Obama '08?

@roger,

I agree Roger; this is the purpose of having a daily poll; to gauge trends.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche, You're blaming the wrong people; it was the SEC's responsibility to audit those inflated derivatives, but failed at the switch. Experts can't do their jobs when the fundamental checks and balances are missing from the picture, no matter what field of endeavor we look at.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I think you're letting the pros off the hook too easily CI.

Sure, a lot of people failed; but so did the experts. They made predictions about housing and companies that were far off; and not just in the financial sector.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Personally, my attitude about the economy has perked up, not because I think it's improved at all or that the stimulus bill has made any impact; but simply because 8 months is a long time to be upset or pessismistic about anything. This is the new normal, and it's hard to stay mad or 'down' about something that's been going on for so long.

that's one of the most rational comments i've come across about this mess.

there is no McFix for a situation this intertwined and fouled up. the sooner folks fully grasp the concept, the better for all involved.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

Quote:

That's funny. Especially since the Republican refrain for the previous eight years was, "but, but, but, CLINTON!"

True, and every time it was said the dems would say "CLINTON IS NOT THE PRESIDENT".

But now, when its a dem in office, the dems say its all Bush's fault.
You cant have it both ways.
If it was wrong to blame Clinton when Bush was POTUS, then its wrong to blame Bush when Obama is the POTUS.

BTW, I'm not a repub,so I cant speak for them.
And you never read anything from me blaming Clinton for any Bush screwups.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
That's funny. Especially since the Republican refrain for the previous eight years was, "but, but, but, CLINTON!"

True, and every time it was said the dems would say "CLINTON IS NOT THE PRESIDENT".

But now, when its a dem in office, the dems say its all Bush's fault.
You cant have it both ways.
If it was wrong to blame Clinton when Bush was POTUS, then its wrong to blame Bush when Obama is the POTUS.

BTW, I'm not a repub,so I cant speak for them.
And you never read anything from me blaming Clinton for any Bush screwups.

There's a big difference between stating that the last president left you a bad situation, and trying to claim that it's OK to do something b/c the last president did it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

Good afternoon. Every couple of weeks since the 1st of March, I have been posting polling results on President Obama's approval ratings as gathered by the polltaker Rasmussen. Here is the latest update:
The 1st set of numbers is the % of respondents who STRONGLY APPROVE of Mr Obama's performance vs the % who STRONGLY DISAPPROVE. The 2nd number is the index obtained by subtracting the DISAPPROVE from the APPROVE. The 3rd set is the % of folks who APPROVE vs DISAPPROVE, dropping the word "STRONGLY."

3/1/09: (38%-30%) = +8 (58%-40%)
3/15/09: (37%-31%) = +6 (56%-43%)
4/1/09: (37%-29%) = +5 (56%-44%)
4/14/09: (35%-32%) = +3 (55%-44%)
5/2/09: (33%-32%) = +1 (54%-45%)
5/16/09: (34%-30%) = +4 (56%-43%)
5/31/09: (36%-26%) = +10 (58%-41%)
6/16/09: (36%-32%) = +4 (56%-43% )
6/30/09: (31%-33%) = -2 (54%-46%)
7/15/09: (29%-36%) = -7 (52%-47%)
7/31/09: (28%-39%) = -11 (48%-51%)
8/17/09: (33%-40%) = -7 (49%-50%)
8/31/09: (30%-41%) = -11 (46%-53%)

8/23 was the bleakest for Mr Obama in terms of the index:
27% - 41% = -14 (48% - 50%)
It seems to me that the Obama administration has invested a lot in the health care issue. They may (or may not) have 60 votes in the Senate. They want and could need some Republican support. They are seeming to be offering some compromises. That is not sitting well with a bunch of folks. That is the way I read it, anyway.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

When will you finally admit that since Obama is the POTUS, he alone is responsible?

He may not be responsible for CAUSING the problems (and not many will say that he is, and those that do (at least right now) need to have their heads checked); but as President, he IS responsible for finding solutions. And that is what he's being judged on right now.

People expect problems from our government and in the country in general; what they hold people accountable to is the response to those problems.

