LAWYER: Supreme Court Might Limit Government Overreach

Government overreach has grown out of control over the last few decades, and it's all because of a Supreme Court case in 1984. But there are two cases being heard that could change all that.
Leave Andrew a voicemail with questions or ideas: www.speakpipe.com/flusche
NOTE: This description may contain affiliate links for you to find the items mentioned in this video and support the channel at no cost to you. Thank you for supporting the channel!

[@adadadatt]

Yes! I was a commercial fishermen. We called them "observers." On a crew of 50 people, one twenty three old girl with a NOAA clipboard would run our entire ship. It was a travesty. I no longer fish anymore basically because of how NOAA made it impossible for our boats to make any money or compete with Russian or Chinese ships.

[@Andrewflusche]

:( Sorry to hear that.

[@keything8487]

@@Andrewflusche i would guess that was sarcasm, or being facetious. but im notta lawyer.

[@Nineninetails]

@@keything8487 I am not sure why you would feel that way. He made it very clear in the video he is against these people on the boats and is now saying that he is sorry the guy had to find a new line of work because of the people on the boats. He is showing sympathy for someone that is suffering from the topic of the video. If English isn't your first language you may have gotten confused by "sorry to hear that" and thought he was taking responsibility. We say "sorry to hear that" or "sorry about that" about things we were not involved about and mean it like "damn. that sucks. I feel bad for you."

[@billalumni7760]

Pretty much the whole point of her being on your ship was to make it unviable.

[@shawnkarter8867]

and when there are no more fish, there will definitely be no more fishermen... You do understand that, right?

[@mixter7x7]

It’s called being “ regulated into bankruptcy “

[@NSFWHarold]

One of the best outcomes of Relentless and Loper Bright will be to stop our elected lawmakers from hiding behind bureaucratic agencies to avoid having an on-the-record vote on an issue. Ever since Chevron, it has enabled lawmakers to be intentionally vague, so as to avoid a vote on their record. That's about to end, and I'm here for it.

[@anthonyhargis6855]

Our bureaucracies are definitely out of control. But then, so are the courts. 🤷‍♂

[@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket]

I mean the courts are the ultimate authority it's always been a tricky balance. I will agree though, Qualified Immunity, Boarder Doctrine, Civil Forfeiture, and of course Chevron Deference are all insane "doctrines" invented by the courts. Why are the courts effectively able to make new laws out of thin air?

[@jbranche8024]

Yes the citizens should vote that before a law may be approved An estimated cost analysis if the cost of the new law is shown to on average of similar businesses reduce a businesses profits by more than X percent of the current level. A the business tax will be reduced by a similar value. If the law would add more than X amount on Expenses then All State Governors would vote and if X percent accept or reject that expense. If rejected the percentage would default to the minimal of X. This would have more thought and accountability on the impact laws have on businesses and people.

[@davebrunson125]

You may want to reference the several ATF battles lately denying them the right to decide policy is law

[@CurlyWoof]

Nicely done, Andrew. Thank you! Making admin law fun and understandable is quite a feat!

[@JeremiahLOsborne]

One of the problems is that we have made our part-time representatives into full-time lawmakers. That's their job as to make laws. So we have given them full cart launched to essentially restrict. Every bit of our being. Gone are the days when I representatives met once every few months, simply to check in and say everything's fine at the local level.

[@customerservice2902]

"full cart launched" ... Found the guy using voice transcription! :D

[@JeremiahLOsborne]

@@customerservice2902 lol. You got me! And I swear, they changed something, so now it's even worse that it used to be. They put random punctuation wherever they feel like it. Sometimes it takes longer to make the manual corrections than it does to type out the whole paragraph. Then I wonder who's the stupid one, me or the computer.

[@doommmmmmm]

@@JeremiahLOsborne try using futo from louis rossman.

[@CertifiedClapaholic]

​@@JeremiahLOsborne​ one might wonder why another would continue to use such a stupid computer system. It occurs to me to respond to your ponderance with one of my own: "Why not both?" 😂😂 jk but seriously, technology is getting beyond fucked up at this point.

[@JeremiahLOsborne]

@@CertifiedClapaholic You're right. It is absolutely both. Thank you for the. Chuckle!

[@joevignolor4u949]

The Veterans Administration is largely run by administrators and bureaucrats. There are mountains of regulations and VA employees get to decide how to interpret them. If you have a disagreement it can be a long, time consuming process to challenge their decision. You can go into the court system but who wants to sue the US government. Many legitimate injury, malpractice and disability claims are never settled properly because the VA adjudicates claims made against itself.

