Debate Now The Question: Too Much Federal Interference with Commerce and Industry?

[Foxfyre]

What metric are we to use to determine if the federal government has placed too many restrictions on commerce?

If we are going to go with how we feel.....we'll never reach a consensus.

How about examining the numbers?

Is there a shortage of business startups due to over regulation?
Has there been a drop in corporate revenues as a result of government overreach?
Are record numbers of businesses closing doors as a direct result of some interventionist policy of the federal government?

If yes to any....let's go over the numbers.

All valid questions and if you wanted to provide the numbers to answer them, I would be interested in what you come up with. My own focus is mostly in the area of principle and consequence.

One industry I have been made aware of by virtue of a close relative who is a senior petroleum engineer is oil refining. The overwhelming THOUSANDS of federal regulations involving an oil refinery makes building new ones or even expanding older ones economically unfeasible. As a result we can be awash in crude oil but our refining capacity is at maximum and is expanding almost not at all to accomodate a rapidly growing population.

Add to that all the federal regulations re how gasoline must be forumlated, additives, et al, and the refineries have to regularly shut down operations to retool as the seasons change, etc., all that translates to inefficiencies and much higher prices for all of us at the pump.

Can you support the claims that you just made? Has there been documented cases of oil companies wanting to build new refineries or expand old ones......but declined doing so due to regulations? If so, which regulations in particular?

There haven't been any new refineries built since the 1970's. Is that due to increased regulations? It isn't that simple.

There has been substantial expansion of refining capacity over the past several years.

No New Oil Refineries Since the 1970s But Capacity Has Grown - US News

U.S. Oil-Refineries Bulk Up - WSJ

If regulations strangling the expansion of oil refining capacity....someone needs to tell the refining companies.

My relative is an expert in the field and I consider him a most reliable source. He has no personal dog in the fight. But he is quite aware of the situation. Yes the existing refineries have become more efficient and this has helped. But we are losing ground just the same. . .

As for documentation:

. . .environmental regulations, requirements for so-called boutique fuels and mandates for ethanol have raised the cost of building new refineries. Increasingly, it is cheaper to import refined petroleum products instead of producing fuel here. The energy bills currently being considered by Congress are likely to discourage new refinery construction rather than encourage it. These policies will not lower prices at the pump or increase energy security. . .

. . .The number of refineries fell from 324 in 1981 to 223 in 1985, and domestic refining capacity dropped by almost three million barrels per day (b/d).

• By 2006 the number of U.S. refineries had slipped to 149.

Total refining capacity fell as small refineries closed, but the capacity of the remaining refineries has grown due to expansions and improvements in efficiency. For example, due to efficiency improvements refineries that operated at 78 percent of their maximum capacity in the 1980s, on the average, have produced more than 90 percent of their potential output since 1993. However, higher utilization rates increase the seasonal volatility of gasoline prices. Refineries cannot pick up the slack caused by shortages which arise when capacity is taken off-line because of maintenance or natural disaster. Thus, outages cause supply to fall and prices to rise. In the summer of 2007, for example, the loss of output from two refineries led to a gasoline price increase of 24 cents in the Midwest. . .

. . .Regulations Inhibiting the Construction of New Refineries. Emissions controls, mandates for gasoline blends and alternative fuel requirements have forced many refineries to close and have made building new oil refineries extremely difficult. . .
Increasing America s Domestic Fuel Supply by Building New Oil Refineries NCPA
​

 

[Foxfyre]

Also, here in Missouri, there is a constant battle with Kansas and Illinois, undercutting one another to lure businesses across the border in Kansas City, and to a lesser extent, East St Louis, with the promise of tax exemptions and credits. The businesses milk the system over and over again, bouncing from Kansas City, KS to Kansas City, MO and then back again.

Again ... A lot of good points in the whole post ... But a question about this part.

Why exactly do you blame Businesses (or at least chastise them for "milking the system") when it is the incompetent state and local government officials that write the agreements applicable to the tax breaks?

I mean it is easy enough to add restrictions and penalties as far as relocation and whatnot into the agreement ... Or at least terms that ensure minimum occupancy.
There is no difference in a company being greedy for money and government being greedy for the jobs and economic stimulus a corporation brings.

.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not condemning all businesses or all government leaders.

Some business leaders and politicians, including the Governor have called for a moratorium on these grants and tax incentive programs.

Economic border war spurs Missouri lawmakers to action The Kansas City Star The Kansas City Star


Lawmakers and Businesses React to Nixon s Border War Speech KOMU.com Columbia MO ​

But many businesses do milk the system. Those businesses and government are equally culpable...the city and state government for the idiocy of giving the businesses basically a free pass on all tax revenue for the companies to move a few miles across a border for the sole purpose of padding economic growth statistic and some employee paid income tax instead of creating new jobs... and the businesses for taking advantage of the tax breaks while not truly creating new jobs, which was the intention of the programs in the first place...which brings it round full circle back to "if businesses and individuals would do the right thing of their own initiative, more regulation and government intrusion would not be necessary".

But how can you have rights to your own assets/property that you legally and ethically acquired if the federal government can tell you where you have to do business and can prohibit you from locating in an area that best serves your own interests? Some have to do that to remain competitive.

It makes far more sense to me for the government to remove the most onerous and unnecessary rules and regulations for doing business to encourage more business to start up, expand, and locate in America in places that need those jobs.

Which ones?

Environmental rules that make no sense. Unacceptable taxes and mandates. Inability for tort reform to remove threats of frivolous lawsuits that drive insurance costs through the roof. And there are many many more.

 

[LoneLaugher]

What metric are we to use to determine if the federal government has placed too many restrictions on commerce?

If we are going to go with how we feel.....we'll never reach a consensus.

How about examining the numbers?

Is there a shortage of business startups due to over regulation?
Has there been a drop in corporate revenues as a result of government overreach?
Are record numbers of businesses closing doors as a direct result of some interventionist policy of the federal government?

If yes to any....let's go over the numbers.

All valid questions and if you wanted to provide the numbers to answer them, I would be interested in what you come up with. My own focus is mostly in the area of principle and consequence.

One industry I have been made aware of by virtue of a close relative who is a senior petroleum engineer is oil refining. The overwhelming THOUSANDS of federal regulations involving an oil refinery makes building new ones or even expanding older ones economically unfeasible. As a result we can be awash in crude oil but our refining capacity is at maximum and is expanding almost not at all to accomodate a rapidly growing population.

Add to that all the federal regulations re how gasoline must be forumlated, additives, et al, and the refineries have to regularly shut down operations to retool as the seasons change, etc., all that translates to inefficiencies and much higher prices for all of us at the pump.

Can you support the claims that you just made? Has there been documented cases of oil companies wanting to build new refineries or expand old ones......but declined doing so due to regulations? If so, which regulations in particular?

There haven't been any new refineries built since the 1970's. Is that due to increased regulations? It isn't that simple.

There has been substantial expansion of refining capacity over the past several years.

No New Oil Refineries Since the 1970s But Capacity Has Grown - US News

U.S. Oil-Refineries Bulk Up - WSJ

If regulations strangling the expansion of oil refining capacity....someone needs to tell the refining companies.

My relative is an expert in the field and I consider him a most reliable source. He has no personal dog in the fight. But he is quite aware of the situation. Yes the existing refineries have become more efficient and this has helped. But we are losing ground just the same. . .

As for documentation:

. . .environmental regulations, requirements for so-called boutique fuels and mandates for ethanol have raised the cost of building new refineries. Increasingly, it is cheaper to import refined petroleum products instead of producing fuel here. The energy bills currently being considered by Congress are likely to discourage new refinery construction rather than encourage it. These policies will not lower prices at the pump or increase energy security. . .

. . .The number of refineries fell from 324 in 1981 to 223 in 1985, and domestic refining capacity dropped by almost three million barrels per day (b/d).

• By 2006 the number of U.S. refineries had slipped to 149.