Obama volunteered and ran for the President and WON by convincing the public that HIS solutions were the best for America. If he cannot implement his solutions, or they turn out to not be the best for America, HE will suffer and be blamed, NOT Bush.

And in my mind, that's how it should be.

All good points and I agree with them, but I'll just add one thing: anyone who expected him to fix in 9 months what it took 8 years to create needs to have their head examined.

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

It has taken far longer than eight years to create this problem as we can trace the roots all the way back to the Carter administration. It began to exacerbate itself during the Clinton administration when the government used the CRA as an excuse to push unacceptable risky loans, and that policy was continued under the Bush administration.

However, a growing majority of Americans now believe that Obama's policies are making the problem worse, not better, and none of the basic elements that went into the current crisis have even been mentioned, much less addressed.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

The government can "push to provide risky loans," but they can't enforce it.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

The government can "push to provide risky loans," but they can't enforce it.

but jimmy carter can. he may look scrawny, but he's a wiry little bastard, even at his age.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Most "experts" on finance have said that the stim bill has already helped our economy - even though most Americans have not seen the improvement in their own lives. I believe consumer confidence has improved dramatically from last year; a good sign that more people have faith that our economy is on the mends.

Consumer confidence does not seem any better according to this graph, in fact it looks alot worse since last August. It took a bath right about the time of Obama's election and inauguration. Strange concidence? How do you explain it, ci?

It is my opinion that Obama's economic policies are not addressing the basic structural problems at the foundation of the economy. Everything he is doing is totally superficial, and will only cause further debt.

http://www.market-harmonics.com/images/tech/sentiment/consumer_confidence2.gif

1 Reply

@okie,

okie, You are an idiot!

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

After Obama took over from Bush, the consumer confidence went below 30. It's now above 50 which means it's now in the positive range.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v97/imposter222/chart_cci1.gif

Where did you get your graph? FOX News?

From now on, I'm not going to explain why you are an idiot; it's a given.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

From CNNMoney.

Quote:

Consumer confidence soars
Sentiment reading increased to 54.1 in August, well above economists' expectations.

By Julianne Pepitone, CNNMoney.com staff writer
Last Updated: August 25, 2009: 11:16 AM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- A key measure of consumer confidence jumped much more than predicted in August, as the job market outlook and business expectations improved, said a report released Tuesday.

The Conference Board, a New York-based business research group, said Tuesday that its Consumer Confidence Index rose to 54.1 in August from an upwardly-revised 47.4 in July.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Where did you get your graph? FOX News?

Now that you mention it, I got it from here. You could have figured it out by right clicking on the graphic in my previous post. There were actually 3 graphs, so I will post them all.

http://www.market-harmonics.com/free-charts/sentiment/consumer_confidence.htm

http://www.market-harmonics.com/images/tech/sentiment/consumer_confidence1.gif

http://www.market-harmonics.com/images/tech/sentiment/consumer_confidence3.gif

3 Replies

@okie,

Any reason why you chose the indicator that showed the least improvement of the three? And ignored the fact that all three show improvement over the last year?

1 Reply

Not that I expect the following link to be well recieved by those inclined to be skeptical at the least but there is an assessment put out by the WH staff of whether the stimulous is working or not. It is full of graphs and things and I'll just let anyone who cares to read it make up their own minds without adding my opinion.

So, Is It Working?

0 Replies

Why is there no mention these days of "offshore banking"?

When we were being urged to prepare to make sacrifices, in order to make it sound fair and equitable, we were told that the offshore bankers would have to share in the sacrifices.

If they have done I haven't seen it announced. Perhaps it is one of those things which sounds good to the extent that is possibly too good.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie, Your first graph shows it "perfectly." Consumer confidence began its downward spiral in August of 2008 when Bush was president, and dropped to around 25 after February - when Obama's been in office for only a couple of months. By August (last month), the consumer confidence level went above 50 which is a sign that our economy has more leg to stand on.

My graph was concentrated into the 12-month period that doesn't show the huge drop which seems to imply that Obama was the cause. Your original graph was inaccurate to the extent it shows consumer confidence at around 25 at the end of August. You tried to lie about consumer confidence with your graph, and I showed why.

You're an idiot! You try to spread false rumors about matters that you know very little.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know