Next recession?

[Tervuren]

A lot will depend on how this new set of representatives in congress conduct themselves.

Doesn't matter the party, there aren't all puppets.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by cabmando

Nope, I just want you to do research before forming an opinion. Shaun clearly hasn't researched or is using only sites that agree with his thought process in determining that none of the regulations repealed had any effect on the economy.

No. The TDS position is that deregulation has spurred the economy. That's the claim.

It is incumbent upon you to prove that position. My good friend Ted made the same claim and failed to respond since he knows it's false. The responsibility is on you Nick.

Show what regulations were repealed and their net economic impact.

[cabmandone]

Originally Posted by Shaun @ Tru6

No. The TDS position is that deregulation has spurred the economy. That's the claim.

It is incumbent upon you to prove that position. My good friend Ted made the same claim and failed to respond since he knows it's false. The responsibility is on you Nick.

Show what regulations were repealed and their net economic impact.

Order limiting NEPA studies. Net economic impact: Expedites development
The argument against: Not enough time to do a full environmental study

Yes Shaun, getting a project from planning to built faster has a net benefit to the economy.

Now, show me how you came to your conclusion that none of the regulations cut helped the economy. It's your turn now.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060059865

[cabmandone]

Yep that's the one. And yep his order limiting delays has economic benefit.. Unless you can prove it doesn't.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

What are we taking here, $10-$15 added to the GDP? Maybe more with a Groupon.

[cabmandone]

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trumps-deregulation-binge/
Maybe just a bit more that 10-$15... but who wants to take the time to research things when you have me doing it for you... right?
What I'm getting at, don't come to conclusions based on what you think is true, as you clearly have, but rather do so by researching... as I have.

Personally I hate having to go back and find things that I have read in the past just to show people who might not pay as much attention to this kind of thing that their thinking is wrong. Tell Ted I said "you're welcome" (sheesh tabs... you disappoint me if you really couldn't support this)

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Great, more fake news from an alt-right "media" source that uses made up numbers and talks in broader generalities than you do.

It's an EDITORIAL. Jesus ******* Christ I'm tired of people with no critical thinking skills whatsoever.

List the regulations, show the math.

Love this: "As he promised, Donald Trump is doing just that."

It's an EDITORIAL. It's FAKE. I'm a little surprised it didn't say $26 trillion was saved per month. More with a Groupon.

List the regulations, show the math.

[cabmandone]

Originally Posted by Shaun @ Tru6

Great, more fake news from an alt-right "media" source that uses made up numbers and talks in broader generalities than you do.

It's an EDITORIAL. Jesus ******* Christ I'm tired of people with no critical thinking skills whatsoever.

List the regulations, show the math.

Love this: "As he promised, Donald Trump is doing just that."

It's an EDITORIAL. It's FAKE. I'm a little surprised it didn't say $26 trillion was saved per month. More with a Groupon.

List the regulations, show the math.

You seem a bit grumpy this evening. I'm sorry if you're making yourself look uninformed.
What doesn't surprise me is that you went after the source and have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to dispute their numbers other than your FEELINGS.
Now Shaun, put up or shut up on this one bud. I gave you examples supporting my side. Your turn to prove they have no economic benefit. I wish you luck because it's a tougher task than mine was.
As a business owner I'm a bit surprised you can't see how regulations would adversely effect you. If you want to build a new building and the regulations are prohibitive, you are less likely to build that new building. You mention critical thinking, you might try some of it, because you're failing to think this through.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

I'm sorry, $36 trillion.

No, you didn't give examples, you gave fake news.

The TDS position is that deregulation has spurred the economy. That's the claim.

It is incumbent upon you to prove that position. The responsibility is on you Nick.

It should be super simple. Like, really easy to show which regulations were repealed and their net economic impact. The economy is doing well, this should be easy for you.

Show what regulations were repealed and their net economic impact.

[cabmandone]

Originally Posted by Shaun @ Tru6

I'm sorry, $36 trillion.

No, you didn't give examples, you gave fake news.

The TDS position is that deregulation has spurred the economy. That's the claim.

It is incumbent upon you to prove that position. The responsibility is on you Nick.

It should be super simple. Like, really easy to show which regulations were repealed and their net economic impact. The economy is doing well, this should be easy for you.

Show what regulations were repealed and their net economic impact.

Dude, that's just weak. You should log off now. I have supported my argument. The fact that you have now closed your eyes, plugged your ears and are yelling "fake news" is on you, not me.
Now, are you going to support your claim that it had no benefit or not? So far I'm leaning towards not.

[cabmandone]

For educational purposes do the following search: "Economic cost of regulations"

You'll find that most regulations come with an economic cost. That cost is weighed against benefits such as to the environment or to the worker..etc.. But most have an economic cost associated with them.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

hey, I'm not the one who makes a claim and then posts an editorial. Who does that? That's the problem with our country today. Facts aren't real anymore and opinion counts the same as facts do.

I'm here to tell you that that is not true. Opinion, in this day and age, has no more basis in reality than 1970s soap operas your grandmother watched.

Listen, it's pretty clear you can't prove or even defend to any degree that deregulation has spurred the economy. If you could, you would. But even Ted can't so don't feel bad.

Opinion is not the same as fact. That's the real takeaway here. Realizing this cures Trump Derangement Syndrome.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by cabmando

For educational purposes do the following search: "Economic cost of regulations"

You'll find that most regulations come with an economic cost. That cost is weighed against benefits such as to the environment or to the worker..etc.. But most have an economic cost associated with them.

Then it should be easy for you to list the regulations repealed and their net economic impact.

MS13

[cabmandone]

Originally Posted by Shaun @ Tru6

hey, I'm not the one who makes a claim and then posts an editorial.

Right! You're the one who makes a claim and then refuses to support it at all!!

Again, if you're so inclined to research and I'm thinking your really not on this subject, lookup "Economic cost of regulation"

There is economic cost in complying with regulations. Surely you of great critical thinking can figure it out from here?

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Sigh, no. Here's how debate works. Someone, like Ted for example makes a claim: Deregulation has spurred the economy.

The next step in debate is someone says show me your supporting evidence. That's me, here I am:

Originally Posted by Shaun @ Tru6

You will want to list those regulations and the ones repealed and the effect of each.

Then Ted, or you as his proxy, says, hey, this regulation 50034.LL2.FG was repealed which resulted in $36 trillion of new taxable income every month. Here's where I got the math and supporting evidence...

Then I respond to that.

Here's the thing that you aren't asking yourself and I'm not quite sure why you aren't. Why can't you find 10 or 5 or 1 thoroughly analyzed example like the repeal of regulation 50034.LL2.FG?

I know you are googling all around and can't really come up with anything because no one has done the analysis because there isn't anything to analyze, and have had to resort to generalities and truisms to support your case, but why aren't you scratching your head wondering why you can't find anything detailed. Other than, "It's not my thing."

[nota]

they are con's they like to be conned

and t-RUMP is a very good con-man

and facts are just fake news esp if it is against their dogma

the belief in the dogma trump's truth and is unquestioned
and unquestionable in their belief

the true t-RUMP derangement syndrome it only effects the true NUT-con's

[dafischer]

Keep it in PARF.

[nota]

Originally Posted by dafischer

Keep it in PARF.

sorry but it was an explanation of the above page of back and forth
as to why no numbers are needed or forthcoming from the faithful
and how absurd it is to the other sides views

[dafischer]

English, por favor.