Boil this whole thing down and what do you end up with ?????

Nothing more than smoke and mirror bull from both sides . It's all about PROFIT AT ALL COAST !!!!!! Who is kidding who here ??? All levels of federal government are in the pockets of the capitanes and kings of industry . Industry is just shopping around for the best deal . Odds are any job creation will be overseas . Same old lame excuse it's cheaper to do over there and ship back here to the U.S. Congerss will cut them a deal after they extort as much as they can get out of them , and make as much political hay out of it as possible . The old blame game all over again.

While this is going on the entire world economy is going belly up .

bob

No in fact they are too greedy and too stupid to find a better way to do things. What's funny is they feel if they have to give up coal for natural gas they will drive the price of gas up. Why is that if we have more natural gas available to us that we don't have to import that we can price fairly for the American consumer. Or are they afraid that their own kind will take advantage of them so that the gas producers will gain ground and reap the rewards but the coal companies will see their profits suffer. Funny how they look at their own predicament.

This is not political theater. Corporations (mining and oil and gas industries) want to be able to dump (release) what they want, where they want and not be held accountable for the pollution of our air and waterways. Their industry has purchased many congresspersons which is why we have this fervor over the EPA.

Those of us who remember how corporations behaved before the EPA want no part of the dismantling of the agency, we want it strengthened, regardless of cost! If that means gas is $15.00 a gallon, then so be it. That would be the best way for the nation to finally realize that these energy sources are not sustainable, and the transition away from them should have already happened. The reason it hasn't is because the Koch brothers and Wall Street own our government, or at least two thirds of it.

American Chamber of Commerce and American Bankers Association, in addition to many other Industry associations (Communications companies Lobby), have been whipping up anti-regulatory fervor with American public and the politicians who make the rules, with great success. They have done so with no data to backup their claim that implementing these environmental, financial and consumer protections regulations will result in loss of our industries competitiveness as well as loss of jobs. On the contrary, well drafted and well implemented regulations will benefit us all (industry as a whole, companies, and jobs for the public).

These republicans funded by Koch and trained by Frank Luntz media group have two mantras whenever the government bureaucrats try to implement rules relating to regulatory frameworks. That is:
- "Don't tax the Job Creators",
- "If you ask the industries to implement any meaningful environmental or financial rules, then you are killing the job-creating efforts of the American Companies."

These large publicly traded companies have ill-served our country, its customers, and crushed competition in many sectors of the industries and have enriched its executives, only to the detriment of American Public. On the environmental (smog and CO2 emission) front, I am sorely disappointed with the stance adopted by Obama who has withdrawn many of the smog rules and not preventing mountain-top mining permits. Obama instead of listening to his Whitehouse political operatives, should let his EPA Administrator and Interior Secretary do their work.

Roy Wilson,

"That's hardly contradictory, since the actual regulations have to be established before they can make cost estimates."

But it is somehow different than so many on the right declaring that these as yet not established regulations and their unknown costs are what is causing the downfall of capitalism in this country. One or the other, can't be both.

I have to wonder if you're just a freelance cheek kisser or you get direction from the RNC.

ROY WILSON,

RE: your post #1.1

Roy, your at it again! That is, not telling the WHOLE TRUTH. First, the SEC filings, usually 8-K, 10-Q, and even T-3's, are written in legal language, very often over 100 pages in length, and very complicated to understand. Bottom line I don't believe you have read ALL the SEC filings in total! Second, the filings to the SEC and the statements made to the politicians are at odds. This was the crux of the article! So if your going to question the facts of the article, fine, but don't make up the 'facts', or use the facts to change the story, as you post along. Third, why would the Associated Press try to slant the story to help the Obama Administration. That seems to be the storyline for the GOP/TP every time the "Press" circulates a story which doesn't jive with the Republican/Tea Party party line or philosophy. In short, the truth be damned, this is what we want so the press is 'picking on us'! Try the WHOLE TRUTH Roy; let the facts speak for themselves. You may even find the experience cathartic!

all this stuff about regulations is total crap! the regulations are lax right now and i don't see these companies with any growth. it's a consevative kinard. regulations are need to protect the people and the environment. the GOP dosen't care about people at all just corporate profits. and i'll tell ya this if this country tilts toward the GOP this country will be screwed. the debt will be high taxes low , entitlements will be gone. then the GOP will lose electons for at least a decade and it will fall to the dems o fix the whole mess and with no revenue we won't be able to. in short we will be back to the guilded age and will take decades to fix just like then. think about this people. enough of this consevative physco babble.

Fear mongering from the Right. They throw all this garbage out there about Obama hoping some will stick. Similarly, they said he wanted your guns and and would take them if elected. I don't see anyone losing their guns but they'll swear that "just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't. Their logic " If we believe it, that makes it true".

lawl at those that think environmental regulations have an impact on investment and growth of a business. This isn't an either or thing for corporations. The regulations are the rules of the game. The cost of abiding by those rules are just that, the cost of doing business. If a business has a need to grow and expand, they will find the capital necessary regardless of their operating costs. A business will expand and create jobs based on the market and the demand for their good or service. The cost of added regulations only impacts the equity of the shareholders. If the greed of the shareholders results in higher prices for goods and services, then so be it. But revenue is dictated by quantity of goods and services sold and the price. If the price becomes too great then the quantity of goods and services sold will decrease having a negative impact on the revenue. This is true of competitive markets. In less competitive markets, where there are fewer alternatives, the corporations can get away with exorbitant increases in prices without a dramatic impact on quantity of good and services sold. Unfortunately the anti-trust laws have been weakened to such an extent that many major markets that everyone is dependent upon have been allowed to become near monopolies (regionally and/or nationally) due to mergers and acquisitions. These are the corporations that cry wolf and bribe the politicians. The corporations would rather not have the regulations, so they have more profits to pay out in dividends to millionaires and billionaires. The best part is the prices will still increase regardless of the regulations because of unrealistic expectations in annual growth.

Republicans plan to make what they say is regulatory overreach a 2012 campaign issue

Bringing back any regulatory oversight at all would be over-reach compared to Bush.

Companies I interface with tell me that the regulation issues are non-sense from what they see... but I'm not in an oil state.

Any projection of "dire consequences" is very difficult to believe given the number of lies coming from the right and the direct funding they get from those "being regulated". Pollution versus the economy is the issue. Pollute now and it costs you much more later in health costs, clean-up, and global warming. Tax it right and it opens new jobs in new fields, reduces pollution, and gets us on the right side of these new green industries... or I guess we can continue down the same old path and get fuarther behind the eight ball.

These BS dire consequences are consistent with the steady "rich get richer" drive by the GOP... check this out... it's a great read!

