Boehner just asked Obama to move his speech by one day

[naturegirl]

The GOP has always said "let the private secotr create the jobs"..they NEVER said that they were going to take action and make the jobs appear...Only Obama and the democrats made that claim.

But please explain to me how the private secotr can create jobs with the President continually implementing regulations that increase the operating costs of companies?

Regulations are not stifling job growth. That is right-wing make believe. Show me an unbiased source who will back up that claim. You can't.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK8afrIjo1Y"]oseph Coletti explains how unclear government rules and regulations slow job growth[/ame]
Regulatory Barriers Cause Slow Job Growth for Start Ups
Regulation Is Killing Jobs and the American Dream
No Joy in Latest Jobs Report

“Today’s increase in the unemployment rate underscores the need for dramatic action to break down barriers to job creation," said John Engler, president of Business Roundtable, a business advocacy group. "First among these are unnecessary regulations. Regulations are both a drag on job creation and on the economy. Regulations are ‘hidden taxes’ that strangle job creation. We need action by government agencies to clear out obsolete rules and streamline permitting to reduce delays and impediments for companies to invest and grow. The private sector is the only hope for future job creation. We need to recognize this and work together to let businesses, small and large, invest in people.”

Game... set... fucking match, asshat.

I'm waiting on JosefK's reply to this. If it's not enough to convince him, I have some more links.

 

[J.E.D]

Regulations are not holding the country back. You're the third person on the last two pages to make that claim. I asked another to prove it. He didn't. Can you prove it? Show me an unbiased source who agrees with you. You can't

Sit down. You have nothing.

I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying....


A company is barely getting by due to the poor economy. The small business owner does not have the same access to credit that he used to have due to the lending crisis. He does not have the same personal savings due to lossses in investments...
His sales are down due to the economy so his revenue is down.
He cant cut back becuase he needs to be there to meet the needs of his clients who, at any time, may request his product...and as any business owner knows, you lose all credibility if your client asks for your product and you cant deliver....so he is forced to run at a level where he is barely breaking even.

Then his accountant calls to inform him of a new regulation implemented that will increase his operating costs by 6%...and have no positive affect on his revenue.

You need to see a link for you to recognize that such a business owner is likely NOT going to look to expand at that point?

I mean...really?

JosefK.....you did not offer me your thoughts oin the above.....would like to hear them.
Thanks in advance.

I can agree that there are regulations that can be burdensome. In fact, as a carpenter, I now have to deal with one really stupid regulation. The new lead paint regulations are pretty damned dumb. If I have to demo anything that has lead paint on it, I now have to do the following:

Inside: Seal off the entire room (including the floor) with plastic sheeting; wear a full body suit and mask; cut all pieces into sizes that will fit into contractor bags; tape the bag up and haul it to the dump.

Outside: Put down plastic sheeting on the ground; cut all pieces into sizes that will fit into contractor bags; tape the bag up and haul it to the dump.

They don't really care what you do with it after that. You have pieces of wood poking through the bags. Some dumps want you to take the crap out of the bags. It's a mess.

It pretty much doubles demo time, which in turn increases the cost of the job. And home owners can't even sign a waiver. It's mandatory.

Eliminating no-nonsense regulations, I can agree with. Regulations like that can be a burden. But I disagree that all regulations are bad. And I disagree that regulations are a major factor in poor job growth.

 

[Liability]

You can bet that Obama won't be saying this, it's tax the rich and corporate jet owners.

Blowing liberals right out of their saddles with nothing but the FACTS and having a great time doing it.

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.” -- John F Kennedy

You can't define "liberal" anymore either. This is why so many of you try to evade the word. Some of you pretend that you are "progressives" while simultaneously pretending that "progressive" means something else. Some of you come up with other ways to evade the application of the term "liberal."

Now, flummoxed as always by your own disingenuous positions, you ask for others to "define" their meaning of your slippery terminology? Why? So that you can quibble and evade some more.

One thing is clear despite your determined efforts to muddy the waters. When your opponents refer to you guys as "libs," they mean that you aren't conservatives. And that entails a lot of things.

One thing it means is that you REJECT the intended meanings of the Constitution. You REJECT the notion that the Constitution is supposed to be more akin to an anchoring ROCK rather than some amorphous, ephemeral, changeable, mutable "living" and "breathing" thing subject to constant re-defining to suit the preferences of the day and of the partisans.

