PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   USA Politics - Hamster Wheel (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/438845-usa-politics-hamster-wheel.html)

Jane-DoH 7th Jan 2011 22:43

USA Politics - Hamster Wheel
G.O.P. Asks Businesses Which Rules to Rewrite
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/bu...e&ref=business

WASHINGTON — Companies spend millions of dollars each year complaining to Congress about burdensome laws and regulations, pressing their concerns in public campaigns and in private meetings. They rarely wait for invitations.

The responses have been predictable but, in asking, Mr. Issa also is underscoring the commitment of the new House majority to help business by curtailing government.
I think this is totally messed up. What do you think?

galaxy flyer 8th Jan 2011 00:09

What's messed up? That a group of bureaucrats and activists with narrow agendas, unaccountable to voters, shareholders or Congress, can hijack government power imposing rules that make employment more expensive, make profits more elusive, make the economy more inefficient and poorer? Now, that's messed up.


SASless 8th Jan 2011 00:41

If you ever tried to run a business you would understand how messed up the Federal and State governments can be. The cost of burdensome and absolutely stupid regulations cannot be overstated. Add in the tax burden to that and it is not surprising why jobs are moving out of this country to places with lower taxes and cheaper labor.

How many lost jobs are caused by imposition of the Minimum Wage law alone?

With a bit of research....you can find a chart that contrasts unemployment levels by the dates the Minimum Wage was raised. That is just one example.

If you are present in both New York and California....the effect of taxes and regulation should not be any surprise to you at all.

lomapaseo 8th Jan 2011 01:37

Well let's see.

At least the businesses know what they want and have specific items in their shopping lists.

Now does anybody else have some specific items to compare against? If so then I would expect congress to weigh the issues and not just blindly go off passing or revoking laws.

Isn't this the way it has been working for a couple hundred years

Airborne Aircrew 8th Jan 2011 01:47

Isn't this the way it has been working for a couple hundred years
Pretty much...

Except for the last two... Where all the wrong things have been forced by bribery, several levels of corruption and pure bullying...

Other than that, it's been peachy....:rolleyes:

Jane-DoH 8th Jan 2011 02:01

Senator Lieberman Introduces Anti-Wikileaks Legislation
Here are two articles which I've come across which discuss new legislation directed largely against wikileaks, and against the Press.

Lieberman Introduces Anti-Wikileaks Legislation
URL: Lieberman Introduces Anti-WikiLeaks Legislation | Threat Level | Wired.com

The so-called SHIELD Act (Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination) would amend a section of the Espionage Act that already forbids publishing classified information on U.S. cryptographic secrets or overseas communications intelligence — i.e., wiretapping. The bill would extend that prohibition to information on HUMINT, human intelligence, making it a crime to publish information “concerning the identity of a classified source or informant of an element of the intelligence community of the United States,” or “concerning the human intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government” if such publication is prejudicial to U.S. interests.

Leaking such information in the first place is already a crime, so the measure is aimed squarely at publishers.

Wikileaks and the First Amendment
URL: Geoffrey R. Stone: WikiLeaks and the First Amendment

The so-called SHIELD Act, which has been introduced in both Houses of Congress, would amend the Espionage Act of 1917 to make it a crime for any person knowingly and willfully to disseminate, in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States," any classified information... concerning the human intelligence activities of the United States or... concerning the identity of a classified source or informant" who is working with the intelligence community of the United States.

Although this Act may well be constitutional as applied to a government employee who unlawfully "leaks" such material to persons who are unauthorized to receive it, it is plainly unconstitutional as applied to other individuals or organizations who might publish or otherwise disseminate the information after it has been leaked. With respect to such other speakers, the Act violates the First Amendment unless, at the very least, it is expressly limited to situations in which the dissemination of the specific classified information at issue poses a clear and present danger of grave harm to the nation.

