|
|
On July 28 2012 02:56 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 02:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Kelly's speech was great. What do people not like about it? It was kind of pointless. His anecdote about the baseball field, or the local business buying tape --- those are local ordinances or business expenses that have nothing to do with federal regulations. It was a nice speech I guess, but it didn't really do anything to discuss the vote that he was speaking on behalf of, at least not in any substantive way. It was a political speech, and we don't need those in our House anymore than we already do. Both sides do it, to ham it up for the media. But it's cheap, and it's not really doing their job. He said nothing about the bill being voted on. Nothing.
This is the first time I've heard someone at that pulpit say something with true emotion in a loooong time. And a political speech? He called out the people on both sides, so I'm not sure how you go about saying that it's a "ham it up for the media" thing.
And the costs have nothing to do with federal regulations? Seriously? Have you ever worked with federal regulations? Just reading one makes you want to gouge your eyes out, much less trying to understand what you are and are not permitted to do (or if it even applies to you).
|
On July 28 2012 03:10 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 02:56 Leporello wrote:On July 28 2012 02:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Kelly's speech was great. What do people not like about it? It was kind of pointless. His anecdote about the baseball field, or the local business buying tape --- those are local ordinances or business expenses that have nothing to do with federal regulations. It was a nice speech I guess, but it didn't really do anything to discuss the vote that he was speaking on behalf of, at least not in any substantive way. It was a political speech, and we don't need those in our House anymore than we already do. Both sides do it, to ham it up for the media. But it's cheap, and it's not really doing their job. He said nothing about the bill being voted on. Nothing. This is the first time I've heard someone at that pulpit say something with true emotion in a loooong time. And a political speech? He called out the people on both sides, so I'm not sure how you go about saying that it's a "ham it up for the media" thing. And the costs have nothing to do with federal regulations? Seriously? Have you ever worked with federal regulations? Just reading one makes you want to gouge your eyes out, much less trying to understand what you are and are not permitted to do (or if it even applies to you).
What costs? He mentioned two businesses in his speech, and didn't mention what regulation was impacting them with costs. The ballpark example was particularly meaningless, as what he was referring to with the mirrors is obviously a local ordinance which has nothing to do with the federal government.
What costs? What regulations? It's easy to stamp your foot, throw down a pile of papers, and talk about trillions of dollars of redtape, but, really, details are nice.
Instead of mentioning that ballpark for no apparent reason he could have mentioned ONE real-life business that has been unfairly and unjustly mitigated by federal regulations that he hopes to shut down --- so why didn't he?
|
On July 28 2012 03:15 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 03:10 BluePanther wrote:On July 28 2012 02:56 Leporello wrote:On July 28 2012 02:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Kelly's speech was great. What do people not like about it? It was kind of pointless. His anecdote about the baseball field, or the local business buying tape --- those are local ordinances or business expenses that have nothing to do with federal regulations. It was a nice speech I guess, but it didn't really do anything to discuss the vote that he was speaking on behalf of, at least not in any substantive way. It was a political speech, and we don't need those in our House anymore than we already do. Both sides do it, to ham it up for the media. But it's cheap, and it's not really doing their job. He said nothing about the bill being voted on. Nothing. This is the first time I've heard someone at that pulpit say something with true emotion in a loooong time. And a political speech? He called out the people on both sides, so I'm not sure how you go about saying that it's a "ham it up for the media" thing. And the costs have nothing to do with federal regulations? Seriously? Have you ever worked with federal regulations? Just reading one makes you want to gouge your eyes out, much less trying to understand what you are and are not permitted to do (or if it even applies to you). What costs? He mentioned two businesses in his speech, and didn't mention what regulation was impacting them with costs. The ballpark example was particularly meaningless, as what he was referring to with the mirrors is obviously a local ordinance which has nothing to do with the federal government. What costs? What regulations? It's easy to stamp your foot, throw down a pile of papers, and talk about trillions of dollars of redtape, but, really, details are nice. Instead of mentioning that ballpark for no apparent reason he could have mentioned ONE real-life business that has been unfairly and unjustly mitigated by federal regulations that he hopes to shut down --- so why didn't he?
