Is it is just me, or do normal Presidents of the United States go around the world telling everyone what a lousy, lazy, stupid country the United States is?

So while our guys were trying to address our financial crisis, Obama was overseas and supposedly “helped” the EU work on their financial crisis, then buzzed off to do another bad-mouth tour….. Obama goes overseas to tell the world American business is lazy followed up by telling the Australians our kids are “behind” in education?

First thought - Great way to attract foreign business and help the unemployed, Barry …..”Invest in America where the workers are behind / uneducated.”

Second thought – True, our kids are behind, but America spends on education. In fact, it spends more than Australia …. and Canada and the United Kingdom, and France, and Germany, South Korea, Finland, Brazil and Russia spend COMBINED. Yea …. we are a big country. But we also spend more per kiddo than every country in the world except tiny Switzerland….. but our kids are “behind.”

Obama touts how great the education in South Korea and Japan is, yet you can combine the per kid cost of both and it doesn’t equal what we spend per kid. (Japan/$3,756 + S. Korea/$3,759 is less than US/$7,745)

So what is Obama’s point?

Are our kids really dumber? Surely he is not saying our teacher unions suck, that they are more interested in their beneies, politics, attending OWS rallies, banging drums and trashing state capitals, etc. … than educating our kids?

Obama got $63 billion for the Department of Education in 2010, on top on all the state / local taxes and money from foundations and money from private grants …… and now wants another $68 billion! Are our kids dumber ….. or is the DOE worthless?

Obama has thrown his grandmother under the bus, his pastor / mentor …. Americans are “soft”, “we need to eat our peas”, blacks need to quit whining and put their shoes on, American business is lazy ….

Now Obama in effect throws the kids under the bus? Sheez …. Even perverts like Jerry Sandusky don’t blame the kids.

And really Barry, are the Australians more interested in American K-12 than say the IAEA reporting Iran is close to putting together their bomb, China flexing its military muscle, the world economy being on the edge ….?

Of course not.

Or does it maybe have something to do with your taking more than $60 million from the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers this cycle – after taking over $50 million in 2008.

Nothing but a one-squirt water pistol ….. doing the one and only thing he can do – campaign – even if it is just another “yellow” water squirt on America 10,000 miles from home?

Funny part is this is all coming from a guy that is too stupid to put together a budget that can get one vote, too lazy to come up with a new idea for a jobs plan and is very simply, just a plain lousy president.

Despite what the main stream media says it is not both parties to blame. It is republican Leaders John Boehnor, Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor and the Koch bother's lobbyist Grover Norquist the 13th member of the Supercommitte.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/11/21/373269/supercommittee-norquist-13th-member/

=================================================================

Shame on these spineless, misguided, republicans and tea Nuts; for taking an oath to a Koch brother lobbyist instead of to their constituents and the Constitution. Yet, the Tea Party rose up to protect the Constitution which of course has proven to them to be a mere figure of speech. I'm not speaking metaphorically either. In particular I criticize (as usual) Morning Joke on MSNBC for defending that slime bag Grover Norquist

I am not the lest bit surprised since the Tea Nuts& GOP cater to FOX NEWS viewers who coincidentally, have been proven to be the most misinformed, lied too, and un-intelligent according to 2 polls. One was taken earlier. Here is the latest:

Fairleigh Dickinson University has a new survey out showing not just that Fox News viewers in New Jersey are uninformed but that they are less informed than those who watch no news.

http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2011/knowless/

Neither, will I be surprised in 2012 these faux Constitutionalists will be sent packing. People are waking up as evidenced by OWS and the polls which are the ideas our President has against cutting taxes for the rich, gutting Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), among other domestic programs.

Everyone have a nice day.

Is it time to start the pledge to, "I pledge alligence to Grover Norquist, and to our corporate owners...........

“It’s all the Republican’s fault, (it always is)”

-Barry Obama 11/21/11

The simple truth is that it’s BOTH PARTIES FAULT.

And the fact that Barry is unable to voice that simple truth tells you everything you need to know about him:

Candidate “Hope and Change” is actually governing as just another lying full of sh!t Washington politician.

From MSDNC:

President Barack Obama — criticized by Republicans for keeping the committee at arm's length — said refusal by the GOP to raise taxes on the wealthy was the main stumbling block to a deal. He pledged to veto any attempt by lawmakers to repeal a requirement for $1 trillion in automatic spending cuts that are to be triggered by the supercommittee's failure to reach a compromise, unless Congress approves an alternative approach.

Those cuts are designed to fall evenly on the military and domestic government programs beginning in 2013, and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta as well as lawmakers in both parties have warned the impact on the Pentagon could be devastating.

In reality, though, it is unclear if any of those reductions will ever take effect, since next year's presidential and congressional elections have the potential to alter the political landscape before then.

Joe - Tax cuts for the wealthy generally have a much lower multiplier than tax cuts for the poor and middle class. The payroll tax cut largely goes to the poor and middle class. Mark Zandi's analysis shows that extension of the Bush tax cuts has a multiplier of .29 as opposed to a payroll tax holiday which has a multiplier of 1.29. Huge difference.

Why is this? Because if you give someone who makes a million dollars a year a tax cut they put the money in the bank. It doesn't effect their spending. But if you give a tax cut to someone living paycheck to paycheck they spend it.

Gosh, we keep hearing from the Radical Right that tax cuts for the job creators increases jobs. The question is where are the jobs?

Let forgot this lie and put the tax rate back to 39%.

Thank you Jody. Yes for one brief shining moment.....and in our hearts forever.

Thanksgiving. One day! That's all the time we can spare; just one day to say, "Thanks." Thanks for a land that truly defines the word "unbelievable". One day! Magic? Miracles? The United States of America is the most prosperous, the richest, the most fabulous land in the history of this planet.

It was from the blood and gore in the most devastating war in our history, that President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed a national day of thanksgiving. No one living during that time could have imagined the blessings, the gifts we take for granted in 2011. For that, we can spare one day!

We light, heat, cool, bring symphonies, great plays, vast libraries to our homes with the flick of a switch; homes that would be considered palatial to most of our fellow citizens of the world. We have vehicles that whisk us to any spot on the planet - anywhere. Look around you. There is virtually nothing in your kitchen that existed a mere century ago. We have identified and conquered myriad diseases that once plagued us; polio, small pox, malaria. We can spare one day to give thanks for these miracles and magic. One day!

We are here against incalculable odds. Figuring the odds of conception are beyond the capabilities of the most powerful computers in the world. The odds of being born in the United States are 20 times greater than the virtually infinite odds of our birth.

It seems to be a condition of mankind that we must have a reason for being here. We can't just be an accident. We are far too important to be a mere incident along the path of time. No, there is a reason. The majority of Americans, and indeed the rest of the world, believe in God. Of course, we can't know the mind of God, He is after all an infinite, omniscient, all-powerful entity, far beyond the comprehension of mortal man.

We still need a reason why He put us here. We're too important for it to be otherwise. Did He give us life, did He choose us as His special messengers to remind poor people that they are poor because they deserve to be; that it's their fault? Are we to spread the news that those who are ill, lame, and suffering are fools for not having insurance? Are we to deny the hungry a meal? Is that the message of a just and loving God? Is that the reason He put us here?

And those who do not believe; what of them? They don't need a reason for being here, but they must live in amazement at the wonders about them. I do. As we spin through space, we are treated to an ongoing and constantly unfolding panorama of magic and miracles; of stunning marvels that defy explanation. For those who do not believe in a Supreme Being there is no commandment to share, no imperative to give. That spirit must come from within.

Whether that spirit is given the name of God, Allah, Jehovah, or whether it is a nameless and formless feeling, it is manifest in that part of us we call a soul.

The day we set aside to give thanks should be each and every succeeding day. As we look around us in awe, we should remember when money is the sole measure of wealth in life, the soul dies in poverty.

that's where a large part of the death of the middle class started.

Exactly! Look at a graph of the effective tax rate of the upper 1% and compare it to a graph of the health of the middle class...

From Jody:

Innocence Lost. Today is a day to pause and remember. November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas.

_______________________________________________________________

And today's liberals solidly support clueless OWS punks who "call for a moment of silence" in support for an idiot that rakes the White House with AK-47 fire.

Innocence Lost?

More like Sanity Lost.

"NO" said President Obama

Already some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts. My message to them is simple..."No." I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off-ramps on this one.

~President Obama quote

I loved, I do mean loved the way President Obama said “NO” mockingly during his press conference on the Supercommittee. It was nimble jujitsu as MSNBC'S richard Wolffe put it.

Yes, Indeed the President said he would “VETO” their foolishness. What will the GOP/Tea NUTS say now? President Obama is not throwing the America people under the bus.

It must be difficult for the recalcitrant GOP/Tea Party to eat crow. Oops, I mean turkey.

======================================================
The Republicans got it right where it was supposed to be.

@PragObots Summarizing Prez Obama's comments on the Super Committee fail: "I just put 98% of my foot in Speaker Boehner's azz."

http://twitter.com/#!/PragObots

===================================================
Feel that?

Despite what the main stream media says it is not both parties to blame. It is republican Leaders John Boehnor, Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor and the Koch bother's lobbyist Grover Norquist the 13th member of the Supercommitte.

Shame Shame on these provocateurs of utter illusion.

BTW: Where are the jobs your tax cuts were supposed to create; T-Nuts?

The GOP members of the Super Committee's (Toomey via Ryan) grand plan was 95% tax cuts and 5% increased revenues. What part of that equation remotely addresses the deficit and debt?

Jody, Ohio, you're welcome.

little b-ob numbers, you reached a new low of disrespect. Congratulations. Ever occur to you that the moment of silence was not for the shooter but rather that another assassination attempt took place.

By the way, here is the link to the Huffington Post article

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/18/obama-super-committee-veto_n_969056.html

Note the date.

Note the proposal submitted.

It was political calculus to jet on out of Dodge.

It's going to blow up in his face. The man is so self involved he does not see the idiocy of decrying the failure of the debt commission at the same time calling for another half a trillion in spending.

I guess he needs to find another way to fund Dollars for Donors. This spending proposal does not have a snowball's chance on a beach in Florida in July.

JODY - What part of that equation remotely addresses the deficit and debt?

They don't care about the deficit and debt. Their only concern is defeating Obama. Remember, this is the crowd that passed Medicare Part D without a funding mechanism, started two wars they insisted on keeping off books & passed massive tax cuts in a time of war. This is a party that says the lesson of Ronald Reagan's time in office is that, "Deficits don't matter."

They don't care about the debt except for its use as a blunt instrument to attack Obama with.

NJNB -- Once again fact checks and WaPo's Wonkbook went through some of the claims being made why that committee failed. The most important one is that the super committee failed to offer what Boehner himself offered to Obama earlier this year; $800 billion in new revenues. The republicans would not budge on the $300 billion figure. In other words they refused any real tax reforms/increases.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wonkbook-which-party-gave-more-ground-in-the-supercommittee/2011/11/22/gIQAVugkkN_blog.html?hpid=z2

Albany Joe:

Would one of the regular FR lefty liberals tell me the one about how tax cuts DON'T create jobs??

It's one of my all time favorite lefty liberal fables.

Sure. I live to serve, so I'll give it a try.

You can look at this two different ways.

The first one, and most obvious, is that tax cuts create jobs when they're the right kind of tax cuts. Ironically, tax cuts for the so-called "job creators" never really create any jobs. You talk about "fable," Joe, but I'd love to see you produce statistics that show otherwise. The 2005 foreign profits repatriation is living proof of my theory, having produced a net job loss. The money was spent to buy back stock and for mergers and acquisitions.

