Regulations - good or bad?

Yes, but is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Off course regulations get in the way of business doing business.

For just a few examples:

1.  Child labor laws.  Business would otherwise be able employ children and others for almost an entire 24 hour day at very low pay, and under terrible working/safety conditions.

2.  No compliance with fire or safety requirements.

3.  Food, drug and all manufactures could make any kind of (false) claims without violating the law.

4.  Inside traders could suck money from unsuspecting investors.  Imagine banks and financial institutions doing whatever they wanted without having to answer to any regulators.  Even the past regulations had loopholes and were not monitored properly.

5.  Food stores would no longer need accurate scales.

6.  Discontinue pension plans

etc., etc.

All of that non-accountability makes business a lot easier to run and and less costly to manage.

9.1% unemployment.
32% unemployment in some cities in California.

Regulation is a necessary Evil.

Over regulation or under regulation is just Evil

I guess Google only pays 7 bucks an hour.......since that's the law.

bergertime wrote:
I guess Google only pays 7 bucks an hour.......since that's the law.

And guess what happens every time the government increases the minimum wage...
Prices go up.  Every place I worked that sold goods the DAY OF the minimum wage going up, the prices were raised to account for it.  The only person getting hurt by minimum wage is the worker.  It's a vicious cycle of inflation.  One reason why goods are much more expensive now than just 20 years ago.

>>If we want to work, we must accept the policies that the business puts forth

No we don't.

My company has sprinklers in case of a fire and they still exist and hire people and make money and follow regulations   So I guess that premise is false.

No we don't.

My company has sprinklers in case of a fire and they still exist and hire people and make money and follow regulations   So I guess that premise is false.

Um, yes you do.  If you break their policies or don't like them you either get fired or you leave, unless you choose to still work there and be miserable.  I didn't say what policies those businesses must adopt.  Never said there was anything wrong with having fire sprinklers.

>>Never said there was anything wrong with having fire sprinklers

You also did not say anything relevent to the discussion.  Your premise is false.  We can force companies to follow regulations and we can work, one is not incompatible with the other..   You are putting forward a false dilema.

My company could institute a policy of no lunch breaks.  I can absolutely disregard that policy.  A company could institute a policy that workers must not shut down equipment when clearing jams in machines and workers can disregard that.  There are regulations in place that limit employers and people still have jobs, so what you have said is false.    

I am sure you will respond with something completely irrelevent to the discussion, so I will let you know beforehand that you are still wrong and your quasi response is non responsive and irrelevent.

You also did not say anything relevent to the discussion.

Uh yes It is relevant, I'm giving examples of where regulations are not necessary to have a successful business nor a successful work community.  People already answered that yes regulations do get in the way of business.  Am I just supposed to repeat what they said?  I responded to Waterstreet's certain concerns and examples of "good" regualtions.  That's not relevant?  

We can force companies to follow regulations and we can work, one is not incompatible with the other.
Never said it was.  But as has been said before, regulations hurt businesses by requiring more overhead.  In turn we have less businesses to supply jobs.  Small businesses have a hard time surviving because of the money they must spend to follow regulations set forth.  When their revenue doesn't' exceed this, they lose.  IF regulations weren't in place, these businesses would have a much easier time staying alive.  

My company could institute a policy of no lunch breaks.  I can absolutely disregard that policy.  A company could institute a policy that workers must not shut down equipment when clearing jams in machines and workers can disregard that.
Aye, you can disregard them, but if the company enforces their policies, they can fire you.  That is what I meant when I said "If you break their policies or don't like them you either get fired or you leave" two posts above.  Disregarding policies typically has consequences.  Just like you can disregard any regulation, but there are consequences.

There are regulations in place that limit employers and people still have jobs, so what you have said is false.
What does that have anything to do with what I said?  Government regulations are different than company policies.  I never said regulations result in 100% unemployment.  Nor has anyone for that matter.  

If the point of your post was not related to employment and Regulations then it would seem that you do not really have a point other than you don't really like regulations and you wish that the country would just revert back to the way things were in the 1900s or so.

That is an interesting opinion, I do not share it.  Nor thankfully do most reasonable rational voters.  I believe that your pitch for allowing child labor and fraud in medicine and meat markets just to satisfy some odd aversion that you have to regulations will be unsuccessful.

You can reach a point where you hve too many regulations, but in the financial markets anyway, we have to few and I favor more.  

