What If the President Liked Businesspeople?

The U.S. stock market has nose-dived. Congress just approved the highest debt ceiling in American history, allowing the government to carry over $16 trillion in national debt, and prompting the credit-rating agency Standard & Poor’s to downgrade America’s multitrillion-dollar debt for the first time in 70 years.

Unemployment is still over 9 percent. Private-sector businesses may have more than $1 trillion in cash, but they will be scared away from hiring or buying for as long as they fear new taxes, new regulations, new entitlement obligations, new plant shutdowns — or a new harangue

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...r-davis-hanson

More Republican talking points from Republican source material posted by a Republican (who tries to pretend he is an independent thinker).

Have you EVER posted anything that supports a Democratic Party position? LOL.

Posted by the S&P. I wonder if the Tea Party had anything to do with the downgrade? :)

[...]The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy.
[...]It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options.

[...]The act contains no measures to raise taxes or otherwise enhance revenues, though the committee could recommend them.

[...]Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havakasha

More Republican talking points from Republican source material posted by a Republican (who tries to pretend he is an independent thinker).

Have you EVER posted anything that supports a Democratic Party position? LOL.

---

You have got to be kidding me! LMFAO

You have balls the size of NY asking me that question!

Daily Kos, Huffington Post, ThinkProgress.............. And since when did you EVER post anything that supports a Republican or Libertarian postion. For the record the tenth time, I am a "non party affiliate" PERIOD.

Here's the funniest part - I had to google "conservative web sites" to find this one. Just like I said last week......

Hey Silly,
I dont PRETEND to be anything i am not. Unlike you. Did that NUANCE escape you? lol
I am proud to come from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Of course i am
going to publish left leaning points of view. You on the other hand say
that you are an independent non party affiliate but all you post here are largely
Republican points of view.

You get it dont you? lol
With logic like yours no wonder you follow economist Peter Schiff (I love tweaking
you about him cause it twists you in knots. You dont know what to say cause
you both believe in the same economic theories.)


Is Warren Buffett and others like him who tend to be more supportive
of Obama than the Republican Party considered businessmen under your defintion or
is that reserved for people who only support your point of view? lol

Do you kind of think this thread headline smacks of a wee bit of demadgoguery? LMFAO.

G.O.P. on Defensive as Analysts Question Party’s Fiscal Policy
By JACKIE CALMES
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/13/bu...ng-louder.html
Published: August 12, 2011
WASHINGTON — The boasts of Congressional Republicans about their cost-cutting victories are ringing hollow to some well-known economists, financial analysts and corporate leaders, including some Republicans, who are expressing increasing alarm over Washington’s new austerity.

Their critiques have grown sharper since last week, when President Obama signed his deficit reduction deal with Republicans and, a few days later, when Standard & Poor’s subsequently downgraded the credit rating of the United States.

But even before that, macroeconomists and private sector forecasters were warning that the direction in which the new House Republican majority had pushed the White House and Congress this year — for immediate spending cuts, no further stimulus measures and no tax increases, ever — was the wrong one for addressing the nation’s two main ills, a weak economy now and projections of unsustainably high federal debt in coming years.

Instead, these critics say, Washington should be focusing on stimulating the economy in the near term to induce people to spend money and create jobs, while simultaneously settling on a long-term plan for spending reductions and tax increases to take effect only after the economy recovers.

These critics include onetime standard-bearers of Republican economic philosophy like Martin Feldstein, an adviser to President Ronald Reagan, and Henry M. Paulson Jr., Treasury secretary to President George W. Bush, underscoring the deepening divide between party establishment figures and the Tea Party-inspired Republicans in Congress and running for the White House.

“I think the U.S. has every chance of having a good year next year, but the politicians are doing their damnedest to prevent it from happening — the Republicans are — and the Democrats to my eternal bafflement have not stood their ground,” Ian C. Shepherdson, chief United States economist for High Frequency Economics, a research firm, said in an interview.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havakasha

Hey Silly,
I dont PRETEND to be anything i am not. Unlike you. Did that NUANCE escape you? lol
I am proud to come from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Of course i am
going to publish left leaning points of view. You on the other hand say
that you are an independent non party affiliate but all you post here are largely.
Republican points of view.

You get it dont you? lol
With logic like yours no wonder you follow economist Peter Schiff (I love tweaking
you about him cause it twists you in knots. You dont know what to say cause
you both believe in the same economic theories.)


Is Warren Buffett and others like him who tend to be more supportive
of Obama than the Republican Party considered a businessman under your defintion. lol

Do you kind of think this thread headline smacks of a wee bit of demadgoguery? LMFAO.

---

It is good to hear you admit to being a left wing rigid idealouge unwilling to compromise on your party's principle's. Kudos!

Warren Buffet should make a contribution to the government since he says that the rich need to be taxed more. Warren Buffet is just one businessman amongst many - many of which are not "Warren Buffet Rich". Warren Buffet is the exception, not the rule. But please do go ahead and compare Warren Buffet to a middle class business owner. It suits your needs.............

Whatever you publish, I will just publish the opposite because if anything other than a non party affiliate, I am anti-liberal. It is my core beliefs to my own business, take care of my family, spend within my means, accept responsibility, respect the liberties given to me by our country, act charitably...... The liberal position doesn't espouse these core beliefs.

