Author Topic: Obama: Corruption, Deception, Dishonesty, Deceit and Promises Broken  (Read 222152 times)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39478
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama Admn: The worst Presidency this nation has ever had to endure.
« Reply #1050 on: August 28, 2011, 05:04:18 AM »
An office of diversity when the majority of government workers are black. Great plan for job creation.  ::)

Bama is setting this up so that when layoffs happen eventually, only whites will be forced out.   Blacks will get special treatment in that regard.   

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39478
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama Admn: The worst Presidency this nation has ever had to endure.
« Reply #1051 on: August 28, 2011, 05:39:26 AM »
7
1
0
0
 
0
 
 
Image by Getty Images via @daylife

There will be no significant recovery in the United States of America while Barack Obama is President.  The evidence is overwhelming:  everything Obama has tried to fuel a recovery (with his Democratic allies in Congress) has failed.  Statistics claiming jobs saved by the stimulus package were mostly fiction, and cost American taxpayers about $275,000 each.  Nearly 2-1/2 million fewer Americans have jobs than before the stimulus.

Barack Obama has been President for 30 months—2-1/2 years. He spent the first year obsessed with passing Obamacare, a program that doesn’t create jobs, but might destroy a lot of them.  He “bailed out” GM, but many believe that his interference didn’t save GM; it merely cost taxpayers an extra $15-20 billion, and stole from legitimate investors to buy off the UAW.  His broken campaign promises are too numerous to list.  At some point, his statute of limitations on blaming Bush runs out.  The latest joke is that the White House is that named the location of East Coast earthquake near DC “Bush’s Fault.”


Obama himself said, “…that after three years, if the economy wasn’t fixed he should be a one-term president.”

Clearly the economic malaise started on George W. Bush’s watch.  Its causes will be argued for decades, but most of them are traceable to irresponsible lending and excessive spending— both by government and the American people.  The trouble that started before 2008 is directly traceable to actions (or inactions) of Bush and GOP allies in Congress.  They spent America into the start of the current deficit during his eight years in the White House.

But that was then, and this is now. Since Obama took office the situation has gotten much, much worse. Obama has run up the deficit at more than twice the rate Bush did. During the first quarter of 2011, the US economy “barely grew” —at 0.4%—that was followed by second quarter’s “anemic growth” of 1%.  This was during the period when the Obama recovery was supposed to be well underway.  Employment data is unremittingly terrible:  new jobless claims are stuck at 400,000+/- each month, with job creation well below what it takes just to absorb new workforce entrants.  More Americans have been unemployed longer than ever in our history.  And looking ahead, the news is not good.

This is Obama’s failed American recovery, and in the near future, Obama’s impending double-dip recession (thanks in no small part to his three consecutive years with Trillion-dollar in deficits that have inflated the national deficit to soaring heights—$14+ Trillion.)  That legacy clearly belongs to President Barack Obama and with help from the Congress led by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi during 2008-2010.   Thanks to them, our country hasn’t even had a budget since Obama took office.

The latest Obama Blame Finger pointing focuses on the “Tea Party” as “extremists” who have a problem with astronomical deficits as far as the eye can see.  (Pointing at Bush is getting a little old since he’s been out of office for 2-1/2 years).  Obama needs a new scapegoat.  The problem with the Tea Party is that it is like the child in the fairy tale, “The Emperors New Clothes.” The child is reviled for pointing out that the emperor is naked.  Thus, the Tea Party is not wrong, just unwelcome.

Now Obama also wants to point the Blame Finger at the GOP House for the downgrade in the US debt rating by Standard and Poor’s.  It seems that he believes that everyone else is to blame but him. That downgrade was predestined by the combination of irresponsible spending and Obama’s clueless attempts to throw money at a recovery to no avail.  Spending $1.50 for every dollar of revenue, running trillion dollar annual deficits is reason enough for a downgrade in the US debt rating.

Face it folks:  This is Obama’s failed recovery. And if (or when) it comes to pass, this “double-dip” recession (just around the corner) is his too.

Make no mistake, there IS plenty of blame to go around.  About 75% of Americans are fed up with both Obama and Congress.   The conservative and liberal factions of the House and Senate behaved badly in the recent debt ceiling negotiation.  President Obama wanted to stay above the fray so he provided no leadership. He didn’t even know how to bring the opposing viewpoints together.  He talked about bi-partisanship and consensus, but his actions disproved his words.

Until the president saw an impending disaster, he sat on the sidelines, afraid to do anything that might hinder his reelection campaign.  Then, when his intervention didn’t help, and arguably hurt the progress, he grew impatient, petulant and angry.

John Boehner, however, did an admirable job trying to build a compromise deal on the debt ceiling, and get his own Caucus to support such a plan.  Except, Obama was attacked by his liberal base for even considering the “grand bargain,” so he came in and dumped another “raise taxes more” demand on Boehner.  I’d have walked out too, which Boehner was right to do.

But at least they were arguing about the right thing: how much to cut spending and how.

The Tea Party’s desire for fiscal responsibility is right, but it doesn’t mean that tax revenue can’t be increased.  It can; how it’s done is what matters.  The tax code desperately needs to be restructured.  Simply digging in on old positions doesn’t help; it hurts.  The goal is to “get the country working again,” and grow our way out of this mess.

The one phrase of President Obama’s that I agree with is “Country First.”  But John Boehner was the one who tried his best to put “Country First.”  If Obama truly chooses that as his 2012 campaign slogan, it will reek of hypocrisy.

If the members of Congress would put 1) country first, 2) constituents wishes next, and 3) personal agendas last, they might be able to work together to find a way out of this mess.

What happens in the Super-Committee of Twelve will be both revealing and predictive.  Either America’s Congressional leaders will—or won’t—put “country first” and try to find common ground and reasonable compromises to lead America out of this mess.

Whatever happens, this failed recovery and impending recession belong to President Barack Obama.  His condescending explanations of why “we Americans” don’t get it, how “this will take a long time,” this recovery, and his “class warfare” about “millionaires and billionaires” versus the “common folk” are all wearing thin.

This kind of rhetoric won’t solve America’s problems.   It takes strong, informed, and experienced leadership to get through a mess like this one. We need a fixer, not a hypocritical speechmaker in the White House.  Barack Obama is not that man.  A wise man once told me, “The person who got you into a problem is seldom the one who will get you out of it.” That’s why there will be no recovery on Obama’s watch, but there could be a double-dip recession.

 

————————-



John Mariotti is an internationally known executive and an award-winning author. His book, The Complexity Crisis was named one of 2008’s Best Business Books.  In his recent novel, The Chinese Conspiracy, he merges an exciting fictional thriller with the factual reality of America’s risk from Cyber-Attacks. (www.thechinesecomspiracy .com) Mariotti does Keynote speeches, serves on corporate boards and is a consultant/advisor to companies.  He can be reached at www.mariotti.net



Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39478
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama Admn: The worst Presidency this nation has ever had to endure.
« Reply #1052 on: August 29, 2011, 08:31:13 AM »
HAS ANYONE WONDERED WHY THERE IS A CANCER DRUGS SHORTAGE?
various | 8-29-2011 | various



Locally the news has been covering the shortage of Cancer Drugs. Patients are haveing life saving surgeries and trestments prosponded or delayed due to this shortage. This situation led me to ask WHY? I have found that Doctors are fighting to get drugs for their patients. Nuclear Medicine (lukemia etc) is having shortages of Isotopes due to the destruction of the Nuclear Industry.

Have we missed the complicity of the Obama Admin in this silent genocide. When Gov policies result in a class of people dying it is in fact genocide. Big Pharma held meetings with the Administration and by all accounts received a deal on medications. ........................ ....... Obamacare Creates Windfall for Drug Companies

http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Non-food/Government/obamacare_creates_windfall_for_drug_companies_0404100705.html
 

ObamaCare: A sweetheart deal for the drug companies

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/mclemente/the-white-houses-deal-with-the-devil
 

Why Pharma Wants ObamaCare http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/19/pharmaceuticals-obamacare-reform-business-healthcare-washington.html

Cancer Drug Shortages Getting Worse, FDA Says Experts note patient safety at risk in some cases

Read More http://www.ivillage.com/cancer-drug-shortages-getting-worse-fda-says/4-a-376132#ixzz1WQZc1Kza

Price-gougers hike costs of vital drugs during shortage 'Gray market' suppliers offer medications at an average 650 percent mark-up, survey shows http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44167386/ns/health-health_care/t/price-gougers-hike-costs-vital-drugs-during-shortage/

ObamaCare’s ‘Sweetheart Deal’ for PhRMA http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/obamacares-sweetheart-deal-for-phrma/

******** If You Thought Obamacare Would Be A Big Subsidy To Pharmaceuticals, Just Watch What's About To Happen In China

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/if-you-though-obamacare-would-be-a-big-subsidy-to-pharmaceuticals-just-watch-whats-about-to-happen-in-china-2010-3#ixzz1WQcasGRi



Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39478
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama Admn: The worst Presidency this nation has ever had to endure.
« Reply #1053 on: August 29, 2011, 09:59:48 AM »
Justice Dept. Keeping Islamic Bank Settlement Secret (Holder Alert)
JWR ^ | August 29, 2011 | Steven Emerson



The most transparent administration in history? Why are the details about a tax fraud settlement case with an Islamic bank tied to terrorist groups being hidden from the public?


The Justice Department has agreed to end its investigation into an international financial network with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and a Saudi prince in a settlement in excess of $30 million, sources tell the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

But DOJ officials refuse to release a copy of the settlement or make any comment on it.

"Unfortunately, we're unable to provide anything in connection with this matter," DOJ spokesman Charles Miller wrote in response to a query Aug. 16. He did not contest the existence of the settlement with the Islamic Investment Company of the Gulf (IICG). Repeated attempts to obtain the settlement, or at least a clear explanation of why it cannot be released when most government settlements are a part of the public record, have been unsuccessful.

"We will have no further comment," Miller said.


Reports of a grand jury investigation into an IICG domestic affiliate called Overland Capital surfaced early in 2007. Though the grand jury was convened in Boston in September 2006, a terror-financing prosecutor from DOJ was leading the tax evasion probe into the bank, the Wall Street Journal reported. Overland Capital allegedly was controlled by the Dar al-Maal al-Islami Trust (DMI), an Islamic financial institution founded by Saudi Prince Mohamed al-Faisal and which had at least two influential Muslim Brotherhood figures on its board, the Journal reported.


(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39478
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama Admn: The worst Presidency this nation has ever had to endure.
« Reply #1054 on: August 30, 2011, 09:37:05 AM »
Ten Job-Destroying Regulations (The Obama Administration's Greatest Hits)
National Review ^ | 08/30/2011 | Andrew Stiles




When Congress returns from recess next week, the political conversation is going to be all about jobs. As President Obama prepares to outline his “very specific” jobs proposal in a speech, House Republicans are readying a plan of their own. A key element to the GOP jobs agenda will be identifying and eliminating federal regulations that are needlessly burdening business owners and in many cases preventing them from hiring new employees. To that end, House committee chairmen have put together a list of “the 10 most harmful job-destroying regulations,” and plan to take action over the coming weeks and months to repeal or forestall these restrictive measures.

