Dean's "Re-Regulation" Of American Business

[Japher]

Like they have in Commie China and had in Russia?

Really, Che, I wouldn't sell a competive market down the river so arrogantly for a peice of government cheese.

[chequita guevara]

Government cheese is terrible. So is feces covered meat, which the Bush Administration now allows. From a USDA memo, Nov 2002 to inspectors in Kansas: "Identifiable and verifiable in-gesta or feces is as follows: material of a yellow, green, brown or dark color that has a fiberous nature." (emp added).

Enjoy your sh1t burgers. That's the result of unregulated meat processing. It only takes a smear of feces to render meat inediable, but meat can't be pulled from the line for a smear. I hope you like your meat well-done.

[Japher]

If you have beef with the USDA not doing their job than you have a problem with government regulations, since the USDA is ran by the government. Thus, you support deregulation... at least from a government stand point.

[Ned]

Che, you know very well that this has nothing to do with regulation of food products. What Dean wants to do is to reimpose price regulation, etc., on industries that were formerly regulated. All such regulation ever did was to reduce competition, raise costs and harm America.

Combine this with Dean's suggestion that we should not trade with any country that does not have environmental and labor standards equivalent to our own, Dean comes off as the greatest enemy of free trade in history.

Dean is so far left us to make Bill Clinton appear to be a hard-right republican conservative. The Bill Clinton wing of the Democratic Party must be appalled.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Japher
If you have beef with the USDA not doing their job than you have a problem with government regulations, since the USDA is ran by the government. Thus, you support deregulation... at least from a government stand point.

I have a problem with the fact that they've lowered the amount of regulations. There was a time when then line could be stopped to pull contaminated meat from the line. Now it has to be gross contamination.

Ned, it damn well does have to do with food regulation, as well as mine regulation, pollution regulation, and so on. I don't think we should trade with any country that doesn't have the same labor or environmental standards we have. If we did, then what's the point of having the regulations here?

Is it fair to American shrimpers they have to catch shrimp a certain way to avoid destroying the environment, but Mexican shrimpers can scour the reefs and destroy tons of by-catch. It's cheaper the Mexican way, and so we put Americans out of business for doing the right thing while allowing Mexico to take our business for destroying the oceans.

Is it fair to American workers that they have to compete against child and slave labor in the 3rd world, in countries where union organizers are freely murdered? How are we supposed to compete against slaves and children?

[NeOmega]

Dean said in the interview that "re-regulation" is a key tool for restoring trust. In doing so, he drew a sharp distinction with Bush, an outspoken advocate of free markets who wants to further deregulate media companies and other key sectors of the economy.

I italicized the part I disaagree with. Bush has been a prpotectionist to say the least, not only that, he is racking up one of the largest deficits in history. A tax break will do you no good if your dollar is worthless.

Someone in this thread also called "more transparency" Bolshevism. I call that charge bullshitism. The stock market obviously needs some more stringent rules about how income and profit is reported, since it is obvious people value their positions and suits too much to tell the truth.

Dean is so far left us to make Bill Clinton appear to be a hard-right republican conservative. The Bill Clinton wing of the Democratic Party must be appalled.

Of course, the conservatives are going to start trying everything they can to make dean look like an extremist, which he most definitely is not.

Having said all that, and without seeing the specifics of his plan, I don't know if I am ready to jump ship yet. I cannot in a sensible frame of mind say all regulation is bad, all though that is my party line. And, Dean was against the war, which earns him about 10000 extra points.

[chequita guevara]

When Bush met with those nine miners puled out of the flooded mine in PA, they shoulda slugged him. It was his derregulations that led to the mining company being able to mine too close to that water that caused the flood.

[Adam Smith]

IIRC the relevant provision was a Pennsylvania state law which prohibited mining within 300 feet of an existing mine. The company thought it was in compliance. The problem was that the maps were bad.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by NeOmega
Having said all that, and without seeing the specifics of his plan, I don't know if I am ready to jump ship yet. I cannot in a sensible frame of mind say all regulation is bad, all though that is my party line. And, Dean was against the war, which earns him about 10000 extra points.

Just vote for the Libertarian candidate and stop trying to shoehorn a candidate into your world view.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Just vote for the Libertarian candidate and stop trying to shoehorn a candidate into your world view.

No, I'm voting Dean this election if he runs. Pro-gun anti-war is libertarian enough for me this time around. And my brother and I will be one of his "2,000,000" $100 contributors.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Funny how much of the discussion is about how terrible it is eating **** when there is plenty of it being spewed out.

But hey thats what communism is all about no?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
IIRC the relevant provision was a Pennsylvania state law which prohibited mining within 300 feet of an existing mine. The company thought it was in compliance. The problem was that the maps were bad.

