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

[mercury14]

a blow job from some guy in the back seat of a rickshaw

You're talking to Jen whose only job is sitting around the house getting fatter while her husband works to support her.

Seriously Jen, you look like shit. Lose 25 pounds ASAP.

 

[phrodeau]

I've been here so long I remember when wingnuts were actually against activist judges legislatin' from the bench.

The word "activist" is only used for judges who support Democrat policies.

There's a different word for judges who support Republican policies, but I don't like to use it when ladies are present.

 

[Busybody]

REG gee Sav Age says

Im busy with BBall..........STFU!


Obama Will Expand Nixon-Era Law To Mandate All Federal Agencies Consider Impact On Global Warming Before Approving Projects…




More job-crushing government regulations.

Via Bloomberg News:


President Barack Obama is preparing to tell all federal agencies for the first time that they have to consider the impact on global warming before approving major projects, from pipelines to highways.

The result could be significant delays for natural gas- export facilities, ports for coal sales to Asia, and even new forest roads, industry lobbyists warn.

“It’s got us very freaked out,” said Ross Eisenberg, vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers, a Washington-based group that represents 11,000 companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) and Southern Co. (SO) The standards, which constitute guidance for agencies and not new regulations, are set to be issued in the coming weeks, according to lawyers briefed by administration officials.

In taking the step, Obama would be fulfilling a vow to act alone in the face of a Republican-run House of Representatives unwilling to pass measures limiting greenhouse gases. He’d expand a Nixon-era law that was intended to force agencies to assess the effect of projects on air, water and soil pollution.

 

[Busybody]

REG gee SavAge changes name to

HonestInjun E Warren

Far-Left Dem Sen. Elizabeth Warren: Government Regulations Make Americans Successful…



Comrade Clueless.

Via Washington Times:


The government not only has a right to regulate the American people, but regulation is really the key to the country’s success, Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren said on Thursday.

“It’s thanks to federal agencies that no one has to worry that those white pills are baking soda instead of antibiotics or that the paint on the baby’s crib is laced with lead,” she said, in prepared remarks reported in Politico.

Ms. Warren honed in on President Obama’s pick of Richard Cordray to direct the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and said Republicans who contest his nomination, and push for restrictions on the agency’s powers, are on the wrong side of the issue. They’re trying to weaken a key consumer protection, she said in the Politico report.

“Blocking Rich Cordray is about keeping the game rigged, keeping the game rigged so that consumers remain in the dark — and a few bad actors can rake in big profits,” Ms. Warren said in the Politico report.

 

[Busybody]

Hmm

JohnConyers and JohnSavAge......we haven't ever seem em together

HAVE WE?

Could they BE"""""""""""""""""

Juan and the same?


Dem Rep. John Conyers: $16.7 Trillion Deficit “Not Endangering Us A Bit … We Don’t Think There’s A Problem”…




Scary how delusional these people are.


(CNSNews.com) – Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, said on Thursday that the nation’s current debt of $16.7 trillion is “not endangering” the country, adding that “some debt is not a bad idea” and that he and other congressional Democrats “don’t think there’s a problem.”

Conyers and other liberal Democrats spoke at a Capitol Hill press conference about their initiative to compel Congress to cancel the across-the-board budget cuts (sequester) of $1.2 trillion over 10 years, which actually are reductions in the rate of increase in federal spending and amount to $44 billion for this year. [...]

Conyers said, “Let me let you understand, first of all, that the debt is not endangering us a bit — not at all. Our economists say we’re in debt but it’s not endangering everything. As a matter of fact, there are economists that say some debt is not a bad idea at all.”

 

[trysail]

This is, of course, deliberate obstructionism. It is disgusting to see the abuse, manipulation, perversion and corruption of science and environmentalism by a bunch of politically-motivated operatives— many of whom spend far too much time in their cramped apartments in zip codes 02138, 10021 and 20001. A lot of these people are just politicos who really don't spend time outdoors and don't have any idea just how big the world is. The soi-disant "science" is flimsy— or worse— and unquestionably ambiguous and equivocal, at best.



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-15/obama-will-use-nixon-era-law-to-fight-climate-change.html




Obama Will Use Nixon-Era Law to Fight Climate Change
By Mark Drajem
March 15, 2013

President Barack Obama is preparing to tell all federal agencies for the first time that they should consider the impact on global warming before approving major projects, from pipelines to highways.

The result could be significant delays for natural gas- export facilities, ports for coal sales to Asia, and even new forest roads, industry lobbyists warn.

“It’s got us very freaked out,” said Ross Eisenberg, vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers, a Washington-based group that represents 11,000 companies... The standards, which constitute guidance for agencies and not new regulations, are set to be issued in the coming weeks, according to lawyers briefed by administration officials.

