Regulator Tsunami to Hit Business if Obama Wins 2nd Term

[P@triot]

Regulatory Tsunami To Hit Business If Obama Wins Second Term - Investors.com

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Regulatory Tsunami To Hit Business If Obama Wins Second Term - Investors.com

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo...... "likely"!!!!!!!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Regulatory Tsunami To Hit Business If Obama Wins Second Term - Investors.com

Last fall, President Obama decided to cancel a hugely expensive new EPA rule designed to cut smog levels across the country. Obama said he did so out of concern about the rule's impact on jobs.

It was just one of many costly regulations the Obama administration has put on hold or delayed in the run-up to the election, as the president tried to dispel the impression that he's anti-business.

What is the cost of NOT regulating smog more heavily?

Using official government sources, the National Federation of Independent Business calculates there are more than 4,000 federal rules in the pipeline, and that just the 13 biggest ones would, if imposed in an Obama second term, cost businesses a total of more than $515 billion over four years.

That tally doesn't include more than 100 still-to-be-written regulations needed to enforce the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, or the mountain of regulations required by ObamaCare

The tally also does not include the cost born by society for lack of regulation.

 

[daveman]

Regulatory Tsunami To Hit Business If Obama Wins Second Term - Investors.com

Last fall, President Obama decided to cancel a hugely expensive new EPA rule designed to cut smog levels across the country. Obama said he did so out of concern about the rule's impact on jobs.

It was just one of many costly regulations the Obama administration has put on hold or delayed in the run-up to the election, as the president tried to dispel the impression that he's anti-business.

What is the cost of NOT regulating smog more heavily?

Using official government sources, the National Federation of Independent Business calculates there are more than 4,000 federal rules in the pipeline, and that just the 13 biggest ones would, if imposed in an Obama second term, cost businesses a total of more than $515 billion over four years.

That tally doesn't include more than 100 still-to-be-written regulations needed to enforce the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, or the mountain of regulations required by ObamaCare

The tally also does not include the cost born by society for lack of regulation.

It'll be the usual cost of not enacting the leftist agenda according to leftists:

"We'll all DIE!!"

 

[P@triot]

What is the cost of NOT regulating smog more heavily?

The honest answer to that question is $0.00. It costs nothing to do nothing. Now, maybe not do anything is the wrong answer based on a particular issue. And if you want to have that discussion, then let's do to. But that, by itself, is a really stupid question.

The tally also does not include the cost born by society for lack of regulation.

The only "cost to society" is the one the idiot liberal Dumbocrats impose on us to support the parasite class.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What is the cost of NOT regulating smog more heavily?

The honest answer to that question is $0.00. It costs nothing to do nothing. Now, maybe not do anything is the wrong answer based on a particular issue. And if you want to have that discussion, then let's do to. But that, by itself, is a really stupid question.

You are wrong. The health problems caused by smog cost people money. Its an externalized cost of doing business and to ignore it in the cost/benefit analysis of smog regulation is analytically just plain wrong.

The tally also does not include the cost born by society for lack of regulation.

The only "cost to society" is the one the idiot liberal Dumbocrats impose on us to support the parasite class.

Huh? I don't see how your answer has anything to do with smog.

 

[daveman]

What is the cost of NOT regulating smog more heavily?

The honest answer to that question is $0.00. It costs nothing to do nothing. Now, maybe not do anything is the wrong answer based on a particular issue. And if you want to have that discussion, then let's do to. But that, by itself, is a really stupid question.

You are wrong. The health problems caused by smog cost people money. Its an externalized cost of doing business and to ignore it in the cost/benefit analysis of smog regulation is analytically just plain wrong.

The tally also does not include the cost born by society for lack of regulation.

The only "cost to society" is the one the idiot liberal Dumbocrats impose on us to support the parasite class.

Huh? I don't see how your answer has anything to do with smog.

It does, but indirectly. The left sees government as a means of controlling individual lives.

And of course, that's the left's ultimate goal.