01-14-2014 06:50 AM
65 123
tools
  1. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Companies are regulated because otherwise they will run amuck. If they did the right thing, they wouldn't need to be regulated in the first place. If it wasn't in human nature to be greedy, then we wouldn't need a lot of things, like regulations.
    Well then I have to ask, when is enough enough? We keep making more and more regulations to fix perceived problems, but nothing ever changes. So apparently adding on more regulation isn't going to solve anything.
    12-31-2013 03:37 PM
  2. msndrstood's Avatar
    Well then I have to ask, when is enough enough? We keep making more and more regulations to fix perceived problems, but nothing ever changes. So apparently adding on more regulation isn't going to solve anything.
    What added regulations? It seems to me that there are fewer regulations being passed, if any.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    12-31-2013 04:12 PM
  3. anon8126715's Avatar
    Let's talk trucking then since I have 8 years experience and counting, accident free, a mentor, and recently named one of the trainers of the month for my company. By and large, the industry is much safer than the media would suggest, but you're right not everyone is always inspected. For starters, every driver is required to inspect their own rig each day before driving, and it's more than simple kick the tires and light the fires. Then there are several pre-screening methods in place that helps the DOT focus more on bad carriers. In theory. One new one, known as CSA, ranks carriers based on inspections and violations, both good and bad, and compares them to similar sized companies. The problems there are some states are not reporting clean inspections and skewing the results, any accident goes against your score even if you're not at fault and receive no citations, and if you beat a ticket in court, it's near impossible to get it removed from your CSA and effectively makes the road side officer judge jury and executioner. Also worth noting it's a truck could roll right off the assembly line and into an inspection bay, and chances are a DOT officer will find something on it deserving an inspection violation. To their credit, the DOT has been cracking down on truck and bus drivers/companies lately after the high profile bus crashes involving mostly fly by night companies.

    On the Mexican side of things, I'm there with you. I've delivered near that boarder many times and the trucks down there are junk. Generally those are limited to 50 mile travel into the U.S. to transfer loads back and forth across the border. They did start a pilot program to allow them to run cross country. Not that I wholly agree with it, but for purposes of this discussion about safety, the trucks in that program are newer rigs that have to meet our safety standards. Nothing like what you see at the boarder, and participation has been dismal at best. Canadian truckers aren't an issue, as they have similar standards as us.

    For an example of big business using increased legislation that hurts small business under the guise of safety, let's look at how we log our hours (which is another mess all its own). The big business lobbying groups want to require electronic devices in every truck that is tied into the ECM, tracks movement via GPS, and requires off site backups. They claim this would prevent drivers from running over their hours and "level the playing field." Don't you just love that excuse? Lol

    Thing is, they don't lock your truck down when out of hours, they simply register a violation in the system and it's still up to a DOT officer finding it much like the paper logs we used to use. Plus, you can still cheat them because they only track movement and can't track other working time that's also counted in our day. We have to manually input that. So they are really no safer than paper logs, yet it also means you get a free pass from officers that don't bother checking electronic logs. I do think they are a great dispatching and management tool for bigger companies, but that's all they are. A tool. In full disclosure, my company uses them and I like the setup for dispatching purposes, but I can certainly say there's nothing about it that makes me a safer driver.

    Oh, and remember that thing about leveling the playing field? Electronic logging is expensive. For the small companies and one truck operations, there would be no benefit to them. Just massive costs for the equipment and monthly usage fees. The field was already level with everyone using paper logs or the option of electronic. But what the big companies have done is like showing up at a track meet with their feet tied together by their own choice and now demanding everyone else tie theirs. This "safety" issue is nothing more than an attempt to use regulation to limit competition from smaller, more efficient companies.
    That's the special interest groups at work that have lobbying power because of their wealth. Take a look at the light bulb industry. The old school light bulb will no longer be made because we're going to the new bulbs. The new bulbs (not LED) have mercury and if some of the coating has been damaged, the bulb can give you the same skin damage as the sun. Of course if we put regulation in place, some will cry foul. Not exactly a safe consumer product.

