Obama's solution to the failing economy:

[werepossum]

Oh, please. This whole schtick about business being afraid of Obama is a layer of horse manure spread thick by Repubs who'll say & do anything to get back in the White House. Business has thrived under the Obama Admin, with enormous gains in nearly every sector. The worst that might happen is higher taxes on the ownership class, which won't really harm business, at all, because they're just hoarding whatever they get their hands on.

When you represent that contraceptive services being covered by health insurance is the same as free contraceptives, you drank the koolaid or are trying to convince the rest of us to try it.

http://wuerthwhilewilywakenings.blogspot.com/

So I suppose the projects we've seen put indefinitely on hold specifically mentioning fear of new government regulations are merely political posturing by industrial leaders who are secretly GOP agents provocateur?

 

[fskimospy]

So I suppose the projects we've seen put indefinitely on hold specifically mentioning fear of new government regulations are merely political posturing by industrial leaders who are secretly GOP agents provocateur?

They represent a small fraction of the private sector. Private companies overwhelmingly cite a lack of demand as opposed to fear of government regulations. Perhaps more tellingly from what I remember, they don't cite regulatory issues significantly more than they did before the recession.

That to me says it's unlikely that regulations are substantially the cause of poor hiring.

 

[Fern]

The US is way behind in infrastructure repairs, i read an article years ago that we need $1 trillion dollars in repairs because of all the neglect.

Yeah.

And I'm all for that type of investment. But my understanding is that it's been largely ignored because of it's long term nature, and the politicians don't seem interested in that. Bigger deficits/debt now but no real benefits tangible until several years out scares them. I'm pretty sure this was discussed at some length back during the Stimulus bill time.

Fern

 

[Fern]

The bolded doesn't support your conclusion. Once the income is earned it can indeed be sat upon.

Nobody is "sitting" on money.

The real money is held by corporations. Surveys from CFO Magazine show that +90% of their money is held in short term accounts with banks. Basically, this means the government has it. Is their savings being used to fund the govt deficit spending? Seems likely in some manner.

As for increasing taxes on high income earners, we're looking at $38 billion according to the CBO.

Companies and/or wealthy people having capital to invest is not a 'problem'. We'd be in much worse shape if they didn't.

Our problems lay elsewhere.

Fern

 

[Pulsar]

We don't have a spending problem... we have a demand problem. How do you create demand? Give people jobs

This is false, and is the perfect example of faulty logic.

People create demand when they have money.

People have money when they create wealth.

People create wealth when the actually increase the value of a product.

Do you people who subscribe to the democrat theory of 'give them all jobs' ever wonder why it is that our middle class is disappearing and the Chinese middle class has exploded?

HINT: It isn't because the Chinese government 'gave them jobs' to increase demand.

 

[Pulsar]

Can't remember. I took an Econ class but it was intro probably, plus I was working so much I really probably didn't pay attention to it as much as I could have (wasn't my major, didn't care other than the grade).

The econ I go by is you don't go into massive debt, borrow more, keep that up for decades, outsource like mad, keep buying tons of outsourced shit you don't need, allow massive amounts of illegal labor to do jobs your unemployed/welfare folks could be doing, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum, and then, when the house of cards starts crumbling, double down on what got you there.

That's my philosophy. I'm sure there are others, but the personal derivitive of that has worked fine by me for a while now, don't foresee that changing...

Chuck

Now you went and did it. Last time I pointed out that simply balancing the damn checkbook works pretty well to keep spending in check, I was very clearly told that 'it's much more complicated that that'.

Evidently. That's why we're 15 trillion in debt. Because it's so complicated.

 

[Pulsar]

Interesting how conservatives on ATPN didn't comment on this graph. Pussies.

Reagan was the REAL keynsian, but idiot conservatives here make him out to be some patron saint of the conservative movement.

Where did the graph come from? What's on the vertical axis?

Sorry, but a cut-paste graph with no attribution, unlabeled axis, etc really isn't worth commenting on.

If Reagan increased government employment, well, that sucks. But I didn't think we were discussing what happened 30 years ago. I thought we were talking about the incredibly stupid idea that a government 15 trillion in debt should spend even MORE to fix the problem.

Trying to create a straw man and lash out at conservatives rather than addressing the argument at hand it very... 'politician' of you.

 

[Jhhnn]

So I suppose the projects we've seen put indefinitely on hold specifically mentioning fear of new government regulations are merely political posturing by industrial leaders who are secretly GOP agents provocateur?

