(01-06-2021, 10:50 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure how regulation creates employment, but it reminds me of this joke:
Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert.
Congress said, “Someone may steal from it at night.” So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.
Then Congress said, “How does the watchman do his job without instruction?”
So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.
Then Congress said, “How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?” So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people, one to do the studies and one to write the reports.
Then Congress said, “How are these people going to get paid?” So They created the following positions, a time keeper, and a payroll officer, then hired two people.
Then Congress said, “Who will be accountable for all of these people?” So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.
Then Congress said, “We have had this command in operation for one Year and we are $18,000 over budget, we must cutback overall cost.” So they laid off the night watchman.
Regulation can create jobs and it can get rid of jobs, it just depends on the regulation being made or being deregulated. Sarbanes-Oxley in 2002 comes to mind as regulation that created lots of jobs. I am personally more a fan of deregulation that lots of regulation, but you need some regulation. As with most things in life, we need sensible moderation when it comes to regulation.
(01-06-2021, 11:01 AM)KingIngram052787 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-06-2021, 10:50 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure how regulation creates employment, but it reminds me of this joke:
Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert.
Congress said, “Someone may steal from it at night.” So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.
Then Congress said, “How does the watchman do his job without instruction?”
So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.
Then Congress said, “How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?” So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people, one to do the studies and one to write the reports.
Then Congress said, “How are these people going to get paid?” So They created the following positions, a time keeper, and a payroll officer, then hired two people.
Then Congress said, “Who will be accountable for all of these people?” So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.
Then Congress said, “We have had this command in operation for one Year and we are $18,000 over budget, we must cutback overall cost.” So they laid off the night watchman.
Regulation can create jobs and it can get rid of jobs, it just depends on the regulation being made or being deregulated. Sarbanes-Oxley in 2002 comes to mind as regulation that created lots of jobs. I am personally more a fan of deregulation that lots of regulation, but you need some regulation. As with most things in life, we need sensible moderation when it comes to regulation.
Agreed. I think it's also important to distinguish between employment and production. Regulation creates employment, but not necessarily production.
The exception could be environmental and safety regulation. Innovation in new technologies to satisfy such regulation results in new or expanded production, but at the same time squelches employment in old means of technology. It's all a balancing act. The secret is to not lose sight of the night watchman.
(01-06-2021, 10:38 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (01-06-2021, 10:27 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Packing the Supreme Court won't happen unless the Supreme Court makes a unpopular and drastic decision like overturning Obamacare in the next year. And I think that's unlikely.
Adding DC and PR as states was already in process during the last Congress, hard to imagine why it wouldn't go through now. There's no good reason not to other than placating Republicans. Both territories have asked multiple times through popular votes and both have the i's dotted and t's crossed on their applications.
There is no clear referendum for PR statehood..
I stopped reading there. Check this out:
https://ballotpedia.org/Puerto_Rico_Stat...dum_(2020)
(01-06-2021, 11:51 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-06-2021, 10:38 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]There is no clear referendum for PR statehood..
I stopped reading there. Check this out: https://ballotpedia.org/Puerto_Rico_Stat...dum_(2020)
Still, half the population does not want statehood. Again, there is no clear referendum. There is still a strong movement against it. Strong enough that PR statehood will not happen any time soon. Argue the numbers all you want, but national identity runs deep and it runs deep enough in a sufficient portion of the population to prevent it from happening soon.
(01-06-2021, 12:00 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (01-06-2021, 11:51 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I stopped reading there. Check this out: https://ballotpedia.org/Puerto_Rico_Stat...dum_(2020)
Still, half the population does not want statehood. Again, there is no clear referendum. There is still a strong movement against it. Strong enough that PR statehood will not happen any time soon. Argue the numbers all you want, but national identity runs deep and it runs deep enough in a sufficient portion of the population to prevent it from happening soon.
What's going to happen is this Congress will offer statehood to PR, with certain terms and conditions that will be negotiated with delegates from the island, and contingent on Puerto Ricans approving it again in one final referendum.
DC hasn't done a referendum at all. Statehood won't be imposed on them either. It will be offered, and then DC will have their referendum.
