• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Payrolls Gain More-Than-Expected 200,000; Jobless Rate Falls to 8.5%

Rhapsody1447 said:
Before I attempt the impossible task of reviewing all current regulations to find ones that would be considered wasteful, let me better understand your position on the issue. Do you think the regulatory burden is too much and needs to be reduced or do you believe the country is too deregulated as it is and needs additional regulation?

Obama's recent regulatory review found $2 billion in wasteful, costly regulations.
Click to expand...

It's impossible to say whether overall regulation is too much or too little without reviewing individual regulations. My *feeling* is that there are probably many wasteful regulations that could be amended or eliminated, and there are also many regulations that should be implemented. In the latter category I would say that we need regulations to eliminate too-big-to-fail banks, increase transparency in derivatives trading, improve accountability in ratings firms, and to address coal plant pollution.
 
Boo Radley said:
So, you would argue, and liklely they cna argue this as well, that such isn't aviable yet. A logical approach and one that should be a winning one, provided it really isn't available yet. But each regulation should be appraoched individually, and not with a grouping that just says do away with regulations. Is this difficult to grasp?
Click to expand...

*tink*, *tink*, *tink*....Ahem, Boo? Still there? Could you address Rhapsody's question directly please?


thanks.


j-mac
 
AdamT said:
It's impossible to say whether overall regulation is too much or too little without reviewing individual regulations. My *feeling* is that there are probably many wasteful regulations that could be amended or eliminated, and there are also many regulations that should be implemented. In the latter category I would say that we need regulations to eliminate too-big-to-fail banks, increase transparency in derivatives trading, improve accountability in ratings firms, and to address coal plant pollution.
Click to expand...

And the former?

It's not impossible to say whether overall regulation is too much or too little. It's an opinion, not a fact. Studies (like the one I posted) show us the economic cost of the current regulatory framework and it's perfectly reasonable to form an opinion based on that evidence.
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
And the former?

It's not impossible to say whether overall regulation is too much or too little. It's an opinion, not a fact. Studies (like the one I posted) show us the economic cost of the current regulatory framework and it's perfectly reasonable to form an opinion based on that evidence.
Click to expand...


No see, they want you to delve through the 88,000 pages of this years regulations so that they can bog each objection down with pages of name calling drivel, meanwhile the topic of the thread is completely lost.

What a waste of time.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
No see, they want you to delve through the 88,000 pages of this years regulations so that they can bog each objection down with pages of name calling drivel, meanwhile the topic of the thread is completely lost.

What a waste of time.

j-mac
Click to expand...

It's not like I'm expecting him to admit anything that I find wasteful as evidenced by his complete dismissal of the $1.75T costs the study I posted found. I hope I'm wrong though.
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
It's not like I'm expecting him to admit anything that I find wasteful as evidenced by his complete dismissal of the $1.75T costs the study I posted found. I hope I'm wrong though.
Click to expand...

I don't dismiss the cost, which is certainly impressive. Is it worth the cost? Again, I have no way of knowing. It's like a doctor prescribing a year-long course of Expensonol, at a cost of $10,000 a month. Is it worth it? How can I say if I don't know what it's prescribed for, how serious the condition is, or how well the medication actually works? There is no way to judge. Apparently you would say, "$10,000 a month! Outrageous!!" And then maybe you drop dead in six weeks because that's the only treatment that would cure your disease.

Also, when you list the total cost of these regulations, does that contemplate the cost of NOT having the regulations? For example, I'm sure it would have cost millions, or even billions of dollars to implement tighter regulations on mortgage lenders, credit ratings agencies, and derivatives traders. Outrageous? Well, the cost of NOT having those regulations turned out to be in the tens of trillions of dollars.
 
Last edited:
Rhapsody1447 said:
Before I attempt the impossible task of reviewing all current regulations to find ones that would be considered wasteful, let me better understand your position on the issue. Do you think the regulatory burden is too much and needs to be reduced or do you believe the country is too deregulated as it is and needs additional regulation?

Obama's recent regulatory review found $2 billion in wasteful, costly regulations.
Click to expand...

That's too general. Wasteful depends on what is being regulated. As we saw in the leaning market, regulations served a real purpose. We saw this with tainted peanut butter as well. Deregulation sometimes has a consequence. Speaking in generalities often leads us to inaccurate conclusions. few to none say all regulations need to be cut, so why would it be too much to ask exactly which ones?

