There should be NO Regulations Made by Bureaucrats

[STODR]

Duty hours is not driving hours. Also when you take a 34 hr break it restarts the clock, getting anouther 34 after 1 day off is not possible. Airline pilots have similar rules.

[Samm]

@Ceasar

@Samm

@Ceasar

@Samm

@Ben_Natuf

@Publius

Agencies don’t make regs that haven’t been explicitly authorized by Congress.

they do, and that is why we have three branches of government, so they can tussle with each other about what power they have.

Yes. And the vast majority of regulation falls clearly within the Statutory direction given by Congress. It is only when overreach, such as we have seen in EPA’s air, water and wetland regulations, (which, by the way, have much support by some members of Congress) that legal cases develop to challenge those Agency moves. Most regulations that we live with every day not only do exactly what Congress intended at the time the Legislation was passed, but they are also supported by the vast majority of the people because they work.

Put me down as not trusting most of them, wanting to fire 80% of all bureaucrats, and doing away with 70% of all gobment agencies altogether.

That won’t help. The Law and the regulations are still there. All that would accomplish is to add months, perhaps years, to any process that requires compliance with a regulation.

VERY few regulations means few bureaucrats and short process. Also few regulations, as there is WAY too many, would require often no compliance.

I prefer a society that require little compliance and more freedom.

I repeat, the regulations are already in place. Reducing the number of bureaucrats won’t change that.

[Publius]

@Samm

@Ceasar

@Samm

@Ceasar

@Samm

@Ben_Natuf

@Publius

Agencies don’t make regs that haven’t been explicitly authorized by Congress.

they do, and that is why we have three branches of government, so they can tussle with each other about what power they have.

Yes. And the vast majority of regulation falls clearly within the Statutory direction given by Congress. It is only when overreach, such as we have seen in EPA’s air, water and wetland regulations, (which, by the way, have much support by some members of Congress) that legal cases develop to challenge those Agency moves. Most regulations that we live with every day not only do exactly what Congress intended at the time the Legislation was passed, but they are also supported by the vast majority of the people because they work.

Put me down as not trusting most of them, wanting to fire 80% of all bureaucrats, and doing away with 70% of all gobment agencies altogether.

That won’t help. The Law and the regulations are still there. All that would accomplish is to add months, perhaps years, to any process that requires compliance with a regulation.

VERY few regulations means few bureaucrats and short process. Also few regulations, as there is WAY too many, would require often no compliance.

I prefer a society that require little compliance and more freedom.

I repeat, the regulations are already in place. Reducing the number of bureaucrats won’t change that.

Not to mention, changing or eliminating a regulation requires regulatory action - by the same people.

[Ceasar]

@Samm

@Ceasar

@Samm

@Ceasar

@Samm

@Ben_Natuf

@Publius

Agencies don’t make regs that haven’t been explicitly authorized by Congress.

they do, and that is why we have three branches of government, so they can tussle with each other about what power they have.

Yes. And the vast majority of regulation falls clearly within the Statutory direction given by Congress. It is only when overreach, such as we have seen in EPA’s air, water and wetland regulations, (which, by the way, have much support by some members of Congress) that legal cases develop to challenge those Agency moves. Most regulations that we live with every day not only do exactly what Congress intended at the time the Legislation was passed, but they are also supported by the vast majority of the people because they work.

Put me down as not trusting most of them, wanting to fire 80% of all bureaucrats, and doing away with 70% of all gobment agencies altogether.

That won’t help. The Law and the regulations are still there. All that would accomplish is to add months, perhaps years, to any process that requires compliance with a regulation.

VERY few regulations means few bureaucrats and short process. Also few regulations, as there is WAY too many, would require often no compliance.

I prefer a society that require little compliance and more freedom.

I repeat, the regulations are already in place. Reducing the number of bureaucrats won’t change that.

Yes I get that. My point is do away with 80% of the regulations that are in place, ALSO reduce the bureaucrats.

Only regulations actually needed, minimal. We don’t need a rule book with a hundred thousand pages. Too many laws, too many bureaucrats to pay and tell us what to do, too many taxes, too much debt.

We don’t need income taxes with a million and a half page tax code. Simplify, reduce, and get the HUGE burden off our necks and backs.

Minimal rules, maximum freedom.

[Samm]

@Ceasar

@Samm

@Ceasar

@Samm

@Ceasar

@Samm

@Ben_Natuf

@Publius

Agencies don’t make regs that haven’t been explicitly authorized by Congress.

they do, and that is why we have three branches of government, so they can tussle with each other about what power they have.

Yes. And the vast majority of regulation falls clearly within the Statutory direction given by Congress. It is only when overreach, such as we have seen in EPA’s air, water and wetland regulations, (which, by the way, have much support by some members of Congress) that legal cases develop to challenge those Agency moves. Most regulations that we live with every day not only do exactly what Congress intended at the time the Legislation was passed, but they are also supported by the vast majority of the people because they work.

Put me down as not trusting most of them, wanting to fire 80% of all bureaucrats, and doing away with 70% of all gobment agencies altogether.

