US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[sealybobo]

Of course that's what a con said about Clinton. Ron paulers teabaggers libertarians neo cons conservatives are all greedy ignorant liars and or stupid. Just depends on if you are rich which ones you are.

The corporate Democrats need to be reformed true. That's what Bernie supporters tried to do.

But the real problem is Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. They've gerrymandered the house so we need to take back the Senate. We will.

Let me see if I've got this straight...you think taking back the Senate is going to "reform" things when Hillary Clinton is sitting in the Oval Office? Did you not get the memo about Hillary taking millions of dollars from all those movers and shakers? You think she's going to let anything happen to them if she's elected? How naive are you, Sealy?

"Movers and shakers"? Lol. Do you expect or assume us liberals are anti wallstreet? No, in fact we want wallstreet to do well. In fact the economy always does better when we are in charge.

You've clearly got the anti hillary pitch down. I think it's hilarious. It's not going to work.

You'll live wondering should you have run kasich Cruz rubio jeb Romney or Carli

Pointing out that Hillary Clinton has taken millions from Wall Street fat cats is "anti Hillary"? I'm hard pressed to see the humor in electing someone who has so routinely proven that they are for sale! One wonders how humorous it will be for you liberals when you see what you're REALLY getting from a Hillary Clinton Presidency! I'm actually looking forward to that if it happens. Watching people like you scratch your heads in bewilderment will be worth four more years of awful leadership.

You don't sound confident at all. I love it! Ric flare Whoooh!

Tell me you're REALLY looking forward to four years of Hillary Clinton as our President, Sealy? Honestly? Is she the best you've got? That's a sad commentary on the modern progressive movement...isn't it?

8 years of hillary.

 

[Oldstyle]

Let me see if I've got this straight...you think taking back the Senate is going to "reform" things when Hillary Clinton is sitting in the Oval Office? Did you not get the memo about Hillary taking millions of dollars from all those movers and shakers? You think she's going to let anything happen to them if she's elected? How naive are you, Sealy?

"Movers and shakers"? Lol. Do you expect or assume us liberals are anti wallstreet? No, in fact we want wallstreet to do well. In fact the economy always does better when we are in charge.

You've clearly got the anti hillary pitch down. I think it's hilarious. It's not going to work.

You'll live wondering should you have run kasich Cruz rubio jeb Romney or Carli

Pointing out that Hillary Clinton has taken millions from Wall Street fat cats is "anti Hillary"? I'm hard pressed to see the humor in electing someone who has so routinely proven that they are for sale! One wonders how humorous it will be for you liberals when you see what you're REALLY getting from a Hillary Clinton Presidency! I'm actually looking forward to that if it happens. Watching people like you scratch your heads in bewilderment will be worth four more years of awful leadership.

You don't sound confident at all. I love it! Ric flare Whoooh!

Tell me you're REALLY looking forward to four years of Hillary Clinton as our President, Sealy? Honestly? Is she the best you've got? That's a sad commentary on the modern progressive movement...isn't it?

8 years of hillary.

She'll have cashed in enough in the first four that she won't need another term, Sealy! Haven't you figured out that's what the Clinton's were always about? Using political power to enrich themselves.

 

[Rshermr]

"Movers and shakers"? Lol. Do you expect or assume us liberals are anti wallstreet? No, in fact we want wallstreet to do well. In fact the economy always does better when we are in charge.

You've clearly got the anti hillary pitch down. I think it's hilarious. It's not going to work.

You'll live wondering should you have run kasich Cruz rubio jeb Romney or Carli

Pointing out that Hillary Clinton has taken millions from Wall Street fat cats is "anti Hillary"? I'm hard pressed to see the humor in electing someone who has so routinely proven that they are for sale! One wonders how humorous it will be for you liberals when you see what you're REALLY getting from a Hillary Clinton Presidency! I'm actually looking forward to that if it happens. Watching people like you scratch your heads in bewilderment will be worth four more years of awful leadership.

You don't sound confident at all. I love it! Ric flare Whoooh!

Tell me you're REALLY looking forward to four years of Hillary Clinton as our President, Sealy? Honestly? Is she the best you've got? That's a sad commentary on the modern progressive movement...isn't it?

8 years of hillary.

She'll have cashed in enough in the first four that she won't need another term, Sealy! Haven't you figured out that's what the Clinton's were always about? Using political power to enrich themselves.

Poor Oldstyle. The last two elections have shown him telling all that would listen that Obama would loose. But each time, he was crushed. Poor sad little mind.

 

[Rshermr]

[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]

If Clinton wins we've got a sleazy liar who sells political favor like a street vendor! If Trump wins we've got a loudmouth New York billionaire who thinks his shit doesn't stink! The country is screwed either way.

Yes, well, so you would say. But you have no proof. Just a lot of republicans who have claimed she lies. But then, as you should well know, you never believe liars. And they are, me boy, all liars.
So, I never fully believe liars. Factcheck keeps count of the number of untrue statements by person. It was the president of the NRA. But now it is Trump. By a mile.

 

[Markle]

Broken record.

Broken record? Wow...talk about being in denial! American businesses spend trillions each and every year complying with Federal regulations yet you don't see that as a problem?

Broken record.

Broken record? Wow...talk about being in denial! American businesses spend trillions each and every year complying with Federal regulations yet you don't see that as a problem?

And another con talking point from Oldstyle. I asked what the benefit is of the regulations. No answer. Because con trolls like oldstyle assume that there is no benefit. So, how did the trillions number, and the net huge cost come about? Why, by the debunked WSG reports.

