The Obama Re-Election Economic Fallout

[Shady]

This is the primary reason I was against Obama's re-election. I'm concerned about the American economy going forward, especially as it pertains to the negative effect it will have on the Canadian economy. Without a strong, growing America, our economic growth will be tepid at best.

Boeing Announces Big Layoffs in Defense Division

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49729998

Coal company to lay off 156 workers in Utah

http://www.canadianb...ers-in-utah-ill

Welch Allyn to cut 275 jobs due to new tax mandated by health care law

http://www.syracuse....275_worldw.html

Dana considering layoffs as Obamacare costs mount

http://thurbersthoug...-obamacare.html

Stryker layoffs blamed on Obamacare tax

http://www.mmm-onlin...article/247605/

Vegas Employer: Obama Won, So I Fired 22 Employees

http://lasvegas.cbsl...d-22-employees/

My fear is that this is only going to get worse as more and more businesses are saddled with higher and higher costs associated with the newly implemented or soon-to-be implemented Obamacare mandates and taxes. Add on to that, new EPA regulations coming down the pike.

Interior proposal would limit commercial oil shale development on federal lands

http://thehill.com/b...t-from-drilling

Not to mention Obama's continued feet dragging on the pipeline from Canada. This is all bad for the economy, bad for job creation, bad for the middle class, and bad for the Canadian economy. I know, I know, but Romney's rich.

[Sleipnir]

So 560 jobs were lost out of 171,000 jobs created last month (0.33%). Yeah blame Obama because Romney hard-core fans lost the election and decided to vent their frustration on the workers.

Edited November 10, 2012 by Sleipnir

[bush_cheney2004]

Governor Romney is responsible for RomneyCare in MA, not ObamaCare in the entire United States. Business owners, whether "fans" or not, will act in there business' best interest.

[sharkman]

Then there is the DOW's performance, dropping over 300 points in two days. I got some background on this. On January 1, as part of the sunsetting of Bush's tax rates, tax on dividends goes from 15% to 43%. I kid you not. People are pulling their money out to avoid this tripling of the tax rate. More jobs will be shed, and more money pulled out of the DOW in the weeks to come as people will take the safe bet as opposed to trusting that Obama can fix this after not doing so last time.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... People are pulling their money out to avoid this tripling of the tax rate.

True....lots of money is now sitting on the sidelines, getting squeezed by low interest rates and the increasing taxes to come. Quality bonds are the only thing really worth looking at and even those are not that great. A lot of Americans are just paying off all personal debt, because it is the best investment for rate of return right now.

[Shady]

tax on dividends goes from 15% to 43%

This is one of the reasons I consider Obama to be the anti-Clinton. Bill Clinton would never increase capital gains tax rates by that much. It's ridiculous. Especially when capital, and the investing of capital is essential to a growing and thriving economy. On a side note, the reason George Lucas sold Lucasfilms Ltd now, instead of after January 1st is because of the massive tax hike he'd have to pay on the sale.

[sharkman]

And that is what business does. Try to minimize losses and maximize profits, it doesn't matter who's in the White House. I'm not sure what Obama's strategy is here, but waiting until the last minute(so to speak) after punting it down the road two years is simply avoiding the issue. No doubt he will blame the Reps but it's his own fault he's at this point now.

[Wayward Son]

On January 1, as part of the sunsetting of Bush's tax rates, tax on dividends goes from 15% to 43%. I kid you not.

For those qualified dividends that make up income above about 390 grand (the ordinary dividend rate that made up income above 390 grand was already 35%). Hopefully those ultra-high earners can think back to the days before 1986 and 1981 when the top dividend tax rate was above 50% and 70% respectively and somehow figure out a way to survive the winter.

[Sleipnir]

Governor Romney is responsible for RomneyCare in MA, not ObamaCare in the entire United States. Business owners, whether "fans" or not, will act in there business' best interest.

May not be in the best interest to fire workers because the owner's candidate loses. Why didn't they fire the workers prior to who won the election?

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Hopefully those ultra-high earners can think back to the days before 1986 and 1981 when the top dividend tax rate was above 50% and 70% respectively and somehow figure out a way to survive the winter.

I'm sure they will, as it is their right to legally avoid tax liabilities, just like the so called "poor" who operate in the underground economy while paying no income or capital gains taxes at all.

[Wayward Son]

This is one of the reasons I consider Obama to be the anti-Clinton. Bill Clinton would never increase capital gains tax rates by that much.

Umm...yeah...and Obama would apparently not increase the capital gains tax rate by that much either...because he is not.

It's ridiculous. Especially when capital, and the investing of capital is essential to a growing and thriving economy. On a side note, the reason George Lucas sold Lucasfilms Ltd now, instead of after January 1st is because of the massive tax hike he'd have to pay on the sale.

The capital gains tax rate that George Lucas would have had to pay after January 1st would have gone up from from 15% to 18%. Much smaller then the rate would have been in the 80s or 90s (or 50s, 60s or 70s for that matter).

[bush_cheney2004]

May not be in the best interest to fire workers because the owner's candidate loses. Why didn't they fire the workers prior to who won the election?

That's the whole point....they will "fire workers" regardless of the election depending on the forecasted impact of government policies. Uncertainty is the enemy of Wall Street and Main Street. But certainty in added costs is fatal.

