• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

LOL.

0.3% Lost their job because of government regulation but 25% lost their job because of a drop in business demand. LOL. Without connecting the dots, that may be a true statement. Most people would be able to connect them though.

yes, and we all know that the way to increase demand is to increase taxes thus cutting personal take home pay. In addition having the prospect of higher business costs thus higher product costs certainly are going to increase demand as well. Isn't being a liberal fun?
 
Wow, so because this study says the loss of jobs due to regulations is small that is ok to you whereas anyone who really cares about jobs wouldn't want anything to kill jobs. Further Obamacare is a regulation that isn't factored in at all but your statement that you aren't interested says it all. It has been shown that you have no clue how to run a business or the items that drive up business costs thus are part of the financial statement. Unfortunately for many neither does Obama who is a walking advertisement for the death of liberalism when it comes to economic policies.

As I said, it had minimal effect. Again, I have support and you really don't. Understand, this is how it works. you're the one running around make claims unsupported. And I can do this all day, one after another. Not opinons, but factual historical evidence.
 
LOL.

0.3% Lost their job because of government regulation but 25% lost their job because of a drop in business demand. LOL. Without connecting the dots, that may be a true statement. Most people would be able to connect them though.

Please then, connect the dots. Make a wild unsupported statement. I'll wait. :coffeepap
 
You can't prove your claims, so I'm not interested. But you should read closer what I gave you. They spoke to business tax as well.

As for regulations, let me start with this:

Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that very few layoffs are caused principally by tougher rules.

Whenever a firm lays off workers, the bureau asks executives the biggest reason for the job cuts.

In 2010, 0.3 percent of the people who lost their jobs in layoffs were let go because of “government regulations/intervention.” By comparison, 25 percent were laid off because of a drop in business demand.

Does government regulation really kill jobs? Economists say overall effect minimal. - Washington Post
Well.....first, that only covers mass layoffs (at least 50 people laid off in 5 weeks and at least 50 laid off more than 30 days). So a person here and a person there won't show up.
Second, excessive regulation could easily lead to many of the issues listed.

Basically, there's no simple way to support either conclusion.

Oh, and the mass layoff statistics program has been eliminated due to sequestration.
 
Last edited:
As I said, it had minimal effect. Again, I have support and you really don't. Understand, this is how it works. you're the one running around make claims unsupported. And I can do this all day, one after another. Not opinons, but factual historical evidence.

There is no factual evidence, just a study made up mostly of opinions. You really have no idea how private business works and are totally clueless as to the monthly operating expenses. Sorry but you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own set of facts. Until you understand business operating expenses for all business then the accuracy of your opinion is questionable at best.
 
Well.....first, that only covers mass layoffs (at least 50 people laid off in 5 weeks and at least 50 laid off more than 30 days). So a person here and a person there won't show up.
Second, excessive regulation could easily lead to many of the issues listed.

Basically, there's no simple way to support either conclusion.

Oh, and the mass layoff statistics program has been eliminated due to sequestration.

However, the burden of proof is actually with those who make the claim. And there are other studies, like this one:

Summarizing, the findings for 1982-1989 consistently and unambiguously fail to support the argument that states with stronger environmental policies suffer an economic penalty. All the coefficients hinted at a very weak positive relationship – albeit one that is statistically insignificant – between state environmentalism and economic performance. More importantly the over all odds are better than 15:1 against the proposition that environmental regulation hurt state economic growth during this period.

(snip)

So why do business leaders and lobbyists single out environmental costs as so noteworthy, when they are comparatively insignificant? To a large extent business still does not perceive environment-related costs as ordinary and proper business costs, recent advertising campaigns to the contrary. Environmental costs are seen as a form of externally imposed social tax, an
illegitimate tax place on business.

In this respect the concepts of “extranalities” and “social costs” have not crossed from business management schools to board rooms. Manufacturing plant owners do not consider taking clean water from and returning chemical-
laden dirty water to the same river as either a public subsidy or imposing a public cost. As one CEO explained “...Look, the public benefits from our products. They use them and they get jobs. Part of the price of this benefit is the impact we have on the environment. That should be born by the public, not the company.” And so for business and industry these costs, however small,
stand out in bold face – despite the fact that they do not tabulate them systematically or reliably.

http://web.mit.edu/polisci/mpepp/Reports/Econ Impact Enviro Reg.pdf
 
There is no factual evidence, just a study made up mostly of opinions. You really have no idea how private business works and are totally clueless as to the monthly operating expenses. Sorry but you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own set of facts. Until you understand business operating expenses for all business then the accuracy of your opinion is questionable at best.


NO, it measures objective variables, as did the tax studies.

