A conservative friend of mine recently sent me the article “Is Obama Good for Business?” by BusinessWeek’s Eamon Javers. He was trying to help reduce my fears of what an Obama presidency would do to our country. I have stated over and over (and over and over) again that I think Obama and his policies would be disastrous for our country and still maintain this position after reading the article. Why? Let me break the article down for you.

1. The article consists of blatantly false Democratic talking points like:

“he wants to roll back the Bush tax cuts that benefit many of the people running big American companies.”

The Bush tax cuts almost doubled the per child tax credit (from $600 to $1000), this disproportionatley helps the poor and middle class as they tend to have more kids (not to mention, people who make more money are subject to the alternative minimum tax and do not get per child tax credits).

Beyond that, the Bush tax cuts were a huge help to SMALL businesses, not just the oft-demonized-by-the-left big businesses! I am so tired of people talking about him cutting taxes for the rich. Small businesses produce 70% of the new jobs in this country and are emblematic of the American dream. Small business are mostly Sole Proprietorships, a business classification that basically makes them taxed at the individual tax rate.

So, if you have 8 people working for a small business, that small business can quickly be taxed at the high rates Democrats use to target the “rich” and then be forced to lay people off or cut benefits. When Obama and Hillary talk about “rolling back Bush’s tax cuts on the rich”, what they are really talking about is taxing the small businesses that are producing 70% of the new jobs this country so desperately needs.

2. The article actually further enforces my resolve against a possible Obama presidency, his policies are even more damaging than either of the Clintons.

“And in a reflection of the Democratic Party’s drift away from pure free-trade positions, Obama says he would look to amend the NAFTA trade agreement to add similar protections to the Clinton-era pact.”

Translation: Left of Bill Clinton, enough said. And the Democratic Party is not “drifting” from free-market positions, they sailed to the other side of the world.

“his plan to restore “balance” to the economy”

Translated: More wealth redistribution/socialism.

“Goolsbee says the distinction with Clinton is most evident in the candidates’ plans to increase the personal savings rate. Obama would create an automatic 3% savings withholding from every paycheck that employees could opt out of if they want to. Clinton, on the other hand, proposes a targeted tax break to incentivize savings.”

Translation: Obama is even more commited to nanny statism that Clinton. Keep your hands off my paycheck! Incentives at least give America a choice, Obama wants to spam our paychecks with opt-out government programs.

3. The piece is actually more biased then the New York Times, I am thoroughly disappointed in BusinessWeek for even printing it.

Check out the breakdown of quotes in this article:
2 quotes from Democratic Consultants
0 quotes from Republican Consultants

1 Example of a CEO who likes Obama and corresponds with him
0 Examples of CEOs who disagree with Obama or even think Clinton is better

1 Quote from the head of a Chamber of Commerce about Obama’s character
0 Quotes from anyone about the damaging effects of Obama’s liberal policies in Illinois

If this breakdown surprises you, you may want to checkout an award the author of the piece, Eamon Javers, got from the lefty organization Press Action for being “on a roll” as a liberal muckraker exposing conservatives.

Overall, I expected better from BusinessWeek and I expect better for America when it comes to choosing our President.

Last 5 posts by Brandon

Tags: ,

3 Responses to “Liberal Muckraker at BusinessWeek thinks Obama is Good for Business”

  1. Brian says:

    Wrong, Henak! More collectivism would be GREAT for business!

  2. 3rd way says:

    It is funny how your thorough analysis of the article left out the part about the Reagan appointed fed chief supporting Obama.

  3. Oh, right. Sorry:

    1 Reagan Appointed Fed Cheif who support Obama
    0 Fed Cheifs who do not support Obama

    The problem is, as I stated, there really was no back and forth. It was all an attempt to smooth over Obama’s record and promote him.

Leave a Reply

You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>