Is America the greatest country in the world?

[oldernwiser]

I have attended Tea Party rallies in New Mexico, Texas, and Kansas and in not one have I seen social issues pushed by anybody. What any individual within the larger movement believes or supports is his/her own business and when we support a candidate, it is because the candidate supports the fiscal and Constitutional integrity that we seek. We do not get involved in the social aspect.

If a candidate focuses on Constitutional integrity, whatever position he or she takes on social issues is of no importance at the federal level.

But candidates do have to get elected and the media and the Left and sometimes the hard rigfht demand that social issues be addressed. It would be a good thing if those running for office were not forced into taking a stand on those things that should be left to the local people to decide, but they are not allowed to focus only on fiscal or constitutional integrity. They are forced to take a stand on guns, abortion, women's issues, gay rights, welfare, immigration, Affirmative Action, drugs, etc. etc. etc. And of course when they do, they won't agree with you or me on every one of those issues or maybe any or most. The problem is with the hard left every bit as the hard right, but the Tea Party itself, at least the pure center of it, pays no attention to either.

The pure Tea Party spirit allows people their convictions as long as they have the right mind re the role of the federal government.

And that is just another example of how the Tea Party fails.

How can you say that and still support the three goals of the Tea Party?

The plank of the Tea Party which supports general liberties - the part I CAN get behind - has to be abridged in order to meet "the right mind re the role of the federal government". It's dressing a wolf in sheep's clothing in order to attract votes for the sake of a majority, and not on the strength of the message itself. So what it says to me is that it's OK to give away some liberties in order to gain others. Where does that leave us?

But what if the goal ISN'T personal liberty, but corporate liberty? In this instance, the contradictions become necessary in order to gain mass. Personally, I will fight this tooth and nail because we the people are deserving of liberty and corporations are not people.

 

[Foxfyre]

And that is just another example of how the Tea Party fails.

How can you say that and still support the three goals of the Tea Party?

The plank of the Tea Party which supports general liberties - the part I CAN get behind - has to be abridged in order to meet "the right mind re the role of the federal government". It's dressing a wolf in sheep's clothing in order to attract votes for the sake of a majority, and not on the strength of the message itself. So what it says to me is that it's OK to give away some liberties in order to gain others. Where does that leave us?

But what if the goal ISN'T personal liberty, but corporate liberty? In this instance, the contradictions become necessary in order to gain mass. Personally, I will fight this tooth and nail because we the people are deserving of liberty and corporations are not people.

You are reading a whole lot more into those three things than I intended or that any of the hundreds of thousands of people embracing Tea Party objectives intended. In the view of the Tea Party, the federal government should do or regulate only what is necessary to secure our rights and promote interaction between the states sufficient for us all together to be one country, and should otherwise leave us alone to live our lives as we choose. And that would apply to those who work for others and those who employ people by running corporations or other businesses. Corporations ARE the result of vision, effort, risk invested, and capability of people who start them, grow them, and run them. Most of problem that exist occur when government and corporations are wedded together and this Tea Partiers see as wrong and not a proper function of the federal government.

 

[oldernwiser]

How can you say that and still support the three goals of the Tea Party?

The plank of the Tea Party which supports general liberties - the part I CAN get behind - has to be abridged in order to meet "the right mind re the role of the federal government". It's dressing a wolf in sheep's clothing in order to attract votes for the sake of a majority, and not on the strength of the message itself. So what it says to me is that it's OK to give away some liberties in order to gain others. Where does that leave us?

But what if the goal ISN'T personal liberty, but corporate liberty? In this instance, the contradictions become necessary in order to gain mass. Personally, I will fight this tooth and nail because we the people are deserving of liberty and corporations are not people.

You are reading a whole lot more into those three things than I intended or that any of the hundreds of thousands of people embracing Tea Party objectives intended. In the view of the Tea Party, the federal government should do or regulate only what is necessary to secure our rights and promote interaction between the states sufficient for us all together to be one country, and should otherwise leave us alone to live our lives as we choose. And that would apply to those who work for others and those who employ people by running corporations or other businesses. Corporations ARE the result of vision, effort, risk invested, and capability of people who start them, grow them, and run them. Most of problem that exist occur when government and corporations are wedded together and this Tea Partiers see as wrong and not a proper function of the federal government.

