Everything is Illegal

[jgoose71 0]

John Stossel put together another outstanding report.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBiJB8YuDBQ

Some of the things that are illegal:

Opening a lemonade Stand.
Building a house on your property after the government floods it.
Buying/selling organic food.
Growing the wrong tree in your yard.
Bible study.
filming police.

The list goes on.

What was really telling is the interview with the taxi lobbyist. In most places except Washington DC, you have to purchase a "medallion" to drive a taxi there. These Medallions go for a million dollars a piece (one per company). The lobbyist said this is a good thing because driving a taxi is a regulated industry and this will keep the little guy out. Big business stepping on the little guy again. Listen to how much he gets paid per hour and ask yourself if small business owners can afford a lobbyist.

One of the things here that John doesn't mention but I found interesting was the case of the little girl who had her lunch taken away:
http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2012/02/14/a-turkey-sandwich-and-chips-from-home-versus-school-nuggets-sounds-like-a-toss-up-to-me/

Her lunch of a turkey & cheese sandwich, banana, chips and juice was deemed not healthy enough and was told to eat chicken nuggets from the cafeteria.

80,000 pages of new regulations a year and you don't see a problem with this? You can't step out onto your front yard without doing something illegal now a days. But this is what you get when you want big government in your life.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[Andy9o8 2]

Some of the other things that are illegal in some or all of the US -

-growing or possessing certain naturally-occurring plants, their in completely raw, unprocessed form, because the government defines them as unlawful drugs.

-Creating or possessing pornography depicting consenting adults only, if a local community determines a pornographic work to meet its standard for obscenity.

-Consenting adults engaging in mutual sexual conduct in exchange for money or other value, or even merely soliciting or agreeing to do so (the latter is usually called "soliciting prostitution"). Yep, just the words alone are a criminal offense.

-Up until 2003, consenting adults engaging in various forms of sexual conduct very broadly defined as "sodomy".

==> AND YET - conservatives who claim to want big government off our backs are the most rabid champions of these types of laws.

As the saying goes, if the foo shits, wear it.

[jgoose71 0]

And Liberals are responsible for the other half of the insane laws that will steal your property and throw you in jail for selling lemonade. This isn't a party specific issue. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that republicans are innocent either.

My chief complaint is how we are starting to become so over regulated that everything is illegal. I find my self voting republican because I find them them the lesser of 2 evils. But I also find myself leaning more towards being a libertarian on a lot of stuff.

As a lawyer though, I but you find yourself making a lot of money interpreting all these regulations now a days. Simplifying stuff so people could do for them selves would just be bad business...

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[airdvr 210]

it's always about sex with you

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Andy9o8 2]

For about the past 100 years (so it's nothing new), the Republicans have used the seductive sloganeering of bashing regulations. Well, modern regulations, and laws that give rise to such regulations, have been responsible for OUTRAGES such as mandating:

- fire exits that cannot be locked or blocked from the inside

- fire escapes

- sprinkler systems

- smoke detectors

- seat belts in vehicles

- various forms of crashworthiness engineered into vehicles

- pollution controls to give the non-smokers of the world a fighting chance at not dying of lung cancer or having children that don't look like Namowal's duck.

- safety guards and dead-hand controls on factory, farm and lawn-care machinery to reduce the incidence of traumatic amputations

- respirators (and/or filtration systems) to benefit industrial workers exposed to harmful fumes or particles in the air they must breathe

- roll-bars or roll cages on many types of construction, farm and lawn-care vehicles


==> All of which, you can bet your first-born child, were opposed by the business community and the politicians they collude with.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

it's always about sex with you

Hookers and blow, to be precise.

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

For about the past 100 years (so it's nothing new), the Republicans have used the seductive sloganeering of bashing regulations. Well, modern regulations, and laws that give rise to such regulations, have been responsible for OUTRAGES such as mandating:

- fire exits that cannot be locked or blocked from the inside

- fire escapes

- sprinkler systems

- smoke detectors

- seat belts in vehicles

- various forms of crashworthiness engineered into vehicles

- pollution controls to give the non-smokers of the world a fighting chance at not dying of lung cancer or having children that don't look like Namowal's duck.

