f'ing LOVE the TEA party right now!!!!

[P@triot]

There you have it, folks. Tea Party patriotism on display. What's bad for America is good for the Tea Party.

By the way - who the hell are you Dumbocrats to talk about "patriotism"? You idiots believe the Consitution is "irrelevant" and "outdated" and not a one of you has ever actually read it. What is less "patriotic" than Obamacare - unconstitutionally and Communistically forcing the American people to purchase a product or service against their will? There is nobody less patriot than the Marxist/Socialist/Communist Dumbocrat, so please spare us all the rhetoric chief.

Who knew Rottweilers could be trained like parrots?

Yep - when the facts can't be argued, the idiot Dumbocrat has to change the subject and turn to either violence or insults. It's all you can do when you don't have the facts on your side...

 

[Full-Auto]

Every plan Obama backs the right spits on.

He has backed things they came up with and then they voted against their own bills.

They are insane and nothing good is going to come from their insanity.

Obama added more taxes at the last minute because he did not negotiate in good faith

What, you just noticed that Obama was in favor of tax increases for the wealthiest Americans? Republican refuse to even allow taxes to be on the table. 70% of Americans are in favor of increased taxes on the rich. Good faith requires he represent their interests.

Oh wow that 70 billion a year balances the budget.


Another class warfare clown.

 

[P@triot]

Jobs are being held up because the rich business owners want to keep more money for the selves, not because of over regulation you facktard

Typical response from the Marxist/Socialist/Communist Dumbocrats who don't understand economics. If the rich are so "greedy" as the idiot liberal likes to accuse them of, then it would go to reason that they want to expand their business to make even more money. And to grow, they would need more people to handle the additional volume of work, hence more jobs would be created. So it is clearly not the "evil rich" people as you state. Only the idiot Dumbocrat contradicts their own statements.

Here are some actual facts for you Marxist/Socialist/Communist Dumbocrats:

The annual cost of regulation—$1.75 trillion by one frequently cited estimate—represents twice the amount of individual income taxes collected last year (tough to hire when American businesses are spending $1.75 trillion on government regulation). Overall, from the beginning of the Obama Administration to mid-fiscal year (FY) 2011, regulators have imposed $38 billion in new costs on the American people, more than any comparable period on record. Consider Washington's red tape to be a hidden tax.

The mountain of regulations didn't begin under the Obama Administration. Under the Administration of George W. Bush (which is more evidence the GOP is just Liberal Lite), for example, $60 billion in additional annual regulatory costs were imposed on Americans. But, the rate at which burdens are growing has accelerated under the Obama Administration:

During its first 26 months—from taking office to mid-FY 2011—the Obama Administration has imposed 75 new major regulations with reported costs to the private sector exceeding $40 billion. During the same period, six major rulemaking proceedings reduced regulatory burdens by an estimated $1.5 billion, still leaving a net increase of more than $38 billion.

The actual cost of the new regulations is almost certainly higher due to under-estimation, agencies' failures to analyze costs, and the fact that "non-major" rules aren't even calculated. Amid the overwhelming weight of the evidence that government regulations are weighing down the American economy, President Obama continues to stiffle the economy with his Marxist policies.

Rather than ignorantly popping off at the mouth regarding subjects you know nothing about, why don't you educate yourself about what is really going on, you ignorant loud-mouthed jack ass.

I want to see the money not your copy and pasted rightwing talking points.

I'm sorry Flaylo, are facts shredding your Marxist/Socialist/Communist propaganda? Oh... you poor little Marxist Dumbocrat. I didn't mean to ruin your propaganda with facts.... Now go ask big Uncle Sam to wipe your little chin-chiney 'cause you have some spittle on it. And ask him to silence me like you do with other people who speak the truth and are a threat to your Marxist utopia...

 

[auditor0007]

I'd love nothing more than an immediate and permanent government "default". Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have recklessly spent our money and spent us an additional $5 trillion in debt in only 2.5 years. There are no words to describe how irresponsible that is - and frankly I'm stunned that even the Socialist/Marxist/Communist Dumbocrats are not outraged by that insanity.

Additionally, there is simply no rational argument for not wanting a balanced budget amendment. How stupid do you have to be to spend money you don't have? The federal government has grown into a monstrosity that is completely out of control, and damn time the American people take back their country and force this current regime and future Administrations to adhere to the Constitution which limits their power by law.