[sharkman]

For those qualified dividends that make up income above about 390 grand (the ordinary dividend rate that made up income above 390 grand was already 35%). Hopefully those ultra-high earners can think back to the days before 1986 and 1981 when the top dividend tax rate was above 50% and 70% respectively and somehow figure out a way to survive the winter.

The issue is not whether the ultra rich are suffering enough or not, it is what investors of all stripes will do if they have an opportunity to avoid a big tax rate increase, and what effect this will have on the stock market and economy.

[Wayward Son]

The issue is not whether the ultra rich are suffering enough or not, it is what investors of all stripes will do if they have an opportunity to avoid a big tax rate increase, and what effect this will have on the stock market and economy.

By the end of Reagan's second term he had rolled back about half of the tax cuts he had put through in his first year (In 1986 the top rate for capital gains went from 20% to 28% which is much larger then the upcoming increase from 15% to 18% that Shady mentions above). Somehow the US did not fall apart, and indeed over the next several years the United States went from massive deficits to a balanced budget and eventually large surpluses. Those large surpluses were turned into massive deficits by policies that benefitted the rich. It was said that the tax cuts were lead to a growth in government revenue. It has not. Those tax cuts led to massive deficits.

Tax policy changes lead to changes in the stock market. Always has, always will. So what. The United States has managed to survive increases before. My position is that there will be much huffing and puffing and claims of apocolypse over the 50 days, but come April the "crisis" from these changes will measure about as much on the public as the news the Justin Beiber just broke up with what's her name.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Tax policy changes lead to changes in the stock market. Always has, always will. So what. The United States has managed to survive increases before. My position is that there will be much huffing and puffing and claims of apocolypse over the 50 days, but come April the "crisis" from these changes will measure about as much on the public as the news the Justin Beiber just broke up with what's her name.

Great....then the U.S. should allow all of the marginal tax rates to go back to Clinton-era levels, not just those for the "rich". Allowing the so called Bush Tax Cuts to expire in January will do exactly that. No crying allowed by the rich, middle class, or working "poor".

[sharkman]

By the end of Reagan's second term he had rolled back about half of the tax cuts he had put through in his first year (In 1986 the top rate for capital gains went from 20% to 28% which is much larger then the upcoming increase from 15% to 18% that Shady mentions above). Somehow the US did not fall apart, and indeed over the next several years the United States went from massive deficits to a balanced budget and eventually large surpluses. Those large surpluses were turned into massive deficits by policies that benefitted the rich. It was said that the tax cuts were lead to a growth in government revenue. It has not. Those tax cuts led to massive deficits.

Tax policy changes lead to changes in the stock market. Always has, always will. So what. The United States has managed to survive increases before. My position is that there will be much huffing and puffing and claims of apocolypse over the 50 days, but come April the "crisis" from these changes will measure about as much on the public as the news the Justin Beiber just broke up with what's her name.

Then you agree with me. This rate change will affect the market and the economy. Why all the drama?

Edit: on second thought, you may not mind that the rate increase is going to hit a weak economy already headed for another recession according to economists. I suspect that on this you differ with me on that. Also, I never claimed an apocolypse.

Edited November 11, 2012 by sharkman

[Shady]

By the end of Reagan's second term he had rolled back about half of the tax cuts he had put through in his first year

What in the world are you talking about? Half of the tax cuts? I guess you're not considering the income tax rate cuts then. Which are still in place, even to this day!

[Shady]

Well, the fallout continues. Heckuva job Obamy!

Applebee's Franchisee, Says He Won't Hire Because Of Obamacare

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/zane-tankel-applebees-obamacare_n_2094568.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

Also...

Papa John's CEO: Obamacare likely to raise costs, employee's hours being cut

http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/state/john-schnatter-papa-johns-ceo-obamacare-likely-to-raise-costs-employees-hours-being-cut

The Obama economic wrecking ball continues for another four years. Can't wait.

[Smallc]

Well, there's another 12 - 13 people....

[Sleipnir]

The Obama economic wrecking ball continues for another four years. Can't wait.

You're rooting for the destruction of America?

Edited November 11, 2012 by Sleipnir

[August1991]

Shady,

There are only two measures now: The US CPI and the US dollar exchange rate.

-----

Unfortunately, the US CPI will likely remain flat.

The exchange rate may change. (If you're a Canadian planning to buy a condo in Arizona or Florida, wait. The US dollar may soon fall.)

If you're American, who cares... does it matter?

[Shady]

Well, there's another 12 - 13 people....

I'm not sure if you're just pretending to play dumb, but maybe you're just unaware that all businesses are facing these issues.

[Smallc]

And they'll adapt, just as they do in every other civilized democracy with mandatory health coverage for all people.

[Wayward Son]

What in the world are you talking about? Half of the tax cuts? I guess you're not considering the income tax rate cuts then. Which are still in place, even to this day!

I am taking the income tax rates into account. The problem is you are only taking those cuts into account which you want to, and say, ignore that capital gains tax cut was restored completely in 1986. The 1982 tax increases took up about 1/3 of the 1981 tax cuts alone. By 1988 about half of the tax cuts were either restored or replaced. Sorry for bringing reality up. Feel free to ignore it.

[Shady]

And they'll adapt, just as they do in every other civilized democracy with mandatory health coverage for all people.

You obviously don't understand the legislation at all. It's nothing like our system or the other "civilized" health coverage. I've seriously never seen such an Obama drone such as yourself.

But in a way, you're right, they are adapting. By cutting jobs and hours.