Federal Rules and Regulations cost average household $15,000 a year.

[edthecynic]

You should have added Jimmy Carter's 36,789

1. 1976 7,401
2. 1977 7,031
3. 1978 7,001
4. 1979 7,611
5. 1980 7,745
   http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43056.pdf

WOW! Carter had a 5 year term.

 

[kiwiman127]

Lets put regulations under presidents in prospective. Below is how many regulations were added by president.
Ronald Reagn-42,693-8 years
George HW Bush-17,619-4 years
Bill Clinton-42,619-8years
George W Bush-31,634-8 years
Barrack Obama-25,377-6 years
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43056.pdf
So since 1981, Republican presidents are responsible for 91,946 regulations in 20 years, for an average of 4,597 per year.
Democrat presidents are responsible for 67,996 regulations in 18 years, for an average of 3,778 per year.
BUT, according to the OP, Obama responsible for costing households $15,000 a year. What about the other 156388 previous regulations since 1981?
Anyone?

You should have added Jimmy Carter's 36,789

1. 1976 7,401
2. 1977 7,031
3. 1978 7,001
4. 1979 7,611
5. 1980 7,745
   http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43056.pdf

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
You are so right. GOP/Democrats have been responsible for more and more regulations.

But the point is which group wants American businesses to succeed?
Which group understands that MOST Americans work for tax paying small businesses.
"in calculating receipts from corporate income taxes, the IRS calculates that, as of 2009, corporations with $250 million or less in assets pay 75.4 percent of the total corporate tax revenue. With gross collections of approximately $225,482,000 from all corporations, that amounts to roughly $170,013,000 in corporate income tax revenue from smaller companies"
How Much Tax Revenue Do Small Businesses Generate?

And it is this group that pays 75.4% of all corporate taxes that are hardest hit by compliance to growing mountain of rules regulations.
Again remember illustration of business adding 1 more employee over 15 means adding another water closet and the cost to do it.

So most GOPers want businesses to succeed knowing these businesses pay most taxes! And idiots like Obama hate these businesses and want them via more
rules and regulations to be put out of business.

Yes, I unintentionally did not list Carter (1977-1980) or Ford's last year (1976).
The comment that Obama hates businesses, is total partisanship and also a very popular unfounded talking point. Businesses have enjoyed record profits since 2010, if Obama was so anti-business, these record profits wouldn't of happened. I want to point out, that I am no fan of Obama (never voted for the guy), I am however, anti-extreme right and left though.
Back to the topic. The Dems and GOP have two different philosophies regarding business. I agree that the GOP is MORE pro business than the Dems. The Dems are more pro-consumer and more pro-worker.
Now, I find the Breibart article, just plain unbelievable. One year of 3554 new regulations cost households $15,000? And the other approximately 200,000 regulation since the mid 70's didn't cost the households anything? If one year cost households $15,000, it is not unimaginable to say other years may have cost households 10% annually of what Obama's one year of regulations, which would be $1,500 per year or $60,000 over 40 years.
The article by Breibart does not make any logical sense at all.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I agree that the GOP is MORE pro business than the Dems. The Dems are more pro-consumer and more pro-worker.

Consumers need businesses to produce and sell the goods and services that they need. Workets need businesses to employ them. Only a wrong-winger would claim that you can be pro-consumer and/or pro-worker without being at least equally pro-business.

 

[healthmyths]

Lets put regulations under presidents in prospective. Below is how many regulations were added by president.
Ronald Reagn-42,693-8 years
George HW Bush-17,619-4 years
Bill Clinton-42,619-8years
George W Bush-31,634-8 years
Barrack Obama-25,377-6 years
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43056.pdf
So since 1981, Republican presidents are responsible for 91,946 regulations in 20 years, for an average of 4,597 per year.
Democrat presidents are responsible for 67,996 regulations in 18 years, for an average of 3,778 per year.
BUT, according to the OP, Obama responsible for costing households $15,000 a year. What about the other 156388 previous regulations since 1981?
Anyone?

You should have added Jimmy Carter's 36,789

1. 1976 7,401
2. 1977 7,031
3. 1978 7,001
4. 1979 7,611
5. 1980 7,745
   http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43056.pdf

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
You are so right. GOP/Democrats have been responsible for more and more regulations.

But the point is which group wants American businesses to succeed?
Which group understands that MOST Americans work for tax paying small businesses.
"in calculating receipts from corporate income taxes, the IRS calculates that, as of 2009, corporations with $250 million or less in assets pay 75.4 percent of the total corporate tax revenue. With gross collections of approximately $225,482,000 from all corporations, that amounts to roughly $170,013,000 in corporate income tax revenue from smaller companies"
How Much Tax Revenue Do Small Businesses Generate?

And it is this group that pays 75.4% of all corporate taxes that are hardest hit by compliance to growing mountain of rules regulations.
Again remember illustration of business adding 1 more employee over 15 means adding another water closet and the cost to do it.

So most GOPers want businesses to succeed knowing these businesses pay most taxes! And idiots like Obama hate these businesses and want them via more
rules and regulations to be put out of business.

Yes, I unintentionally did not list Carter (1977-1980) or Ford's last year (1976).
The comment that Obama hates businesses, is total partisanship and also a very popular unfounded talking point. Businesses have enjoyed record profits since 2010, if Obama was so anti-business, these record profits wouldn't of happened. I want to point out, that I am no fan of Obama (never voted for the guy), I am however, anti-extreme right and left though.
Back to the topic. The Dems and GOP have two different philosophies regarding business. I agree that the GOP is MORE pro business than the Dems. The Dems are more pro-consumer and more pro-worker.
Now, I find the Breibart article, just plain unbelievable. One year of 3554 new regulations cost households $15,000? And the other approximately 200,000 regulation since the mid 70's didn't cost the households anything? If one year cost households $15,000, it is not unimaginable to say other years may have cost households 10% annually of what Obama's one year of regulations, which would be $1,500 per year or $60,000 over 40 years.
The article by Breibart does not make any logical sense at all.

Obama IS anti-business is spite of it you are right record profits! BUT consider the gross handicapping that business have had!
Why are you so anti-business? These businesses want to expand but every time they try they are knocked by Obama.
Seriously how can a business keep up with the rules and regulations and the cost of Obamacare? Simple. They reduce hours below the 40 hours i.e. full time.
Who suffers? Americans not working full time. That's why today Walmart announced closing 100s of stores because sales were down. Sales at all retailers were down.
Retail Sales in U.S. Decrease to End Weakest Year Since 2009

Retail Sales in U.S. Decrease to End Weakest Year Since 2009

WRONG again and again...

It is NOT ONE year of 3,554 new regulations but one costs to the average family of nearly 200,000 REGULATIONS starting with Carter!
These regulations are still in force. So again you haven't obviously read the article that Breibart is pointing to.

It came from this source:
Ten Thousand Commandments 2015 | Competitive Enterprise Institute


Highlights of the 2015 edition include:

• Federal regulation and intervention cost American consumers and businesses an estimated $1.88 trillion in 2014 in lost economic productivity and higher prices.
  
• If U.S. federal regulation was a country, it would be the world’s 10th largest economy, ranking behind Russia and ahead of India.
  
• Economy-wide regulatory costs amount to an average of $14,976 per household – around 29 percent of an average family budget of $51,100. Although not paid directly by individuals, this “cost” of regulation exceeds the amount an average family spends on health care, food and transportation.
  
• The “Unconstitutionality Index” is the ratio of regulations issued by unelected agency officials compared to legislation enacted by Congress in a given year. In 2014, agencies issued 16 new regulations for every law—that’s 3,554 new regulations compared to 224 new laws.
  
• Many Americans complain about taxes, but regulatory compliance costs exceed what the IRS is expected to collect in both individual and corporate income taxes for last year—by more than $160 billion.
  
• Some 60 federal departments, agencies and commissions have 3,415 regulations in development at various stages in the pipeline. The top six federal rulemaking agencies account for 48 percent of all federal regulations. These are the Departments of the Treasury, Commerce, Interior, Health and Human Services and Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency.
  
• The 2014 Federal Register contains 77,687 pages, the sixth highest page count in its history.

Among the six all-time-high Federal Register total page counts, five occurred under President Obama.

• The George W. Bush administration averaged 62 major regulations annually over eight years, while the Obama administration has averaged 81 major regulations annually over six years.

