Instigator / Con
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
0
PREZ-HILTON
1533
rating
18
debates
36.11%
won
Topic
#4028

There are zero unnecessary or harmful government regulations

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
9
Better sources
0
6
Better legibility
0
3
Better conduct
0
3

After 3 votes and with 21 points ahead, the winner is...

RafaelHSLemes
Tags
Politics
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
2
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
3,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
RafaelHSLemes's avatar
21
RafaelHSLemes
1500
rating
1
debates
100.0%
won
Description

Democrats always seem to bitch that any and all deregulation is bad. I would like to give them the burden of proof and defend their belief that there is zero unnecessary/harmful government regulations on private industry in any capacity whatsoever.

Round 1
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
Con
#1
Forfeited
RafaelHSLemes's avatar
RafaelHSLemes
Pro
#2
The gorvenment regulations are draw up in 3 steps:

Step 1: Public comment period. People who are affected by the proposed rule have the right of comment during the eleboration stage and their comments help to formalize the final version of the rule.

Step 2: Notice of proposed rulemaking. This document represent what types of comment is taken into account and how they should be submitted during the public comment periods. It also explain why the rule is necessary and affects businesses, consumers and other groups affected by it.

Step 3: Drafting. A draft is draw up reflecting any comments received during the public hearings or written comments during previous review steps. The draft is later modified based on new information during the writing process.

Taking these three steps into account, it's concluded that the elaboration of government regulations is based on what a group of citizens needs. 

In case of, for example, "The Employer Health Insurance Mandate" which says: The “employer mandate” slated for 2014, is a key element of the PPACA. It requires companies with 50 or more employees to provide health benefits or face a penalty of $2,000 per employee, this regulation is necessary even if at the expense of companies, after all, in this country, where hospital bills are exorbitant (The average cost of a 3-day hospital stay is around $30,000) and according to "The Individual Health Insurance Mandate": The “individual mandate” slated to take effect in 2014, is the cornerstone of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The PPACA requires U.S. citizens to obtain health insurance or face financial penalties imposed by the Internal Revenue Service—a fine that escalates from $95 or 1 percent of taxable income in 2014 to $695 or 2.5 percent of taxable income in 2016. Subsidies to purchase coverage will be provided to those who meet generous income-eligibility requirements.

Round 2
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
Con
#3
Forfeited
RafaelHSLemes's avatar
RafaelHSLemes
Pro
#4
I end this debate by citing two discussions of government regulations, "Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards" and "The Renewable Fuel Standard", which respectively say: "New fuel efficiency standards set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administra­tion (NHTSA) and the Environmental Protection Agency require automakers to attain a fleet-wide average fuel economy level of 34.1 mpg by model year 2016 for passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles. The new reg­ulation—running some 300 pages—will dictate specific fuel efficiency standards by model type, weighted by sales volume. This will require signifi­cantly greater investment in re-engineering.
Justification for CAFE has evolved over time, from ending “dependence on foreign oil” to reduc­ing air pollution to mitigating global warming. No matter the intent, problems with the regulation abound. To the extent that the standards increase sticker prices, consumers are more likely to con­tinue using older, less fuel efficient vehicles. A host of research also documents that increased fuel effi­ciency, by lowering the cost of driving, actually increases travel—thereby negating at least some of the supposed environmental effects. CAFE stan­dards also have undercut the domestic auto indus­try by forcing production of unprofitable (and less popular) small cars in order to offset the fuel effi­ciency ratings of larger, more profitable models. But most troublesome of all is the fact that CAFE stan­dards have resulted in tens of thousands of deaths by constraining production of larger, more protec­tive vehicles." "
The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) constitutes national quotas[30] on the volume of “renewable fuels,” including corn, sugarcane and cellulosic ethanol, bio-diesel, and biomass that must be blended into transportation fuel. The 2010 RFS has been set at 12.95 billion gallons, and is slated to increase to 36 billion gallons by 2022. For the first time, quotas have been established for specific categories of renewable fuels based on projected reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. Of particular note, the EPA raised the cap on ethanol, a fuel that is more costly, less efficient, and more polluting than gasoline.
The RFS represents a massive subsidy by con­sumers for the “renewables” industry—in the absence of which there is little demand for more costly fuel blends. Moreover, government dictates on the nation’s fuel mix are driven by political con­siderations more than environmental or economic outcomes. For example, the artificial demand cre­ated by the quotas, in conjunction with subsidies, creates powerful incentives to convert sensitive for­est land into agriculture; less productive farmland is also being cultivated with increased use of agricul­tural chemicals. Shifting farmland from food crops to corn for renewables is projected to increase food costs by $10 per person per year—or $40 for a fam­ily of four, according to the EPA."