I would state, generously, that many if not most people in this thread bemoaning some removal of a legislation don't have any experience with it, let alone owning a business and having a board outlook on the entire thing.
Of course rarely is reality pointed out that regulations often have the opposite effect and pollute the world more, and lose jobs, because we live in an age where companies can move overseas to say, China.
I personally have a wait and see approach, but for now its only generated enthusiasm and i haven't quite yet heard the major environmental disaster that should have occurred that i am sure CNN will cover breathlessly.
I always thought it was kind of remarkable that optimism could have an impact on economic growth, and pessimism can introduce instability. But it makes sense. Economists prefer to work with models that assume strictly rational decisionmaking, but human beings are emotional critters, and people will make more or less investments depending on how they feel at the moment. A bit like how judges will give slightly different sentences before and after lunchtime. The funny thing is that directly after the election's results came in, there was a slight stock market crash. Nothing had changed about the economy; things just felt uncertain and prices fluctuated alongside people's feelings.
I'm glad for the optimism, but I don't see which regulations are so evil they needed to be removed. The first example that comes up is a rule that financial companies are required to act in the best interests of our clients, and not cheat them.
That's why AAF analyst Dan Goldbeck was prompted to write, "From almost any perspective, President Trump's Executive Order 13,771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, marked one of the most significant developments in regulatory policy in decades," adding that it was the "first time in United States history that the executive branch has established a regulatory budget."
This has had a major salutary effect on small business in particular. In August the National Federation of Independent Business, the nation's largest small-business organization, said its widely followed Small-Business Optimism Index reached 105.3 in August, the highest since 2006 and an 11% jump since the week before Donald "The Deregulator" Trump was elected.
An accident, you say? The NFIB doesn't think so. In an unusually blunt assessment, it calls the jump a "relief rally" because business "did not get another four years of costly federal regulations which increased the hold of government on the private sector. The Congressional Record is nearly empty compared to years of record new and changed regulations posted for the past eight years."
This also helps to explain the great mystery to many about why the stock market has performed so spectacularly since Trump was elected, even though neither tax reform or ObamaCare repeal have yet been passed: Businesses are already benefiting from lower regulatory costs, and they're expected to continue bolstering companies' bottom lines in the coming years. https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/regulations-cut-another-yuuuge-trump-promise-fulfilled/
I think most people here don't conceive how hard it is for small businesses to prosper. I also encourage people to read more from 'financial' or 'business' papers, its often remarked that when it comes down to dry money, these papers are slightly more impartial in their articles and talk about things you literally do not hear about in the mainstream media.
I would state, generously, that many if not most people in this thread bemoaning some removal of a legislation don't have any experience with it, let alone owning a business and having a board outlook on the entire thing.
Of course rarely is reality pointed out that regulations often have the opposite effect and pollute the world more, and lose jobs, because we live in an age where companies can move overseas to say, China.
I personally have a wait and see approach, but for now its only generated enthusiasm and i haven't quite yet heard the major environmental disaster that should have occurred that i am sure CNN will cover breathlessly.
And I would state that people are quite capable of educating themselves on what these regulations are and what they do.
The statement "regulations often have the opposite effect and pollute the world" is a contentious claim and needs citation.
I think most people here don't conceive how hard it is for small businesses to prosper. I also encourage people to read more from 'financial' or 'business' papers, its often remarked that when it comes down to dry money, these papers are slightly more impartial in their articles and talk about things you literally do not hear about in the mainstream media.
And what are your thoughts on the tax bill making it significantly harder for small businesses to prosper?
I work with safety regulations every single day. Are they annoying?? Kind of. Do they cost money?? Sure. They are also what keep people's fingers from getting chopped off and bloodborne pathogens out of your food.
I work with safety regulations every single day. Are they annoying?? Kind of. Do they cost money?? Sure. They are also what keep people's fingers from getting chopped off and bloodborne pathogens out of your food.
These arent the regulations the administration has really targeted, of course generalizations is the norm, if he removes one and surely he must be aiming to remove everything so we die tomorrow.
And what are your thoughts on the tax bill making it significantly harder for small businesses to prosper?
You think anyone actually knows what the tax bill in summation will do?
Anyone professing such judgement is either partisan or just plain out wrong, no one knows what these massive bills will do, not the politicians, not corporations and certainly not the lay person, by design tax bills and most bills are a mess.
