BGFalcons82;877546 wrote:That would be awesome, because Biden could be declared incompetent within hours because...well...ummm...he is. Then Boehner would be POTUS.

Might not be awesome .... would mean the anti-business / anti-capitalism regime would be gone, and then about ten million people would have to go back to work.

QuakerOats;877499 wrote:obamaKare also at an all-time low. Can this guy just resign now ?!?!

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/poll-obamacare-support-all-time-low

The troubling part about that poll is most people don't know why they don't like it. Like this part:

A plurality of Americans, 47%, believe the law "won't make much difference" in their own lives while 31% believe it will help and 14% say it will hurt

Those 47% ought to take a trip to Canada or check out Britain's NHS and then tell us if they believe Obamacare "won't make much difference".

jhay78;877656 wrote:The troubling part about that poll is most people don't know why they don't like it. Like this part:



Those 47% ought to take a trip to Canada or check out Britain's NHS and then tell us if they believe Obamacare "won't make much difference".

^That might make sense if the PPAC wasn't completely and utterly different than both the NHS and Canada's healthcare systems. And you're lamenting the people who responded to that poll for not knowing why they don't like it???

Writerbuckeye;877358 wrote:I believe he's the most anti-business president we've had...in my lifetime, anyway. Perhaps in two lifetimes.

The true damage he's inflicted hasn't been legislative -- although ObamaKare is certainly doing its part. I think the true damage is being done at the agency level, where his appointees, who reflect his radical anti-business beliefs, are busy putting together regulation changes that are making economic recovery much more difficult.

Judging how radical he is by his own actions isn't the best way to figure the man out. The people he has appointed to key government posts is probably a better reflection of his ideology. And we all know some of the out and out loons he has put in place during his first three years.

For heaven's sake man...Richard Nixon instituted Price and Wage Controls! Accelerated depreciation for capital expenditures alone refutes your position. Take the blinders off man seriously! I never thought people could be more biased against a president after the hippies during the Bush years but alas...

Nixon was an idiot who tinkered with the business environment during a time when the economy was going blue blazes and was much more resilient, compared to what's happening today. His short-lived experiment didn't end up causing any long-term problems whereas the infrastructure Obama is creating in the agencies, and Obama Care, may take years to undo, if we're lucky.

For those of us in the real world, trying to survive in business, dodge mountains of costly regulations, determine the future cost of massive new anti-business regulations involving EPA, NLRB, obamaKare, banking, and predict the costs of pending and ruinous tax increases, it is not a question of whether this regime is just radically liberal, it is becoming more about whether they are just socialists, or instead marxists or worse.

The reality we have to deal with is not unique to our business; it is nationwide and I hear about it every day. No one is going to invest one dime more than they have to right now because they have no idea what their future costs are going to be, whether it is the cost of an employee, the cost of forced unionization, the cost of massive new regulations, the cost of bank 'reform', the cost of EPA insanity, or the cost 2013's massive tax increases. The economy is not moving and tens of millions are still out of work precisely because of these factors and the arrogant AND RADICAL tones emanating from Pennsylvania Avenue.

For anyone to even attempt to refute these facts is astounding.

Writerbuckeye;877693 wrote:Nixon was an idiot who tinkered with the business environment during a time when the economy was going blue blazes and was much more resilient, compared to what's happening today. His short-lived experiment didn't end up causing any long-term problems whereas the infrastructure Obama is creating in the agencies, and Obama Care, may take years to undo, if we're lucky.

'

What are you talking about? Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency for heaven's sake! Hell Ronald Reagan raised taxes on corporations in a recession. You would have a hernia if BHO even mentioned such blasphemy.

The Federal Register has only grown by 5% since BHO took office whereas under President Bush II, the number of pages of regulation grew at 21 percent increase from Bush’s first year. Furthermore, Republicans have historically been more hell-bent on regulatory increases than democrats.





And who are these anti-capitalistic appointees? Ray Lahood? Larry Summers? Sheila "the last stop for capital starved banks" blair? Jeffrey Immelt? Jon Huntsman? Peter Orzag? Laughable.

The best you got is Lisa Jackson when it was the SCOTUS who told the EPA they could regulate CO2??



But I don't suppose it matters...:rolleyes:

QuakerOats;877707 wrote:For those of us in the real world, trying to survive in business, dodge mountains of costly regulations, determine the future cost of massive new anti-business regulations involving EPA, NLRB, obamaKare, banking, and predict the costs of pending and ruinous tax increases, it is not a question of whether this regime is just radically liberal, it is becoming more about whether they are just socialists, or instead marxists or worse.

