ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

This Is Why There Are No Jobs in America

entropyman

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 127

Report this Jun. 19 2012, 8:14 pm

Nobody is saying get rid of common sense or the EPA, for crying out loud! The bureaucratic busybodies need to put on the brakes, stop regulating just to expand government. Childrens lemonade stands in Maryland have been shut down because they were unlicenced. The Federal Railroad Administration requires trains to be painted with a giant F on the front so people know the difference between the front and the back. Consider the Dodd-Frank law aimed at improving transparency in finacial instituions. While the goals are good, it's 848 pages (23 times longer than the reform following the great depression) is far too complex. Every other page demands further regulation only implied. Clarifications are hundreds of pages long. And let's face it, complexity only creates more loopholes and costs money. The Volker rule includes 383 questions which break down into 1420 sub-questions. Of the 400 rules Dodd-Frank mandates, only 93 have been finalized, so financial firms in America must prepare to comply with a law that's unintelligible and unknowable. In healthcare, every hour treating a patient requires 30-60 minutes of paperwork. Next year the number of federally mandated categories of illness and injury for which hospitals can claim reimbursement will rise from 18,000 to 140,000. There are 9 codes relating to injuries caused by parrots alone! Maybe you'll like a proposed law in Colorado that specifies the number of crayons each box must contain. The government's drive to micromanage creates a huge incentive for interest groups to push for special favors- you know, for chums and campaign donors. Saranes-Oxley, a law aimed at preventing Enron-style frauds has made it so difficult to list shares on American stock market, investors are increasingly looking elsewhere. A study for the Small Business Admin.(a government body) found that regulations in general add $10,585 in costs per employee. When regulators try to write all-purpose instruction manuals, the truly important dos and don'ts are lost in an ocean of verbiage. Government restrictions on many types of power production and excessively costly regulation have driven up energy prices after centuries of falling energy prices. New technologies would have translated into much higher incomes for most people were it not for the heavy foot of government on the economic windpipe. Old industries such as energy production, transportation, and education are heavily regulated and people don't get the benefits of lower costs and better products thanks to regulators outlawing innovation. The government hasn't yet figured out how to destroy the internet and advances in computer technology, but not fo a lack of trying. It's no surprise that as governments expand, the rate of technological progress slows down- how's the U.S. space program doing these days? I could go on and on, but you get the idea.                                                                                 

Broadstorm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 828

Report this Jun. 19 2012, 9:50 pm

Quote: entropyman @ Jun. 19 2012, 8:14 pm

>

>Nobody is saying get rid of common sense or the EPA, for crying out loud!                 

>


 


Michelle Bachmann: 


“And I guarantee you the EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) will have doors locked and lights turned off and they will only be about conservation,”


I think he EPA should be called the "Job Killing Agency of America"


 


Rick Perry:


“I’ll tell you one thing: The EPA officials we have an opportunity to put in place, they’re going to be pro-business, and there’s not going to be any apologies to anybody about it,” he said. “Those agencies won’t know what hit ‘em.”


Perry also stated that the EPA was one of the 3 agencies he would abolish, althought the only quote I can find on that was when he could only list 2 of them, and needed help coming up with the third.


 

Corwin8

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8468

Report this Jun. 20 2012, 5:47 am

Quote: Invader_Wishfire @ Jun. 19 2012, 4:48 pm

Quote: Corwin8 @ Jun. 18 2012, 8:29 pm

Quote: Invader_Wishfire @ Jun. 18 2012, 1:22 pm

>

>

>

>You forgot to mention the fact that business tax rates are actually between 13.3% and 26.9%, depending on the type of business (sole proprietor versus S or C corporations). You also forgot the part about large corporations outsourcing half a million jobs since 2000.

>But don't let actual facts get in the way of your little rant.

>

You forgot to pay attention. I didn't write it. Not my rant. While I agree with most of it, you have yet to dispute any of the statements. All you have done is whine about outsourcing and specific tax rates when this is obviously a generalization. 

So check your facts before you accuse me of any rant. I am not Porter Stansberry. 

But don't let the fact that you did not read the whole article, that included the authors name, get in the way of your nitpicking reply. 

Or do you think we, as a country, are not over-regulating our businesses into failure? Or do you want to regulate our way to prosperity? Much like spend our way to austerity? 

You forgot to read what I actually said. If you had, you would have noticed that I didn't say that you wrote it. But you did post it. You also would've noticed that I did actually dispute what the post said.

But don't let your preference to ignore things like that get in the way of insisting that you're right even though you won't or can't actually back up the claims made.

And if our country is over-regulating businesses into failure, why are there more businesses opening and, as a result, more people working now than since the economic crisis started?


