OT ~ The Obama Jobs Strangle: 6,125 Proposed Regulations

[Jan Orme]

6,125 Proposed Regulations and Notifications Posted in Last 90 Days--
Average 68 per Day
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/6125-proposed-regulations-and-notifications-posted-last-90-days-average-68-day

[nothermark]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:35:57 -0800 (PST), Jan Orme <JanO...@aol.com>
wrote:

>6,125 Proposed Regulations and Notifications Posted in Last 90 Days--
>Average 68 per Day
>http://cnsnews.com/news/article/6125-proposed-regulations-and-notifications-posted-last-90-days-average-68-day

When did a request for comment become a rule change?

[Owen McKenzie]

Counting the subject line, I see the word *proposed* 3 times. How did
you miss it?

--

Owen McKenzie
Posting from Largo, FL


"Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying
to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly
succeed, and are right."
-- H. L. Mencken

[Jan Orme]

On Nov 12, 3:38 pm, Owen McKenzie <owenwmcken...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/12/2012 5:59 PM, nothermark wrote:> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:35:57 -0800 (PST), Jan Orme <JanOrm...@aol.com>

> > wrote:
>
> >> 6,125 Proposed Regulations and Notifications Posted in Last 90 Days--
> >> Average 68 per Day

> >>http://cnsnews.com/news/article/6125-proposed-regulations-and-notific...

>
> > When did a request for comment become a rule change?
>
> Counting the subject line, I see the word *proposed* 3 times. How did
> you miss it?
>

> Owen McKenzie
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It flits from post to post knowing little but that it must comment
anyway. My advise is to ignore it, Owen.

Jan.

[nothermark]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:38:20 -0500, Owen McKenzie
<owenwm...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 11/12/2012 5:59 PM, nothermark wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:35:57 -0800 (PST), Jan Orme <JanO...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 6,125 Proposed Regulations and Notifications Posted in Last 90 Days--
>>> Average 68 per Day
>>> http://cnsnews.com/news/article/6125-proposed-regulations-and-notifications-posted-last-90-days-average-68-day
>>
>> When did a request for comment become a rule change?
>>
>Counting the subject line, I see the word *proposed* 3 times. How did
>you miss it?

Point was that requests for comments are not necessarly changes in
rules. I will add that changes are not always bad. They can be
simplifications and clarifications as well as "you mean I have to"
changes.

[nothermark]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 16:26:00 -0800 (PST), Jan Orme <JanO...@aol.com>
wrote:

Just pointing out that it was another mountain out of a mole hill
post. ;-)

[Technobarbarian]

"nothermark" <nothe...@not.here> wrote in message
news:kr63a859c3e8vm1dc...@4ax.com...

Yep. Time for a little perspective on this propaganda:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-25/obama-wrote-5-fewer-rules-than-bush-while-costing-business.html

"
Obama Wrote 5% Fewer Rules Than Bush While Costing Business
By Mark Drajem and Catherine Dodge - 2011-10-25T20:20:01Z

President Barack Obama's "tsunami" of new government regulations looks more
like a summer swell.

Obama's White House has approved fewer regulations than his predecessor
George W. Bush at this same point in their tenures, and the estimated costs
of those rules haven't reached the annual peak set in fiscal 1992 under Bush's
father, according to government data reviewed by Bloomberg News.

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.

The scope of government regulation has emerged as a major issue in the 2012
presidential race and on Capitol Hill. Republican presidential candidates
have accused Obama of stifling job creation by imposing rules on businesses,
and House Republicans have vowed to rein in proposed regulations on
everything from the environment to health care to banking.

"This is getting picked up and talked about, but not for any good reason,"
Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity
at the New York University School of Law, said in an interview. "There's
nothing new about this attack: It comes and goes in good times and in bad."

How Obama Compares

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.

The number of significant federal rules, defined as those costing more than
$100 million, has gone up under Obama, with 129 approved so far, compared
with 90 for Bush, 115 for President Bill Clinton and 127 for the first
President Bush over the same period in their first terms. In part that's
because $100 million in past years was worth more than it is now due to
inflation, Livermore said.

In 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.

Bush Record

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.

Republicans say that the number of high-cost regulations are up, damaging an
already weak economy, and more rules are on the way. The House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform released a report on Sept. 14 alleging a
"tsunami" of new federal rules.

"I don't think there is a measure by which there has been a regulatory
tsunami," Cass Sunstein, the head of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs at the White House, said in an interview Oct. 19. "The
costs are not out of line by historical standards."

