The World of Finance Weakens Obama, While America Is Tempted by "Boss" Romney
Published in Marianne 2
(France) on 28 August 2012
by Stephane Trano (link to original)
(France) on 28 August 2012
by Stephane Trano (link to original)
Translated from
by Deonca Williams.
Edited by Tom Proctor.
While the President made many promises in 2008, the rustling of American public opinion in favor of Romney’s pragmatism and voluntarism is undeniable. The reality of the economy catches Obama, who has done everything to forget about it. ...
In 2008, Barack Obama was able to count on the firm support of the country’s financial community, who largely financed his campaign with $93 million versus $83 million in donations to his Republican opponent John McCain. During the last 100 years of American history, Wall Street has always seen more profits under a Democratic government (8.5 percent on average) than under a Republican government (6 percent). In return, the financial industry received support in the amount of $800 billion in the wake of the election of the Democratic candidate.
In the Fiscal Times, on August 28, 2012, Yuval Rosenberg wrote an article entitled “Wall Street Abandons Obama in Support of Romney.” The reporter indicated that large firms have so far given three times more to Mitt Romney’s campaign than to Barack Obama’s campaign. The list of top 5 donors for each candidate speaks for itself:
Barack Obama
• University of California: $491,868
• Microsoft: $443,748
• Google: $357,382
• DLA Piper: $331,715
• Harvard University: $317,516
Mitt Romney
• Goldman Sachs: $676,080
• JP Morgan Chase & Co: $520,299
• Morgan Stanley: $513,647
• Bank Of America: $510,728
• Credit Suisse Group: $427,560
(Source: Center for Responsive Politics, Aug. 21, 2012)
In total, $67 million this year has been put coffers of the Romney’s campaign versus $44 million for Barack Obama.
How does one explain this reversal of confidence in Obama's policy? Yuval Rosenberg explains that according to Sea Port Securities founder Ted Weisberg, the answer lies in the fact that the American financial community hates Obama’s policies the most.
"I have never ever in my lifetime seen such dysfunctional politics in Washington. ... The election here is huge, because if the current policies are not going to change – or, if anything, get reinforced – that means that we’re looking at another 3.5 to 4 years of nowheresville. And this country desperately needs a change. ... If there is a change, I think the market will roar, because so much of stock trading is about confidence and what I call the feel-good factor.”
However, like Ted Weisberg, many market players leaped out of an almost total paralysis of government because of the disappearance of any bipartisanship in Congress and the fierce and uncompromising opposition on the part of both the Republicans and Democrats. The uncertainty of government guidance systematically weighing on the markets for long months of debate for any initiative or bill will eventually dry the initiative and reduce the volume of transactions. This will have serious consequences for most companies in a country where everything is on the market.
The Opinion of the American Public Is Split
It’s fairly obvious that American opinion is split on the issues. But the core is solid, as explained in the analysis published by the Gallup Institute, where it states:
"From all Gallup's data, which have been gathered from asking the whole world questions on virtually everything, the most profound finding is this: The primary will of the world is no longer about peace or freedom or even democracy; it is not about having a family, and it is neither about God nor about owning a home or land. The will of the world is first and foremost to have a good job. Everything else comes after that. A good job is a social value. That is a huge sociological shift for humankind. It changes everything about how people lead countries, cities, and organizations.”
Regarding the United States, Gallup aligns the ten factors that shapes the American public today. In summary, these factors are:
• People want to have a job, and it should be a good one.
• Cities create jobs through innovation and entrepreneurship, not the government.
• The three main sources of jobs are the top 100 cities, top 100 universities and 10,000 local leaders.
• Entrepreneurship - and investment in it - is more than innovation.
• America cannot weigh its health bill.
• The school dropout rate is a scourge that needs to be fought immediately.
• We need to double the number of employees engaged in the business application to design sales forces.
• Americans need to understand the expectations of the global consumer and respond accordingly.
• Cities should create a favorable framework priority for small and medium-sized businesses.
• The United States should triple the number of exports and stop selling primarily to Americans.