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109

"all the SEC reports actually say is that the total cost of the proposed regulations cannot be estimated at this time" (per Roy Wilson)

... making the "dire consequences" prediction just as invalid.

Roy,you are hard to belief when my R.E.M.C., lauds Roosevelt and some Republicans who legislated their existence, but claim our electric rate will go up 45% if the carbon tax bill is not amended to their liking. How did they come up with that figure if not to scare the cra* out of consumers. R.E.M.C.'s are non profit electric supplier's. Ours' has not keeped up with the times, and now must hurry to overhaul their grid and suppliers'.

Three day outages are not rare, usually every year we have one. Central Indiana is our location.

what's real interesting to me, is Obama's decided shift to the right on a number of policies,

I guess that whuppin put on his policies in Nov. of 2010 really did get his attention....

But who can fault him for really trying to get re-elected.

what's real interesting to me, is Obama's decided shift to the right on a number of policies,

Such as? When congress and the president are on opposite parties, they are naturally forced to compromise. That is what Clinton did in '94. However, this time, the GOP refuses to make a compromise that isn't more towards their side than the opposition.

I guess that whuppin put on his policies in Nov. of 2010 really did get his attention....

Not more GOP rhetoric! Instead of pointing out facts about how 2010 had a very small voter turnout, I will raise this point. Republicans got much greater "whuppin" in 2008, but did Republicans concede there?

And the typical "independent" lie about 1994 and what REALLY happened. Being actually ALIVE and CONSCIOUS during that period, let ME tell people what REALLY happened.

The repubs IN FACT acted just like the current bunch of ret-rded obstructionist scumbags. And Clinton basically let them repub scum be themselves, so that even the dimwitted independents could see what a load of crap the repubs were pushing. Then came 1996 and the shellacking of the repubs, adn while they BARELY held onto their majority in the House, they suddenly leanred words like MANNERS, and COMPROMISE, and HONESTY, and so on.

Barry-Barry… “In order to maintain jobs and profit, American business needs to pollute more?”

Quite the opposite is happening in every part of our economy. Since the Industrial Revolution, from the 18^th to the 19^th century, major advances in technology, agriculture, industry etc. continue to occur. Far from being “lazy and stupid”, our business leaders are some of the best in the world.

Barry, you need to direct your comments at the Chinese. That’s where pollution is out of control. Unhindered, they are producing everything, under less than perfect conditions. Their products are flooding our shores and slowly killing our industry. We are struggling to compete and if the President succeeds with his plans to place further restrictions on our industry, many will relocate abroad or go under! We should all be worried about that!

wtw of KC: Our business leaders used to be the best. Now, they are fat, lazy, and have no interest in furthering the welfare of the country they depend on. The Chinese are bad, and that's a fact, but that's not any excuse for our businesses to try to emulate them. If they won't voluntarily do what's best for the country, being patriotic, far-sighted, and a benefit to America, then we need rules to force them into that behavior. If they don't like it, they can leave. More will fill their place; that's the free market, right? The ones that leave rather then follow rules that make this country better are not the sort we want here anyway. Profit should never be put before country. That's a lesson we used to know, back when our business leaders were great.

theCavalier

Interesting feedback and a recipe for disaster. One thing that will determine the level of business activity within our borders is profit. If companies have difficulties selling their product and are not making profit due to unfair competition from overseas producers or restrictive government legislation, it will make no difference how patriotic the company is, they will soon shut the doors. No one will fill the empty place, as no one will waste money on a venture that is doomed to failure well before it starts…..and that’s what the free market is all about! Can you imagine the level of unemployment and misery under your scenario?

that's why it is important to place an exaggerated tax on any products coming overseas. the companies will add it to the sale price of their product making it too costly to the consumer.

two posable senerios can happen

Companies tank and Pro-American companies can prosper.

or

Companies become Pro-American!!!

OBAMA 2012

It easy to figure out the current state of everything to do with economics in the world (and in particular, the U.S.) today if you think a little.

It use to be, if you wanted to become rich and successful, you started a business and grew the business. This required the effort of human beings who got paid wages and then bought products in an even inflating cycle. A simple but effective economic system that worked for many years. But now, the prime source of income generation does not involve the efforts of the masses. The capital markets allow those who already have massive wealth to build wealth WITHOUT THE EFFORT OF THE MASSES. Less jobs, less manufacturing, less innovation, and less concern for the practices of the underlying issuers because the shareholder has replaced the customer. And often times the the interests of the citizens of this country are at odds with what the issuers do because they are serving the interests of the global capital markets over those of the customer. so. not only is the link to the individual worker broken (who cares about being able to work), but so is the link to the community (which cares about clean air and water). 100% profit/greed driven economics now rule the day (driven by paper profits with no needs for jobs and no need to build the best/most innovative or employ best practices and safe methods) but it still isn't enough for some. The would have us all pushed into virtual serfdom with no say over what we eat, breathe, drink, say, do, etc...

This new reality effects EVERYTHING from environmental policy to tax policy. So, if you want to become the new serfs, keep voting for the people who are pushing the dismantling of the social contracts that we have built in this country and that have created a viable middle class which now is attacked from EVERY ANGLE possible.

Quite the opposite is happening in every part of our economy. Since the Industrial Revolution, from the 18^th to the 19^th century, major advances in technology, agriculture, industry etc. continue to occur. Far from being “lazy and stupid”, our business leaders are some of the best in the world.

You do raise an interesting point here - that as cleaner technology becomes cheaper, businesses will have to switch to it. That is true, but if you've looked at what companies such as Exonn-mobil have done to stall green technology from becomming available, you'll see that it will happen a lot slower than if we give companies more incentive to go green. Another way to look at it is that right now, many corporations rely on non-renewable resources to make profit, when in the long run that will not lead to good things. Take oil for example. If we wait until oil gets so expensive that it is useless, large amounts of people will need to immediately switch to electric cars, and it will end up leading to a large economic crash.

All you have to do is look at the Chevy Volt to see the results of pushing a "green" technology ahead of the design. Add in testing that goes beyond a large percentile for the class of accident. So you have a set of regulatory agencies....One demanding alternative fuels and another beating the crap out of them to make the impervious to accidents. Isnt that why they call them accidents?

The Democrats love to brag about regulations that 'cost businesses tens of $Billions', but they apparently have no clue about the economic consequences.

Here's a simple explanation;

When it costs companies an extra $50 Billion to comply with new regulations, then the company has to increase their prices to cover the extra costs, and the consumers have $50 Billion less to spend on other things that could grow the economy and create more jobs. The exception is when the companies are unable to increase their prices because of foreign competition, and the companies go out of business and the jobs go to foreign companies.

DUH.

Perhaps simple economics should be taught in high school.

