BF2S Forums Rick Perry, Republican Presidential candidate

FEOS wrote:

Reasonable spending levels...even though we thought they were unreasonable at the time.

For one.

Putting a definite end date for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Two.

Initiating substantial defense cuts.

Three.

To give him credit, he's now talking about doing stuff he used to bash Bush for trying to do, as if it were his (Obama's) idea: reforming entitlements. Don't think it'll happen, though.

burnzz wrote:

oh wait, Obama's not a Republican, he just acts like one.

FEOS wrote:

Except for socialized medicine and hundreds of billions of dollars in regulations over the past 2.5 years. Yeah. Just like a Republican.

Or not.

13urnzz wrote:

burnzz wrote:

oh wait, Obama's not a Republican, he just acts like one.

FEOS wrote:

Except for socialized medicine and hundreds of billions of dollars in regulations over the past 2.5 years. Yeah. Just like a Republican.

Or not.

billions of dollars in regulations? what, because he won't completely gut the EPA and

tried to put in place brakes on Wall Street, and the Consumer Protection Act? Republicans wouldn't even fund those, please show me which 'regulations' got passed? like closing Gitmo?

Abstract: The burden of regulation on Americans increased at an alarming rate in fiscal year 2010. Based on data from the Government Accountability Office, an unprecedented 43 major new regulations were imposed by Washington. And based on reports from government regulators themselves, the total cost of these rules topped $26.5 billion, far more than any other year for which records are available. These costs will affect Americans in many ways, raising the price of the cars they buy and the food they eat, while destroying an untold number of jobs. With the enactment of new health care laws, financial regulations, and plans for rulemaking in other areas, the regulatory burden on Americans is set to increase even further in the coming year.

In fact, according to a report by the Small Businesses Administration, businesses with 20 or fewer employees faced an annual regulatory cost of $10,585 per employee in 2008.  In total, according to that same report, compliance with federal regulations cost businesses around $17.5 trillion in 2008 alone.  And unfortunately, Congressional Democrats and President Obama have only made it worse since then.  Between Dodd-Frank, ObamaCare, and actions by federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Labor Relations Board, we have seen a huge onslaught of federal regulations and red tape that is burying American businesses in paperwork, driving up the cost to do business.  A recent study by the Heritage Foundation reports that 43 major regulations were imposed in the 2010 fiscal year, with an estimated economic cost of $26.5 billion.

The Economist has a look at regulation in the age of Barack Obama and concludes that unlike many other charges lobbed against the president, the notion that he has enmeshed America in stifling new rules is well grounded.

During his first two years in office, President Obama issued 132 “economically significant” new rules, the costs or benefits of which each exceeded $100 million a year. That is about 40 percent more than the annual rate under both George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. And many of the regulations associated with health care and financial reform are still to come.

Existing rules are also being enforced more keenly. The workplace safety regulator slapped employers with 167 percent more violations during Obama’s first year than in Bush’s last. The Food and Drug Administration has stepped up scrutiny of drugs that have already been approved for sale. The regulatory workforce has grown 16 percent in the last two years while private employment has fallen.

Not all of the new rules are detrimental to the nation’s recovery but the sheer size of them coupled with the widespread expectation—or fear—that even more regulations will be enacted in the years to come, is certainly not good for business. “Also unquantifiable is the innovation that may be deterred by regulation,” according to The Economist.

Rules meant to deter the abuse of student aid by for profit colleges could stunt the growth of college courses taught over the Internet; tighter conditions on drug approvals, prompted by much publicized scandals, raise the cost of drug research, especially for small companies; and “net neutrality” rules could expose Internet access providers to stifling litigation.

Every government intervention in the private sector has unintended consequences; none of them ever benefit growth and business freedom.

President Obama hasn’t been good for capitalism these last two years. He is now reaching out to the business community and signalling a willingness to scrap unnecessary bureaucracies and rules. Let’s hope the next two years will be better.

FEOS wrote:

13urnzz wrote:

hey! i'm onboard now! fuck people that have children, are poor (46 M and growing) don't have healthcare, and aren't responsible enough to keep their own air clean!

DON"T BLAME ME, MY MOVEMENTS BEEN AROUND BEFORE OBAMA WAS PRESIDENT!

You seem to be implying I'm a tea partier. Not the case.

I just don't drink the DNC kool-aid.

13urnzz wrote:

FEOS wrote:

13urnzz wrote:

hey! i'm onboard now! fuck people that have children, are poor (46 M and growing) don't have healthcare, and aren't responsible enough to keep their own air clean!

DON"T BLAME ME, MY MOVEMENTS BEEN AROUND BEFORE OBAMA WAS PRESIDENT!

You seem to be implying I'm a tea partier. Not the case.

I just don't drink the DNC kool-aid.

i don't give a flying fuck what you are- the right, the left, the goddam middle of this country is screwed thanks to the efoorts of both.

13urnzz wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It's ironic that you dislike them so much when you actually agree with them on so much...

i apologize for disparaging your service, that was low. As Jay pointed out a week ago, i sounded just like a Tea Partier then.

it was not an accident, and i really have voted for the best candidate for president since 1980 - i posted so you would eventually look at and defend who and why you did.

Neither party has it right, and of all the candidates past and present i can say Reagan's 2nd, Ross Perot's 1st and Bush's 1st were the campaign's that made the most sense to me.

i regret only the Long War advocacy that Bush endorsed, i feel my other votes were not in vain.