Dow Drops More Than 500 Points

[12thMan]

Here's are some facts on what the president is doing to deal with onerous government regulation. Keep in mind, this was ordered at the beginning of the year but here we are almost 8 months later and people are still parrotting talking points that business is uncertain because of too much government regulation. It's just not true.

Obama Orders Regulation Review to Boost U.S. Growth - Bloomberg

Another article from another source.

Obama Orders Review of All Government Regulations - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

[Monkeydad]

Meanwhile in Washington:

[FRPLG]

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.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

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

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

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

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.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by saden1

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

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

or that it doesn't matter?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

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!




Why are all these people sitting there?

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by saden1

Stay thirsty my very rich friends!




Why are all these people sitting there?

Actions speak louder then words or toasts for that matter. Companies as a whole are still sitting on their largest cash reserves in history (both in terms of sheer numbers and percentage of assets) and not spending anything. Not on R&D, Marketing, Sales, Accounting, Finance, Labor, nothing. And a decent portion of the companies that are hiring are only bringing in people willing to jump ship from another company.

And even worse then that a lot of the people that are getting hired are getting flat out abused by employers. Some people are doing the job of 3 or 4 people and are told to feel lucky that they work 60 70 hour weeks. Freezes on hiring don't just hurt the people that are unemployed, but also the people that are working.

I don't think all the blame rest with the confidence (or lack there of) in this administration. When Obama first came into office I was hoping for another Clinton like presidency. Now I'm hoping for a Carter setting the table for the next Regan.

[12thMan]

I think you may be onto something. There is a bit of a perception, how deep and widespread is anyone's guess. Still, Wall Street is rolling along and donating big bucks to his campaign. So much of his perception, as with all things good and bad with Obama, are exagerated and overstated.

Since he has appointed Bill Daley as his Chief of Staff and Jeff Imelt earlier this year, relationships with the business community have thawed some. But for anyone to point to actual policy and say that this administration is stifling growth, isn't based in hard facts, but rather opinion and commentary. Which is fine, just take it for what it is.

In short, President Obama is the worst socialist this country has ever seen.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I think you may be onto something. There is a bit of a perception, how deep and widespread is anyone's guess. Still, Wall Street is rolling along and donating big bucks to his campaign. So much of his perception, as with all things good and bad with Obama, are exagerated and overstated.

Since he has appointed Bill Daley as his Chief of Staff and Jeff Imelt earlier this year, relationships with the business community have thawed some. But for anyone to point to actual policy and say that this administration is stifling growth, isn't based in hard facts, but rather opinion and commentary. Which is fine, just take it for what it is.

In short, President Obama is the worst socialist this country has ever seen.

Opinion and commentary from some unlikely sources now too:

Obama's 'Pivot' To Jobs: The Deja Vu Reel (VIDEO)

Someone hacked your account, btw

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I think you may be onto something. There is a bit of a perception, how deep and widespread is anyone's guess. Still, Wall Street is rolling along and donating big bucks to his campaign. So much of his perception, as with all things good and bad with Obama, are exagerated and overstated.

Since he has appointed Bill Daley as his Chief of Staff and Jeff Imelt earlier this year, relationships with the business community have thawed some. But for anyone to point to actual policy and say that this administration is stifling growth, isn't based in hard facts, but rather opinion and commentary. Which is fine, just take it for what it is.

In short, President Obama is the worst socialist this country has ever seen.

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?

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

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.

[12thMan]

edit

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

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.

[12thMan]

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/bu...sler-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