Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JBTFD who wrote (3739)	10/30/2006 12:54:22 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10087

corporations vigorously defend their positions while their is usually no one defending the rights of regular people. The classic special interest problem. It isn't just a problem when dealing with corporations, but obviously they are a big example. The easiest way to keep this from being as large of factor is to reduce government involvement. Have less rules, less government intervention, and generally very free trade. With less government intervention and power, you get less government intervention for corporations or other special interests. This administration seems intent on hijacking all powers it can hijack and get away with it. If you assume its a hijacking than I understand where your coming from but its far from clear in many of the controversial situations. For example the claim that the president does properly have powers to intercept enemy communications even without authorization from other branches, is not totally unreasonable, or something that was made up by the Bush administration. There have been battles of exact boundaries of presidential powers before, and there will be again, this isn't really new or unusual. Re environment: Maybe you could name me some republican legislation that does other than decay environmental protections. They want to drill ANWAR they want to free mining from any responsibility for any mess they make. The republican philosophy seems to be that protecting the environment is a luxury the economy can't afford. There have been new environmental restrictions since Bush became president, but you miss my point. Environmental regulation and law have costs and benefits, and both need to be considered. Deciding that some specific proposed new regulation has too high of cost for the benefit isn't being anti-environment, its recognizing that there are trade offs involved. Some of the trade offs can even be environmental. Environmental regulations can wind up causing harm to the environment. If protecting the environment was seen by Bush as a luxury we can't afford then he would reasonable try to remove all or almost all environmental laws or regulations, but he has done nothing of the sort. He has only added new environmental regulations at a slower rate than Clinton. They want to drill ANWAR Drilling ANWAR doesn't equal having no concern about the environment or considering its protection to be a luxury that we can't afford.