In taking the step, Obama would be fulfilling a vow to act alone in the face of a Republican-run House of Representatives unwilling to pass measures limiting greenhouse gases. He’d expand the scope of a Nixon-era law that was first intended to force agencies to assess the effect of projects on air, water and soil pollution.

“If Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will,” Obama said last month during his State of the Union address. He pledged executive actions “to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.”

Illinois Speech
The president is scheduled to deliver a speech on energy today at the Argonne National Laboratory in Lemont, Illinois. He is pressing Congress to create a $2 billion clean-energy research fund with fees paid by oil and gas producers.

While some U.S. agencies already take climate change into account when assessing projects, the new guidelines would apply across-the-board to all federal reviews. Industry lobbyists say they worry that projects could be tied up in lawsuits or administrative delays.

For example, Ambre Energy Ltd. is seeking a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to build a coal-export facility at the Port of Morrow in Oregon. Under existing rules, officials weighing approval would consider whether ships in the port would foul the water or generate air pollution locally. The Environmental Protection Agency and activist groups say that review should be broadened to account for the greenhouse gases emitted when exported coal is burned in power plants in Asia.

Keystone Pipeline
Similar analyses could be made for the oil sands that would be transported in TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL pipeline, and leases to drill for oil, gas and coal on federal lands, such as those for Arch Coal Inc. and Peabody Energy Corp.

If the new White House guidance is structured correctly, it will require just those kinds of lifecycle reviews, said Bill Snape, senior counsel at the Center for Biological Diversity in Washington. The environmental group has sued to press for this approach, and Snape says lawsuits along this line are certain if the administration approves the Keystone pipeline, which would transport oil from Canada’s tar sands to the U.S. Gulf Coast.

“The real danger is the delays,” said Eisenberg of the manufacturers’ group. “I don’t think the answer is ever going to be ‘no,’ but it can confound things.”

Lawyers and lobbyists are now waiting for the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality to issue the long bottled-up standards for how agencies should address climate change under the National Environmental Policy Act, signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1970.

Environmental Impact
NEPA requires federal agencies to consider and publish the environmental impact of their actions before making decisions. Those reviews don’t mandate a specific course of action. They do provide a chance for citizens and environmentalists to weigh in before regulators decide on an action -- and to challenge those reviews in court if it’s cleared.

“Each agency currently differs in how their NEPA reviews consider the climate change impacts of projects, as well as how climate change impacts such as extreme weather will affect projects,” Taryn Tuss, a Council on Environmental Quality spokeswoman, said in an e-mail. “CEQ is working to incorporate the public input we received on the draft guidance, and will release updated guidance when it is completed.”

‘Major Shakeup’
The new standards will be “a major shakeup in how agencies conduct NEPA” reviews, said Brendan Cummings, senior counsel for the Center for Biological Diversity in San Francisco.

The White House is looking at requiring consideration of both the increase in greenhouse gases and a project’s vulnerability to flooding, drought or other extreme weather that might result from global warming, according to an initial proposal it issued in 2010. Those full reports would be required for projects with 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions or more per year, the equivalent of burning about 100 rail cars of coal.

The initial draft exempted federal land and resource decisions from the guidance, although CEQ said it was assessing how to handle those cases. Federal lands could be included in the final standards.

The White House guidance itself won’t force any projects to be stopped outright. Instead, it’s likely to prompt lawsuits against federal projects on these grounds, and increase the probability that courts will step in and order extensive reviews as part of the “adequate analysis” required in the law, said George Mannina, an attorney at Nossaman LLP in Washington.

Next Administration
“The question is: Where does this analysis take us?” he said. “Adequate analysis may be much broader than the agency and applicant might consider.”

While the Obama administration’s guidance could be easily rescinded by the next administration, the court rulings that stem from these cases will live on as precedents, Mannina said.

Lobbying groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Petroleum Institute and the National Mining Association weighed in with the White House against including climate in NEPA, a law initially aimed at chemical leaks or air pollution.

“Not only will this result in additional delay of the NEPA process, but will result in speculative and inaccurate modeling that will have direct impacts on approval of specific projects,” the National Mining Association in Washington wrote in comments to the White House in 2010.

Leases Challenged
The group represents Arch Coal and Peabody, both based in St. Louis. Leases that the Department of Interior issued for those companies to mine for coal in Wyoming are facing lawsuits from environmental groups, arguing that the agency didn’t adequately tally up the effect on global warming from burning that coal.

