Trump’s Anti-Regulatory Agenda Will Cost Economy Billions | Soshal Network, Social Circle Connection

Trump’s Anti-Regulatory Agenda Will Cost Economy Billions

0

Enjoyed the video ladies check these swimsuits out

Donald Trump has said that he wants to do away with a myriad of climate protections and regulations, but doing so will actually result in billions of dollars in economic losses, not to mention tens of thousands of premature deaths every year. The Ring of Fire's Farron Cousins discusses this.

Share Your Comments

65 comments

  1. Posted by Monster Sasquatch, at Reply

    bro, you look like a penis.

    • Posted by ToneyCrimson, at Reply

      Were you dreaming about sucking on his head?

    • Posted by Ste H, at Reply

      ToneyCrimson – notice how all of Monster Sasquatch’s comments are of a
      significantly low standard and contribute nothing to the issue(s) raised in
      the video?

    • Posted by The Young Federalist, at Reply

      Do you guys know Georges soros is involved in the Facebook fake news thing.
      Check out my content.

  2. Posted by Albin Lundholm, at Reply

    Anyone got any links to those studies he’s referring to?

  3. Posted by Twumpmanoftheyear, at Reply

    I bet the passengers on the Titanic would have been glad of more
    regulations!

    • Posted by Martha Holt, at Reply

      +Twumpmanoftheyear No, the Republicans would have said the iceberg moved.

    • Posted by Dylan Ferns, at Reply

      Martha Holt lol I see you on the comment section on every young Turk vid.
      You rock

    • Posted by Martha Holt, at Reply

      +Dylan Ferns iPhone + Google+ notifications = CRACK

    • Posted by Daryl Hawkes, at Reply

      If we had pumped more CO2 and methane into the air at the time, that
      iceberg would have melted.

  4. Posted by Cecil Ivers, at Reply

    Businesses don’t hate the government. They use it.

    • Posted by Allard Freichmann, at Reply

      Well said development paid by taxpayers, profit for businesses, bail outs
      for taxpayers.

  5. Posted by Ozark Ed, at Reply

    Spoken like a man who has never ran a business. Big business actually loves
    regulation. Don’t think so? Ever heard of lobbyists? Big business and big
    government need each other, and work hand in glove together. Those few
    dollars extra that Farron talks about can be the difference in a small
    start up growing or dying. The more onerous the regulations the fewer
    smaller competitors will exist.

    • Posted by Ozark Ed, at Reply

      +Red/white I get my information from 35 years business experience running
      and owning a small business. No one is advocating the elimination of
      regulations. However, in a capitalist system the market is the most
      efficient regulator. A convenience store that sells spoiled food to it’s
      customers won’t be in business very long. Businesses that engage in poor or
      unethical practices should be allowed to fail. Instead, big government and
      big business make sure that doesn’t happen and they do it in the name of
      protecting jobs and the workers. Don’t think so? Look at the bank and auto
      bailouts. Two heavily regulated industries by the way.

    • Posted by Lester Brunt, at Reply

      +AbusivePersian I agree but I think we have gone past the point of
      efficient regulations a very long time ago. The problem is that from a
      political point of view there isn’t much incentive to remove regulations.
      It isn’t in the interest of the politician since he gives away government
      control and it isn’t in the interest of the people who got him elected, in
      most cases.
      The income tax was started as a temporary thing, just to boost government
      income during the world wars. But that never went away, in fact it only
      gotten worse and worse to the point where wanting a 10 point reduction in
      corporate tax is seen as something extremely radical. In New York they
      still have food regulations from centuries ago, where if you have a dented
      can in your shop you can get a 10,000 dollar fine, even though cans have
      been made from aluminum for decades now and a dented can is not a threat to
      your health.
      But if somebody runs on the platform of relaxing those regulations somebody
      eventually is going to say “so you don’t care about consumer protection?
      You don’t care about workers? You don’t care about the environment?” and
      you can have the best arguments in return, most people only hear the “you
      don’t care about group X” part.

    • Posted by ultru, at Reply

      +Ozark Ed A food producer that secretly adds carcinogenic stuff to cut
      costs can easily stay in business for 20+ years without regulations, and
      even then it’ll be hard to find the source of the increased cancer rate.
      If there weren’t any regulations to cut car emissions, what incentive would
      the automotive industry have to do so? If you’re gonna rely on informed
      consumers, then you’d first need a private company that actually puts in
      the effort of checking them, then you’d have to find a way to finance them,
      and then hope they don’t get bribed or discredited by the industry, as
      literally no one else will notice until your air quality is on par with
      Delhi’s.

