'Anti-Business' Obama Is Best President For Corporate Profits Since 1900
- Thread starter Straight Shooter
- Start date
One can notice that among the 5 presidents who had a negative average annual real corporate profit growth, 4 are Republicans (Ford, Bush Sr, Busj Jr, Hoover), Wilson is the only Democrat to have such a poor record.
One can also notice that, only 6 presidents had average annual real corporate profit growth of 5% or more and, among them, 4 were Democrats (Obama, Clinton, Kennedy, Truman), Harding and Coolidge are the only Republicans with such a good record.
One can also notice that, only 6 presidents had average annual real corporate profit growth of 5% or more and, among them, 4 were Democrats (Obama, Clinton, Kennedy, Truman), Harding and Coolidge are the only Republicans with such a good record.
It's like the saying goes, "if you want to live like a Republican, vote Democratic"
Proof! That they are all in their constituents best interests...
Really what we need is a leader, not a politician...
Although, rarely at the end of a society does a great leader show up...
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
CNBC ran something similar about this on Friday, although they mainly focused on the S&P 500 returns by President and party. And for those who don't know, CNBC is a pretty right-leaning channel (Kudlow, Kernen, Caruso-Cabrera and the TEA party captain, Rick Santelli). But they do an excellent job of presenting relevant data studies that are fairly unbiased - unlike Faux Business News. Considering the moonbat criticism of those on the extreme right about Obama being a follower of Lenin, Stalin and Chairman Mao, this data is particularly interesting.
I'm not a particular fan of many of Obama's policies (economic or social), but I do pay very close attention to economic data. And overall, considering where we were in 2008-09, I am not completely dissatisfied with the progress that's been made over the past four years - which is the main reason that I am voting for Obama again. As far as my personal finances are concerned, Obama (and Bernanke) has been great for investors and borrowers - though not so much so for savers. My stock portfolio has almost doubled since '09 and my mortgage interest rate has fallen by over 53% since he was elected (I just did the calculations about a month ago and I sign the refi closing papers for a 30 year fixed at 3% this coming Friday
). And yes, I fully realize that Bernanke directs monetary policy, not the President, but Obama kept Bernanke in place (which I believe was the right move). For those who have been able to protect or enhance their FICO scores and who have decent jobs, there has been no better time to invest or borrow in our lifetimes. There are plenty of macro economic issues that certainly need to be addressed (and I'm not going to say that Obama is the best man for that job - but I don't see Romney as any better... probably worse, IMO), but I'm personally more than OK with the things that affect me the most (interest rates and the job market).
Also, for those on the extreme right (including those here) who claim that they can't or haven't made money under Obama and Bernanke, uh, sorry to say it, but maybe you just aren't very good at investing. If you think you're a real deal capitalist and yet you can't make a mint with long borrowing rates at 3%-4%, you're either not trying, have no money making skills or you're just fooling yourself. In short, you're :lame:
I'm not a particular fan of many of Obama's policies (economic or social), but I do pay very close attention to economic data. And overall, considering where we were in 2008-09, I am not completely dissatisfied with the progress that's been made over the past four years - which is the main reason that I am voting for Obama again. As far as my personal finances are concerned, Obama (and Bernanke) has been great for investors and borrowers - though not so much so for savers. My stock portfolio has almost doubled since '09 and my mortgage interest rate has fallen by over 53% since he was elected (I just did the calculations about a month ago and I sign the refi closing papers for a 30 year fixed at 3% this coming Friday
). And yes, I fully realize that Bernanke directs monetary policy, not the President, but Obama kept Bernanke in place (which I believe was the right move). For those who have been able to protect or enhance their FICO scores and who have decent jobs, there has been no better time to invest or borrow in our lifetimes. There are plenty of macro economic issues that certainly need to be addressed (and I'm not going to say that Obama is the best man for that job - but I don't see Romney as any better... probably worse, IMO), but I'm personally more than OK with the things that affect me the most (interest rates and the job market).Also, for those on the extreme right (including those here) who claim that they can't or haven't made money under Obama and Bernanke, uh, sorry to say it, but maybe you just aren't very good at investing. If you think you're a real deal capitalist and yet you can't make a mint with long borrowing rates at 3%-4%, you're either not trying, have no money making skills or you're just fooling yourself. In short, you're :lame:
StanScratch
My Penis Is Dancing!
