Hit a all time record low
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl2821
Full Version: Obama's rating keeps on going down.
QUOTE (metfan4life @ Jun 25 2010, 11:08 AM) 
Honestly, with all the crap going on right now, I think any President's approval ratings would be low. People take it out on those in power when times are bad. That's just a fact of life in politics.
Obama's fate will rest on the economy as the election nears. The economy will likely hold its own at the very least, and probably improve to some extent. All the rest of the rhetoric is much sound and fury, signifying nothing. Obama's a lock to get re-elected, short of something totally unexpected happening.
QUOTE (robbbs @ Jun 25 2010, 09:39 PM)
Obama's fate will rest on the economy as the election nears. The economy will likely hold its own at the very least, and probably improve to some extent. All the rest of the rhetoric is much sound and fury, signifying nothing. Obama's a lock to get re-elected, short of something totally unexpected happening.
Unemployment will probably have a lot to do with it also. People are cranky when they're not working, and for good reason. This also gets taken out on incumbents, fair or not.
Due to increased demand, these are currently sold out!!
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
QUOTE (robbbs @ Jun 25 2010, 09:39 PM)
Obama's fate will rest on the economy as the election nears. The economy will likely hold its own at the very least, and probably improve to some extent. All the rest of the rhetoric is much sound and fury, signifying nothing. Obama's a lock to get re-elected, short of something totally unexpected happening.
Not sure if I would say lock, would say decent chance, but he needs unemployment below say 8%. If above, depends on who is the other option. Same old same old, Obama's chances increase.
QUOTE (Ehop @ Jun 29 2010, 08:49 AM)
Not sure if I would say lock, would say decent chance, but he needs unemployment below say 8%. If above, depends on who is the other option. Same old same old, Obama's chances increase.
That's another important factor. You can't just throw anyone against him if you're the GOP. Say what you want about his politics, but Obama proved to be a masterful campaigner. His team will tear apart an opponent who's not prepared.
Latest numbers:
Fox News Poll: 76 Percent Say Time for Obama to Take Responsibility
By Dana Blanton
Published August 12, 2010 | FoxNews.com
AP
Aug. 9: President Obama returns to the White House after a day in Texas raising money for Democrats.
Despite more voters faulting former President Bush's policies for the country's economic woes, most American voters think it is time for President Obama to stop blaming Bush.
Nearly half of voters — 47 percent — think Bush's policies are mostly to blame for the economic difficulties the country is having today, compared to 32 percent who think Obama's policies are to blame.
Even so, fully 76 percent of voters think it is time for the Obama administration to start taking responsibility for the condition of the economy. That's more than four times as many as think it is right to continue to place the blame on Bush (18 percent).
A majority of Democrats, who overwhelmingly think Bush is responsible for the economy (82 percent), think it is time for Obama to quit blaming Bush (57 percent).
Overall, 55 percent of those who think Bush's policies are to blame think it's time for Obama to take responsibility.
Almost all voters — 88 percent — think the country is still in a recession. That includes two groups: 48 percent who not only think the recession isn't over, but also think that things could get worse, and 40 percent who say even though the recession continues, things are getting better. Another 6 percent think the recession is over, but that another one could happen.
Few — 3 percent — think the recession is completely over and the economy is recovering.
Less than a third of voters (29 percent) credit the stimulus package for keeping the country from going into a depression. Half (51 percent) think other reasons prevented another Great Depression.
Nearly two-thirds of voters (63 percent) believe government has gotten so big it is hurting the future of the country. About half as many do not (32 percent).
Obama's Job Performance
Overall, 43 percent of voters approve and 49 percent disapprove of the job President Obama is doing. That's little changed from two weeks ago, when 43 percent approved and 50 percent disapproved.
Most Democrats (77 percent) approve of the job Obama is doing as president, and most Republicans (81 percent) disapprove. Independents are slightly more likely to disapprove (46 percent) than approve (42 percent).
Similarly, 48 percent of voters approve "of the policies of the Obama administration" and 47 percent disapprove.
Some 30 percent of voters say the country is better off today than before President Obama was elected, while 38 percent say the country is worse off. Another 30 percent say there is not much of a difference.
By 49-30 percent, more voters approve of President Obama being a guest on "The View," including 73 percent of Democrats, 31 percent of Republicans and 36 percent of independents. Women (52 percent) are more likely than men (45 percent) to approve of the president appearing on the daytime television show.
The president appeared on the show July 29. He's held two solo White House press conferences so far this year — one in February and another in May. Which is the more effective communications strategy?
A majority thinks they learn more when the president holds a White House press conference (54 percent) than when he appears on television talks shows (18 percent), though 11 percent think they learn about the same from both and another 12 percent says they don't learn anything from either.
The Fox News Poll involved telephone interviews with 900 randomly chosen registered voters and was conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corp. from August 10 - August 11. For the total sample, it has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Summer Vacation
About half of voters (52 percent) say they have or will take a vacation this summer. Among those who aren't vacationing, half blame it on the lack of money (51 percent), while others blame it on having no time to get away (20 percent), or both a lack of time and money (14 percent).
Yet most — 74 percent — say it's no big deal that the Obama family has gone on a number of vacations this year. One in five, though, says they feel resentful (21 percent).
Fox News Poll: 76 Percent Say Time for Obama to Take Responsibility
By Dana Blanton
Published August 12, 2010 | FoxNews.com
AP
Aug. 9: President Obama returns to the White House after a day in Texas raising money for Democrats.
Despite more voters faulting former President Bush's policies for the country's economic woes, most American voters think it is time for President Obama to stop blaming Bush.
Nearly half of voters — 47 percent — think Bush's policies are mostly to blame for the economic difficulties the country is having today, compared to 32 percent who think Obama's policies are to blame.
Even so, fully 76 percent of voters think it is time for the Obama administration to start taking responsibility for the condition of the economy. That's more than four times as many as think it is right to continue to place the blame on Bush (18 percent).
A majority of Democrats, who overwhelmingly think Bush is responsible for the economy (82 percent), think it is time for Obama to quit blaming Bush (57 percent).
Overall, 55 percent of those who think Bush's policies are to blame think it's time for Obama to take responsibility.
Almost all voters — 88 percent — think the country is still in a recession. That includes two groups: 48 percent who not only think the recession isn't over, but also think that things could get worse, and 40 percent who say even though the recession continues, things are getting better. Another 6 percent think the recession is over, but that another one could happen.
Few — 3 percent — think the recession is completely over and the economy is recovering.
Less than a third of voters (29 percent) credit the stimulus package for keeping the country from going into a depression. Half (51 percent) think other reasons prevented another Great Depression.
Nearly two-thirds of voters (63 percent) believe government has gotten so big it is hurting the future of the country. About half as many do not (32 percent).
Obama's Job Performance
Overall, 43 percent of voters approve and 49 percent disapprove of the job President Obama is doing. That's little changed from two weeks ago, when 43 percent approved and 50 percent disapproved.
Most Democrats (77 percent) approve of the job Obama is doing as president, and most Republicans (81 percent) disapprove. Independents are slightly more likely to disapprove (46 percent) than approve (42 percent).
Similarly, 48 percent of voters approve "of the policies of the Obama administration" and 47 percent disapprove.
Some 30 percent of voters say the country is better off today than before President Obama was elected, while 38 percent say the country is worse off. Another 30 percent say there is not much of a difference.
By 49-30 percent, more voters approve of President Obama being a guest on "The View," including 73 percent of Democrats, 31 percent of Republicans and 36 percent of independents. Women (52 percent) are more likely than men (45 percent) to approve of the president appearing on the daytime television show.
The president appeared on the show July 29. He's held two solo White House press conferences so far this year — one in February and another in May. Which is the more effective communications strategy?
A majority thinks they learn more when the president holds a White House press conference (54 percent) than when he appears on television talks shows (18 percent), though 11 percent think they learn about the same from both and another 12 percent says they don't learn anything from either.
The Fox News Poll involved telephone interviews with 900 randomly chosen registered voters and was conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corp. from August 10 - August 11. For the total sample, it has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Summer Vacation
About half of voters (52 percent) say they have or will take a vacation this summer. Among those who aren't vacationing, half blame it on the lack of money (51 percent), while others blame it on having no time to get away (20 percent), or both a lack of time and money (14 percent).
Yet most — 74 percent — say it's no big deal that the Obama family has gone on a number of vacations this year. One in five, though, says they feel resentful (21 percent).
we need to shed the senate, otherwise no president will have favorable numbers, the machine is running wild. 
QUOTE (NittanyLion @ Aug 13 2010, 09:16 AM)
Latest numbers:
Fox News Poll: 76 Percent Say Time for Obama to Take Responsibility
By Dana Blanton
Published August 12, 2010 | FoxNews.com
AP
Aug. 9: President Obama returns to the White House after a day in Texas raising money for Democrats.
Despite more voters faulting former President Bush's policies for the country's economic woes, most American voters think it is time for President Obama to stop blaming Bush.
Nearly half of voters — 47 percent — think Bush's policies are mostly to blame for the economic difficulties the country is having today, compared to 32 percent who think Obama's policies are to blame.
Even so, fully 76 percent of voters think it is time for the Obama administration to start taking responsibility for the condition of the economy. That's more than four times as many as think it is right to continue to place the blame on Bush (18 percent).
A majority of Democrats, who overwhelmingly think Bush is responsible for the economy (82 percent), think it is time for Obama to quit blaming Bush (57 percent).
Overall, 55 percent of those who think Bush's policies are to blame think it's time for Obama to take responsibility.
