Over-regulated America

[Cecilie1200]

..... Don't look now, dear, but your envy AND your ignorance are both showing. How embarrassing!

Sorry but i don't feel embarrassed

Neither does my dog when he licks his balls in public, but that doesn't mean more highly-evolved beings around you don't feel embarrassed for you.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Ouch!

 

[jgarden]

Sorry but i don't feel embarrassed

Neither does my dog when he licks his balls in public, but that doesn't mean more highly-evolved beings around you don't feel embarrassed for you.

Coprolalia

Coprolalia is involuntary swearing or the involuntary utterance of obscene words or socially inappropriate and derogatory remarks. Coprolalia comes from the Greek κόπρος (kopros) meaning "feces" and λαλιά (lalia) from lalein, "to talk" .....

Related terms are copropraxia, performing obscene or forbidden gestures, and coprographia, making obscene writings or drawings.

..... Some patients have been treated by injecting botulinum toxin (botox) near the vocal cords. This does not prevent the vocalizations, but the partial paralysis that results helps to control the volume of any outbursts. Surprisingly, botox injections result in more generalized relief of tics than the vocal relief expected.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprolalia[/quote]
Obviously, "Cecilie1200" hasn't taken her "botox" injection.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sorry but i don't feel embarrassed

Neither does my dog when he licks his balls in public, but that doesn't mean more highly-evolved beings around you don't feel embarrassed for you.

Coprolalia

Coprolalia is involuntary swearing or the involuntary utterance of obscene words or socially inappropriate and derogatory remarks. Coprolalia comes from the Greek κόπρος (kopros) meaning "feces" and λαλιά (lalia) from lalein, "to talk" .....

Related terms are copropraxia, performing obscene or forbidden gestures, and coprographia, making obscene writings or drawings.

..... Some patients have been treated by injecting botulinum toxin (botox) near the vocal cords. This does not prevent the vocalizations, but the partial paralysis that results helps to control the volume of any outbursts. Surprisingly, botox injections result in more generalized relief of tics than the vocal relief expected.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprolalia[/quote]
Obviously, "Cecilie1200" hasn't taken her "botox" injection.

Oh, I'm sorry, was that supposed to be a witty comeback? Should I be cut to the quick? You should really give people a heads-up on this stuff.

 

[Ernie S.]

From The Economist, Feb 18th 2012, this really says it all. IMHO it's worth the time it takes to read it.



AMERICANS love to laugh at ridiculous regulations. A Florida law requires vending-machine labels to urge the public to file a report if the label is not there. The Federal Railroad Administration insists that all trains must be painted with an “F” at the front, so you can tell which end is which. Bureaucratic busybodies in Bethesda, Maryland, have shut down children’s lemonade stands because the enterprising young moppets did not have trading licences. The list goes hilariously on.

But red tape in America is no laughing matter. The problem is not the rules that are self-evidently absurd. It is the ones that sound reasonable on their own but impose a huge burden collectively. America is meant to be the home of laissez-faire. Unlike Europeans, whose lives have long been circumscribed by meddling governments and diktats from Brussels, Americans are supposed to be free to choose, for better or for worse. Yet for some time America has been straying from this ideal.

Consider the Dodd-Frank law of 2010. Its aim was noble: to prevent another financial crisis. Its strategy was sensible, too: improve transparency, stop banks from taking excessive risks, prevent abusive financial practices and end “too big to fail” by authorising regulators to seize any big, tottering financial firm and wind it down. This newspaper supported these goals at the time, and we still do. But Dodd-Frank is far too complex, and becoming more so. At 848 pages, it is 23 times longer than Glass-Steagall, the reform that followed the Wall Street crash of 1929. Worse, every other page demands that regulators fill in further detail. Some of these clarifications are hundreds of pages long. Just one bit, the “Volcker rule”, which aims to curb risky proprietary trading by banks, includes 383 questions that break down into 1,420 subquestions.

Hardly anyone has actually read Dodd-Frank, besides the Chinese government and our correspondent in New York (see article). Those who have struggle to make sense of it, not least because so much detail has yet to be filled in: of the 400 rules it mandates, only 93 have been finalised. So financial firms in America must prepare to comply with a law that is partly unintelligible and partly unknowable.