Given Obama’s pledge to address global warming, “this is a massive contradiction,” said Jeremy Nichols, director of climate at WildEarth Guardians in Denver, which filed lawsuits against the leases.

Arch Coal referred questions to the mining group.

Beth Sutton, a Peabody spokeswoman, said in an e-mail, “We believe the current regulatory approach to surface mine permits is appropriate and protects the environment.”

Since CEQ first announced its proposal, more than three dozen federal approvals were challenged on climate grounds, including a highway project in North Carolina, a methane-venting plan for a coal mine in Colorado, and a research facility in California, according to a chart compiled by the Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University.

Next Target
The next target is TransCanada’s application to build the 1,661-mile (2,673-kilometer) Keystone pipeline. The Sierra Club and 350.org drew 35,000 people to Washington last month to urge Obama to reject the pipeline. Meanwhile, the NEPA review by the State Department included an initial analysis of carbon released when the tar sands are refined into gasoline and used in vehicles.

It stopped short, however, of saying the project would result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. With or without the pipeline, the oil sands will be mined and used as fuel, the report said. That finding is likely to be disputed in court if the Obama administration clears the project.

“Keystone is ground zero,” said Snape, of the Center for Biological Diversity. “Clearly this will come into play, and it will be litigated.”

Any actions by the administration now on global warming would pick up on a mixed record over the past four years.

Cap-and-Trade
While Obama failed to get Congress to pass cap-and-trade legislation, the EPA reversed course from the previous administration and ruled that carbon-dioxide emissions endanger public health, opening the way for the agency to regulate it.

Using that finding, the agency raised mileage standards for automobiles and proposed rules for new power plants that would essentially outlaw the construction of new coal-fired power plants that don’t have expensive carbon-capture technology.

Environmentalists such as the Natural Resources Defense Council say the most important action next will be the EPA’s rules for existing power plants, the single biggest source of carbon-dioxide emissions. The NEPA standards are separate from those rules, and will affect how the federal government itself is furthering global warming.

“Agencies do a pretty poor job of looking at climate change impacts,” Rebecca Judd, a legislative counsel at the environmental legal group Earthjustice in Washington. “A thorough guidance would help alleviate that.”

 

[unregistered]

 

[trysail]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...t-time-in-three-days-as-confidence-drops.html

...China, the largest foreign lender to the U.S., increased its holdings in Treasuries in January by $44.1 billion, or 3.6 percent, the biggest boost since June 2011, the Treasury Department reported. The country owns $1.2645 trillion of the debt, the most since September 2011. As of January, China held 11.4 percent of outstanding marketable U.S. government debt.

Japan, the second-biggest foreign lender, raised its holdings of U.S. government debt by $4 billion to $1.1152 trillion, the first increase since October. Japan holds 10 percent of outstanding Treasury debt.

Foreign holdings of Treasuries rose to $5.6165 trillion in January, a 0.8 percent increase from the previous month, the biggest since October. Foreign investors held 50.5 percent of the $11.1 trillion in U.S. debt outstanding then.

The Fed remains the largest holder of Treasuries, with a total of $1.767 trillion...



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...t-time-in-three-days-as-confidence-drops.html

 

[jeninflorida]

Might be hard for him to understand the job issue. Did he ever have a real job?

No, obama has never had a real job. Nor has he ever been in the private sector. Obama has no idea how to create jobs as he never has created 1 job in his life.

sad but true fact

 

[cheesehead2]

No, obama has never had a real job. Nor has he ever been in the private sector. Obama has no idea how to create jobs as he never has created 1 job in his life.

sad but true fact

Yes it is sad but true. Maybe its about time those on here that think he walks on water think he,s the best thing since ice cream take a deep breath open their eyes and look at his past.

 

[jeninflorida]

Yes it is sad but true. Maybe its about time those on here that think he walks on water think he,s the best thing since ice cream take a deep breath open their eyes and look at his past.

They can't, nor will they. They all bought into this fantasy called the Obama which is turned out to be nothing more of business as usual.

the left wing GB'ers are not able to deal with reality nor can they admit when they are wrong (which is 99% of the time).

 

[Sean Renaud]

No, obama has never had a real job. Nor has he ever been in the private sector. Obama has no idea how to create jobs as he never has created 1 job in his life.

sad but true fact

He was a Harvard Professor. Oh and an author. So not only has created jobs, he's created people that create jobs and well paying ones at that.

Yes it is sad but true. Maybe its about time those on here that think he walks on water think he,s the best thing since ice cream take a deep breath open their eyes and look at his past.

