Federal regulations costing US $1.9T annually

jbander said:
This is a load of crap. You write laws for criminals in our society and you write regulations for criminals in business. Take away the regulations and it will cost hell of a lot more but while business is going on easy street , we will be paying with our lives and a monetary amount that would increase multiple times over whatever regulations really cost to implement. without regulations they would eat our children for their bottom line. By the way it doesn't cost $15,000.00 a household annually, that level only exists in the minds of the people who grovel at the feet of Big business. Just noticed FOX crap news, you people need sources from organization who aren't the leading liars of the broadcast industry.
Click to expand...

So you wouldn't be able to get by without regulations?
Do you need Daddy gobblement to protect you from the bogey man?
 
Rana said:
I like regulations, they keep us safe. I would hate to think what it would be like if the government didn't protect us from those who would cut corners to save a buck.
Click to expand...

More doom and gloom to justify your big government mentality.
 
anatta said:
Federal regulations are now costing U.S. taxpayers and businesses $1.9 trillion a year, or $15,000 per household, according to a report released Wednesday which also found thousands of new regulations are in the pipeline.

The annual Ten Thousand Commandments report was released by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian public-policy group.

The report exposes the “hidden” taxpayer costs associated with federal regulations and intervention, according to author Clyde Wayne Crews Jr., vice president of policy at CEI.

“The federal government has become very savvy in hiding costs by expanding their reach beyond taxes into regulations,” Crews said in the report.

The estimated $1.9 trillion cost of complying, according to the report, exceeds the $1.82 trillion the IRS was expected to collect in 2015 personal and corporate income taxes.

The report showed that Congress and the White House, respectively, last year passed and enacted 114 laws, while federal agencies issued 3,410 rules. That ratio of 30 rules per law marks a slight increase over recent years, based on the group's so-called “Unconstitutional Index.”

That finding shows the power of unelected agency officials, the 87-page report concludes.

The report also shows that agencies under the two-term George W. Bush administra*tion issued 62 major regulations annually, compared with 81 a year so far under the Obama administration, which ends its second term in January.

Right now, the administration’s roughly 60 departments, agencies and commissions have 3,297 regulations in various stages of the federal pipeline.

The departments of Commerce, Interior, Transportation, Treasury and Health and Human Services are the top-five rulemaking agencies and account for 41 percent of all federal regulations, the report also found.

Crews argued that regulatory costs get little attention in policy debates because, unlike taxes, they are unbudgeted and often indirect, which make them difficult to quantify.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...tions-costing-us-taxpayers-1-9t-annually.html
Click to expand...
Yea well which regulations would you get rid of? The regulations the stop someone from dumping hazardous waste in your backyard? The ones that prevent bankers from gambling your money away? Food safety? Bridge and road construction standards? Regulations on accounting transparency? Safety in coal mines? Fair housing regulations? equal access to the internet? Which ones would you get rid of?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Yea well which regulations would you get rid of? The regulations the stop someone from dumping hazardous waste in your backyard? The ones that prevent bankers from gambling your money away? Food safety? Bridge and road construction standards? Regulations on accounting transparency? Safety in coal mines? Fair housing regulations? equal access to the internet? Which ones would you get rid of?
Click to expand...

The problem with Liberals is they extend the concept of "safety" to include things that really aren't about safety but about control.

Let's pick one from your list. Road construction. When are those building the roads going to start building them to the standards you claim are in place? Why are the roads/bridges in such bad shape if the standards are doing such a good job?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Yea well which regulations would you get rid of? The regulations the stop someone from dumping hazardous waste in your backyard? The ones that prevent bankers from gambling your money away? Food safety? Bridge and road construction standards? Regulations on accounting transparency? Safety in coal mines? Fair housing regulations? equal access to the internet? Which ones would you get rid of?
Click to expand...

