Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Regulatory Tsunami To Hit Business If Obama Wins Second Term

3 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Guest


Guest

$515 Billion Drag Looms

Using official government sources, the National Federation of Independent Business calculates there are more than 4,000 federal rules in the pipeline, and that just the 13 biggest ones would, if imposed in an Obama second term, cost businesses a total of more than $515 billion over four years.

That tally doesn't include more than 100 still-to-be-written regulations needed to enforce the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, or the mountain of regulations required by ObamaCare. The health law has already resulted in thousands of pages of rules, including 18 pages simply to define what a "full-time employee" is.

Among the most expensive new rules now waiting in the wings:

Smog rules. Although Obama canceled those extremely tight new standards — which would put most of the country out of compliance and cost $90 billion a year to meet — he promises to revisit the issue in 2013 and could easily reverse course.

Food safety rules. The Food and Drug Administration finished up vast new food safety rules by the end of last year, but they've been held up by the White House. The cost isn't clear, although the administration admits that the price tag for the rules dealing with imported food "will be significant."

Auto mandates. The Department of Transportation wants to require all new cars to include a rear-view video camera that turns on when cars are backing up. The cost? $10.8 billion over four years.

Greenhouse gas rules. The EPA had planned to release new rules limiting greenhouse gas emissions from oil refineries by this November, but now says it won't issue the rules until next year at the earliest. The oil industry says that, depending how the EPA writes the rule, it could be "very expensive."

http://news.investors.com/091712-625936-regulatory-tsunami-set-to-hit-economy-in-2nd-obama-term.aspx?src=HPLNews,HPLNews

Guest


Guest

And people wonder why businesses are not hiring.

"Billionaire casino boss Steve Wynn, who's happily expanding in China, says he and other real estate and hospitality moguls won't invest more in the US until the "socialist" Obama is gone from the White House. (Wynn's a Democrat, by the way)."

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/inq-phillydeals/Casino-boss-Wynn-Business-wont-invest-til-Obama-leaves.html?text=lg&cat=&submit=Vote&mr=1&page=78&month=&downpage=Y&year=&pid=106423103&106423103=Y&cid=8500281&main=&c=y

"Inflation hawks have opposed the new effort at quantitative easing. Some, including Dallas Fed chief Richard Fisher, have argued that new monetary stimulus will be useless because it is uncertainty over taxes and regulation rather than the level of borrowing costs per se that is holding back the economy."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/17/us-usa-fed-unemployment-idUSBRE88G14320120917

Guest


Guest

alecto wrote:And people wonder why businesses are not hiring.

"Billionaire casino boss Steve Wynn, who's happily expanding in China, says he and other real estate and hospitality moguls won't invest more in the US until the "socialist" Obama is gone from the White House. (Wynn's a Democrat, by the way)."

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/inq-phillydeals/Casino-boss-Wynn-Business-wont-invest-til-Obama-leaves.html?text=lg&cat=&submit=Vote&mr=1&page=78&month=&downpage=Y&year=&pid=106423103&106423103=Y&cid=8500281&main=&c=y

"Inflation hawks have opposed the new effort at quantitative easing. Some, including Dallas Fed chief Richard Fisher, have argued that new monetary stimulus will be useless because it is uncertainty over taxes and regulation rather than the level of borrowing costs per se that is holding back the economy."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/17/us-usa-fed-unemployment-idUSBRE88G14320120917


BS!

Guest


Guest

Dreamsglore wrote:
BS!

Dreams you have a PM!

Guest


Guest

Dreamsglore wrote:

BS!

Do you have an explanation for it then? All I keep hearing from the left is how good the recovery is going, how good the stock market is doing, how GDP is up BUT unemployment remains above 8% (longest period in history), highest increase of people getting food stamps in history, highest increase of people receiving disability in history. So whats missing, why are businesses not hiring people? Why are businesses not investing and expanding? Granted every other recovery in history started off slow but eventually got going unemployment went down, businesses were hiring, and life was better. This so called recovery is missing one key element, businesses are not hiring, they are not investing, and they are not expanding. So please if you can offer up a better explanation I would love to hear it because I haven't heard one yet.

Guest


Guest

Dear Alecto,

please refrain from looking at results. results tend to lead to an examination of ideas... taught ideas are very difficult to abandon. if you wish to contribute to the delusion then you will only refer to an intent.

thank you for your cooperation

Guest


Guest

PkrBum wrote:Dear Alecto,

please refrain from looking at results. results tend to lead to an examination of ideas... taught ideas are very difficult to abandon. if you wish to contribute to the delusion then you will only refer to an intent.

thank you for your cooperation

Oops! will reinsert head as soon as possible.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

alecto wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:

BS!

