Dean's "Re-Regulation" Of American Business

[TCO]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler


And all I said is that BAT is overall better than a technology mandated by statute. I know that you disagree with me as a matter of principle, but saying that BAT is flexible and does not always lead to perfect results is kicking in an open door.

"I'm unfamiliar with regs that have an economic spec written in. Certainly not one that is numeric."

Of course it's not numeric. Yet BAT usually includes an economic element. Where I'm currently working, IPPC law, the definitiion is technologies "developed on a scale which allows implementation in the relevant industrial sector, under economically and technically viable conditions, taking into consideration the costs and advantages, (...), as long as they are reasonably accessible to the operator."

"In the end, best available comes down to judegement calls and you get "clarification memos" and such"

Of course you need guidelines or even secondary legislation to get that broad fluffy outline applicable.

"It's not awful. But not perfect."

And what's perfect?

"But then some really rich competitor decides to buy it. And before you know it, it is GMP. And you are doing it to."

You always have early adoptors. Doesn't change the standard.

BAT may be generally better. (I don't know whether it's "always better" or not. Obviously if it has a downside, there is a possbility that there may be times when that downside outweighs other downsides.) In any case, it is useful to know the way it has flaws.

[TCO]

Another downside is that if you have BAT, you will probably need more and better skilled regulators to judge the situation. Since it is not a pass-fail inspection. I'm sure it costs more to pay for an FDA inspector who walks through a plant and makes a sophisticate judgement than it does for a grunt who looks at vacuum tube wattages.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ramo

The Dean campaign isn't funded right now by soft money. It's picked up momentum because it has such broad support among ordinary people who are willing to shell out what little they can afford. The candidate wasn't hand-picked by the DLC and wall street. Dean has proven that a democratic campaign is workable, and his election will encourage more of the same.

I never said it was. I referred clearly to the soft money.

And while soft money will certainly play a part by Dean (if he wins) in the general election,

Yes.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


Hmm thats strange. I guess thats why they opposed desegregation, oppose large numbers of immigrants, and has more racists voting for it and who are in it than any other political party.

I see. Another victim of Democrat propaganda.

I reported earlier that Affirmative action with quota's and timetables was a Nixon program. The Republicans were key to passing both Civil Rights acts. Eisenhower sent in the troops to enforce Brown v. Board of Education.

The opposition to illegal immigration is due to the strain the immigrants cause on the state budgets and because illegal aliens use mandated government services but do not pay taxes. Business are generally in favor of more legal immigration so that they can hire skilled workers. It is the UNIONS who oppose immigration because they represent wage competition.

So, take your proganda and go to hell.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ramo

And get a new catch phrase.

Do you have a creative suggestion? And at least you seem to sense that when I chide you it is a whole different thing then when I mess with Sava or the like. This seems appropriate for a calc-whiz broken-kneed ex-wrestler. And...I mean you, not me!

[JohnT]

You tell 'em, Ned!

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ned


I see. Another victim of Democrat propaganda.

I reported earlier that Affirmative action with quota's and timetables was a Nixon program. The Republicans were key to passing both Civil Rights acts. Eisenhower sent in the troops to enforce Brown v. Board of Education.

The opposition to illegal immigration is due to the strain the immigrants cause on the state budgets and because illegal aliens use mandated government services but do not pay taxes. Business are generally in favor of more legal immigration so that they can hire skilled workers. It is the UNIONS who oppose immigration because they represent wage competition.

So, take your proganda and go to hell.

Of interest, the WSJ is in favor of an expanded bracero program.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Republicans are always trying to reduce regulation and to structure tax policy to promote business.

Three words.

Roosevelt and Taft.

[Dom Pedro II]

Ohhh yeaaahhh!.... Taft takin' out the garbage, and bustin' them trusts...

Who is the man who's always in demand?

TAFT!

Yeah, he's one bad mutha -

Shut your mouth!

What? I'm just talkin' bout Taft...

[chequita guevara]

[Odin]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Three words.

Roosevelt and Taft.

Trust-Buster Extrordinares.

Ned, you are an idiot if you don't think the modern GOP is very differnent creature then it was originally.

[DanS]

It's amazing where this thread has gone. I just started it in order to make fun of Dean.

AS: Isn't that stuff about vacuum tubes and the like written into the regs, not the actual law?

Roosevelt and Taft."

Remember that Taft was also called "Mr. Conservative." There's nothing incompatible between conservativism and trust-busting. Trusts reduce competition, which in the long run is bad for business.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Three words.

Roosevelt and Taft.

Yes. But the abuses of monopoly power had become quite apparent to all. Action was required.

I am a Republican, but I fully support the anti-trust laws and believe the breakup of Standard Oil was right. Ditto AT&T. Ditto Microsoft.

Why?

Because I believe competition is the soul of productivity and innovation.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Odin


Trust-Buster Extrordinares.

Ned, you are an idiot if you don't think the modern GOP is very differnent creature then it was originally.

The core values remain. The Republican party is pro-business and also includes the religious right who then, and now, viewed slavery as an abomination. Did you hear Bush's last speech to the UN on this topic?

Lincoln built the intercontinental railways. Eisenhower built the interstate highway system.

How, may I ask, is the Republican party different today from the party it was then?

[Ramo]

Ramo, welfare doesn't keep the enterpising black from leaving the ghetto any more that Indian "welfare" doesn't keep the Indian on the reservation. However, the vast majority still stay on the reservation because they have no need to leave it.

Also, it is the liberals who oppose vouchers, the only chance many blacks have of getting a better education. The liberals insist on keeping the blacks confined in the failed ghetto schools while they send their elitist kids to expensive private schools.

Of course, the voucher plans conservatives support tend not to give the poor enough money to actually pay for a private education, and thus would deprive the poor of even more public funding.

On liberal-conservative, these change over time depending on who is defending the status quo. However, the label "conservative" has been today affixed to the Republican Party even though its core principles are the same as they were in the days of Lincoln.

Ah yes, Lincoln's principles. You mean the principles that the military should break strikes, that the state should redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich, that poor farmers should be ****ed over, and that blacks are inferior to whites and that they should be deprived of true liberty? Yes, I agree; the Republicans do subscribe to these priciples.

However, today's liberals have nothing in common with Lincoln.

Unfortunately that's not the case.