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk 2
    12-31-2013 04:32 PM
  4. Mooncatt's Avatar
    They are happening all over, just not reported by the media
    12-31-2013 04:32 PM
  5. Mooncatt's Avatar
    That's the special interest groups at work that have lobbying power because of their wealth. Take a look at the light bulb industry. The old school light bulb will no longer be made because we're going to the new bulbs. The new bulbs (not LED) have mercury and if some of the coating has been damaged, the bulb can give you the same skin damage as the sun. Of course if we put regulation in place, some will cry foul. Not exactly a safe consumer product.

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk 2
    So we enact regulation that changes something business is doing, then more regulation to control the changes businesses made to comply or get around the prior regulations, then more on top of that to counter the latest changes they made due to the prior two rounds, etc. And then eventually they either get regulated out of business or say the heck with this and go offshore.
    Tall Mike 2145 likes this.
    12-31-2013 04:55 PM
  6. anon8126715's Avatar
    So we enact regulation that changes something business is doing, then more regulation to control the changes businesses made to comply or get around the prior regulations, then more on top of that to counter the latest changes they made due to the prior two rounds, etc. And then eventually they either get regulated out of business or say the heck with this and go offshore.

    It's all tied into the money that's pumped into our political system. Legislator Bob won't bend to what corporation XYZ wants done to help give them a competitive advantage. Thus, next election cycle, corporation XYZ pumps insane amounts of money into Candidate Joe's campaign to help defeat Legislator Bob. One of the biggest reasons I'd like to take money out of politics completely. What's also sad is the amount of former legislators that go to work for large lobbying firms after they're done in office. It's appalling to say the least.
    msndrstood likes this.
    01-01-2014 09:20 AM
  7. anon8126715's Avatar
    Our so called "leaders" must've received a flood of calls because they're hoping to push through a 3 month extension for those that are unemployed. Some of the Republican leaders insist that the funding come from somewhere. Here's where I don't understand their rationale. If you have a company that's laying off people in order to maintain their profits for their shareholders and/or upper management, doesn't it seem fitting that those entities that have more to gain by laying off employees are the ones that need to have their taxes increased to both fund the unemployment extension and to dissuade them from this practice?

    When I worked at Texas Instruments many moons ago, our management decided that because we only made MILLIONS of dollars in PROFITS and not TENS of MILLIONS in profit like we did the prior quarter, that it was a good idea to lay off hundreds of employees. Around that time many other companies also began to shed their workforce in order to make MORE IMMEDIATE money. Never did it occur to them that attempting to line their own pockets immediately, would set off a chain reaction where more people had less disposable income to buy the goods and services that these companies were selling. If these companies are shedding employees while still remaining profitable then those are the exact companies/people that need to bear the grunt of the burden for all these unemployment benefit extensions.