I suppose you'd care to name those & establish that their being put on hold isn't demand related...

 

[werepossum]

I suppose you'd care to name those & establish that their being put on hold isn't demand related...

Can't name them because of confidentiality agreements, but it's a pretty safe bet that neither nuclear plants nor boilers nor hospitals are experiencing a significant decline in demand. Well, not a significant natural decline in demand, i.e. for electricity or health care. Decline in demand from fear that your expensive new investment will suddenly be turned into a regulatory nightmare money pit, yes.

 

[Jhhnn]

Can't name them because of confidentiality agreements, but it's a pretty safe bet that neither nuclear plants nor boilers nor hospitals are experiencing a significant decline in demand. Well, not a significant natural decline in demand, i.e. for electricity or health care. Decline in demand from fear that your expensive new investment will suddenly be turned into a regulatory nightmare money pit, yes.

In other words, you're making attributions you can't substantiate.

 

[werepossum]

In other words, you're making attributions you can't substantiate.

Making observations. I'm sure it's just coincidence. So much is nowadays.

 

[Jhhnn]

Making observations. I'm sure it's just coincidence. So much is nowadays.

Actually, you're projecting personal anecdote & faith based reality onto the entire economy, and have been called on it.

 

[werepossum]

Actually, you're projecting personal anecdote & faith based reality onto the entire economy, and have been called on it.

Recalling what business leaders have told us is now "faith based reality"? The mind, she is blown. I'm assuming that claiming that those same business leaders are "hoarding liquidity" still fits within your enchanting definition of "real reality", correct?

Amazing how a grand sense of entitlement and a burning covetous hunger for other's wealth can shape one's perception of reality if not constrained by a sense of ethics.

 

[dank69]

Recalling what business leaders have told us is now "faith based reality"? The mind, she is blown. I'm assuming that claiming that those same business leaders are "hoarding liquidity" still fits within your enchanting definition of "real reality", correct?

Amazing how a grand sense of entitlement and a burning covetous hunger for other's wealth can shape one's perception of reality if not constrained by a sense of ethics.

It takes faith to believe what a 'business leader' tells you sometimes.

 

[mshan]

"Rising truck shipments show the U.S. economic expansion is intact, even amid concerns that a slowdown in retail sales and Europe’s sovereign-debt crisis could stall growth.

Two measures of trucking activity signal the industry remains steady and has even “firmed up” since mid-May, according to Ben Hartford, an analyst in Milwaukee with Robert W. Baird & Co. The data complement anecdotal information from carriers that freight demand ended May on a strong note after more weakness than anticipated earlier in the month, he said.

“Trucking trends are reflective of an economic environment that is stable, not deteriorating,” Hartford said."


...


"Another index that tracks the movement of goods between manufacturers and consumers also is a “good barometer” of the economy, said Jonathan Starks, director of transportation analysis at FTR Associates. FTR’s index of U.S. truck loadings increased 3 percent to 115.9 in April from a year earlier, the highest since 2008, based on data from the Nashville, Indiana- based transportation-forecasting company.

Not Stalling

April’s improvement suggests the economy is expanding. “It’s not red-hot, but it’s not stalling, either,” Starks said, adding that annual gains above 5 percent would suggest robust activity. Index growth exceeded 5 percent between July 2010 and March 2011, the data show, while gross domestic product expanded an average 2.9 percent year-over-year in the same period."


...


‘As Forecasted’

Both the economy and the operating environment for Landstar are “pretty much as forecasted,” moving “in a northerly direction, albeit in a slow and sometimes choppy pace,” Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Henry Gerkens said on a conference call that day.

Landstar reiterated its guidance even as U.S. retail sales weakened. A 0.2 percent drop in May matched an April decline that previously was reported as a gain, based on data from the Commerce Department. This prompted some economists -- including those at Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse AG -- to cut forecasts for second-quarter growth.

The sequential declines are “consistent with retailers’ broader concerns about CONSUMER DEMAND and validate cautious recent inventory strategies among retail and consumer shippers,” Hartford said."


...


Further, forecasts for FTR’s loadings index suggest activity will return steadily to 2007’s pre-recession levels by late 2014*, Starks said. The index has risen 12 percent from a 16-year low of 103.5 in December 2009, six months after the 18- month slump ended, the data show.