Those comments are from 17 years of collecting data regarding government regulations.
Look at their staff: Staff | Competitive Enterprise Institute

So these people are NOT producing an agenda driven but FACT driven effort.

 

[kiwiman127]

I agree that the GOP is MORE pro business than the Dems. The Dems are more pro-consumer and more pro-worker.

Consumers need businesses to produce and sell the goods and services that they need. Workets need businesses to employ them. Only a wrong-winger would claim that you can be pro-consumer and/or pro-worker without being at least equally pro-business.

Well, thanks for that partisan take.
I work in strategic planning, in other words my job is to find ways to grow business and I have been doing it with one company for twenty years.
During the recession, we found out that one of the major reason's the recession took so long to recover was that our consumer driven economy was lagging due to very soft consumer spending. If one studies historical US recessions, they are increasingly taking longer and longer to recover from. This phenomenon correlates with the flat wage growth of the working class/middle class since 1980. This illustrates business and workers/consumers need each other. It's not a black and white as the Dems or the GOP like to paint it. Supply and demand, the chicken or the egg?
Here's a graph of recessions and their recoveries from 1948 on. It visually shows what I was addressing regarding how flat wage growth effects our economy's ability to recover.

 

[healthmyths]

I agree that the GOP is MORE pro business than the Dems. The Dems are more pro-consumer and more pro-worker.

Consumers need businesses to produce and sell the goods and services that they need. Workets need businesses to employ them. Only a wrong-winger would claim that you can be pro-consumer and/or pro-worker without being at least equally pro-business.

Well, thanks for that partisan take.
I work in strategic planning, in other words my job is to find ways to grow business and I have been doing it with one company for twenty years.
During the recession, we found out that one of the major reason's the recession took so long to recover was that our consumer driven economy was lagging due to very soft consumer spending. If one studies historical US recessions, they are increasingly taking longer and longer to recover from. This phenomenon correlates with the flat wage growth of the working class/middle class since 1980. This illustrates business and workers/consumers need each other. It's not a black and white as the Dems or the GOP like to paint it. Supply and demand, the chicken or the egg?
Here's a graph of recessions and their recoveries from 1948 on. It visually shows what I was addressing regarding how flat wage growth effects our economy's ability to recover.View attachment 59969

That's all well and good when we didn't have an administration that has ardently worked to reduce American productivity..i.e. how ACA is forcing companies to change the concept of "full-time".

The 2010 health law requires large employers to offer health insurance to anyone working “full-time,” which the law defines as 30 hours a week.
In the interest of an informed debate, we've compiled a list of job actions with strong proof that ObamaCare's employer mandate is behind cuts to work hours or staffing levels.
As of September 5th, our ObamaCare scorecard included 450 employers with more than 100 school districts among them.
Recently, IBD explained that a big minimum wage hike alongside the employer mandate would add to pressure on employers to cut workers to part-time, complicating the goal of reducing inequality.
ObamaCare Employer Mandate: A List Of Cuts To Work Hours, Jobs

BEFORE the recession, Richard Clark’s cleaning company in Florida had 200 employees, about half of them working full time.
These days it has about 150, with 80% part-time. The downturn explains some of this.
But Mr Clark also blames Barack Obama’s health reform...
Mr Clark says he is "very careful with the threshold". To keep his full-time workforce below the magic number of 50, he is relying more on part-timers. He is not alone. More than one in ten firms surveyed by Mercer, a consultancy--and one in five retail and hospitality companies--say they will cut workers’ hours because of Obamacare. A hundred part-timers can flip as many burgers as 50 full-timers, and the former will soon be much cheaper.
Here's What Economists Are Saying About The Claim That Obamacare Is Causing More Jobs To Be Part Time

 

[edthecynic]

I agree that the GOP is MORE pro business than the Dems. The Dems are more pro-consumer and more pro-worker.

Consumers need businesses to produce and sell the goods and services that they need. Workets need businesses to employ them. Only a wrong-winger would claim that you can be pro-consumer and/or pro-worker without being at least equally pro-business.

Well, thanks for that partisan take.
I work in strategic planning, in other words my job is to find ways to grow business and I have been doing it with one company for twenty years.
During the recession, we found out that one of the major reason's the recession took so long to recover was that our consumer driven economy was lagging due to very soft consumer spending. If one studies historical US recessions, they are increasingly taking longer and longer to recover from. This phenomenon correlates with the flat wage growth of the working class/middle class since 1980. This illustrates business and workers/consumers need each other. It's not a black and white as the Dems or the GOP like to paint it. Supply and demand, the chicken or the egg?
Here's a graph of recessions and their recoveries from 1948 on. It visually shows what I was addressing regarding how flat wage growth effects our economy's ability to recover.View attachment 59969

That's all well and good when we didn't have an administration that has ardently worked to reduce American productivity..i.e. how ACA is forcing companies to change the concept of "full-time".

The 2010 health law requires large employers to offer health insurance to anyone working “full-time,” which the law defines as 30 hours a week.
In the interest of an informed debate, we've compiled a list of job actions with strong proof that ObamaCare's employer mandate is behind cuts to work hours or staffing levels.
As of September 5th, our ObamaCare scorecard included 450 employers with more than 100 school districts among them.
Recently, IBD explained that a big minimum wage hike alongside the employer mandate would add to pressure on employers to cut workers to part-time, complicating the goal of reducing inequality.
ObamaCare Employer Mandate: A List Of Cuts To Work Hours, Jobs

BEFORE the recession, Richard Clark’s cleaning company in Florida had 200 employees, about half of them working full time.
These days it has about 150, with 80% part-time. The downturn explains some of this.
But Mr Clark also blames Barack Obama’s health reform...
Mr Clark says he is "very careful with the threshold". To keep his full-time workforce below the magic number of 50, he is relying more on part-timers. He is not alone. More than one in ten firms surveyed by Mercer, a consultancy--and one in five retail and hospitality companies--say they will cut workers’ hours because of Obamacare. A hundred part-timers can flip as many burgers as 50 full-timers, and the former will soon be much cheaper.
Here's What Economists Are Saying About The Claim That Obamacare Is Causing More Jobs To Be Part Time

No matter how many times this lie is debunked, the Right keep on parroting it.

When the ACA passed in 2010 there were 9,233,000 working PT who wanted FT work. Now there are 6,022,000, a DECREASE of over 3 million.
The number has steadily declined EVERY year since the ACA was passed.

 

[healthmyths]

I agree that the GOP is MORE pro business than the Dems. The Dems are more pro-consumer and more pro-worker.

Consumers need businesses to produce and sell the goods and services that they need. Workets need businesses to employ them. Only a wrong-winger would claim that you can be pro-consumer and/or pro-worker without being at least equally pro-business.

Well, thanks for that partisan take.
I work in strategic planning, in other words my job is to find ways to grow business and I have been doing it with one company for twenty years.
During the recession, we found out that one of the major reason's the recession took so long to recover was that our consumer driven economy was lagging due to very soft consumer spending. If one studies historical US recessions, they are increasingly taking longer and longer to recover from. This phenomenon correlates with the flat wage growth of the working class/middle class since 1980. This illustrates business and workers/consumers need each other. It's not a black and white as the Dems or the GOP like to paint it. Supply and demand, the chicken or the egg?
Here's a graph of recessions and their recoveries from 1948 on. It visually shows what I was addressing regarding how flat wage growth effects our economy's ability to recover.View attachment 59969

That's all well and good when we didn't have an administration that has ardently worked to reduce American productivity..i.e. how ACA is forcing companies to change the concept of "full-time".

The 2010 health law requires large employers to offer health insurance to anyone working “full-time,” which the law defines as 30 hours a week.
In the interest of an informed debate, we've compiled a list of job actions with strong proof that ObamaCare's employer mandate is behind cuts to work hours or staffing levels.
As of September 5th, our ObamaCare scorecard included 450 employers with more than 100 school districts among them.
Recently, IBD explained that a big minimum wage hike alongside the employer mandate would add to pressure on employers to cut workers to part-time, complicating the goal of reducing inequality.
ObamaCare Employer Mandate: A List Of Cuts To Work Hours, Jobs

BEFORE the recession, Richard Clark’s cleaning company in Florida had 200 employees, about half of them working full time.
These days it has about 150, with 80% part-time. The downturn explains some of this.
But Mr Clark also blames Barack Obama’s health reform...
Mr Clark says he is "very careful with the threshold". To keep his full-time workforce below the magic number of 50, he is relying more on part-timers. He is not alone. More than one in ten firms surveyed by Mercer, a consultancy--and one in five retail and hospitality companies--say they will cut workers’ hours because of Obamacare. A hundred part-timers can flip as many burgers as 50 full-timers, and the former will soon be much cheaper.
Here's What Economists Are Saying About The Claim That Obamacare Is Causing More Jobs To Be Part Time

No matter how many times this lie is debunked, the Right keep on parroting it.