Something that those of you who support a Balanced Budget Amendment do not understand is that such an amendment does not guarantee reduced spending. What it would guarantee is that when Congress determines that we need to spend more, for whatever reason, if the money isn't there, then taxes will have to be raised. This could be catastrophic to the economy at certain times.

Let's say we get that Balanced Budget Amendment and Republicans control the House, Senate, and the White House. In the event that the economy does not improve, all of a sudden, voters do what they normally do, and vote for more Liberal representation. What you will get is increased spending, and massive tax increases on the wealthy. I really don't think this is the road you want to go down.

 

[P@triot]

I'd love nothing more than an immediate and permanent government "default". Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have recklessly spent our money and spent us an additional $5 trillion in debt in only 2.5 years. There are no words to describe how irresponsible that is - and frankly I'm stunned that even the Socialist/Marxist/Communist Dumbocrats are not outraged by that insanity.

Additionally, there is simply no rational argument for not wanting a balanced budget amendment. How stupid do you have to be to spend money you don't have? The federal government has grown into a monstrosity that is completely out of control, and damn time the American people take back their country and force this current regime and future Administrations to adhere to the Constitution which limits their power by law.

Something that those of you who support a Balanced Budget Amendment do not understand is that such an amendment does not guarantee reduced spending. What it would guarantee is that when Congress determines that we need to spend more, for whatever reason, if the money isn't there, then taxes will have to be raised. This could be catastrophic to the economy at certain times.

Let's say we get that Balanced Budget Amendment and Republicans control the House, Senate, and the White House. In the event that the economy does not improve, all of a sudden, voters do what they normally do, and vote for more Liberal representation. What you will get is increased spending, and massive tax increases on the wealthy. I really don't think this is the road you want to go down.

Like everyone else, you're twisting the truth. Nobody claimed the Balanced Budget amendment "reduces spending". It stops them from spending beyond the budget. Henced "balanced" (not "reduced") like the rest of America. If we had it now, the Marxist Barack Hussein would not have been able to spend $5 trillion beyond the budget in only 2.5 years, and our national debt would still stand at $9 trillion like it did the day he took office.

Do you understand now?

 

[8537]

Typical response from the Marxist/Socialist/Communist Dumbocrats who don't understand economics. If the rich are so "greedy" as the idiot liberal likes to accuse them of, then it would go to reason that they want to expand their business to make even more money. And to grow, they would need more people to handle the additional volume of work, hence more jobs would be created. So it is clearly not the "evil rich" people as you state. Only the idiot Dumbocrat contradicts their own statements.

Here are some actual facts for you Marxist/Socialist/Communist Dumbocrats:

The annual cost of regulation—$1.75 trillion by one frequently cited estimate—represents twice the amount of individual income taxes collected last year (tough to hire when American businesses are spending $1.75 trillion on government regulation). Overall, from the beginning of the Obama Administration to mid-fiscal year (FY) 2011, regulators have imposed $38 billion in new costs on the American people, more than any comparable period on record. Consider Washington's red tape to be a hidden tax.

The mountain of regulations didn't begin under the Obama Administration. Under the Administration of George W. Bush (which is more evidence the GOP is just Liberal Lite), for example, $60 billion in additional annual regulatory costs were imposed on Americans. But, the rate at which burdens are growing has accelerated under the Obama Administration:

During its first 26 months—from taking office to mid-FY 2011—the Obama Administration has imposed 75 new major regulations with reported costs to the private sector exceeding $40 billion. During the same period, six major rulemaking proceedings reduced regulatory burdens by an estimated $1.5 billion, still leaving a net increase of more than $38 billion.

The actual cost of the new regulations is almost certainly higher due to under-estimation, agencies' failures to analyze costs, and the fact that "non-major" rules aren't even calculated. Amid the overwhelming weight of the evidence that government regulations are weighing down the American economy, President Obama continues to stiffle the economy with his Marxist policies.

Rather than ignorantly popping off at the mouth regarding subjects you know nothing about, why don't you educate yourself about what is really going on, you ignorant loud-mouthed jack ass.

I want to see the money not your copy and pasted rightwing talking points.

Just because I like seeing you throw fits.