Instead of asking us what WE mean when we call you libs, "liberals," why don't you try to pin it down for yourself? Do some heavy lifting.

WTF do YOU guys mean by "liberal?"

 

[Jarhead]

You can bet that Obama won't be saying this, it's tax the rich and corporate jet owners.

Blowing liberals right out of their saddles with nothing but the FACTS and having a great time doing it.

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.” -- John F Kennedy

and a great quote but a spin of what a conservaitve is and how a consertvative sees a liberal.

A conservative is baseed on two things...

Personal responsibility
Smaller government
And yes, they go hand in hand.

A conservative DOES care about his fellow man. He believes his fellow man has the same right to do as he pleases as long as it does not interefere with HIS right to do as HE pleases.
A conservative believes in helping his fellow man if asked, but does not want his fellow man to expect it.
A conservative would like to be able to ask his fellow man for help, but NEVER expects it
A conservatiuve wants the choice of who to help, not be told who needs it more and have such a choice taken away from him.

In the eys of a conservative, a liberal is one who:

A liberal wants all that ask to be helped, to be helped and insist on government making sure that happens as he fears that Americans will not do it unless forced to

A liberal is one who casts aside what has worked in the past and wants to implement ideas for the betterment of man....not taking into consideration all of the things that has made America great.
A liberal cares...truly cares....but will sacrifice tradition in an effort to MAYBE meet a dream
A liberal believes in taking chances....gamble if you will....hoping something works and not looking at the consequences...the stimulus for example...healthcare as another example..

Thats what I have so far.

 

[naturegirl]

Blowing liberals right out of their saddles with nothing but the FACTS and having a great time doing it.

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.” -- John F Kennedy

and a great quote but a spin of what a conservaitve is and how a consertvative sees a liberal.

A conservative is baseed on two things...

Personal responsibility
Smaller government
And yes, they go hand in hand.

A conservative DOES care about his fellow man. He believes his fellow man has the same right to do as he pleases as long as it does not interefere with HIS right to do as HE pleases.
A conservative believes in helping his fellow man if asked, but does not want his fellow man to expect it.
A conservative would like to be able to ask his fellow man for help, but NEVER expects it
A conservatiuve wants the choice of who to help, not be told who needs it more and have such a choice taken away from him.

In the eys of a conservative, a liberal is one who:

A liberal wants all that ask to be helped, to be helped and insist on government making sure that happens as he fears that Americans will not do it unless forced to

A liberal is one who casts aside what has worked in the past and wants to implement ideas for the betterment of man....not taking into consideration all of the things that has made America great.
A liberal cares...truly cares....but will sacrifice tradition in an effort to MAYBE meet a dream
A liberal believes in taking chances....gamble if you will....hoping something works and not looking at the consequences...the stimulus for example...healthcare as another example..

Thats what I have so far.

 

[mudwhistle]

Why another speech anyway?????

We're tired of speeches.

Put it in writing.

 

[Jarhead]

I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying....


A company is barely getting by due to the poor economy. The small business owner does not have the same access to credit that he used to have due to the lending crisis. He does not have the same personal savings due to lossses in investments...
His sales are down due to the economy so his revenue is down.
He cant cut back becuase he needs to be there to meet the needs of his clients who, at any time, may request his product...and as any business owner knows, you lose all credibility if your client asks for your product and you cant deliver....so he is forced to run at a level where he is barely breaking even.

Then his accountant calls to inform him of a new regulation implemented that will increase his operating costs by 6%...and have no positive affect on his revenue.

You need to see a link for you to recognize that such a business owner is likely NOT going to look to expand at that point?

I mean...really?

JosefK.....you did not offer me your thoughts oin the above.....would like to hear them.
Thanks in advance.

I can agree that there are regulations that can be burdensome. In fact, as a carpenter, I now have to deal with one really stupid regulation. The new lead paint regulations are pretty damned dumb. If I have to demo anything that has lead paint on it, I now have to do the following:

Inside: Seal off the entire room (including the floor) with plastic sheeting; wear a full body suit and mask; cut all pieces into sizes that will fit into contractor bags; tape the bag up and haul it to the dump.

Outside: Put down plastic sheeting on the ground; cut all pieces into sizes that will fit into contractor bags; tape the bag up and haul it to the dump.

They don't really care what you do with it after that. You have pieces of wood poking through the bags. Some dumps want you to take the crap out of the bags. It's a mess.

