Anyone else get the sense.....

[mcpapa]

I agree.

 

Poor tactic. Should have started off with something in regards to jobs.

 

Poor of the opposition to stonewall everything and put politics in front of what's best for the country. I look for that to happen should a R become POTUS as well.

 

I've seen it agrued here that a single-party monopoly of the Executive and Legislative branches is a bad thing; even to the point of voting for a POTUS that is of the opposite party of whichever party has legislative control.

 

I don't see where gridlock is any better.

[leatherneck]

As a rule, it's been my experience that C of C types aren't often happy with Democratis presidents. They don't endorse them and they don't like them.

 

I think that's generally true. But I think the business types right now would be happy with FDR as President if they felt he could lead us to an economic recovery on a pro business platform. Well maybe not FDR. How about Bill Clinton instead?

[rockmom]

I think that's generally true. But I think the business types right now would be happy with FDR as President if they felt he could lead us to an economic recovery on a pro business platform. Well maybe not FDR. How about Bill Clinton instead?

 

 

It's an interesting theory, but ultimately I don't think so. And the reason I say that is that the C of C set tend to consider change as bad. They'll hate it, regardless of who proposes it, if they think (with our without substantive proof) that business could be impacted negatively. Although they get credit for being the risk takers, in reality, they're calculated risk takers....sometimes to the point of no risk. :lol:

[leatherneck]

It's an interesting theory, but ultimately I don't think so. And the reason I say that is that the C of C set tend to consider change as bad. They'll hate it, regardless of who proposes it, if they think (with our without substantive proof) that business could be impacted negatively. Although they get credit for being the risk takers, in reality, they're calculated risk takers....sometimes to the point of no risk. :lol:

 

The bolded has definitely NOT been my observations in dealing with the business execs I represent and know (which I say, without wanting to come across as arrogant, is a pretty large number).

 

Of course the C of C set as you call them are calculated risk takers. If you had to pledge your home and all your assets to your business enterprise, wouldn't you only take calculated risks in the management of your business? I'd say that close to 90% of the deals I participate in require the owners of the small and medium size businesses to personally guarantee the business loans made, and to pledge directly or indirectly their entire net worth. A deal I'm working on right now has a businessman buying another business because he thinks he can grow it. But he's placing his entire net worth at risk and he's scared to death. Not because he's not confident in his abilities, but rather he's scared of what is going on in the White House. But he is the rare exception right now. Most of my clients have pulled their horns in and are not taking risks. They are bears, not bulls.

 

You are actually agreeing with my point by saying the C of C types are calculated risk takers. Unless and until the business leaders think the leaders of the federal govt will support and create a pro-business environment in which their businesses will thrive, they aren't going to take the risks of hiring more workers, investing in new equipment, expanding business lines and incurring the debt needed to do so. They definitely do NOT feel President Obama is pro business and definitely do NOT feel President Obama has the leadership ability to get Congressional support to do what it takes to create such an environment.

 

I sincerely doubt there are few conservatives on this site that have been as willing as I have been to give President Obama a fair chance. Unlike some of the flame throwers on here, I've been very respectful of him on here since he was elected and I think very fair in my assessment and evaluation of him. I greatly respect the man for having the courage to admit by his actions that some of the things he campaigned for were not in the best interest of the country (think Gitmo here) although I wonder if his campaign talk was just nothing but pandering anti Bush points because he knew the American public was very negative toward Bush.

 

Nonetheless, I have a clear and strong opinion that he has created a very negative impression with the business leaders. And they are the ones that frankly create the jobs. If they don't have confidence in him (and almost every business leader I deal with doesn't), they don't create the jobs or take the other steps mentioned above that will lead to the economy recovering. President Obama had the opportunity to create that confidence, but he totally blew it with health care reform. That colossal strategic mistake, along with Bush's excessive spending, is why tea party supporters got elected recently. When 59% of Americans are opposed to a huge piece of legislation and no Republicans vote for it, it is totally naive to think there will not be repercussions. Don't blame the tea party congressmen/women and don't blame the people that elected them. Blame the decisions of the federal govt that created the mood that caused extreme fiscal conservatives and very pro business types (or more accurately, very anti big govt types) to get elected. Health care reform and the manner in which it was placed into law is definitely one of those decisions. As Momma says, "you made your bed, now sleep into it". Call it, as my liberal law partner likes to say, the doctrine of unintended and unthought of consequences.

 

I hope, if President Obama gets re-elected, that I'm wrong, but I just don't believe he can ever regain the confidence of a large percentage of the business leaders in this country. We desperately need someone in the OO that business types believe in so they will take the calculated risks needed. If an R gets elected that instills that confidence, it will be a big, make that a huge, step forward. A lot of businesses (small, medium and large) are sitting on a lot of cash. They are just afraid to spend or invest it. They've calculated that the risks are too great at this time.

[75center]

The Kiplinger Letter had an interesting comment that in a way the Federal Reserve is forecasting a single term for Obama. Their take is that by pledging to leave interest rates unchanged at near 0% until mid 2013, they're suggesting that there will be little or no improvement in the economy before then.

[Voice of Reason]

Here is the short answer to this discussion. Often the "White House", "DC", "Washington", etc are synonymous with the economy. By that I mean, when talking about the status of the economy, business people and others target the above when really what they are afraid of is the economy itself. My sense is that business people and others are just scared about the state of the nation, the world and the economy as a whole. Obama, Congress, Washington, etc become the target of their concern/fear. Right now the economies of the entire world are in transition and there is turmoil. Business people are risk takers but they want to know what the risks are. Right now, there are too many unpredictable risks for many of those risk takers to jump in. That goes for small business, large business, global business. Look at that cash piles many of the largest corporations are sitting on right now. Why? Because they are not sure what to expect in the next couple of years. Yes, Obama and the whole DC crowd are part of that but not all of it but there is much more to it than that.

 

And that is as short an answer as I could make it.