There seems to be some that help small businesses, there seems to be some that might not help them, no one really knows the net effect.
Has anyone here read it? I sincerely doubt it i haven't, so i don't profess to judge it, i leave that to partisan hacks.
And of course it's generated enthusiasm from the business sector - this is what they want. This isn't evidence that what they want is a good thing.
Your post is straight down the line partisanship, which you complained about earlier.
Regulations is not necessarily beneficial, as they are not necessarily detrimental, anyone claiming some blanket judgement (at least without a disaster to qualify their appraisal) is honestly just being partisan.
At the very least, small business advocacy groups are universal in their condemnation of over-regulation, yet the only perspective i hear here is....more?
I hardly think such a perspective is rational.
of course the need to portray Trump as some destroyer-to-be-of-worlds makes it hard to take such criticism seriously.
Regulations is not necessarily beneficial, as they are not necessarily detrimental, anyone claiming some blanket judgement (at least without a disaster to qualify their appraisal) is honestly just being partisan.
At the very least, small business advocacy groups are universal in their condemnation of over-regulation, yet the only perspective i hear here is....more?
I hardly think such a perspective is rational.
of course the need to portray Trump as some destroyer-to-be-of-worlds makes it hard to take such criticism seriously.
Many regulations are beneficial, though. Trump is excising regulations without any concern as to whether they achieve what they set out to achieve or not, whether they're needed or not.
No one claimed a blanket judgment.
You haven't heard a perspective of "more regulations" here. You've seen the argument that Trump is axing beneficial and necessary regulations.
No one needs to portray Trump as a destroyer of anything. He does that on his own.
Calling things partisan to discredit them is a vapid argument. Yes, I pointed out your arguments were partisan, but that was to make a point. The point being the first sentence in this paragraph.
Any analysis which concludes that only one political party needs to change its fundamental nature presents only half a solution. *Both* major parties need to return to their roots--the Democrat Party of today is wildly different from that of not only Kennedy/Johnson but Carter, as well. Clinton was "Democrat Lite" and Obama was really DINO because so many of his policies were just holdovers from the Bush Administration.
Anyone professing such judgement is either partisan or just plain out wrong, no one knows what these massive bills will do, not the politicians, not corporations and certainly not the lay person, by design tax bills and most bills are a mess.
There seems to be some that help small businesses, there seems to be some that might not help them, no one really knows the net effect.
Has anyone here read it? I sincerely doubt it i haven't, so i don't profess to judge it, i leave that to partisan hacks.
Of course no one here has read it. It's literally hundreds of pages in length. The version the Senate passed had handwritten revisions in the margins. This doesn't mean no one knows what's in the bill, or that the tax breaks impact the wealthiest people and corporations in the US the most, and that middle and working class families as well as small businesses will bear the brunt of the cuts.
Also, calling something partisan as a way to discredit is a vapid argument.
Any analysis which concludes that only one political party needs to change its fundamental nature presents only half a solution. *Both* major parties need to return to their roots--the Democrat Party of today is wildly different from that of not only Kennedy/Johnson but Carter, as well. Clinton was "Democrat Lite" and Obama was really DINO because so many of his policies were just holdovers from the Bush Administration.
The Democratic party is extremely flawed. I'm not saying that they're the best they could possibly be and beyond reproach.
However, they literally are the lesser of two evils at this point in history. They're not busily trying to destroy the US' economy, nor are they supporting a resurgence of white supremacists.
So you admit the Republicans voting on the bill and promoting the bill and talking about the bill don't know what they're talking about?
OF COURSE, thats the norm regardless of political party, have you forgotten Obamacare was voted by democrat politicians saying blatantly they don't know whats in it anyway?
Of course no one here has read it. It's literally hundreds of pages in length. The version the Senate passed had handwritten revisions in the margins. This doesn't mean no one knows what's in the bill, or that the tax breaks impact the wealthiest people and corporations in the US the most, and that middle and working class families as well as small businesses will bear the brunt of the cuts.
Also, calling something partisan as a way to discredit is a vapid argument.
Lol, its not 'handwritten revisions' that is the problem, is the system itself which is a check and balance but means we cannot produce efficient bills.