Total refining capacity fell as small refineries closed, but the capacity of the remaining refineries has grown due to expansions and improvements in efficiency. For example, due to efficiency improvements refineries that operated at 78 percent of their maximum capacity in the 1980s, on the average, have produced more than 90 percent of their potential output since 1993. However, higher utilization rates increase the seasonal volatility of gasoline prices. Refineries cannot pick up the slack caused by shortages which arise when capacity is taken off-line because of maintenance or natural disaster. Thus, outages cause supply to fall and prices to rise. In the summer of 2007, for example, the loss of output from two refineries led to a gasoline price increase of 24 cents in the Midwest. . .

. . .Regulations Inhibiting the Construction of New Refineries. Emissions controls, mandates for gasoline blends and alternative fuel requirements have forced many refineries to close and have made building new oil refineries extremely difficult. . .
Increasing America s Domestic Fuel Supply by Building New Oil Refineries NCPA
​

Fox......is the drop in the number of refineries DUE TO REGULATIONS?

It is not.

Your link is a biased think tank which serves the oil industry. Please don't insult me.

When I ask which ones....I am seeking specific regulations. Not general talking points. This is your thread....you have yet to cite a single specific regulation that has led to the reduction in the number of refineries. And...you have ignored the FACT that existing refineries have indeed expanded........substantially......in spite of any and all regulations.

This debate is going nowhere unless you concede these points.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Also, here in Missouri, there is a constant battle with Kansas and Illinois, undercutting one another to lure businesses across the border in Kansas City, and to a lesser extent, East St Louis, with the promise of tax exemptions and credits. The businesses milk the system over and over again, bouncing from Kansas City, KS to Kansas City, MO and then back again.

Again ... A lot of good points in the whole post ... But a question about this part.

Why exactly do you blame Businesses (or at least chastise them for "milking the system") when it is the incompetent state and local government officials that write the agreements applicable to the tax breaks?

I mean it is easy enough to add restrictions and penalties as far as relocation and whatnot into the agreement ... Or at least terms that ensure minimum occupancy.
There is no difference in a company being greedy for money and government being greedy for the jobs and economic stimulus a corporation brings.

.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not condemning all businesses or all government leaders.

Some business leaders and politicians, including the Governor have called for a moratorium on these grants and tax incentive programs.

Economic border war spurs Missouri lawmakers to action The Kansas City Star The Kansas City Star


Lawmakers and Businesses React to Nixon s Border War Speech KOMU.com Columbia MO ​

But many businesses do milk the system. Those businesses and government are equally culpable...the city and state government for the idiocy of giving the businesses basically a free pass on all tax revenue for the companies to move a few miles across a border for the sole purpose of padding economic growth statistic and some employee paid income tax instead of creating new jobs... and the businesses for taking advantage of the tax breaks while not truly creating new jobs, which was the intention of the programs in the first place...which brings it round full circle back to "if businesses and individuals would do the right thing of their own initiative, more regulation and government intrusion would not be necessary".

But how can you have rights to your own assets/property that you legally and ethically acquired if the federal government can tell you where you have to do business and can prohibit you from locating in an area that best serves your own interests? Some have to do that to remain competitive.

It makes far more sense to me for the government to remove the most onerous and unnecessary rules and regulations for doing business to encourage more business to start up, expand, and locate in America in places that need those jobs.

Which ones?

Environmental rules that make no sense. Unacceptable taxes and mandates. Inability for tort reform to remove threats of frivolous lawsuits that drive insurance costs through the roof. And there are many many more.

Many more what? You didn't even cite one in that post. Please....give me something to chew on. Name the specific regulations that are onerous and unnecessary.

Many more? You are funny.

 

[Foxfyre]

What metric are we to use to determine if the federal government has placed too many restrictions on commerce?

If we are going to go with how we feel.....we'll never reach a consensus.

How about examining the numbers?

Is there a shortage of business startups due to over regulation?
Has there been a drop in corporate revenues as a result of government overreach?
Are record numbers of businesses closing doors as a direct result of some interventionist policy of the federal government?

If yes to any....let's go over the numbers.

All valid questions and if you wanted to provide the numbers to answer them, I would be interested in what you come up with. My own focus is mostly in the area of principle and consequence.

One industry I have been made aware of by virtue of a close relative who is a senior petroleum engineer is oil refining. The overwhelming THOUSANDS of federal regulations involving an oil refinery makes building new ones or even expanding older ones economically unfeasible. As a result we can be awash in crude oil but our refining capacity is at maximum and is expanding almost not at all to accomodate a rapidly growing population.

Add to that all the federal regulations re how gasoline must be forumlated, additives, et al, and the refineries have to regularly shut down operations to retool as the seasons change, etc., all that translates to inefficiencies and much higher prices for all of us at the pump.

Can you support the claims that you just made? Has there been documented cases of oil companies wanting to build new refineries or expand old ones......but declined doing so due to regulations? If so, which regulations in particular?

There haven't been any new refineries built since the 1970's. Is that due to increased regulations? It isn't that simple.

There has been substantial expansion of refining capacity over the past several years.

No New Oil Refineries Since the 1970s But Capacity Has Grown - US News

U.S. Oil-Refineries Bulk Up - WSJ

If regulations strangling the expansion of oil refining capacity....someone needs to tell the refining companies.

My relative is an expert in the field and I consider him a most reliable source. He has no personal dog in the fight. But he is quite aware of the situation. Yes the existing refineries have become more efficient and this has helped. But we are losing ground just the same. . .

As for documentation:

. . .environmental regulations, requirements for so-called boutique fuels and mandates for ethanol have raised the cost of building new refineries. Increasingly, it is cheaper to import refined petroleum products instead of producing fuel here. The energy bills currently being considered by Congress are likely to discourage new refinery construction rather than encourage it. These policies will not lower prices at the pump or increase energy security. . .

. . .The number of refineries fell from 324 in 1981 to 223 in 1985, and domestic refining capacity dropped by almost three million barrels per day (b/d).

• By 2006 the number of U.S. refineries had slipped to 149.

Total refining capacity fell as small refineries closed, but the capacity of the remaining refineries has grown due to expansions and improvements in efficiency. For example, due to efficiency improvements refineries that operated at 78 percent of their maximum capacity in the 1980s, on the average, have produced more than 90 percent of their potential output since 1993. However, higher utilization rates increase the seasonal volatility of gasoline prices. Refineries cannot pick up the slack caused by shortages which arise when capacity is taken off-line because of maintenance or natural disaster. Thus, outages cause supply to fall and prices to rise. In the summer of 2007, for example, the loss of output from two refineries led to a gasoline price increase of 24 cents in the Midwest. . .

. . .Regulations Inhibiting the Construction of New Refineries. Emissions controls, mandates for gasoline blends and alternative fuel requirements have forced many refineries to close and have made building new oil refineries extremely difficult. . .
Increasing America s Domestic Fuel Supply by Building New Oil Refineries NCPA
​

Fox......is the drop in the number of refineries DUE TO REGULATIONS?

It is not.

Your link is a biased think tank which serves the oil industry. Please don't insult me.

When I ask which ones....I am seeking specific regulations. Not general talking points. This is your thread....you have yet to cite a single specific regulation that has led to the reduction in the number of refineries. And...you have ignored the FACT that existing refineries have indeed expanded........substantially......in spite of any and all regulations.

This debate is going nowhere unless you concede these points.

The debate goes nowhere when one member challenges everything the other person says and demands links and proof and support for the other's opinion, without ever engaging in the topic himself/herself.

So in that spirit. . . .

Please rebut my personal observations/opinion and/or the content I post for sources--that is certainly fair game and I will respect anything that shows me or my source to be wrong or in error. But unless you have solid credible evidence that a source is not reliable, objecting to the source won't wash as serious debate. I trust information from experts in an industry who are in a position to know as much or more than I trust information only from those who have an ax to grind with that industry.

For another opinion on whether reducing refineries is valid there is this from a non-petroleum source: See Point No. 5 in this article discussing refinery closures:
U.S. oil production is up so why are gas prices so high USATODAY.com

This would suggest that closing those refineries is increasing gasoline costs to the consumer. And that when a refinery is off line due to storms or whatever reason, that does affect the price at the pump. It seems logical to me that encouraging more refineries reduces the risk of a serious disruption in fuel supplies across the land. But that's just one aspect of the problem.

