Boehner to Obama: Come clean on cost of new regulations

Obama….Come clean??? Yeah right!

• Link
• Report this comment

Boehner’s letter needs to be translated. It is actually saying “We in the Republican Party are completley dependent of Big Business for our election and re-election funding. Therefore, they require us to fight as hard as possible to get rid of any and all Government regulations so that they can have a 100% laissez faire business environment and can then scam the public for all they are worth”.

• Link
• Report this comment

Carlos, grow up!

NOBODY wants to “get rid of any and all Government regulations”.

NOBODY.

I suggest you think of this government as a pendulum swinging back and forth. Right now, the pendulum is at it’s highest point in regards to regulatory oppression, and it’s being held there by the government and not allowed to swing back to the middle.

But as a big government kind of guy, I’m sure you simply love all regulations, regardless of their effectiveness (or lack thereof).

• Link
• Report this comment

When you mentioned “Broken Window Fallacy”, I thought you were referencing the “Broken Window Theory”, which would contradict your intent. Applying the Broken Window Theory to regulation would imply that having correct regulations (keeping things “clean”) will prevent a higher number of problems, as opposed to lax regulations (the “broken glass”) which would only encourage more bad behavior and hurt everyone.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jefferson….however you are right Obama is attempting to steal ALOT of money from most americans!

• Link
• Report this comment

well Tiberius, Bachmann wants to shut out the lights on the EPA……….can’t say I disagree…nothing bad ever happened to the land, water, air or people before the EPA…….business will always do the right thing when they regulate themselves……can’t think of any past events that would refudiate that fact

• Link
• Report this comment

One persistent myth is that the cost of regulation is always passed on to the consumer. That’s not always the case. Say a company has to adhere to a new regulation that protects the environment. Compliance would up the cost of the widget — but maybe the consumer says, whoa, I’m not paying that for a widget! So at that point, maybe the CEO says, you know, instead of making $6 million a year, maybe I should only make $5 million and charge less for my widget so people will still buy it.

Regulation is not what kills jobs. It’s often the greed of people at the top who, recognizing there’s a consumer price point to protect, take their manufacturing overseas where they can trash the environment and take advantage of cheap labor, continue to offer a cheap product, and pocket their huge executive salaries.

For small business owners who can’t take their business overseas, as long as regulation is applied and enforced equally, it shouldn’t hurt their competitive advantage and should protect them from unscrupulous suppliers and competitors.

The Republicans want to make regulation the boogieman du jour. They are exploiting the issue for votes. If you look at the history of regulation, the cry for it came from businesses as much as from consumers.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius

Once upon a time in America there were 6 day work weeks, 12 hour work days, no paid vacations, no overtime, no insurance, no paid holidays and child labor. Doctors and Dentists did not have to be licensed and patent medicines abounded. Then the Unions and Government regulations kicked in and forced Business and Medicine to accept regulation. Business in particular did not go quietly. They fought a 5 day work week, 8 hour day, paid vacations, paid holidays, and child labor elemination every step of the way. Since every fairly decent High School graduate knows this, I can only conclude you are either a little kid who should not be posting here or someone who is just not very bright.

• Link
• Report this comment

That’s billions we are talking about, folks!!

• Link
• Report this comment

“Think savings and loans and financial/wall street bailouts.”

And why did we bail out these neer-do well’s in the first place?

If you keep bailing out the miscreants when will they ever learn their lesson?

• Link
• Report this comment

Dacula 1995 — do tell: How do Democrats exploit blacks and mexican [sic] to get votes?

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius, try to think beyond a dichotomy.

• Link
• Report this comment

CarlosGV: Love how you ignore the fact that Obama is as much or more beholden to big business than the GOP. See GE, Goldman Sachs, etc. An see how he’s giving out waivers to Obamacare to the big businesses that give him money. See how he made sure his buddies at Goldman Sachs got bailed out even though they were as much or more responsible than any other single group of people for the housing mess.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jimmy62…..Really??? I thought the fools who didnt make their house payments were responsible for the housing mess…..

• Link
• Report this comment

Dacula 1995 — yes, I do, because I’m really interested in how you would answer it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dacula, I’m not following your 12:34 argument one bit. I can buy into a general argument that the Democrat party panders to – well – everyone they think they can get a vote from, and that does include policies that target minorities specifically, but I don’t see the argument that Republicans have done more to help African Americans one bit.

Nor should they specifically target anyone with preference, but rather treat everyone equally.

• Link
• Report this comment

So Dacula 1995, do tell: How has the Republican party historically done more to help AAs?

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle,

I know of no individual that would dare to deprive you of your right to drink all the polluted water or breath all the polluted air or eat all the tainted food that your overtaxed heart desires. Have at it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Citizen? Who said a word about Fox news?

• Link
• Report this comment

Dacula, I can read between the lines.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dacula, please.

If all you have to hang your hat on is the Emancipation Proclamation made by a specific President in the 1860’s (and not the policy of the GOP at the time, btw), then you’re gonna have to do better than that.