You can reach a point where you hve too many regulations

Who defines too many?  IMO we already have too many.

>>Who defines too many?  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States

>>IMO we already have too many.

That much is clear.   Your position resembles anarchy and would without question  lead to bloodshed.  Even a position dramatically less extreme than your own is short sighted in light of the Global Financial Crisis we have experienced that clearly shows that more, not less, regulation is needed.  

>>Others say unregulated business will operate only with regards to profit, so they will take shortcuts with polluting, worker exploitation, safety standards, e




So why did Obama kill this regulation?  Does he not care about our health?



Obama Halts EPA Regulation On Smog Standards
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/02/obama-halts-epa-regulation-smog-standards_n_946557.html

3M May Leave Country Because of Obama Regulations

Manufacturers could shift production out of the US to Canada or Mexico as a result, warned George Buckley, chief executive and chairman of 3M.


He added: “Politicians forget that business has choice. We’re not indentured servants and we will do business where it’s good and friendly. If it’s hostile, incrementally, things will slip away. We’ve got a real choice between manufacturing in Canada and Mexico – which tend to be pro-business – or America.

”

http://usconstitutionalfreepress.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/3m-may-leave-country-because-of-obama-regulations/

cars....you miss the point.  The whole goal is to get the low paying jobs out of America.  It's amazing, you can say "Maybe business is stiffled by too much regualtion.".  And people act like you want to make people drink acid.  I just want the option to buy whatever light bulb I want....is that too much to ask?

It's about time someone took a stand on farm dust.



EPA to Crack Down on Farm Dust
http://www.news9.com/story/12899662/epa-to-crack-down-on-farm-dust?redirected=true

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is considering a crackdown on farm dust...

"If approved, would establish the most stringent and unparalleled regulation of dust in our nation's history."

Oklahoma Farm Bureau President Mike Spradling said the rules could be detrimental to farmers across the Sooner State.

> So why did Obama kill this regulation?  Does he not care about our health?

He killed the regulation because of the poiltical cost, to him and his party, became unacceptable. He is still a firm believer in it.

Unless one is a strick Libertarian, all agree that some level of regulation is needed. The argument is always who much.

>> I just want the option to buy whatever light bulb I want....is that too much to ask?


I think you're selfish if you don't want to pay $50 per bulb to help ease global warming.

Congress passed a law in 2007 mandating that bulbs producing 100 watts worth of light meet certain efficiency goals, starting in 2012.


The new bulbs will also be expensive — about $50 each

New, federally-mandated light bulbs will cost $50 — each
http://investmentwatchblog.com/new-federally-mandated-light-bulbs-will-cost-50-each/

>>Unless one is a strick Libertarian, all agree that some level of regulation is needed.

See angie's list.  See consumer reports.  See Yelp.  

I contend that regulations don't work.  See Bernie Madoff - how did regulation work on him?

Allow a profit motive, and industries will self-regulate.

Take Frank-Dodd bill.  Supposed to keep a watchful eyes on banks.

Result: ends up hurting the same consumers it was supposed to help with higher fees on basic banking transactions.

leonstryker wrote:
People find certain costs acceptable due to their belief that the consequences of that decision will not fall on them, or those they care about. Regulation transfers, or expands the consequences, to the decision makers, and enforces the values of the community over the values of the individual.

I agree.  Sticking to the fire code stuff, I think most businesses probably would stick to them anyways even if they weren't regulated to follow them.  For example insurance is typically cheaper the more safety features you have on your home/business.  And liability as you mention is a big part of it as well.


carsRST wrote:
So why did Obama kill this regulation?  Does he not care about our health?

He's probably finally realizing that he needs to work with both parties, not expecting everything to go his way.


bergertime wrote:
The whole goal is to get the low paying jobs out of America.

Aye, but the minimum wage only increases prices, so there is no advantage to it.  It's a cycle of raise prices, raise minimum wage, raise prices, raise minimum wage.  In the mean time the people who get paid more than minimum wage are falling lower down the class ladder.  NO one I work with has gotten a raise in the last three years, but yet the cost of insurance, food, etc is still going up.

I just want the option to buy whatever light bulb I want....is that too much to ask?
Isn't regulation what affected this?


carsRST wrote:
Allow a profit motive, and industries will self-regulate.

I agree.  

>>ye, but the minimum wage only increases prices, so there is no advantage to it.

