The people truly believe in the Trump "beautiful" economy

Indeed blood sugar levels can spike, and with the resulting release of insulin, that spike will keep sugar levels from getting out of control, because despite what mistakes we make, our body is designed and finely tuned for survival. The same CANNOT be said about an economy. An economy has no correlation whatsoever to the wonders of the human body, and I see any such comparison as a truly meaningless platitude.

Now you are bringing in the notion of changing spending and tax levels in response to the economy, when in the previous post you were calling for a static tax rate for predictability sake, and I am subsequently unclear what you are advocating because these positions seem to be in direct conflict with each other.

 

it's rather sad that you actually believe there has been any attempt to reduce regulation. during the previous administration alone there were well over twenty thousand new federal regulations enacted, at a cost of billions of dollars to american industry. breaking that down, that's an average of more than seven new regulations every day. when you stop to realize that our government is really in operation less than half of the calendar days each year, that's fifteen to twenty new regulations each working day. i understand that you, along with most progressives, don't give a damn about the costs to industry or the loss of liberty resulting from such micro-management, but the price paid for this regulation is ultimately paid by those least able to afford it. the costs of production will always be passed down to the consumer and by cutting into the corporate bottom line we reduce the likelihood of expansion. we have seen the result, prices rising and fewer jobs due to reduction in force and outsourcing. now add in the number of businesses that must close their doors, reducing competition and further reducing the workforce. there might be some point to it all if these regulations were designed with strengthening infrastructure or public safety in mind, but the vast majority of them are about centralizing control and enhancing the powers of the federal government.

i was glad to see that you didn't press the silly notion that high tax rates were responsible for america's leadership role. the post-ww2 boom that extended well into the 70's had more to do with the wartime decimation of our competitors than with the usurious wartime tax rates that were extended far beyond their intended purpose. with every industrial nation but the u.s. in a shambles and our own industrial base producing at record levels, our economic superiority was nearly assured. with innovations spurred on by military necessities and a returning workforce eager to enhance america's place in the world, we rose to a level of economic, military and even social leadership previously unimaginable. though the increased tax rates played a small part in building an infrastructure commensurate with our newly found place in the world, we soon lapsed into that state of decay to which excess is prone. with coffers overflowing, the bureaucracy saw no need not to expand itself and its powers. believing our own press, we believed ourselves invincible and and our leaders impossibly wise. behind the mask of democracy, we allowed ourselves luxury unimaginable and the unmaintainable means to attain it all.

 

No they weren't. That is a ridiculous, obviously brainwashed claim.

 

whether it's senile dementia, early onset alzheimers or simply that you were only in grade school at the time, you really ought to have that memory problem looked into. unlike you, i'm not some partisan hack that scurries into comatose denial every time an unpleasant fact shows its ugly head.

 

No, you can not find any evidence of your claim.

You fell for partisan pap, based on hacks spending time trying to find someone saying something stupid or prime for being taken out of context.

 

Let me take a pause at that point.

I have NO respect for the cost estimates that the right wing and industry places on regulatory solutions.

For example, in Flint the issue was that people didn't KNOW. Households could go down to Home Depot and buy a lead filter if they had known there were being poisoned.

So, sure, it would cost a huge amount to fix their water system. But, that is NOT the cost of regulation that would require EPA analysis to be publicly disseminated - something the right wing has opposed.

Instead, we still have to fix the Flint water system. That didn't change. But, now we get to experience decades of reduced contribution by (and even support for) the generation of children whose brains we just didn't care about.

In energy, we see BigOil/BigCoal proclaim costs of regulation while ignoring excess deaths, the new industries of other power alternatives, etc. - false analysis that needs to be refuted by analysts interested in something besides lining their own pockets.

Yes, that takes a bunch of regulation. Our industry has very little interest even when it involves our children's brains. And, the constant effort toward finding ways AROUND regulation, along with the massive infusion of cash in our political process, means that just passing one regulation (like "please, don't kill our children") is NOT even slightly good enough.