|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Mar 3, 2011 15:20:39 GMT -5
My understanding is that private sector folks do, unless we're talking tax cuts. In that case, Republicans do. Yet, as much as certain folks may believe this, they'll blame the President for the job situation in the private sector without hesitation.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Mar 3, 2011 17:19:59 GMT -5
My understanding is that private sector folks do, unless we're talking tax cuts. In that case, Republicans do. Yet, as much as certain folks may believe this, they'll blame the President for the job situation in the private sector without hesitation. Well, if government is preventing the private sector from creating jobs, isn't it fair to blame the government for doing so?  |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Mar 3, 2011 19:29:42 GMT -5
Semi-rhetorical question: If the Republicans are so good at creating jobs, how come they have not done it this century? Politicians and the media like to pretend that candidates or political parties create jobs and they are wrong. The most that legislatures or presidents can do is to foster an atmosphere that is conducive to growth. The best way to do that is to get off the backs of private industry by reducing regulation wherever possible. The worst thing they can do is to introduce uncertainty. Having said that, despite what politicians do, most of the ups and downs of the economy and jobs are well beyond their control to influence. |
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,987
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Mar 3, 2011 20:22:48 GMT -5
Eh, the idea that government restricts job growth is also silly, for the most part. In real life, regulation is simply another obstacle -- and sometimes it actually creates industries and stronger companies.
Regulations don't drive companies out of business -- incompetent management who can't work around it does. And in the end of the day there's just a shift from one job to another company which helps companies accomodate that regulation.
If we didn't have GAAP or SEC accounting rules, we wouldn't have the millions of accounting jobs we have today. Companies make products for manufacturers to accomodate environmental requirements. Firms make ergonomic chairs, etc.
People way overstate the effect of government either way on the economy. The people creating the jobs -- in growth sectors -- are creating regardless of what the government does.
If anything, there's an extremely strong argument for regulation as it drives consumer confidence. The drug market / food market would not be as strong without the FDA, for example, nor the stock market without the SEC. Every time we deregulate banking / fail to regulate banking, we have a crash due to some kind of sketchy behavior (S&Ls, Mortgages, Junk bonds, hedge funds, etc).
When consumers are able to trust that they won't be screwed in a purchase -- when there is confidence someone is doing the research they do not have time to do themselves -- there's a huge benefit. One of the reasons why econ is a crock of crap is the overreliance on assumptions like rational choice -- no offense, but no one does detailed research on 95% of their purchases.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Mar 4, 2011 9:17:51 GMT -5
This may or may not be germane to the conversation, but I would simply like to point out that Sarbanes-Oxley is a neverending, ginormous pain in my shiny metal ass!!
Thanks a pantload, Paul & Mike!! (and you too, Enron & WorldCom, you friggin' weasels)
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Mar 4, 2011 11:57:04 GMT -5
This may or may not be germane to the conversation, but I would simply like to point out that Sarbanes-Oxley is a neverending, ginormous pain in my shiny metal ass!! Thanks a pantload, Paul & Mike!! (and you too, Enron & WorldCom, you friggin' weasels) More annoying? Paul & Mike or Mike & Mike? |
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,987
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Mar 4, 2011 12:38:33 GMT -5
This may or may not be germane to the conversation, but I would simply like to point out that Sarbanes-Oxley is a neverending, ginormous pain in my shiny metal ass!! Thanks a pantload, Paul & Mike!! (and you too, Enron & WorldCom, you friggin' weasels) It's also a more or less useless law. There's a tremendous amount of work generated at the lower levels which is unnecessary -- no low level finance person is systematically altering earnings. The only good idea was allowing for criminal charges against the top, but they didn't seem to get when there's damaging fraud, it's the people at the top -- so all this work is simply to make it so they can't say "I didn't know?" |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Mar 4, 2011 12:48:14 GMT -5
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,398 
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Mar 6, 2011 15:41:18 GMT -5
This may or may not be germane to the conversation, but I would simply like to point out that Sarbanes-Oxley is a neverending, ginormous pain in my shiny metal ass!! Thanks a pantload, Paul & Mike!! (and you too, Enron & WorldCom, you friggin' weasels) But look at all the billable hours it generates! ;D |
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Mar 10, 2011 0:31:41 GMT -5
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,398
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Mar 10, 2011 8:35:20 GMT -5
Lowdown, underhanded, dirty, and slick. I'm surprised they did not think of this earlier. Awaiting the response... |
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Mar 10, 2011 11:10:35 GMT -5
The process they used to pass the bill is not allowed for bills that have a fiscal impact. You'd think this would mean that state republicans would have to finally admit this wasn't about the deficit at all, but I somehow doubt that's what will happen... |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Mar 10, 2011 11:49:27 GMT -5
This latest could have been averted had the Democrats done their duty as elected representatives of Wisconsin. Imagine if Republicans in the U.S. Senate were to skip town so none of Reid/Obama's items could be voted on due to lack of a quorem.
