Obama Wants to Shed Rules That Hurt Job Growth

[apdst]

What goes through this dude's mind when he say **** like this? Regulations he put into place, are the regulations that are killing jobs! If he wants to get government regulations out of the way of job growth, he should repeal Obamacare, immediately, along with lifting the drilling moratorium. Whatta dumbass!!

President Barack Obama Tuesday ordered a government-wide review of regulations with the goal of eliminating those that hurt job creation and make the U.S. economy less competitive.

News Headlines

This is nothing more than political theater.

 

[Objective Voice]

Why do you think that?

I've read Pres. Obama "agenda handbook", Change You Can Believe In. In it, he mentions reviewing and updating the tax codes. Since it was already part of his platform and he has talked about this since being elected, I'd hardly call it "political theater".

I think too many people label him a job killer when, in fact, the country was losing jobs before he took office. It's easy to say such and such legislation is impacting job growth, but when you coming into office and the economy is already is disarray, it makes sense to focus your attention of discovering exactly what went wrong and doing what you can to fix the problem. I think he has taken great strides in doing that, but clearly there remains lots of work to be done. Now that there appears to be some sense of stability in the economy, I'd think tackling the tax code is prudent since taxation seems to be the lynch-pen of the Conservative movement. The obvious fear, of course, is that many of the loopholes big businesses receive will be closed, but let's remember who writes the tax laws - Congress. And since Republicans now hold the majority in the House, I'd say you have nothing to fear here...unless you fear equality in the tax system, as well as closing some of the loopholes and modernizing the system.

 

[apdst]

Why do you think that?

I've read Pres. Obama "agenda handbook", Change You Can Believe In. In it, he mentions reviewing and updating the tax codes. Since it was already part of his platform and he has talked about this since being elected, I'd hardly call it "political theater".

I think too many people label him a job killer when, in fact, the country was losing jobs before he took office. It's easy to say such and such legislation is impacting job growth, but when you coming into office and the economy is already is disarray, it makes sense to focus your attention of discovering exactly what went wrong and doing what you can to fix the problem. I think he has taken great strides in doing that, but clearly there remains lots of work to be done. Now that there appears to be some sense of stability in the economy, I'd think tackling the tax code is prudent since taxation seems to be the lynch-pen of the Conservative movement. The obvious fear, of course, is that many of the loopholes big businesses receive will be closed, but let's remember who writes the tax laws - Congress. And since Republicans now hold the majority in the House, I'd say you have nothing to fear here...

So, tell us, who was it that put the drilling moratorium in place and shut down offshore drilling in the gulf, immediately killing 20,000 jobs?

Who was it that signed The Healthcare Bill into law?

Who shut down the largest coal mine in the country?

unless you fear equality in the tax system, as well as closing some of the loopholes and modernizing the system.

Closing loopholes means more money out of my pocket and into the government's coffers. How does that help with job creation, again?

 

[Objective Voice]

So, tell us, who was it that put the drilling moratorium in place and shut down offshore drilling in the gulf, immediately killing 20,000 jobs?

Who was it that signed The Healthcare Bill into law?

Who shut down the largest coal mine in the country?

Closing loopholes means more money out of my pocket and into the government's coffers. How does that help with job creation, again?

Who signed the Health care law is irrelevant. How the law impacts job growth or the economy is a different matter. Right now, all we have is speculation as to how the law will impact job growth. But the way I see it, if big businesses were so eager to use health insurance as an incentive to hiring people AND the government provided a tax exemption on that portion of the benefit employers provide to their employees, it's only fair for the government to either take back that exemption if employers aren't fulfilling their end of the deal or penalize them via a tax since it was that business entity and not the government who renigged on the deal. Hence, the reason behind the business tax many people are so up in arms over. But you won't read about that in the business news section of your local news paper, and it's not something that gets discussed at the water cooler. But it happens nonetheless.

I don't know about the coal mine issue, but if it happened after the miners were trapped in early 2009 I can certainly understand why a temporary closure was enforced. Same goes with the Gulf Oil spill. (Of course, if the closure of the coal mine was permanent, you'll have to provide more info on that since as I stated I'm unaware anything like that has happened under Pres. Obama's tenure.)