When asked now about all of these elements, Americans take a low profile, and their level of confidence in their country shows continuing signs of skepticism. They find themselves caught between the feeling that are generally favorable towards Obama; his sympathetic side is high, as recently shown in a USA Today poll, where he had 54 percent against his rival Romney’s 31 percent. Americans also see the need for the country to react more strongly than through long-term reforms. The same survey shows that 52 percent no longer trust Romney to take over the economy, while 43 percent still support Obama in this area.
The figures display a certain impatience in a country accustomed to rapid cycles and dramatic reversals. The reappearance of long-term unemployment, the credit crunch and the particular implementation of reform and expensive long-term care system generated a hard-to-control anxiety. Many Americans find themselves caught between feelings that are generally favorable towards Obama – his appeal and sympathetic side are high. However, Americans in general do not trust the government to help them; the welfare state is not an American value. Americans have little hope in Congress, whose paralysis is unbearable. This is especially true because they are accustomed to relying on their entrepreneurial spirit, which is facing the greatest difficulties due to the banks and a sluggish market. Americans were also stung by too many promises in 2008.
During the two years following his election, President Obama passed a record 50 federal regulations in the financial market. But unlike laws, these regulations were often cleverly circumvented. In addition, consumers have relied in vain on promises that were made to counterbalance the bailout provided to the Wall Street giants. Of the 504 candidate commitments however, 318 were not made by the President. Here is a brief list of some of the economic promises.
• The creation of a $10 billion (€8 billion) support fund to prevent the bankruptcy of indebted homeowners
• The elimination of tax breaks for the rich put in place by George W. Bush
• The tightening of rules regarding possible collusion between lobbyists and politicians
• Reducing the cost of health insurance for households by up to $2,500 per year (€2000)
• The extension of allowances for children and dependents
• The requirement for employers with retirement plans to enroll employees
• The creation of a tax credit for low-income retirees
• The elimination of income taxes for seniors earning less than $50,000 annually (€40,000)
• The prohibition of bonus and dividend distribution for businesses going bankrupt
• The ban on pharmaceutical companies blocking the placing of generic drugs on the market
• Requiring employers to cover 7 sick days per year per employee
• Increase the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour (€7.60)
In summary, Obama has limited his goals to the health care reform and support for failed banks. These two major projects occupied the first half of his term (2008-2010) before the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives. Obama’s platform promised to create a social revolution in the United States. Why place everything on only these two aspects when the Democrats were in the majority in both the Senate and the House between 2008 and 2010? The criticism is never too far away.
Obama, the Visionary, Versus Romney, the Pragmatic
Despite all of this, people are still waiting on Mitt Romney to demonstrate a tangible program providing a clear and audible explanation of what he represents.
Romney’s global point of view is typically conservative: the government can better help the economy if it is smaller. This explains his choice of Paul Ryan, the picture of fiscal conservatism, as his running mate. But there still remains a glitch in Romney’s reasoning. He has proposed more benefits and regulations in areas such as minimum wage and the environment. He puts a lot of emphasis in the argument that public spending, including public investment in private companies, can stimulate the economy and create jobs. And as noted this morning in the New York Times, "... he has advocated tax penalties to shape public behavior, as in his successful campaign to penalize Massachusetts residents who did not obtain health insurance.”
What is expected of the Republican candidate during the turbulent days of the convention in Florida is to address the issue concerning the huge problem of the federal budget deficit, which is abysmal and has been one of the worst threats to the United States for the past four months straight. According to Romney, the deficit should be reduced only by cutting spending. But the New York Times recalls that in Massachusetts, Romney had "worked with the legislature controlled by Democrats to curb budget deficits through a combination of spending cuts and increased revenue from higher fees for public services and the elimination of certain corporate tax deductions.’’*
Romney said, however, that his goal is not to duplicate what he did in Massachusetts for the whole nation. His speech at the convention is mainly based on his experience as an entrepreneur and investor, two qualities that Americans recognize him for. He wants to keep income taxes at their lowest. He advocates accelerating American energy independence through a massive stimulation of tools and methods for domestic production. This platform is also one of the rare steps a candidate has taken in the period of the past decade or two. Because at the moment, Mitt Romney wants to be an electroshock candidate for the U.S., while Barack Obama wants to reform society as a whole. Between a dream and uncertain gamble, Americans swing.
