Former Reagan Economist and Ex-Ron Paul Staffer: Deregulation Does Not Spur Job Growth
- Posted on November 1, 2011 at 6:22am by
Becket Adams
- Print »
- Email »
Bruce Bartlett is probably better known for having held a senior policy role in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. He also served–albeit briefly–on the staffs of Reps. Jack Kemp and Ron Paul.
Recently, his name has been making the rounds because of an article he wrote titled Misrepresentations, Regulations and Jobs. The thesis of his report is that deregulation will do nothing to help spur job growth.
As expected, his article (and his past experience with conservatives) has been touted by news outlets ranging from the Huffington Post to The Associated Press.
“Republicans favor tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, but these had no stimulative effect during the George W. Bush administration, and there is no reason to believe that more of them will have any today,” Bartlett writes in his New York Times article.
In regards to the idea that deregulation will lead to job growth, Bartlett says, “It’s just nonsense. It’s just made up.”
The Associated Press immediately lent Bartlett their support and claimed “Government and industry studies support his view.”
“1,119 layoffs were attributed to government regulations in the first half of this year, while 144,746 were attributed to poor ‘business demand,’” reports the AP via a recent Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Bartlett makes his case:
The Wall Street Journal’s July survey of business economists found, “The main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies, according to a majority of economists.”
In August, McClatchy Newspapers canvassed small businesses, asking them if regulation was a big problem. It could find no evidence that this was the case.
“None of the business owners complained about regulation in their particular industries, and most seemed to welcome it,” McClatchy reported. “Some pointed to the lack of regulation in mortgage lending as a principal cause of the financial crisis that brought about the Great Recession of 2007-9 and its grim aftermath.”
Keynesian economic theory states that the government can spur demand–to some degree–through stimulus spending.
The GOP presidential candidates beg to differ.
When Rick Perry introduced his economic plan to improve jobs growth and reduce unemployment, critics pounced and claimed that it would only benefit the wealthy.
“I don’t care about that,” Texas Gov. Rick Perry told The New York Times and CNBC, referring to tax breaks for business owners. “What I care about is them having the dollars to invest in their companies.”
In response to Perry, and the entire GOP presidential field for that matter, the Associated Press argues, “many existing businesses, however, have plenty of unspent cash. The 500 companies that comprise the S&P index have about $800 billion in cash and cash equivalents, the most ever.”
So what are they saying? The 500 companies on the S&P index should pay a higher tax rate because they have “plenty of unspent cash” and because McClatchy claims that they couldn’t find many small businesses who complained about government regulations?
According to the AP, it’s not regulations that have stunted job growth. Businesses are not hiring because of the bad economy.
But what makes a bad economy?
It wasn’t too long ago that Muhtar Kent, the CEO of Coca-Cola, was bemoaning the tax on repatriated earnings, which he says forces U.S.-based companies—unlike those based in other countries—to pay “a very large tax burden” on money earned overseas and brought back to the U.S.
He even went so far as to say that, in some respects, it’s easier to do business with Communist China simply because you don’t have to wrestle around a “labyrinthine tax code” and because the “local governments fight for investments with each other.”
Wouldn’t a “labyrinthine tax code” qualify as part of a larger system of regulations that could discourage expansion and hiring?
Similarly, the vice-president and general manager of North American operations for Air China, China’s national flag carrier of civil aviation, said that “It is getting easier and easier to do business in China as the country is becoming more and more open to business,” and that “I think the U.S. has the tendency of becoming less and less open to business.”
Communist China thinks the United States has become “less open” to business.
Being “easier” and “open” to business has little to do with “scant” demand; it’s more about ease of transactions—something that can be greatly hindered by regulations.
The AP advances its narrative by claiming that small businesses rate “poor sales” as their biggest problem, with government regulations ranking second (according to a survey by the National Federation of Independent Businesses). Of the small businesses saying this is not a good time to expand, “half cited the poor economy as the chief reason. Thirteen percent named the ‘political climate.’”