When the ACA passed in 2010 there were 9,233,000 working PT who wanted FT work. Now there are 6,022,000, a DECREASE of over 3 million.
The number has steadily declined EVERY year since the ACA was passed.

I source my comments... I don't believe anything you write because YOU have made it up! Prove with a source I can read.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Lets put regulations under presidents in prospective. Below is how many regulations were added by president.
Ronald Reagn-42,693-8 years
George HW Bush-17,619-4 years
Bill Clinton-42,619-8years
George W Bush-31,634-8 years
Barrack Obama-25,377-6 years
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43056.pdf
So since 1981, Republican presidents are responsible for 91,946 regulations in 20 years, for an average of 4,597 per year.
Democrat presidents are responsible for 67,996 regulations in 18 years, for an average of 3,778 per year.
BUT, according to the OP, Obama responsible for costing households $15,000 a year. What about the other 156388 previous regulations since 1981?
Anyone?

You should have added Jimmy Carter's 36,789

1. 1976 7,401
2. 1977 7,031
3. 1978 7,001
4. 1979 7,611
5. 1980 7,745
   http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43056.pdf

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
You are so right. GOP/Democrats have been responsible for more and more regulations.

But the point is which group wants American businesses to succeed?
Which group understands that MOST Americans work for tax paying small businesses.
"in calculating receipts from corporate income taxes, the IRS calculates that, as of 2009, corporations with $250 million or less in assets pay 75.4 percent of the total corporate tax revenue. With gross collections of approximately $225,482,000 from all corporations, that amounts to roughly $170,013,000 in corporate income tax revenue from smaller companies"
How Much Tax Revenue Do Small Businesses Generate?

And it is this group that pays 75.4% of all corporate taxes that are hardest hit by compliance to growing mountain of rules regulations.
Again remember illustration of business adding 1 more employee over 15 means adding another water closet and the cost to do it.

So most GOPers want businesses to succeed knowing these businesses pay most taxes! And idiots like Obama hate these businesses and want them via more
rules and regulations to be put out of business.

Yes, I unintentionally did not list Carter (1977-1980) or Ford's last year (1976).
The comment that Obama hates businesses, is total partisanship and also a very popular unfounded talking point. Businesses have enjoyed record profits since 2010, if Obama was so anti-business, these record profits wouldn't of happened. I want to point out, that I am no fan of Obama (never voted for the guy), I am however, anti-extreme right and left though.
Back to the topic. The Dems and GOP have two different philosophies regarding business. I agree that the GOP is MORE pro business than the Dems. The Dems are more pro-consumer and more pro-worker.
Now, I find the Breibart article, just plain unbelievable. One year of 3554 new regulations cost households $15,000? And the other approximately 200,000 regulation since the mid 70's didn't cost the households anything? If one year cost households $15,000, it is not unimaginable to say other years may have cost households 10% annually of what Obama's one year of regulations, which would be $1,500 per year or $60,000 over 40 years.
The article by Breibart does not make any logical sense at all.

Obama IS anti-business is spite of it you are right record profits! BUT consider the gross handicapping that business have had!
Why are you so anti-business? These businesses want to expand but every time they try they are knocked by Obama.
Seriously how can a business keep up with the rules and regulations and the cost of Obamacare? Simple. They reduce hours below the 40 hours i.e. full time.
Who suffers? Americans not working full time. That's why today Walmart announced closing 100s of stores because sales were down. Sales at all retailers were down.
Retail Sales in U.S. Decrease to End Weakest Year Since 2009

Retail Sales in U.S. Decrease to End Weakest Year Since 2009

WRONG again and again...

It is NOT ONE year of 3,554 new regulations but one costs to the average family of nearly 200,000 REGULATIONS starting with Carter!
These regulations are still in force. So again you haven't obviously read the article that Breibart is pointing to.

It came from this source:
Ten Thousand Commandments 2015 | Competitive Enterprise Institute


Highlights of the 2015 edition include:

• Federal regulation and intervention cost American consumers and businesses an estimated $1.88 trillion in 2014 in lost economic productivity and higher prices.
  
• If U.S. federal regulation was a country, it would be the world’s 10th largest economy, ranking behind Russia and ahead of India.
  
• Economy-wide regulatory costs amount to an average of $14,976 per household – around 29 percent of an average family budget of $51,100. Although not paid directly by individuals, this “cost” of regulation exceeds the amount an average family spends on health care, food and transportation.
  
• The “Unconstitutionality Index” is the ratio of regulations issued by unelected agency officials compared to legislation enacted by Congress in a given year. In 2014, agencies issued 16 new regulations for every law—that’s 3,554 new regulations compared to 224 new laws.
  
• Many Americans complain about taxes, but regulatory compliance costs exceed what the IRS is expected to collect in both individual and corporate income taxes for last year—by more than $160 billion.
  
• Some 60 federal departments, agencies and commissions have 3,415 regulations in development at various stages in the pipeline. The top six federal rulemaking agencies account for 48 percent of all federal regulations. These are the Departments of the Treasury, Commerce, Interior, Health and Human Services and Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency.
  
• The 2014 Federal Register contains 77,687 pages, the sixth highest page count in its history.

Among the six all-time-high Federal Register total page counts, five occurred under President Obama.

• The George W. Bush administration averaged 62 major regulations annually over eight years, while the Obama administration has averaged 81 major regulations annually over six years.

Those comments are from 17 years of collecting data regarding government regulations.
Look at their staff: Staff | Competitive Enterprise Institute

So these people are NOT producing an agenda driven but FACT driven effort.

Firstly, how many of these regulations are Obama's regulations? He might sign them in, but isn't it CONGRESS that makes this legislation in the first place in most cases?

Secondly, how many of these regulations have been in place a long time?

Thirdly, people complaining about regulations, but at the same time support high military spending, don't complain about the extra cost of having dollar bills instead of dollar coins, don't complain about health care costing twice as much as other first world countries, mainly because of insurance companies and doctors on the take, and so on.....

 

[Skull Pilot]

I agree that the GOP is MORE pro business than the Dems. The Dems are more pro-consumer and more pro-worker.

Consumers need businesses to produce and sell the goods and services that they need. Workets need businesses to employ them. Only a wrong-winger would claim that you can be pro-consumer and/or pro-worker without being at least equally pro-business.

Well, thanks for that partisan take.
I work in strategic planning, in other words my job is to find ways to grow business and I have been doing it with one company for twenty years.
During the recession, we found out that one of the major reason's the recession took so long to recover was that our consumer driven economy was lagging due to very soft consumer spending. If one studies historical US recessions, they are increasingly taking longer and longer to recover from. This phenomenon correlates with the flat wage growth of the working class/middle class since 1980. This illustrates business and workers/consumers need each other. It's not a black and white as the Dems or the GOP like to paint it. Supply and demand, the chicken or the egg?
Here's a graph of recessions and their recoveries from 1948 on. It visually shows what I was addressing regarding how flat wage growth effects our economy's ability to recover.View attachment 59969

That's all well and good when we didn't have an administration that has ardently worked to reduce American productivity..i.e. how ACA is forcing companies to change the concept of "full-time".

The 2010 health law requires large employers to offer health insurance to anyone working “full-time,” which the law defines as 30 hours a week.
In the interest of an informed debate, we've compiled a list of job actions with strong proof that ObamaCare's employer mandate is behind cuts to work hours or staffing levels.
As of September 5th, our ObamaCare scorecard included 450 employers with more than 100 school districts among them.
Recently, IBD explained that a big minimum wage hike alongside the employer mandate would add to pressure on employers to cut workers to part-time, complicating the goal of reducing inequality.
ObamaCare Employer Mandate: A List Of Cuts To Work Hours, Jobs

BEFORE the recession, Richard Clark’s cleaning company in Florida had 200 employees, about half of them working full time.
These days it has about 150, with 80% part-time. The downturn explains some of this.
But Mr Clark also blames Barack Obama’s health reform...
Mr Clark says he is "very careful with the threshold". To keep his full-time workforce below the magic number of 50, he is relying more on part-timers. He is not alone. More than one in ten firms surveyed by Mercer, a consultancy--and one in five retail and hospitality companies--say they will cut workers’ hours because of Obamacare. A hundred part-timers can flip as many burgers as 50 full-timers, and the former will soon be much cheaper.
Here's What Economists Are Saying About The Claim That Obamacare Is Causing More Jobs To Be Part Time

No matter how many times this lie is debunked, the Right keep on parroting it.

