I know the *mods* here can be sensitive.

"to learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize".

Yeah, like all the power is now concentrated in the hands of the black trans handicapped community.

Love Sosa - 4 day timeout from the forum

Trump did, though?



All of his children, most of whom are adults, are supposedly having a hard time with what Kathy Griffin did. Kinda sounds like they're all a bunch of whiny cowards?

You can't both be the party of "**** your feelings" and "my adult children are having a hard time with this", you kinda have to pick one!

Two things:
- your description of this link appears to be a total and complete lie, because that's not what your link says; who do you think you're fooling?
- but even if it was the truth, where's the causation? Otherwise I assume you're ready to give Obama credit for a masterful record on the economy due to the performance of the Dow during his term, right?

Again, two things:
- you have a serious problem with honesty, the headline you linked to puts it much better: "Carrier blames job cuts on new federal rules, but regulatory burden is tough to measure". They say it's regulations, but they could also just be looking for a scapegoat. Who's going to say "we fired workers to save money, but please do still buy our products"?
- jobs in the renewable energy sector are soaring right now, partly because of the same regulations you rail against that are taking jobs away from coal miners!

You know that way more people work in the solar industry than the coal industry, right? Why does Trump love the small number of coal miners but hate the larger number of solar workers whose jobs he's placing in jeopardy by reducing incentives for clean energy?

Mods, please move this basic laws of economics denier garbage to the conspiracy thread.

The guy is literally saying that when the government hands a company money they hire more people, but when the government takes money away from a company they don't fire people.

Which regulation is taking money away from them?

To quote the article he posted:

He said the theater should be a safe space.

Do you not understand what he's doing, lol? He's using your own tactics against you. And it's funny.

Lol at anyone in his family caring about Kathy ****ing Griffin. Then trolling her is hilarious, though, and her committing career suicide was great.

She got what she deserved. Well done, Kathy!

idk how conservatives ever got the idea in their head that liberals give a **** about Kathy Griffin. Nobody here that I can see is decrying what's happened to her career whatsoever; I certainly​ don't care.

Trump is just exposing himself as a hypocrite, which is certainly nothing new.

Lol. This is so amusing.

Wow, severe ownage.

Basic cost-benefit analysis does tell me that a company would put out a press release to dupe idiots into supporting them if they believed it would help increase their profits.

Mods, please move bahahmickey's economics denier garbage to the appropriate thread.

Really? The point, it is over your head.



Which direction did life expectancy go under Obama in 2015?



Just because you don't like facts, doesn't mean I have a problem with honesty. Let me get this straight though - scientists can predict to within tenths of a degree the temperature 100 years from now, but we are unable to measure the burdens of regulation as it stares companies in the face? Hrmmmm...interesting logic Leftists seem to subscribe to.


As for solar workers, you don't mean Solyndra, do you?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...llion-solar-p/

Or that Solar City needed a bailout from it's already subsidized cousin at Tesla. Which, the Left is always criticizing millionaires and billionaires - how many Telsas can we sign you guys up to subsidize? Right now it's between $7500 and up to $17K depending on the state - https://www.tesla.com/support/incentives. Those millionaires and billionaires surely need the extra government dough here.

Of course these policies are putting the hurt on the German economy, but we should follow suit, eh? http://fortune.com/2017/03/14/german...-energy-solar/ "Germany’s High-Priced Energy Revolution"

No, I don't believe you can so accurately make such projections 100 years from now. See Dilbert has used his "persuasion skills" on you to completely misframe the subject. Duped by a cartoonist, how embarrassing.

The "regulations" were a red herring. Carrier couldn't even cite what the regulations were. I am no scientist but would think the first step in measuring the effect of a regulation is the to determine what the regulation is. At least in this instance you were duped a media consultant and not a cartoonist.

See how you added "in 2015"? That's what makes your previous statement missing that qualifier a lie.