    As a matter of fact, I say that when unemployment insurance extensions are required (at times of high unemployment), it should automatically kick in a higher tax rate on the top 5% If the "job creators" want to turn into "job destroyers" then they need to fund the unemployment insurance extensions. Of course, this won't happen since so many people think that these "job creators" need to be sheltered from the problems of everyday living. What gets me is that the top 5% are probably wealthy enough to fund unemployment insurance for everyone for years and years. If we don't try to curb these dastardly actions (laying off employees to appease shareholders) then we will continue to see people's livelihood suffer because some shareholder wants to make more money despite the fact that they don't contribute a damn thing to a company's production.
    palandri and msndrstood like this.
    01-07-2014 06:28 PM
  8. Mooncatt's Avatar
    So more of the same hoping for different results?
    01-07-2014 07:00 PM
  9. anon8126715's Avatar
    You mean the whole tax breaks for the wealthy so they'll "create" jobs? The only thing they create is shadow campaign donation groups and propaganda that people eat up like it's cake.
    palandri likes this.
    01-07-2014 07:28 PM
  10. Mooncatt's Avatar
    You mean the whole tax breaks for the wealthy so they'll "create" jobs? The only thing they create is shadow campaign donation groups and propaganda that people eat up like it's cake.
    I've been pretty clear on my views regarding the relationship between government and big business on here lately, and in my perspective, those would be drastically reduced. Just remember business 101 when you talk about raising their taxes. Businesses don't pay taxes. The individual does.
    01-07-2014 07:45 PM
  11. anon8126715's Avatar
    I've been pretty clear on my views regarding the relationship between government and big business on here lately, and in my perspective, those would be drastically reduced. Just remember business 101 when you talk about raising their taxes. Businesses don't pay taxes. The individual does.
    So when you hear that our legislators have enacted laws that benefit special interest groups, who exactly do you think these special interest groups are? Let me clue you in, they're the very people that you insist government needs to divorce themselves from. The wealth is going up, it's not going down and it's not sitting in the middle. I'm not sure why you think the wealth can continue to go to the top without there being a big bust. Any system that's top heavy will collapse upon itself eventually. The wealth distribution is all relative. Not all of us can be rich, if we are then that just means we're all middle class. The wealthier the top get means less resources for everyone else. If we continue down this path then we're headed for a bigger financial calamity.
    msndrstood and nolittdroid like this.
    01-07-2014 08:15 PM
  12. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I never said more wealth should go to the top. What I have said is reduce the regulations so the little guys can more easily compete and then the wealth will spread more naturally.
    01-07-2014 08:37 PM
  13. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    By the rationale of some of you, I guess you should never get a raise. You're making enough right now I mean. Btw, employers pay for unemployment through taxes. Now, there wont be enough so I guess we can just borrow more from China.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    01-08-2014 07:48 AM
  14. SteveISU's Avatar
    I have two friends on unemployment. One said he'd get more serious looking when the economy turned around, and one has been doing side jobs getting paid straight cash for the past 18 months making more than he was before unemployment. I also have a patient who collects unemployment and disability, figure out how the hell you can pull that off.
    01-08-2014 10:05 AM
  15. palandri's Avatar
    I have two friends on unemployment. One said he'd get more serious looking when the economy turned around, and one has been doing side jobs getting paid straight cash for the past 18 months making more than he was before unemployment. I also have a patient who collects unemployment and disability, figure out how the hell you can pull that off.
    Don't you feel you have an obligation to turn the person in who is collecting unemployment and collecting cash from side jobs? or did I read that wrong?
    01-08-2014 11:54 AM
  16. SteveISU's Avatar
    Don't you feel you have an obligation to turn the person in who is collecting unemployment and collecting cash from side jobs? or did I read that wrong?
    My job isn't to police the people receiving unemployment benefits. Hand them out for 52 weeks and cut the person off would be my plan.
    01-08-2014 12:43 PM
  17. palandri's Avatar
    It may not be your job, but you may have already opened up the can. You made a statement on a public forum about having knowledge of felonious fraud being perpetrated against the Illinois Department of Economic Security. Don't be surprised if someone comes knocking at your door.
    01-08-2014 01:50 PM
  18. SteveISU's Avatar
    It may not be your job, but you may have already opened up the can. You made a statement on a public forum about having knowledge of felonious fraud being perpetrated against the Illinois Department of Economic Security. Don't be surprised if someone comes knocking at your door.
    I'll take my chances they all use iphones.
    01-08-2014 01:53 PM
  19. llamabreath's Avatar
    I'll take my chances they all use iphones.
    LOL




    I think signatures are stupid.

    (⊙.⊙)
    01-08-2014 03:04 PM
  20. msndrstood's Avatar
    I've been pretty clear on my views regarding the relationship between government and big business on here lately, and in my perspective, those would be drastically reduced. Just remember business 101 when you talk about raising their taxes. Businesses don't pay taxes. The individual does.
    You're apparently a fan of 'corporations are people too'.

