Marketplace Fairness Act: I finally met a regulation I don't like

[Cannonpointer]

http://www.swansonvitamins.com/blog/blogging-with-lee-2/swansonvitamins-opposes-the-marketplace-fairness-act

 

I have to agree with board cons that regulations are being used by crony capitalists to shut down competition.

 

THIS REFLECTS ON CRONY CAPITALISM AND THE CURRENT CORRUPTED STATE OF GOVERNMENT , NOT ON REGULATION OR THE NEED THEREOF.

 

This set of circumstances did not exist - and most likely COULD not have existed - in the regulatory environment of FDR. Only after the Satan administration (or, "Ron Reagan," as contards insist on calling baal) could this have occured.

[antiglobalist]

Hey I'm no con and I.have been saying most regs are for the benefit of globalist mega corporations...I'm just saying

[jayjay]

Never saw a government bill with the word "fairness" in it that I liked.

[KO KING]

http://www.swansonvitamins.com/blog/blogging-with-lee-2/swansonvitamins-opposes-the-marketplace-fairness-act

 

I have to agree with board cons that regulations are being used by crony capitalists to shut down competition.

 

THIS REFLECTS ON CRONY CAPITALISM AND THE CURRENT CORRUPTED STATE OF GOVERNMENT , NOT ON REGULATION OR THE NEED THEREOF.

 

This set of circumstances did not exist - and most likely COULD not have existed - in the regulatory environment of FDR. Only after the Satan administration (or, "Ron Reagan," as contards insist on calling baal) could this have occured.

Glad to see I'm not the only one who's catching on to what's going on, I posted my thoughts on this subject a long time ago and got blasted pretty good by some folks who claimed I was just anti-government and against regulations, that's not the case. My problem was I wasn't sure where the blame should be placed and who the bigger crooks were, government or big business. The big boys flew the coop long ago and headed for distant shores where cheap labor is abundant and regulations are almost non-existent, they wanted the best of both worlds and thus far they have gotten their way. The way I see it government should have been promoting and supporting small businesses who are trying to compete but instead took the low road which not only included new regulations but increased enforcement, which leads me to ask the question as to whose side our government is really on and this includes the current administration who promised change but has only delivered more of the same bs.

[ImTheNana]

I have to agree with board cons that regulations are being used by crony capitalists to shut down competition.

The world is spinning off into outer space right now.

 

Come to the libertarian side. Just don't expect a cuppa tea. (or kool-aid)

[payingyourshare]

HA,HA,,,, CP takes a break from sucking big government d-ick!!!!

[MassLiberty]

Glad to see I'm not the only one who's catching on to what's going on, I posted my thoughts on this subject a long time ago and got blasted pretty good by some folks who claimed I was just anti-government and against regulations, that's not the case. My problem was I wasn't sure where the blame should be placed and who the bigger crooks were, government or big business. The big boys flew the coop long ago and headed for distant shores where cheap labor is abundant and regulations are almost non-existent, they wanted the best of both worlds and thus far they have gotten their way. The way I see it government should have been promoting and supporting small businesses who are trying to compete but instead took the low road which not only included new regulations but increased enforcement, which leads me to ask the question as to whose side our government is really on and this includes the current administration who promised change but has only delivered more of the same bs.

Ding ding ding

 

Corrupt corporatist can only influence government when power is centralized and enlarged.

 

OWS should have been protesting Washington with the tea party.

 

The world is spinning off into outer space right now.

 

Come to the libertarian side. Just don't expect a cuppa tea. (or kool-aid)

Cannon is fair. He just likes to antagonize.

[ImTheNana]

Cannon is fair. He just likes to antagonize.

Agreed, even though fair liberal is nearly oxymoronic. Still think he'd make a better libertarian.

[Ayn Stein]

http://www.swansonvitamins.com/blog/blogging-with-lee-2/swansonvitamins-opposes-the-marketplace-fairness-act

 

I have to agree with board cons that regulations are being used by crony capitalists to shut down competition.

