Obama answers questions on reddit

[V8 Beast]

I disagree. In growing a business, there is an amount of calculated risk that they are willing to take, in order to create new markets. Right now, there is a strong uncertainty in what direction taxes will go. This is causing businesses to hold onto what they have, so that they don't overreach only to have their taxes shoot up unexpectedly. If whoever is running the circus in DC would come up with a solid tax plan for the next 10 years, regardless of what it would entail so long as its not going to change, then companies would be comfortable to start spending on more risks, therefore hiring more people. Congress hasn't passed a budget in what, 4 years now? If I were running a business I wouldn't be doing anything risky until I got clear signals as to what my expenses will be. People act like all of the money in our economy disappeared, but the reality is that the money is being sat on until things become more steady.

 

The taxes play a part, but taxes will always be there. The owners are more worried about the supply and demand aspect of the business. Taxes will always be based on how much you make. People are not spending their money like they used to. Thanks to all of the economic trouble and doubt in America the percentage of people holding onto their coins for a rainy day has increased. Companies cant take risks because their customers have stopped taking risks. Not everyone can use a fear campaign to make a profit like gun companies... "Get your guns and ammo today before Obama bans them!!!" Its getting better but people are still preparing for the worse. Even the companies that are doing good are playing it safe.

 

IMO the answer is not in the taxes. Its supporting each and our direction as a nation to give people the assurance that everything will be ok. All the doubt we have in our leaders and our economic future branches out to many facets of our economy. Owners see this and play it safe in an attempt to keep their companies afloat.

 

Side note: Im not disagreeing I'm expanding. I definitely understand if Joe Schmo spends 30% extra to expand he might end up paying 60% extra in taxes. This would cause him to have to raise rates, fire employees, or just deal with a smaller profit margin. Im just saying if you have the money you can pay the taxes. I think making the money is a big issue right now.

Edited August 30, 2012 by V8 Beast

[87GT]

The difference is I believe Mitt knows how to do that way more so than Obama and his crackhead team ever could.

 

This seems racist to me. I stopped reading after this because it makes me think you only want to vote for a white person.

[wagner]

I sat in on a big conference call for my business unit this week about financial related things. We were told “we want to expand, but are going to wait and see what happens due to the high levels of uncertainty.”

 

The level of uncertainty right now is depressing the economy further, the uncertainty comes from a government that cannot pass a budget, not passing the budget leads to the fiscal cliff, ect., ect., ect.

 

Companies are also incorporating overseas even more due to our countries stupid high taxes and tax system. Companies are cutting their effective tax rate by 9% when they incorporate in Ireland versus the US. You are talking billions of dollars lost, but what is a few billion when we are talking debts in the trillions?

 

Take a good look at what is going on in Spain, Greece, and other countries because the show is going on tour and will be here very soon…

[V8 Beast]

I sat in on a big conference call for my business unit this week about financial related things. We were told “we want to expand, but are going to wait and see what happens due to the high levels of uncertainty.”

 

The level of uncertainty right now is depressing the economy further, the uncertainty comes from a government that cannot pass a budget, not passing the budget leads to the fiscal cliff, ect., ect., ect.

 

Companies are also incorporating overseas even more due to our countries stupid high taxes and tax system. Companies are cutting their effective tax rate by 9% when they incorporate in Ireland versus the US. You are talking billions of dollars lost, but what is a few billion when we are talking debts in the trillions?

 

Take a good look at what is going on in Spain, Greece, and other countries because the show is going on tour and will be here very soon…

 

Yup. Instead of trying something new here and creating a product that might sell better they take the easier route. If you go overseas to have the work done your profits multiple without taking any real substantial risk. Even companies that vowed to never do that have jumped aboard... but can you blame them at this point? People dont spend, the goverment is inconsistent, in the end you have to take care of number 1.

[wagner]

Yup. Instead of trying something new here and creating a product that might sell better they take the easier route. If you go overseas to have the work done your profits multiple without taking any real substantial risk. Even companies that vowed to never do that have jumped aboard... but can you blame them at this point? People dont spend, the goverment is inconsistent, in the end you have to take care of number 1.

 

Yep, holding cash for when things might or might not get ugly again, just throwing more gas on the fire. All these problems just keep feeding on each other and the cycle continues...

[iwishiwascool]

I sat in on a big conference call for my business unit this week about financial related things. We were told “we want to expand, but are going to wait and see what happens due to the high levels of uncertainty.”

 

The level of uncertainty right now is depressing the economy further, the uncertainty comes from a government that cannot pass a budget, not passing the budget leads to the fiscal cliff, ect., ect., ect.