The results of the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) survey are used by the AP to bolster the claim that business owners don’t think government regulations are the problem–it’s the “bad economy.”
However, the NFIB poll doesn’t really tell us anything. The results are tantamount to a man going to a doctor and repeatedly saying “my failing health” whenever the doctor asks him what’s wrong.
Of course his failing health is bothering him. That‘s why he’s there. The doctor needs to know something about what’s causing the poor health in order to fix it.
The survey only tells us that business owners realize that there is a bad economy and that sales are not good.
Perhaps the NFIB could retool their questionnaire so that the results inform the public of the (hopefully) curable symptoms rather than state the obvious ailment.
Bartlett continues his article by pointing out some facts that he thinks should be considered. For instance, government regulations were actually a bigger concern during the Clinton and Bush administrations, according to an analysis of data gathered by the Economic Policy Institute.
“While concerns about regulation have risen during the Obama administration, they are about the same now as they were during Ronald Reagan’s administration,” Bartlett writes.
Bartlett and the AP can argue that the GOP is falsely zeroing in on regulations, but is doubtful that the candidates will budge on their position.
“We need to get government out of the way,” Herman Cain said. “It starts with making sure that we can boost this economy and then reform Dodd-Frank.”
Bachmann, railed against the housing market, saying foreclosures fall heavily on women who are “losing their nest for their children and for their family.“ She added that Obama ”has failed you on this issue of housing and foreclosures.”
“Don’t try and stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom. Allow investors to buy homes, put renters in them, fix the homes up and let it turn around and come back up,” Romney told a crowd in Las Vegas.
To all of the GOP candidates Bruce Bartlett simply had this to say:
In my opinion, regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out.
In other words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment.
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 688 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 536 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 458 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 374 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 333 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 300 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 313 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 210 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 301 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 300 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (109)
True_American_2008
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 9:29amWhat Barlett is doing is applying the wrong logic. The logic that should be applied is this:
1. Companies are in business to make money.
2. Regulations will likely increase the costs of companies doing business.
3. The more those regulations increase the cost of doing business, the higher a company’s break-even point–the point as which a company begins to make a profit–is.
4. The higher the company’s break-even point is, the less likely it is that the company will be able to hire more employees.
Two other points are being missed by Barlett. First, more regulations often mean that only larger companies have the necessary resources to comply with those regulations. As a result, smaller and new, startup companies are not able to enter the marketplace and/or compete successfully with larger, more well-heeled competitors.
Second, the larger companies are better able to “lobby” the government. What will those companies lobby for? The regulations being written in such a way that they are favorable for them and/or harmful to their competition.
It is for these reasons that the regulatory burden needs to be addressed to insure that they are not doing more harm than good, that they are not, in fact, suppressing competition in the economic marketplace.
Report Post »robert
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 9:44amYou’ve got it right on, guy. I agree whole-heartedly.
After graduation I concentrated on small business accounting, and I had my own business before getting into the electronics field, and I know for a fact deregulation will enable businesses to expand and hire more people. I’ve witnessed it time and again with my own eyes.
How this character ever got a job on such a high level is a mystery, since, as you pointed out, his logic is terribly flawed, which means his expertise as a businessman is worthless.
Report Post »ozchambers
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 9:53amExactly right. Regulation doesnt kill jobs, it just kills profits. Lack of profits kills companies, and THAT kills jobs.
