Wow, irony on steroids here.
A troll thread from Billy Three-Zip, whose name represents all he knows.
Hey, Billy. Remind us how government spending creates a mulitplier but spending by private companies doesn.t
I can't believe I have to explain this to you again. Stimuluating supply doesn't do jack shit do stimuluate demand which is how our economy works. The economy thrives on consumer spending. Stimulating supply would make sense if demand was stimulated just as much but republicans don't do that. They are morons like you.
The unemployed have no money to spend over time. Benefits gives them money. Consumer spending creates economic growth. Every dollar spent on businesses gives them profit. This isn't hard to figure out. This is capitalism 101.
Also, every dollar lost in revenue is replaced by 1.64 in growth. Bush's tax cuts only created .59 cents in growth for every dollar lost in revenue
Let me remind you how it was the oil and natural gas industries that saved this economy from the ******* shitter. Industries dominated by Republican voters, top to bottom. Industries who, on their own, developed and perfected the process of high volume high pressure hydraulic fracturing. The result? Just look at North Dakota and it's insanely low unemployment. These are middle-class shlubs with no secondary education making six figure incomes. Folks with that kind of money buy shit- houses, cars, whores. Whores! You see? They are why YOU have a job!
Cheap plentiful natural gas is rejuvenating domestic industries and drawing factories back into the U.S. Factories that employ Americans who make money and buy shit.
Oversupplies of domestic crude have driven down prices and put billions back into the pockets of all Americans. That money BUYS shit and keeps whores like you employed.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCkQFjAA&url=https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/The%20Impact%20of%20Regulatory%20Costs%20on%20Small%20Firms%20%28Full%29.pdf&ei=jsyrVPbJJ8qQyATE5YKgAw&usg=AFQjCNGN8xytk7jqI6ramJo1yAUaXKsddg&bvm=bv.82001339,d.aWw&cad=rja
The annual cost of federal regulations in the United States increased to more than $1.75 trillion in 2008. Had every U.S. household paid an equal share of the federal regulatory burden, each would have owed $15,586 in 2008. By comparison, the federal regulatory burden exceeds by 50 percent private spending on health care, which equaled $10,500 per household in 2008. While all citizens and businesses pay some portion of these costs, the distribution of the burden of regulations is quite uneven. The portion of regulatory costs that falls initially on businesses was $8,086 per employee in 2008. Small businesses, defined as firms employing fewer than 20 employees, bear the largest burden of federal regulations. As of 2008, small businesses face an annual regulatory cost of $10,585 per employee, which is 36 percent higher than the regulatory cost facing large firms (defined as firms with 500 or more employees).
Your link:
This report was developed under a contract with the Small Business Administration,
Office of Advocacy, and contains information and analysis that was reviewed and edited by officials of the Office of Advocacy.
However , the final conclusions of the report do not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Advocacy.
Report knocks legs from under study saying regulations cost the economy $1.75 trillion
The SBA-commissioner study by Nicole V. Crain and W. Mark Crain was, it seems, a ready-made tool for the crew who would like to take us back to 1925 on everything.
Just one problem. Their work is riddled with methodological errors and omissions, according to CPR's analysis. But if you're not willing to take the word of an organization with "progressive" in its name, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service has released its own report,
Analysis of an Estimate of the Total Costs of Federal Regulations [29-page pdf]. Here's a sample from the summary of what CRS found:
..
.Crain and Crain’s estimate for economic regulations (which comprises more than 70% of the $1.75 trillion estimate) was developed by using an index of “regulatory quality.” One of the authors of the regulatory quality index said that Crain and Crain misinterpreted and misused the index, resulting in an erroneous and overstated cost estimate. ...
Crain and Crain’s estimates for environmental, occupational safety and health, and homeland security regulations were developed by blending together academic studies (some of which are now more than 30 years old) with agencies’ estimates of regulatory costs that were developed before the rules were issued (some of which are now 20 years old). Although the agency estimates were typically presented as low-to-high ranges, Crain and Crain used only the highest cost estimates in their report.
The Office of Management and Budget has said that estimates of the costs and benefits of regulations issued more than 10 years earlier are of “questionable relevance.” ...
Crain and Crain said they did not provide estimates of the benefits of regulations, even when the information was readily available, because the SBA Office of Advocacy did not ask them to do so.
OMB’s reports to Congress have generally indicated that regulatory benefits exceed costs. Crain and Crain said their report was not meant to be a decision-making tool for lawmakers or federal regulatory agencies to use in choosing the “right” level of regulation.
They should be happy. Their report
isn't being used as a decision-making tool to pick the right level of regulation.
It's being used as propaganda by those whose goal, after you peel away all their boilerplate nonsense about unfair competitive advantage and "voluntary compliance," is to dismantle or defund every regulatory effort the government engages in, from food inspections to safety-on-the-job requirements. And you can rest assured that they will ignore the CRS report's debunking.
CRS: Critics Demonstrated That Researchers Cherry-Picked Data, Ignored Economic Benefits Of Regulations, And Used "Inherently Flawed" Methodology.
CPR: Study Used "Flimsy" And "Crude" Data. The Center for Progressive Reform -- in an analysis cited by the Congressional Research Service -- criticized the study's lack of transparency and condemned Crain and Crain for using "crude" data:
http://www.progressivereform.org/articles/CRS_Crain_and_Crain.pdf#page=2
SBA, Which Commissioned Earlier Study, Later Distanced Itself From It. After the 2010 report's fallout, the Small Business Administration posted an update on their website, writing that the findings of the study it commissioned
"have been taken out of context and certain theoretical estimates of costs have been presented publicly as verifiable facts" and that the $1.75 trillion figure "was not intended to be considered a precise finding."
The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms The U.S. Small Business Administration SBA.gov
Crain and Crain’s OSHA cost estimates are way off base
Press Release: Poorly-researched Crain and Crain estimate of OSHA regulations leads to vastly overstated costs
Crain and Crain s OSHA cost estimates are way off base Economic Policy Institute