So, any benefits from the regs, me boy/:
OMB: Benefits Of Federal Rules Outweigh Costs. While Livermore noted that the 2001 OMB report was flawed and discontinued, more recent OMB reports show that year after year the economic benefits of the government's major rules far outweigh their economic costs:

So, there you go. Benefits far outweigh costs. How odd that a con would miss that. So, how many Trillions do the regs cost?
"Most Recent Report Mimics 2014 Edition Which Admitted Method Of Calculating Costs Was "Not Scientific." The 2014 edition of CEI's report stated that their method for calculating each household's regulatory costs is "not scientific," and that they use a "back-of-the-envelope way of reflecting on the magnitude of regulatory costs." In each of the reports, CEI used the same methodology and claimed that regulations represent a "hidden tax" on American families. [CEI.org, 2015; CEI.org, 2014; CEI.org, 2013]

CEI Methodology Was Debunked By The Washington Post's Fact Checker Blog, Which Called It"Misleading." In January 2015, The Washington Post's Fact Checker blog criticized congressmen for citing the 2014 edition of the CEI report, noting that the report "has serious methodological problems" and that it is "unbalanced" because it only looks at the costs of regulations while ignoring the benefits. The Fact Checker called the total regulation cost cited by CEI "an idiosyncratic guesstimate," and concluded that citing CEI's estimate of each household's share of regulatory costs constitutes "a misleading statement worthy of at least Two Pinocchios." [The Washington Post, 1/14/15]

Experts Similarly Criticized "Hugely Flawed" 2015 Report
Public Citizen President Robert Weissman: CEI Report Is A "Terribly Inaccurate And Unrealistic Guess."Robert Weissman, president of the consumer rights advocacy group Public Citizen, criticized the CEI report's figure for regulatory costs as "a terribly inaccurate and unrealistic guess." Weissman pointed out that the report counts economic costs that have "nothing to do with regulations" to reach its total tally -- including transfer payments related to Medicare benefits and tax compliance costs -- and that much of it relies on a report from the Small Business Administration (SBA) that was "discredited by all independent observers and received so much criticism that it was eventually disavowed by the SBA itself." Weissman also stated that the CEI report's failure to compare the benefits of regulations to their costs "is akin to grocery shoppers deciding to buy no groceries simply because groceries cost money." [Public Citizen, 5/13/15]

So, why would con trolls miss the fact that the claims they post have been discredited completely?
And why would they miss the benefits of the regulations?

Must just be a mistake, because they certainly would not want to post incorrect dogma..

Right.

Wow, proponents of Big Government don't think government regulations are a bad thing! Stop the presses! Public Citizen's primary reason for existing is a belief in strong government regulations but you use them as "experts" that government regulation is a good thing? You're an idiot. With each successive post you prove that fact even more.
Uh, government regulations, for thinking people, are neither good nor bad. Whether Public Citizen believes regulations are good or bad is, again, not the issue. You see, there is this thing termed "the truth" which you do not seem to understand. And they saw, as the truth, that the studies that showed the costs of regulations were trillions were badly flawed. They did not conclude that gov regulation was a good thing. So, no, you are the idiot. I am showing you that, quite succinctly, they did not believe in the great study that tried to show how expensive gov regulations were. Sorry you are incapable of complex thought. And that two components is too complex for you. Dipshit. Your an idiot. With each successive post you prove that fact even more.

What is that, I recall 4 for me, ZERO for Oldstyle. But you have to give him an A for effort. And an F for brains.

I want to puke anytime I hear a stupid Republican cry about "regulation". What regulation? You sorta have to kind of be more specific. In fact, every regulation is completely different. If it is a bad regulation, let Congress spend a week on each regulation that is up for debate and decide if it's a good regulation or bad regulation. Why isn't fox news doing news shows on all these bad regulations? Im all for doing away with bad regulations.

Republicans purposely and successfully made the very word regulations a bad word.

Not for all regulations, all the extraneous, pointless outrageously expensive and intrusive regulations. Those are one of the major reason Brexit passed and one of the reasons Donald Trump is doing so well.

 

[Faun]

As you've been shown ... the Clinton boom, while certainly aided by the dot com boom (props to Gore), started before the dot com boom.

Nonsense.

US jobless claims are at a 4 decade low. Who's out of work? The uneducated blue collar. What's trump going to do for them? We know he would have them spend $30k at trump edu. Is that good advice?

So we know the only thing he would do is con them. Same as he's doing people like you

You REALLY want to create more jobs in the US? Stop burdening our businesses with more regulations out of Washington. The liberal "solution" to all things is to pass another law. Then you can't figure out why corporations choose not to build here? Duh...

Jobs have already been created under Obama. We are currently at full employment.

Interesting concept. Typically if you're at "full employment" one would see an increase in wages as employers are forced to compete for the best workers...correct? So take a stab at explaining why wages have been stagnant for the decade! Obviously something isn't happening that the Obama Administration's economic statistics would have you believe WOULD be happening! Are we really at full employment? Or have we been fooled into thinking employment has improved as much as it's been claimed by manipulation of statistics? Don't forget this is the same group of people that gave us "jobs created or saved"!

You say that as though wages haven't been going up after falling due to Bush's Great Recession.

 

[sealybobo]

Broken record? Wow...talk about being in denial! American businesses spend trillions each and every year complying with Federal regulations yet you don't see that as a problem?

Broken record? Wow...talk about being in denial! American businesses spend trillions each and every year complying with Federal regulations yet you don't see that as a problem?

And another con talking point from Oldstyle. I asked what the benefit is of the regulations. No answer. Because con trolls like oldstyle assume that there is no benefit. So, how did the trillions number, and the net huge cost come about? Why, by the debunked WSG reports.