Do you have an explanation for it then? All I keep hearing from the left is how good the recovery is going, how good the stock market is doing, how GDP is up BUT unemployment remains above 8% (longest period in history), highest increase of people getting food stamps in history, highest increase of people receiving disability in history. So whats missing, why are businesses not hiring people? Why are businesses not investing and expanding? Granted every other recovery in history started off slow but eventually got going unemployment went down, businesses were hiring, and life was better. This so called recovery is missing one key element, businesses are not hiring, they are not investing, and they are not expanding. So please if you can offer up a better explanation I would love to hear it because I haven't heard one yet.

When the majority of people have no disposable income above what they have to spend to survive, then the economy can't recover. No one wants to manufacture or offer services that no one can afford. The middle class was decimated by policies that left their investments, their pensions, their jobs and their homes open to every conceivable kind of manipulation. Everyone's money went into a few pockets, where it has stayed. Businesses will ramp up when more people can again afford to buy things beyond their basic needs.

Guest


Guest

Floridatexan wrote:
alecto wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:

BS!

Do you have an explanation for it then? All I keep hearing from the left is how good the recovery is going, how good the stock market is doing, how GDP is up BUT unemployment remains above 8% (longest period in history), highest increase of people getting food stamps in history, highest increase of people receiving disability in history. So whats missing, why are businesses not hiring people? Why are businesses not investing and expanding? Granted every other recovery in history started off slow but eventually got going unemployment went down, businesses were hiring, and life was better. This so called recovery is missing one key element, businesses are not hiring, they are not investing, and they are not expanding. So please if you can offer up a better explanation I would love to hear it because I haven't heard one yet.

When the majority of people have no disposable income above what they have to spend to survive, then the economy can't recover. No one wants to manufacture or offer services that no one can afford. The middle class was decimated by policies that left their investments, their pensions, their jobs and their homes open to every conceivable kind of manipulation. Everyone's money went into a few pockets, where it has stayed. Businesses will ramp up when more people can again afford to buy things beyond their basic needs.

we're on our third quantitative easing (printing) and an ideologically driven stimulus that invested in green dreams and bonuses and wall street... what exactly were you expecting? you are no chess player... stick to tic tac toe against chickens.

boards of FL

boards of FL

alecto wrote:So whats missing, why are businesses not hiring people?

A combination of increased productivity and simply not enough aggregate demand to justify hiring. It has nothing to do with uncertainty.


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

boards of FL wrote:
alecto wrote:So whats missing, why are businesses not hiring people?

A combination of increased productivity and simply not enough aggregate demand to justify hiring. It has nothing to do with uncertainty.

I'm not so sure about that. Question

Margin Call

Margin Call

Rogue wrote:$515 Billion Drag Looms

Using official government sources, the National Federation of Independent Business calculates there are more than 4,000 federal rules in the pipeline, and that just the 13 biggest ones would, if imposed in an Obama second term, cost businesses a total of more than $515 billion over four years.

That tally doesn't include more than 100 still-to-be-written regulations needed to enforce the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, or the mountain of regulations required by ObamaCare. The health law has already resulted in thousands of pages of rules, including 18 pages simply to define what a "full-time employee" is.

Among the most expensive new rules now waiting in the wings:

Smog rules. Although Obama canceled those extremely tight new standards — which would put most of the country out of compliance and cost $90 billion a year to meet — he promises to revisit the issue in 2013 and could easily reverse course.

Food safety rules. The Food and Drug Administration finished up vast new food safety rules by the end of last year, but they've been held up by the White House. The cost isn't clear, although the administration admits that the price tag for the rules dealing with imported food "will be significant."

Auto mandates. The Department of Transportation wants to require all new cars to include a rear-view video camera that turns on when cars are backing up. The cost? $10.8 billion over four years.

