It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Regulations a confusing subject ~ Confused by the left/right

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 02:18 PM
I may be the only one here sitting on the sidelines watching the left and right media bicker over the topic of Regulation. It occurred to me that it's all a sham designed to confuse the population so that the real agenda can be enacted without much protest as people tune out. In this thread I would like to hear the arguments for or against Regulation by government. There are a couple of grounding points that need to be mentioned first before discussion can begin.

The purpose of government is to regulate from fraud and abuse, to protect individual rights from authority. (This is a libertarian or conservative standpoint). Both sides actually agree on this. However, the media confuses the issue by stating the Bush didn't use regulations which is why everything is falling apart, and thus deregulation is bad.

To the point of the liberal media Bush didn't watch for fraud and abuse.

To the point of the conservative media over regulating companies by telling them exactly how to run their business stops growth by creating burdens on a company to constantly monitor itself spending money on those regulations.

If we were a country that believed in regulations why did the congress chose not to elect anyone to the Federal Elections Commission Board during an election year? It seems government is only concerned with regulating everyone else but themselves.

The simple answer is that Yes Regulation is good so long is the focus is enforcing the regulation, and not just creating one that gives an advantage to one corporation over another.

I would like to know what you guys there a happy middle ground that all can agree?

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 02:59 PM
Well liberal media has twisted and distorted the fact beyond all ends. Bush increased regulations more than any president in history.

We have to many regulations. Beyond the left/right paradigm we need a set set of regulations that are permanent, no new regulations can be added.

As much as I believe the in the free market people can only be trusted to a point and that is why we need regulations. But not so many that it hinders businesses from entering into new and existing markets and also prevents companies from turning a profit for their shareholders.

We really need to tear it all down and start over from scratch as far as the rules and regulations are concerned. We also need an updated set of consumer protection laws.

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 07:07 PM
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

They're crappy regulations with enough loopholes to make someone dizzy- or extremely rich!

We need good, SOUND regulations that can't be circumvented.

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 07:20 PM

That's a 10 percent increase in the number of high-cost rules since 2006, and a 70 percent increase since 2001. And at the end of 2007, another 3,882 rules were already at different stages of implementation, 757 of them targeting small businesses.

Overall, the final outcome of this Republican regulation has been a significant increase in regulatory activity and cost since 2001. The number of pages added to the Federal Register, which lists all new regulations, reached an all-time high of 78,090 in 2007, up from 64,438 in 2001.


The Bush team has spent more taxpayer money on issuing and enforcing regulations than any previous administration in U.S. history. Between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2009, outlays on regulatory activities, adjusted for inflation, increased from $26.4 billion to an estimated $42.7 billion, or 62 percent. By contrast, President Clinton increased real spending on regulatory activities by 31 percent, from $20.1 billion in 1993 to $26.4 billion in 2001.

From Bush's Regulatory Kiss-Off
Obama's assertions to the contrary, the 43rd president was the biggest regulator since Nixon.

Please read the whole article. Still think Bush was a "deregulator"?

[edit on 18-3-2009 by Cool Hand Luke]

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 07:56 PM
Nice article and graphs Cool Hand Luke. This is the thing that confuses me. There is so much information that Bush regulated the hell out of everything, yet paid no attention to fraud and abuse. The liberal media ignores that, and so does the conservative media not even raising the issue that Bush did regulate. I don't get it other than confusing the population to not know anything about anything.

new topics

top topics

log in