It sounds like Obama is going to be bad for business in this country if elected - what do you think?
Answers
951 points
Grudun answered 3 months ago …
There is no way he could be good for bussiness. He has proposed an estimated 1 TRILLION in new programs and wants to cut taxes for 95% of "tax payers"(about 50% of whom do not pay any now). He is constantly blaming problems on "Greedy corporations" and while there is some truth to that it will bite the hand that feeds him(through direct and indirect tax revenue). Then add in the extreme environmental push to get us off foriegn oil in 10 years WITHOUT drilling(everyone start building your stable or buy a bike now). Combine that with the confusion and high costs of universal health care and it will be a mess for bussiness.
Read more from Grudun flag as abuse great answer
2547 points
Oldman answered 3 months ago …
Actually, neither candidate is the problem, but the Congress is.
They've been lobbied and pursuaded by so many interests that hey've forgotten who they are supposed to work for. Twenty years ago, the auto mfrs lobbied to prevent an increase in the efficiency stds. The auto makers even got the Congress to exempt truck chassis SUVs, because they were for passengers!. What hasn't helped the auto manufacturers, was their insistence on maintaining expensive health benefits for employees, despite the data; In 1980, as an example, GM was paying more for health care costs than for the steel in its cars.
Yet, under the pressure from the lobbyists for the PHMA (pharm Mfr Association), Sen. Breaux torpedoed the Universal health care proposals, and when he retired, he became president of the PhMA!. A reasonable person would say that upon leaving public office, an elecvted official shouldn't be permitted to be a lobbyist...sort of a "non compete" clause for the greedy politicians, but that proposal has been advanced and defeated by every Majority party for decades.
You want change? Find a way to genetically engineer a lethal virus for lobbyists.
You want the economy to turn around...require a "Fair Tax" - a consumption-based tax - be enacted, intead of the penalizing and income-based tax. Corporations would not pay as much of their profits to tax; every person would get a check for each month at some median income level to cover their "retail" sales tax increase, and the more they wasted at *Bucks or Victoria's Secret, the more the 23% Federal Sales tax would be collected and processed by the thousands of currently, overworked and bewildered, IRS employees.
If you saved your money from labor and investmentrs, you wouldn't pay cap gains or other tax...only moneys actually spent at the retail level, by any entity, would be taxed! Insurance companies, legal services companies, hospitals and physicians, banks and brokerages could charge less, and earn more.
You could balance the budget and still not penalize the poor, because they would get their same check, each month, to help them pay their sales tax. (Which is why a 23% level would be necessary...without a "prebate" it would only be about 17%...but the poorest and the middle class would really suffer) You wouldn't need a humongous Social Security fund, because peoples' savings could accumulate tax-free...and wouldn't be taxed until they purchased a bottle of milk or a gallon of gas.
No more subsidies, Earned Income papers; no more 66000 pp of Treasury instuctions about income taxes; approximately 500 Billion dollars of expense for the IRS would vanish each year (while the salaries of the auditors and statisticians would be relatively increased). Every dollar saved would be tax-sheltered, and every dollar withdrawn woul be a dollar, not diminished up front. We could become a nation of savers, once again.
The CPI would become dependent solely on commodity, labor, manufacturing and distribution costs, and not determined over and over again by some fictitious adjustment for "Rent"...because the actual costs would be transparent.
If Office Depot buys paper from HammerMill, they'd pay the tax. If HammerMill buys pulp from Plum Creek, they'd pay the tax. If Plum Creek buys seedlings from Monsanto, they'd pay the tax. If Monsanto buys growing media from some other agricultural chemical company, they'd pay the tax.
The big difference between current and possible futures, is that each step of the process wouldn't be taxed until the product is sold...there'd be no Incentive taxes, no subsidies and no shenanigans.
Unit labor costs would no longer have to figure FICA and withholding, and bookeeping would become transparent. None of the companies would pay Income tax...they'd only pay tax on whatever they purchased. And they wouldn't be getting a "prebate!" If a company bought a ton of ore and sold a quarter ton of gold or steel, they wouldn't be taxed...the purchaser would be. Prices could be set by the costs, rather than the media and advertising agencies.
one could hope.
583 points
jillybeansisme answered 3 months ago …
It doesn't matter who is elected, either one will have a big mess to clean up. If you look at the websites for each of them, the explanations of what they intend are good. But intentions aren't accomplished that easily with the way our government has evolved. Yes, our government is broken and it will take a long time to heal. I have to agree with Oldman (although I hate to see 23% tax). Unfortunately, someone would still find a loophole for a "prebate".
We need more than hope. We need action. By every one of us. SO GO VOTE!
2703 points
MNSL answered 3 months ago …
I hope following will happen in future in the USA
Strong Dollar
Less consumption of energy.
Efficient tax regime
More exports than imports.
More employment
Third largest oil producer in the world but number one energy consumer import more than 50% of oil needs. On other hand Saudi Arabia and Russia Ist and 2nd largest oil producers export 2/3 rd of their oil
China imports less than half of the oil what Japan imports. China is the 6th biggest oil producer in the world.
I think China even might try to develop viable low cost alternative energy surprise to many.
