‘Anti-Business’ Obama is Best President for Corporate Profits Since 1900

[Hissyspit]

Source: Think Progress / Mötley Fool

‘Anti-Business’ Obama Is Best President For Corporate Profits Since 1900

By Pat Garofalo on Oct 26, 2012 at 2:20 pm

Since he came into office, Republicans have consistently attacked President Obama for supposedly being anti-business. As ThinkProgress noted last week, the data shows that this charge is nonsense.

In fact, as the financial website Motley Fool noted today, President Obama is far and away the best president for corporate profits since 1900:

Even if corporate profits under Obama are compared to the 2008 peak — in order to erase the effect of the financial crisis — “average annual corporate profit growth under President Obama is 6.8%,” or nearly three times as large as it was under President Reagan. Both Presidents Bush actually oversaw corporate profit declines during their terms. Meanwhile, real GDP growth per capita is far higher under Obama than it was under either Bush administration.

Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/26/1097301/anti-business-obama-is-is-best-president-for-corporate-profits-since-1900

[neffernin]

1. Honestly...

surprised at this, and slightly saddened. Would be nice to see personal income growth go up by that rate; corporations earning more money does you or I little good.

[FiveGoodMen]

3. Agreed, but it does point out how ridiculous the 'anti-business' charges being level at him are

It shows that the GOP's smears are completely divorced from reality.

[DaveJ]

8. With the threat of losing it all, I don't blame them.

I wouldn't take a chance hiring people in the U.S. until I knew Romney wasn't going to be elected. He'll send every possible job to China and elsewhere just as manufacturing jobs plummeted under Bush and fell during ALL the repub presidents (in my lifetime).

[beac]

2. Article in Forbes said the same thing recently:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/10/10/want-a-better-economy-history-says-vote-democrat/

[louis-t]

9. Saved to hit repugs over the head with.

They can relate to Forbes because the author said "Democrat policies".

[beac]

10. It's a great article-- chock full of usable talking points and FACTS and, yes,

published by Forbes of "100 Richest..." fame. No way anyone can accuse them of being a lefty publication.

[progree]

15. To me, Forbes Magazine is of Steve Forbes fame - what a puke job, the flat tax and all that

Steve Forbes - presidential candidate in the RepubliCON primaries in 1996 and 2000. Even worse than Charles Schwab??? (LOL). I don't remember if Steve Forbes went around the country scaring seniors with low interest rate armageddon.

All about Charles Schwab's latest antics for anyone else reading this (and Beac's response):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021584473

On the OP subject, I've put together "EF economic facts" about Obama v. GW Bush http://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439, also mentioning Robme Romnesia's record (my stuff on Robme's record is short so I stuck it below the ====).

I definitely will include nuggets from the OP in EF Economic Facts.


=========== Robme Romnesia's job creation record =====================
(#.) And then there is this - Romney justifying his poor job creation record at the 3 1/2 year point of his administration as Massachusetts Governor -- by blaming the economy he inherited from his predecessor for the fact that his (Romney's) job numbers kept falling during the first 11 months of his administration -- and touting the number of jobs created (50,000) after his job numbers finally stopped falling -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/125198174

However, that 50,000 post-turnaround job creation record was a poor showing on a per-capita basis compared to the national average at the same time period, or the Obama record during the similar post-turnaround job-recovering period of the Obama administration. And consider that during Romney's entire 4-year term as governor, Massachusetts was 47th in job creation (in percentage increase terms) -- yes, only 3 states had a worse job-creation record.

By the way - he almost moved Massachusetts from 2nd place in per capita debt to 1st place.

[beac]

17. Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm NO fan of Steve Forbes BUT

Forbes Magazine is a great place for that article to have run b/c NO ONE can dimiss it as a left-leaning Democrat-friendly publication.

Forbes is the kind of magazine that JUST MIGHT get Republicans like the OP's friend to take another look at who they are voting for.


Great EF link!! You might want to edit in a space b/w the last 9 in the link and the comma after it b/c right now it causes an error when you click it (thinks the comma is part of the link.)

[progree]

18. Yup. And thanks.

[font color=blue]>> Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm NO fan of Steve Forbes BUT Forbes Magazine is a great place for that article to have run b/c NO ONE can dimiss it as a left-leaning Democrat-friendly publication. Forbes is the kind of magazine that JUST MIGHT get Republicans like the OP's friend to take another look at who they are voting for. <<[/font]

I entirely agree 100%. Sorry not to be clear.

[font color=blue]>> Great EF link!! You might want to edit in a space b/w the last 9 in the link and the comma after it b/c right now it causes an error when you click it (thinks the comma is part of the link.)<<[/font]

Thanks and Thanks. I'll fix it in 15 - 30 seconds.

[MNBrewer]

4. Hoarded record corporate profits are not necessarily a good thing

Corporations remind me of the dragons of myth. Sitting on their stolen riches.

[SoapBox]

6. Take THAT, Pukes and Baggers.

[William Seger]

7. But they aren't spending it on creating jobs

Gee, must be something wrong with the central Republican economic theory. Wonder what it is...

[hrmjustin]

11. Greed is a deadly sin.

[trouble.smith]

12. is this good news?

[jmowreader]

13. No, if you're trying to beat Obama by playing the anticapitalist card

It does suggest Obama was right when he said the private sector was doing fine.

[progree]

16. Its also a great zinger when someone says Obama is a socialist. Not to mention stock market up 66%

under Obama -- 66% above where it was at the last close before inaugural day (speaking of the S&P 500, as of Friday 10/26/12 close). (It declined 37% from the beginning of the GW Bush presidency to the end of the Bush presidency.). Details: EF 4. at http://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439

[Ian David]

14. Well, yes... but he's BLACK. n/t