The forgotten American conservative & the condescending American liberal

[RedDenver]

9 hours ago, Making Chimichangas said:

You know what I'd like to do?  Start a new political movement called "The Independent Party."  It's for people who are essentially purple...not red, not blue--but a mix.  Because conservatives do have some great ideas and so do liberals, but neither side has all the answers.

 

For example, pertaining to regulations, Republicans want zero and Democrats want too much.  Neither option works.  My solution?  Make a regulation, but let businesses decide how best to comply. 

 

Government Regulation: Regarding waste disposal, dispose of it safely, properly, and in a way which protects the environment.

 

Notice that government is telling businesses they must dispose of their waste properly to protect the environment, but there is no long, 1,000 page manual spelling out how it is to be done.  Instead, let businesses figure out a way which works best for them.  Just my two pennies.  And it's probably too simple of an approach to actually work.

The reason we don't let businesses decide is because they come up with a thousand ways to dispose of that waste that saves them money but doesn't actually dispose of the waste. So then we change the regulation to be more specific to eliminate however the business was getting around the spirit of the law. Rinse and repeat. That's how 1000 page manuals end up existing.

[BigRedBuster]

2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

The reason we don't let businesses decide is because they come up with a thousand ways to dispose of that waste that saves them money but doesn't actually dispose of the waste. So then we change the regulation to be more specific to eliminate however the business was getting around the spirit of the law. Rinse and repeat. That's how 1000 page manuals end up existing.

Industries should have input in these issues.

 

A prime example is the cattle industry having input into regulations around the new E-Logs for truckers.  Government comes out with these great ideas for E-Logs and think it should apply to every truck on the road.

 

But, the cattle industry came out with legitimate concerns that you can't have a load of cattle on a truck and the truck automatically not be able to be driven because of the E-Log.  You would have cattle dying on these trucks all over the place.

It finally got changed, but, it was a real battle in the industry because there were people in government that had the attitude of....well....deal with it.

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

Industries should have input in these issues.

 

A prime example is the cattle industry having input into regulations around the new E-Logs for truckers.  Government comes out with these great ideas for E-Logs and think it should apply to every truck on the road.

 

But, the cattle industry came out with legitimate concerns that you can't have a load of cattle on a truck and the truck automatically not be able to be driven because of the E-Log.  You would have cattle dying on these trucks all over the place.

It finally got changed, but, it was a real battle in the industry because there were people in government that had the attitude of....well....deal with it.

I'm not saying business shouldn't be involved or that there aren't regulations that need fixing. But just that like every human ever, businesses aren't going to be entirely honest actors like MC seems to think.

[TGHusker]

There should be more defined tests on how regs will affect 1. the industry 2. environment  3. Community as a whole  and seeking compromise so that one sector is not overwhelmingly burdened. The cattle / elog situation BRB brings up is a good example of unintended consequences.   It gives a new meaning to the phrase "Whats for dinner tonight" -- cattle roadkill steak.

We can't blanket trust industry or we end up wt "Love Canal"  - (look it up if you don't recall) but too many regs can leave an industry noncompetitive in the global market. 

[RedDenver]

2 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

There should be more defined tests on how regs will affect 1. the industry 2. environment  3. Community as a whole  and seeking compromise so that one sector is not overwhelmingly burdened. The cattle / elog situation BRB brings up is a good example of unintended consequences.   It gives a new meaning to the phrase "Whats for dinner tonight" -- cattle roadkill steak.

We can't blanket trust industry or we end up wt "Love Canal"  - (look it up if you don't recall) but too many regs can leave an industry noncompetitive in the global market. 

Correct. Also, it's possible to have strict regulations and subsidize an industry to keep it competitive if we need to. Reducing regulations isn't the only way to go.