Red Tape: Rising Cost of Government Regulation | The Heritage Foundation

Now before your nose becomes disjointed try to counter with your own cost analysis.

Can you explain how the new ADA regs make compliance more expensive, as Heritage claims? I'm not sure how clarifying definitions for service animals and providing clearer guidance for ADA D&C standards adds up to more expensive regulation.

In fact, I'm quite certain those lead to less expensive regulation.

 

[auditor0007]

Obama added more taxes at the last minute because he did not negotiate in good faith

What, you just noticed that Obama was in favor of tax increases for the wealthiest Americans? Republican refuse to even allow taxes to be on the table. 70% of Americans are in favor of increased taxes on the rich. Good faith requires he represent their interests.

Oh wow that 70 billion a year balances the budget.


Another class warfare clown.

The class warfare has been in favor of the wealthy for so long, and yet so many conservatives have been duped into thinking it is the other way around. The top 10% earns 45% of all the income and only pays 30% of the taxes. What a deal for them. That leaves the rest of us screwed as that top 10% continues to increase their wealth while ours shrinks. But keep thinking that the wealthy are the ones who are creating the jobs. We've seen just how many they've created lately.

 

[Full-Auto]

I want to see the money not your copy and pasted rightwing talking points.

Just because I like seeing you throw fits.

Red Tape: Rising Cost of Government Regulation | The Heritage Foundation

Now before your nose becomes disjointed try to counter with your own cost analysis.

Can you explain how the new make compliance more expensive, as Heritage claims? I'm not sure how clarifying definitions for service animals and providing clearer guidance for ADA D&C standards adds up to more expensive regulation.

In fact, I'm quite certain those lead to less expensive regulation.

Have you been to any parking lots lately, brand new ones? Do you understand the cost of increasing the size of a restroom a few inches beyond what was previously mandated. I only gave you a contractors perspective, since that is what I do.

 

[P@triot]

Jobs are being held up because the rich business owners want to keep more money for the selves, not because of over regulation you facktard

Typical response from the Marxist/Socialist/Communist Dumbocrats who don't understand economics. If the rich are so "greedy" as the idiot liberal likes to accuse them of, then it would go to reason that they want to expand their business to make even more money. And to grow, they would need more people to handle the additional volume of work, hence more jobs would be created. So it is clearly not the "evil rich" people as you state. Only the idiot Dumbocrat contradicts their own statements.

Here are some actual facts for you Marxist/Socialist/Communist Dumbocrats:

The annual cost of regulation—$1.75 trillion by one frequently cited estimate—represents twice the amount of individual income taxes collected last year (tough to hire when American businesses are spending $1.75 trillion on government regulation). Overall, from the beginning of the Obama Administration to mid-fiscal year (FY) 2011, regulators have imposed $38 billion in new costs on the American people, more than any comparable period on record. Consider Washington's red tape to be a hidden tax.

The mountain of regulations didn't begin under the Obama Administration. Under the Administration of George W. Bush (which is more evidence the GOP is just Liberal Lite), for example, $60 billion in additional annual regulatory costs were imposed on Americans. But, the rate at which burdens are growing has accelerated under the Obama Administration:

During its first 26 months—from taking office to mid-FY 2011—the Obama Administration has imposed 75 new major regulations with reported costs to the private sector exceeding $40 billion. During the same period, six major rulemaking proceedings reduced regulatory burdens by an estimated $1.5 billion, still leaving a net increase of more than $38 billion.

The actual cost of the new regulations is almost certainly higher due to under-estimation, agencies' failures to analyze costs, and the fact that "non-major" rules aren't even calculated. Amid the overwhelming weight of the evidence that government regulations are weighing down the American economy, President Obama continues to stiffle the economy with his Marxist policies.

Rather than ignorantly popping off at the mouth regarding subjects you know nothing about, why don't you educate yourself about what is really going on, you ignorant loud-mouthed jack ass.

I'm not going to insult you, nor am I going to tell you that you're 100% wrong, but...

The comment made earlier that rich folk are holding onto their money isn't wrong. Some conservatives are making such a big deal out of the "uncertainty of the markets"

Translation...they dont want to risk their money. And who can blame them.

You keep wanting to hang ALL the blame on Obama. Sure, he deserves some of it, but not as much as you want to say. Trickle-down economics depends on the magnanimity/gambling nature of business leaders. And they aren't always magnanimous or ready to gamble.