Almost all voters — 88 percent — think the country is still in a recession. That includes two groups: 48 percent who not only think the recession isn't over, but also think that things could get worse, and 40 percent who say even though the recession continues, things are getting better. Another 6 percent think the recession is over, but that another one could happen.
Few — 3 percent — think the recession is completely over and the economy is recovering.
Less than a third of voters (29 percent) credit the stimulus package for keeping the country from going into a depression. Half (51 percent) think other reasons prevented another Great Depression.
Nearly two-thirds of voters (63 percent) believe government has gotten so big it is hurting the future of the country. About half as many do not (32 percent).
Obama's Job Performance
Overall, 43 percent of voters approve and 49 percent disapprove of the job President Obama is doing. That's little changed from two weeks ago, when 43 percent approved and 50 percent disapproved.
Most Democrats (77 percent) approve of the job Obama is doing as president, and most Republicans (81 percent) disapprove. Independents are slightly more likely to disapprove (46 percent) than approve (42 percent).
Similarly, 48 percent of voters approve "of the policies of the Obama administration" and 47 percent disapprove.
Some 30 percent of voters say the country is better off today than before President Obama was elected, while 38 percent say the country is worse off. Another 30 percent say there is not much of a difference.
By 49-30 percent, more voters approve of President Obama being a guest on "The View," including 73 percent of Democrats, 31 percent of Republicans and 36 percent of independents. Women (52 percent) are more likely than men (45 percent) to approve of the president appearing on the daytime television show.
The president appeared on the show July 29. He's held two solo White House press conferences so far this year — one in February and another in May. Which is the more effective communications strategy?
A majority thinks they learn more when the president holds a White House press conference (54 percent) than when he appears on television talks shows (18 percent), though 11 percent think they learn about the same from both and another 12 percent says they don't learn anything from either.
The Fox News Poll involved telephone interviews with 900 randomly chosen registered voters and was conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corp. from August 10 - August 11. For the total sample, it has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Summer Vacation
About half of voters (52 percent) say they have or will take a vacation this summer. Among those who aren't vacationing, half blame it on the lack of money (51 percent), while others blame it on having no time to get away (20 percent), or both a lack of time and money (14 percent).
Yet most — 74 percent — say it's no big deal that the Obama family has gone on a number of vacations this year. One in five, though, says they feel resentful (21 percent).
Fox News Poll: 76 Percent Say Time for Obama to Take Responsibility
By Dana Blanton
Published August 12, 2010 | FoxNews.com
AP
Aug. 9: President Obama returns to the White House after a day in Texas raising money for Democrats.
Despite more voters faulting former President Bush's policies for the country's economic woes, most American voters think it is time for President Obama to stop blaming Bush.
Nearly half of voters — 47 percent — think Bush's policies are mostly to blame for the economic difficulties the country is having today, compared to 32 percent who think Obama's policies are to blame.
Even so, fully 76 percent of voters think it is time for the Obama administration to start taking responsibility for the condition of the economy. That's more than four times as many as think it is right to continue to place the blame on Bush (18 percent).
A majority of Democrats, who overwhelmingly think Bush is responsible for the economy (82 percent), think it is time for Obama to quit blaming Bush (57 percent).
Overall, 55 percent of those who think Bush's policies are to blame think it's time for Obama to take responsibility.
Almost all voters — 88 percent — think the country is still in a recession. That includes two groups: 48 percent who not only think the recession isn't over, but also think that things could get worse, and 40 percent who say even though the recession continues, things are getting better. Another 6 percent think the recession is over, but that another one could happen.
Few — 3 percent — think the recession is completely over and the economy is recovering.
Less than a third of voters (29 percent) credit the stimulus package for keeping the country from going into a depression. Half (51 percent) think other reasons prevented another Great Depression.
Nearly two-thirds of voters (63 percent) believe government has gotten so big it is hurting the future of the country. About half as many do not (32 percent).
Obama's Job Performance
Overall, 43 percent of voters approve and 49 percent disapprove of the job President Obama is doing. That's little changed from two weeks ago, when 43 percent approved and 50 percent disapproved.
Most Democrats (77 percent) approve of the job Obama is doing as president, and most Republicans (81 percent) disapprove. Independents are slightly more likely to disapprove (46 percent) than approve (42 percent).
Similarly, 48 percent of voters approve "of the policies of the Obama administration" and 47 percent disapprove.
Some 30 percent of voters say the country is better off today than before President Obama was elected, while 38 percent say the country is worse off. Another 30 percent say there is not much of a difference.
By 49-30 percent, more voters approve of President Obama being a guest on "The View," including 73 percent of Democrats, 31 percent of Republicans and 36 percent of independents. Women (52 percent) are more likely than men (45 percent) to approve of the president appearing on the daytime television show.
The president appeared on the show July 29. He's held two solo White House press conferences so far this year — one in February and another in May. Which is the more effective communications strategy?
A majority thinks they learn more when the president holds a White House press conference (54 percent) than when he appears on television talks shows (18 percent), though 11 percent think they learn about the same from both and another 12 percent says they don't learn anything from either.
The Fox News Poll involved telephone interviews with 900 randomly chosen registered voters and was conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corp. from August 10 - August 11. For the total sample, it has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Summer Vacation
About half of voters (52 percent) say they have or will take a vacation this summer. Among those who aren't vacationing, half blame it on the lack of money (51 percent), while others blame it on having no time to get away (20 percent), or both a lack of time and money (14 percent).
Yet most — 74 percent — say it's no big deal that the Obama family has gone on a number of vacations this year. One in five, though, says they feel resentful (21 percent).
Interesting numbers...I think a lot of people really want to give Obama a chance and see him do well for the country's sake, but think it's time for him to step up his game now. It's time to put the past behind, quit blaming prior administrations and own what is going on today. As Harry Truman said, "The buck stops here."
QUOTE (devilsfan0405 @ Aug 13 2010, 10:02 AM)
Interesting numbers...I think a lot of people really want to give Obama a chance and see him do well for the country's sake, but think it's time for him to step up his game now. It's time to put the past behind, quit blaming prior administrations and own what is going on today. As Harry Truman said, "The buck stops here."
not to beat the horse, but....there is one common denominator for years...regardless of the pres. they just point fingers and so goes the cycle.
QUOTE (vascudave @ Aug 13 2010, 10:04 AM)
not to beat the horse, but....there is one common denominator for years...regardless of the pres. they just point fingers and so goes the cycle.
You're right. I think it's worse with Bush, though. Everyone was just so disgusted with him by the end of his 2nd term and couldn't wait for him to leave. But I do remember conservatives trying to make excuses for Bush when everyone said (rightfully so) that 9/11 happened on his watch. They tried to turn it around and blame Clinton for not doing enough to combat Al Qaeda while he was President. You can spin this stuff all day and make specious arguments, blaming whoever you want.
QUOTE (devilsfan0405 @ Aug 13 2010, 09:02 AM)
Interesting numbers...I think a lot of people really want to give Obama a chance and see him do well for the country's sake, but think it's time for him to step up his game now. It's time to put the past behind, quit blaming prior administrations and own what is going on today. As Harry Truman said, "The buck stops here."
QUOTE (vascudave @ Aug 13 2010, 09:04 AM)
not to beat the horse, but....there is one common denominator for years...regardless of the pres. they just point fingers and so goes the cycle.
QUOTE (devilsfan0405 @ Aug 13 2010, 10:39 AM)
You're right. I think it's worse with Bush, though. Everyone was just so disgusted with him by the end of his 2nd term and couldn't wait for him to leave. But I do remember conservatives trying to make excuses for Bush when everyone said (rightfully so) that 9/11 happened on his watch. They tried to turn it around and blame Clinton for not doing enough to combat Al Qaeda while he was President. You can spin this stuff all day and make specious arguments, blaming whoever you want.
Agreed with everything above.
Here's the real question:
Does anyone think Obama is doing a good job and what things can you say that he has done are really going to help America in the long haul. I can't name any and I think he is an awful and indecisve President with little to no experience and is in far over his head. I used to think he was a good guy with good intentions but I no longer do. He now comes across to me at least as arrogant and condescending. Maybe I'm wrong but I've read stories on foreign leaders having no respect at all for him and that and the fact that he would raise taxes on the high income earners scare me the most about him.
If you have little experience in business you'd say - as Obama does - that the 2% of America that makes that level of income can afford it, so why the big deal. Well most of America thinks purely of W-2 wages. Most folks in that 2% grouping that Obama talks about, and fails to mention, are the folks that run profitable to very profitable small businesses. Still sounds OK to tax them- right? Well here's the rub. They actually report more income than cash they receive. This is because ther are paying down business loans used to expand their businesses and after the severe recession we had, banks have tightened loan ratios on them. In some cases they have applied a 1.25-1.50 coverage ratio on them. This means that if the business has - as an example - 5mln of fixed charges (loan payments, interest payments, capital expenditures, and tax liabilities or in the case of a sub chapter S corp, tax distributions to owners so that they can pay their tax liabilities on business income) they must have 6.25mln to 7.5mln of operating cash flow. The bank wants 25%-50% excess cash flow over these fixed charge obligations, or they can declare a default of the loan and the usual remedy is a higher interest rate. So businesses that are actually very successful small businesses in a terrible economy are frozen by overly fearful banks and that is now a lot more complicated by Obama's intention of raising of taxes so they remain frozen even if he puts it off a year because business needs to know that decisions they make are based on a permanent foundation. They can't expand without belief that the tax rates they now pay will stay the same, and that is why unemployment is so bad and likely gets worse. You see that 2% that Obama talks about is responsible for a high majority of new hires in America. In many cases I've heard this number is as high as 90% of all new hirings. I've even heard this number is over 100% because you need a level over 100% to counteract all the jobs corporate America is exporting overseas to India and other places. And guess what, these are small businesses so they keep the jobs in America. Now if you raise taxes on these people they may actually have to lay people off. Why? Think about a guy who is on the edge and is covering those very tight bank ratios at 1.26 to 1 or 1.51 to 1. You raise his taxes $300K and how does he stay compliant with the loan? There is an answer and no one is going to like it but he stays compliant with the loan by cutting expenses some $400-450K and those cuts ar usually salary costs. I know all this full well because I'm crunching numbrs for my business on what Obama's tax policy means and it isn't pretty. In fact about 10 businesses I meet with once or twice a year are preparing layoffs for the day that Obama raises their taxes so that they can ensure they will stay compliant with their bank loan covenants. This is what Obama doesn't get and until he gets it unemployment a'int coming down and may get a whole lot worse.