• Link
• Report this comment

Phil, I find that people who rely on hyperbole to make their argument do so because they can’t come up with a valid argument against a valid point.

• Link
• Report this comment

Citizen…sure I watch Fox as well as CNN, MSNBC and CNBC. Your point?

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius…..every political move is calculated! Welcome to politics.

• Link
• Report this comment

Citizen….who is “they”?

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius…..apparently not….you think the civil war was about slavery dont you? Really?? You know more than me? I think not.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius…..regarding what?

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius……Go ahead.

• Link
• Report this comment

Government regulations killed the US buggy whip industry.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Tiberius……Go ahead.”

With . . . what?

• Link
• Report this comment

“You article as well as Boehner’s letter share the same fallacy: That the cost to “the burden on American job creators” and a “burden to the economy” are the same thing. The “burden on American job creators” is an increase in the cost of running their business. It says nothing about the effect on the economy in general, or about the benefits for the society gained by the application of the regulations.”

Pure, unadulterated lack of understanding of what it takes to create jobs or economic reality, MarkV.

If you have a burden on American job creators, it automatically becomes a burden to the economy, because now you have more reasons and resources to NOT hire people. When you increase the cost of doing business, you force companies to do ore with less. The less comes out to be layoffs.

Some regulations are certainly helpful, but do we really need a OSHA certification standard for a freakin’ step ladder?

• Link
• Report this comment

Lil’ Barry, only someone with poor reading comprehension skills would think that’s what I wrote. Perhaps they let you out of middle school class for lunch… time for you to get back to class, little one. You’re the next generation, time to start working hard and make us proud!

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius…..actually you didn’t. What color Kool Aid are you drinking today? You may want to slow down.

• Link
• Report this comment

Wait, it gets better — this is regulations that cost the regulated because of the restrictive nature that may or may not make sense, but costs money. The real costs come from the hiring of hundreds of thousands of PERMANENT new employees to administer these programs. They locked into a Civil Service system designed to keep incoming administrations from sweeping away employees to put in those with ones who agree with their agenda. That was why it was vital that the Congress pass all of this new legislation while they could instead of tackling the economic disaster. Now that the hiring requisitions are out, the Federal Government will be flooded with new, never leaving employees hired not because of the job they can do in the area they were hired for — but because they share a philosophy with the current Administration and will fight any Conservative values from within the government.

Costs now? How about for the next 30 years. S&P was an optimist — wait until everybody gets the truth that we are locking in some serious cost upticks.

• Link
• Report this comment

Boo hoo hoo….we want to deregulate everything like George Bush did and get some more of that? Yeah, the gusher up economy supporters would like that.

• Link
• Report this comment

LOL, I guess since Obama was dominating in poll position, Kyle had to get out an article to move that down the list.

Boehner is doing what he always does. He’s looking for press. Sadly, people commenting don’t even know what the regulations are, yet are talking about how bad they are and how bad Obama is.

Furthermore, Kyle didn’t even look for what the actual regulations are either. He works for a major newspaper and just promoted the propagana. List the regulations and say why they are a waste of time. Otherwise, you’re just printing “He Said, He Said.”

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle
14% of Americans polled think we are on the right track. Yet, everyday these liberals come on these blogs and lobby for more regulations, more taxes, more government spending. They argue that tax cuts do not work, when tax cuts have pulled us out of these periods of recession before. None of their ideas have worked and they continue to say that we just didn’t do enough spending or we didn’t regulate enough. It is useless to argue with them. Boehner is wasting his time, Obama will never even give him the courtesy of a reply.

Obummers mindless minions will continue to defend the indefenseable. My mother tells me her county is raising property taxes 28% and she expects people to lose their farms and homes at courthouse auctions. We are truly entering a depression and Obummer knows how to get us out, but refuses to do anything that will repudiate what he believes. An ideological depression is what I call it.

• Link
• Report this comment

JF McNamara, I think Boehner’s and Kyle’s points are valid. It is a bit disingenuous to make statement after statement on your taxpayer-funded campaign bus tour about scaling back regulations when the new ones you’re working on right now are going to cost billions, the ones already in the books cost businesses nearly a trillion each year, and you haven’t even gotten around to writing the regulations on your health care reform act.

• Link
• Report this comment

A more complete picture of the issue:

“States are required to clamp down on emissions in areas that violate the EPA’s ozone limits, which can result in higher costs to businesses. The estimated cost of the EPA’s proposal ranges from $19 billion to $90 billion, and industry says it has the potential to be the most expensive environmental rule in U.S. history. Meanwhile, the EPA says a standard between 60 and 70 ppb would yield between $13 billion and $100 billion in health benefits by reducing premature deaths, respiratory illnesses and emergency room visits.”

Comments, Kyle?

