realjohnboy
 
  2  
Tue 1 Sep, 2009 04:55 pm
@okie,

The 3 graphs confused me a bit. I must be the only one, since no one else mentioned it. I am sure we will come back to these graphs in coming months, so here is some of how they were derived.
5000 different people are mailed (warning flag goes up) a survey form each month. Responses come if from around 3500 (70%) answering 5 questions:
"What is your ..."
1) Assessment of current business conditions (another warning flag);
2) Expectation of business conditions 6 months hence;
3) Appraisal of current employment conditions;
4) Expectation of employment conditions 6 months hence;
5) Expectation regarding your total family income 6 months hence."
(edited a bit for syntax).

The 1st graph is based on responses to all 5 questions. The 2nd graph is derived from answers only to questions 1 and 3 while the 3rd graph considers responses to questions 2, 4 and 5.
All called CCI and which one gets reported in the media depends, I reckon, on the media outlet.
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 1 Sep, 2009 04:59 pm
@realjohnboy,
Which TV programme had just been aired immediately prior to the survey?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Tue 1 Sep, 2009 08:42 pm
@FreeDuck,
FreeDuck wrote:

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?

Because I thought "present situation" might be the best indicator. And you must be looking at different graphs when you say all three show improvement over the last year, or you need your eyes checked.
okie
 
  0  
Tue 1 Sep, 2009 08:48 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:


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.

Looks like you did not show enough time to show the whole picture, ci, that would be my assessment. My graphs put things into perspective with longer time periods.
Quote:
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.

Are you sane? Just wondering, ci? Your babbling is really getting old.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 1 Sep, 2009 08:48 pm
@okie,
okie, FreeDuck doesn't need to have his eyes checked; all three graphs show an improvement based on when Obama took over the white house. All three show an uptick from lower levels. That's what is called an "improvement." +

If you had been reading about the consumer confidence increasing towards the end of August from the finance pages of most newspapers from the previous period, you would have known that the first graph you displayed was very misleading.

You just got caught - as usual with your bias.
okie
 
  0  
Tue 1 Sep, 2009 09:32 pm
@cicerone imposter,
The only graph that looks to me to show much statistically significant improvement is in the "expectations." Also, I believe the economy responds to future expectations, so that the impact of Obama began in July of 2008 when he clinched the nomination against Hillary and was expected to win the election, and then when he won in November the impact on the economy would have intensified somewhat leading up to the inauguration.

Also, I do not believe the structural underpinnings of the economy are sound, there are structural problems that have not been addressed and or fixed. I think the economy will continue to rock along, bounce along, but I do not see long term prosperity until we get a president and a congress that actually believes in free markets and brings about structural changes to the existing roadblocks to progress, that will again encourage the people with money and work ethic to get out there and fire things up again. Right now, all we are doing is robbing the treasury and people to give money away to constituencies to do this or that. Next thing I saw on the horizon was a cash for clunker program for appliances, another fiasco to screw up that industry like they have done the auto industry.
okie
 
  0  
Tue 1 Sep, 2009 10:08 pm
Since some people love Rasmussen so much, here is a new low recorded today, Obama approval ratings down to 45%. It must be the consumer confidence that ci talks about that is doing that? Thats a 20 point drop in less than 8 months since inauguration. I am sure that ci will be so excited about this, that he will immediately call me an idiot, delusional, stupid, what else?

"Overall, 45% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That’s down a point from yesterday and the lowest level of total approval yet measured for Obama. Fifty-three percent (53%) now disapprove."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_total_approval_graphics/september_2009/obama_total_approval_september_1_2009/244522-1-eng-US/obama_total_approval_september_1_2009.jpg

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 1 Sep, 2009 10:43 pm
@okie,
Quote:
...but I do not see long term prosperity until we get a president and a congress that actually believes in free markets and brings about structural changes to the existing roadblocks to progress


What roadblocks to progress? Specifically.

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  0  
Tue 1 Sep, 2009 11:08 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
There are many, but one biggee is the fear and uncertainty factor, which applies to many industries.

One industry is why invest in some energy sectors when we know the government is meddling in that sector, example cap and trade, which has the potential to literally destroy some sectors of energy to one extent or another, depending on whether legislation passes and what the legislation actually looks like if passed.

Another industry is the auto industry, where the government holds sway over GM, and has great influence over many factors that could derail somebody's investment.

Medical field, why go to medical school if you will be the subject of the state by the time you graduate?

Not just these industries, people in general are very nervous about investments into various things right now, because of government meddling, uncertain tax policy, etc.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 2 Sep, 2009 12:02 am
@okie,
okie, You are a hopeless ignoramus!~
okie
 
  0  
Wed 2 Sep, 2009 12:19 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, You are a hopeless ignoramus!~

Why do you answer my posts then, if I am hopeless? What if I someday agreed with you, perish the thought, but just think how wonderful that would make you feel?

