O-“lazy” and “soft”

[UltimateHoboW/Shotgun]

http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/317703_10150352217970896_256566055895_8554524_2900 96057_n.jpg

The President has recently used the words “lazy” and “soft” in describing American business. Ironically, “Small Businesses for Sensible Regulations” just released a letter to O urging adoption of five basic principles: 1) A voice in the regulatory process 2) Assistance before assessing penalties 3) Subjecting regulation to a benefit-cost analysis 4) Regulations based on objective data and 5) A regulatory process with transparency and accountability. The SBA reports that small businesses pay 36% more per employee in complying with government regs! Mr. President, not “lazy” and “soft”, more like “frustrated” and “disgusted”. (chart above)

http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Paula-Priesse/256566055895

[W*GS]

Anything from "heritage.org" is bull****.

I wouldn't trust them to tell me 1+1=2.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

www.facebook.com/Paula-PriesseIs this all you have left for Right Wing mouhtpieces?

[UltimateHoboW/Shotgun]

Anything from "heritage.org" is bull****.

I wouldn't trust them to tell me 1+1=2.

http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/377003_1931812833951_1801195808_1295464_1297061115 _n.jpg

LOL

[UltimateHoboW/Shotgun]

Is this all you have left for Right Wing mouhtpieces?

http://www.deadlantern.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/facepalm.jpg

[W*GS]

Hobo is Heritage's bukkake boy...

[epicSocialism4tw]

Hobo is Heritage's bukkake boy...

And you are a global warming prostitute.

[cutthemdown]

Well didn't Congress ask for this list to be made by white house, of new regs that cost 100 million or more? The list should be fairly easy to double check to see if heritage used a real list. Or would you guys just rather assume its not true? Or do you think it's ok? If we got the list from a different source would you admit Obama stifling business with regulations? Or would you say the list is no big deal, things that are needed?

[W*GS]

And you are a global warming prostitute.

That doesn't even make sense, epicFail.

[bronco militia]

I think i'm going to sit on my ass and wait for some Obamacare and a fair salary

[alkemical]

I think i'm going to sit on my ass and wait for some Obamacare and a fair salary

I have a few friends in Medicine, and the one is pretty vocal about it - but she doesn't know how to "fix" it as a "whole". Her and my Dr. Friend both agreed that ObamaCare is built around reducing any market.

There will be 12 or less companies that offer the same plan. It's collusion to fix the market.

[Odysseus]

Hobo is Heritage's bukkake boy...

:notworthy

[Odysseus]

And you are a global warming prostitute.

I have 1000's of pages of white papers that would essentially change your position on this. Unless your side of the Internet is broke the research is available and it's free.

[epicSocialism4tw]

I have 1000's of pages of white papers that would essentially change your position on this. Unless your side of the Internet is broke the research is available and it's free.

You haven't the slightest clue as to what my position is on that issue. And considering that I have a formal education that includes quite a few credit hours on information pertinent to the subject, I can tutor you if you'd like.

But that has nothing to do with what I said.

[W*GS]

You haven't the slightest clue as to what my position is on that issue. And considering that I have a formal education that includes quite a few credit hours on information pertinent to the subject, I can tutor you if you'd like.

Try to tutor me on global warming.

Ought to be fun to smack you silly.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Try to tutor me on global warming.

Ought to be fun to smack you silly.

What would you like to learn?

[elsid13]

I love when folks post crap without any real analysis. Below is from todays' WashPosts: (please read the complete story there)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/does-government-regulation-really-kill-jobs-economists-say-overall-effect-minimal/2011/10/19/gIQALRF5IN_story.html

"The critique of regulations fits into a broader conservative narrative about government overreach. But it also comes after a string of disasters in recent years that were tied to government regulators falling short, including the financial crisis of 2008, the BP oil spill and the West Virginia mining accident last year.


Data (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/mslo.t02.htm) from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.whorunsgov.com/Institutions/Labor/Offices/OS/BLS) show that very few layoffs are caused principally by tougher rules.


Whenever a firm lays off workers, the bureau (http://www.bls.gov/) asks executives the biggest reason for the job cuts.


In 2010, 0.3 percent of the people who lost their jobs in layoffs were let go because of “government regulations/intervention.” By comparison, 25 percent were laid off because of a drop in business demand."



"Based on the available literature, there’s not much evidence that EPA regulations are causing major job losses or major job gains,” said Richard Morgenstern, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan think tank Resources for the Future who worked at the EPA starting under the Reagan administration and continuing into President Bill Clinton’s first term.

A decade ago, in a landmark study (http://www.globalurban.org/Jobs_vs_the_Environment.pdf), Morgenstern and others looked at the effect of regulations on four heavily polluting industries — pulp and paper mills, plastic manufacturers, petroleum refiners, and iron and steel mills — between 1979 and 1991.