But again, these issues have nothing to do with the effectiveness of our current tax code system. It is outdated; Democrats and Republicans alike agree. I find nothing wrong with working to bring the code up-to-date and reviewing regulations that may either be a hinderance to job creation or duplication of the rules. It's a review that has been long overdue.

Also, I disagree with your assessment that closing tax loopholes automatically means more money for the government. IMO, it means people or business entities will no longer be allowed to hide from their tax liability.

 

[apdst]

Who signed the Health care law is irrelevant. How the law impacts job growth or the economy is a different matter. Right now, all we have is speculation as to how the law will impact job growth. But the way I see it, if big businesses were so eager to use health insurance as an incentive to hiring people AND the government provided a tax exemption on that portion of the benefit employers provide to their employees, it's only fair for the government to either take back that exemption if employers aren't fulfilling their end of the deal or penalize them via a tax since it was that business entity and not the government who renigged on the deal. Hence, the reason behind the business tax many people are so up in arms over. But you won't read about that in the business news section of your local news paper, and it's not something that gets discussed at the water cooler. But it happens nonetheless.

I don't know about the coal mine issue, but if it happened after the miners were trapped in early 2009 I can certainly understand why a temporary closure was enforced. Same goes with the Gulf Oil spill. (Of course, if the closure of the coal mine was permanent, you'll have to provide more info on that since as I stated I'm unaware anything like that has happened under Pres. Obama's tenure.)

But again, these issues have nothing to do with the effectiveness of our current tax code system. It is outdated; Democrats and Republicans alike agree. I find nothing wrong with working to bring the code up-to-date and reviewing regulations that may either be a hinderance to job creation or duplication of the rules. It's a review that has been long overdue.

Also, I disagree with your assessment that closing tax loopholes automatically means more money for the government. IMO, it means people or business entities will no longer be allowed to hide from their tax liability.

It means less money in my pocket. That means less money that I can re-invest into my company to make equipment upgrades, to provide bennies and pay raises for my employees.

Wow, man...just, wow!

 

[DontDoIt]

I sure the unions will be in a uproar about this.

 

[Renae]

It means less money in my pocket. That means less money that I can re-invest into my company to make equipment upgrades, to provide bennies and pay raises for my employees.

Wow, man...just, wow!

It's not your money. You should be grateful that the Gov't let's you keep some while using what they deserve to provide for you a country that helps people.

(just sayin, there be them that see it that way)

 

[American]

So, tell us, who was it that put the drilling moratorium in place and shut down offshore drilling in the gulf, immediately killing 20,000 jobs?

Who was it that signed The Healthcare Bill into law?

Who shut down the largest coal mine in the country?



Closing loopholes means more money out of my pocket and into the government's coffers. How does that help with job creation, again?

What he is saying is, "Shut up, it's Bush's fault."

 

[Barbbtx]

While vowing to eliminate rules that are "not worth the cost, or that are just plain dumb," the president said his administration would not shy away from writing new rules to address "obvious gaps" in government oversight.
News Headlines

:roll:

Oh geez.

We have too many rules. Lets fix that with more rules.

He's the same on spending. We spend too much, so let's spend more.

I wish he'd stop trying to help.

 

[Objective Voice]

It means less money in my pocket. That means less money that I can re-invest into my company to make equipment upgrades, to provide bennies and pay raises for my employees.

Wow, man...just, wow!

Until you know exactly how changes to the tax code will affect you, I'd say you're just being overly paranoid (not to mention heavy partisan). Take a seat and relax, man. Clearly, you're still making money. Otherwise, how would you pay for your interenet service to get here so we can read about your constant gripes and complaints?

:roll:

Oh geez.

We have too many rules. Lets fix that with more rules.

He's the same on spending. We spend too much, so let's spend more.

I wish he'd stop trying to help.

There's nothing wrong with updating the tax codes so that they apply to today's economic conditions as opposed to the economic climate of 25 years ago. Look at it like a permit fee, for example. If 25 yrs ago it cost $25 for a building permit yet the administrative costs have long eaten up that expense, doesn't it makes sense to increase the cost of the permit? In contrast, if you had a tax on a specific good or service that's no longer in existance, it makes sense to do away with that tax.

Let's wait and see what the changes in the tax code are before jumping off the deep end, okay? :roll:

 

[Deuce]

Obama offers to do exactly what they want, conservatives still find a reason to be upset about it and oppose it. Shocked, I am.