When you deal with government regulation on a daily basis, you know what I mean. There isn't a "single example" and it would be ridiculous if you ever attributed "unfair and unjust" business mitigation to one thing. It's the small things that add up over time. Busniesses routinely call in lawyers and "consultants" whose only job is to make sure some obscure regulation isn't violated. It's a waste of money that just gets passed on. Simple regulation is good. Over-regulation is bad. Many of today's regulations (and federal is the WORST) constitute hundreds of pages that barely make any sense to someone like me who has a legal education.
I can't imagine how a normal small business owner manages.
|
On July 28 2012 03:15 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 03:10 BluePanther wrote:On July 28 2012 02:56 Leporello wrote:On July 28 2012 02:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Kelly's speech was great. What do people not like about it? It was kind of pointless. His anecdote about the baseball field, or the local business buying tape --- those are local ordinances or business expenses that have nothing to do with federal regulations. It was a nice speech I guess, but it didn't really do anything to discuss the vote that he was speaking on behalf of, at least not in any substantive way. It was a political speech, and we don't need those in our House anymore than we already do. Both sides do it, to ham it up for the media. But it's cheap, and it's not really doing their job. He said nothing about the bill being voted on. Nothing. This is the first time I've heard someone at that pulpit say something with true emotion in a loooong time. And a political speech? He called out the people on both sides, so I'm not sure how you go about saying that it's a "ham it up for the media" thing. And the costs have nothing to do with federal regulations? Seriously? Have you ever worked with federal regulations? Just reading one makes you want to gouge your eyes out, much less trying to understand what you are and are not permitted to do (or if it even applies to you). What costs? He mentioned two businesses in his speech, and didn't mention what regulation was impacting them with costs. The ballpark example was particularly meaningless, as what he was referring to with the mirrors is obviously a local ordinance which has nothing to do with the federal government. What costs? What regulations? It's easy to stamp your foot, throw down a pile of papers, and talk about trillions of dollars of redtape, but, really, details are nice. Instead of mentioning that ballpark for no apparent reason he could have mentioned ONE real-life business that has been unfairly and unjustly mitigated by federal regulations that he hopes to shut down --- so why didn't he?
He only had 5mins of time to speak, so yeah, it was short on details.
If you want some specific examples of regulations that hurt businesses the Economist recently ran a good article on Dodd-Frank and how a community bank has been harmed by it.
Link
Mr Purcell’s business model, common among Texas rural banks, was to keep loans on its books, internalising both their returns and their risks. In practice, this meant making small loans (under $60,000) at relatively high rates (7%, because small loans suffer from diseconomies of scale) with short terms (five years, to protect the bank against interest-rate risk) and final “balloon” payments that are usually rolled over. This approach differs radically from that of the major banks, which syndicated mortgages through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The bank has not repossessed a home in seven years, or cost taxpayers a penny, but balloon payments and high rates are targeted under Dodd-Frank, which grants regulators wide discretion to decide what is “abusive”. Mr Purcell has stopped issuing mortgages and, because of other Dodd-Frank rules, processing international remittances.
|
I've worked in a calibration lab and currently work in aircraft repair. Red tape can be frustrating to work with, but it's definitely worth it. The people I've worked for and with will cut all kinds of corners because they don't understand their importance or can only see the bottom line, despite being in charge and responsible for the quality of their work/product.
|
Think by regulations he might have meant vis a vis taxes. Like the building of a car and each part being taxed thus price goes up?
|
On July 28 2012 08:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Think by regulations he might have meant vis a vis taxes. Like the building of a car and each part being taxed thus price goes up?