If you calli it my rant that would imply I wrote it. When I rant I tend to use my own words. But we can play this game of linguistic gymnastics all day.


Not my job to back up any of the authors facts. Google it if you must know. I also did say it was a bit of a generalization. 


As for the uptick in more buisnesses opening I only have your word. I do know that existing busineses are not hiring because they don't know how much it's going to cost if BHO gets re-elected. Also the true numbers of people working is far below any White House screed. Wasn't the rate for unemployment supposed to be in the 5 to 6% range after the Stimulus Package BHO hammered us with to 'save jobs' ?  Most businesses can't afford this President anymore. But far be it for you to let facts get in the way. Keep up the BHO Cheerleading Squad.


 


Let the bridges I burn light the way. You are special, just like everybody else. Calling an illegal alien an ‘undocumented immigrant’ is like calling a drug dealer an ‘unlicensed pharmacist’

Invader_Wishfire

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 27518

Report this Jun. 20 2012, 1:32 pm

Quote: Corwin8 @ Jun. 20 2012, 5:47 am

Quote: Invader_Wishfire @ Jun. 19 2012, 4:48 pm

Quote: Corwin8 @ Jun. 18 2012, 8:29 pm

Quote: Invader_Wishfire @ Jun. 18 2012, 1:22 pm

>

>

>

>

>You forgot to mention the fact that business tax rates are actually between 13.3% and 26.9%, depending on the type of business (sole proprietor versus S or C corporations). You also forgot the part about large corporations outsourcing half a million jobs since 2000.

>But don't let actual facts get in the way of your little rant.

>

You forgot to pay attention. I didn't write it. Not my rant. While I agree with most of it, you have yet to dispute any of the statements. All you have done is whine about outsourcing and specific tax rates when this is obviously a generalization. 

So check your facts before you accuse me of any rant. I am not Porter Stansberry. 

But don't let the fact that you did not read the whole article, that included the authors name, get in the way of your nitpicking reply. 

Or do you think we, as a country, are not over-regulating our businesses into failure? Or do you want to regulate our way to prosperity? Much like spend our way to austerity? 

You forgot to read what I actually said. If you had, you would have noticed that I didn't say that you wrote it. But you did post it. You also would've noticed that I did actually dispute what the post said.

But don't let your preference to ignore things like that get in the way of insisting that you're right even though you won't or can't actually back up the claims made.

And if our country is over-regulating businesses into failure, why are there more businesses opening and, as a result, more people working now than since the economic crisis started?

If you calli it my rant that would imply I wrote it. When I rant I tend to use my own words. But we can play this game of linguistic gymnastics all day.

Not my job to back up any of the authors facts. Google it if you must know. I also did say it was a bit of a generalization. 

As for the uptick in more buisnesses opening I only have your word. I do know that existing busineses are not hiring because they don't know how much it's going to cost if BHO gets re-elected. Also the true numbers of people working is far below any White House screed. Wasn't the rate for unemployment supposed to be in the 5 to 6% range after the Stimulus Package BHO hammered us with to 'save jobs' ?  Most businesses can't afford this President anymore. But far be it for you to let facts get in the way. Keep up the BHO Cheerleading Squad.

 


It is your post. You posted a rant. Regardless of whether or not you wrote it, you ranted. Don't get mad at me when you don't know how words work.


If you post something, it is indeed your job to back it up. Otherwise, it is a baseless claim with no value whatsoever.


I only have your word on the "existing businesses aren't hiring" claim. And what I see contradicts that.


So because unemployment isn't as low as it was "supposed to" be, that means it hasn't dropped at all?


"BHO Cheerleading Squad." Cute. I suppose you're just going to ignore the fact that we weren't even talking about Obama...


 photo spok_zps253ab564.gif

chr33355

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1551

Report this Jun. 20 2012, 7:05 pm

Quote: Broadstorm @ Jun. 19 2012, 9:50 pm

Quote: entropyman @ Jun. 19 2012, 8:14 pm

>

>

>Nobody is saying get rid of common sense or the EPA, for crying out loud!                 

>

 

Michelle Bachmann: 

“And I guarantee you the EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) will have doors locked and lights turned off and they will only be about conservation,”

I think he EPA should be called the "Job Killing Agency of America"

 

Rick Perry:

“I’ll tell you one thing: The EPA officials we have an opportunity to put in place, they’re going to be pro-business, and there’s not going to be any apologies to anybody about it,” he said. “Those agencies won’t know what hit ‘em.”

Perry also stated that the EPA was one of the 3 agencies he would abolish, althought the only quote I can find on that was when he could only list 2 of them, and needed help coming up with the third.

