It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Top 10 Obama anti-business, anti-job actions

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 11:16 AM
Despite the claims and stimulus, It could be that the Obama policies have backfired.

(assuming of course that those policies were actually intended to do what we had hoped for)

The economy is stuck on neutral and jobs are a flop. The U.S. Dollar is in the dungeon.

All these things were supposed to be fixed during Obama's Presidency.

He said it all many times.

Here is a list for analysis.

The future of the country is at stake and the stakes are high. Perhaps higher than ever before.

How will / do these things affect voters and their decision on who to vote for ?

President Obama loves to complain that he inherited an economic mess. That may be true, but his wrong-headed policies have only made matters worse, taking actions that hurt businesses and stunt job growth....

Top 10 Obama anti-business, anti-job actions

each point has an the article.

1. Obamacare costs

2. Small business tax hikes

3. EPA’s burdensome regulations

4. Keystone XL Pipeline postponed

5. Boeing battle

6. Capital-gains ‘fairness’

7. Off-shore drilling moratorium

8. Dodd-Frank ‘financial reform’

9. Anti-business rhetoric

10. Business climate uncertainty

Are any of these points "sensationalized" ?

Are they "accurate" ?

Are they all true ?

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:06 PM
I may not have time to cover every point but I will do my best to make time to do so.

1. Obamacare costs

Small Business Majority says that that small business owners are more in favor of Obamacare than against it, especially when presented with the actual facts rather than the popular 'spin.'

In contrast, repealing Obamacare would be costly just in financial terms, according to the CBO's letter to John Boehner on the cost of repealing Obamacare:

What Is the Impact of Repealing the ACA on the Federal Budget?

Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period. Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period.

What Major Components Result in the Net Increase in Deficits?

Deficits would be increased under H.R. 6079 because the net savings from eliminating the insurance coverage provisions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending increases and revenue reductions:

In addition, John Boehner isn't even straight on the true purpose of Obamacare:

"The intent of the president's health care law was to lower costs and to help create jobs. ... Instead, it is making our economy worse, driving up costs and making it harder for small businesses to hire," said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. He cited a study by a business group that estimated that one of the bill's taxes would cost up to 249,000 jobs, and a different estimate that a second tax would "put as many as 47,100 in jeopardy."


One of President Obama's goal was to make healthcare affordable and accessible to EVERY US citizen by 2014. It accomplishes that, among many other things. It was NOT about creating jobs but is more about things like having and maintaining a HEALTHY work force and making it possible for that pursuit of happiness thing...hard to pursue happiness when you are ill and can't afford decent care.

He also sought to reform the rampant profiteering that has made health care both increasingly expensive and health care insurance coverage decreasingly effective in America. The focus on money rather than health in the health care industry might not be something a lot of people are aware of but it was appalling to me when I worked in the industry. It tragically cost people both money as well as their health, perversely enough...and not just health but often their life.

More and more people are experiencing the good things made possible through Obamacare and coming to realize that all this anti-Obamacare propaganda is just that: propaganda.

(see )

On A Personal Note...

Personally, I would have been THRILLED to have been made to pay $95 a year for choosing NOT to have insurance back when I first got out of nursing school and started working full time at the local hospital...instead I had no choice...if I did not take the insurance coverage my employer offered, I had to provide some sort of proof that I had coverage through another means, such as my spouse's job. I did not. So I had health insurance I did not want...did not even use but one time and that only served the purpose of meeting the deductible which pretty much covered the whole bill since I got a generous discount from the hospital as any employee...and it cost me around $200 or so every payday, which I resented greatly...I was making the most I'd ever made before at a young age but still I was in no way at ease in a financial sense during those years...and that extra $400 a month would have made a big difference. I don't know if or when the laws have changed on the issue of employer insurance coverage in the 20 years since then, but at that time, I was FORCED to pay for health coverage and it was the norm for everyone working full time.

Obamacare's 'mandate' or 'tax' is FAR MORE fair than what I experienced back then! $95 a year compared to nearly $5,000 is nothing to complain about...especially when I consider that we were not given a choice at the time.

If people were properly educated on what the law says instead of constantly being fed emotionally-inspired spin and capitalist rhetoric skewing the true purpose of the law in the first place, there would be outrage about the idea of repealing it.

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:18 PM
reply to post by queenannie38

Small Business Majority is nonpartisan only in the most technical sense, in that it is not formally allied with any party. Informally, however, it is allied with the Democratic Party. Mr. Arensmeyer serves as a board member of the Bay Area Democrats, which describes itself as “a network of private citizens active in national Democratic Politics.” Since 2002, Mr. Arensmeyer has given generously, and exclusively, to Democratic candidates, according to F.E.C. records. (“I’ve voted for Republicans,” he offers.)