Your premise is that corporations would spend that $50 billion to "create jobs".

scrambolo "ROY WILSON, Bottom line I don't believe you have read ALL the SEC filings in total! Second, the filings to the SEC and the statements made to the politicians are at odds. This was the crux of the article! So if your going to question the facts of the article, fine, but don't make up the 'facts', or use the facts to change the story, as you post along. Third, why would the Associated Press try to slant the story to help the Obama Administration."

1 - Why would I need to - That has no bearing on the issue.

2 - They are not at odds. The SEC filings reflect what companies know at the time of filing. They cannot quantify 'proposed' regulations until they know which ones they will have to comply with. It's the 'proposed' new regulations they complain about, which they cannot include in the SEC filings (speculative).

3 - If you've been paying attention to AP, their stories are about 85% favorable to Democrats, vs 15% for Republicans. If that's not bias, perhaps you need to look up the definition.

Mr. Anon "Your premise is that corporations would spend that $50 billion to "create jobs". "

No, my premise is that if consumers had another $50 Billion to spend, they would buy more goods and services, which would require more workers to make those goods and services.

See how it works?

Roy Wilson….

Right you are….spot on!!!

Mr. Anon

Just a little hint…..prosperous companies expand, create and develop ….healthy companies = healthy economy and jobs, jobs, jobs…..

Mr. Anon

I will give you an example of what I mean with a quote from Wikipedia related to 'Opportunity Cost' (a different subject, but it emphasizes the point).

"In environmental protection, opportunity cost is also applicable. This has been demonstrated in the legislation that required the carcinogenic aromatics (mainly reformate) to be largely eliminated from gasoline. Unfortunately, this required refineries to install equipment at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars – and pass the cost to the consumer. The absolute number of cancer cases attributed to exposure to gasoline, however, is low, estimated a few cases per year in the U.S. Thus, the decision to require fewer aromatics has been criticized on the grounds of opportunity cost: the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on process redesign could have been spent on other, more fruitful ways of reducing deaths caused by cancer or automobiles.^[5] These actions (or strictly, the best one of them) are the opportunity cost of reduction of aromatics in gasoline."

When gasoline producers were forced to raise the price of gasoline to cover these new 'mandated regulatory costs', the consumers had less funds available for other purchases of goods and services, and the 'opportunity cost' of the new regulations was less economic activity in other parts of the economy.

"Extra expensive regulations absolutely results in less economic growth and jobs". If you don't understand this, perhaps you should consider taking Economics 101.

ROY WILSON,

RE: your post #1.27

Two points! First, most if not all SEC filings, of any kind can and generally do SPECULATE on many, many points in their filings. You are correct, they cannot quantify some points, but they sure can, and do, speculate and make assumptions on many topics in their SEC filings, including pending legislation which may influence the corporation's actions and/or results! I know, I'm a registered securities dealer, and have been for over 20 years. It is allowed and is legal because these filings have disclaimer clauses which allow for ANY and ALL errors. That is why it is now a legal requirement for the CEO, and CFO to sign a separate sworn statement on financial reports filed with the SEC, as to their accuracy and completeness! Second, you CANNOT cite, even one, reliable source which will corroborate your figures for bias in reporting from the Associated Press, or any other nationally recognized press outlet. The possible exception may be Fox News, and you know they lie like a cheap rug and tell half truths as you do, way too often!

Roy...the fallacy of your argument is that the U.S. consumer will never ever ever never see the "extra $50 billion". The only consumers that benefit from the new corporate game are those in China and India and other developing economies. In the eyes of the global multinational the U.S. citizen costs too much to pay and too much to sell too, (because we don't happen to like thing like lead, mercury in our products, water and food...silly us...).

Someone polluting this country on an industrial scale is essentially taking a crap in my front yard. If your business model calls for you to take a crap in my front yard and to pass the responsibility(cost) of cleaning up your mess to me, then you need a new business model.

The cost, to the taxpayer, of cleaning up a mess that someone made a lot of money creating must be considered. Don't leave the children a huge debt, a crumbling infrastructure and a poisonous environment. Show at least a minimum of class.

Caligula-1763025 "Roy...the fallacy of your argument is that the U.S. consumer will never ever ever never see the "extra $50 billion" "

Silly argument. If the companies did not have to raise prices to cover additional costs, the consumers certainly WOULD have extra money to spend. Companies certainly DO raise prices to cover additional mandated regulatory costs - that's how they stay in business. The idea that the government can mandate additional costs and the companies affected would not raise prices to compensate reflects an ignorance of how the free market economy works. When companies no longer make profits, they go out of business.

That has always been the problem with liberal thinking - It just does not work in the 'real world'.

Roy, you leave out innovation in your economic model. That innovation must be used on the most cost effective means, with less regard for future expense in the area's that are not cost effective. Pass the buck around, but leave the additional related costs out sounds utopian, but any reasonable thought will include all economic factors, be they profit, supply, demand and the welfare of the people, now and in the future.

Technically, we would have been better off not innovating new technology, at a great expense,or acquiring new land at a time we had no use for it, in exchange for having the current product produced at a much lower expense. But, human nature will not fit your economic theory, that is why we have political science, a much more difficult subject to research, in my eye's.

An example is the one who must climb the highest moutain, very expensive, yet to that person it is worth it. That person could have looked up to the mountain as a unattainable goal, and been better off.

Wow, cool, Roy, I finally get it. I have my share of another $50 billion to spend, since the local manufacturer doesn't have to worry about that horrible "job-killing" environmental regulation. Yippee!

Of course, now my water smells like kerosene, the air is thick enough to cut with a knife, I can't spend my free time fly-fishing cause the trout in the local stream are all floating in the green water, my kids are always sick, but I don't know why, and for some unknown reason, various forms of cancer have suddenly started popping up in my community way out of proportion to the rest of the world. At least the subdued glow from the nearby swamp is pleasing in the evening.

But hey, that's the risks we take, right? We eliminate the so-called "job-killing" environmental protections, and trade them for "people-killing" pollution so that the bottom lines look better. After all, the CEOs don't have to live around here, right?

And that's the trouble with right-winger's thinking...it cares more about the corporate bottom line than it does about real people.

:::Jeez:::

Again...Obama is on the right side of history. The republicans? Too unhonorable. The definition of conservative CONTINUES to be changed to fit their lying and phony agendas. Criminal.

For those who say corporations can't afford the cost of regulatory compliance:

We can't afford NOT to - Have you forgotten all the stories about cancer spreading throughout entire towns because of dumping waste products? What about the air we all breathe? Do you really want people struggling to breathe? I have asthma, and I can tell you it's no fun. Though many of you claim it isn't real, it cannot be denied much longer that climate change is already occurring, and if it continues it could mean the end of mankind. Is that alone not reason enough to take heed?