Both should happen in 2021 or 2022.
(01-06-2021, 12:09 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-06-2021, 12:00 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Still, half the population does not want statehood. Again, there is no clear referendum. There is still a strong movement against it. Strong enough that PR statehood will not happen any time soon. Argue the numbers all you want, but national identity runs deep and it runs deep enough in a sufficient portion of the population to prevent it from happening soon.
What's going to happen is this Congress will offer statehood to PR, with certain terms and conditions that will be negotiated with delegates from the island, and contingent on Puerto Ricans approving it again in one final referendum.
DC hasn't done a referendum at all. Statehood won't be imposed on them either. It will be offered, and then DC will have their referendum.
Both should happen in 2021 or 2022.
I don't see that at all. Passions will be stirred in PR which will hobble that attempt. If it looks to become an eminent issue we'll see much more vociferous opposition.
DC presents too many legal and bureaucratic issues that no one wants to wrangle.
I don't see either happening in the next 10 years.
Joe Manchin is now the most powerful person in Washington.
Trump supporters storming the Capitol building. Fighting with police and throwing trash cans at them.
(01-06-2021, 02:30 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]Trump supporters storming the Capitol building. Fighting with police and throwing trash cans at them.
You sure that isn't BLM and Antifa?
What a waste of time what some republicans are doing right now with their objections. Its not going to change anything. They just look like huge sore losers. Also president trump is making himself look bad too with his crazy complaining speech that was over an hour. When its over, get ready for the next time. 2 years from now and 4 years from now. McConnell didn't want this. Im sure hes not having too good of a day watching this. Then he had to watch as he lost his majority leader position. Sold their soles to trump and some good things came out of it for the republicans but what a bad ending.
(01-06-2021, 02:31 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-06-2021, 02:30 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]Trump supporters storming the Capitol building. Fighting with police and throwing trash cans at them.
You sure that isn't BLM and Antifa?
Seriously?
I’ve never condoned what BLM and Antifa do.
However storming the Capitol in an attempt to do what? Why isn’t there tear gas being used?
(01-06-2021, 02:33 PM)Jag88 Wrote: [ -> ]What a waste of time what some republicans are doing right now with their objections. Its not going to change anything. They just look like huge sore losers. Also president trump is making himself look bad too with his crazy complaining speech that was over an hour. When its over, get ready for the next time. 2 years from now and 4 years from now. McConnell didn't want this. Im sure hes not having too good of a day watching this. Then he had to watch as he lost his majority leader position. Sold their soles to trump and some good things came out of it for the republicans but what a bad ending.
Well Trump told them he’s heading to the Capitol but instead went to the White House. Some leader.....
(01-06-2021, 02:31 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-06-2021, 02:30 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]Trump supporters storming the Capitol building. Fighting with police and throwing trash cans at them.
You sure that isn't BLM and Antifa?
Let’s see...a bunch of fat white lumps wearing camo, no masks, and waving Trump flags... nope. Unless it’s the albino wing of BLM.
Just so I am clear, Democratic leadership instructed police officers it is ok to do their jobs against supposed "violent" Trump supporters?
(01-06-2021, 03:08 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (01-06-2021, 02:31 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]You sure that isn't BLM and Antifa?
Let’s see...a bunch of fat white lumps waving Trump flags... nope. Unless it’s the albino wing of BLM.
Not sure if you noticed, but the majority of people pitching BLM are white.
How did these terrorists manage to get inside the building?
(01-06-2021, 03:19 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]How did these terrorists manage to get inside the building?
I'm watching CNN and I haven't seen any trash cans thrown or people inside the building? What network are you watching?
(01-06-2021, 03:19 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]How did these terrorists manage to get inside the building?
It is somewhat entertaining to see how much you all of a sudden seem to care about this kind of thing. i don't recall ever seeing you condemn or even mentioning the rioting, looting, and murder that was taking place in the streets of Democrat run cities within the past year. Now all of a sudden it is a thing for you. SMH.
This is getting stupid. Trump needs to reign it in. There doesn't seem to be any violence or destruction but the potential is very real.
![[Image: vBNwP4O.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/vBNwP4O.jpg)