The following ten federal regulations — some of them pending, some of them already in effect — are, according to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.), “reflective of the types of costly bureaucratic handcuffs that Washington has forced upon business people who want to create jobs.”


NLRB’s Boeing Complaint
In April, the National Labor Relations Board’s general counsel issued a complaint against the Boeing company challenging the airline manufacturer’s decision to open a new plant in South Carolina, a right-to-work state. The general counsel claims the move was an unlawful “retaliation” against the unionized workforce at Boeing’s existing plant in Washington State. Despite the fact that no union workers have lost their jobs as a result of the decision, the NLRB is seeking a “restoration order” against Boeing that would force a return to the status quo ante, giving unions the ability to bargain for a new plant in Washington. Meanwhile, Boeing has already invested some $2 billion in the South Carolina plant and created more than 2,000 jobs, all of which has been put at risk by the NLRB’s actions. Because Boeing will now have to spend millions defending itself in court, the ruling is likely to deter future investment and job creation across the country. Freshman Rep. Tim Scott (R., S.C.) has sponsored the Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act, which would stop the complaint from proceeding. The House plans to vote on the bill shortly after they return in September.


MACT and CSAPR Utility Standards
The Obama administration has proposed new maximum-achievable-control-technology (MACT) standards and a cross-state air-pollution rule (CSAPR) for utility plants that will have a direct impact on utilities prices across the country. The new rules will affect more that 1,000 fossil-fuel-fired power plants, a number of which will likely be forced to shut down. As a result, Americans in many parts of the country could find themselves paying anywhere from 12 to 24 percent more for electricity. The House will vote next month on the Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation (TRAIN) Act, sponsored by Rep. John Sullivan (R., Okla.), which would mandate a cumulative economic analysis for regulations proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and delay implementation of the new utility standards until the full impact of the administration’s regulatory agenda can be sufficiently analyzed.


Boiler MACT Rules
The EPA’s new “boiler MACT” rules would impose stricter emissions standards for some 200,000 commercial, institutional, and industrial boilers nationwide, and stand to dramatically impact the thousands of American businesses — from hospitals to factories to universities — that use them. EPA officials estimated the cost of the new rules at about $10 billion, though others predict the true cost will be almost double that figure. The U.S. Small Business Administration warned that the rules would cause “significant new regulatory costs” for businesses, institutions, and municipalities across the country, with the American forest and paper industry alone expected to see an additional burden of at least $5–7 billion in new capital and compliance costs. A U.S. Commerce Department analysis predicted job losses of up to 60,000 as a result of the stricter requirements — much greater than the EPA had initially claimed — while some estimates put the job loss figure at closer to 200,000. The EPA Regulatory Relief Act, sponsored by Rep. Morgan Griffith (R., Va.), would impose a stay on four related EPA regulations issued earlier this year and give the agency more time to issue new, less onerous rules. The House will vote on the bill in early October.


Cement MACT Requirements
The EPA’s “cement MACT” requirement and two related rules would set stringent new emissions standards affecting nearly 100 cement plants across the country, many of which would be cost-prohibitive or, in some cases, effectively impossible to meet. The resulting higher costs would almost certainly lead to layoffs and offshored jobs in an industry that is (literally) the foundation for nearly all domestic infrastructure projects. In fact, it’s already happening. Residents of Raglan, Ala., recently saw construction on a $350 million cement production facility suspended, putting 1,500 jobs on hold and the forthcoming additional jobs at the plant itself at risk. The House plans to vote in October on the Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act, also sponsored by Represenative Sullivan, which would stay the imposition of these rules and give the EPA sufficient time to make revisions.


‘Coal Ash’ Regulations
The EPA has, for the first time ever, proposed national restrictions on coal ash, a byproduct of coal-burning power plants. Utility and power producers predict the cost of these rules will exceed $100 billion and force them to retire about one-fifth of the nation’s coal capacity, which could mean the loss of well over 100,000 jobs. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, which conducts policy research for lawmakers, says that the new restrictions are likely to force many coal plants to shut down between now and 2017. Rep. David McKinley (R., W.Va.) has sponsored legislation that would create a minimum standard for coal ash and would allow states to impose further regulations of their own as they see fit. The House plans to take up McKinley’s bill in late October.


Grandfathered Health Plans
In theory, Obamacare exempts certain “grandfathered” insurance policies from some, but not all, of its regulatory mandates. In practice, the new restrictions will, by the administration’s own estimates, result in the loss of 49 to 80 percent of small-employer plans, 34 to 64 percent of large-employer plans, and 40 to 67 percent of individual plans, driving millions of Americans into government-subsidized coverage through the soon-to-be-created health-care “exchanges.” Employers who are unable to retain their grandfathered status will be subject to steep penalties and increasing costs, which will discourage new hiring. The Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and Workforce committees are currently drafting legislation to roll back these restrictions, to be voted on later this year.


EPA Ozone Rule
His cap-and-trade legislation having failed to win the support of Congress, President Obama has sought to push ahead with his environmental agenda through the EPA and the creation of strict new ozone-pollution standards. Many Republicans view this as the single most harmful regulation proposed by the administration and estimate that the total cost of implementation will be at least $1 trillion over a decade and millions of jobs. The EPA is expected to propose a readjustment of the regulatory standard for ozone from its current level of 0.075 parts per million (ppm) down to somewhere in the range of 0.060 to 0.070 ppm. Despite the fact that the normal EPA procedure doesn’t call for a review of ozone standards until 2013, the agency is expected to introduce the new rule early this fall, at which point the House Energy and Commerce Committee will take swift action to forestall its implementation.


EPA Farm-Dust Regulations
The EPA is expected to issue revised standards for “coarse particulate matter” (i.e., dust) in the near future. While the agency’s scientific panel said that the science of measuring dust particles remains uncertain, it then concluded that it would be justified in either retaining the current regulatory standards or tightening them by half. Concerns over stricter rules abound in the agricultural community, as evidenced by the farmer in Atkinson, Ill., who raised the issue at one of President Obama’s town-hall events earlier this month. Farmers are well aware of the health risks associated with high levels of dust, but contend that mere “common sense,” as opposed to burdensome regulations, is sufficient to combat these risks. Stricter rules, for example, could force farmers to resort to unreasonable and expensive dust-control measures such as constantly watering down gravel and dirt roads. The House will vote later this year on the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act, sponsored by Rep. Kristi Noem (R., S.D.). The bill would establish a one-year prohibition against revising any national ambient-air-quality standard applicable to coarse particulate matter and limiting federal regulation of dust where it is already regulated under state and local laws.


EPA Greenhouse-Gas Requirements
As part of the Obama administration’s wildly ambitious goal to reduce America’s greenhouse-gas emissions by 28 percent by 2020, the EPA is expected to revise its greenhouse-gas new source performance standards (NSPS), which impact all new and existing oil, natural-gas, and coal-fired power plants, as well as oil refineries, across the nation. Furthermore, the EPA and the Department of Transportation have jointly conceived new regulations that would — for the first time ever — require stricter emissions and mileage standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. These new standards would affect everything from delivery vans to full-size pickups and buses. According to an analysis by Sen. John Barrasso (R., Wy.), the new rules would cost consumers an additional $1,000 per vehicle, at a total cost of more than $8 billion. As with the aforementioned ozone restrictions, chairman Fred Upton (R., Mich.) and the Energy and Commerce Committee are expected to take preventative action as soon as the new regulations are introduced.


NLRB ‘Ambush’ Elections Rule
Just as Obama has sought to impose his environmental agenda through the EPA, so he has attempted to appease Big Labor through executive fiat following the defeat in Congress of “card check” legislation. This summer, the NLRB proposed a series of new rules that would dramatically alter union-election procedures — for example, by allowing for “ambush” elections that would give employers as little as ten days to present their case to employees. If enacted, these new rules would result in increased labor costs and uncertainty for private-sector employers across the country. The House plans to consider legislation soon that would roll them back.

— Andrew Stiles is the Franklin Center’s 2011 Thomas L. Rhodes Journalism Fellow.


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39478
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama Admn: The worst Presidency this nation has ever had to endure.
« Reply #1055 on: August 30, 2011, 10:27:06 AM »
Obama: 7 proposed regs would exceed $1 billion
By Associated Press


http://www.salon.com/wires/politics/08/30/D9PEGGGG0_us_obama_regulations/index.html





President Barack Obama says his administration is considering seven regulations that would cost the U.S. economy more than $1 billion a year. In a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, Obama says his administration is also trying to reduce the burden of government rules.

In the letter dated Tuesday, Obama lists four proposed Environmental Protection Agency rules and three Department of Transportation rules estimated to cost in excess of $1 billion. One proposed EPA regulation on air quality standards is estimated to cost the economy between $19 billion and $90 billion.

Obama said the proposals are not final and that his administration will "give careful consideration" to cost-savings. He said his administration has made changes that have saved more

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39478
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama Admn: The worst Presidency this nation has ever had to endure.
« Reply #1056 on: August 30, 2011, 01:58:36 PM »
Ten Job-Destroying Regulations (The Obama Administration's Greatest Hits)
National Review ^ | 08/30/2011 | Andrew Stiles




When Congress returns from recess next week, the political conversation is going to be all about jobs. As President Obama prepares to outline his “very specific” jobs proposal in a speech, House Republicans are readying a plan of their own. A key element to the GOP jobs agenda will be identifying and eliminating federal regulations that are needlessly burdening business owners and in many cases preventing them from hiring new employees. To that end, House committee chairmen have put together a list of “the 10 most harmful job-destroying regulations,” and plan to take action over the coming weeks and months to repeal or forestall these restrictive measures.

The following ten federal regulations — some of them pending, some of them already in effect — are, according to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.), “reflective of the types of costly bureaucratic handcuffs that Washington has forced upon business people who want to create jobs.”


NLRB’s Boeing Complaint
In April, the National Labor Relations Board’s general counsel issued a complaint against the Boeing company challenging the airline manufacturer’s decision to open a new plant in South Carolina, a right-to-work state. The general counsel claims the move was an unlawful “retaliation” against the unionized workforce at Boeing’s existing plant in Washington State. Despite the fact that no union workers have lost their jobs as a result of the decision, the NLRB is seeking a “restoration order” against Boeing that would force a return to the status quo ante, giving unions the ability to bargain for a new plant in Washington. Meanwhile, Boeing has already invested some $2 billion in the South Carolina plant and created more than 2,000 jobs, all of which has been put at risk by the NLRB’s actions. Because Boeing will now have to spend millions defending itself in court, the ruling is likely to deter future investment and job creation across the country. Freshman Rep. Tim Scott (R., S.C.) has sponsored the Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act, which would stop the complaint from proceeding. The House plans to vote on the bill shortly after they return in September.


