idhawkman wrote:I just disagree with you on this then. If you don't have a reasonable chance for return on your investments, then you won't invest. Corporations are flush with cash because of the Obama regulations and taxes. Those he did control. Its also why the economy is growing at the rate now that it should have for him if he had relaxed the regulations and taxes a bit.
"Reasonable"? What do you consider reasonable? That word shouldn't even enter the conversation as that is defined by individual. A lot of people made "reasonable" returns during Obama. That is why even during the most "socialist" president in history as some like to paint Obama (though I'd say FDR was more socialist and LBJ) the rich got much richer and the poor much poorer. The wealthy made very reasonable returns on investment during Obama, do not worry yourself. It was good time to invest in the stock market after the crash. Lots of companies on sale. Corporations certainly did not sit on cash because there was nowhere to invest due to Obama. They did a lot of investing and growing their cash. Buffett really made out like a bandit. Cash hoarding was at an all time high due to monetary policy, not taxation.
Obama did not severely alter the tax structure from Bush Jr. Obama very much carried on many of Bush's policies and was unable to greatly modify them due to a hostile Congress. His major change for investors was an increase of the long-term capital games from 15% to 20%. It had only a moderate effect on investment considering it was still a very low rate of taxation on long-term capital gains, far lower than the income tax or short-term capital gains tax which is taxed like normal income.
Obama's policies on energy were a large boost to investors in alternative energy sources. A lot of money was made in the stock market for supporters of alternative energy. It did not have a severe deleterious effect on oil and gas prices. The oil crash occurred prior to the Trump administration fueled by OPEC's stated goal of reducing fracking in the United States to maintain market share. Another factor Obama could not control. Obama didn't do a ton to stop fracking because it was one of the few bright spots in the job market after the housing bubble burst.
The most harm he did was Obamacare, which hit the working class harder than he sold for medical bills from a general rise in costs and all the taxes he added to various things to pay for it. It did not at all work as intended. The whole zero cost lie his administration sold was proven to be a lie just as expected. The exorbitant cost to the individual created a situation where it was cheaper to avoid paying for insurance. It basically did as all welfare programs do: encourage people to be poor by making healthcare cost effective only for those poor enough to receive it for free while making it too costly for the middle class and the wealthy once again didn't care because they have the money to be well taken care of.
Being an investor, I would have thought you knew this. Risk/reward. If the risks outweigh the rewards, you just sit on your capital.
I am very well versed on what occurred since prior to the tech bubble burst of the 2000s. It's why I know you're lying and why I know the Democratic supporters are lying when they blame Bush Jr. for the tech and housing bubbles bursting and praise Clinton for the good economy of the 1990s. There are lot of factors affecting an economy and taxation is but one of many.
I'm not going to go into it all here as that would take pages beyond even what I'm willing to write. Obama ran a very careful and mostly middle of the road presidency. A lot of money was made during Obama's presidency and a lot of investing was done. The cash hoard companies had wasn't due to lack of investment, but due to the low cost of borrowing. Why use your cash hoard to grow when money can be borrowed for free? You should do some studying on the cost of money and how companies determine when it is better to use the cash you earn or the cash you borrow. When you have a cash hoard that can be better used investing in higher earning investment instruments, you borrow. When The Fed Funds rate was at zero (Something Obama does not control), then the cost of borrowing is much cheaper than spending your earned cash. When you invest and learn economics, you learn about this.
The entire reason the stock market is as high as it is right now is because the returns are still better on investments and have been for some time than the returns on loaning other people money (bond purchasing). Thus people with money (including company money managers) shove most of their money into stocks and other similar investment vehicles because the return is higher. This is all due to the low Fed Funds interest rate making the cost of borrowing so cheap as to create a disincentive to loan money versus investing it. Once the Fed funds rate rises, this may change and you may see money move from stocks to bonds once the cost of borrowing rises and the returns on loaning money become attractive.
Politics aren't sports. I know very well you can't be well-versed in everything, but try not to buy into the BS too much. There's a lot going on and the president isn't the reason for the good and the bad. He's one man that is the face of the nation. He can't magically cure our our ills or cause them. People need to stop putting so much energy into the government. It's leading us down a bad path. We need a quieter, less involved government, smaller military, less taxation, and a return to a self-reliant and liberty loving America that doesn't look for or need its president to do to much. It seems after World War 1 we've been on this path of world dominance that needs to be reined in driving all this BS our government is involved in.
