Harsh Commentary from Ex-Obama Supporters

[Burton]

I’m not so hot on the President these days. The Shirley Sherrod incident is where I hopped off the bus. That was disgraceful.

[Buck_Godot]

@Magiver

If Wall Street finds the current atmosphere favorable where are the jobs? what did we get with a trillion dollars of additional debt?

It’s more what we didn’t get.

[China_Guy]

It’s not much of a pitting, but feel free to join in.

[Magiver]

@Buck_Godot

@Magiver

If Wall Street finds the current atmosphere favorable where are the jobs? what did we get with a trillion dollars of additional debt?

It’s more what we didn’t get.

I don’t think we’re out of the woods yet. Home starts are falling, mortgage failures are rising, Banks are failing, homelessness in my area has tripled and the job market is not going anywhere. Our national debt to GDP ratio as risen dramatically which puts us in danger of a lowered credit rating.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@adhay

Obama is Bush in Blackface.

This line of argument is not compelling the first few times you said it, and it’s not particularly compelling now.

So you wanted Obama to move further to the left than he has, and you’re pissed with him for not being a leftie. That’s fine. But your hyperbolic statement just looks foolish.

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

@Magiver

<snip> Our national debt to GDP ratio as risen dramatically which puts us in danger of a lowered credit rating.

Maybe. But, if so, why are US treasuries trading with near record high bid-to-cover ratios while the bond yields are at near record lows? It seems to me that the US government can’t borrow enough money to satisfy investors even though the yeilds are lower than they have been in more than a decade. This fact does not seem to gibe with your statement.

[adhay]

@Euphonious_Polemic

@adhay

Obama is Bush in Blackface.

This line of argument is not compelling the first few times you said it, and it’s not particularly compelling now.

So you wanted Obama to move further to the left than he has, and you’re pissed with him for not being a leftie. That’s fine. But your hyperbolic statement just looks foolish.

Any point in particular you’d like to discuss?

[BrainGlutton]

@Sam_Stone

The non-stop flood of regulations, proposed regulations, proposed taxes, and other interventions by the Obama administration, coupled with the constant-anti-business posturing of Obama . . .

:rolleyes: Yeah, yeah, yeah . . .

Of course, what has allowed Beck to occupy center stage is the failure of rational political figures to articulate the terms of the convulsion that American society faces, brought about not by communists and other John Bircher hobgoblins but by the forces of history. The failure at the political center is a conscious one of nerve and will, of elected officials in both major parties playing desperately for advantage in defiance of the truth -- this truth being that the USA went broke trying to swindle itself into prosperity. Add to this the failure of the law to go after the swindlers, which has undermined the fundamental belief in the rule of law that enabled this society to function as well as it did previously.

 Barack Obama personifies this failure these days, a politician proclaiming "change" who not only managed to change nothing, but promoted a continuation of the national self-swindling with legislation so dazzlingly prolix and complicated that no one can claim to have read either the Health Care Reform Act or the Financial Regulation bill, the two hallmarks of his tenure so far, neither of which will change anything about how we do these things. Why Mr. Obama has turned out to be such a weenie remains a mystery. Even the former communists at *Russia Today* laugh at the idea that he is a "communist" or a "socialist" and so do I. He certainly appears to be hostage of the more malign forces in society these days -- the medical insurance racket, the too-big-to-fail banks, the multi-national corporations. But I don't believe it's because he wants to suck up to them, or join their country clubs when his current job ends. 

 My own guess is that he's been informed that the system is so fragile that if he dares to disturb even one teensy-weensy part of it -- for instance, by throwing some executives from Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, et cetera, into federal prison -- that said system will fly to pieces in a fortnight. So Obama's main task for a year and a half has been to desperately apply baling wire and duct tape to the banking system while telling fibs to the public about a wished-for recovery to a prior state. Unfortunately that prior state is the ecstasy of a self-swindle in the moments before it unravels... the sublime feeling of having gotten something wonderful for nothing. We're beyond that now and nothing on the age-old shelf of nostrums, spells, prayers, and miracle-cures will avail to bring that moment back, though the public does not know this.

