Patrick.net

Please educate me about these regulations

By marcus   Follow   Sun, 10 Jun 2012, 11:57am   2,999 views   42 comments
In Glendale CA 91206   Watch (1)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

I heard a republican talking head and hack author on one of the Sunday morning talk shows making a frequent assertion I hear about how Obama is so terrible for business because of the detrimental regulations he has put in place.

As we get ready for all of the blind assertions of the Presidential campaign, can anyone please educate me on what these regulations are ?

I'm not looking to hear Abe or Shrek or FW simply repeat the assertions that THEY FEEL must be true because Rush Limbaugh or Fox News said so, or simply because they need to hate Obama.

What I would really like is a thoughtful analysis, giving both sides or even just objectively looking at one side: the regulatory case against Obama. This is 2012, the information age, surely there must be some quality work out there I could read to catch up on this issue. Please just point me to some good links and spare me the emotion.

Most Liked Comments

1. bob2356 Follow Befriend 3 threads 2,498 comments

   1   7:58am Wed 13 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike (1)   Honest Abe says http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/new-report-cites-regulatory-tsunami-under-obama Whine, whine, whine, Poor bob 1234 says: "MOMMY, I can't find it by myself, find it for me". OK bob, and this is the LAST TIME I'm going to do anything you can clearly do for yourself. Liberal tactic - "prove it" Well lazy boy, look it up yourself. Unless you're mentally incapable, which seems to be the case with you and your kind. Wonderful, a blog by the chief political correspondent of the washington examiner (a freebe giveaway paper distributed at subway stations in DC since 2006) about a report produced by http://republicans.oversight.house.gov, now that's certainly unbiased highly respected set of resources if I've ever seen one. Where do you dig this stuff up, is there a obama haters tin hat network? You are incorrect, you do have to do this for me, I really couldn't find things this obscure. How about this bloomberg business week piece (national distribution since 1929) quoting the GAO ( the non partison government agency in charge of producing ACCURATE numbers). http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-25/obama-wrote-5-fewer-rules-than-bush-while-costing-business.html Says that Obama's first term isn't any worse than Bush and is actually better than Reagan's. I realize that you are totally unfamiliar with the genre, but this article is an example of actual reporting. It gives the facts, includes dissenting opinions, and makes a reasonable summary. I realize in your world things like source, veracity, integrity, research, or even simple common sense don't matter, just finding someone that writes something that conforms to your very warped world view is all you desire. Me and my kind, which would be middle of the road or slightly to the right (aka screaming fag, pinko, commie, liberal, baby killing, anti american, tree hugging, whale watcher to abe who has to look left to find adolf hitler) are perfectly mentally capable of looking up a variety of reasonable sources written by reasonable people who have differing opinions then deciding where we stand on an issue. I am not at all mentally capable of reading or listening to total idiocy from the extreme wacko fringes and accepting it as the guiding light of my life.

2. tts Follow Befriend 2 threads 470 comments

   2   3:28pm Sun 10 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   You don't need thoughtful analysis. Just hitting up google and looking at stuff like the JOBS Act (which greatly eases IPO rules) or corporate profits over the last few years (up to bubble levels) to know that the "Obama is terrible for business" meme is BS. As you note, this is 2012 and the information age, you can do your own "analysis" in an hour easy and get a pretty good idea about either party if you want without even touching a political blog. I don't know why you're even bothering to take what you hear on a political talk show seriously. They aren't in the information business anymore, that is almost pure entertainment these days. It really isn't all that hard to tell that Obama is just another pro FIRE corporate stooge and charts like that take maaaybe 5-10 minutes to find with Google Image Search.

3. bdrasin Follow Befriend 6 threads 490 comments Alameda, CA

   3   8:41am Mon 11 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Honest Abe says http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/new-report-cites-regulatory-tsunami-under-obama Regulatory TSUNAMI under Obummer I skimmed the article. It references a soon-to-be-released report (maybe it's released by now, I have no idea) which I don't have time to read. The only concrete example it gives is a bill passed before Obama became president, concerning lead paint regulations in homes. This seems like pretty weak tea to me, and I don't see how it constitutes a problem for businesses.

4. bdrasin Follow Befriend 6 threads 490 comments Alameda, CA

   4   9:58am Mon 11 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Honest Abe says More denial, as usual. New regulations costing businesses an additional $46 Billion annually seems kinda weak to you??? The cost for each individual business, of any size, on average, is $161,000 per year. Those are costs a non-business owner would have no comprehension of. Great, please list exactly what those regulations are and how the business cost was calculated and we can have a discussion. The articles you cited don't do that, sorry.

5. rooemoore Follow Befriend 41 threads 907 comments Ross, CA

   5   10:21am Mon 11 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)   We will all sit by patiently while you furiously search the internets looking for something, anything that will in some small way validate your bogus premise. After you present it we will easily shoot it down.

