Buftex Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 No you nitwit, Obama is so far out in left field, that the natural countereaction is the far right. The difference is that I dont have my nose up her arse. "Obama bad"
GG Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 GG's math is solid, as long as you operate on the assumption that the rich are putting money into the economy. Where are the job creators whose asses we are kissing, creating all of these jobs? Yeah the rich are sitting at home counting their money piles, while grandmas starve.
Buftex Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 Yeah the rich are sitting at home counting their money piles, while grandmas starve. And I am sure that makes them happy...now if they could just figure out a way to get rid of all of as !@#$s who don't make a fortune, everything will be great!
Magox Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 Can you just tell me what you think the single biggest thing the Obama administration is doing that is killing job growth? Sure, but it's just a rerun of what I have been saying for a long time now. 1) EPA regulations, since cap and trade didn't get passed, the Obama administration has taken it upon themselves to implement their own form of carbon emissions regulations, here is just one example: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wants to ensure that everything is bigger in Texas, including the state’s electricity rates and unemployment lines. On July 7, the EPA adopted a rule to place even more stringent regulations on sulfur dioxide emissions that could shut down the use of lignite coal in Texas. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson assured Texans that their economy and coal production would be just fine: Texas has an ample range of cost-effective emission reduction options for complying with the requirements of this rule without threatening reliability or the continued operation of coal-burning units, including those that burn lignite from local mining operations. Kathleen Hartnett White, director of the Armstrong Center for Energy and Environment at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, strongly disagrees. She wrote in the Dallas Morning News (subscription required): Retrofitting plants that now use lignite would involve three to four years of engineering, fabrication, boiler re-construction, new rail construction and complex new permits—at multi-billion dollar costs. Texas electric companies recently testified to the Texas Public Utility Commission that the rule may force closure of plants and limited operations of other plants. About 11 percent of electricity in Texas comes from lignite coal, and overall, plants in Texas cut sulfur dioxide emissions by 33 percent in the last decade alone. White also points out: Directly and indirectly, lignite mining supports 10,000 to 14,000 jobs and is the lifeblood of the local tax base and business in many Texas communities. Lignite contributes $1.3 billion to the state’s economy and $71 million to state revenues. That was Texas, here is Virginia: The Environmental Protection Agency issed new standards for coal burning power plants in 28 states. The new rules, issued Thursday, will cut smokestack emissions reducing soot, smog, and acid rain. The EPA says the new regulations will cost utilities less than $1 billion a year. According to the New York Times, the EPS also says the cleaner air would prevent up to 34,000 premature deaths, 15,000 nonfatal heart attacks, and hundreds of thousands of cases of asthma every year. But not everybody likes the idea. Virginia Congressman Morgan Griffith said in a statement, "The EPA is back at it again. More overreaching regulations, more jobs lost...All indications are that they will hurt jobs in Southwest Virginia." He goes on to say, "These rules will cause electric rates to increase significantly, thus making it harder to do business and create jobs." The new regulations are also a concern of Kevin Crutchfield, CEO of Alpha Natural Resources. He reiterates the same concerns about electricity rates going up, saying they could rise by 25 percent. Crutchfield says, "I think it's a grave concern to our nation because coal still fuels nearly half the electricity in the United States and its one of the most abundant affordable and reliable sources of electricity and what are we going to replace it with." Crutchfield says Alpha Natural will be okay because they have enough international coal exports. But its his employees he worries about. EPA says the new regulations on coal burning power plants won't go into effect until the beginnina of 2012. The coal industry is crying foul over new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations which they say will be among the most be costly rules ever imposed by the agency on coal-fueled power plants. The result, industry insiders say: substantially higher electricity rates and massive job loss. “The EPA is ignoring the cumulative economic damage new regulations will cause,” said Steve Miller, president and CEO of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE). “America’s coal-fueled electric industry has been doing its part for the environment and the economy, but our industry needs adequate time to install clean coal technologies to comply with new regulations. Unfortunately, EPA doesn’t seem to care.” Thursday the EPA announced that they have finalized additional Clean Air Act provisions, collectively known as “The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule” to ostensibly “reduce air pollution and attain clean air standards,” by requiring coal companies in 27 states to slash emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide by 73 percent and 54 percent, respectively, from 2005 levels by 2014. There's plenty more that the EPA is doing apart fromt this as well... Ok this is one example. 2) Obamacare, You can either close your eyes and cover your ears and ignore the thousands of thousands of small business owners and CEO's that decry this massive piece of legislation as a job killer or you can admit that this bill at the end of the day is costing some jobs. I've posted about OBamacare ad nauseum, and I've specifically detailed how it would hurt jobs and increase premiums, and there are many many ways that it does affect the job market. The only thing up for debate is how many? 3) Dodd Frank Bill. Did you know that I will most likely lose a couple brokers at my office because of this Bill? The clearing house I deal with calculates that over 100 brokers that clear through them will end up losing their jobs. WOuld you like for me to post links of jobs that it will cost the economy? I'd more than be happy to, I'm just hoping that you say, "ok, that will end up hurting some jobs", but I doubt you will. 4) This next point you or other liberals will never admit to, because you guys reject the basic premise of taxing the top 1% additional taxes will hurt job growth. Well I can tell you that it does, I can say that with 1000% certainty because it is a question of basic math. The uncertainty of higher taxes is hurting job growth. How much? again, that is up for debate, it could end up being a negligible effect, but it definitely is holding back some jobs. 5) The oil moratoria, you do know that we lost rigs that were in the Gulf of Mexico that left to other places in the world. They didnt want to sit their idle, and there is a shortage of rigs. THose rigs are pretty much permanently gone from the Gulf area. I use to trade and hedge oil contracts for small oil companies, some of those guys are my clients today, you know how much I hear about how it affected the Lousiana gulf coast area the oil moratoria? Lets just say the residual effect of the oil moratoria was pretty devastating to some small businesses. These are just some examples.... And I am sure that makes them happy...now if they could just figure out a way to get rid of all of as !@#$s who don't make a fortune, everything will be great! I fear that you are being serious, which would mean to me that you are not a serious person. Please tell me I'm wrong and that you were being sarcastic.
/dev/null Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 No you nitwit, Obama is so far out in left field, that the natural countereaction is the far right. The difference is that I dont have my nose up her arse. A similar argument can be made that Obama is Bush's fault. Without Bush, Obama would be some obscure state senator who takes an occasional break from voting present to do guest spots on MSNBC "Obama bad" Date Night! Nobel Prize!
Buftex Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 A similar argument can be made that Obama is Bush's fault. Without Bush, Obama would be some obscure state senator who takes an occasional break from voting present to do guest spots on MSNBC Date Night! Nobel Prize! Don't forget 200 million dollars a day for his trip to Inida! No you nitwit, Obama is so far out in left field, that the natural countereaction is the far right. The difference is that I dont have my nose up her arse. Obama is about as centrist as they come...hardly so far out in left field. He has pretty much bent over to the Republicans any time it mattered, trying to be a peace maker, and gotten nothing but crap for it, because of the darker element that seems to be steering the Republican party these days...and because they don't work...
/dev/null Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 Obama is about as centrist as they come I was taking a drink of water when I read this. Dammit I laughed so hard water come out my nose
GG Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 Obama is about as centrist as they come...hardly so far out in left field. He has pretty much bent over to the Republicans any time it mattered, trying to be a peace maker, and gotten nothing but crap for it, because of the darker element that seems to be steering the Republican party these days...and because they don't work... You must be joking. The most liberal senatorial voting record, when he did in fact vote. On the economy and fiscal matters, the only thing that's prevented him from imposing a money sucking entitlement state was the 2010 rebuke. He's the worst President in my lifetime at least, maybe in a century. My guess is that when books are written a generation from now, history will be less kind to Obama than to Bush.