So, any benefits from the regs, me boy/:
OMB: Benefits Of Federal Rules Outweigh Costs. While Livermore noted that the 2001 OMB report was flawed and discontinued, more recent OMB reports show that year after year the economic benefits of the government's major rules far outweigh their economic costs:

So, there you go. Benefits far outweigh costs. How odd that a con would miss that. So, how many Trillions do the regs cost?
"Most Recent Report Mimics 2014 Edition Which Admitted Method Of Calculating Costs Was "Not Scientific." The 2014 edition of CEI's report stated that their method for calculating each household's regulatory costs is "not scientific," and that they use a "back-of-the-envelope way of reflecting on the magnitude of regulatory costs." In each of the reports, CEI used the same methodology and claimed that regulations represent a "hidden tax" on American families. [CEI.org, 2015; CEI.org, 2014; CEI.org, 2013]

CEI Methodology Was Debunked By The Washington Post's Fact Checker Blog, Which Called It"Misleading." In January 2015, The Washington Post's Fact Checker blog criticized congressmen for citing the 2014 edition of the CEI report, noting that the report "has serious methodological problems" and that it is "unbalanced" because it only looks at the costs of regulations while ignoring the benefits. The Fact Checker called the total regulation cost cited by CEI "an idiosyncratic guesstimate," and concluded that citing CEI's estimate of each household's share of regulatory costs constitutes "a misleading statement worthy of at least Two Pinocchios." [The Washington Post, 1/14/15]

Experts Similarly Criticized "Hugely Flawed" 2015 Report
Public Citizen President Robert Weissman: CEI Report Is A "Terribly Inaccurate And Unrealistic Guess."Robert Weissman, president of the consumer rights advocacy group Public Citizen, criticized the CEI report's figure for regulatory costs as "a terribly inaccurate and unrealistic guess." Weissman pointed out that the report counts economic costs that have "nothing to do with regulations" to reach its total tally -- including transfer payments related to Medicare benefits and tax compliance costs -- and that much of it relies on a report from the Small Business Administration (SBA) that was "discredited by all independent observers and received so much criticism that it was eventually disavowed by the SBA itself." Weissman also stated that the CEI report's failure to compare the benefits of regulations to their costs "is akin to grocery shoppers deciding to buy no groceries simply because groceries cost money." [Public Citizen, 5/13/15]

So, why would con trolls miss the fact that the claims they post have been discredited completely?
And why would they miss the benefits of the regulations?

Must just be a mistake, because they certainly would not want to post incorrect dogma..

Right.

Wow, proponents of Big Government don't think government regulations are a bad thing! Stop the presses! Public Citizen's primary reason for existing is a belief in strong government regulations but you use them as "experts" that government regulation is a good thing? You're an idiot. With each successive post you prove that fact even more.
Uh, government regulations, for thinking people, are neither good nor bad. Whether Public Citizen believes regulations are good or bad is, again, not the issue. You see, there is this thing termed "the truth" which you do not seem to understand. And they saw, as the truth, that the studies that showed the costs of regulations were trillions were badly flawed. They did not conclude that gov regulation was a good thing. So, no, you are the idiot. I am showing you that, quite succinctly, they did not believe in the great study that tried to show how expensive gov regulations were. Sorry you are incapable of complex thought. And that two components is too complex for you. Dipshit. Your an idiot. With each successive post you prove that fact even more.

What is that, I recall 4 for me, ZERO for Oldstyle. But you have to give him an A for effort. And an F for brains.

I want to puke anytime I hear a stupid Republican cry about "regulation". What regulation? You sorta have to kind of be more specific. In fact, every regulation is completely different. If it is a bad regulation, let Congress spend a week on each regulation that is up for debate and decide if it's a good regulation or bad regulation. Why isn't fox news doing news shows on all these bad regulations? Im all for doing away with bad regulations.

Republicans purposely and successfully made the very word regulations a bad word.

Not for all regulations, all the extraneous, pointless outrageously expensive and intrusive regulations. Those are one of the major reason Brexit passed and one of the reasons Donald Trump is doing so well.

Let's get rid of those regulations! One at a time.

But no, trump didn't win the GOP nomination because of regulations because Republicans are all against regulations.

And trumps not doing well.

 

[Faun]

Broken record? Wow...talk about being in denial! American businesses spend trillions each and every year complying with Federal regulations yet you don't see that as a problem?

Broken record? Wow...talk about being in denial! American businesses spend trillions each and every year complying with Federal regulations yet you don't see that as a problem?

And another con talking point from Oldstyle. I asked what the benefit is of the regulations. No answer. Because con trolls like oldstyle assume that there is no benefit. So, how did the trillions number, and the net huge cost come about? Why, by the debunked WSG reports.

So, any benefits from the regs, me boy/:
OMB: Benefits Of Federal Rules Outweigh Costs. While Livermore noted that the 2001 OMB report was flawed and discontinued, more recent OMB reports show that year after year the economic benefits of the government's major rules far outweigh their economic costs:

So, there you go. Benefits far outweigh costs. How odd that a con would miss that. So, how many Trillions do the regs cost?
"Most Recent Report Mimics 2014 Edition Which Admitted Method Of Calculating Costs Was "Not Scientific." The 2014 edition of CEI's report stated that their method for calculating each household's regulatory costs is "not scientific," and that they use a "back-of-the-envelope way of reflecting on the magnitude of regulatory costs." In each of the reports, CEI used the same methodology and claimed that regulations represent a "hidden tax" on American families. [CEI.org, 2015; CEI.org, 2014; CEI.org, 2013]

CEI Methodology Was Debunked By The Washington Post's Fact Checker Blog, Which Called It"Misleading." In January 2015, The Washington Post's Fact Checker blog criticized congressmen for citing the 2014 edition of the CEI report, noting that the report "has serious methodological problems" and that it is "unbalanced" because it only looks at the costs of regulations while ignoring the benefits. The Fact Checker called the total regulation cost cited by CEI "an idiosyncratic guesstimate," and concluded that citing CEI's estimate of each household's share of regulatory costs constitutes "a misleading statement worthy of at least Two Pinocchios." [The Washington Post, 1/14/15]

Experts Similarly Criticized "Hugely Flawed" 2015 Report
Public Citizen President Robert Weissman: CEI Report Is A "Terribly Inaccurate And Unrealistic Guess."Robert Weissman, president of the consumer rights advocacy group Public Citizen, criticized the CEI report's figure for regulatory costs as "a terribly inaccurate and unrealistic guess." Weissman pointed out that the report counts economic costs that have "nothing to do with regulations" to reach its total tally -- including transfer payments related to Medicare benefits and tax compliance costs -- and that much of it relies on a report from the Small Business Administration (SBA) that was "discredited by all independent observers and received so much criticism that it was eventually disavowed by the SBA itself." Weissman also stated that the CEI report's failure to compare the benefits of regulations to their costs "is akin to grocery shoppers deciding to buy no groceries simply because groceries cost money." [Public Citizen, 5/13/15]

So, why would con trolls miss the fact that the claims they post have been discredited completely?
And why would they miss the benefits of the regulations?