MACT and CSAPR Utility Standards
The Obama administration has proposed new maximum-achievable-control-technology (MACT) standards and a cross-state air-pollution rule (CSAPR) for utility plants that will have a direct impact on utilities prices across the country. The new rules will affect more that 1,000 fossil-fuel-fired power plants, a number of which will likely be forced to shut down. As a result, Americans in many parts of the country could find themselves paying anywhere from 12 to 24 percent more for electricity. The House will vote next month on the Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation (TRAIN) Act, sponsored by Rep. John Sullivan (R., Okla.), which would mandate a cumulative economic analysis for regulations proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and delay implementation of the new utility standards until the full impact of the administration’s regulatory agenda can be sufficiently analyzed.


Boiler MACT Rules
The EPA’s new “boiler MACT” rules would impose stricter emissions standards for some 200,000 commercial, institutional, and industrial boilers nationwide, and stand to dramatically impact the thousands of American businesses — from hospitals to factories to universities — that use them. EPA officials estimated the cost of the new rules at about $10 billion, though others predict the true cost will be almost double that figure. The U.S. Small Business Administration warned that the rules would cause “significant new regulatory costs” for businesses, institutions, and municipalities across the country, with the American forest and paper industry alone expected to see an additional burden of at least $5–7 billion in new capital and compliance costs. A U.S. Commerce Department analysis predicted job losses of up to 60,000 as a result of the stricter requirements — much greater than the EPA had initially claimed — while some estimates put the job loss figure at closer to 200,000. The EPA Regulatory Relief Act, sponsored by Rep. Morgan Griffith (R., Va.), would impose a stay on four related EPA regulations issued earlier this year and give the agency more time to issue new, less onerous rules. The House will vote on the bill in early October.


Cement MACT Requirements
The EPA’s “cement MACT” requirement and two related rules would set stringent new emissions standards affecting nearly 100 cement plants across the country, many of which would be cost-prohibitive or, in some cases, effectively impossible to meet. The resulting higher costs would almost certainly lead to layoffs and offshored jobs in an industry that is (literally) the foundation for nearly all domestic infrastructure projects. In fact, it’s already happening. Residents of Raglan, Ala., recently saw construction on a $350 million cement production facility suspended, putting 1,500 jobs on hold and the forthcoming additional jobs at the plant itself at risk. The House plans to vote in October on the Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act, also sponsored by Represenative Sullivan, which would stay the imposition of these rules and give the EPA sufficient time to make revisions.


‘Coal Ash’ Regulations
The EPA has, for the first time ever, proposed national restrictions on coal ash, a byproduct of coal-burning power plants. Utility and power producers predict the cost of these rules will exceed $100 billion and force them to retire about one-fifth of the nation’s coal capacity, which could mean the loss of well over 100,000 jobs. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, which conducts policy research for lawmakers, says that the new restrictions are likely to force many coal plants to shut down between now and 2017. Rep. David McKinley (R., W.Va.) has sponsored legislation that would create a minimum standard for coal ash and would allow states to impose further regulations of their own as they see fit. The House plans to take up McKinley’s bill in late October.


Grandfathered Health Plans
In theory, Obamacare exempts certain “grandfathered” insurance policies from some, but not all, of its regulatory mandates. In practice, the new restrictions will, by the administration’s own estimates, result in the loss of 49 to 80 percent of small-employer plans, 34 to 64 percent of large-employer plans, and 40 to 67 percent of individual plans, driving millions of Americans into government-subsidized coverage through the soon-to-be-created health-care “exchanges.” Employers who are unable to retain their grandfathered status will be subject to steep penalties and increasing costs, which will discourage new hiring. The Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and Workforce committees are currently drafting legislation to roll back these restrictions, to be voted on later this year.


EPA Ozone Rule
His cap-and-trade legislation having failed to win the support of Congress, President Obama has sought to push ahead with his environmental agenda through the EPA and the creation of strict new ozone-pollution standards. Many Republicans view this as the single most harmful regulation proposed by the administration and estimate that the total cost of implementation will be at least $1 trillion over a decade and millions of jobs. The EPA is expected to propose a readjustment of the regulatory standard for ozone from its current level of 0.075 parts per million (ppm) down to somewhere in the range of 0.060 to 0.070 ppm. Despite the fact that the normal EPA procedure doesn’t call for a review of ozone standards until 2013, the agency is expected to introduce the new rule early this fall, at which point the House Energy and Commerce Committee will take swift action to forestall its implementation.


EPA Farm-Dust Regulations
The EPA is expected to issue revised standards for “coarse particulate matter” (i.e., dust) in the near future. While the agency’s scientific panel said that the science of measuring dust particles remains uncertain, it then concluded that it would be justified in either retaining the current regulatory standards or tightening them by half. Concerns over stricter rules abound in the agricultural community, as evidenced by the farmer in Atkinson, Ill., who raised the issue at one of President Obama’s town-hall events earlier this month. Farmers are well aware of the health risks associated with high levels of dust, but contend that mere “common sense,” as opposed to burdensome regulations, is sufficient to combat these risks. Stricter rules, for example, could force farmers to resort to unreasonable and expensive dust-control measures such as constantly watering down gravel and dirt roads. The House will vote later this year on the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act, sponsored by Rep. Kristi Noem (R., S.D.). The bill would establish a one-year prohibition against revising any national ambient-air-quality standard applicable to coarse particulate matter and limiting federal regulation of dust where it is already regulated under state and local laws.


EPA Greenhouse-Gas Requirements
As part of the Obama administration’s wildly ambitious goal to reduce America’s greenhouse-gas emissions by 28 percent by 2020, the EPA is expected to revise its greenhouse-gas new source performance standards (NSPS), which impact all new and existing oil, natural-gas, and coal-fired power plants, as well as oil refineries, across the nation. Furthermore, the EPA and the Department of Transportation have jointly conceived new regulations that would — for the first time ever — require stricter emissions and mileage standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. These new standards would affect everything from delivery vans to full-size pickups and buses. According to an analysis by Sen. John Barrasso (R., Wy.), the new rules would cost consumers an additional $1,000 per vehicle, at a total cost of more than $8 billion. As with the aforementioned ozone restrictions, chairman Fred Upton (R., Mich.) and the Energy and Commerce Committee are expected to take preventative action as soon as the new regulations are introduced.


NLRB ‘Ambush’ Elections Rule
Just as Obama has sought to impose his environmental agenda through the EPA, so he has attempted to appease Big Labor through executive fiat following the defeat in Congress of “card check” legislation. This summer, the NLRB proposed a series of new rules that would dramatically alter union-election procedures — for example, by allowing for “ambush” elections that would give employers as little as ten days to present their case to employees. If enacted, these new rules would result in increased labor costs and uncertainty for private-sector employers across the country. The House plans to consider legislation soon that would roll them back.

— Andrew Stiles is the Franklin Center’s 2011 Thomas L. Rhodes Journalism Fellow.







BUMP FOR STRAW   

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39478
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama Admn: The worst Presidency this nation has ever had to endure.
« Reply #1057 on: August 30, 2011, 02:12:13 PM »
Obama’s HUD Violated ACORN Funding Ban
Big Government ^ | 8/30/11 | Tom Fitton



Time after time, we have found that this administration cares not one whit about following basic laws. What does it mean for Congress to pass and the president to sign a law banning a corrupt organization and its affiliates from receiving federal funds? Apparently the Obama administration could care less. As you will recall, the Obama Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) awarded a grant of $79,819 to ACORN spin-off Affordable Housing Centers of America (AHCOA), despite the fact that Barack Obama signed the ACORN funding ban in October 2009. (And despite the fact that the organization was nailed for misappropriating taxpayer funds!)


(Excerpt) Read more at biggovernment.com ...


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39478
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama Admn: The worst Presidency this nation has ever had to endure.
« Reply #1058 on: August 31, 2011, 05:33:47 AM »
Justice's New War Against Lenders

The Obama administration repeats mistakes of the past by intimidating banks into lending to minority borrowers at below-market rates in the name of combatting discrimination.

By MARY KISSEL

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904199404576538283776006582.html




Talk about not learning from past mistakes: A government department is again intimidating banks into lending to minority borrowers at below-market rates, all in the name of combating "discrimination." Welcome to the next housing mess.

The 1990s may have brought us supercharged politicized lending, but Eric Holder's Department of Justice is taking the game to an entirely new level, and then some. The weapon is a "fair lending" unit created in early 2010, led by special counsel Eric Halperin and overseen by Civil Rights Division head Thomas Perez.

A sampling of Mr. Perez's thinking, from April 2010 congressional testimony: "The foreclosure crisis has touched virtually every community in this country, but it disproportionately touches communities of color, in particular African-Americans and Latinos." And: "[C]ross burnings are the most overt form of discrimination and bigotry. Lending discrimination is some of the most subtle. It's what I call discrimination with a smile."

Even for the Obama administration's antidiscrimination cops, this is a shocker: A political appointee who's supposed to neutrally enforce the law loosely equates bankers with Klu Klux Klan thugs. But let's move from what may be Mr. Perez's personal bias, and focus on the broader brush strokes of the Justice Department—which seem designed to paint bankers into a corner.

Lenders who discriminate on the basis of race and those who make decisions on the basis of credit scores are two entirely different animals. The former our society doesn't permit, for moral reasons; the latter we encourage because it's fundamental to capitalism. A lender will go bust if he can't distinguish between a risky loan and a good loan. Poor people aren't well-served by getting loans they can't afford.

Historically, fair-lending cases have fallen into roughly two categories: "price discrimination" cases, in which lenders are accused of charging minorities higher prices than other clients, and "red-lining" suits, in which they are accused of intentionally failing to serve minority communities. Sounds straightforward for those who seek to obey the law.

View Full Image

AFP/Getty Images
 
Assistant U.S. Attorney General Thomas Perez testifies before a Senate committee on civil rights, March 29.
.But not when Justice revives "disparate impact" theory: the idea that even if lenders don't actively discriminate, they can still be sued if the cumulative effect of their actions implies discrimination. The latter is usually "proved" through statistical analysis (and the old standard—discriminatory intent—is thrown out the window). The Bush administration largely declined to pursue these cases.

And for good reason. Consider two AIG subsidiaries that Justice alleged "failed to supervise or monitor brokers in setting broker fees" between 2003 and 2006, but that Justice didn't pursue aggressively until the Obama administration. The government claimed that, in aggregate, African-Americans were charged more than other ethnic groups. AIG settled in March 2010 while it was under federal ownership, and Mr. Perez gained a big legal stick in price-discrimination cases. Suddenly lenders may be held liable for other people's business practices, even if those business practices aren't individually discriminatory.

Justice is pushing the legal envelope on red-lining, too. In a July 1 letter to Cardinal Financial Corp., Justice contends that after the bank bought George Mason Mortgage in 2004, it "failed to serve predominantly black areas on an equal basis with predominantly white areas" by not opening branches in majority-black areas or engaging in "effective outreach activities." Justice wants the bank to add nine counties to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.-approved geographic area where Cardinal does business.