When the ACA passed in 2010 there were 9,233,000 working PT who wanted FT work. Now there are 6,022,000, a DECREASE of over 3 million.
The number has steadily declined EVERY year since the ACA was passed.

So you're saying that all those 3M or so people are now working full time?

None of them have left the workforce altogether?

The workforce participation rate has declined steadily since 2008 and is at a 30 year low

 

[healthmyths]

Lets put regulations under presidents in prospective. Below is how many regulations were added by president.
Ronald Reagn-42,693-8 years
George HW Bush-17,619-4 years
Bill Clinton-42,619-8years
George W Bush-31,634-8 years
Barrack Obama-25,377-6 years
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43056.pdf
So since 1981, Republican presidents are responsible for 91,946 regulations in 20 years, for an average of 4,597 per year.
Democrat presidents are responsible for 67,996 regulations in 18 years, for an average of 3,778 per year.
BUT, according to the OP, Obama responsible for costing households $15,000 a year. What about the other 156388 previous regulations since 1981?
Anyone?

You should have added Jimmy Carter's 36,789

1. 1976 7,401
2. 1977 7,031
3. 1978 7,001
4. 1979 7,611
5. 1980 7,745
   http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43056.pdf

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
You are so right. GOP/Democrats have been responsible for more and more regulations.

But the point is which group wants American businesses to succeed?
Which group understands that MOST Americans work for tax paying small businesses.
"in calculating receipts from corporate income taxes, the IRS calculates that, as of 2009, corporations with $250 million or less in assets pay 75.4 percent of the total corporate tax revenue. With gross collections of approximately $225,482,000 from all corporations, that amounts to roughly $170,013,000 in corporate income tax revenue from smaller companies"
How Much Tax Revenue Do Small Businesses Generate?

And it is this group that pays 75.4% of all corporate taxes that are hardest hit by compliance to growing mountain of rules regulations.
Again remember illustration of business adding 1 more employee over 15 means adding another water closet and the cost to do it.

So most GOPers want businesses to succeed knowing these businesses pay most taxes! And idiots like Obama hate these businesses and want them via more
rules and regulations to be put out of business.

Yes, I unintentionally did not list Carter (1977-1980) or Ford's last year (1976).
The comment that Obama hates businesses, is total partisanship and also a very popular unfounded talking point. Businesses have enjoyed record profits since 2010, if Obama was so anti-business, these record profits wouldn't of happened. I want to point out, that I am no fan of Obama (never voted for the guy), I am however, anti-extreme right and left though.
Back to the topic. The Dems and GOP have two different philosophies regarding business. I agree that the GOP is MORE pro business than the Dems. The Dems are more pro-consumer and more pro-worker.
Now, I find the Breibart article, just plain unbelievable. One year of 3554 new regulations cost households $15,000? And the other approximately 200,000 regulation since the mid 70's didn't cost the households anything? If one year cost households $15,000, it is not unimaginable to say other years may have cost households 10% annually of what Obama's one year of regulations, which would be $1,500 per year or $60,000 over 40 years.
The article by Breibart does not make any logical sense at all.

Obama IS anti-business is spite of it you are right record profits! BUT consider the gross handicapping that business have had!
Why are you so anti-business? These businesses want to expand but every time they try they are knocked by Obama.
Seriously how can a business keep up with the rules and regulations and the cost of Obamacare? Simple. They reduce hours below the 40 hours i.e. full time.
Who suffers? Americans not working full time. That's why today Walmart announced closing 100s of stores because sales were down. Sales at all retailers were down.
Retail Sales in U.S. Decrease to End Weakest Year Since 2009

Retail Sales in U.S. Decrease to End Weakest Year Since 2009

WRONG again and again...

It is NOT ONE year of 3,554 new regulations but one costs to the average family of nearly 200,000 REGULATIONS starting with Carter!
These regulations are still in force. So again you haven't obviously read the article that Breibart is pointing to.

It came from this source:
Ten Thousand Commandments 2015 | Competitive Enterprise Institute


Highlights of the 2015 edition include:

• Federal regulation and intervention cost American consumers and businesses an estimated $1.88 trillion in 2014 in lost economic productivity and higher prices.
  
• If U.S. federal regulation was a country, it would be the world’s 10th largest economy, ranking behind Russia and ahead of India.
  
• Economy-wide regulatory costs amount to an average of $14,976 per household – around 29 percent of an average family budget of $51,100. Although not paid directly by individuals, this “cost” of regulation exceeds the amount an average family spends on health care, food and transportation.
  
• The “Unconstitutionality Index” is the ratio of regulations issued by unelected agency officials compared to legislation enacted by Congress in a given year. In 2014, agencies issued 16 new regulations for every law—that’s 3,554 new regulations compared to 224 new laws.
  
• Many Americans complain about taxes, but regulatory compliance costs exceed what the IRS is expected to collect in both individual and corporate income taxes for last year—by more than $160 billion.
  
• Some 60 federal departments, agencies and commissions have 3,415 regulations in development at various stages in the pipeline. The top six federal rulemaking agencies account for 48 percent of all federal regulations. These are the Departments of the Treasury, Commerce, Interior, Health and Human Services and Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency.
  
• The 2014 Federal Register contains 77,687 pages, the sixth highest page count in its history.

Among the six all-time-high Federal Register total page counts, five occurred under President Obama.

• The George W. Bush administration averaged 62 major regulations annually over eight years, while the Obama administration has averaged 81 major regulations annually over six years.

Those comments are from 17 years of collecting data regarding government regulations.
Look at their staff: Staff | Competitive Enterprise Institute

So these people are NOT producing an agenda driven but FACT driven effort.

Firstly, how many of these regulations are Obama's regulations? He might sign them in, but isn't it CONGRESS that makes this legislation in the first place in most cases?

Secondly, how many of these regulations have been in place a long time?

Thirdly, people complaining about regulations, but at the same time support high military spending, don't complain about the extra cost of having dollar bills instead of dollar coins, don't complain about health care costing twice as much as other first world countries, mainly because of insurance companies and doctors on the take, and so on.....

Again the statistics

Carter Total 29,388 Average per year 7,347
Ronald Reagan-42,693-8 years Average per year 5,336
George HW Bush-17,619-4 years Ave. 4,404
Bill Clinton-42,619-8years Ave. 5,327
George W Bush-31,634-8 years Ave. 3,954
Barrack Obama-25,377-6 years Ave. 4,229

So Carter averaged the highest, followed Reagan, then Clinton, Obama, HWB then GWB.
And more importantly answering your first question it is a CUMULATIVE amount of regulations... NOT just Obama's but Obama keeps
adding more and more. NO ONE says it is just Obama's fault even though he will end up as the worst offender!

Answered your 2nd comment. Cumulative. They don't go away!

Your 3rd point.. People complain about these 200,000 regulations from the Federal government alone as well as the hundreds of thousands local rules and regulations! How many duplicate efforts to comply with Federal/state/etc. do employers have to make?
Billions of hours .
Crews’ report cites the work of economists Nicole V. Crain and W. Mark Crain, whose study of the net cost of regulations determined that in 2009 federal regulation cost businesses and consumers $1.75 trillion, or nearly 12% of America’s 2009 GDP.
As a comparison, in the same year, corporate pre-tax profits for all businesses totaled about $ 1.46 trillion.
The Hidden Cost of Regulation | FreedomWorks


After a wait of more than 80 days, EPA finally published the official version of the Clean Power Plan. As AAF detailed here, the agency expects coal generation to decline by 48 percent. The $8.4 billion in compliance costs will help to close more than 60 power plants across the nation. By postponing the initial compliance date by two years, regulatory costs declined slightly, but paperwork more than doubled, compared to the proposed version. AAF’s map tracks which states will have the easiest and most difficult path to compliance.
On the heels of the Clean Power Plan, EPA also published a measure to reduce costs and paperwork. As AAF reviewed here, by updating its National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to electronic reporting, the agency expects to save the economy $156 million during the next ten years and almost 200,000 paperwork hours.
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

Since passage, based on total lifetime costs of the regulations, the Affordable Care Act has imposed costs of $47.9 billion in state and private-sector burdens and 165.9 million annual paperwork hours.
DODD-FRANK

A quintet of agencies finalized a rule establishing margin and capital requirements for swaps. Amazingly, the cost estimates range from a manageable $672 million annually to an otherworldly $46 billion, “depending on the specific initial margin estimate and incremental funding cost that is used to compute the estimate.” AAF used the more central figure of $5.2 billion in total costs. Still, it now stands as the most expensive Dodd-Frank rule on record.
$17.4 Billion in Regulatory Costs | Week in Regulation

 

[Jarlaxle]

Auto deaths keep dropping even though there are more cars than ever . Why? Cause of safety regs.

