I get both your points and understand the hassles of compliance first hand having worked in a steel mill all my life. I won't address the local contractor issues that have more to do with competition, and qualifications than regulations. But I can address the regulatory sense behind them as in both your examples it was to upgrade and add efficiency while cutting costs even though the initial out lay may be greater than what one wants.

Just using Toms example which isn't all that extreme, not only does government help fund the research into new technologies and products, but they have many programs through the energy department that have aided start up plants and investment across the country, 4 here in Texas speech, and they have started exporting the technology through out the world.

I think the rub in regulations can be best described as holding on to old science that's really out dated, and inefficient, yet highly profitable, but dangerous, and a reluctance of businesses, both large and small to adjust to the new technologies. The best example I can give is the oil companies not having proper procedures to confine an oil spill, or poisoning an aquifer, from natural gas extraction. Or you do remember the fight over installation of new scrubbing and capture technology for coal fired power plants in our state?

Yes I will agree with Tom, that we will see, and have seen the closing of many smaller businesses that, to be frank, cannot keep up with regulatory changes, it's a hassle just getting an air conditioner for your home upgraded now a days, but if we don't upgrade, the stuff falls apart, right? I can tell you that the price of not doing it is a lot more expensive than doing it NOW.

To your point of losing an exemption and the conflict between a ladder job, and a confined space one, that's more a matter of training, upgrading of skill sets than the regulation themselves. I know personally this conflict, as like you, it's a never ending educational process.

We already know that business, and people won't do anything without proper incentives. Now I will agree that the ones making the regulations should be as qualified as they want us to be for sure.

But I am not for banks and businesses making the rules at all, input yes, full control NO! We have seen how that works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

yes makes alot of sense .The rich want the economy to tank because their fortune is enriched that way . Do you even think about the stuff you write ?

---

Hello tom:

As noted, the economy only tanked for the middle class and the poor. The wealthy are STILL wealthy. In fact, they're WEALTHIER. So, WHEN and/or IF the economy tanks again, it'll be the middle class and the poor who get hit the hardest... Interestingly, those are the very people who vote for Obama.

Therefore, after a great deal of thought, I believe the wealthy (and the Republicans who carry water for them) would very much indeed welcome a tank about now. For sure, they're doing EVERYTHING they can to MAKE it happen.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Tom free the purse strings and watch growth come back increase interest rates and taxation and watch the dollar appreciate The old ideas of economic management arnt working there can be no growth at zero interest and lower tax just grinding everything down

---

you have half the equation right . Have a strong currency policy ;and across the board flat and low marginal tax rates... and for God's sake... no more bailouts! Then watch the recovery!

Quote:

---

I think the rub in regulations can be best described as holding on to old science that's really out dated, and inefficient, yet highly profitable, but dangerous, and a reluctance of businesses, both large and small to adjust to the new technologies.

---

Well in the example I gave the government is subsidizing fantasy technology ;and making the old technology pay for it . The example of corn ethanol proves that yeah you can turn almost any bio source into fuel . But does that make it desirable to do so ?
My bottom line is that if there was a market for switch grass ethanol ,then the private sector would be begging the government to allow it... just like the private sector is now begging the regulators to unleash natural gas ,and shale oil .

The public wants lower prices, and the private sector wants low cost and high profits. That hardly makes them eager for change, or investments. We have 4 switch grass plants running in Texas, and more to come all over the country so again, Fox is wrong!

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/01/17-3

http://news.iafrica.com/sa/799710.html

http://8020vision.com/2011/04/17/con...d-in-fracking/

Yeah I suppose if the government offers enough free cheese then anyone can open up a company that would have no chance to compete in the open market. Look at Solyndra . Oh wait... they are belly up after taking the taxpayer's money. The fact is that it takes more energy to produce biomass ethanol than it produces. So it is only a false ideology ;and a whole bunch of government cheese to keeps such products on the market.

Oh yeah.. that FOX stuff bores me.

That's some old ground, Tom, but its you free market traders that put yourselves in competition from global forces, some very unfair, and then you think you can blame science, and government for the failures. Doesn't work that way, and no country can survive running government by a broken, unfair business model, that has become a casino for the richest.

Supply side economics has always gone through contractions that are a part of doing business, the normal cycle if you will, but there are still people who get caught in that cycle, which is the flaw you free traders (NOT job creators) seem to be able to ignore in pursuit of profit. You small government people love it when corporations make their own rules, no matter the quality of life for the rest of us, just the cost of doing business, because business knows best.

That's working out just great for rich guys, not so much for the rest of us. Business makes its own climate to grow and survive, and they have done great at it, by being above the law, because they can make the law.

We wouldn't need government cheese if we could afford our own, or wait on charity and philanthropy, if we could work. But big business is YOUR answer, and the free market. The free market is only free if you can afford the premiums, while they let you, because during the next business cycle, they take it all away.

That's just the cost of doing business right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

yeah I suppose if the government offers enough free cheese then anyone can open up a company that would have no chance to compete in the open market. Look at Solyndra . Oh wait ... they are belly up after taking the taxpayer's money. The fact is that it takes more energy to produce biomass ethanol than it produces. So it is only a false ideology ;and a whole bunch of government cheese to keeps such products on the market.

oh yeah..that FOX stuff bores me.

---

Tom are you telling us capitalism doesn't work or that it only works for a selected few? So certain companies can get government subsidies like cost plus contracts but others shouldn't get them. I agree that no private companies should get government subsidies, that if a government wants an industriy to exist then it should establish it and take all the risks

Quote:

---

Tom are you telling us capitalism doesn't work or that it only works for a selected few? So certain companies can get government subsidies like cost plus contracts but others shouldn't get them. I agree that no private companies should get government subsidies, that if a government wants an industriy to exist then it should establish it and take all the risks

---

No I'm saying that capitalism works for all . Getting government favor ,or having effective government approved cartels (the consolidation of industries due to over-regulation )is not capitalism ,it is merchatilism . That is the system that Tal ,who already has stated that it's too bad that the small businesses cannot compete in and over regulated environment ,both condemns and supports.

“A study for the Small Business Administration, a government body, found that regulations in general add $10,585 in costs per employee. It's a wonder the jobless rate isn't even higher than it is.”United States' economy: Over-regulated America | The Economist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

you have half the equation right . Have a strong currency policy ;and across the board flat and low marginal tax rates ....and for God's sake .....no more bailouts !! Then watch the recovery!

---

You lack compassion Tom this isn't an ideological argument it is a way of overcoming a problem and that problem is that the welthy are keeping their money and the middle and lower class have no money to invest the reality is you are all in the same leaking boat and just because one man has a life jacket doesn't mean he doesn't have to bail. So the answer is if the wealth won't invest you take the money. By all means give them an opportunity, give them an incentivebut give them an ultimatium get in line!

take their money... you just explained the left perfectly .

If that's what it takes Tom governments have been doing that for a long time and your tea party attitudes not withstanding you have representation. That was the requirement wasn't it? The premise upon which your country was founded? Not no taxation but no taxation without representaion, even your founding fathers understood the wisdom of taxation

And I never said "no taxation" . What I said was low flat rates of taxation ;and limitted government .

What you are talking about is a perscription for anarchy. Taxation is far for 100% and the rate of tax you have now won't pay the bills even with smaller government what you have to do is get the blood sucking military off the teat, get rid of all those subsidies and make taxation higher until you get the problems under control. Your votes have been bought but now is the time to recognise the damage that has done. You also have to recognise that people have to have a reasonable income before they are taxed. Taxing the poor doesn't achieve much.

You need a different approach to government, consolldate your inefficient local government. Ditch your local government police forces, stop the filibuster, make your taxes uniform, align your electoral terms in other words kick your politicians in the arse

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

and I never said "no taxation" . What I said was low flat rates of taxation ;and limited government .

---

And I say fair taxation according to need, and a strong effective government that meets the needs of the people, all of them. Not one thats controlled, and works for monied interests.

The problem with a flat tax is how its applied, because a standard flat tax that extracts more wealth to the top is as bad or worse than we have now.