And to affirm your argument that production is keeping pace with demand, I will concede that supply is keeping up with demand at this time overall. I was wrong about that. From another petroleum source:
". . .“These numbers clearly show that the refining industry is making the gasoline consumers are demanding – and making it at record levels,” said API Chief Economist John Felmy. “Production is keeping pace with demand – which appears driven in part by some brightness in the economic picture – even as imports fall. . . .”
February gasoline demand production rise to record levels API

However, it does appear that up until 2012, we were importing more motor fuels than we were exporting. So what the actual numbers are re our production compared with demand might merit some additional research.
U.S. exported more gasoline than imported last year

As for what rules and regs are involved that IMO fall into the realm of excessive federal regulation and/or over reach re the petroleum industry and elsewhere, I believe I have been specific enough about that and have mentioned sufficient examples to make my case.

 

[LoneLaugher]

What metric are we to use to determine if the federal government has placed too many restrictions on commerce?

If we are going to go with how we feel.....we'll never reach a consensus.

How about examining the numbers?

Is there a shortage of business startups due to over regulation?
Has there been a drop in corporate revenues as a result of government overreach?
Are record numbers of businesses closing doors as a direct result of some interventionist policy of the federal government?

If yes to any....let's go over the numbers.

All valid questions and if you wanted to provide the numbers to answer them, I would be interested in what you come up with. My own focus is mostly in the area of principle and consequence.

One industry I have been made aware of by virtue of a close relative who is a senior petroleum engineer is oil refining. The overwhelming THOUSANDS of federal regulations involving an oil refinery makes building new ones or even expanding older ones economically unfeasible. As a result we can be awash in crude oil but our refining capacity is at maximum and is expanding almost not at all to accomodate a rapidly growing population.

Add to that all the federal regulations re how gasoline must be forumlated, additives, et al, and the refineries have to regularly shut down operations to retool as the seasons change, etc., all that translates to inefficiencies and much higher prices for all of us at the pump.

Can you support the claims that you just made? Has there been documented cases of oil companies wanting to build new refineries or expand old ones......but declined doing so due to regulations? If so, which regulations in particular?

There haven't been any new refineries built since the 1970's. Is that due to increased regulations? It isn't that simple.

There has been substantial expansion of refining capacity over the past several years.

No New Oil Refineries Since the 1970s But Capacity Has Grown - US News

U.S. Oil-Refineries Bulk Up - WSJ

If regulations strangling the expansion of oil refining capacity....someone needs to tell the refining companies.

My relative is an expert in the field and I consider him a most reliable source. He has no personal dog in the fight. But he is quite aware of the situation. Yes the existing refineries have become more efficient and this has helped. But we are losing ground just the same. . .

As for documentation:

. . .environmental regulations, requirements for so-called boutique fuels and mandates for ethanol have raised the cost of building new refineries. Increasingly, it is cheaper to import refined petroleum products instead of producing fuel here. The energy bills currently being considered by Congress are likely to discourage new refinery construction rather than encourage it. These policies will not lower prices at the pump or increase energy security. . .

. . .The number of refineries fell from 324 in 1981 to 223 in 1985, and domestic refining capacity dropped by almost three million barrels per day (b/d).

• By 2006 the number of U.S. refineries had slipped to 149.

Total refining capacity fell as small refineries closed, but the capacity of the remaining refineries has grown due to expansions and improvements in efficiency. For example, due to efficiency improvements refineries that operated at 78 percent of their maximum capacity in the 1980s, on the average, have produced more than 90 percent of their potential output since 1993. However, higher utilization rates increase the seasonal volatility of gasoline prices. Refineries cannot pick up the slack caused by shortages which arise when capacity is taken off-line because of maintenance or natural disaster. Thus, outages cause supply to fall and prices to rise. In the summer of 2007, for example, the loss of output from two refineries led to a gasoline price increase of 24 cents in the Midwest. . .

. . .Regulations Inhibiting the Construction of New Refineries. Emissions controls, mandates for gasoline blends and alternative fuel requirements have forced many refineries to close and have made building new oil refineries extremely difficult. . .
Increasing America s Domestic Fuel Supply by Building New Oil Refineries NCPA
​

Fox......is the drop in the number of refineries DUE TO REGULATIONS?

It is not.

Your link is a biased think tank which serves the oil industry. Please don't insult me.

When I ask which ones....I am seeking specific regulations. Not general talking points. This is your thread....you have yet to cite a single specific regulation that has led to the reduction in the number of refineries. And...you have ignored the FACT that existing refineries have indeed expanded........substantially......in spite of any and all regulations.

This debate is going nowhere unless you concede these points.

The debate goes nowhere when one member challenges everything the other person says and demands links and proof and support for the other's opinion, without ever engaging in the topic himself/herself.

So in that spirit. . . .

Please rebut my personal observations/opinion and/or the content I post for sources--that is certainly fair game and I will respect anything that shows me or my source to be wrong or in error. But unless you have solid credible evidence that a source is not reliable, objecting to the source won't wash as serious debate. I trust information from experts in an industry who are in a position to know as much or more than I trust information only from those who have an ax to grind with that industry.

For another opinion on whether reducing refineries is valid there is this from a non-petroleum source: See Point No. 5 in this article discussing refinery closures:
U.S. oil production is up so why are gas prices so high USATODAY.com

This would suggest that closing those refineries is increasing gasoline costs to the consumer. And that when a refinery is off line due to storms or whatever reason, that does affect the price at the pump. It seems logical to me that encouraging more refineries reduces the risk of a serious disruption in fuel supplies across the land. But that's just one aspect of the problem.

And to affirm your argument that production is keeping pace with demand, I will concede that supply is keeping up with demand at this time overall. I was wrong about that. From another petroleum source:
". . .“These numbers clearly show that the refining industry is making the gasoline consumers are demanding – and making it at record levels,” said API Chief Economist John Felmy. “Production is keeping pace with demand – which appears driven in part by some brightness in the economic picture – even as imports fall. . . .”
February gasoline demand production rise to record levels API

However, it does appear that up until 2012, we were importing more motor fuels than we were exporting. So what the actual numbers are re our production compared with demand might merit some additional research.
U.S. exported more gasoline than imported last year

As for what rules and regs are involved that IMO fall into the realm of excessive federal regulation and/or over reach re the petroleum industry and elsewhere, I believe I have been specific enough about that and have mentioned sufficient examples to make my case.

Nope. You haven't. Done.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Laws are enacted because generally both folks, companies and corporations can't be trusted to do the responsible thing. And though many of us disagree with the intrusive nature of government, what is the alternative? Get rid of social security...then what? People don't save money for retirement on their own and when they can no longer work, we let the die?

The minimum wages and labor rules and osha was instated because managers were cutting corners, screwing workers, and there was no recourse for the workers.

The EPA arose due to pollution and dumping by people more interested in making money than protecting the environment.

ADA, had companies handled the concerns of the disabled on their own, there would have been no need for a law to mandate it.

This is just human nature, and one of the major drawbacks of capitalism. Capitalist are rewarded by screwing their fellow man, ignoring the disabled, damaging the environment...etc...etc...

And our Judeo-Christian ethics require us to care for those who, through misfortune or bad luck, cannot care for themselves.

Those same ethics also won't allow folks to reap what they sow. We aren't going to allow the Cricket to starve to death, even when that is the very reward he so richly deserves.

That means constructing a medicare system, a welfare system and a system that forces the Crickets to save something for the cold months after the working days are over.

That's just the way it is.

Really god job explaining your position and a lot of good points.
The only thing that stuck out to me was this ... "And our Judeo-Christian ethics require us to care for those who, through misfortune or bad luck, cannot care for themselves."

If we are going to use the idea our Judeo-Christian beliefs are the reason we take care of everyone and establish government programs that intrude on our freedoms ... Then it would be a pretty good idea if people stopped trying to kick the Judeo-Christians in this country to curb ... You cannot have it both ways.