Does anyone think Obama is doing a good job and what things can you say that he has done are really going to help America in the long haul. I can't name any and I think he is an awful and indecisve President with little to no experience and is in far over his head. I used to think he was a good guy with good intentions but I no longer do. He now comes across to me at least as arrogant and condescending. Maybe I'm wrong but I've read stories on foreign leaders having no respect at all for him and that and the fact that he would raise taxes on the high income earners scare me the most about him.
If you have little experience in business you'd say - as Obama does - that the 2% of America that makes that level of income can afford it, so why the big deal. Well most of America thinks purely of W-2 wages. Most folks in that 2% grouping that Obama talks about, and fails to mention, are the folks that run profitable to very profitable small businesses. Still sounds OK to tax them- right? Well here's the rub. They actually report more income than cash they receive. This is because ther are paying down business loans used to expand their businesses and after the severe recession we had, banks have tightened loan ratios on them. In some cases they have applied a 1.25-1.50 coverage ratio on them. This means that if the business has - as an example - 5mln of fixed charges (loan payments, interest payments, capital expenditures, and tax liabilities or in the case of a sub chapter S corp, tax distributions to owners so that they can pay their tax liabilities on business income) they must have 6.25mln to 7.5mln of operating cash flow. The bank wants 25%-50% excess cash flow over these fixed charge obligations, or they can declare a default of the loan and the usual remedy is a higher interest rate. So businesses that are actually very successful small businesses in a terrible economy are frozen by overly fearful banks and that is now a lot more complicated by Obama's intention of raising of taxes so they remain frozen even if he puts it off a year because business needs to know that decisions they make are based on a permanent foundation. They can't expand without belief that the tax rates they now pay will stay the same, and that is why unemployment is so bad and likely gets worse. You see that 2% that Obama talks about is responsible for a high majority of new hires in America. In many cases I've heard this number is as high as 90% of all new hirings. I've even heard this number is over 100% because you need a level over 100% to counteract all the jobs corporate America is exporting overseas to India and other places. And guess what, these are small businesses so they keep the jobs in America. Now if you raise taxes on these people they may actually have to lay people off. Why? Think about a guy who is on the edge and is covering those very tight bank ratios at 1.26 to 1 or 1.51 to 1. You raise his taxes $300K and how does he stay compliant with the loan? There is an answer and no one is going to like it but he stays compliant with the loan by cutting expenses some $400-450K and those cuts ar usually salary costs. I know all this full well because I'm crunching numbrs for my business on what Obama's tax policy means and it isn't pretty. In fact about 10 businesses I meet with once or twice a year are preparing layoffs for the day that Obama raises their taxes so that they can ensure they will stay compliant with their bank loan covenants. This is what Obama doesn't get and until he gets it unemployment a'int coming down and may get a whole lot worse.
QUOTE (icehater @ Aug 18 2010, 01:00 AM)
Here's the real question:
Does anyone think Obama is doing a good job and what things can you say that he has done are really going to help America in the long haul. I can't name any and I think he is an awful and indecisve President with little to no experience and is in far over his head. I used to think he was a good guy with good intentions but I no longer do. He now comes across to me at least as arrogant and condescending. Maybe I'm wrong but I've read stories on foreign leaders having no respect at all for him and that and the fact that he would raise taxes on the high income earners scare me the most about him.
If you have little experience in business you'd say - as Obama does - that the 2% of America that makes that level of income can afford it, so why the big deal. Well most of America thinks purely of W-2 wages. Most folks in that 2% grouping that Obama talks about, and fails to mention, are the folks that run profitable to very profitable small businesses. Still sounds OK to tax them- right? Well here's the rub. They actually report more income than cash they receive. This is because ther are paying down business loans used to expand their businesses and after the severe recession we had, banks have tightened loan ratios on them. In some cases they have applied a 1.25-1.50 coverage ratio on them. This means that if the business has - as an example - 5mln of fixed charges (loan payments, interest payments, capital expenditures, and tax liabilities or in the case of a sub chapter S corp, tax distributions to owners so that they can pay their tax liabilities on business income) they must have 6.25mln to 7.5mln of operating cash flow. The bank wants 25%-50% excess cash flow over these fixed charge obligations, or they can declare a default of the loan and the usual remedy is a higher interest rate. So businesses that are actually very successful small businesses in a terrible economy are frozen by overly fearful banks and that is now a lot more complicated by Obama's intention of raising of taxes so they remain frozen even if he puts it off a year because business needs to know that decisions they make are based on a permanent foundation. They can't expand without belief that the tax rates they now pay will stay the same, and that is why unemployment is so bad and likely gets worse. You see that 2% that Obama talks about is responsible for a high majority of new hires in America. In many cases I've heard this number is as high as 90% of all new hirings. I've even heard this number is over 100% because you need a level over 100% to counteract all the jobs corporate America is exporting overseas to India and other places. And guess what, these are small businesses so they keep the jobs in America. Now if you raise taxes on these people they may actually have to lay people off. Why? Think about a guy who is on the edge and is covering those very tight bank ratios at 1.26 to 1 or 1.51 to 1. You raise his taxes $300K and how does he stay compliant with the loan? There is an answer and no one is going to like it but he stays compliant with the loan by cutting expenses some $400-450K and those cuts ar usually salary costs. I know all this full well because I'm crunching numbrs for my business on what Obama's tax policy means and it isn't pretty. In fact about 10 businesses I meet with once or twice a year are preparing layoffs for the day that Obama raises their taxes so that they can ensure they will stay compliant with their bank loan covenants. This is what Obama doesn't get and until he gets it unemployment a'int coming down and may get a whole lot worse.
Does anyone think Obama is doing a good job and what things can you say that he has done are really going to help America in the long haul. I can't name any and I think he is an awful and indecisve President with little to no experience and is in far over his head. I used to think he was a good guy with good intentions but I no longer do. He now comes across to me at least as arrogant and condescending. Maybe I'm wrong but I've read stories on foreign leaders having no respect at all for him and that and the fact that he would raise taxes on the high income earners scare me the most about him.
If you have little experience in business you'd say - as Obama does - that the 2% of America that makes that level of income can afford it, so why the big deal. Well most of America thinks purely of W-2 wages. Most folks in that 2% grouping that Obama talks about, and fails to mention, are the folks that run profitable to very profitable small businesses. Still sounds OK to tax them- right? Well here's the rub. They actually report more income than cash they receive. This is because ther are paying down business loans used to expand their businesses and after the severe recession we had, banks have tightened loan ratios on them. In some cases they have applied a 1.25-1.50 coverage ratio on them. This means that if the business has - as an example - 5mln of fixed charges (loan payments, interest payments, capital expenditures, and tax liabilities or in the case of a sub chapter S corp, tax distributions to owners so that they can pay their tax liabilities on business income) they must have 6.25mln to 7.5mln of operating cash flow. The bank wants 25%-50% excess cash flow over these fixed charge obligations, or they can declare a default of the loan and the usual remedy is a higher interest rate. So businesses that are actually very successful small businesses in a terrible economy are frozen by overly fearful banks and that is now a lot more complicated by Obama's intention of raising of taxes so they remain frozen even if he puts it off a year because business needs to know that decisions they make are based on a permanent foundation. They can't expand without belief that the tax rates they now pay will stay the same, and that is why unemployment is so bad and likely gets worse. You see that 2% that Obama talks about is responsible for a high majority of new hires in America. In many cases I've heard this number is as high as 90% of all new hirings. I've even heard this number is over 100% because you need a level over 100% to counteract all the jobs corporate America is exporting overseas to India and other places. And guess what, these are small businesses so they keep the jobs in America. Now if you raise taxes on these people they may actually have to lay people off. Why? Think about a guy who is on the edge and is covering those very tight bank ratios at 1.26 to 1 or 1.51 to 1. You raise his taxes $300K and how does he stay compliant with the loan? There is an answer and no one is going to like it but he stays compliant with the loan by cutting expenses some $400-450K and those cuts ar usually salary costs. I know all this full well because I'm crunching numbrs for my business on what Obama's tax policy means and it isn't pretty. In fact about 10 businesses I meet with once or twice a year are preparing layoffs for the day that Obama raises their taxes so that they can ensure they will stay compliant with their bank loan covenants. This is what Obama doesn't get and until he gets it unemployment a'int coming down and may get a whole lot worse.
Good points, Ice. You're on the ground with these people everyday and know how their business works, so I trust your word a lot more than someone preaching from the ivory tower like Obama or Geithner. Doesn't help that hardly anyone on his team has any real-world business experience. That's been a major issue from the start. He just has a bunch of eggheads from colleges and universities who work in textbook theory and not reality.
