Sure. It's only in bold letters about an inch high. Easy to overlook, right?
You win today's prize: Blue Ribbon Moron.
Maybe you can find someone at Fox who can read English.
Is your native language Spanglish?
wonderful company these shitbags run
- Thread starter The Sponge
- Start date
Sure. It's only in bold letters about an inch high. Easy to overlook, right?
You win today's prize: Blue Ribbon Moron.
Maybe you can find someone at Fox who can read English.
Is your native language Spanglish?
Okay Longhorn/Hannity: Let's take a look at just one of your false claims, which is based, not on facts, but on lies. Ready?......grease up and bend over.
Here are the annual totals, in barrels produced, going back to 2003:
2003: 2,073,453,000
2004: 1,983,302,000
2005: 1,890,106,000
2006: 1,862,259,000
2007: 1,848,450,000
2008: 1,811,817,000
2009: 1,956,596,000
2010: 2,000,521,000
2011: 2,065,366,000
The data shows that domestic oil production is in fact at its highest level in eight years. Only one month of statistics is available for 2012. They show that in January, the U.S. produced 188.9 million barrels of oil, the largest monthly output since August 1998.
Yep, you read it right. Oil production is UP since Obama was elected.
And it's UP on Federal land.
Federal lands yielded 646 million barrels of oil in 2011, almost exactly the nine-year average. But production on federal land has remained steadily above the low-mark of 575 million barrels in 2008, the last year of the Bush administration.
And our dependence on imported oil is DOWN under Obama. We're now using less foreign oil than we ever did under Boosh.
And Obama has made huge numbers of leases and acres available for oil exploration.
More than 70 percent of the tens of millions of offshore acres under lease are inactive, neither producing nor currently subject to approved or pending exploration or development plans. This includes almost 24 million inactive leased acres in the Gulf of Mexico, which potentially could hold more than 11 billion barrels of oil and 50 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
For onshore leases, the review found that approximately 45 percent of all leases and approximately 57 percent of all leased acres are inactive. That means that out of a total of over 38 million leased onshore acres, almost 22 million leased onshore acres that are not being used. The Department is currently exploring policy options to provide companies with additional incentives for more rapid development of oil and gas resources from existing and future leases
Yep, that's right. The oil industry has plenty of leases to drill.
You'd better run away now. I hear Glenn Beck has another case of oral diarrhea. You won't want to miss out.
Obama Kills Drilling Off The Atlantic Coast For The Next Five Years
By: Curt
<!-- .entry-meta --><SCRIPT src="http://connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1"></SCRIPT><?xml:namespace prefix = fb /><fb:like class=" fb_edge_widget_with_comment fb_iframe_widget" href="http://floppingaces.net/2012/03/30/obama-kills-drilling-off-the-atlantic-coast-for-the-next-five-years/" show_faces="false" width="50" data-layout="button_count"><IFRAME style="WIDTH: 90px; HEIGHT: 21px" id=f34144a9f6c59d class=fb_ltr title="Like this content on Facebook." src="http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?channel_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs-static.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fconnect%2Fxd_proxy.php%23cb%3Df10be8a528489e9%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Ffloppingaces.net%252Ff302981bd4e7bb8%26relation%3Dparent.parent%26transport%3Dpostmessage&extended_social_context=false&href=http%3A%2F%2Ffloppingaces.net%2F2012%2F03%2F30%2Fobama-kills-drilling-off-the-atlantic-coast-for-the-next-five-years%2F&layout=button_count&locale=en_US&node_type=link&sdk=joey&show_faces=false&width=90" frameBorder=0 allowTransparency name=f332ac891c60ec4 scrolling=no></IFRAME></fb:like><!--end .post-heading-->
<!-- google_ad_section_start -->
Obama does it again?.
Yesterday the Obama administration announced a delaying tactic which will put off the possibility of new offshore oil drilling on the Atlantic coast for at least five years:
But hey, during ?his watch? oil drilling is at an 8 year high.The announcement by the Interior Department sets into motion what will be at least a five year environmental survey to determine whether and where oil production might occur.
Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell notes that a planned lease sale, which the administration cancelled last year, will now be put off until at least 2018. As you might expect, Republicans were not impressed with the decision:
?The president?s actions have closed an entire new area to drilling on his watch and cheats Virginians out of thousands of jobs,? said Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee. The announcement ?continues the president?s election-year political ploy of giving speeches and talking about drilling after having spent the first three years in office blocking, delaying and driving up the cost of producing energy in America,? he said.
Sigh?
He complained about subsidies to oil companies but was promptly shut up by his own Party.
He attacks drilling offshore, he blocked the Keystone pipeline, refuses to drill in ANWAR, all the while he funnels millions upon millions of our dollars into obviously flawed green energy companies who promptly go bankrupt and THEN tries to take credit for drilling permits issued long before he took office.
Presidents can affect gas prices, at least in the long term, by exercising budgetary discipline resulting in a currency that buys more oil per dollar, by approving or rejecting federal oil leases, and by adding or curbing regulations that affect oil exploration and development. In all of these cases, Obama has supported policies that contribute to higher gas prices.
The point about the lag time between finding and pumping oil is valid. But that reality is precisely why presidents must green-light exploration for future generations ? and why Obama is now bragging of record U.S. production only because of his predecessor?s granting of federal oil leases. Obama?s ?it takes too long? argument is absurd ? as if farmers should never plant new orchards since they won?t see fruit on their trees for three years or more.
And now he is ensuring a 5 year moratorium on drilling on the Atlantic coast.The point about the lag time between finding and pumping oil is valid. But that reality is precisely why presidents must green-light exploration for future generations ? and why Obama is now bragging of record U.S. production only because of his predecessor?s granting of federal oil leases. Obama?s ?it takes too long? argument is absurd ? as if farmers should never plant new orchards since they won?t see fruit on their trees for three years or more.
The man is a joke.
<OBJECT style="VISIBILITY: visible" id=vvq-78984-youtube-1 classid=clsid
27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000 width=640 height=390></OBJECT><SCRIPT type=text/javascript> swfobject.embedSWF("http://www.youtube.com/v/5sJgKX1pgHA&rel=0&fs=1&showsearch=0&showinfo=0", "vvq-78984-youtube-1", "640", "390", "10", vvqexpressinstall, vvqflashvars, vvqparams, vvqattributes);</SCRIPT>
<SCRIPT type=text/javascript><!--wpa2a.script_load();//--></SCRIPT>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5sJgKX1pgHA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
Obama care is a disaster: Go ahead and state the case that supports it.
He is spending money we don't have: According to this, he would not have been able to spend one fucking dime on anything since he took the oath of office. Do you disagree? If you do, you're a hypocrite. If you don't, then you look like a dope. Pick your poison.
He has no clue on how to deal with foreign policy: Go ahead and tell us more. I know he showed foreign threats that if you fuck with us he will have you hunted down and killed.
He refuses to use our oil reserves to lower gas prices: If Duff's post is correct, this looks like a false statement.
Isn't stopping our dependence on foreign oil: Your comrades keep accusing him of pushing electric car technology on us, would that qualify? If you reply to one of these, go ahead and address this one please.
He doles out welfare like there's no tomorrow: How does it compare statistically to his predecessors? I don't know, so I'm asking.
He's a socialist: He's a Democrat. That's his party affiliation. If you can prove otherwise, go for it.
:0corn
About the welfare thing he has to dole it out. So many lost jobs after the BUSH TAX CUTS what is he supposed to do. Let Americans starve?
He was wrong to stay in Iraq as long as he did. He is wrong to stay in Afghan. He was wrong not to repel the BUSH TAX CUTS for the so called Job Creators. But he is still better tham Romney who would not change any of that except maybe deeper tax cuts for the rich while taking away things like the mortgage tax break that the middle class depends on.
He was wrong to stay in Iraq as long as he did. He is wrong to stay in Afghan. He was wrong not to repel the BUSH TAX CUTS for the so called Job Creators. But he is still better tham Romney who would not change any of that except maybe deeper tax cuts for the rich while taking away things like the mortgage tax break that the middle class depends on.
Obama, like many before him, has misrepresented himself as a man who fights for the financial well-being of the common man. I consider it fact that he is in bed with wall street and "big solar". To borrow a word from holden caulfield and our own sponge, it is my opinion that he is a phony who is looking out for his cronies at every turn.
Problem is Romney, who is a known phony, is pro war and anti-tax hikes on wealthy. That philosophy already failed recently.