True an airbag adds to the cost of the car, they also save thousands of lives every week .

No all regs are bad .

Too bad that my wife's best friend and my mother will both be killed if the airbag in a car they are driving explodes.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Lets put regulations under presidents in prospective. Below is how many regulations were added by president.
Ronald Reagn-42,693-8 years
George HW Bush-17,619-4 years
Bill Clinton-42,619-8years
George W Bush-31,634-8 years
Barrack Obama-25,377-6 years
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43056.pdf
So since 1981, Republican presidents are responsible for 91,946 regulations in 20 years, for an average of 4,597 per year.
Democrat presidents are responsible for 67,996 regulations in 18 years, for an average of 3,778 per year.
BUT, according to the OP, Obama responsible for costing households $15,000 a year. What about the other 156388 previous regulations since 1981?
Anyone?

You should have added Jimmy Carter's 36,789

1. 1976 7,401
2. 1977 7,031
3. 1978 7,001
4. 1979 7,611
5. 1980 7,745
   http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43056.pdf

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
You are so right. GOP/Democrats have been responsible for more and more regulations.

But the point is which group wants American businesses to succeed?
Which group understands that MOST Americans work for tax paying small businesses.
"in calculating receipts from corporate income taxes, the IRS calculates that, as of 2009, corporations with $250 million or less in assets pay 75.4 percent of the total corporate tax revenue. With gross collections of approximately $225,482,000 from all corporations, that amounts to roughly $170,013,000 in corporate income tax revenue from smaller companies"
How Much Tax Revenue Do Small Businesses Generate?

And it is this group that pays 75.4% of all corporate taxes that are hardest hit by compliance to growing mountain of rules regulations.
Again remember illustration of business adding 1 more employee over 15 means adding another water closet and the cost to do it.

So most GOPers want businesses to succeed knowing these businesses pay most taxes! And idiots like Obama hate these businesses and want them via more
rules and regulations to be put out of business.

Yes, I unintentionally did not list Carter (1977-1980) or Ford's last year (1976).
The comment that Obama hates businesses, is total partisanship and also a very popular unfounded talking point. Businesses have enjoyed record profits since 2010, if Obama was so anti-business, these record profits wouldn't of happened. I want to point out, that I am no fan of Obama (never voted for the guy), I am however, anti-extreme right and left though.
Back to the topic. The Dems and GOP have two different philosophies regarding business. I agree that the GOP is MORE pro business than the Dems. The Dems are more pro-consumer and more pro-worker.
Now, I find the Breibart article, just plain unbelievable. One year of 3554 new regulations cost households $15,000? And the other approximately 200,000 regulation since the mid 70's didn't cost the households anything? If one year cost households $15,000, it is not unimaginable to say other years may have cost households 10% annually of what Obama's one year of regulations, which would be $1,500 per year or $60,000 over 40 years.
The article by Breibart does not make any logical sense at all.

Obama IS anti-business is spite of it you are right record profits! BUT consider the gross handicapping that business have had!
Why are you so anti-business? These businesses want to expand but every time they try they are knocked by Obama.
Seriously how can a business keep up with the rules and regulations and the cost of Obamacare? Simple. They reduce hours below the 40 hours i.e. full time.
Who suffers? Americans not working full time. That's why today Walmart announced closing 100s of stores because sales were down. Sales at all retailers were down.
Retail Sales in U.S. Decrease to End Weakest Year Since 2009

Retail Sales in U.S. Decrease to End Weakest Year Since 2009

WRONG again and again...

It is NOT ONE year of 3,554 new regulations but one costs to the average family of nearly 200,000 REGULATIONS starting with Carter!
These regulations are still in force. So again you haven't obviously read the article that Breibart is pointing to.

It came from this source:
Ten Thousand Commandments 2015 | Competitive Enterprise Institute


Highlights of the 2015 edition include:

• Federal regulation and intervention cost American consumers and businesses an estimated $1.88 trillion in 2014 in lost economic productivity and higher prices.
  
• If U.S. federal regulation was a country, it would be the world’s 10th largest economy, ranking behind Russia and ahead of India.
  
• Economy-wide regulatory costs amount to an average of $14,976 per household – around 29 percent of an average family budget of $51,100. Although not paid directly by individuals, this “cost” of regulation exceeds the amount an average family spends on health care, food and transportation.
  
• The “Unconstitutionality Index” is the ratio of regulations issued by unelected agency officials compared to legislation enacted by Congress in a given year. In 2014, agencies issued 16 new regulations for every law—that’s 3,554 new regulations compared to 224 new laws.
  
• Many Americans complain about taxes, but regulatory compliance costs exceed what the IRS is expected to collect in both individual and corporate income taxes for last year—by more than $160 billion.
  
• Some 60 federal departments, agencies and commissions have 3,415 regulations in development at various stages in the pipeline. The top six federal rulemaking agencies account for 48 percent of all federal regulations. These are the Departments of the Treasury, Commerce, Interior, Health and Human Services and Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency.
  
• The 2014 Federal Register contains 77,687 pages, the sixth highest page count in its history.

Among the six all-time-high Federal Register total page counts, five occurred under President Obama.

• The George W. Bush administration averaged 62 major regulations annually over eight years, while the Obama administration has averaged 81 major regulations annually over six years.

Those comments are from 17 years of collecting data regarding government regulations.
Look at their staff: Staff | Competitive Enterprise Institute

So these people are NOT producing an agenda driven but FACT driven effort.

Firstly, how many of these regulations are Obama's regulations? He might sign them in, but isn't it CONGRESS that makes this legislation in the first place in most cases?

Secondly, how many of these regulations have been in place a long time?

Thirdly, people complaining about regulations, but at the same time support high military spending, don't complain about the extra cost of having dollar bills instead of dollar coins, don't complain about health care costing twice as much as other first world countries, mainly because of insurance companies and doctors on the take, and so on.....

Again the statistics

Carter Total 29,388 Average per year 7,347
Ronald Reagan-42,693-8 years Average per year 5,336
George HW Bush-17,619-4 years Ave. 4,404
Bill Clinton-42,619-8years Ave. 5,327
George W Bush-31,634-8 years Ave. 3,954
Barrack Obama-25,377-6 years Ave. 4,229

So Carter averaged the highest, followed Reagan, then Clinton, Obama, HWB then GWB.
And more importantly answering your first question it is a CUMULATIVE amount of regulations... NOT just Obama's but Obama keeps
adding more and more. NO ONE says it is just Obama's fault even though he will end up as the worst offender!

Answered your 2nd comment. Cumulative. They don't go away!

Your 3rd point.. People complain about these 200,000 regulations from the Federal government alone as well as the hundreds of thousands local rules and regulations! How many duplicate efforts to comply with Federal/state/etc. do employers have to make?
Billions of hours .
Crews’ report cites the work of economists Nicole V. Crain and W. Mark Crain, whose study of the net cost of regulations determined that in 2009 federal regulation cost businesses and consumers $1.75 trillion, or nearly 12% of America’s 2009 GDP.
As a comparison, in the same year, corporate pre-tax profits for all businesses totaled about $ 1.46 trillion.
The Hidden Cost of Regulation | FreedomWorks


After a wait of more than 80 days, EPA finally published the official version of the Clean Power Plan. As AAF detailed here, the agency expects coal generation to decline by 48 percent. The $8.4 billion in compliance costs will help to close more than 60 power plants across the nation. By postponing the initial compliance date by two years, regulatory costs declined slightly, but paperwork more than doubled, compared to the proposed version. AAF’s map tracks which states will have the easiest and most difficult path to compliance.
On the heels of the Clean Power Plan, EPA also published a measure to reduce costs and paperwork. As AAF reviewed here, by updating its National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to electronic reporting, the agency expects to save the economy $156 million during the next ten years and almost 200,000 paperwork hours.
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

Since passage, based on total lifetime costs of the regulations, the Affordable Care Act has imposed costs of $47.9 billion in state and private-sector burdens and 165.9 million annual paperwork hours.
DODD-FRANK

A quintet of agencies finalized a rule establishing margin and capital requirements for swaps. Amazingly, the cost estimates range from a manageable $672 million annually to an otherworldly $46 billion, “depending on the specific initial margin estimate and incremental funding cost that is used to compute the estimate.” AAF used the more central figure of $5.2 billion in total costs. Still, it now stands as the most expensive Dodd-Frank rule on record.
$17.4 Billion in Regulatory Costs | Week in Regulation

Well this becomes a problem. And what are people going to do? 95% of people who vote will go and vote for the these two parties again. Oh joy.

