PDA

View Full Version : Obama the regulatory king



eg8r
08-31-2011, 09:04 AM
So qtip is all giddy about Obama "slashing" $10 billion over 5 years and he ignores Obama's increase of 7 new ones of which one of the EPA ones is estimated to cost anywhere between $19 and 90 billion annually.

Link (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/30/obama-proposed-regulations-would-cost-1-billion/)

Soflasnapper
08-31-2011, 10:53 AM
The linked article contains 3 points of comparison of the Obama 2-year regulatory record compared to the (final) 2-year regulatory record of his predecessor.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mr. Kovacs noted that the Government Accountability Office said there were 178 major rules reported to Congress in the final two years of the Bush administration, compared with 195 such rules in the first two years of the Obama presidency. </div></div>

Comparing a notoriously regulation-adverse, deregulation-friendly administration with this allegedly regulation-slaphappy administration, these numbers reflect a very modest 10% increase. Moreover, given the requirements for such regulations to be put into place take some time, it may even be that a number of these in the first two O years were actually W administration initiatives.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> And a study by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free market think tank, found 339 “economically significant” rules, defined as costing $100 million or more, in the last two years under Mr. Bush, but 408 such rules in the first two years of the Obama administration.</div></div>

Assuming this study is accurate, this reflects a somewhat larger increase than the first set of numbers, but it is still at a 20% increase level. Again, from an administration very opposed to new regulations, to one supposedly hell bent to impose a ton of them (to ruin the economy on purpose, we are supposed to believe), it's a much smaller increase than one might imagine. (And again, possibly the result of initiatives FROM THE PRIOR ADMINISTRATION finally becoming put into effect.)

Lastly, there is this:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The president also said the cost of “final, economically significant rules” were higher in the final two years of the administration of Republican George W. Bush than in the first two years of Mr. Obama’s administration. But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has questioned the administration’s tally.</div></div>

By this claim, even if there are somewhat more rules (10%, 20%), they add up to less cost to business than the lower number. Not impossible, even if that seems unlikely, and even if the self-interested non-neutral party, the CoC, claims the opposite.

I don't think there is nearly enough information available, and independent analysis available, to decide what is what in this matter.

But consider the weakest claim that supposedly shows the O fervor for burdening business with regulations (no. 1 above).

Anti-Obama spokesman: The man is regulating the country into oblivion! He must be stopped!

Independent voter: Really? How many more regulations has he put on the economy in his first two years compared to the prior two year period?

AO spokesman: **17** more!!!

IV: Wow, that seems a lot! Compared to how many before that? 0? Less than 10? He must have ratcheted it up 100% or more, right?

AO spokesman: No, there were 178 new regs in the prior two year period.

IV: So it's up less than 10%??? Sheesh.

Gayle in MD
08-31-2011, 10:57 AM
Can't have enough environmental regulations for me!

It's such a myth, anyway, that jobs are lost due to them.

These corporations like that foreign slave labor, and the ability to skip out on taxes.

They'd be doing the same thing regardless of regulations, IMO.

Republicans are doing what theyy always do, lying to the masses, to benefit the wealthy.

Too bad the so called Christian Right, do not care about the filth for which their party blazes the path, to pollute the earth.

They and their kids, are paying right now for that, and they are too uninformed to understand it.
G.

Soflasnapper
08-31-2011, 12:21 PM
The increased regulations have a lot to do with the implementation of ACA, and the financial regulations passed, quite apart from the environmental ones (which probably are up a bit as well, considering the FDA was tasked to regulate tobacco, and the EPA can now regulate CO2, as George W. Bush promised he would also do in the campaign of 2000. When Bush's appointed EPA chief Cristie Todd Whitman went to an international conference with that plan, doing what her boss had promised to do, she was suddenly cut off at the knees, and that promise, reversed.)

As for the need for financial regulations, even the libertarian Ayn Rand acolyte Alan Greenspan had to admit that his previous 'no regulations are required' position had been a complete failure, and he's reversed his position. Not to worry, though, it only cost the economy what? $15 trillion in wealth or something, so at least, not much! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

LWW
08-31-2011, 01:07 PM
Tell me the one again about how you never slavishly defend the Obama regime.

eg8r
08-31-2011, 01:10 PM
OK, so the beginning you are correct in finally admitting yes Obama has been creating more regulation than W. Finally you guys can admit to something.

Secondly, this is NOT about comparing the two so you are arguing something that is not even on the table in this discussion. The subject is how qtip was excited about a $10 billion saving over 5 years but neglect to accept the additional 19-90 billion annually that was already added on from just one new regulatory rule.