Magox Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 Don't forget 200 million dollars a day for his trip to Inida! Obama is about as centrist as they come No offense, but the only one's who make that claim are the loony left.
DC Tom Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 Yeah the rich are sitting at home counting their money piles, while grandmas starve. No. The children starve. Grandma gets axed by death panels.
Dante Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) Boo-hoo, we must protect the wealthy at all costs, they're doing such a great job of creating jobs with the tax cuts Republicans said we had to have to create jobs. The top 1 percent of Americans now take home nearly a quarter of all income and control more than 40 percent of the country’s wealth — roughly the same amount as the bottom 90 percent. And that gap has gotten far bigger in the past 25 years. In the past decade alone, the wealthiest percentile has seen its income grow by 17 percent, while the middle class has seen its real income fall. The 400 Americans with the highest adjusted gross income saw their effective tax rates plummet from 30 percent in 1995 to 17 percent in 2007. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_16/b4224045265660.htm On tackling the deficit, voters by a margin of 2-to-1 support raising taxes on incomes above $250,000, with 64 percent in favor and 33 percent opposed. Independents supported higher taxes on the wealthy by 63-34 percent; Democrats by 83-15 percent; and Republicans opposed by 43-54 percent. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/18/112386/poll-best-way-to-fight-deficits.html Leftists shmoes just don't get it. How about instead of stealing even more money from people who have earned it, the government cuts back on redundant services. On a useless IRS. On overpaid federal and state workers. At the end of the day what you are supporting is immoral. To say to a person that 50% or more of their labor goes is for someone else borders on slavery. And "effective tax rate" is something relatively new. Sounds like some sort of lawyer speak designed to distort reality. Edited July 13, 2011 by Dante
OCinBuffalo Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) No you nitwit, Obama is so far out in left field, that the natural countereaction is the far right. The difference is that I dont have my nose up her arse. Or... For some people, being on the right is about freedom, equity, and the limitation of government, as government has proven itself to be self-serving. For some people, the people themselves are the concern, not the institutions. And for other people, being on the right is all about looking down on people, 100% about the institutions, demanding that anybody else on the right respect those institutions and adhere strictly to their doctrines and pay their dues to them, while being jealous and hateful of anyone who was able to bypass/ignore said institutions and have success....while also being on the right. Edited July 13, 2011 by OCinBuffalo
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted July 13, 2011 Author Posted July 13, 2011 Sure, but it's just a rerun of what I have been saying for a long time now. 1) EPA regulations, since cap and trade didn't get passed, the Obama administration has taken it upon themselves to implement their own form of carbon emissions regulations, here is just one example: These are just some examples.... I fear that you are being serious, which would mean to me that you are not a serious person. Please tell me I'm wrong and that you were being sarcastic. Yes, and not very good ones, IMO. Any serious discussion on the economy focuses on the housing market, consumer spending and the fact that it has been governments cutting jobs, not businesses, that is really holding back a more serious recovery and none of those things you mentioned seriously address those issues. The private secor has created 1.7 million new jobs just this past year, but that was heavily off set by the huge number of GOVERNMENT workers losing their jobs to tea party calls for less government. And there is no way to connect cap and trade to the housing market, is there? And on top of all that historically we are looking at a long recovery, as most financial crisis take years to recover from. You are acting as if Obama could just do what Conservative Politicains want then things would be great! Read the discussion in yesterday's wall street journal about that. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304584404576440203602314190.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read Or... For some people, being on the right is about freedom, equity, and the limitation of government, as government has proven itself to be self-serving. For some people, the people themselves are the concern, not the institutions. And for other people, being on the right is all about looking down on people, 100% about the institutions, demanding that anybody else on the right respect those institutions and adhere strictly to their doctrines and pay their dues to them, while being jealous and hateful of anyone who was able to bypass/ignore said institutions and have success....while also being on the right. Was there an institution holding you back?