"i am an anti-liberal." lol. Just another Republican demonstrating his natural bias and
trying to dress himself up as an independent thinker.
Still waiting for your list of candidates you support for President. Tick, tick, tick, tick.....

Many of my businessman friends understand that we need stimulus now not austerity.
William Gross the head of Pimco believes the same.
The saner Repubicans understand the need as well.

You need to get outside your rigid ideological "anti-liberal" comfort zone and read what some moderates think.

GOP on Defensive as Analysts Question Party's Fiscal Policy
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/13/bu...ng-louder.html

ECONOMIC MEMO
G.O.P. on Defensive as Analysts Question Party’s Fiscal Policy
By JACKIE CALMES
Published: August 12, 2011


WASHINGTON — The boasts of Congressional Republicans about their cost-cutting victories are ringing hollow to some well-known economists, financial analysts and corporate leaders, including some Republicans, who are expressing increasing alarm over Washington’s new austerity.

Their critiques have grown sharper since last week, when President Obama signed his deficit reduction deal with Republicans and, a few days later, when Standard & Poor’s subsequently downgraded the credit rating of the United States.
But even before that, macroeconomists and private sector forecasters were warning that the direction in which the new House Republican majority had pushed the White House and Congress this year — for immediate spending cuts, no further stimulus measures and no tax increases, ever — was the wrong one for addressing the nation’s two main ills, a weak economy now and projections of unsustainably high federal debt in coming years.

Instead, these critics say, Washington should be focusing on stimulating the economy in the near term to induce people to spend money and create jobs, while simultaneously settling on a long-term plan for spending reductions and tax increases to take effect only after the economy recovers.

These critics include onetime standard-bearers of Republican economic philosophy like Martin Feldstein, an adviser to President Ronald Reagan, and Henry M. Paulson Jr., Treasury secretary to President George W. Bush, underscoring the deepening divide between party establishment figures and the Tea Party-inspired Republicans in Congress and running for the White House.

“I think the U.S. has every chance of having a good year next year, but the politicians are doing their damnedest to prevent it from happening — the Republicans are — and the Democrats to my eternal bafflement have not stood their ground,” Ian C. Shepherdson, chief United States economist for High Frequency Economics, a research firm, said in an interview.

As for the longer term, Ethan Harris, co-head of global economics research at Bank of America, wrote this week that “Given the scale of the debt problem, a credible plan requires both revenue enhancement measures and entitlement reform. Washington’s recent debt deal did not include either.”

That is a common assessment, which may explain why Representative Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, was defensive about Republicans’ antitax absolutism in a memo to his colleagues on Monday.

”Over the next several months, there will be tremendous pressure on Congress to prove that S.& P.’s analysis of the inability of the political parties to bridge our differences is wrong. In short, there will be pressure to compromise on tax increases,” Mr. Cantor wrote.

But, he added, “We were not elected to raise taxes or take more money out of the pockets of hardworking families and business people.”

Republican presidential candidates share that fervor: in their Iowa debate Thursday night, all eight participants raised their hands when asked who would reject a long-term debt reduction package that had $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in revenue increases.

Although many forecasters criticize S.& P. for downgrading the United States, they share the company’s disappointment that the budget deal fell short of the “grand bargain” Mr. Obama tried to negotiate with House Speaker John A. Boehner to provide stimulus and cut annual deficits up to $4 trillion over 10 years.

Along with the annual caps on discretionary spending for domestic and military programs that ended up in the final deal, Mr. Obama and Mr. Boehner were also exploring stimulus measures for the short run and, for the long term, revenue increases and future savings from Social Security and from the Medicare and Medicaid entitlement programs, whose growing costs are stoking projections of mounting debt.

But Mr. Boehner quit the talks over taxes. And until Republicans budge on revenue, Democrats refuse to consider entitlement cuts.

Of course, Republicans can point to support among some conservative economists. John B. Taylor, a professor at Stanford and an adviser to Republicans presidents and presidential candidates, said in an interview that temporary stimulus measures were counterproductive, and for long-term debt reduction, “I would try very hard to make it work without revenues.”

But Mr. Feldstein, who was chairman of President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers, was among the first in 2008 to call for stimulus spending and recently has advocated raising revenue. He would do so by limiting “tax expenditures,” the costly tax breaks for corporations and individuals that include the mortgage-interest deduction — an idea recommended in December by a majority of Mr. Obama’s fiscal commission and lately by the president.

“I think Republicans should recognize that is a way of raising revenue without hurting incentives by higher marginal tax rates,” Mr. Feldstein said.

The problem with stimulus now is that the first time was blown, and Americans have soured on it. Not a lot of assets were created. Instead, states used a lot of that money to plug their budget holes (and now you see what is happening on a State level). Obama mislead Americans with poor projections of the results effectively starting the tea party movement.

Just google "promises of the stimulus package" and you'll get plenty of articles.

By the way, if I was a republican, I would be registered as one. I'm not. I would recommend to you that you get out of your "left wing of the democratic party" comfort zone and start supporting America's real middle class.

Please understand that my "anti liberal" position is not based solely on economics. It's primarily due to my core belief of minding your own business and not looking at others judging what they can or cannot afford as if you are some moral authority. I find that appauling. The sad part is that many Americans have embraced this poison. Demogoguery has succeeded.