We are in a bad place, yet most of you strongly support one of these 2 poor candidates... I simply don't get it.....
Problem is Romney, who is a known phony, is pro war and anti-tax hikes on wealthy. That philosophy already failed recently.
We are in a bad place, yet most of you strongly support one of these 2 poor candidates... I simply don't get it.....
Great post. I don't see how you can support one or the other unless you simply hate the other. I'll opt for neither.
You're right and you're makng too much sense CIE. Get ready to be attacked by the all of the liberal wackjobs in here to come to the Dems defense. :142smilie
Long, I have not seen one person come to Obama's defense. In fact all I have seen is you and Skul and Hedge and the rest of the Republicans jump on him for not fixing Bush's mistakes.
The ZDems on this board have jumped on Obama also for not fixing Bush's mistakes.
It is you guys that want to go back to the failed policies that started this whole mess in the first place.
To ABC's Surprise, Katrina Victims Praise Bush and Blame Nagin
By Brent Baker | September 16, 2005 | 00:50
4
Change font size: A | A
ABC News producers probably didn't hear what they expected when they sent Dean Reynolds to the Houston Astrodome's parking lot to get reaction to President Bush's speech from black evacuees from New Orleans. Instead of denouncing Bush and blaming him for their plight, they praised Bush and blamed local officials. Reynolds asked Connie London: "Did you harbor any anger toward the President because of the slow federal response?" She rejected the premise: "No, none whatsoever, because I feel like our city and our state government should have been there before the federal government was called in.? She pointed out: ?They had RTA buses, Greyhound buses, school buses, that was just sitting there going under water when they could have been evacuating people."
Not one of the six people interviewed on camera had a bad word for Bush -- despite Reynolds' best efforts. Reynolds goaded: "Was there anything that you found hard to believe that he said, that you thought, well, that's nice rhetoric, but, you know, the proof is in the pudding?" Brenda Marshall answered, "No, I didn't," prompting Reynolds to marvel to anchor Ted Koppel: "Very little skepticism here.?
Reynolds pressed another woman: ?Did you feel that the President was sincere tonight?" She affirmed: "Yes, he was." Reynolds soon wondered who they held culpable for the levee breaks. Unlike the national media, London did not blame supposed Bush-mandated budget cuts: "They've been allocated federal funds to fix the levee system, and it never got done. I fault the mayor of our city personally. I really do."
Full transcript follows. Video excerpt: RealPlayer or Windows Media. Plus MP3
The MRC's Rich Noyes alerted me to the reactions ABC broadcast. Immediately after Bush finished his speech from Jackson Square in New Orleans, at about 8:26pm local CDT, Ted Koppel, anchor of ABC's hour-long coverage, went to Dean Reynolds who was outside in a parking lot with a group of black people from New Orleans who are living at the Reliant Center next to the Astrodome.
(No names were provided on-screen for those interviewed, so I only have first names for two, and no name for one, of the six.)
Reynolds elicited reaction from the group sitting in chairs: ?I'd like to get the reaction of Connie London who spent several horrible hours at the Superdome. You heard the President say retpeaedly that you are not alone, that the country stands beside you. Do you believe him??
Connie London: ?Yeah, I believe him, because here in Texas, they have truly been good to us. I mean-?
Reynolds: ?Did you get a sense of hope that you could return to your home one day in New Orleans??
London: ?Yes, I did. I did.?
Reynolds: ?Did you harbor any anger toward the President because of the slow federal response??
London: ?No, none whatsoever, because I feel like our city and our state government should have been there before the federal government was called in. They should have been on their jobs.?
Reynolds: ?And they weren't??
London: ?No, no, no, no. Lord, they wasn't. I mean, they had RTA buses, Greyhound buses, school buses, that was just sitting there going under water when they could have been evacuating people.?
Reynolds: ?Now, Mary, you were rescued from your house which was basically submerged in your neighborhood. Did you hear something in the President's words that you could glean some hope from??
Mary: ?Yes. He said we're coming back, and I believe we're coming back. He's going to build the city up. I believe that.?
Reynolds: ?You believe you'll be able to return to your home??
Mary: ?Yes, I do.?
Reynolds: ?Why??
Mary: ?Because I really believe what he said. I believe. I got faith.?
Reynolds: ?Back here in the corner, we've got Brenda Marshall, right??
Brenda Marshall: ?Yes.?
Reynolds: ?Now, Brenda, you were, spent, what, several days at the Superdome, correct??
Marshall: ?Yes, I did.?
Reynolds: ?What did you think of what the President told you tonight??
Marshall: ?Well, I think -- I think the speech was wonderful, you know, him specifying that we will return back and that we will have like mobile homes, you know, rent or whatever. I was listening to that pretty good. But I think it was a well fine speech.?
Reynolds: ?Was there any particular part of it that stood out in your mind? I mean, I saw you all nod when he said the Crescent City is going to come back one day.?
Marshall: ?Well, I think I was more excited about what he said. That's probably why I nodded.?
Reynolds: ?Was there anything that you found hard to believe that he said, that you thought, well, that's nice rhetoric, but, you know, the proof is in the pudding??
Marshall: ?No, I didn't.?
Reynolds: ?Good. Well, very little skepticism here. Frederick Gould, did you hear something that you could hang on to tonight from the President??
Frederick Gould: ?Well, I just know, you know, he said good things to me, you know, what he said, you know. I was just trying to listen to everything they were saying, you know.?
Reynolds: ?And Cecilia, did you feel that the President was sincere tonight??
Cecilia: ?Yes, he was.?
Reynolds: ?Do you think this is a little too late, or do you think he's got a handle on the situation??
Cecilia: ?To me it was a little too late. It was too late, but he should have did something more about it.?
Reynolds: ?Now do you all believe that you will one day return to your homes??
Voices: ?Yes? and ?I do.?
Reynolds: ?I mean, do you all want to return to your homes? We're hearing some people don't even want to go back.?
Mary: ?I want to go back.?
Reynolds: ?You want to go back.?
Mary: ?I want to go back. That's my home. That's all I know.?
Reynolds: ?Is it your home for your whole life??
Mary: ?Right. That's my home.?
Reynolds: ?And do you expect to go back to the house or a brand new dwelling or what??
Mary: ?I expect to go back to something. I know it ain't my house, because it's gone.?
Reynolds: ?What is the one mistake that could have been prevented that would have made your lives much better? Is it simply getting all of you out much sooner or what was it??
Mary: ?I'm going to tell you the truth. I had the opportunity to get out, but I didn't believe it. So I stayed there till it was too late.?
Reynolds: ?Did you all have the same feeling? I mean, did you all have the opportunity to get out, but you were skeptical that this was the really bad one??
Unnamed woman: ?No, I got out when they said evacuate. I got out that Sunday and I left before the storm came. But I know they could have did better than what they did because like they said, buses were just sitting there, and they could have came through there and got people out, because they were saying immediate evacuation. Some people didn't believe it. But they should have brung the force of the army through to help these people and make them understand it really was coming.?
London: ?And really it wasn't Hurricane Katrina that really tore up the city. It was when they opened the floodgates. It was not the hurricane itself. It was the floodgates, when they opened the floodgates, that's where all the water came.?
Reynolds: ?Do you blame anybody for this??
London: ?Yes. I mean, they've been allocated federal funds to fix the levee system, and it never got done. I fault the mayor of our city personally. I really do.?
Reynolds: ?All right. Well, thank you all very much. I wish you all the best of luck. I hope you don't have to spend too much more time here in the Reliant Center and you can get back to New Orleans as the President said. Ted, that is the word from the Houston Astrodome. And as I said, when the President said that the Crescent City will rise again, there were nods all around this parking lot.?
UPDATE: On Friday?s Good Morning America, Jessica Yellin avoided the pro-Bush consensus of those shown on ABC the night before and characterized the reaction of evacuees as ?mixed,? a description she managed to support by running a clip from a woman in a different location.
On the September 16 GMA, Yellin reported: "Evacuees watching the speech from Baton Rouge and Houston had mixed reviews."
Woman outside at Astrodome, in clip from ABC?s Thursday night coverage: "He said we're coming back, and I believe we're coming back. He's going to build the city up. I believe that.?
Woman inside in Baton Rouge: "All they can do is tell you what they're going to do. We need something done now. Yesterday."