Besides all of that, when tighter regulations are enforced, at least some of the alleged jobs it could cost would be offset by the demand for retooling machinery to be more cost efficient.

"Thanks to the successful lobbying efforts of the U.S. chemical industry, Americans are being exposed to an array of environmental and health hazards—including rising rates of infertility, endocrine system disruptions, neurological disorders, and cancer—from which many others around the world are being protected.

In Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products and What's at Stake for American Power, award-winning investigative journalist Mark Schapiro reveals how products on American shelves are increasingly being linked with serious health hazards—hazards, like Bisphenol A (BPA) and plastic softening phthalates, that the European Union is leading the rest of the world in legislating out of existence."

Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products and What's at Stake for American Power by Mark Schapiro.

Great book, though it is depressing. I urge you to get this book if you really want to know what is happening in America and around the world on environmental exposures and legal actions other countries are enforcing to protect their citizens. America is WAAAAYYYY behind environmentally, setting Americans up to be even fatter and sicker than they already are. Chemical and heavy metal bioaccumulation is silent and mysterious. So for all of you out there with chronic "mysterious" illnesses which no doctor can cure, better start learning fast about what's really going on in America with environmental toxins and your health. Wouldn't you rather pay a bit more on your utilities now than to watch your child die of cancer?

@wtw of KC-#1.18: China is not of my concern. I am not Chinese. I am American.

We don't need no goldang clean water or air, what are you people thinkin'. All's we need is for gubernment to get out of us 1%'s way so we can do what we do best, destroy the environment and make women grow little beards and such ay ya. Besides when we is done just think of all the work there will be from cleaning up our messes, can you say superfunds, I knew you could.

Think I am joking huh well before the DEP got involved the company I used to work for dumped barrels of trichloroethylene, acids along with cyanide from the plating plant right out the back door of the factory. Wonder where all that stuff is now? Guess I'll make a cup of T' no maybe I'll have a Koch instead. Brought to you by the Greedy ol' Party. ROFLMAO, if it was not so sad.

This is the same old self-serving Republican nonsense that has been going on since Reagan. Kill environmental laws or corporations will pack up their toys and tools and go home. Same old lame threats and ignorance. When will Republicans learn that we the people are not going to tolerate polluters, period. They might as well suck it up and invest capital in improving environmental protection.

Otherwise, good riddance polluters! I'd rather do without your wares than put up with your Republican sponsored pollution.

Earley says "...if they had their way, the EPA would replace all coal fired plants w/ Nnatural gas plants..."

Funny, (although I think the EPA should support a change to cleaner technology) I thought that was T Boone Pickens, Halliburton, and all other investors in the fracking industry that wanted this change.

Roy...you have a uniquely and spectacularly myopic view of the universe. You completely and utterly ignore the costs TO THE CONSUMER of faulty products, tainted products, air pollution, water pollution, pesticides, toxic additives, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

I think we've had quite enough of corporate apologists in this country thank you. The game is changing, the tide is turning and you're on the wrong side of history my consciously delusional friend...

Roy, you like to divide things into black and white politically dogmatic arguments, e.g. liberal vs. conservative when the argument is much simpler than that...it is right vs. wrong. Human lives vs. unbridled greed. Your hollow words have no sign of humanity...just the cold rantings of a sociopathic world view...

Caligula-1763025 "Roy...you have a uniquely and spectacularly myopic view of the universe. You completely and utterly ignore the costs TO THE CONSUMER of faulty products, tainted products, air pollution, water pollution, pesticides, toxic additives, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc."

Isn't it nice that those same products are so much safer when produced in China? And of course, that air pollution from China doesn't leave their borders, does it?

I have to laugh when people claim that the only way we can be 'safe' is for American companies to be regulated out of business in some vain attempt at Utopia.

We all want 'reasonably' clean air and water (perfection is an obviously unattainable goal), but I didn't see millions of Americans dying because the record 81,000 pages of new regulations in 2009 were necessary to prevent the environment from collapsing.

Liberals make two mistakes when it comes to regulations;

1 - That we need ever more regulations to protect us, regardless of the cost in jobs and economic growth.

2 - That businesses will not pass on the extra cost of new government regulations, thus reducing consumer funds available for other sectors of the economy to grow.

Regulations have costs, and any reputable economist will tell you that increasing costs to businesses also increases the cost of products and services, and that reduces the consumer funds available to purchase other goods and services, and that lowers economic and jobs growth.

The lack of understanding of simple, basic economic principles by many people is scary. I suspect that many people, when asked the basic source of our goods and services, would respond "WalMart".

Duh.

When it costs companies an extra $50 Billion to comply with new regulations, then the company has to increase their prices to cover the extra costs

This is the premise I was talking about. This may appear to be the case, as shown in the Wikipedia article, but think about it another way. A common counter-argument to raising taxes on oil companies is that "it will increase gas prices". This may be the case, but the assumption is that companies are forced to do this. Rather (and this is a similar case with Healthcare companies in response to Obama's health insurance bill) they do this to pressure consumers into disliking the tax raises.

However, if we cut taxes on Oil companies, they won't lower gas prices. They'll just store the money in offshore accounts and the gas prices will continue to be raised.

Mr. Anon "However, if we cut taxes on Oil companies, they won't lower gas prices. They'll just store the money in offshore accounts and the gas prices will continue to be raised."

That's an assumption on your part, based on emotion, not logic or evidence.

I'm all for doing away with any 'loopholes' that oil companies receive that are not available to almost all other companies, but I have yet to find one. Perhaps you can help identify some for us, and then we can petition our members of Congress.

By the way - do you know who gets the vast majority of benefit from 'loopholes'? It's the middle and 'poor' classes, in the form of 'mortgage interest deductions, child tax credits, earned income credits, itemized and standard deductions, dependent deductions, etc.'. I wonder how many people are opposed to 'loopholes' when it affects THEIR taxes?

So, Roy, simply put...you believe that corporations always act in the U.S. citizens interest...you believe that Americans should blindly trust that corporations will put health and safety before profits and altruistically return capital to consumers?

Let me ask...is that on this planet in this universe or in the fantasy universe in which you live?

Seriously you are too ridiculous to even engage. Do you really believe the nonsense you spout or are you paid to spout it (or both)? Yes, Roy, regulations have costs. Having no regulations has costs as well. If you were half as intelligent as you try to sound, you would acknowledge this and produce and balanced argument. But, since you do not, you can be dismissed as a shill.

Of course the "regulations are killing us and jobs"? Don't you'all understand this is what the recession is all about for Republicks. Under the philosophy of never let a good crisis go to waste (We were attacked on 9/11 so lets attack Iraq), the cons have decided that regulations which call for corporations to clean up their own messes are job killers, and unions which hold the line for some working Americans need to be eradicated so we can keep them in line ( we are still going to ship the jobs overseas anyway, why, because we like you) and laws which will try to keep Wall Street from replicating the thirties are all job killers. Can you say extortion? Force the energy CEO's to live right next door to their plants.