Those numbers, which do not include independent agencies such as the
Securities and Exchange Commission, encompass the expense of new
regulations, and do not take into account the economic benefits of healthier
children, safer roads or fewer industrial accidents, which Sunstein argues
can dwarf the initial costs."
[snip]
"On a global scale, the U.S. is one of the best places to do business, with
rules allowing new businesses to be set up in just six days and strong
protections for investors, according to a World Bank report released Oct.
19. Of 183 countries surveyed, the U.S. ranks behind just Singapore, Hong
Kong and New Zealand in the ease of doing business, the World Bank said.

No matter those rankings, it's unlikely to change the criticisms in Congress
or on the campaign trail, according to Sally Katzen, who was Clinton's
regulatory director.

"This is a perennial problem," said Katzen, a senior adviser at the Podesta
Group in Washington, said in an interview. "When the Democrats are in the
White House, the Republicans complain that there are too many costly,
burdensome regulations inundating them.""

TB

[Technobarbarian]

"nothermark" <nothe...@not.here> wrote in message
news:kr63a859c3e8vm1dc...@4ax.com...

[Don Lampson]

On Nov 12, 8:17 pm, "Technobarbarian" <Technobarbarian-
ztopz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "nothermark" <notherm...@not.here> wrote in message

>
> news:kr63a859c3e8vm1dc...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:38:20 -0500, Owen McKenzie
> > <owenwmcken...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>On 11/12/2012 5:59 PM, nothermark wrote:

> >>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:35:57 -0800 (PST), Jan Orme <JanOrm...@aol.com>

> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> 6,125 Proposed Regulations and Notifications Posted in Last 90 Days--
> >>>> Average 68 per Day

> >>>>http://cnsnews.com/news/article/6125-proposed-regulations-and-notific...

>
> >>> When did a request for comment become a rule change?
>
> >>Counting the subject line, I see the word *proposed* 3 times. How did
> >>you miss it?
>
> > Point was that requests for comments are not necessarly changes in
> > rules.  I will add that changes are not always bad.  They can be
> > simplifications and clarifications as well as "you mean I have to"
> > changes.
>
>         Yep. Time for a little perspective on this propaganda:
>

> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-25/obama-wrote-5-fewer-rules-th...

Wormy doesn't like it when you post all that stuff (Like he does!)
revealing him to be nothing more than a wingnut Talk Radio show dupe!
HawHawHaw!

Orson Wells

[Reading The Leaves]

On Nov 12, 10:35 am, Wormshitter W(orme)y wrote:


<nothing of value, just more wormshit> snipped.

IOW, THE WHINE OF THE THUMB-SUCKLING LITTLE TURDHEAD FROM

WASHINGTON CONTINUES AS HE LICKS HIS LITTLE WOUNDS FROM HAVING

HIS ASS KICKED AND HANDED TO HIM ON A PLATTER NOVERMBER 6TH.

WORMEY WORMSHITTER MAKES SUCH A PATHETIC LOSER, DOESN'T HE?

HE'S NOTHING MORE THAN A MID 70S BIG OLE CRYBABY ASSHOLE.

[Technobarbarian]

"nothermark" <nothe...@not.here> wrote in message
news:kr63a859c3e8vm1dc...@4ax.com...

Yep. Time for a little perspective on this propaganda:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-25/obama-wrote-5-fewer-rules-than-bush-while-costing-business.html

[JerryD(upstateNY)]

"Technobarbarian" wrote in message

Obama Wrote 5% Fewer Rules Than Bush While Costing Business

All bullshit as usual.
Many of the Bush regulations were because of 9/11.
Obama didn't have a 9/11, so to try to compare them is nonsense.
--
JerryD(upstateNY)

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

-----------------------------------------
Damn Tech. Jan ain't going to like that.

It certainly ain't going to back up anything he has posted.

Of course Jan should be getting used to that since he has not posted
anything for the past 6-months that has not proven to be false.

If you think about it Jan has a record for being wrong that rivals
Richard.

Sad.

mike
--

Pensacola, FL
http://www.travellogs.us/

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

--------------------

There is ALWAYS an excuse.

It is ALWAYS someone elses fault.

[Technobarbarian]

"Mike Hendrix" <mike (at) travellogs (dot) us> wrote in message
news:p2k4a8pb54vlgdprf...@4ax.com...

[snip]

> -----------------------------------------
> Damn Tech. Jan ain't going to like that.
>
> It certainly ain't going to back up anything he has posted.
>
> Of course Jan should be getting used to that since he has not posted
> anything for the past 6-months that has not proven to be false.
>
> If you think about it Jan has a record for being wrong that rivals
> Richard.
>
> Sad.

Yep. We have a number of political ideologues here who make Richard
look like a genius. Jan "pack your bags" Worny is an outstanding example.
Bruce is also out standing in his field. He used to be capable of making
intelligent cogent posts. He has sunk so deeply into his ideological
fantasies that those days seem to be long gone. I read Richard's posts
because he's frequently entertaining. Most of the ideologues have gotten to
be boringly repetitive. With Jan I often wonder what bullshit he's latched
onto now, but after the first post his responses make Richard sound
reasonable.

