CNBC: Obama Administration 'Greatest Wet Blanket' to Business: Wynn

[twa]

I'd rather talk about O and the business climate...or his socialist tendencies

can ya tell me how much he will require and when?.....it helps me to decide who gets the axe or my next purchase

[NoCalMike]

It just seems like more of the Top 2% coming out in full force anytime someone voices their support for ending the Bush era tax cuts(which were supposed to expire already, btw)

[NoVaO]

Put whatever label you want on it. Whenever somebody starts talking about a need for the rich to sacrifice more, all we here is talk about socialism, redistributing the wealth, class warfare, jealousy, envy, etc. Well, if raising taxes on the rich is socialist, then 70% of our country is socialist. Who gives a f*ck what you want to label such thing. The bottom line is that it needs to happen.

Because the more money the rich get in tax cuts and subsidies, the less money available there is for programs that support the middle class and the poor.

The reason business is so bad in America is because there are not enough customers. Consumers are in debt and they haven't seen their wages increase significantly in over 30 years. It's not regulations (CEOs throw it in there just so they can have a less regulated environment to do business, but it has no impact on hiring). It might be a little bit of uncertainty over the debt ceiling debate. But it's ultimately the uncertainty in demand. Businesses don't know if customers will be there if they were to expand.

The income inequality, the stagnant wages, and the persistent unemployment are job killers in themselves because they reduce demand in this economy and it's hard to fix that when corporations are looking at the next quarter of earnings, and are cutting wages and firing workers to meet expectations on profits. That approach might work for corporations now, but it won't work in the long run.

[twa]

will a tax increase fix the problems?....No,and it won't help in the long term

We have a spending and waste problem that will not change with simply taxing the rich

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/federal-government-revenues

fix the problems,then address funding the recovery

[Burgold]

will a tax increase fix the problems?....No,and it won't help in the long term

Was the economy and the country doing better and was it stronger when we were more highly taxed? Is preventing abuse or closing some known loopholes, increasing taxes? Should we really be paying companies to take jobs OUT of the U.S. aren't they incentivized enough by the cheaper (for now) labor?

[Thiebear]

We've switched responsibilities.

The people of America do nothing and give nothing to the cause.

The Soldiers do non-stop rotations in and out of danger.

The Pay-go system should be implemented in full force:

Want to save that city in Lybia? Well lets get some recycling going. Put something on the cause.

Want to spend 10 years in Iraq and then train them to take care of themselves for 3years: Create a Vat tax ONLY for that cost.

Want to give the American People an 800billion dollar stimulus, and it doesn't work: cut 2% of the overall budget.

If you find out that the buyout of GM actually saved money or made money, great! Take that money and pay for Fannie/Freddy's additional 40billion debacles.

everything is so convoluted both sides are correct about the situation.

[Burgold]

I pretty much agree, TB. Who would have thought that America's guiding philosophy would be based on the song "I want my MTV"

[HBnotBlades]

will a tax increase fix the problems?....No,and it won't help in the long term

We have a spending and waste problem that will not change with simply taxing the rich

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/federal-government-revenues

fix the problems,then address funding the recovery

Holy misleading chart Batman!

Federal revenues have more than tripled since 1965 because the GDP has more than tripled since 1965.

What you fail to mention is that federal revenues as a percentage of GDP are at their lowest levels since 1950. That's right, we're taking in the least amount of revenue as a percentage of GDP in over 60 years.

We certainly have a spending problem, but to say that's the only problem is a bit ignorant.

This is mentioned specifically in this CBO report and or by simply typing in "federal revenue as percent of gdp" to google:

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/105xx/doc10521/08-25-BudgetUpdate.pdf

[twa]

Holy misleading chart Batman!

Federal revenues have more than tripled since 1965 because the GDP has more than tripled since 1965.

What you fail to mention is that federal revenues as a percentage of GDP are at their lowest levels since 1950. That's right, we're taking in the least amount of revenue as a percentage of GDP in over 60 years.

We certainly have a spending problem, but to say that's the only problem is a bit ignorant.