As far as I know, there is no other direct evidence that tax cuts alone create jobs.

Payroll tax cuts, on the other hand, put money in the pockets of people who need the money most -- their incentive is to spend it, rather than to sock it away. It is the spending of the money that actually creates the jobs, and why tax breaks for the wealthy don't work.

The second theory of payroll tax cuts, and the one that I actually like, is that payroll tax cuts are not really a windfall. Their most salutary purpose is not to produce massive economic stimulus. Rather, their best benefit is to prevent already distressed folks, whose wages and benefits have been so painfully compressed, from drowning altogether.

That's the compassionate theory of payroll tax cuts.

Uh oh, there's that "C" word. No wonder you don't get it, Joe. But thanks for playing.

You could probably take a lesson or two from David, as could we all.

David Walker:

As we look around us in awe, we should remember when money is the sole measure of wealth in life, the soul dies in poverty.

How beautifully put. Exactly.

@ Jody -- Thank you for the reminder of what this day means. Chris Matthews likes to talk about how, on the morning John F. Kennedy was assassinated, he was talking to his companions about why people in Texas were so full of right-wing anger. How ironic.

And even more ironic is that nothing seems to have changed very much since then. Think about that, my friends, as you remember President Kennedy.

Feisty, they THINK (imagine a thinking member of the GOP) they should be thankful for the Bush tax cuts and Grover Norquist. I do believe they have misplaced loyalities. Can you pass the popcorn bowl?

It was political calculus to jet on out of Dodge.

You realize, of course, that these trips are planned way in advance. It's not like the President just walks into the Roosevelt Room one day and says, "Warm up the jet! We're going to Australia!"

Youre right, noid.

I mean, it's not like he cancelled the Australia trip-twice- to ram health care reform through, or anything.

Right?

The second theory of payroll tax cuts, and the one that I actually like, is that payroll tax cuts are not really a windfall. Their most salutary purpose is not to produce massive economic stimulus. Rather, their best benefit is to prevent already distressed folks, whose wages and benefits have been so painfully compressed, from drowning altogether.

So who is going to pay for their retirement. It does not seem very compassionate to rob them of their social security to add a few bucks now. Unless of course you expect somebody else to come with the social security money your spending now.

It's all a shell game.

And as a note unemployment from 2000 through to January 2008 was around 4% to 6%. So, I don't know what your mantra that tax cuts do not create jobs is based on. Empirical data would seem to indicate otherwise.

OBAMA: “The last thing you want to do is raise taxes in the middle of a recession because that would just suck up, take more demand out of the economy and put business in a further whole.”

Repubs come up with almost half the target, yet now - libs refuse to do anything unless taxes are raised.

Isn't half better than nothing, especially when Obama's own Secretary of Defense says the automatic triggers are equivalent to shooting ourselves in the head?

Apparently not if your sole chance of being re-elected is to blame the opposition.

AM: That's the compassionate theory of payroll tax cuts.

The economical one is that the taxes used to fund such things as Social Security are not being collected, and the moment of insolvency for programs such as SS will be reached much sooner.

DW: As we look around us in awe, we should remember when money is the sole measure of wealth in life, the soul dies in poverty.

When SS runs out of money you can put that quote in a letter to the SS recipients as a substitute for their SS check. It certainly will be a great comfort to them.

Alan, NJ: It's all a shell game.

It sure is. The Libs are too stupid to figure it out though.

Albany Joe:

Oh yeah, that's right, the unemployed don't get the payroll tax cut.

And thanks to Congress, I believe it was, for refusing to extend their unemployment benefits.

I suppose you favored Congress's refusal, Joe, because it saved you a few pennies in taxes. But then, I don't think that gives you standing to complain about how the payroll tax cuts won't help them, either.

At least try to be a little consistent, will you?

JoAnna:

The economical one is that the taxes used to fund such things as Social Security are not being collected, and the moment of insolvency for programs such as SS will be reached much sooner.

That's certainly true, although I don't know how "much" sooner it will be.

All the more reason to raise the ceiling on SS taxes, don't you think? Make that difference up from people who can afford to pay it -- i.e., those who benefited most from the raid on the Trust Fund in the first place through the Bush tax cuts.

Who needs New Hampshire anyways. Those people are wackos anyways......right!

To those on the right complaining about the President not being involved with the super committee, might I just point out that 3 times the President got involved in this mess, and the GOP walked out!!!!! Also, it was the GOP members of said committe (plus their leadership) that said if he was involved with the committee, they would walk again. Seems that is all the GOP is good for - loyality to rich, and screw the rest of Americans. All hail Grover!!

The only one not in Norquists pocket - Romney 2012 !!

Alan:

Unless of course you expect somebody else to come with the social security money your spending now.

All insurance is a shell game, based on actuarial calculations. If you buy life insurance today and slip on a banana peel next week, you haven't paid in nearly enough in premium to pay your benefits, have you? But your family will still expect to be paid. What if the insurance company just said to them, sorry, the money isn't here?

The same is true with banking, which everyone knows if they've ever seen the movie, IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE.

Which is why insurance and banking are -- and rightfully so -- heavily regulated industries. Banking, unfortunately, not heavily enough.

Al Gore's "lock box" idea is looking pretty good right now, isn't it?

AM: All the more reason to raise the ceiling on SS taxes, don't you think?

Raising taxes on the middle class are you Annie? Wasn't Obama against increasing taxes anyone that makes less than $250K? Looks like you found another pigeon to tax Annie. So the middle class taxpayers will get hit with paying more in SS taxes now, and with the expiration of the Obama Tax Cuts extension in 2013, paying even more in income taxes. Just how much money does the government need to take from working Americans for it to operate?

You're just playing the same shell game Obama is playing Annie. Just moving money around but not allowing the country to create the wealth necessary to fund the government.

Perhaps the government should think about cutting their spending instead?

Payroll tax cuts, on the other hand, put money in the pockets of people who need the money most -- their incentive is to spend it, rather than to sock it away. It is the spending of the money that actually creates the jobs,

_______________________________________________

AM: That's just more Keynsian deficit spending just like Barry and the Dems been doing since 2009. And yet unemployment is still 9% and underemployment is still in the mid-teens. Regarding the "compassionate theory of tax cuts", wouldn't it be even more compassionate if Barry could get the economy going so these unemployed and underemployed people could get jobs? Maybe if he spent more time working on that problem instead of telling businesses that they are "lazy", everyone could be a winner.

Anna -- Joe is busy accruing debt when it comes to compassion.

David -- Anna picked up on my favorite line in your post today. Beautiful, thanks. ; )

Bob 180:

You asked: "Is it is just me, or do normal Presidents of the United States go around the world telling everyone what a lousy, lazy, stupid country the United States is?"

No bob, it's not just you. There are others who feel comfortable repeating lies, taking quotes out of context, and spewing garbage for other bottom feeders.

A week ago, you came here telling us about regulations that kill jobs. I challenged you to provide one single regulation that killed jobs. Just one. You deflected, diverted, and evaded that challenge, eventually saying that asking for proof of your assertion was inane. Your word bob, "inane".

I believe it was last Friday, you finally promised you would return on Monday with homework that would demonstrate the accuracy of you claim. Did I miss that bob?

So here you are today, repeating more lies. Even when you are confronted with the fact that you are lying, you come back with even more lies.

Today, I ask only this question: Have you raised your children to be as dishonest as you are?

The only thing that surprised me a bit about the failure of the SuperCommittee is that conservative Democrat Max Baucus didn't cave and end up giving the Repubs all the tax cuts for the rich that they wanted. He deserves some credit for it.

All the more reason to raise the ceiling on SS taxes, don't you think? Make that difference up from people who can afford to pay it -- i.e., those who benefited most from the raid on the Trust Fund in the first place through the Bush tax cuts.

As I predicted. Get someone else to pay for it. Of course if you have you way they'll also get hit with a 5% surcharge to pay for a jobs bill, then there is the 3.8% increase in ACA, then theirs the 4% increase when the Bush tax rates expire. Add to this the millionaire's surtax that exists in about 20 states.

I know you believe that everybody should be taxed at 100% and then the government would dispense benefits according to need, you said as much in previous post, but some of us here do not believe socialism is a workable system (Re: Soviet Union). Tax reform is the way to go not a plethora of taxes and exemptions that at the end of the day favor the wealthy.

Albany Joe:

wouldn't it be even more compassionate if Barry could get the economy going so these unemployed and underemployed people could get jobs?

But I thought government didn't create any jobs, Joe?

What's he supposed to do that you wouldn't also complain about?

That's just more Keynsian deficit spending just like Barry and the Dems been doing since 2009. And yet unemployment is still 9% and underemployment is still in the mid-teens.

Could you please stop regurgitating this same old tired nonsense? It's getting pretty tiresome. Try responding to the point I made rather than the point you wish I had made.

Compassionate tax cuts are not Keynesian, and neither were the tax cuts in the stimulus package. They were mostly the wrong kinds of tax cuts, if the goal was to create jobs. I can't help it that the President bought the kool-aid being sold by his conservative advisers. Most rational economists said at the time that the stimulus wasn't big enough and, because it was based so heavily on tax cuts for the wealthy, wasn't the right kind of stimulus.

Surprise, surprise. It didn't work -- at least not well enough to pull us completely out of the hole.

Now what, Joe?

Maybe if he spent more time working on that problem instead of telling businesses that they are "lazy", everyone could be a winner.

Oh, pity the poor overpaid executives ... their feelings are hurt. They'll just have to retreat to one of their many vacation homes and lick their little wounds, won't they?

Well, actually, they'll just be over in the corner, counting the money they've made from their foreign enterprises.

Which is what I think the President is complaining about, Joe, and rightfully so.

Alan:

As I predicted. Get someone else to pay for it.

And so I guess you're saying that you would rather have the elderly pay for the Bush tax cuts, than have the wealthy pay a little more so the elderly can survive and live in at least some dignity.

Well, at least we finally know where you stand on who else should pay for YOU.

We need tax reform, okay

http://www.politifact.com/oregon/statements/2011/nov/17/rob-cornilles/do-more-half-all-tax-filers-really-pay-no-federal-/

This is unsustainable. When 51% get to pay nothing, and leave the rest to pay for it all, the end is near.

As to raising the cap on FICA taxes- that worked well with Medicare, did it not? When Clinton lifted the cap, it was supposed to make Medicare sustainable for all time- hasn't quite worked out that way, now, has it?

Liberals are always so generous with other people's earnings. There is another word for it- theft.

Thank God that the Tea Party fools did not take over the country sooner. If they had, we'd all be living in the United Soviet Socialist States today.

All the more reason to raise the ceiling on SS taxes, don't you think?

_________________________________________________

AM: There hasn't been ANY wage cap on the Medicare payroll tax since 1994 and according to the Medicare trustees (all of whom are Barry appointees), it's still going broke. It's a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

Al Gore's "lock box" idea is looking pretty good right now, isn't it?

It always was. However, even with the lockbox it had to be backed by real assets (not an entry in a ledger). Thing was, with the right controls, I never had a problem with SS being invested in the stock market by the government, not individual accounts. I mean what isn't this what a pension fund does.

Could someone please inform 'The Morning Oaf' that its not the President's job to create and pass a budget and ask him where was he this summer when the President did get involved.

OK pass the popcorn please...Obama 2012!!!

It's shameful to read those bash the President for the failings of the "Super Committee." The rules were set for the automatic cuts if they failed to reach a compromise. The right offered such revenue raising ideas as cutting loopholes for private use of corporate jets. The CBO shows $2.2T for 2012 as the total revenues and $1.4T in defense related spending.