TB

[Hank]

On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 10:31:37 AM UTC-5, Technobarbarian wrote:

> > Damn Tech. Jan ain't going to like that.
>
> >
>
> > It certainly ain't going to back up anything he has posted.
>
> >
>
> > Of course Jan should be getting used to that since he has not posted
>
> > anything for the past 6-months that has not proven to be false.
>
> >
>
> > If you think about it Jan has a record for being wrong that rivals
>
> > Richard.
>
> >
>
> > Sad.
>
>
>
> Yep. We have a number of political ideologues here who make Richard
>
> look like a genius. Jan "pack your bags" Worny is an outstanding example.
>
> Bruce is also out standing in his field. He used to be capable of making
>
> intelligent cogent posts. He has sunk so deeply into his ideological
>
> fantasies that those days seem to be long gone. I read Richard's posts
>
> because he's frequently entertaining. Most of the ideologues have gotten to
>
> be boringly repetitive. With Jan I often wonder what bullshit he's latched
>
> onto now, but after the first post his responses make Richard sound
>
> reasonable.
>
>
>
> TB

IMO, many on here ( Jan, LZ, Will and etc.) have only one agenda. That is to make Obama look as bad as they can (not that he needs help). But they will post any blog, study or chart, whether true or not, so long as it discredits Obama and helps their party.

I'm all for free speech, but I think our founding fathers didn't think it would sink to the level it has, in regards to name calling and even violence. They were smart men that could state their points without all this whinning.

Hank <~~~~ player on americas team

[Ralph E Lindberg]

In article <p2k4a8pb54vlgdprf...@4ax.com>,

Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs (dot) us> wrote:


> -----------------------------------------
> Damn Tech. Jan ain't going to like that.
>

My assumption is Jan is not enjoying much right now. A Democrat won
just about every race he could vote in. Some, like the Congressional
seat, the Democrat was clearly the better choice, some, like the
Governor, were, well, clearly not.

--
--------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv

[Technobarbarian]

"Hank" <nineb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:612a3578-ac00-489c...@googlegroups.com...

The founding fathers were smart people who knew exactly how low
politics could sink.

http://www.freakonomics.com/2007/11/06/the-complete-history-of-dirty-politics-a-qa-on-anything-for-a-vote/

"
The Complete History of Dirty Politics: A Q&A on Anything for a Vote

Melissa Lafsky
11/06/2007 | 3:12 pm

Today, you'll recall, is Election Day. Which means that one year from now,
we will be electing a new president (as if it really matters). The race is
starting to heat up, as candidates shed their friendly veneers and start
getting nasty with their rivals. (For what it's worth, on the Republican
side, Ron Paul - whom we've discussed before - seems to have pulled ahead of
Fred Thompson.)

Historian and author Joseph Cummins is no stranger to the dirty underside of
the American democratic process. His latest book, Anything for a Vote: Dirty
Tricks, Cheap Shots, and October Surprises, chronicles the campaign smears,
attacks, and misdirections that have typified U.S. elections since George
Washington's win in 1789. The upshot of Cummins's book: campaigns are no
dirtier now than they were in the past. He agreed to answer our questions
about his book.

Q: From your research, have you found any overarching trends among
presidential candidates, political parties, and campaigns?

A: Anything for a Vote came about because I was fascinated by commentators
in recent presidential contests claiming that American politics is getting
nastier and nastier - lots of hand-wringing over whether democracy would
survive the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Every election, it seemed, was
getting dirtier and dirtier.

But is this really true? After researching every presidential contest from
1789 to 2004, my answer is that elections are not getting dirtier. They're
just as dirty as they have always been. Whether that's a heartening trend
depends on your point of view. I myself am a great fan of the unruly
democratic process, which I think will always be unruly.

In terms of trends, a rough rule of thumb is that incumbent parties tend to
play the most dirty tricks, perhaps because they have the ways and means to
do so. It's also true that parties with the strongest ideologies - be they
Democratic or Republican - fight dirtier, possibly because they are not only
pushing a candidate, but an entire way of life.

Both parties at different times in American history have been guilty of
mind-boggling attempts to influence elections. In the 1880s, one of the
worst decades in terms of dirty tricks, Republicans sent bagmen to Indiana -
then a pivotal state - with hundreds of thousands of dollars in two dollar
bills (dubbed "Soapy Sams" for their ability to grease palms) in order to
purchase votes. The 1960s was the era of Democratic dirty tricks - in 1964,
Lyndon Johnson oversaw one of the most corrupt elections ever, against Barry
Goldwater.

In 1840, the American Whig politician Thomas Elder had a eureka moment when
he wrote to a friend: "Passion and prejudice properly aroused and directed
do about as well as principle and reason in any party contest."

