Politics

[irishtrain]

Who do you think you'll vote for in the presidential election? I'm asking because I honestly think Romney doesn't have a rat's chance in hell of winning. I'm going to attach a poll (hopefully I can make it private, so names aren't posted) So we don't have to get into a big political debate unless you like talking politics?

Please vote in the poll even if you don't care to comment....I'm curious to see your opinion.

Thanks, BobD

My two horses were Herman Cain and Bachman-now I must throw in with Romney. The present president for my $$$ has been a bad 4 years for this country. The governer of Louisiana is also not a bad choice down the road.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Obama just paid off his own student loans a few years ago. He is not the "privileged class" you portray him as.

Obama's wife was making $300k+ in her job before he ran for President. They fit into the government's definition of millionaires. He's the most powerful person in the world, and when he's done with his job he will never have to worry about money ever again. You don't think he's in the privileged class?

The whole damn point is moot, because people seem to love Kennedy--he was one of the wealthiest people in the country! Well, from one of the wealthiest families with a net worth of over $1 billion.

Franklin Roosevelt was also loaded. People love him. Teddy Roosevelt, who in my opinion was the best President ever, was verrrrrry rich too and people love him.

Money =/= being out of touch.

We should really stop electing guys based on whether or not we think they "get us." Bush won the election because people connected with him, they thought that he'd be the kinda guy that they could sit down and have a beer with and he'd get their problems. Well news flash: you're not going to ever have a beer with the President....(unless you're wrongly arrested for entering your own home a la Henry Gates Jr. and are invited to a beer summit)...and you sure as hell won't if a Mormon is elected! haha

Romney was a venture capitalist. He didn't build companies, he bought them. Then would proceed to tear them apart and put their employees out of work. For instance, the GST/Armco merger put 750 people out of work and the company eventually went bankrupt. Bain Capital walked away with a $58 million profit, pulled directly from the profits of the company as they went into bankruptcy. Meanwhile, they were underfunding their pension which was sugar on top for all of those people they laid off. They got to lose their jobs and their retirement. Savvy businessman, indeed.

(wooly I love ya but I'm going to be harsh here. People can correct me where I'm wrong...)

For starters I don't think Romney was a "job creator" per se. You don't go into business with your #1 goal being to create jobs. The creation of jobs is a byproduct of successful business. Romney is touting his job creation because it's the easiest way to say "I'm a great f*cking businessmen and this President is an incompetent *** f*ck." "Job creation" sells, so they're wisely going with it.

As for his time as a venture capitalist...he sure as hell built companies. To be a successful venture capitalist you have to take bad companies and turn them around; you have to buy the companies that nobody else wants to invest it. You take a losing hand, and turn it into a winning hand and sell it for profit. Romney was essentially a CEO of CEO's. He took companies with failing business models and restructured them to compete on the global market. No one out there is saying that his business record is anything short of miraculous.

Did people lose their jobs? Yes, naturally. I say naturally because that's just the way economics works (unfortunately). All I can really say is...welcome to capitalism? You really think those people would have had jobs if Bain Capital didn't buy the company? You think their failing business would have succeeded? There's not a shred of evidence to any of that--it's impossible to prove.

I wish I could find the full interview, but Jack Welch hits it out of the park here:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/i3mM8Kx9vss" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This one basically sums it all up on how I feel about Mitt Romney:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Du96lOkKblU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Then consider that after he left Bain Capital he went and single-handedly saved the 2002 Olympic games. They went from a few hundred million in the red to a record for most money raised. That's is certainly impressive. The guy gets efficiency.

Then, after the Olympics, cohorts from Massachusetts came and begged him to run for governor and save their state from its horrible budgetary crisis. Some called it the worst budget problem in the history of Massachusetts....and Massachusetts is as old as the pilgrims haha. And on top of doing that he helped create (although he vetoed eight sections that were ultimately passed anyway) a savvy health care plan that worked pretty well for Massachusetts.

I have no idea how anyone can look at that record and not think "damn, this guy succeeds everywhere." Romney graduated in the top 5% of his Harvard class...from Harvard Business (MBA) and Harvard Law (JD), and he did it simultaneously. He's a brilliant man. I want him as my President.