*The following quote, while translated accurately, could not be verified in English.
In 2008, Barack Obama was able to count on the firm support of the country’s financial community, who largely financed his campaign with $93 million versus $83 million in donations to his Republican opponent John McCain. During the last 100 years of American history, Wall Street has always seen more profits under a Democratic government (8.5 percent on average) than under a Republican government (6 percent). In return, the financial industry received support in the amount of $800 billion in the wake of the election of the Democratic candidate.
In the Fiscal Times, on August 28, 2012, Yuval Rosenberg wrote an article entitled “Wall Street Abandons Obama in Support of Romney.” The reporter indicated that large firms have so far given three times more to Mitt Romney’s campaign than to Barack Obama’s campaign. The list of top 5 donors for each candidate speaks for itself:
Barack Obama
• University of California: $491,868
• Microsoft: $443,748
• Google: $357,382
• DLA Piper: $331,715
• Harvard University: $317,516
Mitt Romney
• Goldman Sachs: $676,080
• JP Morgan Chase & Co: $520,299
• Morgan Stanley: $513,647
• Bank Of America: $510,728
• Credit Suisse Group: $427,560
(Source: Center for Responsive Politics, Aug. 21, 2012)
In total, $67 million this year has been put coffers of the Romney’s campaign versus $44 million for Barack Obama.
How does one explain this reversal of confidence in Obama's policy? Yuval Rosenberg explains that according to Sea Port Securities founder Ted Weisberg, the answer lies in the fact that the American financial community hates Obama’s policies the most.
"I have never ever in my lifetime seen such dysfunctional politics in Washington. ... The election here is huge, because if the current policies are not going to change – or, if anything, get reinforced – that means that we’re looking at another 3.5 to 4 years of nowheresville. And this country desperately needs a change. ... If there is a change, I think the market will roar, because so much of stock trading is about confidence and what I call the feel-good factor.”
However, like Ted Weisberg, many market players leaped out of an almost total paralysis of government because of the disappearance of any bipartisanship in Congress and the fierce and uncompromising opposition on the part of both the Republicans and Democrats. The uncertainty of government guidance systematically weighing on the markets for long months of debate for any initiative or bill will eventually dry the initiative and reduce the volume of transactions. This will have serious consequences for most companies in a country where everything is on the market.
The Opinion of the American Public Is Split
It’s fairly obvious that American opinion is split on the issues. But the core is solid, as explained in the analysis published by the Gallup Institute, where it states:
"From all Gallup's data, which have been gathered from asking the whole world questions on virtually everything, the most profound finding is this: The primary will of the world is no longer about peace or freedom or even democracy; it is not about having a family, and it is neither about God nor about owning a home or land. The will of the world is first and foremost to have a good job. Everything else comes after that. A good job is a social value. That is a huge sociological shift for humankind. It changes everything about how people lead countries, cities, and organizations.”
Regarding the United States, Gallup aligns the ten factors that shapes the American public today. In summary, these factors are:
• People want to have a job, and it should be a good one.
• Cities create jobs through innovation and entrepreneurship, not the government.
• The three main sources of jobs are the top 100 cities, top 100 universities and 10,000 local leaders.
• Entrepreneurship - and investment in it - is more than innovation.
• America cannot weigh its health bill.
• The school dropout rate is a scourge that needs to be fought immediately.
• We need to double the number of employees engaged in the business application to design sales forces.
• Americans need to understand the expectations of the global consumer and respond accordingly.
• Cities should create a favorable framework priority for small and medium-sized businesses.
• The United States should triple the number of exports and stop selling primarily to Americans.
When asked now about all of these elements, Americans take a low profile, and their level of confidence in their country shows continuing signs of skepticism. They find themselves caught between the feeling that are generally favorable towards Obama; his sympathetic side is high, as recently shown in a USA Today poll, where he had 54 percent against his rival Romney’s 31 percent. Americans also see the need for the country to react more strongly than through long-term reforms. The same survey shows that 52 percent no longer trust Romney to take over the economy, while 43 percent still support Obama in this area.