The right, shamefully, continues to protect the 1% at the cost of the 99%. Now, they will target service members pay and benefits and veterans benefits as opposed to cutting defense contractors contracts to build WMD's.

We are the people that they are suppose to serve--not he Koch Brothers or Norquist.

Which is what I think the President is complaining about, Joe, and rightfully so.

_________________________________________________

AM: And beyond making entitled liberals feel happier about themselves, what has he accomplished with his complaining??

OK David, here's one:

Let’s see now, you tell us that regulations are job killers. That’s a brilliant fact. I asked you to provide a single regulation that kills jobs, and that’s an inane question?

Uh … yea, pretty much. Quite frankly, it is almost as stunning as someone asking to provide proof the sky is blue. Oh well.

In simplistic terms, (and btw David – you should know this), law is a system of rules that government utilizes to shape economics and society. The primary tools, and the tools one would use to “transform” America, basically come down to taxes and regulations. In simplistic terms, to regulate is to control.

All politicians, both sides, with good intentions or bad, have used and abused their tools. The current economic crisis is the perfect example, it was simply create by government through regulations government used to shape the housing market and society – to provide the “American Dream” for everyone / to advance their political power. The clueless blame Wall Street, yet it is only government that possesses the power, the responsibility and control. How many millions jobs is that? Too abstract for you? Oh well.

As Obama took office, with the country bleeding hundreds of thousands of jobs, the country begging for jobs, Obama vowing to focus like laser on jobs – he pushed for healthcare reform. What few realize is that while bleeding all these jobs, the recession had peaked and jobs were being created. In April 2009, the month Obamacare was passed - 800,000 jobs were lost but over 300,000 were created. The next month, 45,000 jobs were created and then it dropped to an average 6,000-7,000 for month after month.

Obama’s own CBO stated Obamacare would cost 800,000 jobs. Yea right, it cost 800,000 the first three months after it was passed alone.

Hiring is on hold for many, firing for many as rising costs to business and uncertainity over what shoe would drop next, what new cost they would have to allow for in the future ….. absurdities such as mandated free birth control for all, not even a minimal co-pay.

Has nothing to do with the poor (Medicaid already provides for the poor), it covers all regardless of financial means. So now we all have to chip in on, even the rich like Kim Kardashian’s BCP …. Paris Hilton’s gets help getting her freak-on ….. and it is not even a health issue – it is purely the liberal social agenda!

A few pills right, so what …. how many jobs could that cost. I could say it more than pills, it is all FDA approved contraceptive methods including sterilization procedures, breastfeeding support, lactation supplies and counseling, free cost for renting breastfeeding equipment, free screening and counseling for interpersonal and domestic violence, free screening and counseling for HIV, free human-papillomavirus tests, free STD counseling, free well-woman visits, etc., …..only for women capable of reproduction.

If you are outside the age, or gay no free screenings or counseling? If you are a man, no free tube tying – buy tour own Trojans? Makes no health sense, it is nothing but liberal political pandering to a base.

The tragedy is that all the money given to the Kim Ks and Paris Hs, all women of wealth, all women who don’t mind a small co-pay - is money diverted away from kids, and other women, etc., who have real health issues. This is simply insane.

So how many jobs are lost with all that …. Directly, probably not many.

But when you consider that this is just one senseless, liberal bureaucratic mandate, one absurd statutory directive/regulation out of tens of thousands of pages exploding from an original 2,500 pages of legislation that America doesn’t want or need, …… that we had “to pass to see what was in it.”

We still don’t know what is in it – it grows and changes, requires more every day…… every day when you consider a new regulation is coming out every 2 hours and 20 minutes, …. when you see thousands of waivers validating the absurdity …. on and on …… you wait for the other shoe to drop, you wait to see what ridiculous and unnecessary cost will be piled on you for the sake of liberalism …… you don’t hire new employees.

See ya tommorrow for another one and my apologies to everyone else for taking so much space trying to explain to David why the sky is blue.

after the tax cuts were enacted for everyone revenue increased. to say that because we have high unemployment now is proof that tax cuts dont work is small minded. there is more to it than that. some say if we did not have the stimulus we would be in worse shape now (speculation and opinion no way to prove or disprove) some would also say that if we didnt have the tax cuts we would be in far worse shape today. Please keep in mind there are many other factors ; houseing bubble, foriegn economys etc.

no joe no bo, it is "more and more curious," learn to speak please. I read these everyday and it does not make me wonder why we are falling behind in education. The adults of this country do not even take the time to speak with proper english, yet they are amazed when their children fail english.

But I thought government didn't create any jobs, Joe?

AM: The govt doesn' create jobs. But, the govt can create economic and business conditions that allow the private markets to create jobs.

What's he supposed to do that you wouldn't also complain about?

AM: Lefty liberals are always touting that Barry is the smartest guy in the room. If that's actually true, he should be able to figure it out.

Bob - So you can't name one regulation that kills jobs? You just believe it is true because everyone on Fox News and Hate Radio says it is? The 800 thousand jobs "lost" due to the ACA aren't lost jobs, they are people who would retire if not for fear of losing their health insurance. If you can't see the difference you are blind.

The fact is that regulations often create jobs. Not only that, but they keep society safe from people who's only concern is the size of their bank account.

AM: Oh, pity the poor overpaid executives ... their feelings are hurt.

Class warfare at work.

Most "executives" are owners of small businesses and they struggle to make ends meet just like anyone else. They are anything but "lazy" as our President disrespectfully characterizes them while traveling overseas. But the Libs like Annie here will target people like the overpaid executives, like Jon Corzine of MF Global for example, and the try to characterize Mr. Corzine as a typical executive.

It's just not working for you Annie. The people of the country are taxed enough, and the government just cannot stop its out of control spending. The Libs keep turning over rocks and pointing fingers looking for someone else to tax, but there is no one else to tax.

Shell games.

Albany Joe:

AM: There hasn't been ANY wage cap on the Medicare payroll tax since 1994 and according to the Medicare trustees (all of whom are Barry appointees), it's still going broke. It's a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

Au contraire. If anything, it demonstrates actuarial weakness. What happens in private insurance when there is actuarial weakness? Premiums go up. This is not tough math, Joe. Even a caveman can do it. Health insurance executives seem to have mastered it, and figured out a way to take a healthy profit besides.

Of course, another alternative is to get some handle on health care costs. But we wouldn't want to do that, would we, even though the majority of physicians themselves say they prefer single-payer.

Why should physicians have anything to say about health care costs? Insurance executives are all that matter, right?

AM: And beyond making entitled liberals feel happier about themselves, what has he accomplished with his complaining??

He rattled your cage. That's more than enough for me. ;-)

AM: Lefty liberals are always touting that Barry is the smartest guy in the room. If that's actually true, he should be able to figure it out.

Well, we don't all say that. Some of us say it depends on who else is in the room.

But even if it's true, then why should you think you know better than he does? Maybe, in absolute terms, he's doing exactly the right thing.

He rattled your cage. That's more than enough for me. ;-)

________________________________________________

AM: Really??

You believe Barry "rattling my cage" is more important than the country's CEO actually coming up with real solutions to the nations problems.

OK........

Jody,

little b-ob numbers, you reached a new low of disrespect. Congratulations. Ever occur to you that the moment of silence was not for the shooter but rather that another assassination attempt took place.

Actually, after asking for a moment of silence for the shooter .... the guy did ask to include the "White House" in the moment of silence when someone suggested it to him.

The silence was broken after a few seconds .... with someone announcing where the "brownies" were.

Shooting up the White House / moments of silence and "brownies ..... crapping on cop cars, rapes, filth, throwing rocks at cops ......

yea Jody ..... a real Camelot, huh?

David Walker, beautifully said.

Anna Molly, cheers for your debating/debunking skills.

nisl

Bev asks, "How stupid is the GOP?"

How wet is water? Seriously though, it isn't the fact that they are stupid that bugs me, it is that they are so darn proud of being stupid.

Worst nisl,

They don't even know how stupid they are.

No one is more blind than one who really can see and does not see how much they miss. Even a blind person can see that

Albany Joe:

You believe Barry "rattling my cage" is more important than him actually coming up with real solutions to the nations problems.

LoL Yes. Deal with it. ;-)

bob 180:

Was your reply to my request for a regulation supposed to be humorous, or was that unintentional? Your answer reminded me of something I would expect from a third-grader facing the prospect of a 100-word essay entitled: "A Regulation That Kills Jobs".

Herewith bob, your version: This essay is about a regulation that kills jobs. As the reader knows, a regulation is like a law or a rule or a statute that says what you can or cannot due. Some laws or regulations are not popular like the 25-mile-an-hour speed limit in a school zone that most people follow, but a lot don't.

My older brother some times comes to pick me up at school. Then he has to go to work. Well, I get out of school at 3:00 and he has to be at work at 3:15, but since he cannot go faster than 25 miles-an-hour he didn't get to work on time.

So his boss fired him for being late. So there is a law or a regulation that killed my brother's job. So regulations are very bad and kill jobs. That's the end of the essay.

bob, the economy was in a free fall when President Bush left office. In the last full quarter of his presidency the GDP declined - that means it went DOWN, bob - almost eight-per-cent. The housing market was in full collapse. You don't suppose that had any effect on job losses do you, or was it that damned speed limit regulation?

I'm just kidding. I don't need an answer....not from the likes of you.

Most "executives" are owners of small businesses and they struggle to make ends meet just like anyone else.

What? Where do you get that most executives are owners of small businesses? That is silly. Executive is a term used to refer to those with administrative or managerial authority in an organization. Most small business owners don't call themselves "executives." You know who calls themselves "executives?" Upper management at big companies.

They are anything but "lazy" as our President disrespectfully characterizes them while traveling overseas.

That only happened in the rightwing media universe. In the real world Obama was talking about trade organizations.

But the Libs like Annie here will target people like the overpaid executives, like Jon Corzine of MF Global for example, and the try to characterize Mr. Corzine as a typical executive.

Mr. Corzine is a typical executive (who belongs in jail.) Note that he is NOT a small businessman.

Bob + ###s; Your assertions are fraught with inaccuracies. Do you just make this stuff up. Please explain how the day The Affordable Care Act passed the nation lost 800,000 jobs and somehow the bill was responsible. You would have to be living on the planet not to see the healthcare industry is growing at a record pace and one of the sectors that has proven to be almost recession proof.

Obviously you missed the fact the CBO is a non-partisan group. You really should walk away from the crazy lady with the wild expression in her eyes waxing unintelligently about if she were elected gas at the pump would be $2 per gallon.

Your assertion about both parties are to blame are akin to the playground scene where a bully hits another kid in the head and proceeds to pound while the other kid attempts to protect himself, and the school suspends both for fighting. At some point America must be able to separate the chaff from the wheat. This is one of those moments and jigg is up. Popcorn?

Obama’s own CBO stated Obamacare would cost 800,000 jobs. Yea right, it cost 800,000 the first three months after it was passed alone.

It would appear that the Republicans have positioned themselves in the 'catbird seat', where they will get to dictate the terms of any 'deal', because without their agreement, there will be automatic drastic Deficit reductions that will drive the Democrats crazy.

On the other hand, the Democrats will try to 'Blame Republicans' for the economic pain in the elections, but since the 'pain' won't kick in until after the elections, that could be hard to exploit, since the Republicans will 'promise' "Once we get a new President, we can soften the impact while restoring growth".

Offhand, I'd say the Republicans are far better 'Poker Players'.

PS - Since the Republicans will likely take control of the Senate in 2013 (Democrats have twice as many seats to defend), this is a 'No Win' scenario for Obama.

If Obama was 'smart', he would step aside for the good of the Party (like Lyndon Johnson did), and let Hillary run - she would likely win - she's certainly better qualified than Obama.

glad to see Obama waiving the Veto Pen....the republican't Con party has nowhere to go...they are the reason why Congress' approval is lower than rat crap...they were blown out in OHIO, Walker is finishsed...the republican party is so finished next year...we are going to throw everything we got at them, and then some.

nisl: Most small business owners don't call themselves "executives." You know who calls themselves "executives?" Upper management at big companies.

Oh good Lord. An executive is person with senior managerial responsibility in a business organization. That would be a small business owners responsibility.

DaNoid,

Not all of them. Some of my VIPS were less than 24 hours before I had to go to a site. Even if it was planned ahead, so was the dead line for an agreement of this super committee.

"You realize, of course, that these trips are planned way in advance."

I made my own 'Election Model', based on the results of the 2008 and 2004 Presidential elections, but updated for current demographics and polling in those key demographics, and it shows Obama losing by 46%/54%.

If the Republicans nominate a Hispanic for VP (Marco Rubio), and the youth vote returns to normal patterns (No more 'Hope & Change'), it could drop to about 43% for Obama.

For the Senate, I expect it to switch from 53/47 Democrat to 54/46 Republican, and the House will likely stay pretty much the same as now, with Republicans in control.

The loss of revenue this Country is facing will cause more job losses than any regulation ever cost. Demand, as a driver, is absent in today's economy. It seems the driver took some time off.

David Walker

Notice Bob180 still hasnt answered your questions regarding which regulations are impeding jobs?

defect deny obfuscate criticize.... Bitter Bobbie will do anything to not address your point

little b-ob numbers, how sad, you missed the entire point of the Innocence Lost comment which is that in 1963, we Americans lost our innocence to hate and violence and were eye-witnesses via television for the first time. How sad that you could not respect my post for what it was--a reminder and a remembrance. Instead you found it necessary to deflect to something you feel you must grasp and cling to in order to justify your annimosity toward President Obama and democrats in general. I would remind you that the Occupy protesters are right wing Tea Party folks, libertarians, independents, republicans; they are not all liberals. I feel sorry for you bob numbers--blind hatred is as ugly today as it was in 1963.

A ..nna ... molly,

on the morning John F. Kennedy was assassinated, he was talking to his companions about why people in Texas were so full of right-wing anger. How ironic.

You don't realize that Oswald wasn't born in Texas, had never lived in Texas before moving there from Russia the previous year with his Russian bride?

Or are you a conspiracy kook .... maybe J.R. had Kennedy knocked off because he hit on Sue Ellen?

And even more ironic is that nothing seems to have changed very much since then. Think about that, my friends, as you remember President Kennedy.

Trying to lose your lib "anomaly" status?

Sounds pretty much like what the typical, ignorant, bigoted lib says.

Ron in Seattle manynumbers:

You wrote: "Bob + ###s; Your assertions are fraught with inaccuracies. Do you just make this stuff up."

Let me answer that question, Ron. Yes, that is exactly what bob 180 does. (Mind you, there are other Bob lotsanumbers here, so you have to be careful.) Bob 180 though is simply an outright liar. I have sparred with him on numerous occasions, but he thinks of facts as you might think of chiggers or fleas. He hates facts, we hate chiggers and fleas.

In the past, I treated him as though he was an honest participant in this forum. He is not. Virtually any "fact" he posts must be verified, and all too frequently they are simply fabrications, as you have noted.

I use the "ignore" feature for the bobs of the world. It's sort of like punching their ticket to the Hall of Shame. I punched his ticket about 10 minutes ago.

sreeeeminglib - The only thing Bob could point to was the 800,000 jobs "lost" due to the ACA. But those aren't lost jobs. Those are people who want to retire, but keep working just so they can keep their health insurance.

If those 800,000 people were to retire it would be good for our economy.

Obama stands NO chance of winning N.H. in 2012, as well as numerous other battle ground states he won in 08. Obama is 1 and done, thank goodness for that.

In regard to JFK, if only the democraps of today had the same political philosophy he had. By today's left, JFK would be an Ultra Right Wing Extremist.

Anna Molly Oswald was a communist sympathizer I believe that's leftist.

Of course, another alternative is to get some handle on health care costs. But we wouldn't want to do that, would we, even though the majority of physicians themselves say they prefer single-payer.

But didn't the President pass this opportunity up? Didn't he cut deals with the AMA and pHarma? And why would physicians prefer single-payer? It's like turkeys voting for Thanksgiving.

How is single-payer going to cut costs unless physicians and drug companies take less? I accept that you can save 12B in insurance profits, although I can argue that you will lose that in waste and fraud. Either way the cost per person of health care is around $8,000 (health care not health insurance). If we bring 50m more into the system as it currently stands that will cost an extra $40B. Who is going pay for that? So as I see it single payer is going to cost me more unless changes are made to the current system. Call me a heartless bastard for not wanting to pay for the 50m without health care but I want to see the changes in the cost structure before I start paying for yet another program.

And so I guess you're saying that you would rather have the elderly pay for the Bush tax cuts, than have the wealthy pay a little more so the elderly can survive and live in at least some dignity.

Well, at least we finally know where you stand on who else should pay for YOU.

Tell me me how much more and assure me it for elderly. The Bush tax cuts don't affect SS according to all the dreamers who think there is a3.2T trust fund waiting to be tapped. In fact the only tax cut that affects SS directly is Obama's payroll tax cut.

I am already saving for my retirement by not spending now. I don't expect the government to have any of the money I have already put into the system available by the time I require, so 12% of what I earn is already supporting a system from which I will derive no benefits. In addition I pay property taxes and I have no kids to support an educational system. I also have standard deductions so I'm subsidizing families, particularly large families, which I DO object to.

Thank you Jody. If not for one insane act this would have been a much different country today and I'm sure the liberal readers here do not know what I mean by that.
Trying to stay on topic, I like Mitt Romney's new TV ads which pit the Presidents statements against his record. I think they will be very effective. That NBC-Marist poll has got it right. I do not see the President winning New Hampshire.

Is it is just me, or do normal Presidents of the United States go around the world telling everyone what a lousy, lazy, stupid country the United States is?

Well, Bob, I don't think that's a very accurate assessment of Obama's actually statements taken in full context, since when taken in context, he actually speaks very well of America and were he sees our potential and future could take us, but to answer your question...

Most of our Presidents have not been very truthful in most respects to the world or their own citizens in facing our challenges. Obama is rare in being one of the few who does tell the truth and addresses the issues regardless of whether it's what people want to hear. The state of decline in the skills and education of our workforce is something we desperately do need to confront and do something about. Our health system is unsustainable, but at least Obama's push for the HCA will address some of that, but more needs to be done. Our country's infrastructure is crumbling from lack of maintenance. We're way behind the curve compared to many countries on high speed rail and mass transit. In brief, we have a lot of work to do to just catch up with the nations we used to be ahead of.

Do you really think the rest of the world doesn't already know all of this? You should give them more credit than that. Acknowledging and putting actions in place to address our challenges is the right message to give to the rest of the world and our citizens to state that America is still in the game and we're coming back to first place. Or, would you rather that we sugar coat everything by always proclaiming ourselves to be the best of everything on earth with lots of flag waving while the rest of the world laughs at us making empty boasts and denials to the obvious.

What is quite funny to me is that the wording you used sounds exactly like l like how most of my most conservative and right leaning friends describe the current state of America, especially when they get talking about the youths or the workforce in general.

Has anyone noticed that the same old "Pay to Play" policies of Blagojevich, Illinois' former Democratic Governor and pal of Obama who was convicted of attempted extortion (demanding campaign cash for favors), seems to have infected the Obama White House?

Obama's using taxpayer money for 'Green' projects for his big campaign contributors (Solyndra, and many more to come) seems to be a pattern, as detailed by the new book "Throw them all out".

Since it was common practice in Chicago-Style politics, where Obama learned his 'trade', we should not be surprised. Old habits are hard to break.

Roy Wilson, you made your "own election model"? Interesting, that's what FOX news does, they make up stuff, too. You failed to include the GOP State Government's "over-reach", the fact that the polls show even republicans want tax increases and that they see republicans siding with the wealthy and big business instead of the rest of Americans, that a huge majority want President Obama's Jobs plan passed, and the polls also show that even republicans feel their party is purposely sabotaging President Obama and the economy.

Stop repeating the Fox (aka tea people GOP republican propaganda machine) lies about the OWS Bob. We've had enough of your constant lies Bob. It used to be entertaining but now it's just disgusting.

Nils

You are right as usual.

And before Bitter Bobby starts crying about Boeing or whatever he tries to muddy up the subject with heres a view on the subject from the right about regulations:

Bruce Bartlett, an advisor to President Ronald Reagan and a Treasury official
under President George H.W. Bush, is a trusted, conservative voice on economics.
He offered these strong words on the regulation monster under Big Business’
bed:

“No hard evidence is offered for this claim; it is simply asserted as
self-evident and repeated endlessly throughout the conservative echo chamber… In
my opinion, regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that
allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by
the business community year in and year out. In other words, it is a simple case
of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment.”

anna molly, (i love incubus), your tax cuts that bush initiated? where were they jobs? how many jobs did that tax cut create? zero, we still lost jobs, they took the money and fled overseas....your talk goes up in smoke. for the small business man and company owner? yes, we'll keep tax cuts. for the rich? it's over~~when you have the one percent agreeing with the democrats on this issue? warren buffet and bill gates? when you have constituents announcing they're making promises to lobbyists? how about making promises to the constiution, to the country, to the voters that put them in office?what inspires me are the voters, they're using their heads and want answers, not bullying...bullying is not going to work this time....newt can take his bullying and stuff it. the one percent successfully have done what they needed to do, which was move anything and everything they wanted to move out of this country for more profit. they've done it, it's over, they're not coming back....let the rich pay for their profit and we'll work with the existing and up and coming companies...there are plenty of conservative democrats in washington who are intelligent, working hard to get the job done, and these republicans who are stonewalling for the sake of an election? it's coming back on them when it is election time....they're all going to be voted out. the average voter has civil rights, the right to health care, when companies have bailed out on them, the right to education, not just for the rich. we left england and came here because we didn't want to be ruled by the rich, remember where you came from.

sreeeeminglib "David Walker Notice Bob180 still hasnt answered your questions regarding which regulations are impeding jobs?"

We could start with the record 81,000 pages of regulations in Obama's first year in office - 2009.

Somehow, I don't recall thousands of American being devastated without them. Do you think that they could have waited until the economy recovered a little before slapping tens of thousands of new pages of regulations on struggling businesses?

And you wonder why businesses are not hiring? Did you learn to 'connect the dots' in Kindergarten?

Jan. 10th, 2012 is coming, let's see what happens when the rubber meets the road in N.H. The GOP should have a nominee by then, we'll see. If BHO is going to win N.H. and re-election, he's got a lot of groundwork to do there. Let's see what his game plan is in the Granite State. I wish him well and may the best man win. God bless the American people and God bless the United States of a America.

Roy Boy

Obama's White House approved 613 federal rules during the first 33 months of his
term, 4.7 percent fewer than the 643 cleared by President George W. Bush's
administration in the same time frame, according to an Office of Management and
Budget statistical database reviewed by Bloomberg.

If you think its regulations that are impeding job creation Im here to tell you it is demand that ultimately create jobs and any "regulation" that has to be complied with will be if there is a DEMAND.

Connect your own dots bud

A few things....

There was never a Camelot, and we, as Americans, should not want one. This doesn't alter the tragedy of JFK's assassination and isn't meant to, but he was not a King, and he was not very noble in any event. He just didn't deserve to be shot.

Anna, you seem to understand very little about economics, but you are, admittedly, good at writing. Your concept that a stock buy back did nothing for the economy indicates to me you have no idea how one works. See, if the stock is bought back then it means the sellers got money for it, perhaps with a capital gain. In any event, that money was either saved or spent. If spent it would have the same stimulative effect you think a targeted tax cut might have. If saved (invested) then it went to work in another area to either produce working capital or to start up a new firm or...who knows? Yours is a moral argument about who should benefit, yet you pretend to couch it in terms of what is most beneficial. And it's there your analysis is so flawed. Both are beneficial, and for most conservatives we want to treat everyone equal and let the chips fall where they may. You, obviously and on the other hand, want to produce known winners and known losers in the policy you support.

Anna, the notion of tax cuts creating jobs is always one that is relative to all other factors. We could, for instance, reduce marginal rates (either with actual rate decreases or with credits/deductions) and anyone on the sideline, as you see it anyhow with investment money, will be more inclined to put their money into a higher net return use. The problem with this, of course, is that you are less able to dictate who wins and who loses, let alone determine the net effect of the policy.

Far better, imo, to tax everyone's income (and all income would be treated to the same rate save capital gains which should be indexed for inflation) at the same rate perhaps with a single major deduction in order to find the progressivity you wet your panties over, and let market results operate to inform policy makers what is right, and what is wrong. Of course "everyone" means people, and I would eliminate all business taxes--you pay them anyhow and pretending you don't just allows our government to spend more on your delusion. In this scenario the government loses power, the people gain power. Which is probably why no liberal will ever vote for it.

David Walker,

In my car moments ago I heard a Dr. David Walker being interviewed by Diane Rehm regarding his studies of fruit flies. Moonlighting, are we? ;)

For those who do not believe in a Supreme Being there is no commandment to share, no imperative to give. That spirit must come from within.

They say there are no atheists in foxholes. But that's where I learned I was one.

When Obama shuts down the XL Pipeline project killing hundreds of thousands of REAL jobs for out of work citizens even though the EPA found TWICE "no material adverse impact" Obama cannot "count" on ANY state

Roy....some days you are here promoting universal healthcare and for letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Today you rail about regulations.

Here is a fact for you. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says approximately 1100 jobs have been lost due to regulations and 144,000 lost due to lack of demand.

Lack of demand is far more alarming.

Why did the author feel the need to introduce racism sa a reason obama will lose the NH vote? The author suggested that since there aren't a lot of young or minority voters, he may lose the caucus. Another contributing factor may be the independent voters.

Maybe the obama camp should remember it was those same old, white, independent voters that helped get him into office and that maybe he has proven unworthy of a second chance.

@Rich-281385

I came to same conclusion after the story on GE paying no tax on 5B profit in the US (and they have another 3B in credit to write off next year). It is time to end the tax on business, they have too many ways of avoiding it. Better to tax the individuals who benefit from ownership. Dividends, Capital Gains and income should all be taxed at the same rate (I wouldn't even allow CG to indexed as it favors the extremely wealthy).

The only exemption would be retirement accounts,

Jody, Iowa

I favor tax increases too - In fact, I hope that Congress does NOTHING with regard to the Deficits. Then the Bush tax cuts will expire for EVERYONE which will cut the Deficit by $4 Trillion, the $1.2 Trillion in spending cuts will take place, and the Deficit will be reduced by $5.2 Trillion over the next 10 years. Liberals claim that the 'Clinton Era tax rate' were fair, so let them return.

Deficit problem solved - And the beauty is that all Congress and the President have to do is "NOTHING" - they seem to be quite good at that lately.

bob 180:

You don't realize that Oswald wasn't born in Texas, had never lived in Texas before moving there from Russia the previous year with his Russian bride?

Sure I do, but that wasn't my point. Did you ever wonder why Oswald chose Texas, bob?

wlee:

Anna Molly Oswald was a communist sympathizer I believe that's leftist.

Which is why the whole thing makes no sense. And why I believe the real answer of why Oswald killed Kennedy goes more to money than it does to ideology. What better way to deflect investigators off the true scent than to have a Communist do it?

Which is also supported by the inexplicable murder of Oswald before he ever got a chance to say anything by a two-bit mob wannabe named Jack Ruby, who didn't -- as far as I'm aware -- have any particular political affinity for Kennedy, but who also just happened to have incurable cancer.

bob 180:

Trying to lose your lib "anomaly" status?

Sounds pretty much like what the typical, ignorant, bigoted lib says.

What? Because I don't buy into what the Warren Commission said? LoL

No, it doesn't affect my anomaly status. I'm STILL the A-typical, ignorant, bigoted lib.

Still good enough, I think, to spar with the likes of you.

Madison -- You are full of @!$%#! Go read up and come back when you know what you are talking about.

David Walker,

bob, the economy was in a free fall when President Bush left office.

The recession began in December 2007 and peaked in September 2008. The recession by economic definition was over in June 2009 well before anything Obama did or could have done had time to take effect. It's been officially a recovery since then.

Hardly a free fall, huh.

Weak, weak, weak retort David.

Good news is that you get to try again tommorrow .... Good Luck, big boy!

Ron in Seattle,

Do you just make this stuff up. Please explain how the day The Affordable Care Act passed the nation lost 800,000 jobs and somehow the bill was responsible.

Nope ... you made that up.

Job creation was picking up with 300,000 new jobs in April while still shedding 800,000 for a net loss of 500,000 as I recall.

The month after Obamacare passed (that would be May for David and Feisty), only 45,000 were created followed by an average 6,000-7,000 after that.

Hardly the way you tried to reframe it ... " how the day" ... the nation lost 800,000.

Sorry this stuff is so difficult for you guys, but somethings aren't a child's 2 piece puzzle.

Jody, Iowa. Nice sentiment, although your memory is faulty. Millions were not watching television that bright sunny day when JFK was shot. Campaign motorcades were not televised live in those days. There is precious little footage of the actual shooting and aftermath.

What you are likely remembering is the funeral and the procession in Washington DC.

Roy Wilson:

We could start with the record 81,000 pages of regulations in Obama's first year in office - 2009.

Somehow, I don't recall thousands of American being devastated without them. Do you think that they could have waited until the economy recovered a little before slapping tens of thousands of new pages of regulations on struggling businesses?

I'd love to talk to you about this, but I think we should wait until you've had a chance to identify JUST ONE of those regulations that was a job killer AND the benefits of the regulation were outweighed by the jobs lost.

Then we might have a meaningful discussion.

But otherwise, all that blow is just ... blow.

Dont_carry_it_all "Roy....some days you are here promoting universal healthcare and for letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Today you rail about regulations."

Yes, isn't it nice that some people actually think for themselves instead of merely repeating what they're 'supposed' to support?

By the way - where did you get your figures on the BLS estimating job losses?

The last figure I saw was that regulations cost the average employer about $10,000 per employee. With about $140 Million employees, that's a cost of $1.4 Trillion per year. I suspect that would cost more than 1,100 jobs.

bob-1805084 "David Walker, bob, the economy was in a free fall when President Bush left office."

True, but was it because of something Bush did, or because the Democrats controlling Congress, including all legislation, the Budget, and all oversight of Wall Street failed to do their jobs, and kept pushing for home loans for the 'less advantaged'?

The truth about the meltdown is a bit more complex than "Blame Bush".

By the way - Nice response Bob.

bob 180:

The recession began in December 2007 and peaked in September 2008. The recession by economic definition was over in June 2009

Not so, bobby -- unless your "economic definition" was written by a total moron. Unemployment continued to rise until October, 2009, when it peaked at 10.1 percent. By that time the stimulus had passed, and unemployment slowly began to come down ... as a direct result of the stimulus.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

Since then, the trend has been mostly downward and now is stuck. But with unemployment still hovering around 9 percent, you'd be hardpressed to convince those 14,000,000 people who are still unemployed that the recession is over.

It completely amazes me that any of you would defend ANY of these politicians.

You all think this is a game and by your blind support for you ignorant parties, you are all admitting you could care less what happens to this country.

This is simply unbelievable. We have serious debt problems here and you are defending "your party."

Grow up America or watch the demise of this nation.

Roy -- Article on myths of regulations....scroll down and you will find a link to BLS and where WaPo came up with the figures:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-texas-improve-air-quality-lower-emissions-as-much-as-rick-perry-claims-fact-checker-biography/2011/11/18/gIQAjCVFYN_blog.html

A recession is defined to be a period of two quarters of negative GDP growth.

Not so, bobby -- unless your "economic definition" was written by a total moron.

Those damn moronic economists not coming up with a definition that fits my narrative.

Anna,

. Did you ever wonder why Oswald chose Texas, bob?

Always thought it had something to do with his mom moving to Ft. Worth.

BTW - what are you implying if you're not a regional bigot.

I enjoy the exchanges with you Anna.

(In a regional humor kinda way) .... Not all cheese heads have cheese for brains .... right?

So much craziness from the right wingers today. Where to begin? As several people have already very eloquently posted in response to the teabagger comment about "libs saying tax cuts don't create jobs", liberals and progressives correctly say that tax cuts for the rich are highly ineffective at creating jobs while tax cuts for the poor and middle class are more effective in doing so since the poor and middle class will put that money back in the economy while the rich will do very little of that. Also, after 10 years of the Bush tax cuts for the so called job creators, where are the jobs? When will this republican fantasy of tax cuts for the rich creating jobs die?

Another republican fantasy: Obama's healthcare plan killed 800,000 jobs. Another FOX news or Limbaugh piece of fiction no doubt, without a shred of support. What a surprise.

Then there are the complaints that Obama sent a deficit reduction proposal to congress. First the teabaggers were whining that he didn't send a written proposal to congress. Now they are whining that he did. No matter what Obama does the teabaggers will just keep on whining and complaining.

And the fiction that overregulation is killing millions of jobs. There has never been any support for that whatsoever. In fact a member of the Reagan administration said just the opposite and that it was made up just so the republicans could pursue the agenda of the super rich. It is amazing how most right wingers will swallow anything that the right wing media or republican party says and completely ignore facts to the contrary.

Then there is the fiction that both parties are equally at fault for the current situation. After Boehner said he got 98% of what he wanted out the debt ceiling deal wouldn't it be fair to say the republicans are at least 98% at fault? Actually I'd put it at 100% since, once again, they refused to concede even one extra penny of tax revenue from the rich while the democrats put medicare, social security, and medicaid on the table.

And while the republicans are always whining that the democrats raise taxes on the middle class - something that Obama has never done or even proposed doing - the republicans are going to force a tax increase on the middle class and working poor by failing to renew the payroll tax cut that Obama pushed through over republican resistance.

The republicans and their voters live a fantasy world. They make things up continuously, say "Isn't this BS I just made up awful", lie and and say the democrats are in favor of this awful fictional thing the republicans just made up and that you must vote republican to avert this fictional catastrophe which would never happen, and the republican voters swallow it every time. It would be comical if it were not so serious.

Those damn moronic economists not coming up with a definition that fits my narrative.

Good one Alan.

Btw, enjoy your stuff.

Anna Molly, thanks for your insight this morning.

I know the parry must be tiring, but in the course of it you have written words that have been very worthwhile.

Would that more would ponder them.

Thanks again!

Alan:

The Bush tax cuts don't affect SS according to all the dreamers who think there is a3.2T trust fund

You're not really this ignorant, are you?