 

Companies are also incorporating overseas even more due to our countries stupid high taxes and tax system. Companies are cutting their effective tax rate by 9% when they incorporate in Ireland versus the US. You are talking billions of dollars lost, but what is a few billion when we are talking debts in the trillions?

 

Take a good look at what is going on in Spain, Greece, and other countries because the show is going on tour and will be here very soon…

 

Unless your company is in a heavily regulated industry like steel or Healthcare, that argument to be a strawman.

 

If I manufacture and sell widgets and demand is increasing for my product beyond my current manufacturing capacity, I am going to increase capacity; regardless of uncertainty (which is the only thing that is ever certain).

 

The reality is that profitability increases when I get more bang for the buck by increasing the productivity of my existing employees. This decreases quality of life but fear of a "terrible job market" keeps them from looking for alternative work. A good way to goad this fear is to say things like your CEO said on the conference call.

 

 

Marc Cuban said last week: I read hundreds of thousands of business plans, not one dedicates a single page to profitability and expansion as a condition of a favorable tax code [sic].

[wagner]

Unless your company is in a heavily regulated industry like steel or Healthcare, that argument to be a strawman.

 

If I manufacture and sell widgets and demand is increasing for my product beyond my current manufacturing capacity, I am going to increase capacity; regardless of uncertainty (which is the only thing that is ever certain).

 

The reality is that profitability increases when I get more bang for the buck by increasing the productivity of my existing employees. This decreases quality of life but fear of a "terrible job market" keeps them from looking for alternative work. A good way to goad this fear is to say things like your CEO said on the conference call.

 

 

Marc Cuban said last week: I read hundreds of thousands of business plans, not one dedicates a single page to profitability and expansion as a condition of a favorable tax code [sic].

 

Not sure if serious or liberal troll....

[iwishiwascool]

Not sure if serious or liberal troll....

 

Ad hominem arguments are an excellent way to prove your point.

[wagner]

Ad hominem arguments are an excellent way to prove your point.

 

I am an ops level employee at my company. Every day I deal with clients, sales people, and others in different levels of management. Basically I get to see most of the field and what is in play.

 

The sales calls I have been on clients tell us point blank they are not seeing as much business because of the uncertainty in the economy. These are law firms, banks, capital firms, and other general businesses.

 

 

So what you are saying is they are dumb?

[iwishiwascool]

I'm saying business who use that argument are doing so as a crutch; an excuse for mediocrity.

[TTQ B4U]

This seems racist to me. I stopped reading after this because it makes me think you only want to vote for a white person.

 

Then you're reading my posts way wrong. I don't care about race. In fact my family is quite inter-racial and color isn't what I'm talking about. Seems you're the one who associated my use of crackheads with blacks. Now back OT.

 

Companies are also incorporating overseas even more due to our countries stupid high taxes and tax system. Companies are cutting their effective tax rate by 9% when they incorporate in Ireland versus the US. You are talking billions of dollars lost, but what is a few billion when we are talking debts in the trillions? Take a good look at what is going on in Spain, Greece, and other countries because the show is going on tour and will be here very soon…

 

I agree on the incorporation piece. Many of the companies in our space which is medical manufacturing have bailed the US and moved to China. Wallmart's Lab right next to ours moved to Mexico. Luxottica is moving to China and Hoya and others are already over there. We are the ONLY one left the major players left with 7 manufacturing facilities operating in the US and we are profitable thankfully. Our business model is different than all the others though as we are not a publicly traded company.

 

Unless your company is in a heavily regulated industry like steel or Healthcare, that argument to be a strawman. If I manufacture and sell widgets and demand is increasing for my product beyond my current manufacturing capacity, I am going to increase capacity; regardless of uncertainty (which is the only thing that is ever certain).

 

I'm in healthcare/insurance and our manufacturing is ramped up quite well in the states to fufil demand. We're adding 25% more people in our call centers in both Ohio locations even. However, we do temper ramping up production with simply raising prices. We want demand but we would rather make the same amount of product now, sell it for a higher price, profit more and not add any more capital expansion. It's a wise move as if the market changes we don't want to have to be in a position where capacity is too big and layoffs then occur.

 

Marc Cuban said last week: I read hundreds of thousands of business plans, not one dedicates a single page to profitability and expansion as a condition of a favorable tax code.

 

taxes are taken in to consideration but no nearly as much as cost of labor and healthcare. if we moved production to Mexico, we could forgo any benefits and pay them 1/10th what we do here in the US. Any break on taxes doesn't really matter but like I posted earlier, as a business if you're costs go up, you will adjust somewhere because the last thing you're going to do is take it in the pocketbook. Someone will pay and it won't be the executive managers or shareholders.

