What one issue do you struggle with the most?

[Foxfyre]

Um...no. Not even close.

Under the administration’s regulatory agenda, the OMB website shows 498 pending actions are listed as deregulatory and 133 as regulatory, as defined by the executive order. That’s a ratio of nearly 4 to 1.

But the numbers shrink dramatically when you search only for “economically significant” actions: 32 deregulatory and 20 regulatory. That’s less than 2 to 1. (There are also 19 major actions labeled as “other.”)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/08/03/has-the-trump-administration-repealed-22-regulations-for-each-new-one/

Now you are just making shit up. Again.

Trump was elected on third base and he convinced you he had hit a triple.

I didn't say anything about unemployment. But nice try at changing the subject.

People with part time jobs or two or three part time jobs are not classified as unemployed but most part time jobs come with few or no benefits. That's a fact.

Nearly 95% of all new jobs during Obama era were part-time, or contract By Investing.com

Nearly 95% of all new jobs during Obama era were part-time, or contract

www.investing.com

This was just his first two years far exceeding his EO requiring elimination of at least two unnecessary regulations for every new regulation put into effect.

Here’s How Much Red Tape Trump Has Cut

The Trump administration on Wednesday reported $23 billion in savings from 176 deregulatory actions in fiscal year 2018. Even more consequential, the administration has issued 65 percent fewer “significant” rules—those with costs that exceed $100 million a year—than the Obama administration, and...

www.heritage.org

I don't post stuff I can't back up unless it is a personal opinion or experience.

 

[Independent thinker]

I suspect you don't understand what this thread is about. You're not the first.

Of course I know what the thread is about, deflecting from Biden's destruction of the economy and runaway inflation.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

if you're looking at it that way then it's the cheapest not to imprison them at all

Because it takes so long to execute people it doesn't provide a deterrent which it should. Instead of some states working on getting rid of the death penalty, they should be working on ways to expedite these cases so it will be a deterrent. I would go one step further and say we should take the baddest in our juvenile jails, send them down there, and make them watch an execution.

You want to have them watch someone go to sleep?

 

[Mac1958]

Of course I know what the thread is about, deflecting from Biden's destruction of the economy and runaway inflation.

holy crap

 

[EvilCat Breath]

One is too many. I don’t know how shady, self serving prosecutors live with themselves.

Innocence | Death Penalty Information Center

The Death Penalty Information Center (DPI) is a national non-profit organization whose mission is to serve the media, policymakers, and the general public…

deathpenaltyinfo.org

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

Since 1973. Forensics has come a long way in 50 years.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

if you're looking at it that way then it's the cheapest not to imprison them at all

Because it takes so long to execute people it doesn't provide a deterrent which it should. Instead of some states working on getting rid of the death penalty, they should be working on ways to expedite these cases so it will be a deterrent. I would go one step further and say we should take the baddest in our juvenile jails, send them down there, and make them watch an execution.

Have you ever seen an execution? I have. If juvenile criminals can watch a friend overdose and die, then go out and get high, an execution won't cause a blink.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

My issue with the death penalty is the number of death row inmates who were eventually freed because of DNA evidence.

Had they been given “swift justice” they would have been killed by the state and been innocent. That’s just WRONG.

It makes you wonder how many people were executed by the state who should not have been

Back in the day I'm sure a few. But it's 2022 now. DNA, fingerprinting, cameras everywhere, it's not like it was in 1990. If somebody is convicted of murder today, they committed murder.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Have you ever seen an execution? I have. If juvenile criminals can watch a friend overdose and die, then go out and get high, an execution won't cause a blink.

Well that's your opinion. I remember when they took kids to prisons to get sermoned by adults locked up in there, called Scared Straight. It had some success if I remember correctly, that was until the media eventually got in there and reported it was all an act.

I say it would be worth a try.

 

[Lesh]

Back in the day I'm sure a few. But it's 2022 now. DNA, fingerprinting, cameras everywhere, it's not like it was in 1990. If somebody is convicted of murder today, they committed murder.