Must just be a mistake, because they certainly would not want to post incorrect dogma..

Right.

Wow, proponents of Big Government don't think government regulations are a bad thing! Stop the presses! Public Citizen's primary reason for existing is a belief in strong government regulations but you use them as "experts" that government regulation is a good thing? You're an idiot. With each successive post you prove that fact even more.
Uh, government regulations, for thinking people, are neither good nor bad. Whether Public Citizen believes regulations are good or bad is, again, not the issue. You see, there is this thing termed "the truth" which you do not seem to understand. And they saw, as the truth, that the studies that showed the costs of regulations were trillions were badly flawed. They did not conclude that gov regulation was a good thing. So, no, you are the idiot. I am showing you that, quite succinctly, they did not believe in the great study that tried to show how expensive gov regulations were. Sorry you are incapable of complex thought. And that two components is too complex for you. Dipshit. Your an idiot. With each successive post you prove that fact even more.

What is that, I recall 4 for me, ZERO for Oldstyle. But you have to give him an A for effort. And an F for brains.

I want to puke anytime I hear a stupid Republican cry about "regulation". What regulation? You sorta have to kind of be more specific. In fact, every regulation is completely different. If it is a bad regulation, let Congress spend a week on each regulation that is up for debate and decide if it's a good regulation or bad regulation. Why isn't fox news doing news shows on all these bad regulations? Im all for doing away with bad regulations.

Republicans purposely and successfully made the very word regulations a bad word.

Not for all regulations, all the extraneous, pointless outrageously expensive and intrusive regulations. Those are one of the major reason Brexit passed and one of the reasons Donald Trump is doing so well.

You do know Trump is running on the platform of adding more tariiffs, right?

 

[Oldstyle]

[/QUOTE]

If Clinton wins we've got a sleazy liar who sells political favor like a street vendor! If Trump wins we've got a loudmouth New York billionaire who thinks his shit doesn't stink! The country is screwed either way.

Yes, well, so you would say. But you have no proof. Just a lot of republicans who have claimed she lies. But then, as you should well know, you never believe liars. And they are, me boy, all liars.
So, I never fully believe liars. Factcheck keeps count of the number of untrue statements by person. It was the president of the NRA. But now it is Trump. By a mile.[/QUOTE]

Only you would claim the Hillary Clinton isn't a liar, Georgie! At this point it's not even debatable because she's been caught telling lies so often. Kind of like you, little buddy!

 

[Oldstyle]

Pointing out that Hillary Clinton has taken millions from Wall Street fat cats is "anti Hillary"? I'm hard pressed to see the humor in electing someone who has so routinely proven that they are for sale! One wonders how humorous it will be for you liberals when you see what you're REALLY getting from a Hillary Clinton Presidency! I'm actually looking forward to that if it happens. Watching people like you scratch your heads in bewilderment will be worth four more years of awful leadership.

You don't sound confident at all. I love it! Ric flare Whoooh!

Tell me you're REALLY looking forward to four years of Hillary Clinton as our President, Sealy? Honestly? Is she the best you've got? That's a sad commentary on the modern progressive movement...isn't it?

8 years of hillary.

She'll have cashed in enough in the first four that she won't need another term, Sealy! Haven't you figured out that's what the Clinton's were always about? Using political power to enrich themselves.

Poor Oldstyle. The last two elections have shown him telling all that would listen that Obama would loose. But each time, he was crushed. Poor sad little mind.

Actually I told all that Obama "should" lose...not that he would lose! I believe I referred to him as an "empty suit"...someone who was nothing more than vague promises and catchy slogans who had really never accomplished anything exceptional since graduation from Harvard Law School! After nearly eight years in office I stand by that evaluation. Barack Obama's "legacy" is ObamaCare, a piece of legislation so flawed that it could only be passed with lies...ISIS, the JV team...and The Great Recession, that stretched on far longer than need be because Barry knew as much economic theory as you do!

 

[sealybobo]

If Clinton wins we've got a sleazy liar who sells political favor like a street vendor! If Trump wins we've got a loudmouth New York billionaire who thinks his shit doesn't stink! The country is screwed either way.

Yes, well, so you would say. But you have no proof. Just a lot of republicans who have claimed she lies. But then, as you should well know, you never believe liars. And they are, me boy, all liars.
So, I never fully believe liars. Factcheck keeps count of the number of untrue statements by person. It was the president of the NRA. But now it is Trump. By a mile.[/QUOTE]

Only you would claim the Hillary Clinton isn't a liar, Georgie! At this point it's not even debatable because she's been caught telling lies so often. Kind of like you, little buddy![/QUOTE]

What lies? About being under sniper fire? That was weird but she said she made a mistake. Move on.

Now what other lies? And I'm not talking about conspiracy theories. What has she got caught lying about?

Hillary Clinton is not a liar.

You want to judge her harsher than you judge all Republicans including Trump? How convenient.

But she may very well be a panderer.

Birds fly. Fish swim. And politicians tell people what they want to hear. But that doesn’t make them liars.

More than 7 million people have watched a YouTube video entitled, “Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight.”

As the video begins, a popup appears, promising that the video is not intended to be in support of Donald Trump’s candidacy and that a similar video for the presumptive Republican nominee would be coming soon:

There’s just one problem with the video: much of what it shows isn’t actually Hillary Clinton lying; it’s just typical political pandering. You can dislike the fact that politicians base their positions on what is popular at the time, but it is a simple fact of life in a a diverse, heterogenous democratic society.