Related Video
 Editorial writer Mary Kissel on Japan's new Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda.
..Never mind that the FDIC in the past gave kudos to Cardinal for its lending practices. Justice is now accusing Cardinal of failing to open branches and achieve racial loan quotas in counties that its federal regulator never before contended should be the focus of its lending. We won't know the full facts of this complaint unless it goes to court. But what Justice is up to sounds like the same government-directed, quota-based lending push that brought us the last housing boom and bust.

Many companies are simply rolling over and paying once they realize the extent of the possible PR horror show. "Banker" is a bad word in today's political environment. Small and midsize banks depend heavily on their reputation and community ties, and they can't afford to be labelled racist. Many can't afford prolonged legal cases either, and the mere prospect of fighting the feds is intimidating. Mr. Perez knows all this.

Justice is employing some unusual tactics, too, including asking banks to sign confidentiality agreements in certain circumstances. Independent Community Bankers of America chief lobbyist Camden Fine complained in a letter to Mr. Holder Monday about this practice and its "troubling lack of transparency," adding that it's hard for banks to "assess and refine" their practices if they don't know Justice's legal arguments.

But Justice is on a roll. In less than two years, the government has settled with AIG ($6.1 million), PrimeLending ($2 million), Midwest BankCentre ($1.5 million) and Citizens Republic Bancorp ($3.5 million), to name a few. More cases are in the hopper, and bigger banks are now in Justice's sights.

All of this may boost the standing of Messrs. Perez and Halperin in the Obama administration. It's less good for the rest of us. These settlements include requirements that banks lend to minorities at below-market rates and, in effect, dish out cash to politically favored "community groups." It's a good bet that many of these loans will eventually go bad.

The Justice Department—or the bank, with the long arm of Justice hanging over it—chooses where that money goes. A Michigan judge even went so far as to call one proposed settlement "extortion." He might be onto something.

Ms. Kissel is a member of the Journal's editorial board.


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39478
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama Admn: The worst Presidency this nation has ever had to endure.
« Reply #1059 on: August 31, 2011, 02:20:52 PM »
Study: Half of Hired Stimulus Workers Were Already Employed
Alana Goodman | @alanagoodman
08.31.2011 - 2:10 PM     


http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/08/31/jobama-jobs-plan-georgia-works




 This is yet another example of why it’s tough to calculate the actual job-stimulating benefits of the stimulus plan. The Recovery Act’s success is typically measured by looking at how many jobs have been created. But there’s also job “shifting,” which happens when a business uses stimulus funds to hire someone who was already employed at another company. And according to a new study from George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, that’s been the case with nearly half of the workers hired under the Recovery Act:

Hiring isn’t the same as net job creation. In our survey, just 42.1 percent of the workers hired at ARRA-receiving organizations after January 31, 2009, were unemployed at the time they were hired (Appendix C). More were hired directly from other organizations (47.3 percent of post-ARRA workers), while a handful came from school (6.5 percent) or from outside the labor force (4.1 percent)(Figure 2). Thus, there was an almost even split between “job creating” and “job switching.” This suggests just how hard it is for Keynesian job creation to work in a modern, expertise-based economy: even in a weak economy, organizations hired the employed about as often as the unemployed.


A substantial portion of the jobless population has been out of work for longer than six months, but this group is also the hardest to help. The problem isn’t necessarily a lack of jobs, but a lack of suitable education or skills. The Obama administration has proposed federally-funded job training programs, but these courses tend to be inadequate. In the eyes of many employers, training isn’t a substitute for a college degree or experience.

The latest proposal – which will likely be included in Obama’s upcoming jobs plan – is to create a program similar to the one in Georgia, which gives people eight weeks of paid, on-the-job training at an actual company:

Obama wants to help those who have been out of work for six months or more, which adds up to about 6 million Americans. Specifically the president is looking at a program such as Georgia Works – which gives unemployed Americans eight weeks of training at a local company while allowing them to still collect their unemployment benefits. And it’s no cost to the participating company.

There have been questions about the effectiveness of Georgia Works that Politico tackled recently. The program has also drawn opposition from unions, which are worried about it being exploited by companies looking for free labor – and they do have a point. When businesses are provided with an endless supply of temporary workers, wouldn’t that actually make them less likely to hire full-time employees? Beyond that, it does sound like a creative way to address the problem, and would least give on-the-job experience to the unemployed, which couldn’t hurt.





Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39478
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama Admn: The worst Presidency this nation has ever had to endure.
« Reply #1060 on: August 31, 2011, 02:56:50 PM »
Obama administration poised to become the world’s largest landlord
http://toddkinsey.com/blog/2011/08/31/obama-administration-poised-to-become-the-world%E2%80%99s-largest-landlord/ ^




Over the past three years the Obama administration has been secretly planning the largest redistribution of wealth in history. When President Obama took office, mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac held a staggering $6.1 trillion in subprime mortgages.

If you’ll remember just prior to the 2008 election, President Bush signed the $300 billion Toxic Asset Relief Program better known as TARP. Two of the largest beneficiaries of this were the mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The two companies received a combined $169 billion in taxpayer funds.

Upon taking office, the Obama administration gave instructions to the two paper tigers to begin buying up foreclosed homes. Then in May of 2010 the administration quietly gave Fannie Mae an additional $8.5 billion infusion of taxpayer money so they could continue buying up foreclosures. Again no one in the media put two-and-two together, but I predicted at the time, that the Obama administration was planning to turn these assets into government housing.


(Excerpt) Read more at toddkinsey.com ...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39478
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama Admn: The worst Presidency this nation has ever had to endure.
« Reply #1061 on: August 31, 2011, 07:15:34 PM »
Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

Editorial: Obama Gives Free Rein To Union Thugs
IBD Editorials ^ | August 31, 2011 | Staff
Posted on August 31, 2011 8:48:33 PM EDT by Kaslin

Workers' Freedom: A departing Obama administration bureaucrat just made the forcible unionization of American workers a lot easier. When it comes to bullying, this president has a double standard.

To do something about kids in school getting shoved around, the White House sends the first lady onto the Ellen Show to bemoan the supposed "culture of bullying" in America.

But when it comes to those kids' hard-working fathers and mothers struggling for a paycheck amid 9.1% unemployment, President Obama is only too happy to see them bullied at the hands of labor thugs.

Wilma Liebman, who has worked as a lawyer for big labor- and union-coddling government agencies unceasingly since 1974, left behind quite a present for her benefactors Sunday as she ended her chairmanship of the National Labor Relations Board. Included in a series of pro-union decisions was the bureaucratic enactment of "Card Check" over the heads of Congress.

Card Check means that if union forces can get most employees within a workplace to sign a card requesting a unionization election, the opposite happens: A secret ballot of workers is actually prohibited, and the union automatically comes into being — even if most workers oppose being unionized.

The need for privacy in workers expressing their wishes on the exercise of their right to organize must itself be protected as a fundamental right. It is, without question, the only way to stop union intimidation and thuggery of millions of Americans.

(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39478
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama Admn: The worst Presidency this nation has ever had to endure.
« Reply #1062 on: September 01, 2011, 07:09:55 AM »
Obama's Close Ties To CEOs Whose Firms Dodge Taxes
First Posted: 9/1/11 09:19 AM ET   Updated: 9/1/11 09:32 AM ET

www.huffingtonpost.com




WASHINGTON -- As the nation struggles with a stagnant economy, President Barack Obama has preached overhauling the U.S. tax code to spur economic growth. But as he gears up for what looks to be a tough reelection campaign, the president has surrounded himself with the current loophole-riddled system's prime offenders: corporate executives whose companies have profited off of those loopholes while reaping millions for themselves.

Institute for Policy Studies, a liberal think tank, has named 25 major American corporations whose CEOs were paid more last year than their firm's total U.S. income tax bill in a new report. Of those business elites, 10 have substantive ties to Obama -- including some who have official economic policy advisory positions in his administration -- according to a HuffPost analysis of the report.

All told, these 10 CEOs with Obama connections brought in over $158 million for themselves last year. Their companies' federal tax bill, however, was a combined net benefit of $5.4 billion -- meaning the federal government actually owed these companies billions of dollars. Eight of the 10 firms not only did not pay taxes, they received large refunds. The 10 companies scored combined U.S. profits of $26.8 billion.

HuffPost's calculations are based on data compiled in the report by the IPS. The IPS figures, in turn, are drawn from documents the companies filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Obama has repeatedly spoken of improving the corporate tax code by closing special loopholes for politically connected companies and using that money to lower the official corporate tax rate. President Ronald Reagan embarked on a similar project in 1986, enabling the federal government to increase tax revenues even as it lowered the formal tax rates. Although corporate tax revenue is at postwar lows, Obama's plan is much less ambitious: He doesn't want to actually increase tax revenues at all. The benefits from closing loopholes would exclusively flow straight to other corporations.

But Obama has given several of the executives who benefit most from the current system have been given prominent economic advisory positions. The Obama administration declined do comment for this story.

Of Obama's corporate favorites, General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt and Honeywell CEO David Cote have served in the highest-profile public positions associated with the administration. Immelt has been pilloried with criticism ever since Obama named him head of his Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. GE required massive amounts of government aid when the subprime mortgage bets made by its financial wing, GE Capital, resulted in enormous losses during the financial crisis. While the company is headquartered in the U.S., a majority of its employees are abroad (GE is somewhat unique among major companies for disclosing this figure, a fact Immelt has touted in recent speeches), and it has a robust staff of former U.S. Treasury officials who deploy complicated accounting maneuvers to lower the company's tax bills. Immelt made $15.2 million last year, with GE's $3.3 billion tax benefit accounting for more than half of the 10 companies tax benefit.


Cote has received far less public scrutiny than Immelt, although he may have had greater influence over U.S. economic policy. Obama named Cote to a previous super-committee on economic policy, the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, known as the Simpson-Bowles panel. An Obama nominee, Cote was the second-ranking Republican on the Commission, behind former Sen. Alan Simpson. Once derided by liberals as an obsessively conservative approach to cutting the deficit, the Simpson-Bowles panel's recommendations have increasingly been used by congressional Democrats to fend off more radical proposals from Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and the Republican leadership. Cote scored $15.2 million in pay last year, while Honeywell secured a $471 million tax benefit. Honeywell told HuffPost that it complied with tax laws and that its executive pay standards are guided by executive performance. The company also said it is proud of Cote's government work.

Ford CEO Allan Mulally, Boeing CEO James McNerny Jr. and Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg all served on Obama's Export Council, which the president established in 2010 to help advance his goal of doubling the exports of American products to other countries by 2015. Seidenferd stepped down as Verizon CEO earlier this year, but is currently chairman of the company. Combined, the three executives secured $58.4 million last year, while their companies scored a combined $767 million federal tax benefit.

