Dow Drops More Than 500 Points

Obama may be screwed. Right or wrong the perception amongst the business community is that Obama and his administration are very anti-business. His mere presence as POTUS now is one of the main causes of the businesses who have been hoarding cash not letting go of it.

Not this.

Mere opinions may support your statements but facts do not. Increase in liquid assets is not indicative of presidential policies but economic climate (life long dictator being in charge not withstanding). For one thing, no one is lending. What is a business to do when it can't borrow and the market is shrinking? Save money in order to meet future accounts payable obligations. Secondly, corporate liquid assets has been increasing for decades and long before Obama.

Let's put facts into the picture and watch this shall we?
Jun 23: Back it with cash - short view - markets - FT.com (http://video.ft.com/v/101473258001/Jun-23-Back-it-with-cash)

Not this.

Mere opinions may support your statements but facts do not. Increase in liquid assets is not indicative of presidential policies but economic climate (life long dictator being in charge not withstanding). For one thing, no one is lending. What is a business to do when it can't borrow and the market is shrinking? Save money in order to meet future accounts payable obligations. Secondly, corporate liquid assets has been increasing for decades and long before Obama.

Let's put facts into the picture and watch this shall we?
Jun 23: Back it with cash - short view - markets - FT.com (http://video.ft.com/v/101473258001/Jun-23-Back-it-with-cash)

I'm buying a lot and I have not found any problems borrowing any money. The only reason people are saying banks are not lending is because they have gone back to to old ways of lending to people who can afford what they are buying and have good credit. I have both so banks will lend me what I need plus some.

What Obama and his administration are, apparently, is shockingly inept at communicating and framing discussions. Either that or those like you, who believe he isn't necessarily stifling growth, are naive. That's not an accusation but more of a logical observation. Either he sucks and is stifling growth or he isn't. Considering his generally likability and a relatively forgiving media I can't understand how he is able to do such a good job but no one, outside of his diehards, perceive that he is. Why do you think that is?


I agree with you on your first point that the administration has been horrible at framing the discussion and communicating their ideas and policy. I lay much of the blame squarely at their feet. Some of it, however, and this just my opinion, is the nature of the evolving 24 hour news cycle and the internet age we now live in. By the time you've decided to frame the debate you're already behind the messaging curb. Your opponents and talking heads can shape the discussion before you even get to the microphone. Two days is like an eternity nowadays, whereas just a few years ago it wasn't that big of deal if there was a crisis and we hadn't heard from the president in a nano second. Much of this stems from Bush's Katrina moment and the perception that he was detached from the situation on the ground. I think that was a watershed moment as far as presidential politics go and the rules shifted in terms of how to respond to a crisis. It's not an excuse, by any means, but I do feel whether it's policy or responding to a national crisis this is the new reality that will be a part of presidential politics as we move forward and certainly a part of the messaging equation. Think about the BP oil spill just last summer. I mean, the way people were complaining you would have thought Obama should have put on a wet suit and plug the thing by himself.

Again, I gave you a nod and agreed that there is a perception that the administration isn't pro-business, but when I look at his approach to simplifying government regulation that affect businesses, a payroll tax holiday, and a few other policies he's in favor of it just doesn't square with the facts. When I look at his cabinet and some of his key advisers, it doesn't add up to anti-business. On the contrary, many "diehard" Obama supporters, as you refer to them, think he's too cozy with Wall Street and isn't tough enough. My expectation is when the president becomes more active on the campaign trail sometime next year, he'll make his case crystal clear to the American people.

The fact that he is generally liked by the public at large says to me that people are actually pulling for Obama and want him to succeed. Liberals are not pleased with him for a host of completely different reasons than conservatives, so I wouldn't conflate varying opinions from different ends of the political spectrum as a wholesale dislike of the president and how well he is/isn't performing at his job. For example, most liberals want to end the wars like yesterday. Conservatives, on the other hand, want us to declare "victory" and see it through. So I'd be cautious when making generalizations like "most" people believe this or that. I think we largely view his performance through our own political ideology and grade him accordingly.

edit

What Obama and his administration are, apparently, is shockingly inept at communicating and framing discussions. Either that or those like you, who believe he isn't necessarily stifling growth, are naive. That's not an accusation but more of a logical observation. Either he sucks and is stifling growth or he isn't. Considering his generally likability and a relatively forgiving media I can't understand how he is able to do such a good job but no one, outside of his diehards, perceive that he is. Why do you think that is?