Report Post »ShyLow
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 10:46amConsumers spur job growth,but all their money is spent on gasoline…Gas is too high because of government regulations
Report Post »Hobbs57
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 11:59amDo different than a report from the intellect in any field. They do the same thing in health and psychology. Always looking to bandaid a symptom, never looking to solve the actual problem causing it. This only causes people to chase their tails and more problems to arise. The intellect is the failure of our species. Sadly, far to many people who have no common sense or are plain just to caught up with their busy lives, buy into this BS. Just as alcohol or the drug is only a symptom of addiction or alcoholism. They don’t create the alcoholic nor the addict, they are only but a symptom of a disorder. Yes, you can try and do everything under the sun to remove, regulate, or tax the products, but unless you get to the root of the problem, that is, the addict or alcoholic themselves, you are not solving the problem. Trust me, remove the drug or the bottle, you still have a an alcoholic in every way, they just are no longer using. Unless they change the way they live, they will replace the drug or booze with something else to get outside for themselves. Apply this all to business and it is the same thing. The intellect will point to a problem such as not having enough revenue, well, tax people more then, see, easy fix. WRONG. The education system is failing, but don’t blame the educators, no, instead put more money after money and keep the same education structure in place. This way the poor preforming teachers can become tenured and never get fired. They call this INSANITY
Report Post »I_Think_Therefore_I_Love_Liberty
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 12:55pmI couldn’t have said it better myself, and I’m pretty good at saying. I know a bunch of people who are in the mortgage business who were independent or worked for small brokers. All of them now work for big banks and mortgage companies because they cannot afford to comply with Dodd-Frank. It’s way too expensive for the average independent to do that. This just adds to corporations getting larger and “too big to fail.” It also forces people into working for companies that are under the thumb of the state’s thought police.
Report Post »StanO360
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 2:20pmThe other question to be asked is why are your sales low or not profitable enough? Do you have to hire a full time regulatory manager, tax accountant? Are work rules contraining productivity? Union rules prevent cutting wages and force layoffs rather than reduction.
NONE of this is new! This is identical to what happened under Roosevelt, including the hand wringing over corporations holding on to capital. And it was a total failure under Roosevelt! Unless that is you consider 25% unemployment when he started and 18% in 1939 a success (he didn’t). He finally started backing off his almost fascist control of the economy (it was popular among leftist at the time) and the economy responded, and then WWII (which I suppose is Keynseian).
Report Post »saranda
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 3:02pmAll the anecdotal “evidence” means nothing when compared to the big picture real world evidence provided above.
Report Post »Italia
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 6:12pmThe experts are saying the opposite of what you’re saying, and it sounds to me as though some folks want to be in business but don’t want to pay their taxes.
It seems to me as though a whole lot of people have caught on to this game some business owners are trying to play, which is: Everybody EXCEPT me ought to pay for me being in business.
It also seems as though some of the “intelligent” Republicans out there are getting tired of their party being known as nothing but “liars and deniers” and are beginning to tell the truth, and educate their people.
Report Post »Jaycen
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 10:41pmAs usual, Progressives are Reverse Selective. Small business owners aren’t complaining about regulations, therefore regulations aren’t a problem. Big businesses aren’t complaining about lack of cash reserves, so cash reserves aren’t a problem, see?
How about this – regulations are hurting big businesses and small businesses don’t have enough cash reserve. Could that possibly be part of the problem?
Report Post »SpinMD
Posted on November 2, 2011 at 9:34pmWell done. Von Mises and Hayek would be delighted. Less central planning and Keynesian influence is what is needed. How ironic would it be if Greece decides to liquidate its debt, embrace free market principles and hard money to become a beacon of prosperity in 5 years. The birthplace of western philosophy and classic liberalism become the rebirth place of liberty!
Report Post »dj kumquat
Posted on November 3, 2011 at 1:36pmbingo, true american! nice to see your reasoned reply to the article first and foremost.
Report Post »LawTalkingGuy
Posted on November 13, 2011 at 12:42pm@True_American_2008
“What Barlett is doing is applying the wrong logic. ”
No, the problem is that YOU are trying to apply logic WITHOUT evidence.
Therefore, your ‘logic’ is just as wrong as the evidence on which you rely.
Bartlett is using a variety of DATA to come to his conclusions, from economic data to surveys of CEOs. The data show that your assumptions are WRONG, that hardly any losses are reported from regulations, that plenty of business owners, particularly smaller ones, want MORE regulations, and that to the extent regulations are a problem they are a tiny tiny problem compared to the real probelm of the 2008 economic collapse.
