If Obama is so anti business ...

[celestemekent]

‘Anti-Business’ Obama Is Best President For Corporate Profits Since 1900

By Pat Garofalo on Oct 26, 2012 at 2:20 pm

Since he came into office, Republicans have consistently attacked President Obama for supposedly being anti-business. As ThinkProgress noted last week, the data shows that this charge is nonsense.
In fact, as the financial website Motley Fool noted today, President Obama is far and away the best president for corporate profits since 1900:

Even if corporate profits under Obama are compared to the 2008 peak — in order to erase the effect of the financial crisis — “average annual corporate profit growth under President Obama is 6.8%,” or nearly three times as large as it was under President Reagan. Both Presidents Bush actually oversaw corporate profit declines during their terms. Meanwhile, real GDP growth per capita is far higher under Obama than it was under either Bush administration.

 

[1still_waters]

You said..

In fact, as the financial website Motley Fool noted today, President Obama is far and away the best president for corporate profits since 1900:

That's kinda the problem.

Corporate profit isn't the same as small business profit.

Both parties are sold out to the corporate.

The massive growth under Obama from corporations could be due to the billions in bailouts that Bush gave out at the end of his presidency. And also from the billions in bailouts once Obama became president.

 

[celestemekent]

You need to be very careful in your definition of "small business" 1Still_waters. It is not as clear cut as you might imagine. There are plenty of mom and pop stores for instance that have incorporated and some otherwise big businesses that claim to be small according to the IRS "S" corporations for instance. Bain Capital is a small business according to it.

Did you drink the kool aid of "job creators" being small business? Then you had better define just what you mean. Romney's solution is by far beholding to the bigger end of that spectrum, when he was at Bain he did not ever engage in leveraged buyouts of your sort of small business, just the bigger business with stock that could be bought. So he is hardly likely to be any sort of aid to your famous "job creators." Half of those small businesses look forward to being bought out by some conglomerate and the other half are running from (the republican lead) Walmart types which are driving those small businesses out of existence.

 

[1still_waters]

You need to be very careful in your definition of "small business" 1Still_waters. It is not as clear cut as you might imagine. There are plenty of mom and pop stores for instance that have incorporated and some otherwise big businesses that claim to be small according to the IRS "S" corporations for instance. Bain Capital is a small business according to it.

Did you drink the kool aid of "job creators" being small business? Then you had better define just what you mean. Romney's solution is by far beholding to the bigger end of that spectrum, when he was at Bain he did not ever engage in leveraged buyouts of your sort of small business, just the bigger business with stock that could be bought. So he is hardly likely to be any sort of aid to your famous "job creators." Half of those small businesses look forward to being bought out by some conglomerate and the other half are running from (the republican lead) Walmart types which are driving those small businesses out of existence.

Bain Bain Bain.

I'm more concerned with what Obama is doing with OUR money than what Romney did with his.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I thought Dinesh's explanation for the decisions Obama is making in 'Obama 2016' was insightful.

2016: Obama's America | Official Movie Site

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Corporate profit isn't the same as small business profit.

You need to be very careful in your definition of "small business"

Celeste is spot-on here.

There are "small businesses" that are incorporated, and there are large businesses that are sole props. So, some corporate profit is EXACTLY THE SAME as "small business" profit.

The truth is, corporate profit translates into business profit.

If corporations are doing well, that means that businesses in general are doing well. Sure, some unincorporated businesses may go belly-up. Heck, even incorporated businesses fail in the most "business-friendly" economies from time to time. If you're looking at statistics that talk about "businesses" and make no distinctions between big or small, corporations or partnerships or sole proprietorships or whatever other types of businesses, then it's talking about "all of the above" in general, taken as a whole.

And I'm happy to explain the difference between the various ways of organizing a business if anyone is really curious. But that is neither here nor there.

To say that Obama is anti-business is a flat-out lie. This was Celeste's point, and it is correct and valid.

To say that what is good for business in general (without regard to what kind of business) is good for "America" is so overly simplified as to be a completely useless statement.

Both parties are sold out to the corporate.

I agree with this. This is one reason I don't like either one of them.

 

[celestemekent]

1still_waters:

Romney puts his experience at Bain central to his qualifications for president, so yes of course we will look at Bain.

If others had forced it on him that would be quite another issue. He certainly has not quoted his governorship as the model for his qualifications since he failed miserably as the governor of Massachusetts. What few people have bothered to question is the differences between governing a business and governing a country and they are hardly the same at all.

