Papa Obama Seen as Anti-Business by 77% of Investors -Where would they get that idea?

[SwingVoter]

Stock market up 200% under Clinton, down 25% under Bush, up 25% (already) under Obama.

Good point, but stock market probably wouldn't have done as well under Clinton if it weren't for an oppositional Congress stopping Hillarycare, same with Obama and cap and trade and Obamacare.

Still, W was an economic train wreck. In addition to negative stock market returns, over 50% of net new jobs under W came in government, compared to just 8% under Clinton. So GOP cannot make claims about supporting private sector job growth, especially when Clinton grew the Federal spending just 32%, while W expanded it 83%.

 

[Maple]

Papa Obama Seen as Anti-Business by 77% of Investors -Where would they get that idea?

Jan. 22 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. investors overwhelmingly see President Barack Obama as anti-business and question his ability to manage a financial crisis, according to a Bloomberg survey.
The global quarterly poll of investors and analysts who are Bloomberg subscribers finds that 77 percent of U.S. respondents believe Obama is too anti-business and four-out-of-five are only somewhat confident or not confident of his ability to handle a financial emergency.
The poll also finds a decline in Obama’s overall favorability rating one year after taking office. He is viewed favorably by 27 percent of U.S. investors. In an October poll, 32 percent in the U.S. held a positive impression.
“Investors no longer feel they can trust their instincts to take risks,” said poll respondent David Young, a managing director for a broker dealer in New York. Young cited Obama’s efforts to trim bonuses and earnings, make health care his top priority over jobs and plans to tax “the rich or advantaged.”

Where would they get that idea??? Because he is and has been from the get-go. He is anti-business and leans so far left that you could call him a communist. He has forgotten where private- sector jobs come from.

 

[SwingVoter]

profitting while banks are denying credit to American individuals and small business.

please explain how a bank makes a profit if it doesn't lend

 

[SwingVoter]

I don't see how anyone could trust either political party.

I don't see how anyone could want either party to "get to work". Better to let the private sector work, which happens best when government is divided and gridlocked.

 

[CMike]

Shhhh


That's going to be the left's new slogan for the unemployed:

"Look on the bright side, your numbers are increasing at a decreasing rate"
I think it works- they should run with it

Remember to democrats a reduction in the rate of growth is called a cut.

There seem to be a surprising number of people in this thread who don't think there's any difference between losing 700,000 jobs in a month and losing 100,000.

Around here, even the GED classes teach math.

In the past 13 months the US has lost 3.6 million jobs. That is pretty high.

Job Loss Chart: What 3.6 Million Jobs Lost Over 13 Months Looks Like

 

[Vast LWC]

In the past 13 months the US has lost 3.6 million jobs. That is pretty high.

Job Loss Chart: What 3.6 Million Jobs Lost Over 13 Months Looks Like

You did of course notice that the date on that article is Feb 6, 2009 right?

Meaning the 3.6 million jobs indicated were lost BEFORE OBAMA TOOK OFFICE.

Just sayin'...

 

[CMike]

You are right. Actually for 2009 it was 2.6 million.

 

[Vast LWC]

And as far as the math goes, one must include the ratio of jobs gained to jobs lost if you want to have any sort of meaning at all.

Unemployment increased by 3.5% in the 13 months prior to February, 2009, which was the first full month Obama was in office.

The rate of that unemployment growth had increased by the second half of 2008, and was most dramatic from January to February of 2009, when it grew by .5%.

It has increased by 1.8% in the 11 months since, and has been declining in the rate of growth the entire time.

That's what is commonly known as an improving trend.

 

[Vast LWC]

You are right. Actually for 2009 it was 2.6 million.

True, but there were a hell of a lot more jobs gained at the same time, as showed by the slower unemployment rate growth.

 

[Vast LWC]

Here's a nice graph to illustrate the point:

Note the almost continuous upward trend since February in the unemployment growth rate.

Of course, some months were better than others, but the trend is clear.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Shhhh


That's going to be the left's new slogan for the unemployed:

"Look on the bright side, your numbers are increasing at a decreasing rate"
I think it works- they should run with it

Remember to democrats a reduction in the rate of growth is called a cut.

There seem to be a surprising number of people in this thread who don't think there's any difference between losing 700,000 jobs in a month and losing 100,000.

Around here, even the GED classes teach math.

there is even some who don't know what a scientific poll is either


Flash back:

Quote: Originally Posted by NYcarbineer
Here's the essential irony of this. The survey was of people in the investment business, largely...check this out:

So, apparently all these types who claim in some unscientific survey that President Obama is bad for business are in reality more BULLISH about the stock market than they've been in years.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaking of hooey.

Speaking of...... unscientific?
From the article :

"The quarterly Bloomberg Global Poll of investors, traders and analysts in six continents was conducted by Selzer & Co., a Des Moines, Iowa-based firm. It is based on interviews with a random sample of 873 Bloomberg subscribers, representing decision makers in markets, finance and economics. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.3 percentage points."


Who are you - Ellie Light ?

 

[Vast LWC]

But of course, methodology aside, there was every reason for investors to feel positive at the time. There still is for the long term, so why wouldn't they?