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:18 PM
Since it is relevant

I will park this here because it appears the economy is moving in the right direction.

The nation’s jobless rate dropped to its lowest point in nearly four years in September. And unlike some recent declines, this one happened for the right reason: not because people gave up looking for a job, but because far more people reported having one.

It is a surprising improvement in a job market that had appeared listless in recent months. Although employers added a modest 114,000 jobs in September, the unemployment rate dropped sharply, from 8.1 to 7.8 percent, the government reported Friday.

Employers added a seasonally adjusted 114,000 jobs, a tepid pace that was accompanied by data revisions boosting the number of positions added in previous months by 86,000. The new figures showed that the nation added 181,000 jobs in July and 142,000 jobs in August, and that third-quarter job growth was far higher than in the spring.

With just a month before the presidential election, the U.S. unemployment rate unexpectedly fell to 7.8 percent in September, dipping below 8 percent for the first time since January 2009.

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:34 PM
reply to post by jimmiec

So, what are you saying?
That because they lean democratic, their polls and studies are not to be trusted?

Pretty much any organization interested in political and socio-economic issues is going to lean one way or another. It is the natural effect of a two-party system.
Democrats and small business tend to pair up just as corporations and Republicans pair up. It is because their ideologies are compatible.

If you have other data to share, that proves what I've linked to, to be falsified or inaccurate in any way, then please share it. Otherwise, what is your point?

BESIDES the fact that I made no claim in regard to that organization's party affiliation or lack thereof. I presented data from a site that is interested in small business owners. How is that irrelevant?
edit on 10/6/2012 by queenannie38 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:35 PM
reply to post by campanionator

The new job numbers are a bit too convenient this close to election. Given the war on coal, the layoffs coming that Obama is telling companies not to announce and the GDP is literally in the toilet.

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 02:10 PM
reply to post by jimmiec

So Obama is now purposely censoring the free speech rights of company owners so that no one will know there are lay-offs coming?

Is he also going to tell the laid off workers to keep their mouths shut, too?

I'm guessing that the only reason he became a constitutional scholar was so that he could break every law in the constitution in an organized and methodical fashion? And of course, he is smart enough to avoid being 'caught' even though every thing he does or said is scrutinized and analyzed with ridiculous intensity by those seeking to prove that their suspicions of his treasonous intention against the entire country were true all along.

I'm still trying to figure out a particular mindset, so don't confuse my external musings with assumptions on your own thoughts...

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 02:18 PM
reply to post by queenannie38

Try a different news station. Under the Warn Act Boeing must give 60 days notice of pending layoffs. Obama told them not to warn their employees and the government will pay any legal fees they incur. Your President is corrupt. He is lying to America. The unemployment numbers are still 15% or higher.

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 05:03 PM
reply to post by jimmiec

Try a different news station?
For what?
Different than what?

You've lost me. I think you did not realize I was being facetious...even while trying to figure out the mindset that you seem to share with a few others who, all, otherwise, when discussing things other than Obama, are rational and intelligent and all those other desirable traits here at ATS.

Anyway...just trying to connect.

Back to your mention Boeing now...a-ha!
That helps a lot.

Still, if you are going to make these claims, please give me a link to read or let it's only fair and I don't ask for something I withhold, myself. I say this because...due to that mindset I was referring to, it is difficult for me to see the value in investing time in certain claims made in a particular context these days. I don't mind doing research and I actually know quite a bit about the Boeing thing...but as far as what you are claiming, I have not run across that yet...and, really...I don't really have any interest in pursuing it outside of discussing it with you...but if it isn't substantiated, why bother?

I could counter by asking how much you know about Boeing's history as a government contractor, their employee stats such as longest employment/average time spent employed at Boeing/average age, well as how much, exactly, they make every year from Government contracts and what they provide as well as their corporate income tax details.

If you even consider those things worth looking into...assuming that you aren't already informed on those questions...I don't mind posting a link for your convenience. I'd have to look for the links to provide that info since they aren't bookmarked...which I don't mind....but only if it is warranted by your interest. Because otherwise, I still have a bunch of crawling around to do if I stick to my intention of answering the other 9 things on the list posted by the OP.

Just sayin'.

Don't want to seem like a jerk.