The burden is on you. Put up, or shut up? ;)
 
NO, it measures objective variables, as did the tax studies.

The burden is on you. Put up, or shut up? ;)

Not playing your game, there is no credible survey as to the effects of taxes, regulations, and other govt. programs on private business, just opinions. The sample is way too small in a private sector economy to come up with a meaningful accurate result. Just like typical liberal responses to the tough problems facing this country you come up with a study based upon non verifiable information and no details of the sample used to provide an opinion that you want. Nothing you have offered addresses actual reality which is a business financial statement, profit demand, debt service, and interviews with actual private business owners in all classifications.
 
Not playing your game, there is no credible survey as to the effects of taxes, regulations, and other govt. programs on private business, just opinions. The sample is way too small in a private sector economy to come up with a meaningful accurate result. Just like typical liberal responses to the tough problems facing this country you come up with a study based upon non verifiable information and no details of the sample used to provide an opinion that you want. Nothing you have offered addresses actual reality which is a business financial statement, profit demand, debt service, and interviews with actual private business owners in all classifications.

Again, I've given you objective evidence. You've just rambled.

Here's some more support:

Do Regulations Really Kill Jobs Overall? Not So Much

(snip)

But is the claim that regulation kills jobs true?

We asked experts, and most told us that while there is relatively little scholarship on the issue, the evidence so far is that the overall effect on jobs is minimal. Regulations do destroy some jobs, but they also create others. Mostly, they just shift jobs within the economy.

“The effects on jobs are negligible. They’re not job-creating or job-destroying on average,” said Richard Morgenstern, who served in the EPA from the Reagan to Clinton years and is now at Resources for the Future, a nonpartisan think tank.

Do Regulations Really Kill Jobs Overall? Not So Much - ProPublica
 
Again, I've given you objective evidence. You've just rambled.

Here's some more support:

Do Regulations Really Kill Jobs Overall? Not So Much

(snip)

But is the claim that regulation kills jobs true?

We asked experts, and most told us that while there is relatively little scholarship on the issue, the evidence so far is that the overall effect on jobs is minimal. Regulations do destroy some jobs, but they also create others. Mostly, they just shift jobs within the economy.

“The effects on jobs are negligible. They’re not job-creating or job-destroying on average,” said Richard Morgenstern, who served in the EPA from the Reagan to Clinton years and is now at Resources for the Future, a nonpartisan think tank.

Do Regulations Really Kill Jobs Overall? Not So Much - ProPublica

Well, there you have it, a lot of politicians and political appointees making a claim that their work doesn't affect jobs. We have a serious problem in this country, I say regulations and higher business costs resulting from regulations, higher taxes, and things like Obamacare affect hiring more than the intellectuals, politicians, and political appointees. I base my statement on actually running a business, actually seeing hundreds of monthly financial statements, understanding business budgets, investment costs, and hiring expenses.

Obama's job performance is a disaster. Your claims are your opinion backed by others just like you none of which come up with any solution to increase jobs. You don't think they affect job performance then eliminate them to find out?
 
Well, there you have it, a lot of politicians and political appointees making a claim that their work doesn't affect jobs. We have a serious problem in this country, I say regulations and higher business costs resulting from regulations, higher taxes, and things like Obamacare affect hiring more than the intellectuals, politicians, and political appointees. I base my statement on actually running a business, actually seeing hundreds of monthly financial statements, understanding business budgets, investment costs, and hiring expenses.

Obama's job performance is a disaster. Your claims are your opinion backed by others just like you none of which come up with any solution to increase jobs. You don't think they affect job performance then eliminate them to find out?

You missed the word scholarship. This means the research says this.

If you want an opinion, here's one for you:

How much impact does regulation actually have on jobs?

Experts say government regulation has a minimal impact on jobs numbers. If the costs in terms of jobs is a wash, and the benefits side is even slightly positive, then the conservative talking point for aggressive deregulation should largely be ignored.

How much impact does regulation actually have on jobs? - CSMonitor.com

BTW, I still haven't seen one objective piece of evidence from you. Hell, I even used BLS for you. ;)
 
You missed the word scholarship. This means the research says this.

If you want an opinion, here's one for you:

How much impact does regulation actually have on jobs?

Experts say government regulation has a minimal impact on jobs numbers. If the costs in terms of jobs is a wash, and the benefits side is even slightly positive, then the conservative talking point for aggressive deregulation should largely be ignored.

How much impact does regulation actually have on jobs? - CSMonitor.com

BTW, I still haven't seen one objective piece of evidence from you. Hell, I even used BLS for you. ;)

We have a hiring problem in this country, if regulations don't cause part of the problem then there is one way to find out, eliminate them and see if there is any change. If you read the article you would see that regulations do increase costs but for some reason that fact escapes you just as the current economic situation and job creation stagnation.
 