[emacknight]

@erez

@emacknight

You’re saying two different things: First you ask if Obama’s policies are good for businesses. Then you quote disapproval ratings.

Wrong, they are very related and likely the best indication that we have. Who else would know better about what’s good for businesses than their owners? Unless these small business owners are idiots that want their businesses to fail, their sentiment is a pretty good indication if Obama’s policies are anti-business or not. If you have better indicators, provide them.

@emacknight

The dinner I made last night was “good” for us. It did not get the same approval ratings as icecream and french fries.

Terrible argument. You are saying that people for which you made this dinner don’t have any idea about healthy eating, since they would prefer eating junk food instead of something healthy, so small-business owners must be same way and they must have no idea what’s good for them, even after they had over a year to experience the effects of some policies. Is the fact that their financial well-being depends on their businesses and that their full-time attention is focused on making their businesses succeed not only meaningless but a counter-indicator? The proper analogy would be if you made your dinner for a bunch of nutritionists and they gave it low marks. In that case, it would be pretty good evidence that it was really not good for them.

This is actually a very fascinating exchange. I compared the relationship between government and small business owners to that of parent and child, in that I don’t believe small business owners can see much further than their own self interest (and there is nothing inherently wrong with that).

Your analogy compared SBO to the relationship between nutritionists and food. Which to me suggests that you think SBO are as knowledgeable about regulations as nutritionists are about nutrition.

Is that a fair characterization?

As a personal anecdote/example, I’ve spent a lot of time in the restaurant industry, where we might consider a restaurant owner to be a small business owner, perhaps you have a different view of things. Point is, there are government regulations that dictate how a restaurant operates, and if given the choice, I’ve known many owners that would have happily seen them removed.

“Stupid government telling me I can’t store raw chicken above ready to eat salads.”
“Telling me I have to keep hot foods above 140F and cold foods below 40F”
“Wash my hands after use the bathroom? fuck you, I’ll wash them when I feel like it.”

[adhay]

@BrainGlutton

:rolleyes: [url=http://kunstler.com/blog/2010/08/one-lump-or-two.html]Yeah, yeah, yeah . . .

You don’t say? Yet, somehow, you did.

I’m thinking, yadayadayada here. Do I over simply?

[Magiver]

@L. G. Butts

@Magiver

<snip> Our national debt to GDP ratio as risen dramatically which puts us in danger of a lowered credit rating.

Maybe. But, if so, why are US treasuries trading with near record high bid-to-cover ratios while the bond yields are at near record lows? It seems to me that the US government can’t borrow enough money to satisfy investors even though the yeilds are lower than they have been in more than a decade. This fact does not seem to gibe with your statement.

There is talk of dumping the dollar and according to Moody our credit rating is edging closer to a downgrade.

[adhay]

[quote=“emacknight, post:69, topic:551839”]

@erez

… Terrible argument. You are saying that people for which you made this dinner don’t have any idea about healthy eating, since they would prefer eating junk food instead of something healthy, so small-business owners must be same way and they must have no idea what’s good for them, even after they had over a year to experience the effects of some policies. Is the fact that their financial well-being depends on their businesses and that their full-time attention is focused on making their businesses succeed not only meaningless but a counter-indicator? The proper analogy would be if you made your dinner for a bunch of nutritionists and they gave it low marks. In that case, it would be pretty good evidence that it was really not good for them.

Right on! I want my fast food burgers RARE.

This is actually a very fascinating exchange. I compared the relationship between government and small business owners to that of parent and child, in that I don’t believe small business owners can see much further than their own self interest (and there is nothing inherently wrong with that).

That would be an abusive P/C relationship.