Your problem is that you think you can apply your ‘logic’ in a vacuum, and so you preach theoretical neo-classical economic prescriptions that work ‘in theory’ about as well as communism.
Report Post »thegodfather
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 9:02amYea..just think about all those swell IRS agents who would loose their jobs with a flat tax.
Report Post »cemerius
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 3:00pmThey would retain their jobs! There would still need to be enforcement on ALL the companies/businesses collecting the tax.
Report Post »longun45
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 8:52amThis study is cherry picking at best and only incorporates very few direct regulations. It does not include the effects of all regulations as a sum total – most likely because nobody has studied it for overall impact.
Regulations do have an impact on business and has forced many overseas.
Report Post »gemologist
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 8:41amI would tend to agree with this article, however there was something very big and very important left unsaid.
Government regulation squashed small businesses before they begin.
I am trying to start a watch repair biz right now and let me tell you that with sign regulations and safety inspections and just plain ol taxes, I am going to have to push my plans on down the road for 2 more years, even though I have 90% of the equipment and the know-how already. Regulation is a much bigger concern with businesses that are trying to start up or just started up and I believe don’t cause layoffs, they generally will cause the entire business to shut down.
And o course small businesses welcome regulation, they know what I just said and the last thing they want is more competition. It’s unfair and immoral in my opinion to get into a good position because of freedom and then lobby to deny it to others, but that is how medium sized businesses become big businesses
Report Post »Cat
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 8:47amGemologist
Report Post »Try developing ACLF communities.
Your doctor will tell you to get some sleep and eat once in awhile …
hempstead1944
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 8:40amThere are traitors in every administration…..Reagan’s was no different.
Report Post »rabblechat
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 9:34amDo you really think his opinion is treasonous? I mean you may not agree with the article but Isn’t it a little much to conclude that someone who thinks poor demand has more impact on the economy than government regulations is a traitor?
Report Post »RighteousTyrant
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 6:39pmRabblecat,
You must not be familiar with The Blaze commenters. Disagreement with fundamental conservative principles is–in the eyes of many here–grounds for the stripping of your job, property, veteran status, Constitutional rights, citizenship, and in many cases your life itself.
If you don’t belive me, just read comments on any story about OWS.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 8:37amBusiness has lost confidence in the Obama administration’s ability to lead, plain and simple. If we can put him out to pasture and put together a plan to reduce debt, I think we will see a very rapid recovery.
Report Post »Cat
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 8:41amGonzo
Report Post »Won’t happen that fast
They’re NOT going to give up their access to our wealth so easily …
patriotone
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 8:32amSo your argument is that poor sales is the cause? Blame the lung cancer not the smoking that caused it. Poor sales may be a direct result of inflation, printing money and bailing companies out. Everything got more expensive as the value of our Dollar decreased and people don’t catch up in spending habits as fast as inflation rises costs. They spend less because prices on gas, milk and food increase. This results in poor sales of other products. Mr. Adams, kindly read up on inflation and deflation before using the obvious as your basis to discredit an idea. They may “report” poor sales as their main problem but that’s no different than saying “I AM BLEEDING TO DEATH” as the reason you are going to die never considering what caused the wound in the first place.
Report Post »marybethelizabeth
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 8:28amLowering the percentage of income taxes on the highest income bracket did not spur job growth either.
Giving preferential treatment to an elite class only helps them further consolidate their power over the nation.
There is no free market when the economic decisions are made by so few.
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 9:54am“Lowering the percentage of income taxes on the highest income bracket did not spur job growth either. :”
yeah the 20s, 60s, and 80s, were just flukes…right…try econ 101.
“Giving preferential treatment to an elite class only helps them further consolidate their power over the nation. ”
oh I bet you have another name for this ‘elite class’…..jews….you libs are anti-semitic fascists.
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 9:56am“There is no free market when the economic decisions are made by so few.”
yeah you mean like your savior obama deciding what companies to prop up and give money to?? like guvmint motors, solyndra, etc?