Dodd-Frank is part of a wider trend. Governments of both parties keep adding stacks of rules, few of which are ever rescinded. Republicans write rules to thwart terrorists, which make flying in America an ordeal and prompt legions of brainy migrants to move to Canada instead. Democrats write rules to expand the welfare state. Barack Obama’s health-care reform of 2010 had many virtues, especially its attempt to make health insurance universal. But it does little to reduce the system’s staggering and increasing complexity. Every hour spent treating a patient in America creates at least 30 minutes of paperwork, and often a whole hour. Next year the number of federally mandated categories of illness and injury for which hospitals may claim reimbursement will rise from 18,000 to 140,000. There are nine codes relating to injuries caused by parrots, and three relating to burns from flaming water-skis.

Two forces make American laws too complex. One is hubris. Many lawmakers seem to believe that they can lay down rules to govern every eventuality. Examples range from the merely annoying (eg, a proposed code for nurseries in Colorado that specifies how many crayons each box must contain) to the delusional (eg, the conceit of Dodd-Frank that you can anticipate and ban every nasty trick financiers will dream up in the future). Far from preventing abuses, complexity creates loopholes that the shrewd can abuse with impunity.

The other force that makes American laws complex is lobbying. The government’s drive to micromanage so many activities creates a huge incentive for interest groups to push for special favours. When a bill is hundreds of pages long, it is not hard for congressmen to slip in clauses that benefit their chums and campaign donors. The health-care bill included tons of favours for the pushy. Congress’s last, failed attempt to regulate greenhouse gases was even worse.

Complexity costs money. Sarbanes-Oxley, a law aimed at preventing Enron-style frauds, has made it so difficult to list shares on an American stockmarket that firms increasingly look elsewhere or stay private. America’s share of initial public offerings fell from 67% in 2002 (when Sarbox passed) to 16% last year, despite some benign tweaks to the law. A study for the Small Business Administration, a government body, found that regulations in general add $10,585 in costs per employee. It’s a wonder the jobless rate isn’t even higher than it is.

Democrats pay lip service to the need to slim the rulebook—Mr Obama’s regulations tsar is supposed to ensure that new rules are cost-effective. But the administration has a bias towards overstating benefits and underestimating costs (see article). Republicans bluster that they will repeal Obamacare and Dodd-Frank and abolish whole government agencies, but give only a sketchy idea of what should replace them.

America needs a smarter approach to regulation. First, all important rules should be subjected to cost-benefit analysis by an independent watchdog. The results should be made public before the rule is enacted. All big regulations should also come with sunset clauses, so that they expire after, say, ten years unless Congress explicitly re-authorises them.

More important, rules need to be much simpler. When regulators try to write an all-purpose instruction manual, the truly important dos and don’ts are lost in an ocean of verbiage. Far better to lay down broad goals and prescribe only what is strictly necessary to achieve them. Legislators should pass simple rules, and leave regulators to enforce them.

Would this hand too much power to unelected bureaucrats? Not if they are made more accountable. Unreasonable judgments should be subject to swift appeal. Regulators who make bad decisions should be easily sackable. None of this will resolve the inevitable difficulties of regulating a complex modern society. But it would mitigate a real danger: that regulation may crush the life out of America’s economy.

United States' economy: Over-regulated America | The Economist

Not bad all-in-all, but I do see one potential problem. Congress would never be able to get through a vote on every regulation every ten years. Congress is slow. I think this would be doubling their work load, and basically nothing would ever get done again.

Probably a good thing.
When I am elected President, I want the author of the article as my Secretary of the Treasury

 

[Ernie S.]

So the ECONMIST is calling for what exactly?


No regulations?

Nope.

They are calling for GOOD REGULATIONS/

Who can argue with that POV?

Republicans apparently...

Are you arguing that the author is a Liberal?

 

[The Rabbi]

The "wealthy" demand enough government regulations to protect their assets from the other 99%

BUT

denounce those regulations aimed at protecting the assets of the other 99% from them!