• Link
• Report this comment

JFM
Boortz was saying yesterday that Obamas panel assigned to revue the regulations and find those that need repealing had only removed one so far. It was the milk spill rules that the dairy industry was required to implement. They had to have an emergency plan and equipment to deal with a accidental milk spill. As a former federal investigator, I can assure you there are thousands of these useless or ourdated regulations still on the books that cause businesses to waste energy and expense on daily.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle,
One more point. You wrote: “And not even hard-core Keynesians claim there’s a multiplier effect for regulatory costs.”
No? Think again.
http://www.triplepundit.com/2011/05/fuel-economy-standards-could-add-236000-california-jobs/

• Link
• Report this comment

Lil’ Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
August 26th, 2011
12:52 pm
Only a mind-numbed libtard could be so intellectually weak as to believe we can regulate our way out of Obozo’s new normal of 9% unemployment.

This coming from a Retardlican who thinks that cutting government spending (and the associated government jobs) will help the U.S. unemployment rate. Lil BB is the same Retardlican who thinks that George Bush presided over a job jobless rate of 4% throughout his presidency. In other words, your opinion doesn’t mean much.

• Link
• Report this comment

If you don’t want to follow the rules and regulations, just pay millions to lobbists and buy the politicians. I guess the GOP only wants to regulate peoples private lives, as they don’t regulate anything huh?

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle,

How might I obtain a listing of citations of the impending environmental regulations to which you have alluded in today’s column?

• Link
• Report this comment

BW
I ‘assume’ the number you are referring to is the right track number of 14%. You are right, Bush was on the wrong track, that compassionate concervative crap was just a cover for big spending liberal republican. Although his administration looks like a booming success compared to Obummer, he started us down this hole.

I do believe that even if Dubyah had served a third term this would have been a short lived recession as he would have dramatically reduced taxes and regulations and halted the coming depression in its tracks. Would the debt have increased, probably a great deal, but we could have worked it down later when the economy got back to good times. Everything Obama has done to remedy the situation, by intent or neglect, has made things worse.

• Link
• Report this comment

Why do we respect corporations who seek certainty. If our forefathers craved certainty we would all live on the East Coast or more honestly on the continents from which we came. Capitalism is about risk taking. The business I work for is in expansion mode because the owners sense opportunity in the uncertainty. Uncertainty is for socialists. capitalists take chances because in our economic system to the chance takers go the spoils.

The better description for these global dinosaurs who avoid risk like the plague is hoarders. That’s what they are. Not good business people.

• Link
• Report this comment

Josh, just because YOUR business feels it is OK to take a risk, doesn’t mean that everyone should. Businesses CALCULATE risk, and then act accordingly.

At least, the good ones do.

• Link
• Report this comment

Capitalism is indeed about taking risks…risks that can foreseeably return commensurate profits. Capitalism is not about taking foolhardy risks, such as having your business regulated out of existence, harnessed as a cash cow for big government, or seized and handed over to political cronies such as union thugs.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius @2:02 pm: It is you, who has no argument. Citing a few cases of failure is ridiculous. Each new industry, whether initiated by the government regulations or not, has had many failures, as anybody with the knowledge of history would know.

”Well, counting you, the author of the article and the subject of the article, that makes three people who believe made up data”
I know, any data that disagree with your view are “made up data.”

Also, what you failed to notice is that my post was in direct contradiction with Kyle’s assertion,” And not even hard-core Keynesians claim there’s a multiplier effect for regulatory costs.” Evidence submitted, case closed.

• Link
• Report this comment

What about the cost of pollution?

We totally ignore those costs.

• Link
• Report this comment

For eight years we gave the Republican Party about everything they wanted, had too. Now they are the minority and they are seeing fit to clean up all the things they refused to do as a majority with a sitting president. They try to act like this is a new bunch, the Tea Party, but last I looked the two were in the same party. I am tempted to play their game, let them have everything they want, and when the world is ended by their actions tell em it was their fault, my last breath. Nope that would be too much like them.

• Link
• Report this comment

Interesting that Boehner will cite the upper end of the cost at $90 billion but won’t cite any savings, much less the projected upper end of savings at $100 billion. This cost as well as the resulting savings is for the smog rule, which Atlantans should know plenty about. The savings would be made up from the health care aspect (which could be overstated but if you cite the study for the cost, you should for the savings too). Healthier people, more living people, and fewer people jacking up my premiums – people that can work and spend money (or pay taxes, or draw welfare depending on your outlook).

• Link
• Report this comment

“Boehner, WHERE ARE THE JOBS YOU PROMISED??? The Repubs ran on the platform in 2010 of creating jobs.”

Yes, they did. But they are only 8 months into having control over 1/2 of 1/3rd of the Federal lawmaking apparatus. They first had to create and pas a budget – for THIS year. They then had to deal with the debt ceiling, which would have taken far less time if certain people in Washington, D.C. would accept the reality that they no longer control the whole process anymore. Finally, they have to come up with a budget for NEXT year. All the while, they have a Senate that will filibuster any regulatory reform (or take the brave move and table it like they did deficit reductions), and a President that will veto it.

“They attack the deficit, spending cuts for poor and middle class and don’t tax the rich.”