[@zmaint]

So we're counting on the government... to limit the government... who is out of control due to too much government... We're doomed.

[@arinerm1331]

Since Andrew invoked Reagan, I'll follow his lead: "The nine scariest words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'"

[@thatmaninblack]

Bills? Congress? At this point we all know: - A police officer's Statements become laws when the officer says so during a traffic stop. 😀

[@Andrewflusche]

Hahaha.

[@brittburton3264]

The issue is this, when the legislature creates a law, the senior executives at my agency then ‘interpret it to be slightly “more” then Congress approved, figuring that being conservative wouldn’t get them in trouble, then the people below them do something slightly “more” too… and so on and so forth until, Whammo! I’m required (I’m at the bottom of this legislature growth) to follow something that is a LOT “MORE” than Congress approved. An easy example is the last hiring freeze we had. Did Congaree tell us to freeze hiring? Nope. Not one bit, they instead told us to “shrink by attrition “ so for every two people leaving, we could hire one… well, pass that down through the channels, and at my location, no matter how much new work we were given, we were told we had a hiring freeze. It’s all about senior leadership covering their asses by figuring that if they do slightly “more” they’ll be safe, and when that trickles down through the 5 management layers between me and The President, each little bit extra adds up to make a whole lot extra. I’ve seen this crap happening for all of the 25 years I’ve been working for the federal government.

[@timinwsac]

Oops our fish cop fell overboard.

[@sdnlawrence5640]

Some govt construction contracts have the same but most of those inspectors are easily distracted by donuts, coffee, heat/ac and a comfy chair in job shack.

[@SulferDragon]

Dude, I love this video. I appreciate you talking about how our legal system works, especially laws like this. You have the smarts to do it!

[@phiberoptik232]

It's about time.

[@nope1918]

Regulating individuals and regulating business entities are two different things imo. We have seen time and again that without regulations (and sometimes even with regulations, if the penalty is low enough) businesses will gladly cut corners and risk the health and safety of their workers, their customers and anyone else in the name of increasing profits. Less business regulation is not a good thing.

[@zufalllx]

Then maybe set a minimum. The captain of a single fishing boat is required to follow the same regulations as a massive fleet of factory ships, despite common sense. I argue that Less business regulation for the sole proprietor or TRUE small business IS a good thing.

[@krane15]

That's the job of government. to regulate big business and protect the people. The problem is all to often it the people that end up being restricted and losing rights. The more laws we have, the less freedom. Always keep that in mind.

[@noanyobiseniss7462]

Funny how its the EXACT opposite when it comes to endangering our lives with AI driving cars!

[@stickman-1]

I good example of why Chevron Deference is wrong is the ATF. For decades the ATF said pistol braces and bump stocks where legal. Then they change their minds and said they are now illegal. That is not a nation of laws but a nation of men. The whole point to having a Constitution, statues and laws is that they are consistent. Chevron Deference turns that on it's head.

[@r000tbeer]

My dad was an observer for a few years. He didn't stand around with a clipboard, they put him to work if they are paying for him. I couldn't agree more with you though, Chevron never should have happened and definitely needs to GO.

[@chrisnolin3039]

💯% Agree

[@KGchannel01]

I wonder how many of those agency regulations make life harder for businesses, and how many are the product of lobbying by big businesses? I dont know, just thinking out loud. Often we hear about regulatory agencies being headed up by former CEOs from the corporate world they are now supposed to regulate. (Presumably, small businesses are going to be in a different position than giant corporations.)

[@KGchannel01]

Us little guys have to worry about big government and big business, and oftentimes those powers are closely aligned.

[@zufalllx]

All of them.

[@astronitium2781]

This is called regulatory capture FYI.

[@bob_mosavo]

After listening to the oral arguments for both of these cases, it sounded like the majority of justices are ready to rein in the Chevron doctrine 👍

[@krane15]

I more often than not feel the supreme court justices have lost their way. But every once in a while, they remember why they're there and do what's right.

[@brentoutashape9141]

The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.

[@simguns8388]

Excellent explanation. Thanks 👍👍👍

[@iamnolegend2519]

I’d love have you analyze the shorts that show people resisting cops’ requests for ID.

[@jerrycriss3648]

Perfectly said!!!