|
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Mar 10, 2011 12:04:41 GMT -5
This latest could have been averted had the Democrats done their duty as elected representatives of Wisconsin. Imagine if Republicans in the U.S. Senate were to skip town so none of Reid/Obama's items could be voted on due to lack of a quorem. The reports are that the Senate couldn't pass a bill to SPEND money as was included in the overall budget bill the dems walked out on. But there apparently is no such prohibition on bills that SAVE money. They can vote on that part all they want. They just can't spend the savings. I expect this option has been there all along and for whatever reason the pubs just waited till now to exercise it. Both sides decided to play big boy politics. |
|
|
|
Post by flyoverhoya on Mar 10, 2011 13:16:02 GMT -5
The process they used to pass the bill is not allowed for bills that have a fiscal impact. You'd think this would mean that state republicans would have to finally admit this wasn't about the deficit at all, but I somehow doubt that's what will happen... Actually, the Senate majority leader admitted as much to Megyn Kelly yesterday. Flat out stated that it was done to hamper Dem fundraising in 2012. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Mar 10, 2011 18:54:18 GMT -5
Senate Republicans have effectively been absent for a number of years, disallowing votes on most priorities, including judicial nominations, through their procedural games. It does not matter if they are in DC or not, they simply refuse to take up these issues. Their use of these tactics is unprecedented in scale, hair splitting and rationalizations to the contrary.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Mar 10, 2011 19:58:05 GMT -5
Senate Republicans have effectively been absent for a number of years, disallowing votes on most priorities, including judicial nominations, through their procedural games. It does not matter if they are in DC or not, they simply refuse to take up these issues. Their use of these tactics is unprecedented in scale, hair splitting and rationalizations to the contrary. And this is your rationalization as to why it's okay for the Dems in Wisconsin to refuse to take part in the proceedings of their Senate? Also, correct me if I'm wrong but, until the November elections, the Democrats had control of the House, Senate and Presidency and they passed many a bill without any Republican input or without allowing any Republicans to introduce amendments. Yet you cast blame on the Republicans for refusing to "take up these issues"? How much input from the Republicans was allowed in Obamacare? |
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Mar 10, 2011 20:08:56 GMT -5
Senate Republicans have effectively been absent for a number of years, disallowing votes on most priorities, including judicial nominations, through their procedural games. It does not matter if they are in DC or not, they simply refuse to take up these issues. Their use of these tactics is unprecedented in scale, hair splitting and rationalizations to the contrary. And this is your rationalization as to why it's okay for the Dems in Wisconsin to refuse to take part in the proceedings of their Senate? Also, correct me if I'm wrong but, until the November elections, the Democrats had control of the House, Senate and Presidency and they passed many a bill without any Republican input or without allowing any Republicans to introduce amendments. Yet you cast blame on the Republicans for refusing to "take up these issues"? How much input from the Republicans was allowed in Obamacare? But wasn't Obamacare "rammed through" "against the will of the people/look at this poll!"? Is using all the means of government legally at one's disposal only okay if Republicans do it? |
|
