Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NewsTimes)   Short answer: Yes. Long answer: YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES   ( divider line
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

10426 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 May 2012 at 6:32 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

316 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

2012-05-20 07:46:10 PM  
This is pure comedy. I went to look up these "30 job-creating bills" and found a website that boasts them proudly:

I can't link on this archaic browser, but let me share with you some of what they consider "job creating."

The Regulatory Accountability Act of 2011: Allowing Congress to redefine what's meant by "high-impact," and makes regulators say "Mother May I" to the OIRA before doing their jobs.

Here's a classic. "The Regulatory Flexibility Improvement Act of 2011." More homework for regulators, I'm afraid: now, not only do they have to analyze, predict, and report on the financial impact of regulation on small businesses, but the impact of things like environmental and employment standards - all subject to judicial review, of course.

Then there's the "Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act," which forces the NLRB to redefine under what circumstances a union can be formed. There are some weird time constraints in there, with a huge to-do list.

Hm. There's the Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act, the EPA Regulatory Relief Act, the Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act...You know, I'm not that skilled in pattern development, but that looks suspiciously like a pattern. The interesting thing is how many of these were so painfully obviously written by lobbyists - as lovely and vague as most of those titles are, they all refer to a particular industry - the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act, for instance, is an amendment to a pesticide law. How that creates jobs, I don't know, but I assume that since Mr. Boehner is in Congress and I'm not, he must be smarter than me.

There are a couple of bills designed to force the Secretary of the Interior to start issuing Gulf permits again, a shiat sandwich that comes with a healthy order of Keystone Pipeline. I don't know whether Congress or the oil companies have done ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to prevent another Deepwater Horizon level disaster, but I ain't holding my breath.

That's not even getting into the great big presents being offered to Wall Street. Here's a "Small Company Capital Formation Act" that exempts certain securities from SEC regulation and two bills that establish a minimum for the size of an equity security that has to file for an SEC permit.

It's incredibly disingenuous to call any of this stuff a "jobs bill" and then put it online for everyone to see, like no one was going to look. To be fair, they might get a few thousand jobs out of increased Gulf drilling, the Keystone pipeline, or that copper mine in Arizona that some donor wants to dig, but giving a few regulatory handouts to individual companies or industries isn't going to cause the shift in economic power that will increase the overall number of jobs.

What really worries me is that I think Republicans believe that it will. This whole idea of "We can create all the jobs you want - they'll be crap jobs, but hey, jobs" has been their philosophy for a long time. The idea that jobs created have to be sustainable and provide overall support for a consumer-capitalist economy, and not just be something to keep the plebs busy for eight minimum-wage hours per day, doesn't seem to occur to them. They really don't think much of us.
2012-05-20 07:59:25 PM  
Re: "Republicans have passed nearly 30 bills that would help small businesses create jobs and we are waiting on Senate Democrats to vote on these common-sense measures. The failure to act on these jobs

bills, as well as our crushing debt burden, is undermining economic growth and job creation."

This is what he is referencing:

Here are the objections to the first handful, with citations:

Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act - "Completely remove Clean Water Act protection of our waters from pesticide contamination" (Natural Resources Defense Council)

Energy Tax Prevention Act - "This bill would amend several core components of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Title III of the CAA would be amended to have the term "greenhouse gas" include: water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and any other substance subject to, or proposed to be subject to, regulation, action, or consideration under this Act to address climate change... The act goes on to state that the Administrator of the EPA may take no action involving the consideration of Greenhouse gases as pollutants or contributing factors to climate change." (Wikipedia)

Disapproval of FCC's Net Neutrality Regulations - I think that the Fark nation is well aware of this one.

Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act - "When I first read the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act I almost laughed. It reads like a temper tantrum in writing whose authors just want to get back at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for trying to do its job protecting our water... This bill is a blatant and parochial attack on the federal government's fundamental role in protecting our water and our health." (Clean Water Action)

Consumer Financial Protection & Soundness Improvement Act - "The Administration strongly opposes House passage of the Rules Committee Print of H.R. 1315 because it would amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in a manner that would expose American consumers and the Nation's economy to the same risks that led to the 2008 financial crisis." (The White House)

Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act - "This dangerous bill will not protect jobs. Rather, it will gut 70 year-old worker protections and put American workers and working families at risk. H.R. 2587 would open a huge hole in the National Labor Relations Act - a law that has protected American workers for more than 75 years. In contrast, H.R. 2587 is a reckless bill that will destroy workers' rights. The bill strips from law the only meaningful remedy available to workers when companies violate their rights. It would make it easier for companies to ship jobs overseas and would allow a company to close its doors and set up a new company down the street in order to bust a union. H.R. 2587 is not about creating jobs, it is about undermining workers' rights." (NEA)

Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on The Nation - "The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 2401, which would block two landmark public health regulations under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and require the preparation of costly, unnecessary, and redundant reports. While the Administration strongly supports careful analysis of the economic effects of regulation, the approach taken in H.R. 2401 would slow or undermine important public health protections." (The White House)

Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act - "'If the regulation to remove mercury from cement plants, which is already 13 years overdue, is delayed for even one year, up to 2,500 hundred people will die prematurely,' House Energy & Commerce Committee member Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said Thursday. 'There will 1,700 cases of aggravated asthma, and 1,500 people will suffer heart attacks'." (The Hill)


I was going to go through them all, but that's depressing enough...

All this means is that Republicans are still demonizing governmental agencies who are supposed to protect us from greedy corporations who don't care about the environment or their workers, still doing unmentionable things to the "regulations kill jobs" chicken. That is how the GOP wants to create jobs, by poisoning the environment, stripping away worker rights, eliminating Net Nutrality and giving their banker buddles anything they want.
2012-05-20 09:08:27 PM  

Mentat: [ image 450x369]

go away TROLL.
2012-05-20 09:19:26 PM  

MeinRS6: Farklib

Stop trying to make "fetch" happen.
2012-05-20 09:51:39 PM  

cc_rider: jaylectricity: Curt Schilling went so far as to actively help destroy an economy in Rhode Island.



I especially loved this part: " Schilling has spoken often of his political views and has campaigned for Republican candidates, though he's registered as an independent. In a March interview on Fox News, he criticized big government and said he's never sought a handout but praised the loan guarantee his company got in Rhode Island."

Thanks for quoting me. I like to think that the things I say get read. And also thanks for the link.
2012-05-20 11:37:35 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Ablejack: tenpoundsofcheese: steamingpile:
As for the tax rates, how about just close the loopholes the old time rich use to evade some taxes? .

which tax loopholes?
please be specific.

[ image 640x619]
Why would you ask for this kind of evidence? Are you really unaware that tax loopholes and subsidies for big industry take huge chunks of revenue?

I asked for the loopholes that the "old time rich" use to evade taxes and you give me subsidies for some industries?
Really, is that the best you can do? Please try to keep up.

The graph represents both direct subsidies and huge "tax breaks" too. What, Do you think the gubmint was going to call them loopholes? And I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest big oil counts as "old time rich".
2012-05-20 11:51:28 PM  

MeinRS6: Ablejack: MeinRS6: I disagree with liberalism.

Shame for you to live in a country founded on liberalist philosophy.

Do people still honestly post crap like this on the interweb?
Go google "classical liberalism". You won't like it.

OK, I looked it up. The first (wiki) page even has a paragraph on the relationship of "Classical liberalism" to modern liberalism! Here it is:
Relationship to modern liberalism
Many modern scholars of liberalism argue that no particularly meaningful distinction between classical and modern liberalism exists. Alan Wolfe summarises this viewpoint, which
reject(s) any such distinction and argue(s) instead for the existence of a continuous liberal understanding that includes both Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes... The idea that liberalism comes in two forms assumes that the most fundamental question facing mankind is how much government intervenes into the economy... When instead we discuss human purpose and the meaning of life, Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes are on the same side. Both of them possessed an expansive sense of what we are put on this earth to accomplish. Both were on the side of enlightenment. Both were optimists who believed in progress but were dubious about grand schemes that claimed to know all the answers. For Smith, mercantilism was the enemy of human liberty. For Keynes, monopolies were. It makes perfect sense for an eighteenth-century thinker to conclude that humanity would flourish under the market. For a twentieth century thinker committed to the same ideal, government was an essential tool to the same end... [M]odern liberalism is instead the logical and sociological outcome of classical liberalism.

Now what?
2012-05-20 11:53:42 PM  

sunlion: Since Obama took office, a lot of bad luck has befallen America's enemies...