- safety guards and dead-hand controls on factory, farm and lawn-care machinery to reduce the incidence of traumatic amputations

- respirators (and/or filtration systems) to benefit industrial workers exposed to harmful fumes or particles in the air they must breathe

- roll-bars or roll cages on many types of construction, farm and lawn-care vehicles


==> All of which, you can bet your first-born child, were opposed by the business community and the politicians they collude with.

Not saying all regulations are bad. However, what do you have to say to the guy who had to sell his property to cover the legal bills because he wanted to build a house on it?

Or the guy who spent 6 years in jail and lost his family and business because he brought lobster into the country in plastic bags instead of 40lb boxes?

Or the little girl who had her lunch taken away because it wasn't healthy enough?

Issues like these are what I feel need to be addressed. Some laws clearly pass boundaries. I know lawyers like to confuse issues, it's a part of their battle strategy, but this in not the courtroom.

What do you think of the above examples?

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

what do you have to say to the guy who had to sell his property to cover the legal bills

"Thank you"?

[billvon 3,111]

>However, what do you have to say to the guy who had to sell his property to cover
>the legal bills because he wanted to build a house on it?

Same thing you say to the woman who is dying of lung cancer because of coal power plant pollution, I guess. "Sorry about that."

Any system of regulation takes away one right to guarantee another. Since they do take away rights they should be designed very carefully to minimize the loss of rights to some while maximizing the guarantee of rights for everyone else. However, no such compromise will be perfect.

>Issues like these are what I feel need to be addressed. Some laws clearly pass
>boundaries.

Agreed. Even though well intended, some laws end up having side effects that their creators did not intend; such side effects should be addressed.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Not saying all regulations are bad. However, what do you have to say to the guy who had to sell his property to cover the legal bills because he wanted to build a house on it?

Or the guy who spent 6 years in jail and lost his family and business because he brought lobster into the country in plastic bags instead of 40lb boxes?

Due diligence

[NewGuy2005 53]

Quote

==> AND YET - conservatives who claim to want big government off our backs are the most rabid champions of these types of laws.

I am a conservative and I am against those types of laws. So are lots of other conservatives.

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Quote

what do you have to say to the guy who had to sell his property to cover the legal bills

"Thank you"?

And thank you for your honesty...

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Agreed. Even though well intended, some laws end up having side effects that their creators did not intend; such side effects should be addressed.

Some laws have unintended side effects and some are just plain wrong.

What's most telling is the piece on the taxis. They used regulations to create themselves a monopoly. The lobbyist obviously did his job to sell it to congress.

This is exactly what happened with health care and why costs are so high. If you can legislate out the competition, you got free reign to do what you want.

Regulations should be put in place to prevent stuff like Enron. To bad there are no lobbyists for that.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[billvon 3,111]

>What's most telling is the piece on the taxis. They used regulations to create
>themselves a monopoly. The lobbyist obviously did his job to sell it to congress.

Yep. Down here we have a pretty good trolley system; it goes all over San Diego and carries a quarter million people a day. It goes within a few hundred yards of the airport. They were going to put in an airport stop so that people who lived in San Diego wouldn't need to drive to the airport; they could just take the trolley to the airport, saving parking, traffic etc.

The cabbies got together and lobbied for a law that prohibited the trolley from stopping at the airport. They got it. And voters were apathetic enough about public transit that it didn't have much opposition.

>Regulations should be put in place to prevent stuff like Enron.

There are now (Sarbanes-Oxley.) Good thing, right? Not according to some people. Ron Paul on Sarbanes-Oxley:

"These regulations are damaging American capital markets by providing an incentive for small US firms and foreign firms to deregister from US stock exchanges. According to a study by a researcher at the Wharton Business School, the number of American companies deregistering from public stock exchanges nearly tripled during the year after Sarbanes–Oxley became law, while the New York Stock Exchange had only 10 new foreign listings in all of 2004. The reluctance of small businesses and foreign firms to register on American stock exchanges is easily understood when one considers the costs Sarbanes–Oxley imposes on businesses. According to a survey by Korn/Ferry International, Sarbanes–Oxley cost Fortune 500 companies an average of $5.1 million in compliance expenses in 2004, while a study by the law firm of Foley and Lardner found the Act increased costs associated with being a publicly held company by 130 percent."