The deficit is a problem, unless you don’t understand the issue. And the rich are taxed plenty, so saying they don’t tax the rich is, well, wrong.

‘Keep giving Corporations tax incentives to send jobs oversees.”

Current incentive should be eliminated, but there are very few, if any, that encourage corporations to send jobs overseas. Perhaps you know of a few specifics?

“The GOP has but one objective and that is to make President Obama a one term president (their words).”

Technically, those are the words of Mitch McConnell and Michele Bachmann. I do not believe that it has been the platform of the GOP, however. And even if it was, shouldn’t that be ONE of the goals of the opposition party?

“Speaking for me! I like to breath clean air, drink and swim in clean water. Have safe food to eat and safe transportation.”

As do all of us. Many of us just have a different way of getting there with less tax dollars.

• Link
• Report this comment

A new party, it is almost humorous we have to point everything out in dollars and cents to our one trick pony opponents. The mere fact that some of us may live longer healthier lives should be enough motivation but obviously not for all of us.

You know if we didn’t have a government, cost or otherwise, we would go back to the tribual days and be constantly fighting upon ourselves. The ones of us that don’t think they need the government may be the ones that need it the most.

• Link
• Report this comment

GT, NO ONE thinks that we don’t need any government.

NO ONE.

Less hyperbole, more substance to your arguments, please.

For instance, what’s your threshold for the number of lives saved vs. the cost to implement a law? One? A dozen? Hundreds? Thousands? Life is NOT without risk, nor is it the government’s role to eliminate said risk.

• Link
• Report this comment

Darwin

August 26th, 2011
2:28 pm
Let’s eliminate all regulations. No more FDA. If you eat or take a pill and get sick and die, well, that’s the price you pay for economic freedom. Let’s roll the clock back to the glory years of the 18th and 19th centuries, and even the early 20th century. No more laws. Every man, woman, and child for themselves. I might need to take a pill, as the right wing rhetoric continues to kill me. Taxes and regulations are what’s keeping us from having total employment and a full steam ahead economcy. It’s so simple. Why didn’t I think of that?

Yup, because that is the ONLY other option. It is truly an either/or situation. Nothing EXTREME about that statement right there.

That BS is the EXACT reason I left the Dem party and why I won’t join the Repub party.

Newsflash! Indies dispise BOTH extremes.

• Link
• Report this comment

What do you think big government is????? If you cut Government spending too much whether it is , the trillions spent for defense, which pays employees who shop at stores creating jobs there, for truckers hauling the stuff, warehouse etc. State workers such as teachers are paid and spend that money at srores, doctor offices etc thereby creating jobs there. Social secuity, medicare, medicaid, housing, all go to doctors, nursing homes hospitals, stores again creating jobs all along the chain with the demand from government spending (our taxes) at its root. Can you afford $80,000 to keep a disabled relative in nursing home or stay home from work to take care of them. 50 million Americans are on food
stamps, they spend them at grocery stores creating jobs, these employees spend at gas stations restaurants,doctors, lawyers who hire employees who create more jobs by spending money. Due to this jobs depression and which could become a world wide full blown depression without government spending to us.. Do you know of any job not supported by government spending at its root???? Most of us and our children/grandchildren will never make millions to save for retirement.. About 40 years ago and since we have been told work hard and get the American dream, where is it???China Those government programs for the lower class/middle class were hard fought for and we will not get them back, if we let them go.

• Link
• Report this comment

Reply: Dude, I’m still waiting for your bill to pay for your two “shoot now, pay later” wars.

Exactly. Imagine what better financial footing this country would be on if we hadnt blow hundreds of billions chasing the boogie man in Iraq.

Obama really has two major things working against him.

1. He followed the worst president ever ( and it wasn’t really close )
2. He is black.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jed: All they have done is argue with President Obama about everything.
———–

Yes, it is unfortunate that your Idiot Messiah is so obstructionist, and insists on a “my way or the highway” approach to spending, taxes, and regulation.

• Link
• Report this comment

And I’m sure this EVIL company is thrilled about gov’t regulation enforcement.

Eco-zealous feds target Gibson guitars, antique piano sellers; Updated: Gibson explains, exposes DOJ overreach

Federal agents swooped in on Gibson Guitar Wednesday, raiding factories and offices in Memphis and Nashville, seizing several pallets of wood, electronic files and guitars…

The question in the first raid seemed to be whether Gibson had been buying illegally harvested hardwoods from protected forests, such as the Madagascar ebony that makes for such lovely fretboards. And if Gibson did knowingly import illegally harvested ebony from Madagascar, that wouldn’t be a negligible offense…

The core issue is Gibson’s purchase of wood for use in guitar fingerboards. The wood is not raw, nor is it finished. Juszkiewicz explains that the wood is purchased from Madagascar when it is “two-thirds of the way” finished. Once purchased, the wood is brought to America, where it is finished by American workers. According to the Obama administration, purchasing unfinished wood is a violation of Madagascarian law…

“So the government’s contention is that because American workers are working on that and finishing it, that it is not a finished product and, therefore, initially Madagascar law – and now I guess they’re contending Indian law – says you can’t remove unfinished product from the market. So in other words, if a person in Madagascar had completed the work on that blank, it would be legal. But the fact that American workers are finishing the work in the United States, makes it illegal, as far as their concerned.”