I wouldn't vote for Romney regardless of his party, mostly because I don't want the Mormon church running our country. Which is exactly what will happen.

Just like Kennedy being a pawn for the Pope, huh?

I think Mormonism is batshit crazy, but I've never met a Mormon who wasn't 1) honest, 2) respectful, and 3) hard working. And I've never met someone who was all three of those things and wasn't successful. This country could probably use a few more people who function like Mormons.

You know what's crazy...Romney graduated top 5% simultaneously with a JD/MBA...without coffee. The man is a god damn machine.

 

[Buster Bluth]

My two horses were Herman Cain and Bachman-now I must throw in with Romney. The present president for my $$$ has been a bad 4 years for this country. The governer of Louisiana is also not a bad choice down the road.

A Pizza CEO and a US Rep were your two horses in the race? Come on man those were two baaad candidates. hahah

When I'm looking at a President I want to see successful executive leadership. I'd have trouble voting for someone who hasn't been at least a governor.

I think Romney is the most qualified person to run for President since George HW. Hands down, he was the best candidate for this group.

I'm a big fan of many governors:

Bobby Jindal (Gov of Louisiana) - Rhodes Scholar, just a brilliant person with great experience in health care reform.

Chris Christie (Gov of New Jersey) - his reminds me of Teddy Roosevelt with his demeanor. I love it.

John Kasich (Gov of Ohio) - We are lucky to have him. He is a little too far right for my liking, but his business positives outweigh his negatives. He's a job creator, big time.

Mitch Daniels (Gov of Indiana) - I admit I don't know enough about him, but what I do hear I have liked so far.

 

[Redbar]

You know why they are racking up record profits? It is because the economic future of our country is in so much doubt and NO ONE knows where we are headed, they are not investing or expanding their businesses by hiring. Instead they are cutting costs, and getting their businesses down to the bare bone, and protecting their own asses in case of another financial meltdown.

That they cause.

 

[Buster Bluth]

That they cause.

That's debatable. Don't get me wrong, I hate that profits are privatized and losses are socialized. I'm pretty damn progressive on the banks issue and would think two steps could make a fine solution: 1) less regulation, the government's involvement in banking has been a pretty bad thing, actually; 2) if you're "too big to fail," then you're also "too big to exist." Chop 'em up, Teddy style.

Let's also not pretend that the government wasn't pushing home ownership for decades. Remember, it's the American Dream to own a home (i.e. pay a mortgage). It's alllll bullshit, and young Americans are fleeing back into the cities to escape the ball and chain.

The government called people who opposed lax regs on mortgages a racist, and was marching right over the cliff with the corporations too. Those dumbasses in DC were playing with everyone's money and aren't half as smart as the people on Wall Street.

I mean, this is just classic:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/iW5qKYfqALE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[RallySonsOfND]

That they cause.

You seriously had me laughing at that. The whole reason we had a housing crash was due to the government programs which in some cases forced banks to make loans to people that should have never gotten a loan! Now they add thousands of pages of regulations to banks and wonder why fees went up, and all that.

 

[tadman95]

Poor banks.....sniff, sniff. Big bad government making them do those bad things. Geez

 

[Buster Bluth]

Poor banks.....sniff, sniff. Big bad government making them do those bad things. Geez

Well, they sorta did..

 

[RallySonsOfND]

Poor banks.....sniff, sniff. Big bad government making them do those bad things. Geez

Wow. Really productive statement there, way to contribute. If you don't mind me asking, what do you do for a living/plan to do for a living?

 

[tadman95]

Well, they sorta did..

No they didn't Buster. Nobody made them do anything. They chose they business they're in. In my experience I saw first hand the ridiculous amount of loans and dollars being thrown around. It was absolutely crazy.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

No they didn't Buster. Nobody made them do anything. They chose they business they're in. In my experience I saw first hand the ridiculous amount of loans and dollars being thrown around. It was absolutely crazy.

