President Barack Obama/Vice-President Joe Biden Re-elected to 2nd Term Thread

[chipwhich]

Clinton ranks first in cutting the federal payroll; it fell by almost 10% when the population grew by roughly the same amount - in adjusted terms, that's -18% fewer federal jobs.

Clinton probably ranks first in federal contracting dollars.

[deejaydana]

Whatever else may be pertinent in evaluation of related factors, when it comes strictly to operating in the business world and the knowledge thereof in this nation at this time, how can anyone seriously think Obama is on the same level as Romney? The better way to ask the question would be:does anyone?

Once again, a great request Jumbo. You know the more I consider it, have we EVER had 2 candidates that stood in such sharp opposition of each other than these two? Probably not. I think where I (and where others) get themselves in trouble is when we post as if we're "all in" for one guy over the other. And also, where we (ostensibly) post that we understand one realm (govt or private business) at the complete expense of the other. This is never my intent but I can see in some of my posts how it could come off as such. I've spent my entire working life in the private channel. Almost all of it exclusively in sales. It's a completely unforgiving world for the most part. You produce or you're out of a job. The upside? It compensates you more generously than almost every other position you can find. I think what I take exception with about Obama is how tone deaf he comes off many times in his views of business and of capitalism. Is he stupid? He's anything but that, heck, how did he get to where he's at? I feel the need to post though when I read people say he's done nothing harmful to businesses because my personal experience doesn't bear that out. I worked in the past couple years for a nationwide company in the insurance space (not health insurance) who circulated their plans of seriously scaling back growth plans because of initiatives that Obama had put in place. Was it grandstanding? I don't think so. They were/are just a fiscally conservative company that was immediately going to take a "wait and see" approach directly due to the President and his stance towards business. Again, it's just my experience and like every other poster on this board it's anecdotal. What I don't understand are responses that tell me this is all inside of my head solely. I know we're shaped by our own realities and for me Obama is a disaster for business. He doesn't know it, doesn't care to know but it's his background in gov't that has brought this about. He simply values gov't much more than business.

[visionary]

Wow, I think just saw the first positive commercial ad for Obama (and possibly for either candidate...that I can remember) I've seen in this campaign so far.

I was actually kind of surprised at first that someone wasn't getting smeared in it.

:pfft:

[Larry]

say what?

. . . He said, right before he tried to pretend that my post had the word 'federal" in it, so that he could try to distract people from a fact that doesn't fit his agenda.

---------- Post added July-27th-2012 at 10:01 PM ----------

Wow, I think just saw the first positive commercial ad for Obama (and possibly for either candidate...that I can remember) I've seen in this campaign so far.

What did it say?

[visionary]

What did it say?

Hmmm, I don't remember the details.

I generally try to ignore campaign ads of any kind.

It did seem uplifting and positive though, which was why it caught my attention.

[Larry]

Whatever else may be pertinent in evaluation of related factors, when it comes strictly to operating in the business world and the knowledge thereof in this nation at this time, how can anyone seriously think Obama is on the same level as Romney? The better way to ask the question would be:does anyone? .

Oh, I don't think anyone would dispute that, if you wanted somebody to manage your portfolio, 100 out of 100 would pick Romney over Obama.

Does that mean that

A). Romney knows how to make the economy better?

. And would he do it?

I think Romney knows how to make money for Romney. I think he knows how to make money for the "Romney class".

But I think we've seen what "tax cuts for the rich, deregulation of corporations, cut social supports, and poor eople don't pay enough taxes" does for the other 99% of the country.

[twa]

. . . He said, right before he tried to pretend that my post had the word 'federal" in it, so that he could try to distract people from a fact that doesn't fit his agenda.

got any numbers?

http://slge.org/publications/the-public-sector-workforce-past-present-and-future

Employment in state and local government is expected to increase by 8 percent overall between 2006 and 2016, with a 10-year growth rate of 11 percent for education positions and more than 20 percent for health care positions.

