3 ms·

Whether or not it's true, the overall sentiment is that Obama is bad for business. That article didn't mention President Obama once. Would you care to cite a r

• matwood 16y ago
  That article sounds like politics in general is bad for business with which I agree. I think government works best when it's basically staying out of the way and keeping the rule of law intact. Obama is the President so it's easier to say him rather than the current government in general. As it stands there are many uncertainties around new regulations and costs (healthcare, taxes, potential cap and trade). I'm not saying I agree or disagree with any of them, but business hates uncertainty. It's hard to play the game if the rules are constantly changing. Here is more detail of the study in the original article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/13/small-business-confidence_n_644329.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/13/small-business-conf... "Owners do not trust the economic policies in place or proposed and are distressed by global and national developments that make the future more uncertain," the NFIB said. ... "Nine out of ten small businesses reported that all of their credit needs were met last month, according to the NFIB report. Just six percent of owners said 'finance' was their single most important problem. Rather, poor sales, taxes and government red tape took the top three spots."
  • jeromec 16y ago
    That article sounds like politics in general is bad for business with which I agree. That original article didn't mention politics at all, either. It seems like you're the one reading that into it. The huffingtonpost.com link does mention economic policies, and uncertainty, but that's to be expected, as, I agree with you, people do begin to look for someone in charge to blame. The reality, however, is that we were losing 750,000 jobs a month before Obama was even sworn in. The problem is that we didn't hit bottom with a complete financial system collapse and a full blown depression. Then Obama could not be blamed, because the only way to go would be up. As it stands, however, we averted that level of crisis and pain, yet many people don't realize the severity of the hit to our economy, and how long it will take to fix it -- no matter who is in charge.
    • protomyth 16y ago
      Generally, for better or worse, the current sitting President is generally praised / blamed for all matters economic.
      • fleitz 16y ago
        It's surprising that the guy who heads the organization that owns the banks, regulates the banks, prints the money, and appoints the guy who sets the prime rate would be held to account for economic matters involving primarily those organizations.
        • jeromec 16y ago
          Central banks do not control the entire economy. There is much more involved, and economics is so complex that even experts vigorously disagree much of the time. Presidents themselves do not usually possess a high degree of economic insight and understanding. This is why all types of presidents from different parties have presided over recessions, depressions, and bursting bubbles. This leads some, like Ron Paul, notably, to suggest the fundamental system is flawed, and therefore suggests tinkering will never fix it, so the Federal Reserve should be abolished. I'm not saying I think he has the right strategy, but I do think he is correct in his reasoning for why we often experience economic angst.
  • protomyth 16y ago
    > That article sounds like politics in general is bad for business with which I agree. I think government works best when it's basically staying out of the way and keeping the rule of law intact. "No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session." By Judge Gideon J. Tucker