He seemed to be talking about government being 1 big regulation by his statement, "$1.6 trillion is what red tape costs!"
|
No, it is pretty clear that he's talking about regulations in the legal context: rules prohibiting or conditioning certain behavior.
|
On July 28 2012 06:44 aksfjh wrote:
I've worked in a calibration lab and currently work in aircraft repair. Red tape can be frustrating to work with, but it's definitely worth it. The people I've worked for and with will cut all kinds of corners because they don't understand their importance or can only see the bottom line, despite being in charge and responsible for the quality of their work/product.
I managed a large construction project -- a recreational park, actually -- requiring demo, development and construction permits from the city of Vancouver. We had to get approvals with the Parks Board, Real Estate Services, City Engineers, The Fire Marshall, Cultural Services, City Council, The Urban Design Panel ... we even had to kiss the ass of community Bike advocates (hippy dipshits) to get their endorsement.
In the end the only way we could get traction was to get direct approval from our mayor.
While all the by-laws and regulations in Vancouver are a fucking nightmare -- probably worse than most US cities, due to their Greening initiatives -- they do serve a purpose. They force developers to make concessions and contributions to provide community amenities that are free to everyone to enjoy, like the improvement of transportation roots, mechanical and electrical services for potential public events, public art, etc.
They also force developers to do things the right way -- because if you've been around construction companies, architects and even engineers that know better, they WILL cheat and take shortcuts. Like connect a drain connect to the storm system instead of sewage. Make pedestrian or bike paths a foot too narrow. Not provide proper, safe lighting conditions in public areas. The range of risks that our local government oversees through by-laws is massive; from making sure a site doesn't become sinkhole after an earthquake, to making sure a door is wide enough for a wheelchair in case there's a fire.
It's very easy to bitch and whine about the government and how restrictive or complicated it can make things. I sure had my moments of outrage working with my local government. But honestly, most of their regulations actually protect the interests of the public-at-large. I don't see how they impair 'job creation' at all -- if anything, they force developers to hire and create business for consultants.
Anyway, that cute litte anecdote about being denied occupancy because your mirrors are a quarter-inch too high is 100% BULLSHIT. No sensible inspector would deny occupancy based on that alone, and quite frankly, I doubt an by-law for a mirror being a certain height even exists. The only explanation is that mirror was hanging or projecting off the wall in a precarious way, or this guy is talking out of his ass.
(At any rate, it would take two guys making $15 an hour less than an hour to change the height of a fucking mirror).
|
On July 28 2012 08:14 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 08:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Think by regulations he might have meant vis a vis taxes. Like the building of a car and each part being taxed thus price goes up? He seemed to be talking about government being 1 big regulation by his statement, "$1.6 trillion is what red tape costs!"
Yeah, I didn't get what he meant by that. What does that 1.6 trillion include? Can anyone explain the reference?
|
On July 28 2012 10:43 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 08:14 aksfjh wrote:On July 28 2012 08:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Think by regulations he might have meant vis a vis taxes. Like the building of a car and each part being taxed thus price goes up? He seemed to be talking about government being 1 big regulation by his statement, "$1.6 trillion is what red tape costs!" Yeah, I didn't get what he meant by that. What does that 1.6 trillion include? Can anyone explain the reference?
I don't know if you guys are taking crazy pills or what, but he says pretty clearly that it's $1.75 trillion.
It comes from this study.
The research finds that the total costs of federal regulations have further increased from the level established in the 2005 study, as have the costs per employee. More specifically, the total cost of federal regulations has increased to $1.75 trillion, while the updated cost per employee for firms with fewer than 20 employees is now $10,585 (a 36 percent difference between the costs incurred by small firms when compared with their larger counterparts).
The number includes environmental, economic, tax, and labor regulations, in declining order.
If you read the methodology, it's an estimate of several estimates, so you don't want to hang your hat on the number, but the point is there that American businesses put up with a lot of regulations.
|
On July 28 2012 10:43 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 08:14 aksfjh wrote:On July 28 2012 08:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Think by regulations he might have meant vis a vis taxes. Like the building of a car and each part being taxed thus price goes up? He seemed to be talking about government being 1 big regulation by his statement, "$1.6 trillion is what red tape costs!" Yeah, I didn't get what he meant by that. What does that 1.6 trillion include? Can anyone explain the reference?
I don't remember the details, but I believe that he is citing a study quantifying the total regulatory burden on businesses in the US (I just remember that there was such a study fairly recently). These regulations include everything from tax law compliance to labor regulations to environmental regulations.
|
Anyway, that cute litte anecdote about being denied occupancy because your mirrors are a quarter-inch too high is 100% BULLSHIT. No sensible inspector would deny occupancy based on that alone, and quite frankly, I doubt an by-law for a mirror being a certain height even exists. The only explanation is that mirror was hanging or projecting off the wall in a precarious way, or this guy is talking out of his ass.
I've seen equally onerous regulations enforced by letter-of-the-law regulators. The primary motivation I've seen was fear of superior reprisal or a personal motivation to limit industry growth. This is not to say the reverse isn't true as well ... there are a lot of understanding regulators that will help you meet compliance and interpret the regulations fairly. I do not second guess his assertion that this is what happened (opening day delay for something so trivial) having seen so much of the same triviality enforced like it was the dumping of toxic waste in my area.
What does that 1.6 trillion include? Can anyone explain the reference?
If I remember correctly, it's the growth in federal spending since Republicans took control of the House of Representatives. So he's criticizing members of his own party. Big government Republicans.
It's very easy to bitch and whine about the government and how restrictive or complicated it can make things. I sure had my moments of outrage working with my local government. But honestly, most of their regulations actually protect the interests of the public-at-large. I don't see how they impair 'job creation' at all -- if anything, they force developers to hire and create business for consultants.
Right, it is easy. The question is when is that point where Government oversteps its bounds of regulations? When are they too onerous, and, indeed, too directed to punish industries rather than protect the public--air quality and the like. I live in California, a state whose own over-regulation has caused extensive business flight in the last decade. The sheer amount of things you must prove before you can open up shop create an unnecessarily harsh environment. You must submit heaps of paperwork under the presumption that you are breaking laws unless you prove you are not. Fees for corporations, for EPA certifications, and on and on and on. The federal fees and paperwork then come on top of that.
And this all creates exorbitant start-up costs for companies that must hire multiple consultants that are each certified in a specific area to sign the paperwork you submit. To be perfectly honest, government serves a vital role making sure safety standards are enforced, air quality doesn't degrade, and a limited number of other things. Agencies that are in charge of this grow to handle their responsibilities. And like the saying, cows moo, pigs squeal, and regulators regulate. There isn't external pressures to keep agencies from creating additional regulations on whims or popular ideas from interest groups. So my perspective is that regulation has reached the point beyond usefulness and towards stunting business growth.
|
|
|
On July 28 2012 11:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +Anyway, that cute litte anecdote about being denied occupancy because your mirrors are a quarter-inch too high is 100% BULLSHIT. No sensible inspector would deny occupancy based on that alone, and quite frankly, I doubt an by-law for a mirror being a certain height even exists. The only explanation is that mirror was hanging or projecting off the wall in a precarious way, or this guy is talking out of his ass. I've seen equally onerous regulations enforced by letter-of-the-law regulators. The primary motivation I've seen was fear of superior reprisal or a personal motivation to limit industry growth. This is not to say the reverse isn't true as well ... there are a lot of understanding regulators that will help you meet compliance and interpret the regulations fairly. I do not second guess his assertion that this is what happened (opening day delay for something so trivial) having seen so much of the same triviality enforced like it was the dumping of toxic waste in my area.
It's true, there are a fair share of zealots and/or wet-behind-the-ears regulators that are a pain in the ass. I just think that his anecdote is missing some kind of important context. Like the mirrors went from floor to ceiling and were mounted with scotch tape. Or the inspector was on his second-week of the job. Something silly.
