Why do progressives want regulations and redistribution?

[Anarchist420]

I don't want either, but I've never understood why progressives want regulations when regulations are corporatism.

FDR's regulations were corporatism.
Regulations drive the cost of living up, often drive the quality down, and always hurt the poor.
Sobranes-Oxley was corporatism.
Glass Steagall was deregulation.

Are progressives just ignorant of what regulations really are, or are they actually the very corporatists they claim to be against (like TJR was)?

I also don't get why the hell they want to tax income instead of consumption. I've said it once, and I'll say it again: Income tax=oligarchy.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Consumption hits the little guys more they feel.

Also what they state they want for the little guys is not what they actually do. But it makes good PR.

Then if it fails, they find a scapegoat. Not enough was put into the program; The program was hijacked, the initial paremters apparently were flawed; nobody believed hard enough; someone lied, etc

 

[dmcowen674]

Why do progressives want regulations and redistribution?

I don't want either, but I've never understood why progressives want regulations when regulations are corporatism.

FDR's regulations were corporatism.
Regulations drive the cost of living up, often drive the quality down, and always hurt the poor.
Sobranes-Oxley was corporatism.
Glass Steagall was deregulation.

Are progressives just ignorant of what regulations really are, or are they actually the very corporatists they claim to be against (like TJR was)?

I also don't get why the hell they want to tax income instead of consumption. I've said it once, and I'll say it again: Income tax=oligarchy.

Well we see how well your destruction of regulations under Bush has done to us.

 

[Matt1970]

Because they think someone who dropped out of high school should make the same as someone with 8 years of higher education. Any difference is unfair and somehow opressive.

 

[dmcowen674]

Because they think someone who dropped out of high school should make the same as someone with 8 years of higher education. Any difference is unfair and somehow opressive.

Quit being disingenuous, most people being talked about have massive debt from said "higher education" and what does it get them with your Utopian send all the jobs overseas profit center? A job serving fries at MCD's.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Because they think someone who dropped out of high school should make the same as someone with 8 years of higher education. Any difference is unfair and somehow opressive.

#NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement

 

[CallMeJoe]

I don't want either, but I've never understood why progressives want regulations when regulations are corporatism.

With a fully unregulated society you would be almost assured of getting your full minimum daily requirements of lead, arsenic and mercury before lunch.

 

[Matt1970]

Quit being disingenuous, most people being talked about have massive debt from said "higher education" and what does it get them with your Utopian send all the jobs overseas profit center? A job serving fries at MCD's.

There ya go. The poster child for College Recruitment. It's rough out there. Don't go to College. Stay at home folks and let Uncle Sam make everything better.

 

[IGBT]

they believe everything you have is theirs and you should feel guilty and be ostracized for being a achiever. It's the only way they can fund their social welfare rackets/scams/marxist agenda.

 

[LegendKiller]

With a fully unregulated society you would be almost assured of getting your full minimum daily requirements of lead, arsenic and mercury before lunch.

Yeah, but then you could sue the guy for your "personal property rights" and win a boatload of money. Either that or they wouldn't do that because they would know you could sue them.

Too bad that's failed throughout history. But don't tell the libertopians that.

 

[Anarchist420]

With a fully unregulated society you would be almost assured of getting your full minimum daily requirements of lead, arsenic and mercury before lunch.

That actually happens with the FDA.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Yeah, but then you could sue the guy for your "personal property rights" and win a boatload of money. Either that or they wouldn't do that because they would know you could sue them.

Assuming, of course, that you could prove which one of the multitude of polluters released the specific contaminants you ingested...

Too bad that's failed throughout history. But don't tell the libertopians that.

Those who do not learn from history...




...are destined to lead the Tea Party!

 

[CallMeJoe]

That actually happens with the FDA.

#NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement

 

[dmcowen674]

Yeah, but then you could sue the guy for your "personal property rights" and win a boatload of money.

Either that or they wouldn't do that because they would know you could sue them.

There is no "personal property rights" in the U.S. any more.

Everything belongs to the Corporations/Government as mandated by the USSC

 

[LegendKiller]

That actually happens with the FDA.

Only a moron uses the failing of regulation to promote no regulation. The only increase in cost regulation forces that isn't already borne by society without regulation is when regulated entities try to circumvent regulation and cause the damage anyway.

Regulation can't completely stop circumvention but it can mitigate the low hanging fruit.

 

[manimal]

Only a moron uses the failing of regulation to promote no regulation. The only increase in cost regulation forces that isn't already borne by society without regulation is when regulated entities try to circumvent regulation and cause the damage anyway.