Ford notes that its tax bill this year is particularly low relative to its profits due in part to a law allowing companies who post hefty losses to qualify for tax breaks in future years. Ford lost $2.7 billion in 2009 and $6.5 billion in 2010. Mullaly was paid $17.9 million and $17.0 million in those years.

Obama has placed other executives on separate economic panels. eBay CEO John Donahoe served on the White House Council for Community Solutions, Qwest Communications CEO Edward Mueller chaired the President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee, Dow Chemical CEO Andrew Liveris is co-chair of Obama's Advanced Manufacturing Partnership and Motorola Solutions CEO Greg Brown was on the President's Management Advisory Board. These four CEOs hauled in a combined $57.2 million last year and received a total tax benefit of $714 million. Qwest was recently acquired by CenturyLink, which distanced itself from Mueller's pay, saying it was set by Qwest's board, not CenturyLink's.

Although Dow Chemical scored robust international profits for 2010, it was the only one of the 10 firms tied to Obama to post a loss on its U.S. operations during the year. Liveris recieved $17.7 million in total compensation.

Of the 10 CEOs, International Paper CEO John Faraci has the loosest tie to Obama. The president invited Faraci to travel with him to Brazil for the signing of a preliminary trade agreement, and Faraci spoke favorably of the deal during the trip.

"It's no surprise that the CEOs that IPS chose to look at are earning more than their corporations paid in taxes in 2010 given how many major corporations pay no taxes at all," said Bob McIntyre, Director of Citizens for Tax Justice, a separate think tank that works exclusively on improving U.S. tax policy. McIntyre is currently working on a separate report that he says has found "dozens" of top corporations who have paid no federal income taxes in recent years.

When asked to comment on the discrepancy between CEO pay and federal income tax bills, the companies emphasized that they complied with federal law on their taxes. Others said the report was unfair, because it does not count the other types of taxes companies pay -- state, local and payroll taxes. Several also noted that their tax bills appear larger if you count "deferred taxes" in the calculation. One of the most prominent ways to defer taxes, however, is to stash money in offshore tax havens like Panama that do not tax corporations. So long as that money remains abroad, companies never actually have to pay U.S. taxes on it. The hypothetical future taxes that firms would have to pay if they brought the money back is included in the "deferred tax" number that companies report in annual filings. Deferred taxes, in turn, are typically included in corporate calculations for their "effective tax rate."

The IPS report by contrast only looks at actual money companies expected to pay -- or receive -- from the federal government in income taxes for the year. State, local and payroll taxes do not directly effect the federal budget deficit. The formal federal income tax rate for large corporations is 35 percent.

"This report is just the latest piece of evidence -- you've seen a lot of press reports on some very big companies that show they actually pay very low taxes despite the officially high tax rates," Chuck Marr, Director of Federal Tax Policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, told HuffPost. "Think about the gut-wrenching cuts that are going to be made in education, in innovation and research. Those are just going to be worse if we don't address the corporate sector. So, if we're gonna put scientific research on the table, corporate taxes should be right there with it."


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39478
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama Admn: The worst Presidency this nation has ever had to endure.
« Reply #1063 on: September 01, 2011, 08:51:40 AM »
Louis Woodhill, Contributor
Op/Ed|8/31/2011 @ 3:52PM |1,980 views
Obama A Bad Economic President? Consider It "Proved"


I have a B.S. in mechanical engineering. I am a software entrepreneur who is currently an investor and board member in three startup companies. I am on the Leadership Council of the Club for Growth. I was born in 1948. This chapter of my life is about trying to help people make their dreams come true. I started writing about economics because I hate the way that our dysfunctional economy is crushing the dreams of so many people. Young people are delaying getting married and having children because of unstable jobs and incomes. It doesn't have to be this way, and I want to contribute to solving the problem. I believe that prosperity is possible.

The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

 In a Bloomberg opinion piece published Aug. 25, Jonathan Alter asked for “proof” that Barack Obama has been a bad president, specifically with regard to his handling of the economy.  OK, Jonathan, here’s your proof.

Executives are judged by results.  In terms of the economic results produced during the first 2.5 years of his first term, Obama is the worst president of the past 60 years.  Given that Alter himself would likely agree that there have been some bad presidents during the past 60 years, this makes Obama a bad president.

Ten presidents have been elected since 1952: Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 and Obama.  Let’s look at how each of them stacked up against the following five important measures of economic performance:

1.The average real GDP growth rate during the first 10 calendar quarters of his first term
2.The percentage point change in the CPI inflation rate between the December prior to his inauguration and July of the third year of his first term
3.The percent change in the “Real Dow” (the Dow Jones Industrial Average divided by the price of gold in dollars per ounce) between the December prior to his inauguration and July of the third year of his first term
4.The percentage point change in the unemployment rate between the December prior to his inauguration and July of the third year of his first term
5.The percent change in total employment (BLS Household Survey) between the December prior to his inauguration and July of the third year of his first term
If we rank the ten presidents listed above in numeric order in each of these categories based upon the results they produced, and then calculate the average of their five individual scores, we get the following overall presidential rankings, from best (1) to worst (10):


1.Clinton
2.Johnson
3.Eisenhower
4.Kennedy
5.Carter
6.Reagan
7.Bush 41
8.Nixon
9.Bush 43
10.Obama

It may be surprising to see Jimmy Carter ranked ahead of Ronald Reagan.  Remember, however, that the comparison is only between the economic results achieved during their first 2.5 years in office.  As it happened, the economy went downhill fast during Carter’s final 1.5 years in office, while the last 18 months of Reagan’s first term was marked by rapid GDP growth and job creation.

Obviously, Alter wants Obama to be reelected.  Because Reagan won 49 states in November, 1984 despite his poor economic record through July, 1983, it is reasonable to believe that Obama could win in 2012 if he produced strong GDP and employment growth between now and the election.  However, it is very unlikely that he will accomplish this.

Obama’s fundamental problem is his flawed mental model of how the economy works.  His recent speeches suggest that he has not yet recognized his conceptual errors.  Rather, all of the indications are that he will attempt to “double down” on the policies that have kept our economy mired in the worst recession/recovery since the Great Depression.

First and foremost, Obama continues to believe that a weak, unstable, manipulated U.S. dollar is good for the economy.  Bush 43 believed the same thing, and waited in vain for a surge in exports to boost the economy, even as the dollar lost 69% of its value against gold.  Obama took up Bush’s vain vigil, and stood idly by while value of the dollar in terms of gold fell by another 53% (for a total of 85% since Jan. 20, 2001).

Obama remains firmly in the grip of the Keynesian Superstition, which is the belief that government deficits boost the economy.  He didn’t seem to notice that his $862 billion in “stimulus” vanished without a trace.  Also, the fact that annualized GDP growth slowed from 2.33% (4Q2010) to 0.36% (1Q2011) at the moment that his second round of “stimulus” (the 2.0 percentage point cut in payroll taxes and yet another extension of unemployment benefits) took effect seems to have made no impression on him.

It is this superstitious belief in Keynesianism that led White House Press Secretary Jay Carney to lecture a reporter from The Wall Street Journal that extending unemployment benefits would boost the economy.  It is also what prompted Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to claim that every dollar spent on food stamps adds $1.84 to GDP.

Obama is a Progressive, and Progressives believe that unelected, unaccountable “experts” (i.e., them) can make better economic decisions than “We the People”, expressing our preferences via free markets.  They also seem to believe that regulation upon regulation can be piled upon the private sector at no cost to jobs or economic growth.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2011/08/31/obama-a-bad-economic-president-consider-it-proved/2


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39478
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama Admn: The worst Presidency this nation has ever had to endure.
« Reply #1064 on: September 01, 2011, 07:09:07 PM »
Obama Jobs Plan: 'Innovative Infrastructure Ideas' And Sector-Specific Relief

Posted: 9/1/11 04:01 PM ET
React
Important
Funny
Typical
Scary
Outrageous
Amazing
Innovative
Finally
Read more
Infrastructure , Labor Obama , Obama Jobs , Obama Jobs Speech , Obama Jobs Speech Thursday , Obama Report , Obama Report White House , Omb Report , Thursday Jobs Speech , Politics News
SHARE THIS STORY

56
57
7

Get Politics Alerts
 Sign Up
Submit this story
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration has thus far remained coy regarding the content of the president's high-profile jobs speech, with White House Press Secretary Jay Carney going so far as to tell reporters during Thursday's press briefing that he won't "show any more leg on the details."

But buried within the Office of Management and Budget's midsession review of the current economic climate is a nugget that offers a bit more clarity about what to expect when the president addresses a joint session of Congress next Thursday.

"[T]he President will introduce after Labor Day a package of meaningful, new initiatives to promote economic growth and create jobs," the review reads. "These will build on the actions the President has been urging Congress to complete that will strengthen the economy and create jobs, but also include new measures that will accelerate job growth in the short term. These could include a mix of tax cuts to create jobs and provide economic security to the middle class, innovative infrastructure ideas to put people back to work, and some measures specifically targeted at the long-term unemployed and other specific sectors of the economy that are in particular need."

Such a description is still fairly broad in scope. But it does suggest that the president won't simply be falling back on his usual prescriptions for resolving the jobs crisis: free trade deals, an infrastructure bank and patent reform. Rather, it sets the bar a touch higher, pledging innovative approaches to infrastructure policy as well as sector-specific job creation ideas (think: construction).

In his briefing on Thursday, Carney heavily hinted that the president's plan would get the United States below 9 percent unemployment. And in a conference call outlining the review, OMB Director Jacob Lew added additional detail, including that the president will press Congress to pass existing legislation (which could mean anything, from free trade agreements to a long-term extension Federal Aviation Authorization bill).

"The plan will build on the actions the president has been pushing [in] the past," he said. "It will ask Congress to act on some things and propose some new things. There is going to be a mix of tax and infrastructure and other spending items. It is going to, in general, designed to be both effective and something we can work on in a bipartisan basis to get into law. There are going to be a lot of other economic ideas the president has in addition to the growth package, some of which will be foreshadowed next week. But I think, as the president's statements over the past weeks have made clear this is the principle focus of our economic team."

One thing we know for certain is that the president has pledged that whatever he proposes in the speech will be paid for. But that might simply mean that the White House will rack up bills in the short-term while planning to pay for them with specific cuts down the road.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/01/obama-jobs-plan-jobs-speech_n_945529.html




Morer of the same crap from this jerk! 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39478
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama Admn: The worst Presidency this nation has ever had to endure.
« Reply #1065 on: September 02, 2011, 03:27:38 AM »
Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

Morning Bell: Food Regulators Out of Control
The Heritage Foundation ^ | September 1, 2011 | Ericka Andersen
Posted on September 2, 2011 6:20:29 AM EDT by markomalley

First Lady Michelle Obama’s obsession with “childhood obesity” has bothered many since it began two years ago, especially those who think that White House nagging of parents should be reserved for more pressing issues. Now it is getting more serious, with food regulators starting to infringe on the free speech rights of advertisers.