And if they found actual wasteful regulations, they ahd to document which ones those were, and then we can assess them and cut the appropriate regulations, or combine a few, but if we don't indentify, we can't do anything.
 
j-mac said:
*tink*, *tink*, *tink*....Ahem, Boo? Still there? Could you address Rhapsody's question directly please?


thanks.


j-mac
Click to expand...

J, there are other things. You know that.
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
And the former?

It's not impossible to say whether overall regulation is too much or too little. It's an opinion, not a fact. Studies (like the one I posted) show us the economic cost of the current regulatory framework and it's perfectly reasonable to form an opinion based on that evidence.
Click to expand...

Not really as Adam T points out. It can be quite costly, not to mention dangerous, to not have some regulation. we really do have to be more specific.
 
j-mac said:
No see, they want you to delve through the 88,000 pages of this years regulations so that they can bog each objection down with pages of name calling drivel, meanwhile the topic of the thread is completely lost.

What a waste of time.

j-mac
Click to expand...

No, I actually expect our leaders to that, and for us to understand that generalizations are too fruitless to actually reach any conclusions. I suspect there are some regulations that can either be removed or combined, but cost alone is not the critieria. If a regulation is needed, it is needed. If it is not, we shouldn't have it. This is not an unreasonable position. But to jsut say they cost, get rid of them? Too many questions are left unanswered.
 
Boo Radley said:
So, you would argue, and liklely they cna argue this as well, that such isn't aviable yet. A logical approach and one that should be a winning one, provided it really isn't available yet.
Click to expand...

That is what the article claims, it is not available...as for me I have no idea, do you?


But each regulation should be appraoched individually, and not with a grouping that just says do away with regulations. Is this difficult to grasp?
Click to expand...

Are you under the assumption that Conservatives want to eliminate ALL regulations? Haven't we, collectively, been over this before or are you being obtuse?
 
Dickieboy said:
That is what the article claims, it is not available...as for me I have no idea, do you?
Click to expand...

Nope. I don't. But that doesn't change my point. You argue just that, and I would think you'd win with it, assuming the facts aren't different than reported.


Are you under the assumption that Conservatives want to eliminate ALL regulations? Haven't we, collectively, been over this before or are you being obtuse?
Click to expand...

Nope. I merely object to cost alone meaning that there are too many regulations. I think there are other criteria, like the need for a regulation. Merely saying it is costly doesn't tell me if a regulation is needed or not.
 
Boo Radley said:
I merely object to cost alone meaning that there are too many regulations. I think there are other criteria, like the need for a regulation. Merely saying it is costly doesn't tell me if a regulation is needed or not.
Click to expand...

I believe there is consensus in this position on both sides of the isle, but I could be wrong.
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
It's not like I'm expecting him to admit anything that I find wasteful as evidenced by his complete dismissal of the $1.75T costs the study I posted found. I hope I'm wrong though.
Click to expand...

The paper was intended to estimate the cost differentials from regulation on small, medium, and large firms as a means to provide evidence for the idea that economies of scale can minimize transaction costs such as these; it was not intended to provide the "real" costs of regulation to society. For example; dumping industrial waste into the Great Lakes would be "less costly" for manufactures than disposing said waste in a responsible fashion. Therefore, the "cost" of responsible disposal is then shifted towards society in the form of illness and depletion of strategic/natural resources. In many instances (such as illness that results from direct exposure to industrial waste), the cost that society bares is greater than the cost manufactures would incur in the event that they had disposed of the waste responsibly in the first place.

To gain a full perspective on the real "costs" of regulation, we would have to quantify the costs that society would bare sans regulation(s).

You should find this paper interesting.
 
To gain a full perspective on the real "costs" of regulation, we would have to quantify the costs that society would bare sans regulation(s).
Click to expand...

So true....regulation is not in a vacuum. Which is why any going through getting rid of regulations should be a process that includes a cost benefit of geting rid of those regulation. There are definately times where better enforcement of regulation is called for instead of another regulation. At the same time, regulations are not "bad" and just a way for evil liberals to make conducting business difficult.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Whoa. It was you who first raised the point that they were somehow not constant, and therefore using your unsupported point to give some perverted credibility to the drop in LFPR, other than the obvious.

If you are now claiming that it is the poor job situation at the root of it all, then we are in agreement. It also means that our unemployment rate is a farce as reported, as when we face such negative times, it does not accurately reflect what is really happening.
Click to expand...

Some of those things are not constant.

People are coming up with new ways every day to claim disability. And some very legitimate claims now get brought up to the government because those with the problems no longer have a job.

