2012 Presidential Election Thread......

[Boz]

Probably a lot more than Solyndra did.

[Elvado]

Job growth zero. Barry is rolling into his dog and pony show wth serious momentum now.

[strummer8526]

Sept 3, 2011 5:56:06 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Job growth zero. Barry is rolling into his dog and pony show wth serious momentum now.

I have yet to hear one good suggestion about what he should do, exactly.

I'm also sick of hearing that businesses won't hire because they're afraid of future regulation. What can the President do about that, short of shutting down every government agency that might regulate any industry and publicly ordering Congress to stop legislating?

Here's another thought. Let's say, hypothetically, that business owners just don't like the President for some reason. Maybe he's too liberal. Maybe he's too tall, or his ears are too big, or he's a super-socialist sent straight from Europe to destroy the American way of life. Regardless, for whatever reason, rich white people (I'm sorry, "job creators," who notably, are not "creating" much of anything these days) just don't want the President to be president anymore. So what stops them from just not hiring anyone because it will hurt the President politically—i.e., not because they're afeared of big bad regulation, but as a calculated political tactic?

[Elvado]

This is my new favorite. It is not Bush anymore. It is not bad luck. It is not foreign discord. Rather, it is a calculated effort by people who loathe Barry O so much they are wlling to tank their own economic prospects just to hurt him.

I will say it again. Nobody plays victim better than a liberal. Maybe the real problem is that you folks voted for an empty suit who had 18 months in the Senate before you gave him the car keys.

[strummer8526]

Sept 3, 2011 10:13:30 GMT -5 Elvado said:

This is my new favorite. It is not Bush anymore. It is not bad luck. It is not foreign discord. Rather, it is a calculated effort by people who loathe Barry O so much they are wlling to tank their own economic prospects just to hurt him.

I will say it again. Nobody plays victim better than a liberal. Maybe the real problem is that you folks voted for an empty suit who had 18 months in the Senate before you gave him the car keys.

First of all, I didn't say anything about anyone being a victim. In the political "game," the President is losing right now, and to try to explain why has nothing to do with victimization. That's like saying SportsCenters''s analysis of last night's Red Sox game treated the Red Sox as "victims." Nonsense.

Second, can you show that "job creators" who don't create jobs are "tank[ing] their economic prospects" by not hiring until the 2012 election? If they think that a Republican president from 2012-2016 will do more good for their businesses than will hiring today, then again, it's a calculated, strategic, political move—not some sort of self-sacrifice. Essentially, "job creators" have shown that they can highjack not only the economy, but also a presidential election cycle, and I think it's plausible that's what they're doing.

Look, I'm not saying the President has done well the last few months. I think there has been a lack of vision and leadership in many regards. But as Ed has said, the president—whoever he is at the time—gets too much credit and blame for the economy. And I just can't comprehend what anyone expects the current President to do when "job creators" abdicate their position.

[EasyEd]

Sept 3, 2011 9:58:04 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

Sept 3, 2011 5:56:06 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Job growth zero. Barry is rolling into his dog and pony show wth serious momentum now.

I have yet to hear one good suggestion about what he should do, exactly.

I'm also sick of hearing that businesses won't hire because they're afraid of future regulation. What can the President do about that, short of shutting down every government agency that might regulate any industry and publicly ordering Congress to stop legislating?

President Obama could say "We made a mistake on health care. Congress, please repeal it so we can take that uncertainty and expense away from businesses. And, while you're at it, please remove those regulations that are hindering our ability to drill for oil and gas in the Gulf, in Alaska and elsewhere so we can create jobs in the energy industry and reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East. I am hereby removing my executive orders that are also hindering it". He could go to say he now recognizes that, however the intentions, the massive OSHA and EPA regulations are way too much and he will work with the congress to attempt to bring sanity to them. That would be a start.

[strummer8526]

Sept 3, 2011 10:39:33 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Sept 3, 2011 9:58:04 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

I have yet to hear one good suggestion about what he should do, exactly.

I'm also sick of hearing that businesses won't hire because they're afraid of future regulation. What can the President do about that, short of shutting down every government agency that might regulate any industry and publicly ordering Congress to stop legislating?