Actually, I did agree with one of your statements, you said Obama lied to you, and truer words were never said in my opinion, ci, that was a great post, and it showed your great insight and wisdom, almost genius like to figure that one out. So how can you call me a hopeless ignoramus when I do agree with you occasionally?
revel
 
  1  
Wed 2 Sep, 2009 06:52 am
Rather than relying on sound bites and political talk, perhaps consumers could start watching the stock market. Also, as free duck pointed out, all of those graphs showed an improvement in consumer confidence but Okie picked out the worse one. Wonders never cease.

USA stock market daily report by Millenium Traders (September 1, 2009, Tuesday)
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Wed 2 Sep, 2009 08:51 am
@okie,
Well, let me just say that this post is purely ridiculous. None of the things you list have any merit whatsoever. They are ideological points, not some sober view of the situation which has caused you to come to these conclusions.

Moving on,

Okie, you and others have claimed that the Stim bill isn't working, hasn't helped, has done nothing, or made things worse. Here's an article for you:

Quote:
The Us economy gets lift from the stimulus
WASHINGTON -- Government efforts to funnel hundreds of billions of dollars into the U.S. economy appear to be helping the U.S. climb out of the worst recession in decades-----

Economists say the money out the door -- combined with the expectation of additional funds flowing soon -- is fueling growth above where it would have been without any government action.
Many forecasters say stimulus spending is adding two to three percentage points to economic growth in the second and third quarters, when measured at an annual rate. The impact in the second quarter, calculated by analyzing how the extra funds flowing into the economy boost consumption, investment and spending, helped slow the rate of decline and will lay the groundwork for positive growth in the third quarter -- Osomething that seemed almost implausible just a few months ago. Some economists say the 1% contraction in the second quarter would have been far worse, possibly as much as 3.2%, if not for the stimulus.

For the third quarter, economists at Goldman Sachs & Co. predict the U.S. economy will grow by 3.3%. "Without that extra stimulus, we would be somewhere around zero," said Jan Hatzius, chief U.S. economist for Goldman.


Where is this commie, leftist news article at?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125185379218478087.html

Guess they didn't get the memo that the thing is a failure.

Cycloptichorn
mysteryman
 
  1  
Wed 2 Sep, 2009 08:55 am
@Cycloptichorn,
What happens when all of the stimulus money is spent?
Will the projects that are being funded by that money stop, or will they keep going?
Will all of the people put to work still have jobs, or will they all be let go because the money to pay them isnt there?

There is precedent for the opinion that they will all be let go, because it happened before.

When Clinton came up with his idea to put all those new cops on the street, it only worked as long as federal money was being spent.
When the money ran out, many of those new cops lost their jobs.

Will it happen again now?
McGentrix
 
  0  
Wed 2 Sep, 2009 09:25 am
Another Failed Presidency
Quote:
Barack Obama is on track to have the most spectacularly failed presidency since Woodrow Wilson.

In the modern era, we've seen several failed presidencies--led by Jimmy Carter and LBJ. Failed presidents have one strong common trait-- they are repudiated, in the vernacular, spat out. Of course, LBJ wisely took the exit ramp early, avoiding a shove into oncoming traffic by his own party. Richard Nixon indeed resigned in disgrace, yet his reputation as a statesman has been partially restored by his triumphant overture to China.

George Bush Jr didn't fail so much as he was perceived to have been too much of a patrician while being uncomfortable with his more conservative allies. Yet George Bush Sr is still perceived as a man of uncommon decency, loyal to the enduring American character of rugged self-determination, free markets, and generosity. George W will eventually be treated more kindly by historians as one whose potential was squashed by his own compromise of conservative principles, in some ways repeating the mistakes of his father, while ignoring many lessons in executive leadership he should have learned at Harvard Business School. Of course George W could never quite overcome being dogged from the outset by half of the nation convinced he was electorally illegitimate -- thus aiding the resurgence of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

But, Barack Obama is failing. Failing big. Failing fast. And failing everywhere: foreign policy, domestic initiatives, and most importantly, in forging connections with the American people. The incomparable Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal put her finger on it: He is failing because he has no understanding of the American people, and may indeed loathe them. Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard says he is failing because he has lost control of his message, and is overexposed. Clarice Feldman of American Thinker produced a dispositive commentary showing that Obama is failing because fundamentally he is neither smart nor articulate; his intellectual dishonesty is conspicuous by its audacity and lack of shame.

But, there is something more seriously wrong: How could a new president riding in on a wave of unprecedented promise and goodwill have forfeited his tenure and become a lame duck in six months? His poll ratings are in free fall. In generic balloting, the Republicans have now seized a five point advantage. This truly is unbelievable. What's going on?

No narrative. Obama doesn't have a narrative. No, not a narrative about himself. He has a self-narrative, much of it fabricated, cleverly disguised or written by someone else. But this self-narrative is isolated and doesn't connect with us. He doesn't have an American narrative that draws upon the rest of us. All successful presidents have a narrative about the American character that intersects with their own where they display a command of history and reveal an authenticity at the core of their personality that resonates in a positive endearing way with the majority of Americans. We admire those presidents whose narratives not only touch our own, but who seem stronger, wiser, and smarter than we are. Presidents we admire are aspirational peers, even those whose politics don't align exactly with our own: Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Ike, Reagan.