How about that Dem led Congress in the last two years of Bush and Obama. They are passing tons of regulation.

eg8r

eg8r
08-31-2011, 01:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's such a myth, anyway, that jobs are lost due to them.
</div></div>Actually you using any sort of thought is a myth. Jobs start declining as soon as the Dems are in control of Congress and new regulation is quick to follow. They have gone hand in hand. You might as well stick to the copy/paste.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
08-31-2011, 04:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The increased regulations have a lot to do with the implementation of ACA, and the financial regulations passed, quite apart from the environmental ones (which probably are up a bit as well, considering the FDA was tasked to regulate tobacco, and the EPA can now regulate CO2, as George W. Bush promised he would also do in the campaign of 2000. When Bush's appointed EPA chief Cristie Todd Whitman went to an international conference with that plan, doing what her boss had promised to do, she was suddenly cut off at the knees, and that promise, reversed.)

As for the need for financial regulations, even the libertarian Ayn Rand acolyte Alan Greenspan had to admit that his previous 'no regulations are required' position had been a complete failure, and he's reversed his position. Not to worry, though, it only cost the economy what? $15 trillion in wealth or something, so at least, not much! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

</div></div>

The total costs of Repiglican policies is unfathomable!

By the time we figure in Bush's mismanaged wars, and caring for all of our wounded for the rest of their lives, and the many mother and fatherless children, who need our help, and all of those poor people who have fallen with cancer, which is increased by pollution, annd burning fosile fuels, and not enough oversight of our food and water, and air, not to mention Wall St.....all a result of BUSH and during BUSH'S WATCH!

Consider how many Americans have lost their health due to having only enough money to eat fast food, or due to their constantly falling wages, under George Bush, as we have watched the Repigs create a completely out of balance economy, one where demand needs comsumers who can afford to buy, and Repiglicans have subsidised the outsourcing of so many American jobs, we don't have enough Middle Class people who can afford to buy anything?

In the south people are falling with diabetes, heart disease, cancer, every chronic disease, so much of it impacted by the Grand Oil Party's environmental destruction, their deregulatory policies, and poor eating habits. The right is always yapping about "Family Values" yet their rock bed, is the highest divorce rates and the worst health, in the nation!

Then factor in the spending spree of the Repiglican Blank Checkers, colossal spending by choice, braking all earmark records, HUGE DEFICIT SPENDING FOR EIGHT YEARS OF Bush AND OVER A DECADE OF REPIGLICANS, borrowing by choice, paying for nothing, all for policies from which Americans got nothing of value, nothig but lost wages, lost jobs, lost health, and declining opportunity, all since REAGAN, and as their foreign policies, franchised our enemy's organization, while Bush was hugging and kissing and holding hands with their financial supports in their flowing robes and headware.

Bush/Cheney and Repigs, left a crashed, UNREGULATED economy and two unfinished wars, one of them a total scam, OMG!!!

No wonder the majority of Americans still blame Bush, the Chimp, for his legacy of horrors.

How does one calculate those massive costs, and how do righties have the gall to deny even the obvious, which should be unquestionable, deny the fifndings of the CBO, deny the opinions of Science, of economic pulitzer Prize Winning economists, the sick denials of the obvious colossal losses to America on every front, all due to Repiglican Policies!!!!

The Repiglican policy impacts, in health, the huge interest payments, of Bush's Wars, were still on going bills to be dealt with and somehow addressed by the Democratic Majority, which inherited the spending spree of the Blank check Repiglicans, along with all of the Repigs going damages, as does this President still, to this day.

The denied facts, such as, the FACT, that without addressing our unsustainable costs for health Care, and Pharmaceuticals, and the unprofessional practices of health Insurance Corporations, our economy will continue to falter. Those costs played a huge role in the borrowing on homes, and credit card abuse, people had to eat, as repiglicans attacked their wages, to give more to the wealthy!

WE witmessed, on-going fear mongering and lies, spread across this nation by Repiglicans, who pretended to care about the Middle Class, as they fear mongered about Death Panels, and throwing Grandma under the train, while in fact, that is exactly what THEY DID, as soon as they got back into power, they destroyed Medicare!!!

Fed Up? LMAO! Rick Perry is has loads of Gall, and is, as many rEpiglicans say, a nutjob. If he wants to see people who are Fed Up, I cann surely show them to him!

Someone should sue Chris Christie, for his coming colossal health costs to our country, so much a pound! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif
G.

cushioncrawler
08-31-2011, 05:43 PM
Yes, the future costs of pollution etc iz probly much more than the near-future cost. Allso costs seem to all too often only inklood things that hav a price, ie things on a shelf, ie things relating direktly to humans, ie not inklooding the non-human world.

Yes, green aktion = more jobs not less.
If an industry iz less efficient then it will need more jobs. Green industry iz uzually up front less efficient, thusly needs more jobs to get it done. Green = more employment, not less.
To claim otherwize (ie that green = loss of employment) iz stupid -- and shows little understanding of real ecomomix -- which in turn shows little understanding of everything else.
mac.

Gayle in MD
09-01-2011, 01:46 AM
Tap Tap Tap!!! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Gayle in MD
09-01-2011, 02:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The increased regulations have a lot to do with the implementation of ACA, and the financial regulations passed, quite apart from the environmental ones (which probably are up a bit as well, considering the FDA was tasked to regulate tobacco, and the EPA can now regulate CO2, as George W. Bush promised he would also do in the campaign of 2000. When Bush's appointed EPA chief Cristie Todd Whitman went to an international conference with that plan, doing what her boss had promised to do, she was suddenly cut off at the knees, and that promise, reversed.)

As for the need for financial regulations, even the libertarian Ayn Rand acolyte Alan Greenspan had to admit that his previous 'no regulations are required' position had been a complete failure, and he's reversed his position. Not to worry, though, it only cost the economy what? $15 trillion in wealth or something, so at least, not much! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

</div></div>

Every single policy under George Bush, an the Republican blank check congress, was a job destroying, health destroying program. Every single one.

They redistrubuted all of the wealth to the top, and in a seventy percent consumption economy, you have to have enough people with extra money to spend on goods, or it fails.

Simple.

Corporate profitability does not create jobs. Corporate tax cuts do not create jobs.

Republicans always redistribute wealth, to the top, and always create recessions.

Their relentless attack on Unions, not only adds insult to injury, but it will only make the economy worse, not better.

Basically, Republicans don't want the economy to recover, hence, this ridiculous focus on debt, at a time when we must invest, to survive!

Their only goal is political. They have made that very clear, and their followers, are well on board, sucking up those absurd economic lies, like Kool Aid.

Why should American workers stand by while corporations outsource our jobs to slaves on the other side of the world, downsize their work force here, and then subsidize those same corporations, or give them more tax cuts?

Pure insanity!

If they want to live in the best country in the world, tax the hell out of them for polluting, for outsourcing, for downsizing, and then bankrupting, and find all of those trillions of profits in the Islands, and fine them as much as they are hiding, and put their asses in jail, for income tax evasion.

Unless we want to live in a fascist nation, we must go after these corporate treasonists pigs, who have no conscience, and no patriotism.

People like Christie, should be tarred and feathered and run out of town. This class war is a part of Republican policies. Divide and conquer, it's all part of The Shock Doctrine.

But, as long as they can continue to deceive their base, with absurd economic lies, they will continue to rob all of us for the benefit of the wealthy.

And as long as they can get away with throwing elections, by redistricting, and by disenfranchising ethnic votes, jammming phone lines, and using lies and fear mongering, to scare and confuse the people, with lies, or by exploiting all of the racism and misogyny of the right, for their political advantage, there is little hope that their kool aid slurpping base, will ever wake up.





G.

eg8r
09-01-2011, 06:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Green industry iz uzually up front less efficient, thusly needs more jobs to get it done. </div></div><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gayle</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tap Tap Tap!!! </div></div>Well there you have it. Gayle doesn't get excited until government is inefficient. This is gayle's job plan. Make government inefficient so that they will be forced to higher more people.

eg8r

LWW
09-01-2011, 06:56 AM
There is no "GREEN INDUSTRY" of any real size or substance.

An industry that cannot exist without gubmint subsidy isn't an industry at all ... other than in the fascist sense of things.

Soflasnapper
09-01-2011, 10:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OK, so the beginning you are correct in finally admitting yes Obama has been creating more regulation than W. Finally you guys can admit to something.

Secondly, this is NOT about comparing the two so you are arguing something that is not even on the table in this discussion. The subject is how qtip was excited about a $10 billion saving over 5 years but neglect to accept the additional 19-90 billion annually that was already added on from just one new regulatory rule.

How about that Dem led Congress in the last two years of Bush and Obama. They are passing tons of regulation.

eg8r </div></div>

Turns out that the Bush EPA (or to be fair, any before him) didn't much regulate but for a few emissions, although the Clean Air Act gave them the task of regulating all harmful effluents. The Bush EPA didn't want to regulate mercury emissions from power plants, and so instead, a cap and trade regime was put in place. Upon court challenge, this was ruled illegal toward the end of the Bush reign of error, and the courts gave EPA a three year window to put the real mercury emissions in place.