President Obama could say "We made a mistake on health care. Congress, please repeal it so we can take that uncertainty and expense away from businesses. And, while you're at it, please remove those regulations that are hindering our ability to drill for oil and gas in the Gulf, in Alaska and elsewhere so we can create jobs in the energy industry and reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East. I am hereby removing my executive orders that are also hindering it". He could go to say he now recognizes that, however the intentions, the massive OSHA and EPA regulations are way too much and he will work with the congress to attempt to bring sanity to them. That would be a start.

And if the energy industry already has enough manpower, and business owners in other industries still just don't want to hire?

My point is that the President could disband the federal government, and it wouldn't necessarily mean the jobs numbers would change dramatically (except there would be a lot fewer federal employees).

[Elvado]

It must really be tough to defend this guy as President and I commend you Strummer for a consistent and valiant effort. If it was not clear earlier, it is crystal now. The man was unprepared for the job upon entry. His basic qualification for office was the fact that he was not George W Bush. Great for getting elected, not so much for the leading part. He promised Hope and Change. Hope is not a policy and Change does not take place while you bike around the Vineyard. If you reflect honestly, you will be compelled to admit he was not ready and you "hoped" he could "change" things. Sadly, you were mistaken.

[kchoya]

Sept 3, 2011 9:58:04 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

Sept 3, 2011 5:56:06 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Job growth zero. Barry is rolling into his dog and pony show wth serious momentum now.

So what stops them from just not hiring anyone because it will hurt the President politically—i.e., not because they're afeared of big bad regulation, but as a calculated political tactic?

dollar dollar bill yall

Seriously, you think a business owner is going to say "This may screw my business, but I'm going to try and screw Obama at the expense of growing my business"? Really?

I agree with Elvado, yall are really scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to rationalize this guy's ineptitude.

[Boz]

Sept 3, 2011 20:58:39 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Sept 3, 2011 9:58:04 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

So what stops them from just not hiring anyone because it will hurt the President politically—i.e., not because they're afeared of big bad regulation, but as a calculated political tactic?

dollar dollar bill yall

Seriously, you think a business owner is going to say "This may screw my business, but I'm going to try and screw Obama at the expense of growing my business"? Really?

I agree with Elvado, yall are really scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to rationalize this guy's ineptitude.

Like. I've really stopped any objections I have to this administration on an ideological basis (ok, probably not really, but for the immediate time being). At this point, it is more about incompetence than anything else.

[strummer8526]

Sept 3, 2011 20:58:39 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Sept 3, 2011 9:58:04 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

So what stops them from just not hiring anyone because it will hurt the President politically—i.e., not because they're afeared of big bad regulation, but as a calculated political tactic?

dollar dollar bill yall

Seriously, you think a business owner is going to say "This may screw my business, but I'm going to try and screw Obama at the expense of growing my business"? Really?

I agree with Elvado, yall are really scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to rationalize this guy's ineptitude.

Regardless of what you guys may think or what it might look like from a few of my posts, I'm really not defending the President. I think he has failed in a lot of ways over the last few months, and nothing I've said has been a defense of anything he's done.

My points could apply to any president dealing with a high unemployment rate. And no, I don't think any business owner would say "screw my business." I'm saying what if business people—for one reason or another—prefer another president strongly enough to temporarily put off expansion or just don't want to expand for any number of other possible reasons. Is it right to judge any president by the whims of the private sector?

[hoyawatcher]

FWIW I think le Prez is stuck between small biz guys who are truly having major troubles with regulation (and lack of demand) and big biz guys who like the Prez's actually pretty lavish support of their pet projects but find it much easier and smarter to spend their expansion bucks in the growing far east economies. And when you strip it all away it is either a case of real naivete by le Prez and his boys or Boz's incompetence label is spot on - or both.

I operate on the Board level of 2 moderate sized high tech type of companies (biotech actually). Reasonably highly paid PhD/MD/MBA type employees. Both are scared to death of health care costs for employees going forward and the one I draw my paycheck from has already declared it won't continue health benefits next year due to rising costs of Obamacare. For a lot of small businesses they have become health care managers and not businessmen. They don't want any more liability.

And in what is probably perceived as the partisan angle, most of these guys and gals equate the runaway budget deficits and particularly the lack of political will to control long term deficits with higher taxes and inflation. Both scare them/us a lot.

While we don't operate on bank debt, many other guys I know do and are having a devil of a time getting banks to loan. A combination of banks being able to make spreads simply loaning money to the Fed and regulators cracking down in a huge way on what they are regulatorily calling risky small company loans. We don't need to go back to the risk profiles of 10 years ago but the risk profile being enforced on banks right now by regulators is a huge problem.