Puts young people and blacks out of jobs.  Some industries have a hard time passing the costs on, so they do with less labor.  The individual that's not worth the added expense is let go, so, instead of some money, he's left with nothing.

Min. wage laws were originally designed by Democrats to prevent blacks from working on federally funded construction projects.  Blacks were willing to do the same job but for a lesser amount.  

Allow a profit motive, and industries will self-regulate.

Thanks for the laugh Cars!
      

Blacks were willing to do the same job but for a lesser amount.

Then they should get the jobs imo.  Just like the Mexicans willing to do the work in the lettuce fields for lower price.  Let them have it as long as they are legal.  American's expected living standards are out of control these days.  

>>Thanks for the laugh Cars!

My pleasure, Beetos.


>>Then they should get the jobs imo.  

The problem was that the companies didn't feel the blacks were worth the added cost.  That's why the Democrats passed it - to keep blacks from working and give whites the jobs.



>>Just like the Mexicans willing to do the work in the lettuce fields for lower price.  Let them have it as long as they are legal.

As long as they're legal, I agree.  

But it's not fair to only get paid $10 an hour to herd goats.  I need a soft place to lay my head and free cell phone use.  God forbid I try and better myself.

>>Allow a profit motive, and industries will self-regulate.

>Thanks for the laugh Cars!

I am with beetos on this one. Industries will not self-regulate since their values are not the same as the values of the community at large.

Examples:

1. Owners of a nuclear power plant, who live on the other side of the world, have no incentive to adhere to safety regulations which have no apparent and immediate affect.

2. There are no incentives for a banks, or individuals, NOT to engage in insider trading.

>>1. Owners of a nuclear power plant, who live on the other side of the world, have no incentive to adhere to safety regulations which have no apparent and immediate affect.

Fine.  If you want a nuclear facility to be monitored, no problem.  Didn't do much for Japan or 3 mile island.






Let's get to practical examples instead of extreme.  Why the hell do states require interior designers to be licensed?

Several U.S. states and jurisdictions (including Puerto Rico) and seven Canadian provinces currently have laws on the books that require an interior design license for professional designers.

http://www.allartschools.com/art-careers/interior-design/interior-designer-license







Or why should it cost $600k to license a taxi service in NYC?  In DC it costs only $200.
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f19/new-york-taxi-license-hits-record-price-600-000-a-50142/

Wait...I take that back.

See below as to what one designer said as the reason we need the government to regulate interior design.

One designer claimed that allowing just anyone to practice interior design would contribute to 88,000 deaths annually because of poor fabric selection

.



Could you imagine if we just let ANYONE select fabric?


http://www.forbes.com/2011/04/04/florida-unemployment-jobs-opinions-chip-mellor.html

We brought this one up on another question and bergertime brought it up, but what the hell would be of this country had obama not put regulations on goat herders?



Team Obama Regulates Goat Herders' Workplaces
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45722

For me...it boils down to common sense.  Do we need speed laws?  Yes in certain places...do we need the feds to tell us 55 is it periond.  No of course not, leave it up to the states.  Do you guys remeber when the federal speed limit was 55?  It sucked and was dangerous, but it was a money making machince.

Some times it's beyond common sense.   Allowing the "free market" to regulate via profit incentives is reactionary.   If industry contaminates a water supply, your insinuating that people will hear about it and stop buying their products.  Maybe, maybe not - but the damage is done.  The company may go away, but how does the water supply become uncontaminated?  Who is responsible for it?

Another issue is that some of these regulations were put in place by existing, thriving businesses to limit their competition.  Businesses with enough capital can hire lobbyists to advocate what they want, and politicians just soak up the money and require licenses for things like the interior decorator example.

Some are good, some are bad - they need to be reviewed on their individual merits.  You've got to stop thinking like the animals on animal farm: "Free market good, regulation bad  Awwwk!"

Beetos, it seems to me that everything is one way or the other.  Cars sems to think all regulation is bad, while it seems you and behenderson seem to say there is no such thing as a bad regulation.  I'm saying you do need some, but I think we've passed the point of what's healthy for us in an economic sense.  Why is China growing so much and we can't pass out food stamps fast enough to keep up with demand.

>> Allowing the "free market" to regulate via profit incentives is reactionary.

Then why did Obama lift the EPA smog restriction?

Why do we need licenses to practice interior design?

What threat is made from goat herders sleeping on lumpy beds?

