gut;1239176 wrote:Try reading the FINAL LINE of their conclusion:
"These findings reinforce concerns that policyrelated
uncertainty played a role in the slow growth and fitful recovery of recent years,
and they invite further research into the effects of policy-related uncertainty on economic
performance."

Yeah, that really refutes what I've been saying. Got any more aces up your sleeve? I mean, did you even read (and understand) what you linked, or just trying to slip a lie past us because like the Keynesians you really have no leg left to stand on?

Policy uncertainty totally unrelated to regulatory or tax policy or otherwise socialist big gubmint Obama takeover policy​.

BoatShoes;1239190 wrote:Policy uncertainty totally unrelated to regulatory or tax policy or otherwise socialist big gubmint Obama takeover policy​.

Where is this? The line I quoted was pretty clear, their chart is pretty clear (especially when you look at the methodology/components of their chart analysis). It begs the question if you're just ignorant or intentionally lying.

http://policyuncertainty.com/methodology.html
"To measure policy-related economic uncertainty, we construct an index from three types of underlying components. One component quantifies newspaper coverage of policy-related economic uncertainty. A second component reflects the number of federal tax code provisions set to expire in future years. The third component uses disagreement among economic forecasters as a proxy for uncertainty"

Sure sounds to me like policy and taxes is the heart of their study. This IS the Obama overhang those of us in the real business world see and hear on a daily basis.

gut;1239200 wrote:Where is this? The line I quoted was pretty clear, their chart is pretty clear (especially when you look at the methodology/components of their chart analysis). It begs the question if you're just ignorant or intentionally lying.

http://policyuncertainty.com/methodology.html
"To measure policy-related economic uncertainty, we construct an index from three types of underlying components. One component quantifies newspaper coverage of policy-related economic uncertainty. A second component reflects the number of federal tax code provisions set to expire in future years. The third component uses disagreement among economic forecasters as a proxy for uncertainty"

Sure sounds to me like policy and taxes is the heart of their study. This IS the Obama overhang those of us in the real business world see and hear on a daily basis.

The point is that look at the chart...even taking into account their variables about what constitutes uncertainty...when there is little press coverage of uncertainty as in the post debt-ceiling debate, the uncertainty troubled because the uncertainty generated from tax uncertainty is low. Despite the expiration of major tax provisions being a little over a year away, uncertainty dropped substantially after the debt-ceiling debates. Additionally, if you look at the uncertainty at the time when the tax cuts were first set to expire, it is much lower than during the debt celing debate.

And either way, you call this the "Obama Overhang"...as if there is Uncertainty generated by Obama and the Obama socialist agenda. However, if there were democrats in control of all of houses of Congress and Obama had full power to enact his agenda...assuming he were able to vote not to extend the bush tax cuts well before their expiration, under the formula in the paper that would contribute to less uncertainty. However, in such an environment you certainly would still be complaining about the "Obama Overhang" holding businesses back despite higher tax rates in the future being certain. In fact, this really demonstrates that if there is major uncertainty, it is almost certainly not attributable to Obama alone as Romney in the Presidency, with a divided government and expiring tax provisions on the horizon would also be hampered by the uncertainty those expiring provisions impose

This doesn't provide any evidence for some "Obama Overhang" due to his tax, regulatory or fiscal policies which is what you mean to imply.

BoatShoes;1239189 wrote:Yeah and it ought to make a difference to you. "Policy Uncertainty" is not the same as "Obama Overhang." In fact, the graph indicates, if anything, that there was less uncertainty when the democrats were in complete control than when the House went to the Republicans. The research clearly indicates that "uncertainty about what taxes are going to be" and "uncertainty about what regulatory policy is going to be"...which are the two major sticking points according to you and your ilk...are not major factors....but you resort to the the "title" of the graph as your trump?

Uncertainty about Aggregate Demand...meaning sales look bad, are bad and will stay bad fits right along with the keynesian/balance-sheet recession narrative. The fact that uncertainty goes up when republicans demand default and is lower when they're out of power doesn't fit with your narrative.