 

[JimJimmers]

A lot of regulations are good for large corporations, at the expense of small businesses, An example would be lead testing for toys forced on a small Vermont toy maker, because some big importer got a bunch of lead-poisoned toys from China. The Vermont company handmade wooden toys, and painted them with approved paint, but they were still forced to lead test every different toy they made. The regulation hurt their business badly, but barely affected the large corporations.

 

[celestemekent]

Jim

That regulation has been on the books for a long time and it protects people from dying of lead poisoning and that Vermont business knew all about it before they began their business. (or should have) Business regulations have actually been reduced under Obama just in case you might not know that fact.

 

[JimJimmers]

Jim

That regulation has been on the books for a long time and it protects people from dying of lead poisoning and that Vermont business knew all about it before they began their business. (or should have) Business regulations have actually been reduced under Obama just in case you might not know that fact.

No it wasn't. The regulation went in in 2008.The Vermont business was forced into it. How does putting an American company under protect anyone from anything? The paint was bought in America, and had already been tested. The wood was probably made of wood, although don't quote me on that. It normally is though.

Since you made up the part about the lead regulation, I assume you made up the part about Obama reducing business regulation also? If not, you'll have to show me the money, because I can't find any evidence of that doing a cursory search of Google.

Furthermore, my post was not an attack on Obama. I just wanted to go a little deeper into the story about regulation. Too many people just assume that all regulation is bad for big corporations, and the opposite is often true. Phillip Morris even lobbied for regulations that would give them an unfair advantage against some of their smaller competitors.

 

[HeavenlyWarrior]

1still_waters:

Romney puts his experience at Bain central to his qualifications for president, so yes of course we will look at Bain.

If others had forced it on him that would be quite another issue. He certainly has not quoted his governorship as the model for his qualifications since he failed miserably as the governor of Massachusetts. What few people have bothered to question is the differences between governing a business and governing a country and they are hardly the same at all.

I wholeheartedly AGREE with you Celeste! President Obama has picked up the mess that was left behind by the former administration and if the Republicans in Congress did not stand in the way and thwart his moving forward so that he could help the people of this country like the Middle Class, the Poor, Women, Minorities, the Elderly, and many others he would have already had a big sparkling crown on his head! People who are not independently wealthy need to give President Obama Four More Years so that he can finally accomplish what he set out to do as he said he would!

Romney scares me and a lot of people with his constant flip-flopping and going in the direction the wind is blowing on that particular day. We do not need someone like him in the White House. That would be a tragic mistake! And as it turned out in the last and final debate, Romney was actually endorsing much of President Obama's work which can only mean that the President is clearly on the right track and that is why he is now five (5) points AHEAD in the all-important State of Ohio! We Pray That God Will Bless Him On His Second Term In Office!

 

[1still_waters]

1still_waters:

Romney puts his experience at Bain central to his qualifications for president, so yes of course we will look at Bain.

When dealing with other people's money with Bain, he grew profit.

Obama when dealing with other people's money grew 5 trillion in debt.

Good point.

We should look at Bain and Romney.

I'm happily corrected.

 

[Walkinginfaith]

Romney scares me and a lot of people with his constant flip-flopping and going in the direction the wind is blowing on that particular day. We do not need someone like him in the White House. That would be a tragic mistake! And as it turned out in the last and final debate, Romney was actually endorsing much of President Obama's work which can only mean that the President is clearly on the right track and that is why he is now five (5) points AHEAD in the all-important State of Ohio! We Pray That God Will Bless Him On His Second Term In Office!

Your comments saying Romney is not qualified to be in the white house, yet his "endorcement " is confirmation to you that Obama is on the right track. This seems strange. Maybe I missed something. *sigh*

I see Romney as a sign of Gods Mercy on our nation, and I see Obama re elected as The wrath of God is here. I have always wondered where America was in Revelations, now I understand why I could not find it.
In either case I am not fearful ... well maybe a little . But I remind myself God is in control and His WIll be Done ...not mine. I pray for strength to endure what we are about to be faced with . Lord have mercy on us all.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I too have wondered why the left was so obsessed with what Romney does with his money but completely unengaged with what Obama does with American's money.

The answer, of course, is that the left engages in partisan politics for personal gain just as the right does.