2008 + 3 = 2011. It's a miracle!

So now, what the courts have ruled the EPA must do, and which the Bush administration did not do but kicked the can down the road, and which the courts ordered the federal government to do as per the LAW, has now come to pass.

Yes, mercury emissions scrubbers (or whatever pre-emission change in process taken to avoid the emission at the smokestack in the first place) cost a lot of money, let's agree. Yes, this is being put onto industry now, under this president.

And yes, it's equally true that NO, Obama didn't put this in motion out of his own green policies as soon as he came into office or something. It was in the system from before he became president, and now has wound its way through the circuitous maze that is the rule making process as specified by law.

Yes, it's too bad for industry that they have not yet been able to defeat the renewal of the Clean Air Act when it's come up for its sunset review, and that failure has indeed cost them a lot of money. Not that they haven't tried, of course, and they are still at the effort, with several candidates probably angling to get the large money backing of the dirtier emission industries by their eventual attempt to get rid of this law.

However, as it remains the law, and the prior administration's efforts to avoid EPA rule making have been struck down by the courts, and the courts have ordered this rule making proceed, it is bad faith to attribute this multi-year process to something solely of Obama's making.

Not that it would stop Fox and their acolytes, who, to be fair, as know-nothings, probably have no knowledge of this past (recent) history. Now that YOU do, however, comport yourself accordingly, as lawyers' letters advise me constantly.

LWW
09-01-2011, 11:12 AM
Oxygen is a harmful emission. Should we strive to eliminate it?

Qtec
09-01-2011, 11:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oxygen is a harmful emission. </div></div>

Really?


Link?

Q

LWW
09-01-2011, 11:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oxygen is a harmful emission. </div></div>

Really?


Link?

Q </div></div>

OXYGEN IS FLAMMABLE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion)

OXYGEN IS REQUIRED FOR CO2 TO EXIST (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidation)

OXYGEN IS A KEY COMPONENT OF THE MAJORITY OF GREENHOUSE GAS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor)

Anything else I can help you with?

eg8r
09-01-2011, 11:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">2008 + 3 = 2011. It's a miracle!
</div></div>Why are you intentionally trying to muddy the data? Did you take a look at the data and how it was counted to see if regulation tied to W was being counted as Obama's and will you continue to do so when the next person comes around and gets dumped with all of Obama's increased regulation?

Now that you have ranted quite a bit when are you going to discuss the topic? Obama is the regulatory KING and his regulatory increases FAR FAR FAR outweigh the paltry $2 billion/year he wants to "cut".

eg8r

LWW
09-01-2011, 12:02 PM
You know that reality riles them so.

Soflasnapper
09-01-2011, 12:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">2008 + 3 = 2011. It's a miracle!
</div></div>Why are you intentionally trying to muddy the data? Did you take a look at the data and how it was counted to see if regulation tied to W was being counted as Obama's and will you continue to do so when the next person comes around and gets dumped with all of Obama's increased regulation?

Now that you have ranted quite a bit when are you going to discuss the topic? Obama is the regulatory KING and his regulatory increases FAR FAR FAR outweigh the paltry $2 billion/year he wants to "cut".

eg8r </div></div>

Nixon CREATED the EPA, and regulated controls on both prices and wages, so Obama has a fair ways to go to be considered any kind of king of regulation.

How you claim that a court order in the Bush years that has now ripened into court-mandated rule making is anything that Obama has done himself, or has responsibility for, is quite beyond my understanding.

LWW
09-01-2011, 03:09 PM
Nixon was also a gansta gubmint kind of guy ... and the USEPA was created by the US congress at the request of the POTUS.

eg8r
09-01-2011, 06:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How you claim that a court order in the Bush years that has now ripened into court-mandated rule making is anything that Obama has done himself, or has responsibility for, is quite beyond my understanding.</div></div>I wasn't, you are the one insinuating that is saying Obama is being blamed.

eg8r

cushioncrawler
09-02-2011, 01:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Green industry iz uzually up front less efficient, thusly needs more jobs to get it done. </div></div><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gayle</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tap Tap Tap!!!</div></div>Well there you have it. Gayle doesn't get excited until government is inefficient. This is gayle's job plan. Make government inefficient so that they will be forced to higher more people.eg8r</div></div>Which reminds me about the efficiency of religion.
mac.

cushioncrawler
09-02-2011, 01:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is no "GREEN INDUSTRY" of any real size or substance. An industry that cannot exist without gubmint subsidy isn't an industry at all ... other than in the fascist sense of things.</div></div>Which reminds me of the religion industry.
God Inc.
mac.