Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Government regulatory agencies      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Doremi_Fasolatido
Joined: 2/14/2009
Msg: 1
view profile
History
Government regulatory agenciesPage 1 of 3    (1, 2, 3)
I've been hearing a lot lately about the need to limit Government intervention in our lives. I've heard more than a few of our presidential hopefuls indicating they'd eliminate many of the rules and regulations that are in place now.

Is this a good thing? Why were many of these rules and regs. started to begin with? I'm no expert on the law and Govt. but it seems many of the rules protect the food, water and air we breathe. Would'nt total deregulation take us back to the days of tainted food , company stores and rampant pollution? If de regulation was implemented how would we assure the quality of the goods we consumed? Do the Govt. agencies do a good job of this now?

I know, a lot of questions. So far I have'nt heard any intelligent answers from any of our Presidential candidates. I think you folks could shed some light on this though.....
 RichenLosAngeles
Joined: 11/14/2010
Msg: 2
Government regulatory agencies
Posted: 8/15/2011 9:57:14 PM
Our current President made some promise of hunting down and eliminating waste in Government, then he appointed czars and created a gazillion positions. We can bicker about how many Government employees are actually contributing to our wellbeing, but those ARE good jobs, and to eliminate good jobs is not something we want to do.
I believe there are entire departments that give no value, but that is not my decision to make.
Keeping people on long-term unemployment is not good either.
I can say with certainty that many Government jobs will go away, because that's going on right now, but how to streamline and improve efficiency is not a strength of government. In the private arena, high efficiency is demanded: if you can't cut it, you get fired.
 Doremi_Fasolatido
Joined: 2/14/2009
Msg: 3
view profile
History
Government regulatory agencies
Posted: 8/15/2011 10:27:59 PM
Sighs, I am all for effeciency in both the public and private sector. I guess what needs to be determined is what needs to be cut and why. I've heard a few radio pundits saying cuts to the EPA would be in order. I personally enjoy clean air and water and wonder how cuts in these agencies would affect their quality. It seems more than a few of the cuts that have been considered would have a direct effect on everyday people.

Plus, if all these agencies were slashed to the bone would'nt that render them innefective? Why would anyone want to do that? In my opinion that would take us on a backward path and I can see tainted food, drugs and sub standard goods being turned out in our factories. Rules can restrict, yes but they can also make us and our goods better. May cost a bit more but in the end knowing the things I buy are safe is a good thing. Standards of quality need to be enforced. What other entity is there to enforce this but the Govt?
 RichenLosAngeles
Joined: 11/14/2010
Msg: 4
Government regulatory agencies
Posted: 8/15/2011 10:49:23 PM
The EPA has been given too much power, in all probablity. We don't want to be drinking tainted foods and breath poisonous air, but in many cases this authority has been overstepped, with the Government using the EPA to set policy.
I'm more familiar with local abuses in my state of California. I'm sure others can fill in where I leave off.
 Casper66
Joined: 3/2/2007
Msg: 5
view profile
History
Government regulatory agencies
Posted: 8/15/2011 11:53:56 PM
It was the series of deregulations by various politicians that help cause the financial mess the US now finds itself in, when it allowed big business and wallstreet to go unchecked because no one wanted to interfere or have government involved in the financial sector. There are ways to make government smaller and more efficient without cutting out essential services involved in public safety, one is not to hire anyone to replace retiring employees, evaluate departments and cut out waste such as duplicate jobs, buy supplies/services from the lowest bidder on contract instead of one that made that political contribution and is charging twice asmuch, cut out all government perks suchas travelling/food expenses if that average citizen doesn't get it neither should you. The problem is that the government has been able in the past to increase taxes or increase the debt when they got into trouble, now they can't but won't look to themselves to cut but want everyone else to do with less.
 RichenLosAngeles
Joined: 11/14/2010
Msg: 6
Government regulatory agencies
Posted: 8/16/2011 12:32:31 AM
Casper, your statement is very myopic, in many ways government policy contributed to the financial mess. The housing industry for sure.
 Casper66
Joined: 3/2/2007
Msg: 7
view profile
History
Government regulatory agencies
Posted: 8/16/2011 2:10:28 AM
How is it short sighted, in Canada we have government regulations governing our banking/financial system plus insurance covering up to 100,000 on your savings and guess what our banking system made high profits, didn't collapse or need bailing out. De-regulations and down sizing of watchdog agencies in the US allowed over the years big business/wallstreet to make financially risking investments with your money on the unrealistic notion that the housing market would continue to rise and never fall, but it did. There were many people who warned that this could happen but any attempt to regulate it was blocked by politicians/wallstreet and those individuals afraid of too much government interference, now you have a unfathomable level of debt and you have been downgraded for credit.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 8
view profile
History
Government regulatory agencies
Posted: 8/16/2011 6:01:18 AM
There are always at least three reasons why people loudly advocate a reduction in government regulation:

1. For political gain only. They have contributors who are mad, and pretending to want to "get the government off your back" gives the ILLUSION that you will actually do something to help. Once in office, they collect their check and go off with their mistresses and other carousing friends.

