Obama's Performance (so far) - Page 19 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Baraka_Guru · 11-06-2009, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

And I'm not pumping doom and gloom but the reality of the surroundings.

If the economy is getting better then HOW is it getting better? By the same ponzi schemes before? Is it just moving credit monies back and forth? What's being produced to increase the GDP?

The thing to note is that in the fallout of the economic shitstorm of last year, banks are generally going to be more cautious when it comes to lending. And if new regulatory practices come into play (as they should), then that's something more stabilizing. Looking at the 3.5% increase in GDP, much of that is consumer spending, auto sales, and home building. How much of it was done on credit? I don't know, but I'm guessing the credit used wasn't the toxic kind we've come to know about all too well.

Quote:

By what I'm reading in the papers and in the company quarterlies, it's still not sustainable. Commercial mortgages are going to come due this coming year, a lot of the see-throughs that were supposed to be finished rentable buildings will not produce the expected jobs and tax revenue.

There will likely be a mortgage aftershock. But there are still some things that need to take their toll before the recession will finally end. No one in their right mind is confidently declaring the recession behind us, but there are signs here and there that a) the worst is probably behind us, and b) there are signs of growth in certain meaningful areas. The economic hemorrhaging will eventually slow and then stop before things get back on track to something sustainable.

Tully Mars · 11-07-2009, 04:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Sorry doing too many things at once. The list I posted should have stayed as a table, here's a graphic instead.

You can see that the banks weren't in free fall as far as closures are concerned nor was unemployment. Graphs of those time periods would not show a sharp drop off as you are implying.

FDIC: Failed Bank List

So you think the date a bank fails is the meaningful date? All the banks that failed were in trouble long before they failed.

You can look at it anyway you want. I think last summer/fall is when the shit hit the fan. That shit had been piling up for years, IMO largely due to dereg. I know my 401K and other holdings lost about 43% between July and late Oct. In the spring I was sailboat shopping, by winter I was wondering if selling my truck might not be a bad idea.

Cynthetiq · 11-07-2009, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

So you think the date a bank fails is the meaningful date? All the banks that failed were in trouble long before they failed.

You can look at it anyway you want. I think last summer/fall is when the shit hit the fan. That shit had been piling up for years, IMO largely due to dereg. I know my 401K and other holdings lost about 43% between July and late Oct. In the spring I was sailboat shopping, by winter I was wondering if selling my truck might not be a bad idea.

That underlines exactly the point I'm stating and why I don't think that we're in a better position now.

The big banks that were too big to fail, some of them got bigger. Why is that? How is that possible? If we bailed them out so that they would not fail how did we provide any safety net to make sure that it can't fail? Stress tests are just as a reasonable a solution to making sure they cannot fail as Sarbanes-Oxley is to making sure that companies don't cheat in their processes.

---------- Post added at 08:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:42 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

The thing to note is that in the fallout of the economic shitstorm of last year, banks are generally going to be more cautious when it comes to lending. And if new regulatory practices come into play (as they should), then that's something more stabilizing. Looking at the 3.5% increase in GDP, much of that is consumer spending, auto sales, and home building. How much of it was done on credit? I don't know, but I'm guessing the credit used wasn't the toxic kind we've come to know about all too well.

There will likely be a mortgage aftershock. But there are still some things that need to take their toll before the recession will finally end. No one in their right mind is confidently declaring the recession behind us, but there are signs here and there that a) the worst is probably behind us, and b) there are signs of growth in certain meaningful areas. The economic hemorrhaging will eventually slow and then stop before things get back on track to something sustainable.

BG, people were using their housing equity like it was an ATM, even if they had not bought toxic mortgages. People actually have to work to earn money and have some disposable income to dispose in order to stimulate the economy. Yet they need to also save money for a rainy day. Saving money puts money into the banks. Banks are then building up resources and able to give out loans backed by real cash.

Did suddenly people get raises? I didn't get one last year. This year I got one, 1.25% which with the increase in property taxes, water, and other goods and services, I'll see none of that increase. But I was "lucky" I got something, which is 1.25% more money going someplace. I don't believe others are able to spend money.

So how could the economy be better if the problems haven't been solved?

What or where is the money coming from? It's not credit, it's not their houses... people didn't magically start making money... so what is it?