And this all creates exorbitant start-up costs for companies that must hire multiple consultants that are each certified in a specific area to sign the paperwork you submit. To be perfectly honest, government serves a vital role making sure safety standards are enforced, air quality doesn't degrade, and a limited number of other things. Agencies that are in charge of this grow to handle their responsibilities. And like the saying, cows moo, pigs squeal, and regulators regulate. There isn't external pressures to keep agencies from creating additional regulations on whims or popular ideas from interest groups. So my perspective is that regulation has reached the point beyond usefulness and towards stunting business growth.
I think the problem I have with the GOP's premise 'that regulations are hurting the economy', is that it's impossible to really judge without citing specific policies or regulations that you would revise. Sure, quibbling over the height of a mirror might seem ridiculous, but that cost of 'compliance' is marginal, and you can't extrapolate that into a silly argument that all regulations are bad.
I don't know enough about California and the regulations that businesses have to deal with. But what you're essentially saying, and what I think anyone could agree with, is that there are some regulations make sense and others don't. :/
While you don't want regulations or by-laws that are extraneous or 'comestic', you don't want Haiti's building code either.
|
I think it's bias of the poll considering most members are young age, college educated.
|
On July 28 2012 12:28 Defacer wrote:
I think the problem I have with the GOP's premise 'that regulations are hurting the economy', is that it's impossible to really judge without citing specific policies or regulations that you would revise. Sure, quibbling over the height of a mirror might seem ridiculous, but that cost of 'compliance' is marginal, and you can't extrapolate that into a silly argument that all regulations are bad.
I don't know enough about California and the regulations that businesses have to deal with. But what you're essentially saying, and what I think anyone could agree with, is that there are some regulations make sense and others don't. :/
While you don't want regulations or by-laws that are extraneous or 'comestic', you don't want Haiti's building code either.
A big part of the problem isn't regulatory requirements but regulatory complexity. So you can't just point to a specific line and say "there it is!" - you have to take a certain legislation or an area of legislation and look at it in totality.
|
On July 28 2012 12:28 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 11:19 Danglars wrote:Anyway, that cute litte anecdote about being denied occupancy because your mirrors are a quarter-inch too high is 100% BULLSHIT. No sensible inspector would deny occupancy based on that alone, and quite frankly, I doubt an by-law for a mirror being a certain height even exists. The only explanation is that mirror was hanging or projecting off the wall in a precarious way, or this guy is talking out of his ass. I've seen equally onerous regulations enforced by letter-of-the-law regulators. The primary motivation I've seen was fear of superior reprisal or a personal motivation to limit industry growth. This is not to say the reverse isn't true as well ... there are a lot of understanding regulators that will help you meet compliance and interpret the regulations fairly. I do not second guess his assertion that this is what happened (opening day delay for something so trivial) having seen so much of the same triviality enforced like it was the dumping of toxic waste in my area. It's true, there are a fair share of zealots and/or wet-behind-the-ears regulators that are a pain in the ass. I just think that his anecdote is missing some kind of important context. Like the mirrors went from floor to ceiling and were mounted with scotch tape. Or the inspector was on his second-week of the job. Something silly. Show nested quote +
And this all creates exorbitant start-up costs for companies that must hire multiple consultants that are each certified in a specific area to sign the paperwork you submit. To be perfectly honest, government serves a vital role making sure safety standards are enforced, air quality doesn't degrade, and a limited number of other things. Agencies that are in charge of this grow to handle their responsibilities. And like the saying, cows moo, pigs squeal, and regulators regulate. There isn't external pressures to keep agencies from creating additional regulations on whims or popular ideas from interest groups. So my perspective is that regulation has reached the point beyond usefulness and towards stunting business growth.