You're right to some degree - but think about your statement. When Wall Street "gambled" under GWB and it all collapsed, there was rage from the left at the "evil" rich. Now, when the markets are even more volatile thanks to world events (ie Greece collapse) and an administration stifling the economy with anti-capitalist regulations, suddenly the left wants people to "gamble". And of course, if they did and things go worse, they would then blame conservatives and capitalism even more.

It's the entire problem with the left - the shut down capitalism with their Marxist/Socialist/Communist policies, and when things get worse, they blame Capitalism further. It would be hysterical if it wasn't so tragic.

 

[P@triot]

What, you just noticed that Obama was in favor of tax increases for the wealthiest Americans? Republican refuse to even allow taxes to be on the table. 70% of Americans are in favor of increased taxes on the rich. Good faith requires he represent their interests.

Oh wow that 70 billion a year balances the budget.


Another class warfare clown.

The class warfare has been in favor of the wealthy for so long, and yet so many conservatives have been duped into thinking it is the other way around. The top 10% earns 45% of all the income and only pays 30% of the taxes. What a deal for them. That leaves the rest of us screwed as that top 10% continues to increase their wealth while ours shrinks. But keep thinking that the wealthy are the ones who are creating the jobs. We've seen just how many they've created lately.

Well, at least you used the key word: earned. They earned their wealth. It's not yours to take. It's not yours to redistribute. It's not the government's to do with as they see fit. It is their wealth and they earned it. If you don't like what they are doing with it, then start your own company and become rich yourself. Then you can spend it your Marxist principles as you see fit. And you know what? I will 100% support you and your free will to believe in and practice Marxism with your own wealth. It really is that simple my friend.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rott continues his neo-fascist TeaBot salivating. Fun to watch.

 

[8537]

Just because I like seeing you throw fits.

Red Tape: Rising Cost of Government Regulation | The Heritage Foundation

Now before your nose becomes disjointed try to counter with your own cost analysis.

Can you explain how the new make compliance more expensive, as Heritage claims? I'm not sure how clarifying definitions for service animals and providing clearer guidance for ADA D&C standards adds up to more expensive regulation.

In fact, I'm quite certain those lead to less expensive regulation.

Have you been to any parking lots lately, brand new ones? Do you understand the cost of increasing the size of a restroom a few inches beyond what was previously mandated. I only gave you a contractors perspective, since that is what I do.

yes, I've been to a lot of parking lots lately. How did the new ADA regs change parking requirements?

How did the size of bathrooms required change with this latest round of ADA regs? There may be new, more restrictive D&C requirements, but if they are there I haven't seen them.

The new ADA regs are almost exclusively clarifications of previous standards and definitions in the law. That should reduce the cost of compliance, not increase it.

 

[P@triot]

I want to see the money not your copy and pasted rightwing talking points.

Just because I like seeing you throw fits.

Red Tape: Rising Cost of Government Regulation | The Heritage Foundation

Now before your nose becomes disjointed try to counter with your own cost analysis.

Can you explain how the new ADA regs make compliance more expensive, as Heritage claims? I'm not sure how clarifying definitions for service animals and providing clearer guidance for ADA D&C standards adds up to more expensive regulation.

In fact, I'm quite certain those lead to less expensive regulation.

You clearly have no experience in the real world. I'm not saying that to be combative or insulting - I'm just stating fact based on your insane comments. Any regulation costs money for a business. Any.

First of all, someone from the company has to read, learn, and understand the regulation. That = time and time = money. In many cases, that means an attorney. That's even more money. Most regulations require paper work - someone has to process that paper work. That's even more money. Make a mistake that causes you to default on that regulation, and you're hit with penalties, legal fees, etc. That's even more money.

How you can come to the conclusion that regulation means saving money is simply mind-boggling. You clearly have never run a business and I would even doubt held a job with statements like that.

 

[Stephanie]

Rott continues his neo-fascist TeaBot salivating. Fun to watch.

And you continue to be nothing but a ankle biting chihuahua.

 

[P@triot]

Can you explain how the new make compliance more expensive, as Heritage claims? I'm not sure how clarifying definitions for service animals and providing clearer guidance for ADA D&C standards adds up to more expensive regulation.