Don't look now, dear, but your envy AND your ignorance are both showing. How embarrassing!

Matthew 19:24 "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Sorry but i don't feel embarrassed!

I do take some comfort that on Judgement Day, it will be the "wealthy" who will be the ones showing "envy" after living a life of wilful "ignorance."

First off, it doesn't say that rich men will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Second, on Judgement Day the likes of Sir John Templeton and Bill Gates will stand and show the billions of dollars they gave in charity. What will you show, other than your dick in your hand?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Don't look now, dear, but your envy AND your ignorance are both showing. How embarrassing!

Matthew 19:24 "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Sorry but i don't feel embarrassed!

I do take some comfort that on Judgement Day, it will be the "wealthy" who will be the ones showing "envy" after living a life of wilful "ignorance."

First off, it doesn't say that rich men will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Second, on Judgement Day the likes of Sir John Templeton and Bill Gates will stand and show the billions of dollars they gave in charity. What will you show, other than your dick in your hand?

Why are leftists so unable to understand that it's not the "being rich" that's actually the problem here, and that Christ wasn't saying that being rich was inherently evil and sinful? Oh, wait, I know why: public school educations.

Rich men will have trouble entering the kingdom of Heaven because it is the natural reaction of most people to turn wealth into a small god, which in turn separates them from THE God. But men who can handle wealth, who understand what its true place in their lives is and should be, and keep it there - like the ones who use its power to help others, for example - have no problem with God on that score.

 

[California Girl]

So the ECONMIST is calling for what exactly?


No regulations?

Nope.

They are calling for GOOD REGULATIONS/

Who can argue with that POV?

Republicans apparently...

Are you arguing that the author is a Liberal?

I bet the author has very little time for either side of the aisle.

 

[California Girl]

On Jan 1, 2012, 40,000 new laws came into effect in our nation. 40,000. That's just this year. What a total clusterfuck this country is. We are layering law upon law, regulation upon regulation. Often new regulations are a total antithesis of previous regulations, but both remain regulations. Thus, making it impossible to follow the regulations.

This country does not need 40,000 new laws.... we need to use the ones we already have effectively.

Common sense.

 

[Peach]

So the ECONMIST is calling for what exactly?


No regulations?

Nope.

They are calling for GOOD REGULATIONS/

Who can argue with that POV?

Republicans apparently...

Are you arguing that the author is a Liberal?

We still have LOTS of idiotic regulations in Florida after ten + years of Republican governors and state legislatures. Some are NEW.

 

[Peach]

On Jan 1, 2012, 40,000 new laws came into effect in our nation. 40,000. That's just this year. What a total clusterfuck this country is. We are layering law upon law, regulation upon regulation. Often new regulations are a total antithesis of previous regulations, but both remain regulations. Thus, making it impossible to follow the regulations.

This country does not need 40,000 new laws.... we need to use the ones we already have effectively.

Common sense.

AGREED. But find ANY legislature that doesn't pass, amend, or rewrite laws constantly.

 

[Peach]

The "wealthy" demand enough government regulations to protect their assets from the other 99%

BUT

denounce those regulations aimed at protecting the assets of the other 99% from them!

He sure does

Neo, Obama lived in Indonesia FOUR YEARS. He grew up in Hawaii.

 

[sealybobo]

From The Economist, Feb 18th 2012, this really says it all. IMHO it's worth the time it takes to read it.

America needs a smarter approach to regulation. First, all important rules should be subjected to cost-benefit analysis by an independent watchdog. The results should be made public before the rule is enacted. All big regulations should also come with sunset clauses, so that they expire after, say, ten years unless Congress explicitly re-authorises them.

More important, rules need to be much simpler. When regulators try to write an all-purpose instruction manual, the truly important dos and don’ts are lost in an ocean of verbiage. Far better to lay down broad goals and prescribe only what is strictly necessary to achieve them. Legislators should pass simple rules, and leave regulators to enforce them.

United States' economy: Over-regulated America | The Economist

I agree with your ideas. You wouldn't eliminate Sarbanes Oxley or Dodd/Frank, you would just make them very simple. I like that.