My Disability Blog: Why Do Social Security Disability Claims Increase In A Bad Economy?

More and more military personnel are getting out/being put out of the military. Most of those are eligible for the 9/11 GI bill which pays more than many min. wage jobs just for housing (tuition is paid for separately, plus there is a book stipend and many qualify for Pell grant, which they get to keep). Such a good incentive for military vets to go to college after their service has never existed. Even the previous GI Bills only really paid for schooling, with very little left over, if any, for expenses.

Enrollment in college increased 38% from '99 to '09 where it only increased 9% from '89 to '99. College enrollment is still increasing right now. There is nothing "constant" about this.

Community Colleges Enrollment Drops, Pell Grants Increase - College Bound - Education Week
 
j-mac said:
Not a fan of Brooks, but he has a point. Why is it that you think that instead of doing what Obama said he was going to do in the form of going through things line by line, he has only made them more onerous, more restrictive, and created new agencies that are redundant in their mission, that lends the very uncertainty that business claims is one of the problems they face in making the decision to hire?

j-mac
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure and correct me if I'm wrong but the majority of new regulations stem form healthcare reform and financial reform? If that's the case...a financial collapse and the problems in our healthcare industry warrant additional regulations. Now of course, nothing should be too onerous. I'm more of a fan anyway of structural changes to both of those industries than layers of compliance. I think both of those bills are trying to do that.
 
iliveonramen said:
I'm not entirely sure and correct me if I'm wrong but the majority of new regulations stem form healthcare reform and financial reform? If that's the case...a financial collapse and the problems in our healthcare industry warrant additional regulations. Now of course, nothing should be too onerous. I'm more of a fan anyway of structural changes to both of those industries than layers of compliance. I think both of those bills are trying to do that.
Click to expand...

Well, as Boo says and he has a point about specificity. The problem I see with laws like HC, and Dodd/Frank are that the bills themselves were so large, over 2000 pages in the case of HC, that things were inserted into these laws that are indeed damaging, and we won't know until they blow like roadside bombs to our economy.

The part where I disagree with Boo, and Adam are in the barraging that those of us who think that less regulation would ease the pressure on business, should list every regulation that we think is out of whack, and list why, with cites, and explanations as to what we would do to correct these regulations. Look people, I am just a truck driver, and even if I could stay awake long enough to research every regulation that exists, I certainly wouldn't endeavor such an undertaking for anonymous internet message board liberals who either wouldn't read what I had to say, or would dismiss that kind of hard work with an Alinsky style personal attack anyway.

DC has teams of people going through regulations on a day in day out basis, and they work full time at this. IOW, I think in here we set the bar too high so as to discourage the conversation in the first place.

to get back around to your point, the very regulation in HC for example has business scared to death...And Dodd/Frank has banks locking up capital tighter than Ft. Knox. So are these good things?

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Well, as Boo says and he has a point about specificity. The problem I see with laws like HC, and Dodd/Frank are that the bills themselves were so large, over 2000 pages in the case of HC, that things were inserted into these laws that are indeed damaging, and we won't know until they blow like roadside bombs to our economy.

The part where I disagree with Boo, and Adam are in the barraging that those of us who think that less regulation would ease the pressure on business, should list every regulation that we think is out of whack, and list why, with cites, and explanations as to what we would do to correct these regulations. Look people, I am just a truck driver, and even if I could stay awake long enough to research every regulation that exists, I certainly wouldn't endeavor such an undertaking for anonymous internet message board liberals who either wouldn't read what I had to say, or would dismiss that kind of hard work with an Alinsky style personal attack anyway.

DC has teams of people going through regulations on a day in day out basis, and they work full time at this. IOW, I think in here we set the bar too high so as to discourage the conversation in the first place.

to get back around to your point, the very regulation in HC for example has business scared to death...And Dodd/Frank has banks locking up capital tighter than Ft. Knox. So are these good things?

j-mac
Click to expand...

My intent is really not to discourage a critical review of regulations. I've been in business long enough to know how ****ed up they can be. But at the end of the day someone really does have to sit down and sift through them in order to straighten the mess out.
 
roguenuke said:
Some of those things are not constant.

People are coming up with new ways every day to claim disability. And some very legitimate claims now get brought up to the government because those with the problems no longer have a job.

My Disability Blog: Why Do Social Security Disability Claims Increase In A Bad Economy?

More and more military personnel are getting out/being put out of the military. Most of those are eligible for the 9/11 GI bill which pays more than many min. wage jobs just for housing (tuition is paid for separately, plus there is a book stipend and many qualify for Pell grant, which they get to keep). Such a good incentive for military vets to go to college after their service has never existed. Even the previous GI Bills only really paid for schooling, with very little left over, if any, for expenses.

Enrollment in college increased 38% from '99 to '09 where it only increased 9% from '89 to '99. College enrollment is still increasing right now. There is nothing "constant" about this.

Community Colleges Enrollment Drops, Pell Grants Increase - College Bound - Education Week
Click to expand...

I think I need to ask you why you are pursuing excuses for shrinkage of the LFPR that cannot be measured, while ignoring the Occam's Razor (simple and obvious) explanation ?

The average household lost 20% of its net worth with this recession. A recession caused 100% by government, btw. Not Wall Street. Not predatory lenders. Just plain Government. For folks to voluntarily leave the labor force, that is to forego earning a paycheck, the only positive reason would be that things are so good that the average American household is well-off enough for the wife to stay at home, kids go to college instead of working, take a vacation instead of working, take early retirement instead of working, etc. We know for a fact that the cumulative effects of the bad economy worked against all those scenarios. Nothing of leisure was enabled by this recession.

It is that simple. The shrink of the LFPR is all linked to a bad economy. It is a statistical anomaly that helps keep a terrible situation from appearing terrible on paper. But its still terrible at everyone's dinner table.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
A recession caused 100% by government, btw. Not Wall Street. Not predatory lenders. Just plain Government.
Click to expand...

Wow, that's an amazing observation! :lol:
 
to get back around to your point, the very regulation in HC for example has business scared to death...And Dodd/Frank has banks locking up capital tighter than Ft. Knox. So are these good things?
Click to expand...
I think they are inevitable. I think any time any new large scale regulation is instituted it does create some degree of uncertainty. I also don't think that's a reason we shouldn't do it. When faced with a near collapse of our financial industry...that is much more costly exponentially than any new cost of regulation introduced. Companies will complain with any regulation introduced because no business likes regulation. Even when it benefits them. They fought Sarbanes-Oxley tooth and nail but since implemented it's created more confidence it corporate reporting and something that was rampant (fudging financial numbers) as of now isn't a major issue anymore.

We were on the brink of collapse and the US government can't be counted on to inject trillions into the banking structure.

As for Healthcare reform...that's a huge debate on it's own. No matter what your views on it, for those that passed it and support it, it's worth the costs.

I also don't think corporations are being honest. At the end of the day our problems stem from most Americans over their head in debt, seing their paychecks remain stagnant, and their largest asset deteriorate in value. If consumers are buying business is hiring. Look at recently...same environment, consumers are purchasing, and business is hiring.
 
iliveonramen said:
I think they are inevitable. I think any time any new large scale regulation is instituted it does create some degree of uncertainty. I also don't think that's a reason we shouldn't do it. When faced with a near collapse of our financial industry...that is much more costly exponentially than any new cost of regulation introduced. Companies will complain with any regulation introduced because no business likes regulation. Even when it benefits them. They fought Sarbanes-Oxley tooth and nail but since implemented it's created more confidence it corporate reporting and something that was rampant (fudging financial numbers) as of now isn't a major issue anymore.

We were on the brink of collapse and the US government can't be counted on to inject trillions into the banking structure.

As for Healthcare reform...that's a huge debate on it's own. No matter what your views on it, for those that passed it and support it, it's worth the costs.

I also don't think corporations are being honest. At the end of the day our problems stem from most Americans over their head in debt, seing their paychecks remain stagnant, and their largest asset deteriorate in value. If consumers are buying business is hiring. Look at recently...same environment, consumers are purchasing, and business is hiring.
Click to expand...

Since several have thrown out this notion that the housing bubble was due to under-regulation, a reminder or two for those who care to research it.

1) The "bubble" was the foundation of all things "collapse" with housing. If there was no bubble, there's no trouble. The bubble was the unnatural creation of government, beginning in the late 90's, with both the emergence of Fannie and Freddie as the overwhelmingly largest players in the mortgage market (50%), and our own Federal Government suing the major lenders to take-on more sub-primes. All of that is exceedingly well-documented. Once inflation in housing was off and running (the bubble), then everyone got a finger in the pie, which is completely to be expected ! They did not create the wave though. They only rode what government created.

2) Fannie and Freddie were exempted from oversight by Dodd-Frank.

Now the government, which caused the problem, says that they are the cure. And many liberals agree. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom