The Official Obama Scorecard Thread

[hblask 1]

Very little of the money went to actual infrastructure investment.

So it failed because the government did the last 100 times that it tried to manipulate the economy?Oh gee, I guess we should've thought it would've worked.Hint: any policy that assumes that the government will suddenly stop doing what it has done since the dawn of government is a flawed policy.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

So it failed because the government did the last 100 times that it tried to manipulate the economy?Oh gee, I guess we should've thought it would've worked.Hint: any policy that assumes that the government will suddenly stop doing what it has done since the dawn of government is a flawed policy.

What about all that money that went to tax cuts. Why didn't that kick start the economy ?

[hblask 1]

What about all that money that went to tax cuts. Why didn't that kick start the economy ?

1. Corporate welfare doesn't work, only broad-based tax cuts do.2. If you spend $10 more and give a tax break of a dollar, that's not really a tax cut at all, it's a delayed tax.3. If you cut $1 in taxes, but add $5 in regulations, that's not really a cut at all. It's the total burden of government that matters.4. Even if you did all three of those right but created economic uncertainty by constantly threatening people with higher taxes and more regulation, companies will go into defensive mode to try to survive the upcoming storm.

[SilentSnow 1]

1. Corporate welfare doesn't work, only broad-based tax cuts do.2. If you spend $10 more and give a tax break of a dollar, that's not really a tax cut at all, it's a delayed tax.If you cut $1 in taxes, but add $5 in regulations, that's not really a cut at all. It's the total burden of government that matters.3. Even if you did all three of those right but created economic uncertainty by constantly threatening people with higher taxes and more regulation, companies will go into defensive mode to try to survive the upcoming storm.

1.Well at least we can agree that most corporate welfare is a huge waste of money. Too bad so few Republicans agree with this. 2. You can go further- There is no such thing as an actual tax cut when running a long term deficit. Bush and Reagan didn't cut taxes- they decreased revenue and massively increased debt. The only way to actually cut taxes is to run a surplus first, and then decrease the overall size of government. 3.This is a tail-wagging-the-dog type argument. Clinton raised taxes and the economy did great. Bush lowered taxes(not really-see above) and the economy did terrible(unless you were rich). So to avoid the obvious implications, now actual tax levels supposedly don't matter. Just the threat of a theoretical future tax increase or promise of decrease is more important than actual levels. This is disingenuous at best. Besides, how defensive could these companies be when they are making record profits? The real problem is that the middle class is being gutted, decreasing demand in general. Companies won't hire without demand. "Uncertainty" is just an excuse to avoid the real economic issues.http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/opinion/...p;smid=fb-share

[El Guapo 8]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-d...-155241606.html

According to the poll, Perry would lose to Obama in a projected match-up, 42 percent to 47 percent.By comparison, Romney and Obama are statistically tied, 45 percent to 46 percent. Meanwhile Obama would lose to a "generic" GOP candidate, 40 percent to 44 percent.

This is amusing but it really tells what is going on with our country in regards to who we want to elect vs. who is running. I think the problem that we have is the people whom we have running or who want to run are very extreme, one way are the other. The public want someone in the middle (like Christie), vs a religious ideologue or someone with socialistic leanings.

[CaneBrain 95]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-d...-155241606.htmlThis is amusing but it really tells what is going on with our country in regards to who we want to elect vs. who is running. I think the problem that we have is the people whom we have running or who want to run are very extreme, one way are the other. The public want someone in the middle (like Christie), vs a religious ideologue or someone with socialistic leanings.

We have a lot of religious ideologues but I don't see anyone in the race with socialistic leanings yet. Dennis Kucinich lurks though.And I know I've said this elsewhere but I think you underestimate how difficult it would be for Christie to win the GOP primary.

[hblask 1]

3.This is a tail-wagging-the-dog type argument. Clinton raised taxes and the economy did great. Bush lowered taxes(not really-see above) and the economy did terrible(unless you were rich). So to avoid the obvious implications, now actual tax levels supposedly don't matter. Just the threat of a theoretical future tax increase or promise of decrease is more important than actual levels. This is disingenuous at best. Besides, how defensive could these companies be when they are making record profits? The real problem is that the middle class is being gutted, decreasing demand in general. Companies won't hire without demand. "Uncertainty" is just an excuse to avoid the real economic issues.

Bush increased deficits AND increased regulation AND increased spending. So those people who blame Bush for the current economy are correct due to those things. The people who blame him for the housing crisis -- which is a large part of the downturn -- are just wrong.How defensive can companies be when they are getting record profits? We are seeing that now. By all accounts companies are sitting on hoards of cash waiting to see how Obama is going to hurt them next. In particular, the financial sector is very afraid considering all that has been done to them.The middle class being gutted is the result of all this big government big spending more regulations. When govt manages the economy, they are going to hand it to people with the most power -- and that is not the middle class.

[CaneBrain 95]

In particular, the financial sector is very afraid considering all that has been done to them.

