US House approves new Benghazi inquiry

[chuckd]

And let's not forget that the GOP's usual finding so far almost always point to State Department failings in providing security.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.

On Wednesday morning, CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien asked the Utah Republican if he had "voted to cut the funding for embassy security."

"Absolutely," Chaffetz said. "Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have…15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”

Oops! Looks like Chicog is the missing link man.

Is this it? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/jason-chaffetz-embassy_n_1954912.html

Lots of links for that post. You couldn't find one? At least one more current than October 2012?

The cuts had to come from somewhere since the administration wasn't about to cut Democratic party voters from the government payroll.

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

Sequestration’s shocking job toll: One measly bureaucrat in entire government

By Stephen Dinan-The Washington Times Wednesday, May 7, 2014

Only one employee in the entire federal government lost a job due to sequestration, according to a government audit that found the only permanent cut came at the U.S. Parole Commission, which eliminated one position.

Sen. Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, said Wednesday that the audit — performed by the Government Accountability Office and released last month — shows that the worries over sequestration’s impact on jobs was overblown.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/7/sequestration-cost-only-one-job-entire-government-/

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/7/sequestration-cost-only-one-job-entire-government-/#ixzz31ItGbYAN

Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

[Chicog]

And let's not forget that the GOP's usual finding so far almost always point to State Department failings in providing security.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.

On Wednesday morning, CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien asked the Utah Republican if he had "voted to cut the funding for embassy security."

"Absolutely," Chaffetz said. "Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have…15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”

Oops! Looks like Chicog is the missing link man.

Is this it? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/jason-chaffetz-embassy_n_1954912.html

Lots of links for that post. You couldn't find one? At least one more current than October 2012?

The cuts had to come from somewhere since the administration wasn't about to cut Democratic party voters from the government payroll.

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

Sequestration’s shocking job toll: One measly bureaucrat in entire government

By Stephen Dinan-The Washington Times Wednesday, May 7, 2014

Only one employee in the entire federal government lost a job due to sequestration, according to a government audit that found the only permanent cut came at the U.S. Parole Commission, which eliminated one position.

Sen. Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, said Wednesday that the audit — performed by the Government Accountability Office and released last month — shows that the worries over sequestration’s impact on jobs was overblown.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/7/sequestration-cost-only-one-job-entire-government-/

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/7/sequestration-cost-only-one-job-entire-government-/#ixzz31ItGbYAN

Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

That's a masterful attempt at obfuscation Chuck, but it doesn't hide the fact that the same Republicans bleating about inadequate Embassy security were the ones responsible for cutting it.

[Chicog]

How do you think Poll companies make money Chuck? Has it honestly never occurred to you?

In this case, it looks like, by distorting the truth. Highlighting a premise surrounding voters that think "that Benghazi is the "biggest political scandal in American history", is absolutely absurd. I wonder if there is anyone who actually thinks that.

I would imagine there are more than a few Fox News voters that think that because I've seen Fox's talking heads trying to drum such rubbish into them, and we know that many of them aren't exactly bright.

Actually you haven't. No one on Fox has even come close to suggesting such a thing. On this occasion, it is not Fox viewers who are not "exactly bright."

Example of such rubbish: Fox's Huckabee thinks Benghazi is worse than Watergate.

[chuckd]

No one died at Watergate.

[Chicog]

The actual title of this should be "House Republicans approve NINTH Benghazi Inquiry".

And remember they tried to repeal the ACA FIFTY times before they realised just how foolish their behaviour was.

Since the attack 20 months ago, eight congressional committees have conducted inquiries into Benghazi. There have been 13 hearings and 50 briefings for members of Congress.

They are not going to find anything new, this is purely political grandstanding.

As I said earlier, it's a Kangaroo Court conducting a Show Trial, and they'll start releasing unsubstantiated innuendo more and more as the mid-terms near. They are so utterly predictable.

They are not even interested in a fair and democratic investigation. You only have to look at Daryl Issa's shameful attempts at cutting off a fellow congressman to see that.

You seem to have forgotten your link so here it is:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6bc10224-d6cd-11e3-b95e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz31Ik9L3FZ

PS: You also must have missed this part of your quoted article:

"To be fair, the White House has brought some of the grief on itself. The latest outrage has been sparked by an email on Benghazi from deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes, which was obtained by a conservative group through a freedom of information request. By withholding this email from previous disclosures, the administration has given critics a reason to allege a cover-up. “A line was crossed,” Mr Boehner said on Wednesday, using the email to justify the latest inquiry."

