What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

Status
Not open for further replies.
In Aftermath of Catastrophic Election, Small Businesses Have No Plans to Hire
Elections have consequences. Among the most easily predictable consequences of wallowing in Marxist moonbattery by voting for Obama’s class warfare platform:

U.S. small-business owners expect to add fewer net new jobs over the next 12 months than at any time since the depths of the 2008-2009 recession, according to this November’s Wells Fargo/Gallup Small Business Index survey. Small-business owners’ net hiring intentions for the next 12 months plunged to -4 in November, down from +10 in July and matching the previous record low recorded by the Wells Fargo/Small Business Index of -4 in November 2008.

Now what might have caused this key indicator of our economic future to bottom out in November 2008 and then again in November 2012?

That’s okay, we don’t need greedy capitalist employers. Unemployment bennies may eventually run out, but then we can just go on disability. It isn’t just for the disabled anymore. There will always be a few hardworking suckers left who still have jobs to pull us along.
 
I've posted them, search them out.

The only quasi-relevant posts in your history are about sequestration. I see nothing in your history where you refer to Panetta, Gates, or any military leaders opposing a post-war troop draw down.
 
Panetta testified in front of Congress that the proposed cyts would be catastrophic to the military, Google it.

Yeah I watched him do it. But he was talking about sequestration cuts, not the draw down that's completely separate and will happen regardless.
 
Panetta testified in front of Congress that the proposed cyts would be catastrophic to the military, Google it.

Just did. Panetta said that the unilateral across-the-board cuts specified by sequestration would be catastrophic.

Naturally, you've expanded that to imply that any and all cuts to the military would be catastrophic.
 
GOP: This Consumer Financial “Protection” Bureau looks an awful lot like a “run-away regulator”


While we’re slowly but surely seeing all of the ‘unexpected’ surprises of ObamaCare unfold, President Obama’s other crowning legislative achievement — the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act — is simultaneously being written out as well. Most unfortunately, the massive bureaucratic agenda being implemented by Dodd-Frank doesn’t seem to be producing rules and regulations any more efficient or certainty-inducing than its health-care brother.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the newly-created bureaucratic arm of Dodd-Frank, has come under a lot of fire for the relatively unchecked amount of authority it grants itself, and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is once again calling the Obama administration out on it.

The Hill reports:

The House Oversight Committee has accused the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) of having unchecked power and a vague mandate, giving it the potential to be a “run-away regulator unlike any other in American history.”

In a new report issued Friday, the GOP-led panel warned that with credit already becoming difficult to find for some lenders, the CFPB’s new regulatory oversight could further tighten it. It also suggests that the bureau may have an inappropriate relationship with the White House, adding that president may use it to “further its partisan agenda.” The report was issued by committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), who chairs the subcommittee overseeing the bureau.

“At a time of prolonged economic strain, American consumers can ill-afford such an unaccountable, unresponsive, and all-powerful financial regulator,” the report states.
Dodd-Frank as it currently stands is going to allow for an unprecedented level of regulatory authority and freedom from Congressional oversight in the private sector — Congress is going to have to keep sounding the transparency-alarms on this one and disallow its economic impact from flying underneath the radar.
 
Those are the only ones that haven't been planned into the system, son. Get a clue. Got a half a billion already taking effect as we speak on force levels. Jan.1 comes new ones.

You keep saying that drawing down force levels is a bad thing even though we no longer need a drawn-up force. But why is it bad? Military leaders are fine with it and nothing I've heard from them says they oppose it. Why are you right and they're wrong?
 
Could someone clarify the C in RWCJ? Thank you.

Have a great weekend, everyone. No BB? Merde.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top