And in the context of either naive or incompetent, the same government that wants these banks to let loose of their capital and start investing just filed a multi billion dollar law suit against the banks to recoup losses from Freddie and Fannie in the now historical housing crisis. I can wax eloquently (I hope ) on whether Freddie and Fannie are sophisticated investors, rating agencies, congressional edicts for low income lending and all that stuff, but the reality for today is if you want these banks to loan don't threaten them with multi billion payments now. That was on the same day they did a rational thing and squashed the potential multi billion EPA smog regs. Just gotta shake your head.

Jeffrey Immelt is the poster boy for smiling at the Prez, taking his money for so called "green jobs" and then screwing him by moving high tech jobs to where they see market growth. Being self insured most of these guys have some exposure to the health care mess but are more concerned about tax rates, energy supplies and cost, EPA and OSHA type cost of doing biz items. In the end though I am not sure even if you fixed our out of the norm corporate tax rate and some of the other items if Big Biz guys wouldn't still be moving their investment capital to the growing far east markets. Maybe less I guess but in my pharmaceutical world you are seeing a wholesale movement of everything from research sites to commercial spends to M&A/licensing focus moving to China and India. In a big way. Part (not all) of that comes from making Big biz a villian and then wondering why they don't love you.

At this point my personal opinion is that Obama probably can't change the optics and feelings by biz owners even if he were to say Obamacare and cap and trade and the like were all bad ideas. I think he is already pegged as Carter was and it will take a new face in the White House to change the confidence of biz in America and bring back some growth to the economy.

[kchoya]

I still think it's more likely than not that he gets reelected, but Obama can't be thrilled than even Mo Dowd is souring on him:

www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/opinion/dowd-one-and-done.html?_r=3

No. 2 on David Letterman’s Top Ten List of the president’s plans for Labor Day: “Pretty much whatever the Republicans tell him he can do.”

;D

[hoyawatcher]

While I disagree with a lot Dowd said, I was struck by the way she ended the article:

After pushing and shoving and caving to get on TV, the president’s advisers immediately began warning that the long-yearned-for jobs speech wasn’t going to be that awe-inspiring.

“The issue isn’t the size or the newness of the ideas,” one said. “It’s less the substance than how he says it, whether he seizes the moment.”

Less the substance and more on how he says it??? I am more and more confused trying to figure out why the president wanted this spotlight speech and what he is going to say.

[Elvado]

Why would anyone be surprised that the quintessential empty suit is deliverng an address that is not about the substnce. He does not have the faintest idea of what to do here. The absence of vision is not unexpected given the absence of executive experience nd the woefully thin resume. He can't. Get up on Thursday and announce that he "Hopes" he can "Change" things. Nor can he remind us tha he is not George W. Bush. That boat has sailed

[EasyEd]

Sept 4, 2011 10:05:42 GMT -5 hoyawatcher said:

FWIW I think le Prez is stuck between small biz guys who are truly having major troubles with regulation (and lack of demand) and big biz guys who like the Prez's actually pretty lavish support of their pet projects but find it much easier and smarter to spend their expansion bucks in the growing far east economies. And when you strip it all away it is either a case of real naivete by le Prez and his boys or Boz's incompetence label is spot on - or both.

I operate on the Board level of 2 moderate sized high tech type of companies (biotech actually). Reasonably highly paid PhD/MD/MBA type employees. Both are scared to death of health care costs for employees going forward and the one I draw my paycheck from has already declared it won't continue health benefits next year due to rising costs of Obamacare. For a lot of small businesses they have become health care managers and not businessmen. They don't want any more liability.

And in what is probably perceived as the partisan angle, most of these guys and gals equate the runaway budget deficits and particularly the lack of political will to control long term deficits with higher taxes and inflation. Both scare them/us a lot.

While we don't operate on bank debt, many other guys I know do and are having a devil of a time getting banks to loan. A combination of banks being able to make spreads simply loaning money to the Fed and regulators cracking down in a huge way on what they are regulatorily calling risky small company loans. We don't need to go back to the risk profiles of 10 years ago but the risk profile being enforced on banks right now by regulators is a huge problem.