All that has been done TO them? The financial sector should be happy we didn't put them in stocks for what they did TO us. This constant hyperbole about all the made up things Obama has "done" to businesses and the financial sector is getting out of hand. The Dodd-Frank bill never even got implemented. The financial sector should be kissing Bush and Obama's ass for all they have done FOR them. What a joke.Not to mention the obvious, if they are making record profits, maybe the narrative about how anti-business Obama acts is wildly overblown. "we made record profits last month.""how will that Kenyan screw us next?!?!"

[FCP Bob 1,312]

How defensive can companies be when they are getting record profits? We are seeing that now. By all accounts companies are sitting on hoards of cash waiting to see how Obama is going to hurt them next.

I think this one is almost as bad as the quote about the the financial services industry.The reason that companies are sitting on hoards of cash is because their isn't the demand for their products and services. To put the reason on anything else is just ideological bullshit.

[Dread Aidan 8]

Companies with record profits don't have demand for their products?

[SilentSnow 1]

Companies with record profits don't have demand for their products?

The demand for their products is medium to low, but thanks to extremely low labor costs(less workers and lower wages) they still make a lot of profits.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Companies with record profits don't have demand for their products?

Yup, demand for their products and services doesn't equal profits.http://www.businessinsider.com/why-tax-ref...-economy-2011-9http://www.businessinsider.com/what-groupo...-america-2011-9

Demand = jobs. If you offered Groupon a tax break, it wouldn't make a difference because it's not profitable. But even if it were, and you cut its corporate taxes, allowing more money to filter to the bottom line, unless that somehow translated into more demand for its products, it wouldn't need to hire more people. There is a decent argument to be made that given the state of the economy, we're overtaxed, but the bottom line is this: Businesses hire to keep up with demand for their products, even when they're losing money like crazy and dogged by controversy. Conversely businesses that are making money like crazy (like virtually all of the S&P 500, which is at record earnings) don't hire if demand is mediocre.Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-groupo...9#ixzz1XDtJecGn

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Bush increased deficits AND increased regulation AND increased spending. So those people who blame Bush for the current economy are correct due to those things. The people who blame him for the housing crisis -- which is a large part of the downturn -- are just wrong.How defensive can companies be when they are getting record profits? We are seeing that now. By all accounts companies are sitting on hoards of cash waiting to see how Obama is going to hurt them next. In particular, the financial sector is very afraid considering all that has been done to them.The middle class being gutted is the result of all this big government big spending more regulations. When govt manages the economy, they are going to hand it to people with the most power -- and that is not the middle class.

Regulations, taxes aren't killing small business, owners say

By Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers WASHINGTON — Politicians and business groups often blame excessive regulation and fear of higher taxes for tepid hiring in the economy. However, little evidence of that emerged when McClatchy canvassed a random sample of small business owners across the nation. "Government regulations are not 'choking' our business, the hospitality business," Bernard Wolfson, the president of Hospitality Operations in Miami, told The Miami Herald. "In order to do business in today's environment, government regulations are necessary and we must deal with them. The health and safety of our guests depend on regulations. It is the government regulations that help keep things in order."...McClatchy reached out to owners of small businesses, many of them mom-and-pop operations, to find out whether they indeed were being choked by regulation, whether uncertainty over taxes affected their hiring plans and whether the health care overhaul was helping or hurting their business. Their response was surprising. None of the business owners complained about regulation in their particular industries, and most seemed to welcome it. Some pointed to the lack of regulation in mortgage lending as a principal cause of the financial crisis that brought about the Great Recession of 2007-09 and its grim aftermath.Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/01/1228...l#ixzz1XDv31HDo

[Balloon guy 158]

The demand for their products is medium to low, but thanks to extremely low labor costs(less workers and lower wages) they still make a lot of profits.

Well I hope the government steps in soon.One thing we don't want in this economy is corporations making profits.

[hblask 1]

All that has been done TO them?

I'm talking about things like bailing out one company with the money of another, or the auto bailout fiasco where Obama just overruled 200 years of established law and handed the company to the unions. Stuff like that scares people for a long time. Obama's corporate cronyism is among the worst of any president, and that's saying a lot. He has no problem screwing successful companies to hand money to his pals, as we saw during the auto bailouts.And how many times per week does he make veiled threats to the very people he is robbing, telling them they aren't good corporate citizens?

[hblask 1]

I think this one is almost as bad as the quote about the the financial services industry.The reason that companies are sitting on hoards of cash is because their isn't the demand for their products and services. To put the reason on anything else is just ideological bullshit.

So even though they are selling more than ever at higher profits than ever, they are just sitting on money because nobody is buying stuff and they don't want to make *more* money? Run a business for about 10 years and see if that statement makes any sense.The biggest thing they are afraid of is what the costs will be of all the rapidly changing regulations. Nobody knows how much Obamacare will add per employee; or how much the back-door cap-and-trade crap will cost; or how much any of the other thousands of pages of new regulations that are being printed *daily* will cost.The other article about how businesses are feeling under-regulated is just BS. There is not a business person in the country who says that unless they are looking for a handout and told to say that if they want it.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

So even though they are selling more than ever at higher profits than ever, they are just sitting on money because nobody is buying stuff and they don't want to make *more* money? Run a business for about 10 years and see if that statement makes any sense.