OCinBuffalo Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) Was there an institution holding you back? No. For a long time(to me) quite the opposite in fact, I was very much part of the institution. You might even say I was the tip of the spear. Then, I realized the whole thing was silly, and I left, because I could. The people who stay are unable to leave. They lie to themselves and say it's not silly. They lie to themselves and talk schit about us, rather than facing up to the truth: they would be nothing without the institutions. Are there any posters here who seem to have an undue hatred towards those who refuse to suffer their institutions and chose not to pay their dues? Edited July 13, 2011 by OCinBuffalo
IDBillzFan Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 ...but that was heavily off set by the huge number of GOVERNMENT workers losing their jobs to tea party calls for less government. So let me get this right: huge numbers of government workers lost their jobs because a bunch of barely-breathing far-right radical extremist astroturf Islamophoic racist teabaggers simply asked for them to be fired? If it were that easy, you'd expect those jobs could have been saved or created by the grassroots all-powerful heartbeat-of-the-middle-class Coffee Party. That's right. All 12 of them. Sippin' latte's and fighting for the always-victimized liberal trifecta: teachers, firefighters and policemen. I've tried very hard to refrain from calling people names here, but I gotta say, you really are an idiot.
DC Tom Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 but that was heavily off set by the huge number of GOVERNMENT workers losing their jobs to tea party calls for less government. First, I thought the Tea Party was irrelevant. Second, please show me the BLS numbers that show the "huge number of GOVERNMENT workers losing their jobs". Because I'm seeing a decrease of about 100k out of 22m, versus a decrease of 7m out of 110m in private hiring. So once again...stop talking out of your ass, dimwit.
Buftex Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 (edited) First, I thought the Tea Party was irrelevant. Second, please show me the BLS numbers that show the "huge number of GOVERNMENT workers losing their jobs". Because I'm seeing a decrease of about 100k out of 22m, versus a decrease of 7m out of 110m in private hiring. So once again...stop talking out of your ass, dimwit. 500,000 fewer government employees less than there were when Obama took office. I would say that would qualify as a "huge number". Edited July 14, 2011 by Buftex
Magox Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 Yes, and not very good ones, IMO. Any serious discussion on the economy focuses on the housing market, consumer spending and the fact that it has been governments cutting jobs, not businesses, that is really holding back a more serious recovery and none of those things you mentioned seriously address those issues. The private secor has created 1.7 million new jobs just this past year, but that was heavily off set by the huge number of GOVERNMENT workers losing their jobs to tea party calls for less government. And there is no way to connect cap and trade to the housing market, is there? And on top of all that historically we are looking at a long recovery, as most financial crisis take years to recover from. You are acting as if Obama could just do what Conservative Politicains want then things would be great! I'm trying to be reasonable with you. Have I not said that no matter who would be president that we would have a structurally impaired job market/economy? I did not say that these examples were the main reasons for why the job market is what it is. What I said was that Obama's policies are holding back the economy more so than what it should be doing. You asked me what policies, and I answered some for you. If lets say a Mit Romney was in there right now, we probably would be seeing somewhere in between an 8.3-8.8% unemployment rate. It still would be high, but we wouldnt have these pieces of legislation that are impeding job growth and in many instances eliminating jobs. I'm a perfect example, Dodd Frank Bill is gonna cost a few brokers their jobs over here and in the clearing house I deal with many more. I honestly am not sure which direction I'm going, and it 100% has to do with the Dodd Frank Bill. Dave, it's time to open your eyes and admit that Obama up to now has been a failure in regards to handling the economy. 500,000 fewer government employees less than there were when Obama took office. I would say that would qualify as a "huge number". And it still needs to go down further, and not just at the federal but at the state and local level.
GG Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 500,000 fewer government employees less than there were when Obama took office. I would say that would qualify as a "huge number". And how many of those were temporary employees who worked on the 2010 census?
DC Tom Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 And how many of those were temporary employees who worked on the 2010 census? Most of them. That's why I was specific about "What are the BVS stats?" They split those out, AND split out postal workers. With postal workers, there's a small loss. Without...there's actually a small gain (going from memory of looking last night).
Recommended Posts