One thing, however, is that sometimes these regulations actually help to stabilize the economy, meaning more money is produced because there is more security and faith in the system. What you have shown doesn't appear to be the whole story. I'm not an expert in this kind of thing either. So, I'll have to say there are blanks in knowledge and information.

 

[Jarlaxle]

It should be noted that under the umbrella of "the cost of regulations", the propaganda outlets include the Department of Homeland Security.

Department of Homeland Security

• Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System, providing government access to passenger reservation information

• Passenger screening using advanced imaging technology

• Importer security filing and additional carrier requirements

• Air cargo screening and inspection of towing vessels

Including this:

• Minimum standards for driver’s licenses and ID cards acceptable to federal agencies

• United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology program, which is authorized to collect biometric data from travelers and to expand to the 50 most highly trafficked land border ports

I suppose that includes the sexual molestation of airline passengers by the TSA.

As compared to the cost of the World Trade Center and 3,000 lives without those regulations.

You mean the TSA...with their 90+% failure rate?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Lets put regulations under presidents in prospective. Below is how many regulations were added by president.
Ronald Reagn-42,693-8 years
George HW Bush-17,619-4 years
Bill Clinton-42,619-8years
George W Bush-31,634-8 years
Barrack Obama-25,377-6 years
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43056.pdf
So since 1981, Republican presidents are responsible for 91,946 regulations in 20 years, for an average of 4,597 per year.
Democrat presidents are responsible for 67,996 regulations in 18 years, for an average of 3,778 per year.
BUT, according to the OP, Obama responsible for costing households $15,000 a year. What about the other 156388 previous regulations since 1981?
Anyone?

You should have added Jimmy Carter's 36,789

1. 1976 7,401
2. 1977 7,031
3. 1978 7,001
4. 1979 7,611
5. 1980 7,745
   http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43056.pdf

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
You are so right. GOP/Democrats have been responsible for more and more regulations.

But the point is which group wants American businesses to succeed?
Which group understands that MOST Americans work for tax paying small businesses.
"in calculating receipts from corporate income taxes, the IRS calculates that, as of 2009, corporations with $250 million or less in assets pay 75.4 percent of the total corporate tax revenue. With gross collections of approximately $225,482,000 from all corporations, that amounts to roughly $170,013,000 in corporate income tax revenue from smaller companies"
How Much Tax Revenue Do Small Businesses Generate?

And it is this group that pays 75.4% of all corporate taxes that are hardest hit by compliance to growing mountain of rules regulations.
Again remember illustration of business adding 1 more employee over 15 means adding another water closet and the cost to do it.

So most GOPers want businesses to succeed knowing these businesses pay most taxes! And idiots like Obama hate these businesses and want them via more
rules and regulations to be put out of business.

Yes, I unintentionally did not list Carter (1977-1980) or Ford's last year (1976).
The comment that Obama hates businesses, is total partisanship and also a very popular unfounded talking point. Businesses have enjoyed record profits since 2010, if Obama was so anti-business, these record profits wouldn't of happened. I want to point out, that I am no fan of Obama (never voted for the guy), I am however, anti-extreme right and left though.
Back to the topic. The Dems and GOP have two different philosophies regarding business. I agree that the GOP is MORE pro business than the Dems. The Dems are more pro-consumer and more pro-worker.
Now, I find the Breibart article, just plain unbelievable. One year of 3554 new regulations cost households $15,000? And the other approximately 200,000 regulation since the mid 70's didn't cost the households anything? If one year cost households $15,000, it is not unimaginable to say other years may have cost households 10% annually of what Obama's one year of regulations, which would be $1,500 per year or $60,000 over 40 years.
The article by Breibart does not make any logical sense at all.

Obama IS anti-business is spite of it you are right record profits! BUT consider the gross handicapping that business have had!
Why are you so anti-business? These businesses want to expand but every time they try they are knocked by Obama.
Seriously how can a business keep up with the rules and regulations and the cost of Obamacare? Simple. They reduce hours below the 40 hours i.e. full time.
Who suffers? Americans not working full time. That's why today Walmart announced closing 100s of stores because sales were down. Sales at all retailers were down.
Retail Sales in U.S. Decrease to End Weakest Year Since 2009

Retail Sales in U.S. Decrease to End Weakest Year Since 2009

WRONG again and again...

It is NOT ONE year of 3,554 new regulations but one costs to the average family of nearly 200,000 REGULATIONS starting with Carter!
These regulations are still in force. So again you haven't obviously read the article that Breibart is pointing to.

It came from this source:
Ten Thousand Commandments 2015 | Competitive Enterprise Institute


Highlights of the 2015 edition include:

• Federal regulation and intervention cost American consumers and businesses an estimated $1.88 trillion in 2014 in lost economic productivity and higher prices.
  
• If U.S. federal regulation was a country, it would be the world’s 10th largest economy, ranking behind Russia and ahead of India.
  
• Economy-wide regulatory costs amount to an average of $14,976 per household – around 29 percent of an average family budget of $51,100. Although not paid directly by individuals, this “cost” of regulation exceeds the amount an average family spends on health care, food and transportation.
  
• The “Unconstitutionality Index” is the ratio of regulations issued by unelected agency officials compared to legislation enacted by Congress in a given year. In 2014, agencies issued 16 new regulations for every law—that’s 3,554 new regulations compared to 224 new laws.
  
• Many Americans complain about taxes, but regulatory compliance costs exceed what the IRS is expected to collect in both individual and corporate income taxes for last year—by more than $160 billion.
  
• Some 60 federal departments, agencies and commissions have 3,415 regulations in development at various stages in the pipeline. The top six federal rulemaking agencies account for 48 percent of all federal regulations. These are the Departments of the Treasury, Commerce, Interior, Health and Human Services and Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency.
  
• The 2014 Federal Register contains 77,687 pages, the sixth highest page count in its history.

Among the six all-time-high Federal Register total page counts, five occurred under President Obama.

• The George W. Bush administration averaged 62 major regulations annually over eight years, while the Obama administration has averaged 81 major regulations annually over six years.

Those comments are from 17 years of collecting data regarding government regulations.
Look at their staff: Staff | Competitive Enterprise Institute

So these people are NOT producing an agenda driven but FACT driven effort.

Firstly, how many of these regulations are Obama's regulations? He might sign them in, but isn't it CONGRESS that makes this legislation in the first place in most cases?

Secondly, how many of these regulations have been in place a long time?

Thirdly, people complaining about regulations, but at the same time support high military spending, don't complain about the extra cost of having dollar bills instead of dollar coins, don't complain about health care costing twice as much as other first world countries, mainly because of insurance companies and doctors on the take, and so on.....

Again the statistics

Carter Total 29,388 Average per year 7,347
Ronald Reagan-42,693-8 years Average per year 5,336
George HW Bush-17,619-4 years Ave. 4,404
Bill Clinton-42,619-8years Ave. 5,327
George W Bush-31,634-8 years Ave. 3,954
Barrack Obama-25,377-6 years Ave. 4,229

So Carter averaged the highest, followed Reagan, then Clinton, Obama, HWB then GWB.
And more importantly answering your first question it is a CUMULATIVE amount of regulations... NOT just Obama's but Obama keeps
adding more and more. NO ONE says it is just Obama's fault even though he will end up as the worst offender!

Answered your 2nd comment. Cumulative. They don't go away!