 

[Oldstyle]

Nonsense.

US jobless claims are at a 4 decade low. Who's out of work? The uneducated blue collar. What's trump going to do for them? We know he would have them spend $30k at trump edu. Is that good advice?

So we know the only thing he would do is con them. Same as he's doing people like you

You REALLY want to create more jobs in the US? Stop burdening our businesses with more regulations out of Washington. The liberal "solution" to all things is to pass another law. Then you can't figure out why corporations choose not to build here? Duh...

Jobs have already been created under Obama. We are currently at full employment.

Interesting concept. Typically if you're at "full employment" one would see an increase in wages as employers are forced to compete for the best workers...correct? So take a stab at explaining why wages have been stagnant for the decade! Obviously something isn't happening that the Obama Administration's economic statistics would have you believe WOULD be happening! Are we really at full employment? Or have we been fooled into thinking employment has improved as much as it's been claimed by manipulation of statistics? Don't forget this is the same group of people that gave us "jobs created or saved"!

You say that as though wages haven't been going up after falling due to Bush's Great Recession.

Wage growth has been essentially flat for twenty years, Faun. What's amusing is that you refer to this as Bush's recession when he's been back in Crawford, Texas cutting brush for the past eight years while Barack Obama sat in the Oval Office. It's only become a "Great Recession" because Obama hasn't had a clue how to deal with the economy.

 

[sealybobo]

Broken record? Wow...talk about being in denial! American businesses spend trillions each and every year complying with Federal regulations yet you don't see that as a problem?
And another con talking point from Oldstyle. I asked what the benefit is of the regulations. No answer. Because con trolls like oldstyle assume that there is no benefit. So, how did the trillions number, and the net huge cost come about? Why, by the debunked WSG reports.

So, any benefits from the regs, me boy/:
OMB: Benefits Of Federal Rules Outweigh Costs. While Livermore noted that the 2001 OMB report was flawed and discontinued, more recent OMB reports show that year after year the economic benefits of the government's major rules far outweigh their economic costs:

So, there you go. Benefits far outweigh costs. How odd that a con would miss that. So, how many Trillions do the regs cost?
"Most Recent Report Mimics 2014 Edition Which Admitted Method Of Calculating Costs Was "Not Scientific." The 2014 edition of CEI's report stated that their method for calculating each household's regulatory costs is "not scientific," and that they use a "back-of-the-envelope way of reflecting on the magnitude of regulatory costs." In each of the reports, CEI used the same methodology and claimed that regulations represent a "hidden tax" on American families. [CEI.org, 2015; CEI.org, 2014; CEI.org, 2013]

CEI Methodology Was Debunked By The Washington Post's Fact Checker Blog, Which Called It"Misleading." In January 2015, The Washington Post's Fact Checker blog criticized congressmen for citing the 2014 edition of the CEI report, noting that the report "has serious methodological problems" and that it is "unbalanced" because it only looks at the costs of regulations while ignoring the benefits. The Fact Checker called the total regulation cost cited by CEI "an idiosyncratic guesstimate," and concluded that citing CEI's estimate of each household's share of regulatory costs constitutes "a misleading statement worthy of at least Two Pinocchios." [The Washington Post, 1/14/15]

Experts Similarly Criticized "Hugely Flawed" 2015 Report
Public Citizen President Robert Weissman: CEI Report Is A "Terribly Inaccurate And Unrealistic Guess."Robert Weissman, president of the consumer rights advocacy group Public Citizen, criticized the CEI report's figure for regulatory costs as "a terribly inaccurate and unrealistic guess." Weissman pointed out that the report counts economic costs that have "nothing to do with regulations" to reach its total tally -- including transfer payments related to Medicare benefits and tax compliance costs -- and that much of it relies on a report from the Small Business Administration (SBA) that was "discredited by all independent observers and received so much criticism that it was eventually disavowed by the SBA itself." Weissman also stated that the CEI report's failure to compare the benefits of regulations to their costs "is akin to grocery shoppers deciding to buy no groceries simply because groceries cost money." [Public Citizen, 5/13/15]

So, why would con trolls miss the fact that the claims they post have been discredited completely?
And why would they miss the benefits of the regulations?

Must just be a mistake, because they certainly would not want to post incorrect dogma..

Right.

Wow, proponents of Big Government don't think government regulations are a bad thing! Stop the presses! Public Citizen's primary reason for existing is a belief in strong government regulations but you use them as "experts" that government regulation is a good thing? You're an idiot. With each successive post you prove that fact even more.
Uh, government regulations, for thinking people, are neither good nor bad. Whether Public Citizen believes regulations are good or bad is, again, not the issue. You see, there is this thing termed "the truth" which you do not seem to understand. And they saw, as the truth, that the studies that showed the costs of regulations were trillions were badly flawed. They did not conclude that gov regulation was a good thing. So, no, you are the idiot. I am showing you that, quite succinctly, they did not believe in the great study that tried to show how expensive gov regulations were. Sorry you are incapable of complex thought. And that two components is too complex for you. Dipshit. Your an idiot. With each successive post you prove that fact even more.

What is that, I recall 4 for me, ZERO for Oldstyle. But you have to give him an A for effort. And an F for brains.

I want to puke anytime I hear a stupid Republican cry about "regulation". What regulation? You sorta have to kind of be more specific. In fact, every regulation is completely different. If it is a bad regulation, let Congress spend a week on each regulation that is up for debate and decide if it's a good regulation or bad regulation. Why isn't fox news doing news shows on all these bad regulations? Im all for doing away with bad regulations.

Republicans purposely and successfully made the very word regulations a bad word.

Not for all regulations, all the extraneous, pointless outrageously expensive and intrusive regulations. Those are one of the major reason Brexit passed and one of the reasons Donald Trump is doing so well.

You do know Trump is running on the platform of adding more tariiffs, right?