This is mentioned specifically in this CBO report and or by simply typing in "federal revenue as percent of gdp" to google:

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/105xx/doc10521/08-25-BudgetUpdate.pdf

Never said it was the only problem

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514904575602943209741952.html?KEYWORDS=hauser

experts disagree with your assertion

'

Over the past six decades, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP have averaged just under 19% regardless of the top marginal personal income tax rate. The top marginal rate has been as high as 92% (1952-53) and as low as 28% (1988-90). This observation was first reported in an op-ed I wrote for this newspaper in March 1993. A wit later dubbed this "Hauser's Law."'

You dump borrowed money into the system and artificially inflate GDP and wonder why revenue drops?

[PeterMP]

Never said it was the only problem

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514904575602943209741952.html?KEYWORDS=hauser

experts disagree with your assertion

'

Over the past six decades, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP have averaged just under 19% regardless of the top marginal personal income tax rate. The top marginal rate has been as high as 92% (1952-53) and as low as 28% (1988-90). This observation was first reported in an op-ed I wrote for this newspaper in March 1993. A wit later dubbed this "Hauser's Law."'

You dump borrowed money into the system and artificially inflate GDP and wonder why revenue drops?

But we are well under 19% now. In 2008, it was 15%.

Here's just income taxes. You can see the decrease as a percentage of GDP from historical norms.

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=1900_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&log=linear&fy=fy12&chart=10-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s

I'll also point out, for an economic law, it seems mighty constrained to just the US. Other countries have no problems collecting a much larger percentage of their GDP in taxes.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/27/41498733.pdf

Denmark and Sweden hover just under 50%.

[Baculus]

Bac...it has been dropping in Vegas, + 23% when you have been losing money is not too great.

The U.S. economy grows at a single-digit rate in a year. A 23% rise is good, especially if business "has been dropping in Vegas," as you claimed. Which, I will show in a minute, is an irrelevant point on your behalf.

again ya need to look deeper to get a real feel or whether his profit is viable

I can fire half my employees and sell part of the business and increase profit short term

Counter to that, I think you need to go deeper, as in, use a search engine to further research this issue instead of automatically looking for any reason to defend this guy.

There a number of article which talks about Wynn Resorts' profitability. Here is another:

"The company, led by billionaire CEO Steve Wynn, reported after the markets closed that it earned $122 million, or 97 cents per share, for the quarter that ended June 30. That's up from $52.4 million, or 42 cents per share, a year earlier.

"After adjusting for a charitable contribution and other one-time items, the company earned $1.60 per share, compared with 52 cents per share a year earlier.

"Wynn's revenue rose from $1.03 billion to $1.37 billion for the quarter."

Yeah, that sure sounds like the desperate earnings of a company suffering under Obama's socialistic tyranny. ;-) Look at that rise from profits last year, for Pete's sake. As this next article says, "Spiegel said the $91 million in room revenue was the 'highest cash room revenue ever at Wynn Las Vegas.'"

http://www.lvrj.com/business/wynn-resorts-more-that-doubles-second-quarter-profit-125768818.html

Oh, that terrible wet blanket! His business is doing so poorly, he is thinking about opening a new resort in Singapore! Of course, he has to get a dig into Obama, claiming that he's cautious about investing due to the president. Yeah, right. More like, as the article, says: "While Macau has driven the growth of the company over the last few years, Wynn told analysts Monday that he is interested in building a resort in Singapore, but is prepared to wait until March 2017 because of an exclusivity period granted by the government to incumbent operators, Las Vegas Sands Corp. and Gentin."

Must be Obama's fault.

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/Wynn-s-2Q-profit-more-than-doubles-beats-street-1471148.php#ixzz1SkrXIJG8

Here is the worst irony: He calls Obama a socialist, and yet his company is earning millions a year from the Chinese "communists."

So, does your previous argument still fit into your narrative?

I certainly agree with Wynn that Obama's choices and speeches have created GREAT uncertainty in the business sector and restricts investments....I've been saying that for awhile.

