DescentBB

Yes, Obama has lead us into new heights of economic prosperity...until you look at the Economic Freedom rating:

With losses of economic freedom in eight of the past nine years, the U.S. has tied its worst score ever, wiping out a decade of progress.

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/antho ... ook-office

So tell me again how great Obama's leadership has been.

what does that metric tell us? Prior to Obama, we were a poorly regulated, out-of-control economy heading EXTREMELY close to absolute liquidity collapse. My suspicion is that the statistic is absolute garbage.

what I do know is that under Obama, the US dollar is extremely strong, and our investment markets are quite a bit less jumpy than others around the world. That is a very real metric. One of the banks I frequent has a large international dept and thus has a huge board with exchange rates on the wall. I am shocked at how well our currency stands against EVERYTHING else out there.

just read that whole link....what a load of biased, uninformed nonsense. Nice touch to show a tattered US flag, just to make it clear that actual love of country or respect of same doesn't enter into their calculus. The negatives listed are ALL due to the absolute disaster that Bush left behind. Further, the 'commentator' cites the 'takeover of the health care system' which clearly never actually happened in the US, among other utter fallacies. Geez, Woody, can't you find stuff that actually demonstrates some depth of knowledge or grasp upon reality? Yeesh.

As Shakespeare once said, "He doth protest too much"

Too bad the president doesn’t have any real control over the economy.

And I guess that site is akin to the sites posted with the GIANT GUNS at the top of the page, where you have to sift through all of the opinion, to find the grains of truth.

And it’s a matter of public record most all of the things done to save the economy, Bailouts, stimulus…etc. were started under Bush, and “continued” under Obama, and you would be hard pressed to actually find something unique, under Obama.

And there is a person on this very board that claims the stimulus should have been a lot bigger, so how does someone get credit, if they actually didn’t do enough?

yup, that would be me. The stimulus should have been close to 2.5 Trillion to really jumpstart the economy, and at the near-zero interest rates on bonds, that would have been the prudent way to stimulate the economy. Funny how folks still try, from time to time, to make it sound dire that we owe the money we do, but it is most all under 3% interest, so can be seen as wise investment. Now, the trick is to get ongoing revenue and expenditure in line.

Yup...that is the trick all right.

it seems like we lost the notion, which once was the hallmark of responsible government of borrowing when times dictated it, but then aiming for balance in between. Used to be that balanced budgets(not less and less taxation, or ultra-small government, but simply balanced budgets) were the cornerstone of Republican thinking in the US. Too bad that GOP and it's strict focus on economy(and no part of religion in govt or 'culture wars') got ground under by the Reagan crowd and thereafter lost the thread completely. I've often said, in the political world I grew up in, I'd probably have been a Republican as an adult, but that all changed by 1983 or so.

OH NO! WE LOST SOMETHING!! I HOPE WE FIND IT!!!

It's like that place somewhere along the line where a murderer lost the appreciation for the beauty and promise of life... Yeah, he definitely lost something... Anybody could have done it. The key is to find it again in order to positively affect the trend of people that are ****ING DYING.

well, that was deep, Thorne.

Sometimes something is lost, but if it was discarded as worthless then it wasn't lost even if it is lost. That's just a fun way to say that "we" didn't lost anything "we" discarded as so much refuse. "We" are a bunch of irresponsible, short-sighted self-serving, soulless assholes vying for position on a board we do not control, and as such "we" do not lose good or sound things, we sell them at the pawn shop for drug money.

Let's have a look at the source of this, shall we?

President Barack Obama’s second-term efforts to expand government spending, the scope of the administrative state, and regulation have been stymied to some degree by political opposition in Congress. Yet the U.S. economy continues to underperform despite a private sector–led energy boom that has made the U.S. the world’s largest producer of oil and natural gas. Uncertain responses to foreign policy challenges, particularly concerning the Middle East, have contributed to a loss of support for the President and strong gains for Republicans in Congress and state legislatures. Political tensions related to racial, religious, and social issues have increased over the past year.

Ferno wrote:Let's have a look at the source of this, shall we?

You are wasting your breath. Some people just don't get it.

vision wrote:

Ferno wrote:Let's have a look at the source of this, shall we?

You are wasting your breath. Some people just don't get it.

Yeah, and some people don't get what economic freedom means.

cerainly, woody, that would apply to whoever wrote that piece you posted in the beginning of the thread. Their metrics are ludicrous.

Pray tell, can you point out something specific or are you just covering up the fact the index is the worse its ever been under Obama.

it is the data they choose to define economic 'freedom'(and, I suppose, what they choose to leave out), the completely arbitrary definition of what even constitutes economic freedom and the utter lack of evidence that there is any link between economic freedom, so defined, and any tangible issues around quality of life, strength of the economy, or long-term economic outcomes.

Since you never had to start a business, let me point out one of the criteria...regulations. Try and start a business here and see what you have to go thu to set it up. Then take the same business and see how much you have to go thru in say China. Now you'll see why so many businesses set up there. It is not just cheap labor rates but the ease of which to get started.

sorry, but you are wrong. I have set up a business(two, actually) and I have no problem with our greater regulations.You see, I like the idea of safety, and assurance that workers will be taken care of, etc. That's what I'm talking about......some people whine about things to affect 'economic independence' but in reality, what they object to is the lack of opportunity to foist dangerous products upon the market, gouge the consumer or otherwise do harm to society in the interest of their own personal profits. Sorry, not the nation I wish to live in.

And what percentage of business starters/owners fall under that category?

Damn evil business people.

callmeslick wrote:I like the idea of safety, and assurance that workers will be taken care of, etc. That's what I'm talking about

Do all business regulations contribute to those goals? Are they all effective at it?

Seems like every time this topic comes up, anywhere, there's one group of people who are anti-regulation in principle, and another who seem to think that since some regulations are good, all regulations are good.

Could we perhaps agree that some regulations are good, but not all of them?

If the regulations drive business's off shore, then they just might not be as good for the unemployed worker.

Spidey wrote:And what percentage of business starters/owners fall under that category?

Damn evil business people.

kinda funny to see the same folks who state the absolute dangers of a single fraudulent vote, which affects no one, discount that a small percentage of abusers of the public trust in business can literally kill people, not to mention the other societal ills that regulation prevents, such as child labor, wholesale pollution, etc.

Lothar wrote:

callmeslick wrote:I like the idea of safety, and assurance that workers will be taken care of, etc. That's what I'm talking about

Do all business regulations contribute to those goals? Are they all effective at it?

no, but those that do have largely been VERY effective. Our air is cleaner, water is cleaner, our cars are safer, etc. I can go on. Doesn't it make sense to err on the side of over-regulaton for the Public Welfare than to allow the excesses of the past be repeated?

Could we perhaps agree that some regulations are good, but not all of them?

in a heartbeat. Moreover, some regulations become unneeded, and should be taken off the books. That never, as you note, seems to be the way it's approached.

now, to complete my thought towards Woody's questions......my business startup experiences weren't overly regulation heavy. First was a vineyard and winery, and such as there were made perfect sense since you were selling a beverage, and a controlled beverage at that. The other, current involvement is with a flyshop and guide service in PA. Minimal regulation there, once again, perfectly sensible around customer safety, and assurance of competence.
Now, if you wish to see regulations, you could do far worse than look at the business I spent my professional career in: Medical Laboratory work. Over the 30 years I worked, regulations and paperwork exploded in scale. However, as I sit back and think about it, no more than maybe 5% were frivolous, bureaucratic or redundant. Most all were aimed at reducing fraudulant billing(every major player in that business has been found to commit Medicare and Insurance fraud, at least once), ensuring accuracy of reporting, ensuring patient privacy, and ensuring professional conduct. I feel that, while me and my staff had to spend a larger percentage of time on regulatory compliance and training and somewhat less on actual Allergy testing, the end users(patients and doctors) got a VASTLY superior product, that was constantly improving in quality, consistency and accuracy. As noted above, I'm all for weeding out regulations which are outdated, redundant, or just useless, but I'd do so VERY carefully, and as I said, would err on the side of regulation.