Jump to content

OBAMA - THE JOB KILLER


Tigermike

Recommended Posts

If a state refuses to create a plan, the EPA can make its own.

The Obama administration claimed the changes would produce jobs, cut electricity bills and save thousands of lives thanks to cleaner air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





This is exactly why , despite the claims, that the Obama admin did NOT focus like a laser on restarting the economy.

Getting more Americans back to work would lessen the impact the govt has on their lives, and once his energy policies took full effect ( year 6 of his 2nd term - no more elections ) , the hammer would fall harder on a recovering economy than one which has been struggling. The shock won't be as powerful, it is hoped, if Obama attacks the coal industry , as he's said all along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow Raptor. Excellent analysis! Had Obama focused on real economic recovery (jobs) rather than soley on the Wall St. recovery during his first term, he would have had support for ACA and environmental policy in his second term.

Is that what you are saying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow Raptor. Excellent analysis! Had Obama focused on real economic recovery (jobs) rather than soley on the Wall St. recovery during his first term, he would have had support for ACA and environmental policy in his second term.

Is that what you are saying?

He got as much support for ACA he was ever going to get when it passed. Clearly, its a bad law and its really negative affects haven't even started yet. I cant wait to see the reaction of those in here who supported ACA on the pretense that the individual market was all it was ever going to hurt. If it is allowed to stand in its present form more people will lose the insurance that had been provided by their employer than lost in the individual market.

As far as barry's economic policy goes he HAS been focused on jobs to hear him tell it. The problem is he has been more focused on crony capitalism and picking winners who turned out to be awful losers. Those shovel ready green jobs jobs he loved to brag about just never materialized. The guy is just way out of his depth on ALL fronts and w/o a doubt the least qualified to be POTUS of ALL I've seen in that position in my lifetime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Carbon Pollution Standards Can Save American Households $13 Billion on Electric Bills, Create 274,000 Jobs

http://www.nrdc.org/...te-benefits.asp

I am curious how many coal and gas jobs will be lost? Is there a net job gain? Any info on precisely what these new jobs entail? Will these be government jobs? What are the prospects for these new jobs in Alabama?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the links Homer! Unfortunately, the CBO report creates more question than it provides answers. Lots of hypothetical analysis. I hate reports of this nature because they allow for the typical "can I keep my doctor" rebuttal. Anyway, time will tell i suppose............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jobs lost never really count if you are a politician. It's only the ones that are created that count. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the links Homer! Unfortunately, the CBO report creates more question than it provides answers. Lots of hypothetical analysis. I hate reports of this nature because they allow for the typical "can I keep my doctor" rebuttal. Anyway, time will tell i suppose............

My point was not really to advocate one position or the other, it was to simply illustrate the CofC analysis is just that, an analysis. Likewise, the NRDC analysis is just an analysis. The "devil" is in the particular assumptions taken.

History shows regulations have always been opposed on the basis of their (direct) costs without much consideration of offsetting benefits. It also shows the post-regulatory state becomes the new norm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jobs lost never really count if you are a politician. It's only the ones that are created that count. ;)

Actually the underlying premise is true in that new jobs can be said to be "more important" than old jobs. That's the indicator of a dynamic economy.

Overall, you just hope to create more than you lose, which, considering the nature of technology, is a very difficult thing to do . Our continued prosperity is balanced on our educational system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jobs lost never really count if you are a politician. It's only the ones that are created that count. ;)

Actually the underlying premise is true in that new jobs can be said to be "more important" than old jobs. That's the indicator of a dynamic economy.

Overall, you just hope to create more than you lose, which, considering the nature of technology, is a very difficult thing to do . Our continued prosperity is balanced on our educational system.

When it comes to this administration creating jobs, I've been patiently waiting for something dynamic for 6 years and all I've seen is a shrinking economy and higher unemployment due to a consistently declining labor force participation rate.. Is it safe to assume that our economy, at this point in time, is anything but dynamic after 6 years of Obamanomics? I would argue the US economy is moribund largely due to over zealous regulatory and tax policies as well as O-care but that's just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jobs lost never really count if you are a politician. It's only the ones that are created that count. ;)/>

Actually the underlying premise is true in that new jobs can be said to be "more important" than old jobs. That's the indicator of a dynamic economy.

Overall, you just hope to create more than you lose, which, considering the nature of technology, is a very difficult thing to do . Our continued prosperity is balanced on our educational system.

Not entirely true but education is a part of it. A dynamic economy has layers to it with a broad wage earned to career ratio. We need to have a much broader base from the low tech carpenter to the high tech computer engineer. That guy down at the auto shop is just as important as the CEO of Apple and each should be able to thrive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jobs lost never really count if you are a politician. It's only the ones that are created that count. ;)/>

Actually the underlying premise is true in that new jobs can be said to be "more important" than old jobs. That's the indicator of a dynamic economy.

Overall, you just hope to create more than you lose, which, considering the nature of technology, is a very difficult thing to do . Our continued prosperity is balanced on our educational system.

Not entirely true but education is a part of it. A dynamic economy has layers to it with a broad wage earned to career ratio. We need to have a much broader base from the low tech carpenter to the high tech computer engineer. That guy down at the auto shop is just as important as the CEO of Apple and each should be able to thrive.

I think there is a lot of truth there. I think that has a lot to do with why the "recovery" is so slow. I don't think either party truly believes in small and medium size businesses. I think both parties envision creating thousands of jobs at a time. They just don't get that the backbone of job creation is new, small businesses. That makes job creation incrementally small. To today's politician, that's probably as insignificant as a $1 million line item on the Federal budget. Just a small insignificant number. However, often big things are made of of many little things.

It also reminds me of the hallmark moment when I knew Obama was not going to do much for the Main St. economy. when he declared that everyone should run out and become an engineer or scientist. That's not really what I would call a comprehensive plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Members Online

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...