Osama Bin Laden: DEAD.
Mutassim Gaddafi: DEAD.
Muammar Gaddafi: RAPED TO DEATH.
Kim Jong-il: DEAD.
Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan: DEAD.
Darioush Rezaeinejad: DEAD.
Majid Shahriari: DEAD.
Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani: DEAD.
Massoud Ali Mohammadi: DEAD.
Baitullah Mahsud: DEAD.
Anwar al-Awlaki: DEAD.
Harun Fazul: DEAD.
Ilyas Kashmiri: DEAD.
Ammar al-Wa'ili: DEAD.
Abu Ali al-Harithi: DEAD.
Ali Saleh Farhan: DEAD.
Atiyah 'Abd al-Rahman: DEAD.
Hamza al-Jawfi: DEAD.
Sheik Saeed al-Masri: DEAD.
Dulmatin: DEAD.
Abu Ayyub al-Masri: DEAD.
Abu Omar al-Baghdadi: DEAD.
Muhammad Haqqani: DEAD.
Qari Zafar: DEAD.
Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan: DEAD.
John Boehner: still actively harming Americans
2012-05-21 12:00:39 AM  

skilbride: Ablejack: skilbride: I don't like Obama because he ran on on a platform of change but for the large part he's been mostly the same. stymied by the GOP in their effort to tank the economy and shift the blame onto him.

Yea, that's what TFA is about.
Regardless Obama has a long list of accomplishments in office. Remember; He's the guy who multitasks.
It's so easy to be Democratic, We claim that the POTUS is at once handcuffed by the GOP and can get anything done too! All with no awareness of any contradiction. This is only possible because we accept Obama as our Savior.

His first two years he had a democrat congress backing him. You can not tell me that his first two years in office weren't pretty much a dismal failure considering how much support he had going in.
But now the republicans are in control, so it can become a talking point that the republicans always blocked him. My memory doesn't exist in two year spans, and that's why I don't blame this solely on the republicans.
For instance one of the things I wanted as a woman was, "Reduce the threshhold for the Family and Medical Leave Act from companies with 50 employees to companies with 25 employees"
Are you really telling me he couldn't have squeeked that one through in the first two years?

I'm sorry the AHCA was decimated by the GOP too. I also would have like to see more liberalism. But it was not a dismal failure either. Obama spent the first two years trying desperately to work with Republicans rather than push them around with both houses. Much to the dismay of many Democrats that claimed he was being a wimp by supporting bipartisan politics. But he is a pragmatist not a liberal and we knew that going in. It's an amazing testament to his hard work and perseverance that he has accomplished so much in this partisan climate.
2012-05-21 12:11:10 AM  

Ablejack: [M]odern liberalism is instead the logical and sociological outcome of classical liberalism.
Now what?

Now we all point at you and laugh hysterically for believing that tripe.
2012-05-21 12:37:48 AM  

namatad: The most terrifying part of the GOP agenda is the War on Iran.

Actually not, since they blocked a vote on sanctions.
2012-05-21 09:29:49 AM  

quatchi: The left's inability to counter this narrative effectively can get pretty gosh darned annoying at times.

True, but I ask you this; what media outlet can you name that was willing to run an honest story about this vote and have Democrats on to contradict the Republican line? One of the reasons the left has such a hard time countering Republican propaganda is because the US political media rarely gives them any space to do so, and even when they do more often than not it is treated as a "he said she said" situation, not a "those guys are blatant liars trying to manipulate public opinion" story.
2012-05-21 12:03:26 PM  

MeinRS6: Ablejack: [M]odern liberalism is instead the logical and sociological outcome of classical liberalism.
Now what?

Now we all point at you and laugh hysterically for believing that tripe.

He's done a better job of defending his position than you have. Maybe you should try.
2012-05-21 01:52:45 PM  
When businessfolk aim to harm the bureaucrat, they incur collateral damage that outweighs any harm. This can be evidenced through their timed cutbacks (see the last three-four months of the GW Bush presidency) and general refusal to hire on good faith; all that has done is made more people worse off.

The most likely purpose for any sabotage is to have a one-two punch on the economy. The initial stage, which began in the last months of the GW Bush presidency, was to punish people likely not in favor of voting with the businesses - by removing them from the workforce. The next stage, at the end of the massive layoffs, was for businesses to simply not hire or spend - so that they could hopefully get the political stars to align in their favor. The current stage, which began in 2010, is where businesses continue to bleat "Uncertainty!", "Competitiveness!", and "Skills mismatch!" and hiring in bad faith - such as going through staffing agencies - to deal with the stresses of not getting their wants/needs perfectly fulfilled.
2012-05-21 02:02:21 PM  

LeoffDaGrate: So instead of having a reasonable discussion, you make yourself look even more an idiot by not answering the question and being sarcastic.

PROTIP: There is a very common type of poster on the internet who isn't actually interested in discussion, but only in prolonging the argument by replying to facts and logic with snark and sarcasm. This kind of poster is so common here on Fark that there is even a special button you can use when you see one:
2012-05-21 02:30:02 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: 0bama


It's funny because you're implying Obama is a ZERO!!!1!


You're a pip
Displayed 16 of 316 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.