The Bush tax cuts are one of the BIG reasons why Congress saw fit to raid the SS Trust Fund.

The Trust Fund -- funded by taxes on Grandma and Grandpa -- PAID for those cuts that benefited mostly the wealthy.

But it's easier just to ignore that particular "inconvenient truth," isn't it?

But didn't the President pass this opportunity up? Didn't he cut deals with the AMA and pHarma?

Pharma, yes, but don't blame that on me. You just keep assuming that if President Obama was for it, then I was, too. Not the way it works.

What deal he would have made with the AMA is beyond me. The AMA is a professional association, not an HMO.

And why would physicians prefer single-payer? It's like turkeys voting for Thanksgiving.

Too easy. Because they, unlike you apparently, actually have concern for other people's welfare. And I believe it was an AMA study that I read about that.

How is single-payer going to cut costs unless physicians and drug companies take less?

Bingo. Especially as to the drug companies. '

And you conveniently forget about insurance companies. All the stats I have seen show that insurance companies run at 10 to 20 percent overhead, with 5 or 6 percent profit on top of that. Medicare does it with 5 percent overhead, no profit.

You do the math.

Doctors know that they will still be rich, either way, because patients are guaranteed, wherever they may be.

rich:

Your concept that a stock buy back did nothing for the economy indicates to me you have no idea how one works. See, if the stock is bought back then it means the sellers got money for it, perhaps with a capital gain. In any event, that money was either saved or spent.

You're apparently even more ignorant than I am. If the recent rapid accumulation of wealth among the 1 percent has taught you nothing else, it should have taught you that the rich hoard it, while the middle class spends it.

Yours is a moral argument about who should benefit, yet you pretend to couch it in terms of what is most beneficial.

Is there some difference?

Only in your mind, I guess. You must not realize that I don't value money over everything else.

In fact, your whole comment proves you don't understand anything about the way I think, although you think you do.

To wit:

And it's there your analysis is so flawed. Both are beneficial, and for most conservatives we want to treat everyone equal and let the chips fall where they may. You, obviously and on the other hand, want to produce known winners and known losers in the policy you support.

I don't even know what this means, except that I DO know that the last thing conservatives are interested in is a level playing field.

Don't lecture to me about wanting to control who wins and who loses.

Your side doesn't even feel up to the task of bargaining collectively with librarians.

President Obama is masterful and will veto any end around self political interests.... Thumbs up President Obama ^.... wink ;-)

@ Fielden, Jody, and DCIA -- and anyone else I may have missed -- thank you for the kind words.

We all support and learn from each other, as it should be. I thank you all for that.

Alan:

Those damn moronic economists not coming up with a definition that fits my narrative.

LoL What do most of them know about it, anyway? If they know anything about it, why don't they fix it?

If it can be said that we came out of a recession while unemployment continued to rise for the next two quarters, then so be it.

George H.W. Bush was right. It's all voodoo.

Uhhh ..... David,

Roy has some of the very best stuff.

Since it is obviously apparent that you haven't either read his stuff on a regular basis, or it simply went over head, you might want to at least check out his bio.

You are really out of your league with this guy.

Probably time to put ole Roy on ignore?

In a speech a couple of days ago, Obama said that it was the Republicans to blame for not achieving any agreement in the supercommittee. He said they would not bend on increasing revenue by $100 billion.

$100 billion... to the mere mortal, that's a giant sum. Obama made it appear as though republicans were blocking the all important debt reduction treaty between repubs and dems. Well, that is a bunch of hog slop.

Compare $100 billion to $5 Trillion. What is the percentage? Since it takes 10 $100 billion amounts to equal $1 Trillion, $100 billion is 1/50th of what Obama has approved in spending for the past 3 years. Seems like a pretty small amount, when you consider the $100 billion is to be spread across 10 years.

Folks, our government is playing games with us. We have a president throwing out big numbers to confuse the public. Breaking down the meaning of what he is saying, he's lying to the public that tremendous strides are being put forth by the democrats to reduce spending and the republicans are blocking it. The republicans offered $500 billion in revenue increases that were rejected by the democrats.

This whole supercommittee was a sham. Nothing was ever serious... the democrats want to raise taxes on everyone - PERIOD. The republicans want to reduce spending. Our government is BLOATED!

Roy: I made my own 'Election Model'

And obviously you've been sniffing the glue!

Gary420: Not quite the way you think it was. I was a 4 year old kindergarten child in a 2 room schoolhouse in Carlin Nevada the day Kennedy was assassinated. We were all herded into the larger room where the black and white TV showed the killing over and over again. While you are correct that the amount of coverage and the number of cameras was not great, the video was on air all day long. And this was back in the days of 3 channels with no cable or satellite.

When Obama shuts down the XL Pipeline project killing hundreds of thousands of REAL jobs for out of work citizens even though the EPA found TWICE "no material adverse impact"

Madison, he is "punting" on this issue until after the election as to not anger the environmentalist part of his base. Nothing like caring more for votes than JOBS when so many are unemployed. He's STILL VOTING "PRESENT." Some of us knew this would be the case as early as 2008.

Obama won't get a vote from this NH voter.............

Feisty, I read a couple of your posts above. Nothing but worthless partisan drivel.

The divided congress is totally Obama's fault. Bill Clinton found a way to work with republicans, I expect no less from Obama.

Democrats are stuck on raising taxes on the rich. Taxing them 100% will not put a dent in the debt this country owes. The taxes has to come from the middle class.

Madison is lying about jobs created by pipeline and reason for delay. The projected jobs at the height of construction totals 20,000, tops. After initial phase a few thousand jobs would permanently remain.

Nebraska was drawing up laws to prevent the pipeline from being routed in an environmentally fragile area. They won the argument against laying the pipeline under the that route.

Today, Nebraska's Governor signed new legislation requiring the pipeline to be rerouted. Now, new studies will take place to see if it's feasible.

Obama trails Romney in NH? Not to worry, Romney isnt winning the nomination, he's too LIBERAL for the conservatives to elect.

They want someone crazier sprinkled with nuts...like Cain or Gingrich, or maybe Perry...or Bachmann, or maybe next month they'll find a new flavor to savor.

Feisty,

I'm thankful President Obama was once again one step ahead of these liars!

Thanks for playing but you're wrong as usual. BO has never been a step ahead of anyone (the notion did make me laugh though). Have you been in a coma the last few years. While the super committee needed leadership, he gave them campaigning. This article seems to spin that to say it was the right thing to do. After all, what if he got involved and got it wrong? Any more spin from the left and I might fall out of my chair. Hopefully I'd fall to the right. My only comfort is in knowing that if I could buy you libs for what you are worth and sell you for what you think you're worth I could be one of the 1%.

Where to start?

The Bush tax cuts are one of the BIG reasons why Congress saw fit to raid the SS Trust Fund.

The Trust Fund -- funded by taxes on Grandma and Grandpa -- PAID for those cuts that benefited mostly the wealthy.

Now you won't get me trying to defend the fiscal policies of the Bush administration, but every administration since 1986, including this one, has spent the SS surplus. That's a pretty weak argument.

What deal he would have made with the AMA is beyond me. The AMA is a professional association, not an HMO.

He made the deal to expand coverage but not reduce compensation, particularly in Medicare rates. I actually think you are just playing dumb on this because if cost-cutting measures were actually implemented, it would be AMA members who would be most affected. Also, the deal he cut to close the donut hole actually benefits pHarma as it increases their ability to sell brand (price) drugs after the donut requirements have been fulfilled at added cost to the taxpayer. Nice sellout there.

And you conveniently forget about insurance companies. All the stats I have seen show that insurance companies run at 10 to 20 percent overhead, with 5 or 6 percent profit on top of that. Medicare does it with 5 percent overhead, no profit.

And you conveniently forget that Medicare has a huge waste and fraud figure that private insurance attempts to eradicate. As to your 5 or 6 percent profit, of what figure? The health care market is 2.4T and private insurance profit is 12B. I'll even give you 15% overhead if you accept that a single payer plan will require at least a 10% overhead to counter fraud and waste. Either way the cost of care dwarfs the 12B to 25B in savings, and the added cost of expanded access is more than will be saved by the elimination of insurance companies.

Let me ask you straight out. If we go single-payer and eliminate private insurance, will the taxes I pay to fund this program be less than what I currently pay in premiums? Include in your answer whether private employers will raise salaries to cover the benefit costs they'll no longer pay and I'll postulate that taxes will be about 20% to 30% more than the employer assisted premiums I currently pay.

You do the math.

Doctors know that they will still be rich, either way, because patients are guaranteed, wherever they may be.

I did, and the answer I reached was that unless there are drastic changes to provider compensation, and an end to open ended health care (medicare), then a single payer system will cost more and provide less.

Here come the Death Panels (because how else do you provide basic health care at a price that doesn't bankrupt the country).

I'd love to talk to you about this, but I think we should wait until you've had a chance to identify JUST ONE of those regulations that was a job killer AND the benefits of the regulation were outweighed by the jobs lost.

__________________________________________

AM: Here's a start. As far as I know the Barry admin did NOTHING with this report that THEY requested:

June 21, 2010

The Honorable Peter R. Orszag
Director The Office of Management and Budget
725 17th Street, NW Washington, DC 20503

Dear Director Orszag:

As a follow-up to your request to both Business Roundtable and The Business Council for examples of pending legislation and regulations that have a dampening effect on economic growth and job creation, we surveyed our membership to get their views. Attached are an Executive Summary and detailed description of what they see as government initiatives that will cause slower rather than faster growth.

Obviously the list is long, but we believe the cumulative effect of these proposals will help defeat the objectives we all share – reducing unemployment, improving the competitiveness of U.S. companies, and creating an environment that fosters long-term economic growth.

As business leaders we are increasingly concerned that the political expediencies of the short-term harm our ability to partner with government to create policies that foster growth. Now more than ever we need to work as businesses and as government to make the United States a place where we can attract the investment that is needed if we are to remain the strongest economy in the world.

We would be pleased to meet with you to discuss any and all of these issues.

Sincerely,

Ivan G. Seidenberg
Chairman & CEO
Verizon Communications
Chairman, Business Roundtable

James W. Owens
Chairman & CEO
Caterpillar Inc.
Chairman, The Business Council

Attachments

POLICY BURDENS INHIBITING ECONOMIC GROWTH

a report by Business Roundtable and The Business Council

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Many regulations and legislation – both existing and proposed – exacerbate the uncertainty created by today’s volatile economic environment.
Virtually every new regulation has an impact on recovery, competitiveness and job creation. Often that impact is negative. On an individual basis, most businesses can cope with each new regulation. But the collective impact on the economy is enormous, and often harmful.
With a massive new health care law and financial reform legislation looming, companies are more worried than ever about the impact new regulations and legislation will have on their operations and their bottom line. Not knowing what to expect from these pending regulations, businesses are acting cautiously to forestall any negative impact. These actions are squelching economic growth and job creation, as companies are forced to freeze investments and hiring until they understand how they will be affected by these new mandates.

Key Regulatory and Legislative Issues

Below is an overview of the key regulatory issues that are impeding economic growth and job recovery:

• Taxes. When American companies expand abroad they also help the economy at home. As an American company expands operations in its foreign affiliates, it has been estimated that for each dollar of additional wages paid in the foreign affiliate, U.S. wages increase by $1.84. Globally, American companies directly employ 22 million American workers and support an additional 41 million U.S. workers through their supply chains and spending by their employees.

