Should We Take The 1% Money to Pay off the Debt?

The Crains also note that they do not include in their assessment the indirect or ripple effects of regulatory mandates. They also do not directly review many categories of rules—including import restrictions, antitrust regulations, product safety and telecom—and rules issued by “independent agencies.” And no one has yet accounted for the impending regulatory tsunami (yes, I said it) that will be unleashed by the Dodd-Frank and Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Sarbanes-Oxley alone costs $1.4 trillion in lost market value.

In short, the Crains’ estimate of regulatory costs, while more accurate than Sunstein’s, may well prove to be on the low end. My own casual survey of literature on regulations, not using Crain or OMB numbers, already adds up to $1 trillion — and that doesn’t count the new health care law and the 3,500 pages of Dodd-Frank financial rules (with more on the way).

www.forbe... s.com/sites/waynecrews/2011/07/06/the-cost-of-government-regulation-the-barack-obama-cass-sunstein-urban-legend/

Litigation transaction costs on average and as a percent of revenue have risen substantially over the past
nine years. The amounts of judgments and settlements are not included in these figures.
• The average outside litigation cost per respondent was nearly $115 million in 2008, up 73
percent from $66 million in 2000. This represents an average increase of 9 percent each year.
• For the 20 companies providing data on this issue for the full survey period, average outside
litigation costs were $140 million in 2008, an increase of 112 percent from $66 million in 2000.
2
• Between 2000 and 2008, average annual litigation costs as a percent of revenues increased 78
percent for the 14 companies providing data on average litigation costs as a percent

The U.S. litigation system imposes a much greater cost burden on companies than systems outside the
United States. As a percent of revenue, multi‐national company respondents to the survey spend a
disproportionate amount on litigation in the United States relative to their expenditures in foreign
jurisdictions. Depending on the year, relative U.S. costs were between four and nine times higher than
non‐U.S. costs (as a percent of revenue). This disparity will inevitably influence decisions by
corporations about where to invest their resources. Global competition for foreign investment is
increasing, and the changing dynamics of the global economy are affecting the United States’ ability to
remain a leader in this area.1 The International Trade Administration at the U.S. Department of
Commerce has found that “many foreign investors view the U.S. legal environment as a liability when
investing in the United States.”2 If U.S. litigation costs are significantly higher than other countries, and
the situation is left unchecked as economic differences between countries narrow, the United States will
be unable to compete effectively in the global marketplace.3

http://w ww.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/Duke%20Materials/Library/Litigation%20Cost%20Survey%20of%20Major%20Companies.pdf

There you have it. We are driving business out and discouraging business from coming in.

reply to post by Hefficide


Between Bush and Obama we have seen 1871 new regulatory rules put into place. Of those, 126 were considered "economically significant" under President Bush and has risen to 177 "economically significant" during President Obama. **Economically significant is weighted as "may result in expenditures of more than $100 million"

Estimated costs of those regulations, in the Bush era is $4.3 billion to the Obama era of $19.8 billion. Please note I am not trying to levy a claim on President Obama, but rather showing how we have a deluge of regulations costing business and citizens money to comply with them.


According to a study conducted by Elsie Echeverri-Carroll and Sofia G. Ayala -- (PDF FILE), direct cost burden on business was $648 billion.

This is just outlining Federal regulations. States also impose regulations that cost business.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

I appreciate the fact you are taking the two Presidents into account and together. I think that's the only logical way of looking at things right now because the patterns and policies are largely unbroken. Look who is running the Fed? Bernanke was Bush's choice but Obama has since had him reconfirmed...

The confirmation was a victory for President Obama, who had called Mr. Bernanke an architect of the recovery, but also signaled the extent to which the Fed, once little known to the public, has become the object of outrage over high unemployment and bank bailouts.

Source

I'm glad the current President has as much Confidence in the judgement of the last one....I thought Bush went outright insane somewhere in the 2007 period of time if not a bit earlier.

It'll be 16 years of debt spending like that's the answer to everything. 16 years since the nation will have seen a budget surplus and by the looks of things...8 years to a real, formal budget that even puts real limits to spending at all?

reply to post by winterkill


Well to start off your entire argument has a fatal flaw. It is based on this premise that one should or could simply confiscate all the wealth and pay off 30+ years worth of debt. It is a simple argument for simple people that do not understand even the fundamental basics of monetary policy. The fact of it is it will take time to pay down the debt and lots of it. What we can do is raise taxes some cut spending some and get our budget to where it is creating a modest surplus to pay off the debt. As we go along that 16 trillion will come down as the compounding interest becomes smaller. This is not a difficult concept to really understand.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Kali74

 

Yep the communist manifesto is not hard to miss but the solution of more government and its "benevolence" is not hard to miss either.

