Do you trust the federal government?

Do you trust the federal government?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 4.3%

  • No

    Votes: 112 95.7%
  • Total voters
    117
#451
#451
jvol1 said:
Sort of a "do what thou wilt" approach to government.

I think a lot of the prosperity we enjoy is a result of our current government, not despite it. All of the regulations which frustrate you came about from various crises since the 1860s. Like you I wish for simpler times, but I think the regs have done more boost prosperity than hinder it.
Click to expand...
I think we are 50 years behind technology and environmentally because of regulations....it's almost impossible to push the boundaries of innovation..AF when you finally do create something thatll help, unless the government and profit, itll be regulated
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs and midnight orange
#453
#453
In my experience it's mainly young, naïve liberals who trust gov't. After WMDs of 20 yrs ago, I don't see how anyone can trust gov't
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs
#455
#455
jvol1 said:
Sort of a "do what thou wilt" approach to government.

I think a lot of the prosperity we enjoy is a result of our current government, not despite it. All of the regulations which frustrate you came about from various crises since the 1860s. Like you I wish for simpler times, but I think the regs have done more boost prosperity than hinder it.
Click to expand...
Unless you have some really good data to back this, I don't see anyway this is true.

I know in the construction industry complying with government regulations, and that is not including the industry regulations, accounts for 30-40% of the final cost of a building. Government regulations a costly barrier to home construction.
note this report doesn't even cover ALL the costs, which is where the 10% comes from.
I see their regulations adding SOME value, but I don't see it getting anywhere close to 30%.

and the above regulation was just for residential units, single family and multifamily. those are the CHEAPEST ones to comply with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbh and hog88
#456
#456
LouderVol said:
Unless you have some really good data to back this, I don't see anyway this is true.

I know in the construction industry complying with government regulations, and that is not including the industry regulations, accounts for 30-40% of the final cost of a building. Government regulations a costly barrier to home construction.
note this report doesn't even cover ALL the costs, which is where the 10% comes from.
I see their regulations adding SOME value, but I don't see it getting anywhere close to 30%.

and the above regulation was just for residential units, single family and multifamily. those are the CHEAPEST ones to comply with.
Click to expand...
I dont know what all of the regs surrounding construction are. I'm sure the idea generally is to create sound structures built from noncancerous causing materials with maybe a nod toward energy efficiency. It seems like you'd need some sort of cost analysis to show which way is most cost efficient for the home buyer. Subjectively builders are going to say the fast cheap way is best, but that's what's most important to them, getting homes built and sold in the short term. It seems like focus on short term profit is a continuing trouble spot and source of many regs, though. I believe the fda came about in the late 1800s due lax standards/focus on short term profit in the canning industries. It seems like the fed and other agencies came about for similar reasons.
 
#457
#457
jvol1 said:
I dont know what all of the regs surrounding construction are. I'm sure the idea generally is to create sound structures built from noncancerous causing materials with maybe a nod toward energy efficiency. It seems like you'd need some sort of cost analysis to show which way is most cost efficient for the home buyer. Subjectively builders are going to say the fast cheap way is best, but that's what's most important to them, getting homes built and sold in the short term. It seems like focus on short term profit is a continuing trouble spot and source of many regs, though. I believe the fda came about in the late 1800s due lax standards/focus on short term profit in the canning industries. It seems like the fed and other agencies came about for similar reasons.
Click to expand...

FDA was created in 1906 and replaced the Bureau of Chemistry which was part of the Department of Agriculture and doing the job. So the FDA was an addition to the size and power of the federal government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#458
#458
jvol1 said:
I dont know what all of the regs surrounding construction are. I'm sure the idea generally is to create sound structures built from noncancerous causing materials with maybe a nod toward energy efficiency. It seems like you'd need some sort of cost analysis to show which way is most cost efficient for the home buyer. Subjectively builders are going to say the fast cheap way is best, but that's what's most important to them, getting homes built and sold in the short term. It seems like focus on short term profit is a continuing trouble spot and source of many regs, though. I believe the fda came about in the late 1800s due lax standards/focus on short term profit in the canning industries. It seems like the fed and other agencies came about for similar reasons.
Click to expand...
you need to read through the article.

None of the items you listed are government regulations. 20ish% of the cost is purely paying for permits and the like. and that doesn't include the costs it takes to pay a professional to do the paperwork. I know we have to add at least 10% if we want to do a HUD project just to handle all the paperwork, there are full time professionals whose only job is just to deal with the red tape. the 30-40% I mentioned extrapolates that known cost (10-20% for paperwork) across all materials. The life safety stuff is a completely different animal.