Could be, but Bush slashed the mine safety budget, halted regulatory improvments, and reduced enforcement of regulatory standards. For three straight years, the number of miners killed has risen.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by NeOmega
Pro-gun anti-war is libertarian enough for me this time around.

You do realize that according to this you should still be voting for the Libertarian candidate because you'd have those issues to agree with him on and more.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Ned, it damn well does have to do with food regulation, as well as mine regulation, pollution regulation, and so on. I don't think we should trade with any country that doesn't have the same labor or environmental standards we have. If we did, then what's the point of having the regulations here?

Is it fair to American shrimpers they have to catch shrimp a certain way to avoid destroying the environment, but Mexican shrimpers can scour the reefs and destroy tons of by-catch. It's cheaper the Mexican way, and so we put Americans out of business for doing the right thing while allowing Mexico to take our business for destroying the oceans.

Is it fair to American workers that they have to compete against child and slave labor in the 3rd world, in countries where union organizers are freely murdered? How are we supposed to compete against slaves and children?

Welcome to reality. No form of world government is going to evolve anytime soon so its every country for themselves. Regulation costs and kills.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Welcome to reality. No form of world government is going to evolve anytime soon so its every country for themselves. Regulation costs and kills.

So you're saying we should cut our own throats and allow unregulated goods to compete against our own? How is that every country for themself? Suonds more like, shaft America so we can make some money.

Nor does regulation kill. In fact, it does the opposite. It saves lives.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You do realize that according to this you should still be voting for the Libertarian candidate because you'd have those issues to agree with him on and more.

Last time I didn't hate Gore enough to worry about my vote making Bush lose.

This time, I'll vote Democrat, (something I would have never imagined even 4 years ago) just to voice my extreme hatred of Bush. Clinton commited most of his idiocy's within our own borders. I disagreed with his Balkan foreign policy strongly, but not nearly to the degree with which I disagree with Bush.

I'll vote Libertarian if anyone else is running for the D's.... including Clark, who was too hawkish during Kosovo.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by NeOmega


Last time I didn't hate Gore enough to worry about my vote making Bush lose.

This time, I'll vote Democrat, (something I would have never imagined even 4 years ago) just to voice my extreme hatred of Bush. Clinton commited most of his idiocy's within our own borders. I disagreed with his Balkan foreign policy strongly, but not nearly to the degree with which I disagree with Bush.

I'll vote Libertarian if anyone else is running for the D's.... including Clark, who was too hawkish during Kosovo.

You sound like a rather confused chap...debating whether to support Dean or the Libertarians? They are practically polar opposites.

[Ramo]

As for the regulations, I'm sure they'll be quite moderate. He's been a center-left governer, and almost certainly will not be a radical president.

Combine this with Dean's suggestion that we should not trade with any country that does not have environmental and labor standards equivalent to our own, Dean comes off as the greatest enemy of free trade in history.

That's not true in the least. He does thinks minimal labor and environmental standards should be part of trade agreements. But Shrub has been far more of an enemy of free trade than Dean will ever be. Consider:
-Shrub presided over a huge increase in agrisubsidies, thus ****ing over the third world; Dean said he'd drastically scale back these subsides to family farms.
-Shrub's been forcing our IP laws on the third world (I don't know Dean's position on this, but it's probably much less objectionable).
-Shrub presided over a major steel tariffs, which very easily can provoke a trade war with Europe; again, Dean has said he opposes steel tariffs.

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara For three straight years, the number of miners killed has risen.

In part because 1999 was an exceptionally good year, and in part because hours increased. All that said, I would want to keep an eye on this, since thegeneral trend should be downward.

Series Id: CFU00M10081Case Type: Fatalities by detailed private industryCategory: TotalIndustry: Mining

Year Annual
1992 181
1993 174
1994 180
1995 156
1996 153
1997 158
1998 147
1999 122
2000 156
2001 170(p,n)
p : preliminary
n : Excludes Sept. 11th terrorist attacks

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by NeOmega
Last time I didn't hate Gore enough to worry about my vote making Bush lose.

You remind me of Kodos and Kang's campaign managers.

"It's a two party system! You have to elect one of us!"

"Well, I think I'll cast my vote for a third-party!"

"Oh, sure, throw your vote away!"

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


So you're saying we should cut our own throats and allow unregulated goods to compete against our own? How is that every country for themself? Suonds more like, shaft America so we can make some money.

Nor does regulation kill. In fact, it does the opposite. It saves lives.

No what I'm saying is the free trade genie is out of the bottle and not about to be reigned in anytime soon. As a consequence regulation costs jobs here in the US and forces jobs over seas thus killing the foreign devils.