And I agree with you about his sarcasm and arrogance. His speeches are becoming more childish by the day IMHO. I'm also getting tired of hearing that Republicans just say no to everything and have no ideas of their own. That's pure hogwash. They have been offering suggestions; Obama and his team just choose not to listen to them.
QUOTE (icehater @ Aug 18 2010, 12:00 AM)
Here's the real question:
Does anyone think Obama is doing a good job and what things can you say that he has done are really going to help America in the long haul. I can't name any and I think he is an awful and indecisve President with little to no experience and is in far over his head. I used to think he was a good guy with good intentions but I no longer do. He now comes across to me at least as arrogant and condescending. Maybe I'm wrong but I've read stories on foreign leaders having no respect at all for him and that and the fact that he would raise taxes on the high income earners scare me the most about him.
If you have little experience in business you'd say - as Obama does - that the 2% of America that makes that level of income can afford it, so why the big deal. Well most of America thinks purely of W-2 wages. Most folks in that 2% grouping that Obama talks about, and fails to mention, are the folks that run profitable to very profitable small businesses. Still sounds OK to tax them- right? Well here's the rub. They actually report more income than cash they receive. This is because ther are paying down business loans used to expand their businesses and after the severe recession we had, banks have tightened loan ratios on them. In some cases they have applied a 1.25-1.50 coverage ratio on them. This means that if the business has - as an example - 5mln of fixed charges (loan payments, interest payments, capital expenditures, and tax liabilities or in the case of a sub chapter S corp, tax distributions to owners so that they can pay their tax liabilities on business income) they must have 6.25mln to 7.5mln of operating cash flow. The bank wants 25%-50% excess cash flow over these fixed charge obligations, or they can declare a default of the loan and the usual remedy is a higher interest rate. So businesses that are actually very successful small businesses in a terrible economy are frozen by overly fearful banks and that is now a lot more complicated by Obama's intention of raising of taxes so they remain frozen even if he puts it off a year because business needs to know that decisions they make are based on a permanent foundation. They can't expand without belief that the tax rates they now pay will stay the same, and that is why unemployment is so bad and likely gets worse. You see that 2% that Obama talks about is responsible for a high majority of new hires in America. In many cases I've heard this number is as high as 90% of all new hirings. I've even heard this number is over 100% because you need a level over 100% to counteract all the jobs corporate America is exporting overseas to India and other places. And guess what, these are small businesses so they keep the jobs in America. Now if you raise taxes on these people they may actually have to lay people off. Why? Think about a guy who is on the edge and is covering those very tight bank ratios at 1.26 to 1 or 1.51 to 1. You raise his taxes $300K and how does he stay compliant with the loan? There is an answer and no one is going to like it but he stays compliant with the loan by cutting expenses some $400-450K and those cuts ar usually salary costs. I know all this full well because I'm crunching numbrs for my business on what Obama's tax policy means and it isn't pretty. In fact about 10 businesses I meet with once or twice a year are preparing layoffs for the day that Obama raises their taxes so that they can ensure they will stay compliant with their bank loan covenants. This is what Obama doesn't get and until he gets it unemployment a'int coming down and may get a whole lot worse.
Does anyone think Obama is doing a good job and what things can you say that he has done are really going to help America in the long haul. I can't name any and I think he is an awful and indecisve President with little to no experience and is in far over his head. I used to think he was a good guy with good intentions but I no longer do. He now comes across to me at least as arrogant and condescending. Maybe I'm wrong but I've read stories on foreign leaders having no respect at all for him and that and the fact that he would raise taxes on the high income earners scare me the most about him.
If you have little experience in business you'd say - as Obama does - that the 2% of America that makes that level of income can afford it, so why the big deal. Well most of America thinks purely of W-2 wages. Most folks in that 2% grouping that Obama talks about, and fails to mention, are the folks that run profitable to very profitable small businesses. Still sounds OK to tax them- right? Well here's the rub. They actually report more income than cash they receive. This is because ther are paying down business loans used to expand their businesses and after the severe recession we had, banks have tightened loan ratios on them. In some cases they have applied a 1.25-1.50 coverage ratio on them. This means that if the business has - as an example - 5mln of fixed charges (loan payments, interest payments, capital expenditures, and tax liabilities or in the case of a sub chapter S corp, tax distributions to owners so that they can pay their tax liabilities on business income) they must have 6.25mln to 7.5mln of operating cash flow. The bank wants 25%-50% excess cash flow over these fixed charge obligations, or they can declare a default of the loan and the usual remedy is a higher interest rate. So businesses that are actually very successful small businesses in a terrible economy are frozen by overly fearful banks and that is now a lot more complicated by Obama's intention of raising of taxes so they remain frozen even if he puts it off a year because business needs to know that decisions they make are based on a permanent foundation. They can't expand without belief that the tax rates they now pay will stay the same, and that is why unemployment is so bad and likely gets worse. You see that 2% that Obama talks about is responsible for a high majority of new hires in America. In many cases I've heard this number is as high as 90% of all new hirings. I've even heard this number is over 100% because you need a level over 100% to counteract all the jobs corporate America is exporting overseas to India and other places. And guess what, these are small businesses so they keep the jobs in America. Now if you raise taxes on these people they may actually have to lay people off. Why? Think about a guy who is on the edge and is covering those very tight bank ratios at 1.26 to 1 or 1.51 to 1. You raise his taxes $300K and how does he stay compliant with the loan? There is an answer and no one is going to like it but he stays compliant with the loan by cutting expenses some $400-450K and those cuts ar usually salary costs. I know all this full well because I'm crunching numbrs for my business on what Obama's tax policy means and it isn't pretty. In fact about 10 businesses I meet with once or twice a year are preparing layoffs for the day that Obama raises their taxes so that they can ensure they will stay compliant with their bank loan covenants. This is what Obama doesn't get and until he gets it unemployment a'int coming down and may get a whole lot worse.
No. Except maybe health care.
I think he is doing a mediocre job, not great, not terrible. However I don't think, given what he came in to, that anyone else could be doing much better (except Hillary Clinton, who was and still is IMO, the best candidate for the current presidency).
QUOTE (devilsfan0405 @ Aug 18 2010, 07:34 AM)
Good points, Ice. You're on the ground with these people everyday and know how their business works, so I trust your word a lot more than someone preaching from the ivory tower like Obama or Geithner. Doesn't help that hardly anyone on his team has any real-world business experience. That's been a major issue from the start. He just has a bunch of eggheads from colleges and universities who work in textbook theory and not reality.
And I agree with you about his sarcasm and arrogance. His speeches are becoming more childish by the day IMHO. I'm also getting tired of hearing that Republicans just say no to everything and have no ideas of their own. That's pure hogwash. They have been offering suggestions; Obama and his team just choose not to listen to them.
And I agree with you about his sarcasm and arrogance. His speeches are becoming more childish by the day IMHO. I'm also getting tired of hearing that Republicans just say no to everything and have no ideas of their own. That's pure hogwash. They have been offering suggestions; Obama and his team just choose not to listen to them.
I actually really haven't heard any. There's been no compromise on their side of the aisle either, and when you're in the minority, you have to compromise and come to reasonable agreements. I really have only heard complaints and whatever position the President takes, they just take the opposite, no matter what their stance was prior to the election (see bailout). Anyone remember Bush's "mandate" back during his term when the Repubs had control of all three branches? He declared it himself because "that's what the people voted for".
QUOTE (NittanyLion @ Aug 18 2010, 08:41 AM)
I actually really haven't heard any. There's been no compromise on their side of the aisle either, and when you're in the minority, you have to compromise and come to reasonable agreements. I really have only heard complaints and whatever position the President takes, they just take the opposite, no matter what their stance was prior to the election (see bailout). Anyone remember Bush's "mandate" back during his term when the Repubs had control of all three branches? He declared it himself because "that's what the people voted for".
If people repeat the same thing over and over again, it sounds real. The party of no is a joke. If one has control, they do not need to listen to the minority. It is what Republicnas did for six years and it was not good. Their were many healthcare alternatives, there are alternatives to many issues, but its not heard, because they are not interested. Although I do think the current Republican leadership are idiots. Dems give the two Senators from Maine a little bit and they do not need to worry about the other 39.
I think the only hope is a real third party, but the ones in power (D and R) will do everything they can to fight it. Those in power do not want to give it up, whether its a Dem or Rep. The average person is more interested in American Idol than they are the US Congress and what is going on. Every issue becomes a 15 second sound bite and no one cares about understanding an issue, whether its tax the rich (newsfalsh, the real rich avoid taxes), big business is bad, big government good, we are here to help....
We are left with an Obama or Bush for reasons other than leadership. Congress runs amok (Republicans did it when they had power and now Democrats are on sterroids) and the Supreme Court becomes more and more political (can the average person even name 5 or 6 justices).
People get what they deserve and if you want to elect a smooth talking con artist who never answers a question, double talks on every issue, bribes those that contribute to his casue (recent $26B bailout or GM illlegal takeover), who really does not get it, they get in a spiral that will take close to a revolution to get us out of it.
QUOTE (NittanyLion @ Aug 18 2010, 08:37 AM)
No. Except maybe health care.
I think he is doing a mediocre job, not great, not terrible. However I don't think, given what he came in to, that anyone else could be doing much better (except Hillary Clinton, who was and still is IMO, the best candidate for the current presidency).
I think he is doing a mediocre job, not great, not terrible. However I don't think, given what he came in to, that anyone else could be doing much better (except Hillary Clinton, who was and still is IMO, the best candidate for the current presidency).