That's an assumption on your part, based on emotion, not logic or evidence.

Except it is correct. To quote Warren Buffet himself, "The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you're in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.".

I'm all for doing away with any 'loopholes' that oil companies receive that are not available to almost all other companies, but I have yet to find one. Perhaps you can help identify some for us, and then we can petition our members of Congress.

What about all these? http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/11/22/the-billionaires-tax-loophole/

Mr. Anon. "To quote Warren Buffet himself, "The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter."

He must pay his receptionists and cleaning ladies pretty well.

What Buffett leaves out is that most of his income comes from Dividends, at a rate of about 15%, but the Dividends are paid from what's left of corporate income after the taxes paid by the corporation - typically about 35% (but some corporations pay a higher rate).

So the actual taxes paid on the income earned by the stockholders is close to 50%. There's no way his Receptionists or Cleaning Ladies pays 50% in income taxes.

PS - If Buffett thinks corporations should pay more income taxes, why does the IRS have $Million in claims against his corporations for unpaid income taxes at the current rates?

Roy, again you confound most people with your blanket assumptions of how little the majority of people in this country pay for government services and taxes, and how much those in the highest brackets pay, including corporations, yet many have posted facts and stydy's that are non-political and unbiased, that refute your conservative agenda.

Like others say you are beyond, or above our reproach. So be it, let us be as ignorant as you think.

You make generalized assumptions, slanted to your own bias, and base it on non-partisan opinion.

I could post acknowledged study's, reports refuting your assumptions, but it would be fruitless, as shown by your continued defiance to logical debate.

Yeah only Republicans lie..lol. The Democrats are all for the little guys right? ...that is as long as they are old enough to vote. Washington is broken and I want someone with the stones to fix it and not be ruled by a puppetmaster. Anyone but Obama in 2012

that is as long as they are old enough to vote

Umm...the word "duh" comes to mind. It's called voting age genius.

The Democrats are all for the little guys right?

More so than the Republicans.

Anyone but Obama in 2012

Yeah, go ahead and vote for Romney, or Perry, or Bachmann. Watch how fast the middle class sinks under any those "people."

Republicans will be talking to voters this campaign season about how to keep Washington out of the way, so that job creators can feel confident creating pollution.

The real problem is that without worldwide regulations regarding the environment Corporate greed will not be able to keep going. Too many regulations and the big companies will keep sending jobs elsewhere. The only way to stop this is to set environmental tariffs so we can get the needed regulations and still keep jobs at home.

Actually, there probably need to be worldwide environmental regulations. We all live on the same planet, and pollution in Europe or Asia or Africa is as harmful as pollution in the Americas.

Probably most corporations would not like this. Nor would those extremists who always seem to be living in fear of international cooperation.

But it seems to me that worldwide agreement to protect the air we all breathe, the water we all use, and the resources we all depend on could be a very good idea!

As soon as the EPA gets outa my way, I think I want to become a job creator too.

Using a grant to secure use of federally owned property, I will begin a used-tire reclaimation business.

I can create thousands of jobs as soon as the job-killing EPA has been gotten rid of (as promised by Herman Cain and Rick Perry). Once these job killing regulations have been eliminated, the path will be paved for thousands of new jobs wherein I will pay a fair (minimum) wage to recycle used tires by burning them into the atmosphere, then dumping the residue into a nearby stream.

I will probably locate in an area so I can use day-labor, because these are probably the kind of jobs that Americans just don't want - I can probably get a grant for that too.

And I'll get started creating these thousands of jobs, just as soon as:

1. The EPA is out of my way...

2. Local government provides me with monetary incentives to locate in their state/county

3. My lobbyists report that I have support of key representatives (I am a job creator, after all)

4. I am assured by lawmakers that I will NOT be jailed for hiring illegals (after all, I am a job creator).

5. I am assured that whenever I cease operation of my plant, federal funding will be made available for all cleanup and reclaimation costs related to my operation, and that I will be prvided a hold-harmless agreement by the government assuring that I not be held responsible for anything.

Now, lets get these jobs created!!!!!

P.O....you are too clever by half for Newsvine...

Bluecat -

FYI - Graham-Leach-Bliley was signed by Clinton - a democrat the last I heard. This was the regulation which enabled the de-regulation and the sale of derivatives. The legislation was bi-partisan in origin, with several items added in which enabled the housing bubble to take place.

Clinton could have vetoed the legislation, but he didn't.

FYI - Graham-Leach-Bliley was signed by Clinton - a democrat the last I heard.

There is virtually no difference between blue dog democrats and republicans, both serve their corporate masters.

There's nothing wrong with streamlining the regulations - getting rid of the ones that truly aren't needed. What Republicans want to do is get rid of every single regulation and make it legal for companies to dump toxic waste wherever they damn well please. They have no standards what-so-ever.

Monkey -

Proof please! Huff Po doesn't count, nor does moveon.org. One thing though, you've got their talking points down very well indeed!

Tammy--

There can be no proof either way since there has never been a time in recent history--the last 150 years when American business has been totally regulation free. It can be proven that American businesses will go to great lengths to cut costs regardless of social and environmental consequences.

In 1999, Graham-Leach-Bliley were Republicans, who had veto proof majority in both chambers, repealed the section of the Glass-Seagall act that prohibited the merger of banks and brokerage businesses thereby allowing the banks to risk depositor's money on highr risk securities. This was in line with the Republican philosphy of deregulation. The old General Motors fought tooth and nail against raising the MPG standards while the competition was already producing efficient cars. It took a bankruptcy and taxpayers' bailout to make the new GM profitable.

As far as the EPA is concerned, let us not forget the Love Canal, NY and Drum Valley, Kentucky that caused whole towns to vacate because of the good corporations destroyed the land with chemical waste. A superfund had to be created to clean up the streams, rivers and lakes and the job is not yet complete. Private sewer tanks are leaching waste into acquifers and polluting the water.

As we have laws for individuals in order to maintains an orderly society, the regulations do the same for corporations. History demonstrates that each time the regulations are eased, the greedy corporate leaders present us with scandals that grow in expense. The last one took only nine years from the day banking industry received their gift of partial repeal of the Glass-Seagall act before their scheming dealt a blow to the financial stablilty of not only the US but the whole world.

Maq -

FYI -

The republicans have NEVER had a 'filibuster proof' majority in either house of Congress. You can even look it up. The only time that there have been 'filibuster-proof' majorities were during the Carter administration and the Obama administration. Both times it was the democrats who 'enjoyed' the majority. And both times budgets did not get passed.