Not always. DNA matches turn up late all the time still. And our history is not good.

“I’m sure that happened back in the day” is a pretty weak excuse for state sanctioned murder

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You want to have them watch someone go to sleep?

No, it's not violent, but they will understand somebody just got killed right in front of them for committing murder.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not always. DNA matches turn up late all the time still. And our history is not good.

“I’m sure that happened back in the day” is a pretty weak excuse for state sanctioned murder

So is your concern about false convictions or was that just an excuse because you're against executions period?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Since 1973. Forensics has come a long way in 50 years.

Yes. From 73 to the present.
One is too many. It’s better to not do it at all then to kill someone unjustly.

 

[B. Kidd]

I only struggle with one issue, that is private.
Otherwise, I have next to no regrets and will face my mortality with aplomb.

True story.

 

[sparky]

What's yours?

a failing fiat

~S~

 

[JoeMoma]

That's why we have an appeals process.

.

True, but once convicted of a crime, it can be next to impossible to become exonerated. If an innocent person is convicted, fat chance of getting that overturned on appeal.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No, it's not violent, but they will understand somebody just got killed right in front of them for committing murder.

I doubt it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's a fair and important question. To me it's about finding a point of equilibrium that is essentially a "goldilocks" zone, at which we providing a reasonable safety net but not going too far. My guess is that finding would involve MANY tweaks and better ideas than where we are now. I'd think an answer would also involve better resources for helping people escape this awful cycle they're in.

And there's the bigger problem. Both ends of this issue make perfectly fair and reasonable points, and if we were still capable of communication, collaboration and innovation, we could find that "goldilocks" zone and run with it.

Instead, we keep looking for one-sided band aids instead of thinking big picture.

When I was younger not many people were on welfare. That's because welfare didn't pay shit. You could survive on welfare, but that's about it.

Fast forward to today and our poor are fat and happy. We provide them with enough money in vouchers so they can live in working middle-class neighborhoods, and when Democrats are in charge, encourage it. Free healthcare that working people have to provide for themselves, free food, free cell phone, and our so-called poor actually live in larger homes with more amenities than working Europeans.

So the answer to the problem is cutting these programs, not increasing them like Dementia did. If physically and mentally capable people want better, it would encourage them to work instead of sitting home.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Of course I know what the thread is about, deflecting from Biden's destruction of the economy and runaway inflation.

each and every post you prove your username is pure sarcasm.

 

[Lesh]

When I was younger not many people were on welfare. That's because welfare didn't pay shit. You could survive on welfare, but that's about it.

Fast forward to today and our poor are fat and happy. We provide them with enough money in vouchers so they can live in working middle-class neighborhoods, and when Democrats are in charge, encourage it. Free healthcare that working people have to provide for themselves, free food, free cell phone, and our so-called poor actually live in larger homes with more amenities than working Europeans.

So the answer to the problem is cutting these programs, not increasing them like Dementia did. If physically and mentally capable people want better, it would encourage them to work instead of sitting home.

That's horse shit.

When you were younger more people were on Welfare than now.

Newsflash ...it pays even less now (since the reform in the 90s)

 

[B. Kidd]

When I was younger not many people were on welfare. That's because welfare didn't pay shit. You could survive on welfare, but that's about it.

Fast forward to today and our poor are fat and happy. We provide them with enough money in vouchers so they can live in working middle-class neighborhoods, and when Democrats are in charge, encourage it. Free healthcare that working people have to provide for themselves, free food, free cell phone, and our so-called poor actually live in larger homes with more amenities than working Europeans.

So the answer to the problem is cutting these programs, not increasing them like Dementia did. If physically and mentally capable people want better, it would encourage them to work instead of sitting home.

10-4!

When taker's take, backed up by far leftist Big Gov't, the law of diminishing returns kicks in, whereas maker's no longer want to make!!