It pretty much doubles demo time, which in turn increases the cost of the job. And home owners can't even sign a waiver. It's mandatory.

Eliminating no-nonsense regulations, I can agree with. Regulations like that can be a burden. But I disagree that all regulations are bad. And I disagree that regulations are a major factor in poor job growth.

to you, the lead paint regulation is dumb...to an ecology mindedperson, it is not dumb.

To you, it seems you described a very time consuming process....

Well, imagine if you owned a small business and you needed to hire 3 people to do that on your existing job sites, but it did not increase your revenue......during a recession, such a need may actually put you out of business...I mean 3 guys at 30K a guy is 90K plus the cost opf payroll of another 15%.....so looking at over 105K for those 3 guys...
Now...if your profit (assuming you are an S-corp...your personal income) was 150K....now you are only making 45K......so, in essence, your small business is no longer supporting your family.

So what happens?

You close up.

You nmost CERTAINLY will not hire and expand....

SO I do not see how you can say that regulations wont hurt job creation.....

Likely what you will do in the above example is fire 3 of your caprenters to hire the 3 "lead" guys...and your output will then go down....and it is a lose lose for everyone.

 

[J.E.D]

Blowing liberals right out of their saddles with nothing but the FACTS and having a great time doing it.

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.” -- John F Kennedy

You can't define "liberal" anymore either. This is why so many of you try to evade the word. Some of you pretend that you are "progressives" while simultaneously pretending that "progressive" means something else. Some of you come up with other ways to evade the application of the term "liberal."

Now, flummoxed as always by your own disingenuous positions, you ask for others to "define" their meaning of your slippery terminology? Why? So that you can quibble and evade some more.

One thing is clear despite your determined efforts to muddy the waters. When your opponents refer to you guys as "libs," they mean that you aren't conservatives. And that entails a lot of things.

One thing it means is that you REJECT the intended meanings of the Constitution. You REJECT the notion that the Constitution is supposed to be more akin to an anchoring ROCK rather than some amorphous, ephemeral, changeable, mutable "living" and "breathing" thing subject to constant re-defining to suit the preferences of the day and of the partisans.

Instead of asking us what WE mean when we call you libs, "liberals," why don't you try to pin it down for yourself? Do some heavy lifting.

WTF do YOU guys mean by "liberal?"

Listen, I'm not going to keep going back and forth over this. You are the guy claiming that JFK was not a liberal. Clearly, JFK was a liberal. Read his speech again.

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.” -- John F Kennedy

 

[Conservative]

Why another speech anyway?????

We're tired of speeches.

Put it in writing.

but then Obama couldn't say,'Well now, I didn't really say that. What I said was..."

 

[Jarhead]

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.” -- John F Kennedy

You can't define "liberal" anymore either. This is why so many of you try to evade the word. Some of you pretend that you are "progressives" while simultaneously pretending that "progressive" means something else. Some of you come up with other ways to evade the application of the term "liberal."

Now, flummoxed as always by your own disingenuous positions, you ask for others to "define" their meaning of your slippery terminology? Why? So that you can quibble and evade some more.

One thing is clear despite your determined efforts to muddy the waters. When your opponents refer to you guys as "libs," they mean that you aren't conservatives. And that entails a lot of things.

One thing it means is that you REJECT the intended meanings of the Constitution. You REJECT the notion that the Constitution is supposed to be more akin to an anchoring ROCK rather than some amorphous, ephemeral, changeable, mutable "living" and "breathing" thing subject to constant re-defining to suit the preferences of the day and of the partisans.

Instead of asking us what WE mean when we call you libs, "liberals," why don't you try to pin it down for yourself? Do some heavy lifting.

WTF do YOU guys mean by "liberal?"

Listen, I'm not going to keep going back and forth over this. You are the guy claiming that JFK was not a liberal. Clearly, JFK was a liberal. Read his speech again.

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.” -- John F Kennedy

but dont you get it?

That is not the definition of a liberal.

That is the definition of an American.

 

[Conservative]

I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying....


A company is barely getting by due to the poor economy. The small business owner does not have the same access to credit that he used to have due to the lending crisis. He does not have the same personal savings due to lossses in investments...
His sales are down due to the economy so his revenue is down.
He cant cut back becuase he needs to be there to meet the needs of his clients who, at any time, may request his product...and as any business owner knows, you lose all credibility if your client asks for your product and you cant deliver....so he is forced to run at a level where he is barely breaking even.