We have a hiring problem in this country, if regulations don't cause part of the problem then there is one way to find out, eliminate them and see if there is any change. If you read the article you would see that regulations do increase costs but for some reason that fact escapes you just as the current economic situation and job creation stagnation.

We did deregulate. Things got worse. Don't you remember?

But, you make the affirmative claim. You have an obligation to support your claim. I've shown solid, measurable, fact based evidence that neither taxes nor regulations strangle business, but instead have minimal effect. You've offer nothing like it.

Just for you:

Small business owners actually support an array of recently proposed EPA regulations. And by wide margins, too. Small Business Majority's most recent polling, released on June 7, found the vast majority of small businesses in Ohio -- a major manufacturing state -- support EPA clean air standards, and two-thirds of those polled also feel government investments in clean energy can stimulate the economy and create jobs now.

Specifically, 7 in 10 small business owners support the EPA's federal standard requiring new power plants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions like carbon dioxide -- even though 6 in 10 of them believe it will directly impact their business.

(snip)

It's unfortunate when small businesses are used as a vehicle for pushing ideological agendas. This isn't to say that small businesses support all regulations all the time. But as Todd Stegman noted, small businesses are most worried about consumer demand and the rising cost of doing business, along with making payroll, healthcare costs and credit availability. That's all according to a wide body of research including our own and the very survey Lincoln cites.

John Arensmeyer: Fact Check: EPA Regulations Are Not Small Business's Kryptonite
 
I have history to inform me on what has
happened, so we can predict
based on history what will happen. it's not against the rules to read up on it. :coffeepap

History apparently is awfully subjective, and thats really unfortunate.

What historical snap shot has you convinced you that greater regulation, larger government and arbitrary cost increases on American Bussineses and individuals leads to strong economic growth ?

Please, be specific.
 
We did deregulate. Things got worse. Don't you remember?

But, you make the affirmative claim. You have an obligation to support your claim. I've shown solid, measurable, fact based evidence that neither taxes nor regulations strangle business, but instead have minimal effect. You've offer nothing like it.

Just for you:

Small business owners actually support an array of recently proposed EPA regulations. And by wide margins, too. Small Business Majority's most recent polling, released on June 7, found the vast majority of small businesses in Ohio -- a major manufacturing state -- support EPA clean air standards, and two-thirds of those polled also feel government investments in clean energy can stimulate the economy and create jobs now.

Specifically, 7 in 10 small business owners support the EPA's federal standard requiring new power plants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions like carbon dioxide -- even though 6 in 10 of them believe it will directly impact their business.

(snip)

It's unfortunate when small businesses are used as a vehicle for pushing ideological agendas. This isn't to say that small businesses support all regulations all the time. But as Todd Stegman noted, small businesses are most worried about consumer demand and the rising cost of doing business, along with making payroll, healthcare costs and credit availability. That's all according to a wide body of research including our own and the very survey Lincoln cites.

John Arensmeyer: Fact Check: EPA Regulations Are Not Small Business's Kryptonite

So the answer is as I posted, since you claim that regulations don't cause hiring problems and I disagree then the answer would be to eliminate regulations to see if employment changes. I totally agree.

Do you have a solution to the employment problem we have in this country?

Your support of increased govt. intervention in the private sector is noted but the question is why?
 
We have a hiring problem in this country, if regulations don't cause part of the problem then there is one way to find out, eliminate them and see if there is any change. If you read the article you would see that regulations do increase costs but for some reason that fact escapes you just as the current economic situation and job creation stagnation.

Just a bit more before I leave:

Impact of Estate Tax on Small Businesses and Farms Is Minimal
Almost No Small Business and Farm Estates Owe the Tax; Those That Do Owe Only Modest Amounts

Impact of Estate Tax on Small Businesses and Farms Is Minimal — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

There is simply no consensus whatsoever that cutting taxes is a good strategy to boost state economic growth and create jobs.

Academic Research Lacks Consensus on the Impact of State Tax Cuts on Economic Growth — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

The National Association for Business Economics survey asks how higher taxes and lower government spending effected businesses in the first three months of 2013.

Ninety-three percent of respondents say the political developments had no effect on employment levels in the first quarter, and 95 percent say they had no impact on capital spending plans.

Fiscal Cliff Had No Effect On Employment, U.S. Businesses Say
 
Just a bit more before I leave:

Impact of Estate Tax on Small Businesses and Farms Is Minimal
Almost No Small Business and Farm Estates Owe the Tax; Those That Do Owe Only Modest Amounts

Impact of Estate Tax on Small Businesses and Farms Is Minimal — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

There is simply no consensus whatsoever that cutting taxes is a good strategy to boost state economic growth and create jobs.