Why does it cost $600K in government fees to open a taxi service in NYC?

Staggering Cost of Regulations Strangling Economy

cost every American household around $15,000.

And they're costing the economy nearly $2 trillion a year.

vehicle manufacturers report regulations requiring new mileage and emissions standards will cost them almost $11 billion every year.

"And they're passing that cost down to their consumers, which will add up to about $1,000 more per car, if not more,"

the financial industry will have to spend almost 318,000 hours of staffers' time to comply with just three new regulations in the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform bill.

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/finance/2011/September/Staggering-Cost-of-Regulations-Strangling-Economy-/

Berger,

In each of my posts I say some are good, some are bad.  I've even given examples of bad regulation.  I'm just 100% against Cars' assertion that all regulation is bad.

Interesting that you point to China as an example in this thread, when we've seen how many toys recalled because they're poisonous to children in the past 2 years?  That's a good example of cheaper products due to lower regulations AND the harm that lower regulations can bring.

Cars, I don't know or have time to investigate the regulations you've listed, but off the top of my head, have you ever been in an NYC cab?   Do you think there's more or less in NY than DC?    With all the issues around fossil fuels and the impact it has on our economy, don't you think cars with better mileage is a good thing?  

Had the financial industry been doing their work, they would have avoided the economic meltdown instead of causing it, so I'm not going to give any sympathy there.  Just think of it as job creation.  That's right - jobs created by regulation!

As far as the goat herders, I'm not aware of a strong goat herder lobby, so I'd guess there was more to it than that.  Maybe most goat herders are foreigners, hired at low wages, who are brought here to do a job for a price, and then given sub-standard living conditions?  Not speaking English, or being a citizen, or knowing anyone, they probably don't have much recourse, but that's all just a guess on my part.

beetos wrote:
when we've seen how many toys recalled because they're poisonous to children in the past 2 years?

You say that, but it happens here in the US even with regulations.  Especially in the drug world.  It's company after company getting sued because their drug didn't do what it said it would, or it hurt/killed/maimed users after being deemed safe by the FDA.  So even WITH regulations it's fail as well.  So I don't see the usefulness for the regulations or the FDA for that matter with all these drugs ending up off the market because of health issues with them.

Regulations are a major factor stopping this economy.

This is my whole point.

And you don't think it would be worse without these regulations?

What about the toys that didn't kill someone yet, but were removed from the market place after they were discovered to have issues that fail to meet our REGULATIONS?

Without the regulations, we'd have to wait for kids to die before the market would react, and people stop buying those toys.

We had regulations during boom years - they didn't stifle us then.


Look at gas fracking - completely unregulated, but people nearby these wells can light their drinking water on fire?  Yeah, that's real good.

How about regulations on nuclear waste?  Can we store that unprotected in your neighborhood?

>>We had regulations during boom years - they didn't stifle us then.

Obama keeps adding them on.

the administration in July only has put in $9.5 billion in new regulatory costs by proposing 229 new rules and finalizing 379 rules.

http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2011/08/03/report-obama-administration-added-95-billion-in-red-tape-in-july

And you don't think it would be worse without these regulations?

No I don't honestly.  Part of the problem is people have faith in the government.  Using the drug examples again.  Americans TRUST that the FDA knows what it's doing and when they approve something as safe, they Americans flock to it if it meets their needs.  Only it turns out it wasn't so safe after all.  If there were no FDA putting a stamp of approval on drugs, don't you think people would be a bit more cautious about what they are ingesting?  Personally I do.  I think the government has taken the Americans' requirement to think for themselves out of the equation.  People just believe everything the government or it's agencies say.  It's sad.  I eat a lot of organic stuff, but even so, I research most of the companies that sell it, if not visit where it comes from to see.  I don't TRUST the FDA.  Just like the FDA doesn't inspect foreign foods that claim to be organic.  They essentially take them for their word.  It's sad.

How does that compare with any other president Cars?  Also, that "memo" is heavy with propaganda, and light on facts.

How does that compare with any other president Cars?


Have to agree here.  I don't know of a president yet that hasn't instituted regulations.

>>How does that compare with any other president Cars?  Also, that "memo" is heavy with propaganda, and light on facts.


I wish I could understand this president.  No one in their right mind would add additional costs to businesses when the economy is doing so horribly.  

He had two years with Democrat controlled congress but all his focus was adding more regulation and red tape to the financial and health care industries.  

Regulations are like Security measures, we are only aware of them when they fail. We are not aware of how many disasters they averted.

We had regulations during boom years - they didn't stifle us then.

I think timing is another important factor.  Businesses (especially bigger ones) can typically handle and thrive regulations especially during boom times.  Right now the economy is hurting.  businesses are unsure of what's going to happen because of regulations, health care, etc.  Also people who want to start up new businesses have a hard time because of regulations.  Regulations are not appropriate at this time.  They should be lifting some if any to allow more businesses to start up and other businesses to expand.  That's the only way to get out of the recession.  Forking billions of dollars over to FORCE job creation isn't a solution.  So what after the money runs out?  They lose their jobs?  IT need sto be done by free enterprise business who can keep the money coming in and expanding if they need/want.

Bingo!  

That "Bingo" was directed at Leon.

I disagree that we should rescind all regulations during times of financial difficulty.

>>e are not aware of how many disasters they averted

But we do know the disasters they create.

SOX: adds so much red tape that it prevents some companies from going public.

Dodd-Frank: adding more costs to consumers.

Obamacare: Premiums skyrocketing.  1,054 new IRS agents needed just to comply.



>> IT need sto be done by free enterprise business who can keep the money coming in and expanding if they need/want.

Yep

>>I disagree that we should rescind all regulations during times of financial difficulty.

Well, then you get what you deserve.  No job creation, high unemployment, one-term community organizer

>Well, then you get what you deserve.

The other side of the coin is increase in infant mortality, decrease median age, and increased poverty.

Yes, we are over regulated, but lets not throw out the baby with the water.

You like examples Cars, here is one for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire

Another side is individual freedom.  For example air bags in cars......good or bad.  They are required by law.  What does it do to the price of the car?  I think the people against regs would say that a person should have the choice to have an airbag or not.  Those for regs would point to all the lives saved and say it's justified.  

Aye that's a case of a loss of life.  I want to ask this though.  IF loss of life means there needs to be regulations, then what about Sept 11?  All those people couldnt' get out fast enough!  So what regulations should we institute?  IF we want to prevent deaths in every event that can happen then we need to include planes being driven into skyscrapers.
Here ar emy proposed regulations:
1. The structure framing needs to withstand a jet crash.
2.  We need a fire suppressant system that can handle jet fuel ignition and explosion.
3.  The structure must also be able to handle the temperatures of jet fuel fires.
4.  We need helicopters on call for each building that can carry all people above the 10th floor at once so they can pick them up from the upper floors and bring them down to safety.
5.  If the building does collapse then it must fall straight down and not damage any other building next to it, because that can cause loss of life as well.
6.  Also in case of collapse then there cannot be debris that falls outside of the buildings property, because this can cause death or injury as well.

How do these sound?  Ridiculous right?  Could you imagine the costs involved?  But isn't it in the name of saving lives?  Didn't a lot of people lose their lives during this event?  Something needs to be done, right?  

bergertime wrote:
Another side is individual freedom.  For example air bags in cars......good or bad.  They are required by law.  What does it do to the price of the car?  I think the people against regs would say that a person should have the choice to have an airbag or not.  Those for regs would point to all the lives saved and say it's justified.  

I believe it should be a choice.  My wife and I used to have two vehicles both paid off.  She hit a log in the road which did no damage to the car, but it deployed the airbags.  She almost broke her nose and her face was bruised and bleeding.  Unfortunately air bags explode in the steering column and destroy pretty much everything in is and it costs a fortune to replace.  Well the car was totalled.  A car that was only worth 1000 or so according to blue book.  Show me a 1k dollar car that we can purchase now that runs just as well as that car did?

>Aye that's a case of a loss of life.  I want to ask this though.  IF loss of life means there needs to be regulations, then what about Sept 11?  All those people couldnt' get out fast enough!  So what regulations should we institute?

No, but I am in favor of racial profiling. Israelis have been doing it successfully for many years and you do not see their planes being flown into buildings.

We can continue bringing up extreme examples for both sides, but that is pointless. It is not, and never has been one way or the other. There is a middle grown, and if we think that our politicians have gone too far one way, or the other, then we will vote them out of office and get new ones. That is the way it has been, and that is the way it should be.

>Show me a 1k dollar car that we can purchase now that runs just as well as that car did?

Lots, they are all at the junk yard. You car was worth only 1K exactly because it was statistically prone to being totaled as a result of such an accident. The market determined that.

There is a middle grown, and if we think that our politicians have gone too far one way, or the other, then we will vote them out of office and get new ones. That is the way it has been, and that is the way it should be.

I agree.  Unfortunately I don't think the majority of Americans truly pay attention to what their representatives have and have not voted on.  I will be the first to admit I don't research it as much as I should.  I do try to pay attention to the big things.  I do like the "you cut" program that the house is doing.  They also track the votes.  From that I have already decided to vote against guy who keep voting against the things I wanted passed/removed.

I think most Americans put too much emphasis on the President and not enough on their congressmen.  This is why I think most congressmen have such long terms.

>I think most Americans put too much emphasis on the President and not enough on their congressmen.  This is why I think most congressmen have such long terms.

Agreed, but then, he has them outnumbered 451 to 1 :)

Lots, they are all at the junk yard. You car was worth only 1K exactly because it was statistically prone to being totaled as a result of such an accident. The market determined that.

Oh I know.  That's the problem though.  You can't put a price on a paid off running car.  And the fact that the log didn't even do any structural damage, it just somehow triggers the air bags is what really pisses me off, especially when we don't get a choice on having them or not.  The air bags caused damage and no good at all in this case.  I know they do save lives at times, I'm not anti-air-bag.  I'm just saying we should have that choice.  Same can be said about seat belts.  I've hear stories going both ways that a seat belt saved people but then a seat belt killed people.  

Agreed, but then, he has them outnumbered 451 to 1 :)

LOL, very true.

> I'm just saying we should have that choice.  Same can be said about seat belts.

Sure, with seat belts it is you who has a choice. You can choose to wear one or not, and your decision would influence your chances of survival, or serious injury. But, lets take another law in to consideration GDL (Graduated Driver License). Here your choice has a direct influence not only on your well being, but on other parties. Or, how about enforcing driving tests on the elderly? I certainly do not want a 99 year old driving on the road without periodic testing of their ability to do so, and I am not trusting their judgement on their fitness to do it.

Isn't that age discrimination?

Leonstryker,
We don't have a choice though.  At least not in a lot of places.  you can get pulled over for not wearing a seat belt then fined, etc.  That's not choice imo.

The problem with GDL is different people learn at different rates or even have more experience while growing up.  Maybe the kid grew up driving farm equipment, or go karts?  I guarantee you it's not going to take as long for hem to be a competent driver, but there are usually minimum time limits on when you can graduate to the next level of license.

As far as the elderly, I would hope they've been weeded out by getting pulled over because they can't see a speed limit sign, the yellow lines, etc.  I think anyone who breaks a traffic law should be required to complete a set of tests to prove they are capable of following those laws set forth to be able to drive.  But putting a requirement JUST BECAUSE they are elderly, I don't agree with.  A lot of old people drive better than the teenagers and early twenty people.

> But putting a requirement JUST BECAUSE they are elderly, I don't agree with.  

Its a matter of statistics. After a certain age high percentage of the population do not have the reaction time to properly handle a vehicle, especially in high stress situations. The regulation does not take away their licenses, but rather asks them to take a test to see if they are still able to handle a vehicle. I have no problem with that.

>We don't have a choice though.  At least not in a lot of places.  you can get pulled over for not wearing a seat belt then fined, etc.  That's not choice imo.

Sure you do. You can choose not to follow the law, and pay those fines.

I'm going to claim hypocrite status.  I believe someone should regulate Michelle Obama.

This woman is going nuts spending taxpayer money on her vacations.




(just hitting news)

First lady Michelle Obama's family trip to South Africa and Botswana in June cost taxpayers well over $424,000

Michelle Obama's Africa Vacation Cost More Than $432,142
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/10/04/michelle-obamas-africa-vacation-cost-more-than-432142






Expensive massages, top shelf vodka and five-star hotels: First Lady accused of spending $10m in public money on her vacations

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2029615/Michelle-Obama-accused-spending-10m-public-money-vacations.html

From the article:

The 'top source' told the National Enquirer:

Really Cars?  Your political leanings are driven by tabloid journalism?

>Your political leanings are driven by tabloid journalism?

They were right about Edwards ......

Yes, apparently we need a new regulatory agency just to watch over the spending of Michelle Obama, who apparently cares nothing about taxpayers.



Michelle Obama’s taxpayer-funded spending is an embarrassment for the White House
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100108992/michelle-obama%E2%80%99s-taxpayer-funded-spending-is-an-embarrassment-for-the-white-house/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

There can be no doubt that this latest revelation about Michelle Obama’s spending is an embarrassment to the White House at a time when the president is talking about spending cuts

Although ignored by most of America’s liberal-dominated media, several online US news sites are reporting that Michelle Obama’s grand tour of southern Africa earlier this year cost American taxpayers nearly half a million dollars – and that's just for the flights. This follows in the wake of claims this August from sources inside the White House itself that the First Lady may have spent “$10 million of taxpayers’ money on vacations alone in the past year.”

Not even gonna comment.  Stuff like that just makes my skin crawl.

Let them eat cake.

This just in - conservative blogs pillory the Obamas.....

I have a hard time believing the journalistic integrity of an article that begins like this:

Although ignored by most of America’s liberal-dominated media,

However it's probably good enough for Michele Bachman...

>>I have a hard time believing the journalistic integrity of an article that begins like this:

carsRST Michelle Obama regulatory agency....



Here are the documents related to her last trip.  Look at the end - you'll see that Michelle listed her kids as "senior staff."

http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2011/usaf-obama-africa-trip-docs-10032011.pdf

you'll see that Michelle listed her kids as "senior staff."

Well maybe she goes to them for advice on running the country?

Yes,  I'm sure she's the one that filled out that form, as I'm sure you know what the implications of those entries are.

Beetos, show me where huffingtonpost or msnbc covered this?

Why?  It's a non-story, just like the last time the conservative blogs were accusing her of spending $200 million per day.  

Where is it on FOX news?

>>It's a non-story,


Why is wasting tax dollars on vacations a non-story?  I support regulating her - she's out of control.  Perhaps on purpose to get back at the "mean country"?


http://nation.foxnews.com/michelle-obama/2011/08/19/michelle-obamas-separate-travel-costs-taxpayers-thousands

It's a non-story because it comes from dubious sources with no verifiable facts.

It's so poorly documented that even Fox News won't promote it; the link you just posted is to a completely different story about a minor issue over the summer, and is on foxnation.com - an opinion site dedicated to radical conservatives.

So, let's say it's real.  Just say it is.

Two questions....

1.  Do you think she's out of control?
2.  Should someone regulate her?

Do you think Rumsfeld is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/05/rumsfeld-goes-toe-to-toe-with-al-jazeera-over-us-invasion-iraq/?test=latestnews

Which, to you, is a bigger issue?

>>Do you think Rumsfeld is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's?

Isn't that the reason every Democrat authorized war against Iraq?  


Now, back to regulation, I'm taking your side in that we need certain regulations.  One is to monitor Michelle, so that she doesn't spend to get back at the mean country in which she lives.

The other is to regulate the justice dept. headed by Eric Holder. who looks to have perjured himself.

Now, back to regulation, I'm taking your side in that we need certain regulations.  One is to monitor Michelle, so that she doesn't spend to get back at the mean country in which she lives.

The other is to regulate the justice dept. headed by Eric Holder. who looks to have perjured himself.

In both cases you have no facts.   Holder may have been told the program existed, but didn't know the details, as professed in your perjury accusation.  Nonetheless, I think the whole episode is an embarrassment to our country, and being on his watch he should be held accountable for it.  Just like the Bush admin should be held accountable for a very similar, but secret program they had.  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/05/darrell-issa-fast-and-furious-department-of-justice_n_995940.html

 Complete speculation on my part, but I'm of the opinion that the drug cartels were able to bribe certain officials in the ATF to create this "sting" operation and it's really corruption at it's worst.  I favor a thorough investigation into the whole matter, and I'd love to see accountability for it.  I'm not holding my breath.



Regarding Michelle, in your last post it was hypothetical, now it's a fact? I'm still calling BS.   EVEN FOX, WHICH IS ALL ANTI-OBAMA ALL THE TIME WON'T REPORT THIS CRAP!  Maybe you can find Glenn Beck somewhere on the internet and the two of you can have a good cry over it.

>>Holder may have been told the program existed, but didn't know the details


Here's his EXACT answer:
"I'm not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks"


Sorry, but he took his hand off his piece and can't take his move back.

He didn't say I knew of it but not the details.  He said he just heard about it for the FIRST time a few weeks ago.

Before that we had the black panther case that was magically dismissed.

Don't you think Holder needs regulated?

We also need to regulate the loans made by the Obama administration.  It's coming out now that Obama was going to give them a SECOND loan even after being warned they were in bad financial trouble.

The Obama administration’s Department of Energy was poised last summer to give Solyndra a second major taxpayer loan of $469 million, even as the company’s financial situation was growing more dire.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/solyndra-e-mails-dept-of-energy-was-poised-to-approve-469-million-for-firm/2011/10/05/gIQA0IvgNL_story.html?hpid=z2

I already said the entire F and F program and those involved need a thorough investigation, and that Holder is ultimately responsible.  Is that not clear enough?  Do you want me to agree that he's ugly also?

Obama invests in new green technology.   The company has trouble and he tries to help them out, as part of an investment in the future of the United States.  These budgets and loans go through our government ( ie it's already regulated ).  It didn't pan out, and that's unfortunate.  Same thing with bio-diesel. The other 99% of loans made by the energy department seem to be ok.  The loans to the auto industry also worked out well.    

>>The loans to the auto industry also worked out well.  

At current trading prices, the government would lose about $16.5 billion...

http://www.detnews.com/article/20111003/AUTO01/110030437/1361/Treasury-will-be--patient--before-selling-GM-stake

Great observation Cars; the market is down as are the stock prices from the automakers.

The Treasury Department, holding onto a 26.5 percent stake in General Motors Co., plans to be "patient" before selling its remaining 500 million shares in the Detroit automaker.

So they haven't actually lost anything yet.  Plus the shares are up over 10% just since that article came out!  Plus, sales are up at all US manufacturers, and thousands are still employed as a result.  So far it seems like a good loan to me.   How do you see it?

>>So they haven't actually lost anything yet.  Plus the shares are up over 10% just since that article came out!


The stock needs to rise 144% just for tax payers to break even.



>>How do you see it?

Chevy volt need sales to rise by 1283% to meet their target goal.  
Waste of f**kin' money.

So can we agree that someone needs to regulate the sh*t out of Obama administration loans?  I'd never hire him as a lending officer.




Related regulation story just out.

From Alaska to Georgia and Wyoming to Florida, utilities are seeking permission to pass on hundreds of millions of dollars in new charges to customers to ... comply with tougher environmental regulations

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/05/americans-face-double-digit-hikes-in-electricity-bills-to-fund-upgrades.html

We can also agree that for most people all regualtions are good until one ot them negatively impacts them, at that point they cry foul.  

We can agree that the notion of over-regulation is just ridiculous to educated Americans.  Or maybe not.

AP Fact Check on regulations:  View Article

OBAMA: "The answer we're getting right now is: Well, we're going to roll back all these Obama regulations... Does anybody really think that that is going to create jobs right now and meet the challenges of a global economy?"

THE FACTS: Well, yes, some think it will. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce last month submitted a jobs proposal to Obama that included a call to ease regulations on businesses. It specifically called for streamlining environmental reviews on major construction projects and to delay the issuance of some potentially burdensome regulations until the economy and employment have improved. In the letter, Chamber President Thomas Donohue also called on Congress to pass legislation that would require congressional approval of major regulations.  The chamber did not indicate how many jobs such regulatory changes could create, but it said: "Immediate regulatory relief is required in order to begin moving $1 trillion-$2 trillion in accumulated private capital off of the sidelines and into business expansion."

Man .... I am still bummed that I did not get points for this question. I think we need a new regulation governing point distribution on EE, especially to badgers and lizards like 'yours truly' here.

Sorry, leon.

That was an accident.

I'll see if I can change it.  I meant to.

See, even a threat of regulations have an effect :)

Leon,

Can you open it back up and select your best answer for points?

I think the more points you get, the more you have to give to those who don't.  For example Leon is a Genius and therefore doesn't need any points, me on the other hand am struggling just to get anywhere.  Of course it's not my fault.  So I think I should get half of all Leon's points.  What would it matter to him, he already has so many.  I agree we need a rule.  One that states regardless of input, points shall be awarded based on how many points each person has, the fewer points you have the more you get.  That's fair.

Good point, Bergertime.

Beetos would be all over that.  :)

>Can you open it back up and select your best answer for points?

Heck no. I am not doing that, since it would give an appearance of impropriety.
Ask Waterstreet he has no skin in this game. :)

Waterstreet, can you help?