[rushmc 23]

There are now (Sarbanes-Oxley.) Good thing, right? Not according to some people. Ron Paul on Sarbanes-Oxley:

"These regulations are damaging American capital markets by providing an incentive for small US firms and foreign firms to deregister from US stock exchanges. According to a study by a researcher at the Wharton Business School, the number of American companies deregistering from public stock exchanges nearly tripled during the year after Sarbanes–Oxley became law, while the New York Stock Exchange had only 10 new foreign listings in all of 2004. The reluctance of small businesses and foreign firms to register on American stock exchanges is easily understood when one considers the costs Sarbanes–Oxley imposes on businesses. According to a survey by Korn/Ferry International, Sarbanes–Oxley cost Fortune 500 companies an average of $5.1 million in compliance expenses in 2004, while a study by the law firm of Foley and Lardner found the Act increased costs associated with being a publicly held company by 130 percent."

[Remster 30]

Quote

And Dodd Frank is why BoA is going to raise its fees

Bawaahaaaa!

That sounds like a mighty good excuse to rake in more money if you ask me...

Remster

[headoverheels 334]

Quote

And Dodd Frank is why BoA is going to raise its fees
they just will not be ATM fees but fees on checking accounts

Set to come out in a couple of months

I don't care. They are in business to make money, and as long as fees are well spelled out and not punitive, no problem. It's not like they are going to make tons of money by only paying you 0.1% interest on a small account when they can borrow elsewhere in quantity nearly as cheap.

I don't have a financial relationship with a bank, except a credit card so that I accumulate frequent flyer (buyer) miles. I can get cash at any 7-11 with no ATM fees, or at most credit unions.

Amended: I also have a mortgage which is being serviced by a bank -- better refi rate than my credit union, with zero cost.

[billvon 3,111]

>And Dodd Frank is why BoA is going to raise its fees

Good! They'll go out of business that much faster, and better banks will win out.

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

It's not like they are going to make tons of money by only paying you 0.1% interest on a small account when they can borrow elsewhere in quantity nearly as cheap.

A) It is like.

B) Add up a few million small accounts and soon you're talking real money.

C) How cheap?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

And Dodd Frank is why BoA is going to raise its fees

Bawaahaaaa!

That sounds like a mighty good excuse to rake in more money if you ask me...

Ya ya ya

evil damned companies

who'd a thunk they needed to make a profit to stay in business

(which includes expenses due to stupid gov regs)

And no, I am not say we need NO regulatations

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[popsjumper 2]

So...here's what you do.
You do nothing. Everything you do is against the law so if you want to be a law-abiding citizen, do nothing.


One of these days they are going to run out of laws to make...then what? Think of all those poor legislators with no lobbyists to pay them....sitting around doing nothing....going on vacation...avoiding the sessions....

...all the while, you, Mr. Law-abiding citizen, are being restricted to your bed where even there you are probably guilty of some crime.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Gravitymaster 0]

Doing nothing is illegal. It's called loitering.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

...all the while, you, Mr. Law-abiding citizen, are being restricted to your bed where even there you are probably guilty of some crime.

Probably? That will become a certainty if Santorum has his way.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

And Liberals are responsible for the other half of the insane laws

Indeed. Liberals and conservatives are both equally interested in removing personal freedoms. they just disagree on which freedoms they wish to remove.

Working together, liberals and conservatives do a fine job of working our way towards fewer and fewer freedoms.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[charlie5 0]

Quote

Quote

And Liberals are responsible for the other half of the insane laws

Indeed. Liberals and conservatives are both equally interested in removing personal freedoms. they just disagree on which freedoms they wish to remove.

Working together, liberals and conservatives do a fine job of working our way towards fewer and fewer freedoms.

A-f*cking-men

The feather butts bounce off ya like raindrops hitting a battle-star when they come in too fast...kinda funny to watch. - airtwardo