“The government’s position is, that is the law of the land in Madagascar and they are saying that is the law of the land in India. That is not the case. The fact is, we have affidavits from numerous government officials – and this court case, specifically now, is forMadagascar wood. We have affidavits from virtually every govt official saying that it is legal, that their definition of what is legal is a fingerboard blank and its been exported within every certification that is necessary. So they have the arrogance to interpret Madagascar law differently than the people of Madagascar.”

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/08/26/eco-zealous-feds-target-gibson-guitars-antique-piano-sellers/

I’m sure the AMERICANS that may be effected by this are SOOO glad for this gov’t overreach.

• Link
• Report this comment

Well considering that the U.S. debt is now at $14.8 trillion and rising, and the cost of both Iraq and Afghanistan have been calculated at just over $1 trillion total, I’d say that our financial footing wouldn’t be much different at all, seeing as we’re taking about a figure that is LESS than the debt grows each year.

Yes and of that 14trillion the overwhelming majority has been accumulated under a republican president.

W and Reagan being the worst offenders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

Ill await your spin.

• Link
• Report this comment

Technically, Jim Crowe, what you’re engaging in is called a deflection. I answered your question, which arguable diminished the hyperbole of your original statement, so therefore you move onto who is responsible without admitting that your initial premise might just have been wrong. Typical of many liberals when caught in a similar situation over at the Children’s Table, aka, the Bookman Blog.

However, to answer your deflection, debt is accumulated by two branches of government, the Executive and the Legislative. The Executive is far less responsible for deficit spending these days as they were during the time before a strong Legislative branch as we have had for more than 50 years now. In short, the Legislative branch reigns supreme in government these days when it comes to spending, as Presidents do not exercise their veto pen very often anymore.

That being said, both parties in Congress are equally to blame for excessive spending, although the edge goes slightly to the Democrat party (roughly 52%-48%) in generating the majority of the debt we have right now.

Any further schooling on the reality of Washington, D.C. you need? Just ask.

• Link
• Report this comment

Every Lib on here questions why more regulation is bad and states that regs keep our food safe and our air clean and ask how the much the lack of regulation costs the USA.

As Tiberius has pointed out multiple times, you guys are either or, the choices to you seem to be over regulate or no regulations. Well, I have a qustion for anyone who wants to answer.

According to modern legend espoused by the Democrat followers, everything was wonderful on earth when Bill Clinton was president. The air was clean and brisk, everyone had a job, the economy was booming, the lion layed down with the lamb and peace and prosperity prevailed. And, he balanced the budget, you say.
Well, if we had enough regulations and regulators back then to give us this nirvana, why do we need thousands of new regs now?

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius, I agree with you about the “Children’s Table”. Although I still visit because there are some smart posters over there (you included until you escaped). Plus I like to watch them whine “Jay, he’s touching me”

• Link
• Report this comment

Death of the United States by a thousand cuts, er, tax increases.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius

August 26th, 2011
1:06 pm
Whose history did you read? Was it written by a northener, european, southerner, someone in the frontier, just whose history did you read?

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius

August 26th, 2011
3:56 pm
That black guy, their idea of a serious thought over at The Children’s Table is typing their nonsense while frowning.

Allow me to clairify, I enjoy their NON-political, non-religious topics.

• Link
• Report this comment

I guess no one who dresses left wants to answer my question.

U skeered?

• Link
• Report this comment

My point is that history is/has been rewritten to fit the agendas of certain special interest groups. For instance take the confederate battle flag, it is depicted a symbol of racism and is now in the history books as such because of politcal agendas that believe the end justifies the means–correct history? Also, Glenn Beck did a good presentation of the black man in the early colonies and they were not subjected to such scrutiny but lived life as freemen. The north promoted slavery and made millions but the south took the rap. How deep do you want to go?

• Link
• Report this comment

Did anyone (besides Ron Paul) demand that BUSH come clean as to the cost to our liberties of the Patriot Act, the TSA, the DHS, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, or the oppressive police state he created “for our security?”

Republicans would probably get a lot less crap if they showed some principles for a change and held all presidents to the same standard (not that the democrats are any better – where is the anti-war left these days by the way?). That’s what has always been great about Ron Paul. He has never wavered in his principles or his conviction to speak his mind, regardless of which party is in power.

Ron Paul 2012.