I'm not seeing it

[Larry]

got any numbers?

http://slge.org/publications/the-public-sector-workforce-past-present-and-future

Employment in state and local government is expected to increase by 8 percent overall between 2006 and 2016, with a 10-year growth rate of 11 percent for education positions and more than 20 percent for health care positions.

Obama didn't become president in 2006. And 2016 hasn't happened yet.

You should really like Obama based on what you say: The public sector has lost over 600,000 jobs while the private industry has gained over 4.2 million jobs to rise above the point of jobs before the recession. Doesn't look like public jobs are being valued more than the private sector.

[Stadium-Armory]

Wow, I think just saw the first positive commercial ad for Obama (and possibly for either candidate...that I can remember) I've seen in this campaign so far.

I was actually kind of surprised at first that someone wasn't getting smeared in it.

:pfft:

Don't worry, there's plenty of smear to go around. I ran in to this gem on Facebook today: https://www.facebook.com/IPledgeAllegianceToMyCountryNotMyPresident

SMH

[Hersh]

got any numbers?

Unemployment Rate Without Government Cuts: 7.1%

One reason the unemployment rate may have remained persistently high: The sharp cuts in state and local government spending in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, and the layoffs those cuts wrought.

The Labor Department’s establishment survey of employers — the jobs count that it bases its payroll figures on — shows that the government has been steadily shedding workers since the crisis struck, with 586,000 fewer jobs than in December 2008. Friday’s employment report showed the cuts continued in April, with 15,000 government jobs lost.

More at link

From the Wall Street Journal

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Just sayin...

[Stadium-Armory]

What are you sayin?

[Hersh]

Once again, a great request Jumbo. You know the more I consider it, have we EVER had 2 candidates that stood in such sharp opposition of each other than these two? Probably not. I think where I (and where others) get themselves in trouble is when we post as if we're "all in" for one guy over the other. And also, where we (ostensibly) post that we understand one realm (govt or private business) at the complete expense of the other. This is never my intent but I can see in some of my posts how it could come off as such. I've spent my entire working life in the private channel. Almost all of it exclusively in sales. It's a completely unforgiving world for the most part. You produce or you're out of a job. The upside? It compensates you more generously than almost every other position you can find. I think what I take exception with about Obama is how tone deaf he comes off many times in his views of business and of capitalism. Is he stupid? He's anything but that, heck, how did he get to where he's at? I feel the need to post though when I read people say he's done nothing harmful to businesses because my personal experience doesn't bear that out. I worked in the past couple years for a nationwide company in the insurance space (not health insurance) who circulated their plans of seriously scaling back growth plans because of initiatives that Obama had put in place. Was it grandstanding? I don't think so. They were/are just a fiscally conservative company that was immediately going to take a "wait and see" approach directly due to the President and his stance towards business. Again, it's just my experience and like every other poster on this board it's anecdotal. What I don't understand are responses that tell me this is all inside of my head solely. I know we're shaped by our own realities and for me Obama is a disaster for business. He doesn't know it, doesn't care to know but it's his background in gov't that has brought this about. He simply values gov't much more than business.

Would you please give examples of him being tone deaf and a disaster for business?

[twa]

Unemployment Rate Without Government Cuts: 7.1%

More at link

From the Wall Street Journal

Thanks....does it matter that they measure from a near all time peak according to the graph I posted?

What would the unemployment rate be if people didn't drop from the private workforce?

[Hersh]

Thanks....does it matter that they measure from a near all time peak according to the graph I posted?

What would the unemployment rate be if people didn't drop from the private workforce?

What I was answering originally (before you asked for numbers) for someone's post was that the private sector has gained a lot of jobs back in the last 3 years while the public sector has lost a lot of jobs. So in that regard it doesn't matter if it was near a peak.

I think a good question is why was the government number near the peak? Or in other words, what sectors actually expanded?

If your 2nd question is asking what the number would be if the economy never tanked but government still lost jobs, it's hard to say because we don't know how many jobs the private sector would have added. Maybe they would have offset any loss. If none of the public employees found private jobs I would guess unemployment would have gone up a percentage point if it would go down a point according to the WSJ article.