The clear and present danger standard, in varying forms, has been a central element of our First Amendment jurisprudence ever since Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes first enunciated it in his 1919 opinion in Schenk v. United States.
Those who won our independence... did not exalt order at the cost of liberty... [They understood that] only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom. Such... is the command of the Constitution. It is, therefore, always open to... challenge a law abridging free speech . . . by showing that there was no emergency justifying it.
This principle is especially powerful in the context of government efforts to suppress speech concerning the activities of the government itself, for as James Madison observed, "A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or perhaps both." As Madison warned, if citizens do not know what their own government is doing, then they are hardly in a position to question its judgments or to hold their elected representatives accountable. Government secrecy, although sometimes surely necessary, can also pose a direct threat to the very idea of self-governance.
I personally think the SHIELD act will be a catastrophe if passed. It will give the government a great degree of power to punish journalists who do their job exposing government wrongdoing; it would also further embolden the government to misuse secrecy to protect themselves from the accountability they deserve.

Jane-DoH 8th Jan 2011 02:05


If so then I would expect congress to weigh the issues and not just blindly go off passing or revoking laws.
Are you kidding me?

hellsbrink 8th Jan 2011 04:36

If so then I would expect congress to weigh the issues and not just blindly go off passing or revoking laws
Like healthcare?

Load Toad 8th Jan 2011 06:20

And the government will just alienate itself further from the people and become a totalitarian parasite whose host will get rather sick.

lowerlobe 8th Jan 2011 07:04

Colonel Flagg from the MASH series would be proud of this legislation.....:E

acbus1 8th Jan 2011 07:08

become a totalitarian parasite
Become? Became a long time ago (US, UK, U name it).

Load Toad 8th Jan 2011 07:30

U'right. Quite agree, my mistake.

rh200 8th Jan 2011 09:10

Yawwwn, you only have yourselves to blame. If assange showed a smigen of decency and only released any infomation that showed hard core deception etc, we wouldn't be at this point.

As the saying goes, give them enoug rope and !!!!

SASless 8th Jan 2011 12:21

Jane dear....

I just wish Journalists would get punished for "NOT" doing their job!

bearfoil 8th Jan 2011 18:35

So the SHIELD Act will join the PATRIOT Act.

So, Act THREE?? One is not hopeful.

con-pilot 8th Jan 2011 18:43

Well, they've made a good start with the so called 'Internet Neutrality' act/law/rule (whatever). Which just might be your Act Three, or as I look at it, strike three, Bear.

"1984" just a few years late.

bearfoil 8th Jan 2011 18:51


Throw in the "Fairness Doctrine", con, and I think were there.


con-pilot 8th Jan 2011 18:55

Throw in the "Fairness Doctrine", con, and I think were there.
Yep, but now that would be Strike Four, now we really are in trouble. :uhoh:

G-CPTN 8th Jan 2011 23:37

This seems the least inappropriate thread for this observation.
There has been a shooting in Tucson.
Several people (including a child) have died, yet the discussion (on the Beeb) is entirely centred on the political incumbent who is, admittedly, severely injured with life-threatening wounds. The dead (and possibly others wounded) are receiving no consideration as far as I can tell.
We are being treated to a eulogy of the life of congresswoman Gifford.

Is this also the case in the US media?

Does this imply that the congresswoman is more important than those who have actually been killed (such as the judge)?

Is it just because of the involvement of the congresswoman that this story is receiving international airing? (ie otherwise it would be 'just another gunman attack'?)?

con-pilot 9th Jan 2011 00:15

Well, kind of yes and no to all of the above. From the reports so far, the shooter is some kind of radical liberal that admires Communism. The one fact that is apparent, is the fact the guy is a nut.

Things are still confused, but there is a report that the first person to fire back at the shooter was someone in the crowd that had a CCW permit. Some reports claim the the CCW permit holder that first returned fire wounded the shooter and then held him down until LEO could take custody. But nothing is confirmed as of yet.

I believe the reason so much attention has been given to the Congress Lady Giffords is because she was shot through the head, and is still alive. I just pray to God that her being Jewish had nothing to do with this. Also, the names of the other 19 victims, now six are reported to be dead, have not been released due to possible delays in family notifications.

I'm watching a live press conference right now and will report if anything is confirmed or that is new. There is information that the shooter came with another person, they are searching for the other person now and will soon release a photo of the other person. They just now confirmed that two people in the crowd did in fact tackle the shooter.

I'm waiting for the latest medical report now. More later.

Oh, two of the dead have not been identified.

All times are GMT. The time now is 16:39.

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.