    • Posted by anonneemouse mighty, at Reply

      You argument makes as much sense as a Weed-Dealer adding PCP to the Weed, ”
      To make more Money”. Even Carcinogenic Ingredients COST MONEY. No
      Capitalist ADDS ANYTHING THAT IS NOT FREE.

  6. Posted by El Socialista Dinero, at Reply

    trump is just speeding up the process of a depression which comes with
    deregulation and this will cause a socialist revolution based on real
    socialism via worker cooperatives and councils(not soviet state monopoly
    capitalism)

    • Posted by AbusivePersian, at Reply

      El Socialista Dinero That’s hitting it right on the head. The breaking
      point would have come eventually, whether ten years, twenty years with the
      DNC or with Trump, 4 years from now. Unfortunately, I’m not very optimistic
      that in the end we will be better off. If the world survives, meaning no
      nucleur war, then there is a slither of hope Americans can adobt a more
      ‘European’ stragety afterwards.

  7. Posted by Henry Townshed, at Reply

    Fake news

  8. Posted by Adman1175, at Reply

    So now we have the secret to national prosperity and to eliminating
    unemployment- more government regulations! If only we’d known how easy it
    is! Thank you Farron.

    (Fool).

    • Posted by Steven Davidson, at Reply

      +ultru
      They have never looked.

    • Posted by anonneemouse mighty, at Reply

      I can say that Jobs did not Increase under Obama. Just Reporters alone,
      8-years ago, there were 75,000 Employed Reporters. Today, there are 14,000.
      That is a Net-Loss of 59,000 Jobs, about 800 a Year. There are more
      Socialism-Paid Journalism Community College Teachers than there are
      Reporters Employed. Now apply the Same Math to every Job. What would your
      know? GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE CANADIANS!

    • Posted by Justin Beauge, at Reply

      Well I’m American and you are talking about a very specific job market that
      was dying since the invention of the Internet and the wide spread use of
      social media. And in you statement you just said more teachers are employed
      than reporters. So couldn’t it be that the job market changed as it is
      prone to over the passage of time.

    • Posted by Justin Beauge, at Reply

      But that is not the argument I am making. I even said early on the video,
      comment section that the quality of jobs have not increased. Just the
      amount of the them. I agree the jobs needs to be better but that you are
      only bringing that up now to justify you stubbornness so that you can say
      hey I am right which sloves nothing and is why the job market is the way it
      now. Also you clearly don’t live in Canada nor are we talking about Canada.
      So if you want to continue have the conversation please bring up points
      related to the original argument or atleast explain that you have a
      separate issue that happens the effects the one we are talking about. Which
      for clarification is about job increase in America not job quality.

  9. Posted by Kenrick Plank, at Reply
    • Posted by Kenrick Plank, at Reply

      +anonneemouse mighty What are you talking about?

    • Posted by Antoine Vello, at Reply

      +Kenrick Plank I just wanted you to say that.

    • Posted by thomas Hooper, at Reply

      so correcting myself is evidence of a lack of understanding? Strange I
      would of thought that self correction is indicative of undertanding. My
      point was that not all unemployment is alike. Cyclical unemployment is
      bound to fluctuate regardless of policies. On the other hand structural/
      systemic unemployment is the result of artificial barriers. Therefore
      taking unemployment reducing as a lone metric for a policie’s success is at
      best incomplete, and I would say indicative of a very simplistic
      understanding of economics.

    • Posted by ultru, at Reply

      That study is flawed, they only check the effect of regulations in the
      industry they apply to, failing to account for job growth in other sectors
      because of those regulations.
      Of course there’s gonna be a loss in coal jobs if you add CO2 regulations,
      but this will also create jobs in other industries like nuclear and solar
      power, which this study refuses to acknowledge.

  10. Posted by Cyphrum ᕙ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)ᕗ, at Reply

    There will be a VERY rude awakening for many Trump supporters in the next
    few years, because these deregulations etc. will hit the poor and
    uneducated – aka Trump supporters – the hardest.

    • Posted by anonneemouse mighty, at Reply

      But the Educated Trump Supporters will OWN NEW BUSINESSES. We will hire the
      Tards to Sweep the Gold Dust off the Floor.

    • Posted by Dragon1717, at Reply

      No. We are entering an era of wealth, growth and forward progress for all.
      Bring it on I say!