SECOND UPDATE: At the start of the roundtable on Sunday?s This Week, with Sam Donaldson, Cokie Roberts and George Will, host George Stephanopoulos observed: ?I was watching on ABC on Thursday night. Some of the victims we collected in Houston loved it. They loved every single word.?
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/node/1201#ixzz1rkVpxvx7
By Brent Baker | September 16, 2005 | 00:50
4
Change font size: A | A
ABC News producers probably didn't hear what they expected when they sent Dean Reynolds to the Houston Astrodome's parking lot to get reaction to President Bush's speech from black evacuees from New Orleans. Instead of denouncing Bush and blaming him for their plight, they praised Bush and blamed local officials. Reynolds asked Connie London: "Did you harbor any anger toward the President because of the slow federal response?" She rejected the premise: "No, none whatsoever, because I feel like our city and our state government should have been there before the federal government was called in.? She pointed out: ?They had RTA buses, Greyhound buses, school buses, that was just sitting there going under water when they could have been evacuating people."
Not one of the six people interviewed on camera had a bad word for Bush -- despite Reynolds' best efforts. Reynolds goaded: "Was there anything that you found hard to believe that he said, that you thought, well, that's nice rhetoric, but, you know, the proof is in the pudding?" Brenda Marshall answered, "No, I didn't," prompting Reynolds to marvel to anchor Ted Koppel: "Very little skepticism here.?
Reynolds pressed another woman: ?Did you feel that the President was sincere tonight?" She affirmed: "Yes, he was." Reynolds soon wondered who they held culpable for the levee breaks. Unlike the national media, London did not blame supposed Bush-mandated budget cuts: "They've been allocated federal funds to fix the levee system, and it never got done. I fault the mayor of our city personally. I really do."
Full transcript follows. Video excerpt: RealPlayer or Windows Media. Plus MP3
The MRC's Rich Noyes alerted me to the reactions ABC broadcast. Immediately after Bush finished his speech from Jackson Square in New Orleans, at about 8:26pm local CDT, Ted Koppel, anchor of ABC's hour-long coverage, went to Dean Reynolds who was outside in a parking lot with a group of black people from New Orleans who are living at the Reliant Center next to the Astrodome.
(No names were provided on-screen for those interviewed, so I only have first names for two, and no name for one, of the six.)
Reynolds elicited reaction from the group sitting in chairs: ?I'd like to get the reaction of Connie London who spent several horrible hours at the Superdome. You heard the President say retpeaedly that you are not alone, that the country stands beside you. Do you believe him??
Connie London: ?Yeah, I believe him, because here in Texas, they have truly been good to us. I mean-?
Reynolds: ?Did you get a sense of hope that you could return to your home one day in New Orleans??
London: ?Yes, I did. I did.?
Reynolds: ?Did you harbor any anger toward the President because of the slow federal response??
London: ?No, none whatsoever, because I feel like our city and our state government should have been there before the federal government was called in. They should have been on their jobs.?
Reynolds: ?And they weren't??
London: ?No, no, no, no. Lord, they wasn't. I mean, they had RTA buses, Greyhound buses, school buses, that was just sitting there going under water when they could have been evacuating people.?
Reynolds: ?Now, Mary, you were rescued from your house which was basically submerged in your neighborhood. Did you hear something in the President's words that you could glean some hope from??
Mary: ?Yes. He said we're coming back, and I believe we're coming back. He's going to build the city up. I believe that.?
Reynolds: ?You believe you'll be able to return to your home??
Mary: ?Yes, I do.?
Reynolds: ?Why??
Mary: ?Because I really believe what he said. I believe. I got faith.?
Reynolds: ?Back here in the corner, we've got Brenda Marshall, right??
Brenda Marshall: ?Yes.?
Reynolds: ?Now, Brenda, you were, spent, what, several days at the Superdome, correct??
Marshall: ?Yes, I did.?
Reynolds: ?What did you think of what the President told you tonight??
Marshall: ?Well, I think -- I think the speech was wonderful, you know, him specifying that we will return back and that we will have like mobile homes, you know, rent or whatever. I was listening to that pretty good. But I think it was a well fine speech.?
Reynolds: ?Was there any particular part of it that stood out in your mind? I mean, I saw you all nod when he said the Crescent City is going to come back one day.?
Marshall: ?Well, I think I was more excited about what he said. That's probably why I nodded.?