Report Post »justin.blake
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 12:57pmUmmm…how about we apply your logic to just a couple of years ago when Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the folks ‘in charge’ were the ‘elite’ who, behind closed doors, used their power to make decisions that affected the economic health of the entire nation?? Bout all we heard about that were the crickets chirping…
Report Post »On a second note, the people who don’t hold the $$ will always call those who do ‘elite’ and accuse them of exerting control over others. While a small % get their money from their forebears, the greater majority did something remarkable – THEY EARNED IT. And to have someone come behind me and say I am evil, a traitor, etc. for working 12-14 hour days for years in my small business to make it successful is simply blind jealousy masked in sociopolitical rhetoric. This country affords anyone the freedom to better their own situation as long as you work for it. Too many out there expect it to be handed to them. To freaking bad – work, work, and work some more and add some value to this economy and our nation instead of grousing about those who have more than you. Someone will always have more than you. Get used to it.
chicago76
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 8:17amPrinting money redistributes the wealth to the top 1%. Obama’s wealth redistribution theory is being worked out through money printing, but most of the money goes to other wealthy people and his cronies. Regulations are merely tools of the wealthy to prevent competition. Regulations increase costs to those unable to pay the costs and discourage the creation of new businesses, but large corporations make regs a cost of doing business and move on. However, if new regs increase costs while income goes down, regs will choke off business simply by making their products prices out of reach to consumers, no sales=no company.
Report Post »Dustyluv
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 8:32amPrinting money does not redistribute wealth. It erases it. What a dumb comment.
Report Post »fidel1234
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 8:33amIt’s crony capitalism that is killing us not capitalism,you want proof,how did the youngest nation on earth become the most powerful in just a short time,this is what China realizes and are making changes to their country.
Report Post »hineni
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 8:03amBartlett’s reasoning could be applied in the 1870’s, saying that the abolition of slavery did not enrich African Americans., ignoring the immorality and injustice of enslavement . Government errs when it succeeds in denying freedom to any members of the human race, rich or poor. Oppression via government control is never a justifiable means to any end in a free country.
Report Post »lillymckim
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 8:18amLooks like Bruce Bartlett was offered a position under Obama….
Report Post »major11
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 8:29amGood point.
Report Post »barrycooper
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 7:50amIt’s not layoffs that matter: it’s jobs not created, that did not create the income associated with those jobs, that did not add that cash to the economy, that did not spur additional business investment. You can’t take tax money and use it to create sustainable jobs, when that money itself is just a delayed tax, that will detract from future prosperity; a fact lost on no businesspeople.
Yes, job growth does spur growth, but only in the private sector, and plainly many, many environmental regulations, zoning regulations and other regulations simply make many projects more of a hassle and more expensive than they are worth. You have no way of measuring this.
I am disappointed to see the Blaze continuing its policy of de facto leftist propaganda. I have for some time made it my first visit, but that apparently needs to end.
If there are any genuine conservatives working here, I suggest you straighten and fly right. Your demographic is going to disappear.
And to be clear, we have plenty of other places to go. In addition to Drudge Report, I like Lucianne.com , frontpagemag.com , and townhall.com
Report Post »Will4Freedom
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 7:49am” the Associated Press argues, “many existing businesses, however, have plenty of unspent cash. ”
The Federal Reserve is keeping interest rate artificially low. Any business person would rather borrow cheap money than risk their own money. This is not good. A company could embark on a high risk investment using borrowed money, rather than their own. If the the investment falls apart… default, chapter 11 or get a bail out.
Report Post »babylonvi
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 7:43amIt’s not the number of regulations, it’s what is being regulated……and how it’s being regulated.
Report Post »MARCH4HIM
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 7:30amI have no experience in this matter……
Report Post »But it seems to me ,that “our economy” is lot like a ..”.AIR PLANE.”..!
ITS NOT JUST ONE PART, THAT MAKES IT FLY.
But it helps…. by having a good “ PILOT”… ..!