What do you not understand about GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS? Damn right the government came in and told the banks how to do their business. To say that the government didn't have a hand in the housing collapse is straight ignorant.

 

[tadman95]

Wow. Really productive statement there, way to contribute. If you don't mind me asking, what do you do for a living/plan to do for a living?

Oh and your statement was. I'm not saying government policies didn't play a role but for you to say it's all government's fault is BS.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

Oh and your statement was. I'm not saying government policies didn't play a role but for you to say it's all government's fault is BS.

Yeah, mine was a sarcastic non-contributing statement just like yours was. I also asked you a question, which you failed to answer or acknowledge.

 

[tadman95]

What do you not understand about GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS? Damn right the government came in and told the banks how to do their business. To say that the government didn't have a hand in the housing collapse is straight ignorant.

I'll let you quote back to me where I said that. Waiting...............................

The government told them how to do their business huh? So the "no doc" and "low doc" loans were all forced on the banks by the government. That must have been some intense pressure because the banks I dealt with were desperate to loan money. I guess it was to avoid jail time. (sarcasm). Giving money for mortgages to people with 600 credit scores on just their signature was crazy, but it happened.

All under the protection of an unregulated "derivative" market which sold insurance to guarantee the loans. Even crazier.

Look, don't get me wrong, I don't totally disagree with you. Like most subjects there is a little truth on both sides. I just think we tend to blame others (government) a little too much and don't accept responsibility for our own actions enough.

 

[Buster Bluth]

No they didn't Buster. Nobody made them do anything. They chose they business they're in. In my experience I saw first hand the ridiculous amount of loans and dollars being thrown around. It was absolutely crazy.

Unequivocally false.

I think the whole damn thing is rather moot, it's in the past. I still think two things, 1) a bank should be able to do whatever the hell it wants, and 2) if a bank gets too big with its assets, chop the damn thing up.

This has verrrrry little to do with this election. This election is solely about Obama's ability to boost the economy, vs. Romney's ability. Romney wins in a landslide there.

 

[notredomer23]

I think the results on IE will actually be fairly consistent with how the country votes. Probably 3-4% of the other will go to Romney and 1 or 2% to BO.

 

[Andy in Sactown]

I think the results on IE will actually be fairly consistent with how the country votes. Probably 3-4% of the other will go to Romney and 1 or 2% to BO.

I found your distribution of the other interesting. There is the electoral college to think of, popular vote not being the ultimate determining factor.

 

[tadman95]

Unequivocally false.

I think the whole damn thing is rather moot, it's in the past. I still think two things, 1) a bank should be able to do whatever the hell it wants, and 2) if a bank gets too big with its assets, chop the damn thing up.

This has verrrrry little to do with this election. This election is solely about Obama's ability to boost the economy, vs. Romney's ability. Romney wins in a landslide there.

I shouldn't have said the government didn't make them do anything, they didn't make them do "everything" would have been more accurate. Banks went after the money which they pretty much got.

Definitely agree with #2 but it will never happen.

The "presidency"; too much credit when things are good, too much blame when things are bad. Kind of like being the QB at Notre Dame.

 

[notredomer23]

I found your distribution of the other interesting. There is the electoral college to think of, popular vote not being the ultimate determining factor.

True. I was basing the "other" as people who would vote for Ron Paul, and he has stated that he won't run as a third party candidate/ independent. Those votes very well could be the difference in Florida and Ohio, which obviously is imperative to winning.

Personally, if it was today, I am not sure who would win. When Romney picks his VP, and hopefully it is Rubio, that will give him a huge boost. This is all just my opinion though, and this is the first election I am voting in, so take that all with a grain of salt haha.

 

[Buster Bluth]

True. I was basing the "other" as people who would vote for Ron Paul, and he has stated that he won't run as a third party candidate/ independent. Those votes very well could be the difference in Florida and Ohio, which obviously is imperative to winning.

Personally, if it was today, I am not sure who would win. When Romney picks his VP, and hopefully it is Rubio, that will give him a huge boost. This is all just my opinion though, and this is the first election I am voting in, so take that all with a grain of salt haha.

