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

[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.

 

[Foxfyre]

For one issue, there is the minimum wage. Many believe it is a good thing to pay people more for ethical and practical reasons. Others believe it is creating a serious disadvantage for the mom and pop stores and is a factor that is shutting many youth, especially black youth, out of the labor market altogether.

I tend to think left alone, people will pay what they have to pay to get people to work for them. And the greater good is to achieve full employment so busineses will have to pay better to get good people to work for them.

There is no advantage in having laws that force employers to hire more part time or temporary workers, reduce other benefits, or scale back their business or close their business because they can't afford to meet federal mandates.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Interesting that the OP only used examples of social welfare. Those greedy disabled people are sucking the life out of corporations all because of the ADA. OSHA is bleeding corporations dry by keeping hardworking Americans from losing their lives and limbs on the job. If you earned $50,000 a year you were being sucked dry to the tune of 10 cents a day subsidizing food stamps for hungry children.

Had the OP done any research first she would have discovered that social welfare programs account for a whopping $59 billion of spending in 2006.

That is outrageous, right? After all that is paid with your tax money, right? Who wouldn't be all bent out of shape having to pay the medicare and SS for hardworking Americans who are now retired? This is "government overreach" at it's worst, right?

Guess what other welfare programs are out there that are gouging the taxpayers that are even worse than all of the above?

Much, much worse to the tune of $92 billion over and above all of the above.

Corporate subsidies AKA corporate welfare is almost double social welfare programs. That is over and above tax breaks and government contracts. Just plain and simple handouts AKA free money. If you earned $50k pa you are subsidizing corporate welfare to the tune of about $6000 each and every year.

So why didn't the OP mention this kind of welfare spending? Was it because it is easier to pick on the sick, hungry children, the elderly and the disabled while corporations provide jobs? Was it because the OP doesn't believe that the "General Welfare" clause in the Constitution applies to people but it does to corporations?

Why is it "government overreach" that anyone working 8 hours a day should be paid a living wage but a blind eye is turned to giving billions of taxpayer dollars to oil corporations?

Let the OP make the case for corporate welfare before anyone needs to bother with explaining why We the People should be ensuring that our elderly are not living in cardboard boxes eating cat food and the disabled and children are not begging on the streets.

 

[Foxfyre]

The thread topic is:

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?

I'm not seeing how corporate welfare fits into that topic.

 

[Coyote]

I'll jump in and give my opinion.

I grew up at a time when the effects of pollution, unregulated pesticides, and the extinction of species were just beginning to be realized.

My political views were sandwitched between the lyrics of Tom Lehrer's Pollution song:
Pollution, pollution,
They got smog and sewage and mud.
Turn on your tap and get hot and cold running crud.

and a poignant add entitled "Run Rhino Run, Extinction is forever" (and add that for the White Rhino, may sadly be true).

Because of that, and many other public concerns such as lead paint and asbestos, and most recently the BP oil spill, I am strongly supportive of government regulation in public health, safety and the environment and why I do not trust industry to "self regulate".

Does it go to far? Sometimes. The problem with a centralized federal government is it most often operates in a one-size fits all mentality. It also inevitably aquires a burdonsome and unweildy amount of bureaucratic crap that defies common sense. Because of that, small farmers may find their small manure lagoons regulated the same as toxic waste sites.

But I would not want to go backwards.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The thread topic is:

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?

I'm not seeing how corporate welfare fits into that topic.

Every corporate subsidy is based upon federal legislation passed by Congress. How else could it be happening?

Eliminate Corporate Welfare Taxpayers for Common Sense

Reports Data Taxpayers for Common Sense

There are hundreds of these laws out there.

But the OP denies that corporate welfare is existing federal law that has "gone too far" to fit the narrow "definition" of bashing social welfare programs as "government overreach".

 

[Foxfyre]

The thread topic is:

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?

I'm not seeing how corporate welfare fits into that topic.

Every corporate subsidy is based upon federal legislation passed by Congress. How else could it be happening?

