• 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!

How do we restore growth?

For the tenth or eleventh time in a row, I have pointed to regulations and the environment that creates a burden. You're on a fools errand imagep. Thousands of business owners, including me, have cited the increasing burden of the regulatory environment, and since YOU aren't satisfied with the responses, you reject it all.

So be it.

You failed to point to any specific regulation. Just throwing up your hands saying "all regulations" is ludicrous. So should we repeal the regulation against murder? Or the one prohibiting pouring gasoline into ponds?
 
Given your political leaning, I can understand why you champion regulation as a means of controlling the population. It is a Progressive cornerstone to have professional administrators control society, rather than elected officials who must answer to voters. I guess the thinking is that the ebb and flow of voting and politics gets in the way of long term agendas sought by regulatory agencies staffed by proper thinking professionals.

It's probably one of the most dangerous aspects of Progressivism, but again, given your leanings, I an understand why you would make excuses for their actions.

The truth is, the regulatory burden placed on business, and for that matter, society, is causing great economic harm. It's been written about extensively.

For example:

Tale of the Red Tape: $22 Billion in Savings from Cutting Ridiculous Regulations | The Fiscal Times

It's nothing but a debate tactic to demand specific examples, when I could select from dozens, if not hundreds that do so. Rather than waste time on that, since this question has been asked many times before, with answers rejected out of hand (why waste time again?), I offered a link to an official website that lists all of them.

So how may people do you think know the government has enacted close to 1,000 new regulations in the last 90 days? Do you know how many over the last 5 years? How does that compare to historical averages? The answers are available, by agency, via the link I provided. That is, if one cares to educate themselves.

This game the left plays by suggesting any complaint about regulations means the complainer wants ALL regulations cut is intellectually vacant. It's not all or nothing. But with no way to defend the incredible regulatory overreach of the current administration and the sycophants it has placed at the head of the most powerful ones, I recognize it's all the left has.

Your link also fails to point out any specific regulations.

Most of it isn't even devoted to regulations, it discusses ways that government organizations can operate more efficiently, such as computerizing this and that.

Did you even read it?
 
...
It's nothing but a debate tactic to demand specific examples, when I could select from dozens, if not hundreds that do so. ...

I other words, you have no knowledge of specific regulations which are unneeded and overly burdensome, all you "know" is that it is "regulations" in general, most likely because your barber told you that.
 
LOL

You are welcome to reject my evidence. It is not my responsibility to fully satisfy the "we" you represent.

Imagine the economic stimulus if business didn't have to invest so much profit into meeting all the burdensome regulations that have been written about extensively? Competitors included!

You didn't provide a shred of evidence. I have been reading this book of regulations, nearly half way finished and I still haven't found any regulations that we don't need. I did notice quite a few regulations which were either eliminating regulations, consolidating them, or clearifying them.
 
...

If business activity doesn't sufficiently cover all expenses, which also includes depletion, depreciation, and capital improvements, the business is doomed to fail....

I totally agree.

Now list a few of those regulations which are going to doom businesses to fail. Come on, you are an expert in this topic, it can't be that difficult to give a few actual real life examples so that idiots like myself can understand exactly what you are talking about.


Why is the regulatory burden written about and evidenced so heavily, rejected by so many people?

Maybe because no one can seem to actually list the specific regulations that we should get rid of.


Are you talking about the regulation that prevents me from burning down my competitors businesses? Yea, that one harms me, but I still don't think we should get rid of it, no matter how much I would like to burn down my competition.
 
...
The fact you chose to dismiss the multitude of articles, studies, and even yes, government studies on the subject, suggests you will never be persuaded there is a serious problem. ...

the problem is that apparently, not a single one of that "multitude of articles, studies, bla bla bala" have ever been able to identify the specific regulations we should get rid of. Without being able to point to a single real life example, there is no credibility to those articles or studies.
 
And you're making the classic Progressive argument that all regulations are good for people.

Look what you said above...and look what I said in the very comment you were replying to:

"YES, get rid of the regulations that don't make sense, but to get rid of regulations, or to stop making new regulations just because they're regulations...that's stupid and tragically short-sighted."

In other words, you weren't at all interested in honest debate or forthright discussion - you were just looking for an excuse to find fault. Good day, sir.
 
You failed to point to any specific regulation. Just throwing up your hands saying "all regulations" is ludicrous. So should we repeal the regulation against murder? Or the one prohibiting pouring gasoline into ponds?

The deflection on this subject by using ludicrous suggestions like the one you offered is reason enough to refrain from expending any energy to provide specifics.
 
Your link also fails to point out any specific regulations.

Most of it isn't even devoted to regulations, it discusses ways that government organizations can operate more efficiently, such as computerizing this and that.

Did you even read it?

Yes I read it. That is why I posted it. Other than that, thank you for your opinion.
 
I other words, you have no knowledge of specific regulations which are unneeded and overly burdensome, all you "know" is that it is "regulations" in general, most likely because your barber told you that.

Your snarky replies do not inspire me to do much more than chuckle at your obsession with my comments. It is your choice to be ignorant and dismissing on the subject, which I fully support for its resulting comedic value.
 