How people are missing the fact, and they are facts since 1935 all that government intevention has not solved anything,but compounded those perceived "problems".

But then agian I do not condone government legislated morality.

I must be confused.

Aren't you the same guy who eas touting Pravda as a great source for Obama news just a week ago?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Pravda is the most pro communist propaganda rag in the world. I suppose you only back whatever supports your posisition though.
(Let alone the fact that Obama must be this giant communist even though Pravda spits out more hit pieces against him than ATS :lol

reply to post by spinalremain


Actually I agreed with that assessment of the current Potus quite a bit of difference considering even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Does any of this sound familiar?

According to the political theory of Marxism-Leninism of the early 20th century, the kulaks were class enemies of the poorer peasants.[1] Vladimir Lenin described them as "bloodsuckers, vampires, plunderers of the people and profiteers, who batten on famine.”[2] Marxism-Leninism had intended a revolution to liberate poor peasants and farm laborers alongside the proletariat (urban and industrial workers).

DefinitionsAccording to the Soviet terminology, the peasants were divided into three broad categories: bednyaks, or poor peasants; serednyaks, or mid-income peasants; and kulaks, the higher-income farmers who had larger farms than most Russian peasants

In May 1929, the Sovnarkom issued a decree that formalised the notion of "kulak household" (кулацкое хозяйство). Any of the following defined a kulak:[1][6]

use of hired labor
ownership of a mill, a creamery (маслобойня, butter-making rig), other processing equipment, or a complex machine with a mechanical motor
systematic renting out of agricultural equipment or facilities
involvement in trade, money-lending, commercial brokerage, or "other sources of non-labor income".
By the last item, any peasant who sold his surplus goods on the market could be automatically classified as a kulak. In 1930 this list was extended to include those who were renting industrial plants, e.g., sawmills, or who rented land to other farmers. Grigory Zinoviev, a well-known Soviet politician, said in 1924, "We are fond of describing any peasant who has enough to eat as a 'kulak'." At the same time, the ispolkoms (executive committees of local Soviets) of republics, oblasts, and krais were given rights to add other criteria for defining kulaks, depending on local conditions

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Won't happen. We are still being told it is a "revenue" problem; we just aren't bringing in enough tax-receipts to pay for Government. By all accounts, the $2.4 trillion in direct revenue should be enough to fund the valid functions of government; the question is and ever expanding are the "valid functions of government".

Here is something to take in consideration: In 2011, $1.3 trillion in income taxes were collected. Of course, this number is reduced when we consider "refunds", tax-breaks, credits, etc. That is how much money we move from the private sector into the government coffers in income taxes. This isn't a call that we shouldn't have to pay any taxes; but it should be a wake up call to anyone thinking we just need more money.

Our spending though, is through the charts. If we as a nation cannot make $1.3 trillion work for valid government, then we are doomed no matter what path we take: Higher-taxes + normal spending (failure), Higher-taxes + "future" spending cuts (failure), Higher-taxes + across the board 10% cuts (failure). We just fund too much and try to do everything. At the rate we spend and fund programs we will have to just increase our taxes across the board to insane levels while we continue to spend.

Our spending habits are deplorable:
$3.6 trillion. Until both sides realize their pet fantasies (defense and health-care: these two combined we spend $1.6 trillion) are unsustainable at the levels are trying to keep up, we will keep digging a deeper hole.

reply to post by Kali74


Again, back to soviet Russia or Communist China.

I never realized that you, or anyone else gets to determine that a business is bad, and should be expelled.

SO much for "That " person's freedoms.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


You are correct here, and really most people agree that it is not just a revenue problem. There is a spending problem as well as a waste through inefficiency problem. And those things all have to be addressed. Austerity however will decimate the economy because right now Government jobs are among the few that still pay well. That is why this fiscal cliff fight is just a dog and pony show. No one Democrat or Republican is willing to talk about the real problem with the economy, horrible trade deficits and trade policy that favors the wealth hoarders.

Look profit isn't bad, what is bad is profit at all costs to satisfy the day traders and their gambling addiction. Long term stable profit is a wonderful thing, buying profitable companies saddling them with unsustainable debt and then blaming the unions while collecting a bonus is not. Hostess is just a snapshot of what is wrong with corporate culture in this country that the financial meltdown did not change. If your company is failing and losing money, how exactly is it that you would reward that failure? Unless failure was the plan to begin with.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Kali74

 

Straight to irrational "emotional" so called argument what are you going to tell over 200 million people in this country whose sole means of survival depend on what way the political winds blow in Washington DC when the bills cant be paid for.

