THE POLITICAL ARENA!!! Political Gladiators Inside!!

[Hawk]

State of the Union Address

Trade Enforcement Unit
• Obama announced the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit that will be charged with investigating unfair trade practices in countries like China. "There will be more inspections to prevent counterfeit or unsafe goods from crossing our borders," he said. "And this Congress should make sure that no foreign company has an advantage over American manufacturing when it comes to accessing financing or new markets like Russia."

Is he suggesting that with the gigantic size of the federal government, we don't already have people who do this?

I smell a new kingdom for yet another appointed, but unapproved czar.

So you're against protecting US companies from unsafe and counterfeit products from China ? Do you realize that if we decrease the counterfeiting we will need to increase production in the US ?

[lonewolf]

State of the Union Address

Education
• Obama demanded every state require that all students stay in high school until they either graduate or turn 18.
• The president called for an extension of the tuition tax credit that is meant to save middle-class families tuition dollars. The president also called for a doubling of the number of work-study jobs in the next five years.
• To colleges and universities, Obama pledged, "If you can't stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down."

Typical state bullying by the federal government.

I would like to see ALL misplaced federal funding stop. All it does is cause the tuition problem in the first place.

I don't understand your point. Are you saying tuition goes up because the government subsidises college education ?

What happen to the conservative mantra, "...Teach a man to fish..."?

Yes, anytime easy money goes somewhere, it results in higher prices.

Its not the federal government's job to teach a man to fish. The word education (or anything vaguely close) does not appear in the constitution.

[lonewolf]

State of the Union Address

Trade Enforcement Unit
• Obama announced the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit that will be charged with investigating unfair trade practices in countries like China. "There will be more inspections to prevent counterfeit or unsafe goods from crossing our borders," he said. "And this Congress should make sure that no foreign company has an advantage over American manufacturing when it comes to accessing financing or new markets like Russia."

Is he suggesting that with the gigantic size of the federal government, we don't already have people who do this?

I smell a new kingdom for yet another appointed, but unapproved czar.

So you're against protecting US companies from unsafe and counterfeit products from China ? Do you realize that if we decrease the counterfeiting we will need to increase production in the US ?

READING COMPREHENSION FAIL!

We already have people doing this. Since they have failed miserably, what makes you think that more money thrown at the problem will fix it?

[Hawk]

The biggest proponent of red tape in history is going to cut red tape with the stroke of a pen?

Good luck with that, lol.

The other part is acceptable, although I'd like to see it all go to debt.

Hardly a proponent of red tape. A proponent of less polution, yes. If you think there are too many regulations concerning polution, go drink rain water and tell me how safe it is.

Funny, i didn't see the word pollution anywhere in my post. As a matter of fact, the topic never entered my mind while I was posting it. Where do you get this pollution stuff?

What red tape do you speak of (as you claim he is a proponent of red tape) if it's not regulations relative to polution ?

[lonewolf]

Hardly a proponent of red tape. A proponent of less polution, yes. If you think there are too many regulations concerning polution, go drink rain water and tell me how safe it is.

Funny, i didn't see the word pollution anywhere in my post. As a matter of fact, the topic never entered my mind while I was posting it. Where do you get this pollution stuff?

What red tape do you speak of (as you claim he is a proponent of red tape) if it's not regulations relative to polution ?

All the regulations aimed at at a few of the largest corporations, but missed the target and are killing the small businesses who supply the vast majority of jobs.

[Hawk]

Is he suggesting that with the gigantic size of the federal government, we don't already have people who do this?

I smell a new kingdom for yet another appointed, but unapproved czar.

So you're against protecting US companies from unsafe and counterfeit products from China ? Do you realize that if we decrease the counterfeiting we will need to increase production in the US ?

READING COMPREHENSION FAIL!

We already have people doing this.

COMMON SENSE FAILURE !

I've seen documentaries with one man looking over hundreds of containers from on ship and picking one or two containers to inspect, and not even be able to do a total inspection of a single container.

FACT is we don't have enough inspectors.

