It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
You're right, the stock market has done well in the past couple years. The DOW has fully recovered from the '08 shock.
The problem, is that these profits are primarily going into the hands of the wealthy. A huge proportion of income growth in America has gone to millionaires under Obama.
In reality, the executive gets way too much blame/credit for the economy. For example, the economic growth under Clinton had much more to do with a tech revolution and internet boom than anything Clinton did. And similarly, the economy under Obama is more a product of private sector business activity than government policy.
The question for Obama's economic grade, is not as much about stock prices, income, or even unemployment. It is whether or not the added activity based on stimulous/bailout spending was worth the added debt. Which I think, it is, considering that we could have seen a major depression without.
Where would we be today, without these government economic programs?
Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
reply to post by campanionator
I agree. His first term economic policies that many question are the result of extreme circumstance.
He shouldn't be seen as a detriment to business.
I think that the American economy 2012-16 will do pretty well regardless of who wins the election. And because of this, Obama's economic policies will ultimately be seen as successful.edit on 10/12/2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)
The problem, is that these profits are primarily going into the hands of the wealthy. A huge proportion of income growth in America has gone to millionaires under Obama
Originally posted by originaldraagyn
reply to post by campanionator
By providing these examples, you are only showing that Obama's policies have not been detrimental to these specific companies. A better way to look at it would be at the NYSE as a whole, and GDP as a whole.
www.forecast-chart.com...
The above link shows that over the course of the last four years -- not including this year -- we haven't come out of the hole that the NYSE was in at the end of 2008. Progress has been made, yes, but not a complete recovery.
useconomy.about.com...
This link shows that we have only had positive growth in 2010 and 2011 for our economy as a whole. 2012 is not included.
Taking your examples and putting them together with the above information, it is possible to make some educated guesses about what is actually happening with our economy. Such tremendous growth for companies as large as Starbucks, Apple, IBM, etc., is coming at a price. If every business was experiencing the same type of growth, we would have no problems with jobs, high unemployment, availability of benefits, revenue for FedGov, etc.
The wealth of our nation is being concentrated in these larger corporations, with the smaller, but more vital businesses falling to the wayside. While it may seem to be a Utopia for some to have an Apple store in every city and small town- employing a brigade of Geniuses to make our lives better- it would not make our economy any more viable for the future. The real proof of a sound economic policy would be for a strong percentage of small businesses to see the type of fiscal performance shown by your examples.
Hence, Romney's plan to encourage small business.
Do I agree with Romney? I think some of his points have merit, but he is definitely not my ideal candidate.
Do I agree with Obama? No. And that goes for the Democrat Party as well.
I think that only I can make the best decisions about what to do with my income. I give to two charities on a monthly basis, and a third charity on an annual basis. Through these organizations, I directly have an impact on my local economy (city and county) and then my state economy. If I had a higher percentage of my income available to me, and not taken by FedGov, I would be able to do more for my local economy. To help explain myself better, I contribute financially to job training and education for disadvantaged and troubled teens. I also contribute my time to these organizations. I can't give them much time, because I work too much.
I don't need FedGov taking my money and giving it to the people they want to, when I can eliminate the middle man and have a lasting impact on the people in the city where I live. Helping these kids to not only figure out what they want to be when they grow up, but also giving them the skills they would need to thrive, is better than just giving them some cash to get by.
TL;DR - If a strong percentage of corporations in America were experiencing similar growth, then YES, Obama's policies are good for business.
Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
reply to post by campanionator
The obvious example for a losing company related to Obama's policy would be Solyndra.
This is a major point for the opposition. I, however, remain in favor for government policy promoting the expansion of green energy.