In the latest upset, four federal agencies known as the Interagency Working Group (IWG) have delivered a plan to drastically censor food advertisers with products deemed to be “too high” in sodium, sugar, or fat that cater to any viewing audience between the ages of two and 11. These advertisers would lose key slots during some of America’s most popular shows, like American Idol, America’s Got Talent, and Glee—simply because the nanny state is “uncomfortable” with what they are selling.

The IWG, formed within the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act to study childhood obesity and offer possible solutions, has gone far beyond their descriptive reach. Now, perfectly reasonable companies may be penalized severely.

The regulators plan to get away with this by disguising their rules as “voluntary guidelines.” In reality, the guidelines are anything but optional, according to food manufacturers affected by them.

As Heritage’s Diane Katz explains:

The restrictions are voluntary in name only. Food manufacturers can hardly ignore “recommendations” from the very federal agencies that exercise regulatory authority over their every move. It is akin to a cop asking for ID or to search one’s vehicle: While the law treats such citizen cooperation as voluntary, most individuals would not view it as such, nor would the police look kindly on anyone who denies their requests.

It’s not just Twinkies and cookies that will be affected, either. Anything deemed to have a little too much sodium or fat will be tested under the new rules, including foods whose very production requires a high sodium content (like pickles) and those that are naturally high fat (like peanuts).

As Katz wrote, “Nutritional staples such as Cheerios, peanut butter, and yogurt are verboten under the proposed standards, which effectively constitute a government-regulated grocery list.”

The regulations hit traditional favorites where it hurts. In turn, the free market and consumer choice is manipulated to fit a misplaced government agenda that doesn’t solve the problem.

Even if the feds are well-intentioned, their action plan isn’t grounded in reliable research. The whole point of the regulations is to curb the growing epidemic of childhood obesity—but the Institute of Medicine found no link between advertisements and children’s food choices.

According to Katz, children have seen about 50 percent less food advertising in the last six years than before that time—yet obesity rates continue to climb. Former FDA Commissioner Dr. Mark McClellan attributes the obesity problem to “physical inactivity”—not caloric intake. In fact, McClellan noted that children’s calorie intake has remained about the same for the last 20 years.

Not only do regulations hinder the market and censor speech; they hurt the businesses behind the labels. Sara Lee CEO Christopher J. Fraleigh recently spoke on the overextended regulations, which will hurt his business in particular:

A turkey sandwich made with Sara Lee fat-free lean turkey meat, we would not be able to advertise that on venues, be it the Superbowl or anything that would have a significant child audience, because the product is a little bit too high in sodium…. Current regulation of advertising toward children is a perfect example of regulation that just goes way too far.

The Obama Administration’s food regulators think that if you give them an inch, they can take a mile. But when free speech is on the cutting board, they will certainly hear from the people, and the people will not stand for it.

dario73

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6467
  • Getbig!
Re: Obama Admn: The worst Presidency this nation has ever had to endure.
« Reply #1066 on: September 02, 2011, 07:44:09 AM »
I saw this report this morning. Unbelievable. So basically, ALL parents are useless. No one can take responsibility for their own actions. The entire USA is full of drones who are controlled and influenced by corporations as to what they should eat and the citizens are impotent to think for themselves. Is this what politicians think of the American people?

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39478
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama Admn: The worst Presidency this nation has ever had to endure.
« Reply #1067 on: September 05, 2011, 05:05:37 PM »
Goldberg: Obamacare impacts Americans' access to drugs (Commiecare™ shortages begin)
Star-Telegram ^ | 9/03/11 | Robert Goldberg
Posted on September 5, 2011 6:22:12 PM EDT by Libloather

Goldberg: Obamacare impacts Americans' access to drugs
By Robert Goldberg
Special to the Star-Telegram
Posted Saturday, Sep. 03, 2011

Call it Obamacare's Final Destination Tour. People whose lives should be saved by new and existing cancer drugs are driving from hospital to hospital in search of medicines in short supply -- thanks in part to Obamacare's implementation.

Over the past two years, shortages have developed for more than 180 drugs, including cancer treatments. The shortfall is the result of stricter FDA regulation, government price controls on already discounted but complex drugs, and policies that discourage the use of new medications. Companies, facing lower prices, tighter regulation, and increasing government control over what drugs will be used when are exiting the US market and investing in product development in china and India where, sadly, it is easier and cheaper to produce next-generation medicines than in America.

Stockpiling will only add to people's suffering by replacing market reforms with government micromanagement. Government planners require months, if not years, to produce regulations, bids and supply estimates that are usually overgenerous to compensate for paltry prices. Government bungling was behind the failure of the smallpox and H1N1 vaccine program and responsible for billions of dollars in flu vaccines and antibiotics being dumped.

(Excerpt) Read more at star-telegram.com ...




Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39478
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama Admn: The worst Presidency this nation has ever had to endure.
« Reply #1068 on: September 05, 2011, 05:16:33 PM »
Obama’s anti-jobs agenda: Adminitration's slate of yet more regulations is beyond alarming
Washington Times ^ | 09/03/2011 | Wayne Crews
Posted on September 4, 2011 9:12:17 AM EDT by SeekAndFind

Though President Obama is nowhere to be seen on ground-level job-creation efforts apart from the golf course, he did issue an early 2011 executive order to streamline the federal regulatory process by a fraction of a percent in advance of his still-unannounced jobs agenda.

The president will present that jobs agenda to a joint congressional session, but meanwhile, his policies - such as tolerating the National Labor Relations Board’s dictating where a firm can build a plant - actively rip jobs away.

Sadly, the primary job-planning happening now in the private sector is planning to cancel job creation and to de-employ.

Mr. Obama’s slate of yet more regulations is beyond merely alarming in this tense environment. The FederalRegister already stands at more than 54,000 pages so far this year.

Among new incursions are the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Maximum Achievable Control Technology pollutant standards for fossil-fuel utilities, for cement plants and boilers like the ones factories and hospitals use. Other EPA standards await for ozone, for dust kicked up by farming and for power-plant coal ash.

Far from a jobs agenda, Mr. Obama advances an explicit anti-jobs program, one totaling hundreds of billions of dollars in costs and hundreds of thousands in jobs lost and jobs that can never appear. On top of an orgy of rule-making, our government, as deliberate public policy, prohibits access to safe and efficient extraction of fossil fuels on land and offshore.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39478
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama Admn: The worst Presidency this nation has ever had to endure.
« Reply #1069 on: September 05, 2011, 05:26:00 PM »
Government Sues Trucking Company for Taking Keys Away From Alcoholic Driver
Fox News ^ | 9/2/11 | Stephen Clark
Posted on September 3, 2011 11:43:33 AM EDT by Impala64ssa

Citing a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Obama administration is suing a trucking company for taking the keys away from an Arkansas driver and eventually firing him after he admitted he was battling alcohol abuse.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit this week arguing that Old Dominion Freight Line discriminated against Charles Grams by stripping him of his position and offering him a demotion even if he completed a substance abuse counseling program.

Instead, the EEOC argued, the North Carolina-based company, which has a service center in Arkansas, should have complied with the law, known as the ADA, while ensuring safety.

“The ADA mandates that persons with disabilities have an equal opportunity to achieve in the workplace,” said Katharine Kores, director of the EEOCs Memphis District Office, which covers Arkansas. “While the EEOC agrees that an employer’s concern regarding safety on our highways is a legitimate issue, an employer can both ensure safety and comply with the ADA.”

The EEOC says alcoholism is a recognized disability under the ADA and that the company violated the law with its policy that bans any driver who admits alcohol abuse from driving again.

The EEOC wants the company to reinstate Grams and another affected driver to their previous positions and provide them with back pay, compensatory and punitive damages and compensation for lost benefits. The EEOC is also seeking to block the company’s alcohol-related policy.

The company's policy bans any driver who self-reports alcohol abuse from driving again. Reassignment to a non-driving position is contingent upon the driver enrolling in a treatment program.

Joel McCarty, general counsel to Old Dominion, wouldn’t comment on the details of the pending litigation. But he told FoxNews.com, “We intend to vigorously defend our position.” snip “Our concern is safety,” he said.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39478
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama Admn: The worst Presidency this nation has ever had to endure.
« Reply #1070 on: September 05, 2011, 05:55:08 PM »
Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

Obama's New Policy to Crush Small Businesses
Townhall.com ^ | September 5, 2011 | Lurita Doan
Posted on September 5, 2011 6:46:10 PM EDT by Kaslin

President Obama and his team of economic advisors are continuing their crusade against entrepreneurs and small companies that are the traditional engine to economic growth.   The latest anti-business Obama policies appear in a just-released Executive Order 13495, a new rule to be enforced by the Department of Labor.  This particular regulation is aimed directly at small business owners and attacks small businesses' most valuable asset--their employees.

Executive Order 13495, which will be both complicated and costly to enforce, represents just another example of  Team Obama’s complete lack of understanding  of the concerns of small business owners.    After 15 years as a small business owner, and as the former Administrator of the U.S. General Services Administration, I've been to the circus a few times and seen all the strings connected the federal government and its indifference to the plight of small business owners. For small businesses, Executive Order 13495 is perhaps the most damaging action yet to come out of the Obama Administration.

First, in our country, a business has the freedom to hire the workers it thinks are best suited to ensure the company's success.  The new Team Obama contracting rule tramples over that basic, capitalist principle by requiring any company which wins a federal contract to hire the employees that the government identifies.

This means that the government has new and expanded powers to direct the hiring, firing and promotion of employees at private companies.

Second, government contracting is challenging and intensely competitive.  Profit margins are wire thin.  Companies need to have the freedom to hire those whom they best believe can provide the best value to the government at the lowest cost.  This new rule will make that kind of entrepreneurial freedom almost impossible as the federal government forces the company into employment and salary negotiations with persons of the government’s choice, with the government participating in the negotiation process.    

Third, this new rule shows that Team Obama has no understanding of the challenges facing small businesses. Small businesses create 3 out of every 4 jobs in the United States.  Small businesses are the source of much of the innovation in the United States. They are more agile because of their size and more willing to take risks. 

A small business' employees are its life's blood.   Successful small business leaders all understand the need to hire, retain and build a dedicated base of employees and provide them with whatever additional training is needed to give the business an edge and ability to compete.   But now, in this new regulation,  Obama seeks to undermine small business owners with a too-heavy, government hand that will give the government broad new powers to poach and strip a successful small business owner of its most valuable employees whenever it wishes. Raiding the employee rolls of small companies robs them of their most important asset.

Lastly, this rule shows a profound disrespect for the employee, and treats them as a kind of indentured servant or slave, chattel to be passed from one company to another without consideration of the employee's desires.

Obama's colossal ignorance of the challenges facing small businesses seems a clear sign that once again, the President just doesn’t get it.  Time and again, new, burdensome regulations are heaped upon small businesses and the nation’s job creators.  And yet, Obama seems simultaneously unaware of the damage he has done and continues to do, even as he issues platitudes and half-baked thoughts about the need to create jobs. 

