Jesus Hamster, I guess you expect others to read all of your posts but your above reading theirs so I'll condense some of what others have said;

This is really all I need but there is so much more:

"""""" Cost-benefit analysis is a deeply flawed process that overstates costs and tends to understate benefits, particularly if those benefits can’t easily be measured and counted. How can regulators assign a dollar amount to the benefits of cleaner air and water? Such measures will only benefit those corporations that wish to game the system and evade safety standards while doing nothing to protect the American public.""""""""

" pending 2014 budget resolution that would impose virtually insurmountable procedural hurdles that underfunded financial regulators must satisfy before putting in place additional oversight over Wall Street financial companies."

"The kind of burdensome and time-consuming cost-benefit analysis procedures called for in these amendments is not about improving analysis, it is about introducing additional roadblocks to meaningful change and more opportunities for Wall Street to engage in litigation and block reform."

"In the nearly three years since the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, the financial regulatory agencies have considered tens of thousands of public comments and held thousands of meetings and round tables. They have been subjected to multiple industry lawsuits on the basis of their existing statutory economic analysis requirements. Today, just one-third of the rulemaking mandated under Dodd-Frank has been finalized. Financial oversight agencies have pointed to unrealistic cost-benefit analysis standards already in place as one major reason for the delay."

"We are writing to express our concerns with a number of amendments to be considered during the Budget Resolution of 2013 vote.
In addition, we urge your strong opposition to any amendment that seeks to alter the regulatory process in a way that makes it more difficult to pass regulations that protect Americans from harm. This includes amendments that require agencies to include additional cost-benefit requirements, seek a moratorium on regulations until unemployment falls below a certain point, bring independent agencies under Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) review, or change the process in a way that inappropriately injects political considerations in passing new rules that are supposed to be based on objective agency science and expertise."

"Just like S. 3468, this amendment would severely undermine the ability of independent agencies to respond efficiently to crises as they occur. How could the CPSC respond to a faulty product line and pull unsafe and defective items off of stores’ shelves if it had to conduct time-consuming cost-benefit analyses? Consumers would lose if this amendment passed."

"The present process, however, already requires cost-benefit analysis, and virtually every rule has benefits that are significantly higher than the costs"

"Amendment 205 (Sen. Sessions) seeks to deprive citizens of the resources required to enforce federal
law. The amendment attacks citizen suits that spur federal agencies to move forward with legally
required regulatory actions."

"Resolution Act of 2013 will weaken the regulatory process necessary to protect consumers from predatory financial schemes, dangerous consumer products and costly, anti-competitive practices."

" This amendment seeks to prevent the Department of Labor from addressing ERISA fiduciary duty protections in Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs).
Vote “No” on Ayotte Amendment 165
• ERISA fiduciary protections are the basic rules that protect employee retirement savings from being lost through fraudulent or deceptive financial management by pension trustees or advisors."

" This amendment seeks to limit the ways that consumers and all Americans can enforce federal law."

" This amendment would weaken an individual’s ability to bring a lawsuit to enforce federal law by prohibiting legal fees for individuals who succeed in such cases."

"Vote “No” on Shelby Amendment 340
• This amendment would add delays to, or could thwart entirely, the often already delayed rules that would protect consumers from unfair financial markets, products and services and promote the stability and integrity of our financial markets."

"Vote “No” on Risch Amendment 367
• This amendment would tie the hands of federal agencies who seek to protect consumers based upon their own expert analysis of an unsafe or unfair practice or product."

I could go on but I don't expect to change your mind or have you take any of this seriously. What I do expect is more personal attacks because your argument doesn't hold water.

Nice day outside, time to head out.


Fishy