What I worry is the GOP talks about "bad" regulations or "too many" but what their real goal is to eliminate good regulations that are there for a reason. For example, they got rid of regulations we had on the Banks, Wallstreet and the Mortgage companies and that led to the crash.

 

[bripat9643]

On Jan 1, 2012, 40,000 new laws came into effect in our nation. 40,000. That's just this year. What a total clusterfuck this country is. We are layering law upon law, regulation upon regulation. Often new regulations are a total antithesis of previous regulations, but both remain regulations. Thus, making it impossible to follow the regulations.

This country does not need 40,000 new laws.... we need to use the ones we already have effectively.

Common sense.

AGREED. But find ANY legislature that doesn't pass, amend, or rewrite laws constantly.

They almost never repeal laws.

 

[Full-Auto]

From The Economist, Feb 18th 2012, this really says it all. IMHO it's worth the time it takes to read it.

America needs a smarter approach to regulation. First, all important rules should be subjected to cost-benefit analysis by an independent watchdog. The results should be made public before the rule is enacted. All big regulations should also come with sunset clauses, so that they expire after, say, ten years unless Congress explicitly re-authorises them.

More important, rules need to be much simpler. When regulators try to write an all-purpose instruction manual, the truly important dos and don’ts are lost in an ocean of verbiage. Far better to lay down broad goals and prescribe only what is strictly necessary to achieve them. Legislators should pass simple rules, and leave regulators to enforce them.

United States' economy: Over-regulated America | The Economist

I agree with your ideas. You wouldn't eliminate Sarbanes Oxley or Dodd/Frank, you would just make them very simple. I like that.

What I worry is the GOP talks about "bad" regulations or "too many" but what their real goal is to eliminate good regulations that are there for a reason. For example, they got rid of regulations we had on the Banks, Wallstreet and the Mortgage companies and that led to the crash.

Pure BS

 

[bripat9643]

The "wealthy" demand enough government regulations to protect their assets from the other 99%

BUT

denounce those regulations aimed at protecting the assets of the other 99% from them!

He sure does

Neo, Obama lived in Indonesia FOUR YEARS. He grew up in Hawaii.

True. He went to the private school his rich banker grandma sent him to. He was born into the 1%.

 

[Trajan]

stossel just did a segment on this too...

 

[Peach]

On Jan 1, 2012, 40,000 new laws came into effect in our nation. 40,000. That's just this year. What a total clusterfuck this country is. We are layering law upon law, regulation upon regulation. Often new regulations are a total antithesis of previous regulations, but both remain regulations. Thus, making it impossible to follow the regulations.

This country does not need 40,000 new laws.... we need to use the ones we already have effectively.

Common sense.

AGREED. But find ANY legislature that doesn't pass, amend, or rewrite laws constantly.

They almost never repeal laws.

Florida does, but more often writes new ones.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

From The Economist, Feb 18th 2012, this really says it all. IMHO it's worth the time it takes to read it.

America needs a smarter approach to regulation. First, all important rules should be subjected to cost-benefit analysis by an independent watchdog. The results should be made public before the rule is enacted. All big regulations should also come with sunset clauses, so that they expire after, say, ten years unless Congress explicitly re-authorises them.

More important, rules need to be much simpler. When regulators try to write an all-purpose instruction manual, the truly important dos and don’ts are lost in an ocean of verbiage. Far better to lay down broad goals and prescribe only what is strictly necessary to achieve them. Legislators should pass simple rules, and leave regulators to enforce them.

United States' economy: Over-regulated America | The Economist

I agree with your ideas. You wouldn't eliminate Sarbanes Oxley or Dodd/Frank, you would just make them very simple. I like that.

What I worry is the GOP talks about "bad" regulations or "too many" but what their real goal is to eliminate good regulations that are there for a reason. For example, they got rid of regulations we had on the Banks, Wallstreet and the Mortgage companies and that led to the crash.

....Just like.....

THE GOOD OL' DAY$!!!!!!


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6whSWn1RRM]Great Depression - YouTube[/ame]​