And all these assholes calling Hillary a liar. Ask Kasich Cruz or Rubio if they want to do away with Social Security. What will they say, the truth? Fuck no! But we all know they do want to do away with it. So why don't they just be honest about it?

The report found that Americans overwhelmingly support Social Security and are willing to pay more to preserve and even improve benefits.

With more than 59 million people receiving Social Security benefits, Americans recognize that Social Security is a critical program. Large majorities of Americans say they don’t mind paying Social Security taxes because of the security and stability the benefits provide to millions of retired Americans, disabled individuals, and children and widowed spouses of deceased workers. These findings hold true across party lines (those agreeing include 87% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 72% of Republicans). Americans are also willing to pay for Social Security because they value it for themselves (73%) and their families (73%).

That's why Republicans have to lie because their ideas are very unpopular.

 

[Oldstyle]

If Clinton wins we've got a sleazy liar who sells political favor like a street vendor! If Trump wins we've got a loudmouth New York billionaire who thinks his shit doesn't stink! The country is screwed either way.

Yes, well, so you would say. But you have no proof. Just a lot of republicans who have claimed she lies. But then, as you should well know, you never believe liars. And they are, me boy, all liars.
So, I never fully believe liars. Factcheck keeps count of the number of untrue statements by person. It was the president of the NRA. But now it is Trump. By a mile.

Only you would claim the Hillary Clinton isn't a liar, Georgie! At this point it's not even debatable because she's been caught telling lies so often. Kind of like you, little buddy![/QUOTE]

What lies? About being under sniper fire? That was weird but she said she made a mistake. Move on.

Now what other lies? And I'm not talking about conspiracy theories. What has she got caught lying about?

Hillary Clinton is not a liar.

You want to judge her harsher than you judge all Republicans including Trump? How convenient.

But she may very well be a panderer.

Birds fly. Fish swim. And politicians tell people what they want to hear. But that doesn’t make them liars.

More than 7 million people have watched a YouTube video entitled, “Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight.”

As the video begins, a popup appears, promising that the video is not intended to be in support of Donald Trump’s candidacy and that a similar video for the presumptive Republican nominee would be coming soon:

There’s just one problem with the video: much of what it shows isn’t actually Hillary Clinton lying; it’s just typical political pandering. You can dislike the fact that politicians base their positions on what is popular at the time, but it is a simple fact of life in a a diverse, heterogenous democratic society.[/QUOTE]

What lies? Seriously, Sealy? I could spend days listing the lies that she's told and been caught at! They are so numerous it's laughable that anyone would make the claim that Hillary is not a liar!

 

[sealybobo]

You don't sound confident at all. I love it! Ric flare Whoooh!

Tell me you're REALLY looking forward to four years of Hillary Clinton as our President, Sealy? Honestly? Is she the best you've got? That's a sad commentary on the modern progressive movement...isn't it?

8 years of hillary.

She'll have cashed in enough in the first four that she won't need another term, Sealy! Haven't you figured out that's what the Clinton's were always about? Using political power to enrich themselves.

Poor Oldstyle. The last two elections have shown him telling all that would listen that Obama would loose. But each time, he was crushed. Poor sad little mind.

Actually I told all that Obama "should" lose...not that he would lose! I believe I referred to him as an "empty suit"...someone who was nothing more than vague promises and catchy slogans who had really never accomplished anything exceptional since graduation from Harvard Law School! After nearly eight years in office I stand by that evaluation. Barack Obama's "legacy" is ObamaCare, a piece of legislation so flawed that it could only be passed with lies...ISIS, the JV team...and The Great Recession, that stretched on far longer than need be because Barry knew as much economic theory as you do!

Who knows what you were saying because your history here only goes back to 2012 when you were bitching about Benghazi and immigrants coming into the country.

There is no way to expect a fair and balanced opinion from you. You're clearly brainwashed and set in your ways. But that's cool. We don't need you to get Hillary elected.

 

[sealybobo]

If Clinton wins we've got a sleazy liar who sells political favor like a street vendor! If Trump wins we've got a loudmouth New York billionaire who thinks his shit doesn't stink! The country is screwed either way.

Yes, well, so you would say. But you have no proof. Just a lot of republicans who have claimed she lies. But then, as you should well know, you never believe liars. And they are, me boy, all liars.
So, I never fully believe liars. Factcheck keeps count of the number of untrue statements by person. It was the president of the NRA. But now it is Trump. By a mile.

Only you would claim the Hillary Clinton isn't a liar, Georgie! At this point it's not even debatable because she's been caught telling lies so often. Kind of like you, little buddy!

What lies? About being under sniper fire? That was weird but she said she made a mistake. Move on.

Now what other lies? And I'm not talking about conspiracy theories. What has she got caught lying about?

Hillary Clinton is not a liar.

You want to judge her harsher than you judge all Republicans including Trump? How convenient.

But she may very well be a panderer.

Birds fly. Fish swim. And politicians tell people what they want to hear. But that doesn’t make them liars.

More than 7 million people have watched a YouTube video entitled, “Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight.”

As the video begins, a popup appears, promising that the video is not intended to be in support of Donald Trump’s candidacy and that a similar video for the presumptive Republican nominee would be coming soon:

There’s just one problem with the video: much of what it shows isn’t actually Hillary Clinton lying; it’s just typical political pandering. You can dislike the fact that politicians base their positions on what is popular at the time, but it is a simple fact of life in a a diverse, heterogenous democratic society.[/QUOTE]

What lies? Seriously, Sealy? I could spend days listing the lies that she's told and been caught at! They are so numerous it's laughable that anyone would make the claim that Hillary is not a liar![/QUOTE]
Such as?

 

[sealybobo]

If Clinton wins we've got a sleazy liar who sells political favor like a street vendor! If Trump wins we've got a loudmouth New York billionaire who thinks his shit doesn't stink! The country is screwed either way.