[wagner]

I'm saying business who use that argument are doing so as a crutch; an excuse for mediocrity.

 

So top law firms in the world that deal in mergers and acquistions are using this as a crutch because their clients are not doing any business?

[iwishiwascool]

So top law firms in the world that deal in mergers and acquistions are using this as a crutch because their clients are not doing any business?

 

Lack of demand is different from uncertainty. Their clients might be using the uncertainty argument but you are making it sound like the law firms would expand if only they had certainty about taxation, is that correct?

[TTQ B4U]

I'm saying business who use that argument are doing so as a crutch; an excuse for mediocrity.

 

 

It's not a crutch. In a manufactring world, companies aren't going to expand or invest captital into a growth in an uncertain market. That growth and expansion cost is spread out over years and to do so is rolling the dice when you have a situation like we in the US are in. It's far better to be the more profitable company than the largest so in turn the supply and demand part kicks in and prices rise.

 

I know as the market I'm in, that's exactly what's happening. Prices of our medical devices and equipment which are in high demand will go up first and then we'll grow. Otherwise building new facilities and loading them up with people will be too high of a risk.

[iwishiwascool]

It's not a crutch. In a manufactring world, companies aren't going to expand or invest captital into a growth in an uncertain market. That growth and expansion cost is spread out over years and to do so is rolling the dice when you have a situation like we in the US are in. It's far better to be the more profitable company than the largest so in turn the supply and demand part kicks in and prices rise.

 

I know as the market I'm in, that's exactly what's happening. Prices of our medical devices and equipment which are in high demand will go up first and then we'll grow. Otherwise building new facilities and loading them up with people will be too high of a risk.

 

Let me ask this: is it uncertainty about taxes or regulations that is creating the trepidation?

[wagner]

Lack of demand is different from uncertainty. Their clients might be using the uncertainty argument but you are making it sound like the law firms would expand if only they had certainty about taxation, is that correct?

 

Not necessarily, the uncertainty is driving the lack of demand. The taxation issue is actually helping our tax business side, because people are trying to purchase products to gain information to try and fight the uncertainty.

 

Good example of how uncertainty wreaks havoc in what I do:

 

Law firm wanted a big due diligence search done for a pending deal that involved some international factors. This was right around the time of the Greek elections. The deal ended up dying because they were not sure how the new Greek government would do certain things, the people funding the project pulled the plug.

 

All of this came from uncertainty that was created by people in government.

 

We have similar issues with deals that are domestic in nature, market uncertainty causes issues, market uncertainty can and is driven by governments lack of ability to do their job.

 

Do you see the connecting tissue now? The problems are coming downstream because the government (both parties) cannot get the job done.

 

I can see what you are saying, but from my direct experience it does not play that way. Maybe in other industries or in the academic vacuum, but in the real world it does not hold.

 

 

Wait, are we having an intelligent discussion or am I having a stroke?

[wagner]

Let me ask this: is it uncertainty about taxes or regulations that is creating the trepidation?

 

It could be both, think about the seven factors that can effect the external business environment , one of them is goverment.

[TTQ B4U]

Let me ask this: is it uncertainty about taxes or regulations that is creating the trepidation?

 

That's a broad question that can vary depending on the industry but IMO it's a combination of the two.

 

Bottom line is we need to ditch NAFTA, put regulations in place as Perot talked about and drive businesses back home and make the agreements we have in place with other nations that will in turn benefit us. Prices may go up but so will quality of said products and so will jobs and so will incomes, thus the pain of paying more wont' likely be felt. IMO, that's regulation and taxes combined.

 

Bring the jobs back, put income in peoples pockets and they will not only be happy, they will spend, gov't will collect taxes and prices will adjust accordingly and benefit those of us inside the border. Pretty simple.

 

Like I said before, Obama can't see that nor will he do anything about it and is off on the wrong tangent which is to fuck up the one big thing we have left in our economy and that's healthcare. His eye is on the wrong ball and he doesn't the skills to fix what needs fixed right now.

 

We can debate tax breaks on the rich and middle class (yes there's a portion in the breaks that are on the table that impact the middle class too) all day long. If you take from those that have money, they will eventually take it back form those under them. That's not going to help our situation.Leave the policies in place for now and go fix the employment situation that's the bigger problem right now. Fuck the relatively petty issues out there now and deal with the big ones. I really don't give a shit where a candidate stands on abortion or gay rights currently. Neither one of those is going to fix the economy and without jobs the rest of the issues are just noise.