I think the problem I have with the GOP's premise 'that regulations are hurting the economy', is that it's impossible to really judge without citing specific policies or regulations that you would revise. Sure, quibbling over the height of a mirror might seem ridiculous, but that cost of 'compliance' is marginal, and you can't extrapolate that into a silly argument that all regulations are bad. I don't know enough about California and the regulations that businesses have to deal with. But what you're essentially saying, and what I think anyone could agree with, is that there are some regulations make sense and others don't. :/ While you don't want regulations or by-laws that are extraneous or 'comestic', you don't want Haiti's building code either.
I agree with you. And I've personally lost hundreds of dollars on the inspectors that are new to the job and crusaders against injustice ... or whatever. Just not a lot of recourse that doesn't cost me more money than it would gain (For example, someone is misinterpreting a containment scheme, so I gotta go to his office, and file paperwork with it. If I can get a real person, get an interview with superior ... we're already talking 2 workdays I have to trash to get this guy from stopping operations and stirring up trouble with those I contract with.
The problem with citing regulations and getting them removed is you gotta package them up (There are more than dozens that need revamping, its in the hundreds if you're talking about major ones you can gain consensus on. So there isn't a single boogeyman that you can build fervor for. There's a ton of minutiae that's gobbledygook to your average citizen, and even businesses will only be able to identify 1-2% of them.
So here comes Mitt Romney, take a look at Romney's plan
Amongst it, an argument against Dodd-Frank regulations (See the earlier mentioned "Qualified Lender" gripes.)
The intermingling 2400 pages of regulations in the PPACA. It's a regulatory nightmare, even if you agree that guaranteed issue insurance plans and penalties for not buying insurance is a good idea. It's pork, it's got escape routes for the politically powerful. If you're a union, you get fastrack to exemption. It forces religious institutions to pay for contraceptives in their health plan, etc. PDF you'll have to do a search for Regulatory Policy to check it out.
|
Of course health coverage covers female contraception. Are you suggesting that health insurance shouldn't cover hormonal treatment that has tons of health benefits to women? Do you think employers should also be asked whether they cover blood transfusions? Because there are religions that don't like those as well. This is simply a matter of claiming religious freedom to discriminate, and all the court cases that have been brought up have been rightly rejected.
And it's not religious institutions, it's secular organizations run by religious institutions that must comply with secular rules.
You could always ask the people that constantly defend people's religious freedom no matter what. Except that they're on the other side of the issue.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/reproductive-freedom/another-one-bites-dust-second-challenge-birth-control-rule-rejected-one
|
On July 28 2012 21:18 DoubleReed wrote:
Of course health coverage covers female contraception. Are you suggesting that health insurance shouldn't cover hormonal treatment that has tons of health benefits to women? Do you think employers should also be asked whether they cover blood transfusions? Because there are religions that don't like those as well. This is simply a matter of claiming religious freedom to discriminate, and all the court cases that have been brought up have been rightly rejected.
And it's not religious institutions, it's secular organizations run by religious institutions that must comply with secular rules.
Yeah, I used institution a bit too broad since it has a strict definition here.
I don't want to get off topic, I'm talking regulations and I'm saying mandatory, "If you sell insurance you MUST cover x, y, and z" is part of regulation's red tape. For your discrimination charge, talk about some separation of church and state only working one way. Have a Catholic school teach abstinence or even a liberal condom message, but now your abortion-inducing drugs and contraception are provided with enrollment! Talk about state-sponsored hypocrisy. Ten commandments in courthouses is unacceptable to your conscience, and prayers offered at graduations is psychologically hurting children, yet Catholic schools must act against their conscience because health insurance just got one more regulation.
Sigh, and as a further sidenote not every case has been "rightly" rejected. And no, I consider responsible adults able to ask whether their insurance includes condoms and contraceptives just as they would copays and approved doctor lists. Calling contraceptives on the same level as blood transfusions during hospitalization makes me have a hard time taking you seriously. Multiple insurance plans are offered by insurers with various costs, and what they charge in copays for prescription drugs and doctor visits, as well as doctor visits per year. Regulating away more and more choice in this is not a vital function of the federal government, and are powers better left debated at a state level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