There are large numbers of federal, state, and local government employees and contractors that want ever greater compensation and benefits. The only way they will get more is if they can get their Democrat candidates into office to take it from the taxpayers in the private sector and give it to them.

Then there are about 100 million people currently using some form of public assistance. They include American citizens, poor legal immigrants, and the children of illegal aliens.

They care about what Romney does with his money to divert attention away from the fact that they get theirs through having their Democrat politicians take it from hardworking Americans in the private sector to give to them for their votes.

Of course, there are other reasons why they care about what Romney does with his money. Qualifying a prospective candidate is one. But this is a primary reason why they both concentrate on what Romney does with his money while simultaneously ignoring what Obama does with all of ours.

As an independent, I don't like either candidate to be truthful and believe the country is in dire need of much better candidates from all sides.

When dealing with other people's money with Bain, he grew profit.

Obama when dealing with other people's money grew 5 trillion in debt.

Good point.

We should look at Bain and Romney.

I'm happily corrected.

 

[Walkinginfaith]

I too have wondered why the left was so obsessed with what Romney does with his money but completely unengaged with what Obama does with American's money.


There are large numbers of federal, state, and local government employees and contractors that want ever greater compensation and benefits. The only way they will get more is if they can get their Democrat candidates into office to take it from the taxpayers in the private sector and give it to them.

Then there are about 100 million people currently using some form of public assistance. They include American citizens, poor legal immigrants, and the children of illegal aliens.

They care about what Romney does with his money to divert attention away from the fact that they get theirs through having their Democrat politicians take it from hardworking Americans in the private sector to give to them for their votes.

Of course, there are other reasons why they care about what Romney does with his money. Qualifying a prospective candidate is one. But this is a primary reason why they both concentrate on what Romney does with his money while simultaneously ignoring what Obama does with all of ours.

As an independent, I don't like either candidate to be truthful and believe the country is in dire need of much better candidates from all sides.

Aww yes!! Finally someone who understands what is really going on. Through out history a corrupt goverment preys on ignorance.
I am a hardworking, middleclass, tax paying fool, My American dream was a days work=a days pay. Boy was I wrong. If we dont get our economy going here(US) again soon, we are all going down the drain. Wake up people!

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

I too have wondered why the left was so obsessed with what Romney does with his money but completely unengaged with what Obama does with American's money.

I am not sure where you got the idea that "the left" is "unengaged" with what Obama is doing with America's money. For the most part, "the left," or at least the moderate left (not the extreme left) in the US is supportive of what Obama is doing with America's money. They're not particularly vocal about it, because, well, why complain about something if it's going your way, ya know? But when they do talk, that's what they say: Obama's economic policies are what the moderate left want. That's why they voted for him and still support him, for the most part.

Why is "the right" unengaged with Romney's views on social justice?

Then there are about 100 million people currently using some form of public assistance.

Do you have a source to back this up? If you include, in "public assistance," things like military pay, education assistance, etc., it may be that high. You think soldiers should not be paid? You think the government should not be giving out pell grants and other scholarships?

They include American citizens, poor legal immigrants, and the children of illegal aliens.

Yes. Most people don't like to see children starve, even if it is their parents fault. I think it takes a heartless person to say otherwise.

.... they both concentrate on what Romney does with his money while simultaneously ignoring what Obama does with all of ours.

Again, just because we don't complain about how Obama is spending our tax dollars doesn't mean we're ignoring it. Duh. Do you really think that?

 

[AgapeSpiritEyes]

Your comments saying Romney is not qualified to be in the white house, yet his "endorcement " is confirmation to you that Obama is on the right track. This seems strange. Maybe I missed something. *sigh*

I see Romney as a sign of Gods Mercy on our nation, and I see Obama re elected as The wrath of God is here. I have always wondered where America was in Revelations, now I understand why I could not find it.
In either case I am not fearful ... well maybe a little . But I remind myself God is in control and His WIll be Done ...not mine. I pray for strength to endure what we are about to be faced with . Lord have mercy on us all.

In a short time we will find what God's response to our sins as a nation will be if Obama then; Judgment, diminishment, obscurity as a nation that will no longer be the nation the world looks to for hope (of the fallen world order morally economically). With Obama the nation is wrecked and God turns to Fulfill His covenant with Israel to save her first with Jacobs trouble in the tribulation and great tribulation, prior to this will be the out pouring of the Holy Spirit upon the Church the Latter former and the spiritual rain to complete the glorious church reaching the farthest remote peoples to offer them escape salvation and exit out of the wrath to come.
If, Romney then the time of the gentiles is prolonged a recovery uncertain of what degree or magnitude. I sense it is the former. I will be happy that it will be the former because i want to go more than any another thing on this earth and i have been waiting for 35 years. Maranatha Come Lord Jesus.

