White House to Scale Back Regulations on Businesses

[Straw Man]

how the ones already freaking passed that are killing jobs! 

tell me more

which ones, how did they kill jobs, etc..

you know the drill

[Soul Crusher]

President Obama's $90 BILLION Clean Air Regulation
Zeke Miller | Aug. 30, 2011, 5:01 PM | 293 | 4


GOP Plans Weekly Votes To Repeal "Job-Destroying Regulations," New Tax Cuts The Bad Timing Of Obama's Jobs SpeechThe Mega-Merger: The United States and Canada
 
In a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner today, President Barack Obama revealed that the Environmental Protection Agency is considering a clean air rule that could cost up to $90 billion to implement.

The proposed regulation, "Reconsideration of the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard" would lower the allowable concentration of ozone from 0.075 parts-per-million to between 0.060 and 0.070 ppm. According to the EPA, the new standards are required to increase protection for children and "at-risk" populations against respiratory and cardiovascular diseases related to exposure to ozone in the air.

Obama said the primary cost estimate of implementation is between $19 billion and $90 billion.

The EPA says most ozone comes from three categories of sources — vehicle engines, industrial processes, and electrical power production. The rule would tighten emissions standards on all three categories — which would require technological changes, that critics say would cost jobs.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor called it "possibly the most harmful of all the currently anticipated Obama Administration regulations," in a memo to House Republicans Monday, adding he will seek to repeal the legislation this Winter. Cantor said estimates put the cost of the rule at "$1 trillion or more over a decade and millions of jobs."

The Manufacturers Alliance, a lobbying group for industry, put the cost of meeting the regulation at $1.013 trillion and 7.3 million jobs between 2020 and 2030 — numbers the Obama administration strongly contests.

Regardless the rule would be among the costliest in recent memory — and has brought a spotlight to other Obama administration regulations.

In a statement, Speaker of the House John Boehner responded to Obama's letter saying "we know from the Administration’s own disclosures that there are 212 other regulatory actions in the works, each with an estimated cost to our economy of more than $100 million." Adding that "at a time like this, with our economy struggling to create jobs, it’s misguided for the federal government to be imposing so many new rules with such enormous costs, even when some of those rules may be well-intentioned.”

Please follow Politics on Twitter and Facebook.
Follow Zeke Miller on Twitter.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/president-obamas-90-billion-regulation-2011-8#ixzz1WY9WCNOH

[Straw Man]

President Obama's $90 BILLION Clean Air Regulation
Zeke Miller | Aug. 30, 2011, 5:01 PM | 293 | 4


GOP Plans Weekly Votes To Repeal "Job-Destroying Regulations," New Tax Cuts The Bad Timing Of Obama's Jobs SpeechThe Mega-Merger: The United States and Canada
 
In a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner today, President Barack Obama revealed that the Environmental Protection Agency is considering a clean air rule that could cost up to $90 billion to implement.

The proposed regulation, "Reconsideration of the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard" would lower the allowable concentration of ozone from 0.075 parts-per-million to between 0.060 and 0.070 ppm. According to the EPA, the new standards are required to increase protection for children and "at-risk" populations against respiratory and cardiovascular diseases related to exposure to ozone in the air.

Obama said the primary cost estimate of implementation is between $19 billion and $90 billion.

The EPA says most ozone comes from three categories of sources — vehicle engines, industrial processes, and electrical power production. The rule would tighten emissions standards on all three categories — which would require technological changes, that critics say would cost jobs.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor called it "possibly the most harmful of all the currently anticipated Obama Administration regulations," in a memo to House Republicans Monday, adding he will seek to repeal the legislation this Winter. Cantor said estimates put the cost of the rule at "$1 trillion or more over a decade and millions of jobs."

The Manufacturers Alliance, a lobbying group for industry, put the cost of meeting the regulation at $1.013 trillion and 7.3 million jobs between 2020 and 2030 — numbers the Obama administration strongly contests.

Regardless the rule would be among the costliest in recent memory — and has brought a spotlight to other Obama administration regulations.