Quote:

---

No I'm saying that capitalism works for all . Getting government favor ,or having effective government approved cartels (the consolidation of industries due to over-regulation )is not capitalism ,it is mercantilism . That is the system that Tal ,who already has stated that it's too bad that the small businesses cannot compete in and over regulated environment ,both condemns and supports.

---

That's a false premise Tom, it doesn't work for all, and that's the problem. If it did, we all would have the tools to upgrade, or relocate, as situations change. Ordinary people don't have the resources to relocate and families certainly cannot be uprooted every time the capitalistic business model changes, or FAILS. I never said it was okay, or just to bad when a business fails. YOU did, many times when you always say let the markets determine winners, and losers.

Quote:

---

take their money... you just explained the left perfectly .

---

Another false premise. Not take, but everyone contribute and support the system that's the life blood of the foundations of this nation, EQUALITY, and OPPORTUNITY.

The right wings support of the rich, at the expense of the poor, is not fair or equal. When you create a deficit that you holler so much about, and continue to give tax breaks at the expense of the middle class and poor people, you have life and BS all mixed up!!

When you take, without giving back, that's robbery. When you subjugate others for your own purpose, that's slavery.

The ones who benefit the most, should pay the most. Real simple logic. If they won't give it, then you take it.

Applause!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

I won't address the local contractor issues that have more to do with competition, and qualifications than regulations.

---

It has nothing to do with qualifications and competition, it has everything to do with CYA.

Quote:

---

To your point of losing an exemption and the conflict between a ladder job, and a confined space one, that's more a matter of training, upgrading of skill sets than the regulation themselves. I know personally this conflict, as like you, it's a never ending educational process.

---

Wrong, dead wrong. One is being careful while changing a light bulb and the other is equipment and training for toxic gas monitoring, SCBAs and/or SAR/Escape respirators, ventilation, permitting, rescue planning, attendants, entry supervisors, etc. The difference is enormous.

Quote:

---

But I am not for banks and businesses making the rules at all, input yes, full control NO! We have seen how that works.

---

Yes, you'd rather have the elected bureaucrats who created and covered for the mess they made making the rules.

QUOTE by speechlesstx;
It has nothing to do with qualifications and competition, it has everything to do with CYA.
It may also be a requirement of the insurance carrier, for the customer whose contract you seek. i also know for a fact that the state also has a BIG impact on the qualifications of any contractor work, both big and small.

Wrong, dead wrong. One is being careful while changing a light bulb and the other is equipment and training for toxic gas monitoring, SCBAs and/or SAR/Escape respirators, ventilation, permitting, rescue planning, attendants, entry supervisors, etc. The difference is enormous.
Don't get mad at me if you don't qualify, and others do. Still you got 2 out of 3, and thats not bad. You didn't get the contract because the customer wanted more than you were offering, or could get more than you offered from someone else. thats business as Tom says, fair competition.

Yes, you'd rather have the elected bureaucrats who created and covered for the mess they made making the rules.
That where you are wrong, wrong, dead wrong. An accountant and paper pusher knows nothing about the process and procedure of actual work. Nor the dangers and hazards of the workplace. Dude, I am a blue collar independent, with a ton of experience, so I feel ya, but fact remains what was good enough 10 years ago, ain't so much now, and to keep my rating and certifications, I have to take tests regularly, and sometimes that means some refresher courses. Some rules work for you, some don't, but you can't just throw out the ones you don't like, but you can petition for redress if they are out of line.

Truth is, and I know for fact, there are guys certified to vent check, and look for leaks, that can climb a ladder, and check fire alarms to. Like a 3rd baseman that can play out field, and catch.

A) Why does one need liability insurance? CYA.

B) I'm not mad. We do ladders, we don't do confined spaces so why should we be compelled to go the expense because of overly complicated, often irrelevant regulations?

C) Does that explains why Democrats said there was nothing wrong with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, they have no clue?

D) We need fire alarm technicians, not vent checkers and leak lookers.

You seem to be under the impression that I'm whining about the need for safety compliance and I'm not. There should be no need for us to spend thousands to comply with irrelevant regulations - just like oil companies shouldn't have to fight the EPA over not using a non-existent product.