 

THIS REFLECTS ON CRONY CAPITALISM AND THE CURRENT CORRUPTED STATE OF GOVERNMENT , NOT ON REGULATION OR THE NEED THEREOF.

 

This set of circumstances did not exist - and most likely COULD not have existed - in the regulatory environment of FDR. Only after the Satan administration (or, "Ron Reagan," as contards insist on calling baal) could this have occured.

Seems like Orrin Hatch will have to battle, once again, for the continued exemption of the supplements industry from oversight of their products' true health benefits -- and even safety. Also, giving them safe harbor when adverting and packaging makes unsubstantiated and grandiose claims about their "benefits. In essence, and largely in support of Mormons in Hatch's home state, who are heavily into the supplements business, making and/or multi-level-marketing supplements, Hatch authored and pushed through a bill that effectively made selling "snake oil" legal and protected from oversight or recourse if products prove ineffective or unhealthy.

 

So indeed, taking away the protected right to sell snake oil, might indeed hurt many businesses that are selling pure junk and making totally false claims as to their benefits.

 

And to that, I say: Godspeed.

[Str8tEdge]

Hey I'm no con and I.have been saying most regs are for the benefit of globalist mega corporations...I'm just saying

 

The amusing part is without government regulation to knock out their business rivals we wouldn't have "mega" corporations as the natural competiveness of the free market would have shredded their inefficiency to pieces.

 

Another way how dopey regulation loving progressives support the actual entities they supposedly stand against.

[Cannonpointer]

Glad to see I'm not the only one who's catching on to what's going on, I posted my thoughts on this subject a long time ago and got blasted pretty good by some folks who claimed I was just anti-government and against regulations, that's not the case. My problem was I wasn't sure where the blame should be placed and who the bigger crooks were, government or big business. The big boys flew the coop long ago and headed for distant shores where cheap labor is abundant and regulations are almost non-existent, they wanted the best of both worlds and thus far they have gotten their way. The way I see it government should have been promoting and supporting small businesses who are trying to compete but instead took the low road which not only included new regulations but increased enforcement, which leads me to ask the question as to whose side our government is really on and this includes the current administration who promised change but has only delivered more of the same bs.

Yup.

 

The world is spinning off into outer space right now.

 

Come to the libertarian side. Just don't expect a cuppa tea. (or kool-aid)

I believe that socialism is in our human nature. I think libertarians have a cognitive or spiritual disorder - no offense to them.

 

The amusing part is without government regulation to knock out their business rivals we wouldn't have "mega" corporations as the natural competiveness of the free market would have shredded their inefficiency to pieces.

You are as helpless to understand that THIS^^^ is an artical of faith, as you are to stop trolling mens rooms. People like you are great boons to the rape whistle industry, sir.

 

Seems like Orrin Hatch will have to battle, once again, for the continued exemption of the supplements industry from oversight of their products' true health benefits -- and even safety. Also, giving them safe harbor when adverting and packaging makes unsubstantiated and grandiose claims about their "benefits. In essence, and largely in support of Mormons in Hatch's home state, who are heavily into the supplements business, making and/or multi-level-marketing supplements, Hatch authored and pushed through a bill that effectively made selling "snake oil" legal and protected from oversight or recourse if products prove ineffective or unhealthy.

 

So indeed, taking away the protected right to sell snake oil, might indeed hurt many businesses that are selling pure junk and making totally false claims as to their benefits.

 

And to that, I say: Godspeed.

This exact argument against a particular type of free speech could be used against ALL types of free speech.

 

Most political speech is bogus. Most religious speech is junk.

 

Why not regulate those things as well?

[Ayn Stein]

Yup.

 

 

I believe that socialism is in our human nature. I think libertarians have a cognitive or spiritual disorder - no offense to them.

 

 

You are as helpless to understand that THIS^^^ is an artical of faith, as you are to stop trolling mens rooms. People like you are great boons to the rape whistle industry, sir.

 

 

This exact argument against a particular type of free speech could be used against ALL types of free speech.

 

Most political speech is bogus. Most religious speech is junk.