Reynolds: ?Was there anything that you found hard to believe that he said, that you thought, well, that's nice rhetoric, but, you know, the proof is in the pudding??
Marshall: ?No, I didn't.?
Reynolds: ?Good. Well, very little skepticism here. Frederick Gould, did you hear something that you could hang on to tonight from the President??
Frederick Gould: ?Well, I just know, you know, he said good things to me, you know, what he said, you know. I was just trying to listen to everything they were saying, you know.?
Reynolds: ?And Cecilia, did you feel that the President was sincere tonight??
Cecilia: ?Yes, he was.?
Reynolds: ?Do you think this is a little too late, or do you think he's got a handle on the situation??
Cecilia: ?To me it was a little too late. It was too late, but he should have did something more about it.?
Reynolds: ?Now do you all believe that you will one day return to your homes??
Voices: ?Yes? and ?I do.?
Reynolds: ?I mean, do you all want to return to your homes? We're hearing some people don't even want to go back.?
Mary: ?I want to go back.?
Reynolds: ?You want to go back.?
Mary: ?I want to go back. That's my home. That's all I know.?
Reynolds: ?Is it your home for your whole life??
Mary: ?Right. That's my home.?
Reynolds: ?And do you expect to go back to the house or a brand new dwelling or what??
Mary: ?I expect to go back to something. I know it ain't my house, because it's gone.?
Reynolds: ?What is the one mistake that could have been prevented that would have made your lives much better? Is it simply getting all of you out much sooner or what was it??
Mary: ?I'm going to tell you the truth. I had the opportunity to get out, but I didn't believe it. So I stayed there till it was too late.?
Reynolds: ?Did you all have the same feeling? I mean, did you all have the opportunity to get out, but you were skeptical that this was the really bad one??
Unnamed woman: ?No, I got out when they said evacuate. I got out that Sunday and I left before the storm came. But I know they could have did better than what they did because like they said, buses were just sitting there, and they could have came through there and got people out, because they were saying immediate evacuation. Some people didn't believe it. But they should have brung the force of the army through to help these people and make them understand it really was coming.?
London: ?And really it wasn't Hurricane Katrina that really tore up the city. It was when they opened the floodgates. It was not the hurricane itself. It was the floodgates, when they opened the floodgates, that's where all the water came.?
Reynolds: ?Do you blame anybody for this??
London: ?Yes. I mean, they've been allocated federal funds to fix the levee system, and it never got done. I fault the mayor of our city personally. I really do.?
Reynolds: ?All right. Well, thank you all very much. I wish you all the best of luck. I hope you don't have to spend too much more time here in the Reliant Center and you can get back to New Orleans as the President said. Ted, that is the word from the Houston Astrodome. And as I said, when the President said that the Crescent City will rise again, there were nods all around this parking lot.?
UPDATE: On Friday?s Good Morning America, Jessica Yellin avoided the pro-Bush consensus of those shown on ABC the night before and characterized the reaction of evacuees as ?mixed,? a description she managed to support by running a clip from a woman in a different location.
On the September 16 GMA, Yellin reported: "Evacuees watching the speech from Baton Rouge and Houston had mixed reviews."
Woman outside at Astrodome, in clip from ABC?s Thursday night coverage: "He said we're coming back, and I believe we're coming back. He's going to build the city up. I believe that.?
Woman inside in Baton Rouge: "All they can do is tell you what they're going to do. We need something done now. Yesterday."
SECOND UPDATE: At the start of the roundtable on Sunday?s This Week, with Sam Donaldson, Cokie Roberts and George Will, host George Stephanopoulos observed: ?I was watching on ABC on Thursday night. Some of the victims we collected in Houston loved it. They loved every single word.?
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/node/1201#ixzz1rkVpxvx7
Last edited:
Obama Has Approved Fewer Regulations Than Bush Up To This Point, Analysis Finds
The Huffington Post Jillian Berman First Posted: 10/26/11 03:24 PM ET Updated: 12/26/11 05:12 AM ET
President Barack Obama has signed fewer regulations than President George W. Bush had at this point in his presidency, but it's putting a bigger dent into the wallets of the effected.