Consumer credit falls for 8th month in record streak - Nov. 6, 2009

Quote:

Consumer credit falls for 8th month
Longest streak of declines since Federal Reserve started keeping records 56 years ago.
By Julianne Pepitone, CNNMoney.com staff reporter
Last Updated: November 6, 2009: 3:56 PM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Consumer credit fell in September for the eighth straight month, the longest streak of declines since the Federal Reserve started keeping records in 1943.

Total consumer borrowing fell a seasonally adjusted $14.8 billion, or 7.2%, to $2.456 trillion in September, according to the Federal Reserve.

Economists predicted a decline in total borrowing of $10 billion in September, according to a consensus survey from Briefing.com. August saw a downwardly revised $9.9 billion decrease in total consumer borrowing.

September's total borrowing is down 7.3% from last year. Last August, consumer credit contracted for the first time since January 1998.

"These are not minor declines we've seen over the past few months," said Sean Maher, economist at Moody's Economy.com. "Credit is falling at a fairly rapid pace."

Karen Dynan testified before the Joint Economic Committee at the end of October. The link is a transcript of what she testified.

Quote:

Part of this increase in precautionary saving may occur as a reduction in borrowing. Households have just had a vivid lesson about the risks associated with high leverage, and many will be more reluctant to take on large amounts of debt to fund spending.

Households’ borrowing to finance consumption is also likely to be crimped by a more restrictive supply of credit. Since the financial crisis and economic downturn began, lenders have sharply reduced their willingness to extend credit to households. With unemployment rates remaining very high in coming quarters, lenders are likely to continue to see heightened risk in lending to households for some time to come. Further, the supply of credit seems unlikely to return to the levels seen earlier this decade even after the economy returns to full strength, as lenders, like households, have probably marked up their expectations of economic volatility over the long run. Regulatory actions should serve to reinforce the greater restrictiveness of lenders; indeed, the Federal Reserve and Congress have already taken steps to restrict some types of mortgage lending and certain practices among credit card lenders.

All told, I expect that consumer spending will move up at a modest pace in coming quarters because of weak income growth as well as higher saving and lower borrowing. Although this outlook contributes importantly to my expectation of a relatively weak overall recovery, I should note that higher household saving and lower household borrowing have the important positive aspect of leaving the economy in a more solid and more sustainable position. At the household level, the restructuring of balance sheets will leave households less vulnerable to disruptions to their incomes and to unexpected spending needs. At the national level, higher saving will help to correct what many analysts believe are unsustainable imbalances in trade and capital flows between countries.

Massive government spending is behind the GDP upswing, consumers aren’t exactly in a spending money since many don't have it, given that unemployment rate this week hit 10.2 percent and raises are close to flat.

So let me try to circle back to Obama, $159 billion in grants and loans made so far under the economic stimulus package has created or saved about 640,000 jobs. Created or saved? really? Is that the best they can say? ADDING saved to it? Because in my opinion adding the word SAVED allows you to pad the number as opposed to saying CREATED. So how many were saved and how many were actually created? You can't truly believe that saying "saved" means they really saved it does it? Because it's like anything in life, it either happened or it didn't. I can't say I saved $50,000 yesterday because I didn't buy a BMW 5 Series any more than I can say that the jobs at work were saved because they didn't lay more people off. Supposedly the stimulus package has some generous school incentives so schools are buying our products. Besides being unsustainable, did it really save some of our workforce? How or when can we know for sure?

If we're expecting transparency, they why pad it? Why not live with the number that it is?

Baraka_Guru · 11-10-2009, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Did suddenly people get raises? I didn't get one last year. This year I got one, 1.25% which with the increase in property taxes, water, and other goods and services, I'll see none of that increase. But I was "lucky" I got something, which is 1.25% more money going someplace. I don't believe others are able to spend money.

Nice. I've received 0% over the last 5 years. But this is more about the industry I work in and my own complacency.

Quote:

So how could the economy be better if the problems haven't been solved?

The economy and what influences it is so far-reaching that no one has a single unified "best way" to look at it. Wages are one of many indicators. Suppressed wages, pay cuts, or layoffs are immediately indicative of a recession and it is an indicator that tends to hit closest to home: it's immediate, and you can see it around you. This is why we tend to focus on this and not so much on other things. I was just looking at the numbers, and the Dow is up nearly 30% since Obama took office less than a year ago. How many have been discussing this around the kitchen table...? Exactly.