Rubio seems to have lost the "100% guaranteed to be VP" notion he had a few months ago.

I'd say people like Rob Portman, Bobby Jindal, Mitch Daniels, and Chris Christie are in the mix too. I personally think he'll pick Portman to help win Ohio. Ohio is interesting in that it is rebounding very strongly from the recession...but little of it has to do with Obama. But a good economy favors him, so it could go either way. Ohioans are finally starting to like GOP Gov Kasich, so that will play into it.

Chris Christie would be absolutely epic on the campaign trail. He's wipe the floor with this White House.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Do you have any idea what Obama's energy policy is going to do to the middle class??? When it comes to the erosion of the middle class, you haven't seen nothing yet.

We have to try something. The Republicans big oil energy policy isn't getting us anywhere. I'll agree that Solyndra was a mess, but look at the billions we throw to companies like Exxon every year. Gas prices continue to soar and the iol companies reap record profits in the billions.

 

[beryirish]

America got out of the recession....on the road to recovery and now has hesitation because laid back Europe can't get their act together. Once Europe gets straightened out the recovery will continue.

Obama for another term.

 

[Buster Bluth]

We have to try something. The Republicans big oil energy policy isn't getting us anywhere. I'll agree that Solyndra was a mess, but look at the billions we throw to companies like Exxon every year. Gas prices continue to soar and the iol companies reap record profits in the billions.

No no no. A thousand times no. You're not following what I'm saying.

The Democratic party is made up of several big blocks: 1) unions or "blue dog" Dems, 2) minorities, 3) liberals.

Many of those liberals are also environmentalists, and environmentalists are hell bent on averting a calamitous disaster known as global warming. The goal of most "intellectual liberals" is to get America of fossil fuels as soon as possible. We have to get our energy form somewhere, so the only way to get America onto renewable resources is to do two things: 1) make renewable resources cheaper than fossil fuels, or 2) make fossil fuels more expensive than renewable resources.

The Obama Administration's energy policy is 20% option #1, 80% option #2.

But don't take my word for it, look at their own words:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/K-pAvg6McPQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Look at what Obama has personally done to coal companies. Coal is, by far, the cheapest source of energy for this country. It, last I read, supplied 42% of this country's energy for a mere $30bil. That is sooo cheap compared to everything else. Even with natural gas prices falling, it's still 400% more expensive than coal. But coal plants are shutting down at rates never seen before. Obama is doing that directly.

(This is a video discussing Cap & Trade (which failed, thank God), and while slightly taken out of context by myself, it does show his intention to eliminate the coal industry.)

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4aTf5gjvNvo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

For America to be weened off of fossil fuels, the energy prices will have to rise until their are scientific breakthroughs in the renewable energy sector. I should state that I am in 100000% in favor of throwing all kinds of money at that research, but that's not what is going on. The environmentalists have Obama's balls here, and really the country's. We have soooo much energy in the country, we would never need to get oil from OPEC if we just opened up out supplies. ANWR is the size of Wisconsin, but a oil derricks will destroy it? GTFOOH.

Obama is making middle class Americans pay for the switch to renewables. I don't know how anybody in their right mind can say he is fighting for them when is very own policies will crush their purchasing power.

As for the oil companies... they aren't the ones price gauging. That is OPEC. Oil companies make a lower profit margin than normal corporations do. And you know what, they supply well-paying jobs to thousands upon thousands of engineers. The oil boom has single-handedly saved Ohio. My roommate made $60k worked for ten weeks as a petroleum engineer for them in Ohio/North Dakota/Pennsylvania. Let's not act like all that cash goes into some Cayman Island account for some evil dictator, it goes to people.

 

[Buster Bluth]

America got out of the recession....on the road to recovery and now has hesitation because laid back Europe can't get their act together. Once Europe gets straightened out the recovery will continue.

Obama for another term.

I don't know how you can think this. America would have had some sort of rebound with or without Obama. The American economy is the strongest one in the history of Earth--it's really tough to kill it.

This recovery has been rather pathetic, and it's being built in large part on low interest and borrowed cash. That bubble will burst too.