What is good about the Healthcare bill? Our society was actually against it and it was forced on us in the end. I d'ont think you fully get the point I made about small business, Mike. If Obama is really intent on getting employment back up the last thing in the world you'd do is raise taxes and the first thing you'd do is cut spending way back. If you want to stimulate the economy you do it with good seeds on fruit bearing soil, not throwing good seeds on bad soil. The economy has not come back to where it is by anything Obama has done. It's feebly come back because the massive layoffs stopped, banks unfroze equity lines and got more agressive with credit card deals and those that remained employed felt more secure to spend again thanks to lower prices (see below link), knowing they had income to spend with and lending to fall back on in case they needed it. The banks were freer here because they saw that the Fed would keep interest rates very low for a long time. Hence folks with good credit got all those 0-2% balance transfer e-mails, But on the business side of things banks tightened credit ratios to avoid defaults on loans (real non-payment defaults, not non-compliance defaults) and this has strangled small business. Obama is going to strangle them even more with higher taxes now. Until small business gets the secure feeling that job secure consumers got they will not release monies to expand even if they could. The combo of Obama's taxes and tight buiness lending is why the economy is stalling and could fall back into a recession. Major corporations are very profitable now because of all the layoffs and increased off loading of jobs to overseas. Even legal is now being exported (see below 2nd link). But those corporations pay corporate taxes which are going unchanged. They are actually printing and then hoarding more cash because of their size. Corporate america is sitting on trillions of dollars right now in this get and hoard stage. They are reticient to transfer cash back to the investors/owners via distributions and they are also cautious on expansion because of fears of a double dip - which would start with smalll buisness layoffs. Small business pays individual tax rates and in some cases those rates will go up as much as 30% when you go through all the things that come undone at the end of this year. In most cases they will go up 10-15% and in order to satisfy that you need a 20-25% cut in spending to offset that, hence a round of layoffs coming from small business is what lies ahead of us.
If you remember when we were discussing the economy a few years ago Robbbs pointed out quite accurately how low the stock market could go and I pointed out (apparently also quite accurately) that the market would bounce back quickly but then enter a 10,00-11,000 lasting trading range. I felt this way for some of the reasons I noted above and that was all long before Obama got in.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/business...mp;ref=business
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/business...ndia&st=cse
QUOTE (Ehop @ Aug 18 2010, 09:12 AM)
If people repeat the same thing over and over again, it sounds real. The party of no is a joke. If one has control, they do not need to listen to the minority. It is what Republicnas did for six years and it was not good. Their were many healthcare alternatives, there are alternatives to many issues, but its not heard, because they are not interested. Although I do think the current Republican leadership are idiots. Dems give the two Senators from Maine a little bit and they do not need to worry about the other 39.
I think the only hope is a real third party, but the ones in power (D and R) will do everything they can to fight it. Those in power do not want to give it up, whether its a Dem or Rep. The average person is more interested in American Idol than they are the US Congress and what is going on. Every issue becomes a 15 second sound bite and no one cares about understanding an issue, whether its tax the rich (newsfalsh, the real rich avoid taxes), big business is bad, big government good, we are here to help....
We are left with an Obama or Bush for reasons other than leadership. Congress runs amok (Republicans did it when they had power and now Democrats are on sterroids) and the Supreme Court becomes more and more political (can the average person even name 5 or 6 justices).
People get what they deserve and if you want to elect a smooth talking con artist who never answers a question, double talks on every issue, bribes those that contribute to his casue (recent $26B bailout or GM illlegal takeover), who really does not get it, they get in a spiral that will take close to a revolution to get us out of it.
I think the only hope is a real third party, but the ones in power (D and R) will do everything they can to fight it. Those in power do not want to give it up, whether its a Dem or Rep. The average person is more interested in American Idol than they are the US Congress and what is going on. Every issue becomes a 15 second sound bite and no one cares about understanding an issue, whether its tax the rich (newsfalsh, the real rich avoid taxes), big business is bad, big government good, we are here to help....
We are left with an Obama or Bush for reasons other than leadership. Congress runs amok (Republicans did it when they had power and now Democrats are on sterroids) and the Supreme Court becomes more and more political (can the average person even name 5 or 6 justices).
People get what they deserve and if you want to elect a smooth talking con artist who never answers a question, double talks on every issue, bribes those that contribute to his casue (recent $26B bailout or GM illlegal takeover), who really does not get it, they get in a spiral that will take close to a revolution to get us out of it.
give that a prize! nice write up
QUOTE (NittanyLion @ Aug 18 2010, 08:37 AM)
No. Except maybe health care.
I think he is doing a mediocre job, not great, not terrible. However I don't think, given what he came in to, that anyone else could be doing much better (except Hillary Clinton, who was and still is IMO, the best candidate for the current presidency).
I think he is doing a mediocre job, not great, not terrible. However I don't think, given what he came in to, that anyone else could be doing much better (except Hillary Clinton, who was and still is IMO, the best candidate for the current presidency).
Thing is, times like these require a lot more than mediocrity.
QUOTE (Ehop @ Aug 18 2010, 08:12 AM)
If people repeat the same thing over and over again, it sounds real. The party of no is a joke. If one has control, they do not need to listen to the minority. It is what Republicnas did for six years and it was not good. Their were many healthcare alternatives, there are alternatives to many issues, but its not heard, because they are not interested. Although I do think the current Republican leadership are idiots. Dems give the two Senators from Maine a little bit and they do not need to worry about the other 39.
I think the only hope is a real third party, but the ones in power (D and R) will do everything they can to fight it. Those in power do not want to give it up, whether its a Dem or Rep. The average person is more interested in American Idol than they are the US Congress and what is going on. Every issue becomes a 15 second sound bite and no one cares about understanding an issue, whether its tax the rich (newsfalsh, the real rich avoid taxes), big business is bad, big government good, we are here to help....
We are left with an Obama or Bush for reasons other than leadership. Congress runs amok (Republicans did it when they had power and now Democrats are on sterroids) and the Supreme Court becomes more and more political (can the average person even name 5 or 6 justices).
People get what they deserve and if you want to elect a smooth talking con artist who never answers a question, double talks on every issue, bribes those that contribute to his casue (recent $26B bailout or GM illlegal takeover), who really does not get it, they get in a spiral that will take close to a revolution to get us out of it.
I think the only hope is a real third party, but the ones in power (D and R) will do everything they can to fight it. Those in power do not want to give it up, whether its a Dem or Rep. The average person is more interested in American Idol than they are the US Congress and what is going on. Every issue becomes a 15 second sound bite and no one cares about understanding an issue, whether its tax the rich (newsfalsh, the real rich avoid taxes), big business is bad, big government good, we are here to help....
We are left with an Obama or Bush for reasons other than leadership. Congress runs amok (Republicans did it when they had power and now Democrats are on sterroids) and the Supreme Court becomes more and more political (can the average person even name 5 or 6 justices).
People get what they deserve and if you want to elect a smooth talking con artist who never answers a question, double talks on every issue, bribes those that contribute to his casue (recent $26B bailout or GM illlegal takeover), who really does not get it, they get in a spiral that will take close to a revolution to get us out of it.
Very well put. I have long-waited for a third party, and in this past NJ election, supported the Independent Chris Daggett. Not many did, even though IMO he was the MUCH BETTER candidate. People will not vote for 3rd party candidates because they feel its a wasted vote (except in VT where we actually have a few registered socialists)
QUOTE (icehater @ Aug 18 2010, 10:09 AM)
What is good about the Healthcare bill? Our society was actually against it and it was forced on us in the end. I d'ont think you fully get the point I made about small business, Mike. If Obama is really intent on getting employment back up the last thing in the world you'd do is raise taxes and the first thing you'd do is cut spending way back. If you want to stimulate the economy you do it with good seeds on fruit bearing soil, not throwing good seeds on bad soil. The economy has not come back to where it is by anything Obama has done. It's feebly come back because the massive layoffs stopped, banks unfroze equity lines and got more agressive with credit card deals and those that remained employed felt more secure to spend again thanks to lower prices (see below link), knowing they had income to spend with and lending to fall back on in case they needed it. The banks were freer here because they saw that the Fed would keep interest rates very low for a long time. Hence folks with good credit got all those 0-2% balance transfer e-mails, But on the business side of things banks tightened credit ratios to avoid defaults on loans (real non-payment defaults, not non-compliance defaults) and this has strangled small business. Obama is going to strangle them even more with higher taxes now. Until small business gets the secure feeling that job secure consumers got they will not release monies to expand even if they could. The combo of Obama's taxes and tight buiness lending is why the economy is stalling and could fall back into a recession. Major corporations are very profitable now because of all the layoffs and increased off loading of jobs to overseas. Even legal is now being exported (see below 2nd link). But those corporations pay corporate taxes which are going unchanged. They are actually printing and then hoarding more cash because of their size. Corporate america is sitting on trillions of dollars right now in this get and hoard stage. They are reticient to transfer cash back to the investors/owners via distributions and they are also cautious on expansion because of fears of a double dip - which would start with smalll buisness layoffs. Small business pays individual tax rates and in some cases those rates will go up as much as 30% when you go through all the things that come undone at the end of this year. In most cases they will go up 10-15% and in order to satisfy that you need a 20-25% cut in spending to offset that, hence a round of layoffs coming from small business is what lies ahead of us.
If you remember when we were discussing the economy a few years ago Robbbs pointed out quite accurately how low the stock market could go and I pointed out (apparently also quite accurately) that the market would bounce back quickly but then enter a 10,00-11,000 lasting trading range. I felt this way for some of the reasons I noted above and that was all long before Obama got in.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/business...mp;ref=business
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/business...ndia&st=cse
If you remember when we were discussing the economy a few years ago Robbbs pointed out quite accurately how low the stock market could go and I pointed out (apparently also quite accurately) that the market would bounce back quickly but then enter a 10,00-11,000 lasting trading range. I felt this way for some of the reasons I noted above and that was all long before Obama got in.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/business...mp;ref=business
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/business...ndia&st=cse
I wasn't disagreeing with you on the business aspects of it as my knowledge in that sector is quite limited.
