American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Mongers-

Check this article out. Get ready for "four more years"

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110511/ap_on_re_us/us_ap_poll_obama_boost[/url]

Esten, It's interesting that your endpoint is always 2009, the end of one of the worst recessions since the 1930's. I suspect that if you looked at median household income at the ends of other recessions, for periods ending in 1982 or 1974 or 1931 you'd see something similar. Also, it's interesting that you go back to median household income as your preferred statistic again and again, even though Stan and others have pointed out that you should be using median income of individuals, to adjust for the effect of more families with one wage earner and smaller households.

You're a big believer in polls. From some of your posts, it almost seems that you think the USA should be run based on polls. In particular, you appear to be a big believer in the majority taking whatever it wants to from those who are well off, if that's what the majority wants to do. O. K, well, instead of looking at what individuals believe, how about taking a look at what governments are doing. With respect to your ideas about business in your last post, the majority of the world is headed in the opposite direction of where you want to take us. The exceptions I can think of are the USA under Obama / Pelosi / Reid, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Bolivia and Argentina. Spain under Zapatero and Greece would also be headed in the same direction if recent economic conditions hadn't interceded.

The former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, China, and East Asia are trying to create conditions that are favorable for business, and cutting taxes on business. They encourage savings instead of pushing their companies and their people to spend, spend, spend. They've learned from their past failures, which you seem intent on having us repeat.

You are totally off base on your comments about dividends and cash in corporations. The problem the USA has is too much consumption and not enough savings, at the individual, corporate and government level. So USA corporations have 2 trillion in cash. How much debt do they have? A hell of a lot more. This absence of net savings results in the USA having large current account deficits, and on us not having the savings to fund investment so that we have to rely on China et al, and so that we don't have the investment to grow as fast as we could.

While indeed there are specific instances where companies lay off employees and increase dividends, you're not looking at the big picture. You undoubtedly are in favor of the marginal rate on dividends going back to 39.6%, as it's scheduled to on January 1, 2013. Almost all of the world either franks dividends, so that corporate income isn't taxed twice (once to the company and once to the shareholder) or has a lower tax on dividends than ordinary income. The dividend payout ratio in the USA (percentage of income paid as dividends) is low by worldwide standards. It's too low, the reason being that the tax system encourages companies to become overindebted (interest expense is tax deductible) instead of issuing equity (dividends are not deductible). Anyway, investment should be allocated to companies that produce high returns instead of those that reduce low returns. Dividends are one of the primary mechanisms by which this occurs. A company without opportunity for growth should distribute dividends. The shareholders reinvest this in companies with good opportunites for growth. Money flows, say, from textile companies to Boeing. If you are going to insist on companies retaining and reinvesting income instead of distributing dividends, a lot of money is going to be squandered on stupid investments.

The money that flows to pension funds and mutual funds and individuals in the form of dividends is miniscule compared to the money spent by corporations on labor. The following statement is a complete load of crap:

"The connection to unemployment is this: mass layoffs increased corporate profits, much of which is being distributed back to the rich through dividend hikes, buybacks and executive compensation."

For the record, I do believe that you, Obama, Pelosi and Reid are Democrats, and don't put you in the same category as Chavez, Ortega, Morales, or Correa. I do believe you have similar attitudes towards business though, and believe your policies will damage the economy. The reason I say "will", I believe this country is headed in the direction you want it to go, as evidenced by Rock Harder's post above.

HR, while it's a nice article about Obama's current popularity, the bounce is due to Osama getting a bullet in the noggin courtesy of the US Navy Seals. By the way I am still trying to figure out how according to the AG water boarding is torture but shooting an unarmed terrorist in the head is just fine. I'm sure Esten can explain it.

He should enjoy it while he can since it will be the last uptick in his ratings before the 2012 election. I am surprised it has lasted this long, but it will soon fade and his poll numbers and approval rating will once again plummet to the low 40's were they were before. Why, because he is doing his best to ignore the 900 pound gorilla in the room, the deficit, and that big monkey is getting pissed. That's the Gorilla not Obama.

Just around the corner is the debt ceiling debate and the 2012 budget, spending is still unchecked, unemployment went up to 9% again and the 'recovery' is in the process of stalling due to fuels costs.