And …“AIR OBAMA”.. NEEDS TO BE GROUNDED….!!!!.
Not only is he off course …
He is also, flying us out past, the point of no return.
And is about to crash land….All of us passangers ,in the U.S.S.A. OCEAN.
……….KAMIKAZI STYLE……..
put seats in upright position, put your head between your knees,
and brace for impact.
endgamer
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 7:21amDon’t be a Dick.. Maybe people will like you.
Report Post »Dustyluv
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 7:15amI wonder who the helll paid him to say something so stupid. Those NFIB polls are skewed. Poor sales result from the Government regulations. . This is about the most ignorant article i have ever read in my life.Government involvement has ruined business in this country UNLESS you are connected through Socilaistic, Marxist, Government programs and loans you cannot make a good run in business anymore. Regulations tie your hands in almost every are of business. I closed my business because iI was sick of filling out GOVERNMENT bull@hit forms and a new stupid rule coming down the pike.
Even a little F’ing lizzard is threatening to shut down the oil fields of Texas. It’s hanging over our heads because of the envromental morons that have taken over our Nation. Let that regulation happen and lets see what happens to businesses! If it does, we are finished as a nation.
They must think we are as stupid as Obama. Well we are NOT! We know Government SUCKS! This man should be ashamed and the NFIB should see a downturn of members because they put out such a stupid poll to members. Business owners, stop sending them money.
Report Post »On The Bayou
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 7:23amGoerge Soros
Report Post »D Money
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 3:00pmAll of the backdoor dealings run deep. I’m sure with a little digging, someone would discover that NFIB just received an Obamacare waiver or something. Many of these so-called professional organizations, much like unions, have leadership that have become totally disassociated with their members and are in it for themselves. Like when AARP and the AMA came out in favor of Obamacare – it didn’t make sense, as the bill negatively effected their members. Then it came out that AARP would make tons of money selling supplemental Medicare insurance made necessary by cuts to the program included in the bill. It’s rarely what it appears on the surface – there’s often an alterior motive.
Report Post »Obama_Sham
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 7:14amDon’t be a Paulophile… He is fatally flawed like all humans…
Report Post »Obama_Sham
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 7:12amNo such thing as free markets… All markets have to be regulated to a certain degree… With that said, the level of government regulation should be kept as low as possible…
Report Post »Will4Freedom
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 7:44amA good anti-aggression law that applies to everyone could eliminate hundreds, if not thousands, of individual regulations. Regulations that hinder competition.
Report Post »Wildcaveman
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 7:05amThe Air Conditioning regulations in Tampa Fl increase the cost to the customer by 50% in most cases and more in others. If all the building codes were cut the cost of building a house and repairing your current houes would be cut almost in half. Imagine the average AC repair bill, $300, being cut to $150. Imagine the cost of building a decent home,$300,000, being cut to about $200,000.
You can’t tell me that huge price cut would not spurr demand and then create jobs.
Report Post »Dustyluv
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 7:20amLet the new EPA rule that closes the oil fields of West Texas down because of a stupid little lizzard. If it happens you can kiss virtually all business goodbye. I hope Texas leaves the Union and tells the rest of the liberal world to go screw themselves. But then again we have the mental midget Rick Perry as Governor…sigh.
Report Post »Cat
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 7:23amWildcaveman
The Florida Building Code is about 4” thick (excluding the National Fire Code)
A Veteran’s hospital specification can be as thick as 4”
A state education specification is nearing 5”
The Federal Tax Code is nearing 4’ high
The Public Health & Welfare Code is over 4’ high
Everything in those pages were designed to redistribute wealth with government the broker in charge
Report Post »endgamer
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 7:02amFact # 2 The American consumer has supplemented their income with credit use. For instance we would borrow on our credit cards for big ticket items and pay them off over the year. When inflation got bad and people started losing their jobs, they used credit as a buffer waiting for the economy to improve. That didn’t happen. Banks stopped the madness and the party was over. The reason for the slow spending is our economy has hit the reality that we cannot borrow anymore to fund our lifestyles. We cant afford it. Nor can government or business. Lean and mean is where it’s at. Solution? Fix the money so it’s not Fiat, educate our children so they can read an employee manual at the least! Then deregulate and create incentives for business and manufacturing to come back to the states. Wean people off the government cheese and create self reliance. Return government power to the state and local government by reducing the size of the federal government, A drugged up, alcoholic, uneducated workforce is UN-hire-able. That must be changed too. Consumers cannot borrow their way to wealth the deck is stacked against you.. A business that takes calculated risk and reinvests can..