Your 3rd point.. People complain about these 200,000 regulations from the Federal government alone as well as the hundreds of thousands local rules and regulations! How many duplicate efforts to comply with Federal/state/etc. do employers have to make?
Billions of hours .
Crews’ report cites the work of economists Nicole V. Crain and W. Mark Crain, whose study of the net cost of regulations determined that in 2009 federal regulation cost businesses and consumers $1.75 trillion, or nearly 12% of America’s 2009 GDP.
As a comparison, in the same year, corporate pre-tax profits for all businesses totaled about $ 1.46 trillion.
The Hidden Cost of Regulation | FreedomWorks


After a wait of more than 80 days, EPA finally published the official version of the Clean Power Plan. As AAF detailed here, the agency expects coal generation to decline by 48 percent. The $8.4 billion in compliance costs will help to close more than 60 power plants across the nation. By postponing the initial compliance date by two years, regulatory costs declined slightly, but paperwork more than doubled, compared to the proposed version. AAF’s map tracks which states will have the easiest and most difficult path to compliance.
On the heels of the Clean Power Plan, EPA also published a measure to reduce costs and paperwork. As AAF reviewed here, by updating its National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to electronic reporting, the agency expects to save the economy $156 million during the next ten years and almost 200,000 paperwork hours.
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

Since passage, based on total lifetime costs of the regulations, the Affordable Care Act has imposed costs of $47.9 billion in state and private-sector burdens and 165.9 million annual paperwork hours.
DODD-FRANK

A quintet of agencies finalized a rule establishing margin and capital requirements for swaps. Amazingly, the cost estimates range from a manageable $672 million annually to an otherworldly $46 billion, “depending on the specific initial margin estimate and incremental funding cost that is used to compute the estimate.” AAF used the more central figure of $5.2 billion in total costs. Still, it now stands as the most expensive Dodd-Frank rule on record.
$17.4 Billion in Regulatory Costs | Week in Regulation

Well this becomes a problem. And what are people going to do? 95% of people who vote will go and vote for the these two parties again. Oh joy.

One thing, however, is that sometimes these regulations actually help to stabilize the economy, meaning more money is produced because there is more security and faith in the system. What you have shown doesn't appear to be the whole story. I'm not an expert in this kind of thing either. So, I'll have to say there are blanks in knowledge and information.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Auto deaths keep dropping even though there are more cars than ever . Why? Cause of safety regs.

True an airbag adds to the cost of the car, they also save thousands of lives every week .

No all regs are bad .

Incorrect.

They reduce freedom, that is the end effect.

The Fraud of Seat-Belt Laws
Seat-Belt Laws Infringe a Person's Constitutional Rights

• William J. Holdorf

Sunday, September 01, 2002
The Fraud of Seat-Belt Laws | William J. Holdorf

Such action by seat-belt law supporters shows the insidious nature of such laws, and supporters continue to lobby for stricter enforcement and heavier penalties. Even the U.S. Supreme Court in 2001 added its own flavor of tyranny by ruling it was legal for a Texas police officer to arrest, handcuff, and jail a woman, and impound her car, for not buckling up herself and her children.5 Our nation, founded on freedom, certainly has come a long way from Patrick Henry’s cry, “Give me liberty or give me death,” to “Click it or ticket.”

Travel is a right. Driving is a privilege. And basic safety requirements for driving are perfectly reasonable.

When do you start pushing to ban motorcycles?

 

[Conservative65]

Lol,

You must like pollution, shitty food and crappy water. I find it well worth it to live in a first world you piece of shit.

You must like sucking the Liberal assholes. You do plenty of it.

 

[longknife]

Everyone keeps describing the declining income of Americans.

Here is one major reason!


According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, covering the cost of federal regulations costs American families close to $15,000 of their average income.
“Can you imagine what your family could do with an additional $14,974 for groceries, gasoline, and savings? Congress owes it to the American people to carefully scrutinize the regulatory process to ensure regulations work for the people,” Lankford’s report notes. “We can balance responsible regulations with cost-effective solutions that work for families.”
While in the past year Obama signed 224 bills into law, he also published 3,554 final rules. “This means that for every law passed by Congress, the federal government created 16 new rules,” according to the report.

These 3,554 regulations impose significant costs on the American economy. The National Association of Manufacturers calculated the total cost of federal regulations in 2012 to be a staggering $2.028 trillion (11 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product). If our $2 trillion federal regulatory cost were a country, it would be the ninth-largest in the world.
Obama's 3,554 Rules and Regulations Cost Households $15,000 - Breitbart​

​

I posted a thread of the Federal Register and nobody responded so I stopped.

Hundreds of rules and regulations EVERY DAY for an entire year.

And nobody here seems to care.

 

[healthmyths]

You should have added Jimmy Carter's 36,789

1. 1976 7,401
2. 1977 7,031
3. 1978 7,001
4. 1979 7,611
5. 1980 7,745
   http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43056.pdf

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
You are so right. GOP/Democrats have been responsible for more and more regulations.

But the point is which group wants American businesses to succeed?
Which group understands that MOST Americans work for tax paying small businesses.
"in calculating receipts from corporate income taxes, the IRS calculates that, as of 2009, corporations with $250 million or less in assets pay 75.4 percent of the total corporate tax revenue. With gross collections of approximately $225,482,000 from all corporations, that amounts to roughly $170,013,000 in corporate income tax revenue from smaller companies"
How Much Tax Revenue Do Small Businesses Generate?

And it is this group that pays 75.4% of all corporate taxes that are hardest hit by compliance to growing mountain of rules regulations.
Again remember illustration of business adding 1 more employee over 15 means adding another water closet and the cost to do it.

So most GOPers want businesses to succeed knowing these businesses pay most taxes! And idiots like Obama hate these businesses and want them via more
rules and regulations to be put out of business.

Yes, I unintentionally did not list Carter (1977-1980) or Ford's last year (1976).
The comment that Obama hates businesses, is total partisanship and also a very popular unfounded talking point. Businesses have enjoyed record profits since 2010, if Obama was so anti-business, these record profits wouldn't of happened. I want to point out, that I am no fan of Obama (never voted for the guy), I am however, anti-extreme right and left though.
Back to the topic. The Dems and GOP have two different philosophies regarding business. I agree that the GOP is MORE pro business than the Dems. The Dems are more pro-consumer and more pro-worker.
Now, I find the Breibart article, just plain unbelievable. One year of 3554 new regulations cost households $15,000? And the other approximately 200,000 regulation since the mid 70's didn't cost the households anything? If one year cost households $15,000, it is not unimaginable to say other years may have cost households 10% annually of what Obama's one year of regulations, which would be $1,500 per year or $60,000 over 40 years.
The article by Breibart does not make any logical sense at all.

Obama IS anti-business is spite of it you are right record profits! BUT consider the gross handicapping that business have had!
Why are you so anti-business? These businesses want to expand but every time they try they are knocked by Obama.
Seriously how can a business keep up with the rules and regulations and the cost of Obamacare? Simple. They reduce hours below the 40 hours i.e. full time.
Who suffers? Americans not working full time. That's why today Walmart announced closing 100s of stores because sales were down. Sales at all retailers were down.
Retail Sales in U.S. Decrease to End Weakest Year Since 2009

Retail Sales in U.S. Decrease to End Weakest Year Since 2009

WRONG again and again...

It is NOT ONE year of 3,554 new regulations but one costs to the average family of nearly 200,000 REGULATIONS starting with Carter!
These regulations are still in force. So again you haven't obviously read the article that Breibart is pointing to.

It came from this source:
Ten Thousand Commandments 2015 | Competitive Enterprise Institute


Highlights of the 2015 edition include:

• Federal regulation and intervention cost American consumers and businesses an estimated $1.88 trillion in 2014 in lost economic productivity and higher prices.
  
• If U.S. federal regulation was a country, it would be the world’s 10th largest economy, ranking behind Russia and ahead of India.
  
• Economy-wide regulatory costs amount to an average of $14,976 per household – around 29 percent of an average family budget of $51,100. Although not paid directly by individuals, this “cost” of regulation exceeds the amount an average family spends on health care, food and transportation.
  
• The “Unconstitutionality Index” is the ratio of regulations issued by unelected agency officials compared to legislation enacted by Congress in a given year. In 2014, agencies issued 16 new regulations for every law—that’s 3,554 new regulations compared to 224 new laws.
  
• Many Americans complain about taxes, but regulatory compliance costs exceed what the IRS is expected to collect in both individual and corporate income taxes for last year—by more than $160 billion.
  
