Obama less regulatory than predecessors

[Paul Kemp]

Obama Wrote 5% Fewer Rules Than Bush While Costing Business

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-25/obama-wrote-5-fewer-rules-than-bush-while-costing-business.html

I do believe that some of the cost of business has to do with the economic environment that the nation has been in for the past few years.

[Jacobtm]

Republicans continue to make up complete B.S..

Democrats continue to not challenge it.

[tpfkaw]

So the regime informs us we should be grateful Obama is attempting to enforce economic totalitarianism at a 5% slower rate than Bush?  Give thanks, citizen!

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Regulation cost is generally underestimated because they don't include the discouragement regulations place on businesses from starting or expanding.

[Sbane]

Regulation cost is generally underestimated because they don't include the discouragement regulations place on businesses from starting or expanding.

But this is comparing the Bush administration to the Obama administration. It doesn't have anything to do with any underestimation of regulatory costs. Basically Obama has been the same as previous administrations, as opposed to what we hear at Republican debates.

[Rooney]

A lack of start up capital seems to me to be a bigger issue for the entrepreneur than government regulation. It is probably harder to start a business today than it was in 2005 because there is just no loose capital begging to be taken for investment. The walls are growing ever higher for entry into the castle. 

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Regulation cost is generally underestimated because they don't include the discouragement regulations place on businesses from starting or expanding.

But this is comparing the Bush administration to the Obama administration. It doesn't have anything to do with any underestimation of regulatory costs. Basically Obama has been the same as previous administrations, as opposed to what we hear at Republican debates.

Maybe, but there's really not enough information in the article to say how this comparison was made. My sense is the figures they are citing for both administrations are much too low. And then you have things like the health care reform law, which was been legislated, but we aren't seeing the regulation costs yet due to the implementation timeline.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

So the regime informs us we should be grateful Obama is attempting to enforce economic totalitarianism at a 5% slower rate than Bush?  Give thanks, citizen!

Please give me some indication of what an economic system would be that you would not consider totalitarian and which would also not lead to millions of people dying in gutters. Yes, even in the short term before we attain an Ideal Society. Yes, even 'leeches'.

I'm seriously dying to know.

[Landslide Lyndon]

So the regime informs us we should be grateful Obama is attempting to enforce economic totalitarianism at a 5% slower rate than Bush?  Give thanks, citizen!

You personally have nothing to fear, unless there is enacted some kind of regulation about tin-foil hats.

[Beet]

Obama has also deported far more illegal immigrants than Bush.

[All Along The Watchtower]

So the regime informs us we should be grateful Obama is attempting to enforce economic totalitarianism at a 5% slower rate than Bush?  Give thanks, citizen!

Please give me some indication of what an economic system would be that you would not consider totalitarian and which would also not lead to millions of people dying in gutters. Yes, even in the short term before we attain an Ideal Society. Yes, even 'leeches'.

I'm seriously dying to know.

wormyguy is a troll. Ignore him.

[tpfkaw]

So the regime informs us we should be grateful Obama is attempting to enforce economic totalitarianism at a 5% slower rate than Bush?  Give thanks, citizen!

Please give me some indication of what an economic system would be that you would not consider totalitarian and which would also not lead to millions of people dying in gutters. Yes, even in the short term before we attain an Ideal Society. Yes, even 'leeches'.

I'm seriously dying to know.

Certainly.  I would consider the economic system that has never led to "millions of people dying in gutters" but rather to an agricultural revolution that has boosted the Earth's human life carrying capacity tenfold to be the superior option.  On the other hand, the economic system which has universally led to mass starvation and "millions of people dying in gutters" wherever it has been applied to its logical conclusion, knowing of no other solution than to arrest (or shoot) farmers for "profiteering" by refusing to sell their produce at below cost, is a horrible one.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

So the regime informs us we should be grateful Obama is attempting to enforce economic totalitarianism at a 5% slower rate than Bush?  Give thanks, citizen!

Please give me some indication of what an economic system would be that you would not consider totalitarian and which would also not lead to millions of people dying in gutters. Yes, even in the short term before we attain an Ideal Society. Yes, even 'leeches'.

I'm seriously dying to know.

Certainly.  I would consider the economic system that has never led to "millions of people dying in gutters" but rather to an agricultural revolution that has boosted the Earth's human life carrying capacity tenfold to be the superior option.

A mixed economy that strategically and pragmatically employs tariffs, or (in non-Western societies, which you don't seem to realise have historically existed) command economies to a greater or lesser extent that didn't make a policy of mass murder? Completely and totally agreed.

Also, I said even in the short term, before we attain an Ideal Libertarian Paradise. Say we slash everything tomorrow to be replaced by nothing. What happens to the poor?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If people want to play that game (I would argue that they shouldn't), then Liberal Capitalism (big letters absolutely essential) led pretty much directly to the deaths of millions as a result of famine in various British colonies (often ones starting with the letter 'I' for some reason) in the 19th century.

[All Along The Watchtower]

If people want to play that game (I would argue that they shouldn't), then Liberal Capitalism (big letters absolutely essential) led pretty much directly to the deaths of millions as a result of famine in various British colonies (often ones starting with the letter 'I' for some reason) in the 19th century.

And it also was the economic system that was in place before and during the time in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s when certain...ahem..."parties" gained power as a reaction against  the threat of Communist revolution.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

If people want to play that game (I would argue that they shouldn't), then Liberal Capitalism (big letters absolutely essential) led pretty much directly to the deaths of millions as a result of famine in various British colonies (often ones starting with the letter 'I' for some reason) in the 19th century.

And it also was the economic system that was in place before and during the time in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s when certain...ahem..."parties" gained power as a reaction against  the threat of Communist revolution.

I was going to go in a less negative direction and point out that the other agricultural revolution, the one that led to people developing two-thirds of the vegetal foodstuffs now consumed by mankind without even using writing or the wheel, took place in the sort of environment that the flyers on my campus from the lovely people at the Ayn Rand Institute refer to as 'mystical, primitive, collectivist darkness', where people, for example, regularly burned over huge sections of the San Joaquin Valley to do immense communal breeding experiments.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Republicans continue to make up complete B.S..

Democrats continue to not challenge it.

They don't challenge it because they prefer Bush to be defined as a deregulator. You can't say Obama has wrote fewer regs then Bush, yet criticise Bush's "deregulation" for causing the recession.

[fezzyfestoon]

Republicans continue to make up complete B.S..

Democrats continue to not challenge it.

They don't challenge it because they prefer Bush to be defined as a deregulator. You can't say Obama has wrote fewer regs then Bush, yet criticise Bush's "deregulation" for causing the recession.

Very good point. The Democrats are in no political position to be criticizing anyone, unless they'd like the spotlight to really be focused on them. Any gripes they may have with the Republicans could easily be pinned on the Democrats' willingness to accept complete political failure. And as you pointed out, in some cases embracing it.

[Torie]

Sometimes just one regulation can have a big impact. Heck, Boeing can't go to South Carolina. How much waste is that one little NLRB ruling costing?  It must be billions and billions.

[The Mikado]

If people want to play that game (I would argue that they shouldn't), then Liberal Capitalism (big letters absolutely essential) led pretty much directly to the deaths of millions as a result of famine in various British colonies (often ones starting with the letter 'I' for some reason) in the 19th century.

http://www.amazon.com/Late-Victorian-Holocausts-Famines-Making/dp/1859843824

Pretty great book.