In fact, democrats have controlled both Houses of Congress about 75% of the time.

Perhaps you would do well to study up on recent history.

Thank you & well said Tammy. I applaud you for asking for proof! Once again though, a liberal side steps your question.

No lib here.

The Dems never had a full majority in Congress. They were short when Byrd and Kennedy were ill.

Liebermann is Independent, and votes with the GOP half the time.

They needed 60 votes, and only had 59(on a good day).

It's real easy to look up and dis-prove the "Dems had a majority during the first part of Obama's Admin." BS story.

And still, not one of Obama's detractors acknowledge how the GOP swore to do everything they can to make Obama fail and a 1 term POTUS.

Why is that? Are you afraid it will shred your "Obama is a failure" argument?

Obama is too centered(and has gone right in compromise with GOP whiners) for some in his own party.

Obama is more to the center, than 3 out of the last 4 Presidents before him.

Lobo -

Actually,they did have a supermajority for about 4 moinths in 2009. Perhaps you should check it out.

They also had a supermajority while Carter was President. I remember wondering if I was going to get my paycheck on time for 2 years in a row because they had not bothered with a budget. (I was serving in the Air Force at the time.)

So, evidently, you do not have a very good memory or you choose not to recognize the truth when you see it.

As for keeping Obama a one term President - Isn't that what the other party always does? I know that liberals tend to forget that the democrats do it too, but this time around, I have to say that Obama is his own worst enemy as far as re-election goes. So there isn't much that the republicans have to do to make Obama look bad, his record speaks for itself.

Why else do you think even his own party doesn't want him campaigning for them?

Tammy,

You are correct about the GOP not having a veto proof majority on a strict party line vote. At the time of Grahm, Leach, Bliley the majority party in both houses was Republican and there was some fear a veto could not be sustained but following initial voting which pretty much followed party lines in the Senate Clinton let it be known that the bill was headed nowhere. The bill was passed only after its sections reestablishing redlining were removed and a strenghtening of the anti redlining provisions of the CRA. I would not be to hard on the selective memory thing everyone yourself included practice it. In fact for most of its history Congress especially the Senate have been interested in advancing the interests of their districts, states and constituencies and National elections were pretty far down the list. In the 6 months or so before an election it is common to see legislative intransigence but spending 4 years stonewalling a presidence especially one showing a willingness to compromise has virtually never been done. The only other time it was clearly done was during the Clinton Administration and after the bloody nose the Gingrich crowd received over the shutdown compromise became the order of the day legislatively. They continued their attacks through absurdly expensive investigations into matters entirely outside the realm of governance which were spurred on by far right billionaires willing to invest millions in bringing down the president using personally owned media outlet ie Mellon/Scaife and Murdock and going so far as to endow a chair at Pepperdine for Ken Starr.

The areas of directing the nations economy have ALWAYS been accepted as a presidential mandate derived from their election. This does not mean a great deal of horse trading and favor granting does not go on but Congress has NEVER directed its energies to destroying the economic agenda of a sitting president. The Federalists did not like the policies of Jefferson but they made no attempt to derail them through somewhat archane procedural obstruction nor were Jacksons revolutionary economics smothered the same is true for Teddy And Franklin Roosevelt, Eisenhower although his work caused three recessions, Nixons phony National Emergencies and the end of Breton Woods and the establishment of wage and price controls if you think Democratic majorities were in love with Reagans union busting, deficit spending and debt explosion you are deluding yourself. The same is true for the Bush tax cuts and two unfunded wars the election and especially reelection of a president has always been seen as a mandate for the economic direction they have run on until this president was elected and the Republicans in Congress decided to give up their responsibility to legislate and to instead spend four yeas obstructing and electioneering.

jkh

Monkey -

Proof please! Huff Po doesn't count, nor does moveon.org. One thing though, you've got their talking points down very well indeed!

Tammy, you're seeking proof of what? That the republican hopefuls want to kill the EPA? They have said it more than once, while I take them for their word, it will be hard to do.

Tammy: you need to work on your definition of "supermajority"

Having 1 person that could vote your way(Liebermann), when the reality is that person isn't going to vote your way(because he's not Dem), isn't a true "majority.

Then factor in, that the Dems don't vote in lockstep with each other, like the GOP almost always do.

= no "majority".

Yes, the GOP are better team players(amongst themselves and their team). they showed that they could rally around the "Make Obama Fail" strategy.

It isn't anything to be proud of though.

Lobo -

Considering that both of the 'independents' are independent in name only and caucus and vote with the democrats calls your claim the lie that it is. How else did they manage to get the unconstitutional mandate to purchase health insurance - and calling it health care reform - through? The republicans were locked out of the proceedings the enitre time - well, except for one joint meeting after everything had already been decided by Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. None of the republican suggestions were even considered by that unholy trio.

Tammy, I must say your memory is slightly selective. The individual mandate was first proposed in papers by the Heritage Foundation, as a retort to Hillary Clinton's health reform. You see politically correct is not the game it was yesterday. The one payer health reform was a Democratic policy than, and in compromise the current HealthCare bill, included the private insurance industry with a regulatory Federal government, just as the conservative Republicans had established with the Heritage Foundation. Heck, Bob Dole and McCain were for it years ago, but since the Dems have compromised, the Republicans have no stand other than to retreat and take another stand, now it is unconstitutional or economically unsound.

Sounds a bit contrary, when in 2003, Republicans and Pres.Bush wrote and persuaded some blue dog Dems to vote in the Medicare PartD, which gave billions of our tax dollars again to the private insurance and drug industry, yet the bill was never funded and was a immediate deficit. Tom Delay,Republican Senate majority leader, now in prison, bought the last votes needed in a extended Senate session at night. Talk about shutting the door or lock-out, there was no debate on the pork that was added to the bill to by the votes at that session.

So, do not blame the Dems. for doing something that has not been done to them before. Read and learn, and try to retain.

Tammy-311614

Perhaps you should slow down and actually read the posts that you are denigrating. Macbool never said anything about filibusters. Which only happen in the senate BTW, the House eliminated its use in 1842. He was speaking of a "veto proof majority". Which means that enough representatives and senators had voted for it to override a veto.

Mike - I agree, these companies are short sighted and selfish. It amazes me that when we have a war in another country in which the people doing the fighting are low or low-middle class it's their "patriotic duty" to make the sacrifice for the good of the country. But, ask a corporation to take a small cut in their profit margin for the good of the country, then suddenly all the right wingers are against it. So it appears it is okay for the poor to die, but not for the rich to to make a little less - talk about screwed up values!!

monies saved would enable most of us to have meaningful and munificent employment. And the monies kept at home would deny our enemies the chance to draw us into further wars.

The "monies saved" Would be invested in places like China, where labor costs are so much lower. so they wouldn't be used to create jobs here. That would impact profits.

