StreetScooby 5 #26 January 12, 2012 Quote How did people so stupid as to believe the President has an immediate impact on the economy end up with a lot of capital? Looks like we read different periodicals. Many interviews with successful business executives show that Obama is having a pernicious effect on the economy due to lots of ill defined laws that will require a "wise judge" to interpret. Who's going to make long term plans with that in place, especially when those "wise judges" hate rich people? No one. Once this administration is gone, the uncertainty should be removed, and the capital will come off the sidelines.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #27 January 12, 2012 QuoteQuote How did people so stupid as to believe the President has an immediate impact on the economy end up with a lot of capital? Looks like we read different periodicals. Many interviews with successful business executives show that Obama is having a pernicious effect on the economy due to lots of ill defined laws that will require a "wise judge" to interpret. Who's going to make long term plans with that in place, especially when those "wise judges" hate rich people? No one. Once this administration is gone, the uncertainty should be removed, and the capital will come off the sidelines. Interesting how we have gone from "Bush got us into this mess, it's all Bush'e fault" to "You are stupid if you think the President has an immediate effect on the economy". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #28 January 12, 2012 Quote Ummmm...maybe waaaaay too much unprotected sex going on in NYC? Just maybe? You're thinking waaaaaaaay to easy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #29 January 12, 2012 It seems to me the only "ill defined law" that people don't like is the healthcare law. Do you really believe requiring people to buy health insurance is all it takes to destroy our great nation? I have more faith in America than that. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #30 January 12, 2012 QuoteInteresting how we have gone from "Bush got us into this mess, it's all Bush'e fault" to "You are stupid if you think the President has an immediate effect on the economy". I've never claimed it was all Bush's fault. I don't think he helped anything, but that doesn't mean it was "all Bush's fault". I think it is undeniable that the war in Iraq was not good for the budget. It's also undeniable that any influence Bush may have had started 11 years ago. Obama's influence started 3 years ago, so the immediacy of the effect is certainly a factor. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #31 January 12, 2012 QuoteIt seems to me the only "ill defined law" that people don't like is the healthcare law. Do you really believe requiring people to buy health insurance is all it takes to destroy our great nation? I have more faith in America than that. "We have to pass it to find out what is in it" One thing that is in it is a rule that allows the fed to take up to 6% from your IRA each year So to answer your question? No But in the end that is the least of the bad parts of this law"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #32 January 12, 2012 OK, so what has Obama done that has destroyed our nation? That was my original question. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #33 January 12, 2012 QuoteOK, so what has Obama done that has destroyed our nation? That was my original question. Ok is your responce to this??? wtf dude It is just another example of the uncertenty of the what is going to happen That in and of itself is reason to hang back and keep your cash But Obama and his supporters are trying to make this out to be evil wall street people keeping thier cash just to make him look bad Hmmm, I think I am going to invest in and tin foil hat company Know of any?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #34 January 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteInteresting how we have gone from "Bush got us into this mess, it's all Bush'e fault" to "You are stupid if you think the President has an immediate effect on the economy". I've never claimed it was all Bush's fault. I don't think he helped anything, but that doesn't mean it was "all Bush's fault". I think it is undeniable that the war in Iraq was not good for the budget. It's also undeniable that any influence Bush may have had started 11 years ago. Obama's influence started 3 years ago, so the immediacy of the effect is certainly a factor. I think a President has less influence than many blame him for and more influence than others give him credit for. Certainly wars have a huge effect on the economy but so do a lot of other things that are beyond the control of a President. So I think that to ignore that fact is pretty stupid. OTOH insecurities in the marketplace due to proposed overhauls in healthcare, taxes, and social policies also have some effect on the economy. Even how people feel emotionally about the future can have a huge impact. Blaming everything on any single person whether they are a President or Hedgefund Manager etc. or any single policy is pretty lame. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #35 January 12, 2012 "OK" meant, "OK, I see your point," not, "I'm okay with everything Obama has done and want to suck his dick." Chill out. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #36 January 12, 2012 Quote"OK" meant, "OK, I see your point," not, "I'm okay with everything Obama has done and want to suck his dick." Chill out. Not wound up Sorry if I came across that way"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #37 January 12, 2012 Believe it or not, I completely agree with you. That's why I'm taken aback when other posters say thinks like, "Obama has destroyed the country." - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #38 January 12, 2012 QuoteBelieve it or not, I completely agree with you. That's why I'm taken aback when other posters say thinks like, "Obama has destroyed the country." I wouldn't say he's destroyed it but I'm hard pressed to see anything positive he's done to inspire confidence in the financial markets. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #39 January 12, 2012 QuoteDo you really believe requiring people to buy health insurance is all it takes to destroy our great nation? Well, conservatives finally figured out the Democrats' agenda: they realize that the ash from all the flag-burning that occurs under the Democrats pours more particulates into the atmosphere than the detonation of Krakatoa, thereby contributing to more emphysema, thereby requiring even more health insurance. Of course, it also counters the effects of global warming; but what can you do? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #40 January 12, 2012 QuoteBelieve it or not, I completely agree with you. That's why I'm taken aback when other posters say thinks like, "Obama has destroyed the country." Just one of many examples I could provide. Mario Loyola authored the following. "....The president likes to target the “special subsidies” we give oil companies. What he’s talking about is manufacturing tax deductions, expensing for intangible business costs, and depletion tax allowances. These tax-related provisions, which the president misleadingly characterizes as special perks for oil and gas companies, are generally available to all American manufacturers. Eliminating them would in fact single out the energy industry for punitive tax treatment — and it already pays out a higher proportion of its income in taxes than virtually any other industry. In his 2012 budget, Obama proposed eliminating twelve such tax-related provisions, generating $46 billion over ten years, all of which would go to his proposed $148 billion in subsidies for green and renewable energy. If adopted, this confiscatory scheme would transfer more than $4 billion a year from the oil-and-gas sector to alternative energy — and the administration is proud of it! Mark this, from the White House website: The energy industry objects that drillers will have to cut back the money they spend on development by about a third, eliminating or deferring hundreds and potentially thousands of jobs. No doubt the thought of all those job losses keeps the president up at night — but we have to start shutting down the fossil-fuel industry in order to make sure the oceans begin to recede and the planet begins to heal. That was the real purpose of Obama’s moratorium on offshore drilling after the Gulf spill. The president explained at the time that the moratorium was needed to protect the Gulf from another spill until we could make sure the drilling could be done safely, but he doesn’t seem to have expected anyone to believe that. From a technical point of view, the explanation didn’t make any sense at all. It was quickly repudiated by the experts whom the administration claimed to have consulted, not to mention tossed out of federal court along with the moratorium itself multiple times. An accident like what happened in April 2010 cannot occur until the very final days of drilling and preparing a well for production — in particular, the few days when you’re cementing the well and need to counteract the pressure in the reservoir, without knowing exactly what that pressure is. In the months of drilling before the pipe reaches the reservoir, you’re drilling into sheer rock the whole time (virtually no risk of a spill). So why halt all drilling activity? Well, just look at the results: As of June, 10 of the 33 drilling rigs present in the Gulf before the spill had left to other countries, and another 8 that were destined for the Gulf had been detoured. According to one recent study, 60,000 jobs were lost along the Gulf coast in 2010 alone as a result of Obama’s deepwater-drilling moratorium and slow-walking of shallow-water permits. Gov. Bobby Jindal justly called Obama’s policies a “second Katrina.” Those job losses were not a collateral result of Obama’s policy — they were the policy’s objective. The moratorium was part of an overall strategy of constricting domestic oil production, the purpose of which (if the secretary of energy is to be believed) is to increase oil prices. Huge new finds in the deepest U.S. waters in the Gulf have drawn some of the remaining drilling rigs, but according to another recent report, the slowdown in permitting could drive most of the rest out of the Gulf in coming months. According to one expert, the current level of rigs is “unsustainable” at current rates of permitting.".... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #41 January 12, 2012 I personally support his desire to transition to a non-fossil fuel economy. I really don't see how eliminating oil and coal subsidies would result in the destruction of the country, but I see how you could be opposed to it. Since these tax subsidy eliminations have yet to occur, and you used the past tense when you claimed he has destroyed our country, do you have anything else? And yes, I read the part about the drilling moritorium. I really don't believe that 10 oil rigs leaving the gulf region is enough to destroy America. Maybe you disagree. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #42 January 12, 2012 QuoteI personally support his desire to transition to a non-fossil fuel economy. Transition to what? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #43 January 12, 2012 QuoteTransition to what? Whatever works best. That's why you have to research it. At this point I think the best alternative is baseline power provided by nuclear, with solar, hydro, and biomass assisting in the areas where their strengths lie. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #44 January 12, 2012 Since the majority of fossil fuels are used for automobiles and heating, the only viable alternative at this point is nuclear. But of course most left-wing environmentalists oppose this and for that reason. Are you willing to risk something similar to what happened in Japan? Do you think we should be building more Nuke plants in California? No other energy sources are viable nor do any of them show any signs of being so anytime in the near future. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #45 January 12, 2012 Quotemost left-wing environmentalists Your standard demonizing of anything you disagree with as "left wing" is a sorry substitute for adult-level thought and analysis. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #46 January 12, 2012 QuoteAre you willing to risk something similar to what happened in Japan? Do you think we should be building more Nuke plants in California? Um, yeah. That's why I said baseline power should be provided by nuclear. I think electric cars and trucks (charged with said nuclear power) should be the way to go. For aircraft, biofuels are probably a better alternative for the near term future. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #47 January 12, 2012 QuoteQuotemost left-wing environmentalists Your standard demonizing of anything you disagree with as "left wing" is a sorry substitute for adult-level thought and analysis. Which is often off-set by your bashing of anything Republican or right-wing. looked in the mirror lately? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #48 January 12, 2012 I'm sure we could have this back and forth banter until were both BLUE in the face. We're like fans at a foot ball game...your team is better than my team. Hell we're more than likely to throw pop corn at one another while passing out verbal jabs at each other. But like most games there is a winner and losser. President Clinton was a loser in my eyes in the beginning, didn't vote for him either time, however in the end he was SUCCESSFUL working with a majority from the opposite party in controling our national debt. There were however other issues I opposed him on, but history from a financial point is clear. I found this video informative, but like most things here in Speaker Corner, some will find it full of crap. Link it for I'm being called away at the momennt. http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=317827 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #49 January 12, 2012 Quote It seems to me the only "ill defined law" that people don't like is the healthcare law. Do you really believe requiring people to buy health insurance is all it takes to destroy our great nation? I have more faith in America than that. There's also Dodd-Frank, and all the EPA rules in the pipeline. All of which are incredibly anti-business, and will require "wise judges" to implement.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
devildog 0 #50 January 13, 2012 QuoteQuote Something over 300k abortions last year Not that I'm looking to get into an abortion debate, but the rate of abortions for blacks in NYC is simply staggering. IIRC, it's like 3 abortions to two births. Somethings wrong with that picture, IMO. they were all for medical reasons, I'm sureYou stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