The researchers concluded that higher spending to comply with environment rules does not cause “a significant change” in industry employment. When jobs were lost, they were often made up elsewhere in the same industry. For every $1 million companies spent, as many as 1¹ / ₂net jobs were added to the economy."

[epicSocialism4tw]

I love when folks post crap without any real analysis. Below is from todays' WashPosts: (please read the complete story there)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/does-government-regulation-really-kill-jobs-economists-say-overall-effect-minimal/2011/10/19/gIQALRF5IN_story.html

"The critique of regulations fits into a broader conservative narrative about government overreach. But it also comes after a string of disasters in recent years that were tied to government regulators falling short, including the financial crisis of 2008, the BP oil spill and the West Virginia mining accident last year.


Data (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/mslo.t02.htm) from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.whorunsgov.com/Institutions/Labor/Offices/OS/BLS) show that very few layoffs are caused principally by tougher rules.


Whenever a firm lays off workers, the bureau (http://www.bls.gov/) asks executives the biggest reason for the job cuts.


In 2010, 0.3 percent of the people who lost their jobs in layoffs were let go because of “government regulations/intervention.” By comparison, 25 percent were laid off because of a drop in business demand."



"Based on the available literature, there’s not much evidence that EPA regulations are causing major job losses or major job gains,” said Richard Morgenstern, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan think tank Resources for the Future who worked at the EPA starting under the Reagan administration and continuing into President Bill Clinton’s first term.

A decade ago, in a landmark study (http://www.globalurban.org/Jobs_vs_the_Environment.pdf), Morgenstern and others looked at the effect of regulations on four heavily polluting industries — pulp and paper mills, plastic manufacturers, petroleum refiners, and iron and steel mills — between 1979 and 1991.

The researchers concluded that higher spending to comply with environment rules does not cause “a significant change” in industry employment. When jobs were lost, they were often made up elsewhere in the same industry. For every $1 million companies spent, as many as 1¹ / ₂net jobs were added to the economy."

http://edge.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/1048276/81822050.jpg

[orinjkrush]

"if the facts do not support the FAITH (i.e. republicanism or democra-ism),



they will be disposed of."


once people subscribe to a faith...it takes a significant emotional event (SEE) to change an iota.

[epicSocialism4tw]

"if the facts do not support the FAITH (i.e. republicanism or democra-ism),

they will be disposed of."

once people subscribe to a faith...it takes a significant emotional event (SEE) to change an iota.

http://abovethelaw.com/_old/2009/08/03/Obama%20Change.JPG

[W*GS]

What would you like to learn?

Show me how CO2 isn't opaque to IR.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Show me how CO2 isn't opaque to IR.

That's not a question. What would you like to learn?

[W*GS]

That's not a question. What would you like to learn?

What can you teach me (snicker)?

That manmade climate change is little more than a fraud and an insidious commie plot, right?

[epicSocialism4tw]

What can you teach me (snicker)?

That manmade climate change is little more than a fraud and an insidious commie plot, right?

The socialist plot is just the ugliest side of it.

Maybe if you could come up with a free market solution then people would listen to you.

[W*GS]

The socialist plot is just the ugliest side of it.

Snicker.

What's wrong with the science? Let's get that straightened out before we jump into policy ideas.

Maybe if you could come up with a free market solution then people would listen to you.

Why do we need a solution if there's no problem?

One thing manmade climate change shows is that markets aren't well-suited to dealing with environmental problems of that nature - global and intergenerational. Too many negative externalities that cost the generators nothing. One way to fix that, in the case of global warming, is a carbon tax.

What's your take on that policy prescription?

[colorado jones]

You haven't the slightest clue as to what my position is on that issue. And considering that I have a formal education that includes quite a few credit hours on information pertinent to the subject, I can tutor you if you'd like.

But that has nothing to do with what I said.

ONE of Epic's problems:

A FEW credit hours= PHD in his mind.

[alkemical]

ONE of Epic's problems:

A FEW credit hours= PHD in his mind.

Working @ guitar center = Rockstar

[Play2win]

Though...

B.S. = Bullsh*t

M.S. = More sh*t

PHD = Piled Higher and Deeper

:~ohyah!:

[epicSocialism4tw]

Snicker.

What's wrong with the science? Let's get that straightened out before we jump into policy ideas.



Why do we need a solution if there's no problem?

One thing manmade climate change shows is that markets aren't well-suited to dealing with environmental problems of that nature - global and intergenerational. Too many negative externalities that cost the generators nothing. One way to fix that, in the case of global warming, is a carbon tax.

What's your take on that policy prescription?

Policy ideas are the issue.

You'd find out really quickly that the American people favor the mantinance of the environment (just like they always have), if you appeal to American values and American freedoms.

Cap and Tax will never be approved here.

[epicSocialism4tw]

ONE of Epic's problems:

A FEW credit hours= PHD in his mind.

Not at all.

Unlike most, I actually have used my college education to get educated.

[W*GS]

Policy ideas are the issue.

Why the dismissals of the science and the death threats against scientists, then? Since the science is sound, why are your ideological fellows so intent on destroying the science? I recommend you get them up to speed on the science super-duper quick.

You'd find out really quickly that the American people favor the mantinance of the environment (just like they always have), if you appeal to American values and American freedoms.

Tell your GOP buddies, then, to quit claiming that mitigating manmade climate change is a "job killer" and will lay waste to the American economy. They've been getting a lot of mileage out of those lies to excuse their utter inaction.

Cap and Tax will never be approved here.

Is that the only possible policy response?

[epicSocialism4tw]

Why the dismissals of the science and the death threats against scientists, then? Since the science is sound, why are your ideological fellows so intent on destroying the science? I recommend you get them up to speed on the science super-duper quick.

Tell your GOP buddies, then, to quit claiming that mitigating manmade climate change is a "job killer" and will lay waste to the American economy. They've been getting a lot of mileage out of those lies to excuse their utter inaction.

Is that the only possible policy response?

This is where you have erred.

You have yet to understand that the progressives have no concern for the environment. Their "solution" is to throw the economy on its head and push the pile of money into their channels. They don't have control over that sector of the economy. They want it badly.

Have you ever even really considered why the Obama administration wants to assume control over the largest sectors of the economy? Obamacare, Cap & Tax...theyre nothing but a power grab.

[W*GS]

This is where you have erred.

You haven't shown how the science is wrong, so you must therefore accept that's correct.

So tell your GOP fellows to quit attacking the science.

[epicSocialism4tw]

You haven't shown how the science is wrong, so you must therefore accept that's correct.

So tell your GOP fellows to quit attacking the science.

Its not up to us to "tell people what to think"...as someone who believes in liberty and the ability of people to run their own lives, I'll leave it up to them.

I think that you'll find that people are repulsed by the liberal progressive "solution" and find it a convenient partner to the exponential rise of the intrusion of the federal government into their wallets and their daily lives.

[W*GS]

Its not up to us to "tell people what to think"...as someone who believes in liberty and the ability of people to run their own lives, I'll leave it up to them.

For the credibility of your own dogma, I should think you'd want to correct the lies and falsehoods being spread (at the least) by the GOP candidates on the science of manmade climate change.

It's sad when circling the wagons and protecting the dogma is more important to you than reality is. The irony, of course, is that reality doesn't give a **** about your dogma, and will destroy you if you fail to recognize it.

I think that you'll find that people are repulsed by the liberal progressive "solution" and find it a convenient partner to the exponential rise of the intrusion of the federal government into their wallets and their daily lives.

Now you're back to your comfort zone - attacking liberals.

You really have nothing to teach about the science or any policies - you just want to level your inane attacks.

Snore.

[epicSocialism4tw]

For the credibility of your own dogma, I should think you'd want to correct the lies and falsehoods being spread (at the least) by the GOP candidates on the science of manmade climate change.

It's sad when circling the wagons and protecting the dogma is more important to you than reality is. The irony, of course, is that reality doesn't give a **** about your dogma, and will destroy you if you fail to recognize it.

Now you're back to your comfort zone - attacking liberals.

You really have nothing to teach about the science or any policies - you just want to level your inane attacks.

Snore.

I'm attacking 'liberals' because they're not even liberals anymore. They're some far-far-left asylum for radicals still clinging onto the 1960's and who are looking for global influence. Look at the dadgum Center for American Progress that Hillary Clinton and George Soros founded and is the left's contemporary think tank...if you believe that they want freedom, equal justice, and equal economic access, then you are flat out crazy.

They offer zero solutions for any modern problem.

[W*GS]

Forget it, epicFail.

You just want to rail against liberals.

You don't give a damn about global warming.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Forget it, epicFail.

You just want to rail against liberals.

You don't give a damn about global warming.

What used to be called 'liberal' is now right wing. What you call 'liberals' are far leftists that fit somewhere in the continuum between socialism and communism.

They offer no solutions to American problems. None.

[W*GS]

Like I said.

Rail away, ya pud.

[Rohirrim]

What used to be called 'liberal' is now right wing. What you call 'liberals' are far leftists that fit somewhere in the continuum between socialism and communism.

They offer no solutions to American problems. None.

By golly. It's all them goldang libruls in Washington and on Wall Street. That's what did it.

[Bronx33]

I have 1000's of pages of white papers that would essentially change your position on this. Unless your side of the Internet is broke the research is available and it's free.


question is (can we trust those papers)

[W*GS]

question is (can we trust those papers)

Yes, we can trust them.

That's the nice thing about science - a fraud can only go so far before reality sets in.