[@brettstarks1846]

I love how America doesn’t have decent public transportation, healthcare, labor rights/vacation time, simplified taxes, and other basic benefits that people in other industrialized western countries take for granted. Yet it’s simultaneously an officious nanny state. We have the worst of both worlds.

[@Incognito1786]

To be far, the US is a massive area and getting public transport to the more rural areas would be a massive PITA.

[@nealereimers9913]

I don't leave many comments in general. You get a thumbs up and comment just for saying there are only 3 Indiana Jones movies!

[@KLondike5]

So they have full-time monitors on fishing vessels but none at refineries that are constantly blowing up and need maintenance but costs are blown off by managers.

[@Inpreesme]

Thank you

[@Ross046]

The abuse of the regulatory process is beyond belief. It isn't about the soil,air,water,food,fiber,timber,medical care whathaveyou. It's about the power of the regulatory agency and it's ability to cater to the whims of their politcal masters.

[@keything8487]

without chevron say goodbye to clean water/land/air/safety/ etc.....but thats the gop way.

[@zufalllx]

...or corporate masters.

[@BMVMIKE]

This video puts a lot of things into perspective

[@beaurunn1]

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[@Mouserjan0222]

And there are only 3 Star Wars movies.............

[@ajc-ff5cm]

You realize this is deliberate right? Over regulating businesses that the powers that be don’t like out of business.

[@traewatkins931]

The problem is problem is that Corporations have bought and paid for Congress...

[@krane15]

One word: lobbyist. Oil and Big Pharma are the two biggest lobbies in Washington.

[@KLondike5]

Which the supreme Court helped greatly by allowing money to equal speech.

[@beezers3454]

I was always a bit confused so correct me if im wrong, isnt our federal government only supposed to handle international related affairs by design.

[@blueyedevil3479]

If the fishing vessel has to pay the salary, do they get to determine the salary… what happens if the poor gov agent falls overboard in an unfortunate rogue wave situation…? And like, drowns immediately like the chef did in Martha’s Vineyard 🤷‍♂️

[@arinerm1331]

Yeah, the inspector should hope Big Mike isn't on the fishing boat! He might get jealous. 😈

[@iamnolegend2519]

👀

[@smartysmarty1714]

@@arinerm1331 --- I think those boats are too cold for Big Mike. There'll be "shrinkage" problems.

[@arinerm1331]

@@smartysmarty1714 I didn't think of that! Mike has to be able to make Barry's pucker gape!

[@N.Cognito]

Less government will always be a good thing.

[@HighAdmiral]

This is false. There is a minimal level of government that is necessary for the economy to properly functional. This is why anarchism is dumb but minarchism is not.

[@PresidentPaul2024]

Nothing fishy here! Thanks for the fresh news!

[@smartysmarty1714]

Do fish-cops swim well in cold water?

[@crs7398]

thank you for using school house rock. love those as i grew up

[@rapid13]

5-4 against Chevron with Roberts siding with the libs as usual.

[@mda187]

Update video coming after the decision?

[@tonysmith7863]

Good luck Relentless. In medicine doctors are required to pay for sign language translators who's fees are often higher than the exam visits. Judge ruled even though its a loss per individual patient over all the office has to pay. And NO doctors can't just raise their fees as these are set by insurance companies/medicare.

[@CDaeda]

If a defendant pleads NO PLEA, then demands thru verbal motion for case dismissal with prejudice. How does this play out.

[@williamklaus8320]

Chevron can’t go soon enough. Can we maybe just go back to Lochner? Or even the real meaning of “Necessary and Proper” instead of “desired and convenient”?

[@daveinspiration7333]

video title was not interesting but your content is always good, so i am glad i watched this video. it was another banger hit from my "attorney friend" who told me not to talk to the police. you rock. love you❤ [no homo]

[@daveinspiration7333]

ps: f the Atf rule of lenity- lets goooooo!!!!!

[@noelburns4674]

Do more videos like this!!!

[@aherrera6182]

Yes this is so cool that we'll have to trust companies to not fuck up the food we eat the water we drink and the air we breathe. Enjoy all the mercury in your fish, while you can still eat then because overfishing is regulated by agencies too.

[@cmleibenguth]

Suppose it is neither fully upheld nor repealed What sort of middle ground re-interpretation or clarification do you think this Supreme Court could do?

[@64maxpower]

Andrew is the only reason id live in Virginia

[@arcadeislove]

Really enjoying the new variety of videos lately!

[@Andrewflusche]

Thanks!

[@tedlis517]

The Monty Python reference is perfect. But I shall say "Neeh" to you. - on behalf of K.W.S.N.