In fact, I'm quite certain those lead to less expensive regulation.

Have you been to any parking lots lately, brand new ones? Do you understand the cost of increasing the size of a restroom a few inches beyond what was previously mandated. I only gave you a contractors perspective, since that is what I do.

yes, I've been to a lot of parking lots lately. How did the new ADA regs change parking requirements?

How did the size of bathrooms required change with this latest round of ADA regs? There may be new, more restrictive D&C requirements, but if they are there I haven't seen them.

The new ADA regs are almost exclusively clarifications of previous standards and definitions in the law. That should reduce the cost of compliance, not increase it.

So you're giving an example of a costly regulation (which when implemented added costs to a business that previously didn't exist) that was altered to slightly reduce the cost of that regulatory burden, as proof that regulations save money???

The slightly altered regulation still costs significantly more than not having the regulation at all, it just costs a little less than the previously more restricted unaltered regulation!!!

 

[uscitizen]

Yeah, won't it just be GREAT when all of our interest rates go up? Awesome job tea mother fucking baggers.

I hereby pledge to kick Grover Norquist in the balls if he is ever within kicking distance.

Ohh to some all the bad results will be Obama's fault anyway.

 

[8537]

Have you been to any parking lots lately, brand new ones? Do you understand the cost of increasing the size of a restroom a few inches beyond what was previously mandated. I only gave you a contractors perspective, since that is what I do.

yes, I've been to a lot of parking lots lately. How did the new ADA regs change parking requirements?

How did the size of bathrooms required change with this latest round of ADA regs? There may be new, more restrictive D&C requirements, but if they are there I haven't seen them.

The new ADA regs are almost exclusively clarifications of previous standards and definitions in the law. That should reduce the cost of compliance, not increase it.

So you're giving an example of a costly regulation (which when implemented added costs to a business that previously didn't exist) that was altered to slightly reduce the cost of that regulatory burden, as proof that regulations save money???

Well, let's see: Heritage is claiming that the new ADA regulations increased the cost of compliance.

You're agreeing with me that the new regs REDUCE the cost burden.

OK then, we agree. Heritage is wrong (as usual).

 

[Oddball]

You clearly have no experience in the real world. I'm not saying that to be combative or insulting - I'm just stating fact based on your insane comments. Any regulation costs money for a business. Any.

First of all, someone from the company has to read, learn, and understand the regulation. That = time and time = money. In many cases, that means an attorney. That's even more money. Most regulations require paper work - someone has to process that paper work. That's even more money. Make a mistake that causes you to default on that regulation, and you're hit with penalties, legal fees, etc. That's even more money.

How you can come to the conclusion that regulation means saving money is simply mind-boggling. You clearly have never run a business and I would even doubt held a job with statements like that.

Lest we fail to mention the costs of retro-fitting hotels, restaurants and other businesses.

But it's like Walter E Williams says; do-gooder liberoidals love visible beneficiaries and invisible casualties.

 

[uscitizen]

Just because I like seeing you throw fits.

Red Tape: Rising Cost of Government Regulation | The Heritage Foundation

Now before your nose becomes disjointed try to counter with your own cost analysis.

Can you explain how the new ADA regs make compliance more expensive, as Heritage claims? I'm not sure how clarifying definitions for service animals and providing clearer guidance for ADA D&C standards adds up to more expensive regulation.

In fact, I'm quite certain those lead to less expensive regulation.

You clearly have no experience in the real world. I'm not saying that to be combative or insulting - I'm just stating fact based on your insane comments. Any regulation costs money for a business. Any.

First of all, someone from the company has to read, learn, and understand the regulation. That = time and time = money. In many cases, that means an attorney. That's even more money. Most regulations require paper work - someone has to process that paper work. That's even more money. Make a mistake that causes you to default on that regulation, and you're hit with penalties, legal fees, etc. That's even more money.

How you can come to the conclusion that regulation means saving money is simply mind-boggling. You clearly have never run a business and I would even doubt held a job with statements like that.

So more regulations mean more jobs?

 

[P@triot]

Rott continues his neo-fascist TeaBot salivating. Fun to watch.

Jake - you have nothing to add here and the facts have already proved you are completely wrong on every statement you make. Why don't you finish junior high, then come back and try to discuss important stuff with the adults. Ok?