The Democrats and Obama seem determined to run off the cliff in mass with their latest proposals. While gas prices continue remain at $4+ they are doing their best to:

1. Curtail domestic production by slow walking the permit process creating a de facto moratorium on drilling.

A. The federal judge in New Orleans just order the Fed to either deny or issue Gulf drilling permits in 30 days – then they are in contempt.

B. Stonewalling the process to permit new production in Alaska, which the citizens of Alaska want to go forward creating jobs and income for the state.

2. Punish those dirty old oil companies, at least the 5 that they have some control over, by removing certain tax deductions.

Wow, what brilliant thinkers! Now what do you think will happen to fuel costs as domestic production falls and the oil companies start passing on the cost of business which just got higher courtesy of the Democrats?

The only answer from the Democrats is to Tax Tax Tax and Spend Spend Spend and Borrow Borrow Borrow.

It's time to shut down many of the overreaching government programs and reduce the size of the government. I am well aware of the herculean task this represents but it needs to be done.

Ronald Reagan once said the closest thing to immortality he has ever seen was a government program. Time for the immortals to die.

Next Obama and Immigration Reform . The truth about the Border Patrol's orders from the guys in the field!

[QUOTE=Tiny12;417350]Esten, It's interesting that your endpoint is always 2009, the end of one of the worst recessions since the 1930's. I suspect that if you looked at median household income at the ends of other recessions, for periods ending in 1982 or 1974 or 1931 you'd see something similar. Also, it's interesting that you go back to median household income as your preferred statistic again and again, even though Stan and others have pointed out that you should be using median income of individuals, to adjust for the effect of more families with one wage earner and smaller households. [/QUOTE]Tiny, I stuck with the 2009 endpoint because that was Stan's endpoint. Regardless, as you may have noticed I did conclude the long term trend was slightly positive.

Individual or household income, either will do. If you think individual income is a better metric, post a link and let's see what it shows. And Stan did not point out to use individual income in his reply to me, in fact he posted a link to and discussed data on household income. So whaddya talking about? And furthermore, there is no reason that more one wage earner households would invalidate comparing trends in household income for low vs. high income households, unless shifts to one wage earner households were significantly different for low vs. high income households. I suspect such evidence is hard to come by.

[QUOTE]You're a big believer in polls. From some of your posts, it almost seems that you think the USA should be run based on polls. In particular, you appear to be a big believer in the majority taking whatever it wants to from those who are well off, if that's what the majority wants to do. O. K, well, instead of looking at what individuals believe, how about taking a look at what governments are doing. With respect to your ideas about business in your last post, the majority of the world is headed in the opposite direction of where you want to take us. [/QUOTE]I think polls are valuable (and interesting) to gauge what people are thinking. I don't always agree with them. I wouldn't say they should be used directly to run the country, but polls can and do have some influence on guiding politics and policy. I am a big believer in reversing (to some degree) the ongoing massive wealth accumulation at the top. You often reference other countries, but it seems you are not consistent in whether you suggest we follow or not follow what they do. As you may have noticed, I care little about what other countries are doing.

You don't understand where I "want to take us.". If you did, you would remember I posted before I am a big believer in balanced budgets. I want the USA to get to a balanced budget (and start reducing debt) much quicker than the timeframes we are hearing out of DC. I favor an approach that includes both raising revenues and cutting spending.

[QUOTE]You are totally off base on your comments about dividends and cash in corporations. The problem the USA has is too much consumption and not enough savings, at the individual, corporate and government level. So USA corporations have 2 trillion in cash. How much debt do they have? A hell of a lot more. This absence of net savings results in the USA having large current account deficits, and on us not having the savings to fund investment so that we have to rely on China et al, and so that we don't have the investment to grow as fast as we could.[/QUOTE]Tiny, please. It is very obvious what is going on with large, profitable public corporations. Cutting to the bone (and sometimes deeper) to funnel more and more cash back to executives and shareholders (AKA the wealthy, for the most part).

You raise a good point about debt. It really begs the question - why are profitable corporations more focused on raising dividends and executive compensation, than paying off debt?

As far as dividends going back to 39.6%, that day can't come soon enough. I do hope Obama doesn't bend on that one.

Esten, I took WT69's advice. I just got laid. Honestly. I'm happy and content. I love you Esten!