Academic Research Lacks Consensus on the Impact of State Tax Cuts on Economic Growth — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

The National Association for Business Economics survey asks how higher taxes and lower government spending effected businesses in the first three months of 2013.

Ninety-three percent of respondents say the political developments had no effect on employment levels in the first quarter, and 95 percent say they had no impact on capital spending plans.

Fiscal Cliff Had No Effect On Employment, U.S. Businesses Say

Guess it depends on who you ask

EPA

and whether or not you are directly involved in paying for those regulations and higher taxes.
 
So the answer is as I posted, since you claim that regulations don't cause hiring problems and I disagree then the answer would be to eliminate regulations to see if employment changes. I totally agree.

Do you have a solution to the employment problem we have in this country?

Your support of increased govt. intervention in the private sector is noted but the question is why?

Again, we did deregulate. Some claim that got us into our trouble.

Investors Beware: Securities Deregulation is Here Again, and It Will Hurt


Investors Beware: Securities Deregulation is Here Again, and It Will Hurt - Forbes

But, I'm asking you to support your claims. i don't think you can. I think that is why you're foundering here.

:coffeepap
 
Guess it depends on who you ask

EPA

and whether or not you are directly involved in paying for those regulations and higher taxes.


Yes, one specific versus all. If you read the same people, you'll find they say it hurts in one but helps in another, making job creation a wash. So, the effect is as I said, as supported by the people you link, minimal.

But at least you finally tried. :applaud
 
Again, we did deregulate. Some claim that got us into our trouble.

Investors Beware: Securities Deregulation is Here Again, and It Will Hurt


Investors Beware: Securities Deregulation is Here Again, and It Will Hurt - Forbes

But, I'm asking you to support your claims. i don't think you can. I think that is why you're foundering here.

:coffeepap

What does any of this have to do with businesses hiring new employees and growing the labor force? You are so pro regulation that you really don't care if the regulations are relevant or not to hiring and job creation
 
History apparently is awfully subjective, and thats really unfortunate.

What historical snap shot has you convinced you that greater regulation, larger government and arbitrary cost increases on American Bussineses and individuals leads to strong economic growth ?

Please, be specific.

I know, when you don't like the story it tells. but, it had objective measurables. Sorry.
 
What does any of this have to do with businesses hiring new employees and growing the labor force? You are so pro regulation that you really don't care if the regulations are relevant or not to hiring and job creation

You mentioned deregulation. I showed effects of deregulation.

So to recap: I supported that taxes and regulations have minimal effect on business on the whole. You ranted, but only came up with one business, which doesn't dispute what the same group said supporting me.

Gotta go for now . . . :2wave:
 
You know, I find it interesting how often you incorporate perjoritive inflamatory words in your replies to me.

Do you want me to report you, because I have no problem doing that?

My statement was neither stupid, nor out of context.

How could it be?

It was simply a statement of fact. You're attempt to pervert it into something different is just your attempt to continue to attack without merit.

I think you need to refrain from continuing to do this. I believe the TOS here are designed to keep people like you from attacking others.

I'm sure the moderators would appreciate you trying to do that.
I could give a rats what you do as far as reporting any thing, your argument is beyond stupid, the point has always been the level of manufacturing employment, not the number of buildings we call "factories". This debate is about people....not bricks.

Often when people lose an argument, the look for any excuse to distract away from this loss.
 
I could give a rats what you do as far as reporting any thing, your argument is beyond stupid, the point has always been the level of manufacturing employment, not the number of buildings we call "factories". This debate is about people....not bricks.

Often when people lose an argument, the look for any excuse to distract away from this loss.

The country is losing and the more you defend the Obama incompetence the more you become part of the problem rather than the solution. Name for me anything Obama has done to increase demand so that companies will hire. Name for me the leadership qualities of Obama that have generated bipartisanship in Congress to get positive economic results? Let me know why the Republican House is called the do nothing House by liberals when bills passed by that House are sitting in Harry Reid's desk because he refuses to bring them to the floor for debate?

Defense of the indefensible in itself is indefensible.
 
I could give a rats what you do as far as reporting any thing, your argument is beyond stupid, the point has always been the level of manufacturing employment, not the number of buildings we call "factories". This debate is about people....not bricks.

Often when people lose an argument, the look for any excuse to distract away from this loss.

Is that what you are doing? Looking for any excuse to distract away from your loss?

It's not working, the train wreck appears to be something you want to be quite visable. I'd think your ego would want to avoid that.

But hey, smolder along. Far be it from me to stop you.
 
Back
Top Bottom