You didn't provide a shred of evidence. I have been reading this book of regulations, nearly half way finished and I still haven't found any regulations that we don't need. I did notice quite a few regulations which were either eliminating regulations, consolidating them, or clearifying them.

While interesting, your conclusions are meaningless.

I recognize you apparently believe you are the National Arbiter of Government Regulations, and thus can speak for all businesses in the United States, but I would suggest the thousands of articles on the subject hold evidence people don't agree with your conclusions.
 
I totally agree.

Now list a few of those regulations which are going to doom businesses to fail. Come on, you are an expert in this topic, it can't be that difficult to give a few actual real life examples so that idiots like myself can understand exactly what you are talking about.




Maybe because no one can seem to actually list the specific regulations that we should get rid of.


Are you talking about the regulation that prevents me from burning down my competitors businesses? Yea, that one harms me, but I still don't think we should get rid of it, no matter how much I would like to burn down my competition.

Again, I am flattered by your obsession with my posts.

However, I must write that this habit you have of posting preposterous things like burning down a competitors business suggests my approach to your posts as being nothing but comedy is the correct way to view them.
 
the problem is that apparently, not a single one of that "multitude of articles, studies, bla bla bala" have ever been able to identify the specific regulations we should get rid of. Without being able to point to a single real life example, there is no credibility to those articles or studies.

LOL.

Or, some people are unwilling, or unable to accept the facts presented.

Given the tremendous amount of time and energy spent on the subject, numerous reports filed by the GAO and others on the subject, I would suggest you might just fall into the "unwilling, unable" group.

For example, here is a report from the GAO in 2013.

U.S. GAO - 2013 Annual Report Actions Needed to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits

You will note they cite the overlap by multiple agencies tasked with the same goal. What you should take away from that is that there are businesses who must address the same regulatory issue, in multiple formats, and with multiple government regulators, all covering the same singular issue.

When I used to be involved in manufacturing food packaging, I had three different primary federal agencies to report to involving product that sold for $20-$40/case. The DOT, FDA, and the EPA. There were many other local and regional agencies I had to deal with as well. All focused on a product that sold for 4 cents each. Every order shipped, every product manufactured had to run through the regulatory process. No blanket inspection, or gross approval of process approaches which would have been reasonable. Each production run was singular, in the eyes of the regulators. Do you know how much that costs to do?

Thank you in advance for the comical response I am eager to read, if you're so disposed.
 
LOL.

Or, some people are unwilling, or unable to accept the facts presented.

Given the tremendous amount of time and energy spent on the subject, numerous reports filed by the GAO and others on the subject, I would suggest you might just fall into the "unwilling, unable" group.

For example, here is a report from the GAO in 2013.

U.S. GAO - 2013 Annual Report Actions Needed to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits

You will note they cite the overlap by multiple agencies tasked with the same goal. What you should take away from that is that there are businesses who must address the same regulatory issue, in multiple formats, and with multiple government regulators, all covering the same singular issue.

When I used to be involved in manufacturing food packaging, I had three different primary federal agencies to report to involving product that sold for $20-$40/case. The DOT, FDA, and the EPA. There were many other local and regional agencies I had to deal with as well. All focused on a product that sold for 4 cents each. Every order shipped, every product manufactured had to run through the regulatory process. No blanket inspection, or gross approval of process approaches which would have been reasonable. Each production run was singular, in the eyes of the regulators. Do you know how much that costs to do?

Thank you in advance for the comical response I am eager to read, if you're so disposed.

In otherwords, you still can't come up with any specific regulations.


By the way folks, I'l be here all week.
 
In otherwords, you still can't come up with any specific regulations.


By the way folks, I'l be here all week.

In other words, you are unwilling to accept there are any. Not unexpected. Reams of data, a mountain of evidence, and even links don't suffice. Any reason why I don't bother providing specifics?

Leading a horse to water..... comes to mind.
 
As soon as I saw the name 'Larry Summers' I stopped reading.

That moronic pig is, IMO, the most staggeringly overrated, noteworthy economist on the planet.

He is a macroeconomic ignoramus of the highest order.

Plus, from what I have read/heard...he is an incredible jerk as well.


BTW, the fact that the OP article starts out by stating how stagnant the world economies are. Throw in th fact that the world has been generally following over the last 7 years a policy of ZIRP, massive government stimulus and unprecedented central bank meddling should tell you all you need to know about how well these policies work.

Like excrement, is how.
 
Last edited:
As soon as I saw the name 'Larry Summers' I stopped reading.

That moronic pig is, IMO, the most staggeringly overrated, noteworthy economist on the planet.

He is a macroeconomic ignoramus of the highest order.

Plus, from what I have read/heard...he is an incredible jerk as well.


BTW, the fact that the OP article starts out by stating how stagnant the world economies are. Throw in th fact that the world has been generally following over the last 7 years a policy of ZIRP, massive government stimulus and unprecedented central bank meddling should tell you all you need to know about how well these policies work.

Like excrement, is how.

this is true. The way to get back to 4% growth is to switch back to capitalism
 
Back
Top Bottom