GOP Debate... TONIGHT (Page 3)

TriRSquared - 2011-09-09 7:43 AM

And the other problem with this graph is how it's displayed.  It has this big uptick at the end.  That's fine.  It's accurate.  But it makes it look as if Obama has "fixed" the issue.

If you graph this not as jobs lost per month but as cumulative jobs lost it has a steep down slide under Bush, a slightly less steep downward slide under Obama from 1/09 to 3/10 and then a very slightly upward slope 10/3 to 5/11.  It's a net trend down.  if you saw that in your 401(k) you would not say, "oh things are getting better".  You'd say, "crap, I've lost a ton of money"

Finally this graph conveniently only shows Bush's last year in office

This paints a truer picture.... (ETA: typos and for clarity)

JoshR - 2011-09-09 11:34 AM

I'm far from an Obama fan, but to blame the job losses on him is ridiculous. There was absolutely nothing ANYONE could have done to prevent these job losses. This is a structural problem that has been decades in the making. It's going to take probably a decade to get out of this economic pit we are in. Personally, I don't think it will be fixed by the end of the next presidential term, regardless of who the president is. 

TriRSquared - 2011-09-09 11:09 AM

I don't blame him for the losses before his inauguration and I'll even give him a pass on the ones in the first year.  However after that point it is his issue.  And I don't expect him to magically turn the economy around back to 4% unemployment.  However after wasting billions and billions of dollars on so-called "jobs" plans and Obamacare I have no patience for this man any longer.  Where has the leadership been?  He can not even get his own party to support him fully.

bradword - 2011-09-09 1:47 PM Fix, maybe not. Our President though has wasted literally TRILLIONS of dollars failing miserably.

wannanorseman - 2011-09-09 12:56 PM

O rly?

wannanorseman - 2011-09-09 11:56 AM

O rly?

bradword - 2011-09-09 11:47 AM Fix, maybe not. Our President though has wasted literally TRILLIONS of dollars failing miserably.

JoshR - 2011-09-09 11:38 AM

 

I won't disagree that there has been immense waste. However, what else would anyone have done? Maybe tax cuts? Budgetary math that's still wasting money. Do nothing? No one would ever do that politically. They could have spent the stimulus more wisely on things we actually NEED I suppose. It probably would have been labeled as waste also, but would have helped us in the long run. We have wealthy hedge funds PAYING banks to hold cash. Demand has fallen so much that there is no real hope for any growth. I just don't think anything the president could have done would have stopped this situation.

crusevegas - 2011-09-09 12:41 PM

I don't understand the bolded could you explain for me? tks

In a letter reviewed by WSJ, Mellon advised that it will charge 0.13% plus an additional fee if the one-month Treasury yield dips below zero on depositors that have accounts with an average monthly balance of $50 million "per client relationship."

bradword - 2011-09-09 1:47 PM Fix, maybe not. Our President though has wasted literally TRILLIONS of dollars failing miserably.

JoshR - 2011-09-09 1:38 PM

 

I won't disagree that there has been immense waste. However, what else would anyone have done? Maybe tax cuts? Budgetary math that's still wasting money. Do nothing? No one would ever do that politically. They could have spent the stimulus more wisely on things we actually NEED I suppose. It probably would have been labeled as waste also, but would have helped us in the long run. We have wealthy hedge funds PAYING banks to hold cash. Demand has fallen so much that there is no real hope for any growth. I just don't think anything the president could have done would have stopped this situation.

NXS - 2011-09-09 2:29 PM

We could try what President Coolidge did to help bring an end to the recession/depression of the early 1920's.  Cut government spending and reduce the size of government.  Seems to me that if it wored once, it will work again.  Sure beats the Obamanomics we have been trying.

bradword - 2011-09-09 2:16 PM Pretty colors, no sources and "projections". I can make a pretty graph that looks bad for Pres. Obama as well, doesn't mean much. But it's a graph, it must be true. Edit: Oh snap, pretty!

JoshR - 2011-09-09 12:25 PM

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/04/national/main20088321.shtml

 

 

I made my own leap from people with $50 million in cash to wealthy hedge fund. Replace Hedge Fund with wealthy person if you want.

crusevegas - 2011-09-09 2:28 PM

After what you posted and what I read in the article I am even more confused by your conclusion.

If I read it correctly the banks are charging their customers a "fee" for holding cash when the interest rates hit x. They say they are doing this because so many people are wanting to put their cash in the bank due to the global uncertainty of the markets and the banks are getting more money/cash than they are able effectively use.

From what I gather the banks are saying don't put your money here, find another place to put it or we'll charge you a fee to manage it.

JoshR - 2011-09-09 1:56 PM

 

What I was trying to show is that people with money have nowhere to put it. They are willing to effectively take a negative interest rate to hold their cash in the bank.

crusevegas - 2011-09-09 3:36 PM Josh, I see what you are saying now. The way it was phrased or the way I took it is that "they" were paying the banks to sit on cash (not just theirs but everyone's as a way of manipulating the market) and not loan it.

 What I think you were trying to say is that "they" are willing to pay a fee to the bank for holding their cash rather than subject their cash to the current market risks.

JoshR - 2011-09-09 2:45 PM

Correct. To me this is a really bad sign for the economy.

TriRSquared - 2011-09-09 6:20 AM

If I have $10 and lose

$3 on day 1    30%

$2 on day 2    28.57%

$1 on day 3    20%

I am still worse off on day 3 than I was day 1.  I'm not losing money at the same rate but I'm still in the hole.

scoobysdad - 2011-09-08 9:53 AM  Do you think maybe that had something to do with the questions asked of the candidates? We all know this election will be about the economy. So why do you suppose so many questions had to do with social issues? It's as though those asking the questions were following some sort of plan.

Spleen - 2011-09-10 1:19 PM

 

Kudos then to Huntsman for making the point to the panel that they should focus on discussing economic solutions to our problems rather than some of the distracting, trivial stuff they were asked to address.

Blueraider_Mike - 2011-09-11 4:27 AM

The questions were idiotic...designed to appeal to the MS audience, I mean wasn't Rachel M the moderator? 

Seriously, debates like this are worthless, its not the real world, it doesn't prove who is more Presidential.