I didn't actually read the article, I was only quoting the numbers. But it is an interesting read. It goes on:

By this stage, there are three lessons from the Benghazi furore. The first concerns White House spinning. Republican critics have failed to prove that the administration manipulated intelligence assessments for electoral ends, but the emails from the days after the attack have a strong whiff of political massaging. In the face of a terrorist attack, the priority was to defend the president’s image before an election, which feeds into a narrative that the administration’s foreign policy places presentation over substance. The second is a demonstration of the parallel worlds that political tribes now occupy. On the Fox News right, the corruption of the administration’s response to Benghazi is a self-evident truth; on the centre and left, Benghazi is a bemusing distraction. Benghazi also has a role in the malaise affecting the reputation of the US. Critics point to defence cuts and presidential wavering to explain reduced international confidence in Washington. But what really heartens opponents is the ability of the political system to be consumed by confected political scandal when there are so many pressing issues at hand.It may not end here. If Republicans take control of the Senate in November, they could establish other probes that might seek to embarrass Mrs Clinton. In the end, Benghazi played little role in the 2012 general election, but Republicans will still try to make it a factor in 2016.

They make a good point, this is a great GOP distraction (at least on Fox) from the fact that they are consistently blocking any meaningful attempts at getting any real work done.

[Chicog]

No one died at Watergate.

And?

[Ulysses G.]

That's a masterful attempt at obfuscation Chuck, but it doesn't hide the fact that the same Republicans bleating about inadequate Embassy security were the ones responsible for cutting it.

Not according to the Washington Post fact checker. Do you just make all this stuff up?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/barbara-boxers-claim-that-gop-budgets-hampered-benghazi-security/2013/05/15/d1e295cc-bdb0-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

[Ulysses G.]

Fox's Huckabee thinks Benghazi is worse than Watergate.

Watergate is not "the biggest political scandal in American history" either.

Edited May 10, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[chuckd]

The actual title of this should be "House Republicans approve NINTH Benghazi Inquiry".

And remember they tried to repeal the ACA FIFTY times before they realised just how foolish their behaviour was.

They are not going to find anything new, this is purely political grandstanding.

As I said earlier, it's a Kangaroo Court conducting a Show Trial, and they'll start releasing unsubstantiated innuendo more and more as the mid-terms near. They are so utterly predictable.

They are not even interested in a fair and democratic investigation. You only have to look at Daryl Issa's shameful attempts at cutting off a fellow congressman to see that.

You seem to have forgotten your link so here it is:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6bc10224-d6cd-11e3-b95e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz31Ik9L3FZ

PS: You also must have missed this part of your quoted article:

"To be fair, the White House has brought some of the grief on itself. The latest outrage has been sparked by an email on Benghazi from deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes, which was obtained by a conservative group through a freedom of information request. By withholding this email from previous disclosures, the administration has given critics a reason to allege a cover-up. “A line was crossed,” Mr Boehner said on Wednesday, using the email to justify the latest inquiry."

I didn't actually read the article, I was only quoting the numbers. But it is an interesting read. It goes on:

By this stage, there are three lessons from the Benghazi furore. The first concerns White House spinning. Republican critics have failed to prove that the administration manipulated intelligence assessments for electoral ends, but the emails from the days after the attack have a strong whiff of political massaging. In the face of a terrorist attack, the priority was to defend the president’s image before an election, which feeds into a narrative that the administration’s foreign policy places presentation over substance. The second is a demonstration of the parallel worlds that political tribes now occupy. On the Fox News right, the corruption of the administration’s response to Benghazi is a self-evident truth; on the centre and left, Benghazi is a bemusing distraction. Benghazi also has a role in the malaise affecting the reputation of the US. Critics point to defence cuts and presidential wavering to explain reduced international confidence in Washington. But what really heartens opponents is the ability of the political system to be consumed by confected political scandal when there are so many pressing issues at hand.It may not end here. If Republicans take control of the Senate in November, they could establish other probes that might seek to embarrass Mrs Clinton. In the end, Benghazi played little role in the 2012 general election, but Republicans will still try to make it a factor in 2016.

They make a good point, this is a great GOP distraction (at least on Fox) from the fact that they are consistently blocking any meaningful attempts at getting any real work done.

I'll cut you a little slack since you are British and live in the Middle East. You really should keep current on politics in the US if you are going to insist on posting on US political threads.

The US SENATE is where the road block is occurring. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) has been stone walling House passed legislation for two years in the hopes he won't lose the Senate this upcoming election.