Just to apply my theory about the new media age to Congress for a second. They are at an all time low, 82% people polled believe this Congress is the worst in decades. Now that's not me being overly partisan, that's what the numbers say. However, I feel much of this sentiment is due to the fact that everything is real time now and we're privy to such a deluge of information and now all the sausage making is out in the open. While I think this particular Congress sucks, I'm willing to bet that things weren't all that different in the days of Jefferson and Adams. We just see more, hear more, and know more -- therefore our views and opinions are more pointed than ever before. It's also worth noting that while people generally feel every Congress sucks, they tend to like their individual representatives and are willing to vote them back into office.

I'm sorry guys, I've taken this thread way off topic. My bad.

Interesting that you site regulation. Like, what industries have been "over regulated" under this administration? And what tangible data do we have to suggest that it's keeping employers from hiring.Obama was certainly blessed to have you working on his campaign. At first glance your arguments sound very solid and are often found in "credible" (read left-leaning, Obama-friendly) media sources. However upon further investigation....the truth will set you free.

Obama’s Wall Street Journal Regulation Op-Ed: Less than Meets the Eye (http://blog.heritage.org/2011/01/18/obama-on-overregulation-less-that-meets-the-eye/)

From the link:
Rather than require agencies to identify harmful regulations during the next 120 days, or even to eliminate unwarranted rules, the order merely requires agencies to submit a “preliminary plan” for reviewing regulations sometime in the future, with the goal of making their regulatory program either less burdensome or “more effective.” And despite promises of transparency elsewhere in the order, the results of any regulatory reviews conducted are required to be released online only “whenever possible.”
Moreover, the initiative is hardly “government-wide,” excluding independent agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Factual info on increased regulatory burden under Obama




Among the most costly of the FY 2010 crop are:

Fuel economy and emission standards for passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles imposed jointly by the EPA and NHTSA. Annual cost: $10.8 billion (for model years 2012 to 2016). For automakers to recover these increased outlays, NHTSA estimates the standards will lead to increases in average new vehicle prices ranging from $457 per vehicle in FY 2012 to $985 per vehicle in FY 2016.
Mandated quotas for renewable fuels. Annual cost: $7.8 billion (for 15 years). Utilizing farmland to grow corn and other crops used in renewable fuels will displace food crops, leading food costs to increase by $10 per person per year—or $40 for a family of four, according to the EPA.
Efficiency standards for residential water heaters, heating equipment, and pool heaters. Annual cost: $1.3 billion. The appliance upgrades necessary to comply with the new standards will raise the price of a typical gas storage water heater by $120.
Limits on “effluent” discharges from construction sites imposed by the EPA. Annual cost: $810.8 million. The cost of the requirements will force the closure of 147 construction firms and the loss of 7,257 jobs, according to the EPA. Homebuyers also will bear some of the costs, with an increase in mortgage costs of about $1,953.
More:

Morning Bell: “The White House Does Not Create Jobs” (http://origin.blog.heritage.org/2011/08/05/morning-bell-the-white-house-does-not-create-jobs/)

Summary from the link:
- Obama’s Energy RegulationsDue to the President's drilling moratorium 1/3 of the oil rigs in the Gulf have left since 2009 at a loss of approx. 411K barrels per day. 1/3 supply cut from the Gulf raises gas prices. Loss of thousands of jobs.
- Obama’s EPA Regulations: The EPA forces businesses to “waste tens or hundreds of billions of dollars per year on environmental upgrades of dubious value, meaning that money isn’t available to invest in business expansions or create jobs. Higher costs also cut down on business investment—a factory that makes economic sense at a cost of $10 million may not when EPA regulations have jacked the cost up to $30 million.
- Obamacare: Obamacare makes labor costs uncertain. Every day brings more bad news as the details of the legislation emerge. Before Obamacare was enacted, private-sector job creation was averaging 67,600 jobs per month. After the law was signed, this number plummeted to 6,400 jobs per month.
Obamacare has also resulted in insurance companies exiting markets, thereby reducing consumer choice. Joshua Raskin, an analyst at Barclays Capital, has noted that it “is harder and harder for smaller plans to compete in a more regulated environment.”[14] (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/03/obamacare-the-one-year-checkup#_ftn14) Shortly after Obamacare was enacted, Principal Financial Group, which provided insurance to over 800,000 people, decided to stop selling health insurance. The company’s decision reflected its assessment of its ability to compete in the environment created by the law, which Principal believes harms relatively small insurers that lack “significant concentration in any one market.

