Republicans, like yesterday, kept on saying that we need to cut regulations right now.
My question is if more regulation lead to job loss, why not just have no regulations at all? why make more regulations when you know its going to move companies overseas, less tax revenue, and more layoffs??? Isn't this the logic that Republicans have when it comes to the EPA, Sarbanes-Oxley, and other financial/coporate regulations???
ziosuna
Favorite Answer
they want regulations cut so they can dump chemicals into your drinking water and don't have to worry about actually making sure their **** doesn't destroy the health of the surrounding population. it's like the "trickle down effect" it's a myth and has no bearing on the economy, only on their personal bonus checks.
Anonymous
Less regulation = Less help to comply with regulations= lower cost= more injury on the job= you need to spend more yourself. To protect yourself= More Atornies at work. Createing Jobs.
?
It isn't regulation that drives jobs overseas, its the slave wages overseas workers get paid. It allows domestic companies to increase the bottom line. Profit is always the motive.
Anonymous
Sadly its not that simple. Fewer regulations do not necessarily mean more jobs. They DO necessarily mean lower costs. Meaning more profit.
?
I can't be bothered to explain it to you. I'll just say that you make it patently obvious that folks who don't know how things are made tend to vote liberal