I'm sure I'm missing the point, because I don't see where the interplay between government and business represents a huge problem - except that it restrains businesses from becoming their own oligarchies. And I confess that I simply do not see where our own rights are being hampered or suppressed by governmental regulation of industry. However I do see how business can benefit from a reduction in regulation - and that would be to our detriment, not our benefit. And I also see how fiscal responsibility can be used as a tool to loosen the regulatory policies.

 

[Foxfyre]

The plank of the Tea Party which supports general liberties - the part I CAN get behind - has to be abridged in order to meet "the right mind re the role of the federal government". It's dressing a wolf in sheep's clothing in order to attract votes for the sake of a majority, and not on the strength of the message itself. So what it says to me is that it's OK to give away some liberties in order to gain others. Where does that leave us?

But what if the goal ISN'T personal liberty, but corporate liberty? In this instance, the contradictions become necessary in order to gain mass. Personally, I will fight this tooth and nail because we the people are deserving of liberty and corporations are not people.

You are reading a whole lot more into those three things than I intended or that any of the hundreds of thousands of people embracing Tea Party objectives intended. In the view of the Tea Party, the federal government should do or regulate only what is necessary to secure our rights and promote interaction between the states sufficient for us all together to be one country, and should otherwise leave us alone to live our lives as we choose. And that would apply to those who work for others and those who employ people by running corporations or other businesses. Corporations ARE the result of vision, effort, risk invested, and capability of people who start them, grow them, and run them. Most of problem that exist occur when government and corporations are wedded together and this Tea Partiers see as wrong and not a proper function of the federal government.

I'm sure I'm missing the point, because I don't see where the interplay between government and business represents a huge problem - except that it restrains businesses from becoming their own oligarchies. And I confess that I simply do not see where our own rights are being hampered or suppressed by governmental regulation of industry. However I do see how business can benefit from a reduction in regulation - and that would be to our detriment, not our benefit. And I also see how fiscal responsibility can be used as a tool to loosen the regulatory policies.

You can't have it both ways. We either are free to run our businesses as we see fit, short of violating the rights of others, or we are not. Regulation of business should be restricted to limiting the amount of damage to the shared environment that business and industry is allowed to do and to enforce antitrust and RICO laws necessary to keep business from unethically doing economic or physical violence to each other or misleading the public in the products they sell. The result will be some entities that fail and/or suck in other ways, and some that will be exemplary and become industry standards.

The choice is either freedom for us all to live our lives and accomplish what we are willing and capable to accomplish short of violating the rights of others, or we trust government to assign the rights we have and take the risk that the government can become far more powerful and oppressive than any private corporation would ever be. We can move away from corporations. But to move away from government is to lose our country.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You are reading a whole lot more into those three things than I intended or that any of the hundreds of thousands of people embracing Tea Party objectives intended. In the view of the Tea Party, the federal government should do or regulate only what is necessary to secure our rights and promote interaction between the states sufficient for us all together to be one country, and should otherwise leave us alone to live our lives as we choose. And that would apply to those who work for others and those who employ people by running corporations or other businesses. Corporations ARE the result of vision, effort, risk invested, and capability of people who start them, grow them, and run them. Most of problem that exist occur when government and corporations are wedded together and this Tea Partiers see as wrong and not a proper function of the federal government.

I'm sure I'm missing the point, because I don't see where the interplay between government and business represents a huge problem - except that it restrains businesses from becoming their own oligarchies. And I confess that I simply do not see where our own rights are being hampered or suppressed by governmental regulation of industry. However I do see how business can benefit from a reduction in regulation - and that would be to our detriment, not our benefit. And I also see how fiscal responsibility can be used as a tool to loosen the regulatory policies.

You can't have it both ways. We either are free to run our businesses as we see fit, short of violating the rights of others, or we are not. Regulation of business should be restricted to limiting the amount of damage to the shared environment that business and industry is allowed to do and to enforce antitrust and RICO laws necessary to keep business from unethically doing economic or physical violence to each other or misleading the public in the products they sell. The result will be some entities that fail and/or suck in other ways, and some that will be exemplary and become industry standards.

The choice is either freedom for us all to live our lives and accomplish what we are willing and capable to accomplish short of violating the rights of others, or we trust government to assign the rights we have and take the risk that the government can become far more powerful and oppressive than any private corporation would ever be. We can move away from corporations. But to move away from government is to lose our country.