You see, if the Senators who are up for reelection this cycle don't have to make any controversial votes, they won't have to defend those votes to their constituents.

Currently there are 40 jobs bills passed by the House in the past two years that are pending action by the Senate. I know you won't believe this link even if you look at it, but hopefully you will try and find out what is actually going on in Washington. It's a dead certain cinch the main stream media isn't going to tell anybody.

WARNING TO LIBERALS!!! Partisan link: http://majorityleader.gov/JobsTracker/

PS: Concerning your ridiculous assertion the House has tried to "repeal" the ACA 50 times...sadly I must inform you, yet again you have erred.

There have been 54 separate pieces of legislation voted on by the House concerning Obamacare during the past four years. Of these 54 bills, only five (5) have called for the repeal of the bill. The remainder have either been amendments or fiscal.

But then, never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/03/21/the-house-has-voted-54-times-in-four-years-on-obamacare-heres-the-full-list/

[folium]

Fox's Huckabee thinks Benghazi is worse than Watergate.

Watergate is not "the biggest political scandal in American history" either.

So what would qualify as the "biggest political scandal in US history"?

[Ulysses G.]

Fox's Huckabee thinks Benghazi is worse than Watergate.

Watergate is not "the biggest political scandal in American history" either.

So what would qualify as the "biggest political scandal in US history"?

Off the top of my head, it would be the conspiracy to assassinate Abraham Lincoln, but there are other contenders in the last two hundred + years.

Edited May 10, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[folium]

Fox's Huckabee thinks Benghazi is worse than Watergate.

Watergate is not "the biggest political scandal in American history" either.

So what would qualify as the "biggest political scandal in US history"?

Off the top of my head, it would be the conspiracy to assassinate Abraham Lincoln, but there are other contenders in the last two hundred + years.

Stange choice...

Definition of a scandal: an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage

Most people would put murder a step above a scandal, so if you rule out Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and JFK, what is the biggest political scandal?

[Ulysses G.]

Definition of a scandal: an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage

A conspiracy to assassinate the head of the legal government seems pretty scandalous to me and it certainly fits your definition.

Edited May 10, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Chicog]

That's a masterful attempt at obfuscation Chuck, but it doesn't hide the fact that the same Republicans bleating about inadequate Embassy security were the ones responsible for cutting it.

Not according to the Washington Post fact checker. Do you just make all this stuff up?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/barbara-boxers-claim-that-gop-budgets-hampered-benghazi-security/2013/05/15/d1e295cc-bdb0-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

Better tell Rep. Chaffetz then eh?

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Chicog]

I'll cut you a little slack since you are British and live in the Middle East. You really should keep current on politics in the US if you are going to insist on posting on US political threads.

The US SENATE is where the road block is occurring. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) has been stone walling House passed legislation for two years in the hopes he won't lose the Senate this upcoming election.

You see, if the Senators who are up for reelection this cycle don't have to make any controversial votes, they won't have to defend those votes to their constituents.

Currently there are 40 jobs bills passed by the House in the past two years that are pending action by the Senate. I know you won't believe this link even if you look at it, but hopefully you will try and find out what is actually going on in Washington. It's a dead certain cinch the main stream media isn't going to tell anybody.

WARNING TO LIBERALS!!! Partisan link: http://majorityleader.gov/JobsTracker/

PS: Concerning your ridiculous assertion the House has tried to "repeal" the ACA 50 times...sadly I must inform you, yet again you have erred.

There have been 54 separate pieces of legislation voted on by the House concerning Obamacare during the past four years. Of these 54 bills, only five (5) have called for the repeal of the bill. The remainder have either been amendments or fiscal.

But then, never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/03/21/the-house-has-voted-54-times-in-four-years-on-obamacare-heres-the-full-list/

OK So, in order: I took at look at the first three bills at the link you posted, and in order:

HR872

To amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify Congressional intent regarding the regulation of the use of pesticides in or near navigable waters, and for other purposes.

HR910

To amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change, and for other purposes.

HJ.Res 37

Expresses Congress's disapproval of the rule adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on December 21, 2010, relating to preserving the open Internet and broadband industry practices. ...

How are these Jobs Bills exactly?

Or is this just an assumption we are supposed to take for granted because it says so on the website?

I'm especially not sure about the third one, since it's not clear of they are disapproving of the FCC's compromise or their original stance?

And for your second point, yes I can see they've attempted to repeal *parts* of the ACA - 54 times now is it?