[lonewolf]

So you're against protecting US companies from unsafe and counterfeit products from China ? Do you realize that if we decrease the counterfeiting we will need to increase production in the US ?

READING COMPREHENSION FAIL!

We already have people doing this.

COMMON SENSE FAILURE !

I've seen documentaries with one man looking over hundreds of containers from on ship and picking one or two containers to inspect, and not even be able to do a total inspection of a single container.

FACT is we don't have enough inspectors.

We should have enough inspectors to inspect a sample of about 1% of imported goods...certainly no more than that. Perhaps even less.

Any more than that is a true common sense failure.

[Hawk]

READING COMPREHENSION FAIL!

We already have people doing this.

COMMON SENSE FAILURE !

I've seen documentaries with one man looking over hundreds of containers from on ship and picking one or two containers to inspect, and not even be able to do a total inspection of a single container.

FACT is we don't have enough inspectors.

We should have enough inspectors to inspect a sample of about 1% of imported goods...certainly no more than that. Perhaps even less.

Any more than that is a true common sense failure.

You're kidding right ?

A large container ship can carry in more than 3,000 containers. More than 6 million cargo containers enter the US yearly.

So you think checking / inspecting 1% of 6 million is enough ? Really ? If I was in China I would laugh at that ? But I'm in the US so that's makes me cringe.

[Hawk]

Funny, i didn't see the word pollution anywhere in my post. As a matter of fact, the topic never entered my mind while I was posting it. Where do you get this pollution stuff?

What red tape do you speak of (as you claim he is a proponent of red tape) if it's not regulations relative to polution ?

All the regulations aimed at at a few of the largest corporations, but missed the target and are killing the small businesses who supply the vast majority of jobs.

But if you call him a proponent, would you tell me what red tape he has increased ?

[Hawk]

Romney Admitted Stat About Obama Regulations Was A Lie, Keeps Using It Anyway
By Pat Garofalo on Dec 12, 2011 at 5:45 pm

One of the favorite conservative myths of the moment involves the supposed “job-killing” effects of regulations coming out of the Obama administration. Today, it was evidently 2012 GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney’s turn to take this tall tale out for a spin. During an event in New Hampshire, Romney claimed that the rate of new regulations under Obama has “increased four-fold,” resulting in businesses being buried under a pile of red tape:

The level of regulation in America, every the regulators, the government, come up with new regulations. And they send them out. The rate of regulatory burden has increased four-fold since Obama has become president. Four times the amount of regulation coming out per year as in the past. And so businesses say, ‘gosh, I’m not sure I want to invest in America.’

Watch it:


This statistic has absolutely no basis in reality. In fact, it isn’t true according to the Romney campaign. When Romney made the same claim during an interview with NPR in September, NPR asked the Romney campaign for verification, at which point the campaign was forced to admit that “the Governor misspoke.”

Instead, the Romney camp told NPR that new regulations under Obama are twice what they were under President George W. Bush. Trouble is, that’s not true either, as Bloomberg News pointed out:

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.

Later on during the event, Romney claimed that, according to an official government report, regulations costs the U.S. economy $1.7 trillion annually. That number, according to economists, also isn’t true. In fact, John Irons of the Economic Policy Institute found that the study Romney cited “contains basic conceptual mistakes and relies on extraordinarily poor data.” “Its results should neither be used as a valid measure of the economic costs of regulation nor as a guide for policy,” he said.

For Romney, using these outright falsehoods helps him paint the Obama administration as some sort of regulatory behemoth, smooshing small businesses beneath its heels. However, when actual small businesses are asked whether regulations are killing jobs, the answer is always a resounding no.

[Hawk]

President Obama Signs Into Law Initiative Stabenow Championed to Cut Red Tape for Small Businesses
Repeal of “1099” Provision Will Save Businesses from 2000% Increase in Paperwork and Enable Employers to Create More Jobs
Thursday, Apr 14
Print this PageShare on FacebookShare on TwitterShareThisWASHINGTON- President Barack Obama today signed into law legislation that cuts red tape for small businesses. U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow first passed the measure earlier this year. The initiative repeals a burdensome new regulation that would require small business owners to file an IRS 1099 form for each vendor from whom they make purchases of $600 or more. If the new regulation not been repealed, 1099 filings for 40 million American businesses-the lion's share of them small businesses- would have increased an estimated 2000 percent.