[iwishiwascool]

Not necessarily, the uncertainty is driving the lack of demand. The taxation issue is actually helping our tax business side, because people are trying to purchase products to gain information to try and fight the uncertainty.

 

Good example of how uncertainty wreaks havoc in what I do:

 

Law firm wanted a big due diligence search done for a pending deal that involved some international factors. This was right around the time of the Greek elections. The deal ended up dying because they were not sure how the new Greek government would do certain things, the people funding the project pulled the plug.

 

All of this came from uncertainty that was created by people in government.

 

We have similar issues with deals that are domestic in nature, market uncertainty causes issues, market uncertainty can and is driven by governments lack of ability to do their job.

 

Do you see the connecting tissue now? The problems are coming downstream because the government (both parties) cannot get the job done.

 

I can see what you are saying, but from my direct experience it does not play that way. Maybe in other industries or in the academic vacuum, but in the real world it does not hold.

 

 

Wait, are we having an intelligent discussion or am I having a stroke?

 

I the furthest thing from the vacuum. I work with multiple multi-million dollar small-medium businesses specifically in the arena of business development. I've re-engineered failing business to profitability and helped successful business reach new growth opportunities.

 

Economic uncertainty is different from risk. Your anecdote about the Greek election is a good example economic uncertainty. Uncertainty is a constant that always exists in the economy. It functions on a sliding scale, let's say between 1-10. If uncertainty were always (or ever) at a 1, meaning very certain, anyone paying attention would automagically be rich. 7-10 describes a condition in which there is massive social unrest, out of control inflation, totalitarian overreach; an environment in which the entire system is literally unstable. The operators of your company were subject to the uncertainty as a variable within an investment risk model while operating in a business environment of comparatively low uncertainty. Economic uncertainty is one variable int the algorithm of Risk. When most people are describing uncertainty, they are really describing risk.

 

As a function uncertainty is a function of taxes and regulations. There is no talk of increasing Capital Gains to 75% or increasing corporate taxes more than 10%. Truly crippling regulations cannot happen in this gridlocked political environment even if intentions were present, which I don't believe they are.

 

Economic uncertainty is a boogeyman that relies on a fledgling misunderstanding of a single variable within a larger risk model. We are not Greece, not even close.

[iwishiwascool]

That's a broad question that can vary depending on the industry but IMO it's a combination of the two.

 

Bottom line is we need to ditch NAFTA, put regulations in place as Perot talked about and drive businesses back home and make the agreements we have in place with other nations that will in turn benefit us. Prices may go up but so will quality of said products and so will jobs and so will incomes, thus the pain of paying more wont' likely be felt. IMO, that's regulation and taxes combined.

 

Bring the jobs back, put income in peoples pockets and they will not only be happy, they will spend, gov't will collect taxes and prices will adjust accordingly and benefit those of us inside the border. Pretty simple.

 

Like I said before, Obama can't see that nor will he do anything about it and is off on the wrong tangent which is to fuck up the one big thing we have left in our economy and that's healthcare. His eye is on the wrong ball and he doesn't the skills to fix what needs fixed right now.

 

We can debate tax breaks on the rich and middle class (yes there's a portion in the breaks that are on the table that impact the middle class too) all day long. If you take from those that have money, they will eventually take it back form those under them. That's not going to help our situation.Leave the policies in place for now and go fix the employment situation that's the bigger problem right now. Fuck the relatively petty issues out there now and deal with the big ones. I really don't give a shit where a candidate stands on abortion or gay rights currently. Neither one of those is going to fix the economy and without jobs the rest of the issues are just noise.

 

I agree with most of that. Though I think healthcare needed to be addressed.

 

My concern is that if an Elephant gets elected the pressure will exist to pull the strings on social issues; this is what the 2010 elected republicans did with their "mandate". Why? Because addressing social issues is a hell of a lot easier than fixing an economy. I am not willing to give Mitt the ability to appoint a SCOTUS judge that will overturn Roe v. Wade which is exactly what will happen when the extremist base demands reciprocity for their vote.

[TTQ B4U]

I agree with most of that. Though I think healthcare needed to be addressed.

 

healthcare and SS need address as does our entire slew of gov't assistance programs. however Obama's plan doesn't fix any of it and instead continues to drive the handout crew. we can agree to disagree on that for now as in the end, I'm not at all for gov't as stance programs that don't require some work on part of the person benefiting from it. right now we need to focus on the portion of society that actually contributes to the GDP and pays taxes not those that freeload and do nothing but cast a vote in ignorance for a president that is misguided.