All bills are up for votes, the votes happen along party lines but also corporate (special interests) and state lines (senators).
The natural process is therefore a constant compromise on bills to get votes, people get stuff in they want for their vote etc.
That means all bills are a mess, they are not designed in a uniform fashion where all provisions and items are aimed towards a common goal, and even if it were the system of votes and compromise would chip away at it till it becomes a hodgepodge.
Originally it was envisioned as a necessary check and balance, better to get a middling Tax bill then risk having a bill that is either super amazing or super devastating.
Corporations and special interests having strong sway is the worst problem because our system is not designed to handle such abuse, one of the things we are long over-due to address.
No legislator actually *reads* legislation; the staffers do that and then give a one- or two-page synopsis to the legislator so they can digest it in only a few minutes.
I know the analysis was not yours, @BelleSorciere ; there was no intention to imply otherwise. I view *both* parties as The Problem, though, which is why I would like both of them to disappear entirely.
No legislator actually *reads* legislation; the staffers do that and then give a one- or two-page synopsis to the legislator so they can digest it in only a few minutes.
I know the analysis was not yours, @BelleSorciere ; there was no intention to imply otherwise. I view *both* parties as The Problem, though, which is why I would like both of them to disappear entirely.
It's been an hour since my last comment. Just checking to see if the spam timer has expired, or if I need to wait til 8:39 pm Central Standard time to make a new post. Has anyone received a copy of the new ground rules for debate yet??
It's been an hour since my last comment. Just checking to see if the spam timer has expired, or if I need to wait til 8:39 pm Central Standard time to make a new post. Has anyone received a copy of the new ground rules for debate yet??
Basically stop spamming anti-Trump articles with the intention of purely wanting a one-sided discussion on this thread against Trump would be nice.
No legislator actually *reads* legislation; the staffers do that and then give a one- or two-page synopsis to the legislator so they can digest it in only a few minutes.
I know the analysis was not yours, @BelleSorciere ; there was no intention to imply otherwise. I view *both* parties as The Problem, though, which is why I would like both of them to disappear entirely.
The worst part about having only two parties is that neither can stay in power long enough for their economic policies to pass the test of time. It's like an f'ing tennis match! Without the passage of time it's virtually impossible to prove what is and isn't good for the economy. If the Republicans pass their tax bill then lose in 2018 or 2020 that'll be less than 3 years to see what happens. If the Dems take power they'll almost certainly use the same simple majority tactics to get their own tax bill passed. Then they'll inevitably lose power themselves again and it's another round of 'ram it through while we have the numbers'. We need at least a 3rd party, or preferably 5 or more, and a parliamentary system where there HAS to be some give and take.
The founding fathers got it wrong when they didn't foresee the dangers of political parties.
It's been an hour since my last comment. Just checking to see if the spam timer has expired, or if I need to wait til 8:39 pm Central Standard time to make a new post. Has anyone received a copy of the new ground rules for debate yet??
Basically stop spamming anti-Trump articles with the intention of purely wanting a one-sided discussion on this thread against Trump would be nice.
Thanks.
As we've discussed, it ain't spam and it ain't against the Site Rules.
Accusing other forumites of sinister motives is, however, and we've issued formal warnings for exactly that in the past.
As we've discussed, it ain't spam and it ain't against the Site Rules.
Accusing other forumites of sinister motives is, however, and we've issued formal warnings for exactly that in the past.
Sure let me rephrase.
Please stop posting voluminous amounts of anti-trump articles to turn a thread which should include politics of other countries to be one-sided discussion against Trump.
Australia, the UK, Canada, and many other countries would like to have a word with you.
Australia only has two working political parties, all others are fringe.
I lived in australia for most of my life, so you'd be wrong.
2+ party system's don't work well in a democratic process, which is self-evident, because its hard to get a majority when you split the votes too much, in fact thats a common strategy to remain in power and games the system.
At best you'd have to change it so we operate on a plurality system, not democratic.
Well we do have commenters from Poland, the UK, Canada, Finland, & Australia and I'm sure I'm forgetting some (I think I recall a comment or two from a Russian but I may be mistaken). The trouble is I'm not sure we get enough people from outside the USA/Canada to keep the thread on their topics for long. I can banter with them a little and pick their brains but more than one perspective from those countries would be needed to keep the topic moving for more than a few posts.