Unless I miss my guess, Obama’s big Jobs Speech is likely to be "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."  The fact is, the president lacks even a basic understanding of how difficult it is to start a small business and see it grow.  This disturbing anti-business trend is quickly becoming the primary Obama legacy.

Small business owners understand that  creating jobs requires a system that encourages risk-taking because it makes it possible for risk takers to reap rewards. What government should do is provide regulatory relief for many of the arcane and obsolete requirements that hinder job creators.

Unfortunately, this latest executive order tells us that Obama is moving his Administration in the opposite direction and has decided to add to the regulatory thicket by making it hard for entrepreneurs and small business owners to succeed.

Creating jobs is fairly straightforward. Getting the White House to abandon union-generated ideas that stifle innovation, crush competitiveness, and condescend to small businesses—well, that's a lot harder.








Silence from team tampon to be expected. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39478
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama Admn: The worst Presidency this nation has ever had to endure.
« Reply #1071 on: September 06, 2011, 05:24:43 AM »
7 Business Screw-Ups From America's Super CEO-And-Chief Barack Obama
Townhall.com ^ | September 6, 2011 | John Hawkins




I have developed the 7-11 challenge: I will quit making fun of, for example, Dennis Kucinich, if he can prove he can run a 7-11 properly for 8 hours. We'll even let him have an hour or so of preparation before we open up. Within 8 hours, the money will be gone, the store will be empty, and he'll be explaining how three 11-year olds came in and asked for the money and he gave it to them. -- Ann Coulter

One of the biggest problems with many of the politicians in D.C. is that they have come to believe that because they've had a little success in their lives, they're smarter than everyone else and can run people's businesses better than they can do it themselves.

In actuality, even if they were smarter than most other people, which isn't true just because their sycophantic aides tell them it is, experience usually trumps brilliance. In other words, a politician like Barack Obama who has never run a business, is making and breaking companies from Washington with bail-outs, laws, and regulations, despite the fact that he has very little idea of what the real world impact of his actions will be.

Meanwhile, people are wondering why corporations are hunkering down, hoarding cash, and refusing to hire people right now. The biggest reason for it is sitting in the Oval Office. At any moment, Obamacare may have some unknown complication, a government agency may implement some incredibly costly new regulation, the White House may go after them to help a connected Democrat donor, or Obama may impose a new tax in the name of "fairness."


Here are just a few examples that show you how little Barack Obama really knows about business.

General Motors: Democrats hail GM as a wonderful success story that shows how well the government and private industry can work hand-in-hand to save jobs! The cost of that "wonderful success story?" Roughly 13 billion dollars in taxpayer money and a 45 billion tax break. That's supposed to be a victory? Gee, what was it that King Pyrrhus of Epirus once said after a "victory" like that over the Romans? Oh, yes, "Another such victory and I come back to Epirus alone." But no worries, as long as we can keep borrowing more money from the Chinese for your children to pay the bills, Obama's fatcat corporate pals will never have to go it alone.


Solyndra: Those "green jobs" Obama talks about incessantly have really worked out well, haven't they? Just look at Solyndra. It received 535 million dollars of your money via stimulus loans and now? Solyndra just laid off 1100 workers and went into Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Hmmm, maybe there was a REASON that it had to get that huge loan from the government instead of investors beyond, "Capitalists are big meanies!"

Health Care Follies at AT&T, Verizon, Caterpillar, Deere, Valero Energy, AK Steel, 3M and McDonald's: When Obama tried -- and failed -- to sell health care reform to the public, he was promising everything to everybody. Among the many, many false promises that were made was that the bill would reduce health care costs and that people could keep their current health care if they wanted it. Unfortunately, although not surprisingly, Obama was either lying or had no idea what he was talking about because health care costs are going to explode under the law and numerous companies are considering dropping their coverage when the law comes into force.


On Thursday and Friday AT&T, Verizon, Caterpillar, Deere, Valero Energy, AK Steel and 3M announced publicly that a tax provision in the new health care law will make it far more expensive to provide prescription drug coverage to their retired employees.
McDonald's Corp. has warned federal regulators that it could drop its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers unless regulators waive a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul.
Thirty percent of employers will definitely or probably stop offering health benefits to their employees once the main provisions of President Obama's federal health care law go into effect in 2014, a new survey finds. The research published in the McKinsey Quarterly found that the number rises to 50 percent among employers who are highly aware of the health care law.

Is Obama a Machiavellian schemer who's trying to create this result or an incompetent blockhead who has no idea what he's doing? Whichever the case may be, the end result is the same: An unkept promise and people who will be forced off healthcare plans that they were already happy with because of the government.

Johnson Controls, Inc.: Under Obama massive amounts of government money have flowed to well connected or politically correct green industries with little emphasis on results. For example, 300 million dollars of your money was given to Johnson Controls, Inc. as part of a stimulus grant so it could make high-tech batteries. So, how many "jobs, jobs, jobs" were created with all of those tax dollars? Only 150 so far, which comes out to a mere 2 million dollars per job created. Evergreen Solar, Inc.: Not only did Evergreen Solar receive stimulus cash, it received tax dollars from the state of Massachusetts. So how well was your money spent?


Last week, the Massachusetts-based Evergreen Solar filed for bankruptcy, after laying off 800 workers in March. Now, they are slated to dump another 65 workers by closing a plant in Michigan. This, after receiving an undisclosed amount of stimulus cash, in addition to $58 million in state aid.
Gibson Guitars: It was raided -- again -- for the terrible sin of supposedly buying illegally harvested wood from another country. Of course, Gibson has noted that the wood was received from a Forest Stewardship Council certified supplier and one has to wonder if that has more to do with the fact that Gibson's CEO contributes to Republicans while one of its biggest competitors, C.F. Martin & Company, has a CEO who contributes to Democrats. Incidentally, don't worry too much about Gibson Guitars because the DOJ has come up with a solution: They should fire their American workers and hire people in Madagascar to do the same work.


Boeing: Unions dramatically drive up costs, make it more difficult to fire political workers, are more likely to strike and have been responsible for decimating whole industries in the United States. Naturally, no company ever WANTS to work with a union if it doesn't have to do it. Unfortunately for Boeing, unions are too important to Barack Obama's re-election campaign; so he's stacked the National Labor Relations Board with union puppets who, for the first time in the history of the United States, refused to allow Boeing to open a plant in South Carolina because the plant would use non-union labor.

Deep into the recent recession, Boeing decided to invest more than $1 billion in a new factory in South Carolina. Surging global demand for our innovative, new 787 Dreamliner exceeded what we could build on one production line and we needed to open another.
...[T]he National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) believes it was a mistake and that our actions were unlawful. It claims we improperly transferred existing work, and that our decision reflected “animus” and constituted “retaliation” against union-represented employees in Washington state. Its remedy: Reverse course, Boeing, and build the assembly line where we tell you to build it.


This is the eternal dilemma of the American businessman: At any point some politician, bureaucratic toady, or left-wing judge may come up with some haywire interpretation of a law or regulation and throw sand in the gears. No amount of preparation can really fix the problem because our regulatory schemes have become such vast Byzantine tangles of red tape that everyone is essentially breaking some law or another during every waking moment of the day.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




And yet - peiople like Mal, Straw, Andre, Blackass and the others sid in confusion why businesses wont hire. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39478
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama Admn: The worst Presidency this nation has ever had to endure.
« Reply #1072 on: September 06, 2011, 06:14:22 AM »
Zero Jobs 101 — the Psychology of Alienating Employers

Posted By Victor Davis Hanson On September 2, 2011 @ 12:01 pm


There Is No There There

Zero jobs last month — a net change of zero job growth? It was just announced that last month’s unemployment is still above 9% — despite the nearly five trillion dollars in Keynesian pump-priming, the near zero interest rates, the expanded unemployment and food stamp support, and the government takeovers and subsidies of businesses. There is a scary sort of deer-in-the-headlights look about Obama and Biden that is quite disturbing, as if they are thinking, “This was not supposed to happened to us. Geithner, Goolsbee, Orszag, Romer, Summers assured us that all this borrowing would turn things around — but they are all gone or leaving, so now we are alone? What to do? Hmmm. More them/us class warfare rhetoric? Embrace more of the California/Illinois/New York blue-state model? More European Union emulation? A national high-speed rail jobs program? Bring back Van Jones and “millions of green jobs”? Borrow another $5 trillion? Maybe negative interest rates? Seventy-five million on food stamps? Four years of unemployment insurance? A new Department of Jobs? Call in Jimmy Carter for advice about 1979? $100 billion more in green subsidies to progressive caring companies? Take over Ford? Another speech from Buffett? Unleash the Congressional Black Caucus?”

Two Sorts of Depression

Job growth is as often driven by psychological impulses on the part of employers as actual facts on the ground, given the requirement of a business that it must plan for the unknown future better than do its rivals. While business people don’t read every economic report or follow every political psychodrama, they do watch for trends, know hourly the pulse of their businesses, and talk to colleagues and rivals to form general opinions about business climate and government attitudes and future policies. I’ve been speaking a lot lately to civic groups, a few firms, investors, large and small farmers and farm suppliers, and individual employers. And the following would fairly sum up their current state of mind.

The Great Sit-Down Strike

In the last 30 months, the Obama administration has created a psychological landscape that finally just seemed, whether fairly or not, too hostile to most employers to risk new hiring and buying. Each act, in and of itself, was irrelevant. Together they are proving catastrophic and doing the near impossible of turning a brief recovery into another recession.

Here is the lament I heard: the near $5 trillion in borrowing in just three years, the radical growth in the size of the federal government and its regulatory zeal, ObamaCare, the Boeing plant closure threat, the green jobs sweet-heart deals and Van Jones-like “Millions of Green Jobs” nonsense, the vast expansion in food stamps and unemployment pay-outs, the reversal of the Chrysler creditors, politically driven interference in the car industry, the failed efforts to get card check and cap and trade, the moratoria on new drilling in the Gulf, the general antipathy to new fossil fuel exploitation coupled with new finds of vast new reserves, the new financial regulations, an aggressive EPA oblivious to the effects of its advocacy on jobs, the threatened close-down of energy plants, the support for idling thousands of acres of irrigated farmland due to environmental regulations, the constant talk of higher taxes, the needlessly provocative rhetoric of “fat cat”, “millionaires and billionaires,” “corporate jet owners,” etc. juxtaposed, in hypocritical fashion, to Martha’s Vineyard, Costa del Sol, and Vail First Family getaways — all of these isolated strains finally are becoming a harrowing opera to business people.