6. bdrasin Follow Befriend 6 threads 490 comments Alameda, CA

   6   10:46am Mon 11 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Honest Abe says bdrasin, don't be a lazy liberal like the rest of your kind, look it up yourself. Sorry but true. I am a liberal and I am fairly lazy, but I'll be happy to engage with an argument if you present it, and I'm willing to change my mind if I see some convincing evidence. Asking me to do your research for you is a bit rich though...essentially you've just asserted that you are sure that the evidence is out there somewhere and it's my job to find it.

7. bdrasin Follow Befriend 6 threads 490 comments Alameda, CA

   7   11:34am Mon 11 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Honest Abe says bdrasin. Got it. Its always puzzled me why there is so much compelling evidence against so much of the liberal agenda, yet the liberals deny, deflect, duck and dodge reality (the 4 D's). I don't see it that way at all. I'm open to evidence and I try my best to draw conclusions from what I see and experience. I'm really not ideological in the sense of drawing my opinions from any predetermined ideology, or at least that's the way I try to be. Honest Abe says I know you're going to say the exact opposite to me, am I right? Regulations, however, do cost time, money, and jobs, unless you simply deny it. Sure, of course they can! That's why any rational discussion has to include a trade-off between cost and benefit. So if, for example, regulating lead-based paint in homes will impose an aggregate cost of $10 million dollars but prevent 10 million cases of cancer I'd say that's a good trade-off (I just made up those numbers, obviously). Some people will yell that this is nanny-statism; to me those people are the ideologs who put ideology before evidence. Since neither you nor the articles you cite have put forward any examples of regulations passed under Obama there's no way for me to do a cost-benefit analysis and decide on whether or not I agree with them. If you are just ideologically driven to always regard the government as a bad actor then you don't have to worry about specifics and you can just count regulations and assume they are all bad...but then you'd be obliged to extend that assumption to every previous administration. Honest Abe says Is it right or wrong to kill human fetus's? Sometimes. Have to consider the circumstance. Honest Abe says Is it right or wrong to take from one group of people and gift it to another? Sometimes. Have to consider the circumstance. Honest Abe says Is it right or wrong to invade the sovereignty of other nations? Sometimes. Depends on the circumstance. Get it? Evidence matters to me. I don't think you can just treat all matters of policy as logical syllogisms.

8. rooemoore Follow Befriend 41 threads 907 comments Ross, CA

   8   3:25pm Mon 11 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)   thomas.wong1986 says . YES I DO KNOW WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT... Say it louder, and it is so much more believable. Sorry, but there are no vitamins for IQ deficiency.

9. bob2356 Follow Befriend 3 threads 2,498 comments

   9   1:29am Wed 13 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)   Honest Abe says Bob - google it yourself and see what you find - its that easy. Abe. It's that easy. Then it's obviously that easy to give it to me. I can't find it. Where is the tsunami of new regulations? Simple request repeated again and again. Where's the beef?

10. tts Follow Befriend 2 threads 470 comments

    10   7:24am Mon 11 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   thomas.wong1986 says So the JOBS act does little... what do you see thats meaningful ? You don't know what you're talking about. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/why-obamas-jobs-act-couldnt-suck-worse-20120409 The "Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act" (in addition to everything else, the Act has an annoying, redundant title) will very nearly legalize fraud in the stock market. In fact, one could say this law is not just a sweeping piece of deregulation that will have an increase in securities fraud as an accidental, ancillary consequence. No, this law actually appears to have been specifically written to encourage fraud in the stock markets. Ostensibly, the law makes it easier for startup companies (particularly tech companies, whose lobbyists were a driving force behind its passage) to attract capital by, among other things, exempting them from independent accounting requirements for up to five years after they first begin selling shares in the stock market. The law also rolls back rules designed to prevent bank analysts from talking up a stock just to win business, a practice that was so pervasive in the tech-boom years as to be almost industry standard. Even worse, the JOBS Act, incredibly, will allow executives to give "pre-prospectus" presentations to investors using PowerPoint and other tools in which they will not be held liable for misrepresentations. These firms will still be obligated to submit prospectuses before their IPOs, and they'll still be held liable for what's in those. But it'll be up to the investor to check and make sure that the prospectus matches the "pre-presentation." The JOBS Act also loosens a whole range of other reporting requirements, and expands stock investment beyond "accredited investors," giving official sanction to the internet-based fundraising activity known as "crowdfunding." But the big one, to me, is the bit about exempting firms from real independent tests of internal controls for five years. When I first read this, I asked myself: how does a law exempting a Silicon Valley startup from independent accounting actually encourage investment? If American companies have to have their internal processes independently verified before and after they go public, doesn't that give investors all around the world a big reason to put their money here, instead of investing in, say, Mobbed-Up Siberian Aluminum LLC, or Bangalore Sweatshop Inc.? In other words, how does letting www.investonawhim.com go to market (and stay on the market for five years!) without publishing real numbers actually help the industry attract more financing in general, when the whole point of all of these controls is to make investment a less risky experience for the investor? The JOBS act exempts new IPO's from most regs, including SOX for up to 5 years. It also greatly expands "fundraising" opportunities by allowing uneducated avg. Joe 6 Packs to "invest" money into them. All based on info. generated by the very same IPO none of which they can be held accountable for and none of which is subject to any sort of 3rd party oversight. It basically creates opportunities for all sorts of new and interesting variants of pump n' dump schemes that take advantage of most people's ignorance. Its not going to do anything to spur new small and innovative companies. It certainly doesn't do a damn thing to create jobs. Except perhaps for a few high $$$$ lawyers.