2. Because the person speaking has NO CLUE what they are really saying, because they grew up in a world with lots of government regulations that are beneath their attention. These are the most annoying folks, who endanger everyone by their "the hell with the babies, lets throw out ALL the bathwater" approach to deregulation.

3. Because they are people who really are just mad that THEY were prevented from something THEY wanted to do, and want to get rid of ALL government regulation in revenge, or because they are both lazy, AND sloppy, and are callous about other people to boot.

4. Because there IS a badly written regulation that DOES need to be redone, or eliminated, because it was the WRONG fox for the problem it was passed to address. Sadly, this is the LEAST common reason people put forth this fuss.

My policy, is to ask for details and specifics: WHICH regulation do they want done in? How are they going to address the problem that regulation was enacted to respond to?
And most pointedly, I ask, are they REALLY not aware of all the regulations that DO provide for reasonably reliably clean food and water? For defense of the streets? For the fact that they CAN go to the store without armed escort, and find products there that have low prices, due to REGULATIONS making it possible for private businesses to make them available?

I find that 99% of the anti-regulation activists are lazy, sloppy, and short sighted, not to mention under-educated about the very things they fuss about. Most of them are the equivalent of the person who demands to have that back door UNLOCKED, for the sake of their personal freedom, because they didn't bother to find out that the door opens onto a fifty-foot drop.
 FrankNStein902
Joined: 12/26/2009
Msg: 9
Government regulatory agencies
Posted: 8/16/2011 6:05:36 AM
Plus, if all these agencies were slashed to the bone would'nt that render them innefective? Why would anyone want to do that?

Step 1: Use terms things like "Big Government is Bad" to forward their laissez-faire agenda.

Step 2: De-fund said agencies to render them powerless.

Step 3: Point out deficiencies in said agencies to use as reason to completely eliminate.

Step 4: Profit.


It is all a PR spin and if you follow the trail of Anti Big Government PR it will take you right back to Big Money, Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Tobacco, etc.....

Examples of this can be seen not only with agencies like the EPA but even scarier on an economic level is what they have done to the consumer protection agency.
 Doremi_Fasolatido
Joined: 2/14/2009
Msg: 10
view profile
History
Government regulatory agencies
Posted: 8/16/2011 7:05:43 AM
"Big Govt. is bad". I know I've heard that phrase more than once in a lot of political campaigns lately......

Maybe the reason Govt. is growing is because our industries are also growing? We have manufacturing capabilities now that our founding fathers could only have dreamed of. Many involve chemicals and processes that need to be regulated . Failure to adhere to procedures in some industries could spell death. The nuclear power and petrochemical industries are two such that I can think of right off the top.

If you de regulate industry who will insure that the safety and welfare of the public will be insured? Free market capitalism does'nt apply to certain industries. Self policing won't work in many cases. I agree with Frank N Stein also about consumer protection agencies. Without these agencies policing and monitoring consumable goods we'd be seeing much more tainted foods and faulty products.

Think about it...These are Govt. agencies installed in place to protect everyday people. In most cases they do exactly that. Perhaps they could be operated more efficiently but slashing them to the bone will only hurt US....
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 11
Government regulatory agencies
Posted: 8/16/2011 8:26:33 AM
Casper, the only reason why our banks didn't need bailing out was because our banks in Canada didn't leveraged themselves like the American or European banks that over leveraged them selves , here is one legislation that actually worked, In Canada we dont have any special purpose entities that buys mortgages and sells the general public like our neighbors in the States has.

The problem with certain regulations are most of them doesn't address transparency , look at the financial industries, there are many regulations , and regulations most lawyers cannot understand, de regulating Regulations in the financial industry most bankers, politicians heck even the law makers didn't understand in the first place.

Government regulations caused a lot of these problems we see today, the government in bed with the media has shifted the blame to the capitalist and wants the average person to blame the " greedy " capitalist for the demise of the financial system when in reality every one is to blame from Politicians, Financial industries, rating agencies down to the consumer.