But not this president. It's not so much that he's a phony, knows nothing about economics, is historically illiterate, and woefully small minded for the size of the task-- all contributory of course. It's that he's not one of us. And whatever he is, his profile is fuzzy and devoid of content, like a cardboard cutout made from delaminated corrugated paper. Moreover, he doesn't command our respect and is unable to appeal to our own common sense. His notions of right and wrong are repugnant and how things work just don't add up. They are not existential. His descriptions of the world we live in don't make sense and don't correspond with our experience.

In the meantime, while we've been struggling to take a measurement of this man, he's dissed just about every one of us--financiers, energy producers, banks, insurance executives, police officers, doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, post office workers, and anybody else who has a non-green job. Expect Obama to lament at his last press conference in 2012: "For those of you I offended, I apologize. For those of you who were not offended, you just didn't give me enough time; if only I'd had a second term, I could have offended you too."

Mercifully, the Founders at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 devised a useful remedy for such a desperate state--staggered terms for both houses of the legislature and the executive. An equally abominable Congress can get voted out next year. With a new Congress, there's always hope of legislative gridlock until we vote for president again two short years after that.

Yes, small presidents do fail, Barack Obama among them. The coyotes howl but the wagon train keeps rolling along.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Wed 2 Sep, 2009 09:31 am
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

What happens when all of the stimulus money is spent?


The economy will likely be doing much, much better by then. It will take 2-4 years to spend all the funds.

Quote:

Will the projects that are being funded by that money stop, or will they keep going?


Most of the construction projects will take years to complete, but like all government money, it isn't a guaranteed stream forever. Those contractors and folks who bid on these jobs for a living will just bid on other jobs.
Quote:

Will all of the people put to work still have jobs, or will they all be let go because the money to pay them isnt there?


They would have been let go RIGHT NOW without the money, if you are talking about stable, non-seasonal or construction jobs.

Quote:
There is precedent for the opinion that they will all be let go, because it happened before.

When Clinton came up with his idea to put all those new cops on the street, it only worked as long as federal money was being spent.
When the money ran out, many of those new cops lost their jobs.

Will it happen again now?


Maybe; though the Stim bill isn't adding tons of new jobs per se, as much as it is supporting pre-existing ones.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Wed 2 Sep, 2009 09:33 am
@McGentrix,
Quote:

But, Barack Obama is failing. Failing big. Failing fast. And failing everywhere: foreign policy, domestic initiatives, and most importantly, in forging connections with the American people. The incomparable Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal put her finger on it: He is failing because he has no understanding of the American people, and may indeed loathe them. Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard says he is failing because he has lost control of his message, and is overexposed. Clarice Feldman of American Thinker produced a dispositive commentary showing that Obama is failing because fundamentally he is neither smart nor articulate; his intellectual dishonesty is conspicuous by its audacity and lack of shame.


Rolling Eyes

What an idiot.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  2  
Wed 2 Sep, 2009 09:33 am
@McGentrix,
well at least mcg we know for sure what your opinion is.



0 Replies
 
okie
 
  -1  
Wed 2 Sep, 2009 09:34 am
I think the president may have a little "dictator complex." He now wants all the little kiddees to study him and write letters to themselves about how they can help him. Ugh, how wonderful is that?

"Critics Decry Obama's 'Indoctrination' Plan for Students
A suggested lesson plan that calls on students to write letters to themselves about what they can do to help President Obama following his address to students nationwide is troubling and establishes the president as a "superintendent in chief," education experts told FOXNews.com.


A suggested lesson plan that calls on school kids to write letters to themselves about what they can do to help President Obama is troubling some education experts, who say it establishes the president as a "superintendent in chief" and may indoctrinate children to support him politically.

Obama will deliver a national address directly to students on Tuesday, which will be the first day of classes for many children across the country. The address, to be broadcast live on the White House's Web site, was announced in a letter to school principals last week by Education Secretary Arne Duncan.

Obama intends to "challenge students to work hard, set educational goals and take responsibility for their learning," Duncan wrote. Obama will also call for a "shared responsibility" among students, parents and educators to maximize learning potential.

But in advance of the address, the Department of Education has offered educators "classroom activities" to coincide with Obama's message.

Students in grades pre-K-6, for example, are encouraged to "build background knowledge about the president of the United States by reading books about presidents and Barack Obama."

During the speech, "teachers can ask students to write down key ideas or phrases that are important or personally meaningful."

Possible activities after the speech include writing "letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president." Teachers are encouraged to follow up on the students' progress in meeting that and other educational goals.

...."


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/02/critics-decry-obamas-lesson-plan-students/
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Wed 2 Sep, 2009 09:40 am
@okie,
The 'educational experts' FoxNews cites work for the Cato institute and the American Enterprise Institute - Wingnut welfare workplaces. These people are not educational experts, they are political writers who see everything through their lens of ideology.

I mean, c'mon.

Quote:

Obama intends to "challenge students to work hard, set educational goals and take responsibility for their learning," Duncan wrote. Obama will also call for a "shared responsibility" among students, parents and educators to maximize learning potential.


That sounds really terrible.

Can't you guys come up with something better than this weak ****?

Cycloptichorn
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1404
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.45 seconds on 12/25/2024 at 01:32:38