The founding fathers got it wrong when they didn't foresee the dangers of political parties.
For those who might not be aware, the Founding Fathers actually complained bitterly about the rise of political parties in the early years of the republic. The notion of political organization was completely antithetical to the notion of an elite, strictly merit-based electoral system. Political parties were far too chaotic, democratic, populist, and plebeian for the Founding Fathers' tastes. They never actually banned political parties or took measures to prevent them from forming, but they were very critical of political parties.
Of course, there's a lot of things about our modern system that would horrify the Founding Fathers, and not all of those things are bad.
It's been an hour since my last comment. Just checking to see if the spam timer has expired, or if I need to wait til 8:39 pm Central Standard time to make a new post. Has anyone received a copy of the new ground rules for debate yet??
My opinion of you has not been changed one bit by anything that others have said.
Your ongoing reaction to it, however, is starting to move the needle.
It's been an hour since my last comment. Just checking to see if the spam timer has expired, or if I need to wait til 8:39 pm Central Standard time to make a new post. Has anyone received a copy of the new ground rules for debate yet??
My opinion of you has not been changed one bit by anything that others have said.
Your reaction to it, however, is starting to move the needle.
I don't know, I kinda like the sarcasm (but that's my kind of humor). Nothing like the ol' @jjstraka34 vs. @vanatos point/counterpoint to get this thread moving like a freight train!
For those who might not be aware, the Founding Fathers actually complained bitterly about the rise of political parties in the early years of the republic. The notion of political organization was completely antithetical to the notion of an elite, strictly merit-based electoral system. Political parties were far too chaotic, democratic, populist, and plebeian for the Founding Fathers' tastes. They never actually banned political parties or took measures to prevent them from forming, but they were very critical of political parties.
Of course, there's a lot of things about our modern system that would horrify the Founding Fathers, and not all of those things are bad.
Indeed, what they hated most was the tribalism that emerges from such a system, and the tendency to disagree just for the sake of disagreeing the other side, which is literally what we see everywhere even here.
I think the founders envisioned an America that had small Government, was nationalistic (or Patriotic) then State lines, and generally the division was the people and the Government.
I don't know, I kinda like the sarcasm (but that's my kind of humor). Nothing like the ol' @jjstraka34 vs. @vanatos point/counterpoint to get this thread moving like a freight train!
It was fun, lots of the same topics though, has the whole 'Gun debate' happened while i was away again?
Let me jump the internet debate shark to the Hitler example.
Let's say someone claimed "you're only posting anti-Hitler information, whatabout the good things he's doing for the economy?"
Objective reality is that by and large Hitler was bad for Germany.
If there has been an anti trump slant its because there is plenty of things he's doing or trying to do that deserve attention and criticism.
Just like with Hitler you don't automatically get kudos just because he's been getting a lot of negative press. That makes no sense.
If he were to do something that was not selling out the American people to corporations or pushing regressive policy and there might be something to talk about that is not negative.
Comments
Of course rarely is reality pointed out that regulations often have the opposite effect and pollute the world more, and lose jobs, because we live in an age where companies can move overseas to say, China.
I personally have a wait and see approach, but for now its only generated enthusiasm and i haven't quite yet heard the major environmental disaster that should have occurred that i am sure CNN will cover breathlessly.
This has had a major salutary effect on small business in particular. In August the National Federation of Independent Business, the nation's largest small-business organization, said its widely followed Small-Business Optimism Index reached 105.3 in August, the highest since 2006 and an 11% jump since the week before Donald "The Deregulator" Trump was elected.
An accident, you say? The NFIB doesn't think so. In an unusually blunt assessment, it calls the jump a "relief rally" because business "did not get another four years of costly federal regulations which increased the hold of government on the private sector. The Congressional Record is nearly empty compared to years of record new and changed regulations posted for the past eight years."
This also helps to explain the great mystery to many about why the stock market has performed so spectacularly since Trump was elected, even though neither tax reform or ObamaCare repeal have yet been passed: Businesses are already benefiting from lower regulatory costs, and they're expected to continue bolstering companies' bottom lines in the coming years.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/regulations-cut-another-yuuuge-trump-promise-fulfilled/
I think most people here don't conceive how hard it is for small businesses to prosper.