Of course our Founders who mostly held strong Judeo-Christian ethics themselves were judiciously determined to strictly keep hands off any form of benevolence, charity, or benefits dispensed by the federal government and hands off the JudeoChristians themselves (as well as all others in such matters.) The people of the states and local communities were unhindered in doing anything in that regard that they mutually chose to do.

Think how much better off we would be if we had just stuck to that concept.

One of the most absurd things I think government does is to take in taxes much that people earn, swallow up a huge percentage of those taxes to feed the enormous bloated bureaucracy that makes up the federal government, return whatever is left over to the states. And even there the states often siphon off more of the money to feed their own bureaucracies so that there is relatively little left for those who it was intended for in the first place.

I can think of much more efficient ways to do things.

And too often federal regulation on commerce and industry is just as counter productive to get the best results for whatever was intended.

I would think that judeo-Christians, or any other people who consider themselves good, decent, moral beings would not require the compulsion of government to do good by those less fortunate.

 

[gallantwarrior]

What metric are we to use to determine if the federal government has placed too many restrictions on commerce?

If we are going to go with how we feel.....we'll never reach a consensus.

How about examining the numbers?

Is there a shortage of business startups due to over regulation?
Has there been a drop in corporate revenues as a result of government overreach?
Are record numbers of businesses closing doors as a direct result of some interventionist policy of the federal government?

If yes to any....let's go over the numbers.

Explain why record numbers of American corporations are moving their operations overseas? Low overhead is part of the equation, but there is more to the picture than that.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Laws are enacted because generally both folks, companies and corporations can't be trusted to do the responsible thing. And though many of us disagree with the intrusive nature of government, what is the alternative? Get rid of social security...then what? People don't save money for retirement on their own and when they can no longer work, we let the die?

The minimum wages and labor rules and osha was instated because managers were cutting corners, screwing workers, and there was no recourse for the workers.

The EPA arose due to pollution and dumping by people more interested in making money than protecting the environment.

ADA, had companies handled the concerns of the disabled on their own, there would have been no need for a law to mandate it.

This is just human nature, and one of the major drawbacks of capitalism. Capitalist are rewarded by screwing their fellow man, ignoring the disabled, damaging the environment...etc...etc...

And our Judeo-Christian ethics require us to care for those who, through misfortune or bad luck, cannot care for themselves.

Those same ethics also won't allow folks to reap what they sow. We aren't going to allow the Cricket to starve to death, even when that is the very reward he so richly deserves.

That means constructing a medicare system, a welfare system and a system that forces the Crickets to save something for the cold months after the working days are over.

That's just the way it is.

Thanks for a comprehensive and well thought out post Missourian.

To address your question I highlighted in orange (or whatever color that is), Social Security was to be a barely noticeable payroll deduction to not provide a retirement income for the elderly but just to help a bit--supplement old age pensions. But it has incrementally been expanded to include more and more people for more and more reasons so that now you go to any regional Social Security office and you'll find more young, working age folks filling the waiting area than you will see old folks. And the program has also incrementally increased in costs and demands upon the working people so that it has become this enormous, unmangageable, bureaucratic monstrosity that absorbs more and more of the people's resources and returns far less of those resources than what the people would have if they invested that money themselves. And it is going broke.

The last figures I saw were that there are 1.75 working people in the USA for every social security recipient. And as the baby boomers retire, that ratio is going to shrink.

We need to start now to remove this program from the federal government and return it to the states where it belonged in the first place. That will have to be done very carefully and incrementally so that we do not break trust with the millions of the elderly we have made totally dependent on social security, as meager as it is.

What do we replace it with? I refer you to my thread in this same forum on putting out fires. When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with? Let the states and the people who live there figure out the best course of action. And I'm pretty sure they'll come up with something better than what the federal government has done.

This also applies to your closing paragraph highlighted in blue. A moral society does take care of the most helpless among us. But IMO the federal government is almost certainly the most ineffective, inefficient, expensive, and harbinger of unintended negative consequences to do that.

Much of your post I absolutely agree with, Foxfyre, which leads me to an aside that goes back to my original post...I'll address that at the end of this post, to not get off topic.

BUT, allow me to play Devil's Advocate with the first two thoughts that came to mind after reading your thoughts.

What if a citizen lived in 9 states during their working years, then retired to Florida, where they had never lived previously. A state like Florida would go broke, while New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts would collect significantly more than they paid out.

Also, here in Missouri, there is a constant battle with Kansas and Illinois, undercutting one another to lure businesses across the border in Kansas City, and to a lesser extent, East St Louis, with the promise of tax exemptions and credits. The businesses milk the system over and over again, bouncing from Kansas City, KS to Kansas City, MO and then back again.

Seeing as these citizens would be a drain on the state budget, would we not see the same kind of...let's call it "one-downmenship"...reducing benefits to make a state like California look much more inviting?

While I'm not a fan of Centralized Government, it seems like the alternative is chocked full of pitfalls and unintended consequences.

Now back to the aside...another of those "human nature, we get the laws and intrusion we deserve because folks can't be trusted to act responsibly", let's have a look at the 17th Amendment. State legislators had the opportunity to have the States interests safeguarded via the appointment of U.S. Senators by State Legislatures...but by forsaking the public trust through greed and corruption, they surrendered that that all important check/balance over federal consolidation of power over the states.

I'd suggest linking any retirement account to the individual. Whatever monies accrued in each state in which he/she worked would be paid into that account. When the individual retired, he/she would then be able to draw on their personal retirement account, regardless of where they chose as a retirement home.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Laws are enacted because generally both folks, companies and corporations can't be trusted to do the responsible thing. And though many of us disagree with the intrusive nature of government, what is the alternative? Get rid of social security...then what? People don't save money for retirement on their own and when they can no longer work, we let the die?

The minimum wages and labor rules and osha was instated because managers were cutting corners, screwing workers, and there was no recourse for the workers.

The EPA arose due to pollution and dumping by people more interested in making money than protecting the environment.

ADA, had companies handled the concerns of the disabled on their own, there would have been no need for a law to mandate it.

This is just human nature, and one of the major drawbacks of capitalism. Capitalist are rewarded by screwing their fellow man, ignoring the disabled, damaging the environment...etc...etc...

And our Judeo-Christian ethics require us to care for those who, through misfortune or bad luck, cannot care for themselves.

Those same ethics also won't allow folks to reap what they sow. We aren't going to allow the Cricket to starve to death, even when that is the very reward he so richly deserves.

That means constructing a medicare system, a welfare system and a system that forces the Crickets to save something for the cold months after the working days are over.

That's just the way it is.

Thanks for a comprehensive and well thought out post Missourian.

To address your question I highlighted in orange (or whatever color that is), Social Security was to be a barely noticeable payroll deduction to not provide a retirement income for the elderly but just to help a bit--supplement old age pensions. But it has incrementally been expanded to include more and more people for more and more reasons so that now you go to any regional Social Security office and you'll find more young, working age folks filling the waiting area than you will see old folks. And the program has also incrementally increased in costs and demands upon the working people so that it has become this enormous, unmangageable, bureaucratic monstrosity that absorbs more and more of the people's resources and returns far less of those resources than what the people would have if they invested that money themselves. And it is going broke.

The last figures I saw were that there are 1.75 working people in the USA for every social security recipient. And as the baby boomers retire, that ratio is going to shrink.

We need to start now to remove this program from the federal government and return it to the states where it belonged in the first place. That will have to be done very carefully and incrementally so that we do not break trust with the millions of the elderly we have made totally dependent on social security, as meager as it is.

What do we replace it with? I refer you to my thread in this same forum on putting out fires. When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with? Let the states and the people who live there figure out the best course of action. And I'm pretty sure they'll come up with something better than what the federal government has done.

This also applies to your closing paragraph highlighted in blue. A moral society does take care of the most helpless among us. But IMO the federal government is almost certainly the most ineffective, inefficient, expensive, and harbinger of unintended negative consequences to do that.