“We probably won’t get a new peak for another couple years,” Starks said. “But the data is clearly showing that we’re also not entering any sort of recessionary environment at the moment.”


http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...cator-show-stable-u-dot-s-dot-economic-growth

* I think this correlates with the U. S. consumer completing deleveraging from the bubble years (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-debt-load-falling-fastest-040045522.html)

 

[werepossum]

It takes faith to believe what a 'business leader' tells you sometimes.

True. But when a business leader stops a project designed to make him a lot of money, there must be a reason beyond "Kenyan Muslim prejudice".

Some of the project cancellations we've seen are clearly functions of low demand. There's an excess of retail and office square footage due to the economic downturn. That matches the reasons the owners give. Demand for other things though, like electricity generation or hospitals, is not significantly down. Also, not all these projects are demand-sensitive; some are merely modernization and would result in lower costs to provide the same products and services. Those make economic sense even at reduced demand, but they don't make economic sense if you suspect your regulatory or health insurance costs or your tax burden may skyrocket because you could have a fatal cash flow crisis before the new investment can be paid off and its benefits realized. This is greatly exacerbated by the general economic situation because banks are commonly requiring companies to furnish 40, 50, even 60 percent or more of capital projects to loan them the balance. One can make such calculations on the basis of projections, but even the most demand-independent business can easily deplete its cash reserves and find itself unable to survive Obama if its costs are suddenly greatly increased.

I wouldn't say fear of Obama is THE ONLY factor or necessarily THE MAJOR factor or necessarily a factor at all for ALL businesses' decision to not execute a capital project. I would say that it is A major or even THE MAJOR factor in SOME businesses' decision to not execute a capital project.

 

[woolfe9999]

True. But when a business leader stops a project designed to make him a lot of money, there must be a reason beyond "Kenyan Muslim prejudice".

Some of the project cancellations we've seen are clearly functions of low demand. There's an excess of retail and office square footage due to the economic downturn. That matches the reasons the owners give. Demand for other things though, like electricity generation or hospitals, is not significantly down. Also, not all these projects are demand-sensitive; some are merely modernization and would result in lower costs to provide the same products and services. Those make economic sense even at reduced demand, but they don't make economic sense if you suspect your regulatory or health insurance costs or your tax burden may skyrocket because you could have a fatal cash flow crisis before the new investment can be paid off and its benefits realized. This is greatly exacerbated by the general economic situation because banks are commonly requiring companies to furnish 40, 50, even 60 percent or more of capital projects to loan them the balance. One can make such calculations on the basis of projections, but even the most demand-independent business can easily deplete its cash reserves and find itself unable to survive Obama if its costs are suddenly greatly increased.

I wouldn't say fear of Obama is THE ONLY factor or necessarily THE MAJOR factor or necessarily a factor at all for ALL businesses' decision to not execute a capital project. I would say that it is A major or even THE MAJOR factor in SOME businesses' decision to not execute a capital project.

Whatever you want to tell yourself about this, that's fine if you feel it justifies your partisan disfavor of Obama. However, I will point out that these exact same arguments were made when Clinton took office during a recession in 2002. And I mean EXACT same arguments. They said business would not pick up because there was a fear of new regulations and/or tax increases. And we all know what happened. They DID hire and the economy boomed. If this theory is true, then businesses should in general be hiring less aggressively ever time dems are in office, but we know it is historically untrue. I see no reason we should believe it now anymore than we would have been justified believing it then. It takes a special kind of arrogance to repeat a failed argument yet again but then people do have short memories. Unlike most people who are fooled time and time again, I have a long memory and all these conservative talking points are deja vu for me.

Also, it should be pretty clear that businesses do not like being regulated. If they sometimes claim that they aren't hiring because of existing or possible future regulation, I think this must be taken with a grain of salt. It's more credible if it's existing regulation, but to not expand your business based on a vague fear of regulations which are as yet not even proposed after someone has been in office for 3.5 years? You must assume that business leaders are fools. The fact is, thinking in the business world is not only more rational than that, but recently it tends to skew toward short term thinking.

Finally, it bears mentioning that private sector hiring has been fairly aggressive under Obama. Oops. So much for THAT theory.

- wolf

 

[chucky2]

Yes, I mean the Dem POTUS pressuring the Rep Congress to give in to major military cuts.

Let's also not forget that when we had Dem POTUS + Dem Congress we were also in the middle of a huge recession where almost all economists agree government spending should be increased, not cut.

So what you're telling me in response to my questions are that you have no answer that supports your position, and I'm right that nothing is ever done, but, out of control spending is allowed to happen.