We have to maintain ~3% GDP growth just to keep up with population growth...and we're not doing that. So while you're technically growing, you're really not. The unemployment rate isn't budging, it's only dropping because people are giving up their job searches.

We haven't created anywhere near the amount of jobs that we need to. We've had X straight months of job growth, but it's nowhere good enough. Pretend your the AD of Notre Dame and your coach goes 3-9 on the year and you essentially hit the reset button on the program. The next year the coach goes 7-6, and you say "hey look, things are getting better!" but the 10-2/11-1 countries are shaking their heads. Then the next year he goes 6-6 and you say "That's two straight years of non-losing records!" You have to say to yourself, "well...on one hand things aren't getting noticeably worse and he could turn it around next year!!......but if I had this other guy in here he'd probably do better..." ...and then you fire the coach and get a real winner because you don't have the time to sit on your thumbs waiting for amateurs to learn on the job some more.



And you think Europe will settle down? You know the goal of post-WW2 Europe was to link all of the world's economies together to prevent another world war, right? When one country falls, it will ripple through the world economy. Greece's implosion will cripple the EU for a time and that will be felt badly here.

 

[Who'saWildManNow]

Yeah, mine was a sarcastic non-contributing statement just like yours was. I also asked you a question, which you failed to answer or acknowledge.

He absolutely does not need to disclose what he does or plans to do in the future, on a message board, to you.

 

[irishff1014]

This election is going to go to Obama. I have no doubt in that. I for one will not vote for him. This country can't afford another 4 years of him and him trying this laughing stock health care. But once again in this election it is vote for the less of the 2 evils. I don't think either are great canidates. Out of all the Reading i have done on politics i wish Marco Rubio would have run. They say that he is a breath of fresh air to politics.

 

[Buster Bluth]

This election is going to go to Obama. I have no doubt in that. I for one will not vote for him. This country can't afford another 4 years of him and him trying this laughing stock health care. But once again in this election it is vote for the less of the 2 evils. I don't think either are great canidates. Out of all the Reading i have done on politics i wish Marco Rubio would have run. They say that he is a breath of fresh air to politics.

Simple question: what exactly has Marco Rubio accomplished in his lifetime?

 

[beryirish]

I don't know how you can think this. America would have had some sort of rebound with or without Obama. The American economy is the strongest one in the history of Earth--it's really tough to kill it.

This recovery has been rather pathetic, and it's being built in large part on low interest and borrowed cash. That bubble will burst too.

We have to maintain ~3% GDP growth just to keep up with population growth...and we're not doing that. So while you're technically growing, you're really not. The unemployment rate isn't budging, it's only dropping because people are giving up their job searches.

We haven't created anywhere near the amount of jobs that we need to. We've had X straight months of job growth, but it's nowhere good enough. Pretend your the AD of Notre Dame and your coach goes 3-9 on the year and you essentially hit the reset button on the program. The next year the coach goes 7-6, and you say "hey look, things are getting better!" but the 10-2/11-1 countries are shaking their heads. Then the next year he goes 6-6 and you say "That's two straight years of non-losing records!" You have to say to yourself, "well...on one hand things aren't getting noticeably worse and he could turn it around next year!!......but if I had this other guy in here he'd probably do better..." ...and then you fire the coach and get a real winner because you don't have the time to sit on your thumbs waiting for amateurs to learn on the job some more.



And you think Europe will settle down? You know the goal of post-WW2 Europe was to link all of the world's economies together to prevent another world war, right? When one country falls, it will ripple through the world economy. Greece's implosion will cripple the EU for a time and that will be felt badly here.

I understand your points.

This is obvious but this is a globalized economy. One country coughes the rest get a cold. Look at how small Greece is...tiny...in comparison to US. But if they default then here come the fears of another recession because their governments and companies/banks within those countries have their debt which will then go bad and we are practically back to 2008.

Yes, the GDP and keeping pace with population growth I agree with. It's like inflation..you save money by putting it in your saving account but in essence you are in a losing battle because inflation is 3% and your saving account rate is .03%. But of course you will take what you can get as far as I would take a gain over a loss. Recessions of the distant past are different from what they are now due to the globalized economy...you fall down and you get back up and dust yourself off. Now we have to worry about picking up other people in order for us to stay afloat.