    What will you do when they have voting rights too? ...which they kind of do now with the Citizens United ruling.

    Congress can certainly ease restrictions and regulations on the 'little guy' companies. Why don't they do it? Hmm, wonder why? K Street. There's your answer.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    01-09-2014 10:46 AM
  21. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Congress can certainly ease restrictions and regulations on the 'little guy' companies. Why don't they do it? Hmm, wonder why? K Street. There's your answer.
    And if you've read my various Fair Tax posts around here, you'd know I not only believe lobbyists are part of the problem, but that their power would be drastically reduced under the plan because they could no longer use the tax code as a political tool.
    01-09-2014 12:16 PM
  22. Serial Fordicator's Avatar

    What will you do when they have voting rights too? ...which they kind of do now with the Citizens United ruling.


    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    I agree with this; however, what's the difference in this and people voting with no vested interest. I.e. people who do not pay taxes?

    That is the reason the founding fathers made it to where only landowners could vote since they didn't have an income tax then.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    01-09-2014 07:28 PM
  23. anon8126715's Avatar
    You're apparently a fan of 'corporations are people too'.

    What will you do when they have voting rights too? ...which they kind of do now with the Citizens United ruling.

    Congress can certainly ease restrictions and regulations on the 'little guy' companies. Why don't they do it? Hmm, wonder why? K Street. There's your answer.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    I can't remember where I heard it, but I remember someone making a valid argument against the whole, "Corporations are people too" mentality. A corporation does not have a moral compass. A corporation also cannot be thrown in jail for breaking the law.
    msndrstood likes this.
    01-09-2014 07:38 PM
  24. msndrstood's Avatar
    I agree with this; however, what's the difference in this and people voting with no vested interest. I.e. people who do not pay taxes?

    That is the reason the founding fathers made it to where only landowners could vote since they didn't have an income tax then.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    Everyone pays taxes. If you purchase something whether it's goods or services, you pay taxes. Whether it's a candy bar, a car or electricity. Gasoline tax, tax on food, tax on your water bill, tax on the clothes you wear.

    It disturbs me that you think someone who doesn't work, for whatever reason, does not deserve a voice in the way they are governed. What about the retired person on Social Security who makes so little that they aren't taxed? Or the woman whose husband left her with the kids and she didn't have a job?

    Your premise really, really bothers me a lot. And it certainly isn't Constitutional to say the least.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    nolittdroid likes this.
    01-09-2014 07:43 PM
  25. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    Everyone pays taxes. If you purchase something whether it's goods or services, you pay taxes. Whether it's a candy bar, a car or electricity. Gasoline tax, tax on food, tax on your water bill, tax on the clothes you wear.

    It disturbs me that you think someone who doesn't work, for whatever reason, does not deserve a voice in the way they are governed. What about the retired person on Social Security who makes so little that they aren't taxed? Or the woman whose husband left her with the kids and she didn't have a job?

    Your premise really, really bothers me a lot. And it certainly isn't Constitutional to say the least.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    Most of the reasons you listed are different course. You can't really use the cookie cutter approach in everything. Our government is notorious for it. But, I don't really care that I bothered you. Everyone has the right to be offended, no one has the right to say they can't be offended.
    01-09-2014 08:32 PM
65 123

Similar Threads

  1. How to tell if you are connected at 802.11ac?
    By zBernie in forum General Help and How To
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-08-2017, 02:23 PM
  2. How often do you charge your Gear?
    By richv77 in forum Samsung Galaxy Gear
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 11-16-2017, 01:56 PM
  3. How to get dial pad on opening phone
    By Double Tap in forum Google Nexus 4
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 10-21-2017, 04:56 PM
  4. damn you otterbox
    By cliro in forum Google Nexus 5
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 01-06-2014, 05:28 AM
  5. How can I get my phone not to go in the battery save mode?
    By Taylork64 in forum Samsung Galaxy S4 Active
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-29-2013, 06:30 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD