rushmc 23 #1 September 14, 2012 Should make the big government types happy QuoteCNSNews.com) – Over the past three years, the bound edition of the Code of Federal Regulations has increased by 11,327 pages – a 7.4 percent increase from Jan. 1, 2009 to Dec. 31, 2011. In 2009, the increase in the number of pages was the most over the last decade – 3.4 percent or 5,359 pages. QuoteSeventy percent of the regulations were economic, accounting for $1.236 trillion of the annual cost. The other regulations were, in order of cost, environment regulations ($281 billion), tax compliance ($160 billion) and occupational safety and health and homeland security ($75 billion). http://cnsnews.com/news/article/under-obama-11327-pages-federal-regulations-added"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wayneflorida 0 #2 September 14, 2012 Actually CBS types are not counting like a government officials. It is really a decrease. There were 19,750 pages proposed, but they thought that was a bit much so the feds reduced the size of the type set thus reducing overall new regulation pages by 42.6% It's for the children. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #3 September 14, 2012 Page count is a stupid metric. It's not the number of pages, it's the meaning and ramifications of the words on them.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #4 September 14, 2012 QuotePage count is a stupid metric. It's not the number of pages, it's the meaning and ramifications of the words on them. Well, I am sure there is a word or two in over 11,000 pages. But it you really need a better metric, why didnt you comment on the cost part of the post?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #5 September 14, 2012 Because cost is equally stupid. It's not the price you pay, it's what you get for it. If a person only looks at the cost then that person is foolish.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #6 September 14, 2012 QuoteBecause cost is equally stupid. It's not the price you pay, it's what you get for it. If a person only look at the cost then that person is foolish. I forget Lefties think government cost has a value added component"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #7 September 14, 2012 QuoteQuoteBecause cost is equally stupid. It's not the price you pay, it's what you get for it. If a person only look at the cost then that person is foolish. I forget Lefties think government cost has a value added component If one has even a slight glimpse of reality, one knows that there are major parts of the government that have "a value added component". The USDA works to keep the food supply safe. The CDC works on public health issues. The FBI works on national crime issues. The US Military works to defend the USA. One would have to be a complete and utter moron to have the belief that there is no part of the government that has a "value added component". If one is an easily led sheeple who takes weird web sites and massively biased TV networks as gospel, one could come to believe things that are patently ridiculous. Much like the foolish idea that a former professor of constitutional law is somehow a Marxist/Socialist. One has to be an easily led sheeple moron to fall for that shit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #8 September 14, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteBecause cost is equally stupid. It's not the price you pay, it's what you get for it. If a person only look at the cost then that person is foolish. I forget Lefties think government cost has a value added component QuoteIf one has even a slight glimpse of reality, one knows that there are major parts of the government that have "a value added component". The USDA works to keep the food supply safe. The CDC works on public health issues. The FBI works on national crime issues. The US Military works to defend the USA. One would have to be a complete and utter moron to have the belief that there is no part of the government that has a "value added component". If one is an easily led sheeple who takes weird web sites and massively biased TV networks as gospel, one could come to believe things that are patently ridiculous. Much like the foolish idea that a former professor of constitutional law is somehow a Marxist/Socialist. One has to be an easily led sheeple moron to fall for that shit. It kind of reminds of this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #9 September 14, 2012 QuoteShould make the big government types happy QuoteCNSNews.com) – Over the past three years, the bound edition of the Code of Federal Regulations has increased by 11,327 pages – a 7.4 percent increase from Jan. 1, 2009 to Dec. 31, 2011. In 2009, the increase in the number of pages was the most over the last decade – 3.4 percent or 5,359 pages. I'll go out on a limb and guess that CNSnews didn't give comparable figures for prior guys. And it didn't, other than noting that Shrub increased it by 4.4% during 2001-2003. (Just try to tell me that the guy who dumped the HSA and TSA on us isn't an example of big government types.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #10 September 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteShould make the big government types happy QuoteCNSNews.com) – Over the past three years, the bound edition of the Code of Federal Regulations has increased by 11,327 pages – a 7.4 percent increase from Jan. 1, 2009 to Dec. 31, 2011. In 2009, the increase in the number of pages was the most over the last decade – 3.4 percent or 5,359 pages. I'll go out on a limb and guess that CNSnews didn't give comparable figures for prior guys. And it didn't, other than noting that Shrub increased it by 4.4% during 2001-2003. (Just try to tell me that the guy who dumped the HSA and TSA on us isn't an example of big government types.) If I remember correctly it does But at this point I would have to go back and read it again"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #11 September 17, 2012 QuoteQuotePage count is a stupid metric. It's not the number of pages, it's the meaning and ramifications of the words on them. Well, I am sure there is a word or two in over 11,000 pages. But it you really need a better metric, why didnt you comment on the cost part of the post? The article cites a source which says the following... QuoteThe Crane estimate is for all regulations in effect as of 2008 (study was released in 2010). Regulations adopted since 2008 will result in higher total cost. And it doesn't go on to explain why more pages necessarily means more cost to comply with them, it just states it axiomatically. Personally, I think the length of a given regulation and the cost to comply with it would be largely uncorrelated. You can write short, clear, concise requirements that prohibit something and therefore cost a absolute fortune to implement. You can write requirements that are very long, loaded with lengthly definitions, to make it very clear what specific situation is being addressed that barely cost anything because they so rarely apply. Or you can write confusing, long-winded requirements that take a lawyers time * number of businesses in existence to sort out what it means to each business, and the behavior you were trying to regulate goes on because the actors in question squeeze through a loophole. It's fine to speak out / suggest we try and reduce regulations of this third type, but there seems to be no ammo in any of this information to make this about Obama or Bush or whomever. The study was conducted for the small business administration and the numbers are being tossed around carelessly by the chamber of commerce, so it's ripe for conflicts of interest, but there's a tempered statement buried in there that I think most can agree with. Concurrence gets easier and easier the less specific you get, but sometimes you have to take a step back. QuoteCertainly there are benefits from regulations, and no one is advocating elimination of all regulations, but the point of focusing on the cost of regulations is that with such a major “expenditure” of resources we need to be alert to the potential for waste and duplication. We need to look carefully at all existing and proposed new regulations to ensure that their purposes are justified and are worth the cost. Thorough and accurate analysis of regulatory costs and impacts can help to achieve policy objectives in an efficient, less costly way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #12 September 17, 2012 I thought CBS was one of those liberal media outlets? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #13 September 17, 2012 QuoteI thought CBS was one of those liberal media outlets? It means customer billing system where I work"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #14 September 17, 2012 The original article was from CNS, not CBS. CNS stands for Conservative News Service. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #15 September 18, 2012 QuoteThe original article was from CNS, not CBS. CNS stands for Conservative News Service. Apparently it stands for "Cybercast News Service," but yeah, you get the idea... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