And you can spin anything any which way you like.

I believe I was the first to commend BHO for nailing UBL. It is the first incidence, since his election, in which it was clear to me that he was doing his job (however reluctantly (IMO) he made that choice). That said, most of the polls only show him getting a 1-3% bump out of the successful, targeted assassination of UBL. The AP poll is pretty sophomoric, only to be outdone by its own shoddy reporting of its own poll.

Not until the very end, in an after thought that isn't even within the prose of the article, do you get this:

"Still, his re-election is far from certain. And there are warning signs in the poll.

_Nearly two-thirds of people — 61 percent — disapprove of his handling on gas prices, even though there's little a president can do about them.

_Less than half give him positive marks on dealing with the federal budget deficit or taxes, two big upcoming issues."

So clear majorities disapprove of his handling of the economy, deficit, spending, taxes and the price of gas (which is 100% his fault since it is the falling dollar and not the rising cost of oil that is the problem). Gee, he should have no problem winning in 2012, when the price of a gallon of gas should be over $5 and unemployment will be somewhere between 8. 5.10. 5.

No matter what the polls and media say, you can't fool the people into believing that their day-to-day existence is other than what it really is. The week before BHO was inaugurated, it cost me about $38 to fill my gas tank. This morning, it cost me $80 to fill that same gas tank. The housing market is re-crashing, consumer credit is a thing of the past and prices of virtually all staples have risen dramatically (again Obama's fault for diluting the dollar).

GHW Bush was at a 91% approval rating (amazing that the press even printed that information) on the bump from the first Iraq War and was considered unbeatable so all of the big-name democrats bailed out of the race. Some no-name from Arkansas, who didn't have the sense to come in out of the rain, stuck it out and beat Bush (thanks in large prat to Ross Perot) and got a second term, four years later.

If the election was held today, anyone from Elmer Fudd to Homer J. Simpson could beat Obama, including both Newt and Sarah Palin (yep, read it and weep). No matter what the press says, the truth is you can't put UBL's dead carcass in your gas tank. UBL's passing isn't reducing the rates of unemployment and underemployment.

Anyone telling you that Obama is a shoe-in is a liar and / or living in a fantasy world.

Just a note, the composition of of the poll by AP's own admission is 39% declared Democrats and 18% declared Republicans, a 2 to 1 margin. Talk about cherry picking and rigging the game!

Tiny, you need to get laid more often...

The pathetic display of Big Oil executives before the Senate finance committee today is a perfect example of the choices large corporations have.

Take Exxon. Exxon makes close to 40B profit a year. Ending the tax breaks in question would reduce Exxon's profits by less than 1B. A small hit, but a hit nevertheless.

Exxon could choose to respond to this by slightly scaling back future dividend hikes (which they have raised for 29 consecutive years). Or by slightly scaling back future share buybacks. But no, for these hugely profitable companies, that is simply out of the question. CEO Rex Tillerson instead frames it as an inevitable downside for Americans:

[QUOTE]“By undermining US competitiveness, [the tax changes] would discourage future investments in energy projects here in the US and therefore undercut job creation and economic growth,” [/QUOTE]He follows up that bs with this whopper:

[QUOTE]I don’t think the American people want shared sacrifice. I think they want shared prosperity.[/QUOTE]Meanwhile, this joker just cashed in 17M worth of stock earlier this year. This guy is too much.

As I understand it, Congress intends to treat the 5 largest oil companies differently from every other company in the USA. That's not fair. These "tax breaks" are available to all U.S. companies, not just oil companies.

Several of my friends were laid off by oil companies, because the companies were barely profitable or losing money from 1986 to 2000. I can think of 5 that were laid off by the majors that are the target of Congress right now. (A popular joke at the time: What do you call a geologist in Oklahoma City? Waiter!) Why do you want to preferentially screw people and companies in that industry and communities in places like Texas, Louisiana and Wyoming? Why do you think it's fair to take "excess" profits from commodity producers when the price of the commodity is high, but then tell them to go f___ themselves when the price is low?