The figures display a certain impatience in a country accustomed to rapid cycles and dramatic reversals. The reappearance of long-term unemployment, the credit crunch and the particular implementation of reform and expensive long-term care system generated a hard-to-control anxiety. Many Americans find themselves caught between feelings that are generally favorable towards Obama – his appeal and sympathetic side are high. However, Americans in general do not trust the government to help them; the welfare state is not an American value. Americans have little hope in Congress, whose paralysis is unbearable. This is especially true because they are accustomed to relying on their entrepreneurial spirit, which is facing the greatest difficulties due to the banks and a sluggish market. Americans were also stung by too many promises in 2008.
During the two years following his election, President Obama passed a record 50 federal regulations in the financial market. But unlike laws, these regulations were often cleverly circumvented. In addition, consumers have relied in vain on promises that were made to counterbalance the bailout provided to the Wall Street giants. Of the 504 candidate commitments however, 318 were not made by the President. Here is a brief list of some of the economic promises.
• The creation of a $10 billion (€8 billion) support fund to prevent the bankruptcy of indebted homeowners
• The elimination of tax breaks for the rich put in place by George W. Bush
• The tightening of rules regarding possible collusion between lobbyists and politicians
• Reducing the cost of health insurance for households by up to $2,500 per year (€2000)
• The extension of allowances for children and dependents
• The requirement for employers with retirement plans to enroll employees
• The creation of a tax credit for low-income retirees
• The elimination of income taxes for seniors earning less than $50,000 annually (€40,000)
• The prohibition of bonus and dividend distribution for businesses going bankrupt
• The ban on pharmaceutical companies blocking the placing of generic drugs on the market
• Requiring employers to cover 7 sick days per year per employee
• Increase the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour (€7.60)
In summary, Obama has limited his goals to the health care reform and support for failed banks. These two major projects occupied the first half of his term (2008-2010) before the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives. Obama’s platform promised to create a social revolution in the United States. Why place everything on only these two aspects when the Democrats were in the majority in both the Senate and the House between 2008 and 2010? The criticism is never too far away.
Obama, the Visionary, Versus Romney, the Pragmatic
Despite all of this, people are still waiting on Mitt Romney to demonstrate a tangible program providing a clear and audible explanation of what he represents.
Romney’s global point of view is typically conservative: the government can better help the economy if it is smaller. This explains his choice of Paul Ryan, the picture of fiscal conservatism, as his running mate. But there still remains a glitch in Romney’s reasoning. He has proposed more benefits and regulations in areas such as minimum wage and the environment. He puts a lot of emphasis in the argument that public spending, including public investment in private companies, can stimulate the economy and create jobs. And as noted this morning in the New York Times, "... he has advocated tax penalties to shape public behavior, as in his successful campaign to penalize Massachusetts residents who did not obtain health insurance.”
What is expected of the Republican candidate during the turbulent days of the convention in Florida is to address the issue concerning the huge problem of the federal budget deficit, which is abysmal and has been one of the worst threats to the United States for the past four months straight. According to Romney, the deficit should be reduced only by cutting spending. But the New York Times recalls that in Massachusetts, Romney had "worked with the legislature controlled by Democrats to curb budget deficits through a combination of spending cuts and increased revenue from higher fees for public services and the elimination of certain corporate tax deductions.’’*
Romney said, however, that his goal is not to duplicate what he did in Massachusetts for the whole nation. His speech at the convention is mainly based on his experience as an entrepreneur and investor, two qualities that Americans recognize him for. He wants to keep income taxes at their lowest. He advocates accelerating American energy independence through a massive stimulation of tools and methods for domestic production. This platform is also one of the rare steps a candidate has taken in the period of the past decade or two. Because at the moment, Mitt Romney wants to be an electroshock candidate for the U.S., while Barack Obama wants to reform society as a whole. Between a dream and uncertain gamble, Americans swing.
*The following quote, while translated accurately, could not be verified in English.