Much of your post I absolutely agree with, Foxfyre, which leads me to an aside that goes back to my original post...I'll address that at the end of this post, to not get off topic.

BUT, allow me to play Devil's Advocate with the first two thoughts that came to mind after reading your thoughts.

What if a citizen lived in 9 states during their working years, then retired to Florida, where they had never lived previously. A state like Florida would go broke, while New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts would collect significantly more than they paid out.

Also, here in Missouri, there is a constant battle with Kansas and Illinois, undercutting one another to lure businesses across the border in Kansas City, and to a lesser extent, East St Louis, with the promise of tax exemptions and credits. The businesses milk the system over and over again, bouncing from Kansas City, KS to Kansas City, MO and then back again.

Seeing as these citizens would be a drain on the state budget, would we not see the same kind of...let's call it "one-downmenship"...reducing benefits to make a state like California look much more inviting?

While I'm not a fan of Centralized Government, it seems like the alternative is chocked full of pitfalls and unintended consequences.

Now back to the aside...another of those "human nature, we get the laws and intrusion we deserve because folks can't be trusted to act responsibly", let's have a look at the 17th Amendment. State legislators had the opportunity to have the States interests safeguarded via the appointment of U.S. Senators by State Legislatures...but by forsaking the public trust through greed and corruption, they surrendered that that all important check/balance over federal consolidation of power over the states.

I'd suggest linking any retirement account to the individual. Whatever monies accrued in each state in which he/she worked would be paid into that account. When the individual retired, he/she would then be able to draw on their personal retirement account, regardless of where they chose as a retirement home.

 

[gallantwarrior]

What metric are we to use to determine if the federal government has placed too many restrictions on commerce?

If we are going to go with how we feel.....we'll never reach a consensus.

How about examining the numbers?

Is there a shortage of business startups due to over regulation?
Has there been a drop in corporate revenues as a result of government overreach?
Are record numbers of businesses closing doors as a direct result of some interventionist policy of the federal government?

If yes to any....let's go over the numbers.

All valid questions and if you wanted to provide the numbers to answer them, I would be interested in what you come up with. My own focus is mostly in the area of principle and consequence.

One industry I have been made aware of by virtue of a close relative who is a senior petroleum engineer is oil refining. The overwhelming THOUSANDS of federal regulations involving an oil refinery makes building new ones or even expanding older ones economically unfeasible. As a result we can be awash in crude oil but our refining capacity is at maximum and is expanding almost not at all to accomodate a rapidly growing population.

Add to that all the federal regulations re how gasoline must be forumlated, additives, et al, and the refineries have to regularly shut down operations to retool as the seasons change, etc., all that translates to inefficiencies and much higher prices for all of us at the pump.

Can you support the claims that you just made? Has there been documented cases of oil companies wanting to build new refineries or expand old ones......but declined doing so due to regulations? If so, which regulations in particular?

There haven't been any new refineries built since the 1970's. Is that due to increased regulations? It isn't that simple.

There has been substantial expansion of refining capacity over the past several years.

No New Oil Refineries Since the 1970s But Capacity Has Grown - US News

U.S. Oil-Refineries Bulk Up - WSJ

If regulations strangling the expansion of oil refining capacity....someone needs to tell the refining companies.

Living in Alaska, I have a front row seat when it comes to how government interferes with and hobbles resource development. It's not just petroleum resources, either.

 

[RKMBrown]

What metric are we to use to determine if the federal government has placed too many restrictions on commerce?

If we are going to go with how we feel.....we'll never reach a consensus.

How about examining the numbers?

Is there a shortage of business startups due to over regulation?
Has there been a drop in corporate revenues as a result of government overreach?
Are record numbers of businesses closing doors as a direct result of some interventionist policy of the federal government?

If yes to any....let's go over the numbers.

Let's go by percentage of population in the workplace. Or how about homeownership by middle class income earning families. Or how about average payroll in the private sector.

In what way are those stats relevant?

They are stats that are relevant to measuring government overreach, that of actual results you can put in the bank.

 

[Foxfyre]

Laws are enacted because generally both folks, companies and corporations can't be trusted to do the responsible thing. And though many of us disagree with the intrusive nature of government, what is the alternative? Get rid of social security...then what? People don't save money for retirement on their own and when they can no longer work, we let the die?

The minimum wages and labor rules and osha was instated because managers were cutting corners, screwing workers, and there was no recourse for the workers.

The EPA arose due to pollution and dumping by people more interested in making money than protecting the environment.

ADA, had companies handled the concerns of the disabled on their own, there would have been no need for a law to mandate it.

This is just human nature, and one of the major drawbacks of capitalism. Capitalist are rewarded by screwing their fellow man, ignoring the disabled, damaging the environment...etc...etc...

And our Judeo-Christian ethics require us to care for those who, through misfortune or bad luck, cannot care for themselves.

Those same ethics also won't allow folks to reap what they sow. We aren't going to allow the Cricket to starve to death, even when that is the very reward he so richly deserves.

That means constructing a medicare system, a welfare system and a system that forces the Crickets to save something for the cold months after the working days are over.

That's just the way it is.

Thanks for a comprehensive and well thought out post Missourian.

To address your question I highlighted in orange (or whatever color that is), Social Security was to be a barely noticeable payroll deduction to not provide a retirement income for the elderly but just to help a bit--supplement old age pensions. But it has incrementally been expanded to include more and more people for more and more reasons so that now you go to any regional Social Security office and you'll find more young, working age folks filling the waiting area than you will see old folks. And the program has also incrementally increased in costs and demands upon the working people so that it has become this enormous, unmangageable, bureaucratic monstrosity that absorbs more and more of the people's resources and returns far less of those resources than what the people would have if they invested that money themselves. And it is going broke.

The last figures I saw were that there are 1.75 working people in the USA for every social security recipient. And as the baby boomers retire, that ratio is going to shrink.

We need to start now to remove this program from the federal government and return it to the states where it belonged in the first place. That will have to be done very carefully and incrementally so that we do not break trust with the millions of the elderly we have made totally dependent on social security, as meager as it is.

What do we replace it with? I refer you to my thread in this same forum on putting out fires. When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with? Let the states and the people who live there figure out the best course of action. And I'm pretty sure they'll come up with something better than what the federal government has done.

This also applies to your closing paragraph highlighted in blue. A moral society does take care of the most helpless among us. But IMO the federal government is almost certainly the most ineffective, inefficient, expensive, and harbinger of unintended negative consequences to do that.

Much of your post I absolutely agree with, Foxfyre, which leads me to an aside that goes back to my original post...I'll address that at the end of this post, to not get off topic.

BUT, allow me to play Devil's Advocate with the first two thoughts that came to mind after reading your thoughts.

What if a citizen lived in 9 states during their working years, then retired to Florida, where they had never lived previously. A state like Florida would go broke, while New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts would collect significantly more than they paid out.

Also, here in Missouri, there is a constant battle with Kansas and Illinois, undercutting one another to lure businesses across the border in Kansas City, and to a lesser extent, East St Louis, with the promise of tax exemptions and credits. The businesses milk the system over and over again, bouncing from Kansas City, KS to Kansas City, MO and then back again.

Seeing as these citizens would be a drain on the state budget, would we not see the same kind of...let's call it "one-downmenship"...reducing benefits to make a state like California look much more inviting?

While I'm not a fan of Centralized Government, it seems like the alternative is chocked full of pitfalls and unintended consequences.

Now back to the aside...another of those "human nature, we get the laws and intrusion we deserve because folks can't be trusted to act responsibly", let's have a look at the 17th Amendment. State legislators had the opportunity to have the States interests safeguarded via the appointment of U.S. Senators by State Legislatures...but by forsaking the public trust through greed and corruption, they surrendered that that all important check/balance over federal consolidation of power over the states.

I'd suggest linking any retirement account to the individual. Whatever monies accrued in each state in which he/she worked would be paid into that account. When the individual retired, he/she would then be able to draw on their personal retirement account, regardless of where they chose as a retirement home.

