Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Obama's 0b Jobs Proposal Obama's 0b Jobs Proposal

09-07-2011 , 02:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kowboys4
There needs to be way more infrastructure spending.
That's what the first stimulus was supposed to be for.
09-07-2011 , 02:59 PM
will1530 wins this thread. Please post in the forum more.
09-07-2011 , 03:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by will1530
I agree, but from a political standpoint it's really not important. The left isn't going to like this because its "too small" and the right isn't going to like it because its "lol Obama". However, the people that really matter in Presidential elections (the uninformed and generally uncaring independents) are going to hear "jobs plan" and very likely the next day "Republicans oppose jobs plan". Obama will then use that opposition to bash Republicans all the way to the election. Politically I think its best for Republicans to just give this to the President, and when it fails bury him with it next year.
R strategy is to give your opponent nothing positive they can possibly run on.
09-07-2011 , 03:09 PM
Obama should just tell his regulatory agencies to back off. Stop hindering business. Costs taxpayers no money.



This-plus offer tax incentives to businesses that have new hires. Something has to be done about the unfairness of NAFTA. China adds a tax to all imported American goods, we don't add on to China's imports here. If we deregulated refineries some then our gas wouldn't cost so much since more refineries could be built. This proposal is an effort to gain some lost political capital on Obama's part, nothing else. If this assclown gets re-elected we all deserve our fates.
09-07-2011 , 03:11 PM
I mean you are going to blow your political load on a massive speech to the nation to announce your plan to...extend existing policies and enact more tax breaks for rich people, errrrrrrrrr job creators?

This is just ******ed politics. What the **** is he thinking? How can someone run such a brilliant campaign and fail so hard at basic political calculation?
09-07-2011 , 03:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kowboys4
I don't know if you know this but the white house just signed reducing our troops in Iraq to 3,000 by the end of this year.
Ty for proving my point.
09-07-2011 , 03:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman
I mean you are going to blow your political load on a massive speech to the nation to announce your plan to...extend existing policies and enact more tax breaks for rich people, errrrrrrrrr job creators?

This is just ******ed politics. What the **** is he thinking? How can someone run such a brilliant campaign and fail so hard at basic political calculation?
Don't doubt the mans genius. He will annihilate any hardcore repub offered up. He is right at the middle of this ****ty system so noone can accuse him of not trying to find compromise and middle ground. Also with tax cuts, many repubs will cross the line because those hypocrats donot give one solidary turd about the deficit.
09-07-2011 , 03:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by envfoldr
Obama should just tell his regulatory agencies to back off. Stop hindering business. Costs taxpayers no money.
Cutting back on regs would cut GOVERNMENT JOBS!!! To the Obama admin 1 govt job is worth hundreds of private sector jobs so that will never happen.
09-07-2011 , 03:22 PM
150b in tax breaks does sound pretty good.
09-07-2011 , 03:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by envfoldr
Obama should just tell his regulatory agencies to back off. Stop hindering business. Costs taxpayers no money.



This-plus offer tax incentives to businesses that have new hires. Something has to be done about the unfairness of NAFTA. China adds a tax to all imported American goods, we don't add on to China's imports here. If we deregulated refineries some then our gas wouldn't cost so much since more refineries could be built. This proposal is an effort to gain some lost political capital on Obama's part, nothing else. If this assclown gets re-elected we all deserve our fates.
Agree regarding regulations.... some Chinese products are actually quite expensive to import.... polyester is a good example, China makes a crapload of clothing with polyester and the manufacturing cost is quite cheap, but by the time you can actually get it inside the US, the cost is much higher.

Refineries are a mixed bag of problems. Gas demand is not peaking in the US aorn as millions of people have no job, and therefore need to drive to work. The crap economy as a whole also has suppressed demand. It is tough enough to get a refinery built in boom times when demand is high, you can pretty much forget it in down times....NIMBY/BANANA and all that.
09-07-2011 , 03:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Regret$
Ty for proving my point.
Yeah he is ending the war in Iraq that was the point I'm assuming?
09-07-2011 , 03:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Regret$
Don't doubt the mans genius. He will annihilate any hardcore repub offered up. He is right at the middle of this ****ty system so noone can accuse him of not trying to find compromise and middle ground. Also with tax cuts, many repubs will cross the line because those hypocrats donot give one solidary turd about the deficit.
why should they. The deficit doesn't do anything.
09-07-2011 , 03:43 PM
random off topic question - but exactly is the "middle class" that obama and everyone keep referencing? Is there a bracket of some kind to determine if I qualify?

I saw this defenition - It defines people as middle-class if they fall between the 30th and 70th percentiles in income distribution, which for a family of four is between $32,900 and $64,000 a year in 2010 dollars.

but that seems ******ed. If you are married with 2 kids and make 64K total you are ****ing poor. 32K a year before taxes per spouse w/ two kids seems brutal
09-07-2011 , 03:45 PM
Here's a fun fact.

When the Republicans got what they wanted in the debt deal the Stock Market tanked, our debt got downgraded and we were in danger of another recession.

Obama announces jobs plan and the stock market shoots up and there are many articles coming out that we are not in danger of a recession.

I wonder what Republicans are going to start saying when Jobs and the Economy start growing again by the end of this quarter. I imagine something to the tune of ZOMG the deficit.
09-07-2011 , 03:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieDontSurf
random off topic question - but exactly is the "middle class" that obama and everyone keep referencing? Is there a bracket of some kind to determine if I qualify?

I saw this defenition - It defines people as middle-class if they fall between the 30th and 70th percentiles in income distribution, which for a family of four is between $32,900 and $64,000 a year in 2010 dollars.

but that seems ******ed. If you are married with 2 kids and make 64K total you are ****ing poor. 32K a year before taxes per spouse w/ two kids seems brutal
thats where the middle class is these days. Thats the point. The middle class used to make much more then that.
09-07-2011 , 03:47 PM
Noone said that the middle class isn't poor.
09-07-2011 , 03:54 PM
Obama can't just keep throwing money at our problems expecting them to go away. By doing so he is in fact increasing the deficit so yes the Republicans will start crying foul on the increased deficit. What some on the left forget is that the money Obama is spending is OUR TAXES. Until manufacturing comes back in the United States there will be no more jobs, better stock markets or a better economy.
09-07-2011 , 03:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FallsviewPokerPro
150b in tax breaks does sound pretty good.
yeah, right after throwing sissy fit about debt reduction. Consistency? We has it!!!! Somehow i am not hearing all those voices...you know those who were all up in arms about Bush tax cuts. I thought we were supposed to raise taxes???
09-07-2011 , 04:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jogsxyz
Obama should just tell his regulatory agencies to back off. Stop hindering business. Costs taxpayers no money.
So, I gotta ask, does anyone know what these actually are? Obamacare is one, ok. Got that. What other regulations has Obama implemented that are novel compared to regulations under both Clinton and Bush that are so obviously killing jobs and can/should be repealed with no negative consequences? Everyone rails against "teh regulashunz," including people on this forum, GOP candidates, Fox News anchors, etc., but no one ever spells out what they are or which ones are so bad. Forgive my skepticism, but it sounds like the widely-held belief that Obama raised taxes when, well, he actually cut them.

The only other one I can think of is the drilling in the Gulf, but lol at that being the solution to the nation's unemployment. I hear the hurricane season is a great time to drill baby, drill.
09-07-2011 , 04:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman
I mean you are going to blow your political load on a massive speech to the nation to announce your plan to...extend existing policies and enact more tax breaks for rich people, errrrrrrrrr job creators?

This is just ******ed politics. What the **** is he thinking? How can someone run such a brilliant campaign and fail so hard at basic political calculation?
Because campaigning on something and actually doing it are not the same thing?
09-07-2011 , 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie
So, I gotta ask, does anyone know what these actually are? Obamacare is one, ok. Got that. What other regulations has Obama implemented that are novel compared to regulations under both Clinton and Bush that are so obviously killing jobs and can/should be repealed with no negative consequences? Everyone rails against "teh regulashunz," including people on this forum, GOP candidates, Fox News anchors, etc., but no one ever spells out what they are or which ones are so bad. Forgive my skepticism, but it sounds like the widely-held belief that Obama raised taxes when, well, he actually cut them.

The only other one I can think of is the drilling in the Gulf, but lol at that being the solution to the nation's unemployment. I hear the hurricane season is a great time to drill baby, drill.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/econom...onomy-billions

Quote:
• Reconsideration of the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Estimated cost: $19-$90 billion.

• National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units. Estimated cost: $10 billion.

• National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Source Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters. Estimated cost: $3 billion.

• Standards for the Management of Coal Combustion Residuals Generated by Commercial Electric Power Producers. Estimated cost: $0.6-$1.5 billion.

• Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. Estimated cost: $2 billion.

• Electronic On-Board Recorders and Hours of Service Supporting Documents. Estimated cost: $2 billion.

• Hours of Service. Estimated cost: $1 billion.
Love the estimate on the first one..... somewhere between 19 and 90 billion. LOL

From Heritage

Quote:
The burden of regulation on Americans increased at an alarming rate in fiscal year 2010. Based on data from the Government Accountability Office, an unprecedented 43 major new regulations were imposed by Washington. And based on reports from government regulators themselves, the total cost of these rules topped $26.5 billion, far more than any other year for which records are available. These costs will affect Americans in many ways, raising the price of the cars they buy and the food they eat, while destroying an untold number of jobs. With the enactment of new health care laws, financial regulations, and plans for rulemaking in other areas, the regulatory burden on Americans is set to increase even further in the coming year.



The actual cost of regulations adopted in FY 2010 is almost certainly much higher than $26.5 billion. As a first matter, the cost of non-economically significant rules—rules deemed not likely to have an annual impact of $100 million or more—is not calculated (although such rules are believed to constitute only a small portion of total regulatory costs). Moreover, costs were not quantified for 12 of the economically significant rules adopted in FY 2010.
09-07-2011 , 04:34 PM
Quote:
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. Estimated cost: $2 billion
I gotta wonder just what the hell this is, and how rearview mirrors can cost two billion.
09-07-2011 , 04:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie
I gotta wonder just what the hell this is, and how rearview mirrors can cost two billion.
I believe they are trying to mandate rearview cameras on every vehicle..... supposedly a few hundred people get runover by a car in reverse every year.... but if you don't check your mirror or look behind your car, I don't know what makes them think you will check your camera monitor.
09-07-2011 , 04:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie

The only other one I can think of is the drilling in the Gulf, but lol at that being the solution to the nation's unemployment. I hear the hurricane season is a great time to drill baby, drill.
New laws and regulations on derivative trading, mortgage securities trading and trading on various other financial products generally not understood by the industry...and most of the requests for clarifications are being either ignored or explanations are even more vague then regulations themselves.
09-07-2011 , 04:46 PM
hmm yeah lets get rid of regulations. That worked so well for the housing market...

      
m