[@panzermensch1577]

"Mandate accessories in your vehicle" jokes on them my truck is mostly vacuum and mechanics

[@arpjoe]

Time to take out the garbage-Chevron Deference

[@YourWealthCome]

I have a question and not sure if there is a video on it already if so please link. What if you come upon a scene of a crime, witness a crime or come across someone who is unconscious and you call 911 and when the police show up they will want to talk with you. Do you still say nothing and how do you go about that?

[@krane15]

Read the Bill of Rights bub. You always have a right to remain silent, and no person can be compelled to help the police. Even in the court room you can plead the 5th. However, there are exceptions to the rule where there may be consequences. And yes, there is a video one it. Many.

[@warrenbuchanan8602]

i have a question unrelated to this video if Mr. Flusche or anyone that is also knowledgeable of the law , could answer. how do you go about taking back "power of attorney" from a family member ?

[@jaydee4348]

LOL @ "Fish Cops"

[@wholeNwon]

Good old smaller gov't. Ronny Reagan actually added almost 1,000,000 new employees to the Fed. Payrolls. Way to go, Gipper! But he did put a lot of $$$ in my pocket. Wonder where it came from.

[@bretthoffman2128]

What about in vehicle monitoring systems, as a Condition of Employment/ Disciplinary Sanctions. I.E. in vehicle, outward and inward Cameras.

[@Headcase650]

I'm hoping Chevron is overturned and that federal agencies have to enforce the law as it's written. If a law is ambiguous then the rule of lenati shall apply in favor of the citizen! Chevron deference has been abused by every federal agency. If a federal agency doesn't like an ambiguous law or the rule of lenity then they can petition Congress to do their job.

[@liamgio795]

So, why administrative law and not maritime law? Or are they both basically the same thing?

[@irodwen]

based

[@jplflyer]

There are two sides to most of these debates. It's important to see both sides. Let's use the observers as an example. The fishing boat people hate them, of course, for the reasons outlined. However, if the government didn't regulate commercial fishing, we already know what would happen: we would overfish the fisheries until they were completely depleted. Yea! short term profit motive. No more herring. Furthermore, some percentage of the fishing boats would also engage in other environmentally destructive methods that most sane people would find disgusting. Again, profit motive. So we have regulations, most of them well-meaning. (And some of them, especially at the local level, because some individual is on a power trip.) Now, the thing is, regulations tend to get tighter because some people found ways around them. They found new ways to do things most people would not want to happen. We wouldn't need any laws at all if everyone always behaved in an acceptable fashion. But people don't. So, why the observers? Because without them, people cheat. Not necessarily everyone, but enough. So let's say you're an honest fisherman. You follow all the laws to the best of your ability, but the guy next door doesn't. He cheats every way he can get away with. How do you feel about that? Well, you're trying to make a living, and he's making a better living by getting away with cheating. How do you feel about that? Adding observers makes it a lot harder (probably not impossible) to cheat, which means the honest fishermen get punished (by having to pay for an observer) but also rewarded (because the cheaters can't cheat as outrageously). So, where do I personally land on things like this? I can't really comment intelligently on whether we need the observers. But I have to ask (and answer) this: what is the legitimate role of government? I believe the legitimate role of government is to protect the weak or vulnerable from bullies. And I don't care how big and strong you are, there's always a bigger bully. Taking it to an extreme, without the government stopping them, major corporations could just take your house if they want to build a new factory. Compensate you? Why would they do that? The biggest bullies are the government itself and companies. I believe in strong civil liberties FOR INDIVIDUALS and strong regulation FOR COMPANIES. And I'm a (very small) company owner. As for ambiguous laws -- I believe the answer is to get the legislative body (congress or state legislatures) to clarify the laws when necessary.

[@scipher99]

They want to add remote kill switches and active driving monitors to all new cars in 2026 as standard features.

[@PsychoMuffinSDM]

This really sounds like more of an issue of what types of rules lawmakers should impose vs agencies. Sure, "fish cops" sounds more like an enforcement/compliance/cost issue, which probably would be better decided by more elected officials, but the point of having agencies is to put together rules based on the science and knowledge of experts in those fields. If you are trying to determine the size/weight/amount of tuna (or whatever) the industry can harvest to make sure we will continue to have tuna to harvest in the future, well THAT feels like something better for the the experts in the agency rather than a group of senators that may know nothing about marine biology. HOW to implement/enforce/finance that seems like a policy issue.