Obama has approved 4.7 percent fewer rules than Bush had at the same point in his presidency, but they cost businesses more, according to a Bloomberg News analysis. Obama's regulations are expected to cost businesses between $100 million and $4.1 billion more than Bush's, Bloomberg finds. Still, neither president's rules have cost as much as the annual high the costs of the elder Bush's regulations hit in 1992.
As politicians wrangle over the best way to boost hiring and spur economic growth, Republicans have been critical of what they view as excessive regulations. Treasury Department officials, though, wrote in a blog post earlier this week that the data doesn't support the idea that over-regulation is holding businesses back.
The findings mirror those of a World Bank study, which found that the U.S. is one of the top five countries with the most business-friendly regulations. American regulations are more business-friendly than those of all the countries Europe and a variety of other countries worldwide, according to the report.
Even though America's rules are more business-friendly than most countries, they're still not friendly enough for many Americans. More small business owners ranked government regulations as their top problem than picked any other issue, a recent Gallup poll found. Seventy-Five percent of U.S. voters said businesses are over-regulated, pushing jobs overseas, another survey from the Tarrance Group found last month.
Republicans have proposed curbing regulations as one way to boost hiring, after rejecting Obama's $447 billion jobs plan earlier this month. Progressive organizations have been critical of the proposals; GOP leaders are targeting rules governing the transportation of snakes across state lines regulations for workers dealing with lead paint, according to the Center for American Progress. Economist and left-leaning New York Times columnist Paul Krugman claims that the Republican jobs plan is focused on allowing pollution.
Some industries are doing all they can to avoid increased regulations. Venture Capitalists are spending money in an effort to influence lawmakers to ease medical device rules, for example. And the National Association of Manufacturers criticized the Environmental Protection Agency?s manufacturing regulations, saying that they cause uncertainty.
The National Federation of Independent Businesses -- a small business advocacy group -- launched a campaign in August aimed at highlighting the impacts of regulations passed by the Obama Administration on small businesses.
The Huffington Post Jillian Berman First Posted: 10/26/11 03:24 PM ET Updated: 12/26/11 05:12 AM ET
President Barack Obama has signed fewer regulations than President George W. Bush had at this point in his presidency, but it's putting a bigger dent into the wallets of the effected.
Obama has approved 4.7 percent fewer rules than Bush had at the same point in his presidency, but they cost businesses more, according to a Bloomberg News analysis. Obama's regulations are expected to cost businesses between $100 million and $4.1 billion more than Bush's, Bloomberg finds. Still, neither president's rules have cost as much as the annual high the costs of the elder Bush's regulations hit in 1992.
As politicians wrangle over the best way to boost hiring and spur economic growth, Republicans have been critical of what they view as excessive regulations. Treasury Department officials, though, wrote in a blog post earlier this week that the data doesn't support the idea that over-regulation is holding businesses back.
The findings mirror those of a World Bank study, which found that the U.S. is one of the top five countries with the most business-friendly regulations. American regulations are more business-friendly than those of all the countries Europe and a variety of other countries worldwide, according to the report.
Even though America's rules are more business-friendly than most countries, they're still not friendly enough for many Americans. More small business owners ranked government regulations as their top problem than picked any other issue, a recent Gallup poll found. Seventy-Five percent of U.S. voters said businesses are over-regulated, pushing jobs overseas, another survey from the Tarrance Group found last month.
Republicans have proposed curbing regulations as one way to boost hiring, after rejecting Obama's $447 billion jobs plan earlier this month. Progressive organizations have been critical of the proposals; GOP leaders are targeting rules governing the transportation of snakes across state lines regulations for workers dealing with lead paint, according to the Center for American Progress. Economist and left-leaning New York Times columnist Paul Krugman claims that the Republican jobs plan is focused on allowing pollution.
Some industries are doing all they can to avoid increased regulations. Venture Capitalists are spending money in an effort to influence lawmakers to ease medical device rules, for example. And the National Association of Manufacturers criticized the Environmental Protection Agency?s manufacturing regulations, saying that they cause uncertainty.
The National Federation of Independent Businesses -- a small business advocacy group -- launched a campaign in August aimed at highlighting the impacts of regulations passed by the Obama Administration on small businesses.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Cwqh4wQPoQk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
09/11/01 changed a lot of attitudes, trying to change that fact for political gain is shameful.
JMHO
09/11/01 changed a lot of attitudes, trying to change that fact for political gain is shameful.
JMHO
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