Nobody thinks he walks on water, most people don't even really like him all that much and see him flaws in all. He's a week leader amongst other things but much of it isn't really his fault. Nobody could have predicted the Party of No. Even if we had it's entirely possible a lot of us would have said fuck it, it won't get too bad (it didn't and hasn't) and while we'd undoubtedly be better off had he lost rewarding petulence is a bad idea.

 

[jeninflorida]

He was a Harvard Professor. Oh and an author. So not only has created jobs, he's created people that create jobs and well paying ones at that.



Nobody thinks he walks on water, most people don't even really like him all that much and see him flaws in all. He's a week leader amongst other things but much of it isn't really his fault. Nobody could have predicted the Party of No. Even if we had it's entirely possible a lot of us would have said fuck it, it won't get too bad (it didn't and hasn't) and while we'd undoubtedly be better off had he lost rewarding petulence is a bad idea.

selling a book does not create "jobs" nor did Obama hire anyone from his own money.

maybe he was at Harvard. But he had nothing to do with P&L. if he was there, he was on salary and did not have to worry about the bottom line.

therefore, Obama doesn't have the skills to manage a Circle-K store

 

[alltherage]

selling a book does not create "jobs" nor did Obama hire anyone from his own money.

maybe he was at Harvard. But he had nothing to do with P&L. if he was there, he was on salary and did not have to worry about the bottom line.

therefore, Obama doesn't have the skills to manage a Circle-K store

Not sure i want someone with the skills to run a circle K store to run the country. I definately would prefer the Harvard educated lawyer.

 

[Sean Renaud]

selling a book does not create "jobs" nor did Obama hire anyone from his own money.

maybe he was at Harvard. But he had nothing to do with P&L. if he was there, he was on salary and did not have to worry about the bottom line.

therefore, Obama doesn't have the skills to manage a Circle-K store

How does selling a book not create jobs? Are there no warehouses in your world? No truck drivers? No cashiers? No book stores? Of course it creates jobs unless you've got some very very narrow definition of creating a job.

He was at Harvard, it's not a disputible issue. It's a fact and being on a salary is usually for people who you don't want gaming you for hours. He wasn't concerned about the bottom line but a lot of people in a lot of companies really aren't. Hell most store managers don't give two shits about the bottom line. Either the economy keeps up and they keep their pay (usually a salary) or they don't and the store goes out of business.

Its funny how obvious it is that you've never held a job much less run a company despite your claims. Everything you say it's just bullshit.

 

[RobDownSouth]

No, obama has never had a real job. Nor has he ever been in the private sector. Obama has no idea how to create jobs as he never has created 1 job in his life.

sad but true fact

give it a rest, Jen. That dog just won't hunt. You've been pushing the "uppity nigger ain't never had no job" meme for over five years and all you have to show for it are two cuntstompings.

Better luck next smear.

 

[jeninflorida]

How does selling a book not create jobs? Are there no warehouses in your world? No truck drivers? No cashiers? No book stores? Of course it creates jobs unless you've got some very very narrow definition of creating a job.

He was at Harvard, it's not a disputible issue. It's a fact and being on a salary is usually for people who you don't want gaming you for hours. He wasn't concerned about the bottom line but a lot of people in a lot of companies really aren't. Hell most store managers don't give two shits about the bottom line. Either the economy keeps up and they keep their pay (usually a salary) or they don't and the store goes out of business.

Its funny how obvious it is that you've never held a job much less run a company despite your claims. Everything you say it's just bullshit.

So, before none of those people had jobs creating, printing, shipping, and selling books until Obama wrote his book... okay dokie. And now that sales have tanked, all those people are now terminated?

I don't care about Harvard, point is he wasn't responsible for P&L. Obama, has no idea how to create wealth. The only thing obama knows how to do, is take wealth away from others.

Funny, you being the business expert and all.....

 

[RoryN]

Oh maybe I will pass out from having too many orgasm? Lol, yea right.

After The Party - erotica by jeninflorida

http://www.literotica.com/s/after-the-party-14?page=2

 

[Sean Renaud]

So, before none of those people had jobs creating, printing, shipping, and selling books until Obama wrote his book... okay dokie. And now that sales have tanked, all those people are now terminated?

I don't care about Harvard, point is he wasn't responsible for P&L. Obama, has no idea how to create wealth. The only thing obama knows how to do, is take wealth away from others.

Funny, you being the business expert and all.....

So for your definition those people didn't (and don't, I doubt book sales have tanked) get hired specifically for that book (even though undoubtedly some were but that's neither here nor there) so 0 jobs created? I guess I can at least fathom why you would think that, but then almost nobody creates jobs. It's virtually impossible. I can tell you as a Californian, movie producers do in fact create jobs, and when the writers went on strike it was instantly obvious even though most of those people had jobs that weren't tied to any single producer.