Of course, one of the reasons Obama's numbers are so high is because W did such a historically poor job in managing almost everything in the country, and a rebound back to the norm looks rather huge. If he stays in office for another four years and has a Congress which will work with him, rather than purposefully against him, perhaps all of the ills of the W years can be completely erased (then hopefully all of those good things will not be erased after Obama leaves office by a President Ryan).
Of course, should Romney take office, expect all of those gains to be lost almost immediately (and the blame put at Obama's feet).
Of course, should Romney take office, expect all of those gains to be lost almost immediately (and the blame put at Obama's feet).
Couldn't prove it by me. Four years ago I owned my own business, a house, and three vehicles. Now, the cars have been sold one by one to pay bills, my house has been foreclosed upon, and I'm out of business. I now work a blue collar job in which I earn a fraction of what I did before.
Who do I blame for this? I blame Barrack Hussein Obama AND George W. Bush. BOTH of them did an absolutely lousy job of handling our economy. All I can do is hope that Romney is elected and starts running the country the at least a little bit like Ronald Reagan used to do. Then I may have a chance of rebuilding everything. Four more years of Barrack Hussein Obama would do nothing but dig the hole deeper and make me four years older when he's finally gone.
Who do I blame for this? I blame Barrack Hussein Obama AND George W. Bush. BOTH of them did an absolutely lousy job of handling our economy. All I can do is hope that Romney is elected and starts running the country the at least a little bit like Ronald Reagan used to do. Then I may have a chance of rebuilding everything. Four more years of Barrack Hussein Obama would do nothing but dig the hole deeper and make me four years older when he's finally gone.
Hopefully when Romney takes office, he will spend more time creating solutions than he does making excuses and blaming his predecessor. The excuses and blame game are all we have had for the last four years.
If Barrack Hussein Obama is reelected, do you have a prediction for when in the next four years he will quit blaming George W. Bush and actually take at least some ownership of the country's economic situation?
No, he wont !
You hear what republicans are saying about Obama, like "The country goes wrong 'cause Obama do this and he do that, etc..." ? Just put them into past tense and you will have an idea of what they will be telling for 4 years if Romney's elected.
Blame Wall Street, blame the banks, blame Goldman-Sachs. They are the ones who put the economy down to where it is now.
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
I don't mean to sound cavalier or cruel, as it seems like you've hit a really rough patch. And I would never suggest that all businesses or sectors have recovered equally well. But without knowing what business you were in or (especially) how you managed and ran the business, isn't you blaming Obama (and Bush) for the failure of your business about the same as Obama blaming Bush, if not worse? :dunno:
Again, I'm sorry for what's happened to you. But this kind of reminds me of something that a former acquaintance of mine used to say during meetings that got heated, when he felt like the mood needed to be lightened: "I didn't say it was your fault! I said I was blaming you!"
Business is part skill and part luck - the assigned proportions tend to vary case by case. I'm not questioning your skills. But maybe you were just unlucky to be in a particular sector that fell flat during the recession and it drug you down with it. Maybe you were a building contractor or something. I :dunno: The same thing would have happened to me if I'd taken the bait and invested in a local machine shop in early/mid 2008, for what seemed like a song to pick up 40% ownership. But their customers started stiffing them in mid 2009 and they went bankrupt in 2010 and got liquidated. So I would essentially be broke now. But I was lucky enough not to invest in that or buy timber land when it seemed dirt cheap.