Then his accountant calls to inform him of a new regulation implemented that will increase his operating costs by 6%...and have no positive affect on his revenue.

You need to see a link for you to recognize that such a business owner is likely NOT going to look to expand at that point?

I mean...really?

JosefK.....you did not offer me your thoughts oin the above.....would like to hear them.
Thanks in advance.

I can agree that there are regulations that can be burdensome. In fact, as a carpenter, I now have to deal with one really stupid regulation. The new lead paint regulations are pretty damned dumb. If I have to demo anything that has lead paint on it, I now have to do the following:

Inside: Seal off the entire room (including the floor) with plastic sheeting; wear a full body suit and mask; cut all pieces into sizes that will fit into contractor bags; tape the bag up and haul it to the dump.

Outside: Put down plastic sheeting on the ground; cut all pieces into sizes that will fit into contractor bags; tape the bag up and haul it to the dump.

They don't really care what you do with it after that. You have pieces of wood poking through the bags. Some dumps want you to take the crap out of the bags. It's a mess.

It pretty much doubles demo time, which in turn increases the cost of the job. And home owners can't even sign a waiver. It's mandatory.

Eliminating no-nonsense regulations, I can agree with. Regulations like that can be a burden. But I disagree that all regulations are bad. And I disagree that regulations are a major factor in poor job growth.

and if you weren't so much of a pussy that you put me on ignore, you'd know I already proved you wrong on that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Blowing liberals right out of their saddles with nothing but the FACTS and having a great time doing it.

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.” -- John F Kennedy

You can't define "liberal" anymore either. This is why so many of you try to evade the word. Some of you pretend that you are "progressives" while simultaneously pretending that "progressive" means something else. Some of you come up with other ways to evade the application of the term "liberal."

Now, flummoxed as always by your own disingenuous positions, you ask for others to "define" their meaning of your slippery terminology? Why? So that you can quibble and evade some more.

One thing is clear despite your determined efforts to muddy the waters. When your opponents refer to you guys as "libs," they mean that you aren't conservatives. And that entails a lot of things.

One thing it means is that you REJECT the intended meanings of the Constitution. You REJECT the notion that the Constitution is supposed to be more akin to an anchoring ROCK rather than some amorphous, ephemeral, changeable, mutable "living" and "breathing" thing subject to constant re-defining to suit the preferences of the day and of the partisans.

Instead of asking us what WE mean when we call you libs, "liberals," why don't you try to pin it down for yourself? Do some heavy lifting.

WTF do YOU guys mean by "liberal?"

L, what do YOU mean by "conservative" because you are merely a New Right hard reactionary. Your philosophy is not what this country needs and certainly not the poseurs from the New Right in the GOP. You are a rino.

 

[naturegirl]

Why another speech anyway?????

We're tired of speeches.

Put it in writing.

but then Obama couldn't say,'Well now, I didn't really say that. What I said was..."

And he couldn't say, "Let me be perfectly clear" and how about "I won't rest until............", or "I inherited", and I, I, I, I, me, me, me, me, I, I, I, I, me, me, me, me, me.

 

[J.E.D]

JosefK.....you did not offer me your thoughts oin the above.....would like to hear them.
Thanks in advance.

I can agree that there are regulations that can be burdensome. In fact, as a carpenter, I now have to deal with one really stupid regulation. The new lead paint regulations are pretty damned dumb. If I have to demo anything that has lead paint on it, I now have to do the following:

Inside: Seal off the entire room (including the floor) with plastic sheeting; wear a full body suit and mask; cut all pieces into sizes that will fit into contractor bags; tape the bag up and haul it to the dump.

Outside: Put down plastic sheeting on the ground; cut all pieces into sizes that will fit into contractor bags; tape the bag up and haul it to the dump.

They don't really care what you do with it after that. You have pieces of wood poking through the bags. Some dumps want you to take the crap out of the bags. It's a mess.

It pretty much doubles demo time, which in turn increases the cost of the job. And home owners can't even sign a waiver. It's mandatory.

Eliminating no-nonsense regulations, I can agree with. Regulations like that can be a burden. But I disagree that all regulations are bad. And I disagree that regulations are a major factor in poor job growth.

to you, the lead paint regulation is dumb...to an ecology mindedperson, it is not dumb.

To you, it seems you described a very time consuming process....