The items you mentioned, life safety, are all industry regulations that the government adopts. Just like most states don't write their own building code. Most of the problems that arose with cancerous materials, or other unsafe materials or practices the industry had called out before the government did, but the government would refuse to make those changes when it impacted a large manufacturer. the industry updates their standards almost yearly, but it can take a decade plus to push it through the government. and usually that extra time is driven by what the large manufacturers, the government is in bed with, can adapt to. These items do add significant cost, but aren't covered in the above, and also generally do actually generate a better product.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol, tbwhhs, McDad and 1 other person
#459
#459
LouderVol said:
you need to read through the article.

None of the items you listed are government regulations. 20ish% of the cost is purely paying for permits and the like. and that doesn't include the costs it takes to pay a professional to do the paperwork. I know we have to add at least 10% if we want to do a HUD project just to handle all the paperwork, there are full time professionals whose only job is just to deal with the red tape. the 30-40% I mentioned extrapolates that known cost (10-20% for paperwork) across all materials. The life safety stuff is a completely different animal.

The items you mentioned, life safety, are all industry regulations that the government adopts. Just like most states don't write their own building code. Most of the problems that arose with cancerous materials, or other unsafe materials or practices the industry had called out before the government did, but the government would refuse to make those changes when it impacted a large manufacturer. the industry updates their standards almost yearly, but it can take a decade plus to push it through the government. and usually that extra time is driven by what the large manufacturers, the government is in bed with, can adapt to. These items do add significant cost, but aren't covered in the above, and also generally do actually generate a better product.
Click to expand...
I'm not against removing unnecessary regulations, but there's a question you're side stepping as to how much value/protection they add to the buyers and laborers. You're article cites a lot of expenses associated with permitting, but doesnt connect them to the decrease in permits issued after 08. I dont think it establishes that regulatory changes since 08 are the reason for the decline, so maybe something else is responsible for fewer permits being issued.
 
#460
#460
hog88 said:
FDA was created in 1906 and replaced the Bureau of Chemistry which was part of the Department of Agriculture and doing the job. So the FDA was an addition to the size and power of the federal government.
Click to expand...
But a necessary one due to lax standards of drug makers. Dont you think there should be some quality control in this area? Doesnt the profit motive keep businesses from necessarily doing their best work here?
 
#461
#461
jvol1 said:
But a necessary one due to lax standards of drug makers. Dont you think there should be some quality control in this area? Doesnt the profit motive keep businesses from necessarily doing their best work here?
Click to expand...

There was already a department monitoring drugs, we didn't need a whole new federal agency. They could have (not that I support it) simply strengthened the power of the Dept of Chemistry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol
#462
#462
jvol1 said:
I'm not against removing unnecessary regulations, but there's a question you're side stepping as to how much value/protection they add to the buyers and laborers. You're article cites a lot of expenses associated with permitting, but doesnt connect them to the decrease in permits issued after 08. I dont think it establishes that regulatory changes since 08 are the reason for the decline, so maybe something else is responsible for fewer permits being issued.
Click to expand...
the regulations didn't change. the costs did.

these particular regulations don't add value or protection. its purely a paper work item, that comes with a pretty extreme cost in most cases.

You are the one side stepping. you made the supposition that government regulations add value. I said they add a lot of cost and no value in my industry, and I backed it up. you need to back up your stance that government regulations add some actual value, and not just add to the cost. my source even provided percentage costs, I haven't seen you present anything close to that level of data to support your belief, which is why I asked in the first place.

back up your stance that they add value.
 
#463
#463
LouderVol said:
the regulations didn't change. the costs did.

these particular regulations don't add value or protection. its purely a paper work item, that comes with a pretty extreme cost in most cases.

You are the one side stepping. you made the supposition that government regulations add value. I said they add a lot of cost and no value in my industry, and I backed it up. you need to back up your stance that government regulations add some actual value, and not just add to the cost. my source even provided percentage costs, I haven't seen you present anything close to that level of data to support your belief, which is why I asked in the first place.

back up your stance that they add value.
Click to expand...

I'm about $1500 into a pole barn on my property and still don't have a building permit due to moronic permitting requirements and of course morons that work in the office.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol8188
#465
#465
hog88 said:
I'm about $1500 into a pole barn on my property and still don't have a building permit due to moronic permitting requirements and of course morons that work in the office.
Click to expand...
yeah, I am always happy when the owner takes care of permitting, its incredibly frustrating and about 80% of the time the hold up is just more paper work, and not something wrong or unsafe.

