15 bills the House passed, but Reid refuses to schedule for votes

[rightwinger]

What I find most amusing about this rant by you, Right...is that it was Barack Obama that just pulled back on implementing stringent EPA regulations. The reason he did so was that he was only too aware that imposing those regulations would in fact cost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Perhaps you should explain to Barack how this is just a GOP "sell" job. He's actually figured out that regulatory actions have direct consequences and imposing them do cost jobs.

Obama has no backbone, that is why the GOP walks all over him......what else is new?

Dumping on the environment so that future generations can clean up the mess is irresponsible. Especially for short term economic gain

Letting a bunch of environmental zealots burden American businesses already struggling to compete globally is the thing that's irresponsible. You make it sound like not passing these new regulations will have us all choking and gasping in the streets as our water and air becomes fouled. That's a crock and you know it.

We have heard this whining from the right for 40 years. Mean old tree huggers are keeping me from making as much money as I want. A little bit of carcinogen is not going to hurt anyone

Not fair! China gets to pollute all they want

Did I tell ya about all the jobs that will be lost?

 

[Cuyo]

What I find most amusing about this rant by you, Right...is that it was Barack Obama that just pulled back on implementing stringent EPA regulations. The reason he did so was that he was only too aware that imposing those regulations would in fact cost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Perhaps you should explain to Barack how this is just a GOP "sell" job. He's actually figured out that regulatory actions have direct consequences and imposing them do cost jobs.

Obama has no backbone, that is why the GOP walks all over him......what else is new?

Dumping on the environment so that future generations can clean up the mess is irresponsible. Especially for short term economic gain

Letting a bunch of environmental zealots burden American businesses already struggling to compete globally is the thing that's irresponsible. You make it sound like not passing these new regulations will have us all choking and gasping in the streets as our water and air becomes fouled. That's a crock and you know it.

That's why alternatively we need to limit developing countries' access to our demand. Bam. Environmental problems addressed here and abroad.

 

[Conservative]

Obama has no backbone, that is why the GOP walks all over him......what else is new?

Dumping on the environment so that future generations can clean up the mess is irresponsible. Especially for short term economic gain

Letting a bunch of environmental zealots burden American businesses already struggling to compete globally is the thing that's irresponsible. You make it sound like not passing these new regulations will have us all choking and gasping in the streets as our water and air becomes fouled. That's a crock and you know it.

We have heard this whining from the right for 40 years. Mean old tree huggers are keeping me from making as much money as I want. A little bit of carcinogen is not going to hurt anyone

Not fair! China gets to pollute all they want

Did I tell ya about all the jobs that will be lost?

read one of the bills... ANY bill.

Challenge yourself. Prove your convictions are sound...

you chicken shit asshole.

 

[Inthemiddle]

already explained.

No, what you did was offer a false explanation as to how the measure would magically create jobs. The fact is, it won't. It is, as others have said, nothing more than a piece of legislation labeled a jobs bill, but that does not actually do anything that will create jobs. Your explanation is like saying that if you take a dozen eggs, a bag of flour, a gallon of milk, a bag of sugar, toss them into a hole in the ground and light a match, you'll get cookies.

 

[Conservative]

already explained.

No, what you did was offer a false explanation as to how the measure would magically create jobs. The fact is, it won't. It is, as others have said, nothing more than a piece of legislation labeled a jobs bill, but that does not actually do anything that will create jobs. Your explanation is like saying that if you take a dozen eggs, a bag of flour, a gallon of milk, a bag of sugar, toss them into a hole in the ground and light a match, you'll get cookies.

Your explanation of my explanation is ridiculous. You're simply being a good little partisan hack and downplaying reality.

 

[Bil_Stunbmun]

If you want to get your bills passed you need to allow some of the other sides bills to pass. When you block all your oppositions legislation, why are republicans surprised when their legislation is blocked?

Are Republicans that dumb or are they just passing legislation to appease their voting block?

Right you are!

We Democrats aren't intrested in geting the economy moving, we have our agenda and will hold America hostage to get our way.

 

[Navy1960]

HR 872

Based on information from EPA, CBO estimates that enacting this legislation would have
no significant impact on the federal budget. Any administrative savings to EPA that
might result from issuing fewer permits would be negligible because EPA has delegated
the authority to issue most NPDES permits to states.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12100/hr872.pdf


HR 910

In subsequent years, it is not certain whether EPA would pursue additional activities to
meet requirements related to regulating GHGs under current law or whether current
activities would be maintained. However, assuming funding levels in those years would
remain close to the 2012 level with adjustments for inflation, CBO estimates that
enacting the legislation would result in savings of $250 million over the 2012-2016
period, if appropriations for EPA over that period were reduced accordingly.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12122/HR910.pdf

HJ Res 37

H.J. Res. 37 would invoke a legislative process established by the Congressional Review
Act (Public Law 104-121) to disapprove the open Internet rule. If H.J. Res. 37 is enacted,
the published rule would have no force or effect. Based on information from the FCC, CBO
estimates that voiding this rule would have no effect on the budget. Enacting H.J. Res. 37
would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not
apply.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12121/hjres37.pdf

HR 2018

accounted for a significant fraction of the annual resources devoted to implementing the
CWA. (For example, since the inception of the CWA in 1972, EPA has vetoed permitting
decisions by the Army Corp of Engineers 13 times, and EPA has never withdrawn a
state’s delegated program.) Therefore, CBO estimates that enacting this legislation would
not have a significant impact on EPA’s budget to implement the CWA.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/122xx/doc12280/hr2018.pdf

