Delta4Embassy
Gold Member
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.
Don't like or dislike it, just think it's ironic someone wanting to discuss whether there's too much government regulation has 5 extra paragraphs just for their extra rules.