My oh my. Someone must have praised you for producing bullshit......you seem to love doing so. Especially that second paragraph. You might want to work on those run-on sentences, Professor.

Business ownership and the protections that accompany it is a privilege. If the owners do not act in such a way as to benefit the community.....and in the case of large corporations....the nation, they should be subject to the removal of that privilege.

 

[oldernwiser]

You are reading a whole lot more into those three things than I intended or that any of the hundreds of thousands of people embracing Tea Party objectives intended. In the view of the Tea Party, the federal government should do or regulate only what is necessary to secure our rights and promote interaction between the states sufficient for us all together to be one country, and should otherwise leave us alone to live our lives as we choose. And that would apply to those who work for others and those who employ people by running corporations or other businesses. Corporations ARE the result of vision, effort, risk invested, and capability of people who start them, grow them, and run them. Most of problem that exist occur when government and corporations are wedded together and this Tea Partiers see as wrong and not a proper function of the federal government.

I'm sure I'm missing the point, because I don't see where the interplay between government and business represents a huge problem - except that it restrains businesses from becoming their own oligarchies. And I confess that I simply do not see where our own rights are being hampered or suppressed by governmental regulation of industry. However I do see how business can benefit from a reduction in regulation - and that would be to our detriment, not our benefit. And I also see how fiscal responsibility can be used as a tool to loosen the regulatory policies.

You can't have it both ways. We either are free to run our businesses as we see fit, short of violating the rights of others, or we are not. Regulation of business should be restricted to limiting the amount of damage to the shared environment that business and industry is allowed to do and to enforce antitrust and RICO laws necessary to keep business from unethically doing economic or physical violence to each other or misleading the public in the products they sell. The result will be some entities that fail and/or suck in other ways, and some that will be exemplary and become industry standards.

The choice is either freedom for us all to live our lives and accomplish what we are willing and capable to accomplish short of violating the rights of others, or we trust government to assign the rights we have and take the risk that the government can become far more powerful and oppressive than any private corporation would ever be. We can move away from corporations. But to move away from government is to lose our country.

As I said, I'm missing this point. Because the only regulation we impose on business is to either protect industry from the less scrupulous, or to protect industry from running roughshod over our environment, or to protect the people from poor business practices that could kill us. Specifically, which regulations have become so onerous that a political movement could take hold and denounce government's involvement so forcefully?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Yes. WHICH?

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm sure I'm missing the point, because I don't see where the interplay between government and business represents a huge problem - except that it restrains businesses from becoming their own oligarchies. And I confess that I simply do not see where our own rights are being hampered or suppressed by governmental regulation of industry. However I do see how business can benefit from a reduction in regulation - and that would be to our detriment, not our benefit. And I also see how fiscal responsibility can be used as a tool to loosen the regulatory policies.

You can't have it both ways. We either are free to run our businesses as we see fit, short of violating the rights of others, or we are not. Regulation of business should be restricted to limiting the amount of damage to the shared environment that business and industry is allowed to do and to enforce antitrust and RICO laws necessary to keep business from unethically doing economic or physical violence to each other or misleading the public in the products they sell. The result will be some entities that fail and/or suck in other ways, and some that will be exemplary and become industry standards.

The choice is either freedom for us all to live our lives and accomplish what we are willing and capable to accomplish short of violating the rights of others, or we trust government to assign the rights we have and take the risk that the government can become far more powerful and oppressive than any private corporation would ever be. We can move away from corporations. But to move away from government is to lose our country.

As I said, I'm missing this point. Because the only regulation we impose on business is to either protect industry from the less scrupulous, or to protect industry from running roughshod over our environment, or to protect the people from poor business practices that could kill us. Specifically, which regulations have become so onerous that a political movement could take hold and denounce government's involvement so forcefully?

I don't have the time or inclination to look them all up. But seven....count them seven businesses who would have located in or around Albuquerque in the last two years, and would have employed more than 5000 people, finally gave up and cancelled plans to build or expand here because of the maze of rules, regs, required studies, and mandates that would have been involved. The maze of EPA and OSHA rules and regs alone can drive a body absolutely mad.