Report Post »davuf
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 7:00amDon’t they realize that regulation serves as an entry barrier? The costs of regulation translate to higher costs to the consumer and less choice – both hard to quantify. How about they study the number of fines brought up each year for regulatory issues?
Report Post »Vunks
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 7:00amIf you plan to paint Ron Paul with this Guy your bringing down Reagan too. I understand the Cain train went off the tracks and Ron Paul isgoing to be the nominee but are you that opposed to it that you will bring Reagan’s name down too?
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 7:10amI like much of what Paul has to say… but Paul is an Idealog, and if you hit one his buttons, he digs in, unable to rethink his premise. Just, one example is: Foreign Aid!
Report Post »rabblechat
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 9:42amJust as an FYI
Report Post »This guy worked for Ron Paul Back in 1976 for about a year, he is not a current or even recent staffer as this headline would want you to believe.
Jeff65
Posted on November 3, 2011 at 5:29am@lukerw
Report Post »What’s the problem with his position on Foreign Aid? It seems extremely practical to me. I assume that you are talking about him stopping foreign aid with Israel, since that is what most are upset with. I just can’t understand why you and the others feel it necessary to try to control Israel. Why do you insist that Israel shouldn’t be a sovereign nation – away from the control of the US?
lukerw
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 6:51amThis is BS… as there has never been a set of Regulations alike created by the Obama Administration… as alike ObamaCare… whereby to compare. Normally, Regulations have the intent to spur activity… but under Obama, they have the intent to Destroy!
Report Post »Cat
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 6:49am…
Community Reinvestment Act
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform & Consumer Protection Act
Affordable Healthcare Act
Daily Tax Code Reform
Government corruption
Refuse to invest in expansion and hire new taxpayers.
Report Post »decendentof56
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 7:42amCat…..These are all valid, for sure.
But also, as NOBALONEY says…”It’s the economic conditions that are the bases for economic activity. Government‘s ’red tape’ not only slows development, but it adds to the cost of doing business. Common Sense says so.
So, the question is…why is the economy so bad?
Certainly, without doubt, we played-down to the competition by signing trade deals, for whatever the reason, to third-world countries paying third-world wages.
NAFTA/CAFTA/CHINA syphoned jobs from the US workforce.
Before that, even, textile, steel, and other industry had left the US.
You don’t have to be an economist to realize that once the industries leave, and the jobs leave, AND your government continues a Socialist-Welfare agenda, which then causes taxes to rise to pay for those Socialist programs, that eventually, you would have painted yourself into a corner.
And to the regulation question?….. I recently sold my mom’s home (ok, not a business). The red tape to sell a home is ridiculous. Ground fault outlets; water-conditioning systems; replacement of the septic system (still working fine) ; new elec. panel ; water test/re-test; certificate of occupancy (I hate those!) $10,000 total. Oh, then there were the docs to say we did that work to the county and the local muni? The CO and county/mnicipality docs are just hidden taxes, and nothing more. A certificate of occupancy? Pleeze!
Report Post »Couldn’t those things have been left up to the buyer/
smithclar3nc3
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 7:42amThe CRA and Clinton addition to the Graham Leach Bailey act of 1999, was the most destructive regulation in the last 100 years. It was the creator of the housing bubble and it created the bubble with risky barrowers. Basicly Clinton and Andrew Coumo gave the country AIDS(CRA REGULATIONS) and even though the country died another disease(MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES TRADING) it wouldn’t gotten that disease if it had an imune(COMMON SENSE LOAN OFFICERS ONLY GIVING LOANS TO PEOPLE WHO COULD ACTUALLY QUALIFY FOR THEM) system.