In a statement, Speaker of the House John Boehner responded to Obama's letter saying "we know from the Administration’s own disclosures that there are 212 other regulatory actions in the works, each with an estimated cost to our economy of more than $100 million." Adding that "at a time like this, with our economy struggling to create jobs, it’s misguided for the federal government to be imposing so many new rules with such enormous costs, even when some of those rules may be well-intentioned.”

Please follow Politics on Twitter and Facebook.
Follow Zeke Miller on Twitter.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/president-obamas-90-billion-regulation-2011-8#ixzz1WY9WCNOH

from your article

The Manufacturers Alliance, a lobbying group for industry, put the cost of meeting the regulation at $1.013 trillion and 7.3 million jobs between 2020 and 2030 — numbers the Obama administration strongly contests.

so no actual proof that it would "kill" jobs other than a claim by Repubs and a industry group with no actual specific details.

would the tighter standard create other jobs?

are the tighter standards good for our envirnment and our health?

Here's the big question - is this just a ruse by Obama to kill jobs and collaps the nation and how would this help his plan to collpase the nation if it's not going to have the alleged job killing effect for another 20 years

[Soul Crusher]

Considering obama thought the stim bill would keep UE under 8%, obamacare would lower premiums,  I tend to believe the business group ver Obama.

[Straw Man]

Considering obama thought the stim bill would keep UE under 8%, obamacare would lower premiums,  I tend to believe the business group ver Obama.

translation = no answer to any of my questions

[Soul Crusher]

translation = no answer to any of my questions

LMAO - why should we trust obama on anything considering everything he has promised and done so far as been false and failed? 

[Straw Man]

LMAO - why should we trust obama on anything considering everything he has promised and done so far as been false and failed? 

why would I trust anything Boehner says or an for than matter an industry group

seriously though, is this regulation stuff really just a ploy to collapse the nation?

I mean Obama is not doing this to help the protect the environment or to "increase protection for children and "at-risk" populations against respiratory and cardiovascular diseases related to exposure to ozone in the air"

That's all bullshit right?

[headhuntersix]

There's two......Obama is fucking assbag.

Two new EPA pollution regulations will slam the coal industry so hard that hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost, and electric rates will skyrocket 11 percent to over 23 percent, according to a new study based on government data.
 
Overall, the rules aimed at making the air cleaner could cost the coal-fired power plant industry $180 billion, warns a trade group.

[Check out a roundup of political cartoons on energy policy.]
 
“Many of these severe impacts would hit families living in states already facing serious economic challenges,” said Steve Miller, president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. “Because of these impacts, EPA should make major changes to the proposed regulations before they are finalized,” he said.
 
The EPA, however, tells Whispers that the hit the industry will suffer is worth the health benefits. “EPA has taken a number of sensible steps to protect public health, while also working with industry and other stakeholders to ensure that these important Clean Air Act standards—such as the first ever national Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for coal-fired power plants—are reasonable, common-sense, and achievable,” said spokesman Brendan Gilfillan. [Read Rep. Darrell Issa: Obama's Bad Policy, Harmful Regulations Add to Gas Prices.]
 
What’s more, officials said that just one of the rules to cut sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions will would yield up to $290 billion in annual health and welfare benefits in 2014. They say that amounts to preventing up to 36,000 premature deaths, 26,000 hospital and emergency room visits, and 240,000 cases of aggravated asthma. “This far outweighs the estimated annual costs,” says an official on background. [Check out political cartoons on the economy.]
 
Still, the EPA did note that the two new antipollution rules are “pending” and that the agency has “accepted and are considering feedback” from the industry.
 
The industry says the costs and potential to lose four jobs for every new clean energy job created isn’t worth the rules, especially in a job-starved economy. [See a slide show of the best cities to find a job.]
 
Referring to the analysis of the EPA regulations from National Economic Research Associates, Miller said they would be the most expensive rules ever imposed on power plants.
 
Coal-fired energy plants currently fuel about half of the nation’s energy supply.

[Soul Crusher]

In liberal cartoon land none of this matters.