In what way? Wall Street has been up, as it is. There are other reasons for a slowdown in some investments and hiring that has nothing to do with Obama:

(1) Companies discovering they can operate business with fewer employees, hence, less hiring.

(2) A slowdown in consumer demand in some sectors (though people still go on vacations, visiting places as Disney, whose 2011 first quarter profits rose by 54%).

(3) Paying workers less and investing into overseas, using non-American labor.

(4) The changing, unsettled nature of the economy. Take the recent closure of Borders due to the emergence of eBooks.

The economy is a complicated beast, after all, but hey, better blame this on the wet blanket socialist Obama!

He talks like a socialist,not a friend of business

I have studied socialism, I have read their documents, I personally know socialists, and he DOES NOT talk like them, especially not in the 19th century variety (read: "Marxism") that you whatever radio talking head you listen to are thinking about.

You are certainly behind the times.

As it is, you can't even describe what sort of socialist you are referring to, because there is no single "socialist" ideological thought. For example, a big break in the Socialist International took place over a hundred years ago in a split between the revolutionaries and the reformers,which is why Western European social democrats and democratic socialists looked different than their Eastern European more-radicalized, revolutionary counterparts.

You would know this if you actually took the time to have really studied socialism, and to make blanket statements, as if there are no important ideological nuances, does political science, history, and economics no justice.

BTW, there are plenty of places which can be deemed "socialist" where business does well. Look at Europe. Look at China. Look at Brazil. These are realities which defy the claims of you and Wynn.

---------- Post added July-21st-2011 at 04:24 PM ----------

It just doesn't jibe with the progressive glasses you view things through. He fences off entitlement reform, as well as Obamacare and has never made public anything in writing regards the debt ceiling and debt reform. No budget in 800+ days. AND at the end of all that it's, drumroll please, STILL the GOP's fault for being intractable & uncooperative. Got it. That's some crazy math but then again so is any budget Obama would deign to cobble together. Why not? It's not his money and he's never had to actually balance anything like a real business or household would.

Nice spin. Too bad it doesn't jibe with the real world. Maybe you need to read that cartoon a bit more closely. :-) But hey, at least you got some right-wing buzzwords into your post: Good job on that.

[Thiebear]

WE NEED YOU!

Cash for CouchPotatoes: Hire someone for 1yr+ thats been out of work for more than 180days = 10k tax credit.

Recycle for the Debt: All cans, bottles, paper sent to these locations in your town will go directly to the debt.

By bonds for America:

The Administration is focusing on the negative.

Social Security can pay for itself for 2 years, that was the worst possible comment to make just for shock and awe.

Congress is making it worse. We have no leaders.

Invest in small business with backing and incentives.

[@DCGoldPants]

WE NEED YOU! Cash for CouchPotatoes: Hire someone for 6months+ thats been out of work for more than 120days = 10k tax credit.

Recycle for the Debt: All cans, bottles, paper sent to these locations in your town will go directly to the debt.

By bonds for America:

That poster is socialism in a Tea Party America

[deejaydana]

Nice spin. Too bad it doesn't jibe with the real world. Maybe you need to read that cartoon a bit more closely. :-) But hey, at least you got some right-wing buzzwords into your post: Good job on that.

What I posted was factually accurate but I've long maintained you've detached from reality some time back.

We just view things from a very large degree of separation. Needless to say we consume news from different sources.

[twa]

But we are well under 19% now. In 2008, it was 15%.

Here's just income taxes. You can see the decrease as a percentage of GDP from historical norms.

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=1900_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&log=linear&fy=fy12&chart=10-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s

I'll also point out, for an economic law, it seems mighty constrained to just the US. Other countries have no problems collecting a much larger percentage of their GDP in taxes.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/27/41498733.pdf

Denmark and Sweden hover just under 50%.

You ignore he said averages

What happened in 08 that would reduce income tax?