Can you tell me if the likes of Obama think that CAGW is really fact, then why do they spend so many billions on government sponsored research? Why don't they put some of that money into developing clean coal solutions like in China and Germany. Clinton goes to West Virginia and and just blatantly lies to those miners who are losing their jobs.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wor...n-coal-award-power-engineering-international/
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Yea well which regulations would you get rid of? The regulations the stop someone from dumping hazardous waste in your backyard? The ones that prevent bankers from gambling your money away? Food safety? Bridge and road construction standards? Regulations on accounting transparency? Safety in coal mines? Fair housing regulations? equal access to the internet? Which ones would you get rid of?
Click to expand...
not the wide topics, but last year Congress passed 114 laws and agencies wrote over 3000+ regs. Do you think there is some over-reach in there?


How about this one?
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/07/19/2013-16751/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing
Through this rule, HUD proposes to provide HUD program participants with more effective means to affirmatively further the purposes and policies of the Fair Housing Act, which is Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. The Fair Housing Act not only prohibits discrimination but, in conjunction with other statutes, directs HUD's program participants to take steps proactively to overcome historic patterns of segregation, promote fair housing choice, and foster inclusive communities for all. As acknowledged by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and many stakeholders, advocates, and program participants, the current practice of affirmatively furthering fair housing carried out by HUD grantees, which involves an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice and a certification that the grantee will affirmatively further fair housing, has not been as effective as had been envisioned. This rule accordingly proposes to refine existing requirements with a fair housing assessment and planning process that will better aid HUD program participants fulfill this statutory obligation and address specific comments the GAO raised. To facilitate this new approach, HUD will provide states, local governments, insular areas, and public housing agencies (PHAs), as well as the communities they serve, with data on patterns of integration and segregation; racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty; access to education, employment, low-poverty, transportation, and environmental health, among other critical assets; disproportionate housing needs based on the classes protected under the Fair Housing Act; data on individuals with disabilities and families with children; and discrimination. From these data, program participants will evaluate their present environment to assess fair housing issues, identify the primary determinants that account for those issues, and set forth fair housing priorities and goals. The benefit of this approach is that these priorities and goals will then better inform program participant's strategies and actions by improving the integration of the assessment of fair housing through enhanced coordination with current planning exercises. This proposed rule further commits HUD to greater engagement and better guidance for program participants in fulfilling their obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. With this new clarity through guidance, a template for the assessment, and a HUD-review process, program participants should achieve more meaningful outcomes that affirmatively further fair housing.
 
anatta said:
not the wide topics, but last year Congress passed 114 laws and agencies wrote over 3000+ regs. Do you think there is some over-reach in there?


How about this one?
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/07/19/2013-16751/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing
Through this rule, HUD proposes to provide HUD program participants with more effective means to affirmatively further the purposes and policies of the Fair Housing Act, which is Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. The Fair Housing Act not only prohibits discrimination but, in conjunction with other statutes, directs HUD's program participants to take steps proactively to overcome historic patterns of segregation, promote fair housing choice, and foster inclusive communities for all. As acknowledged by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and many stakeholders, advocates, and program participants, the current practice of affirmatively furthering fair housing carried out by HUD grantees, which involves an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice and a certification that the grantee will affirmatively further fair housing, has not been as effective as had been envisioned. This rule accordingly proposes to refine existing requirements with a fair housing assessment and planning process that will better aid HUD program participants fulfill this statutory obligation and address specific comments the GAO raised. To facilitate this new approach, HUD will provide states, local governments, insular areas, and public housing agencies (PHAs), as well as the communities they serve, with data on patterns of integration and segregation; racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty; access to education, employment, low-poverty, transportation, and environmental health, among other critical assets; disproportionate housing needs based on the classes protected under the Fair Housing Act; data on individuals with disabilities and families with children; and discrimination. From these data, program participants will evaluate their present environment to assess fair housing issues, identify the primary determinants that account for those issues, and set forth fair housing priorities and goals. The benefit of this approach is that these priorities and goals will then better inform program participant's strategies and actions by improving the integration of the assessment of fair housing through enhanced coordination with current planning exercises. This proposed rule further commits HUD to greater engagement and better guidance for program participants in fulfilling their obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. With this new clarity through guidance, a template for the assessment, and a HUD-review process, program participants should achieve more meaningful outcomes that affirmatively further fair housing.
Click to expand...
So you support red lining and discrimination in housing practices?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top