Well, imagine if you owned a small business and you needed to hire 3 people to do that on your existing job sites, but it did not increase your revenue......during a recession, such a need may actually put you out of business...I mean 3 guys at 30K a guy is 90K plus the cost opf payroll of another 15%.....so looking at over 105K for those 3 guys...
Now...if your profit (assuming you are an S-corp...your personal income) was 150K....now you are only making 45K......so, in essence, your small business is no longer supporting your family.

So what happens?

You close up.

You nmost CERTAINLY will not hire and expand....

SO I do not see how you can say that regulations wont hurt job creation.....

Likely what you will do in the above example is fire 3 of your caprenters to hire the 3 "lead" guys...and your output will then go down....and it is a lose lose for everyone.

To ecologists, it is a good regulation. The problem is that it will not do anything to protect the environment. When we're through, we just throw it in a land fill. The bags are full of holes, lead paint dust and painted wood falling out. I think the regulation is more for the health of home owners. I'm all for environmental protection, but this is one regulation that I don't agree with.

I don't think that there is no negative effect on job growth from regulations; I just don't think that all regulations are detrimental to job growth. Some may be bad for the company's bottom line, but some are (I believe) necessary. I just don't buy it that all regulations are keeping employers from hiring. Companies sell products and services and people buy those products and services. An inconvenient regulation is not going to necessarily keep that company from selling its product.

 

[Conservative]

Why another speech anyway?????

We're tired of speeches.

Put it in writing.

but then Obama couldn't say,'Well now, I didn't really say that. What I said was..."

And he couldn't say, "Let me be perfectly clear" and how about "I won't rest until............", or "I inherited", and I, I, I, I, me, me, me, me, I, I, I, I, me, me, me, me, me.

Oh... I forgot 'Focused like a laser on (insert liberal buzz word of the day)'...

 

[J.E.D]

You can't define "liberal" anymore either. This is why so many of you try to evade the word. Some of you pretend that you are "progressives" while simultaneously pretending that "progressive" means something else. Some of you come up with other ways to evade the application of the term "liberal."

Now, flummoxed as always by your own disingenuous positions, you ask for others to "define" their meaning of your slippery terminology? Why? So that you can quibble and evade some more.

One thing is clear despite your determined efforts to muddy the waters. When your opponents refer to you guys as "libs," they mean that you aren't conservatives. And that entails a lot of things.

One thing it means is that you REJECT the intended meanings of the Constitution. You REJECT the notion that the Constitution is supposed to be more akin to an anchoring ROCK rather than some amorphous, ephemeral, changeable, mutable "living" and "breathing" thing subject to constant re-defining to suit the preferences of the day and of the partisans.

Instead of asking us what WE mean when we call you libs, "liberals," why don't you try to pin it down for yourself? Do some heavy lifting.

WTF do YOU guys mean by "liberal?"

Listen, I'm not going to keep going back and forth over this. You are the guy claiming that JFK was not a liberal. Clearly, JFK was a liberal. Read his speech again.

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.” -- John F Kennedy

but dont you get it?

That is not the definition of a liberal.

That is the definition of an American.

I get what you're saying. Perhaps that is the real message that he was trying to convey with that statement. But to claim that Kennedy was not a liberal is just wrong. He may not have been a flaming liberal, but he was no less a liberal than George H.W. Bush is a conservative.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

I think that when the history of this Presidency is written, the word that we will see over and over and over and over again, is "speech." Barry does like to talk, although you do have to admit that he's not so great without the teleprompter. He gives speech after speech after speech and he is full of platitudes, slogans, and one-liners. But lets remember that even when Barry wanted a health care overhaul, did everyone hold their collective breath until he unveiled HIS plan? And what about HIS plan for a compromise on the debt ceiling issue? No, if my memory serves me correctly, Barry sat on his hands until Nancy and Harry unveiled their monstrosity of a health care. Barry certainly didn't offer any plans of his own to solve the debt ceiling issue either.

That's the part of the word 'leader' that Barry and his minions don't seem to get. If Barry has a major idea, then fine, give it to his people and let them work out the detail. Then he can tweak it and give us his plan. But he doesn't do that. He speaks. And he speaks. And when everyone is looking at each other puzzled, he speaks again. He sounds like Jesse Jackson when he tries to use nice little haiku's and rhymes to tell us what his plan is for the war in Afghanistan. I'm afraid I don't buy into and I usually don't understand Jesse, the Reverand Al, OR Barry when they start in talking like that.

If the glove don't fit: You must acquit! I expect that to come out of Barry's mouth just any moment.

