Has there been an administration as anti-business as this one?

[Anonymous]

I really can't think of one save for the Carter administration. I know they were the lesser of 2 evils (considering Palin was on the ticket) but it seems as if the Obama WH just hates capitalism. From the CEO of Coca-cola to Verizon to JP Morgan to Intel they all think that he is intentionally trying to vilify business. Why? How does he intend for them to spur jobs when he continues to make them out as the enemy. Companies are sitting on their cash afraid to invest because they fear that there will be more attacks, more regulation, new rules. I've never seen this before.

[Anonymous]

They are sitting on their cash because they are not convinced that the economy has turned the corner and everyone got burned when their lines of credit got cut.

Obama knows that he can say negative things because they do not create or withhold jobs in order to gain the approval of a president. They do it to increase earnings. If you run a country, you don't expect your life to be full of hugs and attaboys.

[Anonymous]

We cut taxes in 2001-3 and had the worst job creation record since Hoover.

Now they sit on huge piles of cash and still don't create jobs, acting like uncertainty is something new.

They can continue to make profits -- so why do they need to hire people?

[Anonymous]

Obama's cruising to be a one-termer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We cut taxes in 2001-3 and had the worst job creation record since Hoover.

Now they sit on huge piles of cash and still don't create jobs, acting like uncertainty is something new.

They can continue to make profits -- so why do they need to hire people?

They want to increase earnings. That's why. And your comment about uncertainty doesn't even make sense. Uncertainty is nothing new, but these are times of far greater uncertainty. Everyone, you included, knows that. Everybody and their brother is cutting back what they spend, trying to be more careful about their financial stability, not getting in over their heads any more than they already are. Why would a business be any different, especially when their market is often the very consumers who are cutting back?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obama's cruising to be a one-termer.

That's what I thought when George W. Bush invaded the wrong country. That turned out to be a $2.4 Trillion dollar decision according to CBO. I think the more recent estimates are even higher, but either way that's a lot of money to spend on the wrong country. Anyway, he got re-elected after that, and I can't imagine how Obama is going to screw up bigger than that.

[Anonymous]

Try Herbert Hoover, a Republican. His tariffs brought our international trade to a crashing halt, and brought US businesses to their knees.

[Anonymous]

I heard on the news recently that due to various loopholes, the tax rate on corporations in the US is the LOWEST it has been in decades. So, no, this administration is not anti-business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really can't think of one save for the Carter administration. I know they were the lesser of 2 evils (considering Palin was on the ticket) but it seems as if the Obama WH just hates capitalism. From the CEO of Coca-cola to Verizon to JP Morgan to Intel they all think that he is intentionally trying to vilify business. Why? How does he intend for them to spur jobs when he continues to make them out as the enemy. Companies are sitting on their cash afraid to invest because they fear that there will be more attacks, more regulation, new rules. I've never seen this before.

Could you come up with specific examples of how this administration is anti-business? Because otherwise it just sounds like you have swallowed some republican talking points without knowing what the fuck you are talking about.

TIA!

[Anonymous]

Are you kidding me? Have you seen what he wants to do if he could?? Raise taxes on the wealthy even though they are the ones creating job, raise taxes on corporations, the other people creating jobs. Let's..if you are a union you don't have to be taxed on your benefits but the rest of can be--who is going to pay for this. It is no wonder no one want to hire. Why would you? Oh yes let's just spend more money on gov jobs..many of which are not needed.sorry but we really don't need a lot of the gov people..and then have other people pay for them. It's awful and I am wondering why people are suprised. He really wants. He does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are you kidding me? Have you seen what he wants to do if he could?? Raise taxes on the wealthy even though they are the ones creating job, raise taxes on corporations, the other people creating jobs. Let's..if you are a union you don't have to be taxed on your benefits but the rest of can be--who is going to pay for this. It is no wonder no one want to hire. Why would you? Oh yes let's just spend more money on gov jobs..many of which are not needed.sorry but we really don't need a lot of the gov people..and then have other people pay for them. It's awful and I am wondering why people are suprised. He really wants. He does.

You should try to organize your thoughts into coherent sentences, rather than sounding like a detuned radio moving from right-wing station to right-wing station. There is a risk people will think you are an idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are you kidding me? Have you seen what he wants to do if he could?? Raise taxes on the wealthy even though they are the ones creating job, raise taxes on corporations, the other people creating jobs. Let's..if you are a union you don't have to be taxed on your benefits but the rest of can be--who is going to pay for this. It is no wonder no one want to hire. Why would you? Oh yes let's just spend more money on gov jobs..many of which are not needed.sorry but we really don't need a lot of the gov people..and then have other people pay for them. It's awful and I am wondering why people are suprised. He really wants. He does.

So, do we prefer the Clinton economy or the Bush economy. The tax rates that are about to expire existed during the Clinton Admin, and we all did pretty well. Those tax rates were cut during the early Bush II years based originally on the Clinton surplus. What was net job creation during the Clinton versus Bush Administration. Finally, please specify how you will pay for the $3-4 Billion that is required to offset maintaining these tax rates.

[jsteele]

When Obama proposed stimulus spending, all we heard from the right were shrieks of "deficit!". But, when Obama wants to let tax cuts expire in order to increase government revenue and reduce the deficit, we don't hear much about the deficit. I wonder why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are you kidding me? Have you seen what he wants to do if he could?? Raise taxes on the wealthy even though they are the ones creating job, raise taxes on corporations, the other people creating jobs. Let's..if you are a union you don't have to be taxed on your benefits but the rest of can be--who is going to pay for this. It is no wonder no one want to hire. Why would you? Oh yes let's just spend more money on gov jobs..many of which are not needed.sorry but we really don't need a lot of the gov people..and then have other people pay for them. It's awful and I am wondering why people are suprised. He really wants. He does.

Studies show time and again that the wealthy do not put money back in the economy, but into the bank. If you have not read the biz pages recently, our economic troubles are largely exacerbated by depressed consumption. So the tax cuts would continue for those who would put the money back into the economy and lapse for those who would put it into the bank.

If you wanted permanent tax cuts, then you should've gotten the president's predecessor, who is largely responsible for our current mess, to have enacted them as such.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I heard on the news recently that due to various loopholes, the tax rate on corporations in the US is the LOWEST it has been in decades. So, no, this administration is not anti-business.

This is true. The statutory rate may seem high, but there are so many deductions, credits and general loopholes that the effective average rate on US corps is one if the lowest among industrialized countries.