 

[JimJimmers]

Do you have a source to back this up? If you include, in "public assistance," things like military pay, education assistance, etc., it may be that high. You think soldiers should not be paid? You think the government should not be giving out pell grants and other scholarships?


Yes. Most people don't like to see children starve, even if it is their parents fault. I think it takes a heartless person to say otherwise.

Just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in. - YouTube

First of all, those two things are totally unrelated. The military is a constitutionally sanctioned service, going to college is not. To answer your question, no I do not think the Federal Government should be giving Pell grants to people. We have a right to obtain a college education, not a right to one. Where I went to college, there were many people getting an education without directly paying for it, the free-market way.

My buddy Patrick is a good example. His employer considered him a good worker, and was paying for his education. They wrote it off as a business expense, which sounds fair to me. The major difference is the company was choosing to further his education. They had vetted him first, and deemed him a good worker. That sounds like a much better criterion than, say, being born a certain skin color, or born with ovaries.

Secondly, we should look at who benefits from this "free money", besides the student. In an economy, companies (including colleges) generally charge what the market will bear. This can be easily seen in a tuition chart over the last 30 years compared to a tuition assistance chart over the same period. There is an obvious positive correlation, and some people assume the tuition assistance increases are caused by the tuition increases. Is it possible that it is the other way around? We should consider all impacts of intervention, including possible unintended consequences. One university near me, The University of Virginia, has a multi-billion dollar endowment, and receive all manner of public funds under the guise of "helping low-income students".

To answer your last point, I think we can both agree that a child who's starving to to negligence should be removed from the custody of his or her parents, right? If it is indeed the parent's fault, I'm sure you will agree it would be asinine to give the parents money to take care of the children.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

That sounds like a much better criterion than, say, being born a certain skin color, or born with ovaries.

I actually agree with you there.

To answer your last point, I think we can both agree that a child who's starving to to negligence should be removed from the custody of his or her parents, right? If it is indeed the parent's fault, I'm sure you will agree it would be asinine to give the parents money to take care of the children.

Ummm ... not necessarily. You say "the parent's fault," but I'm not sure what you mean. If the parents are ignoring the child, on drugs or something, then yes, the child should be removed. But if the parents are (or parent is, as is often the case) physically able to care for the child, but unable to find work that has a flexible enough schedule, and/or that pays enough to cover the child care for that child while the parents are / parent is at work, etc., then let's consider....

Let's just say we have a two-parent household. Dad has a job, but it only pays so much. Mom has tried to work, but she doesn't get paid enough to cover child-care, let alone the cost of a 2nd vehicle, etc. So Dad's job is all that supports this family. They have to pay for health insurance out of this income, pay the rent and utility bills, and nothing is left. There are a few churches that offer food pantries, so they go to those and get as much as they can, but because of the economy, the church's shelves are bare, too. By the end of the month, there just isn't any food left.

So, you think the government should take these children away from the parents, put them in the foster care system, pay for their upkeep through public tax money, instead of giving the parents some sort of assistance to care for them?

You really think that's the best use of our tax dollars? Taking the kids away from the parents and having to pay all their upkeep, instead of giving the parents a little bit to cover them from month to month?

I'm sorry, but I'd rather give them $100/month for groceries than $5,000 a month for foster care. I'd even rather give them $5,000 a month for 2-4 years, to send the mom and/or dad to school to get a better job, so neither of them would ever need government assistance again, rather than $100 a month for the rest of their life, and then their kids $100 a month for the rest of their lives, and their kids, and so on.

But then, I guess that takes a higher math, to figure out that it's cheaper in the long run to teach a man to fish once than to give him a fish every day, than what they teach in school these days.

 

[JimJimmers]

Yes. Most people don't like to see children starve, even if it is their parents fault. I think it takes a heartless person to say otherwise.

I was only referring to this part. I was saying I'm sure we can agree that, if it is indeed the parents' fault that a child is starving, the child needs to be removed from the parents. I was making no blanket statement for declaring anyone who needs assistance to be unfit as a parent, and placing their children into foster care. Thanks for your concern about my math skills though