No wonder they have no time to pass any meaningful legislation other than their own.

I do have one question: How does the "stonewalling" help Harry Reid or his Senators?

It's not doing the GOP much good, being labelled the "Do Nothing Congress".

The 113th Congress has passed all of 55 laws so far this year, seven fewer at this point than the 112th Congress — the least productive Congress ever.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/03/us/politics/least-productive-congress-on-record-appears-in-no-hurry-to-produce.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&ref=politics&adxnnlx=1399737699-QhzLpkfaUhPKHuG/0eZhIA

Edited May 10, 2014 by Chicog

[JesseFrank]

It is very obvious that the Obama administration misled the public on the nature of the attack, but they - and their sycophants - will continue to do everything they can to mislead the public. This only happened because a private organization forced the Obama administration to provide unredacted documents via a court order, that shed light on the false taking points provided to Susan Rice. Congress had already asked for these documents, but everything had been blacked out by the White House, so that they were virtually worthless.

It's quite simple.

If the US, and this not only restricts to the Democrats, keep their nose out of other countries politics there will be no reason to mislead the public about anything.

There is a difference between a world power and a world ruler.

Edited May 10, 2014 by JesseFrank

[Ulysses G.]

That's a masterful attempt at obfuscation Chuck, but it doesn't hide the fact that the same Republicans bleating about inadequate Embassy security were the ones responsible for cutting it.

Not according to the Washington Post fact checker. Do you just make all this stuff up?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/barbara-boxers-claim-that-gop-budgets-hampered-benghazi-security/2013/05/15/d1e295cc-bdb0-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

Better tell Rep. Chaffetz then eh?

He already knows that the lack of security was not due to budget cuts. Everyone, but you, seems to know that.

QUESTION: It has been suggested that budget cuts were responsible for a lack of security in Benghazi. And I'd like to ask Ms. Lamb, you made this decision personally. Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE CHARLENE LAMB: No, sir.

***

QUESTION: So there's not a budget problem. It's not you all don't have the money to do this?

LAMB: Sir, it's a volatile situation. We will move assets to cover that.

[snarky66]

There are a lot is similarities between this & watergate. Except that 4 people were not murdered during Watergate. AND the media hated Nixon while they fawn all over the Messiah. Obama was disinterested in the attack. But the real traitor ordered our military to "stand down." One of many pieces of information being covered up by this lawless administration.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[folium]

As a mere Brit, and thus somewhat neutral when it comes to US politics, what is saddening to an interested observer is the brutal, partisan polarisation of today's political discourse in the USA.

IMHO this is probably one of the most corrosive elements in both the actual status and outside perceptions of the US. Without being overly cynical, the tragic death of Ambassador Stevens and the other 3 (strange how no one on this thread has bothered to use their names), certainly seems to just be an excuse to whip the present and possibly future regime.

While Obama has indeed been a huge disappointment and has failed to deliver on the rhetoric ( shades of our Tony Blair), all pols tend to be scummy and short term focused and putting their actions or inactions under a microscope rarely rewards the viewer. Name me the most recent US President who rose above the short term, self preservation layer and really delivered a decent, principled approach based on the well being of all his nation's citizens.

Ironically this constant ploughing over of the Benghazi incident ( with little real return in terms of culpability) says more about Republican fears re Hilary's 2016 bid, than their concern about the death of Stevens and those other 3 chaps, whatever they are called....

[Ulysses G.]

Ironically this constant ploughing over of the Benghazi incident ( with little real return in terms of culpability) says more about Republican fears re Hilary's 2016 bid, than their concern about the death of Stevens and those other 3 chaps, whatever they are called....

The Republicans have been complaining about the YouTube Cover-Up since it took place. Hillary and Obama knew within 24 hrs that there was no demonstration caused by a video, but they kept pretending there was for weeks, because it fit their narrative for the election. They got away with it at the time, but now it is time to pay the piper and if it hurts Hillary's chances to be elected, it is on her head for playing dishonest politics.

Edited May 11, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Johpa]

The Republicans have been complaining about the YouTube Cover-Up since it took place. Hillary and Obama knew within 24 hrs that there was no demonstration caused by a video, but they kept pretending there was for weeks, because it fit their narrative for the election. They got away with it at the time, but now it is time to pay the piper and if it hurts Hillary's chances to be elected, it is on her head for playing dishonest politics.

Are you implying that our elected officials maintain a political agenda even after we elect them?!? I may be a Yank, but I be gobsmacked by such an assumption. If I can't trust my elected officials then how can I follow the yellow brick road, or the yellowcake, or the Saddam's WMD.