Quote:

What or where is the money coming from? It's not credit, it's not their houses... people didn't magically start making money... so what is it?

There are people who make money during a recession. There are people who protect their money during one. So when things start to look better (i.e. from the point of view of those with money and knowledge of the economy), some early adopters start spending again. Look around my own neighbourhood and you will see a number of houses being renovated if not replaced. Condos are still springing up like daisies, and 2009/2010 model cars abound. Why? Well, for starters, things are pretty cheap right now. Good deals all round.

Low prices + low interest rates + people with money = borrowing and spending

It's a select portion of the population, but it starts somewhere after most have spent months either curbing their spending or completely "turtled."

Quote:

Massive government spending is behind the GDP upswing, consumers aren’t exactly in a spending money since many don't have it, given that unemployment rate this week hit 10.2 percent and raises are close to flat.

It's one factor. The government is a huge customer to many companies. When they spend, they are hiring people and buying and consuming products. These products and services have to come from somewhere. Then you factor in other GDP spikes: auto purchases and home buying. When someone buys a home, they tend to buy other things along with that purchase. It has ripples through the economy. That is a big part of what's happening now.

As for the rest of your post, I don't tend to split hairs over speculative numbers issued by governments. I tend to look at other data and see what that tells me. People are out of work, may still be laid off, may still not find work, but that doesn't mean the economy isn't headed to recovery. Job creation resulting from that will only happen down the road. It's how these things work. Many companies don't hire in anticipation of business; they usually hire when they have no other choice. (There are exceptions: retail, for example, but even then not everything is completely predictable.)

aceventura3 · 11-12-2009, 08:38 AM

I was listening to a few pundints trying to rationalize Obama's reported decision to reject the military plans presented to him and I am in total disbelief as to how anyone percieves Obama's handling of this as a good thing.

Quote:

President Barack Obama won't accept any of the Afghanistan war options before him without changes, administration officials say, amid an argument by his own ambassador in Kabul that a significant U.S. troop increase would only prop up a weak, corruption-tainted government.

Obama said to want revised Afghanistan options | 89.3 KPCC

I can respect keeping a military strategy secrete, the Normandy invasion comes to mind, but what I don't get is the apparent lack of communication and discipline within Obama's line of command. What is with all of these leaks and with making public announcements of what they agree with and what they disagree with?

Why would people present plans not knowing what Obama wanted in a general sense before they even started working on the plans? Why aren't they working on "a plan" as a team?

What is different today than 30 days ago, 60 days ago, 90 days ago, One year ago? What is he waiting for, what is he expecting to change?

I think we need to be all in or get out! And if we get out - just handle situations as they arise, but this is not a war were you can compromise your way into a good conclusion. I actually doubt an "all in" strategy would work.

How can anyone be satisfied with Obama's performance in handling this war?

Derwood · 11-12-2009, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I think we need to be all in or get out!?

which is why you're not the President

ratbastid · 11-12-2009, 10:24 AM

(that's not why.)

Tully Mars · 11-12-2009, 10:54 AM

Merely one of many reason I'm glad Ace is not POTUS.

rahl · 11-12-2009, 11:22 AM

I agree with ace on this one issue. Obama is sitting on his thumbs here, and he needs to act now. People are dieing while he's not making decisions, I would like us to get out of there all together, but if we're going to stay and fight we need a much stronger presence than just the few thousand we do have there. Either way those soldiers deserve a decision.

aceventura3 · 11-12-2009, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

which is why you're not the President

Vietnam II

---------- Post added at 07:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:42 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

(that's not why.)

I am too much of an "A-hole" to get enough people to like me enough. I make a good number 2 (pardon the pun) man. Obama needs someone like me willing to get in his face and talk truth.

---------- Post added at 07:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:44 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

Merely one of many reason I'm glad Ace is not POTUS.

You have a problem with me because I know what I would do? You have a problem with either making a commitment or getting out? Are you one of those 40 year-old single people that have never been married?

filtherton · 11-12-2009, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl

I agree with ace on this one issue. Obama is sitting on his thumbs here, and he needs to act now. People are dieing while he's not making decisions, I would like us to get out of there all together, but if we're going to stay and fight we need a much stronger presence than just the few thousand we do have there. Either way those soldiers deserve a decision.