You not caring about Harvard is just your ignorance. The idea that Obama doesn't know how to create wealth is more of your ignorance. A job at Harvard does in fact create wealth. Do you think Harvard Lawyers are paupers? Honestly, you don't think most if not all of Obama's students have good high paying jobs?

The funny thing is, the world might be better off if you were right and the people who actually create what you seem to refer to incorrectly as "wealth" were the people who got bigger pay than the people who just know how to supervise but that's not likely to happen in any country ever. So moving on from that failed plan.

Still graduating from one of the top schools in the world at the head of your class pretty much qualifies you to do anything.

I didn't say I was an expert, I said I know more about it than you do and it's obvious from everything you say.

 

[jeninflorida]

So for your definition those people didn't (and don't, I doubt book sales have tanked) get hired specifically for that book (even though undoubtedly some were but that's neither here nor there) so 0 jobs created? I guess I can at least fathom why you would think that, but then almost nobody creates jobs. It's virtually impossible. I can tell you as a Californian, movie producers do in fact create jobs, and when the writers went on strike it was instantly obvious even though most of those people had jobs that weren't tied to any single producer.

You not caring about Harvard is just your ignorance. The idea that Obama doesn't know how to create wealth is more of your ignorance. A job at Harvard does in fact create wealth. Do you think Harvard Lawyers are paupers? Honestly, you don't think most if not all of Obama's students have good high paying jobs?

The funny thing is, the world might be better off if you were right and the people who actually create what you seem to refer to incorrectly as "wealth" were the people who got bigger pay than the people who just know how to supervise but that's not likely to happen in any country ever. So moving on from that failed plan.

Still graduating from one of the top schools in the world at the head of your class pretty much qualifies you to do anything.

I didn't say I was an expert, I said I know more about it than you do and it's obvious from everything you say.

What I'm saying about Harvard, was he performed a task. that is all. just that, a simple task. He hired no person. He did not have to worry where money would come from to pay anyone's salary. Obama did not have to worry, that if x amount of dollars did not come in, that people would have to be let go or bills not be paid.

its just that simple.

just like now, Obama has no responsibility or accountability. If this were 1950, there is no doubt Joseph McCarthy would label obama a "red" communist and jail him.

 

[Sean Renaud]

What I'm saying about Harvard, was he performed a task. that is all. just that, a simple task. He hired no person. He did not have to worry where money would come from to pay anyone's salary. Obama did not have to worry, that if x amount of dollars did not come in, that people would have to be let go or bills not be paid.

its just that simple.

just like now, Obama has no responsibility or accountability. If this were 1950, there is no doubt Joseph McCarthy would label obama a "red" communist and jail him.

So you have to be the owner? Or is hiring enough? If hiring is enough I'm sure he hired his publishing staff, promoter, much of his election staff, but that aside you do realize that means that there are so few people who've created jobs that it's pointless to criticize someone for not doing it. You may as well call people out for not being Navy Seals.

Joseph McCarthy would have just suicide bombed Congress. Reagan would have been a commie under him as would every member of Congress save perhaps the Pauls. So that's not really a fair standard to set. Not that you have much interest in fair or right but still.

 

[RoryN]

If this were 1950, there is no doubt Joseph McCarthy would label obama a "red" communist and jail him.

"What's your point?" has never been more apropos.

 

[benschup]

So for your definition those people didn't (and don't, I doubt book sales have tanked) get hired specifically for that book (even though undoubtedly some were but that's neither here nor there) so 0 jobs created? I guess I can at least fathom why you would think that, but then almost nobody creates jobs. It's virtually impossible. I can tell you as a Californian, movie producers do in fact create jobs, and when the writers went on strike it was instantly obvious even though most of those people had jobs that weren't tied to any single producer.

You not caring about Harvard is just your ignorance. The idea that Obama doesn't know how to create wealth is more of your ignorance. A job at Harvard does in fact create wealth. Do you think Harvard Lawyers are paupers? Honestly, you don't think most if not all of Obama's students have good high paying jobs?

The funny thing is, the world might be better off if you were right and the people who actually create what you seem to refer to incorrectly as "wealth" were the people who got bigger pay than the people who just know how to supervise but that's not likely to happen in any country ever. So moving on from that failed plan.

Still graduating from one of the top schools in the world at the head of your class pretty much qualifies you to do anything.

I didn't say I was an expert, I said I know more about it than you do and it's obvious from everything you say.

Where did the money come from to go to Harvard? Just wondering.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Where did the money come from to go to Harvard? Just wondering.

It doesn't matter.

 

[cheesehead2]

It doesn't matter.

Really