[@LibertyOrGTHO]

Amen

[@liamgio795]

Don’t both administrative and maritime law use civil fines with criminal penalties, huh?

[@greenflagracing7067]

congress has never been able to get a bill ending Chevron deference to a vote.

[@user-qe4sg2du1v]

It's crazy a homeless person can't get a PO Box in this country with out giving financial information

[@PetrolJunkie]

ATF is arguing Chevron Deference at the US Supreme court. It's likely they will install guardrails rather than toss it all together. Tossing it would put a lot of current statues in jeopardy. I think they will be concerened about unintentional consequences. I would rather a judge demand lawmakers clarify an ambiguous law.

[@zufalllx]

I would rather they strike the unconstitutional, consequences be damned.

[@PetrolJunkie]

@@zufalllx I understand why someone would think that. Like I said, I doubt it will struck down completely. There still needs to be a way of addressing ambiguous laws. The alternatives are not any better. While the supreme court has been dismantling government over-reach one case at a time I don't think they are prepared to make a sweeping shift in power.

[@zufalllx]

@@PetrolJunkie they really should though. That would force Congress to take back its responsibility and making laws rather than delegating or pushing off everything to a different branch of government or agency.

[@PetrolJunkie]

@@zufalllx They can't even pass a proper budget and you want them to make laws?

[@zufalllx]

@@PetrolJunkie yep. It's time to sink or swim. The only reason that they've not been passing a budget is because no one's been holding them accountable and they've been getting away with it for so long. This crap has got to change...

[@tripp4130]

Yes, the issue with the fisherman is awful. There is concen that if the Supreme Court rolls these regulations back it could further limit regulations on clean food, water and air.

[@poisonpawn6452]

I dont really see this SCOTUS overturning chevron deference. There are way too many gold bars, scholarships, and luxurious vacations to collect out of it.

[@09FLTRMM77]

MM77 Approved 👍🏼👍🏼

[@RightToFreedomGirl]

Innocent until proven guilty.qell ... that's a LIE this is why dash cams r a necessity

[@krane15]

A fairy tail for small children. Yeah, we assume you're innocent. That's why we book you and put you in jail.

[@TheTransporter007]

4:51 but I was always taught the Tigris river was in Mesopotamia (aka modern day Iraq). What sorcery is this? 😳

[@krane15]

No more new laws.

[@hiddentruth1982]

they have a lot to limit.

[@jcreeker5581]

Eleven most feared words: "We are from the government, and we are here to help."

[@JimLittle1]

Why that dude keep smiling at me...

[@ThomasNux]

If enforcing a law isn't worth burdening the taxpayer at large, the law isn't worth enforcing. If We the People aren't willing to enforce a law at our expense, that law isn't worth enforcing at any expense... And while this happens, We the People want our border secured at any expense, and find ourselves paying EVERY expense because our government refuses to do so. It's time to start boiling the tar and stocking up on feathers.

[@edwardcollins8102]

One more thing. Now, instead of unelected beaucrats (but qualified) making the rules, now it's the unelected, slow, unqualified judges (these guys literally thing asking for a lawyer dawg is asking for a canine lawyer or that BONELESS chicken wings could contain bones, or how performing a tire inspection doesn't mean they have to tighten the lugnuts back). They aren't qualified to be judges, much less rule on ambiguous regulations.

[@joshmonus]

We now have the type of government that our founding fathers warned us about.

[@Handle1969]

But this is insane. Guess the 1% do have a legit gripe, sometimes.

[@lockedonlaw]

I think we also have to be reasonable in that nowhere near every eligible citizen votes and those who do vote based upon partisan politics, not based upon actual knowledge of the issues. If every issue was left to the public, the results would be equally disastrous.

[@zufalllx]

At lest then we could blame ourselves.

[@42roadsforman44]

By 3 Indian Jones movies I assume you mean: Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, Kingdom of the Crystal skull, and Dial of destiny? 😛

[@Andrewflusche]

Young Indiana Jones isn't bad, but it's a class all to itself. I don't know those other two titles you speak of.

[@jamaicanjoe]

Sooo lobby’s arnt a thing?

[@DarthVader-1701]

There are only 3 Star Wars movies and the Expanded Universe.

[@yuvrajvashishth8692]

Of course it was in 1984

[@Tuckahoe1918]

Yes. Only three Indiana Jones movies, only three Star Wars movies, and Goonies r good enough!