Eliminate Corporate Welfare Taxpayers for Common Sense

Reports Data Taxpayers for Common Sense

There are hundreds of these laws out there.

But the OP denies that corporate welfare is existing federal law that has "gone too far" to fit the narrow "definition" of bashing social welfare programs as "government overreach".

Please cite the law that promotes corporate welfare that is imposed as a mandate on all commerce and industry. Otherwise I will have to conclude that it may be a worthy subject to discuss and would encourage you to start a thread to discuss it, but it is not on topic for this thread.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'll jump in and give my opinion.

I grew up at a time when the effects of pollution, unregulated pesticides, and the extinction of species were just beginning to be realized.

My political views were sandwitched between the lyrics of Tom Lehrer's Pollution song:
Pollution, pollution,
They got smog and sewage and mud.
Turn on your tap and get hot and cold running crud.

and a poignant add entitled "Run Rhino Run, Extinction is forever" (and add that for the White Rhino, may sadly be true).

Because of that, and many other public concerns such as lead paint and asbestos, and most recently the BP oil spill, I am strongly supportive of government regulation in public health, safety and the environment and why I do not trust industry to "self regulate".

Does it go to far? Sometimes. The problem with a centralized federal government is it most often operates in a one-size fits all mentality. It also inevitably aquires a burdonsome and unweildy amount of bureaucratic crap that defies common sense. Because of that, small farmers may find their small manure lagoons regulated the same as toxic waste sites.

But I would not want to go backwards.

I have long championed federal policies that championed regulation and clean up of shared waterways, aquifers, air, coastlines, and potentially hazardous products coming into the country or crossing state lines as the states cannot realistically regulate this themselves. Such I believe falls squarely in the intended realm of the general welfare.

But does it HAVE to extend to the small farmer's manure lagoon that is bothering nobody?

I think giving the federal government auithority to regulate almost every aspect of how a business conducts business just because the federal government considers it the right thing to do is way more authority than what the federal government was intended to have.

Would it be going backwards to leave matters that affect only the people within the borders of a state to that state to deal with?

 

[Derideo_Te]

The thread topic is:

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?

I'm not seeing how corporate welfare fits into that topic.

Every corporate subsidy is based upon federal legislation passed by Congress. How else could it be happening?

Eliminate Corporate Welfare Taxpayers for Common Sense

Reports Data Taxpayers for Common Sense

There are hundreds of these laws out there.

But the OP denies that corporate welfare is existing federal law that has "gone too far" to fit the narrow "definition" of bashing social welfare programs as "government overreach".

Please cite the law that promotes corporate welfare that is imposed as a mandate on all commerce and industry. Otherwise I will have to conclude that it may be a worthy subject to discuss and would encourage you to start a thread to discuss it, but it is not on topic for this thread.

Examples of the laws were provided in the links provided but if the OP wants one specific law let's begin with the Income Tax Act and corporate welfare of oil conglomerates.

Income Tax Act

And here is how it provides massive corporate welfare subsidies to oil and gas corporations?

Effective Tax Rates of Oil Gas Companies Cashing in on Special Treatment Taxpayers for Common Sense

 

[Coyote]

I'll jump in and give my opinion.

I grew up at a time when the effects of pollution, unregulated pesticides, and the extinction of species were just beginning to be realized.

My political views were sandwitched between the lyrics of Tom Lehrer's Pollution song:
Pollution, pollution,
They got smog and sewage and mud.
Turn on your tap and get hot and cold running crud.

and a poignant add entitled "Run Rhino Run, Extinction is forever" (and add that for the White Rhino, may sadly be true).

Because of that, and many other public concerns such as lead paint and asbestos, and most recently the BP oil spill, I am strongly supportive of government regulation in public health, safety and the environment and why I do not trust industry to "self regulate".

Does it go to far? Sometimes. The problem with a centralized federal government is it most often operates in a one-size fits all mentality. It also inevitably aquires a burdonsome and unweildy amount of bureaucratic crap that defies common sense. Because of that, small farmers may find their small manure lagoons regulated the same as toxic waste sites.

But I would not want to go backwards.

I have long championed federal policies that championed regulation and clean up of shared waterways, aquifers, air, coastlines, and potentially hazardous products coming into the country or crossing state lines as the states cannot realistically regulate this themselves. Such I believe falls squarely in the intended realm of the general welfare.

But does it HAVE to extend to the small farmer's manure lagoon that is bothering nobody?

I think giving the federal government auithority to regulate almost every aspect of how a business conducts business just because the federal government considers it the right thing to do is way more authority than what the federal government was intended to have.

Would it be going backwards to leave matters that affect only the people within the borders of a state to that state to deal with?

No, not in my opinion.

Certain resources are national resources - to be conserved for all Americans. Wildlife, wildlands, beaches, for example. In addition - things which effect water and air don't stop at state borders.

One example is the reintroduction of wolves into parts of the US. Once they felt that the species had sufficient population, they took it off the endangered list turned management over to the state. State's response? Bowing to pressure from anti-wolf ranching lobbies, deer hunters etc they opened up hunting. I think it's back on the list now.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The thread topic is:

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?

I'm not seeing how corporate welfare fits into that topic.

Every corporate subsidy is based upon federal legislation passed by Congress. How else could it be happening?

Eliminate Corporate Welfare Taxpayers for Common Sense

Reports Data Taxpayers for Common Sense

There are hundreds of these laws out there.

But the OP denies that corporate welfare is existing federal law that has "gone too far" to fit the narrow "definition" of bashing social welfare programs as "government overreach".

Please cite the law that promotes corporate welfare that is imposed as a mandate on all commerce and industry. Otherwise I will have to conclude that it may be a worthy subject to discuss and would encourage you to start a thread to discuss it, but it is not on topic for this thread.

Here is another;

Coal

Federal Coal Leasing Fair Market Value and a Fair Return for the American Taxpayer Taxpayers for Common Sense

The predominant leasing process currently used by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the agency within the Department of the Interior (DOI) that manages the federal coal leasing program, does not obtain fair market value for taxpayers. It seldom generates competitive bids, and studies indicate that the resulting losses are substantial. Additional and potentially larger losses may be in store if certain current leasing practices continue and markets for exported federal coal expand.

Estimates of losses from BLM practices from 1983 to date run as high as almost $29 billion.​

 

[Foxfyre]

The thread topic is:

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?

I'm not seeing how corporate welfare fits into that topic.

Every corporate subsidy is based upon federal legislation passed by Congress. How else could it be happening?

Eliminate Corporate Welfare Taxpayers for Common Sense

Reports Data Taxpayers for Common Sense

There are hundreds of these laws out there.

But the OP denies that corporate welfare is existing federal law that has "gone too far" to fit the narrow "definition" of bashing social welfare programs as "government overreach".

Please cite the law that promotes corporate welfare that is imposed as a mandate on all commerce and industry. Otherwise I will have to conclude that it may be a worthy subject to discuss and would encourage you to start a thread to discuss it, but it is not on topic for this thread.

Examples of the laws were provided in the links provided but if the OP wants one specific law let's begin with the Income Tax Act and corporate welfare of oil conglomerates.

Income Tax Act

And here is how it provides massive corporate welfare subsidies to oil and gas corporations?

Effective Tax Rates of Oil Gas Companies Cashing in on Special Treatment Taxpayers for Common Sense

View attachment 37487

Does that corporate welfare subsidy apply to all businesses? Is every business required to do something to comply with it? Or is this a component of the tax law that involves a particular industry but not all?

For purposes of this discussion I want to focus on federal mandates and requirements that directly affect essentially all American commerce and industry and not those deals or allowances made for special interest groups.

A discussion of those special interests that could be described as corporate welfare would make a great discussion and I strongly encourage you to start a thread on that. I would be happy to participate. But it is not compatible with this thread topic.