Oh thank you for responding to Missourian's post on that GW. I had intended to get back to him on it, because I thought he raised an excellent question re state based social security when folks move around a lot. But I got sidetracked and out of sight, out of mind and all that.

But your suggestion is exactly what I thought would work too. Everybody's retirement accounts should be in the control and custody of the individual regardless of where he or she lives. The employer can contribute to it and if the people of a state vote for a mandatory social security system, the taxes assessed for that will also go to the person's private account that goes with him/her wherever he or she moves at least within the USA. I'm still mulling over whether a person should be able to take a tax based retirement fund out of the USA but we can debate that separately.

 

[gallantwarrior]

One huge problem with government regulations is the fact that they are seldom reviewed and those no longer needed or appropriate to the situation stricken from the books. One-size-fits all federal regulations are also completely inadequate to address geographic, climatic, and other local conditions. Instead of reviewing and updating, the Fed (and many state and local governments) just keep piling more rules and regulations onto the backs of the citizens.

Case in point: In order to renew a vehicle registration in Anchorage, your vehicle had to have pass emissions test. Failing the test, you had to have appropriate repairs made to bring your vehicle up to standard. A couple of years ago, the Anchorage city council decided that most modern vehicles were designed to higher standards than when these regulations were instituted and we therefore no longer needed to have an emissions test. The requirement was stricken from the books, until business owners who made a living administering those tests, and making subsequent repairs, complained. The regulation was briefly re-instated with a grandfather clause. The citizens prevailed, however, and the requirement has been eliminated. Amazing as it may seem, Anchorage air quality standards have remained the same without the vehicle emissions requirement.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Laws are enacted because generally both folks, companies and corporations can't be trusted to do the responsible thing. And though many of us disagree with the intrusive nature of government, what is the alternative? Get rid of social security...then what? People don't save money for retirement on their own and when they can no longer work, we let the die?

The minimum wages and labor rules and osha was instated because managers were cutting corners, screwing workers, and there was no recourse for the workers.

The EPA arose due to pollution and dumping by people more interested in making money than protecting the environment.

ADA, had companies handled the concerns of the disabled on their own, there would have been no need for a law to mandate it.

This is just human nature, and one of the major drawbacks of capitalism. Capitalist are rewarded by screwing their fellow man, ignoring the disabled, damaging the environment...etc...etc...

And our Judeo-Christian ethics require us to care for those who, through misfortune or bad luck, cannot care for themselves.

Those same ethics also won't allow folks to reap what they sow. We aren't going to allow the Cricket to starve to death, even when that is the very reward he so richly deserves.

That means constructing a medicare system, a welfare system and a system that forces the Crickets to save something for the cold months after the working days are over.

That's just the way it is.

Thanks for a comprehensive and well thought out post Missourian.

To address your question I highlighted in orange (or whatever color that is), Social Security was to be a barely noticeable payroll deduction to not provide a retirement income for the elderly but just to help a bit--supplement old age pensions. But it has incrementally been expanded to include more and more people for more and more reasons so that now you go to any regional Social Security office and you'll find more young, working age folks filling the waiting area than you will see old folks. And the program has also incrementally increased in costs and demands upon the working people so that it has become this enormous, unmangageable, bureaucratic monstrosity that absorbs more and more of the people's resources and returns far less of those resources than what the people would have if they invested that money themselves. And it is going broke.

The last figures I saw were that there are 1.75 working people in the USA for every social security recipient. And as the baby boomers retire, that ratio is going to shrink.

We need to start now to remove this program from the federal government and return it to the states where it belonged in the first place. That will have to be done very carefully and incrementally so that we do not break trust with the millions of the elderly we have made totally dependent on social security, as meager as it is.

What do we replace it with? I refer you to my thread in this same forum on putting out fires. When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with? Let the states and the people who live there figure out the best course of action. And I'm pretty sure they'll come up with something better than what the federal government has done.

This also applies to your closing paragraph highlighted in blue. A moral society does take care of the most helpless among us. But IMO the federal government is almost certainly the most ineffective, inefficient, expensive, and harbinger of unintended negative consequences to do that.

Much of your post I absolutely agree with, Foxfyre, which leads me to an aside that goes back to my original post...I'll address that at the end of this post, to not get off topic.

BUT, allow me to play Devil's Advocate with the first two thoughts that came to mind after reading your thoughts.

What if a citizen lived in 9 states during their working years, then retired to Florida, where they had never lived previously. A state like Florida would go broke, while New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts would collect significantly more than they paid out.

Also, here in Missouri, there is a constant battle with Kansas and Illinois, undercutting one another to lure businesses across the border in Kansas City, and to a lesser extent, East St Louis, with the promise of tax exemptions and credits. The businesses milk the system over and over again, bouncing from Kansas City, KS to Kansas City, MO and then back again.

Seeing as these citizens would be a drain on the state budget, would we not see the same kind of...let's call it "one-downmenship"...reducing benefits to make a state like California look much more inviting?

While I'm not a fan of Centralized Government, it seems like the alternative is chocked full of pitfalls and unintended consequences.

Now back to the aside...another of those "human nature, we get the laws and intrusion we deserve because folks can't be trusted to act responsibly", let's have a look at the 17th Amendment. State legislators had the opportunity to have the States interests safeguarded via the appointment of U.S. Senators by State Legislatures...but by forsaking the public trust through greed and corruption, they surrendered that that all important check/balance over federal consolidation of power over the states.

I'd suggest linking any retirement account to the individual. Whatever monies accrued in each state in which he/she worked would be paid into that account. When the individual retired, he/she would then be able to draw on their personal retirement account, regardless of where they chose as a retirement home.

Oh thank you for responding to Missourian's post on that GW. I had intended to get back to him on it, because I thought he raised an excellent question re state based social security when folks move around a lot. But I got sidetracked and out of sight, out of mind and all that.

But your suggestion is exactly what I thought would work too. Everybody's retirement accounts should be in the control and custody of the individual regardless of where he or she lives. The employer can contribute to it and if the people of a state vote for a mandatory social security system, the taxes assessed for that will also go to the person's private account that goes with him/her wherever he or she moves at least within the USA. I'm still mulling over whether a person should be able to take a tax based retirement fund out of the USA but we can debate that separately.

When you think about it, that is how SS works, too. But the whole program is an unsustainable juggernaut as the Feds have brought it about. Making the individual responsible for the establishment and maintenance of such an account, based upon local conditions makes more sense. Additionally, one of the most onerous and reprehensible features of the current SS program is the fact that once a participant passes, all monies remaining in their account is stolen by the government instead of becoming the property of the participant's inheritors.

 

[Foxfyre]

Also, here in Missouri, there is a constant battle with Kansas and Illinois, undercutting one another to lure businesses across the border in Kansas City, and to a lesser extent, East St Louis, with the promise of tax exemptions and credits. The businesses milk the system over and over again, bouncing from Kansas City, KS to Kansas City, MO and then back again.

Again ... A lot of good points in the whole post ... But a question about this part.

Why exactly do you blame Businesses (or at least chastise them for "milking the system") when it is the incompetent state and local government officials that write the agreements applicable to the tax breaks?

I mean it is easy enough to add restrictions and penalties as far as relocation and whatnot into the agreement ... Or at least terms that ensure minimum occupancy.
There is no difference in a company being greedy for money and government being greedy for the jobs and economic stimulus a corporation brings.
.

There is a great deal of difference between a tax credit or deduction and a subsidy too.

In 1980, the small community of Rio Rancho NM put in a bid for Intel to establish a manufacturing plant in their city. The people of Rio Ranch--mind you it was via a vote of the people--voted for the city to give Intel a large track of free land at the edge of town--land that wasn't wanted or being used by anybody else and wasn't useful for much else. And because the new plant was competing with absolutely nobody else in the entire state, the State of New Mexico and the Rio Rancho City Council both agreed to waive city and state taxes for a number of years if Intel would locate there. There was no federal involvement of any kind. It was a beautiful contract between the people and government as I believe government was always intended to work.