Your analogy compared SBO to the relationship between nutritionists and food. Which to me suggests that you think SBO are as knowledgeable about regulations as nutritionists are about nutrition.

Is that a fair characterization?

What is SBO again? The dog ate my homework.

As a personal anecdote/example, I’ve spent a lot of time in the restaurant industry, where we might consider a restaurant owner to be a small business owner, perhaps you have a different view of things. Point is, there are government regulations that dictate how a restaurant operates, and if given the choice, I’ve known many owners that would have happily seen them removed.

And while we’re at it, let’s get the owners’ hands out of the tip jar.

“Stupid government telling me I can’t store raw chicken above ready to eat salads.”
“Telling me I have to keep hot foods above 140F and cold foods below 40F”
“Wash my hands after use the bathroom? fuck you, I’ll wash them when I feel like it.”

I’d like to consider it as, basically, good advice. YMMV.

[emacknight]

@adhay

Right on! I want my fast food burgers RARE.

Are you sure about that? The ground beef has been sitting at room temperature for a couple of days and smells a bit off. The truck that delivered it wasn’t refrigerated. And the guy preparing it was pretty sick.

SBO = small business owner

And clearly you have no interest in a reasonable discussion. Enjoy your date with e-coli O157:H7

[El_Gui]

–

[adhay]

@emacknight

@adhay

Right on! I want my fast food burgers RARE.

Are you sure about that? …

Yep. At least in my little town. YMMV.

ETA The only fast food joint we have here is Subway, on your way out of town. Adios. For rare burgers and tasty fries, I walk across the street to a seasonal burger shop. Do my own in winter.

[erez]

@Wesley_Clark

This myth that business is suffering isn’t true at all. Employees are suffering, business is doing great. I don’t know why/where this myth that business is struggling came from, they have more capital and profitability than they did before the recession.

Please let me know how you reconcile your opinion that businesses are doing great with the following data:
Caseload Statistics Data Tables | United States Courts contains year-by-year business bankruptcy filing data and their news releases contain month-by-month breakdowns. In Q2 2010 there were 14,452 filings. Before the recession, in Q2 2007, there were 6,765 filings. We are still up by 114%.

@Wesley_Clark

Socialist germany is doing better than the US right now economically.

This is a separate topic and there are many factors at play. First you may want to read this analysis from the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/world/europe/14germany.html.

@NY Times

The strong growth figures will also bolster the conviction here that German workers and companies in recent years made the short-term sacrifices necessary for long-term success that Germany’s European partners did not.

@NY Times

A vast expansion of a program paying to keep workers employed, rather than dealing with them once they lost their jobs, was the most direct step taken in the heat of the crisis. But the roots of Germany’s export-driven success reach back to the painful restructuring under the previous government of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder.

By paring unemployment benefits, easing rules for hiring and firing, and management and labor’s working together to keep a lid on wages, Germany ensured that it could again export its way to growth with competitive, nimble companies producing the cars and machine tools the world’s economies — emerging and developed alike — demanded.

and this op-ed: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/opinion/27brooks.html?_r=1&hp:

@Brooks

According to Gary Becker of the University of Chicago, the Americans borrowed an amount equal to 6 percent of G.D.P. in an attempt to stimulate growth. The Germans spent about 1.5 percent of G.D.P. on their stimulus. (…) As an editorial from the superb online think tank e21 reminds us, the Germans have recently reduced labor market regulation, increased wage flexibility and taken strong measures to balance budgets.

If you are still supporting Germany’s answer to the recession, you are going against American liberal economists who fiercely attacked it and held it up as an example of what not do. Here is what Krugman said:

@Krugman

At a time when expansionary policies are desperately needed, the leaders of Europe’s largest economy seem to have their heads in the sand.

@Krugman

There’s an extraordinary — and extraordinarily depressing — interview in Newsweek with Peer Steinbrueck, the Germany finance minister. The world economy is in a terrifying nosedive, visible everywhere. Yet Mr. Steinbrueck is standing firm against any extraordinary fiscal measures, and denounces Gordon Brown for his “crass Keynesianism.”

