, helping avert another Great Depression, or however slowly lowering the unemployment rate, or Bin Laden's takedown, or taking out Khadafi without a single American loss, or...)!
I mean, even a broken clock is right at least once a day, and we can probably even come up with some nice things to say about Dubya (which would be no small accomplishment...)?!
In other words, what makes makes you "doubters" any more qualified, or even "objective" than the official data you're questioning?
I think I'm pretty objective. Never supported the Bush bailouts or wars, never supported McCain, Palin, or Bush. It just so happens that Obama is the one in office now, so I pick on him....although honestly I'm less likely to support democratic economic policies because I disagree with the philosophy. On the other hand, I cant and wont support Romney because I think his desire to spend on the military is just flat out stupid and wrong with all of the financial problems we have, and considering how much the international community dislikes our foreign policy...he will likely just make it worse. Pretty much I dont like anyone.
Oh...and a quick edit, definitely dont see any "credit" due for avoiding a second great depression. I think that all they did was lengthen the pain so that we will be feeling this for a very long time to come, we are not out of this yet...not by a long shot. I'm also not "questioning" official data, the data is technically correct. I'm simply pointing out that the use of GDP as a measure of the economy is not so great because the amount of government spending masks the fact that the true private sector economy is still not doing well at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