New flash this entire nation is buring down to the ground, and people are begging for more of the same.

Love how you transition form deriding an "emotional argument" to follow up with the apocolyptic "this entire nation is burning to the ground"!!!

I have a "Newsflash" for you! The nation did not collapse into a socialist ruin the first time President Obama was elected, the economy didn't dive into a depression...we began a reasonably healthy recovery...that is what every economist acknowldeges apart from Rush Limbaugh. AND just cuz the GOP got thier ass kicked again doesn't mean that the "nation is burning down to the ground"!! There isn't a single problem we face without a simple solution if the GOP weren't batsh&%.

For example...
5 Huge Myths About Social Security- Daily Finance

Myth No. 2: Meeting Social Security's future shortfall is really hard
We only need to come up with about 0.9% of GDP in order to make Social Security's revenues match up with its expenses for the next 75 years. To put that into perspective, 0.9% is close to the cost of unemployment insurance, the high-end Bush tax cuts, or one-fifth of the Defense budget. That's not insignificant, but it's hardly apocalyptic.

www.dailyfinance.com...

I'm just gonna answer this without reading over everything....taking the 1% money will not put a dent in the debt and the deficit....our Gov is broken...it is an abomination of inefficiency and swallows down money and demands more.

Want to address the debt and the deficit? Address the inefficiency of GOV and get it to where it is a functioning organization....good luck with that.

We hose down huge amounts of money for no good reason...the Gov is the absolute worst ran organization ever...completely inefficient.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Kali74

 

Again, back to soviet Russia or Communist China.

I never realized that you, or anyone else gets to determine that a business is bad, and should be expelled.

SO much for "That " person's freedoms.

Ever heard of the Mafia? Drug Cartels?...don't know where you are from, but here in the USA folks determine if a business is "good" or "bad" all the time...and thank god for that.

Now explain to me why it is not legal in the USA to chain up children in a factory and then watch it burn to the ground? But it is legal for a US corporation to profit from that same practice in another country?

Originally posted by Indigo5


Ever heard of the Mafia? Drug Cartels?...don't know where you are from, but here in the USA folks determine if a business is "good" or "bad" all the time...and thank god for that.

Yep, sure have. And they seem to be competing with the Fed Govt.

Originally posted by Indigo5
Now explain to me why it is not legal in the USA to chain up children in a factory and then watch it burn to the ground? But it is legal for a US corporation to profit from that same practice in another country?

Because the creation of OSHA after the Triangle shirt fire. Yet, OSHA has become one of those ridiculous Govt Agencies that does little good.

As for others countries? I could care less. Not my problem.
If the company does that, and they sell in the US, it is the free market that decides if it is a factor.

It might go something like this.



Shortly after taking office sixteen years later, Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed Executive Order 6102 into law, prohibiting the “hoarding” of gold. Under this executive order, Americans were prohibited from owning more than $100 worth of gold coins, and all “hoarders” (i.e. people who owned more than $100 worth of gold) were forced, by law, to sell their “excess” gold to the government at the prevailing price of $20.67 per ounce.

Then, once the government had all the gold, FDR revalued the dollar relative to gold so that gold was now worth $35 an ounce. By simple decree, the government had thereby robbed millions of American citizens at a rate of $14.33 per ounce of confiscated gold, which is why most historians agree that the Gold Confiscation of 1933 is the single most draconian economic act in the history of the United State.


Then they could take all your money and give you postage size stamps in its place that you can spend at a government owned store. It could happen.

reply to post by Indigo5


Tell ya what I love:

For 8 years the people in power whined how bad things are in this country, turn around then say how great this country is doing,.

Then in the next thread say how bad people have it when there are more people on welfare than any other time in this nations history.

Yep that is really a "healthy economy"/

Who is getting their behind's kicked?

Did not gain control of the house, 22 states have gone from leftist union thuggery to right to work., Michigan being the latest.

Oh an there is not a single problem this nation is facing that leftists are not to blame for:

Regulation kills jobs
Created the federal reserve that killed wealth.
Created enitlement programs worthy of Wall Street Corruption.

But hey whatever those evil GOPers and all that BS.

The only myth there is is that government is good, and the left gives two craps about people, the only thing they give one iota about is creating a slave class to produce that crop of votes.

Then that other myth of those who claim to be liberal are nothing but the antithesis of that word.

Originally posted by winterkill
So if we took all of the money from
- The Rich
- The Corps
- The sporting events
- Every source of income in America,

We could pay off 1 Trillion dollars of the Debt.

Only 15 more to go.

Define hooped.

no.

resources should be nationalized and the infrastructure should be paid with the profits.

F*ck taxes.