"Repealing this burdensome requirement is a common-sense solution for Michigan business owners who need to be focused on creating jobs rather than filling out paperwork for the IRS," Sen. Stabenow said. "For over a year, I have worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to cut this red tape for businesses. I am pleased to see President Obama sign this legislation into law so that these businesses can focus on creating jobs instead of paperwork."

[Hawk]

So Rob, what were you saying about inaction ?
So Jeff, what were you saying about Obama being a proponent of red tape ?

Obama Issues Executive Order to Cut Red Tape
By JOHN MCARDLE AND GABRIEL NELSON of Greenwire
Published: January 18, 2011

In his most forceful reply yet to industry groups and Republicans who have accused the administration of slowing the economic recovery by tying up businesses in red tape, President Obama has ordered a top-to-bottom review of federal regulations to get rid of rules that are outdated and harmful to the economy, the White House announced this morning.

Obama signed an executive order today that would step up oversight of the regulations issued by government agencies such as U.S. EPA and the Interior Department.

Seen as the president's latest effort to mend ties with businesses, it was first outlined by the president in an op-ed this morning in The Wall Street Journal.

Writing for an editorial page that has repeatedly slammed the administration's approach to regulation, Obama acknowledged that there are plenty of "absurd and unnecessary paperwork requirements that waste time and money." He cited EPA's recent decision to loosen rules for saccharin -- an artificial sweetener that is considered safe by the Food and Drug Administration and is widely used in chewing gum and diet soft drinks.

"If it goes in your coffee, it is not hazardous waste," Obama wrote.

"We won't shy away from addressing obvious gaps," he added, "but we are also making it our mission to root out regulations that conflict, that are not worth the cost, or that are just plain dumb."

Along with requiring agencies to take stock of existing regulations, the executive order would lay out principles for future rulemakings. All agencies would need to consider ways to reduce burdens for U.S. businesses when they develop rules, allow more public participation and better follow the scientific integrity guidelines that were released last month after a lengthy delay.

"The administration believes firmly that regulations can both be more effective and consistent with American competitiveness," a senior White House official said this morning. "It's not a question of choosing between meeting our responsibilities to protect the public health and the environment or growing the economy and creating jobs. It's really a question of how to get the balance so we can accomplish both goals most effectively."

The initiative could signal a desire at the White House to defuse some of the efforts on Capitol Hill to rein in regulations. Republicans and a few moderate Democrats have put forward a slew of bills that would put new checks on agency rulemaking (E&ENews PM, Jan. 10).

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), who recently called for a "pay as you go" approach to outdated government regulations, offered support today for the president's strategy. Any company that does not review its operations or improve its procedures will inevitably go out of business, and the government should be held to the same sort of standard, he said in a statement.

"Efforts to apply more common sense to our regulatory approach can go a long way toward addressing the uncertainty that has kept the U.S. business community from participating more fully in our nation's economic recovery," Warner said.

Obama has recently reached out to businesses, meeting with corporate CEOs last month to ask how the government could help them create jobs and rebuild the economy. Industry groups were pleased by today's announcement.

"Manufacturers have been saying for some time that overregulation is harming job creation and stifling economic growth," said Aric Newhouse, senior vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers, in a statement today. "This is an opportunity for the president to demonstrate results by eliminating unnecessary regulations already in the pipeline or delaying poorly thought-out proposals that are costing jobs."

Seen as an effort to mend ties with businesses, the new executive order did not sit well with many on the left, including some environmental and public health groups. They described the initiative as a rightward shift as President Obama gears up for his own re-election campaign.

Rena Steinzor, the president of the Center for Progressive Reform, said the executive order reflects an incorrect analysis and diagnosis by the White House. Current environmental problems such as the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, as well as economic problems such as the collapse of the housing market, could have been avoided by better rules, she said.