So again, please cite a federal law regarding corporate welfare that constitutes a specific mandate or requirement for all American commerce and industry or that subject is off topic. Obviously everybody, including commerce and industry, pays income taxes so exemptions, credits, deductions etc. allowed various people are something different than a mandate.

 

[gallantwarrior]

For one issue, there is the minimum wage. Many believe it is a good thing to pay people more for ethical and practical reasons. Others believe it is creating a serious disadvantage for the mom and pop stores and is a factor that is shutting many youth, especially black youth, out of the labor market altogether.

I tend to think left alone, people will pay what they have to pay to get people to work for them. And the greater good is to achieve full employment so busineses will have to pay better to get good people to work for them.

There is no advantage in having laws that force employers to hire more part time or temporary workers, reduce other benefits, or scale back their business or close their business because they can't afford to meet federal mandates.

Observations about minimum wage: 1) such a minimum wage should not be mandated by government. Wages should be negotiated between employer and employee, and employees with lesser skills should not expect to be paid higher wages. If an employee wants more pay, they should work to improve their skill sets in order to offer an employer a more lucrative "product". 2) Employees should consider their earning potential prior to establishing a situation which would require them to either earn more or budget better. 3) Mandating a minimum wage locks out many low- or unskilled workers who could use such employment to establish themselves in the workforce, allowing them to demonstrate their ability to show up on time and perform their job to at least some minimum standard.
If employers wish to attract more skilled labor, or people with better, more developed work ethics, they would find offering better wages more conducive to developing the type of work force they desire.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'll jump in and give my opinion.

I grew up at a time when the effects of pollution, unregulated pesticides, and the extinction of species were just beginning to be realized.

My political views were sandwitched between the lyrics of Tom Lehrer's Pollution song:
Pollution, pollution,
They got smog and sewage and mud.
Turn on your tap and get hot and cold running crud.

and a poignant add entitled "Run Rhino Run, Extinction is forever" (and add that for the White Rhino, may sadly be true).

Because of that, and many other public concerns such as lead paint and asbestos, and most recently the BP oil spill, I am strongly supportive of government regulation in public health, safety and the environment and why I do not trust industry to "self regulate".

Does it go to far? Sometimes. The problem with a centralized federal government is it most often operates in a one-size fits all mentality. It also inevitably aquires a burdonsome and unweildy amount of bureaucratic crap that defies common sense. Because of that, small farmers may find their small manure lagoons regulated the same as toxic waste sites.

But I would not want to go backwards.

I have long championed federal policies that championed regulation and clean up of shared waterways, aquifers, air, coastlines, and potentially hazardous products coming into the country or crossing state lines as the states cannot realistically regulate this themselves. Such I believe falls squarely in the intended realm of the general welfare.

But does it HAVE to extend to the small farmer's manure lagoon that is bothering nobody?

I think giving the federal government auithority to regulate almost every aspect of how a business conducts business just because the federal government considers it the right thing to do is way more authority than what the federal government was intended to have.

Would it be going backwards to leave matters that affect only the people within the borders of a state to that state to deal with?

No, not in my opinion.

Certain resources are national resources - to be conserved for all Americans. Wildlife, wildlands, beaches, for example. In addition - things which effect water and air don't stop at state borders.

One example is the reintroduction of wolves into parts of the US. Once they felt that the species had sufficient population, they took it off the endangered list turned management over to the state. State's response? Bowing to pressure from anti-wolf ranching lobbies, deer hunters etc they opened up hunting. I think it's back on the list now.

That is a valid argument. But on what criteria do you judge that people in the federal government will care more about wildlife, wildlands, beaches, wolves than will those in state and local governments? While I am not opposed to having national parks--WITH the consent of the people in the states where they reside and those who will be required to pay for them--I just don't see more nobility in an authoritarian federal government than would exist in a state government trying to do its best for the people that formed it.