Good try but they aren't selling more than ever. Higher profits don't mean maximum output. If businesses were selling and producing more than ever then there wouldn't be the large gap between actual and potetial output in the economy as a whole.The number one problem in the economy is that there is a lack of aggregate demand.

[LimbaughGod 0]

Pretty much all I can do when it comes to Obama is echo Preacher Steven Anderson's prayer for our current "President". The most heartening thing about that video is the sound of children in the congregation, so at least we know our youth are being exposed to prayer and the truth of the world.

[brvheart 1,752]

Regulations, taxes aren't killing small business, owners say

Is the "proof" here seriously just interviews with a few hand-picked business owners? Seriously? No study or poll or anything else of the entire population of small business owners? Just a sentence that says "random" and "nationwide", and then is apparently this blogger talking to a few people on the phone? Was the sample size 4 people? Um. Ok.

[hblask 1]

Good try but they aren't selling more than ever. Higher profits don't mean maximum output. If businesses were selling and producing more than ever then there wouldn't be the large gap between actual and potetial output in the economy as a whole.The number one problem in the economy is that there is a lack of aggregate demand.

That doesn't change the dynamic, really. Money follows profits. If you get expect a 20% return, you put more money there than somewhere where you expect a 3% return. The money has to go somewhere. The problem is that really people are searching for *risk-adjusted* profits, and the risks are too high right now.It's not like investors say "well, we sold 10,000 units last year and made $10,000, but this year we only sold 8,000 and made $20,000. I guess we'd better not invest any more in that area." After all, who wants more money for less work?

[strategy 4]

this is from mar 2010, can't give the whole pdf because it has an author embedded and probably shouldn't have been sent to me in the first place:(this is a big part of why companies look like they're doing so great right now. everyone has 'fortified' for the recession by cutting their workforce to the bone.my point of view is that the ideological stuff plays such an incredibly minor role in consumer demand levels vs. the amount of attention it gets. it's boring to just say, "well, no one's spending money because they're in debt and poor as fuck and we still haven't found the bottom in the housing market." that wouldn't draw any viewership if that was the story on the news every day for the last three years, BUT IT IS THE STORY. sometimes the truth isn't sexy and interesting, so we have to pretend that stuff that explains 2% of the variance in the GDP numbers (GENEROUS) is worth talking about.

[akoff 0]

this is from mar 2010, can't give the whole pdf because it has an author embedded and probably shouldn't have been sent to me in the first place this is a big part of why companies look like they're doing so great right now. everyone has 'fortified' for the recession by cutting their workforce to the bone.my point of view is that the ideological stuff plays such an incredibly minor role in consumer demand levels vs. the amount of attention it gets. it's boring to just say, "well, no one's spending money because they're in debt and poor as **** and we still haven't found the bottom in the housing market." that wouldn't draw any viewership if that was the story on the news every day for the last three years, BUT IT IS THE STORY. sometimes the truth isn't sexy and interesting, so we have to pretend that stuff that explains 2% of the variance in the GDP numbers (GENEROUS) is worth talking about.

lots of truth here, i know many people making 100k or more that have borrowed their way into being broke, invested stupid and lost all of their money or just lived over their heads for so many years that they are in big trouble.

[CaneBrain 95]

I think it's just another symptom of our instant gratification culture. No one wants to hear that recovery from a large economic collapse will obviously take some time even though it's completely logical.

[mrdannyg 274]

Is the "proof" here seriously just interviews with a few hand-picked business owners? Seriously? No study or poll or anything else of the entire population of small business owners? Just a sentence that says "random" and "nationwide", and then is apparently this blogger talking to a few people on the phone? Was the sample size 4 people? Um. Ok.

I think there are quotes (or paraphrases) from 6 different people. Not 4. And NONE of them said that higher taxes had ANY effect on them. And since the disagreeing portion is 0, it doesn't matter how many more people, because you can multiply 0 by any number and still be 0. Therefore, higher taxes and more regulation simply do not harm businesses. Ever.

[Balloon guy 158]

+1 for Obama placing his family vacation ahead of the US jobs plan he has been keeping secret.Nice to see someone who thinks his family is more important than a bunch of strangers on unemployment.Also -2 for hiring people stupid enough to schedule the unveiling of his super secret jobs program at the same time as the Republican debate, only to have to move it to during the opening NFL game, only to have to move it again to 'just before the game starts'I know that whatever 'program' he has to turn the countries unemployment figures off of the highs that likely will lead to a dull blown depression are secondary to which Republican is going to defeat him in 2012, but is it also thirdly to a game?