And the CEO's were absolutely right in their testimony today. Higher taxes on oil producers in the USA will cause the USA to import more oil, to run a higher current account and trade deficit, and it will result in lower employment in the USA. If you are correct in saying that this will just effect Exxon to the tune of $1 billion then perhaps it is a small hit, AS LONG AS OIL STAYS OVER $90 A BARREL. But if $1 billion is a drop in the bucket, how significant is the $17 million that Tillerson is getting? And I still maintain it's not fair to treat these companies differently from other ones.

Esten, CNBC, which has conservative viewers, ran a poll today. 68% were on your side, saying Congress should punish the oil companies. Regardless of how this issue shakes out, that makes me damn glad there's a Constitution. I was at one time a card carrying member of the ACLU by the way. While that may seem totally unrelated to the matter at hand, the majority at times can be stupid, mean and vindictive, and there needs to be something standing between them and mob rule.

[QUOTE=Esten; 417386]The pathetic display of Big Oil executives before the Senate finance committee today is a perfect example of the choices large corporations have.

Take Exxon. Exxon makes close to 40B profit a year. Ending the tax breaks in question would reduce Exxon's profits by less than 1B. A small hit, but a hit nevertheless. [/quote]You are ignoring several relevant facts (no surprise there). First, Exxon paid more than $78. 6B in taxes, worldwide including $15B in income taxes (to foreign governments) and more than $7. 7B of taxes (mostly sales taxes) paid to the US government. Their effective tax rate was more than 47%.

This doesn't include the US fuel excise tax paid by the customer. 18. 4 cents / gal for unleaded and 24. 4 cents / gal for diesel. Including state taxes, the total average excise taxes on gas, nationally, averages 49. 5 and 45. 6 for unleaded and diesel, respectively.

You are absolutely wrong on ever aspect of your argument. Hit the oil companies with more taxes and it goes straight to the customer, which will add to the inflation that your God has wreaked upon us.

If you're so pissed about profiteers paying no taxes, why not get on you soap box about GE?

[quote=]Exxon could choose to respond to this by slightly scaling back future dividend hikes (which they have raised for 29 consecutive years). Or by slightly scaling back future share buybacks. But no, for these hugely profitable companies, that is simply out of the question. [/quote]Why? Because a 47% effective tax rate isn't high enough? They are among the highest taxed industries on the planet. One of the major reasons that their profits are so high is that their revenue is denominated in OIL. If the value of the dollar falls, holders of dollars must pay more for the same amount of fuel. If their expenses are denominated in dollars, they (expenses) effectively go down while revenues rise (even without selling any more fuel). You want to know why their profits are so high? OBAMA! He's the one diluting the dollar.

[quote=]CEO Rex Tillerson instead frames it as an inevitable downside for Americans:

He follows up that bs with this whopper:

Meanwhile, this joker just cashed in 17M worth of stock earlier this year. This guy is too much. [/QUOTE]His company is shooting the lights out, in part due to Obama, why shouldn't he get paid more for delivering record profits? I thought the object was to do better and reward success.

If you want to be mad at someone for earning money for nothing, be mad at Obama for the more than $10 million he has received for books he didn't write and hasn't written yet. At least Tillerson showed up to work and did the job for which he was paid.

You are a joke and an ideologue. You will never learn because you have closed your mind to information, facts and reality.

"Your revolution is over, Mr. Lebowski. Condolences. The bums lost. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?"

[QUOTE=Tiny12;417387]As I understand it, Congress intends to treat the 5 largest oil companies differently from every other company in the USA. That's not fair. These "tax breaks" are available to all U.S. companies, not just oil companies.[/quote]They aren't going to change thing. This whole thing is DOA. This theatrical performance is just that. It's all bullshit designed to be a distraction from the truth. It couldn't pass the Senate, let alone the House. It's just the Democrat-controlled Senate wasting time for partisan purposes over an imaginary $4B while they are directly responsible for their involvement in putting the country $14B in debt.

[quote=]Several of my friends were laid off by oil companies, because the companies were barely profitable or losing money from 1986 to 2000. I can think of 5 that were laid off by the majors that are the target of Congress right now. (A popular joke at the time: What do you call a geologist in Oklahoma City? Waiter!) Why do you want to preferentially screw people and companies in that industry and communities in places like Texas, Louisiana and Wyoming?[/quote]'cause they don't vote for BHO.