The Administration and Congress have proposed a number of policies relating to the taxation of foreign earnings that will harm the ability of global American companies to create and retain U.S. jobs. As it stands, the U.S. has the second-highest corporate income tax rate in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and is one of the few countries that taxes U.S. companies on their foreign earnings. The international tax increases proposed by the Administration – as well as those contained in the current tax extenders bill (H.R. 4213) – would make sweeping changes to U.S. tax law that would make U.S. companies even less competitive in foreign markets and reduce the potential for job growth at home. The Administration should instead encourage U.S. competitiveness by reducing the U.S. corporate tax rate and adopting tax rules on foreign earnings that allow global American companies to compete on a more level playing field with their foreign-headquartered competitors.

Finally, we must continue to promote innovation in the United States by making permanent the R&D tax credit; this will increase U.S. jobs and enhance the global competitiveness of U.S. corporations.

• Financial Regulatory Reform. Financial regulatory reform proposals will impose numerous new burdens on American businesses. For example, the proposed legislation and concurrent regulation on proxy access at the SEC (File No. S7-10-09) that creates a new federal right for shareholders to nominate directors will reduce efficiency, stifle competition and deter capital formation.

Moreover, this proposed legislation would impose a series of new regulations on transactions executed in the over the counter (OTC) derivatives market. Business Roundtable recently conducted a survey to gauge the potential effects of proposed legislation --including a margin requirement – on OTC derivatives. According to the results, on a cumulative basis, non-financial, publicly traded BRT companies would likely respond to the imposition of margin requirements on OTC derivatives by reducing capital spending by 0.9% to 1.1%, or about $2.0 to $2.5 billion, assuming no exemptions. Extending this analysis to S&P 500 companies, a 3% margin requirement on OTC derivatives could be expected to reduce capital spending by $5 billion to $6 billion per year, leading to a loss of 100,000 to 120,000 jobs.

• Trade. The Administration’s failure to move forward on pending free trade agreements and a more expansive presidential trade negotiating authority has emboldened foreign competitors while hurting our economy, global competitiveness and job creation.

The Administration should swiftly resolve any outstanding issues and move forward with the implementation of free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea, and must also seek a new presidential trade negotiation authority.

• Labor. Foremost among our companies’ labor concerns is the Employee Free Choice Act (Card Check bill); if enacted, this legislation would have a devastating impact on business, by eliminating secret ballots in union organizing elections and empowering the government to intervene in labor disputes through compulsory arbitration.

In addition to EFCA, Congress is expanding damages for pay discrimination. The Paycheck Fairness Act, passed by the House last year and currently supported by the Administration as the successor to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, would open companies to potentially crippling employment litigation without adding significant benefit to workers, since current law already addresses the discrimination issue.

The Vice President’s Middle Class Task Force is reportedly considering regulations on federal procurement policy that would call for awarding federal contracts to companies that provide living wage, health care, retirement and paid sick leave; have fewer violations in labor and employment, tax, environment and antitrust; and take a neutral position in union organizing campaigns. If adopted, these regulations would base decisions about awards on factors that could significantly increase the cost to the government and American taxpayers.

The Middle Class Task Force is also reportedly considering mandating Davis-Bacon wage requirements and union labor agreements for all federal construction projects, even those involving non-union companies. These provisions will drive up costs and undermine new initiatives for green jobs and the construction of nuclear power plants.

• Energy and Environment. Legislative and regulatory efforts to address climate change, if done properly, provide real opportunities to develop cleaner and more efficient technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a way that benefits the environment and U.S. industry. A collaborative approach with government and industry is necessary to develop measurable and sustainable goals.

Mitigating greenhouse gases is a policy goal best left to Congress. However, in the absence of legislative action, the EPA has recently proposed a number of policies that regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. As the U.S. manufacturing sector continues to struggle and is shedding jobs overall, the EPA’s actions will impose additional expenses, create uncertainty and place U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage compared with foreign firms.

Energy independence ultimately entails a combination of all viable resources, including oil and natural gas exploration. But recently, the Administration has issued sweeping restrictions on drilling in response to the Deepwater Horizon tragedy. The breadth of the Administration’s response should be promptly reconsidered as the Administration obtains definitive information. If proper procedures are followed, tragic events such as the Deepwater Horizon situation should not and do not occur. Delayed exploration and production of oil and gas and reduced access will diminish domestic supplies available to help meet U.S. needs. Moreover, each aspect of the moratorium will have an immediate negative impact on economic activity and thousands of jobs, both directly in the oil and gas industry and indirectly in numerous support industries and services. Much of this impact will be felt in the Gulf of Mexico region, where the economy and employment are already gravely suffering from the spill itself.

• Health Care. By significantly restructuring the country’s health insurance marketplace, the new health care reform law is likely to have a substantial impact on the nation’s economic recovery. Intended to build on the employer-sponsored system, health care reform must be implemented in a way that ensures the stability of this employer-sponsored framework. During the regulatory process, clarifications to the law must be made in a manner consistent with this intent. Businesses are working to comprehend the complexities of the law. Although many of the more significant changes are not imminent, uncertainty is contributing to some overall anxiety as to increased business costs and requirements.

Regulatory clarifications to many of the critical employer-related provisions will be vital in assessing the overall economic impact of the law. Exploring ramifications, consequences and nuances to these legislative clarifications may require even more vigilance than the drafting and passage of the reform law itself.

• Education. In general, we support the Administration’s efforts to strengthen the U.S. educational system. A quality early childhood education program is critically important to an individual’s lifelong success.

The “Educate to Innovate” program seems promising to bolster STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) education at all levels.

• Immigration. Our immigration system is broken and must be fixed. Immigration reform must address the need of American businesses to access qualified, highly skilled professionals around the globe to remain competitive. Reforms must also address the current green card backlog for our Chinese and Indian employees and include an H1-B cap that is flexible based on market needs.

In addition to the above, there are a number of sector-specific regulations of which our companies have expressed strong concern because of their potential domino effect on the economy. These are highlighted in the comprehensive report.

Conclusion

We believe that a new, comprehensive assessment of federal policies and regulations is fundamental to the U.S. economy regaining its competitive strength. Regulators should assess the financial impact of individual and collective mandates, remove existing mandates that have become redundant and increase efficiency through market competition. They should also establish a system for creating new regulations that do not impede private-sector investment and job creation.

At the same time, the government must reduce spending to manage down deficit and debt. The current levels of U.S. debt, as well as those required to finance the forecast deficits, will crowd out private capital. If less capital is available for corporate borrowers, it will retard future growth and investment, erode the value of the U.S. dollar, accelerate inflation and, eventually, reduce consumer spending power.

Economic recovery must be lead by the private sector, both large and small, if we are going to create jobs and reduce the unemployment rate. In assessing all regulations, the goal should be to reduce uncertainty, fear and overall cost impact while creating a regulatory system that is business-friendly, cost-effective, and encourages efficiency.

Full report:

http://businessroundtable.org/uploads/hearings-letters/downloads/20100621_Letter_to_OMB_Director_Orszag_from_BRT_and_BC_with_Attachments.pdf

Then you can look at this report:

September 20, 2011

Achieving Smarter Regulation

September 2011

Federal regulation profoundly affects business in the United States. Unfortunately, while regulation can be essential, during this time of economic challenges it has become all too apparent that specific regulations are often counterproductive and far too costly, with a detrimental impact on employment and job creation. The challenge is to have only regulations that are necessary and cost-effective.

Learn more by reading the full PDF below or using the download link to the right. You can also view additional materials:

http://businessroundtable.org/studies-and-reports/achieving-smarter-regulation/

September 20, 2011

Achieving Smarter Regulation

September 2011

Federal regulation profoundly affects business in the United States. Unfortunately, while regulation can be essential, during this time of economic challenges it has become all too apparent that specific regulations are often counterproductive and far too costly, with a detrimental impact on employment and job creation. The challenge is to have only regulations that are necessary and cost-effective.

Learn more by reading the full PDF below or using the download link to the right. You can also view additional materials:

http://businessroundtable.org/studies-and-reports/achieving-smarter-regulation/

So, rob- I see the thing you were too cool for was school.

It's from Alice in Wonderland.

The book?

A classic?

Nothing?

It figures.

"Balanced Approach" is a key phraise that means raising taxes. President Obama is still convinced that we can fix our economic problems by more federal spending and more revenue means that the government can spend more. But even the President himself said that taxes should not be raised during a recession. Apparently the supper committee failed because the Democrats insisted on at least 1 trillion dollars from higher taxes and that was too much tax increases for the Republicans.

Without conditions, the President promised the American people that the 2012 federal deficit will not exceed 229.27 billion dollars. The increase of taxes on the "rich" in the President's Jobs bill if enacted immediately would only raise annual revenue by 100 billion dollars. Even with this revenue increase, to keep the President's promise the federal government is going to have to cut spending by more than 1 trillion dollars alone. I want the President to explain how he is going to keep his promise to the American people.

Anna Molly:

I'm sorry for snooping in posts that are meant for you, but please, if you haven't read Albany Joe's post at 1.129, you must.

The financial regulation that is cited will make you laugh out loud. Raising the margin on OTC derivatives is going to cost a bundle according to the analysis, which is of course, totally impartial and devastatingly honest. A margin requirement on OTC derivatives? Can you imagine? The horror. So terrifyingly awful is this prospect that these businessmen extended the OTC results to the S&P 500.

I don't know how many times I have pointed out that these "job-creators" are totally risk-averse. Oh Dave, that's just not true. These brave venture capitalists are courageous, brave, and well, downright brilliant. So brilliant are they, that it is clear they will need a permanent tax credit - A CREDIT - for R & D.

And the EPA. Why, those clowns are making rules. Granted, that is exactly what regulatory agencies do, but in this case, we should probably let Congress take care of our air, soil, and water pollution. Why? Well, I don't have an inside line to these brilliant business guys, but I'm going to hazard a guess that it's because they have done such a bang-up job with the budget.

There's not a job killer in there. All this does is put restrictions on their licenses to steal.

DCIA:

Go get 'em. That Madison is lying is nothing new. That you are calling him/her out is new. Can you imagine what it must be like to live in a home where lying is just fine?

Hey Alan,

Indexing capital gains makes sense, but after adjusting for inflation all income, from whatever source derived, ought to be taxed at the same rate. If we don't index we will encourage the government to inflate the currency in order to get higher tax receipts and, frankly, they don't need much encouragement.

And we should tax all income at the same rate because our government should tax in order to get revenue to operate itself. Today I think the arguments, if this thread is any indication, are about who should benefit and who should pay. It's never a good idea imo, if liberty is our highest value, to use a tax code to entice people to behave one way or another. If our code was simple and fair, treating each of us equally, and we got social results we do not want, then the way to fix those is by addressing the underlying causes, not by papering over the illness by altering the symptoms.

Jobs leaving the USA? So says most people. Maybe a reason is over-regulation? Maybe it's excessive local land use requirements? Maybe it's our crappy educational system? There are many reasons, but to virtually each of the problems the left and too many on the right promise tax credits to counter them, rather than to fix the original and underlying problem. We just make things worse. So make it simple, make it equal, make it clear, and let voters decide.

Do they want more government regulating more of their life at greater cost? If so there is a party willing to cater to their every serfish desire. Or do they want less government doing less for them so they can become more free? Right now I'm not sure that alternative exists, but with a simplified system it could.

David -- Anna won't mind at all. Joe has been dumping loads all day. A lot to argue with over this last one I agree. Much to laugh over especially their blatant attempt to grovel for government funds and virtually free reign to govern themselves. LOL

Would like to see you both continue by attacking this latest pile of crap. ; ) You and Anna have done a great job today swatting those pesky flies right out the front door.....