The reality we have to deal with is not unique to our business; it is nationwide and I hear about it every day. No one is going to invest one dime more than they have to right now because they have no idea what their future costs are going to be, whether it is the cost of an employee, the cost of forced unionization, the cost of massive new regulations, the cost of bank 'reform', the cost of EPA insanity, or the cost 2013's massive tax increases. The economy is not moving and tens of millions are still out of work precisely because of these factors and the arrogant AND RADICAL tones emanating from Pennsylvania Avenue.

For anyone to even attempt to refute these facts is astounding.

Why even bother?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/30/obama-proposed-regulations-would-cost-1-billion/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS


http://www.usnews.com/opinion/mzuckerman/articles/2010/07/16/obamas-anti-business-policies-are-our-economic-katrina?PageNr=1

http://usactionnews.com/2011/07/another-democrat-rails-against-the-anti-business-president/

http://biggovernment.com/wthuston/2010/11/08/obamas-nlrb-appointee-says-unions-need-to-be-voted-in-quicker/

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-11-22/obama-seeks-approach-to-counter-anti-business-image.html

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/01/immelt-daley-and-obamas-antipathy-free-markets

BoatShoes;877669 wrote:^That might make sense if the PPAC wasn't completely and utterly different than both the NHS and Canada's healthcare systems. And you're lamenting the people who responded to that poll for not knowing why they don't like it???

Of course it's completely and utterly different. The first domino rarely resembles the logical, final outcome. Everyone with half a brain knows that PPAC will pave the way for a single-payer system much like the NHS. Of course no one (outside of the leftist whackjobs in Congress and the White House) would go for single-payer all in one fell swoop, so a slow strangulation of private insurance encoded in 2500+ pages of reckless legislation is the next best thing.

But hey, Newt Gingrich and the Heritage Foundation once espoused similar plans, so I guess we should just take our medicine and get in line.

BoatShoes;877759 wrote:Why even bother?

You're right; when we are facing the bull$hit such as that below there is no defense of the radicals in this administration. They are killing jobs, killing businesses, and killing the American spirit. They can go straight to hell.

[h=3]Business Groups Say NLRB Decisions Jeopardize Job Creation.[/h]The Wall Street Journal (8/31, Trottman, Subscription Publication) reports the National Labor Relations Board sided with unions in three cases.
The New York Times (8/31, Greenhouse, Subscription Publication) reports, "In the nursing home decision, the board ruled that the union, the United Steelworkers, could organize just the 53 certified nursing assistants at a nursing home in Mobile, Ala., as part of one bargaining unit, without including the home's 33 other nonprofessional workers, including janitors, cooks and file clerks." One of the two other NLRB "decisions reversed a board ruling from 2007, when the Bush administration was in power. That ruling allowed workers opposed to a union to seek a decertification vote immediately after an employer granted recognition to a union after showing that a majority of employees had signed cards supporting a union. (Typically 30 percent of employees need to petition to hold such a vote)." The Times reports, "The majority wrote that henceforth workers must wait 'a reasonable period' - likely six months to a year - after a union gains recognition to hold a decertification vote."
The Daily Caller (8/31, Boyle) reports, "On Tuesday the NLRB also decided that unionized workers should be forced to wait a 'reasonable amount of time' before booting a union after a change of ownership at their shop. The UGL-UNNICO Service Company ruling means employees will have to wait an extended period of time before removing an unwanted union if their company's ownership changes."
Bloomberg News (8/31, Rosenkrantz, Armour) reports, "The NLRB actions 'have the high likelihood to be severely disruptive to the workplace, will hinder job creation and put jobs at risk,'" Joe Trauger, vice president of human resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers, said in an e-mail. "US employers' ability to challenge union organizing efforts will be stifled while employees lose their right to choose joining a union, Representative John Kline, a Minnesota Republican and chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, said in an e-mailed statement."
In a press release, the National Association of Manufacturers President and CEO Jay Timmons issued a statement on the three case decisions. "The NLRB's actions today not only put jobs at risk but have a real potential to severely disrupt the workplace. This government agency's decisions demonstrate the agency's goal of implementing Employee Free Choice Act-like proposals that Congress has not authorized. These case decisions take away employers' flexibility and only create uncertainty in the workplace." Timmons said, "The NLRB has been pursuing an aggressive agenda that will harm our economic growth at a time when manufacturers should be leading the economic recovery. From its proposed 'ambush elections' rule to its Boeing complaint, the agency is trying to dictate the way businesses operate, where they operate and how they interact with their employees." Timmons concluded, "These decisions represent a sea change in employee-employer relations, and manufacturers are prepared to pursue all avenues to restore the balance between employees and employers in the workplace."
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (8/31) adds, "The rulings were issued three days after President Obama's labor-board chairwoman ended her tenure, and are opposed by" NAM.
The National Review (8/30, Kirsanow) "The Corner" blog also covered the story.

