TheBlueVue 177 Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 http://www.gallup.com/poll/199232/optimism-among-small-business-owners-highest-eight-years.aspx?g_source=Economy&g_medium=newsfeed&g_campaign=tiles This is not insignificant as small businesses create the majority of America's jobs Bulk of Job Creation Comes from Small Business According to the SBA’s Office of Advocacy: “Small firms accounted for 63 percent of the net new jobs created between 1993 and mid-2013 (or 14.3 million of the 22.9 million net new jobs). Since the end of the recession (from mid-2009 to mid-2013), small firms accounted for 60 percent of the net new jobs. Small firms in the 20-499 employee category led job creation.” http://sbecouncil.org/about-us/facts-and-data/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunInRed 16,528 Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,513 Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 Yep. Pretty much steady growth after Obama's election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,464 Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 13 minutes ago, homersapien said: Yep. Pretty much steady growth after Obama's election. Very true but, considering the condition of the economy and, the trillions devoted to stabilizing the financial system, there wasn't but one way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,513 Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 15 minutes ago, icanthearyou said: Very true but, considering the condition of the economy and, the trillions devoted to stabilizing the financial system, there wasn't but one way to go. Hardly. It's easy to say that now, but the financial crisis had the whole economy teetering on the brink of sinking lower. Personally, I was very afraid of what might happen. What I hold Obama responsible for is not going after the people who caused it. Instead, he was taking their advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,464 Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 8 minutes ago, homersapien said: Hardly. It's easy to say that now, but the financial crisis had the whole economy teetering on the brink of sinking lower. Personally, I was very afraid of what might happen. What I hold Obama responsible for is not going after the people who caused it. Instead, he was taking their advice. Seriously? You don't believe that pumping trillions into the financial system had an effect? What do you suppose did? Economic policy? Structural reforms? What were you really afraid of? Was the real problem fundamental economics or, purely within the financial system? Why didn't Obama go after the culprits? Do you remember what Holder said? IMHO, there is a very simple reason why politics has obscured the reasons for the financial crisis, why the majority of both Democrats and Republicans chose to actions that were taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,513 Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 24 minutes ago, icanthearyou said: Seriously? You don't believe that pumping trillions into the financial system had an effect? What do you suppose did? Economic policy? Structural reforms? What were you really afraid of? Was the real problem fundamental economics or, purely within the financial system? Why didn't Obama go after the culprits? Do you remember what Holder said? IMHO, there is a very simple reason why politics has obscured the reasons for the financial crisis, why the majority of both Democrats and Republicans chose to actions that were taken. I was afraid that my financial losses - which were already at 40% - would continue. Being retired, that represented my sole income. And yes, I think the "bail outs" did have the crucial effect of not making things get worse by stabilizing the global financial system. Obama did what needed to be done, largely because he was totally allied with the financial big-wigs that caused the problem to begin with. He was taking their advice. But even though he did what he had to do, that doesn't mean he couldn't have followed up with holding the financial institutions responsible, even criminally responsible. BTW, Clinton was allied with these same financial institutions who were paying her large sums to deliver speeches to them. And obviously Trump is in bed with them. Bernie Sanders was the only candidate on either side that represented a change in this regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,464 Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 1 minute ago, homersapien said: I was afraid that my financial losses - which were already at 40% - would continue. Being retired, that represented my sole income. And yes, I think the "bail outs" did have the crucial effect of not making things get worse by stabilizing the global financial system. Obama did what needed to be done, largely because he was totally allied with the financial big-wigs that caused the problem to begin with. He was taking their advice. But even though he did what he had to do, that doesn't mean he couldn't have followed up with holding the financial institutions responsible, even criminally responsible. BTW, Clinton was allied with these same financial institutions who were paying her large sums to deliver speeches to them. And obviously Trump is in bed with them. Bernie Sanders was the only candidate on either side that represented a change in this regard. And Bush, Paulson, Bernanke, Geithner, etc, etc, etc. Where does power reside? What is the ideology of power? Does the election of Trump signal any change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,464 Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 12 minutes ago, homersapien said: I was afraid that my financial losses - which were already at 40% - would continue. Being retired, that represented my sole income. And yes, I think the "bail outs" did have the crucial effect of not making things get worse by stabilizing the global financial system. Obama did what needed to be done, largely because he was totally allied with the financial big-wigs that caused the problem to begin with. He was taking their advice. But even though he did what he had to do, that doesn't mean he couldn't have followed up with holding the financial institutions responsible, even criminally responsible. BTW, Clinton was allied with these same financial institutions who were paying her large sums to deliver speeches to them. And obviously Trump is in bed with them. Bernie Sanders was the only candidate on either side that represented a change in this regard. Do you believe that a Republican administration would have been better, or worse, for your particular situation? If Obama had gone after the players who caused the crisis in a more aggressive manner, would it have been better, or worse, for your investments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,513 Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 39 minutes ago, icanthearyou said: Do you believe that a Republican administration would have been better, or worse, for your particular situation? If Obama had gone after the players who caused the crisis in a more aggressive manner, would it have been better, or worse, for your investments? 