The result? Intel started out with 25 people, but within a few years it had grown to be New Mexico's largest private employer:

• Intel's annual economic impact to New Mexico was more than $832 million in 2013.
• Intel employs about 2,800 people at its campus in Rio Rancho.
• Every 10 Intel jobs support an additional 18 jobs in the community.
• Intel, the Intel Foundation and Intel employees contribute over $4 million a year to schools and programs in New Mexico in support of education, the environment and quality of life.

And Rio Rancho has grown from a sleepy high desert village to be a beautiful modern city with all the amenities and is New Mexico's fastest growing community.

Somehow I think if the federal government had attempted this project or had involved itself in it, the results wouldn't have been nearly so impressive.

 

[Foxfyre]

Laws are enacted because generally both folks, companies and corporations can't be trusted to do the responsible thing. And though many of us disagree with the intrusive nature of government, what is the alternative? Get rid of social security...then what? People don't save money for retirement on their own and when they can no longer work, we let the die?

The minimum wages and labor rules and osha was instated because managers were cutting corners, screwing workers, and there was no recourse for the workers.

The EPA arose due to pollution and dumping by people more interested in making money than protecting the environment.

ADA, had companies handled the concerns of the disabled on their own, there would have been no need for a law to mandate it.

This is just human nature, and one of the major drawbacks of capitalism. Capitalist are rewarded by screwing their fellow man, ignoring the disabled, damaging the environment...etc...etc...

And our Judeo-Christian ethics require us to care for those who, through misfortune or bad luck, cannot care for themselves.

Those same ethics also won't allow folks to reap what they sow. We aren't going to allow the Cricket to starve to death, even when that is the very reward he so richly deserves.

That means constructing a medicare system, a welfare system and a system that forces the Crickets to save something for the cold months after the working days are over.

That's just the way it is.

Thanks for a comprehensive and well thought out post Missourian.

To address your question I highlighted in orange (or whatever color that is), Social Security was to be a barely noticeable payroll deduction to not provide a retirement income for the elderly but just to help a bit--supplement old age pensions. But it has incrementally been expanded to include more and more people for more and more reasons so that now you go to any regional Social Security office and you'll find more young, working age folks filling the waiting area than you will see old folks. And the program has also incrementally increased in costs and demands upon the working people so that it has become this enormous, unmangageable, bureaucratic monstrosity that absorbs more and more of the people's resources and returns far less of those resources than what the people would have if they invested that money themselves. And it is going broke.

The last figures I saw were that there are 1.75 working people in the USA for every social security recipient. And as the baby boomers retire, that ratio is going to shrink.

We need to start now to remove this program from the federal government and return it to the states where it belonged in the first place. That will have to be done very carefully and incrementally so that we do not break trust with the millions of the elderly we have made totally dependent on social security, as meager as it is.

What do we replace it with? I refer you to my thread in this same forum on putting out fires. When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with? Let the states and the people who live there figure out the best course of action. And I'm pretty sure they'll come up with something better than what the federal government has done.

This also applies to your closing paragraph highlighted in blue. A moral society does take care of the most helpless among us. But IMO the federal government is almost certainly the most ineffective, inefficient, expensive, and harbinger of unintended negative consequences to do that.

Much of your post I absolutely agree with, Foxfyre, which leads me to an aside that goes back to my original post...I'll address that at the end of this post, to not get off topic.

BUT, allow me to play Devil's Advocate with the first two thoughts that came to mind after reading your thoughts.

What if a citizen lived in 9 states during their working years, then retired to Florida, where they had never lived previously. A state like Florida would go broke, while New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts would collect significantly more than they paid out.

Also, here in Missouri, there is a constant battle with Kansas and Illinois, undercutting one another to lure businesses across the border in Kansas City, and to a lesser extent, East St Louis, with the promise of tax exemptions and credits. The businesses milk the system over and over again, bouncing from Kansas City, KS to Kansas City, MO and then back again.

Seeing as these citizens would be a drain on the state budget, would we not see the same kind of...let's call it "one-downmenship"...reducing benefits to make a state like California look much more inviting?

While I'm not a fan of Centralized Government, it seems like the alternative is chocked full of pitfalls and unintended consequences.

Now back to the aside...another of those "human nature, we get the laws and intrusion we deserve because folks can't be trusted to act responsibly", let's have a look at the 17th Amendment. State legislators had the opportunity to have the States interests safeguarded via the appointment of U.S. Senators by State Legislatures...but by forsaking the public trust through greed and corruption, they surrendered that that all important check/balance over federal consolidation of power over the states.

I'd suggest linking any retirement account to the individual. Whatever monies accrued in each state in which he/she worked would be paid into that account. When the individual retired, he/she would then be able to draw on their personal retirement account, regardless of where they chose as a retirement home.

Oh thank you for responding to Missourian's post on that GW. I had intended to get back to him on it, because I thought he raised an excellent question re state based social security when folks move around a lot. But I got sidetracked and out of sight, out of mind and all that.

But your suggestion is exactly what I thought would work too. Everybody's retirement accounts should be in the control and custody of the individual regardless of where he or she lives. The employer can contribute to it and if the people of a state vote for a mandatory social security system, the taxes assessed for that will also go to the person's private account that goes with him/her wherever he or she moves at least within the USA. I'm still mulling over whether a person should be able to take a tax based retirement fund out of the USA but we can debate that separately.

When you think about it, that is how SS works, too. But the whole program is an unsustainable juggernaut as the Feds have brought it about. Making the individual responsible for the establishment and maintenance of such an account, based upon local conditions makes more sense. Additionally, one of the most onerous and reprehensible features of the current SS program is the fact that once a participant passes, all monies remaining in their account is stolen by the government instead of becoming the property of the participant's inheritors.

Yup. If your kids have reached the age of emancipation and you and the wife kick the bucket the day before you draw social security, essentially every cent you paid into that system for all your adult life is confiscated by the government. Your kids and grandkids won't see a penny of it other than I think a $200 funeral allowance. They can't even use it to pay any bills or expenses you left unpaid.

Just seems to so obvious to me that a privately held retirement account is the only way to go.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

This is the Structured Debate Zone. If you have not yet reviewed the forum rules for this forum, it is recommended that you do so and then join right in.

In this discussion we will consider whether there is too much federal government overreach, not enough, or it is just about right regarding your job or business. The question to be discussed follows the examples given. The discussion is not necessarily limited to those examples.

Examples:

The original Social Security Act
was signed into law in 1935 and went into effect in 1937. Franklin D. Roosevelt was President. The original FICA tax was 2% of income up to a maximum of $3,000 of income. It is currently 12.4% of income (split between employee and employer if the person is working for wages--the self employed pay all of it) and is assessed to a maximum of $118,000 in income. Originally intended to supplement retirement income for the elderly, numerous other benefits have been added to the program over the years.

The Social Security act also opened the door for federal welfare programs and initiated federal unemployment insurance and a mandate for state unemployment insurance. The tax intended to pay for federal (FUTA) and state (SUTA) unemployment insurance now averages out to about 6% of wages paid to employees working for wages. The employer pays this.

Medicare
was added to social security benefits in 1965 signed into law by Lyndon Baines Johnson. Two years later a tax of .07% was added to offset costs of Medicare. That tax is now 2.8% of wages paid up to $118,000 in gross wages, again split between employer and employee%.

Minimum wage
was signed into law in 1939. FDR was president. The original minimum wage was 30 cents. It is now $7.50.

OSHA,
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration was signed into law in 1971 by Richard M. Nixon. In 1996 the Denver Business Journal estimated the cost to employers to comply with ever changing OSHA rules and regulations at about $33 billion. I couldn't find any figures more recent than that.

The EPA
The Environmental Protection Agency, was created in 1970 via executive order of Richard M. Nixon. It was never authorized as law by Congress but was informally ratified by committee in both House and Senate and has been treated as law ever since. In 1912, Ryan Young writing for the EPI and reported in The Daily Caller estimated roughly $353 billion each and every year for commerce and industry to comply with EPA regulations.