• Link
• Report this comment

Maybe some of these are financial regulations that helped cause our current economic mess. Which of course the Repub oppose. Remember when Reagan eliminated many regulations on the Savings & Loan institutions in the 1980s? How did that turn out? Didn’t we taxpayers have to go in and bail them out? So ok, eliminate the regulations. You’ll still have to bail them out and add it to the US debt because they’re too big to fail. We’ve been down that road before. Apparently, we’re going to go down it again, and again, and again…

• Link
• Report this comment

WEll said carlosgvv

• Link
• Report this comment

“Enron, WorldCom, and a few others are responsible for Sarbanes-Oxley. While it certainly does cost corporations money, it sparked a boom industry in relation to audit and compliance. Hundreds of accounting grads could find work auditing the books of others. Additionally, corporations hired many people specifically to keep them in compliance. In some cases entire departments were added.”

Junior Samples, I’m calling BS on the above post. While in RARE occasions someone may have created an extra job to comply, many existing firms simply took up the slack. And all the while those extra compliance jobs that WERE created kept a job that produced something from being created.

Nice try.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle, every cent the federal government “takes out” of the economy is distributed back into the economy, often to worthy causes. Except for some miniscule foreign aid projects, every cent the government collects and spends goes directly or indirectly into American jobs. The implication that government spending goes into some black hole, never to emerge, is plain wrong.

Dollar for dollar, government spending goes to government employees, employees on government-sponsored projects, and benefits for the elderly, the impaired, and the unemployed. When income received from the government is spent, even more jobs are created or sustained by consumer spending in the private sector.

Government spending creates good jobs faster than private enterprise. Government-sponsored jobs typically offer better pay, job security, and health care and retirements benefits. Some government-sponsored jobs are important to the nation; many are not.

Many jobs created by government spending are not self-sustaining because those jobs create no added value beyond the cost of the job. Jobs created by successful private enterprise are self-sustaining because those jobs create products and services that are worth more than cost of the jobs. So, private enterprise jobs are preferable to government sponsored jobs, but many needs of modern civilization cannot be addressed by private enterprise.

• Link
• Report this comment

Why the fear? What does this say about you?

• Link
• Report this comment

And for those who haven’t figured it out already, jobs that are created by either government mandate, government legislation, regulatory requirement, etc. are UNSUSTAINABLE. If they are not the result of market forces, they will not be sustained by the market. When a business hires someone freely to do a task it is because they believe the task they will be doing and the contributions they will be making will add to the bottom line. When they hire someone to comply with regulations they act in response to fear – plain and simple. They do not want to be penalized by the government so they pay protection money in the form of a jobs program that creates paper.

When one looks at jobs created by a government regulation one only sees the jobs. One does not see the jobs that cannot be created elsewhere because those salaries are now gone doing taks that do not add to profitability, the betterment of society, or anything else positive that business delivers. Further, if one is naive enough to actually believe that these regulations are about keeping people safe and secure the deception is complete.

Regulations like SOX and others are typically embraced by big corporations as their protection payoff to the govenrment. While this sounds counterintuitive, know that the Interstate Commerce Commision was proposed by the big railroads to destroy their smaller competitors. It worked like a charm. Complying with regulations is very expensive. It is not a big deal for the big corporations, but may kill a smaller competitor or hinder their ability to grow and better compete with the big guys. Much of the money given in campaign contributions comes from companies who promote regulations to keep their competitors hurting. Government sells the lies beautifully because that’s what they do.

Don’t be a sucker. Government is not here to protect you. It is here to protect their friends. Ending government regulations and empowering marketplace regulation by the consumer should be the goal of everyone wanting to rein in the horrendous behavior of big business.

• Link
• Report this comment

Mr Liberty…
Thanks you for agreeing that regulations are needed. You stated that SOX 404 was created because of “direct result of government regulations and regulatory failures”.

You are correct. At the time the regulations were not sufficient enough, and Enron (et al.) took advantage. What was legal then, isn’t now. Outside of the obvious (Enron, WorldCom, etc) which businesses closed their doors due to SOX 404? This regulation is only pointed at publicly traded companies. If it was no longer economically feasible due to regulations, they simply took themselves off the exchange. Customers still came in to buy stuff, employees made and sold them goods and services.

Actually, and yes this might be hyperbolic (Tiber), but SOX 404 could be a considered a litmus test for those who think they’re good enough to be on the exchange.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jed: All they have done is argue with President Obama about everything.
_________________________________________________________

Yes, it is unfortunate that the idiot Tea Party and Contards are so obstructionist, and insists on a “my way or the highway” approach to spending, taxes, and regulation.

Fixed that for you, buddy!

• Link
• Report this comment

Rafe,

Sorry your distraction led you to Viagra. I’ll leave that alone…

• Link
• Report this comment

Buymade
Have you never read the Constitution? Are you like Obama and just want to make the rules as we go. So we hunt down and take all that money the Wallstreets have and spend it, where do we go next?

There is no Robin Hood Amendment in the US Constitution. We have the tax laws our reps have given us, but even if they wanted to take all the rich had, it is unconstitutional.

How bout I make up a rule that the 48% of Americans that pay no federal income tax have to pay 10% of all their income regardless of the size of their family or their EITC, or anything else. Sounds fair to me.

• Link
• Report this comment

But you are certainly to be commended for your efforts in trying to educate them.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius

August 26th, 2011
11:37 am
“The only question I have about this is: What took so long?”