So by wanting enhanced regulation you adovacte losing more jobs here in the US and killing foreigners. As for intelligent regulation here in the US thats about as feasible IMO as a world governement.

[Ramo]

Pro-gun anti-war is libertarian enough for me this time around.

Other reasons for a libertarian to support Dean:
-His campaign is actually democratic! It's a grass-roots campaign, not run by a bunch of corporations and other entrenched interests that the Republicans and Democrats stand for. Voting for Dean in 2004 means revolutionizing politics - and the possibily to vote for Browne, etc., down the line. This is probably the biggest reason I'm supporting him. I don't like quoting politicians, but as Dean said, I want my country back!
-He's a step forward on ending the war on drugs. Not a huge step, and he's been doing some considerable waffling on this issue, but he seems to want to somewhat scale back prison time for using drugs. For instance, he's said he'd support a moratorium on medical marijuana raids.
-As I just wrote, he's said he'd scale back agrisubsidies to only family-farms.
-He's argued for a less extremist position on a wide variety of foreign policy issues from Colombia to Israel.
-He's argued for far less corporate welfare in general.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
Voting for Dean in 2004 means revolutionizing politics - and the possibily to vote for Browne, etc., down the line.

What exactly is preventing you from doing just that now and skipping the middleman other than laziness on your part.

[Ramo]

The implication was that who you'd vote for would get more than a couple percent of the vote.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Adam Smith, what are you doing introducing facts in contrast to a che rant?!

[DinoDoc]

Then I refer you to the wisdom of the Simpsons I quoted earlier.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ramo
Other reasons for a libertarian to support Dean:
-His campaign is actually democratic! It's a grass-roots campaign, not run by a bunch of corporations and other entrenched interests that the Republicans and Democrats stand for

This, for me, is significant. His campaign is a popular campaign, and though I don't agree with much of what he stands for, i.e., capitalism, the political mobilization of millions of people in this country is a good thing.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Adam Smith, what are you doing introducing facts in contrast to a che rant?!

He's always doing that to me, too. I don't know if it's cuz he respects me or not.

[Adam Smith]

Has anybody seen what these regulations look like? You can find them HERE.

Here are some representative regulations that I am most familiar with - railroad safety regulations. As you can see, they go on for hundreds adn hundreds of pages. And I can tell you, from having actually done the analysis, that there is zero, zip, nada, not any correlation between increased enforcement of these regulations and improved railroad safety.

49CFR213.63

(c) Each 39 foot segment of: Class 1 track shall have five crossties; Classes 2 and 3 track shall have eight crossties; Classes 4 and 5 track shall have 12 crossties; and Class 6 track shall have 14 crossties which are not:
(1) Broken through;
(2) Split or otherwise impaired to the extent the crossties will allow the ballast to work through, or will not hold spikes or rail fasteners;
(3) So deteriorated that the tie plate or base of rail can move laterally more than ½ inch relative to the crossties;
(4) Cut by the tie plate through more than 40 percent of a tie’s thickness.
(d) Class 1 and Class 2 track shall have one crosstie whose centerline is within 24 inches of the rail joint location, and Classes 3 through 6 track shall have one crosstie whose centerline is within 18 inches of the rail joint location .

....

49CFR229.75 Wheels and tire defects.

Wheels and tires may not have any of the following conditions:

[[Page 303]]

(a) A single flat spot that is 2\1/2\ inches or more in length, or two adjoining spots that are each two or more inches in length.
(b) A gouge or chip in the flange that is more than 1\1/2\ inches in length and \1/2\ inch in width.
(c) A broken rim, if the tread, measured from the flange at a point five-eighths inch above the tread, is less than 3\3/4\ inches in width.
(d) A shelled-out spot 2\1/2\ inches or more in length, or two adjoining spots that are each two or more inches in length.
(e) A seam running lengthwise that is within 3\3/4\ inches of the flange.
(f) A flange worn to a \7/8\ inch thickness or less, gauged at a point \3/8\ inch above the tread.
(g) A tread worn hollow \5/16\ inch or more on a locomotive in road service or \3/8\ inch or more on a locomotive in switching service.
(h) A flange height of 1\1/2\ inches or more measured from tread to the top of the flange.
(i) Tires less than 1\1/2\ inches thick.
(j) Rims less than 1 inch thick on a locomotive in road service or less than \3/4\ inch on a locomotive in yard service.
(k) A crack or break in the flange, tread, rim, plate, or hub.
(l) A loose wheel or tire.
(m) Fusion welding may not be used on tires or steel wheels of locomotives, except for the repair of flat spots and worn flanges on locomotives used exclusively in yard service. A wheel that has been welded is a welded wheel for the life of the wheel.

[chequita guevara]

I'll betcha the companies responsible for making train and rail parts are responsible for those regs.