LOL, see above

Nothing in this snippet appears to be making a coherent argument.
- you linked the article (seriously! YOU chose this to represent your side!) and now you're suggesting its claims that "regulatory burden is tough to measure" are false?
- Solyndra/SolarCity - I get that the currency of the right is to trade in boogeymen, but like, if these businesses were all just failures then how is it possible that there are still so many people employed in solar today (more than coal!)? Shouldn't they all have gone under by now? And do you think that coal isn't a subsidized industry in this country? Seriously, none of this line of argument from you makes any sense whatsoever.
- Crapping on Tesla is amusing, they're the most valuable auto producer in the United States and they're building the biggest factory in the world in Nevada right now but conservatives haaaaaate them because Elon Musk believes in climate change lolol

The Fortune article is good, thanks for linking that. Yes, renewable energy is expensive, but it's getting cheaper. That article also makes some good points for renewable energy:

Rick Santorum is still making this argument lol

USA#1 doesn't have that problem!

Any regulation that costs the business money hurts growth.

Mods, please move all goofy and my posts about the topic to the conspiracy thread.

I see you are in need of an economics lesson as you have been infected with childish dogma. Actually that is a little unfair to children as even a child could come up with an example of how a regulation could increase growth. For a simple example, a regulation saying companies can't dump sludge on bahbah's house allows you to go out and be a healthy, productive citizen and grow the economy. Well, bad example with you specifically, but you get the idea.

Trump administration orders federal agencies to ignore oversight requests from congressional Democrats

thisisfine.jpg, everyone knows Republicans don't need oversight

Inside Trump's decision to withdraw from Paris accord

The "stay" side had some big guns on it:

Ivanka and CEOs saying that staying in Paris is good for businesses - the opposing side was largely argued by nationalists (Bannon) and hyper-conservatives (Pruitt) with little business input involved whatsoever. Oh, and this:

The president's fragile and childlike ego.

Hurts growth of that company maybe, but growth of the overall economy definitely not by any meaningful interpretation of growth.

The point of regulation in most cases is to get companies to internalize the costs that through business-as-usual would be inflicted on other people/companies/communities. If requiring a business to foot the cost of damage that it's inflicting on others is enough to sink them, it's not really a business model worth protecting and everything they produced before the regulation would have been to the detriment to society as a whole.

Bahbah doesn't understand another thing. Shocking! Bahbah, just curious, but what are you trying your hand at now career wise?

Meh. Regulation is often meant to rationalize negative externalities (eg carbon use regulations), but it is also often the result of rent-seeking on the part of incumbent firms and interest groups.

You are wrong.

"A study in the June issue of the "Journal of Economic Growth" – authored by John Dawson of Appalachian State University and John Seater of North Carolina State University – estimates that federal regulations have reduced economic growth by about 2 percent per year between 1949 and 2005."

"Another unintended consequence is the stifling of entrepreneurship. Regulations can create barriers to people interested in selling goods or services or starting a small business. For example, 17 states require an individual to earn a license to do hair braiding. To obtain a license in Pennsylvania, you have to train for 300 hours, pass a practical and theoretical exam and then pay a fee. Barriers such as these give consumers fewer choices, and with fewer practitioners offering their services in a particular field, customers may face higher prices."

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...ons-of-dollars

When I'm not practicing in my mariachi band I am working my second job at the bank. You?

A couple posts on "regulations" that are relevant to any discussion about them:

and

Forget Trump, Tranny Bonaduce should have known she was asking for trouble when she appropriated an Islamic cultural custom.

goof, I don't think anyone is arguing we should have zero regulation. What conservatives often argue is that we have too much regulation.

I thought this was an obvious thing, but since I can see that it went over both your and wookie's heads I'd like to add that when adults argue about taxes, gov't spending, or entitlement programs most people don't want taxes or gov't spending to be zero or for us to get rid of entitlement programs, we are just going back and forth about decreasing or increasing the amounts. Hope this helps.