In general, though? The annual cost of federal regulations in the United States increased to more than $1.75 trillion in 2008. That is, it was just a hair shy of [i]twelve percent of GDP[/url]. and that was before the explosion we have seen over the past three years.
my uncle is a real American Story. living in a trailor, no college education, hard work up by his bootstraps built a multi-million dollar contracting company, etc. He has about 60ish employees (figures as of last Christmas when last we spoke of this), but has already run the math. The day after the EPA passes Cap and Trade by fiat, he has to walk into work and let 20 of his workers go, just to keep the business in the black and keep the other 40(ish) employed. The regulatory costs of Obamacare are similar (for some reason he didn't have those numbers on hand); but they can be avoided simply by firing 11 workers, and getting his business below the count of 50. Why in the world would he hire someone else, when he's not even sure he will be able to keep the workers already has?The ones I hear your side of the aisle complaining about are EPA regulations, once again I must ask for specifics.
according to the Business Roundtable and the National Association and Manufacturers, the five worst for job-killing are insanely tightened ozone standards, industrial and commercial boiler emissions, export controls, and the Dodd-Frank bill, and livestock marketing. Making pig farmers keep track of every time their pigs poop and every time they shovel said poop out of the barn is idiotic; and it wastes hours.
House Republicans have decided to focus in on the ones that they consider to be the top ten:
1. NLRB’s Boeing Ruling (Week of September 12)
2. Utility MACT and CSAPR (Week of September 19)
3. Boiler MACT (Week of October 3)
4. Cement MACT (Week of October 3)
5. Coal Ash (October/November)
6. Grandfathered Health Plans (November/December)
7. Ozone Rule (Winter)
8. Farm Dust (Winter)
9. Greenhouse Gas (Winter)
10. NLRB’s Ambush Elections (Winter)
but the worst by far is the 6,000 pages (thus far) that have been added to the Federal Registry from Obamacare alone. remember the boondoggle about the paperwork that had to get filed every time a business had a purchase of over a few hundred dollars? there are oodles of that kind of crap spread-load throughout that thing. some studies actually indicate that we were headed towards a fully normal recovery that stalled and stopped coincidentally the instant Obamacare passed Congress.
and so on and so forth. You want more?
everybody feels that way, alex. they simply have completely different "objective" conclusions.I'm not against profit, I'm not against success, but I most certainly am for a better, happier, more secure and stable society and I feel as if we all looked at everything a little more objectively instead of picking sides and writing down a couple of talking points that we could accomplish so much more and grow as a nation.
think of a venn diagram.... with very little overlap. there simply isn't enough shared assumption for much meaningful compromise. If I think the way to create jobs is to increase government spending, and you think the way to create jobs is to reduce it, we have what is called "mutually contradicting ideals".
that is inaccurate, and is the result of PP twisting its' books to provide precisely such a small number. the overwhelming majority of people that go to PP get abortions, but PP counts each procedure separately in order to hide multiple services that are happening simultaneously or one after the other. What Kyle was trying (and failing) to say was that 90% of PP's services to pregnant women consists of abortion. That, too, would be false. the correct number is 98%. According to Planned Parenthood’s 2009 report, it performed 332,278 abortions, saw, 7,021 prenatal care clients, and made 977 adoption referrals.As far as the contraception thing goes I guess I'm still a little miffed at Jon Kyl deliberately misquoting the percentage of Planned Parenthood funds that go to abortion. He said 90 percent the actual total is 3 percent and it's three percent which due to the Hyde amendment all comes from private donors.
this belongs in another thread - but the most vulnerable person in this event is the baby. who is being sawed into pieces while still alive.The rest is spent on sex education, providing contraception to young adults, and other services. So no your party hasn't been that direct, instead the whip of your party lied about the numbers to further his agenda and limit the access the most vulnerable
The majority of those were given citations (tickets), but 'arrests' make it sound so much sinister...Originally Posted by nonpareil
Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it. - Mark Twain
“I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.
Some of us do not stop there however. We want to see everyone do well so that we have a prosperous and sustainable society for all. Why that should make us "assclowns" is a mystery to me. Perhaps I should see if Lew Rockwell has written a column on the topic.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers
It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
"Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911