Thanks for validating the exact thing I'm pointing out.

Chuck

 

[werepossum]

Whatever you want to tell yourself about this, that's fine if you feel it justifies your partisan disfavor of Obama. However, I will point out that these exact same arguments were made when Clinton took office during a recession in 2002. And I mean EXACT same arguments. They said business would not pick up because there was a fear of new regulations and/or tax increases. And we all know what happened. They DID hire and the economy boomed. If this theory is true, then businesses should in general be hiring less aggressively ever time dems are in office, but we know it is historically untrue. I see no reason we should believe it now anymore than we would have been justified believing it then. It takes a special kind of arrogance to repeat a failed argument yet again but then people do have short memories. Unlike most people who are fooled time and time again, I have a long memory and all these conservative talking points are deja vu for me.

Also, it should be pretty clear that businesses do not like being regulated. If they sometimes claim that they aren't hiring because of existing or possible future regulation, I think this must be taken with a grain of salt. It's more credible if it's existing regulation, but to not expand your business based on a vague fear of regulations which are as yet not even proposed after someone has been in office for 3.5 years? You must assume that business leaders are fools. The fact is, thinking in the business world is not only more rational than that, but recently it tends to skew toward short term thinking.

Finally, it bears mentioning that private sector hiring has been fairly aggressive under Obama. Oops. So much for THAT theory.

- wolf

That someone cried wolf at a rabbit does not negate the existence of wolves. Some might have made that argument against Clinton, but Clinton was a completely different animal than Obama.

One incredibly big thing that Obama has done is move health insurance regulation into the federal bureaucracy. Changes that traditionally took legislation at the state level - legislation that could be lobbied against or avoided by relocating to another state - can now be enacted immediately, by fiat. If for instance HHS decides that mental health coverage is essential to good health, my company would not be able to provide health insurance; we simply could not afford it. If instead HHS decided that six weeks' paid leave for fathers and mothers is an essential part of health care, my company would be out of business - we simply could not afford it. Now for us, a professional service business, our woe could well be very large engineering companies' weal, since they can more easily afford health insurance due to buying power and economies of scale. But for other companies, the choice isn't between a larger and a smaller competitor, but rather between a boiler manufactured in America and one manufactured in Mexico or China or India. For those companies, such changes mean the failure of the affected companies and loss of most or all American share of that market.

 

[werepossum]

As far as new regulations not yet existing:
http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjourn...ulatory-costs-much-higher-under.html?page=all

No, you’re not imagining things: The regulatory burden on businesses is indeed getting worse.
That’s according to a new study by the Heritage Foundation, which found that the federal government has issued 106 major new rules that increased regulatory compliance burdens during the first three years of President Barack Obama’s administration. These regulations will cost the economy $46 billion a year -- five times as much as the cost of regulations issued under President George W. Bush.

Last year, the Obama administration issued 32 major regulations, with an estimated annual cost of $10 billion. (These regulatory cost estimates, by the way, come from government agencies, not Heritage or pro-business economists.) Twelve of these new major rules were spawned by the Dodd-Frank Act, the law that reformed financial regulation. The Environmental Protection Agency issued the costliest regulations, however. Its five major rules will cost $4 billion a year by imposing stricter pollution limits on industrial and commercial boilers and incinerators, as well as coal-fired power plants.

“This regulatory tide is not expected to ebb anytime soon,” write Heritage Foundation fellows James Gattuso and Diane Katz. “Hundreds of new regulations are winding through the rulemaking pipeline” thanks to Dodd-Frank, health care reform and the Environmental Protection Agency’s “global warming crusade,” the Heritage fellows write.
But wait a minute -- didn’t Obama boast that he’s approved fewer regulations than Bush?

Yes, he did, and he was correct. But you can’t judge the regulatory burden based on the number of regulations issued, according to the Heritage Foundation. Many regulations are routine bureaucratic housekeeping, and don’t have much impact on businesses. Plus, some regulations issued during the Bush administration helped businesses, such as the hundreds of rules adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in the early 2000s to free radio spectrum for commercial use.

The Heritage Foundation study also concludes that Obama’s order to agencies to review regulations already on the books has done little to reduce regulatory burdens. The biggest success story touted by Obama -- the decision by EPA to remove spilled milk from oil spill regulations -- already had been proposed by the agency before Obama came into office, the study noted.