QUOTE (NittanyLion @ Aug 18 2010, 03:00 PM)
Very well put. I have long-waited for a third party, and in this past NJ election, supported the Independent Chris Daggett. Not many did, even though IMO he was the MUCH BETTER candidate. People will not vote for 3rd party candidates because they feel its a wasted vote (except in VT where we actually have a few registered socialists)
I wasn't disagreeing with you on the business aspects of it as my knowledge in that sector is quite limited.
I wasn't disagreeing with you on the business aspects of it as my knowledge in that sector is quite limited.
I think that's Obama's problem on the economic front also. He's taking advice from the wrong people, I'm afraid.
QUOTE (devilsfan0405 @ Aug 18 2010, 03:38 PM)
I think that's Obama's problem on the economic front also. He's taking advice from the wrong people, I'm afraid.
Do you really think Obama takes advice from anyone? he's too arrogant for that IMO. Geithner knows full well a tax increase is crazy. He wants his job and will say what Obama wants. Only Bernanke has the guts to call for no tax increase.
Well, I think many on this board who comment on politics come from a particular perspective which often differs from mine. While everyone's arguments have merit, in my view they're often not realistic. This is no different than before the election when, had reality been based solely on most comments here, you would have believed Mccain was going to win in a landslide. Of course that didn't happen. The truth is that Obama has accomplished much in his 2 years (whether some like those accomplishments or not is a different matter), has won great respect from most foreign leaders (Bush was an embarrasment to this country in the eyes of most nations; take it from someone who travels extensively), and is immensely popular, regardless of what current polls may indicate, which are really more a barometer of the economy than of him. Oh yes, how did we get into this mess in the first place? Let's see -- deregulation, off-shoring jobs, mainstream policies and platforms of prior administrations and political parties, not to mention corruption, mindless incompetence at many key posts, and disastrous foreign policies with long lasting consequences. Go back to that? Not if I can help it. I'm not thrilled at all with Obama's handling of the economy, and I have often said that I wish he would have focused as much attention to curing the economy as he paid on health reform. However, these will not be easy fixes, regardless of which party or who's in office as globalization (something few talk about) and other forces and factors mean many jobs lost will never return. As for Obama's future, his rating is higher now than Reagan at the same point in his presidency. I'm not trying to defend Obama, but I am trying to add some perspective and balance to the "Obama's ratings are in the toilet comments", as if that has any real or long-lasting meaning. I do believe that in the end, his star will rise or fall almost entirely on what the economy is doing in 2012, as most people vote with their wallets. In my view, it's likely that the economy will improve by then, and if so, he's a lock to get re-elected. I'm not as sure about that as I once was, but I still think it's likely he will serve a second term.
QUOTE (robbbs @ Aug 18 2010, 08:38 PM)
Well, I think many on this board who comment on politics come from a particular perspective which often differs from mine. While everyone's arguments have merit, in my view they're often not realistic. This is no different than before the election when, had reality been based solely on most comments here, you would have believed Mccain was going to win in a landslide. Of course that didn't happen. The truth is that Obama has accomplished much in his 2 years (whether some like those accomplishments or not is a different matter), has won great respect from most foreign leaders (Bush was an embarrasment to this country in the eyes of most nations; take it from someone who travels extensively), and is immensely popular, regardless of what current polls may indicate, which are really more a barometer of the economy than of him. Oh yes, how did we get into this mess in the first place? Let's see -- deregulation, off-shoring jobs, mainstream policies and platforms of prior administrations and political parties, not to mention corruption, mindless incompetence at many key posts, and disastrous foreign policies with long lasting consequences. Go back to that? Not if I can help it. I'm not thrilled at all with Obama's handling of the economy, and I have often said that I wish he would have focused as much attention to curing the economy as he paid on health reform. However, these will not be easy fixes, regardless of which party or who's in office as globalization (something few talk about) and other forces and factors mean many jobs lost will never return. As for Obama's future, his rating is higher now than Reagan at the same point in his presidency. I'm not trying to defend Obama, but I am trying to add some perspective and balance to the "Obama's ratings are in the toilet comments", as if that has any real or long-lasting meaning. I do believe that in the end, his star will rise or fall almost entirely on what the economy is doing in 2012, as most people vote with their wallets. In my view, it's likely that the economy will improve by then, and if so, he's a lock to get re-elected. I'm not as sure about that as I once was, but I still think it's likely he will serve a second term.
Robbs, what has he done. Full of idea's, but many of the things he wants to do IMO will make things worse as he has them laid out
.
Do you know how much your taxs are going up if OB doesnt get the tax credits resigned??? The paper had it listed about a month ago, I would pay about $ 3,500 more next year. An We don't make much money.
The things I read and see on TV makes it seem as everyone sees him as week and indeciceve. Say what you want, most people even though we didnt vote for him, we want him to do well. For two reasons. 1. If he did well we would most likely benefit from it.
2. This would also show that all people (all races ) can do great things when you set your mind to it and your goals.
So far all I see is a great speaker and someone that like to blow smoke up peoples AZZ. But thats just me and what do I know.
BTW Everyone blames Bush for the economy (most of it deserved ) but on TV a while back they were showing that the Fall of it started at the end of Clinton term because the dot com boom was already starting to end. The smart ones new that the market was artifitally inflated do to dot com stocks and would bust.
QUOTE (robbbs @ Aug 18 2010, 08:38 PM)
Well, I think many on this board who comment on politics come from a particular perspective which often differs from mine. While everyone's arguments have merit, in my view they're often not realistic. This is no different than before the election when, had reality been based solely on most comments here, you would have believed Mccain was going to win in a landslide. Of course that didn't happen. The truth is that Obama has accomplished much in his 2 years (whether some like those accomplishments or not is a different matter), has won great respect from most foreign leaders (Bush was an embarrasment to this country in the eyes of most nations; take it from someone who travels extensively), and is immensely popular, regardless of what current polls may indicate, which are really more a barometer of the economy than of him. Oh yes, how did we get into this mess in the first place? Let's see -- deregulation, off-shoring jobs, mainstream policies and platforms of prior administrations and political parties, not to mention corruption, mindless incompetence at many key posts, and disastrous foreign policies with long lasting consequences. Go back to that? Not if I can help it. I'm not thrilled at all with Obama's handling of the economy, and I have often said that I wish he would have focused as much attention to curing the economy as he paid on health reform. However, these will not be easy fixes, regardless of which party or who's in office as globalization (something few talk about) and other forces and factors mean many jobs lost will never return. As for Obama's future, his rating is higher now than Reagan at the same point in his presidency. I'm not trying to defend Obama, but I am trying to add some perspective and balance to the "Obama's ratings are in the toilet comments", as if that has any real or long-lasting meaning. I do believe that in the end, his star will rise or fall almost entirely on what the economy is doing in 2012, as most people vote with their wallets. In my view, it's likely that the economy will improve by then, and if so, he's a lock to get re-elected. I'm not as sure about that as I once was, but I still think it's likely he will serve a second term.
Have to disagree here Robbbs. I think it's a lot more than the economy that's putting his approval ratings down. The whole concept of not calling terrorists or radical Islam what they are has caused the negative opinions on him to accelerate. What religion he really is, is also starting to come into play. The indecisiveness on where to hold the trial on the 9/11 men (Obama doesn't want us to call them what they are) is another bad thing for the President and of course he's frozen business with the tax issue and he clearly intends to raise taxes into an economy that can't even begin to handle it, because he's spending like crazy. Hence like today we get a terrible jobs report that doesn't surprise me in the least. These things are taking a big toll on him and democrats as a whole. And while you are right that foreign peoples love him, foreign leaders think he's a joke and c'ant stand him. I think he's a great orator but get past that and all I see is an empty suit. His passion is to speak, not to act.
QUOTE (icehater @ Aug 19 2010, 11:20 AM)
Have to disagree here Robbbs. I think it's a lot more than the economy that's putting his approval ratings down. The whole concept of not calling terrorists or radical Islam what they are has caused the negative opinions on him to accelerate. What religion he really is, is also starting to come into play. The indecisiveness on where to hold the trial on the 9/11 men (Obama doesn't want us to call them what they are) is another bad thing for the President and of course he's frozen business with the tax issue and he clearly intends to raise taxes into an economy that can't even begin to handle it, because he's spending like crazy. Hence like today we get a terrible jobs report that doesn't surprise me in the least. These things are taking a big toll on him and democrats as a whole. And while you are right that foreign peoples love him, foreign leaders think he's a joke and c'ant stand him. I think he's a great orator but get past that and all I see is an empty suit. His passion is to speak, not to act.
What about how all of those European leaders were lecturing him about curtailing government spending during the G20 summit? When you have people in Europe saying "enough already" when it comes to throwing around too much money, you know you're doing something wrong.
QUOTE (icehater @ Aug 19 2010, 11:20 AM)
Have to disagree here Robbbs. I think it's a lot more than the economy that's putting his approval ratings down. The whole concept of not calling terrorists or radical Islam what they are has caused the negative opinions on him to accelerate. What religion he really is, is also starting to come into play. The indecisiveness on where to hold the trial on the 9/11 men (Obama doesn't want us to call them what they are) is another bad thing for the President and of course he's frozen business with the tax issue and he clearly intends to raise taxes into an economy that can't even begin to handle it, because he's spending like crazy. Hence like today we get a terrible jobs report that doesn't surprise me in the least. These things are taking a big toll on him and democrats as a whole. And while you are right that foreign peoples love him, foreign leaders think he's a joke and c'ant stand him. I think he's a great orator but get past that and all I see is an empty suit. His passion is to speak, not to act.