 

[oldernwiser]

Greatness is an ongoing process, not a destination where complacency sets in when reached . To do so would erode what has been built and held in high esteem. Throughout it's history America has had to meet challenges whether social such as women's rights or racial with the civil rights movement. The US has had to adjust to the various types of economic systems including an agrarian economy, industrial economy and service economy. We went from a laissez faire capitalistic economic model to a mixed economy. Each one of these changes had a powerful and polarizing effect on the population, took time to adjust and create a checks and balance system by which all people have as much opportunity to survive and hopefully prosper. For example, recently we saw those checks and balance removed from the "banking industry" and the US was thrown into economic chaos now those regulations have been reinstated for the most part and recovery from that maelstrom is under way.

History will decide whether America is the greatest country in the world, but, a country is made up of it's citizens who do have a say in what decisions their representatives make on their behalf. The responsibility for greatness is on the shoulder of each on of us who call ourselves Americans. We have met many earmarks of greatness throughout our history, nevertheless, that is an ongoing process.

That's very true. In fact, Alan Greenspan used the hard right line that business will take care of all it's problems itself. He drove our country's economic model nearly into a laissez-faire system, and he admitted before congress that he was wrong to try to impose less regulation on industry after all the bubbles burst. He said that he had found the fundamental flaw in the system and clearly didn't fully understand things the way he thought he had. (I found it interesting too that one of his earliest heroes was none other than Ayn Rand..)

 

[LoneLaugher]

You can't have it both ways. We either are free to run our businesses as we see fit, short of violating the rights of others, or we are not. Regulation of business should be restricted to limiting the amount of damage to the shared environment that business and industry is allowed to do and to enforce antitrust and RICO laws necessary to keep business from unethically doing economic or physical violence to each other or misleading the public in the products they sell. The result will be some entities that fail and/or suck in other ways, and some that will be exemplary and become industry standards.

The choice is either freedom for us all to live our lives and accomplish what we are willing and capable to accomplish short of violating the rights of others, or we trust government to assign the rights we have and take the risk that the government can become far more powerful and oppressive than any private corporation would ever be. We can move away from corporations. But to move away from government is to lose our country.

As I said, I'm missing this point. Because the only regulation we impose on business is to either protect industry from the less scrupulous, or to protect industry from running roughshod over our environment, or to protect the people from poor business practices that could kill us. Specifically, which regulations have become so onerous that a political movement could take hold and denounce government's involvement so forcefully?

I don't have the time or inclination to look them all up. But seven....count them seven businesses who would have located in or around Albuquerque in the last two years, and would have employed more than 5000 people, finally gave up and cancelled plans to build or expand here because of the maze of rules, regs, required studies, and mandates that would have been involved. The maze of EPA and OSHA rules and regs alone can drive a body absolutely mad.

Thanks for the specifics regarding which federal regulations stopped those seven businesses. Thanks so much.

 

[oldernwiser]

You can't have it both ways. We either are free to run our businesses as we see fit, short of violating the rights of others, or we are not. Regulation of business should be restricted to limiting the amount of damage to the shared environment that business and industry is allowed to do and to enforce antitrust and RICO laws necessary to keep business from unethically doing economic or physical violence to each other or misleading the public in the products they sell. The result will be some entities that fail and/or suck in other ways, and some that will be exemplary and become industry standards.

The choice is either freedom for us all to live our lives and accomplish what we are willing and capable to accomplish short of violating the rights of others, or we trust government to assign the rights we have and take the risk that the government can become far more powerful and oppressive than any private corporation would ever be. We can move away from corporations. But to move away from government is to lose our country.

As I said, I'm missing this point. Because the only regulation we impose on business is to either protect industry from the less scrupulous, or to protect industry from running roughshod over our environment, or to protect the people from poor business practices that could kill us. Specifically, which regulations have become so onerous that a political movement could take hold and denounce government's involvement so forcefully?

I don't have the time or inclination to look them all up. But seven....count them seven businesses who would have located in or around Albuquerque in the last two years, and would have employed more than 5000 people, finally gave up and cancelled plans to build or expand here because of the maze of rules, regs, required studies, and mandates that would have been involved. The maze of EPA and OSHA rules and regs alone can drive a body absolutely mad.

Yes - sometimes EPA can be a bear to work with. But - the purposes of the EPA and OSHA are ones that protect us. If there's nothing to protect us from, then it would follow that those particular companies would be running right now, wouldn't it?. On the other hand, if they were attempting to cut corners and earn a little extra or save a few bucks by doing something a little dirty - do we feel sorry for them?