[@davidellis4084]

The only overreach here is the argument that conservative judges know more than experts.

[@Andrewflusche]

I never argued for that. I'd rather our elected representatives make the decisions on what laws and rules we have to follow. I don't think that's an overreaching position.

[@RussellFlowers]

SCOTUS just ruled that Texas can't defend its own southern border, so don't hold your breath.

[@SF2K01]

Because they were "defending" it against the Federal government who, as clearly established within the constitution (article 4, § 4), have the responsibility of dealing with the country's border issues.

[@RussellFlowers]

@@SF2K01 Oh, so the razor wire was to keep the federal government out? Worth a try, I guess. In any case, I believe the next few buses of migrants will be destined for Amy Coney Barrett's house.

[@Andrewflusche]

Yeah, that opinion surprised me.

[@keything8487]

@@Andrewflusche why? because they actually followed the law?

[@honestabe411]

Texas should leave the Union

[@buensomeritano1755]

Animal cruelty under color of law is a crime. That being said.... The mirror attempt at government overteach is a colorable crime. 'there can be no making, application, or practice of law, that undermines the intents and purposes of the law, and to do so would be a crime" This is bar speak to diminish the criminality of what has already been done by the Democratic and Republican parties.

[@krane15]

Just make it simple and say government. They're all alike anyway. Both after the same goal. Just different ways to accomplish it.

[@buensomeritano1755]

@@krane15 "a usurped government is as defenseless as its people" "Do not dress your enemy in camouflage " "If you do not know yourself and you do not know your enemy, you will fail perpetually" The Democratic and Republican parties, bar association, and blue wall are a criminal organization, known as the authoritarian organization. Confederate pieces of shit.

[@joergengeerds360]

And just like that, unsubscribe and “do not recommend” becomes a reality

[@alicesteel]

Reagan, a good president? Well that's some pretty sus thoughts...

[@AnshuGSharma]

As someone who’s car-free and who’s worried about getting struck when I’m walking or bicycling around my neighborhood, I’d welcome additional regulation to mandate anti-distracted and anti-drunk/drugged driving technology in cars. I find this sort of regulation helps protect ‘little guys’ against ‘big guys’ who would run us over (figuratively and literally) if they could.

[@JacquesLeChat]

>good president >reagan pick one

[@dasfette]

>JacquesLeChat >Dumbass No need to pick one.

[@keything8487]

andy the chump humper at heart.

[@zufalllx]

Fortunately, they go together so nicely 😁

[@danieldaniels7571]

One of the best presidents in my lifetime. Were you even alive for his presidency?

[@themollerz]

I like clear air and water, so you kind of lost me there, Andrew.

[@CurlyWoof]

It seems like you’re assuming that somehow the federal bureaucracy somehow safeguards the air and water via its overregulation. Where is the evidence for that?

[@steveturners1258]

You missed the point. It's not about clear air and water; it's about unelected bureaucrat deciding what's best for you.

[@dansanger5340]

@@CurlyWoof The evidence is in the air quality in the 1960s vs the air quality today. Air quality is much much better today. The reason is federal regulation of pollution, especially automobile pollution.

[@CurlyWoof]

@@dansanger5340 You’re right about the air and water being better. And I agree with you that it was the result of federal action. I still am not seeing how pushing back on overregulation causes the air and water to get dirty.

[@dansanger5340]

@@CurlyWoof I agree that we need to push back on bad regulations which can happen when regulators get overzealous, or they neglect to retire obsolete regulations. But, people should also be open to the possibility that regulations that look ridiculous at first glance might be more justifiable upon closer examination.

[@RasielSuarez]

"A good president like Reagan" 🤣

[@theanswerisinthebackofyourhead]

Yes, a great president like Ronald Reagan. I lived through his administration and made money hand over fist. It was a great time for motivated, hard working ppl. Who knew how to work smart.

[@zufalllx]

@@theanswerisinthebackofyourhead Exactly. The 1980s is known as the "decade of excess" because we all had dang near everything we wanted, or at least the means to get it.

[@theanswerisinthebackofyourhead]

@@zufalllx unlike today. You could not pay me enough to want to be young in this hostile culture of demonizing and wanting to tax the rich out of everything they have worked for from sad sack pieces of shit that knows nothing about hard work or the what it takes to be successful, you can have it.

[@danieldaniels7571]

He was a great president. Fixed the economic disaster that was the late 70s caused by the Carter administration and got the Iran hostages home with a quickness. Were you even alive during his presidency?