David:

Raising the margin on OTC derivatives is going to cost a bundle according to the analysis, which is of course, totally impartial and devastatingly honest.

Not to mention that none of Joe's stuff specifically goes to how any of the cited regulations -- many of which are still only proposals, and not part of the 18,000 actual new regulations that Ray was carping about -- will affect jobs, nor does it specifically address the issue of whether the benefit of the rule outweighs the cost of the regulation. It's simply whine.

Joe's cites don't even address specifically how Obamacare will supposedly kill jobs.

I love that one in particular. Business ranting about how forcing them to provide decent benefits for employees will also force them not to expand so they can make more money.

When did we start thinking like that, and even more, when did we start saying it out loud? And when did workers start buying that BS?

It is totally ironic to hear the financial industry pretend to be concerned about saving jobs. If they were concerned about that, they would have regulated themselves better in the first place, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Jobs be d@mned. The only thing they really care about is profits.

Alan:

Now you won't get me trying to defend the fiscal policies of the Bush administration, but every administration since 1986, including this one, has spent the SS surplus. That's a pretty weak argument.

Maybe, but you're the one who was trying to claim that the surplus is just a myth. Besides, what does it really matter HOW they misspent it? The principal issue is whether the victims of the theft should be the ones to pay for it.

Should they, Alan? So that you can have an extra latte every week?

Come on. I wanna hear you say it.

And to say that the Social Security heist is not connected to the Bush tax cuts is merely to ignore the obvious -- if the cuts hadn't been made, there would have been no need to raid the SS Fund during either the Bush or Obama years for ANY purpose.

Pretty soon, someone needs to 'fess up to this. Because if they don't, and they believe in the Pearly Gates, they ain't never gonna see 'em.

Obama extended the Bush tax cuts, ergo they are now the "Obama tax cuts." Get it straight.

Alan:

if you accept that a single payer plan will require at least a 10% overhead to counter fraud and waste.

You REALLY think there is no fraud and waste right now in the private sector?

How innocent you are.

You should have been there the day I actually saw a bill from my oncologist for a 10 minute office visit -- it was more than $250 -- that means he charges roughly $1500 per hour.

That might reasonably be categorized as waste.

But here's where the fraud comes in. Of the 10 minutes he spent with me, we spent 5 minutes on his complaints about lawyers, 2 minutes talking about the weather and other mundanities, 1 minute coming and going, and 2 minutes in an actual examination.

I'm not kidding you about that, either.

For those 2 minutes, the private sector health insurer paid this guy about $250.

NOW you do the math.

I don't think you ever have to worry about doctors being poor.

But even if, so what?

Is it absolutely necessary for doctors to be rich?

Even if that means some people go without care?

If that's what capitalism is, then give me socialism.

Seriously.

"For those 2 minutes, the private sector health insurer paid this guy about $250."

Capitalism has nothing to do with it. One of the problems with the current system is the fact that most health insurance is still employer-provided. And because it's employer-provided, most users haven't been financially motivated to question their bills. And because they don't scrutinize their bills, the insurance companies have become fat and inefficient over time - in the absence of that scrutiny, there's little-to-no accountability.

Do you really think it'll be any better under a single-payor system? There's nothing about such a system that'll increase that consumer scrutiny and accountability.

People agonize over their auto-repair bills (even when they know very little about cars), but they offload any such agonizing over their health bills. Why? Because the auto-repair bill impacts their wallets directly. The health bill, not so much - their employer provides the insurance, so they regard the health services as an entitlement; they don't question the costs.

There's no better auditor than a consumer who has to pay the bill - without such a dynamic, it's no wonder health costs have spiraled out of control in this country. There's no natural consumer check-and-balance in the mix.

Hey Anna Molly,

If you think that highly-regulated and controlled-market is capitalism, then I don't want it either. Of course a single payer system would be even more of both problems, but this is likely not part of your thinking. Consumers, in this case patients, should be more aware of the costs (like you said you became when you saw a bill--though we all noticed you weren't PAYING the bill) if we want to control ever increasing prices.

You would argue I suppose, and correctly too, that you can't afford the direct cost of all your care, that you need insurance to help in part or whole. There are ways, nonetheless, that we could connect you to the cost of your care and harness your anger over the price being paid. One way would be in higher co-pays and deductibles, but these likely offend your personal sense of entitlement. There is another way though...what if you were able to participate in any cost SAVINGS that resulted from your actions?

This kind of idea could allow you to remain on someone else's dime for your health care expenses if you want, but it could also, if you choose to be frugal, save whoever is paying your way some money while simultaneously putting some money into your pocket for acting more rationally. And, maybe with money as a motivator, liberals like you would be more favorable to cross-state competition, or tort reform, or prohibiting the government from sloughing costs off onto the private sector.

In any case, costs that are not part of a major medical procedure or illness should be paid, more than they are now anyhow, by the patient or consumer of the care. Sure, you might now trust a DC bureaucrat to care about your life more than you or your doctor, but I think with the proper market incentives you would see things differently. Of course this would make you more free and less a serf, so maybe I am wrong.

David Walker "Roy Wilson: The fact is when you come here with those ridiculous allegations, you expose yourself as one of two things. You are either a piss-poor businessman or you have never been in business for yourself."

Since you have chosen to attack me personally, I will respond - I've been President of two successful small corporations, and have been the Controller for two other very large corporations with assets exceeding $500 Million each - and that was over 25 years ago, when they would be considered $3 Billion corporations now.

As for my educational qualifications, a Bachelor's Degree in Marketing and an MBA in Finance from one of California's largest universities taught me a few things about how businesses work.

Could you please tell me what 'ridiculous allegations' I have made - I'll be the first to admit that there are things that I could learn - perhaps even from you.

Dont_carry_it_all "Roy -- Article on myths of regulations....scroll down and you will find a link to BLS and where WaPo came up with the figures:"

Thanks for the link, but I consider the Washington Post about as unbiased as MoveOn.org. Notwithstanding that, I was struck by the following comment about the BLS site;

"Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that 4 percent of the layoffs in 2010 resulted from “government regulations/intervention.”"

Since layoffs have averaged about 400,000 per week (initial claims for unemployment) for the last few years, some simple math leads to an interesting conclusion;

4% of 400,000 jobs lost per week is 16,000 per week, which is 832,000 jobs lost in 2010 because of "government regulation/interventions".

I can believe that - thanks for the info.

Rich --

Consumers, in this case patients, should be more aware of the costs (like you said you became when you saw a bill--though we all noticed you weren't PAYING the bill)

No, you dope, I wasn't paying the bill. My insurance paid the bill. My world class health care system private sector insurance that I pay for myself out of the revenues that I earn.

So typically conservatively smug. I don't make assumptions about how YOU get your health care.

Sure, you might now trust a DC bureaucrat to care about your life more than you or your doctor, but I think with the proper market incentives you would see things differently. Of course this would make you more free and less a serf, so maybe I am wrong.

Yes, you're wrong. And that's the one thing you got right.

Ray:

Since layoffs have averaged about 400,000 per week (initial claims for unemployment) for the last few years, some simple math leads to an interesting conclusion;

This is a false assumption that draws your conclusions into question. Not all initial claims for unemployment have to do with layoffs. Many no doubt relate to terminations in the ordinary course of business. People get fired every day, and not because of "regulations.

Roy Wilson -- Here are two more articles that verify my first post. Since the original article came from the Associated Press I was able to track to additional articles. One of which was posted on Blaze...a cite you linked to in past and another different article posted on WaPo. Even GOP candidates read WaPo as they referenced a story from that paper in the last debate. Several conservatives here often quote or link to it as well so I assume it's pretty standard reading. As for Moveon.org...sorry I just do not know what they do and have never even visited that cite. I usually stick to WSJ, NYT, WaPo, etc.

Here are links, scroll down to see more stats:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ap-some-candidates-drifted-from-reality-during-last-nights-gop-debate/

Below is a quote from that article on Blaze.

THE FACTS: It has become an article of faith in the GOP field that regulations are a leading drag on jobs, but Labor Department data show that few companies where large layoffs occur say government regulation was the reason. Just two-tenths of 1 percent of layoffs since Obama took office have been due to government regulation, the data show.

Moreover, there is little evidence that the regulatory burden is any worse now than in the past or that it is costing significant numbers of jobs. Most economists believe there is a simpler explanation: Companies aren‘t hiring because there isn’t enough consumer demand. And economists believe high levels of economic uncertainty are a leading complication for business, arising more from struggles over taxes and spending in Washington than from regulations – an unwelcome quantity, for sure, but a known one.

The National Federation of Independent Business asks its small-business membership each month to name the single most important problem they’re facing. Last month, the most common response was “poor sales,” cited by 26 percent. Government regulation came in second, at 19 percent.

Bachmann has plenty of company in the GOP field in blaming the regulatory burden of Obama’s health care law for economic ills. But the evidence so far is thin; most of the law‘s provisions don’t take effect until 2014.

Indeed, the health care industry has been one of the few reliable sources of hiring during the recession and its aftermath. The industry has added 313,000 jobs in the past year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/studies-challenge-wisdom-of-gop-candidates-plans/2011/10/30/gIQAeW2iVM_story.html

Below is quote from article on WaPo concerning stats:

The Bureau of Labor Statistics, which tracks companies’ reasons for large layoffs, found that 1,119 layoffs were attributed to government regulations in the first half of this year, while 144,746 were attributed to poor “business demand.”

Anna Molly "Many no doubt relate to terminations in the ordinary course of business. People get fired every day, and not because of "regulations."

And very few are unable to file for unemployment. I suspect my 'guestimate' is not far off.

Anybody that claims that regulations do not cause people to lose their jobs doesn't live in the 'Real World'. Just ask the tens of thousands that lost their well-paying jobs when Obama put a moratorium on drilling in the Gulf.

Don't get me wrong - there are many regulations that I agree with, but I doubt that all of these tens of thousands of new pages of regulations put into place by the Obama Administration couldn't have waited until we recovered.

And I've seen estimates that the new proposed EPA regulations alone could cost about 1.4 MILLION jobs - which is probably why Obama put off implementing them until AFTER the elections next year.

I think that most people realize that new business regulation, like elections, 'have consequences'.

Dont_carry_it_all

I'm sure we could find 'opinions' from a variety of sources on the impact of new regulations on jobs - For example;

"According to the Joseph Mason study, the Department of Interior’s de facto moratorium of exploration in the Gulf of Mexico could cost 36,137 jobs. In addition, “more than 80,000 jobs could be lost due to EPA regulations targeting the cement industry.” Finally, EPA greenhouse gas regulations could cost 1.4 million jobs."

Citing such 'opinions' on either side is a fruitless pursuit, so let's just leave it as - You think regulations do not cost jobs, and I think they do.

Have a nice evening, and bye.

Hey Anna,

Too funny, as always. Look, without (and this was the point all along which you continue to evade) some relationship between cost and service that the patient can relate to there is no way to control costs without the heavy hand of DC bureaucrats. What a shame that you trust yourself less to do what is best for you at a cost you are willing to absorb than you do someone you will never know, and someone who will see you as no more than a statistic.

Service providers should not try to control costs just to make you happy. Doctors should do what is best for you, sure, but in the context of what is best for them as well. Insurers should want to control costs, and they do, but they have regulations which require a level of care they try not to run afoul of. Who, of the three partners in this little game, would most want to control costs AND get the best care if not the patient?

Displace insurers for the US government and the calculus remains the same--the patient, not the doctor and not the government, will want the highest care for the lowest price. This is why a market-based solution can work, and why our failure for the past several decades to implement one has helped to insure our medical costs continue to rise far faster than inflation.