From Karen, the Lonely Conservative:
Regulations Added by Obama Total Almost $500 Billion
September 19, 2012
The Democrats are really hoping Mitt Romney says something they can attack so nobody talks about the cost of the regulations enacted by President Obama.
The American Action Forum has released new analysis of the burden of new regulations under President Obama. It’s most striking finding? The cost of added regulations under President Obama is now estimated to be $488 billion.
“Based on data from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and regulations published in the Federal Register, the Administration has published more than $488 billion in regulatory costs since January 20, 2009 – $70 billion in 2012 alone,” reads the analysis from AAF.
“Ignoring all non-“major” rules with costs in 2009, the regulatory tally still surpassed $61 billion. In 2010, counting only “major” rules, the regulatory bill rose to $160 billion in lifetime costs. AAF began tracking every proposed and final rule in 2011. That year alone the Administration published more than $231 billion in regulatory costs. AAF reviewed 6,705 regulations in 2011 and has tracked more than 4,700 regulations to date in 2012.” (Read More)
All of these regulatory costs come out of profits, which are taxed, so eliminating some of these onerous regulations should increase revenue to the Treasury. But any time a Republican talks like that they’re accused of wanting to kill people. But then they don’t have to talk about how the cost of their regulations hurts the economy. Get it?
These are supposedly “lifetime” costs of the regulations, not annual costs. However, for an Administration that is supposedly concerned about creating new jobs and spurring new business ventures, they sure are adding burdens to companies considering hiring new employees or entrepreneurs trying to figure out if it makes sense to start that new business.
[...] on the left have a massive case of group tinnitus: they are hearing things that are not there. Your Editor listed five specific items concerning President Obama’s record, items which were all objective [...]
Let’s see now, I already reported Pew gave Democrats a +11 advantage in their polling. That D+11 was only good enough to show an Obama +9. Further, Pew selected a sample where the Democrat percentage was even greater than the Democrat percentage that voted in 2008 while registered Democrats are at or near their 12 year lows. And Pew selected a sample where the Republican percentage was even lower than the Republican percentage that voted in 2008 while registered Republicans are at record highs, even higher than the 2010 election year. And even in all these polls that are overweighted for the Democrats, the Independent voters have shown a double-digit swing away from Obama and toward the Republican.
Next, even if the sample was an accurate distribution, which it most clearly is not, “all registered” provides an outcome that leans several points to the Left of “likely voters”, and several points to the Left of the final outcome. That’s a historical and statistical fact that cannot be truthfully denied.
But here, Perry, since you’re so dense as to accept the results of things without actually caring to look at the numbers that went in, let me explain it to you so even you can understand, by using a word-picture.
You have a class of 12 boys and 13 girls and you decide to poll your class in the same manner as polling firms use: by using a sample size of the class.
1) You select 5 boys to represent the views of all the boys.
2) You select 3 girls to represent the views of all the girls.
3) You ask a series of “do you prefer A or B” questions.
4) All the boys prefer A.
5) All the girls prefer B.
6) You determine, based on your sample polling, that 62.5 percent of the class prefers A while only 37.5 percent of the class prefers B.
Is that an accurate poll of the desires of your class? Absolutely not. Why not? Because you weighted the sample poll in such a way as to grossly under-represent the girls and over-represent the boys.
And that’s what Pew did. That’s what WaPo did. That’s what NYT did. That’s what PPP did. So on and so forth. They over-represented the Democrat position and under-represented the Republican position. Many of them also under-represented the Independent position, while acknowledging the fact the Independent position has swung by as much as 18 points AWAY from Obama and TOWARD the Republicans.
This is an amazing thing going on in Republican circles, evidenced here by John Hitchcock, that even the polls which he has used frequently himself when the results are what they/he like, now have turned against the very same polls, because they/he do/does not like the current results.
Even the latest FoxNews nationwide poll of likely voters has Obama 5 points ahead of Romney.
But this is no surprise to me, as John Hitchcock has had problems in dealing with reality for years.
Even more interesting now is that Republicans and Romney, in their attempt to lower expectations for the upcoming debate next Wednesday, have begun to praise President Obama’s oratory and debating skills.
Romney has even decided today to run on his RomneyCare record when Governor of MA, indicating that he is compassionate for ALL Americans, a stark contrast to his 47% remark which has been in the forefront of the news lately, as reported tonight on the Lawrence O’Donnell show this evening.
It seems to me that Romney’s last chance to turn his fortunes around may be the first debate, so we’ll soon see.
In other words, Perry has deliberately chosen not to look at the fraudulent political break-down of the polling data and has only chosen to look at the garbage in, garbage out results. The Truth is not in Perry. But propaganda is another matter entirely. Perry’s full of it.