TESTIFY!
_________________________________________________________

Obama doesn’t have to come clean. Follow Bushie’s famous words:

“I’m the commander — see, I don’t need to explain — I do not need to explain why I say things. That’s the interesting thing about being president.” –as quoted in Bob Woodward’s Bush at War

• Link
• Report this comment

How bout I make up a rule that the 48% of Americans that pay no federal income tax have to pay 10% of all their income regardless of the size of their family or their EITC, or anything else. Sounds fair to me.

___________________________________________________________________

“You work three jobs? … Uniquely American, isn’t it? I mean, that is fantastic that you’re doing that.” –Bushie to a divorced mother of three, Omaha, Nebraska, Feb. 4, 2005

• Link
• Report this comment

Ann Rant
You are so wrong when you allege that all Gov spending is returned to the economy. Besides foreign aid that you mentioned, just consider these few things. Much of what Gov buys ends up in the landfills, we could have less landfills if not for government. Examples, FEMA Trailers, bottle of emergency water supplies, other emergeny supplies overstocked, asphalt torn up and replaced due to not meeting government standards, excess equipment, trillions of pages of used paper, etc.

We also have left trillions of dollars of defense assets overseas when we pull out of countries willy nilly. We spend billions on earthquake aid in Haiti and Japan, etc.

The government is the most inefficient purchaser and managers in the world. The people can spend their own money better and create more jobs if the government would leave their resources alone.

• Link
• Report this comment

“As any such generalization, this statement is — let’s be very generous — silly.”

Then by all means, MarkV, make the case that a professor in a university setting is responsible for, and knows how to create more jobs than just about every business person on the planet.

Please.

Go ahead.

Don’t let me stop you.

• Link
• Report this comment

Lil Bushie

Well three jobs huh, that was in good times my friend. I don’t think any of us would be lucky enough to find three jobs today. She is probably unemployed in this Obama economy.

• Link
• Report this comment

Gotta go out and get the canines some food.

They’re staring at me with some pretty determined looks (as in, I’m looking like a pork chop), so I’d better go.

Maybe later. Enjoyed it, folks.

• Link
• Report this comment

Mr. Liberty,, The corporations foreign capital that was brought back in 2003/2005 was not used to create jobs here but to fire workers and hire more overseas and pay big CEO bonuses. Why shouldn’t they pay taxes to help pay for the Navy to keep the sea lanes open????? , They need to get all that foreign made stuff here to sell to us without tariffs, thats the capital/profit they want to bring back without us getting any tax, what about a pay-off to our workers?? Corporations pay what a $1.00 to make a pair of shoes in China and you pay $50.00 for the shoes and that gives them a $49.00 profit to call profit/capital They are probably getting a little worried about a world depression and banks going broke,, but why should we care if it is confiscated by another government unless there are guarantees; it will be used to create permanent jobs here..

• Link
• Report this comment

Buymade

You need some serious economic training my friend. $49 profit?

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius @ 5:11 pm: “Then by all means, MarkV, make the case that a professor in a university setting is responsible for, and knows how to create more jobs than just about every business person on the planet.”

OK. Let’s start with your being dishonest. Let’s look at your original assertion:
Tiberius @ 4:13 pm: “Businessmen create jobs, college professors do not. Therefore, I’ll believe a study on what will or will not create jobs from a businessman more valid than one from a college professor.”

Where has that new part, “that a professor in a university setting IS RESPONSIBLE FOR,” come from? (My emphasis).

I will not make a generalization like you have done, but it is quite likely that many professors in a university setting know much more about job creation than “just about every business person on the planet.” The reason is that those professors study the particular field as a major part of their occupation, while an ordinary businessperson is concerned mainly with running his/her business rather than with the complexity of the overall jobs market. It would be like saying that a professor studying and researching the optimization of a car engine knows less about the function of those engines than a businessperson manufacturing one.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius, your little cyber stalker has followed you over. Better watch yourself, he may be boiling the water for the rabbit as we speak.

• Link
• Report this comment

That black guy, I’m a cyber-stalker magnet!

(they HATE it when they get their clocks cleaned by facts and logic)

• Link
• Report this comment

[...] asks Obama to disclose costly regulationsReutersWashington Post (blog) -USA Today (blog) -Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog)all 23 news [...]

• Link
• Report this comment

Rafe Hollister . . .

All the government waste you cite (paper, trash, discarded weapons) was created by people working at jobs. Eliminating that waste will eliminate those jobs.

However, we could eliminate the waste and create new jobs for useful products. How? By stimulating the economy enough to create sufficient consumer demand to attract investment of capital, or by federal borrowing and spending on less wasteful projects.