 

My concern is that if an Elephant gets elected the pressure will exist to pull the strings on social issues; this is what the 2010 elected republicans did with their "mandate". Why? Because addressing social issues is a hell of a lot easier than fixing an economy. I am not willing to give Mitt the ability to appoint a SCOTUS judge that will overturn Roe v. Wade which is exactly what will happen when the extremist base demands reciprocity for their vote.

your concern is valid and it's exactly what Obama's doing now. Instead of addressing the real issues, he's pulling at the social strings of those who put him in office to begin with and for the past 4 years we've dug a debt bigger than ever before and done nothing to help the employment situation. so no need to fear the elephant, he's already in the room disguised as an ass.

 

the area here were we differ is even if Mitt chooses to tug at similar strings, I do believe he is able and will address the real issues Obama isn't and never will. He's going to as you noted earlier, skate by on this snails pace economic movement and continue to say his plan is working when in fact it's not.

[wagner]

I the furthest thing from the vacuum. I work with multiple multi-million dollar small-medium businesses specifically in the arena of business development. I've re-engineered failing business to profitability and helped successful business reach new growth opportunities.

 

Economic uncertainty is different from risk. Your anecdote about the Greek election is a good example economic uncertainty. Uncertainty is a constant that always exists in the economy. It functions on a sliding scale, let's say between 1-10. If uncertainty were always (or ever) at a 1, meaning very certain, anyone paying attention would automagically be rich. 7-10 describes a condition in which there is massive social unrest, out of control inflation, totalitarian overreach; an environment in which the entire system is literally unstable. The operators of your company were subject to the uncertainty as a variable within an investment risk model while operating in a business environment of comparatively low uncertainty. Economic uncertainty is one variable int the algorithm of Risk. When most people are describing uncertainty, they are really describing risk.

 

As a function uncertainty is a function of taxes and regulations. There is no talk of increasing Capital Gains to 75% or increasing corporate taxes more than 10%. Truly crippling regulations cannot happen in this gridlocked political environment even if intentions were present, which I don't believe they are.

 

Economic uncertainty is a boogeyman that relies on a fledgling misunderstanding of a single variable within a larger risk model. We are not Greece, not even close.

 

Never said you think in a vacuum, just making the point that pure textbook stuff does not always apply.

 

My defintion of and how uncertainty have been desribed to me are different that the ones you present. Not saying wrong, just different.

 

You do have some good points above, not going to point and call you a stupid face on those. You are correct, we are not Greece, but are we not on a similar path? From what I have read I think so. It may not happen now, but if we don't stop this debt ball it could go down that way.

 

Question, how do you think the deregulation of the bank industry played into all of this? The program on PBS about the 2008 trainwreck posed some interesting questions on it...

[iwishiwascool]

Never said you think in a vacuum, just making the point that pure textbook stuff does not always apply.

 

My defintion of and how uncertainty have been desribed to me are different that the ones you present. Not saying wrong, just different.

 

You do have some good points above, not going to point and call you a stupid face on those. You are correct, we are not Greece, but are we not on a similar path? From what I have read I think so. It may not happen now, but if we don't stop this debt ball it could go down that way.

 

Question, how do you think the deregulation of the bank industry played into all of this? The program on PBS about the 2008 trainwreck posed some interesting questions on it...

 

 

I wasn't insulted by the vacuum comment.

 

Was it the frontline episode? I think deregulation contributed significantly to the financial crisis as did the lack of scrutiny by Fanny and Freddy over sub-prime loans. I'm not an expert and would be regurgitating NPR and PBS investigations anyway. I do believe fully that the repeal of Glass-Steagall was a significant contributor and needs to be re-enacted.

 

Greed, when unrestricted and monopolized is bad for everyone except for those who pull the strings.

[wagner]

I wasn't insulted by the vacuum comment.

 

Was it the frontline episode? I think deregulation contributed significantly to the financial crisis as did the lack of scrutiny by Fanny and Freddy over sub-prime loans. I'm not an expert and would be regurgitating NPR and PBS investigations anyway. I do believe fully that the repeal of Glass-Steagall was a significant contributor and needs to be re-enacted.

 

Greed, when unrestricted and monopolized is bad for everyone except for those who pull the strings.

 

Yeah, it was like a 2 or 3 part series on Frontline. I had several professors in the MBA program who were not fans of the lack of regulation.

 

It scares me how some of these complex financial products are allowed to be used when really nobody knows what they do. Kind of reminds me of the Hellraiser movies and that box....

[paktinat]

I "watched" it live today. It was a failboat of an AMA. He had scripted answers for specific questions.

 

I think it was a corny stunt that sounded just like any other speech he or any other politician would have answered like.

 

Yes. He avoided the hard questions.

http://i.imgur.com/u8MuP.png