  11. Posted by snowbaordguru, at Reply

    Republicans will fight tooth and nail to assure regulations don’t work
    (de-funding agencies, ect) and that people believe tax cuts on the rich
    help. They have built their platform on those two ideas, if those ideas
    were to fail *(again)* like they have time and time again in the past,
    people will abandon the (R) party like rats from a sinking ship.

    • Posted by snowbaordguru, at Reply

      +Lord Eli I agree with your sentiment. I’m holding on to hope though.

  12. Posted by superfinevids, at Reply

    Lack of regulations is a job killer… when people die in factory fires and
    gas leaks thats jobs loss.

    • Posted by Paper Bag, at Reply

      You could also add the example of something like asbestos: down the road,
      there are costs for the company if workers affected by asbestos make health
      claims. So, in this sort of case, regulation, and forced OH&S compliance
      costs, might be less than legal costs, compensation costs, settlement costs.

    • Posted by anonneemouse mighty, at Reply

      Not with a Single-Payer Health Plan.

    • Posted by seeamerica1, at Reply

      There’s a Goodyear plant in my town. 4 people have died just in the past
      year due to lack of regulations. OSHA keeps saying “they are looking into
      it” but nothing changes. When Trump & his cronies deregulate more
      regulations there will be more deaths in every sector of industry along
      with more climate related deaths. But hey, the CEO’s making the HUGE
      bonuses who turn a blind eye to the travesties will just walk away & count
      their $$ in offshore accounts never to be beholden to accountability. When
      was the last time any of them went to jail? Millionaires & Billionaires
      just get a slap on the wrist while peaceful protestors serve time. What a
      corrupt system we have!

    • Posted by thewanderandhiscomp, at Reply

      seeamerica1 who cares about workers, there always more where they come
      from, what is important is the rich, now dig more coal and let those idiots
      die of black lung. I wanna see rivers burn again, and new York so polluted
      you can’t see the 911 memorial,

  13. Posted by Brian Linderman, at Reply

    All you progressives and liberals constantly claim you’re for power to the
    people, yet all your decisions simply create more power for the government.
    Companies shouldn’t be forced under threat of law to improve quality or
    hire people. Companies should do this to appease the consumer demand that
    we the people make. That’s true freedom. You create more regulations the
    companies simply want to appease the law that confines them. They don’t
    care about what the consumer wants. Because a single person may be worth a
    $100, but violating a federal regulation can cost them $1,000. If you want
    to actually empower the people and force companies to make better products
    then give the consumers more power by removing the government from parts of
    the economy!

    • Posted by Brian Linderman, at Reply

      Cyphrum ᕙ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)ᕗ 1. The USA has never implemented the economic system
      I am suggesting. 2. The USA has never been socialist, so please look up
      what that word actually means. 3. Cartels rarely ever work because cartels
      require that companies never compete with one another. It is both human and
      business nature to compete for survival. It’s the desire to have more than
      you currently have. This is why every single cartel to ever exist has
      eventually failed because of competition. 4. You are completely
      disregarding a major point I am making, which is consumer power. You are
      assuming that all of these companies miraculously become more powerful than
      ever before. How exactly is that occurring without selling products to
      consumers? If you remove the government subsidies, there is no way for
      companies to obtain income without selling products or services to
      consumers. If consumers actually demand a higher quality product and they
      have the only demand that forces companies to provide better product
      without government regulations.

    • Posted by Brian Linderman, at Reply

      gtamateur 1. We did not run the country as in suggesting as we did in the
      1800s. 2. I’m also not suggesting a complete removal of the government
      entirely. There is a place for government and supplying security is
      definitely a job for them. There are also certain sectors that they do need
      to be involved in like space and nuclear. These sectors are ok to have
      government involvement as long as its purely for scientific or innovative
      production. I also don’t have a problem, because these sectors naturally
      have very high barriers to enter based on their own variables (space- you
      need products to get you out of the atmosphere/ nuclear- you need very
      costly materials to create a nuclear reaction). However we don’t not need
      the government as heavily involved in the economy as they are and we
      certainly do not need them creating artificial supply and demand for
      companies and consumers. That only corrupts the market and leads to more
      long term problems.

    • Posted by Heartofserenity555, at Reply

      You should run for office. As the way you frame your messages are done in a
      such a way which would resonate well with the American people.