Our economy has an imbalance between jobs and capital: there’s too much capital and too little consumer demand to provide investment opportunities. We need ways to convert some of the excess capital into consumer spending power. The federal government can do that by borrowing capital to distribute to consumers, not a great idea, or by confiscating (taxing) excess income and capital gains from financial instruments such as hedge funds and derivatives, which are gambling ventures that do not create American jobs.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ann
The better way to get that capital flowing is to eliminate taxes on the corporations holding it. Lower corporate tax rate to zero, increase depreciation allowances, do not tax inventory, eliminate capital gains tax. When they create all these new jobs the government can salivate over all their new found income, plus more corporations will move to the US and create even more jobs.
I think this is what they call a growing economy, what you advocate is a zero sum game, just get their money cause we need it and they are the ones with the money. Grow the economy and create more money!

• Link
• Report this comment

It is not just some isolated cases like Cuyahoga river or South River. Free market is the most viable economic system ever devised, but government regulations are absolutely necessary to curb the excesses. The government in a democratic society has not been instituted just for the benefit of the profit makers, but for the benefit of all people.

• Link
• Report this comment

can’t punctuate either; out of here.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Translation: I cannot think of an argument.”

MarkV, your inability to accept any prevous answers does not constitute a failure on my part.

And the book-LEARNing / BURNing hyperbole? Proof positive you you haven’t a clue about me, what I believe or virtually anything else.

Book learning is fine, as far as it goes. But too many of those people who lived in academia and didn’t ever practice their chosen profession in the real world have done nothing to cover themselves in glory as regards our economy these past few years. But if you believe so, again, make your case.

As you failed so miserably to do earlier.

• Link
• Report this comment

Cut taxes, deregulate and everything will turn out great.. Remember Kyle, that was the song Ronnie was singing the night you proposed to your wife. Must give you a warm fussy glow all over.
It’s been years since Wall Street hit us up for 700 billion. A couple of years since BP pumped millions of gallons of oil into the gulf. Heck no coal miners have been crushed to death in ages. Months are ages when it comes to a Republican’s attention span.
I have no idea where you come up with the numbers you throw around. Most seem to be pulled kicking and screaming from places the sun doesn’t shine.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever considered how much money we could save by simply closing the prisons. We have millions of people locked up. It’s one area where America still holds a commanding lead over the rest of the world. I estimate that we could save 111.8 billion dollars [ just a silly number I read somewhere] by closing the prisons. To a man. those guys are sincerely sorry for what they did. They all promised that they would be good boys from now on. The police realized that they wouldn’t be needed anymore. They’ve all decided to be hedge fund managers. .I’m telling you happy days are here again.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate! @7:01 pm : “As you failed so miserably to do earlier.”

Oh no! Another one with strong powers of self- deception.

“And the book-LEARNing / BURNing hyperbole? Proof positive you you haven’t a clue about me, what I believe or virtually anything else.”

I do not care to have a clue about you. I go strictly by what you write.

• Link
• Report this comment

[...] NewsThe Huddle: Boehner challenges ObamaPoliticoABC News (blog) -Washington Post (blog) -Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog)all 28 news [...]

• Link
• Report this comment

Junior Samples – if you want a good example of Keynesian thought, Ayn Rant does a great job of leading one down the fallacy of Keynes’ illogic. The stimulus we have been trying for the past 3 years (well, technically since about 1913) has all been about supposedly interjecting government capital into the market to get it going. The unfortunate delusion is that capital is homogenous while it most certainly is not. Capital that comes from savings is real, and represents an asset that will be available for future spending once the product produced by investment is available, while the capital that comes from government spending is simply taken from the productive sector, created out of thin air, and has no bearing on the availability of future assets for spending on the product produced.

A bit too complicated to describe in a short blog – certainly given the wonderful texts that have been written on the subject. Again, go to http://www.mises.org and search for “austrian business cycle” and do some reading.

• Link
• Report this comment

OK, then, Mr. Liberty. You are officially a very scary person.

Look, I don’t like government at all, but even I realize that it is a necessary evil. And while I would love to see the day when there is no government, I am also a realist and know that it will never happen in the United States of America. Not in my lifetime, nor in 50 lifetimes.

Therefore, the realist in me does what I can to minimize the effect of government in my daily life, and in others.

And frankly, the problem with people on both extremes of this issue is that they are just setting themselves up for a lifetime of frustration and false hopes. I do not prefer to waste my life that way.

• Link
• Report this comment

The Obama EPA has been engaging in a literal war against coal fired electricity generation. Ga Power has already announced retirements of four or five generating units because it wasn’t cost effective to put all the environmental controls on those units. Generating units, I might add, that would have run for another 30 years or so. The replacement units will cost hundreds of millions added to the rate base that you and I pay for each month.

You think this economy went into a tailspin when gasoline hit $4.50/gal, just wait until electricity doubles or triples. Meanwhile, China, Taiwan, Mexico and other nations are chugging along with no environmental controls.

No, I’m not advocating no environmental controls, but there is a cost/benefit analysis that must be conducted on these regulations. It’s time to put a little common sense in charge of the EPA.

• Link
• Report this comment

[...] appears that letter Speaker John Boehner sent to the White House last week foreshadowed part of the House GOP’s [...]

• Link
• Report this comment