My god, just spin and deny away. When dealing with policy uncertainty, the POTUS is a MAJOR factor in that.

at least now we can finally agree that the research you cited is, indeed, dealing with policy. Now if we can just get you to read the chart correctly...You'll note the averages are a good 50-100 points higher than the prior 20 years. Of course it's volatile, but the point is it's significantly higher under Obama. Note in 2001 to 2003 under Bush it was also quite high and volatile around the Internet bubble and 9/11, but we recovered. Where's this recovery? It hasn't happened because of the Obama overhang, which is quite clear in this data and anyone talking with business leaders.

BoatShoes;1239256 wrote: And either way, you call this the "Obama Overhang"...as if there is Uncertainty generated by Obama and the Obama socialist agenda.

YES YES YES!!! That's the point myself and others have been trying to make. And it's not just uncertainty that contributes to the Obama overhang, but his anti-business agenda as well. So perhaps you do understand it, you just refuse to acknowledge that it's real, even while posting research you claim refutes what I'm saying but actually supports my view.

gut;1239320 wrote:YES YES YES!!! That's the point myself and others have been trying to make. And it's not just uncertainty that contributes to the Obama overhang, but his anti-business agenda as well. So perhaps you do understand it, you just refuse to acknowledge that it's real, even while posting research you claim refutes what I'm saying but actually supports my view.

The research indicates that uncertainty about tax policy, particularly expiring tax provisions, has a small effect on economic growth. However, other factors in the uncertainty index seem to have a larger effect. It does not indicate that uncertainty and subsequent slower growth is generated by President Obama, large budget deficits, his proposed tax and regulatory policies or anything else.

It is clear that the most uncertainty was generated by a clash of visions between Obama and the House GOP that nearly lead to a default on our obligations...necessarily opposite of uncertainty being caused by the marxist chosen one having his way and saying mean words to financiers. When he had the most power uncertainty was lower.

It in no way claims that there is uncertainty generated by large budget deficits, impending regulatory policy or certain tax raises in the future. The research does not support that "Obama Overhang" is slowing economic growth. The research does not support your views or the crank GOP loyalists you talk to at the country club or write op-eds in the Wall Street Journal that it is obama and his deficits and his visions of the world that is slowing GDP.

I mean look at the chart...after his election, "uncertainty" was steadily dropping...80% from a historic high under Obama until the House Republicans came to power and rose to extreme levels under them. I could just as easily be going around saying "Republicans are causing uncertainty in the economy" and claim Obama and the democrats had a mitigating effect on uncertainty and I would be just as wrong as you.

I will say it again. It is clear that the research does not support your claims.

BoatShoes;1239190 wrote:Policy uncertainty totally unrelated to regulatory or tax policy or otherwise socialist big gubmint Obama takeover policy​.

The "Obama policy" crap is oh so tiring. Obama has done the following...which in pure economic terms, the absolute best in managing fiscal and monetary policy, in attempts to stimulate things.

People who have actually studied economics...know this. Those with 3 degrees in finance, obviously don't understand this. Go figure. Mind boggling, I know.

Lowest tax rates since 1920. The lowest lending interest rates in the history of the country. And has deficit spent like a drunken sailor in order to further kickstart a recession economy that he inhereted in 2009. (Long term Keynesian policy that I strongly disagree with regardless of how dire the straits are)
I've been waiting for 3 months for the Guts of the world to step up to the plate...with all their multiple degrees in finance, and post one, lousy, stinking suggestion of what Romney could implement that would improve GDP growth. The reason why he and his ilk don't post anything, because they, like Romney, can only do what government is permitted to do monetarily and fiscally. Which translates to...Romney can do nothing better than Obama. Nada, Nilfo, Zippo.

The rest of the lip service is nothing but fluff. To say, "well Mitt made money" is the most childish response that one can give.

I am soooo rooting for Romney to win this election...because his hands are tied. He cannot lower interest rates any further, he will have to increase spending even more than Obama to fund his new wars, and his token reduction to put more tax money back into the pockets of the internationists will do nothing but escalate the gap between the 50%ers and the 1%ers here in the States. You think Obama went wild on increasing the national debt? Just wait till Romney does his thing. Wheeewww. Yet the Guts of the world still cling to their blanky and think that all of the realities facing Mitt will magically turn his way. Well it won't....because it can't. Less tax for the American oligarchs=more wealth transferred out of the country.