And Perry, show me where I have touted a Fox poll, else admit you made that fecal matter up.
That’s precisely it. And “Mr. Citation” couldn’t even provide one to back up his statement. He had to find a “substitute” which had nothing to do w/his argument.
They are? You quote the Qunnipiac University/CBS/New York Times poll and then dare state the above?? But hell, I should know better; I’m dealing with a specimen who routinely denies basic reality.
Show me the Fox and Rasmussen polls for Ohio and Florida which we’ve asked for several times and then we’ll talk.
And Perry, while you’re at it, show me where I’ve been a Romney cheerleader. You were far more of a Romney cheerleader than I ever was; but just like the NYT did to McShame in 2008, you viciously turned on your Republican choice once he became the Candidate.
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Romney advocate. But I despise, despise, despise Socialism; and the Socialist in the White House has got to go, before the US is totally destroyed (and he’s well on his way to doing just that).
No, koolo and John, you folks are in denial of the emerging electoral picture, characteristic of your political views in general, which is why you are now banking on Citizens United and voter suppression as a last resort for you to obtain power.
Our nation loses badly should that actually happen, because your party is clearly plutarchical/oligarchical, clearly in violation of the spirit of our roots as a nation!
To you folks, power is the be all and end all; and you tell us that you have core values based on Christian principles.
I don’t see it; in fact, I see the opposite!
Any party which would use government dysfunction as a means to power, is not an American political party, in my view; it is foreign; it is alien; it is absolutist.
No Perry, you continue to refuse to see the agenda-driven skew in those polls you love to promote. When you have to use a poll with a D+11 to promote your idol being up by 8, that says something about your idol and about your character. When the skewed poll is so far out of line with reality in its political break-down, that’s not a good thing for your guy. And when that poll has a greater Dem break-down than the total advantage your guy has in the poll, that’s not a good thing for your guy.
Obama only has a majority among Democrats. Republicans and Independents both are majority for the Republican. Obama has lost Independents in a big way, by as much as 18 points compared to 2008. Even in the dishonorably agenda-driven skewed polls you tout. Readjust the poll numbers to the political break-down of the actual electorate instead of your wet dream of the electorate, you know, reality instead of your daydream, and the numbers shift dramatically away from your guy. To a statistical dead heat or a Romney advantage.
You can stay in your dishonest make-believe world. I’ll stay in reality.
From an August article discussing the heavy Democrat skew of the polling numbers:
Oh stow it. And you’re using voter fraud and George Soros’ billions to steal the election. Turnabout, and all.
Since you’ve demonstrated time and time again that you live in alternate reality/delusional realm, “your view” means nothing to the reality-based community.
The difference is – then, people were sleeping, now they’re awake. Then, Obama had nothing but a rock star personality, now he has a record.
Anyone who watches a kook like O’Donnell and thinks they are getting fair and accurate information is delusional.
And you complain when we call Obama foreign and an alien. Though an absolutist he is not, unless you mean he is absolutely in love with himself.
And then there are all the problems with Obama’s past, which Perry refuses to acknowledge. His associations with radicals and terrorists, the Manson loving Bernardine Dohn, the slumlord Tony Rezko, and his refusal to help his brother in Kenya. Then there’s his more recent past, stabbing Wright in the back for political convenience, and of course his record as president. All these issues Perry denies, other than blaming the last on Bush and the Republicans. Perry is a classic example of the three monkeys, blind, deaf, and dumb.
I would not say Obama has been the worst, but clearly the most narcissistic. All you have to do is look at the way he whines and blames Bush for all his problems, which is undignified in an ordinary man let alone a president. But LBJ was probably the worst, getting us in a war in Vietnam he had no intention of winning as well as creating a mammoth government here at home.
Righties have turned extreme, again, this time complaining, as koolo and John Hitchcock have done as well, that the polls are skewed Dem, all of a sudden, even though the FoxNews polls pretty much agree with all the rest, both nationally and in the battleground states.
Panic has set in to the wingnuts, a form of mental illness, hopefully temporary, which divorces these ill people from reality.
Their attention would be more productively used if they would address instead what we need to do to avoid the fiscal cliff toward which we are heading at breakneck speed!
There you go again, Perry, refusing to look at the political weightings of the polls since they are stacked unrealistically in your favor. And citing PuffHo as if it wasn’t a far-Left, out of touch outfit, Juan Williams as if he weren’t a completely divorced from reality radical Leftist.
And that fiscal cliff we’re heading toward at breakneck speed? We’re trying to stop that by throwing the people responsible for it out of office and installing fiscally responsible people instead. People who don’t think my money belongs to them.
And, again, Perry ignores the facts about Obama. He ducks all my points because he is afraid to answer.