I think this has been the guiding dictum of presidential politics all
throughout our history.

Q: You describe the intense mudslinging that went on during the 19th
century, with accusations being thrown around of infidelity, substance
abuse, cross dressing, and treason, among others. Has campaigning gotten any
more civilized over time? How have mudslinging and other forms of negative
campaigning evolved throughout U.S. history?

A: I think the mudslinging definitely is still a big part of our election
process, but it's less broad and vulgar. For instance, there is less aimed
at other people's physical attributes. The 19th century was very big on
that. In the election of 1800, one of the dirtiest in American history, the
venomous hack writer James Callendar (secretly hired by Thomas Jefferson)
assailed then-President John Adams as a "repulsive pedant" and "a hideous
hermaphroditical character," whatever that means. Later in the 19th century,
Martin Van Buren was accused of wearing women's corsets (by Davy Crockett,
no less) and James Buchanan (who had a congenital condition that caused his
head to tilt to the left) was accused of have unsuccessfully tried to hang
himself. Oh, and Abraham Lincoln reportedly had stinky feet.

The 20th century began this way; at the 1912 Republican National Convention,
Teddy Roosevelt, wearing a sombrero and smoking a cigar, cheerfully referred
to William Howard Taft, the sitting President and Roosevelt's former vice
president, as "a rat in a corner." (The rodent motif is popular - FDR liked
to call Alf Landon, his 1936 opponent, "the White Mouse who wants to live in
the White House.") You won't find this kind of thing out in the open too
much today, although you still see it in some of the nastier primary
campaigns, such as the hatchet job done on John McCain in 2000 by his fellow
Republicans.

Q: What role did the media play in early elections? What was the
relationship between journalists and presidential candidates? How did it
change over time?

A: The first attack I found against a newspaper came in 1800, when a
Federalist poet decided that his party's defeat at the hands of the
Republicans could be blamed entirely on the media. He penned this bit of
doggerel.

And lo! In meretricious dress
Forth comes a strumpet called "THE PRESS."
Whose haggard, unrequested charms
Rush into every blaggard's arms.

In early American elections, newspapers - then the only form of media
around - played a huge role. Papers were unabashed party cheerleaders,
rooting openly for their candidates and leading the way in smearing the
candidate of the opposing party. Being trashed by a 19th century newspaper
was no joke. They really sank their teeth into you. Even no less an
authority than the New York Times (sorry) was guilty of this. In the epic
William McKinley vs. William Jennings Bryan contest of 1896, the Times,
which supported McKinley, published a series of articles in which prominent
alienists discussed quite seriously whether Bryan was crazy. One expert
wrote: "I don't think Bryan is ordinarily crazy . but I should like to
examine him as a degenerate."

By the latter part of the 20th century, this type of blatant electioneering
for candidates had pretty much died out, although newspapers obviously still
have their preferences. But certain television networks and talk radio
shows, on both sides, have taken up the slack with a vengeance, and I think
they are just as influential among voters as the old party newspapers were."
>

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:41:46 -0800 (PST), Hank <nineb...@aol.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 10:31:37 AM UTC-5, Technobarbarian wrote:
>
>> > Damn Tech. Jan ain't going to like that.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > It certainly ain't going to back up anything he has posted.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Of course Jan should be getting used to that since he has not posted
>>
>> > anything for the past 6-months that has not proven to be false.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > If you think about it Jan has a record for being wrong that rivals
>>
>> > Richard.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Sad.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yep. We have a number of political ideologues here who make Richard
>>
>> look like a genius. Jan "pack your bags" Worny is an outstanding example.
>>
>> Bruce is also out standing in his field. He used to be capable of making
>>
>> intelligent cogent posts. He has sunk so deeply into his ideological
>>
>> fantasies that those days seem to be long gone. I read Richard's posts
>>
>> because he's frequently entertaining. Most of the ideologues have gotten to
>>
>> be boringly repetitive. With Jan I often wonder what bullshit he's latched
>>
>> onto now, but after the first post his responses make Richard sound
>>
>> reasonable.
>>
>>
>>
>> TB
>
>IMO, many on here ( Jan, LZ, Will and etc.) have only one agenda. That is to make Obama look as bad as they can (not that he needs help). But they will post any blog, study or chart, whether true or not, so long as it discredits Obama and helps their party.
>

That is the way I see it also. On many issues I agree with that
bunch.... especially of fiscal responsibility.

However, their incessant attempts to make Obama look bad have
backfired.

When 95% of their "facts" turn out to be pure BS, it really does hurt
their cause, even among folks that basically believe as they do.

[Vito]

"nothermark" <nothe...@not.here> wrote

| When did a request for comment become a rule change?

Usually a set number of days later.