The ADA
Americans with Disabilities Act, was signed into law in 1990 by George H.W. Bush and puts mandatory requirements on every American business to accommodate physical and mental disabilities of both clientele and employees at the expense of the business owner. I could find no estimates of what this costs American commerce and industry, but it too almost certainly runs into many billions of dollars.​

These are just the obvious demands that the federal government puts on American commerce and industry. There are countless others filling thousands of volumes of documents that help form the Library of Congress--so many that no business owner can possibly know what they all are. Certainly there have been benefits in many of these programs--lives have been saved, the environment has been improved, and millions of people have benefitted financially.

Does that justify them as they are written and enforced? Or is there a downside that offsets some or most of the benefits?

THE QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED IN THIS DISCUSSION:

Focusing on existing federal law/mandates only--above examples can be used but any existing federal law can be brought into the discussion--has the government gone too far in ordering the conduct and practices and requirements of and for American commerce and industry? Or is what it does mostly necessary?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. No mention of political party, liberal or conservative (or any sociopolitical ideologies). Focus on the pros and cons of the law itself regardless of who initiated it or who supports it.

2. No ad hominem. What you think a member or anybody else probably thinks or feels or wants or believes is irrelevant. Focus on the comments posted and not on the member who posted them.

3. Disagreement with anybody's post is fine and is encouraged, but do not disagree only by demanding proof or links. If you disagree with somebody else's post, state why you disagree with it. Certainly outside links will be in order from time to time to support an argument and/or to rebut another's argument.

4. If there is a disagreement on a definition or term used, the thread author reserves the right to rule on what definition will be used for purposes of this discussion. She does not promise to make everybody happy with that ruling.

5. Some friendly banter will be allowed, but not to the extent that it derails the thread. Stay on topic and relate your comments to the topic as much as possible. It will be okay, in fact probably useful, to focus on a specific federal law affecting commerce and industry and discussing that separately from the others.

Happy debating.

Am I the only one who thought "wow, ironic, a thread about too much government interference in a special-rules group."

 

[Foxfyre]

This is the Structured Debate Zone. If you have not yet reviewed the forum rules for this forum, it is recommended that you do so and then join right in.

In this discussion we will consider whether there is too much federal government overreach, not enough, or it is just about right regarding your job or business. The question to be discussed follows the examples given. The discussion is not necessarily limited to those examples.

Examples:

The original Social Security Act
was signed into law in 1935 and went into effect in 1937. Franklin D. Roosevelt was President. The original FICA tax was 2% of income up to a maximum of $3,000 of income. It is currently 12.4% of income (split between employee and employer if the person is working for wages--the self employed pay all of it) and is assessed to a maximum of $118,000 in income. Originally intended to supplement retirement income for the elderly, numerous other benefits have been added to the program over the years.

The Social Security act also opened the door for federal welfare programs and initiated federal unemployment insurance and a mandate for state unemployment insurance. The tax intended to pay for federal (FUTA) and state (SUTA) unemployment insurance now averages out to about 6% of wages paid to employees working for wages. The employer pays this.

Medicare
was added to social security benefits in 1965 signed into law by Lyndon Baines Johnson. Two years later a tax of .07% was added to offset costs of Medicare. That tax is now 2.8% of wages paid up to $118,000 in gross wages, again split between employer and employee%.

Minimum wage
was signed into law in 1939. FDR was president. The original minimum wage was 30 cents. It is now $7.50.

OSHA,
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration was signed into law in 1971 by Richard M. Nixon. In 1996 the Denver Business Journal estimated the cost to employers to comply with ever changing OSHA rules and regulations at about $33 billion. I couldn't find any figures more recent than that.

The EPA
The Environmental Protection Agency, was created in 1970 via executive order of Richard M. Nixon. It was never authorized as law by Congress but was informally ratified by committee in both House and Senate and has been treated as law ever since. In 1912, Ryan Young writing for the EPI and reported in The Daily Caller estimated roughly $353 billion each and every year for commerce and industry to comply with EPA regulations.

The ADA
Americans with Disabilities Act, was signed into law in 1990 by George H.W. Bush and puts mandatory requirements on every American business to accommodate physical and mental disabilities of both clientele and employees at the expense of the business owner. I could find no estimates of what this costs American commerce and industry, but it too almost certainly runs into many billions of dollars.​

These are just the obvious demands that the federal government puts on American commerce and industry. There are countless others filling thousands of volumes of documents that help form the Library of Congress--so many that no business owner can possibly know what they all are. Certainly there have been benefits in many of these programs--lives have been saved, the environment has been improved, and millions of people have benefitted financially.

Does that justify them as they are written and enforced? Or is there a downside that offsets some or most of the benefits?

THE QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED IN THIS DISCUSSION:

Focusing on existing federal law/mandates only--above examples can be used but any existing federal law can be brought into the discussion--has the government gone too far in ordering the conduct and practices and requirements of and for American commerce and industry? Or is what it does mostly necessary?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. No mention of political party, liberal or conservative (or any sociopolitical ideologies). Focus on the pros and cons of the law itself regardless of who initiated it or who supports it.

2. No ad hominem. What you think a member or anybody else probably thinks or feels or wants or believes is irrelevant. Focus on the comments posted and not on the member who posted them.

3. Disagreement with anybody's post is fine and is encouraged, but do not disagree only by demanding proof or links. If you disagree with somebody else's post, state why you disagree with it. Certainly outside links will be in order from time to time to support an argument and/or to rebut another's argument.

4. If there is a disagreement on a definition or term used, the thread author reserves the right to rule on what definition will be used for purposes of this discussion. She does not promise to make everybody happy with that ruling.

5. Some friendly banter will be allowed, but not to the extent that it derails the thread. Stay on topic and relate your comments to the topic as much as possible. It will be okay, in fact probably useful, to focus on a specific federal law affecting commerce and industry and discussing that separately from the others.

Happy debating.

Am I the only one who thought "wow, ironic, a thread about too much government interference in a special-rules group."

No special rules that require anybody to do anything though Delta. All are purely voluntary because there is absolutely nobody and nothing that can require you to participate in this thread. Don't like the procedural guidelines, don't participate.

It really is that simple.

For that matter I have no problem whatsoever with the government providing guidelines for participation in programs that are purely voluntary for people to participate in and/or contribute to. The programs would be pretty chaotic if they didn't.

 

[BlackSand]

There is a great deal of difference between a tax credit or deduction and a subsidy too.

In 1980, the small community of Rio Rancho NM put in a bid for Intel to establish a manufacturing plant in their city. The people of Rio Ranch--mind you it was via a vote of the people--voted for the city to give Intel a large track of free land at the edge of town--land that wasn't wanted or being used by anybody else and wasn't useful for much else. And because the new plant was competing with absolutely nobody else in the entire state, the State of New Mexico and the Rio Rancho City Council both agreed to waive city and state taxes for a number of years if Intel would locate there. There was no federal involvement of any kind. It was a beautiful contract between the people and government as I believe government was always intended to work.

The result? Intel started out with 25 people, but within a few years it had grown to be New Mexico's largest private employer:

• Intel's annual economic impact to New Mexico was more than $832 million in 2013.
• Intel employs about 2,800 people at its campus in Rio Rancho.
• Every 10 Intel jobs support an additional 18 jobs in the community.
• Intel, the Intel Foundation and Intel employees contribute over $4 million a year to schools and programs in New Mexico in support of education, the environment and quality of life.

And Rio Rancho has grown from a sleepy high desert village to be a beautiful modern city with all the amenities and is New Mexico's fastest growing communities.

Somehow I think if the federal government had attempted this project or had involved itself in it, the results wouldn't have been nearly so impressive.

Well yeah ... But like I had mentioned in my post ... The people who wrote the deal were the ones who secured the proper agreement.
I was asking about the general idea that people are quick to blame corporations when they don't write the deals.

Sorry if I strayed too far off topic.
I think some standardization involved when the Federal Government gets involved is a bonus ... But I don't think that is enough reason to make it mandatory.

.