 

[Foxfyre]

For one issue, there is the minimum wage. Many believe it is a good thing to pay people more for ethical and practical reasons. Others believe it is creating a serious disadvantage for the mom and pop stores and is a factor that is shutting many youth, especially black youth, out of the labor market altogether.

I tend to think left alone, people will pay what they have to pay to get people to work for them. And the greater good is to achieve full employment so busineses will have to pay better to get good people to work for them.

There is no advantage in having laws that force employers to hire more part time or temporary workers, reduce other benefits, or scale back their business or close their business because they can't afford to meet federal mandates.

Observations about minimum wage: 1) such a minimum wage should not be mandated by government. Wages should be negotiated between employer and employee, and employees with lesser skills should not expect to be paid higher wages. If an employee wants more pay, they should work to improve their skill sets in order to offer an employer a more lucrative "product". 2) Employees should consider their earning potential prior to establishing a situation which would require them to either earn more or budget better. 3) Mandating a minimum wage locks out many low- or unskilled workers who could use such employment to establish themselves in the workforce, allowing them to demonstrate their ability to show up on time and perform their job to at least some minimum standard.
If employers wish to attract more skilled labor, or people with better, more developed work ethics, they would find offering better wages more conducive to developing the type of work force they desire.

While I don't disagree G.W., now is the 64 dollar question: WHY? What makes leaving the wages to the employers to decide better than having the federal government mandate that?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Interesting that the OP only used examples of social welfare. Those greedy disabled people are sucking the life out of corporations all because of the ADA. OSHA is bleeding corporations dry by keeping hardworking Americans from losing their lives and limbs on the job. If you earned $50,000 a year you were being sucked dry to the tune of 10 cents a day subsidizing food stamps for hungry children.

Had the OP done any research first she would have discovered that social welfare programs account for a whopping $59 billion of spending in 2006.

That is outrageous, right? After all that is paid with your tax money, right? Who wouldn't be all bent out of shape having to pay the medicare and SS for hardworking Americans who are now retired? This is "government overreach" at it's worst, right?

Guess what other welfare programs are out there that are gouging the taxpayers that are even worse than all of the above?

Much, much worse to the tune of $92 billion over and above all of the above.

Corporate subsidies AKA corporate welfare is almost double social welfare programs. That is over and above tax breaks and government contracts. Just plain and simple handouts AKA free money. If you earned $50k pa you are subsidizing corporate welfare to the tune of about $6000 each and every year.

So why didn't the OP mention this kind of welfare spending? Was it because it is easier to pick on the sick, hungry children, the elderly and the disabled while corporations provide jobs? Was it because the OP doesn't believe that the "General Welfare" clause in the Constitution applies to people but it does to corporations?

Why is it "government overreach" that anyone working 8 hours a day should be paid a living wage but a blind eye is turned to giving billions of taxpayer dollars to oil corporations?

Let the OP make the case for corporate welfare before anyone needs to bother with explaining why We the People should be ensuring that our elderly are not living in cardboard boxes eating cat food and the disabled and children are not begging on the streets.

I'd like to see "corporate welfare" eliminated, as well. No business is "too big to fail". Unfortunately, corporations pump tons of money into political coffers and they fully expect some compensation from the recipients of their largesse, which they receive. Sad to say, less fortunate individuals better serve the body politic as photo ops and easy shills to appeal to the better nature of the common man. They are not just easy targets, they are easy "useful idiots".

 

[gallantwarrior]

I'll jump in and give my opinion.

I grew up at a time when the effects of pollution, unregulated pesticides, and the extinction of species were just beginning to be realized.

My political views were sandwitched between the lyrics of Tom Lehrer's Pollution song:
Pollution, pollution,
They got smog and sewage and mud.
Turn on your tap and get hot and cold running crud.

and a poignant add entitled "Run Rhino Run, Extinction is forever" (and add that for the White Rhino, may sadly be true).

Because of that, and many other public concerns such as lead paint and asbestos, and most recently the BP oil spill, I am strongly supportive of government regulation in public health, safety and the environment and why I do not trust industry to "self regulate".