But don't count Hillary out. It took a lot of money to buy off Hillary after reality bit her on the derriere, and that was after she attempted to create a dialog on national healthcare and hinted at the same conservative cabal that both Smedley and Eisenhower warned about. Whether it be the Clintons or the members of the extended Bush family, they are all owned by the same people. Sort of like the reds and the yellows in Thailand, the masses get screwed either way they turn.

[LomSak27]

It's called Benghazi Fever and its sweeping the Nation .... Check it out on Hannity and Friends

You have to hand it to the cons-ervatives though, there is not much of anything here but they are going to holler and bleat about it as long as they can, or at least until 2016. They say there were bigger scandals before this, but the mods seem to cut any posts that refer to that administration. Obviously talking about the Bill Clinton presidency has been ok'd by our mod staff. WooHoo!!

[Chicog]

Ironically this constant ploughing over of the Benghazi incident ( with little real return in terms of culpability) says more about Republican fears re Hilary's 2016 bid, than their concern about the death of Stevens and those other 3 chaps, whatever they are called....

The Republicans have been complaining about the YouTube Cover-Up since it took place. Hillary and Obama knew within 24 hrs that there was no demonstration caused by a video, but they kept pretending there was for weeks, because it fit their narrative for the election. They got away with it at the time, but now it is time to pay the piper and if it hurts Hillary's chances to be elected, it is on her head for playing dishonest politics.

Be honest, they only reason they are keeping up this pointless witch hunt is because they have no other dirt on her, and frankly she could almost turn up without campaigning and still beat any chump the GOP put up against her - that's assuming she intends to stand.

[chuckd]

I'll cut you a little slack since you are British and live in the Middle East. You really should keep current on politics in the US if you are going to insist on posting on US political threads.

The US SENATE is where the road block is occurring. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) has been stone walling House passed legislation for two years in the hopes he won't lose the Senate this upcoming election.

You see, if the Senators who are up for reelection this cycle don't have to make any controversial votes, they won't have to defend those votes to their constituents.

Currently there are 40 jobs bills passed by the House in the past two years that are pending action by the Senate. I know you won't believe this link even if you look at it, but hopefully you will try and find out what is actually going on in Washington. It's a dead certain cinch the main stream media isn't going to tell anybody.

WARNING TO LIBERALS!!! Partisan link: http://majorityleader.gov/JobsTracker/

PS: Concerning your ridiculous assertion the House has tried to "repeal" the ACA 50 times...sadly I must inform you, yet again you have erred.

There have been 54 separate pieces of legislation voted on by the House concerning Obamacare during the past four years. Of these 54 bills, only five (5) have called for the repeal of the bill. The remainder have either been amendments or fiscal.

But then, never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/03/21/the-house-has-voted-54-times-in-four-years-on-obamacare-heres-the-full-list/

OK So, in order: I took at look at the first three bills at the link you posted, and in order:

HR872

To amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify Congressional intent regarding the regulation of the use of pesticides in or near navigable waters, and for other purposes.

HR910

To amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change, and for other purposes.

HJ.Res 37

Expresses Congress's disapproval of the rule adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on December 21, 2010, relating to preserving the open Internet and broadband industry practices. ...

How are these Jobs Bills exactly?

Or is this just an assumption we are supposed to take for granted because it says so on the website?

I'm especially not sure about the third one, since it's not clear of they are disapproving of the FCC's compromise or their original stance?

And for your second point, yes I can see they've attempted to repeal *parts* of the ACA - 54 times now is it?

No wonder they have no time to pass any meaningful legislation other than their own.

I do have one question: How does the "stonewalling" help Harry Reid or his Senators?

It's not doing the GOP much good, being labelled the "Do Nothing Congress".

The 113th Congress has passed all of 55 laws so far this year, seven fewer at this point than the 112th Congress — the least productive Congress ever.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/03/us/politics/least-productive-congress-on-record-appears-in-no-hurry-to-produce.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&ref=politics&adxnnlx=1399737699-QhzLpkfaUhPKHuG/0eZhIA

All federal agencies promulgate rules and regulations that have a direct monetary impact on both small and large businesses. Some of the bills listed would not seem to be job related unless one considers they very likely impose restrictions on regulations issued by various federal agencies. You are probably not aware of the regulatory power of this administration so perhaps, only perhaps, this link will help clear your mind on the issue.