Despite enormous opportunity for many cash-rich firms to take advantage of the down cycles (low interest, plentiful potential employees, discounted prices, etc.), they are taking a pass, almost as if to collectively sigh, “This bunch doesn’t like me much and I’m going to hunker down, hoard my cash, and sit out the next year and a half until they are gone.” And the administration’s efforts to counteract these symbols and impressions by courting a high-profile, hyper-capitalist Warren Buffett, or a GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt have proven even more ironic: the former calls for higher taxes that his firms seek to avoid, or targets his post-mortem wealth to (more efficient?) private foundations that rob the Treasury of billions in lost inheritance taxes, or knows higher taxes won’t much matter to his tens of billions in net worth; the latter’s firm paid no 2010 U.S. income taxes on many of its profits and outsourced jobs overseas. And when Obama is told by his base to “get tough,” “get angry,” and “double-down” on the EU-like statist policies and Chicago-organizing, get-in-their-face rhetoric that got him into this jobs stagnation mess, should we laugh or cry? Get furious and demand — what? Snarl and scream about the right to go “big” from $1.6 trillion to $2 trillion in annual borrowing?

Highly publicized visits to bankrupt subsidized green plants, blaming George Bush, new racially-driven invective from some congresspeople against the Tea Party, sermons about the sensitivities of illegal aliens, politically-correct tutorials about Islam — all that might rally the base or in isolation be understandable, but again fairly or not, such liberal rhetoric simply adds to the problem from yet another dimension: confirming perceptions that employers are about the last people in the world that this administration is worried about.

The Upper-Middle-Class Lament

I talked to a gentleman in the Central Valley the other day; he voiced a rarely heard lament. He was a private business person who thought he had saved enough for retirement but could not see any income anywhere: (1) his cash is getting almost no interest in a variety of savings accounts; (2) he can’t sell his house without a loss and can’t see any foreseeable increase in its equity; (3) his 401(K) is still down and never quite recovered from the post-2008 dive and is now simply too volatile for him to know what to do; (4) he assumes taxes will go up to pay for the subsidies of others for which he does not qualify for —yet; (5) he has no public pension and has less income than those who used to make far less but worked for the federal government, state, or city. I could only say that Obama would say, “Well, your’re better off than many in my base.”

Vandal Watch

Last week, I mentioned that my local community is struggling with council members calling each other names and alleging serial conflicts of interest, theft of the city’s manhole covers by public employees, and child pornography charges lodged against a policeman. This week? An epidemic of the theft of honorific bronze plaques from the walls of the city’s schools, civic centers, and public buildings — the sort of commemoration for good deeds that are the stuff of civilization. It reminds me of Procopius’s description of post-Roman Italy in the 6th-century AD, when lost Ostrogoth and Visigoth souls drifted amid the great cities of the Old Romans, cannibalizing the ancients’ marble, bronze, and lead clamps, and melting down monuments for lime. What scares me is that the gang bangers, who are prying these plaques off the walls and selling them, for pennies on their original dollars, for scrap, have no idea of the now dead who built and created these buildings and institutions, but so often in extremis will expect to use them. Did the man who built a school or the woman who founded a civic club ever expect that their commemorative citations would end up in a melt-down pile in the local wrecking yard?

Copper wire torn out from agricultural pumps? Manhole covers stolen by their very custodians? Commemorative plaques pried out? We are almost an entire generation of parasites that cannot create anything new and so feed on the capital and labor of the past. Sixth-century Rome to the core, or maybe Dark-Age Greece around 1000 BC where the illiterate and ignorant were wandering beneath the walls of Mycenae or Pylos looking for shelter that they could not build for themselves, and swearing superhuman “gods” must have erected such walls. Who knows, just as the most fertile period of Greek myth-making came out of the oral traditions of the Dark Ages as an impoverished and illiterate age tried to make sense of the monumental traces of a lost civilization, so too soon we may think our forgotten dam builders and water project architects of the last century were Apollo or the Cyclops, as we watch their legacies erode and crumble.

Book Watch

I will post a review of Dick Cheney’s memoir that I just finished this morning on the Hoover “Defining Ideas” website. I’m just finishing a book review of Eliot Cohen’s fascinating history of the French-British-American-Indian fighting down the northeastern seaboard in the late 18th-century. Tomorrow I leave for my annual visit to Hillsdale College to teach a military history intensive class for the next month during my vacation from the Hoover Institution, and look forward to the change of scenery. The End of the Sparta comes out at the end of the month; the first review from Publishers’ Weekly recently came out:

Leading classicist Hanson (The Father of Us All) focuses on the Theban defeat of the renowned Spartan army in 371 B.C.E. The hero of the tale is the Theban general Epaminondas, a devotee of Pythagoras and a warrior with unconventional attitudes about warfare, life, and death. His unexpected choices—not to mention the Spartan underestimation of the Theban “pigs”—allow the Thebans to fulfill the prophecies of Sparta’s downfall, many of which focus on the farmer Mêlon (meaning “apple”), whose journey from reluctant soldier to enthusiastic liberator gives the novel its emotional heart. Battle scenes are conveyed in exacting detail; a glossary of names and numerous line diagrams help readers differentiate characters and envisage the sites of central dramas. Told in a somewhat elevated style that simultaneously honors and updates the rhetorical heights of classic Greek histories, Hanson’s novel is both old-fashioned and lively. Given his notable body of work, it’s no wonder that his first fiction effort is rich in authentic detail and narrated with a confident authorial voice. His vigorous narrative not only offers insight into arms and armor, but also into the hearts of the men who bore them. (Oct.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article printed from Works and Days: http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/job-killing-101/

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39478
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama Admn: The worst Presidency this nation has ever had to endure.
« Reply #1073 on: September 06, 2011, 09:18:00 AM »
Michael Brenner.Senior Fellow, the Center for Transatlantic Relations; Professor of International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh
Michael Brenner


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-brenner/the-great-betrayal_b_950161.html




 Barack Obama's betrayal will resonate in history long after he has become just another name on the over-priced celebrity speaker circuit. It is a betrayal of far more than the youthful idealists and loyal progressives who put him in the White House. Obama has unmoored the Democratic Party from its foundations -- philosophical and electoral. No longer is it an expression of the persons, programs and ideas that crystallized with the New Deal and which dominated the country's politics for sixty years. Its future is that of ad hoc assemblage of hustlers and special interests whose sole claim to govern will be that it is not the amalgamated Tea/Republican Party. Obama, by this Oedipus-like act of patricide, has also betrayed the country that voted for an enlightened leader with a social conscience -- a country in desperate need of the opposite to the fate he has laid on us.

Barack Obama was the active factor that has precipitated this tragedy. Who and what he is, therefore, is of the utmost importance. It deserves close scrutiny since his unbecoming traits of personality are not his alone, although he does represent their distilled essence -- and he alone managed to become President of the United States. There are more Obamas, or Obama look-alikes, in our future. What are the most salient ingredients in his private-public persona? Most striking is a behavior pattern that resembles closely the narcissistic syndrome -- even if he is not a clinical narcissist. A narcissist has no convictions other than a total dedication to his own gratification. That gives him the freedom to maneuver without inhibition or conscience with the revered self as the only reference point. All expressions of ideals, of opinions, of intentions are implicitly so qualified. A complementary narcissistic trait is an ease with blurring the line between virtual reality and actual reality. Narcissists believe everything they say -- at the moment they say it. Their declarations are sterile acts that have no pride of parentage nor can they expect honor from offspring. Witness Obama's momentarily rousing support of a labor movement that he has scorned for thirty months. This is the same President who has launched an all-out campaign against public school teachers whose unions serve as the whipping-boy for all that ails American education. Narcissists take as given that they never dissemble or lie -- because to do so is to acknowledge that reality has an intolerably constraining claim on them.

Of course, this last is a feature of contemporary American political culture in general. Facts are taken to be infinitely malleable, the very notion of truth is denied, speaking honestly is viewed as a lifestyle choice, and communication is more a matter of self affirmation than an attempt to convey knowledge, emotion or intention to somebody else. We have externalized navel gazing to a remarkable degree. One consequence is that public discourse is not anchored by common standards of honesty. It is a maelstrom of opinion, emotive outbursts, mythology and primal screams. Accountability, therefore, ceases to exist. There is accountability only where there are benchmarks of veracity, a reasonably rigorous monitoring of what is said and done, and a dedication on the part of some at least to ensuring that these requirements for a viable democracy are met. The abject failure of the media to perform these functions to any reasonable degree is a hallmark of our times. The think tank and academic worlds are little better.

This amorphous environment is narcissist friendly terrain. It is permissive of twists and turns, leaves no record of what was done yesterday or the day before -- much less a year ago, and focuses only on the evanescent existential moment. Case in point is the remarkably uncritical coverage that Obama has received from the supposedly responsible media -- especially those who claim to be upholders of the ideas and policies and interests that he has betrayed. This aspect of the Obama saga is overlooked because of the savage, mindless attacks on him by the crackpot right which now controls the Republican Party. Their excesses were the story, the only story. The instinct to protect Obama was so powerful that it stilled the voices of those who should have been both bolstering and cajoling him to remain true to his avowed commitments. To this day, the hesitation about calling out Obama is manifest -- witness the minimal reaction to his brazen reversal on clean air standards that is required by legal stipulation to promulgate. Pressuring Obama early on also would have been the line of political realism since opinion surveys have made clear that it was the Republicans who were out of step with prevailing attitudes on issue after issue. That remains true today despite the White House and the Democratic Congressional leadership jettisoning them wholesale. It cannot last for very long, of course, with the mass defections that have left American politics with only one narrative, the legitimizing of a Darwinian social philosophy, the ensconcing of moneyed interests on the throne of power, and the deference now shown the Tea Party outrages.

The vow by so many not to hold to account a President (the first person of color to occupy the White House) who engaged in one unseemly sellout after another emboldened Obama to go further and further down that road. Only now that the disaster has occurred are a few tentative, mild voices of serious criticism raised about the man, his methods and his politics. They have little practical meaning since the damage is done, the game is lost, the Democratic Party is denatured, and the great progressive wave of the 20th century that reconciled Americanism with the social ethics of the modern world reversed. Free of any mea culpas and lacking a sense of urgency, these mild chastisements fall into the ignoble category of "grandpa reassurances." When many years from now a grandchild asks over Thanksgiving dinner: "grandpa, where were you when they ruined my country?" he can dredge up something he wrote in the late summer of 2011 to show that he was indeed a responsible person on the side of the angels.

That is what public virtue amounts to in today's America in the wake of the great Obama betrayal.


________________________ ________________________ _______________________


Another liberal dupe wakes up to reality.   

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39478
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama Admn: The worst Presidency this nation has ever had to endure.
« Reply #1074 on: September 06, 2011, 09:55:54 AM »
AFL-CIO's Trumka, SEIU's Henry and UAW's King all got free ride to Detroit with Obama on AF1.
http://twitter.com/#!/carenbohan ^




Reuters correspondent Bohan confirms the Presidents of all 3 Unions flew free on AF1 on the taxpayer dime with Obama to his detroit speech.

He doesnt even hide his backers now.

I'm just disgusted that he gets to use our money this way.

Its obvious he has done a deal with unions and this jobs plan is going to be so pro-union its unbelievable.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------