I also hate having to explain to the client what the City's/county's/AHJ's "Administrative Fee" is, its literally a fee to process the other fees. They will nickel ($500) and dime ($1000) you to death. then there is typically a "handling fee" of some sort, where you get to pay for the 9 physical copies they make for their own use. then probably something like a "permit pull fee" for them to post the approved permit to their online system, sometimes they will call that a convivence fee or something, even though its required. Then finally at the end of the day you get to pay the big fee to get the actual permit.

I remember sweating my nuts off when my boss had me go to down town Atlanta with a client's check for almost a quarter of million dollars to get a parking deck permit. and all that permit typically is is a single 8.5x11.
 
#466
#466
LouderVol said:
the regulations didn't change. the costs did.

these particular regulations don't add value or protection. its purely a paper work item, that comes with a pretty extreme cost in most cases.

You are the one side stepping. you made the supposition that government regulations add value. I said they add a lot of cost and no value in my industry, and I backed it up. you need to back up your stance that government regulations add some actual value, and not just add to the cost. my source even provided percentage costs, I haven't seen you present anything close to that level of data to support your belief, which is why I asked in the first place.

back up your stance that they add value.
Click to expand...
So let's take zoning regulations for instance. They tend to protect purchasers of homes by controlling what can be built in the neighborhood and help long term planning. It's nice for a person to know that some huge company cant just build a factory in their neighborhood and destroy its character. That's a big value to homebuyers. What are the actual expenses involved with zoning compliance? In my experience, all that's required is to check with assessor to verify the property is residential (r1), and it doesnt really have any cost associated with it. If property needs to be rezoned that would be different. Similarly, there's cost associated with complying with safety regs for your employees. If the regs reduce injuries and the associated liability, then that would create value for the employer.
 
#467
#467
hog88 said:
There was already a department monitoring drugs, we didn't need a whole new federal agency. They could have (not that I support it) simply strengthened the power of the Dept of Chemistry.
Click to expand...
What's the difference whether its chemistry or fda? The dept provides the useful service of providing quality control for drugs and agricultural products.
 
#468
#468
jvol1 said:
What's the difference whether its chemistry or fda? The dept provides the useful service of providing quality control for drugs and agricultural products.
Click to expand...

They didn't reduce the size of the Dept of Agriculture when they created the FDA. They just grew the government.
 
#470
#470
jvol1 said:
So let's take zoning regulations for instance. They tend to protect purchasers of homes by controlling what can be built in the neighborhood and help long term planning. It's nice for a person to know that some huge company cant just build a factory in their neighborhood and destroy its character. That's a big value to homebuyers. What are the actual expenses involved with zoning compliance? In my experience, all that's required is to check with assessor to verify the property is residential (r1), and it doesnt really have any cost associated with it. If property needs to be rezoned that would be different. Similarly, there's cost associated with complying with safety regs for your employees. If the regs reduce injuries and the associated liability, then that would create value for the employer.
Click to expand...

Although my thoughts on Texas and especially Houston are well known. Houston the 4th largest city in the US has no zoning laws, hasn't seemed to hurt property values there.
 
#472
#472
Sea Ray said:
In my experience it's mainly young, naïve liberals who trust gov't. After WMDs of 20 yrs ago, I don't see how anyone can trust gov't
Click to expand...
Funny. The young naive liberals were the ones who didn't trust the government's WMD claims 20 years ago.

I mentioned this the other day, we've got people of all stripes here (most seem to be middle-age or older conservatives), none of whom admit to supporting the Iraq war and w. I don't remember it being insanely unpopular when it happened. In fact, w. and the war (including iraq) had a lot of support at the time.
 
#473
#473
hog88 said:
I'm about $1500 into a pole barn on my property and still don't have a building permit due to moronic permitting requirements and of course morons that work in the office.
Click to expand...

it is poll barn.,you new around here?
 
#475
#475
clarksvol00 said:
Funny. The young naive liberals were the ones who didn't trust the government's WMD claims 20 years ago.

I mentioned this the other day, we've got people of all stripes here (most seem to be middle-age or older conservatives), none of whom admit to supporting the Iraq war and w. I don't remember it being insanely unpopular when it happened. In fact, w. and the war (including iraq) had a lot of support at the time.
Click to expand...

There was a lot of support across the aisle then. Hillary, Daschle, Kerry, Cantwell and many others supported it
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top