Yes, well, so you would say. But you have no proof. Just a lot of republicans who have claimed she lies. But then, as you should well know, you never believe liars. And they are, me boy, all liars.
So, I never fully believe liars. Factcheck keeps count of the number of untrue statements by person. It was the president of the NRA. But now it is Trump. By a mile.

Only you would claim the Hillary Clinton isn't a liar, Georgie! At this point it's not even debatable because she's been caught telling lies so often. Kind of like you, little buddy!

What lies? About being under sniper fire? That was weird but she said she made a mistake. Move on.

Now what other lies? And I'm not talking about conspiracy theories. What has she got caught lying about?

Hillary Clinton is not a liar.

You want to judge her harsher than you judge all Republicans including Trump? How convenient.

But she may very well be a panderer.

Birds fly. Fish swim. And politicians tell people what they want to hear. But that doesn’t make them liars.

More than 7 million people have watched a YouTube video entitled, “Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight.”

As the video begins, a popup appears, promising that the video is not intended to be in support of Donald Trump’s candidacy and that a similar video for the presumptive Republican nominee would be coming soon:

There’s just one problem with the video: much of what it shows isn’t actually Hillary Clinton lying; it’s just typical political pandering. You can dislike the fact that politicians base their positions on what is popular at the time, but it is a simple fact of life in a a diverse, heterogenous democratic society.

What lies? Seriously, Sealy? I could spend days listing the lies that she's told and been caught at! They are so numerous it's laughable that anyone would make the claim that Hillary is not a liar![/QUOTE]
Such as?[/QUOTE]

Lets compare lying Don to Truthful Hillary
Clinton's statements by ruling
Click on the ruling to see all of Clinton's statements for that ruling.

• True50 (23%)(50)
• Mostly True61 (28%)(61)
• Half True46 (21%)(46)
• Mostly False32 (15%)(32)
• False24 (11%)(24)
• Pants on Fire3 (1%)(3)

Trump's statements by ruling
Click on the ruling to see all of Trump's statements for that ruling.

• True4 (2%)(4)
• Mostly True12 (7%)(12)
• Half True24 (14%)(24)
• Mostly False27 (16%)(27)
• False69 (41%)(69)
• Pants on Fire34 (20%)(34)

 

[sealybobo]

Trump has only 4 statements that are completely true. lol

 

[Faun]

US jobless claims are at a 4 decade low. Who's out of work? The uneducated blue collar. What's trump going to do for them? We know he would have them spend $30k at trump edu. Is that good advice?

So we know the only thing he would do is con them. Same as he's doing people like you

You REALLY want to create more jobs in the US? Stop burdening our businesses with more regulations out of Washington. The liberal "solution" to all things is to pass another law. Then you can't figure out why corporations choose not to build here? Duh...

Jobs have already been created under Obama. We are currently at full employment.

Interesting concept. Typically if you're at "full employment" one would see an increase in wages as employers are forced to compete for the best workers...correct? So take a stab at explaining why wages have been stagnant for the decade! Obviously something isn't happening that the Obama Administration's economic statistics would have you believe WOULD be happening! Are we really at full employment? Or have we been fooled into thinking employment has improved as much as it's been claimed by manipulation of statistics? Don't forget this is the same group of people that gave us "jobs created or saved"!

You say that as though wages haven't been going up after falling due to Bush's Great Recession.

Wage growth has been essentially flat for twenty years, Faun. What's amusing is that you refer to this as Bush's recession when he's been back in Crawford, Texas cutting brush for the past eight years while Barack Obama sat in the Oval Office. It's only become a "Great Recession" because Obama hasn't had a clue how to deal with the economy.

Real data typically remains relatively flat. That's what happens when you factor in inflation. While there are some nominal hills/valleys during strong/weak economies, real data doesn't move much.

And it's been Bush's Great Recession since it started in 2007.

 

[Rshermr]

Not all Regulations are bad yet you talk about them like all regulations are equal.

How about tariffs. Are you for them? Well that's a 180 you right wingers have taken as far as free markets go. Now all of the sudden you are for tariffs?

Published on Friday, March 12, 2004 by CommonDreams.org

When Republicans try to blame Bill Clinton for NAFTA, they are trying to pretend they aren’t the ones who pushed/push for unregulated free trade. Here is what we were saying about free trade in 2004. I challenge any Republican to show me one article from 2004 that shows they were for regulating free trade or tariffs.

Democracy - Not "The Free Market" - Will Save America's Middle Class

1. There is no such thing as a "free market."

2. The "middle class" is the creation of government intervention in the marketplace, and won't exist without it (as millions of Americans and Europeans are discovering).

The conservative mantra is "let the market decide." But there is no market independent of government, so what they're really saying is, "Stop government from defending workers and building a middle class, and let the corporations decide how much to pay for labor and how to trade." But that’s insane because corporations only care about 1 thing and that’s maximizing shareholder profits. Governments set the rules of the market. And, since our government is of, by, and for We The People, those rules have historically been set to first maximize the public good resulting from people doing business. If you want to play the game of business, we've said in the US since 1784 (when Tench Coxe got the first tariffs passed "to protect domestic industries") then you have to play in a way that both makes you money AND serves the public interest.

The "middle class" is not the natural result of "free trade." Those policies will produce a small but powerful wealthy class, a small "middle" mercantilist class, and a huge and terrified worker class which have traditionally been called "serfs." The middle class is a new invention of liberal democracies, the direct result of governments defining the rules of the game of business and when domestic industries are protected from overseas competition, a middle class will emerge. When government gives up these functions, the middle class vanishes and the rich get richer.

"Conservatives complained about Smoot Hawley tariffs but the main result was that American businesses now had strong financial incentives to do business with other American companies, rather than bring in products made with cheaper foreign labor: Americans started trading with other Americans. It brought jobs back to America. Most of the Founders advocated and passed tariffs to protect domestic industries and workers. We've done it before, with tariffs, anti-trust legislation, and worker protections ranging from enforcing the rights of organized labor to restricting American companies' access to cheap foreign labor through visas and tariffs. The result was the production of something never before seen in history: a strong and vibrant middle class.