[nonniey]

Would you please give examples of him being tone deaf and a disaster for business?

Did you just read that one line from his post?

[deejaydana]

Would you please give examples of him being tone deaf and a disaster for business?

I'm on and off the PC today but will post links and articles that back up what I contend. I should be able to get up some content later today I hope.

---------- Post added July-28th-2012 at 07:57 AM ----------

Would you please give examples of him being tone deaf and a disaster for business?

I'm on and off the PC today but will post links and articles that back up what I contend. I should be able to get up some content later today I hope.

[Hersh]

Did you just read that one line from his post?

It wasn't condescending from me at all. It's an actual conversation is all.

---------- Post added July-28th-2012 at 04:18 PM ----------

I'm on and off the PC today but will post links and articles that back up what I contend. I should be able to get up some content later today I hope.

No hurries, I won't be on much at all until tonight or tomorrow.

[Jumbo]

Our awesome electorate, and the bastion of nutzo/ignorance that is the current GOP in particular continues to display it's plant-stand level of awareness...

http://news.yahoo.com/half-americans-not-know-presidents-religion-120055199--abc-news-politics.html

Only 49 percent of respondents said that Obama was Christian while 17 percent inaccurately said he was Muslim. Nearly one-third of respondents said they did not know the president's religion, according to the poll released Thursday by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life.

More people - 60 percent - knew that Romney, who has not held elected office in a decade, was Mormon than knew which religion the sitting president subscribes to. And while only 9 percent of respondents said Romney was a religion that he is not, more than twice that amount said Obama adheres to a religion other than Christianity. The vast majority of those claiming Obama is not a Christian said he was a Muslim.

Nearly one in three Republicans said Obama was Muslim, twice as many as in 2008, the Pew study shows.

"Unfortunately there has been a development of a bizarre echo chamber within right wing of the political spectrum that truth and reality have failed to penetrate," said Ibrahim Hooper, communications director at Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington-based Muslim civil rights and advocacy group. "It's a self-perpetuating, self-reinforcing delusion."

Well, duh! But it's harly limited to this issue. :ols::ols:

But this is being said by an infiltrating Mooslim. Commissioner Gordon! Light up the Batty Bachmann Signal!

Of course the dems are not only properly represented in "stupid", it could be argued that this result is even more embarrassing since O's their guy:

Only 8 percent of Democrats said Obama was Muslim.

So they stick "only" in front of there as though "half the idiots" was so much better a demographic.

"It is visceral hatred for President Obama and to justify it they have to come up with these reasons: he is the other, he's Muslim, he's foreign born."

I do agree with the first phrase of that line <above>. I thought the left hate on Bushy was uber-strong as times, but Obama hates actually trumps it. "Visceral" is a good word.

<yes, a little more at link :pfft:>

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

What are you sayin?

Sorry, I wanted to see what it felt like to be a wingnut.

[twa]

he is muslim according to their criteria......you should be celebrating more voters recognizing the finer points of a different religion

[deejaydana]

So in my previous post I took up the (at times impassioned) stance that Obama has been, well, unfavorable to business overall during his term. It has been pointed out to me recently that I haven't been citing my posts adequately (thanks Jumbo, it was a valid criticism and one I’ll improve going forward). I’ll confess the lack of links has been both borne of laziness on my part more than anything else (though not from lack of research). With that out of the way, I’ll own this up front: both parties have messed this country up. Obama’s fingerprints are on a lot of what I’m not happy with but his predecessors share in the blame. I don’t agree with some of the numbered points in the second article I’ve linked below about what he’s enacted. For example, I believe moving towards some alternate energy strategies is a move we have to start taking. I think if Obama’s erred there it’s been out of ideology vs real world immediate results and what comes from not fully researching economic impacts of energy plans. I’ll likely be pilloried for this post but I have a thick skin. And now I’m citing my claims. Mods if you need me to pare back the quotes below let me know and I can clean it up.

