Why do Republicans have an issue with regulating businesses but not people?
kir
2012/06/30 01:31:30
|
|
|||||
|
6 votes
|
|
21% | |||
|
2 votes
|
|
7% | |||
|
2 votes
|
|
7% | |||
|
2 votes
|
|
7% | |||
|
17 votes
|
|
59% | |||
(A) Republicans support
- the regulation of marriage
- the regulation of reproduction
- the regulation of drug use
- the number of people entering this country
(B) Republicans oppose
What's going on here? How is regulation super bad yet perfectly acceptable in so many instances as well? If you're a Republican and support category A regulation and not category B, please tell me what quality makes the items in these two categories distinctly different and how that difference allows category A to be regulated but not B
- the regulation of green house gas emissions
- the regulation of sales
- the regulation of corporate campaign contributions
- the regulation of soda, alcohol, and cigarettes
What's going on here? How is regulation super bad yet perfectly acceptable in so many instances as well? If you're a Republican and support category A regulation and not category B, please tell me what quality makes the items in these two categories distinctly different and how that difference allows category A to be regulated but not B
Read More: http://politicoid.blogspot.com
Top Opinion
-
cynsity 2012/06/30 01:42:42Undecided
+5Actually you are mis representing here... Republican support the RIGHT of the STATES to regulate PRIVILEGES! Marriage is a PRIVILEGE if it wasnt then you could still marry your child off at birth, you wouldn't have to get a licence or met an age requirement or make changes to your tax filing status.... Reps what to regulate what FEDERAL TAX money is spent on and when it is spent on NON FEDERAL things like reproduction that is a violation of the taxing powers. Have as many babies as you want have as many abortions as you want but do NOT ask others to pay for those things or we will start controlling them. When you ask the government to pay for something you waive your right to autonomy end of story.. Drug use is purely a corperation-political marriage and it will never be solved... OH and the DEMS said I Do t that one not the republicans, and every country on the planet regualtes their boarders and most of them do so at the wrong end of a gun... try crossing Mexicos southern boarder without proper documents... yeah they shoot you there in the street
The FACTS are;
A1) The GOP AND the Democrats BOTH "support the regulation of marriage"!!!
A2) "The regulation of marriage is SUPPORTED by BOTH party's!!!
A3) BOTH party's want to "regulate reproduction", the Dem's by allowing the murder of a fetus and the GOP by trying to SAVE the fetus!!!
A4) "The regulation of drug use" is SUPPORTED by BOTH party's also!!!
A5) You FINALLY got ONE correct !!! The GOP tries to HONOR and FOLLOW the 14 th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution while the Dem's prefer to IGNORE the U.S. Constitution !!!
B1) You ignore the FACT that, "The Byrd–Hagel Resolution was a BIPARTISAN United States Senate Resolution passed unanimously with a vote of 95–0 on 25 July 1997. The resolution stated that it was not the sense of the senate that the United States should be a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol."
http://www.nationalcenter.org...
B2) LOL, ...
The FACTS are;
A1) The GOP AND the Democrats BOTH "support the regulation of marriage"!!!
A2) "The regulation of marriage is SUPPORTED by BOTH party's!!!
A3) BOTH party's want to "regulate reproduction", the Dem's by allowing the murder of a fetus and the GOP by trying to SAVE the fetus!!!
A4) "The regulation of drug use" is SUPPORTED by BOTH party's also!!!
A5) You FINALLY got ONE correct!!! The GOP tries to HONOR and FOLLOW the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution while the Dem's prefer to IGNORE the U.S. Constitution!!!
B1) You ignore the FACT that, "The Byrd–Hagel Resolution was a BIPARTISAN United States Senate Resolution passed unanimously with a vote of 95–0 on 25 July 1997. The resolution stated that it was not the sense of the senate that the United States should be a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol."
http://www.nationalcenter.org...
B2) LOL, BOTH party's SUPPORT "the regulation of sales", and if you doubt that the Dem's do, simply read OBAMACARE!!!
B3) Once again, BOTH party's OPPOSE "the regulation of corporate campaign contributions"!!! If you don't think so, simply check how much BOTH party's have ACCEPTED from corporations!!!
B4) And yet again, it is BOTH party's that SUPPORT "the regulation of soda, alcohol, and cigarettes"!!!
All YOU needed to do was RESEARCH your ridiculous claims and you would have seen for yourself just how truly nonsensical your claims are!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In the 2010 midterm election cycle, candidates for office, political parties, and independent groups spent a total of $3.6 billion on federal elections. The average winner of a seat in the House of Representatives spent $1.4 million on his or her campaign. The average winner of a Senate seat spent $9.8 million.
The money for campaigns for federal office comes from four broad categories of sources:
(1) small individual contributors (individuals who contribute $200 or less)
(2) large individual contributors (individuals who contribute more than $200)
(3) political action committees
(4) self-financing (the candidate's own money).
In the 2010 Congressional races, the sources of campaign contributions broke down as follows:
Small Individual Contributors
House Democrats-------9%
House Republicans----14%
Senate Democrats-----12%
Senate Republicans---18%
Large Individual Contributors
House Democrats------47%
House Republicans----48%
Se...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In the 2010 midterm election cycle, candidates for office, political parties, and independent groups spent a total of $3.6 billion on federal elections. The average winner of a seat in the House of Representatives spent $1.4 million on his or her campaign. The average winner of a Senate seat spent $9.8 million.
The money for campaigns for federal office comes from four broad categories of sources:
(1) small individual contributors (individuals who contribute $200 or less)
(2) large individual contributors (individuals who contribute more than $200)
(3) political action committees
(4) self-financing (the candidate's own money).
In the 2010 Congressional races, the sources of campaign contributions broke down as follows:
Small Individual Contributors
House Democrats-------9%
House Republicans----14%
Senate Democrats-----12%
Senate Republicans---18%
Large Individual Contributors
House Democrats------47%
House Republicans----48%
Senate Democrats-----53%
Senate Republicans---42%
Political Action Committees
House Democrats------38%
House Republicans----24%
Senate Democrats-----15%
Senate Republicans---12%
Self-Financing
House Democrats-----3%
House Republicans---12%
Senate Democrats----12%
Senate Republicans--20%
Other
House Democrats-----3%
House Republicans---3%
Senate Democrats----8%
Senate Republicans--8%
the information might have been worthwhile. I've found in life that people who
must make ignorant aggressive attacks like you do are most often undereducated hicks from small rural places, else juveniles trying to become "adult" but not knowing how, or both.
And as far as YOU "finding ANYTHING in life" what a complete FARCE!!! LOL, YOU'RE too STUPID to find your butt with both hands, let alone LEARN anything!!!
This does bring us to an interesting point though; the Republicans and the Democrats are both more than willing to accept major campaign contributions from less than reputable sources.
The regulation of reproduction? Does abortion ring a bell, how about all the blathering about population control, hardly a right wing position!
The regulation of drug use? When did Democrats call for the legalization of drugs? That's more libertarian and even anarchist.
The number of people entering this country? Can I bring some illegals over to your house to stay?
The regulation of green house gas emissions? Democrats want to tax it, not control it!
The regulation of sales? What does that mean?
The regulation of corporate campaign contributions? I think you got that one completely wrong.
The regulation of soda, alcohol and cigarettes? So, you love illegal drugs but that darn soda has to be controlled!
Most regulations kill the free market. It costs over $10,000 in regulatory costs for a new employee, that's not a problem?
Overall, I think you could benefit from a real economics class. You should also learn something about freedom.
I don't blather about population control; you're mistaking me with someone else; please read my blog or other polls.
I'm actually closer to being a libertarian/constitutional conservative; I'm most definitely not a democrat; again read my blog.
That question ignores the point of why you think free market works in the case of wages and not in the case of immigration.
Sin taxes are a form of control; so Democrats do want to control it.
Regulation of what products can be sold and minimum requires such as regulating what must be provided in health insurance.
How did I get that wrong? Both the Republicans and Democrats agree that it is unconstitutional, but while the Democrats are trying to amend the constitution to change that Republicans want to keep it constitutional; why?
No; I'm in the group that thinks neither category should be regulated and that the government is overly oppressive. Now answer my question. Why should we not regulate alcohol and tobacco but we should regulate other drugs?
Yes, I'm aware of regulations killing the free market; that's by definition of a regulation and a free market. You'...
I don't blather about population control; you're mistaking me with someone else; please read my blog or other polls.
I'm actually closer to being a libertarian/constitutional conservative; I'm most definitely not a democrat; again read my blog.
That question ignores the point of why you think free market works in the case of wages and not in the case of immigration.
Sin taxes are a form of control; so Democrats do want to control it.
Regulation of what products can be sold and minimum requires such as regulating what must be provided in health insurance.
How did I get that wrong? Both the Republicans and Democrats agree that it is unconstitutional, but while the Democrats are trying to amend the constitution to change that Republicans want to keep it constitutional; why?
No; I'm in the group that thinks neither category should be regulated and that the government is overly oppressive. Now answer my question. Why should we not regulate alcohol and tobacco but we should regulate other drugs?
Yes, I'm aware of regulations killing the free market; that's by definition of a regulation and a free market. You're still not answering the question of why the free market works in some cases and not in others, and what makes the difference.
You should learn to get a better grasp of what people think before coming to a conclusion. My point is that Republicans like Democrats have no issue with oppressive government as long as that government is supporting what the respective party believes.
You want to control the dangerous drugs; alcohol and cigarettes aren't dangerous?
I would think that terminating a life before it was born would be considered 'regulating reproduction'.
Regulation of drug use?
Sorry, buddy. That's not limited to one Party.
Regulation of sales?
Republicans make no bones about advocating a free market.
Look up the definition of 'liberal' sometime to see the position on the free market.
Regulation of corporate campaign contributions?
Not just Republicans but the Supreme Court as well
Regulation of soda, alcohol, and cigarettes.
Soda? You're joking, right?
I think everyone is still laughing about Bloomberg, the Soda Nazi.
The biggest one is alcohol and cigarettes vs other drugs. What makes other drugs different from alcohol and cigarettes? Why is one okay for the government to regulate and the other is not? I'd like to hear a good argument for that one.
Free market works for wages but not for immigration? Why's that?
Fair point on campaign contributions, though that's why the Democrats are trying to pass an amendment so that they can regulate it. Why do you think it should remain constitutional?
As I said before, I think the regulation of other drugs is just as stupid; please give a valid reason why it's different.
It should be banned by the FDA.
But putting the blame on the Repubicans is wrong. The crop was grown in the South when Democrats held the majority there. I would think Democrats have just as much blame for the tobacco industry, if not more . . . but I'd have to research it to be sure.
Polluting?
I'm not going to go into the global warming thing. I'm sick of that discussion.
That's basically industry against government regulations.
And industry is represented more by Republicans but not limited to just Republicans.
Alcohol? In a perfect world that would be a prescription too.
But once again, you attribute that position to one Party. Wrong . . . and naive.
"Free market works for wages but not for immigration?"
Huh?
Regarding what you feel is stupid is not the position of the Democratic Party.
So, there's no reason for me to justify a position that you erroneously attribute to just one Party.
I'm confused. Your position is cigarettes regulated, drugs not regulated?
What about levels of mercury in gasoline? That's a pollutant that's not related to global warming. What about light pollution?
I somehow doubt your desire to regulate many of these things is common to the Republican party, if it is, then the Republicans are even more oppressive than I thought.
When did I say I wanted one banned and not the other? Neither category should be regulated; that's my position.
"Neither category should be regulated; that's my position"
So now you're advocating what you attribute to Republicans?
Read your title and your post.
They are so illogical, I don't even know where to begin.
I guess I'll start with this sentence of yours, "Interesting; so the government has the power to regulate something out of the market that it disagrees with?
and then, strangely enough, jump to this sentence, "What about levels of mercury . . ."
The answer is yes, followed up with mercury is a good example.
Since I'm a retired Chemistry/Math teacher, I see the need for the FDA and EPA (another one of those alphabet agencies).
Then the childish accusation of me disliking the FDA. Really?
What does my emotions have to do with federal regulation agencies?
They serve a purpose.
The fact that I used them as an example of the agency that should be used for regulating tobacco sales demonstrates my understanding of their function and the need for such an agency. Dislike?
Interesting thought process.
What gives the government the authority to regulate marriage?
You would have to ask people long dead about marriage!!
I'm in the same category as you; I don't believe either should be regulated. I'm sad to see that more people didn't pick this option and instead went with undecided.
We don't regulate reproduction.China does that.We don't like abortions.An abortion stops a beating heart.Common sense tells you to regulate the amount of people that enter the U.S.We are paying for it.If you have a party don't you invite the amount of people you are capable of taking care of.It's all common sense.But you LIBERALS
don't have any.When you take care of a family.Do you have a budget or spend more then you get?Do you teach you kids right from wrong?or do you let them run rampant?Do you have rules and regulations?If you are a liberal,I doubt you do any of those things.
Oh, and I'm not liberal; I'm socially moderate and fiscally conservative. I'm also a constitutionalist.
I am a constitutionalist and the answer is pretty much that A and B can not be regulated by the federal government and should not be regulated by the state governments.