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=179181,00.html

You ignore we are not Denmark or Sweden,and the vast majority here have no desire to be them.

ya'll got a wake up call coming

[Larry]

You ignore he said averages

So your point (and the point of the person you're quoting) is that if you take a historical period, and average that period's data together, then you come up with a single number which applies to all of the period?

Look! If we take government spending over the entire history of this nation, and average it together, then you come up with some number. And that one number is called the "average". Therefore, whatever we're spending now is irrelevant, because our average is average.

What happened in 08 that would reduce income tax?

The same thing that happened in 08 that would increase spending? :whoknows:

[twa]

So your point (and the point of the person you're quoting) is that if you take a historical period, and average that period's data together, then you come up with a single number which applies to all of the period?

Look! If we take government spending over the entire history of this nation, and average it together, then you come up with some number. And that one number is called the "average". Therefore, whatever we're spending now is irrelevant, because our average is average.

The same thing that happened in 08 that would increase spending? :whoknows:

and that spending boosted the GDP,which combined with the $168 billion stimulus which reduced income taxes = a aberration in the GDP vs revenue

which you then wish to use as proof we are not being taxed enough:silly:

[Larry]

and that spending boosted the GDP,which combined with the $168 billion stimulus which reduced income taxes = a aberration in the GDP vs revenue

You need to report for Kool Aid replenishment. You're not supposed to ever admit that spending stimulates the economy. In fact, your entire mantra is supposed to be that the only reason why we aren't all living in Nirvana right now is because the government is spending money, and everybody knows that spending money destroys the economy.

Remember? Keep repeating: "We don't have a deficit problem. We have a spending problem."

which you then wish to use as proof we are not being taxed enough:silly:

Actually, which somebody else accurately used, to point out that the claim you were shoveling, that revenues were at historical levels, were untrue.

Remember? You're the one who tried to claim that the deficit wasn't caused by historically low revenues.

Other people pointed out that your claim wasn't true.

----------

Just out of curiosity, what's your spin for why we should ignore the drop-off that happened after 2000?

[PeterMP]

You ignore he said averages

What happened in 08 that would reduce income tax?

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=179181,00.html

You ignore we are not Denmark or Sweden,and the vast majority here have no desire to be them.

ya'll got a wake up call coming

1. And it kept falling because?

2. No, we aren't Sweden or Denmark, but if we look at them and concede it is in fact possible to get taxes to oh, I don't know 23% of GDP, then the thing you posted is irrelevant.

[twa]

Sure ya can get taxes up,but as long as you continue to increase spending it is irrelevant

http://www.businessinsider.com/mary-meeker-usa-inc-february-24-2011-2#

even the delayed cuts being put forth are relatively ineffective...we must change fundamentally

[PeterMP]

Sure ya can get taxes up,but as long as you continue to increase spending it is irrelevant

http://www.businessinsider.com/mary-meeker-usa-inc-february-24-2011-2#

even the delayed cuts being put forth are relatively ineffective...we must change fundamentally

I don't disagree, but I'd say we can fundamentally change as a function of two different things and not just 1.

[twa]

I don't disagree, but I'd say we can fundamentally change as a function of two different things and not just 1.

it better be three or more,increased revenue comes not just from raising taxes(which is shown to depress collections)

you don't start by increasing spending,nor by suppressing domestic sources of energy and production imo

we took a wrong turn in the 70's and the bill is coming due

[PeterMP]

it better be three or more,increased revenue comes not just from raising taxes(which is shown to depress collections)

you don't start by increasing spending,nor by suppressing domestic sources of energy and production imo

we took a wrong turn in the 70's and the bill is coming due

I'd be curious to see what evidence you have that raising taxes depresses collections? Haven't I already demonstrated that some countries collect just under 50% of their GDP?

When I look at this graph, it is pretty appearant to me where we took a wrong turn, and it ain't the 1970s:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1950_2016&view=1&expand=&units=p&log=linear&fy=fy12&chart=H0-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s

[twa]

maybe you are looking at the wrong graphs

[Larry]

Oh, look. twa is posting another chart in which he claims spending is destroying the country by ignoring the growth in GDP.