FLASH: Confidence Shattered

[Spekkio]

I'm trying to take this seriously. You think he can just do this on his own, with little oversight. Seriously?

I know he can do it.

Where would he put the prisoners?

That isn't a Congressional law problem nor a budget problem; that's an international relations problem. We have a bunch of prisoners whose countries don't want them back. You were blaming Congress a few posts ago.

 

[wink]

Where would the prisoners go? Where would the $ come from to move and house them? What states would accept them? What other countries would accept them? Closing a prison costs dollars-who would cover that? This ain't him delaying something (which incurs no add'l funding), this is something that costs a lot of greenbacks. If any of you think he can wave a wand to fund it, you are naive.

He can say it's closed, but all of the logistics cost millions; who will pay for that? His Nobel Peace Prize dollars will only go so far.

Aside from the fact that those are all questions Obama should have asked himself, if he really cared, before he promised to close it, we are only talking about 165 detainees. Over 50 were cleared for release by the Bush administration in 2008 and the Obama admin can't even find homes for them, let alone close the place. In fact, big 'ol meanie W released more detainees from Gitmo than President Obama. That is an inconvenient fact.

 

[Spekkio]

Where in hell do you get the idea that regulation helps big business, let alone that big corporations are hard over for the GOP?

Because bigger business with in-depth logistics and larger profit margins can adjust to regulations.

Let's say I have two acres of land, I decide to use it to raise a couple of cows to sell milk. Oh wait, I can't because my milk isn't certified by the FDA and I don't have whatever licenses needed to sell milk.

I've read stories of police closing down children's lemonade stands in CA because they didn't have a license. I'm pretty sure reasonable people would know that buying lemonade from a 10 year old for $0.50/cup is not going to be from a licensed vendor.

In NYC, people who have an extra bedroom have started posting on a site to offer their couch for like $50 a night as an alternative to $500/night hotel rooms. The website offered tons of reviews so that you knew people were legit. But the hotel industry got wind of it and now the NYC government is trying to stomp it out because these people don't have commercial hotel licenses purchased through the city/state. Similar to the lemonade stands, I'm fairly certain people who decided to sleep on someone's couch for a night know that they're not staying in a government certified hotel and decided to take the risk anyway.

Another NYC issue: a company wanted to start a luxury taxi service (basically charge taxi prices for rides in a towncar), but got told by city government that they weren't allowed to. They had to either run the same yellow taxis as everyone else or charge limo prices!

Regulations provide a higher entry barrier to industry and stifle innovation, which protect well-established businesses and keep prices high. You seem to acknowledge when you said this:

Small business, farmers and ranchers that can't improve property or access.

On a local regulatory level, you frequently have more corruption which is probably what are driving businesses to your state.

If the GOP had their way a few years ago and started regulating internet commerce, we wouldn't have smartphone apps at $0 - $2.99/each today and Microsoft wouldn't have been taking a beating from the mobile/tablet market and its wide range of apps. The internet is one of the last places where a small guy who knows how to program can enter a big market and make a killing.

How is that good for any business big or small? The EPA wants to regulate coal plants out of business. Believe what you want about climate change but that is not good for coal plant owners or employees.

But it is good for natural gas, solar and nuclear technologies, which is what Obama is trying to promote, even though they cost more per kw/hour.

Someone always benefits from these regulations, and it's usually not the consumer.

You can't argue above that the GOP basically wants a free for all where everyone fends for themselves and then argue that they promote a massive regulation bureaucracy.

I never said that the GOP wants a free-for-all. The GOP will support regulations that assist its contributors, and so will the Democrats.

 

[wink]

Because bigger business with in-depth logistics and larger profit margins can adjust to regulations.

Let's say I have two acres of land, I decide to use it to raise a couple of cows to sell milk. Oh wait, I can't because my milk isn't certified by the FDA and I don't have whatever licenses needed to sell milk.

I've read stories of police closing down children's lemonade stands in CA because they didn't have a license. I'm pretty sure reasonable people would know that buying lemonade from a 10 year old for $0.50/cup is not going to be from a licensed vendor.

In NYC, people who have an extra bedroom have started posting on a site to offer their couch for like $50 a night as an alternative to $500/night hotel rooms. The website offered tons of reviews so that you knew people were legit. But the hotel industry got wind of it and now the NYC government is trying to stomp it out because these people don't have commercial hotel licenses purchased through the city/state. Similar to the lemonade stands, I'm fairly certain people who decided to sleep on someone's couch for a night know that they're not staying in a government certified hotel and decided to take the risk anyway.