Whoops .... another stimulus failure / another failed policy.
Change we can believe in .......

[h=3]Solar Firm Goes Bankrupt After Taking $535 Million In Stimulus Funds.[/h]The CBS Evening News (8/31, story 4, 0:30, Pelley) reported, "The President says one place to find new jobs is the alternative energy industry. ... But today, we learned that the company Solyndra, is filing for bankruptcy, and laying off 1100 workers."
Reports tend to cast the company's bankruptcy as a blow to the Administration, which gave the company $535 million in Department of Energy loan guarantees. For example, the San Francisco Chronicle (9/1, Baker, Said) characterizes the move as "a blow to the Obama administration's efforts to create green jobs." According to the Chronicle, it "also represents a high-profile failure for a federal stimulus program that gives loan guarantees to green-tech manufacturers."
The San Jose Mercury News (9/1, Taugher, Delevett) says that the company's failure "may signal a shaky future for a green jobs sector targeted for government stimulus spending."
On the front page of its Business Day section, the New York Times (9/1, B1, Wald, Subscription Publication) says that "the failure of the company - and the loss to taxpayers - is likely to renew the debate in Washington about the wisdom of clean energy subsidies and loan guarantees." In a statement Wednesday, "Solyndra said its business had run into trouble because of difficult global business conditions, including slowing demand for solar panels, and stiff competition." Meanwhile, the DOE "said China's subsidies to its solar industry were threatening the ability of Solyndra and other American manufacturers to compete."
According to the Washington Post (9/1, Stephens, Leonnig), "Although Wednesday's announcement came as a surprise, House Republicans and government auditors had questioned the wisdom of the administration's loan guarantees to the company, backed by capital from billionaire Democratic fundraiser George Kaiser. In July, a House subcommittee subpoenaed White House documents related to the guarantee, and after Wednesday's developments, Republican lawmakers vowed to continue investigating." Meanwhile, in a statement, DOE spokesman Dan Leistikow said, "We have always recognized that not every one of the innovative companies supported by our loans and loan guarantees would succeed," adding, "But we can't stop investing in game-changing technologies that are key to America's leadership in the global economy."
While many reports say that Solyndra received $535 million in loan guarantees from the DOE, Bloomberg News (9/1, Goossens) says that DOE press secretary Damien LaVera said in an email Tuesday that "the company has borrowed $527 million of the $535 million." According to Bloomberg, "Solyndra plans to include the Energy Department loan guarantee in its bankruptcy filing."

QuakerOats;879121 wrote:Whoops .... another stimulus failure / another failed policy.
Change we can believe in .......

Solar Firm Goes Bankrupt After Taking $535 Million In Stimulus Funds.

The CBS Evening News (8/31, story 4, 0:30, Pelley) reported, "The President says one place to find new jobs is the alternative energy industry. ... But today, we learned that the company Solyndra, is filing for bankruptcy, and laying off 1100 workers."
Reports tend to cast the company's bankruptcy as a blow to the Administration, which gave the company $535 million in Department of Energy loan guarantees. For example, the San Francisco Chronicle (9/1, Baker, Said) characterizes the move as "a blow to the Obama administration's efforts to create green jobs." According to the Chronicle, it "also represents a high-profile failure for a federal stimulus program that gives loan guarantees to green-tech manufacturers."

What are you so mad about, Oats? It's ONLY a half-billion dollars. Pennies. Pittance. Rounding errors. Trial and error. No big deal. :rolleyes:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/44370439

Zero jobs for August.

The marxist assault on American capitalism continues.

Change we can believe in .........

QuakerOats;880095 wrote:http://www.cnbc.com/id/44370439

Zero jobs for August.

The marxist assault on American capitalism continues.

Change we can believe in .........

you know, this sounds something you tell a child...but if you want to get your point across, you should do it without calling people names (especially when the names (marxist) don't even closely resemble the truth)

^^^

I'll get my point across in an adult manner.

Barack Obama is an incompetent President. He didn't take advantage of the educational and professional opportunities that were handed to him and he's a poor leader. Even if one agrees with his political views, his leadership incompetence frustrates his ability to be an effective POTUS.

derek bomar;880116 wrote:you know, this sounds something you tell a child...but if you want to get your point across, you should do it without calling people names (especially when the names (marxist) don't even closely resemble the truth)

I humbly refer you to post # 1710 above for just a brief example of Marxist leanings of this regime. And by the way, it is not "name calling", it is a fair use of descriptors which aptly apply in order to accurately describe and define a person/place/thing. Good luck.