Regulation can't completely stop circumvention but it can mitigate the low hanging fruit.

yup-


like cutting funding to the IRS... where is the sense in that

 

[Jeff7]

China: A fine example of what happens when industry regulates itself. (Or the US, many decades ago.)

Worker safety? Psh, who cares. If someone's maimed on the job, kick the moron to the curb and hire someone else. Safe equipment is expensive and needs maintenance, but people are disposable.

Product or food safety? Why? There are lots of consumers. If a few get killed in house fires or die from complications due to exposure to toxic chemicals, there will still be many others to keep buying the product. Just invest some money into smart marketing and bribes.

Excessive pollution? I don't care. I live upwind from the factory, everyone else can go to hell.

Intellectual property? Yes, it exists so that I can profit off of someone else's work without permission, without incurring any R&D costs myself.



So yes, let's follow China's shining example.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

China: A fine example of what happens when industry regulates itself. (Or the US, many decades ago.)

Worker safety? Psh, who cares. If someone's maimed on the job, kick the moron to the curb and hire someone else. Safe equipment is expensive and needs maintenance, but people are disposable.

Product or food safety? Why? There are lots of consumers. If a few get killed in house fires or die from complications due to exposure to toxic chemicals, there will still be many others to keep buying the product. Just invest some money into smart marketing and bribes.

Excessive pollution? I don't care. I live upwind from the factory, everyone else can go to hell.

Intellectual property? Yes, it exists so that I can profit off of someone else's work without permission, without incurring any R&D costs myself.



So yes, let's follow China's shining example.

Your entire post is complete fail. Businesses in China can only operate at the discretion and approval of government officials.

 

[dmcowen674]

Your entire post is complete fail. Businesses in China can only operate at the discretion and approval of government officials.

Sounds exactly the same as the U.S. so what's your point?

 

[Lemon law]

Let us once again realize this is yet another time wasting anarchrist420 troll thread.

Why is it that every time anarchrist has some 1/8 baked idea, this forum should get at each other throat's to vindicate the OP's stupidity.

When we should all realize, no government regulation is terrible and horrible, we get S&L melt downs, Enron's, Bernie Madoof's, and wholesale economic collapse every time. Or things like massive oil spills, nuclear meltdowns like Chernobyl and Fukashima, and similar massive damage that even the resources of wealthy countries are unable to mitigate. Just so some company can save a few bucks on substandard equipment.

On the other hand, we should also all realize that over regulation and badly designed regulation can hinder innovation and slows down the economy.

And while just about everyone in the world is past asking the stupid binary questions our OP asks, the more rational person asks where is the correct balance between under regulation and over regulation?

So my request to you anarchrist420, is think before you post. After all the evidence for both sides of the question is all around you. Unless you live under some rock without global communication, were born yesterday, or came from outer space.

Or better put, in the words of W. C. Fields and the Great Foghorn Leghorn, "GO AWAY BOY, AND QUIT BOTHERING THINKING ADULTS."

OP, Quit wasting this forum's time asking ENDLESS stupid questions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There may be no easy answers to those questions, but the answer is never either totally yes or totally no like you want to initially assume it is.

 

[Kadarin]

Because the extremely wealthy have the power to rig the system for their benefit, and this creates the potential for abuse (which of course occurs regularly). Regulation is an effort to prevent extreme abuse.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Because the extremely wealthy have the power to rig the system for their benefit, and this creates the potential for abuse (which of course occurs regularly). Regulation is an effort to prevent extreme abuse.

Good regulation is beneficial. Bad is worse than nothing. Case in point- FAA traffic controllers who have bodies that require adequate sleep which has been a problem denied for many years.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
On the other hand, we should also all realize that over regulation and badly designed regulation can hinder innovation and slows down the economy.

Very true.

I think writing 'good' regulations is about as hard as it gets.

Then, even in the (rare?) case of a good regulation, the bureaucrat's tendancy is too keep adding to it. It'll keep getting fixed til it's broken. Look at the tax code and IRS regulations.

Fern

 

[Lemon law]

Very true.

I think writing 'good' regulations is about as hard as it gets.

Then, even in the (rare?) case of a good regulation, the bureaucrat's tendancy is too keep adding to it. It'll keep getting fixed til it's broken. Look at the tax code and IRS regulations.

Fern

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I somewhat disagree. Good regulation is inexpensive and cheap.

Look at the reforms in our lending laws, forcing all lenders to inform the consumer of the cost of borrowing up front.

Before that the entire lending industry had loan terms almost impossible to calculate. At a stroke of pen of new law all those bank hired creative loan writers who majored in confusing in college were fired. But cheer up, they now find ample employment in our cell phone industry.

 

[JSt0rm]

I think anarchist420 is really anand out for some lulz.