And in the context of either naive or incompetent, the same government that wants these banks to let loose of their capital and start investing just filed a multi billion dollar law suit against the banks to recoup losses from Freddie and Fannie in the now historical housing crisis. I can wax eloquently (I hope ) on whether Freddie and Fannie are sophisticated investors, rating agencies, congressional edicts for low income lending and all that stuff, but the reality for today is if you want these banks to loan don't threaten them with multi billion payments now. That was on the same day they did a rational thing and squashed the potential multi billion EPA smog regs. Just gotta shake your head.

Jeffrey Immelt is the poster boy for smiling at the Prez, taking his money for so called "green jobs" and then screwing him by moving high tech jobs to where they see market growth. Being self insured most of these guys have some exposure to the health care mess but are more concerned about tax rates, energy supplies and cost, EPA and OSHA type cost of doing biz items. In the end though I am not sure even if you fixed our out of the norm corporate tax rate and some of the other items if Big Biz guys wouldn't still be moving their investment capital to the growing far east markets. Maybe less I guess but in my pharmaceutical world you are seeing a wholesale movement of everything from research sites to commercial spends to M&A/licensing focus moving to China and India. In a big way. Part (not all) of that comes from making Big biz a villian and then wondering why they don't love you.

At this point my personal opinion is that Obama probably can't change the optics and feelings by biz owners even if he were to say Obamacare and cap and trade and the like were all bad ideas. I think he is already pegged as Carter was and it will take a new face in the White House to change the confidence of biz in America and bring back some growth to the economy.

hoyawatcher, thanks for your perspective.

[TC]

Sept 4, 2011 10:05:42 GMT -5 hoyawatcher said:

In the end though I am not sure even if you fixed our out of the norm corporate tax rate and some of the other items if Big Biz guys wouldn't still be moving their investment capital to the growing far east markets. Maybe less I guess but in my pharmaceutical world you are seeing a wholesale movement of everything from research sites to commercial spends to M&A/licensing focus moving to China and India. In a big way. Part (not all) of that comes from making Big biz a villian and then wondering why they don't love you.

The last statement about big business being butthurt about rallying cries against Exxon and BP being made villains makes just about as much sense as the idea that a business would shoot themselves in the foot just to get someone they liked in the White House.

The truth is that we're behind in a lot of ways we can't fix within one Presidential term or maybe two - you could wholesale destroy the EPA and the Clean Air Act and it won't change the fact that you can't hire a US worker for $1 an hour. You could fix the tax code any way you like and it won't create a mob of American PhD's or engineers to hire from. There just aren't quick and easy solutions to these problems that fall along ideological lines.

I am interested though in how you can discontinue health benefits and attempt to retain or recruit PhD/MD employees though. That sounds absurd to me.

[hoyawatcher]

FWIW I am curious to put it mildly of how we are going to operate sans health care benefits as well. I am not sure if we will simply get the money they would have paid into health care and told to go find it ourselves or what. Right now in pharma research there are not a ton of new opportunities or places to go - especially for chemists so it may simply be absorbed by the group. Or things may change and the decision recinded. We will see. But I think it does show the concern about health care benis for companies not big enough to self insure or demand really good deals themselves.

Right now in my field I am not worried about $1 per hour labor. I am worried about US trained chemists/biologists, entrepreneurs and the like who have chosen to return to China and India where they have set up shop with lavish government help. Several companies there have CEOs who were successful CEOs in the US but have chosen to go back to China because they can get lots of highly skilled employees with cutting edge labs and great financing.

I do agree there are a lot of systemic issues deeper than tax rates and regulations that will have to be fixed long term to compete with a rising far east. Education, underclass, and a whole host of other things that would take long debates - some ideological - some not. But right now I do believe the difference between 1% growth and/or recession on one end and 3% - 4% growth on the other end which could help the financial picture dramatically could be found in regulation, taxes and the "confidence" that comes from these issues.

[EasyEd]

Palin runs articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/04/news/la-pn-palin-marathon-20110904

[EasyEd]

I wholeheartedly agree that reducing taxes, repealing Obamacare, significantly reducing government regulations will solve our economic problems such as competing against very low wages in foreign countries. But it sure as hell will help.

Secondly, our country is saturated with college graduates attempting to enter the job market while there are jobs to be had by non-college grads who have some post-high school training such as dental technicians, HVAC repairmen, electricians, etc. Can't repeal the laws of supply and demand. If chemists can't find jobs in this country, maybe there are too many chemist grads. And, heaven knows there are too many lawyers (sorry, couldn't resist).