Deregulation Nation

[Mac1958]

Cutting or increasing regulation for the purpose of cutting or increasing regulation is a dumb idea that only partisans can back.

Instead of this blind, stupid back-and-forth between hyper-regulation and hyper-deregulation, we should be deleting ineffective regulation

That's what Daffy Don has been doing, well that and eliminating regulatory redundancy and those whose costs outweigh their benefits.

and creating smart and efficient regulation that protects consumers without creating too much drag on the dynamic elements of capitalism.

LOL, boy you've really bought into the politician speak bullshit, huh? Can you possibly be as naïve as you sound? Do you understand who contributes the lions share of the content for the vast majority of regulation that finds it's way into the Federal Register? (hint: the organizations that are the ostensibly the targets of said regulation, it's the most efficient way to stifle competition, provide yourself cover from civil and criminal litigation and to protect your bottom line)

Nobody in Washington gives a FUCK about protecting you from anything so when some politician starts yammering at you about "smart and efficient" anything, what he's really saying is, "more covert and efficient ways to allow politicians and their pals to plunder your liberty and your property".

Being neck-deep in the financial services industry as a profession, having seen and lived through the causes and effects of the Meltdown, living this stuff every day, getting my information directly from the source(s) at all times, I disagree.
.

What does being in the financial services industry have to do with understanding the prevailing regulatory system? Are you the CEO of Goldman Sachs? if not being in the financial services industry doesn't lend you any deeper understanding of the existing U.S. regulatory regime, it confers some expertise in pushing numbers around a screen and being able to count without using your fingers and toes and maybe some understanding of how low and for how long you have to grovel for tax payer bail outs when your industry fucks up with other peoples money.

When you start throwing around verbatim politician quotes like "smart and efficient regulation" it just belies the fact that you've bought into the bullshit and don't understand that the regulatory power lies with those that have legions of lobbyists and truckloads of campaign money, which isn't YOU. The vast majority of regulation that is penned by unelected bureaucrats and dictated by lobbyists and think tankers isn't created with "smart and efficient" in mind, nor is it created to benefit you.

Smart and efficient.. give me a break, we can't even manage FAIR and UNIFORM and that's not the fault of the miscreants in Washington that's the fault of the sheeple most of whom don't have a clue as to what the Federal Register is, what's in it , who actually authors regulation or the fact that their elected "representatives" have completely abrogated their Constitutional responsibilities when it comes to bringing them into being.

I know all the talking points, from both ends, thanks.
.

 

[NightFox]

Cutting or increasing regulation for the purpose of cutting or increasing regulation is a dumb idea that only partisans can back.

Instead of this blind, stupid back-and-forth between hyper-regulation and hyper-deregulation, we should be deleting ineffective regulation

That's what Daffy Don has been doing, well that and eliminating regulatory redundancy and those whose costs outweigh their benefits.

and creating smart and efficient regulation that protects consumers without creating too much drag on the dynamic elements of capitalism.

LOL, boy you've really bought into the politician speak bullshit, huh? Can you possibly be as naïve as you sound? Do you understand who contributes the lions share of the content for the vast majority of regulation that finds it's way into the Federal Register? (hint: the organizations that are the ostensibly the targets of said regulation, it's the most efficient way to stifle competition, provide yourself cover from civil and criminal litigation and to protect your bottom line)

Nobody in Washington gives a FUCK about protecting you from anything so when some politician starts yammering at you about "smart and efficient" anything, what he's really saying is, "more covert and efficient ways to allow politicians and their pals to plunder your liberty and your property".

Being neck-deep in the financial services industry as a profession, having seen and lived through the causes and effects of the Meltdown, living this stuff every day, getting my information directly from the source(s) at all times, I disagree.
.

What does being in the financial services industry have to do with understanding the prevailing regulatory system? Are you the CEO of Goldman Sachs? if not being in the financial services industry doesn't lend you any deeper understanding of the existing U.S. regulatory regime, it confers some expertise in pushing numbers around a screen and being able to count without using your fingers and toes and maybe some understanding of how low and for how long you have to grovel for tax payer bail outs when your industry fucks up with other peoples money.

When you start throwing around verbatim politician quotes like "smart and efficient regulation" it just belies the fact that you've bought into the bullshit and don't understand that the regulatory power lies with those that have legions of lobbyists and truckloads of campaign money, which isn't YOU. The vast majority of regulation that is penned by unelected bureaucrats and dictated by lobbyists and think tankers isn't created with "smart and efficient" in mind, nor is it created to benefit you.

Smart and efficient.. give me a break, we can't even manage FAIR and UNIFORM and that's not the fault of the miscreants in Washington that's the fault of the sheeple most of whom don't have a clue as to what the Federal Register is, what's in it , who actually authors regulation or the fact that their elected "representatives" have completely abrogated their Constitutional responsibilities when it comes to bringing them into being.

I know all the talking points, from both ends, thanks.
.

Yeah, I'll bet you do, repetition is the key to memorization and you seem to like repeating them.

Here's a hint, negotiating away your liberty and property an inch at a time instead of a yard at a time in the hopes that the root cause of the problem can be solved by everybody throwing their principles to the wind, holding hands and singing kumbaya doesn't make you reasonable, it makes you foolish.

"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" -- Lord Acton

 

[Mac1958]

Cutting or increasing regulation for the purpose of cutting or increasing regulation is a dumb idea that only partisans can back.

Instead of this blind, stupid back-and-forth between hyper-regulation and hyper-deregulation, we should be deleting ineffective regulation

That's what Daffy Don has been doing, well that and eliminating regulatory redundancy and those whose costs outweigh their benefits.

and creating smart and efficient regulation that protects consumers without creating too much drag on the dynamic elements of capitalism.

LOL, boy you've really bought into the politician speak bullshit, huh? Can you possibly be as naïve as you sound? Do you understand who contributes the lions share of the content for the vast majority of regulation that finds it's way into the Federal Register? (hint: the organizations that are the ostensibly the targets of said regulation, it's the most efficient way to stifle competition, provide yourself cover from civil and criminal litigation and to protect your bottom line)

Nobody in Washington gives a FUCK about protecting you from anything so when some politician starts yammering at you about "smart and efficient" anything, what he's really saying is, "more covert and efficient ways to allow politicians and their pals to plunder your liberty and your property".

Being neck-deep in the financial services industry as a profession, having seen and lived through the causes and effects of the Meltdown, living this stuff every day, getting my information directly from the source(s) at all times, I disagree.
.

What does being in the financial services industry have to do with understanding the prevailing regulatory system? Are you the CEO of Goldman Sachs? if not being in the financial services industry doesn't lend you any deeper understanding of the existing U.S. regulatory regime, it confers some expertise in pushing numbers around a screen and being able to count without using your fingers and toes and maybe some understanding of how low and for how long you have to grovel for tax payer bail outs when your industry fucks up with other peoples money.

When you start throwing around verbatim politician quotes like "smart and efficient regulation" it just belies the fact that you've bought into the bullshit and don't understand that the regulatory power lies with those that have legions of lobbyists and truckloads of campaign money, which isn't YOU. The vast majority of regulation that is penned by unelected bureaucrats and dictated by lobbyists and think tankers isn't created with "smart and efficient" in mind, nor is it created to benefit you.

Smart and efficient.. give me a break, we can't even manage FAIR and UNIFORM and that's not the fault of the miscreants in Washington that's the fault of the sheeple most of whom don't have a clue as to what the Federal Register is, what's in it , who actually authors regulation or the fact that their elected "representatives" have completely abrogated their Constitutional responsibilities when it comes to bringing them into being.

I know all the talking points, from both ends, thanks.
.

Yeah, I'll bet you do, repetition is the key to memorization and you seem to like repeating them.

Here's a hint, negotiating away your liberty and property an inch at a time instead of a yard at a time in the hopes that the root cause of the problem can be solved by everybody throwing their principles to the wind, holding hands and singing kumbaya doesn't make you reasonable, it makes you foolish.

"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" -- Lord Acton

Got it, thanks.
.

 

[danielpalos]

How much of our booming economy will you attribute to this?

I'll give Daffy Don some credit where credit is due, he's put a dent into our insane Federal Regulatory Regime, he's managed to cut the size of the federal register down by nearly 1/3 since he's been in office and that has had a significant positive impact on real GDP growth, GOOD JOB.

… however IMHO he needs to pick up the pace and organize a regulatory review that eliminates unnecessary and counter productive (i.e. costs exceed benefits) regulations so that we get to a federal register that is half the size it is right now by 2020.

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -- Ronald Reagan

an increase in social costs is the main reason for regulation.

what type of insurance scheme would you suggest as an alternative.

 

[bripat9643]

Regulation screws the consumer. Why do you imagine the average price of housing in California is $800,000

Three reasons: Location, Location, Location.