I have a bad feeling things are a lot worse then they seem.
BTW- Now what happens to all the men and women returning from the war in Iraq?? There are no jobs for them, many places try to hold a job for them but doubt many will have one.
QUOTE (icehater @ Aug 19 2010, 03:20 PM)
Have to disagree here Robbbs. I think it's a lot more than the economy that's putting his approval ratings down. The whole concept of not calling terrorists or radical Islam what they are has caused the negative opinions on him to accelerate. What religion he really is, is also starting to come into play. The indecisiveness on where to hold the trial on the 9/11 men (Obama doesn't want us to call them what they are) is another bad thing for the President and of course he's frozen business with the tax issue and he clearly intends to raise taxes into an economy that can't even begin to handle it, because he's spending like crazy. Hence like today we get a terrible jobs report that doesn't surprise me in the least. These things are taking a big toll on him and democrats as a whole. And while you are right that foreign peoples love him, foreign leaders think he's a joke and c'ant stand him. I think he's a great orator but get past that and all I see is an empty suit. His passion is to speak, not to act.
It's fairly unproductive to engage in a discussion which will not result in any change with respect to people's opinions on Obama, nor do I want to be in a position to defend him. People either like him or not. However, I think it's a mistake and entirely incorrect to state that foreign leaders don't respect him (compare that with his predecessor). As for arrogance, the prior administration took arrogance to a whole other and dangerous level with their philosophy of the executive presidency; a concept championed by Cheney which ignored fundamental constitutional law and abused power to no end. IMO, Obama accomplished many positives in his first two years. The difference of opinion regarding his accomplishments is often a reflection of whether or not one agrees with his policies. That's where I think the majority of opinions voiced on this forum, legit or not, miss my main point -- which it to not mistake an extremely small sample of opinions here as indicative of the country, and goes back exactly to what happened during pre-election when, having read the majority of posts here, you would have thought Obama was going to lose the election handily. On the national level, there is certainly a "throw the bums out" mood, driven by a terrible economy. It doesn't matter whether it's republican, democrat, left, right, or center -- people vote with their pocket books and they'll vote out the incumbents when things are going bad. All the rest -- the Gulf war, healthcare reform, etc. -- typically takes a back seat to the most fundamental of human qualities -- "what's in it for me?". So regardless of where current ratings are, Obama's approval and fortunes will rise or fall based on that one issue alone. People may argue all they want on policy disagreements and debate his accomplishments or lack thereof. In the end, it all goes back to the economy. I've always believed that he is positioned well to benefit from an economic rebound, even if only of sorts, as economies run in cycles and the odds are that the economy will be on the rise in 2012. If that's the case, Obama is re-elected, probably easily, regardless of other issues. If it's in the toilet, he's done. Simple as that and all the rest is fluff. I'm pretty good at stepping back and looking at the big picture. IMO, the odds greatly favor him being re-elected (and that's not even factoring in that the republicans currently offer no serious opponent, nor a platform that has mass appeal). That's basically been my main thrust in this thread, especially after having read only negative opinions. You and I have very similar backgrounds and agree with each other on 99.99% of things. But that goes to show that if even those people with very similar backgrounds have opposing opinions of him, imagine adding the hard core supporters who will keep Obama in office no matter what. Short of some scandal or continued economic woes, a second term is practically in the cards.
QUOTE (robbbs @ Aug 19 2010, 01:11 PM)
It's fairly unproductive to engage in a discussion which will not result in any change with respect to people's opinions on Obama, nor do I want to be in a position to defend him. People either like him or not. However, I think it's a mistake and entirely incorrect to state that foreign leaders don't respect him (compare that with his predecessor). I also believe that he has accomplished many positives in his first two years. The differentiation of opinions on that goes back to whether you agree with his policies or not, and the state of the economy. That's where I think the majority of opinions voiced on this forum, legit or not, miss my main point on the subject -- do not interpret an extremely small sample of opinions here as indicative of the country, and goes back exactly to what happened during pre-election when, having read the majority of posts here, you would have thought Obama was going to lose the election handily. On the national level, there is certainly a "throw the bums out" mood today, driven by a bad economy. It doesn't matter whether it's republican, democrat, left, right, or in the middle -- people vote with their pocket books and they'll vote out the incumbents when things are going bad. All the rest -- the war in the middle east, healthcare, etc. -- typically take a back seat to the most fundamental of human elements -- "what's in it for me?" So regardless of where ratings are currently, Obama's approval and fortunes will rise or fall based on that one issue alone. You could argue all you want on policy disagreemts, debate his accomplishments or lack thereof. etc. In the end, it will all go back to the economy. I have always believed that he is poised well to benefit from an economic rebound, even if only of sorts, as economies run in cycles and the odds are greater than not, that the economy will be on the rise in 2012. If that's the case, Obama is re-elected, perhaps easily, regardless of other elements. If it's in the toilet, he's done. Simple as that and all the rest is fluff in the final analysis. If you want to roll the dice on that, that's fine. I'm pretty good at stepping back and looking at the big picture. IMO, the odds greatly favor him being re-elected (and that's not even factoring in that the republicans currently offer no serious opponent, nor even a platform that has mass appeal). That's basically been my main thrust and point in this thread, especially after having read only negative opinions. You and I have very similar backgrounds and agree with each other on 99.9% of things. But that goes to show that if people with even similar backgrounds have very different opions on Obama, imagime adding to that the hard core supporters who will keep Obama in office no matter what. I think second term.
Which is fine; I don't dislike him so much that I would want to see him run out even if things were going well. Listen, it's not good for anyone that the economy is poor and I hope to God it's on the upswing by '12. Some people just irrationally hate him, which I don't understand either. I'm not a dyed-in-the-wood liberal or conservative and I'm afraid blind ideology is ruining our country. I'm more in the middle; there are some things that I do agree with him on. I can't put my finger on it, but I just can't seem to let myself wholeheartedly embrace him. Sometimes I say, "Yeah, he's got a point on that issue" and other times, I just think he's lost. I've never been so ambivalent towards a President.
the one i dislike is pelosi! the rest just follow along. here's to things turning around
His approval rating is down to 41%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presiden...val-Center.aspx
Compair numbers between Bush and BO. Bushs lowest was 46%. As bad as he was his approval rating never went as low as BO.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presiden...val-Center.aspx
Lab -- For what it's worth, check your numbers. Bush's approval rating when he left office was only 22%, lowest rating in the history of such polls by the CBS and the NY Times and several others. As for the Gallup poll which you quote, Bush's approval rating was actually only 25% versus Obama's 41%. BTW, 41% as a low point approval rating is among the highest low ratings since FDR. Even Reagan dropped to an approval rating as low as 35%. You can look it up.
QUOTE (robbbs @ Aug 19 2010, 11:26 PM)
Lab -- For what it's worth, check your numbers. Bush's approval rating when he left office was only 22%, lowest rating in the history of such polls by the CBS and the NY Times and several others. As for the Gallup poll which you quote, Bush's approval rating was actually only 25% versus Obama's 41%. BTW, 41% as a low point approval rating is among the highest low ratings since FDR. Even Reagan dropped to an approval rating as low as 35%. You can look it up.
You are right, That only goes out to 1400 days, if you dothe slide it goes father. Thats why I did the crazy icon. Thought if was much lower and it was
wish he would stop vacationing already and get a move on!! wtf is he doing?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Scarcity-of-...342256.html?x=0
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Scarcity-of-...342256.html?x=0
QUOTE (vascudave @ Aug 26 2010, 02:22 PM)
wish he would stop vacationing already and get a move on!! wtf is he doing?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Scarcity-of-...342256.html?x=0
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Scarcity-of-...342256.html?x=0
9th anniversary of the attatcks and he's staying away from NYC which is where 90% of the deaths were. Probably Mosque related and that tells me something about him. I certainly wouldn't want to be a soldier for this President.
QUOTE (lab94 @ Sep 9 2010, 09:51 AM)
I still don't think we're getting the straight dope on the true cost of this law (lots of fuzzy math being done IMHO) but health costs are going to increase regardless. We're an aging society (look at all the Boomers entering their senior citizen years) and one that is seemingly becoming less healthy every year, thanks in large part to our obesity epidemic.
QUOTE (icehater @ Sep 8 2010, 06:11 PM)
9th anniversary of the attatcks and he's staying away from NYC which is where 90% of the deaths were. Probably Mosque related and that tells me something about him. I certainly wouldn't want to be a soldier for this President.
1st class move
QUOTE (lab94 @ Sep 9 2010, 09:51 AM)
With that headline (thanks FoxNews), you'd think it was at least doubling...
"The average annual growth in health care spending will be just two-tenths of 1 percentage point higher through 2019 with Obama's remake, said the analysis. And that's with more than 32 million uninsured gaining coverage because of the new law.
"The impact is moderate," said economist Andrea Sisko of Medicare's Office of the Actuary, the nonpartisan unit that prepared the report.
Factoring in the law, Americans will spend an average of $13,652 per person a year on health care in 2019, according to the actuary's office. Without the law, the corresponding number would be $13,387."
QUOTE (NittanyLion @ Sep 10 2010, 08:55 AM)
With that headline (thanks FoxNews), you'd think it was at least doubling...