We "complained" about Smoot Hawley because that legislation was one of the things that created The Great Depression! Tariffs did NOT create a strong and vibrant middle class in America! The strong middle class evolved during a remarkable boom in industrial production following WWII when the US was providing the goods to rebuild much of the rest of the world that had been devastated by that war.

" few economists think the Smoot-Hawley tariff (as it is most often known) was one of the principal causes of the Depression. Worse mistakes were made, largely out of a misplaced faith in the gold standard and balanced budgets. America's tariffs were already high, and some other countries were already increasing their own."
http://www.economist.com/node/12798595

If anyone is interested in seeing exactly what a buffoon, Rshermr is...click on his cite from the Economist and read the article he quoted from in it's entirety! He took one line out a long article which presented the Smoot Hawley tariffs in the following light:

"EVEN when desperate, Wall Street bankers are not given to grovelling. But in June 1930 Thomas Lamont, a partner at J.P. Morgan, came close. “I almost went down on my knees to beg Herbert Hoover to veto the asinine Hawley-Smoot Tariff,” he recalled. “That Act intensified nationalism all over the world.”

According to David Kennedy, an historian, Lamont was “usually an influential economic adviser” to the American president. Not this time. Hoover signed the bill on June 17th: “the tragic-comic finale”, said that week's Economist, “to one of the most amazing chapters in world tariff history…one that Protectionist enthusiasts the world over would do well to study.”

As well as this...

"Of all the calls on Hoover not to sign the bill, perhaps the weightiest was a petition signed by 1,028 American economists. A dozen years later Frank Fetter, one of the organisers, recalled their unanimity. “Economic faculties that within a few years were to be split wide open on monetary policy, deficit finance, and the problem of big business, were practically at one in their belief that the Hawley-Smoot bill was an iniquitous piece of legislation.”"

Why do you even try to argue history or economics with me, Georgie? You constantly demonstrate that you know NOTHING of either!

OS, OS, OS. You are such a clown. The question was never whether the bill was good or bad. Perhaps you need to re read the post you yourself made. The issue was were you correct in saying "that legislation was one of the things that created The Great Depression! ". You seem to be tripping over english, me boy. You constantly demonstrate that you know nothing of Economics or the English Language.
You see, oldstyle, the article refutes in quite clear terms that the bill had anything at all to do with the Great Republican Recession of 1929. Sorry to steal your thunder. You seemed so excited. I was so happy for you. But then, the same old thing. You proved yourself stupid again.

Why do you even try to argue history or economics with me, Dipshit? You constantly demonstrate that you know NOTHING of either!

How does that article "refute" that Smoot Hawley was one of the causes of The Great Depression? Did you even read it? You claim that few economists think Smoot Hawley was one of the principle causes of the Great Depression? Interesting that almost unanimously, economists at the time warned of dire consequences if it were passed. Were those 1028 American economists all mistaken?

Would you like to cite an article that actually back up your contention? Or are you sticking with the one that doesn't and pretending that it does?[/QUOTE]
Actually, as I am sure you read, it states clearly that sh had little to nothing to do with the start. Of the Great Republican DePression. That was the question. The question was not whether
Pression

You don't sound confident at all. I love it! Ric flare Whoooh!

Tell me you're REALLY looking forward to four years of Hillary Clinton as our President, Sealy? Honestly? Is she the best you've got? That's a sad commentary on the modern progressive movement...isn't it?

8 years of hillary.

She'll have cashed in enough in the first four that she won't need another term, Sealy! Haven't you figured out that's what the Clinton's were always about? Using political power to enrich themselves.

Poor Oldstyle. The last two elections have shown him telling all that would listen that Obama would loose. But each time, he was crushed. Poor sad little mind.

Actually I told all that Obama "should" lose...not that he would lose! you lie again, because you said he would loose, time after time.I believe I referred to him as an "empty suit"...someone who was nothing more than vague promises and catchy slogans who had really never accomplished anything exceptional since graduation from Harvard Law School! After nearly eight years in office I stand by that evaluation. Barack Obama's Right, dipshit. You attacked the sitting president in every possible way 24/7/365 with empty accusations and lies. Because you are a conservative troll, with no ability to discuss things using logic. "legacy" is ObamaCare, a piece of legislation so flawed that it could only be passed with lies..Again, lying using standard con talking points. You do not admit that republicans mad many, many changes to the bill, than all voted against it. It must be cool to be able to believe what you want to believe, without any rational thought. For most it would be hell, for you it is heaven..ISIS, the JV team...and The Great Recession, that stretched on far longer than need be because Barry knew as much economic theory as you do!
So, how many posts is this now that have NO economic argument. Just dogma, and lies. There were many democratic bills brought to congress to address the lingering unemployment. All by Democrats. And all were voted down by Republicans. Every single one. Then, as a con troll, you blame the President for the length of the recession. But you know, and I know, that the ongoing recession was exactly what you and what the Republican congress wanted. And you, as I, know that with Republicans doing nothing except voting down bills, there was NO chance any president, even if he was the second coming of Christ, could do about the effects of the Great Republican Recession of 2008. Because congress controlled the process, completely. And because congress wanted the recession to continue for as long as possible. AS DID YOU. Because, you see, you do not care about the middle class, at all. BECAUSE YOU ARE A CON TROLL, AND LIKE ALL CON TROLLS, YOU CARE NOT AT ALL ABOUT THE MIDDLE CLASS. BECAUSE YOU ARE UN-AMERICAN. ANDA COMPLETE JOKE.
What is really, really funny is that a person who can not discuss economic theory accuses others of not understanding economic theory. All you ever, ever post is bat shit crazy con talking points. And make personal attacks.
For instance, you have no theory of what needs to be done about the recession aftermath, or what should have been done at the time of the worst of the Great Republican Recession of 2008. Nothing. Just Conservative Nut Case Talking Points. Which makes you irrelivent.