 

 When the EPA can charge millions of dollars in fines for fuel companies not using a bio fuel that ISN'T AVAILABLE for purchase yes we can call it a job killing agency and can support getting rid of it.


chr33355

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1551

Report this Jun. 20 2012, 7:09 pm

Quote: Invader_Wishfire @ Jun. 20 2012, 1:32 pm

Quote: Corwin8 @ Jun. 20 2012, 5:47 am

Quote: Invader_Wishfire @ Jun. 19 2012, 4:48 pm

Quote: Corwin8 @ Jun. 18 2012, 8:29 pm

Quote: Invader_Wishfire @ Jun. 18 2012, 1:22 pm

>

>

>

>

>

>You forgot to mention the fact that business tax rates are actually between 13.3% and 26.9%, depending on the type of business (sole proprietor versus S or C corporations). You also forgot the part about large corporations outsourcing half a million jobs since 2000.

>But don't let actual facts get in the way of your little rant.

>

You forgot to pay attention. I didn't write it. Not my rant. While I agree with most of it, you have yet to dispute any of the statements. All you have done is whine about outsourcing and specific tax rates when this is obviously a generalization. 

So check your facts before you accuse me of any rant. I am not Porter Stansberry. 

But don't let the fact that you did not read the whole article, that included the authors name, get in the way of your nitpicking reply. 

Or do you think we, as a country, are not over-regulating our businesses into failure? Or do you want to regulate our way to prosperity? Much like spend our way to austerity? 

You forgot to read what I actually said. If you had, you would have noticed that I didn't say that you wrote it. But you did post it. You also would've noticed that I did actually dispute what the post said.

But don't let your preference to ignore things like that get in the way of insisting that you're right even though you won't or can't actually back up the claims made.

And if our country is over-regulating businesses into failure, why are there more businesses opening and, as a result, more people working now than since the economic crisis started?

If you calli it my rant that would imply I wrote it. When I rant I tend to use my own words. But we can play this game of linguistic gymnastics all day.

Not my job to back up any of the authors facts. Google it if you must know. I also did say it was a bit of a generalization. 

As for the uptick in more buisnesses opening I only have your word. I do know that existing busineses are not hiring because they don't know how much it's going to cost if BHO gets re-elected. Also the true numbers of people working is far below any White House screed. Wasn't the rate for unemployment supposed to be in the 5 to 6% range after the Stimulus Package BHO hammered us with to 'save jobs' ?  Most businesses can't afford this President anymore. But far be it for you to let facts get in the way. Keep up the BHO Cheerleading Squad.

 

It is your post. You posted a rant. Regardless of whether or not you wrote it, you ranted. Don't get mad at me when you don't know how words work.

If you post something, it is indeed your job to back it up. Otherwise, it is a baseless claim with no value whatsoever.

I only have your word on the "existing businesses aren't hiring" claim. And what I see contradicts that.

So because unemployment isn't as low as it was "supposed to" be, that means it hasn't dropped at all?

"BHO Cheerleading Squad." Cute. I suppose you're just going to ignore the fact that we weren't even talking about Obama...

 But you still haven't posted anything supporting your claim


Invader_Wishfire

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 27518

Report this Jun. 20 2012, 8:06 pm

So? Why should I be required to provide evidence against his copy-pasted article when he refuses to support it? That's not how the burden of proof works.

chr33355

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1551

Report this Jun. 21 2012, 4:08 am

Quote: Invader_Wishfire @ Jun. 20 2012, 8:06 pm

>

>So? Why should I be required to provide evidence against his copy-pasted article when he refuses to support it? That's not how the burden of proof works.

>
 When you make a claim you have to provide evidence of it that is exactly how burden of proof works.  You said it yourself


caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this Jun. 21 2012, 6:36 am

entropyman: Consider the Dodd-Frank law aimed at improving transparency in finacial instituions. While the goals are good, it's 848 pages (23 times longer than the reform following the great depression) is far too complex. Every other page demands further regulation only implied. Clarifications are hundreds of pages long. And let's face it, complexity only creates more loopholes and costs money. The Volker rule includes 383 questions which break down into 1420 sub-questions. Of the 400 rules Dodd-Frank mandates, only 93 have been finalized, so financial firms in America must prepare to comply with a law that's unintelligible and unknowable.


caltrek:  Thank you for starting to supply some specific examples. So look at how we arrived at "needing" so many regulations. Listening to the anti-regulation crowd, the Glass Steagall Act was repealed in the late nineties.  This straight forward thirty two page depression era act had established barriers between commercial and investment banking. This allowed consolidation and the formation of much larger banks. It also eliminated the separation between those entrusted with caring for ordinary depositors' money in commercial banks from investment banks which had organized the sale of bonds and equities.