Companies can easily start hiring right now but they are worried about Europe flopping and then the companies are left holding the bag with all these new employees. Fix Europe and have themselves get in order and companies will feel safe to hire again. Companies are sitting on record cash amounts for this reason of being conservative which is smart and I don't blame them for it.

The football analogy is good but you can also use ND to counter that argument. Coach Kelly has everything in place now. It took some time but now we are ready to make a run. He had to get his players and team policies in place and have everyone on board but now he has finally accomplished that and now it's time to prove it. Obama came in during a recession and a dual wars....triple whammie. Wars are now coming to an end and the economy is starting to come back. Needs more time but it is getting back up there.

The one thing that sticks out to me about Romney and Obama is that Obama wanted to bail out the auto industry and Romney wanted them to go bankrupt. That ripple effect of letting them go under in my mind would have been astronomical. Millions of jobs are gone. Millions. Obama put some money into them to give them more time and look...they are profitable and have repaid tax payers most/all of what they were given and have come out with great products that is sustainable.

I'm nnnooooooo where near educated in politics. No where. I've just followed my parents and their views or "here's a list on who to vote for" when I first came to be eligible to vote. Now I do some listening and make my own judgements but I am still very ignorant when it comes to polictics because everyone can persuade you to go their way for their own given reasons and it just annoys me. I just see what really is happening and I try to make sense of it and put it together in a political perspective.

All I can say is give Obama another term....more time...and let's go from there...hell we gave Bush another term.

Just like CK...needs more time but we are seeing a glimpse of hope and that's what I'm seeing here.

 

[woolybug25]

(wooly I love ya but I'm going to be harsh here. People can correct me where I'm wrong...)

For starters I don't think Romney was a "job creator" per se. You don't go into business with your #1 goal being to create jobs. The creation of jobs is a byproduct of successful business. Romney is touting his job creation because it's the easiest way to say "I'm a great f*cking businessmen and this President is an incompetent *** f*ck." "Job creation" sells, so they're wisely going with it.

As for his time as a venture capitalist...he sure as hell built companies. To be a successful venture capitalist you have to take bad companies and turn them around; you have to buy the companies that nobody else wants to invest it. You take a losing hand, and turn it into a winning hand and sell it for profit. Romney was essentially a CEO of CEO's. He took companies with failing business models and restructured them to compete on the global market. No one out there is saying that his business record is anything short of miraculous.

Did people lose their jobs? Yes, naturally. I say naturally because that's just the way economics works (unfortunately). All I can really say is...welcome to capitalism? You really think those people would have had jobs if Bain Capital didn't buy the company? You think their failing business would have succeeded? There's not a shred of evidence to any of that--it's impossible to prove.

I wish I could find the full interview, but Jack Welch hits it out of the park here:

First of all, don't feel bad mincing words with me. You should know that I am the last person on here that will take offense to someone disagreeing with me in a thread that is doomed for failure.

That being said, I don't think you grasp the ideals of venture capitalism. I do, because I work with a bunch of them. I give them money, I listen to their pitches, I understand their business plans.

Most of Bain's investments they lost money on. Most venture capitalists firms do. I believe over 70% of Bain's profits in the 90's came from less than a third of their deals. Venture Capitalism is not about management, it's about cash flow analysis. They take companies that they can easily change cash flow situations in order to either 1) streamline the operations and bring shareholder returns (which leads to them breaking up the company for a profit) or 2) Slowly bury the company in debt by leveraging their assets and cashflows, then removing their retained earnings as profit. This is what is referred to as a "leveraged buyout". Which was Bain Capital's specific strategy all through the 90's. That is not a secret nor something Bain Capital refutes. That's the easiest way for them to make money. "Take a company and suck the blood from it's veins" as a colleague of mine once referred to it as.

Venture Capitalism is a very heartless endeavor that takes a special breed of person to do. Romney did it well, but I respect people that are CEO's or people that started businesses from the ground up than guy that spent his entire career tearing them apart.

And I hope you don't take offense from this Buster, because I truly don't mean this out of disrespect, but I am a commercial banker as a living. So I do find it rather amusing having a college student tell me, "welcome to Capitalism". Since after all, i'm the one living in it.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I understand your points.

This is obvious but this is a globalized economy. One country coughes the rest get a cold. Look at how small Greece is...tiny...in comparison to US. But if they default then here come the fears of another recession because their governments and companies/banks within those countries have their debt which will then go bad and we are practically back to 2008.

Yes, the GDP and keeping pace with population growth I agree with. It's like inflation..you save money by putting it in your saving account but in essence you are in a losing battle because inflation is 3% and your saving account rate is .03%. But of course you will take what you can get as far as I would take a gain over a loss. Recessions of the distant past are different from what they are now due to the globalized economy...you fall down and you get back up and dust yourself off. Now we have to worry about picking up other people in order for us to stay afloat.

I can mostly agree with that. We were a global economy in 2000, 1992, 1987, and 1980 though too. This isn't very different, only thing that is different is how bad it was.

Companies can easily start hiring right now but they are worried about Europe flopping and then the companies are left holding the bag with all these new employees. Fix Europe and have themselves get in order and companies will feel safe to hire again. Companies are sitting on record cash amounts for this reason of being conservative which is smart and I don't blame them for it.

Uncertainty is a big issue, no question. But the regs passed by the administration certainly aren't doing this country many favors in terms of job growth. Obamacare has been an absolute disaster for small businesses, and there are more.

The football analogy is good but you can also use ND to counter that argument. Coach Kelly has everything in place now. It took some time but now we are ready to make a run. He had to get his players and team policies in place and have everyone on board but now he has finally accomplished that and now it's time to prove it. Obama came in during a recession and a dual wars....triple whammie. Wars are now coming to an end and the economy is starting to come back. Needs more time but it is getting back up there.

The difference is that Kelly isn't Obama. Kelly is Romney. Why is that so? Kelly has had three proven stops with tremendous accomplishments: GVSU, CMU, and Cincinnati. Romney had had three proven experiences with tremendous accomplishments: Bain, Olympics, and Massachusetts.

Obama is a Charlie Weis, a guy who was never prepared for the job and had to learn it from the start. In over his head and as time went on it showed more and more.

Simple question: What has Barack Obama done, over the entire course of his term of even life, to demonstrate that he has the ability to turn things around even in a second term? We've played the waiting game for years, and we've been sputtering along. What has he done that I can look at and say "yeah, now there's some leadership that'll put people back to work!"

The one thing that sticks out to me about Romney and Obama is that Obama wanted to bail out the auto industry and Romney wanted them to go bankrupt. That ripple effect of letting them go under in my mind would have been astronomical. Millions of jobs are gone. Millions. Obama put some money into them to give them more time and look...they are profitable and have repaid tax payers most/all of what they were given and have come out with great products that is sustainable.

As a Toledo guy, this should be first and foremost on your mind. It's a complex issue. 1) Obama didn't bail them out, George Bush did and Obama finished it. 2) They did ultimately go into a bankruptcy court, just as Romney said would happen. 3) much of the rebound is because of the new management, not the government.

For example, and I assume you know this, Fiat bought Chrysler and thus Jeep (and thus Toledo haha) and they had the simple idea of "hey, why don't we sell this awesome American treasure overseas too?" Boom, Jeep models are breaking sales records and Toledo he seeing the benefits. Obama should get credit for that? Hey now...

But let's say Obama deserves 100% of the credit, for sh*ts and giggles. Okay...big deal. There aren't any more auto companies to bail out, soooo what am I looking forward to with a second term?

All I can say is give Obama another term....more time...and let's go from there...hell we gave Bush another term.

Bush ran against the worst Presidential candidate in my lifetime. If Hilary Clinton would have run, she'd have dominated him.

Obama is running against the best Presidential candidate in my lifetime. It's time to cut our losses and hand things over to a professional problem solver.