A Quote by Steve Schmidt

As a conservative myself that, you know, generally I would have a point of view that less regulation is better than more regulation, but less regulation shouldn't supersede a tax on the fundamentally important institutions that sustain a democratic republic.
With less regulation, I think you would see growth come back. Of course, there are situations where you need regulation. Antitrust regulation, for example, is a good idea because you want competition. But beyond that, it gets very difficult.
We have parts of our system which are overwhelmed by regulation. It wasn't the absence of regulation that was the problem. It was despite the presence of regulation you got huge risks built up.
A Progressive is one who is in favor of more taxes instead of less, more bureaus and jobholders, more paternalism and meddling, more regulation of private affairs and less liberty. In general, he would be inclined to regard the repeal of any tax as outrageous.
The ancients understood the regulation of power better than the regulation of liberty.
Is regulation per se bad? Is better regulation bad? I think better regulation is good for the business community, and I think that's something we should get together on.
Certainly, the job of a U.S. senator is to create a climate conducive to creating jobs, which is lower taxes and less government regulation. What Harry Reid has been doing is putting forward those policies that actually put more regulation on business.
I can't remember one [example of regulation] that's good. Regulation of transport, regulation of agriculture - agriculture is a, zoning is z. You know, you go from a to z, they are all bad. There were so many studies, and the result was quite universal: The effects were bad.
Soon after the financial crisis of 2008, I was at a meeting in Washington with a group of U.S. senators. They had invited me to provide a point of view on new regulation; regulation aimed at ensuring we never have to go through the events of 2008 ever again.
Yet the basic fact remains: every regulation represents a restriction of liberty, every regulation has a cost. That is why, like marriage (in the Prayer Book's words), regulation should not "be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly"
I think (fantasy football) has become something that needs to be looked at in terms of regulation. Effectively, it's day trading without any regulation at all. When you have insider information, which has apparently been the case, when you have people who use that information, use big data to try and take advantage of it, there has to be some regulation. If they can't regulate themselves, then the NFL needs to look at moving away from them a little bit, and there should be some regulation.
I saw how the regulation I called for made things worse, didn't help consumers and simple competition was better. And I started praising business and occasionally criticizing regulation.
Less regulation plus less taxation plus less litigation always equals more innovation and job creation.
I'm not in favour of a regulation-free world. I align myself with Teddy Roosevelt, who broke up the trusts. Regulation is necessary, but it should be in favour of the consumer, the citizen, and freedom.
Regulation is strangling businesses of all sizes in California, and we've got to streamline regulation so it's easy, not hard, to do business.
Regulation is strangling businesses of all sizes in California, and we've got to streamline regulation so it's easy, not hard. to do business.
With the derivatives market larger than ever, we need way more regulation of Wall Street, not less.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!