This new class warfare is an artificial construct of the democratic party and not a natural part of American life.

Bull, the "class warfare" has been going on for decades, it is just NOW that people are finally noticing and talking about it. It has gotten much worse since 2000, and a large part of the problem are due to the trickle down economics that DO NOT WORK. We still operate under trickle down and it is holding the economy back. Most economists agree that cutting government spending the way republicans want to will be harmful to the economy, raising the unemployment rate. They also agree that the stimulus worked, but was not big enough. Now that people are talking about income inequality we can do something about it - we won't stop talking about it either, so republicans are already starting to change their dialog, keep watching as the election gets closer. They know this conversation is bad for them since they kiss corporate ass better than anyone else. Oh, and taxes are lowest in DECADES, so stop the whining about them.

http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4?op=1

We can sell tainted meat and meat from road kill really cheap.....But those pesky health regulations. We can dump toxic industrial wastes into our rivers and streams and on to the land to pollute water tables. Think of the glow your skin will have when you die young. The social security and medicare problem will be solved if all people die before 65.....if we just don't try to make people live longer. We should remove all regulations on cigarettes...Bonner passed out pay off checks on the house floor a few years ago...the Republicans are on board with it. And, who does Mrs. Obama think she is by trying to get people to grow and eat local vegetables.......Fat kids are happy kids and pizza is full of vegetables and wonderful nutrition....our kids need the right to remain ignorant and die young...we don't need some liberal pointing out health risks.

George:

you left out the {sarc} tag.

some are going to think you are actually serious.

american#1....acid rain? That is so last decade....so is global warming for the mattter but it sure made Gore a wealthy man. Aren't you worried about the debt our youth will have to deal with?...stupid should hurt.

watt75, acid rain is gone BECAUSE of regulations. The debt you save your children will be needed to take care of their health problems due to pollution. How sad people like you do so little research. We have poisoned our water to the point that soon, VERY soon it will be one of the most expensive things you HAVE to buy. Keep sucking up the KOOLAID if it makes your fantasy easier to believe. Enjoy the GMO foods as well, they have the pesticides grown in them but I am sure they are safe, lol.

luvenia 48. People like watt75 will live with the pollution till it hits his doorstep.Oh then you hear him or her scream.Let's hope that his children don't have to suffer from his ignorance.You were right on.

Proof please that Republicans are against all regulation.

Really trying to ramp up the scare tactics aren't you? Just like the good little liberal that you are...

But then, Obama can't run on his record, can he?

Tammy -

Well, for starters, let's just look at the legislation passed this year by Republicans. You know, those "jobs" bills that are stuck in the Senate that all Repubs here keep claiming show Democratic "obstructionism":

H.R. 872, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act - ... ensure that pesticide users are not faced with unnecessary regulations

H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act - strip the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of its ability to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases

H.R. 2018, the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act - reduce the federal government’s power over individual state’s water quality standards

H.R. 2401, Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation (TRAIN ACT) - push back against the EPA's unconstitutional, outrageous rules and regulations

H.R. 2681, Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act- prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations from coming into effect

H.R. 2250, EPA Regulatory Relief Act - curtail the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Boiler MACT regulations on boilers and industrial incinerators

H.R. 2273, Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act - prohibit the EPA from regulating coal ash as a toxic waste

None of these actually promote jobs. All of them reward large Republican donors.

EE -

We currently have regulations in place to handle these items which have been taken way overboard to what is actually needed.

Why do we need multiple - and often conflicting - regulations to cover the same things?

By the way 'engineer' you do know that we are a carbon'based life form, don't you? Carbon 'regulation' is just another way to fleece the American taxpayer. We already have the cleanest air standards in the world. Considering that all air on the planet eventually cycles the earth, why should the taxpayers here be penalized for the pollution that other countries are doing? This is what the effect of these 'regulations' will be, or hadn't you realized that?

The EPA has tried to regulate methane (another 'greenhouse' gas) emissions for many years too, but luckily, too many of the regulators like to eat beef, so that has gone by the wayside.

The thing is, over-regulation is just as bad as too little regulation. It's too bad that liberals haven't figured that out yet.

Tammy stay on subject you asked for proof that the GOP was against regulation and you got it, what more you want.

Joe -

Have you actually read them?

Evidently not.

I have been staying on topic, too bad that you can't comprehend well enough to think logically about it.

The proposed legislation is about removing or preventing excessive regulation, primarily to stop penalizing energy companies so that this country can develop new sources of energy, even if they are older technologies.

Taxing carbon alone will cost the economy millions of jobs (those 'unintended consequences' are a bugger aren't they?) as they work through the economy.

Tell me, can you afford to have your electric bill triple? Can you afford $10/gallon for gasoline to get to work? The prices for everything that uses energy to produce or transport would climb even more than they alreadey have.

And who would make the money? Carbon 'exchanges'? You do realize who is heavily invested in these exchanges, don't you?

And here I thought liberals were against the 1% getting even richer off the back of the middle class...

Tammy,

how about the Halliburton loophole ? there is some proof for you.

"Exempts from the Safe Drinking Water Act a coalbed methane drilling technique called “hydraulic fracturing,” a potential polluter of underground drinking water. One of the largest companies employing this technique is Halliburton, for which Vice President Richard Cheney acted as chief executive officer in the 1990s. This exemption would kill lawsuits by Western ranchers who say that drilling for methane gas pollutes groundwater by injecting contaminated fluids underground. Only 16 companies stand to significantly benefit from this exemption from clean water laws: Anadarko, BP, Burlington Resources, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips, Devon Energy, Dominion Resources, EOG Resources, Evergreen Resources, Halliburton, Marathon Oil, Oxbow (Gunnison Energy), Tom Brown, Western Gas Resources, Williams Cos and XTO. These companies gave nearly $15 million to federal candidates—with more than three-quarters of that total going to Republicans. Moreover, the 16 companies spent more than $70 million lobbying Congress.

Tammy, It appears other people have done better research than you. AND maybe you will be around, or maybe you will not but soon "Money" will not matter because there will be no water safe enough to drink, no air clean enough to breathe and no food. NO viable life on this planet that used to be gorgeous and teaming with miracles of nature we all take for granted, including the greedy humans who believe these laws are frivolous. Pay attention!

Republicans have a morbid fascination with death. They wish to allow all production the right to create poisonous wakes from their processes, which in turn are fit to join the water and air supply of, at least, those who drink the water and breath the air. Republicans, who are, by their political ilk, purely static, and have never grasped dynamism, really hope to one day represent only the dead, or soon to be dead.

Actually, why don't you put the blame where it belongs... on Harry Reid. He is the one who refuses to allow republican-sponsored legislation to even come to the floor of the Senate for debate.