 

[Foxfyre]

As I said, I'm missing this point. Because the only regulation we impose on business is to either protect industry from the less scrupulous, or to protect industry from running roughshod over our environment, or to protect the people from poor business practices that could kill us. Specifically, which regulations have become so onerous that a political movement could take hold and denounce government's involvement so forcefully?

I don't have the time or inclination to look them all up. But seven....count them seven businesses who would have located in or around Albuquerque in the last two years, and would have employed more than 5000 people, finally gave up and cancelled plans to build or expand here because of the maze of rules, regs, required studies, and mandates that would have been involved. The maze of EPA and OSHA rules and regs alone can drive a body absolutely mad.

Yes - sometimes EPA can be a bear to work with. But - the purposes of the EPA and OSHA are ones that protect us. If there's nothing to protect us from, then it would follow that those particular companies would be running right now, wouldn't it?. On the other hand, if they were attempting to cut corners and earn a little extra or save a few bucks by doing something a little dirty - do we feel sorry for them?

Protecting us from the most grevious offenses and dangerous conditions, yes. But nitpicking people to death just because both agencies are bloated and overrun with people who have to justify their existence. Part of the services my business offers/offered is safety inspections for insurance companies. I don't know how many times I or hubby noted and got corrected something that really was seriously hazardous that the OSHA inspector had missed, all the while listening to the litany of really unnecessary and unimportant things the business owner was required 'correct'' because of their OSHA inspection.

We have all heard the stories in California where homeowners and business owners were not allowed to cut away to the brush to create fire breaks around their homes because the area might be a habitat for some endangered speciies of rat. And thus, when the wildfires burned through, they lost everything. I'm sure the EPAs issued fire protection for all the rats that wouldn't have been endangered if the firebreaks had been there. It used to be that land owners enjoyed having rare creature around. Now they get rid of them if they see any before the EPA finds out they are there; otherwise they cannot use their property as they intended when they bought it.

So much stuff is done at the federal level that never should be the prerogative of the federal government and should be left to the states and local communities to regulate.

 

[oldernwiser]

I don't have the time or inclination to look them all up. But seven....count them seven businesses who would have located in or around Albuquerque in the last two years, and would have employed more than 5000 people, finally gave up and cancelled plans to build or expand here because of the maze of rules, regs, required studies, and mandates that would have been involved. The maze of EPA and OSHA rules and regs alone can drive a body absolutely mad.

Yes - sometimes EPA can be a bear to work with. But - the purposes of the EPA and OSHA are ones that protect us. If there's nothing to protect us from, then it would follow that those particular companies would be running right now, wouldn't it?. On the other hand, if they were attempting to cut corners and earn a little extra or save a few bucks by doing something a little dirty - do we feel sorry for them?

Protecting us from the most grevious offenses and dangerous conditions, yes. But nitpicking people to death just because both agencies are bloated and overrun with people who have to justify their existence. Part of the services my business offers/offered is safety inspections for insurance companies. I don't know how many times I or hubby noted and got corrected something that really was seriously hazardous that the OSHA inspector had missed, all the while listening to the litany of really unnecessary and unimportant things the business owner was required 'correct'' because of their OSHA inspection.

We have all heard the stories in California where homeowners and business owners were not allowed to cut away to the brush to create fire breaks around their homes because the area might be a habitat for some endangered speciies of rat. And thus, when the wildfires burned through, they lost everything. I'm sure the EPAs issued fire protection for all the rats that wouldn't have been endangered if the firebreaks had been there. It used to be that land owners enjoyed having rare creature around. Now they get rid of them if they see any before the EPA finds out they are there; otherwise they cannot use their property as they intended when they bought it.

So much stuff is done at the federal level that never should be the prerogative of the federal government and should be left to the states and local communities to regulate.

Yep - you can point to some real horror stories and some of them are even real. Some are fabrications like not being able to protect your house from a fire - I lived in CA, and I know they take fires seriously and that LOCAL fire inspectors will write a ticket (based of LOCAL law) if a homeowner fails to keep brush away from his house. I'm also aware of the $20,000 hammers that got mandated into a federal defense contract because someone in OSHA short-circuited specifications and said "all equipment must pass flight safety tests". I will certainly grant that there are quite a few cases where common-sense took a back seat. But that certainly is not proof that the safeguards have to be abandoned for expediency's sake.