  14. Posted by Kevin Prasad, at Reply

    This would be the most trump has lost in a venture

    • Posted by Grumpy OldGuy, at Reply

      Patrick Dicker My guess is that they DO understand supply side economics,
      and that is precisely why they object to it.
      It’s a ruse. You know that, right?
      There is no real world example of a healthy economy running on a supply
      side agenda for a sustained period.
      Jobs, aside from household staff, are not created.
      Only DEMAND for products and services incentivizes capital to create jobs.
      Is it possible that you have forgotten this most basic fact?
      Our current system is being artificially propped up by the Pentagons DEMAND
      for war materiel.
      Plus, all current economic theory is an anachronism, based on unlimited and
      eternal growth. Which must end at some point, either in a managed and
      thoughtful way, evolving into a steady state system, or, more likely, by
      crashing down on our heads.
      Continued worship of the “job creators” and blind adherence to the gospel
      of the supply side will certainly lead to the latter.
      Don’t be a useful idiot.

      Try this thought experiment:
      Take a pile of money, say ten million bucks, and…
      A) Give it to a guy who already has two or three hundred million in assets.
      What do you imagine this guy does with that money?
      B) Divide that money between a thousand working class families. What do you
      suppose happens to the money now?
      What is the follow on effect of that sum in each example? How much winds up
      in tax havens in each instance? How many new cars, major appliances, pairs
      of blue jeans, etc are purchased in each scenario? And thus, how many JOBS
      are sustained?
      Unless our hypothetical .01%er hires someone to spend and give away the
      money, it is unrealistic to expect the benefits to the economy generally to
      be anything near that of option B.

      Since the seventies it has been the practice of business to hold the line
      on wages for the many while jacking up salaries for the few.
      At the same time government has reduced taxes on corporations and the rich.
      Show us the evidence that we are better off driving on old, tired bridges
      while executives fly on tax deferred private jets.
      Explain how bombing Muslims is a great investment, but free college is a
      travesty.
      Or how public schools are bad, but private prisons are awesome.
      Supply side is how royalty thought of “their” peasants in the Middle Ages.
      Time to evolve.
      Or perish.

    • Posted by Patrick Dicker, at Reply

      +Sepywishes takes one to know one. Are you hiring rn?

    • Posted by Patrick Dicker, at Reply

      +Grumpy OldGuy if you’d actually like a response to your “thought
      experiment” lmk

  15. Posted by romanmir01, at Reply

    Ha ha, I outsource most of my developer team to the Ukraine because the
    regulatory and taxation costs make it impossible for me to hire as many
    people in the USA, where there is no freedom there will be no business, I
    don’t need a study for that. The collectivists will wait for studies while
    the businesses know what they have to do to survive.

    • Posted by MrBlaq, at Reply

      romanmir01 if you’re small business isn’t grossing enough to hire the
      natives, then you probably shouldn’t be running a business. I’m a small
      business owner and every so often I remind assholes that they aren’t
      “entitled” to a business.

    • Posted by romanmir01, at Reply

      ha ha ha ha ha 🙂 seriously, you are too funny to tell others how to live *their
      lives*, how to run *their business*. Ha ha ha, if I am not grossing enough
      to hire natives I shouldn’t be running a business? Really? Says who? A
      business is a way to make money, whatever works for me is what I will do.

  16. Posted by WuFFY Oupol, at Reply

    please put sources in the description so the comments cant turn into a
    shitshow like it is below D: also id like to read any sources containing
    information on the growth of jobs and the studies that concluded these
    facts. but without a source in the description i dont know where to start.
    i guess ill give google a shot though.

  17. Posted by MomoTheBellyDancer, at Reply

    Even if it were the other way around, it still wouldn’t matter. We *need* a
    clean environment to survive, so those regulations need to stay.

    • Posted by MomoTheBellyDancer, at Reply

      +Michael Robertson

      I asked for sources, not more baseless ramblings.

    • Posted by WuFFY Oupol, at Reply

      oh my bad cuck, didnt realize the other dude asked for a source, i didnt
      refresh the page. your still a dumb cuck though. you should delete your
      comments micheal.

    • Posted by WuFFY Oupol, at Reply

      ALSO, power coming from hydroelectric dams and other more green sources of
      energy. are FAR more efficient and cheaper to pay for in the long run than
      coal. thats blatantly obvious. but hey “regulations are killing the
      economy” if thats your next point micheal, look at my comment above with
      shittons of sources and articles all proving that statement to be false and
      stupid. keep voting for cheetohdick and trolling on TYT though, were so
      stupid, we stand no chance against the right wing. the fear.

  18. Posted by Dhruv Mistry, at Reply

    Reagan did the same thing with regulations and it worked