@Krugman

Many economists, myself included, regard this turn to austerity as a huge mistake. (…) Press German officials to explain why they need to impose austerity on a depressed economy, and you get rationales that don’t add up. Point this out, and they come up with different rationales, which also don’t add up. (…) German deficit hawkery seems more sincere. But it still has nothing to do with fiscal realism. (…) But German politicians seem determined to prove their strength by imposing suffering — and politicians around the world are following their lead.

@Krugman

And it’s also important to send a message to the Germans: we are not going to let them export the consequences of their obsession with austerity.

@Krugman

In short, there’s a huge multiplier effect at work; unfortunately, what it’s doing is multiplying the impact of the current German government’s boneheadedness.

Oops.

[erez]

@Richard_Parker

This is bizarre. The claim(1) was that Obama engages in constant anti-business posturing. I pointed out that this is different from the claim(2) that the economy doing badly. Now, you interject with the claim(3) that businesses don’t like Obama’s policies, in support of the claim(4) that Obama’s policies hurt the economy. I’m pretty sure that’s the rarest and reddest herring of all, the double non-sequitur. Congratulations.

You seem easily confused. In the post I quoted, you were responding to Magiver who said: “I don’t see the business community doing any handsprings right now.” You quoted this part but you ignored it and you still didn’t know what the OP was talking about. I provided evidence that this point is correct. Small-business owners do indeed perceive Obama’s policies as the OP claimed: “Washington as being hostile to them.”

I suppose it would’ve been clearer if I didn’t cut out Magiver’s grandparent post, but any doubts about what I was talking about should’ve been cleared by the opening paragraph of my post: “Are you seriously going to claim that Obama’s policies are good for businesses?”

[adhay]

@Wesley_Clark

… There will be bumps, but people will get through them.

And the meek shall inherit the wind. So they say.

[elucidator]

Have these small business owners some special expertise in economic policy? Or are you offering us spiffy new update on the myth of cracker-barrel wisdom? If small business owners are infallible founts of wisdom when it comes to things economic, why do we even have any economics at all? For whatever reason, we have the perfect source for guidance.

Of course, if they are as short-sighted and self-absorbed as the rest of our species, not having any unique evolutionary advantage, then none of this applies, they are just folks like the rest of us. I have heard them spoken of many times in tones of solemn reverence, but I’m not quite sure its appropriate.

[erez]

@emacknight

This is actually a very fascinating exchange. I compared the relationship between government and small business owners to that of parent and child, in that I don’t believe small business owners can see much further than their own self interest (and there is nothing inherently wrong with that).

Your analogy compared SBO to the relationship between nutritionists and food. Which to me suggests that you think SBO are as knowledgeable about regulations as nutritionists are about nutrition.

Is that a fair characterization?

As a personal anecdote/example, I’ve spent a lot of time in the restaurant industry, where we might consider a restaurant owner to be a small business owner, perhaps you have a different view of things. Point is, there are government regulations that dictate how a restaurant operates, and if given the choice, I’ve known many owners that would have happily seen them removed.

“Stupid government telling me I can’t store raw chicken above ready to eat salads.”
“Telling me I have to keep hot foods above 140F and cold foods below 40F”
“Wash my hands after use the bathroom? fuck you, I’ll wash them when I feel like it.”

It appears to me that you want to argue a different issue altogether: whether some business regulations are good for the country as a whole. But this is not what my evidence and my argument was about. As you said yourself, “First you ask if Obama’s policies are good for businesses” - that’s what I was talking about. In addition, even the OP mentioned other issues besides regulations (such as taxes, anti-business posturing, “other interventions”). For the record, I definitely disagree with your analogy (parent=government, small business owners=children), but I think that any further debate should be in a separate thread.