Republican Nirvana: No government regulations

Romney was pretty clear that he understood the need for regulations. Just regulations that help. Most of our regulations are designed to destroy, not help.

What is needed are regulations that are clear, concise, and more importantly, written by people in the industry being regulated, who have training in the area being regulated, and not by lawyers and activists and administrators.

Most regulations are written so as to cover the ass of people doing the work. As long as they do the mountain of paperwork required they can point to it and say "look look!! I did all the paperwork, dont sue me!!!"

Regulations also need to come from a single oversight organization at one level. If the states regulate, cities and the feds should stay out of it. The same is for each level.

Finally older regulations need to be purged from the books, and not just be added on to by newer versions of regulations.

Oh sure. Regulations written by the people being regulated. That was how the debacle of 2008 happened.

Gotta love that 'let the states' do it. That is how we got credit card rates that go from 10% to 25% overnight for no reason other than the credit card companies profit. Time for National Usery laws.
 
I'm discussing the piece in the OP,

Ok. Is it a true story?

In any case, your stale argument boils down to another fallacy...That being the one that claims that if gubmint didn't do X, nobody would....Which is preposterous on its face.

Really? History shows otherwise. I ask again...do you know WHY we have an FDA in the first place?
 
This is the GOP's dream for America. No, or weak, regulations. Lax government oversight.
(D) Bill Clinton signed the repeal of Glass/Steagal in 1999. Go educate yourself as to what happened in the Banking Sector as a result.
 
Really? History shows otherwise. I ask again...do you know WHY we have an FDA in the first place?
So it can approve (after intense lobbying) for human consumption poisons such as Aspartame? (Thanks Don Rumsfeld :D)
 
Really? History shows otherwise. I ask again...do you know WHY we have an FDA in the first place?
So it can approve (after intense lobbying) for human consumption poisons such as Aspartame? (Thanks Don Rumsfeld :D)
So it can act as a protection racket, keeping companies like Ely Lilly, Merk and Bristol-Meyers free from the nuisance of smaller competitors.
 
Gotta love that 'let the states' do it. That is how we got credit card rates that go from 10% to 25% overnight for no reason other than the credit card companies profit. Time for National Usery laws.
Lair! :mad:
Obama signed Credit Card Reform into law. There's no f*ckin' way anyone is paying high interest on their credit cards!

Obama signs into law credit card reform - USATODAY.com

of which did what?

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Interest rates are now hovering near record highs, at an average rate of 14.72%. And if your credit is bad enough, you could even end up with a rate as high as 59.9% APR.

That's because while the CARD Act helped crack down on certain fees and requires more disclosures, it didn't cap every credit card holder's worst enemy: interest rates
Credit card interest rates hover near record highs of 15% - Jan. 28, 2011
another worthless regulation.
 
The GOP is always going about how government regulations hurt business, suggesting that modern-day businesses can be trusted with the public's health and safety, that no business would knowingly sell a tainted product.

Really? In so many ways liberals are like children. No. That isn't entirely accurate. Many children are quite intelligent and perceptive.

So I guess you, Oldguy, need to be spoken to like a dull child. I would like to see the quote where a prominent conservative says " modern-day businesses can be trusted with the public's health and safety".

If I say:One of the many reasons for the current lack of economic growth and unemployment in the US is burdensome government regulation, regulation that has been increasing almost daily in size and scope since President Obama took office.
What you hear is:There should be no regulation of business whatsoever in the USA. Businesses can be trusted to place the health and safety of the American people above all other considerations

Is that right? apparently it is.

Do you really believe that conservatives want to eliminate all regulation and oversight of business in this country? Before you try to back off of that absurd claim I will tell you that I don't believe you. Too late numb-skull. You already said it.

So, do you want to go on trying to debate the subject of regulation in an intelligent manner with someone who considers you to be a moron at best, or a dis-ingenuous name calling amateur political hack at worst?

Oldguy said:
Worse, Massachusetts is a tort reform state, where the amount of punitive damages is limited.

A point of agreement. I do not support tort reform. I find it to be another case (along with gay marriage)where the right fails to hold to what i believe to be the core principles of conservatism, and instead acts like leftists. It is short-sighted, at best, to think a problem (and the ambulance chasing trial lawyers are a serious problem in this country)can be fixed with such a "broad brush" approach as limiting punitive damages. I oppose all things artificial, as a rule. Nothing can be more artificial than a pre-determined cap on punitive damages. Think of the word "punitive". It means punishment, ffs. These damages in particular are assessed to punish the bad deed which a jury has been convinced to have happened, what could possibly be more subjective? How can we artificially cap the degree of punishment warranted with any number? What if a hospital is found to have deliberately eliminated 2 of 4 redundant procedures designed to guard against, for example, mis-identification of surgical patients explicitly for the purpose of lowering costs and it results in the wrong child having his leg amputated? How much is a lifetime of the use of your right leg worth?

The answer to the problem of frivolous lawsuits and ambulance chasing trial lawyers, viewed through the prism of conservative principles, is to demand competence from judges and to let the reputation and esteem of the legal profession bleed away until they find a way to demand higher standards of themselves. In the meanwhile life is tough and all the doctors and business owners out there serving hot coffee will just have to suck it up and be diligent. We do not scrap or begin to dismantle our legal system just because we do not wish to endure a period of cultural infirmity, the disease of moral relevance.That is what liberals do.

If I was going to suggest any radical change as a solution it would be to make judges a profession all their own, separate from attorneys.

Anyway, tort reform also feeds the perception that the right really does serve their corporate overlords. LOL.

We, I, digress.

Oldguy said:
This is the GOP's dream for America. No, or weak, regulations. Lax government oversight. Tort reform, so the businesses won't have to suffer too badly for their profit-motivated endangerment of the public.

Business needs oversight and regulation. No one is suggesting a world without it. No one wants that. Reasonable, competent oversight and regulation that is well designed can help businesses in a given industry by articulating standards and practices, creating a reliable and consistent environment in which to do business, and engendering trust and confidence among that industry's customers.

What the left does is use regulation to stifle enterprise and advance a political and ideological agenda that is anti-capitalist and anti-free market enterprise. This all goes hand-in-hand with the progressive agenda. It discourages entrepreneurs and thus limits opportunity for people to achieve their dreams and feeds into the progressive plan to make people dependent on government. Of equal importance to the most prominent leftists, is the benefit of making it easier for them to use their power in government to benefit their friends and themselves. Executive control of regulatory agencies makes it very easy to target political opponents in the private sector and do so without the scrutiny of the legislative process. Assholes

...and the duchebags who believe them.

BAH


Jeffrey
 
Last edited:
Romney was pretty clear that he understood the need for regulations. Just regulations that help. Most of our regulations are designed to destroy, not help.

Actually, it's the reverse. There are some cases of over regulation, but most are in place for very good reasons. And saying that any are designed to destroy is just idiocy, but this isn't surprising coming from the far right which continues to move closer and closer to the edge of the earth.
 
Really? In so many ways liberals are like children. No. That isn't entirely accurate. Many children are quite intelligent and perceptive.
s

Is that right? apparently it is.

No, I've already conceded that point. If you choose not to believe me, I can't do anything about it.


Anyway, tort reform also feeds the perception that the right really does serve their corporate overlords. LOL.

One could use the word "agenda," as you do below.



What the left does is use regulation to stifle enterprise and advance a political and ideological agenda that is anti-capitalist and anti-free market enterprise. This all goes hand-in-hand with the progressive agenda. It discourages entrepreneurs and thus limits opportunity for people to achieve their dreams and feeds into the progressive plan to make people dependent on government. Of equal importance to the most prominent leftists, is the benefit of making it easier for them to use their power in government to benefit their friends and themselves. Executive control of regulatory agencies makes it very easy to target political opponents in the private sector and do so without the scrutiny of the legislative process. Assholes

Now, you're veering into the world of conspiracy theories. Just what is the "progressive agenda" and what evidence do you have that it exists? Who controls it? Who directs it? How many are involved.

Perhaps the "agenda" they pursue is the Will of The People who don't want to be endangered by reckless and irresponsible corporate behavior, who want to have at least a reasonable assurance that the products they buy are safe and will do what they claim to do without killing them.

And, it's intriguing that you believe regulations give "leftists" the power to punish their opponents, but do not mention that the same power rests in the hands of the right when they are in office. Why is that? Is there no "rightist agenda?"

Moreover, you make the mistake of assuming a President, ANY President, can use the power of government regulation without the scrutiny of the legislative process. You do know, don't you, that NO President can arbitrarily impose new rules and regulations without the authority having been delegated to him by Congress. That's simple Politics 101, a course too many on the right seem to have skipped.

...and the duchebags who believe them.

I love you to.:badgrin:




Jeffrey[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
And in a November 21, 1864 letter to Col. William F. Elkins, Lincoln wrote,

“We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood … It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.” Unfortunately, Lincoln’s suspicions were anything but groundless. They were in fact, prophetic. After the Civil War, corporations began aligning themselves with Republican politicians, who proved themselves to be up to the task of helping corporations gain more power. Corporations had free reign and total power over its workforce and could sell virtually anything they wanted even if the product was a bad one. Corporations treated workers like slaves. Wages were extremely low. Workers received no benefits, no vacation days, no health insurance, no workers compensation.

President Grover Cleveland witnessed how corporations treated its labor force and had this to say in 1888,
“As we view the achievements of aggregated capital, we discover the existence of trusts, combinations, and monopolies, while the citizen is struggling far in the rear, or is trampled beneath an iron heel. Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people’s masters.” To put it bluntly, corporations didn’t care about its workers or the people who bought their products. The only rule of the game was to make as much profit as possible, no matter what. As the 19th century ended and the 20th century began, corporations were getting bigger and bigger. Many began buying up smaller companies, becoming monopolies that controlled whole industries. This practice eliminated competition and as a result, prices had skyrocketed and no one could challenge them.

That was, until Theodore Roosevelt became the President. Theodore Roosevelt did not hate corporations. He simply wanted them to treat workers how they deserved to be treated and to serve the public faithfully and honestly. He believed in honest competition and fair prices. Roosevelt believed that government had not only a duty, but a right to regulate corporations just as the founding generation had done, stating that, “The great corporations which we have grown to speak of rather loosely as trusts are the creatures of the State, and the State not only has the right to control them, but it is duty bound to control them wherever the need of such control is shown.” And in his State of The Union Address in 1902, Roosevelt stated his intentions toward corporations. “Our aim is not to do away with corporations; on the contrary, these big aggregations are an inevitable development of modern industrialism, and the effort to destroy them would be futile unless accomplished in ways that would work the utmost mischief to the entire body politic. We can do nothing of good in the way of regulating and supervising these corporations until we fix clearly in our minds that we are not attacking the corporations, but endeavoring to do away with any evil in them. We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to serve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth.”

What The Founding Fathers Thought About Corporations | Addicting Info
 
And in a November 21, 1864 letter to Col. William F. Elkins, Lincoln wrote,

“We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood … It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.” Unfortunately, Lincoln’s suspicions were anything but groundless. They were in fact, prophetic. After the Civil War, corporations began aligning themselves with Republican politicians, who proved themselves to be up to the task of helping corporations gain more power. Corporations had free reign and total power over its workforce and could sell virtually anything they wanted even if the product was a bad one. Corporations treated workers like slaves. Wages were extremely low. Workers received no benefits, no vacation days, no health insurance, no workers compensation.

President Grover Cleveland witnessed how corporations treated its labor force and had this to say in 1888,
“As we view the achievements of aggregated capital, we discover the existence of trusts, combinations, and monopolies, while the citizen is struggling far in the rear, or is trampled beneath an iron heel. Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people’s masters.” To put it bluntly, corporations didn’t care about its workers or the people who bought their products. The only rule of the game was to make as much profit as possible, no matter what. As the 19th century ended and the 20th century began, corporations were getting bigger and bigger. Many began buying up smaller companies, becoming monopolies that controlled whole industries. This practice eliminated competition and as a result, prices had skyrocketed and no one could challenge them.

That was, until Theodore Roosevelt became the President. Theodore Roosevelt did not hate corporations. He simply wanted them to treat workers how they deserved to be treated and to serve the public faithfully and honestly. He believed in honest competition and fair prices. Roosevelt believed that government had not only a duty, but a right to regulate corporations just as the founding generation had done, stating that, “The great corporations which we have grown to speak of rather loosely as trusts are the creatures of the State, and the State not only has the right to control them, but it is duty bound to control them wherever the need of such control is shown.” And in his State of The Union Address in 1902, Roosevelt stated his intentions toward corporations. “Our aim is not to do away with corporations; on the contrary, these big aggregations are an inevitable development of modern industrialism, and the effort to destroy them would be futile unless accomplished in ways that would work the utmost mischief to the entire body politic. We can do nothing of good in the way of regulating and supervising these corporations until we fix clearly in our minds that we are not attacking the corporations, but endeavoring to do away with any evil in them. We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to serve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth.”

What The Founding Fathers Thought About Corporations | Addicting Info


If you look at a the policy goals of the GOP and Romney/Ryan, they would take us right back that post-Civil War era. If unrestrained by us, the GOP would curtail or eliminate regulations which interfere with profit making, completely crush collective bargaining, insulate corporations from lawsuits resulting from their shoddy or dangerous products and compel American workers to compete with workers in Bangladesh without any recourse. In fact, we are already well down the road to returning to the "Gilded Age," or more appropriately, the "Era of the Robber Barons" as they have successfully passed laws which do exactly that.

At this point, there should be no doubt that the future promised by Mitt Romney et. al. is government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations.

What is astonishing to me is just how readily their supporters will vote not only against their own, personal interests, but against the futures of their children and grandchildren as well. What on earth would compel someone to willingly toss their off-spring into the dungeon of corporate servitude?
 
Romney was pretty clear that he understood the need for regulations. Just regulations that help. Most of our regulations are designed to destroy, not help.

Would that be 'original Romney', or the new and improved 'Romney light' who showed up at the last debate as a moderate?

There seems to be a consistency issue in how Mr. Romney really feels about regulating big business.
 
I can't speak to the partisan concerns raised in the OP. But I think the issue of "regulation" and its role in government is something we really need to discuss as a nation.

First of all, I don't see much clarity or agreement on what the term even means. I think some people simply equate regulation with the general concept of law, so that when they hear others complain about regulation as a bad thing, they hear them saying that laws are bad - that there should be less law protecting us from harm. But I don't think that accurately reflects the view of most of us who complain about the regulatory state - Republican or otherwise.

Regulations* represent a fundamentally different kind of governance from ordinary law. Ordinary law focuses on protecting people from harm by identifying and proscribing specific instances of what will be considered 'harm'. Regulation, in general, doesn't concern itself with specific instances of harm, but seeks to prevent harm by dictating conformity, or by making assumptions about broad behaviors that are deemed more likely to result in harm.

The key difference is that regulations will frequently result in punishing behavior that hasn't caused any harm. And that, more than anything else in my view, is why many of us find them unjust - and unjustified.

That said, the conformity of regulation is reasonable (arguably necessary) in certain circumstances. When there is wide consensus, when the behaviors being dictated benefit all more or less equally, and when the costs of conforming, in terms of liberty and burden imposed are relatively small, the regulatory approach makes a lot of sense.

I don't think most of us, for example, would want to get rid of traffic laws - most of which follow the regulatory model. Even though running a stoplight, in most cases, would not result in harm, it's just much more convenient to negotiate an intersection if we all agree to confirm to the convention of traffic signals.

It's when consensus isn't uniform, when the behaviors dictated don't benefit everyone more or less equally, and/or when they do amount to a significant imposition on individual liberty, that regulations become a problem.


*fwiw I'm taking the liberty of steering clear of the various technical definitions of 'regulation' to focus on what it means in the context of the common debate.
 
Romney was pretty clear that he understood the need for regulations. Just regulations that help. Most of our regulations are designed to destroy, not help.

Actually, it's the reverse. There are some cases of over regulation, but most are in place for very good reasons. And saying that any are designed to destroy is just idiocy, but this isn't surprising coming from the far right which continues to move closer and closer to the edge of the earth.

You're obviously not a business owner
 

Forum List

Back
Top