• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Obama Has Approved Fewer Regulations Than Bush

Swizz

Swizz

Active member
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
351
Reaction score
162
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
I figure this relates to the 2012 elections because it's been one of their main arguments against Obama's economic policies.

And, turns out, they're absolutely wrong. Or, at least, inconsistent.

Obama’s White House approved 613 federal rules during the first 33 months of his term, 4.7 percent fewer than the 643 cleared by President George W. Bush’s administration in the same time frame, according to an Office of Management and Budget statistical database reviewed by Bloomberg.

...

n the last 12 months through the end of September, the cost range of new regulations is estimated to be $8 billion to $9 billion, a decrease from 2010, according to non-partisan Government Accountability Office reports analyzed by Bloomberg. That total put the average annual cost of regulations under Obama at about $7 billion to $11 billion, compared with the $6.9 billion average from 1981 through 2008 in current dollars, according to the OMB data.
The record came in 1992 under George H.W. Bush when that total hit $20.9 billion in current dollars. In the last year of Ronald Reagan's term it was $16 billion in today’s dollars.
Click to expand...

:lamo

Check out the full link for more in-depth #s: Obama Wrote Fewer Rules Than Bush, Cost More - Bloomberg
 
Last edited:
Your full thread title is "Obama has Approved Fewer Regulations than Bush at Nearly Twice the Cost".

Thanks for the info.
 
Its really saying something that Obama has approved fewer regulations when you consider that Obama came during the biggest financial crisis since 1929. One would think that if you came in to office during a huge financial crisis, you would be approving a large number of regulations in an attempt to rein in financial industry excesses.

Of course, this does not fit the popular right wing mythology that regulations are holding the economy back. It seems that in their minds, to compete with China, we need air like China's.

From the article:

The average annual cost to businesses under Obama is higher than under his predecessors, the Bloomberg review shows. The increase is estimated to total as little as $100 million or as much as $4.1 billion, or at most three one-hundredths of a percent of the total economy.
Click to expand...

I guess that 3 hundredths of 1 percent of the economy is what is killing us. :roll:

I love this example too:

Deep Drilling
The Department of Interior, for example, says that new controls on deep-water oil drilling will cost the industry $180 million; one well blowout could cost $16.3 billion. Industry lobbyists counter that many rules, especially the most expensive from the Environmental Protection Agency, will impose costs much greater than estimated.
Click to expand...

So we had this huge oil spill that was purely the cause of the oil industry, and the department of the interior is now being blamed by the Republicans for costing jobs when they put some new regulations in? Do you want another oil spill or what? Should the oil industry just police itself like it does in sub saharan Africa?
 
Last edited:
Samhain said:
Your full thread title is "Obama has Approved Fewer Regulations than Bush at Nearly Twice the Cost".

Thanks for the info.
Click to expand...

Nah, I ran out of room.

The full thread title, if I had my way, would have been: "Obama has Approved Fewer Regulations than George W. Bush at Lower Cost Than Both Reagan and Bush"

Where was the outrage on the right during those administrations?
 
apdst said:
Care to post a link to Bushcare? oh, wait...
Click to expand...

Bushcare was otherwise known as TARP, where Bush gave loving care, and the biggest redistribution of wealth in human history, to the banksters.
 
danarhea said:
Bushcare was otherwise known as TARP, where Bush gave loving care, and the biggest redistribution of wealth in human history, to the banksters.
Click to expand...

got any proof of that
 
danarhea said:
Bushcare was otherwise known as TARP, where Bush gave loving care, and the biggest redistribution of wealth in human history, to the banksters.
Click to expand...

It should probably be noted that most of the largest recipients of TARP money, and surely the most vilified (Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JP Morgan, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley) have fully paid back the US government with interest. With the notable exceptions of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG. The program has disbursed $580B to date with $277B already returned. The outstanding commitments are spread across hundreds of banks of varying sizes across the United States.

Bailout List: Banks, Auto Companies, and More | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica

EDIT: Looks like the numbers above aren't entirely accurate as they relate to all bailouts from the US government and not the TARP program. For example, it includes bailouts to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and GM/Chrysler which all came through acts from the Obama administration (e.g. Housing and Economic Recovery Act 2008)

Bank specific numbers show far less funds distributed: $204 billion distributed with $178 billion returned with approximately $13.5 billion paid in interest. The banks listed above have fully reimbursed the US.

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/st_TARP_20100930.html

[Numbers as of 9/10]

As of March, 2011 the CBO reports that disbursements totaled at $432 billion with a total cost to taxpayers of $19 billion.

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12118
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
Bushcare was otherwise known as TARP, where Bush gave loving care, and the biggest redistribution of wealth in human history, to the banksters.
Click to expand...

From the CBO report:

That cost stems largely from assistance to American International Group, aid to the automotive industry, and grant programs aimed at avoiding foreclosures: CBO estimates a cost of $41 billion for providing those three types of assistance. Other transactions with financial institutions will, taken together, yield a net gain of $22 billion to the federal government, CBO estimates.
Click to expand...

Director's Blog » Blog Archive » The Costs of the Troubled Asset Relief Program

Table11.png


Not quite the $700 billion blank check the recent anti-Wall Street fervor would like you to believe.
 
Last edited:
Swizz said:
Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

It's actually quite amazing how badly that bill was designed in terms of cost savings. Bush's Medicare Drug bill basically forfeited one of the only advantages the government has: consumer volume. Bush COULD have used the sheer number of purchases to reduce the cost of drugs but instead used the bill and taxpayer monies to simply give away billions to big Pharm. Bush COULD have started a trend of reducing health care costs but he refused.