I worked for a defense contractor for 15 years. We were inspected quite a bit by the military. We got gigged in every inspection - not so much because we did something wrong, but because the inspectors are told that if they find nothing wrong, they aren't doing their jobs properly. Should inspections then be canceled? I don't think so, because if there HAD been a grievous operational flaw, it would have been caught and corrected straight away.

Regulation isn't the true problem. Consistency and common sense have to also be applied.

 

[skye]

After Obama being re elected ,USA is not the greatest country. Sad but true.

 

[Foxfyre]

But Skye, it is the same country it was before Obama got re-elected. At least nothing in my life is much different this Monday than it was last Monday. Admittedly a whole bunch of things suck right now. We'll have to see how it goes from here.

Oldernwiser, I'm sorry but though I agree that over regulation isn't by any means the whole problem, the federal government's one-size-fits-all approach is a serious problem for many businesses and costs a lot of folks a lot of money that should never have been spent and consumes way too much time and energy to produce unnecessary results. And I am 100% that a huge part of the drag on the economy now is the uncertainty of what the tax codes and new regulations and mandates are going to be.

It goes back to the core principle that so much of this stuff the federal government shouldn't be doing at all. Too much, too big, too expensive, too wasteful, too authoritarian, and too inefficient and ineffective federal government is one of the worst problems we have right now and is a huge factor in a lot of the other problems we have.

 

[oldernwiser]

But Skye, it is the same country it was before Obama got re-elected. At least nothing in my life is much different this Monday than it was last Monday. Admittedly a whole bunch of things suck right now. We'll have to see how it goes from here.

Oldernwiser, I'm sorry but though I agree that over regulation isn't by any means the whole problem, the federal government's one-size-fits-all approach is a serious problem for many businesses and costs a lot of folks a lot of money that should never have been spent and consumes way too much time and energy to produce unnecessary results. And I am 100% that a huge part of the drag on the economy now is the uncertainty of what the tax codes and new regulations and mandates are going to be.

It goes back to the core principle that so much of this stuff the federal government shouldn't be doing at all. Too much, too big, too expensive, too wasteful, too authoritarian, and too inefficient and ineffective federal government is one of the worst problems we have right now and is a huge factor in a lot of the other problems we have.

Well, perhaps that's because we insist on electing conservative authoritarians - which is essentially what we have done in every election since Kennedy.

Tax codes are another topic. Personally, I don't believe there needs to be a tax on a corporation. By the same token, and despite SCOTUS rulings, I also don't ascribe to the notion of corporate citizenship either. I believe that laws requiring a company to provide anything other than a product should be abolished in their entirety. Corporations were created in order to fulfill a common good for the people. They initially had to be chartered and had to have a specific purpose and a specific lifetime. This is not the case today. At this point in time, a corporation has only one goal - to make money. And the laws regarding corporations actually codify that goal. If that means buying out media outlets and pushing fake news or suppressing factual evidence or stirring up quasi-political unrest with branded "grass roots" participation, they have no compunction about doing so. To me, this is the root of the Tea Party movement. It has nothing to do with our rights, or liberties and everything to do with making the corporations even more money by taking their last competitor out of the picture - our own government. Supporting them is directly opposite to the support of our own democracy.

 

[Foxfyre]

So you don't consider the current administration to be authoritarian? It is only conservatives? I think you don't have a clue what modern American conservatism is. Not all who identify themselves as conservatives are.

 

[Foxfyre]

Consider this:

How Many Federal Regulations are There?
According to the Office of the Federal Register, in 1998, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), the official listing of all regulations in effect, contained a total of 134,723 pages in 201 volumes that claimed 19 feet of shelf space. In 1970, the CFR totaled only 54,834 pages.

The General Accountability Office (GAO) reports that in the four fiscal years from 1996 to 1999, a total of 15,286 new federal regulations went into effect. Of these, 222 were classified as "major" rules, each one having an annual effect on the economy of at least $100 million.

While they call the process "rulemaking," the regulatory agencies create and enforce "rules" that are truly laws, many with the potential to profoundly effect the lives and livelihoods of millions of Americans. What controls and oversight are placed on the regulatory agencies in creating the federal regulations?
Federal Regulations – About US Federal Regulations

In the Bush years--Heritage Foundation commentary in 2008:
In this election year, Americans will hear a lot about taxes. Candidates for everything from President to vil*lage alderman will present their plans on who should pay and how much. Yet in the political frenzy, one type of tax will almost certainly be overlooked: the hidden tax of regulation. The federal government alone enforces thousands of pages of regulations that impose a burden of some $1.1 trillion-an amount that is comparable to total federal income tax receipts.

And the cost of regulation is getting higher. Despite the claims of critics-and some supporters-of the Bush Administration, net regulatory burdens have increased in the years since George W. Bush assumed the presidency. Since 2001, the federal government has imposed almost $30 billion in new regulatory costs on Americans. About $11 billion was imposed in fiscal year (FY) 2007 alone.

Even more are on the way. Historically, the amount of regulatory activity surges dramatically in the last year of a presidential Administration, whether Repub*lican or Democrat, as regulators, freed from normal political constraints, clean off their desks. A similar surge looks likely for the final year of the Bush Admin*istration unless the President and other policymakers keep a tight hand on the regulatory leash.
Red Tape Rising: Regulatory Trends in the Bush Years

November 2012--from the Morning Bell:
After three years of hyper-regulation, the Obama Administration has noticeably slowed its rulemaking in recent months. A variety of major rules have been parked in prolonged “review” by the White House, while the regulatory agenda required by statute has failed to materialize—twice. This flouting of the law is disturbing enough, but it’s made worse by the mounting regulatory uncertainty that has ensued.

Congress mandated a regulatory agenda from each agency in 1980, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The statute calls for release every April and October of a summary of all rules likely to have a “significant economic impact” on a substantial number of small firms. Subsequent executive orders extended the requirements to all regulations under development or review by some 60 departments, agencies, and commissions.

President Obama has ignored both the April 2012 and October 2012 agenda deadlines. The last agenda from the Administration, with 2,676 regulations, was published in fall 2011. The President’s neglect of the law contradicts his promise of an “unprecedented level of openness in government transparency.”

Notice of upcoming regulatory actions is an essential tool of government transparency and accountability. The agenda enables citizens to participate in the rulemaking process, businesses to plan, and Congress to engage in oversight. The stakes are especially high now because of the hundreds of rules yet to be finalized relating to the Dodd-Frank financial regulation statute and Obamacare.

The Administration has postponed action of late on some of its most ambitious regulations. For example, stricter standards on ozone emissions have been shelved until 2013. The original proposal by the Environmental Protection Agency would cost $90 billion or more annually and, potentially, jeopardize millions of jobs.

Also on hold are various regulations to control power plant emissions of so-called greenhouse gases that would dramatically increase energy costs, as well as the designation of coal ash as a “hazardous substance”—estimated to cost $79 billion to $110 billion and thousands of jobs in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Missouri and Ohio.

There is ample reason to believe that this recent “draw-back” of rulemaking portends a regulatory tsunami in the coming year. Of particular note is the large number of proposed regulations that are piling up at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), the department within the Office of Management and Budget which reviews rules before they are published in the Federal Register.
Morning Bell: Administration Ignores Law, Delays Exposing New Regulations

How efficient do you think the federal government is administrating and enforcing the tens of thousands, more likely hundreds of thousands, of regulations on the books? How costly is it adding dozens if not hundreds of new employees to administer each new batch of regulations. It is estimated up to 6000 new IRS agents will be needed to administer the regulations involving participation in Obamacare and many dozens--by some estimates more than 100--new agencies to administer the whole program.

Is it beyond speculation that government that seeks to trip up or punish some "enemy" can easily pull some obscure or little known or seldom enforced regulation out of the bag and use it?

Anybody who thinks the federal government is not too big, too ineffective, too inefficient, too authoritarian, and way too expensive simply wants a king to take care of them and has given up on the Founder's vision of a free people.

 

[Politico]

So. When did this thread go off the rails. Was it 10 or 20 pages ago?

 

[Foxfyre]

So. When did this thread go off the rails. Was it 10 or 20 pages ago?

It went dormant for awhile and was recently resurrected.

And now we are discussing why or why not America is the greatest country in the world? There is room for all points of view about that and I tried to include an option for all of them in the poll.

But you think it is off the rails now? How would you correct that?