I also encourage people to read more from 'financial' or 'business' papers, its often remarked that when it comes down to dry money, these papers are slightly more impartial in their articles and talk about things you literally do not hear about in the mainstream media.
The statement "regulations often have the opposite effect and pollute the world" is a contentious claim and needs citation.
https://publicpolicy.wharton.upenn.edu/live/news/1545-why-environmental-regulation-is-good-for-the
And of course it's generated enthusiasm from the business sector - this is what they want. This isn't evidence that what they want is a good thing.
Your post is straight down the line partisanship, which you complained about earlier.
Anyone professing such judgement is either partisan or just plain out wrong, no one knows what these massive bills will do, not the politicians, not corporations and certainly not the lay person, by design tax bills and most bills are a mess.
There seems to be some that help small businesses, there seems to be some that might not help them, no one really knows the net effect.
Has anyone here read it? I sincerely doubt it i haven't, so i don't profess to judge it, i leave that to partisan hacks.
At the very least, small business advocacy groups are universal in their condemnation of over-regulation, yet the only perspective i hear here is....more?
I hardly think such a perspective is rational.
of course the need to portray Trump as some destroyer-to-be-of-worlds makes it hard to take such criticism seriously.
https://weeklysift.com/2017/12/18/should-we-care-what-happens-to-the-gops-soul/
No one claimed a blanket judgment.
You haven't heard a perspective of "more regulations" here. You've seen the argument that Trump is axing beneficial and necessary regulations.
No one needs to portray Trump as a destroyer of anything. He does that on his own.
Calling things partisan to discredit them is a vapid argument. Yes, I pointed out your arguments were partisan, but that was to make a point. The point being the first sentence in this paragraph.
Also, calling something partisan as a way to discredit is a vapid argument.
However, they literally are the lesser of two evils at this point in history. They're not busily trying to destroy the US' economy, nor are they supporting a resurgence of white supremacists.
Like, whataboutism isn't going to solve anything.
All bills are up for votes, the votes happen along party lines but also corporate (special interests) and state lines (senators).
The natural process is therefore a constant compromise on bills to get votes, people get stuff in they want for their vote etc.
That means all bills are a mess, they are not designed in a uniform fashion where all provisions and items are aimed towards a common goal, and even if it were the system of votes and compromise would chip away at it till it becomes a hodgepodge.
Originally it was envisioned as a necessary check and balance, better to get a middling Tax bill then risk having a bill that is either super amazing or super devastating.
Corporations and special interests having strong sway is the worst problem because our system is not designed to handle such abuse, one of the things we are long over-due to address.
I know the analysis was not yours, @BelleSorciere ; there was no intention to imply otherwise. I view *both* parties as The Problem, though, which is why I would like both of them to disappear entirely.
Thanks.
The founding fathers got it wrong when they didn't foresee the dangers of political parties.
Accusing other forumites of sinister motives is, however, and we've issued formal warnings for exactly that in the past.
Please stop posting voluminous amounts of anti-trump articles to turn a thread which should include politics of other countries to be one-sided discussion against Trump.
I lived in australia for most of my life, so you'd be wrong.
2+ party system's don't work well in a democratic process, which is self-evident, because its hard to get a majority when you split the votes too much, in fact thats a common strategy to remain in power and games the system.
At best you'd have to change it so we operate on a plurality system, not democratic.
Of course, there's a lot of things about our modern system that would horrify the Founding Fathers, and not all of those things are bad.
Your ongoing reaction to it, however, is starting to move the needle.
I think the founders envisioned an America that had small Government, was nationalistic (or Patriotic) then State lines, and generally the division was the people and the Government.
Thats still how i would like America to be like. It was fun, lots of the same topics though, has the whole 'Gun debate' happened while i was away again?
Let me jump the internet debate shark to the Hitler example.
Let's say someone claimed "you're only posting anti-Hitler information, whatabout the good things he's doing for the economy?"
Objective reality is that by and large Hitler was bad for Germany.
If there has been an anti trump slant its because there is plenty of things he's doing or trying to do that deserve attention and criticism.
Just like with Hitler you don't automatically get kudos just because he's been getting a lot of negative press. That makes no sense.
If he were to do something that was not selling out the American people to corporations or pushing regressive policy and there might be something to talk about that is not negative.