When was the last time you saw a hack here take Bush to town on that? Never. Because they will never act honestly.

Bush took billions in taxpayer dollars he could have saved and gave them to big Pharm. And Adpst won't criticize Bush on that.
 
obvious Child said:
It's actually quite amazing how badly that bill was designed in terms of cost savings. Bush's Medicare Drug bill basically forfeited one of the only advantages the government has: consumer volume. Bush COULD have used the sheer number of purchases to reduce the cost of drugs but instead used the bill and taxpayer monies to simply give away billions to big Pharm. Bush COULD have started a trend of reducing health care costs but he refused.

When was the last time you saw a hack here take Bush to town on that? Never. Because they will never act honestly.

Bush took billions in taxpayer dollars he could have saved and gave them to big Pharm. And Adpst won't criticize Bush on that.
Click to expand...

Also it was unfunded...and they bitch about the deficit and debt.
 
winston53660 said:
Also it was unfunded...and they bitch about the deficit and debt.
Click to expand...

Bush was not some messiah to the right, as much as you might like to think he was. He represented a breed of "compassionate conservatives" aka neocons, who believed that morality and defense were the most important. As Bush has come and gone, so too have those Republicans as leaders of the party. Now, the Republican Party is driven by the small government focused Tea Party, who were always at odds with compassionate conservativism.
 
Nick2253 said:
Bush was not some messiah to the right, as much as you might like to think he was. He represented a breed of "compassionate conservatives" aka neocons, who believed that morality and defense were the most important. As Bush has come and gone, so too have those Republicans as leaders of the party. Now, the Republican Party is driven by the small government focused Tea Party, who were always at odds with compassionate conservativism.
Click to expand...

Be that as it may, there are very, very, very few people here who bash Obama who also bash Bush. Rarely will you hear someone like Mr. V or Apdst bash Bush for the same things they bash Obama for. That's a sign of a partisan hack and a hypocrite.

How many of them are calling for the repeal of Medicare D for its massive waste of taxpayer dollars? None. Because Bush signed it.
 
obvious Child said:
Be that as it may, there are very, very, very few people here who bash Obama who also bash Bush. Rarely will you hear someone like Mr. V or Apdst bash Bush for the same things they bash Obama for. That's a sign of a partisan hack and a hypocrite.

How many of them are calling for the repeal of Medicare D for its massive waste of taxpayer dollars? None. Because Bush signed it.
Click to expand...

Let's see you bash The Messiah for doing the same thing Bush did, only 10 times bigger; while we're on the subject of hypocrisy and partisan hackery.
 
Swizz said:
I figure this relates to the 2012 elections because it's been one of their main arguments against Obama's economic policies.

And, turns out, they're absolutely wrong. Or, at least, inconsistent.



:lamo

Check out the full link for more in-depth #s: Obama Wrote Fewer Rules Than Bush, Cost More - Bloomberg
Click to expand...

Using actual data to disprove their ideological beliefs is going to cause some on the right to have their heads explode. Thanks ;)
 
Swizz said:
Nah, I ran out of room.

The full thread title, if I had my way, would have been: "Obama has Approved Fewer Regulations than George W. Bush at Lower Cost Than Both Reagan and Bush"

Where was the outrage on the right during those administrations?
Click to expand...

Sounds like someone didn't actually read the article. Not only have regulations increased at a direct compliance cost of up to 4.1 billion, it doesn't include independent agencies, like the SEC, FTC, EPA, etc, who have also increased regulations.

But you keep reading one sentence here and there, because you are almost close to having a cohesive thought.
 
apdst said:
Let's see you bash The Messiah for doing the same thing Bush did, only 10 times bigger; while we're on the subject of hypocrisy and partisan hackery.
Click to expand...

You just proved my point. You absolutely refuse to hit Bush for the same things Obama does. Furthermore, Obamacare is not the same thing as Medicare D but it does fail for much of the same reasons as Medicare B in terms of drug pricing. That said, it should reduce overall health care costs as market exchanges of insurance essentially should cause the same downward pressure upon medical insurance similar to how the internet killed abnormal profits on car insurance.

Looks like I did bash Obama for the same thing I bash Bush on. You won't. Ever. I'm not a hack. You are.

You have absolutely no problem trying to find anything to bash Obama on, but you will never apply your standards consistently.
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
You just proved my point. You absolutely refuse to hit Bush for the same things Obama does. Furthermore, Obamacare is not the same thing as Medicare D but it does fail for much of the same reasons as Medicare B in terms of drug pricing. That said, it should reduce overall health care costs as market exchanges of insurance essentially should cause the same downward pressure upon medical insurance similar to how the internet killed abnormal profits on car insurance.

Looks like I did bash Obama for the same thing I bash Bush on. You won't. Ever. I'm not a hack. You are.
Click to expand...

Are ou going to hit Obama for doing the same things Bush did? I'm thinking...uh, no!
You have absolutely no problem trying to find anything to bash Obama on, but you will never apply your standards consistently
Click to expand...

I don't have to try. Obama does it for me.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Are ou going to hit Obama for doing the same things Bush did? I'm thinking...uh, no!
Click to expand...


but it [Obamacare] does fail for much of the same reasons as Medicare D in terms of drug pricing.
Click to expand...

Still working on reading comprehension over there eh? Do we not know what the word "same" means Apdst?

I don't have to try. Obama does it for me.
Click to expand...

You wonder why we don't take you seriously.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom