The Democrat Thread

[Balta1701]

Link

[Balta1701]

First openly gay appointee to the Federal Appeals Court, who's nomination was endorsed by at least 3 Republican Solicitor's General, has asked the President to withdraw his nomination after 18 months passed without the Senate granting him a single hearing.

[Balta1701]

Rush Limbaugh tells his listeners how Liberals have disappeared from the media.

RUSH: Yeah, that's what I said after the 2010 midterms. I want you to hear "Blabbermouth" Schultz, Debbie "Blabbermouth" Schultz and compare it to John Kasich's reaction of the vote in Ohio last night. Debbie "Blabbermouth" Schultz was on MSNBC last night. I don't know what this means, but if it weren't for MSNBC we wouldn't have any liberal sound bites. I've told Cookie I'm sick of it, ban MSNBC, and we can't, 'cause there's no other place to get liberal sound bites. There isn't any other place. I mean CNN is just insane over there. They emphasize their hosts, they have guests, but just roll tape on 'em and it's so boring. It's not worth putting anything from CNN on the air.

 

If it weren't for MSNBC there wouldn't be any liberal sound bites. Now, that has to mean something. That has to mean that they're rare, that they're not everywhere. They may be everywhere in print, but, you know, left-wingers on the radio, genuine cuckoo's nest. You wouldn't even want to go there. I wouldn't play that stuff. MSNBC's it, and it's two shows or three shows. It's it is morning thing with Scarborough, it's the Larry O'Donnell show at night, and maybe occasionally something from Reverend Sharpton. (interruption) Well, yeah, sometimes Sergeant Schultz. Sergeant Schultz is out there walking amongst abandoned railroad cars looking for the future of America. I know there's Algore's channel, but that's nothing worth highlighting. It really says something. MSNBC is the only place in the media to get these liberals. It's the only place to hear Debbie "Blabbermouth" Schultz. Anyway, let's get to the sound bite. Here she is talking about the results in Ohio last night.

[MexSoxFan#1]

Rush Limbaugh tells his listeners how Liberals have disappeared from the media.

I feel dumb after reading that article...

[StrangeSox]

But wait, I thought liberals controlled the entire media

[Balta1701]

The Post actually gave front page space to an article questioning the notion that regulations, particularly from the EPA, are major "Job-killers."

Economists who have studied the matter say that there is little evidence that regulations cause massive job loss in the economy, and that rolling them back would not lead to a boom in job creation.

 

Firms sometimes hire workers to help them comply with new rules. In some cases, more heavily regulated businesses such as coal shrink, giving an opportunity for cleaner industries such as natural gas to grow.

 

“Based on the available literature, there’s not much evidence that EPA regulations are causing major job losses or major job gains,” said Richard Morgenstern, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan think tank Resources for the Future who worked at the EPA starting under the Reagan administration and continuing into President Bill Clinton’s first term.

 

A decade ago, in a landmark study, Morgenstern and others looked at the effect of regulations on four heavily polluting industries — pulp and paper mills, plastic manufacturers, petroleum refiners, and iron and steel mills — between 1979 and 1991.

 

The researchers concluded that higher spending to comply with environment rules does not cause “a significant change” in industry employment. When jobs were lost, they were often made up elsewhere in the same industry. For every $1 million companies spent, as many as 11 / 2 net jobs were added to the economy.

 

The White House has tried to be particularly sensitive about the burden on businesses when rules are added. This year, Obama issued an executive order that agencies pay close attention to how rules might affect employment.

 

“This kind of sustained attention to jobs impact is new,” said Cass Sunstein, the White House’s regulatory chief. “I think it is very important to make sure regulations are compatible with our economic goals. But the idea of brandishing ‘job-killing regulations’ as a near-epithet is probably less nuanced than is ideal.”

 

Sunstein said he is sensitive to the possibility that when there is higher unemployment, there could be a higher risk that people working in regulated industries may have to wait longer to find new jobs.

 

Regardless, regulatory experts say that viewing a rule solely through the lens of whether it will cost jobs misses the point.

 

Noll, the Stanford professor, said the government could outlaw tractors to create $5-a-day jobs for people working in the fields, but “that would not be a legitimate social goal.”

 

“The notion that we should deregulate everything because we have a recession is completely wrongheaded,” he said. “Whether a regulation is a good or bad idea is not a function of employment in the industry being regulated.

 

“The right question is: On balance, does our society benefit?”

[kapkomet]

My co-worker, who is a raging lib, and I were talking today and I'll say what I said to him... it's not that regulations themselves are a problem, it's that there are way too many overlapping regulations in about 5 layers of separate agencies. Stream line that, and you fix a ton of the problems out there.