Please bear in mind that small businesses are the driving force behind jobs. Without small businesses the job market will continue to diminish as it has done for the past five years.

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

March 26, 2014

Red Tape Rising: Five Years of Regulatory Expansion

By James L. Gattuso and Diane Katz

The Obama Administration is aggressively exploiting regulation to achieve its policy agenda, issuing 157 new major rules at a cost to Americans approaching $73 billion annually. In 2013 alone, the Administration imposed 26 new major rules. Although slightly below President Obama’s first-term annual average (33), it was still twice the annual average of his predecessor George W. Bush. And much more regulation is on the way, with another 125 major rules on the Administration’s to-do list, including dozens linked to the Dodd–Frank financial regulation law and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare. Reforms of the regulatory process are critically needed. Without decisive action, the costs of red tape will continue to grow, and the economy—and average Americans—will suffer.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/03/red-tape-rising-five-years-of-regulatory-expansion?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=homepage&utm_content=140327&utm_campaign=headline

The Federal OMB classifies major rules as those which have an annual effect on the economy or $100 million or more. This ain't chump change to small businesses...or large businesses.

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

I have already explained why Harry Reid continues to stonewall legislation. It is to keep the one/third of his Senators running for re-election immune from having to make any controversial votes that might endanger their chances at being re-elected. You see, if the Democrats retain control of the Senate, Reid will still be the Majority Leader and, as such, entitled to the extra salary and the big office with windows.

Your 'do-nothing-congress' position is laughable. Congress consists of BOTH the House and the Senate. Blame one...blame both of them.

Edited May 11, 2014 by chuckd

[Chicog]

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/03/red-tape-rising-five-years-of-regulatory-expansion?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=homepage&utm_content=140327&utm_campaign=headline

Some of the numbers in there seem to have been plucked from thin air, unsurprising considering the source.

One thing that does stand out is the complaints about the increase in regulation - but it was the lack of regulation that created the financial crisis in the first place, so how can that be a bad thing?

Are you against Dodd-Frank?

I have already explained why Harry Reid continues to stonewall legislation. It is to keep the one/third of his Senators running for re-election immune from having to make any controversial votes that might endanger their chances at being re-elected. You see, if the Democrats retain control of the Senate, Reid will still be the Majority Leader and, as such, entitled to the extra salary and the big office with windows.

Your 'do-nothing-congress' position is laughable. Congress consists of BOTH the House and the Senate. Blame one...blame both of them.

I don't really see how "stonewalling" keeps senators in their seats.

Shall I go through the rest of the bills and see if they really are "jobs bills"? Or if they are simply big business bills, as it appeared from the first three.

If so, you'll have to wait for a response to that, as it will take time.

And it's not my "Do-nothing congress" position, Chuck, Congress set the record, not me.

[Ulysses G.]

Some of the numbers in there seem to have been plucked from thin air,

Do you have some sort of evidence for that or are we just supposed to trust your "intuition"? Your track record on this thread has been pretty miserable.

[chuckd]

I don't really see how "stonewalling" keeps senators in their seats.

Shall I go through the rest of the bills and see if they really are "jobs bills"? Or if they are simply big business bills, as it appeared from the first three.

If so, you'll have to wait for a response to that, as it will take time.

And it's not my "Do-nothing congress" position, Chuck, Congress set the record, not me.

I await with bated breath your next stab at all this.

[Chicog]

Some of the numbers in there seem to have been plucked from thin air,

Do you have some sort of evidence for that or are we just supposed to trust your "intuition"? Your track record on this thread has been pretty miserable.

I would suggest you read the article yourself and draw your own conclusions.

[Chicog]

I don't really see how "stonewalling" keeps senators in their seats.

Shall I go through the rest of the bills and see if they really are "jobs bills"? Or if they are simply big business bills, as it appeared from the first three.

If so, you'll have to wait for a response to that, as it will take time.

And it's not my "Do-nothing congress" position, Chuck, Congress set the record, not me.

I await with bated breath your next stab at all this.

A "stab"?

Three bills, none of which do anything directly about jobs, but which your website claims are "jobs bills", and you answer with some vague and unrelated claims about regulation hurting small business?

You know as well as I do, the answer is not black and white, and some regulation is required.

None of those three bills look to offer anything that will help small business.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I'll look at the rest later.

Added: And you didn't answer me: Do you agree with Dodd-Frank?

Edited May 11, 2014 by Chicog

[chuckd]

Added: And you didn't answer me: Do you agree with Dodd-Frank?

No.

Edited May 11, 2014 by chuckd