Gas Mileage Standards - See this bipartisan letter to the President from Members of Congress in Michigan

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/MI%20Delegation%20Letter%20on%20CAFE%207-21-11.pdf


A Freeze On New Regulations Would Help Boost Job Growth - Investors.com (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=579619)

I think I've made my point.

It's really quite simple, if you're running a business and your costs to create jobs are greater than the economic benefit, you won't create jobs. Obama has created a climate where the benefits don't outweigh the costs....you're wrong Obama is a great socialist.

Not this.

Mere opinions may support your statements but facts do not. Increase in liquid assets is not indicative of presidential policies but economic climate (life long dictator being in charge not withstanding). For one thing, no one is lending. What is a business to do when it can't borrow and the market is shrinking? Save money in order to meet future accounts payable obligations. Secondly, corporate liquid assets has been increasing for decades and long before Obama.

Let's put facts into the picture and watch this shall we?
Jun 23: Back it with cash - short view - markets - FT.com (http://video.ft.com/v/101473258001/Jun-23-Back-it-with-cash)

So you don't believe the business community in general is essentially afraid of the administration?

or that it doesn't matter?

SlinginSammy, how about I make this the last rebuttal, if you will, and let's call it a draw.

I have to say though I find it a little humorous and hypocritical that Republicans take issue with the "job killing" EPA. Listening to you and Michele Bachmann one would think that the EPA suddenly came onto the scene 24 months ago and is an invention of Barack Hussein Obama with the expressed purpose to dismantle the U.S. economy, implement his socialist agenda, and pass onerous laws that will save the planet. That argument holds about as much water as you and me blaming Bruce Allen for drafting Patrick Ramsey and failing to get the Redskins to the Super Bowl in his rookie year. It really amounts to the same silly partisan foolishness and parsing statistics to make our respective points.

The EPA was proposed by President Richard Nixon in 1970, a Republican president, and has been operating just fine under every administration until January 20, 2009, according to conservatives. The role and function of the agency encompasses quite a bit, but issuing fuel standards for automobile manufacturers is one of the many things the agency is designed to do. Again, this has been going on for nearly four decades. If the goal of these fuel and emission standards is to make our vehicles more fuel efficient, ensure U.S. auto makers are globally competitive again (see GM's recent earnings) and more importantly, make America less dependent on foreign oil production, then I'm all for losing 7,257 jobs. That's a drop in the bucket in the overall scheme of things and a small price to pay to keep pace with the rest of the world that is quickly passing us by. But don't take my word for it. Detroit, which is on the rebound in a major way, thinks it's a good idea too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/business/energy-environment/new-breed-of-leaders-helped-guide-fuel-standards-chrysler-says.html

What's utterly incomprehensible to me, however, is that the two industries you point out -- Big Oil and Wall Street (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) -- are clearly among the most profitable and seem to be impervious to market conditions and these so called socialist regulations that President Obama have put in place. It's well documented the success of Big Oil over the past three years and the big banks continue to reap record profits while hoarding tons of cash. I'm no economist, but that doesn't pass the smell test. I can't wait until you hear your GOP presidential candidates announce to the world in the next debate how they would have let Detroit fold like a cheap suit because, you know, government needs to get out of the way.

Let me leave you with one voice of reason from your end of the spectrum, since I'm drumming up all these liberals. David Frum, George W. Bush's economic speechwriter, weighed in on the very matter we're discussing right now. He doesn't get into the numbers so much, but he does provide some insight.

http://www.frumforum.com/less-politics-more-economics

SlinginSammy, how about I make this the last rebuttal, if you will, and let's call it a draw. Fair enough LOL :food-smil

So you don't believe the business community in general is essentially afraid of the administration?

or that it doesn't matter?


The notion that business are afraid or don't like this administration is an absurdity. Why? Because it's a blanketed statement that doesn't consider various players in the business world and their politics. If you talk to Koch or Blank brothers you will get a different take than if you talk to Larry Paige, Larry Ellison, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc. Business are out for themselves and the good ones are apolitical and see the game of politics as a means to an end. When some business leader is unhappy you we should strive to find out why? Why is a CEO of a bailedout bank unhappy? Why is Wynn of Las Vegas fame is unhappy. Why should we care if Donald Trump isn't happy? The more skins they have in the game the louder they are. We just have to find out what kind of skin.

BTW, how are you measuring fear? Lack of donations or what you hear on TV from hacks? I guess the stupid talking points that business hate democrats still persists in this country.


Stay thirsty my very rich friends!

http://www.webguild.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/obamatechdinner.jpg


Why are all these people sitting there?