Regulation Business, Jobs Booming Under Obama

So how does all these new regulations and fees help the economy and unemployment?

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAna...108151901/Regulatory-Agencies-Staffing-Up.htm

Regulatory agencies have seen their combined budgets grow a healthy 16% since 2008, topping $54 billion, according to the annual "Regulator's Budget," compiled by George Washington University and Washington University in St. Louis.

That's at a time when the overall economy grew a paltry 5%.

Meanwhile, employment at these agencies has climbed 13% since Obama took office to more than 281,000, while private-sector jobs shrank by 5.6%.

Michael Mandel, chief economic strategist at the Progressive Policy Institute, found that between March 2010 and March 2011 federal regulatory jobs climbed faster than either private jobs or overall government jobs. (See chart.)

Regulatory production is way up, too, if you measure that by the number of rules federal agencies churn out.

The Obama administration imposed 75 new major rules in its first 26 months, costing the private sector more than $40 billion, according to a Heritage Foundation study. "No other president has imposed as high a number or cost in a comparable time period," noted the study's author, James Gattuso.

The number of pages in the Federal Register — where all new rules must be published and which serves as proxy of regulatory activity — jumped 18% in 2010.

This July, regulators imposed a total of 379 new rules that will cost more than $9.5 billion, according to an analysis by Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo.

 

Looks like government is a job creator after all.

 

To pay for compliance to the $40 BILLION Obama imposed on businesses, they will have to make significant cuts in their workforce.

 

why would regulations such as allowing share holders to vote on executive compensation....result in job cuts?

 

I miss lead in household paint... Ah those sweet old times.

 

Please follow along... from the O.P.

Now... how do you think the private sector of businesses deals with a $40 BILLION cost? It does two things... raises prices to consumers and reduced overhead which is jobs.

I know you are a liberal, so this private industry thingie is a bit of an inconvenience to you. But, that is how the world works when you are wearing big people pants.

 

so it will cost the private sector more money to allow votes on executive compensation...

of course that ignores the money that can be saved by reigning in executive compensation.

 

Heritage Foundation is an agenda driven propaganda organization. We'll need numbers from an independent source. Otherwise, I don't buy it.

 

This agency will cosy jobs. So creating maybe 100,000 jobs when Millions are unemployed is creating jobs? It is growing government and adding new taxes more than it is creating jobs

 

9 billion in new regulations means less money to hire people

 

So when the debt ceiling debate was going on you are glad Obama did this?

 

When there are hundreds of regulation costing the private sector tens of billions cherry picking will not make your point. You need to look at the big picture

 

Obama is bias but you believe him. When you quote democrats should ask I for an independent source?

That is just your way of not facing the facts of what Obama is doing

 

Government jobs are non revenue producing jobs which takes from the economy instead of adding to the economy.

 

not if it saves them money at the same time.

if new regulations save them on executive compensation, then you have the weight the difference

 

not true....IRS jobs increase revenue

 

Costing 40 billion to the private sector is not saving money it is growing government

 

No they increase taxes and the government not the economy

 

Lol why say no then echo what I just said? I didn't say they grow the economy

 

those are some good paying with good benefits, taxpayer funded jobs. Yet more non self-sustaining jobs courtesy of Obama

 

You make it sound as though the IRS were selling something. All the IRS does is confiscate money from the from people who earn it. It doesn't produce any revenue of it's own. A worker at a Firestone Tire factory is revenue producing. He takes the raw material produces a tire that sells for more than it cost to make it. That's a revenue producing job.

 

I guess cc companies don't generate revenue either

 

honestly, why do you call taking dollars from private citizens "revenue"?

It is called TAXES. Would a rose by another name..........

 

Because that's what it is? Why are you calling a flower a rose?

 

I'm missing your shorthand, cc company?