Not saying that you do, but unlike many, I don't look to the government to be my nanny or my financial adviser. What I found since getting into a pretty wide variety of businesses since the 1980's (everything from a mortgage company and real estate to a strip bar - not all of which worked quite to plan) is that if I point a finger at someone else when things go tits up, there will always be three more fingers pointing back at me (point your finger and then look at your hand). My dad wasn't able to keep our family farm going back in the early 80's. The land had been in our family for about 100 years. But stagflation had set in and it was too expensive to borrow money at 15%+ to buy feed, etc. for cattle that couldn't cover the costs once they were sold. Reagan was in office. But my dad didn't blame him or anybody else for that misfortune. He was made of different stock than most people now days. He'd lived through the Great Depression and he knew what truly hard times were all about. Unlike my dad, what I notice about a lot of so called free market conservatives these days is they'll get very offended if anyone even suggests that the government had any hand in their success. But as soon as they fail... ah shit, now that was the government's fault.
It seems like this really gets back to what Romney said about some people not wanting to take responsibility for their own lives. As I mentioned here before, I agreed with him on that... in a general sense. But I take a broader, more pragmatic view. See, I would be including a good number of people that he'd probably like to avoid including... since they're the ones whose votes he would be counting on.
I hope things do get better for you, C4B. But I'd say it's going to be up to you to fix it. If you're waiting for a President to fix it for you, you'll die old & unhappy.
I'm going to piggyback off of what Rey said and say that I'm sorry that you've gone through some hard times however, dont blame Bush or Obama for your business failing. You owned a busines and so you should take accountability for it. Dont blame the government. And if people had the same mentality of taking care of their own businesses instead of looking to blame somebody when things are a little bad—just tightening things up and doing the best they can—I think we’d be better off that way, too. The whole world is not in a good place right now and the problem is that we're looking to blame others for our misfortunes.
Nice article. The chart alone can be a bit misleading, but the link you post is not. The point is well made.
The big thing is jobs. Why would profits bounce back and jobs not? Some of it is capitalism - you find a way to do more with less (often by just pushing employees harder without increasing their salary) - some of it is uncertainty where corporations have boucned back, but aren't ready to increase spend yet.
I always thought calling Obama a full on liberal was like calling Teddy Roosevelt a full on conservative.
The big thing is jobs. Why would profits bounce back and jobs not? Some of it is capitalism - you find a way to do more with less (often by just pushing employees harder without increasing their salary) - some of it is uncertainty where corporations have boucned back, but aren't ready to increase spend yet.
I always thought calling Obama a full on liberal was like calling Teddy Roosevelt a full on conservative.
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
Excellent points. It's important for people to realize that corporate profits are often at cross purposes with employment. Notice how a company's stock will often rise after a major layoff is announced. Labor, in most sectors, is one of the major cost components. And removing costs usually results in an enhancement to the bottom line, which often results in an increase in the stock price. Removing cost doesn't affect revenue, but it does tend to affect the overall profitability. And if you can remove labor cost, while maintaining or increasing productivity and efficiency, it really is a win/win... for the company - though not necessarily the workers.
Unfortunately, another thing about labor under globalized capitalism is that you can often shift lower and medium skill labor to lower cost areas of the globe. And that's also part of why we haven't seen as big a pick up in domestic employment as we might have prior to broad globalization taking root.
You are also correct about uncertainty being a factor. This fiscal cliff that is being talked about is affecting the industry that I work in and I'm sure that it also affects many others.
One of the biggest criticisms that I have of Obama is that he did not press for continued tax credits for investments in plant and equipment - domestic ONLY! Even in the depths of the recession, they made a real difference in the manufacturing sector. IMO, he should have pressed for this, just as hard as he pressed for health care/insurance reform. And if the House Republicans had sat on their hands, refusing to press ahead with this measure, as they probably would have, Obama could have (successfully) beaten them over the head in front of the Americana people for their obstinance and obstructionism. Many on the left don't see the value in tax credits for industry. And if it's Obama pressing for them, apparently some on the right don't see the value either. But IMO, they would have helped. They would have worked. If applied correctly, they always have and they always will, IMO.
Good post, Mike.
Similar threads