To put it prospective for you; Housing in Toronto is more expensive than housing in Calgary.

Indices Difference
Consumer Prices in Toronto are 13.87% higher than in Calgary
Consumer Prices Including Rent in Toronto are 24.34% higher than in Calgary
Rent Prices in Toronto are 50.63% higher than in Calgary
Restaurant Prices in Toronto are 4.71% higher than in Calgary
Groceries Prices in Toronto are 22.27% higher than in Calgary
Local Purchasing Power in Toronto is 32.73% lower than in Calgary

Your theory breaks down if we look at Tokyo, where the cost of housing is quite cheap by American standards.

But they are not cheap by Japanese standards


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Yes they are.

Yeah, ok...

In Tokyo a condo averages 516000 yen per sq meter and in Osaka it is 315,000!




Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Where did you get those figures? I'm seeing much lower figures when I google.

 

[OnePercenter]

Deregulation screws the consumer.

Regulation screws the consumer. Why do you imagine the average price of housing in California is $800,000

Three reasons: Location, Location, Location.

To put it prospective for you; Housing in Toronto is more expensive than housing in Calgary.

Indices Difference
Consumer Prices in Toronto are 13.87% higher than in Calgary
Consumer Prices Including Rent in Toronto are 24.34% higher than in Calgary
Rent Prices in Toronto are 50.63% higher than in Calgary
Restaurant Prices in Toronto are 4.71% higher than in Calgary
Groceries Prices in Toronto are 22.27% higher than in Calgary
Local Purchasing Power in Toronto is 32.73% lower than in Calgary

Your theory breaks down if we look at Tokyo, where the cost of housing is quite cheap by American standards.

Fact remain clearly on my side if you compare and contrast apples to apples.

Bullshit. If you look were the cost of housing is high, it's always in a blue state. High taxes and massive regulation.

Lifestyle and/or professional jobs effect housing prices.

 

[bripat9643]

Regulation screws the consumer. Why do you imagine the average price of housing in California is $800,000

Three reasons: Location, Location, Location.

To put it prospective for you; Housing in Toronto is more expensive than housing in Calgary.

Indices Difference
Consumer Prices in Toronto are 13.87% higher than in Calgary
Consumer Prices Including Rent in Toronto are 24.34% higher than in Calgary
Rent Prices in Toronto are 50.63% higher than in Calgary
Restaurant Prices in Toronto are 4.71% higher than in Calgary
Groceries Prices in Toronto are 22.27% higher than in Calgary
Local Purchasing Power in Toronto is 32.73% lower than in Calgary

Your theory breaks down if we look at Tokyo, where the cost of housing is quite cheap by American standards.

Fact remain clearly on my side if you compare and contrast apples to apples.

Bullshit. If you look were the cost of housing is high, it's always in a blue state. High taxes and massive regulation.

Lifestyle and/or professional jobs effect housing prices.

Douchebags like you refuse to admit that government effects the price of housing. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see that it does

 

[OnePercenter]

Three reasons: Location, Location, Location.

To put it prospective for you; Housing in Toronto is more expensive than housing in Calgary.

Indices Difference
Consumer Prices in Toronto are 13.87% higher than in Calgary
Consumer Prices Including Rent in Toronto are 24.34% higher than in Calgary
Rent Prices in Toronto are 50.63% higher than in Calgary
Restaurant Prices in Toronto are 4.71% higher than in Calgary
Groceries Prices in Toronto are 22.27% higher than in Calgary
Local Purchasing Power in Toronto is 32.73% lower than in Calgary

Your theory breaks down if we look at Tokyo, where the cost of housing is quite cheap by American standards.

Fact remain clearly on my side if you compare and contrast apples to apples.

Bullshit. If you look were the cost of housing is high, it's always in a blue state. High taxes and massive regulation.

Lifestyle and/or professional jobs effect housing prices.

Douchebags like you refuse to admit that government effects the price of housing. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see that it does

It's Location, Location, Location

Two homes in California: Same county, same taxes, same size, different locations.

2066 Mackinnon Ave, Cardiff, CA 92007 - realtor.com®

14344 York Ave, Poway, CA 92064 - realtor.com®

It's Location, Location, Location

 

[grainbely]

How much of our booming economy will you attribute to this?

Booming for who? Some of the regs dont matter. Some are fine to repeal. Some are going to hurt millions of Americans and make things worse. Air quality for instance can be as bad as smoking. One recent reg he got rid of was requiring better adequate brakes on oil trains. Wtf kind of idiot would be against that after horrific derailings? One day you'll realize that corporations should not be allowed to make the rules because nit having conscience ir morals they will screw everyone for their profits.