"The average annual growth in health care spending will be just two-tenths of 1 percentage point higher through 2019 with Obama's remake, said the analysis. And that's with more than 32 million uninsured gaining coverage because of the new law.
"The impact is moderate," said economist Andrea Sisko of Medicare's Office of the Actuary, the nonpartisan unit that prepared the report.
Factoring in the law, Americans will spend an average of $13,652 per person a year on health care in 2019, according to the actuary's office. Without the law, the corresponding number would be $13,387."
"The average annual growth in health care spending will be just two-tenths of 1 percentage point higher through 2019 with Obama's remake, said the analysis. And that's with more than 32 million uninsured gaining coverage because of the new law.
"The impact is moderate," said economist Andrea Sisko of Medicare's Office of the Actuary, the nonpartisan unit that prepared the report.
Factoring in the law, Americans will spend an average of $13,652 per person a year on health care in 2019, according to the actuary's office. Without the law, the corresponding number would be $13,387."
just says its riseing, which it is. if only tax paying American citizens were going to get it, i would be happy.
QUOTE (icehater @ Sep 8 2010, 10:11 PM)
9th anniversary of the attatcks and he's staying away from NYC which is where 90% of the deaths were. Probably Mosque related and that tells me something about him. I certainly wouldn't want to be a soldier for this President.
Ice -- I don't know about that. This is one area that we're very much on different pages. At least he's pulling troops out of Iraq. The issue in my mind has always been that Iraq was an un-neccesary and misguided war by the Bush regime. If I were a soldier, I would much rather a president that commits troops to combat only when necessary and for the right reasons. That's certainly not what we got under the prior president and have paid a dear price for it.
Gotta love Sean Hannity...
"Hannity moved on to offer an even bigger distortion, this time of Obama’s words. Hannity said, “Now the president did have a rare moment of honesty during his speech and I hope voters around the country are watching this.” He played a clip of Obama saying, “Taxes are scheduled to go up substantially next year. For everybody.”
Hannity sneered, “I know the anointed one will make sure that that happens.”
But what Hannity didn’t tell his viewers is that Obama was talking about how Republicans scheduled that tax increase and how he wants to avoid it for the middle class. What Obama said was:
I’ll give you one final example of the differences between us and the Republicans, and that’s on the issue of tax cuts. Under the tax plan passed by the last administration, taxes are scheduled to go up substantially next year -- for everybody. By the way, this was by design. When they passed these tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, they didn’t want everybody to know what it would do to our deficit, so they pretended like they were going to end, even though now they say they don't.
Now, I believe we ought to make the tax cuts for the middle class permanent. (Applause.) For the middle class, permanent. These families are the ones who saw their wages and incomes flat-line over the last decade -– you deserve a break."
"Hannity moved on to offer an even bigger distortion, this time of Obama’s words. Hannity said, “Now the president did have a rare moment of honesty during his speech and I hope voters around the country are watching this.” He played a clip of Obama saying, “Taxes are scheduled to go up substantially next year. For everybody.”
Hannity sneered, “I know the anointed one will make sure that that happens.”
But what Hannity didn’t tell his viewers is that Obama was talking about how Republicans scheduled that tax increase and how he wants to avoid it for the middle class. What Obama said was:
I’ll give you one final example of the differences between us and the Republicans, and that’s on the issue of tax cuts. Under the tax plan passed by the last administration, taxes are scheduled to go up substantially next year -- for everybody. By the way, this was by design. When they passed these tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, they didn’t want everybody to know what it would do to our deficit, so they pretended like they were going to end, even though now they say they don't.
Now, I believe we ought to make the tax cuts for the middle class permanent. (Applause.) For the middle class, permanent. These families are the ones who saw their wages and incomes flat-line over the last decade -– you deserve a break."
shoulda bailed out americans not the banks or gm. could have given everyone 100g's which would have stimulated the economy better.
I really don't see the Iraq withdrawal as a major accomplishment, we still have 50,000 troops there and if something goes wrong we will probably be right back to adding more. Meanwhile we turn our efforts to Afghanistan and is that much better?
QUOTE (NittanyLion @ Sep 10 2010, 12:14 PM)
Gotta love Sean Hannity...
"Hannity moved on to offer an even bigger distortion, this time of Obama’s words. Hannity said, “Now the president did have a rare moment of honesty during his speech and I hope voters around the country are watching this.” He played a clip of Obama saying, “Taxes are scheduled to go up substantially next year. For everybody.”
Hannity sneered, “I know the anointed one will make sure that that happens.”
But what Hannity didn’t tell his viewers is that Obama was talking about how Republicans scheduled that tax increase and how he wants to avoid it for the middle class. What Obama said was:
I’ll give you one final example of the differences between us and the Republicans, and that’s on the issue of tax cuts. Under the tax plan passed by the last administration, taxes are scheduled to go up substantially next year -- for everybody. By the way, this was by design. When they passed these tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, they didn’t want everybody to know what it would do to our deficit, so they pretended like they were going to end, even though now they say they don't.
Now, I believe we ought to make the tax cuts for the middle class permanent. (Applause.) For the middle class, permanent. These families are the ones who saw their wages and incomes flat-line over the last decade -– you deserve a break."
"Hannity moved on to offer an even bigger distortion, this time of Obama’s words. Hannity said, “Now the president did have a rare moment of honesty during his speech and I hope voters around the country are watching this.” He played a clip of Obama saying, “Taxes are scheduled to go up substantially next year. For everybody.”
Hannity sneered, “I know the anointed one will make sure that that happens.”
But what Hannity didn’t tell his viewers is that Obama was talking about how Republicans scheduled that tax increase and how he wants to avoid it for the middle class. What Obama said was:
I’ll give you one final example of the differences between us and the Republicans, and that’s on the issue of tax cuts. Under the tax plan passed by the last administration, taxes are scheduled to go up substantially next year -- for everybody. By the way, this was by design. When they passed these tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, they didn’t want everybody to know what it would do to our deficit, so they pretended like they were going to end, even though now they say they don't.
Now, I believe we ought to make the tax cuts for the middle class permanent. (Applause.) For the middle class, permanent. These families are the ones who saw their wages and incomes flat-line over the last decade -– you deserve a break."
So many of these talking heads take things conveniently out of context to enhance their own political agenda.
The link below is a good measure of how far Obama has fallen as Reps are very much in high demand now for lobbying jobs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/business...s&st=Search
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/business...s&st=Search
QUOTE (NittanyLion @ Sep 10 2010, 12:14 PM)
Gotta love Sean Hannity...
"Hannity moved on to offer an even bigger distortion, this time of Obama’s words. Hannity said, “Now the president did have a rare moment of honesty during his speech and I hope voters around the country are watching this.” He played a clip of Obama saying, “Taxes are scheduled to go up substantially next year. For everybody.”
Hannity sneered, “I know the anointed one will make sure that that happens.”
But what Hannity didn’t tell his viewers is that Obama was talking about how Republicans scheduled that tax increase and how he wants to avoid it for the middle class. What Obama said was:
I’ll give you one final example of the differences between us and the Republicans, and that’s on the issue of tax cuts. Under the tax plan passed by the last administration, taxes are scheduled to go up substantially next year -- for everybody. By the way, this was by design. When they passed these tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, they didn’t want everybody to know what it would do to our deficit, so they pretended like they were going to end, even though now they say they don't.
Now, I believe we ought to make the tax cuts for the middle class permanent. (Applause.) For the middle class, permanent. These families are the ones who saw their wages and incomes flat-line over the last decade -– you deserve a break."
"Hannity moved on to offer an even bigger distortion, this time of Obama’s words. Hannity said, “Now the president did have a rare moment of honesty during his speech and I hope voters around the country are watching this.” He played a clip of Obama saying, “Taxes are scheduled to go up substantially next year. For everybody.”
Hannity sneered, “I know the anointed one will make sure that that happens.”
But what Hannity didn’t tell his viewers is that Obama was talking about how Republicans scheduled that tax increase and how he wants to avoid it for the middle class. What Obama said was:
I’ll give you one final example of the differences between us and the Republicans, and that’s on the issue of tax cuts. Under the tax plan passed by the last administration, taxes are scheduled to go up substantially next year -- for everybody. By the way, this was by design. When they passed these tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, they didn’t want everybody to know what it would do to our deficit, so they pretended like they were going to end, even though now they say they don't.
Now, I believe we ought to make the tax cuts for the middle class permanent. (Applause.) For the middle class, permanent. These families are the ones who saw their wages and incomes flat-line over the last decade -– you deserve a break."
The problem here again is that folks think of pure W-2 income as if everyone is salaried and works in high level corporate jobs. But it doesn't work that way. That 2% that Obama talks about is mainly the owners of your significant subchapter S corps and LLC's in this country, whose income passes directly to owners and it's those people that hire most of America. That income in a high majority of cases is higher than the cash they actually receive. So you throw a higher tax on them in conjunction with tight credit restrictions of banks via tough loan covenants (and tax coverage is in the most important loan covenants) and you are not only tied to high unemployment for a long long time but you may well see it get significantly worse. In a capitalistic society, I know of no way that allows workers to get richer while owners get poorer. Instead owners will safeguard their assets and that means more layoffs. This is why that tax increase is such a stupid idea right now. 2+ years from now if the economy is on an upswing I can see it. But the economy is way too fragile to impose a higher tax on the people you are dependent on to develop jobs.
QUOTE (weatherbowl @ Sep 10 2010, 03:11 PM)
So many of these talking heads take things conveniently out of context to enhance their own political agenda.
And vice-versa of course. Politicians with all their BS and self serving agenda make those talking heads look like amateurs actually.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.