Re: L'affaire Rice
 

What about legislation that isn't unnecessary and oppressive? Or is there no such thing?

Said no one who's had the choice, ever (aside from agency adjudications).

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

Your powers of motivated reasoning are astounding. (And of course we were already there)

That said, what happened last night was more restrained than I expected from him. It was the generals' response - arguably proportionate and aimed at degrading Assad's military capacity. I expected worse from him. But I'd really much rather we had the diplomat's response instead.

That said, his people also said last night was only the start.

Re: Real World
 

You troll, I go glib. What do you expect?

Last night's action leaves me with nothing but questions. One I don't yet have a clue on (and fear the administration doesn't either) is how this affects the war against ISIS. There's been this debate going on ever since ISIS first siezed Raqaa as to whether we pursue an ISIS first strategy, an Assad first strategy, or a two front strategy, and figuring out where we are in that debate today is serious stuff. I don't really have interest or patience in hearing from anyone who doesn't take that seriously and just wants to stir up shit. Really. Just not interesting to me.

Re: L'affaire Rice
 

Anti-regulation is a philosophy. People who buy into that philosophy counter this question with, "The market will handle," with a straight face. If you're anti-regulation, you should be able to make a legitimate case for every regulation you want to wipe off the books. But people who pop this shit aren't interested in a thoughtful approach. They just don't like rules, so all of them are automatically bad unless they protect their business.

TM

Re: L'affaire Rice
 

I know one area of administrative law cold. Congress passes laws ever year or two. Then the agency writes rules that explain how we are to work within those laws.

A Michigan congressman came to our specialty law group lunch a few years back. He wanted to talk about some proposed law he liked that was just on the edge of our area. He sponsored the proposed law, and he didn't have a clue what he was talking about, once he got past broad strokes. You want agencies to draft the rules, not congress.

Re: L'affaire Rice
 

Even there you are limiting to financial related rules. The FAA has regulations. I don't know what they cover but I don't want them just thrown out.

Re: L'affaire Rice
 

I get that point. An elegant fix would be having agencies write the laws themselves and get it over with in one stroke. This happens, of course, but clearly not enough given the amount of regs.

But whoever writes the laws, I the bare minimum of them should be passed. Only what is absolutely necessary. And even then, done sparingly, with an emphasis on minimizing intrusion to the lowest possible level that effects the necessary goal.

Re: L'affaire Rice
 

What the hell is happening? I've been agreeing with shit you've posted for days now.

Is this real life?

TM

Re: L'affaire Rice
 

Some anti-reg people fit that definition. Some don't.

I have no problem with regs or laws regarding safety and protection of the public from immediate harms.

I'm leery of regs and laws designed to change behavior by incentives. A good example of a silly law that ought to be banished is the ACA tax on tanning beds. In theory, this is great. We're all against skin cancer. But these are largely cash businesses. You've just pushed an entire industry into more robust tax evasion (many were already engaged in it, no doubt). Somewhere, a revenue agent is poring over the books of a tanning salon, wasting his time to collect $5,000.00 in taxes on under-reported income and fines when he'd be doing much more for the treasury by chasing foreign bank accounts.

And how much easier would land development be if you didn't have five different fed, state, and municipal agencies assessing your project. It's welfare for lawyers and ex-politicos now "consulting."

Re: L'affaire Rice
 

Excellent point. These rules affect our very lives.

Kind of like healthcare.

Re: L'affaire Rice
 

I've yet to meet anyone who professes to be anti-reg who isn't completely full of shit and/or totally ignorant.

I think you overstate your knowledge of the tanning bed business based on what you think is true. I get my head lasered and the place that does it shares space with a tanning salon. I've been there many many times and I have never seen anyone pay with cash. But, whatever. I don't really care.

If you think a tax assessment levied on tanning beds with the aim of offsetting the costs all other insured people have to pay because certain dumbasses don't give a shit about clear health risks are a waste of time because some tanning salons cheat, I'm not sure how you think any tax stick-incentives work.

I'm sure it would be much easier. But I'd rather live in a place where it is difficult to build shit that isn't up to code.*

Your welfare comment is just stupid.

TM

*Sounds like you're advocating for all-encompassing federal building standards enforced by big government for efficiency sake. But that's unpossible.

Re: L'affaire Rice
 

Dunno.

Oh, maybe your IQ is up?

Re: L'affaire Rice
 

Who is anti-reg? No one. People are inherently anti-some-regs. Nobody wants all regs removed.

Different economies. I've seen many women paying in cash when I was getting my hair cut. It's probably 1/3 the price here as in the City.

I don't think the majority of them work.

Building soundness is of course acceptable. Fifteen rounds of bickering with engineers and state and municipal and possibly EPA people over some form of retention pond, or whether you've disposed of some stumps (I'm not kidding - improper disposal of tree stumps is a serious violation) properly, is nuts.

It isn't intended to be welfare, but it has that effect. "Embrace complexity."

They pre-empt so much already... Here, it'd be welcome.

Re: L'affaire Rice
 

Wait a minute, how is that a solution at all? Your concern about regulations isn't that they are burdensome, it's that they weren't specifically voted on by Congress???

Re: L'affaire Rice
 

Jesus, man. Pigovian taxes, that seek to internalize externalities, should be the least objectionable means of generating revenue.

The tobacco version of this is "but smuggling" which similarly is a side issue that's beside the point, especially as you made up the revenue agent that's doing all this work.

Not sure about where you live, but I keep a pretty close eye on development here in Minneapolis and there's no state or federal level review unless there's state or federal land, or large-scale environmental remediation to be done.