 

Why not regulate those things as well?

Because making false product claims is not protected speech.

[Cannonpointer]

Because making false product claims is not protected speech.

 

Letting an INTERESTED PARTY decide what claims are false does not result in free speech, either. It's one thing to require disclaimers (Not evaluated by FDA,, etc). It's quite another to stifle discussion on behalf of big pharma, under the color of protecting the public.

[antiglobalist]

 

The amusing part is without government regulation to knock out their business rivals we wouldn't have "mega" corporations as the natural competiveness of the free market would have shredded their inefficiency to pieces.

 

Another way how dopey regulation loving progressives support the actual entities they supposedly stand against.

exactly, these corporations thrive off of big fat corrupt government. It's sad that it's so obvious yet some have such a deep love for government that they refuse to accept that fact

[Cannonpointer]

exactly, these corporations thrive off of big fat corrupt government. It's sad that it's so obvious yet some have such a deep love for government that they refuse to accept that fact

 

And it's equally sad that you and your girlfriend live in My Little Pony Land where every back is straight, and every eye is clear, and every heart is true; and the ONLY THING that messes with any of that is government regulation. You guys are like parrots: bird brains that possess a few phrases.

 

At the same exact time, you proclaim that there are people who are crooked and bribe regulators, AND that such people are better left unregulated.

 

Option 3 - impossible to imagine for two-valent thinkers, MIGHT be to clean up the regulatory agencies, by making new laws (actually, going back to the old ones) regarding going to work for industries you used to regulate.

 

Here's the deal: As regulations have been cut, corruption has grown. We were MUCH more regulated and MUCH less corrupt 35 years ago under the FDR game rules than we are today under the reagan rules. MORE gutting of regs is not the answer, any more than increasing lead cures lead poisoning.

[LagerHead]

The problem with government regulation is that it's never the idea of the politician who introduces and/or sponsors the bill. It's the idea of some lobbyist in his ear (i.e. wallet) that wants a regulation passed that benefits them. Those companies are almost without exception large businesses who will certainly benefit from it while small businesses usually suffer. That's why the vast majority of government regulation is a bad idea. The government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers, whether those winners and losers are businesses loved by liberals, conservatives, or anyone in between.

[JunkerGreen]

 

And it's equally sad that you and your girlfriend live in My Little Pony Land where every back is straight, and every eye is clear, and every heart is true; and the ONLY THING that messes with any of that is government regulation. You guys are like parrots: bird brains that possess a few phrases.

 

At the same exact time, you proclaim that there are people who are crooked and bribe regulators, AND that such people are better left unregulated.

 

Option 3 - impossible to imagine for two-valent thinkers, MIGHT be to clean up the regulatory agencies, by making new laws (actually, going back to the old ones) regarding going to work for industries you used to regulate.

 

Here's the deal: As regulations have been cut, corruption has grown. We were MUCH more regulated and MUCH less corrupt 35 years ago under the FDR game rules than we are today under the reagan rules. MORE gutting of regs is not the answer, any more than increasing lead cures lead poisoning.

 

It's as simple as keeping it simple.

 

The average business owner can be expected to read a few hundred pages of various government regulation regarding his business, but when it's 20,000 pages from hundreds of different agencies that he's expected to track down at his expense, and in language he must hire a lawyer to translate, that's bad regulation.

 

The best yard stick for "regulation" is that simple is effective, and complicated means corporations getting away with murder.

[LagerHead]

 

It's as simple as keeping it simple.

 

The average business owner can be expected to read a few hundred pages of various government regulation regarding his business, but when it's 20,000 pages from hundreds of different agencies that he's expected to track down at his expense, and in language he must hire a lawyer to translate, that's bad regulation.

 

The best yard stick for "regulation" is that simple is effective, and complicated means corporations getting away with murder.

 

I disagree. The BEST yardstick for regulation is whether or not it is shot down before it ever becomes a burden with which businesses must deal.

[JunkerGreen]

 

I disagree. The BEST yardstick for regulation is whether or not it is shot down before it ever becomes a burden with which businesses must deal.