Does it go to far? Sometimes. The problem with a centralized federal government is it most often operates in a one-size fits all mentality. It also inevitably aquires a burdonsome and unweildy amount of bureaucratic crap that defies common sense. Because of that, small farmers may find their small manure lagoons regulated the same as toxic waste sites.

But I would not want to go backwards.

I have long championed federal policies that championed regulation and clean up of shared waterways, aquifers, air, coastlines, and potentially hazardous products coming into the country or crossing state lines as the states cannot realistically regulate this themselves. Such I believe falls squarely in the intended realm of the general welfare.

But does it HAVE to extend to the small farmer's manure lagoon that is bothering nobody?

I think giving the federal government auithority to regulate almost every aspect of how a business conducts business just because the federal government considers it the right thing to do is way more authority than what the federal government was intended to have.

Would it be going backwards to leave matters that affect only the people within the borders of a state to that state to deal with?

So true, some of the regulations touted as being for the common good are absolutely ridiculous and are only thinly veiled moves of government to micromanage "We the People", gaining as much power as possible.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The thread topic is:

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?

I'm not seeing how corporate welfare fits into that topic.

Every corporate subsidy is based upon federal legislation passed by Congress. How else could it be happening?

Eliminate Corporate Welfare Taxpayers for Common Sense

Reports Data Taxpayers for Common Sense

There are hundreds of these laws out there.

But the OP denies that corporate welfare is existing federal law that has "gone too far" to fit the narrow "definition" of bashing social welfare programs as "government overreach".

Please cite the law that promotes corporate welfare that is imposed as a mandate on all commerce and industry. Otherwise I will have to conclude that it may be a worthy subject to discuss and would encourage you to start a thread to discuss it, but it is not on topic for this thread.

Examples of the laws were provided in the links provided but if the OP wants one specific law let's begin with the Income Tax Act and corporate welfare of oil conglomerates.

Income Tax Act

And here is how it provides massive corporate welfare subsidies to oil and gas corporations?

Effective Tax Rates of Oil Gas Companies Cashing in on Special Treatment Taxpayers for Common Sense

View attachment 37487

Does that corporate welfare subsidy apply to all businesses? Is every business required to do something to comply with it? Or is this a component of the tax law that involves a particular industry but not all?

For purposes of this discussion I want to focus on federal mandates and requirements that directly affect essentially all American commerce and industry and not those deals or allowances made for special interest groups.

A discussion of those special interests that could be described as corporate welfare would make a great discussion and I strongly encourage you to start a thread on that. I would be happy to participate. But it is not compatible with this thread topic.

So again, please cite a federal law regarding corporate welfare that constitutes a specific mandate or requirement for all American commerce and industry or that subject is off topic. Obviously everybody, including commerce and industry, pays income taxes so exemptions, credits, deductions etc. allowed various people are something different than a mandate.

First off the OP denied that corporate welfare fits the definition of "government overreach".

Then the OP denied that corporate welfare was actually federal law.

Now the OP is trying to redefine the OP yet again so that it excludes everything but "social welfare".

In other words the OP is changing the rules because she cannot refute a single one of the facts and links provided that establish that corporate welfare is a far greater burden on We the People than any amount of "government overreach" that might be incurred by ensuring that we obey the Constitution when it comes to ensuring the General Welfare of the people themselves.

There can be no "structured discussion" if all topics are off limits the moment the OP cannot deal with them.

/unsubscribe from yet another failed thread.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I'll jump in and give my opinion.

I grew up at a time when the effects of pollution, unregulated pesticides, and the extinction of species were just beginning to be realized.

My political views were sandwitched between the lyrics of Tom Lehrer's Pollution song:
Pollution, pollution,
They got smog and sewage and mud.
Turn on your tap and get hot and cold running crud.

and a poignant add entitled "Run Rhino Run, Extinction is forever" (and add that for the White Rhino, may sadly be true).