Report Post »The Democrats can spend this 8 ways to sunday but in the end WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON destroyed the economy with the stroke of a pen.
But hell the Democrats have been able to convence the almost entire black race and most of the kids in the educational sytem that Republican are the racist. In spite of the fact that Democrats founded the KKK,PASED JIM CROWS LAWS, re-segregated the military,faught against civil rights movement until it was all but a forgone conclusion, Fought against Republican anti-lynching laws,fought against Republican anti-Jim Crow laws,,,,The list goes on and on
Infact Democrats were even able to keep alot of their Klans man in Congress even after the Civil rights fight SENTOR BYRD was the last one and he died in 2009. And he was a grand wizard in the KKK in the early 60′s.
Yet somehow Republican are the racist even with all the proof that Republican fought for civil rights since Lincoln.
Cat
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 8:02amDecententof56
Could write forever on this subject, but kept the short list.
Agreeing with you that there are more regulations to consider, and it has gotten so out of hand the only reason I’m not investing is because it takes more time to comply that it does to invest.
Think about it.
Another thing to consider, is the accountants.
I blew up in front of mine the other day when he frankly told me I owed more, plus interest and penalties AND his fee!
Also went off on my insurance agent last month.
The dope told me the insurance company doesn’t look at the selling value of the residences, it has its own formula for determining real estate value.
What kind of crap is that?
Answer.
“They’re complying with federal law.”
The whole system is full of garbage and it needs resetting QUICKLY!
I’m NOT moving, just sitting still, and holding back
(That’s the advice from my largest investor, a self made billionaire, and he’s not moving either)
Looks like you got cut off at 1500
Report Post »Cat
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 8:10amSmithclar3nc3
Both parties are to blame.
That’s why Romney will be the establishment pick.
Keep the money ball rolling … Toward them.
Another poster who pointed out something scary.
Paraphrasing:
Barry Soetoro 45%
Report Post »Mitt Romney 44%
Dr. Ron Paul 11%
Cat
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 8:38amDecendentof56
You forgot the Radon gas fee …
Report Post »smithclar3nc3
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 9:23amReally CAT,
Report Post »Which Republican bill caused a huge influx of red tape into the banking system. Which Republican bill forced banks to make no income no job required loans. While I agree that some Republicans sat idly by and allowed this to happen for fear of re-election other didn’t. Including the one shoulders the Democrats put the blame on. George. Bush tried 5 times through-out his presidency to reign in the two gaints that backed these CRA loans without any vetting. Fannie and Freddie whom should have been the agency that most of the TARP money came from as they BACKED ALL THE BAD LOANS were allowed to destroy the economy because of the lack of conviction of Bush. And lying and corrupt congressman like Barney Frank who faught tooth and nail against an audit of the two mortgage gaints and used the military funding as a bargining chip to keep the president at bay.
Cat
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 9:34amSmithclar3nc3
If only one party is to blame then why does regulation keep expanding?
Report Post »They’re both responsible, one is just a faster track to economic and social destruction
NOBALONEY
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 6:34amIt’s the economic conditions that are the bases for economic activity. Government‘s ’red tape’ not only slows development, but it adds to the cost of doing business. Common Sense says so.
Report Post »Ookspay
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 4:11pmDead on NoBaloney, My company has around 40 employees and I will never get to 50. The minute I do go over fifty all kinds of Federal rules and regulations kick in, none of them good for business.
Report Post »Italia
Posted on November 1, 2011 at 6:15pmRed tape or not, if consumers don’t have any money to spend, no one is going to go knocking on your door anyway, but for some reason that part just isn’t getting through to Republicans at all.
All Republicans want is a “free ride”, somebody else to pay their taxes for them.
Report Post »