“The president cannot have it both ways -- having identified overregulation as a problem, he must take real and significant steps to rein it in,” Gattuso and Katz conclude. “At the same time, Congress -- which shares much of the blame for excessive regulation -- must establish critical mechanisms to ensure that unnecessary and excessively costly regulations are not imposed on the U.S. economy and Americans.”

 

[woolfe9999]

That someone cried wolf at a rabbit does not negate the existence of wolves. Some might have made that argument against Clinton, but Clinton was a completely different animal than Obama.

Why of course it's different this time! Who'd have guessed that would be your answer?

Let's try a simple experiment in parsimony here. If a republican is elected as POTUS, and many democrats make doom-saying predictions about what will happen, and those things do not come to pass, but in fact the opposite happens, how do you react the next time a republican is elected and you're once again hearing the exact same predictions based on the exact same rationale?

And not only that, but the rationale conveniently is one that does not require particularities. It fits perfectly with the perception of any one of that political party and hence is recyclable until the end of time. You can of course adapt it to particularities if you want to be more sophisticated about it as you're trying to do here. With the next opposing candidate, I'm sure you can slightly alter the particular examples while maintaining the same general argument.

The simplest answer is that these predictions are identical because the same people are making them, regarding the same opposing political party, and the reasons for making them are the identical political reasons. You further assume that since it is a pattern, they will do it every single time the opposing party is in office, the same argument, the same talking point, and that they hope people forgot about the last time, which they probably did. You don't assume that, sure, they were full of shit that time, lying through their collective teeth, but this time they just happen to be correct. Sure, it was a BS talking point then, but now it's true. How many times do you expect to fool people with the same crap?

You need some pretty compelling evidence to overturn that basic assumption, and here it does not exist. Obama inherited a worse recession than Clinton inherited and in fact private sector job growth is quite brisk especially when you consider that consumer demand has not yet returned to pre-recession levels.

One incredibly big thing that Obama has done is move health insurance regulation into the federal bureaucracy.

Clinton's plan was even more bureaucratic than Obamacare, and they said no one would hire out of sheer anticipation of that plan. If your argument is that the actual success of the passing Obamacare into law is causing a major depression in hiring, I'd say that's a self-serving assumption with zero hard data to back it up, and it flies in the face of brisk private sector hiring over the past 2 years. If you're arguing it would nevertheless have been even better, then you're entitled to your politically convenient speculations. I'm not falling for it.

Changes that traditionally took legislation at the state level - legislation that could be lobbied against or avoided by relocating to another state - can now be enacted immediately, by fiat. If for instance HHS decides that mental health coverage is essential to good health, my company would not be able to provide health insurance; we simply could not afford it. If instead HHS decided that six weeks' paid leave for fathers and mothers is an essential part of health care, my company would be out of business - we simply could not afford it. Now for us, a professional service business, our woe could well be very large engineering companies' weal, since they can more easily afford health insurance due to buying power and economies of scale. But for other companies, the choice isn't between a larger and a smaller competitor, but rather between a boiler manufactured in America and one manufactured in Mexico or China or India. For those companies, such changes mean the failure of the affected companies and loss of most or all American share of that market.

That's a nice theory but you're going to have to do better than present a theory. You need tangible evidence that mere fears of future healthcare regulations is having a statistically significant effect on hiring. You'll pardon me if past history, among other things, leaves me skeptical and demanding empirical proof. As I've aptly explained, it's no less than you'd demand if the situation was reversed.

- wolf

 

[dank69]

So what you're telling me in response to my questions are that you have no answer that supports your position, and I'm right that nothing is ever done, but, out of control spending is allowed to happen.

Thanks for validating the exact thing I'm pointing out.

Chuck

No, I reminded you that Democrats have cut spending in the past so your position (bolded below) is false:

You mean when I cut through the misleading BS of the Dem position by pointing out the Fed is NEVER cut to any meaningful (if ever) degree, rendering both Dem and Rep policies as complete and utter BS. Worse, people arguing these policies are either ignorant, or far far worse, know for a fact the cuts will never happen but will keep repeating the lie so they get their spending.

Got it. Glad we're clear now.

 

[sm625]

The states are getting broker and broker and the Feds are close to or at their limit of how much borrowed money they can continue to throw in to prop it all up. Most Americans are making less or the same yet have seen their purchasing power decline which means even if you are making the same you are effectively making less ....