It's really that simple. The economy will continue to be in the shitter, all the while setting unprecedented records in turning America further into a regressive tax state.

BoatShoes;1239256 wrote:However, if there were democrats in control of all of houses of Congress and Obama had full power to enact his agenda...assuming he were able to vote not to extend the bush tax cuts well before their expiration, under the formula in the paper that would contribute to less uncertainty.

In fairness, is this substantiated for the first two years he was in office, when that was the case?

Footwedge;1239430 wrote:The "Obama policy" crap is oh so tiring. Obama has done the following...which in pure economic terms, the absolute best in managing fiscal and monetary policy, in attempts to stimulate things.

People who have actually studied economics...know this. Those with 3 degrees in finance, obviously don't understand this. Go figure. Mind boggling, I know.

Lowest tax rates since 1920. The lowest lending interest rates in the history of the country. And has deficit spent like a drunken sailor in order to further kickstart a recession economy that he inhereted in 2009. (Long term Keynesian policy that I strongly disagree with regardless of how dire the straits are)
I've been waiting for 3 months for the Guts of the world to step up to the plate...with all their multiple degrees in finance, and post one, lousy, stinking suggestion of what Romney could implement that would improve GDP growth. The reason why he and his ilk don't post anything, because they, like Romney, can only do what government is permitted to do monetarily and fiscally. Which translates to...Romney can do nothing better than Obama. Nada, Nilfo, Zippo.

The rest of the lip service is nothing but fluff. To say, "well Mitt made money" is the most childish response that one can give.

I am soooo rooting for Romney to win this election...because his hands are tied. He cannot lower interest rates any further, he will have to increase spending even more than Obama to fund his new wars, and his token reduction to put more tax money back into the pockets of the internationists will do nothing but escalate the gap between the 50%ers and the 1%ers here in the States. You think Obama went wild on increasing the national debt? Just wait till Romney does his thing. Wheeewww. Yet the Guts of the world still cling to their blanky and think that all of the realities facing Mitt will magically turn his way. Well it won't....because it can't. Less tax for the American oligarchs=more wealth transferred out of the country.

It's really that simple. The economy will continue to be in the ****ter, all the while setting unprecedented records in turning America further into a regressive tax state.

This.


I'm almost ready to concede this election to Romney. Let him change the economic world in the first 100 days (because he'll get no longer than Obama was afforded by the right-wing idiots of this country). Once things have gone completely in the shitter he'll complain that he inherited a mess, when the truth is he has absolutely no clue as to how to turn things around. Once his Bush buddies have set back U.S. foreign policy by 20 years we'll wonder how we could have been so stupid to allow a venture capitalist to have the keys to the car. They drove it off the cliff in the eight years prior to Obama and now they want to blow it up completely. The only option Romney will have remaining is to go to war, probably with Iran. Good luck with that.

stlouiedipalma;1239514 wrote: Once things have gone completely in the ****ter he'll complain that he inherited a mess, when the truth is he has absolutely no clue as to how to turn things around. .

You realize that describes Obama to a 'T'? Obama is a failure by the standard HE set for himself in 2008. If the guy is not accountable to you or me, shouldn't he at least be accountable to himself?

stlouiedipalma;1239514 wrote:Let him change the economic world in the first 100 days (because he'll get no longer than Obama was afforded by the right-wing idiots of this country).

As I recall it took less than 100 days for Barry's yummy tasting Porkulus Sammich debacle to hit the books. Can't blame the right-wing idiots for jumping on that rancid piece of shit.

stlouiedipalma;1239514 wrote:Once things have gone completely in the shitter he'll complain that he inherited a mess, when the truth is he has absolutely no clue as to how to turn things around.

Are you suggesting that after 4 years of 8% (+) unemployment, $800 billion in pork spending, Obamacare, and outright anti-business rhetoric that Barry has been a boon for American prosperity? Seriously? Oh that's right Barry just needs 4 more years to "really fix Bush's mess." :rolleyes:

Four more years! four more years!


You can speculate what Romney is going to do all you want, Wedgie.... with Obama we have seen the future....I'll take my chances with the other guy.

The dependents on this board (+1 keynsian) would LOOOOOVVVVVEEEEE for nothing more than 4 more years.