Red Tape Rising: Obama-Era Regulation at the Three-Year Mark

During the first three years of the Obama Administration, 106 new major federal regulations added more than $46 billion per year in new costs for Americans. This is almost four times the number—and more than five times the cost—of the major regulations issued by George W. Bush during his first three years. Hundreds more regulations are winding through the rulemaking pipeline as a consequence of the Dodd–Frank financial-regulation law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the Environmental Protection Agency’s global warming crusade, threatening to further weaken an anemic economy and job creation. Congress must increase scrutiny of regulations—existing and new. Reforms should include requiring congressional approval of major rules and mandatory sunset clauses for major regulations.

Obama v. Bush. The total number of rulemaking proceedings during the first three years of the Obama Administration (10,215) is slightly less than the total undertaken during the first three years of the Bush Administration (10,674). This led President Obama to assert in his January 2012 State of the Union address that “I’ve approved fewer regulations in the first three years of my presidency than my Republican predecessor did in his.”[10] But looking only at the total number of rulemakings provides a misleading picture. While some have substantial impact, the vast majority of the thousands of rules adopted each year are routine actions, such as setting payment rates for Medicare or aviation maintenance bulletins.

It is also important to distinguish between rulemakings that increase regulatory burdens on businesses and individuals and those that do not. During the early 2000s, for example, the Federal Communications Commission adopted hundreds of rules related to freeing radio spectrum for commercial use, actions that generally eased government constraints on the private sector. Those rulemakings alone erase most of the gap in total rulemaking between Obama and Bush.

Taking these factors into account, a far clearer picture of relative regulatory activity emerges. According to Heritage Foundation calculations using the GAO database, the George W. Bush Administration adopted 28 major regulations in its first three years, barely a quarter of the 106 imposed by the Obama Administration during its first three years. In terms of cost, the gap was even wider, with the Bush Administration imposing $8.1 billion in new annual regulatory costs compared to the $46 billion imposed during the Obama years to date, a five-to-one ratio[11].

Entire link here>>>>http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/03/red-tape-rising-obama-era-regulation-at-the-three-year-mark

To be fair, President Obama has taken some actions that have been helpful: Pushing through the Bush trade deals, opposing Internet restrictions, shepherding the recent JOBS Act that removed government barriers to capital formation and obtaining additional spectrum for broadband. These have been positive, pro-innovation and pro-business measures -- but they have not been enough.

Since President Obama has taken office we have at least two million more employable Americans, yet after trillions of dollars of stimulus and deficit spending, we actually have fewer non-government jobs than we did the day he took the oath of office. The totality of the actions below has cast such a pall over our economy that we will be stuck in a jobless recovery for the foreseeable future. President Obama and his Administration have…

---Issued 106 new major rules that cost U.S. businesses $11 billion in implementation and more than $46 billion each year.

---Restricted how companies hire unpaid interns, cutting the link between students and employers.

---Blocked the construction of the Keystone Pipeline that would have given jobs to thousands of American workers, further reducing the domestic oil supply and forcing our ally Canada to turn to China as a more willing partner.

---Mandated third party certification for all manufacturers participating in the Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star program, which has raised costs for manufacturers and created a disincentive for participation in the program.

---Only moved on Bush free trade agreements and failed to enter one new free trade agreement, even while our competitors have entered many, making U.S. goods more expensive to export.

---Pushed for passage of card check legislation that would infringe upon the rights of workers and make the United States a less desirable place to open a business.

---Created a new rule requiring every employer to post notices on union "rights," (found illegal by a federal court in April).

---Changed rules on unionization votes so the majority of employees no longer need to vote to unionize, allowing easier unionization.

---Proposed onerous restrictions on government officials attending trade shows, threatening vital cooperation between business and government to create jobs.

---Imposed a requirement that every employer with more than 49 employees provide health care insurance or pay a fine.

---Allowed the United States to become the highest corporate tax nation in the developed world.

---Required every children's product to undergo expensive testing, threatening thousands of small businesses that make children's products.

---Increased the number of IRS audits of successful job creators while dramatically cutting audits of those reporting no income.