 

He agreed. So can we agree on that?

 

[southsider2k5]

My co-worker, who is a raging lib, and I were talking today and I'll say what I said to him... it's not that regulations themselves are a problem, it's that there are way too many overlapping regulations in about 5 layers of separate agencies. Stream line that, and you fix a ton of the problems out there.

He agreed. So can we agree on that?

 

I've been saying that for years.

[farmteam]

My co-worker, who is a raging lib, and I were talking today and I'll say what I said to him... it's not that regulations themselves are a problem, it's that there are way too many overlapping regulations in about 5 layers of separate agencies. Stream line that, and you fix a ton of the problems out there.

 

He agreed. So can we agree on that?

 

I definitely agree with that. It's a huge problem...and like you said, fix that one, and it automatically takes care of a bunch of other ones, too. Sadly, I don't see a good way to do it.

[Rex Kickass]

My co-worker, who is a raging lib, and I were talking today and I'll say what I said to him... it's not that regulations themselves are a problem, it's that there are way too many overlapping regulations in about 5 layers of separate agencies. Stream line that, and you fix a ton of the problems out there.

 

He agreed. So can we agree on that?

 

So, I guess I don't understand. If the regulations overlap, wouldn't complying with one of them involve complying with ALL of them?

[Balta1701]

So, I guess I don't understand. If the regulations overlap, wouldn't complying with one of them involve complying with ALL of them?

But if I'm a large company that owns a lot of lobbyists, I can put enough holes in those regulations such that it's fairly easy for me to comply with them for whatever reason but I double up the paperwork on my competition.

[Balta1701]

Yeah, I am gonna note this, why not. If for no other reason than to show that in this world, you really don't need fancy "Qualifications" or "Experience" to get into the political/media system. You just need the right name.

Chelsea Clinton may have officially joined the media on Monday, but several journalists who covered the 2008 election remain skeptical about the press-averse former First Daughter entering their ranks.

 

"The supreme irony of Chelsea Clinton becoming an NBC reporter: I'm pretty sure she's never granted an interview," tweeted The New York Times' Jodi Kantor.

 

The New York Times' Amy Chozick, who covered the 2008 election for the Wall Street Journal, responded that not only did Clinton refuse to give interviews, but "seemed to absolutely hate us on [Clinton's campaign] plane." In another tweet, Chozick wrote that Clinton "disdained reporters." (Chozick, reached by phone, declined to elaborate.)

[Balta1701]

Just when OWS was startng to leave the front pages, Bloomberg hands them a gift.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg on Tuesday defended his decision to clear the park in Lower Manhattan that was the birthplace of the Occupy Wall Street Movement, saying “health and safety conditions became intolerable” in the park where the protesters had camped out for nearly two months.

 

Mr. Bloomberg said the city had planned to reopen the park on Tuesday morning after the protesters’ tents and tarps had been removed and the stone steps had been cleaned. He said the police had already let about 50 protesters back in when officials received word of a temporary restraining order sought by lawyers for the protesters. He said the police had closed the park again until lawyers for the city could appear at a court hearing later in the morning.

 

....

The police action was quickly challenged as lawyers for the protesters obtained a temporary restraining order barring the city and the park’s private landlord from evicting protesters or removing their belongings. It was not immediately clear how the city would respond. The judge, Justice Lucy Billings of State Supreme Court Judge in Manhattan, scheduled a hearing for later Tuesday.

 

The unexpected raid was accompanied by an attempted media blackout, as the police prohibited reporters (including those with press passes) from entering Zuccotti, closed the subways leading to downtown Manhattan, and even prevented news helicopters from flying in the airspace over the park.

 

Neither were politicians spared. Ydanis Rodriguez, a city council member representing New York City's 10th district visiting the park, was reportedly injured and arrested by the police.

link

[southsider2k5]

So, I guess I don't understand. If the regulations overlap, wouldn't complying with one of them involve complying with ALL of them?

 

Not if the regulations themselves are contradictory from enforcement body to enforcement body.

[NorthSideSox72]

So, I guess I don't understand. If the regulations overlap, wouldn't complying with one of them involve complying with ALL of them?

 

 

Not if the regulations themselves are contradictory from enforcement body to enforcement body.

 

That is part of the problem.

 

But the bigger issue, IMO, with overlapping rules is that it also means overlapping agencies. Not just the added cost to taxpayers for the redundancy, but also that the company trying to comply with them has to do the same thing, multiple times, different ways. That is just ridiculous.

 

[southsider2k5]

That is part of the problem.