People will be dying no matter what Obama does. It's a war. That's what happens to people during war.

In any case, I trust Obama to make a better decision than any of you yahoos.

rahl · 11-12-2009, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

People will be dying no matter what Obama does. It's a war. That's what happens to people during war.

In any case, I trust Obama to make a better decision than any of you yahoos.

Agreed, but people are dieing right now because they either need more troops or they need to leave. What is going on now clearly is not working so something has to change. The longer it takes to make that decision the more people will die. I understand that Obama wants to make the best decision possible but come on already, it's no different now that it was 11 months ago

filtherton · 11-12-2009, 10:57 PM

But if he makes the wrong decision in an effort to "show conviction", more people could die than if he waited and made a better choice.

I'm not saying he's going to make a good choice in the end. What I am saying is that none of us are in a position to do anything but expose our own confirmation biases.

aceventura3 · 11-13-2009, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

But if he makes the wrong decision in an effort to "show conviction", more people could die than if he waited and made a better choice.

One does not "show" conviction, you either have it or you don't. The Afghanistan strategy decision is going to result in large groups of people hating the decision one way or the other, the decision will have dire consequences one way or the other, there is no easy choice, our leader needs to clearly communicate to us what he wants to do and lead. Whatever the decision, like it or not, I will support it. Unlike some I won't be claiming Obama lied or that this is Obama's war. We know what is at stake, we know the uncertainty, we know the consequences of whatever choice is made.

Reading between the lines I think Obama is making it clear that he wants to get out of Afghanistan, and I agree with that. Afghanistan is not the "right war".

ratbastid · 11-13-2009, 07:53 AM

You didn't deal with what filtherton said, though.

aceventura3 · 11-13-2009, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

You didn't deal with what filtherton said, though.

I do not understand what I missed.

I am not sure there is a "right" decision and if there is a "right" decision we will never know because we can only take one course of action and will never know what the other course would have lead to. The decision regarding war is a difficult decision and a person can easily be "paralyzed" in the fog of "what if", while in that fog, things still happen, some of these things can be negative or you can get lucky. I think Obama is in that "fog". I think many failed to understand Bush because he seemed to act with certainty. He clearly bore the weight of his decisions, did not take them lightly nor did he lie, and he took full responsibility for his decisions. Right now the world is looking to Obama for leadership and all I am saying is that this is the most important issue, requires his full attention, and requires confident actions. He needs to lead. Even on the matter of all of the leaks within his chain of command, I think it shows the degree to which we need decisive leadership. Every leak points to a lack of leadership and a lack of decisiveness.

Charlatan · 11-23-2009, 08:22 PM

A new T-shirt is available:

pan6467 · 11-24-2009, 06:10 PM

I will say I am happy for his decision to send more troops to Afghanistan ( since it appears we'll be there a while) and the fact he actually restated the main purpose for our being there. Hopefully, he meant it when he stated:

Quote:

it is still in America's vital national interest to "dismantle and destroy" al-Qaida terrorists and extremist allies. "I intend to finish the job,"

I am still disappointed it took this long to decide, with what was said above, the pledge of troops should have been made much earlier.

I'll wait and see before I give total praise for this decision and his commitment. I'm more of a "Let's see if you mean it" type than a "Woohooo.... now, your doing something I can get behind."

ratbastid · 11-24-2009, 07:02 PM

I'm pretty much with you 100% on all that, pan.

Willravel · 11-25-2009, 09:14 AM

Just like he promised during his campaign, President Obama is sending 35,000 MORE troops to Afghanistan, into an unwinnable situation. I voted against McCain because I knew that he would push for additional surges in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in addition antagonize Iran into a war, but make no mistake Obama was only the lesser of two evils.

But don't worry, at least the trans-Afghanistan pipeline will be okay.

aceventura3 · 11-30-2009, 11:38 AM

Similar to liberals calling Iraq "Bush's war", I have a problem with Obama saying this:

Quote:

"I intend to finish the job,"

I understand the words and I understand the inferred meaning, however, the suggestion inherent in those words is offensive. Perhaps others don't see it the way that I do, and I get that, but I want a leader to inspire without being divisive.

ratbastid · 11-30-2009, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Similar to liberals calling Iraq "Bush's war", I have a problem with Obama saying this:

I understand the words and I understand the inferred meaning, however, the suggestion inherent in those words is offensive. Perhaps others don't see it the way that I do, and I get that, but I want a leader to inspire without being divisive.