What is he so afraid of?

Could it be that the republican-sponsored legislation might actually do something to help the unemployment problem in this country? Or is it that he wants to enable Obama to have deniability?

Too bad that any intelligent person can see right through Reid's stall tactics.

Too bad that any intelligent person can see right through Republican's plans to reward large donors.

I already addressed this in one of your previous posts. None of those pending bills do anything to promote jobs. They reduce or eliminate clean water regulations, allow pesticides to be indiscriminately dumped into rivers and streams, remove regulations that would force cleanup of coal waste and help the failing oil companies (who have only been posting $10B profits each quarter but manage to struggle on due to their $4B per year in government tax relief).

C'mon, we tried this BS for 8 years under Bush; it didn't work then and it doesn't work now.

EE -

Hadn't you heard?

Solyndra failed (Kaiser is a BIG Obama donor). A half a billion dollars is a pretty big 'reward', wouldn't you say? Or how about the banking 'regulations' that were passed by the democrat controlled Congress? (Wall Street 'fat cats' benefitted from that one.) How about Tarp? (Reid made sure that the CEO bonuses were allowed in that legislation). Big Pharma? Trial Lawyers Association? Big insurance? (Obamacare makes sure that they get even more money from the middle class.) What about the public sector unions? They made out like bandits under the 'stimulus' and over 99% of their campaign contributions go to democrats.

Evidently, you don't know much except the liberal talking points, yourself.

Maybe you aren't really an electrical engineer either, if what you've demonstrated in these past posts is indicative of your skill level.

Tammy please your not that good at all you asked a question and got it handed to you stop downing any that oppose you and just say yes they are for deregulation.

Joe -

Evidently you do not realize that I was responding to his specific comment.

Your reasoning skills aren't very good, are they?

“Solyndra failed (Kaiser is a BIG Obama donor). A half a billion dollars is a pretty big 'reward', wouldn't you say?”

How much money has Kaiser donated? Did Kaiser reap any of that actual “reward” (if so, how much)?

exactly Doogal, "maybe we are already there!"

But, we can reverse the trend,clean up American politics and return power to the people..................State by state by state we the people can exercise the legislative powers given to us by the first Amendment to the US Constitution. We can sponsor and pass a law which requires would be public elected office holders to also sign a contract pledge as terms and conditions for holding a public elected office in the particular state. A contract pledge which may include restraints on accepting campaign donations or gifts of a monetary value in excess of $25 from any source other than those who qualify as legal constituents of the office one is pledging to represent in a particular legislative body, and, restraints on investing in stocks which have been subject before the particular legislative body one was part of in past 90 days, ect., ect..

Contracts are mutual agreements that are binding in all courts of law.....And contracts are the people's best tool for cleaning up dirty money in Washington, and American politics...........Do not just take your elected representatives word they will act in an ethical manner, make them sign a contract pledge to the effect.

In more than an ironic twist Nixon only did that so he could use the power of EPA audits as a way to get campaign donations. Somehow these people want this country to become smog infested with no clean water or air like China is...

Since when, dot?

Obamacare alone will put millions more out of work.

Your proof of that , Tammy?

Right, you don't have any(besides the rhetoric of those who've been trying to make Obama a failure from day 1).

Lobo -

Actually, the proof that Obamacare will put people out of work is all of the waivers that have been issued by the Obama administration. You do know, don't you, that they were issued because Obama's supporters would have to be laid off in order to pay for the mandated insurance?

Why do you think that ATT and Caterpiller were summoned before Congress by Pelosi because they told the truth about how Obamacare would affect them in their SEC filings?

Heck, even the Medicare actuaries came out with a report about the legislation which included the negative impact on jobs!

Too bad you are too blinded by the liberal propaganda to realize the problems with it.

You need to take a look in the mirror, if you want to really see who is falling for propaganda.

When it comes to actually gathering factual evidence, you seem to be your own worse enemy.

Ah well. A closed mind rarely opens on it's own.

All I hear from you, is speculation and the parroting of GOP and rightwing rhetoric that opinion show hosts say.

Is the health care plan perfect? No.

Many things need to be included/added(like a singlepayer option), and a few taken out(like the mandatory/fine part.

Instead of fining those that don't have it, it's better to give those that do pay for it a tax break. You get more results with a carrot , than with a stick.

That's what happens when the GOP does everything it can to keep ANYTHING good from being legislated to help Americans receive affordable healthcare.

Lobo -

So you 'claim' that ATT and Caterpiller weren't called on the carpet by Pelosi when it was all over the news? You 'claim' that the actuary report is a sham as well? And what about the waivers?

Evidently you can't frorm a coherent thought of your own, can you?

Tammy, it appears you are the one who can't form a thought without parroting political propoganda. Most who have addressed your comments feel their is a place and time for change to the bill,yet you will not compromise or substantiate your comments without political bias.

https://www.cms.gov/ReportsTrustFunds/.../2011TRAlternativeScenar

Tammy here is the actuary report on Medicare, it states no where what the unemployment will be or loss of jobs to the economy. That is not in their scope of responsibility as stated in the report.

Now, what was it you said about loss of jobs pertaining to the actuary report of Medicare? Sorry to point out your ignorance, but it is fun to me.

Tammy, and while your at it, read this, http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3380, it dispells the political attack on the Health Care Bill, as being "double counted". Also if you would research the C.B.O.s' latest report and letters to Congress you will have a better understanding on how the actuary's actually work, not some parrot talk from political sites. Than go and google "Medicare double count" and you will find a article in the Washington Post, which states that Newt, the nit wit, did the same thing back in the 90's to save his political career, and Republicans have said the same about Medicare reform.

"W" lied to Congress to get us into Iraq ?

Well, there's a reason that Alabama is consistently at or near the bottom of every development index of US States.

network-gal, that is an amazing list.thanks for posting it. i will be using it at other sites. i can not imagine what kind of world these pigs think they would be leaving for their children and grand children if their wishes were realized. it seems they hate their own offspring as well as the rest of humanity.

You have it. If the Health Bill is found constitutional, and I support it, the conservative/Repugs will use the legislative branch to stop funding, under the guise of austerity or " free economy. They do this all the time, first it is unconstitutional, than when the courts find different, they try not to implement the law. That's a compromise to them.

And I challenge any of you on here to describe anything about those items and why we need them. And please no appeal to emotions, authorities, or vague generalizations like "the children" or "we need clean ____"

Prove that they aren't just ineffective wasteful spending by a bloated and overreaching, incompentent federal government.

Sure, let's leave out the human factor. And those on your side wonder why we are compelled to dispell your appeal.

Can you base your arguement on the Constitution, with out including the "appeal of emotions".

Your kind want it debated your way or the highway, thats is your problem.