• Some 60 federal departments, agencies and commissions have 3,415 regulations in development at various stages in the pipeline. The top six federal rulemaking agencies account for 48 percent of all federal regulations. These are the Departments of the Treasury, Commerce, Interior, Health and Human Services and Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency.
  
• The 2014 Federal Register contains 77,687 pages, the sixth highest page count in its history.

Among the six all-time-high Federal Register total page counts, five occurred under President Obama.

• The George W. Bush administration averaged 62 major regulations annually over eight years, while the Obama administration has averaged 81 major regulations annually over six years.

Those comments are from 17 years of collecting data regarding government regulations.
Look at their staff: Staff | Competitive Enterprise Institute

So these people are NOT producing an agenda driven but FACT driven effort.

Firstly, how many of these regulations are Obama's regulations? He might sign them in, but isn't it CONGRESS that makes this legislation in the first place in most cases?

Secondly, how many of these regulations have been in place a long time?

Thirdly, people complaining about regulations, but at the same time support high military spending, don't complain about the extra cost of having dollar bills instead of dollar coins, don't complain about health care costing twice as much as other first world countries, mainly because of insurance companies and doctors on the take, and so on.....

Again the statistics

Carter Total 29,388 Average per year 7,347
Ronald Reagan-42,693-8 years Average per year 5,336
George HW Bush-17,619-4 years Ave. 4,404
Bill Clinton-42,619-8years Ave. 5,327
George W Bush-31,634-8 years Ave. 3,954
Barrack Obama-25,377-6 years Ave. 4,229

So Carter averaged the highest, followed Reagan, then Clinton, Obama, HWB then GWB.
And more importantly answering your first question it is a CUMULATIVE amount of regulations... NOT just Obama's but Obama keeps
adding more and more. NO ONE says it is just Obama's fault even though he will end up as the worst offender!

Answered your 2nd comment. Cumulative. They don't go away!

Your 3rd point.. People complain about these 200,000 regulations from the Federal government alone as well as the hundreds of thousands local rules and regulations! How many duplicate efforts to comply with Federal/state/etc. do employers have to make?
Billions of hours .
Crews’ report cites the work of economists Nicole V. Crain and W. Mark Crain, whose study of the net cost of regulations determined that in 2009 federal regulation cost businesses and consumers $1.75 trillion, or nearly 12% of America’s 2009 GDP.
As a comparison, in the same year, corporate pre-tax profits for all businesses totaled about $ 1.46 trillion.
The Hidden Cost of Regulation | FreedomWorks


After a wait of more than 80 days, EPA finally published the official version of the Clean Power Plan. As AAF detailed here, the agency expects coal generation to decline by 48 percent. The $8.4 billion in compliance costs will help to close more than 60 power plants across the nation. By postponing the initial compliance date by two years, regulatory costs declined slightly, but paperwork more than doubled, compared to the proposed version. AAF’s map tracks which states will have the easiest and most difficult path to compliance.
On the heels of the Clean Power Plan, EPA also published a measure to reduce costs and paperwork. As AAF reviewed here, by updating its National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to electronic reporting, the agency expects to save the economy $156 million during the next ten years and almost 200,000 paperwork hours.
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

Since passage, based on total lifetime costs of the regulations, the Affordable Care Act has imposed costs of $47.9 billion in state and private-sector burdens and 165.9 million annual paperwork hours.
DODD-FRANK

A quintet of agencies finalized a rule establishing margin and capital requirements for swaps. Amazingly, the cost estimates range from a manageable $672 million annually to an otherworldly $46 billion, “depending on the specific initial margin estimate and incremental funding cost that is used to compute the estimate.” AAF used the more central figure of $5.2 billion in total costs. Still, it now stands as the most expensive Dodd-Frank rule on record.
$17.4 Billion in Regulatory Costs | Week in Regulation

Well this becomes a problem. And what are people going to do? 95% of people who vote will go and vote for the these two parties again. Oh joy.

One thing, however, is that sometimes these regulations actually help to stabilize the economy, meaning more money is produced because there is more security and faith in the system. What you have shown doesn't appear to be the whole story. I'm not an expert in this kind of thing either. So, I'll have to say there are blanks in knowledge and information.

Here is the problem defined by this study group.
under contract with the SBA -- number SBAHQ-08-M-0466 Release Date: September 2010

The annual cost of federal regulations in the United States increased to more than $1.75 trillion in 2008.
Had every U.S. household paid an equal share of the federal regulatory burden, each would have owed $15,586 in 2008. By comparison, the federal regulatory burden exceeds by 50 percent private spending on health care, which equaled $10,500 per household in 2008.
While all citizens and businesses pay some portion of these costs, the distribution of the burden of regulations is quite uneven.
The portion of regulatory costs that falls initially on businesses was $8,086 per employee in 2008.
Small businesses, defined as firms employing fewer than 20 employees, bear the largest burden of federal regulations.
As of 2008, small businesses face an annual regulatory cost of $10,585 per employee, which is 36 percent higher than the regulatory cost facing large firms (defined as firms with 500 or more employees).

https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms (Full).pdf

This was done BEFORE Obama! But did this halt the growth of regulations by Obama? NO!
Nearly 4,000 regulations are squirming their way through the federal bureaucracy in the last year of Barack Obama’s presidency — many costing industry more than $100 million — in a mad dash by the White House to push through government actions affecting everything from furnaces to gun sales to Guantánamo.

http://www.politico.com/agenda/agenda/story/2016/1/obama-regulations-2016#ixzz3xQE5VsE9

Now it would be one thing if Obama was running an efficient operation... BUT so far every thing is show a great amount of ineptitude and gross failures!

 

[edthecynic]

I agree that the GOP is MORE pro business than the Dems. The Dems are more pro-consumer and more pro-worker.

Consumers need businesses to produce and sell the goods and services that they need. Workets need businesses to employ them. Only a wrong-winger would claim that you can be pro-consumer and/or pro-worker without being at least equally pro-business.

Well, thanks for that partisan take.
I work in strategic planning, in other words my job is to find ways to grow business and I have been doing it with one company for twenty years.
During the recession, we found out that one of the major reason's the recession took so long to recover was that our consumer driven economy was lagging due to very soft consumer spending. If one studies historical US recessions, they are increasingly taking longer and longer to recover from. This phenomenon correlates with the flat wage growth of the working class/middle class since 1980. This illustrates business and workers/consumers need each other. It's not a black and white as the Dems or the GOP like to paint it. Supply and demand, the chicken or the egg?
Here's a graph of recessions and their recoveries from 1948 on. It visually shows what I was addressing regarding how flat wage growth effects our economy's ability to recover.View attachment 59969

That's all well and good when we didn't have an administration that has ardently worked to reduce American productivity..i.e. how ACA is forcing companies to change the concept of "full-time".

The 2010 health law requires large employers to offer health insurance to anyone working “full-time,” which the law defines as 30 hours a week.
In the interest of an informed debate, we've compiled a list of job actions with strong proof that ObamaCare's employer mandate is behind cuts to work hours or staffing levels.
As of September 5th, our ObamaCare scorecard included 450 employers with more than 100 school districts among them.
Recently, IBD explained that a big minimum wage hike alongside the employer mandate would add to pressure on employers to cut workers to part-time, complicating the goal of reducing inequality.
ObamaCare Employer Mandate: A List Of Cuts To Work Hours, Jobs

BEFORE the recession, Richard Clark’s cleaning company in Florida had 200 employees, about half of them working full time.
These days it has about 150, with 80% part-time. The downturn explains some of this.
But Mr Clark also blames Barack Obama’s health reform...
Mr Clark says he is "very careful with the threshold". To keep his full-time workforce below the magic number of 50, he is relying more on part-timers. He is not alone. More than one in ten firms surveyed by Mercer, a consultancy--and one in five retail and hospitality companies--say they will cut workers’ hours because of Obamacare. A hundred part-timers can flip as many burgers as 50 full-timers, and the former will soon be much cheaper.
Here's What Economists Are Saying About The Claim That Obamacare Is Causing More Jobs To Be Part Time

No matter how many times this lie is debunked, the Right keep on parroting it.

When the ACA passed in 2010 there were 9,233,000 working PT who wanted FT work. Now there are 6,022,000, a DECREASE of over 3 million.
The number has steadily declined EVERY year since the ACA was passed.

I source my comments... I don't believe anything you write because YOU have made it up! Prove with a source I can read.

You don't source any of your shit with credible sources, just like you didn't source your MADE UP claim that Carter had a 5 year term.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Part-Time for Economic Reasons