I dont think they are at or even close to the limit. People love this crap. They eat it up. They love it when the Fed prints a trillion, gives it to wall street, enriches the top 1%, causes the rest of us to lose the value of our money and wages. We frickin love it. Obviously. Since 100 million schmucks are about to go and cast their stupified vote for Romneybama. They're both for it. Spend spend spend. Borrow borrow borrow. Never mind that Japan has been providing us with 30 years of history on what we can expect from this. 30 years of decline. And not even a serious debate about it. Hell, I bet even if the Fed showered Wall Street with $10 trillion right now, today, and even if it pumped gas to $9 a gallon, and bread to $5 a loaf, you still would not get a real debate about it ... beyond "Republitards did it"... or "Democraps did it". They are actively conspiring together to do it!

 

[werepossum]

Why of course it's different this time! Who'd have guessed that would be your answer?

Let's try a simple experiment in parsimony here. If a republican is elected as POTUS, and many democrats make doom-saying predictions about what will happen, and those things do not come to pass, but in fact the opposite happens, how do you react the next time a republican is elected and you're once again hearing the exact same predictions based on the exact same rationale? And not only that, but the rationale conveniently is one that does not require particularities. It fits perfectly with the perception of any one of that political party and hence is reusable until the end of time. You can of course adapt it to particularities if you want to be more sophisticated about it as you're trying to do here. With the next opposing candidate, I'm sure you can slightly alter the particular examples while maintaining the same general argument.

The simplest answer is that these predictions are identical because the same people are making them, regarding the same opposing political party, and the reasons for making them are the identical political reasons. You further assume that since it is a pattern, they will do it every single time the opposing party is in office, the same argument, the same talking point, and that they hope people forgot about the last time, which they probably did. You don't assume that, sure, they were full of shit that time, lying through their collective teeth, but this time they just happen to be correct. Sure, it was a BS talking point then, but now it's true. How many times do you expect to fool people with the same crap?

You need some pretty compelling evidence to overturn that basic assumption, and here it does not exist. Obama inherited a worse recession than Clinton inherited and in fact private sector job growth is quite brisk especially when you consider that consumer demand has not yet returned to pre-recession levels.



Clinton's plan was even more bureaucratic than Obamacare, and they said no one would hire out of sheer anticipation of that plan. If your argument is that the actual success of the passing Obamacare into law is causing a major depression in hiring, I'd say that's a self-serving assumption with zero hard data to back it up, and it flies in the face of brisk private sector hiring over the past 2 years. If you're arguing it would nevertheless have been even better, then you're entitled to your politically convenient speculations. I'm not falling for it.



That's a nice theory but you're going to have to do better than present a theory. You need tangible evidence that mere fears of future healthcare regulations is having a statistically significant effect on hiring. You'll pardon me if past history, among other things, leaves me skeptical and demanding empirical proof. It's no less than you'd demand if the situation was reversed.

- wolf

The idea that a socialistic health care plan take-over that is actually passed depresses hiring more than an even more socialistic health care plan take-over that goes down in flames is "a self-serving assumption with zero hard data to back it up"? Seriously?

When Clinton's Hilarycare went down to nearly unanimous rejection it was pretty apparent that Clinton would probably not be able to pass such expansions of government power. Then the Republicans took over Congress in '94 - admittedly with much less power than the Dems enjoyed in '08 when they passed Obamacare - and it became clear that Clinton would no longer be able to pass any such expansion of government power. The Republicans (granted, with moderate Democrats) would simply override it. Further, Clinton himself moved noticeably to the right after the Democrats got shellacked in '94. At that point, any fears about Clinton's regulatory and tax agenda, regardless of whether they had ever been reasonable, were no longer operational. No business leaders feared Clinton after November '94, he had been neutered. Obama has NOT been neutered. The Dems still hold the Senate, preventing the Republicans from even attempting to override any new regulations. Thus, any fears about Obama's regulatory and tax agenda, regardless of whether they have ever been reasonable, are very much still operational.

We'll have to agree to disagree over whether private sector hiring under Obama has been "brisk" or even "aggressive", or whether public sector workers (4.2% unemployment) are hurting more than private sector workers (8.2% unemployment.) Personally I hope that Obama keeps hammering that theme right through the election.

 

[EagleKeeper]

We don't have a spending problem... we have a demand problem. How do you create demand? Give people jobs

If the private sector is not seeing the demand why should they sink $$ into jobs that will not get product out the door.

If public sector jobs; who is paying for it; taxes on the private sector?