1. I don't know, but I expect the Republicans would have done the same as Obama 2. Going after the guilty would have had little relevance to my personal situation, but I think it would be important to the future of the country and to prevent future such events. Reinstating Glass-Seagal would also be positive move. We have a political culture that allows huge banks to deliberately f*** the economy - meaning the people - and then get paid for doing it. That's unAmerican in my opinion. It's obscene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,464 Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 1 hour ago, homersapien said: 1. I don't know, but I expect the Republicans would have done the same as Obama 2. Going after the guilty would have had little relevance to my personal situation, but I think it would be important to the future of the country and to prevent future such events. Reinstating Glass-Seagal would also be positive move. We have a political culture that allows huge banks to deliberately f*** the economy - meaning the people - and then get paid for doing it. That's unAmerican in my opinion. It's obscene. Maybe, maybe not. Do you recall Holder saying he feared that aggressively pursuing the culprits could bring about the same type crisis we had just averted? Still, I understand what you are saying. I think the fundamental problem is that, the leaders are so insulated that they can not be held personally responsible. So, since you can not jail a corporation, you have to resort to fines. In this case, not very effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaltyTiger 7,908 Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 4 hours ago, homersapien said: Yep. Pretty much steady growth after Obama's election. The optimism is up now the he is out of the way. things will just get better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,513 Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 3 hours ago, icanthearyou said: And Bush, Paulson, Bernanke, Geithner, etc, etc, etc. Where does power reside? What is the ideology of power? Does the election of Trump signal any change? It's the golden rule: Those who have the gold, make the rules. The election of Trump signifies the electorate is beginning to "get it". Clinton was an obvious symbol of more of the same. The irony is that Trump actually represents a doubling-down of more of the same. Joke's on his supporters. Consequences are on us all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,513 Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 25 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said: The optimism is up now the he is out of the way. things will just get better. Yeah, his approval ratings show that. Oh wait..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaltyTiger 7,908 Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 6 minutes ago, homersapien said: Yeah, his approval ratings show that. Oh wait..... The article plainly reads optimism up after the election. You are attempting nothing more than taking Blues post, high-jacking the thread and promoting the idea that Barry rode in on white horse and saved us. Most small business probably survived in-spite of the Obama negativism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,513 Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 16 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said: The article plainly reads optimism up after the election. You are attempting nothing more than taking Blues post, high-jacking the thread and promoting the idea that Barry rode in on white horse and saved us. Most small business probably survived in-spite of the Obama negativism No, the data plainly reveals that optimism has generally increased to where it is now since Obama's election. This has more to do with the generally improving economy under Obama than it does Trump. If you want to evaluate Trump's actual effect on economic activism, you'll need to wait a few years. (Don't forget to click you heels together when predicting Trump's impact on the economy.) Now the article did say that 51% think the new administration would be better for them (than the old). Whoop de doo! I wonder how that compares to any new administration? Otherwise, they talked in terms of business quarters, as they probably should. Also keep in mind this is also from one of same the polling companies for which you folks had so much respect after the election. Ironic, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaltyTiger 7,908 Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 22 minutes ago, homersapien said: No, the data plainly reveals that optimism has generally increased to where it is now since Obama's election. This has more to do with the generally improving economy under Obama than it does Trump. If you want to evaluate Trump's actual effect on economic activism, you'll need to wait a few years. (Don't forget to click you heels together when predicting Trump's impact on the economy.) Now the article did say that 51% think the new administration would be better for them (than the old). Whoop de doo! I wonder how that compares to any new administration? Otherwise, they talked in terms of business quarters, as they probably should. Also keep in mind this is also from one of same the polling companies for which you folks had so much respect after the election. Ironic, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.