HR1315

Based on information from the Treasury, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1315 would not significantly affect direct spending and would not affect revenues. Because enacting H.R. 1315 could affect direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures apply.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/122xx/doc12203/hr1315.pdf

This is the first 5, and if one were to read the CBO reports on these bills, they have little or no impact,
on the budget, nor do they have any impact on EPA's or the departments abilities to regulate.
In order not to make this so long, of course, I would invite the rest of those on this thread to
look how these bills score with the CBO. As to their ability to create jobs, all of that
is pure speculation, based on economic theory which if applied over the last decade would not
seem to stand up to well. While yes it's true burdensome regulations do tend to discourage
job creation, so to do does no regulations provide incentives for companies to risk
the environment, one only needs to look at days of rivers in Cleveland catching on fire and
the inability to see in L.A. to understand that. On a personal level, Govt. should,create the
atmoshere for business to thrive and stand in the way of those who wish to take advantage.So
for example if a business expressed a desire to hire , and build American, then the Govt.
should do as much as they can to make that happen, and if they seek to do otherwise then
those companies should be left in the waiting room.

 

[Bil_Stunbmun]

How is that a jobs bill?

These repugs think that if business doens't have to bow and scrape before bureaucrats and bribe them to get permits, they'll expand their businesses and hire people.

Silly Repugs, only government workers matter, adding more permits and licenses pads the pockets of these public servents.

We Democrats have priorities.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Your explanation of my explanation is ridiculous.

Okay, I have to admit, perhaps "explaining an explanation" comes across as a good sound byte for you. But I was evaluating your logic.

You're simply being a good little partisan hack and downplaying reality.

Yep, that's it. I'm hacking away that independent partisanship. Wait, what?

No, that bill you posted WILL NOT do anything to create jobs. It won't, not at all. There's nothing in it at all that will create any increase in demand from consumers. And without an increased demand from consumers, businesses will not simply create jobs just because they have less regulations. It's completely asinine to make that claim.

 

[Inthemiddle]

These repugs think that if business doens't have to bow and scrape before bureaucrats and bribe them to get permits, they'll expand their businesses and hire people.

Silly Repugs, only government workers matter, adding more permits and licenses pads the pockets of these public servents.

We Democrats have priorities.

Will somebody please ban this troll?

 

[Bil_Stunbmun]

Will somebody please ban this troll?

Why would you want to ban me, comrade?

We're on the same side, in fact, I bet I cast more votes for Obama than you did.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Why would you want to ban me, comrade?

We're on the same side, in fact, I bet I cast more votes for Obama than you did.

Well, that wouldn't be difficult. How much does it take to beat my zero?

 

[RDD_1210]

So when is the OP going to give specific details about how ANY of these bills will directly result in job creation?

 

[Oldstyle]

So when is the OP going to give specific details about how ANY of these bills will directly result in job creation?

Since the original post included highlighted examples of how each of the bills would aid in the creation of jobs I'm confused by why you keep asking for specific details? If you disagree with the points that the original poster made then by all means show why you think passing these bills would not affect job creation but I think it's rather obvious by President Obama already choosing not to allow tighter EPA regulations to take effect, that these regulations do indeed affect job creation dramatically. If they DIDN'T then he wouldn't have infuriated the liberal left by reining in the EPA.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

So when is the OP going to give specific details about how ANY of these bills will directly result in job creation?

Pick one for me and I'll try for you.......did i ask you this yesterday? I think i might have let me make sure you didn't already do this......

 

[The T]

So when is the OP going to give specific details about how ANY of these bills will directly result in job creation?

When is the Statist REID going to explain why he is bottling up legislation in the Senate for no good reason but for partisanship?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Since you read them perhaps you can give us details on how they will be creating jobs. Specifically.

Pick one and I will tell you what I think. I know im not the person you are asking but im bored

Sure. Any of the first 4 listed would be fine.

All 4 of those bills are aimed at reducing uncertanty in future regulations by taking the power out of the hands of either one individual @ the EPA and out of the hands of hte feds and putting it back into the hands of the individual states.

By reducing uncertanty an environment for investing in the expansion of manufacturing is created. By investing in expanding manufacturing jobs will be created both to do the expansion and to operate the expanded facilities.

 

[The T]

So when is the OP going to give specific details about how ANY of these bills will directly result in job creation?

Since the original post included highlighted examples of how each of the bills would aid in the creation of jobs I'm confused by why you keep asking for specific details? If you disagree with the points that the original poster made then by all means show why you think passing these bills would not affect job creation but I think it's rather obvious by President Obama already choosing not to allow tighter EPA regulations to take effect, that these regulations do indeed affect job creation dramatically. If they DIDN'T then he wouldn't have infuriated the liberal left by reining in the EPA.

The EPA is another agency I'd give the AXE to.

 

[Conservative]

There's nothing in it at all that will create any increase in demand from consumers. And without an increased demand from consumers, businesses will not simply create jobs just because they have less regulations. It's completely asinine to make that claim.

So, have you come to the conclusion then, that the Presidents jobs plan actually DOES increase demand from consumers and will therefore cause businesses to create jobs... since that seems to be your criteria for a job producing bill?

Please, show us the parts of the Presidents jobs plan that will increase consumer demand.

 

[Conservative]

So when is the OP going to give specific details about how ANY of these bills will directly result in job creation?

He already has, and it's been ignored. Please,. feel free to actually READ on of the 15 bills mentioned. You might learn something,.