That won’t help. The Law and the regulations are still there. All that would accomplish is to add months, perhaps years, to any process that requires compliance with a regulation.

VERY few regulations means few bureaucrats and short process. Also few regulations, as there is WAY too many, would require often no compliance.

I prefer a society that require little compliance and more freedom.

I repeat, the regulations are already in place. Reducing the number of bureaucrats won’t change that.

Yes I get that. My point is do away with 80% of the regulations that are in place, ALSO reduce the bureaucrats.

Only regulations actually needed, minimal. We don’t need a rule book with a hundred thousand pages. Too many laws, too many bureaucrats to pay and tell us what to do, too many taxes, too much debt.

We don’t need income taxes with a million and a half page tax code. Simplify, reduce, and get the HUGE burden off our necks and backs.

Minimal rules, maximum freedom.

“Do away with 80% of Regulations” is like saying “institute term limits on Congress” … It will never happen. What you need is a magic lamp and a three-wish Genie. (But it would be a shame to waste your wishes on this … government is like the nine-headed Hydra.)

[Ceasar]

@Samm

@Ceasar

@Samm

@Ceasar

@Samm

@Ceasar

@Samm

@Ben_Natuf

@Publius

Agencies don’t make regs that haven’t been explicitly authorized by Congress.

they do, and that is why we have three branches of government, so they can tussle with each other about what power they have.

Yes. And the vast majority of regulation falls clearly within the Statutory direction given by Congress. It is only when overreach, such as we have seen in EPA’s air, water and wetland regulations, (which, by the way, have much support by some members of Congress) that legal cases develop to challenge those Agency moves. Most regulations that we live with every day not only do exactly what Congress intended at the time the Legislation was passed, but they are also supported by the vast majority of the people because they work.

Put me down as not trusting most of them, wanting to fire 80% of all bureaucrats, and doing away with 70% of all gobment agencies altogether.

That won’t help. The Law and the regulations are still there. All that would accomplish is to add months, perhaps years, to any process that requires compliance with a regulation.

VERY few regulations means few bureaucrats and short process. Also few regulations, as there is WAY too many, would require often no compliance.

I prefer a society that require little compliance and more freedom.

I repeat, the regulations are already in place. Reducing the number of bureaucrats won’t change that.

Yes I get that. My point is do away with 80% of the regulations that are in place, ALSO reduce the bureaucrats.

Only regulations actually needed, minimal. We don’t need a rule book with a hundred thousand pages. Too many laws, too many bureaucrats to pay and tell us what to do, too many taxes, too much debt.

We don’t need income taxes with a million and a half page tax code. Simplify, reduce, and get the HUGE burden off our necks and backs.

Minimal rules, maximum freedom.

“Do away with 80% of Regulations” is like saying “institute term limits on Congress” … It will never happen. What you need is a magic lamp and a three-wish Genie. (But it would be a shame to waste your wishes on this … government is like the nine-headed Hydra.)

After democrats finish with economic collapse, the regs will be gone, just due to government will go broke too, so no pay for bureaucrats, no enforcement.

[Samm]

At that point the Counrty will be gone, so none of it will matter.

[Rurudyne]

Honoring the 10th would, though.

[Samm]

@Rurudyne

Honoring the 10th would, though.

Not by 80%. In fact, if powers were stripped from the Feds and handed to the States, the bureaucracy of the States would almost certainly increase accordingly. But I will grant you, that the closer government is to home the better. The regulations that may be appropriate for New York or California may be completely out of step for Montana or Alaska. If each state had autonomy to regulate (or not) everything not specifically under the Constitutional auspices of the Federal government, we may not have fewer regulations and regulators, but they must be more fitting to the associated situations in each state.

[Rurudyne]

Untrue. Virtually all of federal regulations have no enumerated power behind them.

[Samm]

I edited my post as you were replying.

[Rurudyne]

I read the edited version and want to challenge you with this thought: not even the populous States have the sheer werewithall and resources to be a hidebound, bureaucratic and bloated as the federal can. While California is presently infamous for its stupidity and overreach even that would crumble once they had to pay to enforce what the federal currently effectively subsidizes for them. And in the meantime some States might, as you point out, be far less bureaucratic.

Uneven laws as States do their thing is okay. In fact it was intended under the Constiturion.

[Samm]

Every State Government is a mini-me of the Federal Government. It is naive to think that they would do away with regulations on things that are not expressly under the Constitutional authority of the Federal Government. The regulations would be different and vary State to State, but they would still exist in comparable abundance.

[Rurudyne]

Did I say the States wouldn’t try?

No. I said the States would not be able to match the federal for mendacity and reach / overreach. Individually they may under their own constitutions have power but it is means they may lack. They cannot lawfully create money. In fact under the Constitution they can only pay their debts with gold or silver coin, no matter what the federal government or the central banks may say is money the specification of the sort of Money they can use has never been addressed by any amendment to the Constitution.

[Samm]

Your optimism is refreshing, but unwarranted.