For the record Im for smaller government, Regulations that MAKES SENSE, not catering to any group(Capitalist, lobbyist, Special interest groups, socialist) Regulations that has Transparency, protecting every one.
 totalazzhole
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 12
Government regulatory agencies
Posted: 8/16/2011 8:47:18 AM
how many barrels of oil has DOE (Dept. of Energy ) found? a hint: starts with "z".

the question is do these agencies really do much ? does EPA give us clean air/water, etc.?

or just spend lots of $$ on propaganda/advertising telling us how great they are/what great things they do?
 Doremi_Fasolatido
Joined: 2/14/2009
Msg: 13
view profile
History
Government regulatory agencies
Posted: 8/16/2011 9:25:56 AM
Cdn. Iceman, I agree with you that many regulations could be simplified. If possible, that is. Many industries now are so complicated and extensive that the regulations governing them must be that way too. More red tape? Yes? Necessary to the safe and proper functioning of these industries? I guess that is one of the things that warrants investigation.

And Flick, the DOE has'nt found one drop of oil that I know of. I do believe it's responsible for overseeing the industries that drill for the oil and energy sources. If they were made to have a larger role in this policing we may not have had the oil spill and 11 lives lost in the Gulf Of Mexico last year.

And they don't give us clean water or air. You're a bit young to remember what some of the industrialized cities looked and smelled like in the 1960's. It was truly awful as far as pollution in some places. Granted, to a large degree the cleaner air and water is due to shuttered factories. But, the ones that are left are much cleaner now than they used to be..
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 14
Government regulatory agencies
Posted: 8/16/2011 9:35:54 AM

Cdn. Iceman, I agree with you that many regulations could be simplified. If possible, that is. Many industries now are so complicated and extensive that the regulations governing them must be that way too. More red tape? Yes? Necessary to the safe and proper functioning of these industries? I guess that is one of the things that warrants investigation.
Amen to that Stilllooking, Even the TARP bail out, congress passed a legislation to make certain financial institution bigger so they can accept a capital infusion, does that make sense?

So they say we need more regulations on top of the existing legislation which most cannot understand in their first place, and this makes sense how?
 RichenLosAngeles
Joined: 11/14/2010
Msg: 15
Government regulatory agencies
Posted: 8/16/2011 9:42:08 AM
Casper - It was the wish of the American government that everyone should own their own home, so they pushed the lending institutions into making loans that were "non-traditional" (poor risk), and this was one of the causes of the real estate "bubble" that escalated into derivatives, and brought down a gigantic house of cards known as our financial meltdown.
This was the opposite of de-regulation.
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 16
Government regulatory agencies
Posted: 8/16/2011 9:50:37 AM

Casper - It was the wish of the American government that everyone should own their own home, so they pushed the lending institutions into making loans that were "non-traditional" (poor risk), and this was one of the causes of the real estate "bubble" that escalated into derivatives, and brought down a gigantic house of cards known as our financial meltdown.
This was the opposite of de-regulation.
exactly SighsMatters.

Casper66 let me just add to what Sighsmatters said earlier , The Fed injected massive amounts of money and credit into the American financial system from 2001 to 2004 that led to skyrocketing housing prices and fostered irresponsible borrowing and lending by market participants. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 is used to intimidate banks and other mortgage lenders into making loans--such as subprime loans--in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.

Making loans to people who cannot afford them is a policy that is destined to lead to a financial catastrophe. In addition, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, enterprises created by the government to increase mortgage lending, foster irresponsible borrowing and lending by purchasing mortgage loans from lenders.

Fannie and Freddie have been able to purchase large amounts of loans because, since their creation, they had the implicit financial backing of the government and Now that the government has taken them over, that backing is now explicit.

Federal Home Loan Banks also engage in and foster irresponsible and excessive borrowing and lending. They can do this only because, as stated by The Wall Street Journal in Jan 2010, they "benefit from a widespread belief the government would bail them out in a crisis."
 RichenLosAngeles
Joined: 11/14/2010
Msg: 17
Government regulatory agencies
Posted: 8/16/2011 9:58:21 AM
With regard to regulatory agencies, it doesn't matter how many laws there are, what matters is if those laws are enforced !!!
Bernie Madoff, superstar scammer, was audited several times by the Feds, and they gave him the thumbs up every time!!
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 18
view profile
History
Government regulatory agencies
Posted: 8/16/2011 11:26:07 AM
Before there were federal administrative agencies making regulations, they were state ones. So even if federal agencies were eliminated, it wouldn't mean we'd be without any rules.

Administrative agencies are technically part of the Executive Branch, so they can't make law. The purpose of federal regulations is to implement federal laws--which Congress makes. And each federal regulation has to be supported by the law it helps implement, or it's invalid.

Federal regulations, including environmental ones, burden the national economy. Meeting environmental requirements is one the biggest costs for small businesses, which create most of this country's jobs. By increasing the cost of doing all sorts of business, regulations force American companies to shift operations to foreign countries where that cost is lower. That means fewer jobs here, and more overseas.

The EPA is one of the most intrusive federal agencies. Congress created it 40+ years ago to implement new federal laws like the Clean Air Act. But as more federal environmental laws were passed, it became clear EPA couldn't adequately enforce them. The solution was to recruit the states to help out--so much for federalism, which has always been considered one of the constitutional principles that protects our freedom.

So the U.S. coerced the states into enforcing these laws by establishing certain standards, and then threatening to withhold certain federal funds if states didn't meet them. All the states created their own environmental protection agencies--California's is also called "EPA". Each one draws up plans for meeting the federal EPA's standards, and once it approves the plan, for air, water, trash, pesticides, etc., it's up to the state agency to enforce it.

This vast bureaucracy intrudes on our personal freedoms by dictating what kind of cars and light bulbs and toilets and showers and cleaners and garden fertilizer and God knows what else we can have. Want to fill in that low spot on your property? It's a seasonal wetland! Touch one shovel to it, and you may get a cease-and-desist order from the EPA. Question it, and you could be hearing one of the EPA's judges.

Federal environmental laws also costs us a fortune, but they don't deliver that much for it. One academic study I know of tried to measure the costs and benefits of several of these laws. It found that only the Clean Air Act had even come close to providing enough benefits to justify its cost.

One federal law, CERCLA, or the "EPA Superfund Act," was a response to the public outcry about a polluted site near Buffalo, NY, on which a school had been built. It was drafted and passed in a hurry, and it shows--CERCLA is a unfixable mess, riddled with internal contradictions. And it has cost the country many billions, about a fourth of that money being spent on lawyers. But after about 40 years, only a small part of the polluted sites it lists have been cleaned up, and it's now obvious most of them never will be.

But don't all of us good guys want to keep those bad, greedy people from hurting the planet? And don't we want to indoctrinate our children to take up the cause? How could any decent person even question these noble goals? Anyone who would is probably against Mom and apple pie, too. Don't question your government's efforts to protect our environment. It knows what's best for all of us.
 Doremi_Fasolatido
Joined: 2/14/2009
Msg: 19
view profile
History
Government regulatory agencies
Posted: 8/16/2011 1:22:56 PM
Matchlight, I can agree with you that many of the regulatory agencies coula be run more effeciently. And with more commom sense. I also feel they are needed, here's why.
I live in Toledo Oh. and I am a Skilled Tradesman. Been at this for 30 yrs. now. Toledo has 2 Oil Refineries. 3 coal fired powerhouses and 2 Nuclear powerhouses all within 30 miles of town. I can remember 30 years ago driving by the Refineries would make your eyes and nose sting. And the smell.....Terrible. In the early 90's the Refineries were made to install wastewater treatment facilities. The Coal Burners installed scrubbers. The difference in the air quality was immediately noticable. You could actually see the crud being trapped and processed at the refineries. Before, this went into the Lake.

Incidentally, since then both of these industries have showed a profit. Oil refining most notably so.
I don't think anyone wants to intentionally harm the planet. I do think greed sometimes pushes environmental issues to the back of the bus. . Agencies such as the EPA and many others are the only thing standing between turn of the century America and now. How else would you enforce these laws?
 Casper66
Joined: 3/2/2007
Msg: 20
view profile
History
Government regulatory agencies
Posted: 8/16/2011 2:03:32 PM
Sighsmatters: yes I know this, it was the Americian dream to have a home, government got rid of regulations and funding to watchdog groups to help wallstreet/businesses put people in homes they couldn't afford. I think there is a bit of miscommunication, I'm for government watchdog regulations that would have prevented this from continuing, but the money that was being made during this time fueled other banks to get involved, the government made it easier but it was wallstreet that ran with it over greed as I clearly stated in my previous post message #5 it was government deregulation that was the catalyst.
 Casper66
Joined: 3/2/2007
Msg: 21
view profile
History
Government regulatory agencies
Posted: 8/16/2011 2:13:23 PM
cdn Iceman, I actually said that in post 5, but not as well as you did, it was the government regulations in place that helped to curb financial institutions from doing the same as the US, greed and wallstreet/big business go hand in hand, they are there to make a profit, without some rules it becomes out of control as we saw in the US to the detriment of the country.
 HardwoodFloorBoard
Joined: 3/27/2008
Msg: 22
view profile
History
Government regulatory agencies
Posted: 8/16/2011 2:41:12 PM
Administrative Agencies are staffed by "Civil Service" employees who are hired on a "merit" basis. That means that they are not hired according to who they support, politically.

As a practical matter, it also means that they are not responsible to the voters, and that the same bunch of bureaucrats will be operating those agencies no matter who wins the next election. That's anti-democratic, in my opinion. And that may be a "feature" not a "bug", since it lets elected officials off the hook for the unpopular things Administrative Agencies do.

And it's just about impossible to fire Civil service employees, no matter how inept or inefficient they are, short of them committing a felony.

I think it would be entirely possible to reduce the number and size of Administrative Agencies, but that would require elected officials to do the things that the bureaucrats now do, and be held politically accountable by the voters. It would also require voters to pay attention to what their government does.

So, in my opinion, it is the creators, preservers, and supporters of Administrative Rule who are lazy, sloppy, and unheedful. Bureaucracy allows voters and elected officials to abdicate their civic duties.

Do we as Americans want to live in a democratic republic? Or in the bureaucratic Administrative State?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 23
view profile
History
Government regulatory agencies
Posted: 8/16/2011 4:25:04 PM
Do we as Americans want to live in a democratic republic? Or in the bureaucratic Administrative State?


I agree with you. I'd like to abolish most of the federal agencies and leave regulation up to the states, wherever there were no major interstate issues. Even where there are, they could be solved by interstate compacts, which are constitutional. The one between California and Nevada about Lake Tahoe is one example.

There used to be a legislative veto, which allowed Congress to overturn administrative rules it thought did not comply with the intent of federal laws. It was an effective way to keep administrative agencies from overreaching their authority. But the Supreme Court held it unconstitutional--and it may have been.

Another way to control agencies is to cut off their funds. All spending bills have to originate in the House, and agencies can't operate without money.

The Supremc Court also should revive the doctrine of illegal delegation. The principle behind it is that the Constitution vests all the legislative powers it grants in Congress. That means that if Congress is going to delegate responsibility for implementing the laws it enacts onto administrative agencies, it has to make those laws contain clear guidelines for the agencies to follow.

If Congress is too lax about this, in effect it gives the agencies power to make law, which is unconstitutional. The Court used to enforce this doctrine pretty strictly, striking down laws which didn't contain pretty strict guidelines for implementing them. But it stopped doing that in 1936, as FDR and his New Deal programs made administrative agencies much more important--and the Court more reluctant to rein them in. Unlawful delegation was one of the claims used in a challenge to the Clean Air Act some years ago, but the Court wouldn't buy it.

You're dead right--giving so much power over our lives to an army of unelected bureaucrats IS a threat to our freedom. It violates the most basic ideas of self-government embodied in our Constitution. This is the United States--not a totalitarian state like Mussolini's fascist Italy or the USSR. Not yet, at least.
 Doremi_Fasolatido
Joined: 2/14/2009
Msg: 24
view profile
History
Government regulatory agencies
Posted: 8/16/2011 5:00:30 PM
Matchlight, you are very knowledgable about the constitution. I've learned a thing or two about the workings thereov from reading your posts.

Personally, I could care less how these industries are regulated as far as pollution goes. State, Federal , as long as it gets done. I really don't care to see my town going back to the turn of the century.

Maybe the reason these agencies are federally controlled is because pollution has a way of going wherever the wind and water take it. I assume residents of neighboring states don't appreciate this. Just a thought.....
 2cyclesrule
Joined: 3/7/2011
Msg: 25
view profile
History
Government regulatory agencies
Posted: 8/16/2011 5:07:58 PM
The majority of Government regulatory agencies need to be either dismantled or down sized significantly. They are out of control. Say for instance...I think it was fda or dhs that sent an armed team to seize a organic foods store for the simple "mislabeling" of cheese...talk about overdoing it. You do not need to send in an assault team for mislabeling cheese for Christs sake. This is where our taxes are going to.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Government regulatory agencies