Skip to comments.Is Obama bad for business?
Posted on 02/14/2008 2:39:42 PM PST by oblomov
On Sunday, after he learned he'd won that day's Democratic presidential primary in Maine but before his appearance on CBS's "60 Minutes," Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) sat down at the keyboard of his computer to write an e-mail. Not to a media consultant or a delegate counter, but to banker Robert Wolf, chief executive of UBS (UBS, news, msgs) Group for the Americas.
The two men exchanged notes about the Senate-passed economic stimulus package and that weekend's G-7 economic summit, Wolf says.
Obama has also been in touch with former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, who endorsed the freshman senator in January.
"When I sat down with him, I found him to be unbelievably refreshing and smart and thoughtful," says Wolf, who first met Obama at the offices of financier George Soros. The UBS chief has gone on to raise more than $1 million for the Obama campaign.
The rest of corporate America may not be persuaded as easily.
Plus, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce gives him the lowest rating of any of the three major contenders for the presidency, behind Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). But Obama's sweep of the "Potomac Primary" in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia makes him a very real contender for the Democratic nomination.
So what would an Obama presidency look like for business?
"It would be a pragmatic, center-left administration," says Democratic political strategist Steve McMahon, who is unaligned with a presidential candidate this year. "He's been pretty clear that business would have a seat at the table, but business wouldn't be able to buy all the chairs."
(Excerpt) Read more at articles.moneycentral.msn.com ...
Translation: if you speak out what we are doing to the economy, we will get the IRS to audit you, or simply destroy your reputation.
If Obama Could Enact All Of His Campaign Proposals, Taxpayers Would Be Faced With Financing Over $850 Billion In New Spending Over One White House Term:
Obamas Health Care Plan Will Cost Up To $65 Billion A Year; Equal To $260 Billion Over Four Years. [Obama] campaign officials estimated that the net cost of the plan to the federal government would be $50 billion to $65 billion a year, when fully phased in, and said the revenues from rolling back the tax cuts were enough to cover it. (Robin Toner and Patrick Healy, Obama Calls For Wider And Less Costly Health Care Coverage, The New York Times, 5/30/07)
Obamas Energy Plan Will Cost $150 Billion Over 10 Years, Equal To $15 Billion Annually And $60 Billion Over Four Years. Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid. (Obama For America, The Blueprint For Change, www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 25)
Obamas Global Poverty Act tax would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of its gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.
UBS is a Swiss concern. Maybe he was just checking up on some late funds transfers.
"UBS Writes Down $13.9 billion"
Is our most preferred Chinese business partner bad for business, or are we still fine with that?
Is Obama bad for business?Is vomit bad for applesauce?
Hell, he would be bad for everything concerning this country.
Was Lenin bad for the Tsar?
That about covers it,right on.
Is that equivalent to that "thing" floating in the punch bowl?
Not if you own an abortion clinic.
Bad for business and everything else. A 5 or 10 year old would do less damage to our Nation.
YES, YES, YES!!!!! If you want communistic price controls, more government intervention, vote omama.
not even feeling the need to hide it!
“Obamas Global Poverty Act tax would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of its gross national product on foreign aid...a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.”
THIS IS CONFISCATORY WEALTH TRANSFER - PURE & SIMPLE!
lefitsts always suck up to the extremely rich. what’s new about this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.