Greenhouse gas rules. The EPA had planned to release new rules limiting greenhouse gas emissions from oil refineries by this November, but now says it won't issue the rules until next year at the earliest. The oil industry says that, depending how the EPA writes the rule, it could be "very expensive."

http://news.investors.com/091712-625936-regulatory-tsunami-set-to-hit-economy-in-2nd-obama-term.aspx?src=HPLNews,HPLNews


Even the Squid thinks more regulation is necessary:

"Tougher regulation of financial institutions and higher capital ratios at banks are necessary in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, the head of Goldman Sachs (GS.N) on Wednesday, even as he acknowledged that such safeguards carried some costs."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/19/us-goldmansachs-canada-ceo-idUSBRE88I18J20120919

Guest


Guest

Floridatexan wrote:
When the majority of people have no disposable income above what they have to spend to survive, then the economy can't recover. No one wants to manufacture or offer services that no one can afford. The middle class was decimated by policies that left their investments, their pensions, their jobs and their homes open to every conceivable kind of manipulation. Everyone's money went into a few pockets, where it has stayed. Businesses will ramp up when more people can again afford to buy things beyond their basic needs.

Yeah I can concede that does have an effect on the recovery but I think that is only a small part of the problem not the whole problem. How do you get these people to a point where they have disposable income, you get them better paying jobs, in every recovery there is a slow trend, businesses start to hire, people take those jobs, people start to spend extra, demand starts to grow, businesses hire more people, rinse repeat over and over and over then we move out of the recovery stage in to a stable economic state. Since the government gives "stimulus" to businesses to start the economic engine instead of the consumer with no disposable income wouldn't you agree that this whole process starts with businesses hiring people? So now the government is stimulating the shit out of the economy but businesses are not hiring. I think the article pretty much got it right and was extremely insightful to the problem at hand. Increased regulations and taxes is enough to make a business re-evaluate how they operate and many have chosen to sit on the sidelines and see what happens.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

PkrBum wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
alecto wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:

BS!

Do you have an explanation for it then? All I keep hearing from the left is how good the recovery is going, how good the stock market is doing, how GDP is up BUT unemployment remains above 8% (longest period in history), highest increase of people getting food stamps in history, highest increase of people receiving disability in history. So whats missing, why are businesses not hiring people? Why are businesses not investing and expanding? Granted every other recovery in history started off slow but eventually got going unemployment went down, businesses were hiring, and life was better. This so called recovery is missing one key element, businesses are not hiring, they are not investing, and they are not expanding. So please if you can offer up a better explanation I would love to hear it because I haven't heard one yet.

When the majority of people have no disposable income above what they have to spend to survive, then the economy can't recover. No one wants to manufacture or offer services that no one can afford. The middle class was decimated by policies that left their investments, their pensions, their jobs and their homes open to every conceivable kind of manipulation. Everyone's money went into a few pockets, where it has stayed. Businesses will ramp up when more people can again afford to buy things beyond their basic needs.

we're on our third quantitative easing (printing) and an ideologically driven stimulus that invested in green dreams and bonuses and wall street... what exactly were you expecting? you are no chess player... stick to tic tac toe against chickens.

You don't even know the difference between the bailout and the stimulus. And there was much more to the bailout than just TARP. I will ignore your insult and consider the source.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

alecto wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
When the majority of people have no disposable income above what they have to spend to survive, then the economy can't recover. No one wants to manufacture or offer services that no one can afford. The middle class was decimated by policies that left their investments, their pensions, their jobs and their homes open to every conceivable kind of manipulation. Everyone's money went into a few pockets, where it has stayed. Businesses will ramp up when more people can again afford to buy things beyond their basic needs.

Yeah I can concede that does have an effect on the recovery but I think that is only a small part of the problem not the whole problem. How do you get these people to a point where they have disposable income, you get them better paying jobs, in every recovery there is a slow trend, businesses start to hire, people take those jobs, people start to spend extra, demand starts to grow, businesses hire more people, rinse repeat over and over and over then we move out of the recovery stage in to a stable economic state. Since the government gives "stimulus" to businesses to start the economic engine instead of the consumer with no disposable income wouldn't you agree that this whole process starts with businesses hiring people? So now the government is stimulating the shit out of the economy but businesses are not hiring. I think the article pretty much got it right and was extremely insightful to the problem at hand. Increased regulations and taxes is enough to make a business re-evaluate how they operate and many have chosen to sit on the sidelines and see what happens.


One major problem is the lack of financing for small businesses. I believe Obama is trying to address this, as are some members of Congress. I don't believe Republicans even care. The "stimulus" was too little, too late. Increased regulations are what's needed, particularly in the financial sector. These people have literally been getting away with murder. Businesses need working capital and a reasonable expectation of demand. They also need to produce something, not just use accounting tricks and loopholes to make profits out of thin air. Money, in whatever form, must flow through the entire economy for growth to occur.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum