- Joined
- May 12, 2014
- Messages
- 6,815
- Reaction score
- 4,420
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Re: Here's how the Trump administration is saving money to increase the military budg
How so? (Better yet, just put "reducing spending tax revenues" in more understandable phrasing.)
There are a lot of regulations, no doubt. But one thing I learned in law school was that behind almost every regulation or goofy-sounding legal decision, there was good reasoning underneath, often out of sight from the casual observer. Laws and regulations are seldom enacted because of a single incident. So it is completely reckless to just start hacking away at laws and regulations for the sake of making life easier. A more surgical approach is what is called for, and this administration is about as surgical as a battle axe.
Building codes are one of the most beneficial classes of regulation I can think of offhand. Bad example.
I read a very good argument from a guy whose wife wanted to sell baked goods on the side. He linked to his state's code on the subject, and it was certainly intimidating. There were a lot of hoops to jump through if you wanted to sell baked goods - a P.I.T.A. if you were having a bake sale, but do-able if you wanted to start a small business. When I checked my own states code on the subject, it was much less onerous. (I'm pretty sure that every state, plus D.C. and P.R., has their own unique code on the subject, which should make the states'-righters think twice about their position.) On the other hand, incidents of food poisoning are now pretty rare. And we don't have to kill the offenders to feel safe in the food we eat.
So I'm not up for doing away with regulations until I hear the arguments for both sides. And I think that if everybody heard both sides and weighed the evidence, our present zeal for deregulation would dissipate quickly.
How so? (Better yet, just put "reducing spending tax revenues" in more understandable phrasing.)
There are a lot of regulations, no doubt. But one thing I learned in law school was that behind almost every regulation or goofy-sounding legal decision, there was good reasoning underneath, often out of sight from the casual observer. Laws and regulations are seldom enacted because of a single incident. So it is completely reckless to just start hacking away at laws and regulations for the sake of making life easier. A more surgical approach is what is called for, and this administration is about as surgical as a battle axe.
Building codes are one of the most beneficial classes of regulation I can think of offhand. Bad example.
I read a very good argument from a guy whose wife wanted to sell baked goods on the side. He linked to his state's code on the subject, and it was certainly intimidating. There were a lot of hoops to jump through if you wanted to sell baked goods - a P.I.T.A. if you were having a bake sale, but do-able if you wanted to start a small business. When I checked my own states code on the subject, it was much less onerous. (I'm pretty sure that every state, plus D.C. and P.R., has their own unique code on the subject, which should make the states'-righters think twice about their position.) On the other hand, incidents of food poisoning are now pretty rare. And we don't have to kill the offenders to feel safe in the food we eat.
So I'm not up for doing away with regulations until I hear the arguments for both sides. And I think that if everybody heard both sides and weighed the evidence, our present zeal for deregulation would dissipate quickly.