11. bdrasin Follow Befriend 6 threads 490 comments Alameda, CA

    11   9:26am Mon 11 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Honest Abe says http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/13/morning-bell-obamas-new-regulations-cost-billions/ "Endless miles of red tape". "Small business under siege". This doesn't give concrete examples. The closest it comes is a vague mention of "five major rules" from the EPA (doesn't say what they are or why they will be expensive for businesses). I'm not even sure what it means when it talks about a "regulation"; certainly its not laws or executive orders. What is the economic cost of "employer requirements for posting federal labor rules"? Give me a break.

12. Honest Abe Follow Befriend (41) 91 threads 1,806 comments

    12   9:53am Mon 11 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)   More denial, as usual. New regulations costing businesses an additional $46 Billion annually seems kinda weak to you??? The cost for each individual business, of any size, on average, is $161,000 per year. Those are costs a non-business owner would have no comprehension of.

13. rooemoore Follow Befriend 41 threads 907 comments Ross, CA

    13   10:19am Mon 11 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)   Honest Abe says http://www.inc.com/news/articles/2010/09/federal-regulations-cost-small-businesses-more-than-large-ones.html bdrasin, don't be a lazy liberal like the rest of your kind, look it up yourself. Sorry but true. As RR would say, "There you go again!" "The data for this study only goes through 2008" You do realize Obama started in 2009, right?

14. Vicente Follow Befriend (8) 204 threads 4,416 comments Davis, CA

    14   2:26pm Mon 11 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)   rooemoore says We will all sit by patiently while you furiously search the internets looking for something, anything that will in some small way validate your bogus premise. You give them too much credit. They will "cut and run" when cornered and move on to vague assertions of another sort.

15. thomas.wong1986 Follow Befriend 16 threads 4,426 comments

    15   3:23pm Mon 11 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)   tts says You don't know what you're talking about. Well since i am in the Accounting profession, working in tech industry, know the SEC regulations, have filed 10k/10q's, not to mention S-1 for the IPOs i worked on. and keep up on the accounting pronouncements... YES I DO KNOW WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT... using Rolling Stones as a source is pathetic. Nothing will change since the board of directors of any start up will always use independent auditors to do audits at year end. Obama wont change anything. You just didnt expect someone who actually did an offering to give you a thumbs down!

16. thomas.wong1986 Follow Befriend 16 threads 4,426 comments

    16   3:37pm Mon 11 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)   tts says Even worse, the JOBS Act, incredibly, will allow executives to give "pre-prospectus" presentations to investors using PowerPoint and other tools in which they will not be held liable for misrepresentations. These firms will still be obligated to submit prospectuses before their IPOs, and they'll still be held liable for what's in those. But it'll be up to the investor to check and make sure that the prospectus matches the "pre-presentation." The JOBS Act also loosens a whole range of other reporting requirements, and expands stock investment beyond "accredited investors," giving official sanction to the internet-based fundraising activity known as "crowdfunding." Have a read... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_D_(SEC)

17. thomas.wong1986 Follow Befriend 16 threads 4,426 comments

    17   3:52pm Mon 11 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)   Go build a plant in Silicon Valley of any other parts of California... Why else, have we lost so many mfg in SV alone ? http://pressheretv.com/?p=2710 Like the idea of chemicals and acids being used here ? But thats what you need to create stuff! What does it take to make semiconductors.

18. bob2356 Follow Befriend 3 threads 2,498 comments

    18   4:01pm Mon 11 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)   Honest Abe says bdrasin, don't be a lazy liberal like the rest of your kind, look it up yourself. Sorry but true. I'm not lazy or liberal and I don't like Obama. But I can't find any evidence that regulation or the cost of regulation is going up any faster than it ever did. If you truly KNOW that this is not true, as opposed to FEELING it because your ideology requires it, or BELIEVING it because rush/glen/amradio says so, then you should have no trouble whatsoever substantiating it. You obviously must have read and analyzed the documents the provided this knowledge so producing them should be at best a few keystrokes. I have always believed the classic shrek you look it up defense actually translated to I'm talking out my ass. Sorry but true. Please feel free to prove me wrong in this case.

19. Honest Abe Follow Befriend (41) 91 threads 1,806 comments

    19   6:35am Tue 12 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)   Bob2468, seriously. If you can't find any evidence that government regulations are wasting billions of dollars and billions of man hours to comply with, you're simply not looking. Or you support those policies. Or you don't care. Or you're in denial, which is willful and deliberate ignorance. End of line.

20. bdrasin Follow Befriend 6 threads 490 comments Alameda, CA

    20   7:16am Tue 12 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Good grief. An assertion that evidence exists is not the same thing as providing evidence. I'm done here unless someone really has some facts they want to discuss.