The President disagrees with you:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703396604576088272112103698.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Obama:
Sometimes, those rules have gotten out of balance, placing unreasonable burdens on business—burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs.
—snip—
This order requires that federal agencies ensure that regulations protect our safety, health and environment while promoting economic growth. And it orders a government-wide review of the rules already on the books to remove outdated regulations that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive. It’s a review that will help bring order to regulations that have become a patchwork of overlapping rules, the result of tinkering by administrations and legislators of both parties and the influence of special interests in Washington over decades.
—snip—
Regulations do have costs; often, as a country, we have to make tough decisions about whether those costs are necessary.
I don’t see how that quote contradicts my claim that regulations are not a major impact on job creation. I said regulations have very little to do with job creation, I didn’t say they had nothing, never, EVER to do with it.
Would you say the job creation engine of the Clinton era was due to a reduction in federal regulations during a Democratic administration? Or was the greatest period of job growth of the post war era possible in spite of federal regulations?
Fear_Itself:
I don’t see how that quote contradicts my claim that regulations are not a major impact on job creation. I said regulations have very little to do with job creation, I didn’t say they had nothing, never, EVER to do with it.
Would you say the job creation engine of the Clinton era was due to a reduction in federal regulations during a Democratic administration? Or was the greatest period of job growth of the post war era possible in spite of federal regulations?
Neither. I would say it was due to an overheated bubble economy that came crashing down.
Do you think Obama would even be looking at regulations if they did not have a significant effect on the economy and job creation?
yorick73:
Neither. I would say it was due to an overheated bubble economy that came crashing down.
Do you think Obama would even be looking at regulations if they did not have a significant effect on the economy and job creation?
Yes. It is a economically meaningless political gesture towards the right.
I vote for “job creation” as the new record holder for lowest significance/use ratio. It’s a completely meaningless phrase, and yet every politician and pundit mentions it at least once per day.
Would repealing DADT have a significant effect on the economy and job creation? Supporting the Libyan insurrection? The DREAM Act?
Presidents look at lots of things. Relatively few have anything to do with the economy and job creation.
Really_Not_All_That_Bright:
I vote for “job creation” as the new record holder for lowest significance/use ratio. It’s a completely meaningless phrase, and yet every politician and pundit mentions it at least once per day.
Would repealing DADT have a significant effect on the economy and job creation? Supporting the Libyan insurrection? The DREAM Act?
Presidents look at lots of things. Relatively few have anything to do with the economy and job creation.
Read the op-ed by Obama that I linked to.
Mr_Smashy:
I notice you didn’t answer the question, before you changed the subject (“but Obamacare is a good idea! Think of the kids!”)
Do you now realize that the President is something more than an idle bystander when it comes to programs getting passed? That the first time he shows up is *not *with his pen in the Rose Garden?
I did not change the subject.