What do you guys think about Obama's Win?

Polar bears.

 

One of the conservative (hell, just Republican from what it seems like) people in the states has no room to say "I'm moving." They are saying, "I'm going to move some place that is exactly what I don't want the States to become!" How hypocritical is that? Dem./Libs can say that if Romney won because it doesn't conflict with their beliefs. I find that hilarious! Tell your friend on Facebook they're an idiot for me Blade!

 

I did tell her that she wouldnt like us

 

Oh come on Blade I like you guy's, your good neighbors. Heck when your doing good and your dollars are high you come here to shop, and when the US dollar is high we come to Canada to shop. Who could want more? Anyway I'd come there too, at least your country knows how to be successful with socialism.

 

So, this was actually pretty funny.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkNRZApzEs0"]Obama to Leno: Grudge with Donald Trump goes back to childhood days in Kenya - YouTube[/ame]

Say what you will about Obama from a political point of view, he does radiate cool at a personal level.

 

awww, thanks, little capitalist friend. :love: We love you too. We do love our neighbors, truly.

yeah I wish you guys could do socialism better than u are currently. I think obama wants to, but americans dont seem to know how to do it, Obama doesnt seem to know HOW to do it. obamacare would help lots of people, but he could make it better than currently. cold war kool aid or something, I don't know, really.

 

6,000 new regulations!

http://www.regulations.gov/#!home;tab=search

 

Lots of them seem to be about pesticides.

Heavily regulated pesticides don't sound like a bad thing to me. Those things can be dangerous.

 

But isn't it every American's constitutional right to bear pesticides?

 

I agree many regulations regarding public safety are needed, it just seems that 6000 in 90 day's is over the top. Another example of big government manipulating policies at the expense of it's citizens.

 

Surely that depends on whether it is at the expense of the citizens.

Taking pesticides as an example - if you give people the freedom to use cheaper but potentially harmful pesticides, chances are that some people will take the short-term economic incentive to do so.

By removing that freedom, you're protecting a greater number from harm.

 

Are they all regulations? A lot seem to be public submissions, minutes of meetings, reviews, reports and similar rather than regulations themselves.

 

I agree, it's the governments job to protect the citizens, however it gets to the point where it becomes intrusive and effects economic growth. If the government was truly considering public safety then they would implement education and training for individual industries, and provide incentives to self regulate, which seems to me would be far more productive.

 

Personally, I don't think education or self-regulation are solutions. Often harmful decision aren't taken through lack of knowledge, but because all the economic incentives are towards making a quick buck. From the small farmer who uses the cheaper insecticide because it'll help him meet the mortgage payments on his farm to the corporate CEO who knows he'll be replaced by the shareholders if he doesn't return more of the profits as dividends.

People always prioritize the immediate problem (I'll lose my farm/job) over the long term (I might give someone cancer in 5 years time due to runoff of pollutants).

That's, theoretically, why the government are there. To take that decision out of their hands so that citizens don't have that prioritization to make.

I think you'll probably disagree with me on this, as it's fundementally where our idiologies differ, but that's my point of view anyway.

 

You know what really hurts economic growth? Financial crises caused by mass de-regulation.

 

You've clearly never seen Trailer Park Boys. It's a documentary about life in Canada and pretty much everyone has a gun in it. It's kind of a problem there apparently.

 

De-regulation of course can cause economic problems I think we've seen that recently, over regulation can stifle the economy as well. There certainly needs to be a balance in regulation with regard to cause and effect.

 

exactly. there needs to be the right balance between the good of the country as a whole, and capitalism. i mean i love capitalism. i think we all do. but there has to be regulations. period.

 

Yes, and it's a misconception to think that capitalists, republicans, and conservatives want "mass de-regulation". There are many outdated, obsolete, and regulations that cause more harm than good. Special interest groups, labor unions, and big business use lobbying and campaign donations to sway the political platforms on both sides of the isle. At the end of the day the public and small to micro size businesses pay for these with taxes, fee's, penalties, higher costs goods, unemployment, and in some cases health related injuries. So IMO it would seem important to have discussion and study on new and existing regulations and reports given before implementation. In other words regulations would have to pass an impact study to be justified.

 

One of the massive regulations that I hope they push through is monetizing ecological services. I can't imagine the amount of legal red tape or research that they'd have to collate to accurately assess the value of ecological services (and enforce regulations on paying for them, etc.), but if you think about it, it's kind of ludicrous that we DON'T include that cost now for construction and such.

I come from an eco background, and I can tell you that one of the problems with such a seemingly reasonable request is that politicians are simultaneously defunding agencies like the EPA so that they can't conduct these impact assessments, then mire them in lawsuits for not having done their job.