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 05:15 PM
reply to post by queenannie38

It's too late to edit my post about the health care, but I should have typed $695, not $95, for the mandate or 'tax' that will be required by those who can afford health insurance but choose not to buy it.

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 06:09 PM
Forgive me for doing this out of the original order, but some points will require more time and some I'm doing it according to the chunks of time I have available.

3. EPA’s burdensome regulations

Regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency put a tremendous burden on businesses, making job creation more difficult. The agency’s rules on air quality standards are curtailing energy produced from coal-fired electrical plants, causing a rise in electricity prices and making scarce a major resource that is abundant in America.

I hate to say this...but REALLY?!?!
The Environmental Protection Agency's 'burdensome' regulations.

I guess if you aren't really worried about health...that is, your own, your families and your neighbor's...and/or if you don't really consider having a healthy planet an indispensable foundation for existence (for whatever reason)...and if the efforts that are sadly necessary to ensure we don't make our home uninhabitable or poisonous NOW or in the FUTURE seem onerous because they cut into TODAY's profit margins...then sure....'burdensome' might be a justified complaint.

On the other I really need to find some sort of link or reference to remind everyone of an immutable FACT?

Said fact being that WE ALL NEED TO BREATH AIR to live.
Dirty air may be better than no air at all...but clean air is the best choice for many reasons.

Even if that danged old profit thing keeps getting in the way...what good is it to be rich when you can't go anywhere without your oxygen concentrator and it is nearly impossible to finish a sentence without going into a coughing fit...and you've never even smoked a single cigarette in your life?

A healthy savings account is worthless if your lungs are crap. No amount of money, so far, can reverse COPD or other chronic respiratory illnesses. While there is still clean air available on the mountaintops for those who can afford the real will not remain clean if pollution is still being added to the dirtier air that the less fortunate have to breathe.

It may not matter so much now...but it is only a matter of time.

And that is JUST the air issue.
The EPA is compelled to issue regulations limiting or prohibiting short-sighted and profit-oriented abuse of the environment by corporations who evidently do not think beyond the lines on their balance sheets...not because they want to make it hard to make a living or find a job but because of things like what happened at Love Canal...and factories that disposed of leather tanning chemicals straight into the river...keeping dirt roads from excessive dust by spraying them with carcinogenic compounds...the Valdez oil spill...and the worst yet and most recent...OH HOW SOON we FORGET...what happened in April of 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico.

The reefs are irreparably damaged because of BP's oil spill...all those 'mysterious' mass animal deaths that happened the following winter were not as mysterious as they'd like us to believe...crude oil poisoning, plain and simple...and then, tarballs again washing up after Hurricane Isaac...and there is a current thread started here at ATS about a 'mysterious' oil sheen showing up in the same place in the last week or so.

The people that are in charge of these operations....that make decisions that have far-reaching potentially catastrophic effects for ALL life on this planet...CAN NOT be TRUSTED to keep what is TRULY important as their priority...their priority is making as much money as possible...I do not care what business they are in...if they are putting their own financial gain or even responsibility ahead of the life this planet supports, both animal and vegetable...then they need close supervision.

They don't see anything wrong with burdening people that they will never know with things like cancer and chronic illness...making their lives either tragically shortened or rendered pretty much devoid of the chance to live normally by robbing them of health and hope and their loved ones...merely burdening them with regulations is actually generous and merciful.

The idea that it costs jobs is just a favorite excuse. How many people would choose a job over health?
Do you really think that people would choose to be employed at such cost?

MOREOVER...there are many long-established corporations in this country that are transforming their entire operations so that they no longer harm the environment and even provide new benefits...WITHOUT laying anyone off or jacking up their prices or even anything detrimental to their long-term profit margins...and there are new ones coming up all the time that are doing just as well.

The reason that jobs are sacrificed in other scenarios is because those making the financial decisions and/or receiving the profit not want to spend any money to comply...and if they do, they lay off workers to preserve their profits.

You know this!

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 06:55 PM
reply to post by jimmiec

Under the Warn Act Boeing must give 60 days notice of pending layoffs.

60 days before WHEN?

Have we even come close to 60 days before these layoffs are to occur?

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 07:01 PM
reply to post by jimmiec

Given the war on coal

War on coal? More like a war on facts. Must be watching Faux news.

Natural gas prices have tanked, making it much cheaper than coal for the power companies. There are additional costs for burning coal and 'keeping it clean', but I like to breathe. And so do most of the people I know.

Burn it clean, or ship it to China. Let them breathe it in.

new topics

top topics


log in