So, so true...

QuakerOats;877707 wrote:For those of us in the real world, trying to survive in business, dodge mountains of costly regulations, determine the future cost of massive new anti-business regulations involving EPA, NLRB, obamaKare, banking, and predict the costs of pending and ruinous tax increases, it is not a question of whether this regime is just radically liberal, it is becoming more about whether they are just socialists, or instead marxists or worse.

The reality we have to deal with is not unique to our business; it is nationwide and I hear about it every day. No one is going to invest one dime more than they have to right now because they have no idea what their future costs are going to be, whether it is the cost of an employee, the cost of forced unionization, the cost of massive new regulations, the cost of bank 'reform', the cost of EPA insanity, or the cost 2013's massive tax increases. The economy is not moving and tens of millions are still out of work precisely because of these factors and the arrogant AND RADICAL tones emanating from Pennsylvania Avenue.

For anyone to even attempt to refute these facts is astounding.

The stagnation of business has nothing to do with new regulations....and you know it. In fact, Corporate America....or should I say...Corporate International....founded in the.... US is doing quite well.

Oats....I am point blanking you a few questions,,,,and I ask you to answer them. One by one.

1. Would John McCain not have implemented Keynesian policies had he been elected? Every president since JFK did. If you think not....you better have a good explanation as to why not.

2. What specific "pro business" policies would you implement if you were president today? I want specifics...down to a tee. After all, isn't it the mantra of the right for the government to do nothing?

3. You complain about Obama's spending. Does it bother you that since 1980, your beloved party has increased the national debt more..... at a 3 to 2 ratio over Democratic admins...since 1980?

Go.

Writerbuckeye;880132 wrote:So, so true...

He clearly doesn't have enough steaks to feed all of those sharks. Gonna need a bigger boat.

QuakerOats;880120 wrote:I humbly refer you to post # 1710 above for just a brief example of Marxist leanings of this regime. And by the way, it is not "name calling", it is a fair use of descriptors which aptly apply in order to accurately describe and define a person/place/thing. Good luck.

so if I thought you were an asshole, would it be effective for me to call you one? Or would it be more effective to point out what you were doing that made me think you were an asshole instead of actually calling you an asshole?

I was watching a youtube video of an interview with Peter Schiff, and he had a great analogy for the insanity of our Keynesian system over the last 90 years.

Say there is an island with 8 people, 1 American and 7 Asians. Everyone has a job. One guy gathers wood. One guy fishes. And so on. The American's job is to eat. The Asians work the whole day to prepare a feast for the American, who leaves them just enough to eat and do it all again tomorrow.

We would say that the American is a vital part of their economy. He creates demand for their food and labor. Pay no attention to how much better off they would be if the American was thrown off the island.

Cleveland Buck;880335 wrote:I was watching a youtube video of an interview with Peter Schiff, and he had a great analogy for the insanity of our Keynesian system over the last 90 years.

Say there is an island with 8 people, 1 American and 7 Asians. Everyone has a job. One guy gathers wood. One guy fishes. And so on. The American's job is to eat. The Asians work the whole day to prepare a feast for the American, who leaves them just enough to eat and do it all again tomorrow.

We would say that the American is a vital part of their economy. He creates demand for their food and labor. Pay no attention to how much better off they would be if the American was thrown off the island.

And if Americans aren't careful, that's precisely what will happen to us. Decades of entitlement spending, gubmint over-regulation, unionism, corporate incompetence, sub-par liberalized public education in our public schools & colleges, and a host of other issues have combined to put us precariously on the edge of the Keynesian boat.

Asia and Pan-Arabia are holding our economic gonads. It's just a matter of time before they toss our balls to the sharks.

Footwedge;880212 wrote: 3. You complain about Obama's spending. Does it bother you that since 1980, your beloved party has increased the national debt more..... at a 3 to 2 ratio over Democratic admins...since 1980?

Go.

Man I hate when idiots (on both sides of the aisle) attribute debt and spending to the President. Budgets are passed by CONGRESS, the President can only suggest and then approve/veto a budget he CAN NOT PASS A BUDGET.

With that said, this graph says it all.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Federal_Debt_1901-2010_.jpg

If the Ds control both the house and the senate the debt as a % of GDP goes up, if the Rs control both houses the debt as a % of GDP goes down. It really shoots up with the Ds control the Presidency too...imagine that.

Please try to refute this and I will advise you retake a civics/government course and see who passes laws and budgets and who is the executive branch leader.