Because of that, and many other public concerns such as lead paint and asbestos, and most recently the BP oil spill, I am strongly supportive of government regulation in public health, safety and the environment and why I do not trust industry to "self regulate".

Does it go to far? Sometimes. The problem with a centralized federal government is it most often operates in a one-size fits all mentality. It also inevitably aquires a burdonsome and unweildy amount of bureaucratic crap that defies common sense. Because of that, small farmers may find their small manure lagoons regulated the same as toxic waste sites.

But I would not want to go backwards.

I have long championed federal policies that championed regulation and clean up of shared waterways, aquifers, air, coastlines, and potentially hazardous products coming into the country or crossing state lines as the states cannot realistically regulate this themselves. Such I believe falls squarely in the intended realm of the general welfare.

But does it HAVE to extend to the small farmer's manure lagoon that is bothering nobody?

I think giving the federal government auithority to regulate almost every aspect of how a business conducts business just because the federal government considers it the right thing to do is way more authority than what the federal government was intended to have.

Would it be going backwards to leave matters that affect only the people within the borders of a state to that state to deal with?

No, not in my opinion.

Certain resources are national resources - to be conserved for all Americans. Wildlife, wildlands, beaches, for example. In addition - things which effect water and air don't stop at state borders.

One example is the reintroduction of wolves into parts of the US. Once they felt that the species had sufficient population, they took it off the endangered list turned management over to the state. State's response? Bowing to pressure from anti-wolf ranching lobbies, deer hunters etc they opened up hunting. I think it's back on the list now.

You are obviously not an owner of livestock or make a living raising said animals. I shoot any predator that kills my animals. Have you ever considered the terror experienced by a sheep or cow when they are attacked and killed by a predator or feral dog? Oft times, such predators will begin devouring their prey before it is dead, lots of them attack pregnant animals and drag the unborn young from their womb prior to eating it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Interesting that the OP only used examples of social welfare. Those greedy disabled people are sucking the life out of corporations all because of the ADA. OSHA is bleeding corporations dry by keeping hardworking Americans from losing their lives and limbs on the job. If you earned $50,000 a year you were being sucked dry to the tune of 10 cents a day subsidizing food stamps for hungry children.

Had the OP done any research first she would have discovered that social welfare programs account for a whopping $59 billion of spending in 2006.

That is outrageous, right? After all that is paid with your tax money, right? Who wouldn't be all bent out of shape having to pay the medicare and SS for hardworking Americans who are now retired? This is "government overreach" at it's worst, right?

Guess what other welfare programs are out there that are gouging the taxpayers that are even worse than all of the above?

Much, much worse to the tune of $92 billion over and above all of the above.

Corporate subsidies AKA corporate welfare is almost double social welfare programs. That is over and above tax breaks and government contracts. Just plain and simple handouts AKA free money. If you earned $50k pa you are subsidizing corporate welfare to the tune of about $6000 each and every year.

So why didn't the OP mention this kind of welfare spending? Was it because it is easier to pick on the sick, hungry children, the elderly and the disabled while corporations provide jobs? Was it because the OP doesn't believe that the "General Welfare" clause in the Constitution applies to people but it does to corporations?

Why is it "government overreach" that anyone working 8 hours a day should be paid a living wage but a blind eye is turned to giving billions of taxpayer dollars to oil corporations?

Let the OP make the case for corporate welfare before anyone needs to bother with explaining why We the People should be ensuring that our elderly are not living in cardboard boxes eating cat food and the disabled and children are not begging on the streets.

I'd like to see "corporate welfare" eliminated, as well. No business is "too big to fail". Unfortunately, corporations pump tons of money into political coffers and they fully expect some compensation from the recipients of their largesse, which they receive. Sad to say, less fortunate individuals better serve the body politic as photo ops and easy shills to appeal to the better nature of the common man. They are not just easy targets, they are easy "useful idiots".

Agreed again but this time off topic. I want to keep the focus of the discussion on federal mandates on commerce and industry, not the breaks given to special interests.