[quote=]Why do you think it's fair to take "excess" profits from commodity producers when the price of the commodity is high, but then tell them to go f___ themselves when the price is low? [/quote]'cause he ain't smart enough to know better and is an ideologue.

[quote=]And the CEO's were absolutely right in their testimony today. Higher taxes on oil producers in the USA will cause the USA to import more oil, to run a higher current account and trade deficit, and it will result in lower employment in the USA.[/quote]Plus higher fuel prices, inflation, unemployment and despair. Just what BHO wants as he recasts the country to his vision of Amerika.

[quote=]If you are correct in saying that this will just effect Exxon to the tune of $1 billion then perhaps it is a small hit, AS LONG AS OIL STAYS OVER $90 A BARREL. But if $1 billion is a drop in the bucket, how significant is the $17 million that Tillerson is getting? And I still maintain it's not fair to treat these companies differently from other ones.[/quote]They would tax all fuel, therefor all companies and the cost to consumers would be many times the laughable and extremely poorly thought out estimate by the local BHO political officer. It only matters that it is fair in the eyes of our glorious leader.

The poor, suffering and dying minions forces into gulags under Stalin, viewed him as a deity and believed that he would be their savior. They also believed that Stalin must not know of their interment because he would never let it be, if he was aware of their plight. They died still believing.

[quote=]Esten, CNBC, which has conservative viewers, ran a poll today. 68% were on your side, saying Congress should punish the oil companies. Regardless of how this issue shakes out, that makes me damn glad there's a Constitution. I was at one time a card carrying member of the ACLU by the way. While that may seem totally unrelated to the matter at hand, the majority at times can be stupid, mean and vindictive, and there needs to be something standing between them and mob rule. [/QUOTE]

Just goes to show you how stupid CNBC's viewership is.

WW,

In summary, you are trying to say that Obama is stupid enough to want to "self destruct" for 2012?

Exxon 2010 worldwide income before taxes was 57B. This includes 7.7B US income, on which it paid 1.3B in federal income taxes. So the effective rate was 17%.

This compares well with another report showing Exxon had an average 17.6% federal effective corporate tax rate on its annual earnings in the three years spanning 2008 to 2010.

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/how-much-do-oil-companies-really-pay-in-taxes/2011/05/11/AF7UNutG_story_1.html[/url]

[url]http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/05/tax_man.html[/url]

Back in 2005, President Bush explained that the profit potential in the oil industry drives exploration, not the subsidies:

[QUOTE][i]“With $55 oil we don’t need incentives to the oil and gas companies to explore. There are plenty of incentives.”[/i][/QUOTE]In 2005 Sen. Ron Wyden asked each CEO if he agreed with President Bush that companies did not need tax subsidies to encourage drilling when oil was selling for that price. Each said Bush was right and that subsidies were unnecessary.

Now in 2011 with $100 oil, these same executives now defend federal tax subsidies. A complete about-face from what these jokers said in 2005. With low corporate tax burdens and high oil prices there is simply no reason to continue them.

To defend these subsidies, which most Americans do not support, is hollow and disgraceful.

In 2010, Exxon paid $9. 8 billion in USA taxes and received $7. 5 billion in net income from the US. Exxon's overall income tax rate (worldwide) was 40.7% of pre-tax income.

In 2009, Exxon paid $7. 7 billion in USA taxes and received $3. 5 billion in net income from the US. Exxon's overall income tax rate (worldwide) was 43.5% of pre-tax income.

In 2008, Exxon paid $13. 3 billion in USA taxes and recieved $8. 6 billion in net income from the US. Exxon's overall income tax rate (worldwide) was 43.8% of pre-tax income.

"Taxes" above include income taxes, property taxes, and severance taxes. I'd point out that only oil and gas companies are subject to severance tax -- other American businesses do not pay this tax.

You are calling tax deductions "subsidies". American businesses should not receive subsidies or preferential tax deductions. I'm all for eliminating all of them and lowering the corporate income tax rate from the current ridiculously-high rate of 35% to 45%. (The total percentage, federal plus state, varies depending on the state.) If you listened to the hearings last week, you'd know that Tillerson and one or two of the other CEO's of major oil companies indicated they'd have no problem with certain of the Democrat Senator's proposals, if they were applied to all of American industry.