---Defended EPA "strong-arming" of property owners by threatening fines --March 2012 Supreme Court's unanimously rejected EPA position.

---Imposed a 2.3 percent new excise tax on innovative medical devices.

---Imposed a new investment income "surtax" of 3.8 percent.

---Raised the Medicare Payroll tax from 2.9 percent to 3.8 percent.

---Opposed "repatriation" of U.S. corporate profits made overseas (and already taxed), thus encouraging U.S. companies to invest those profits in foreign enterprises.

---Proposed higher taxes for business-use airplanes, raising the cost of many U.S. operations.

---Sought to give the IRS the power to license all tax preparers, discouraging entrepreneurs by raising the cost to enter the market.

---Sought and signed the Dodd-Frank financial reform law with its hundreds of new rules and restrictions that impose billions in new costs on financial companies.

---Advocated for the "Buffett Rule," which would discourage U.S. investment and barely dent the deficit.

---Expressed plans to raise the capital gains tax, which would discourage U.S. capital formation and drive investment overseas.

---Set new energy-use mandates for many products, discouraging innovation and consumer choice and raising product costs.

---Imposed new restrictions on the number of hours driven by truck drivers, costing more than $400 million with no proven additional safety benefit and raising the cost of goods shipped in the United States.

---Failed to confront drug company payoffs/rebates to doctors, thus raising the cost of health care.

---Negotiated secret trademark treaties that are so secret their effects are unknown.

---Failed to make government more transparent by restricting FOIA requests, according to the Washington Post, making review of government actions difficult.

Entire Link here>>> http://spectator.org/archives/2012/04/27/the-list-could-be-longer

[Thiebear]

GM Ramps Up Risky Subprime Auto Loans To Drive Sales...

Government Motors(33%share) should KNOW BETTER than to do this with OUR MONEY!

by doing risky loans directly after a recession caused by Risky Subprime Loans to Drive Sales

[twa]

GM Ramps Up Risky Subprime Auto Loans To Drive Sales...

Government Motors(33%share) should KNOW BETTER than to do this with OUR MONEY!

by doing risky loans directly after a recession caused by Risky Subprime Loans to Drive Sales

better than a mandate to buy them,besides we would otherwise need to bail them out again

[deejaydana]

So I have an update on the Churchill bust story. I had some posters point out to me that the WH, by way of their PR man, had debunked the story that Obama had given said bust back to the Brits. The WH claimed last week it was untrue and they even offered photographic evidence that showed the bust. One problem: there have been 2 separate busts and in fact had been returned and they conveniently chose to photograph the remaining one. I think much of this is just so much spinning of wheels on a news item that doesn’t amount to much really BUT why would the WH blatantly lie about it? I don’t expect the media to care much but since we’re taking Romney criticism to an almost subatomic level of analysis I figured this was worth pointing out.

Link to artice: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-busted-mr-pfeiffer-and-the-white-house-blog/2012/07/29/gJQA8M46IX_story.html

Was that little photographic switcheroo an honest mistake on ¬Pfeiffer’s part? Or was it deliberate deception? I have no idea. But in either case, the effect was to deceive Pfeiffer’s readers into believing that my assertion about the removal of the Oval Office Churchill was “patently false . . . ridiculous . . . 100% false.”

The decent thing to do, therefore, would be to acknowledge the (inadvertent?) deception and apologize for it. He could send the retraction to Mediaite, the nonpartisan media Web site run by Dan Abrams, whose report on this contretemps was headlined: “British Embassy Confirms Krauthammer Right, White House Wrong: Churchill Bust Returned in 2009.”

Or he could send it to New York Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal, who at first repeated Pfeiffer’s denunciation of the Churchill bust “falsehood,” and then later honorably corrected himself, admitting that “I got some facts wrong, because I made the mistake of relying on a White House blog post by the communications director Dan Pfeiffer.” Rosenthal then chided Pfeiffer for posting “a weaselly follow-up comment” after the facts became clear that “fails to acknowledge that his post the previous day was false.”