105 points
lenwire answered 3 months ago …
Not just Obama...its the entire system that needs revamping:
545 PEOPLE By Charlie Reese a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.
When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.
If the Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ .
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.
Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power.
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
671 points
rvilmur answered 3 months ago …
Obama has shown no signs of really wanting change from the tax and spend ways of the current congress. He will hurt business with more taxation and more onerous regulations. He was ineffective in Illinois, ineffective in the Senate, and will be ineffective as President. He is just a pure politician who promises everything without really explaining how it will be paid for except from the "rich" and greedy businesses. Only the "rich" and businesses can create new wealth and they can't do it effectively if the government overtaxes them. Oldman is right in saying that all taxes should be consumption taxes; but there are limits here too which will be exceeded unless all government levels are reduced. This can only happen when everybody pays a proportional part of the taxes and starts to vote for their pocket book instead of handouts.
McCain doesn't understand economics either, never holding anything but a government job.
104 points
SCOOPNJ78 answered 3 months ago …
Not only will he be bad for business, he will be bad for everyone. He forgets that labor unions, his biggest supporter, has pension plans that BUY STOCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hey mental midget union members, you will get what you pay for and say good bye to your pension plan. BESIDES THAT
HE WILL INVITE MORE ATTACKS FROM TERRORIST, OF WHICH HIS FAMILIY IS GOOD FRIENDS WITH. REMEMBER HE WENT TO THE SAME MUSLIM SCHOOL THAT THE 9-11 TERRORISTS WENT TO AND ALSO REMEMBER HE REFUSED TO WEAR A USA FLAG PIN AND EVEN PUT HIS HAND OVER HIS HEART DURING THE NATIONAL ANTHEM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! JUST SAY NO TO OBAMA THE TERRORIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!
408 points
SallyG answered 3 months ago …
IMHO, neither McCain nor Obama will be exceptionally good or bad for the business as a whole: they each favor different sectors of the business community. I was a big fan of Obama when he started, but as he woos the "conservative" vote, I realize that he is in many ways, just more of the same: a career politician. How to give legislators expert advice without biasing them in favor of those who supplied it and then "cashing in" by joining the industry that they formerly regulated is a serious question. A "noncompete" clause would be welcome!
OLdman has an interesting proposal. All the so-called "fair tax" proposals based on consumption I've seen previously ignored the fact that those at the bottom of the economic heap spend a much greater percentage of their income than others: a gallon of gas or a gallon of milk costs the same no matter what your income; giving a prebate (and the "pre" is important to those on a marginal income) may be something of a solution.
Another factor for students of history: when the income tax was started after WWI, the top tax bracket was 90%. I certainly think that is excessive, but having the top bracket somewhat higher than it is today can certainly be considered.
Also, having a cutoff point on Social Security taxes on salary income, rather than taxing all salary amounts equally, is not helping the solvency of that program. Nor is not taxing Social Security retirement benefits for the wealthy (or, to be radical, even providing them in the first place—SS was designed to be a safety net, and people with retirement incomes of high-six- or seven-figure incomes probably wouldn't miss the SS income, let alone any tax on it).
Jillybeansisme is right: VOTE! And keep in touch with your government representatives on all levels; let them know what their constituents want. As Warren Buffett noted in the town hall meeting after I.O.U.S.A. (which I highly recommend), all of us, including himself, the audience, and those in government, want to keep our jobs: let your representatives know that their job-security requirement is to act as statesmen and -women, not politicians.
393 points
jester112358 answered 3 months ago …
Higher taxes, more regulations on businesses, new entitlement programs like nationalized health care, increases in payroll taxes etc. Obama can't be good for business. Also, he's a lawyer, so favors the most parasitic group in America-they don't produce either tangible goods or services-just sue those who do. We need a president who will veto expensive new programs proposed by the democrat controlled congress that we can't afford. McCain will do this. In any case one always wants divided government. The less government intervention in people's lives the better!
Read more from jester112358 flag as abuse great answer
152 points
happyfeet answered 3 months ago …
110% with jillybeansisme (what a word!) both candidates are terrible.Can t understand that the United States of America has nothing else to offer. Another Empire on the way down because of greed and immoral values.
Read more from happyfeet flag as abuse great answer104 points
jbomber78 answered 2 months ago …
This is absurd on it's face. I suppose the "Nothing's wrong, it's all in your head" approach of McCain and his buddy Phil Gramm, who LEAD THE CHARGE TO DEREGULATE EVERYTHING AND GOT US INTO THIS MESS, is the better choice. Enron and the current Real Estate mess both land squarely on his doorstep. Sticking your heads in the sand and doing the knee-jerk "Democrats are bad for the economy" is only going to make things worse. We definitely need to change the way business is done, and giving more tax breaks to large corporations that are already gaming the system is NOT the way to do it.
PS. SCOOPNJ78, you're a moron.
More from this Category
Will the FDIC increased limit of $250,000 be extended into 2009?Asked by DaveDiggz in Economics 4 days ago
Is this $800 billion package in addition to the $700 billion announced last month?Asked by Market101 in Economics 6 days ago
Do you think the U.S. Fed should lower interest rates again?Asked by OptionsZone in Economics 2 weeks ago