Another NYC issue: a company wanted to start a luxury taxi service (basically charge taxi prices for rides in a towncar), but got told by city government that they weren't allowed to. They had to either run the same yellow taxis as everyone else or charge limo prices!

Regulations provide a higher entry barrier to industry and stifle innovation, which protect well-established businesses and keep prices high. You seem to acknowledge when you said this:



On a local regulatory level, you frequently have more corruption which is probably what are driving businesses to your state.

If the GOP had their way a few years ago and started regulating internet commerce, we wouldn't have smartphone apps at $0 - $2.99/each today and Microsoft wouldn't have been taking a beating from the mobile/tablet market and its wide range of apps. The internet is one of the last places where a small guy who knows how to program can enter a big market and make a killing.
But it is good for natural gas, solar and nuclear technologies, which is what Obama is trying to promote, even though they cost more per kw/hour.

Someone always benefits from these regulations, and it's usually not the consumer.

I never said that the GOP wants a free-for-all. The GOP will support regulations that assist its contributors, and so will the Democrats.

Every single example sited above is the type fought by the GOP. CA, NYC, most dairy states, DEM strongholds. Really, you think corruption is driving businesses from CA? You better turn 60 Minutes onto that story. And the reference I made to the free for all was regarding your comments about educations.

 

[Spekkio]

Paul Ryan decided to weigh in.

I think he 'gets it' as far as the way forward. The Tea Party faction will complain that he only makes passing mention of tackling the healthcare problem, supports increasing taxes on the wealthy for medicare, and doesn't call for aggressive enough mandatory spending cuts, but I think he's trying to take a pragmatic approach that would garnish a lot of popular support and acknowledges that his party doesn't have a majority in the Senate nor does it control the White House.

That is, if he's not just full of hot air.

Every single example sited above is the type fought by the GOP.

Yea, they say they do but then they don't actually do anything about existing regulatory agencies when they get into office. They just try to cut taxes on the top income earners. I don't recall Bush ever trying to reign in the Labor Board, EPA, FCC, or FDA, and he endorsed the abomination that is the No Child Left Behind act.

 

[wink]

Yea, they say they do but then they don't actually do anything about existing regulatory agencies when they get into office. They just try to cut taxes on the top income earners. I don't recall Bush ever trying to reign in the Labor Board, EPA, FCC, or FDA, and he endorsed the abomination that is the No Child Left Behind act.

Again, not true. Bush did cut taxes on top earners, but just as much as everyone else. He didn't, and others to my knowledge, haven't come close to eliminating the agencies you listed. But you specified reigning in. Check your facts. Members of those boards, chairs and Secretaries appointed by Bush and other Republicans have always been far less activist. Members appointed to the FCC and NLRB were roundly condemned by DEMs for not being adequately aggressive. The FDA under Bush trimmed regulations to streamline drug approvals. It is true no GOP president has eliminated such agencies. But unlike many agitating about the budget and debit today they saw it as a bridge too far. They attempted to be evolutionary versus revolutionary. Given a chance their elimination may have come later. In most cases they are needed, but simply require new less iron fisted management. It doesn't change the fact that regulatory agencies almost always are less intrusive under GOP administrations. That is why you hear the left insisting that if a GOP president is elected acid rain will fall, frogs grow two heads, wet lands will be bull dozed, and workers will be abused by the very employers that need them.

NCLB is hardly an abomination. How could Ted Kennedy and dozens of enlightened DENs support an abomination on our kids? It is credited with raising standards in hundreds of schools. It gave administrators real tools, like closing failing schools, that they never could have done before. True, it has flaws. Also true legislative efforts have been made to fine tune it, unlike the real abomination of the ACA. In any case, no matter your opinion of NCLB, it is an example of the GOP caring deeply about education standards and attempting a federally inspired solution that is ultimately local. Something you said doesn't happen. Even now, the Common Core program getting attention as the Obama administration moves forward with it's promotion is a G. W. Bush product. But you will never hear anyone in this administration mention that because they are so petty and partisan.

 

[HercDriver]

I know he can do it.

That isn't a Congressional law problem nor a budget problem; that's an international relations problem. We have a bunch of prisoners whose countries don't want them back. You were blaming Congress a few posts ago.

Not just other countries; finding cities whose congressman won't raise a hue and cry is nearly impossible.

 

[Brett327]

Can we please go back to blaming me for the furlough? This discussion is an excruciating clash of irreconcilable worldviews.

 

[wink]

Can we please go back to blaming me for the furlough? This discussion is an excruciating clash of irreconcilable worldviews.

My grandmother couldn't afford her medicine because of you, you ass!