Politics Obama - Actually doing a good job?

My interpretation of the data is that we have a spending problem.

When I do the calculations to determine how to allocate capital in my business, I plug in a tax rate. I run the calculations three ways, normally best case, worst case, and expected. Often the tax rate I use determine if the result will be green or red for me. When a business person talks about the importance of the "tax rate" this is the context and why it makes a difference. On the margins investments in people, plant and equipment can hinge on the tax rate among other things. And of course there is the intangible of optimism - currently I am not optimistic and I now only really consider worst case - as a result I have not invested capital in long-term growth.

True there are many factors, however it is the tax rates that are controlled most easily by government and has the most direct and clear impact of any government policy. Regulations are another big factor, but regulations often lag due to the need to interpret and to measure enforcement.

 

I think tax revenues are more correlated to economic growth, given tax rates within a reasonable range as opposed to tax revenues correlated to relative minor changes within a reasonable range. Chew on that for a few minutes before responding. I doubt give or take a few percentage point on top marginal rates will make much of a difference in tax revenues. Again, we discussed the difference between effective rates and nominal rates. Chnages to nominal rates are cosmetic in the context of tax revenue. However, I do think changes to nominal rates will encourage or discourage marginal economic activity.

Yes. At some point I think I could copy right my spreadsheet and make a few dollars.

But my point is more about when a capital investment decision goes in the direction of people, plant and equipment compared to alternatives like sitting on cash waiting for better opportunities or moving capital into other investments that may not be productive for the economy, i.e. an investment in gold or gold derivatives. For example business income is taxed as income depending on the state and business structure ( example a C corp. pays corporate taxes and dividends taxed on a individual basis - eventually the point is to get the cash to investors) the effective tax rate on profits may be up to 50% - a long term profit in gold could be taxed at the capital gains tax rate, 15%. If I am pessimistic about economic growth, taxes, interest rates, etc. in simple terms to illustrate the concept a worst case for a business investment should be compared to a best case scenario for gold, but if the capital gains rate goes to being equal to the effective C corp rate maybe that changes. And so it goes.

President Obama has not done anything for small business that would make investment decisions easier. For example - what is the price of gas going to be in 6 months? $3.50, $4.50, $5.50??? Based on his policy where does he actually want it to be? Do you know? On one hand he want the price higher to encourage conservation and alternatives, global warming, on the other-hand he wants it low for political reasons. And so it goes, and I could list dozens of issues like this. The uncertainty and mixed messages are a killer to business investment. We need some stability, some predictability. why di he kick the can down the road on the Bush Tax cuts - if they had set the rates two years ago we would have the issue behind us.

 

Here's what I know... The US needs to increase their incredibly low taxes and they need to curb spending -- at the same time.

Any discussion that does not include both of these measures is a waste of breath.

The Bush Administration went to war and incurred Billions (trillions?) in debt with no way to pay for it. Their attitude? Pay it forward. Time to pay.

 

or the united states needs to reconsider its allocation priorities. that the federal government spends about 40% of overall outlays on the military is incomprehensible, particularly if you look at those outlays in comparative terms. god only knows how much is pissed away on the bush-period surveillance state because much of the spending is off the books. neo-liberal economic policy is directly related to the ridiculous growth of the american prison system--this is the way conservatives address the social instability generated by their lunatic policies. all three of these sectors are conservative patronage systems, so when the right blathers about spending they routinely keep them off the table. and when the dominant media talks about these matters, it tends---still---to recapitulate that. but the fact of the matter is that there's no reason to take anyone seriously who complains about expenditures on the part of the federal government who is not willing to factor military spending and the surveillance state in.

a good first step would be for the united states to stand down on this idiotic "war on terror."

a more basic step forward would be the abandonment of the idiocy of neo-liberal ideology. it has failed. it offers no way out of the consequences of its failure. it continues to hamstring discussions about how the united states might rethink itself. it is the primary cause of the paralysis of conventional political institutions---well that and the infantile strategy used by the republican party since 2010. but everyone knows about that infantile strategy.

 

To be clear, I am *not* suggesting austerity measures. Not in the slightest.

That said, any plan that does not include both increased taxes as well as a responsible reduction in spending, is not going to get the US on to stable footing. I agree that the most likely place to start is in America's approach to the military industrial complex.

 

Well if you're cut spending you likely going to end up with less services and less benefits isn't that austerity?

 

While necessary, cutting government spending hurts the recovery and is partly responsible for the tepid (but steady) economic growth of 2+% . Ideological driven cuts are reckless and irresponsible.

Private sector GDP has been in the 3-5% range over the last two years, but as a result of government budget cuts, particularly state/local, and a public sector negative GDP of -1+, the result is a flat economy. Short term government spending is a necessary component, not only on programs that create jobs (investing in infrastructure, clean energy, etc) but for those social programs (unemployment insurance, food stamps, etc) that keep money flowing through the local economy.

What is ignorant and offensive is the right wing fallacious argument that social programs (mostly benefiting the middle class and working poor on a short term basis) creates a culture of dependency.
--- merged: Nov 17, 2012 3:25 PM ---
As ignorant as suggesting Obama wants higher gas price.

What's next? That he wants more mass murders to encourage gun control?

 

And yet you have the same folk howling like a stuck pig anytime you mention defense funding. You can't tell me that many defense contractors are not just a group of government dependent losers who either are selling us shit we don't need or charging us 100X the normal price for shit we do need. Talk about waste... but talk about it and try to address it reasonably and the right will label you and un-American or as someone who hates the troops.

It's all bullshit.

 

disgusting hypocrite.


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zqvGRIVr1G8

 

And he's right. That said, it underscores that Pakistan is likely supportive of the drone strikes behind the scenes but has to make the (modicum of) noise they are making in public for the benefit of their citizens who are equally mixed on the strikes.

 

Ignorant?

​

​

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73408.html#ixzz2DNzOw1EV​

As I pointed out there are two sides to this question - reducing the reliance on fossil fuels can be achieved through relative price adjustments - one being increasing the price of gas.

 

And as I pointed out, Chu, in his testimony, was talking about improving efficiency and decreasing dependency on oil.

So yes, to misrepresent his words is ignorant.
--- merged: Nov 30, 2012 at 9:13 AM ---
I previously posted details on Obama's overall energy policy, which of course, you chose to ignore.

A policy that includes not only more drilling and production of crude oil, but improved efficiency through new CAFE standards and energy efficiency in buildings, investments in natural gas, clean energy R&D, etc.

And the fact that our dependency on foreign oil is lower than any time in the last 15 years.

As opposed to the same old policy of "drill baby, drill"

 

You are correct. US foreign policy in the Middle East is hypocritical and not the brainchild of any one Presidency. It's also not news.