Huh. So even his conviction to finish the job doesn't earn him any points from you? I thought a president got a pass from you on anything they did as long as they had convictions and stood by them? Now suddenly being a uniter is an important value in a president? Was it an important value during the Bush years?

Tully Mars · 11-30-2009, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

You have a problem with me because I know what I would do? You have a problem with either making a commitment or getting out? Are you one of those 40 year-old single people that have never been married?

No, I would have a problem with you being POTUS because I disagree with most of your ideas.

And not that it's really any of your concern I was married to the same person for a little over 25yrs.

aceventura3 · 11-30-2009, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Huh. So even his conviction to finish the job doesn't earn him any points from you?

I understand the difficulty in understanding my point, it is kind of subtle and my ability to put it in words is limited. As an example, I played football, football is a team sport, if my Q-back made the comment " I am going to win this game", rather than "we are going to win this game", I would conclude the guy was not a team player and was in it for personal glory. That is not a way to motivate your team mates. Or if the Q-back made the inference that the previous Q-back screwed up and that - "I am going to finish this", I would again assume he was not a team player. I would rather he say something like - "o.k. guys let's get this game finished so we can go home with a win"

Quote:

I thought a president got a pass from you on anything they did as long as they had convictions and stood by them?

"pass" is not the correct word. there are always consequences for actions, in the short-term even doing what is right may have negative consequences. I simply have respect for those who stand firm in the face of conflicting pressures when they make a choice based on their honest beliefs.

Quote:

Now suddenly being a uniter is an important value in a president? Was it an important value during the Bush years?

I was united with Bush and his goals I felt his goals were our goals given his clarity, two election victories, Congressional and international support. I was willing to sacrifice and support his vision. I will do the same for Obama if he wants my support, does he?

---------- Post added at 11:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:05 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

No, I would have a problem with you being POTUS because I disagree with most of your ideas.

I don't support troop increases in Afghanistan and I think we should leave the country because it is an unwinable situation. do you agree or disagree?

I support single payer health-care for every child in this country. Do you agree or disagree?

I support a person freedom to partake in the "drug" of their choice. Do you agree or disagree?

I support balancing our federal budget. Do you agree or disagree?

I bet if you seperated your distaste of my personality or my writing style, you may actually agree with me on more than you would be willing to admit.

Quote:

And not that it's really any of your concern I was married to the same person for a little over 25yrs.

Congratulations, I am at 15 years - seems like yesterday.

11-12-2009, 10:54 AM	#728 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	Merely one of many reason I'm glad Ace is not POTUS. __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

11-12-2009, 11:22 AM	#729 (permalink)
rahl Junkie Location: Ohio	I agree with ace on this one issue. Obama is sitting on his thumbs here, and he needs to act now. People are dieing while he's not making decisions, I would like us to get out of there all together, but if we're going to stay and fight we need a much stronger presence than just the few thousand we do have there. Either way those soldiers deserve a decision. __________________ "Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

11-23-2009, 08:22 PM	#737 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	A new T-shirt is available: __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

11-12-2009, 10:24 AM	#727 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	(that's not why.)

11-12-2009, 10:57 PM	#733 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	But if he makes the wrong decision in an effort to "show conviction", more people could die than if he waited and made a better choice. I'm not saying he's going to make a good choice in the end. What I am saying is that none of us are in a position to do anything but expose our own confirmation biases.

11-13-2009, 07:53 AM	#735 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	You didn't deal with what filtherton said, though.

11-24-2009, 07:02 PM	#739 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	I'm pretty much with you 100% on all that, pan.

11-25-2009, 09:14 AM	#740 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Just like he promised during his campaign, President Obama is sending 35,000 MORE troops to Afghanistan, into an unwinnable situation. I voted against McCain because I knew that he would push for additional surges in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in addition antagonize Iran into a war, but make no mistake Obama was only the lesser of two evils. But don't worry, at least the trans-Afghanistan pipeline will be okay.