[Calvin]

9 hours ago, Making Chimichangas said:

Notice that government is telling businesses they must dispose of their waste properly to protect the environment, but there is no long, 1,000 page manual spelling out how it is to be done.  Instead, let businesses figure out a way which works best for them.  Just my two pennies.  And it's probably too simple of an approach to actually work.

 

Actually, there are very specific rules spelled out in the CFR, Chapter 40.  Huge fines are levied on violators of these rules every day.  

[TGHusker]

I agree with Patti Davis, Reagan's daughter, 100% on this.   Trump is the 'anti-Reagan' in so many ways.  A wolf in sheep (maybe goat would be better) clothing. 

Trump likes to think he is the new Reagan but he isn't close and his supporters are lying when they say they are similar.   This is the difference between old

conservatism and what is being falsely claimed as conservatism now by the bulk of today's republican party.  Today's Repub party would not be supportive

of Reagan in my opinion - if he was running for president (as a new candidate - not as the Reagan we see in hindsight). 

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mourning-america-what-my-father-ronald-reagan-would-say-today/2018/06/03/a0fe1cfe-65be-11e8-a69c-b944de66d9e7_story.html?utm_term=.4c272e68ba8f

 

 

Quote

 

My father used to talk about a recurring dream he had in which he was walking into a beautiful white building with grand columns, knowing that it was his new home. When he was elected president, he said the image finally made sense to him. Once in the White House, he never had the dream again.

He had a reverence and a love for America that burned in his eyes when he looked at the flag, that bled into his words when he spoke to the country. Selfishly, I used to feel slighted by that love. I referred sometimes to my “sibling rivalry” with America. My strident protests against some of my father’s policies definitely got his attention, which was what I intended — but they also wounded him, which was not my intention. In his last years of life, when Alzheimer’s disease had stolen many things but not love, I was able to sit with him and tell him my regrets. I miss my father in deeply personal ways. I also miss the dignity that he brought to the task of leading this country, the deep respect he had for our democracy, and now, after so much time has passed, I miss how much he loved America.

People often ask me what he would say if he were here now. Sometimes I’m a bit glib in response, pointing out that he’d be 107 years old. Other times, I simply say he’d be pretty horrified at where we’ve come to. But as the June 5 anniversary of his death has drawn near, I’ve let myself imagine what he would say to the country he loved so much.

I think he would remind us that America began as a dream in the minds of men who dared to envision a land that was free of tyranny, with a government designed and structured so that no one branch of government could dominate the others. It was a bold and brave dream. But, he would caution, no government is infallible. Our democracy, because it is founded on the authority of “We the people,” puts the burden of vigilance on all American citizens.

Countries can be splintered from within, he would say. It’s a sinister form of destruction that can happen gradually if people don’t realize that our Constitution will protect us only if the principles of that document are adhered to and defended. He would be appalled and heartbroken at a Congress that refuses to stand up to a president who not only seems ignorant of the Constitution but who also attempts at every turn to dismantle and mock our system of checks and balances.

He would plead with Americans to recognize that the caustic, destructive language emanating from our current president is sullying the dream that America once was. And in a time of increased tensions in the world, playing verbal Russian roulette is not leadership, it’s madness. He would point to one of the pillars of our freedom — a free press — which sets us apart from dictatorships and countries ruled by despots. He didn’t always like the press — no president does — but the idea of relentlessly attacking the media as the enemy would never have occurred to him. And if someone else had done so, he wouldn’t have tolerated it.

He would ask us to think about the Statue of Liberty and the light she holds for immigrants coming to America for a better life. Immigrants like his ancestors, who persevered despite prejudice and signs that read “No Irish or dogs allowed.” There is a difference between immigration laws and cruelty. He believed in laws; he hated cruelty.

Despite my father’s innate humility, he would ask the people of this country to reflect on his own words from his famous speech, “A Time for Choosing,” delivered in 1964: “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.”

 

 

[Danny Bateman]

On the subject of Reagan, this is pretty emblematic of how far the Republican party has shifted:

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

this has been building for a while.