[sprout]

>What taxes are going to be raised to pay for the radical increase in spending?

That's an unanswerable question. In order to determine how much taxes will have to be increased to pay for current expenditures, you would need to be able to predict what the economy will be like in a year. If the administration's economic initiatives were successful, there's a possibility taxes will not have to be raised at all. So you're getting angry at Obama because he can't predict what your company's revenues will be in a year, which is totally unreasonable.

I think that applies more generally to most of the points you raised. The Obama administration didn't make the world unpredictable, it has always been that way. I don't even think another failure in the economy makes anything the administration has done categorically bad decisions. I don't think we're in a worse position now than a year ago, and I don't think the fall can be any harder now than it could have been. (Because it could have been atrocious.)

In general I think it's reflective more of business leaders' politics, and those on the left will say that times are hard, and those on the right will say that Obama and the Democrats are making times hard, which again, is totally unreasonable.

[jerf]

>>What taxes are going to be raised to pay for the radical increase in spending?

> That's an unanswerable question.

Which is pretty much the point, in a nutshell. Businesses seek confidence on what their costs are going to be, and the fact that such confidence has always been impossible doesn't really affect that. Which business in New Orleans correctly planned for Hurricane Katrina?

[dhume]

Businesses seek confidence on what their costs are going to be, and the fact that such confidence has always been impossible doesn't really affect that.

This raises the question of what changed when Obama took office that caused the complaints of uncertainty to start. Then again, at this point, I don't expect the people I generally see complaining about uncertainty to acknowledge that it has always been there (and that they were just giving Bush a free pass).

[jacoblyles]

With the current deficit, it is pretty clear that spending must fall or revenue must rise given any reasonable economic growth scenario. Given these options, the governing party seems focused on increasing revenue - permanently enlarging the public portion of the economy. That is usually bad for the private portion of the economy unless you have some reason for believing that public goods are underprovided.