 

But the bigger issue, IMO, with overlapping rules is that it also means overlapping agencies. Not just the added cost to taxpayers for the redundancy, but also that the company trying to comply with them has to do the same thing, multiple times, different ways. That is just ridiculous.

 

That too. We need to reconcile the modern financial age with a system that was set up exclusively for stock trading nearly 100 years ago. The way we monitor the financial system needs to change with the times. The arguments about this somehow loosening requirements are just silly, and ignore the fact that even with all of the bodies and regulations, people who want to commit fraud are still doing it pretty easily. No amount of regulations is going to fix that.

[NorthSideSox72]

That too. We need to reconcile the modern financial age with a system that was set up exclusively for stock trading nearly 100 years ago. The way we monitor the financial system needs to change with the times. The arguments about this somehow loosening requirements are just silly, and ignore the fact that even with all of the bodies and regulations, people who want to commit fraud are still doing it pretty easily. No amount of regulations is going to fix that.

I have 100% confidence in two things:

 

1. Combining the fin reg agencies, at least the ones that deal with the markets (SEC, CFTC, FINRA, Exchange/Clearing House ones), woud speed the ability to see and react to problems, and have the side benefit of saving taxpayer dollars.

 

2. The technology is very doable to have a near-real-time monitoring system in place for regulators to monitor things and react to problems much, much faster... and once it is in place, it would result in a cheaper, faster agency.

 

And as I've said before, since you wouldn't be changing the actual rules, there is no reason why ObamaCo can't make this start to happen RIGHT NOW. Well, at least #2 anyway... #1 requires Congressional action.

 

[southsider2k5]

I have 100% confidence in two things:

 

1. Combining the fin reg agencies, at least the ones that deal with the markets (SEC, CFTC, FINRA, Exchange/Clearing House ones), woud speed the ability to see and react to problems, and have the side benefit of saving taxpayer dollars.

 

2. The technology is very doable to have a near-real-time monitoring system in place for regulators to monitor things and react to problems much, much faster... and once it is in place, it would result in a cheaper, faster agency.

 

And as I've said before, since you wouldn't be changing the actual rules, there is no reason why ObamaCo can't make this start to happen RIGHT NOW. Well, at least #2 anyway... #1 requires Congressional action.

 

It would be so easy. The funny thing is that this is done in Vegas now, complete with facial recognition software and people search databases to see if people are working together.

 

In this day and age, you have to combine these agencies to allow them to see the whole picture, much like we had to do the same for homeland security.

 

The funny part is that the information barriers put into place by the SEC make it harder for lots of the things to get caught internally. People so many people lack complete knowledge of the companies they work for, not to many people have the ability to understand when the person sitting next to them is gaming the system.

[Balta1701]

Easy thing that would be effective not being done...and I'm the only one who concludes that it isn't done specifically because it would be effective.

[southsider2k5]

Easy thing that would be effective not being done...and I'm the only one who concludes that it isn't done specifically because it would be effective.

 

A lot of government employees would get fired. That's why it will never get done.

[StrangeSox]

A lot of government employees would get fired. That's why it will never get done.

 

There's that, and there's also the fact that simple, clear regulations are easy to enforce. Complex, overlapping, unclear, thousands-of-unique-exceptions regulations are very difficult to enforce. And while they may be costly for big companies to comply with, it represents huge barriers to new entrants into new regulatory space.

[southsider2k5]

There's that, and there's also the fact that simple, clear regulations are easy to enforce. Complex, overlapping, unclear, thousands-of-unique-exceptions regulations are very difficult to enforce. And while they may be costly for big companies to comply with, it represents huge barriers to new entrants into new regulatory space.

 

From first hand knowledge, it doesn't.

[StrangeSox]

From first hand knowledge, it doesn't.

 

Setting up a large-scale compliance apparatus is an expensive startup cost. Simply figuring out the regulations and the proper compliance is a hurdle.

[southsider2k5]

Setting up a large-scale compliance apparatus is an expensive startup cost. Simply figuring out the regulations and the proper compliance is a hurdle.

 

Its a hurdle, but it isn't prohibitive. I've worked for a couple of different start ups, and now I am in Regs.

[NorthSideSox72]

Setting up a large-scale compliance apparatus is an expensive startup cost. Simply figuring out the regulations and the proper compliance is a hurdle.

Regulation isn't as huge a hurdle as you are making it out to be. Especially for smaller firms trying to edge into trading or brokerage. The bigger hurdles are capital requirements, and the good ol boy networks in place.

 

Regulation is scalar-plus in relation to firm size in finance. The bigger you are, the regulatory and compliance costs go up at a greater rate than the overall size of your firm.