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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (129934)	2/1/2010 9:12:13 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542532

He said - "Obama's three Republican predecessors were all committed to weakening or even destroying the country's regulatory apparatus"; but they clearly where not committed to do so (or if they where they failed horribly in following through on that commitment). With the possible exception of Reagan, they expanded and strengthened the regulatory apparatus. One more time, this time, then I'm through with this one. Benen used the word "committed" to characterize the degree to which Reagan, GHWB, and GWB wished to hamper the regulatory role of the federal government. They were so in their rhetoric, in their budget allocations, in the kind of people they appointed to regulatory roles, in the degree to which these appointments came from the very industry they were supposed to regulate. And so on. There are simply no grounds on which to deny it. Now you could argue that it as it should be. That's the kind of government we should have. And we could argue over that one. But that's a different argument than the one you chose, the sheer number of regulations. I suspect that doesn't have much to do with anything.