She also criticized the White House for putting new burdens on agencies at a time when they are already dealing with serious budget cuts.

"It was deregulation that caused the economy to crash and everyone to lose their jobs -- not regulation," said Steinzor, an environmental law professor at the University of Maryland.

Scott Slesinger, legislative director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, agreed that a "balanced" approach is necessary -- as long as it does not put "short-term corporate profits above the public health."

With environmentalists preparing to battle Republicans in Congress over EPA regulations, he noted, Obama's op-ed cited the Clean Air Act as a prime example of a law that is worth the cost to society.

That type of calculus was praised by cost-benefit analysis supporters such as Richard Revesz, dean of New York University's law school.

"The environment and the economy are not at odds," Revesz said today. "On the contrary, the success of each one is linked to the well-being of the other. By making this case, the president pointed to a better way of safeguarding both."

[Hawk]

I'm really sorry that I can't limit details to neoliberals in understandable four word sound bites. Why would they need it in four words ? LOL, that's a rhetorical question...

[Hawk]

Big Government? Obama Has 273,000 Fewer Federal Employees Than Reagan
August 24, 2011By Ray Medeiros

Every single Republican today talks about being a Reagan conservative. This is a conservative that believes in small government, reducing federal spending and ultimately runs a lean and mean government. They talk about this stuff in campaigns, but in practice they failed miserably.

In fact HISTORICALLY, it is has been Democratic presidents who have reduced the size of the federal government. The Republicans have lied to the people so much that I believe the current crop somehow BELIEVES the history as they have been told, rather than researching the facts for themselves. This may be a stretch, but I am trying to give them the benefit of the doubt.

According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which tracks the number of employees per year, the data shows that the “conservatives” for small government are really just big government conservatives. I know that is an oxymoron, but numbers don’t lie.

Let’s start with President Carter.

On December 31st 1976 (Not Carter’s term yet), total nonmilitary personnel was 2,883,000. By December 31st 1980 the end of his term (minus a month), the total in nonmilitary personnel was 2,875,000.

Federal government nonmilitary employees shrunk by 8,000 employees under Carter.

On January 21st, 1981, President Reagan started with 2,875,000 nonmilitary federal employees.

By the end of Reagan’s terms the total number of nonmilitary federal employees was 3,113,000. That is an INCREASE of 238,000

Let’s move on to President George H.W. Bush.

On January 20th, 1989, total federal nonmilitary employment was 3,113,000
by the end of his only term, President George H.W. Bush had 3,083,000 federal nonmilitary employees on the books. That is a REDUCTION of 30,000 employees.

President Bill Clinton came into office with 3,083,000 and by the END of his TWO TERMS he reduced the number of Federal employees to 2,703,000. That is a reduction of 380,000 federal employees.

Now finally, President George W. Bush came into office with 2,703,000 nonmilitary employees and by the time his terms were through, the total nonmilitary federal employees on the books were 2,756,000, which is an INCREASE of 53,000 employees.

The small government, lean and mean political party, seems to be the Democratic Party. President Clinton reduced the size of the federal government’s nonmilitary employees by OVER 10%.

The “so called” small government President Reagan INCREASED the nonmilitary size of government by almost 10%.

In fact, Democratic president Bill Clinton reduced the size of the federal government employee size to PRE- REAGAN levels.

Clinton left office with 2,703,000 and Reagan started his term in 1981 with 2,875,000

The Reagan conservatives, in fact the entire GOP TODAY are trying to frame President Obama as a big government liberal but again, the numbers don’t lie.

By the end of 2010, the United States STILL has less employees on the books than we did back in 1980 even though the population has grown from 226,545,805 to approximately 330,000,000 in 2010.

TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 1980 — 2,875,000
TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 2010 — 2,840,000

We have 35,000 less nonmilitary employees under President Obama than we had 30 years ago.

So it comes to mind that those who claim to be Reagan small government conservatives and blame Democrats for growing government are either lying to the American people or are themselves willfully ignorant.

[lonewolf]

COMMON SENSE FAILURE !

I've seen documentaries with one man looking over hundreds of containers from on ship and picking one or two containers to inspect, and not even be able to do a total inspection of a single container.

FACT is we don't have enough inspectors.

We should have enough inspectors to inspect a sample of about 1% of imported goods...certainly no more than that. Perhaps even less.

Any more than that is a true common sense failure.

You're kidding right ?

A large container ship can carry in more than 3,000 containers. More than 6 million cargo containers enter the US yearly.

So you think checking / inspecting 1% of 6 million is enough ? Really ? If I was in China I would laugh at that ? But I'm in the US so that's makes me cringe.

1% is enough for a valid sample. A percent is a percent...it doesn't matter how large the volume is, its still a percent. Since you were not trained or have any experience in sampling, quality control or statistics, I wouldn't expect you to know anything about it. 1% is a fairly typical sampling rate.

Checking every container that comes into the US is not possible and trying to do more than 1% of that kind of volume would show a complete lack of common sense...not to mention sampling techniques.

[Banned]

Obama has cut the government sooooo much that the $15 TRILLION DEBT is actually a surplus.

[lonewolf]

Now finally, President George W. Bush came into office with 2,703,000 nonmilitary employees and by the time his terms were through, the total nonmilitary federal employees on the books were 2,756,000, which is an INCREASE of 53,000 employees.

That's not finally.

President Barack Obama came into office with 2,756,000 non-military employees.

After two years in office, President Obama had 2,840,000 non-military employees, or an increase of 84,000 employees in 1/2 term.

How many are there now, I wonder?

[f.sciarrillo]

Rush Limbaugh called the SOTU a class warfare rally, I find that funny there. He also let us know that the First Lady, I mean the tax payers, paid $2400.00 for her dress. Wasn't that nice?

[Banned]

Now finally, President George W. Bush came into office with 2,703,000 nonmilitary employees and by the time his terms were through, the total nonmilitary federal employees on the books were 2,756,000, which is an INCREASE of 53,000 employees.

That's not finally.

President Barack Obama came into office with 2,756,000 non-military employees.

After two years in office, President Obama had 2,840,000 non-military employees, or an increase of 84,000 employees in 1/2 term.

How many are there now, I wonder?

And those federal workers make way more than their private counterparts.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/i ... 0_ST_N.htm


But, hey, who cares. The federal debt is only $15 TRILLION.

[f.sciarrillo]

But, hey, who cares. The federal debt is only $15 TRILLION.

Soon to be 16 trillion.

[Banned]

But, hey, who cares. The federal debt is only $15 TRILLION.

Soon to be 16 trillion.

Total unfunded liabilities still over $117 TRILLION!!!!

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/i ... 0_ST_N.htm

[f.sciarrillo]

But, hey, who cares. The federal debt is only $15 TRILLION.

Soon to be 16 trillion.

Total unfunded liabilities still over $117 TRILLION!!!!

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/i ... 0_ST_N.htm

I can't even fathom that much money.

[f.sciarrillo]

[Hawk]

Obama has cut the government sooooo much that the $15 TRILLION DEBT is actually a surplus.

Tell mke Joe, how much of the debt is debt owed by previous administrations and how much did Obama add to that which was already owed ?

[Hawk]

We should have enough inspectors to inspect a sample of about 1% of imported goods...certainly no more than that. Perhaps even less.

Any more than that is a true common sense failure.

You're kidding right ?

A large container ship can carry in more than 3,000 containers. More than 6 million cargo containers enter the US yearly.

So you think checking / inspecting 1% of 6 million is enough ? Really ? If I was in China I would laugh at that ? But I'm in the US so that's makes me cringe.

1% is enough for a valid sample. A percent is a percent...it doesn't matter how large the volume is, its still a percent. Since you were not trained or have any experience in sampling, quality control or statistics, I wouldn't expect you to know anything about it. 1% is a fairly typical sampling rate.

Checking every container that comes into the US is not possible and trying to do more than 1% of that kind of volume would show a complete lack of common sense...not to mention sampling techniques.

I know what 1% is. Like I said, you have the full support of China.