I'm kind of looking for a plan... any plan really... anything of substance that you can hang your hat on. I'll be watching the Packers tonight and I will imagine that I will not have to wait too long until Barry wants to speak again.

 

[Jarhead]

I can agree that there are regulations that can be burdensome. In fact, as a carpenter, I now have to deal with one really stupid regulation. The new lead paint regulations are pretty damned dumb. If I have to demo anything that has lead paint on it, I now have to do the following:

Inside: Seal off the entire room (including the floor) with plastic sheeting; wear a full body suit and mask; cut all pieces into sizes that will fit into contractor bags; tape the bag up and haul it to the dump.

Outside: Put down plastic sheeting on the ground; cut all pieces into sizes that will fit into contractor bags; tape the bag up and haul it to the dump.

They don't really care what you do with it after that. You have pieces of wood poking through the bags. Some dumps want you to take the crap out of the bags. It's a mess.

It pretty much doubles demo time, which in turn increases the cost of the job. And home owners can't even sign a waiver. It's mandatory.

Eliminating no-nonsense regulations, I can agree with. Regulations like that can be a burden. But I disagree that all regulations are bad. And I disagree that regulations are a major factor in poor job growth.

to you, the lead paint regulation is dumb...to an ecology mindedperson, it is not dumb.

To you, it seems you described a very time consuming process....

Well, imagine if you owned a small business and you needed to hire 3 people to do that on your existing job sites, but it did not increase your revenue......during a recession, such a need may actually put you out of business...I mean 3 guys at 30K a guy is 90K plus the cost opf payroll of another 15%.....so looking at over 105K for those 3 guys...
Now...if your profit (assuming you are an S-corp...your personal income) was 150K....now you are only making 45K......so, in essence, your small business is no longer supporting your family.

So what happens?

You close up.

You nmost CERTAINLY will not hire and expand....

SO I do not see how you can say that regulations wont hurt job creation.....

Likely what you will do in the above example is fire 3 of your caprenters to hire the 3 "lead" guys...and your output will then go down....and it is a lose lose for everyone.

To ecologists, it is a good regulation. The problem is that it will not do anything to protect the environment. When we're through, we just throw it in a land fill. The bags are full of holes, lead paint dust and painted wood falling out. I think the regulation is more for the health of home owners. I'm all for environmental protection, but this is one regulation that I don't agree with.

I don't think that there is no negative effect on job growth from regulations; I just don't think that all regulations are detrimental to job growth. Some may be bad for the company's bottom line, but some are (I believe) necessary. I just don't buy it that all regulations are keeping employers from hiring. Companies sell products and services and people buy those products and services. An inconvenient regulation is not going to necessarily keep that company from selling its product.

No, it will not. But it WILL keep them from expanding...which is the point I was making all along. Regulations will not put a company out of business....but it will take away the little money available for growth (during a recession).

As for econolgy....I agree with what you say....but thus why many of our EPA regulations are bothersome...I mean, American corporations need to follow them at the cost of being competative, while all other countries dont and out compete us....what good is our lowering emissions if 75% of all other manufacturing doesnt?

 

[Trajan]

That filibuster proof majority was in name only and when the GOP had a controlled gov't the Dems didn't default to filibustering every bill like we just witnessed. They pretty much bent over and gave Bush everything he wanted.

But anyway....

Yeah, the people who want their cake and to eat it too and are prodded along by the 24 hour-outrage-a-thon media cycle are to blame. Both sides. We've become a misinformed, short-sighted, and reactionary electorate.

That filibuster proof majority was in name only

I have no idea what that means.......explain please?

Meaning they had the numbers but not the votes for cloture.

I'm looking at Sen. Webb and Sen. Nelson.

so they had a filibuster majority, but they didn't. I am sorry that doesn't wash.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Josef you hate that regulation because it affects you in a negative manner. Now transfer that hate to any other business owner and the bullshit regulations he has to deal with. Most regulation can be bad.

I also am in the construction business. Anytime I'm demoing a home and I run into asbestos I have to call an outside "official asbestos removal professional" to do the same silly shit you described. I commonly run into lead plumbing burried in walls or floors that always causes me grief.

I once did a govt contract that required 4 million in insurance and the building in question was worth maybe 1. But apparently the possibility of me somehow destroying an entire city block somehow existed. Dumb

Imo most regulation over small business is bad and designed as nothing more than a way for govts to generate extra revenue.