So, everything was fine before the regulation was created, but now it's a catastrophe if it isn't implemented? What the fuck does "better adequate" mean? Do the newer brakes justify the cost? You enviro-wackos never demonstrate that it does. Can you demonstrate the new brakes would have prevented any derailing? When corporations are held financially responsible for screwing anyone, then they will take measures to prevent it.

If you want details on the train brakes thing go look it up.

Train derailments have caused a shit ton of damage. The government is within it's duties to require better brakes in attempt to curtail the derailments. Guess who is carries the brunt of damage and cleanup? Locals will and tax payers. These trains go interstate and move fuel so it's a combination of national concerns being addressed. Not to mention that oil and it's pre and post processing states are toxic to pretty much everything on the surface.

Assuming all the deregulations are good is as bad as assuming all regulations are good, chump.

You look it up, moron. I don't take homework assignments.

You failed to demonstrate that these brakes will prevent a single derangement. Neither did the EPA.

99% of all regulations are unnecessary and counter productive.

It's hilariously sad that you demand citation and extensive discussion then go say 99% of all regulation is bad. Wtf dude lol. I understand that's your perspective and it's a turn of phrase but I'm not stupid enough to be a lil bitch and demand you prove it with math and diagrams.

The difference between you and me is that you are here to try to win debates and I'm here to read and share perspectives. The goals are quite different. Im seeking understanding of the fked up stuff that goes on in a radical right's head. If I'm sharing perspective, I am within reasonable expectations to mention the train brakes but not write a book trying to pierce your thick skull and prove the regulation is necessary. I'm not going to waste my time reinventing the wheel so you can see my perspective when your lazy ass can go read it yourself. And your lazy ass can be honest and run with the inference I made that there are regulations that are good and it is good to regulate some of this stuff rather than let corporations write their own very lenient rules. What happens when corporations write there own rules, bro? Do you need a dissertation on that one too?

 

[bripat9643]

How much of our booming economy will you attribute to this?

Booming for who? Some of the regs dont matter. Some are fine to repeal. Some are going to hurt millions of Americans and make things worse. Air quality for instance can be as bad as smoking. One recent reg he got rid of was requiring better adequate brakes on oil trains. Wtf kind of idiot would be against that after horrific derailings? One day you'll realize that corporations should not be allowed to make the rules because nit having conscience ir morals they will screw everyone for their profits.

So, everything was fine before the regulation was created, but now it's a catastrophe if it isn't implemented? What the fuck does "better adequate" mean? Do the newer brakes justify the cost? You enviro-wackos never demonstrate that it does. Can you demonstrate the new brakes would have prevented any derailing? When corporations are held financially responsible for screwing anyone, then they will take measures to prevent it.

If you want details on the train brakes thing go look it up.

Train derailments have caused a shit ton of damage. The government is within it's duties to require better brakes in attempt to curtail the derailments. Guess who is carries the brunt of damage and cleanup? Locals will and tax payers. These trains go interstate and move fuel so it's a combination of national concerns being addressed. Not to mention that oil and it's pre and post processing states are toxic to pretty much everything on the surface.

Assuming all the deregulations are good is as bad as assuming all regulations are good, chump.

You look it up, moron. I don't take homework assignments.

You failed to demonstrate that these brakes will prevent a single derangement. Neither did the EPA.

99% of all regulations are unnecessary and counter productive.

It's hilariously sad that you demand citation and extensive discussion then go say 99% of all regulation is bad. Wtf dude lol. I understand that's your perspective and it's a turn of phrase but I'm not stupid enough to be a lil bitch and demand you prove it with math and diagrams.

The difference between you and me is that you are here to try to win debates and I'm here to read and share perspectives. The goals are quite different. Im seeking understanding of the fked up stuff that goes on in a radical right's head. If I'm sharing perspective, I am within reasonable expectations to mention the train brakes but not write a book trying to pierce your thick skull and prove the regulation is necessary. I'm not going to waste my time reinventing the wheel so you can see my perspective when your lazy ass can go read it yourself. And your lazy ass can be honest and run with the inference I made that there are regulations that are good and it is good to regulate some of this stuff rather than let corporations write their own very lenient rules. What happens when corporations write there own rules, bro? Do you need a dissertation on that one too?

So you admit you can't prove the new train brakes would prevent a single train from derailing. What more do I need to prove?