 

Running a business comes with carrying a burden, but that burden should not be so prohibitive as to discourage the average man from starting a business, or almost guarantee the failure of those that do.

[LagerHead]

 

Running a business comes with carrying a burden, but that burden should not be so prohibitive as to discourage the average man from starting a business, or almost guarantee the failure of those that do.

 

Which is what current regulations do precisely.

[JunkerGreen]

 

Which is what current regulations do precisely.

 

And why we need to make sure that small businesses are relieved of that excess burden, and the major corporations get saddled with the added cost of what they lobbied for in the first place.

[Str8tEdge]

exactly, these corporations thrive off of big fat corrupt government. It's sad that it's so obvious yet some have such a deep love for government that they refuse to accept that fact

 

Pretty much. It's the same culprits who instantly offer a government solution to EVERY problem.

 

Regulations should be subject to TWO ultimate criteria before being passed:

 

1. Protect citizens

 

2. Promote competition

 

Under these two simple criteria we could probably eliminate 90% of current regulations as large corporate lobbyists either wrote or helped write that legislation.

 

Government regulation is just one of MANY ways the corporate elite get over on defenseless citizens because they vote in elected officials like Obama. Dude's a bigger corporate/banking whore than Bush!

[Cannonpointer]

 

It's as simple as keeping it simple.

 

The average business owner bla bla bla

 

There's your problem, right there: A failure to distinguish between free enterprise (closely held business where the profit maker and the risk taker are the SAME FUCKING GUY) and capitalism (el pinche goddamned opuesto, cabron).

 

We HAVE to have pages and pages of regs dealing with nuclear energy, or building automobiles, or flying aircraft, etc. - and each SECTION will in fact need its own experts. The costs are rightly passed on to users, who should be quite happy to pay those legitimate costs.

 

When you talk about the "average business owner," you are CLEARLY referencing free enterprise. By failing to go on from there and distinguish capitalism, you are collapsing the two and playing into the false meme that what happens on wall street and what happens on main street are essentially identical - and that helps the crooks on wall street who you know - if you are paying any attention at all - ARE ROBBING MAIN STREET.

 

 

I disagree. The BEST yardstick for regulation is whether or not it is shot down before it ever becomes a burden with which businesses must deal.

 

Retarded opinions are perfectly legitimate. No right minded person would LISTEN to a retard, but they still have free speech.

 

 

Running a business comes with carrying a burden, but that burden should not be so prohibitive as to discourage the average man from starting a business, or almost guarantee the failure of those that do.

 

Golden words. That is why we absolutely MUST distinguish between free enterprise and capitalism. Things on the scale of capitalist enterprises can bear the burden of right-sezed regulation. The more scaled down business on main street can also handle right-sized regs.

 

 

And why we need to make sure that small businesses are relieved of that excess burden, and the major corporations get saddled with the added cost of what they lobbied for in the first place.

 

We have a winner.

[Cannonpointer]

Pretty much. It's the same culprits who instantly offer a government solution to EVERY problem.

Such people are as retarded as the cretins whose knee jerk reaction is to attack and mislabel their neighbors, and scream against eeeeevil government, as their only answer to every thread.

 

Know what I mean, vern?

 

Regulations should be subject to TWO ultimate criteria before being passed:

 

1. Protect citizens

 

2. Promote competition

Yeah - that is sort of preposterous, doncha think? Tell me how a regulation preventing you from dumping cadmium in the local drinking water "promotes competition," Cletis.

 

Five words, cheerleader: Rah, Rah, Sis Boom Bah.

[Nobody]

Inside the beltway, word definitions are opposite of anywhere else.

Code speak for former bankers and current lawyers.

fair = anything except fair

affordable = not affordable

patriot = we all know where this one leads

yes = no

black = white

 

Using this code speak, politicians can talk openly or in private whether someone is listening or not

and never worry about implicating themselves verbally or otherwise. Money is the root of all evil

and this can observed no place more clearly than in politics and markets. The golden rule prevails.

Not the golden rule of the good book.