When the repeal of Glass-Steagall came about, the investment bank mentality came out on top. The motivation for high returns pushed banks to go for high leverage and high risk taking. Such institutions also operated with the assumption that if things got too out of hand, the feds would step in and bail out the lending sector. They understood that because their institutions had become too big to fail as a result of all of the consolidation.


Real estate loans were packaged together to securitize investment instruments. Loans that had been given to borrowers many of whom simply could not afford to pay their loans back. These toxic assets spread like a cancer throughout the banking industry. The money plowed into the real estate industry created a giant bubble in real estate prices, aggravating the problem that the assets relied upon simply had no material basis of support of their prices. The bubble finally popped, and as many had supposed, the feds were forced to step in to avoid a catastrophic collapse. As it was, a recession hit at the same time that the government was forced to borrow just to avoid a depression.


 So much of what happened can be traced back to the repeal of that 32 page legislation known as Glass-Steagall. So, does the right in this country support re-instatement of Glass-Steagall?


No.


Do they even acknowledge this history?


No. Instead they scapegoat the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. An act passed thirty years before the collapse. An act that had nothing to do with the problem. With that history , all credibility by the right in this country has been lost, at least in my eyes and in the eyes of anybody who has kept their eyes open to what has gone down.


 

Invader_Wishfire

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 27518

Report this Jun. 21 2012, 8:12 am

chr: Yes, that's why we're waiting on Corwin.

chr33355

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1551

Report this Jun. 21 2012, 8:47 am

Quote: Invader_Wishfire @ Jun. 21 2012, 8:12 am

>chr: Yes, that's why we're waiting on Corwin.
 So you don't  have to back up your claims until someone else backs up their claims.  That doesn't make any sense


Corwin8

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8468

Report this Jun. 21 2012, 11:29 am

So let's clear this up. 


If I post something and the source of the article is easy to find using Google, I'm still responsible for defending it's content and offering supporting evidence to back it up?


Sure, let's do all the work for everyone, as the majority of posters here are as dumb as hair and must be spoon fed data.  That was sarcasm, people. The vast majority here are a bit brighter than that. Sadly they can't seem to punch the authors name into any search engine on Earth and find out if the guy is a visionary or a douchebag. 


I support it, I'm not going to data mine all the links and sources for you people. It clutters up the board and half of you people will dismiss it based on the fact that it's me posting it. 


For the record. This is a rant and a reply. I own all content and am responsible for it's content. If I copy and paste something that is NOT a rant. It's a copy and paste, and if I need to support it with 7,000,000,000 links and other articles because people are too stupid and/or lazy to do the digging themselves then keep waiting. it's not going to happen. 


I am not going to waste my time or yours by data spamming a topic so that it can be disputed ad infinitum over some whiney demand for sources and facts. The letter is CLEARLY  written in a conversational style with broad generalizations. If you want to dispute it, please offer up more that some tidbit facts. Or go elsewhere. It really does not impact my life one whit...


Normally IW is a fair and honest poster, but for some reason he seems to be coming off a bit less than that. Most likely it's me. 


 


Let the bridges I burn light the way. You are special, just like everybody else. Calling an illegal alien an ‘undocumented immigrant’ is like calling a drug dealer an ‘unlicensed pharmacist’

entropyman

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 127

Report this Jun. 21 2012, 8:37 pm

Caltrek2, forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Barney Frank (co-author of Dodd-Frank) who mandated lenders to loan money to those who could not afford to pay them back in the first place?

Invader_Wishfire

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 27518

Report this Jun. 22 2012, 1:25 pm

chr, how does it not make sense? That's how debates work. Side 1 makes a claim, side 2 makes a counter-claim, side 1 provides evidence in support of their claim, side 2 provides evidence in support of their claim, and so on.

What makes no sense is that you expect me to back up my claim yet have no problem with others refusing to do the same.

Corwin just because you feel entitled to post claims without any support does not mean I am required to do the work for you. If you want to be lazy and receive a hand-out, apply for welfare.

chr33355

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1551

Report this Jun. 22 2012, 4:19 pm

Quote: Invader_Wishfire @ Jun. 22 2012, 1:25 pm

>chr, how does it not make sense? That's how debates work. Side 1 makes a claim, side 2 makes a counter-claim, side 1 provides evidence in support of their claim, side 2 provides evidence in support of their claim, and so on. What makes no sense is that you expect me to back up my claim yet have no problem with others refusing to do the same. Corwin just because you feel entitled to post claims without any support does not mean I am required to do the work for you. If you want to be lazy and receive a hand-out, apply for welfare.
 I know but you still haven't provided evidence for your claims that is why it doesn't make sense.  Corwin did provided evidence as he posted the article that you don't agree with the article doesn't mean it isn't evidence.  Besides what do you consider evidence?


Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: FleetAdmiral_BamBam

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum