We spend over $380 billion on environmental regulations alone. You don't have to kill the EPA, but Jesus... We in turn spend just $167 on infrastructure. Why? There is close to $400 on economic regulations
Yes, but that's the number that our government spends. You can't take the 380 billion that it costs our economy and deduct that from our deficit. It doesn't work that way. What you don't understand is that while $380 may be some number somebody came up with, that money doesn't just disappear. It's spent on testing, construction, contracts etc and becomes part of our country's gdp. Look, I'm all for cutting regulations. I deal with it every day. The corps of engineers is probably one of the worst, but my point is, that's not going to make up the gap in the deficit. So back to the original point. I said it's an issue to just increase government spending and where are we going to cut to offset that. You can't loosen regulations and use part of that $380 billion as part of that number. They're two different numbers. So we can spend on infrastructure but it's going to increase the national debt and annual deficit. If you're okay with that, then there's no problem but most people who voted for Trump are also very focused on the deficit and debt. While I didn't vote for Trump, I'm also very focused on the debt. We have to do something about infrastructure but cutting regulations isn't going to pay for the 3.6 trillion in deferred infrastructure maintenance.
WTF are you talking about. It costs us money. It's OUR money. How businesses work 101; where can I put my dollar to make money. If you are sending it to the government, you aren't getting a return. When you don't have to send it to the government, you can invest it. If you had an extra $3,000 what would you do with it, hide it under your mattress? Buy things, invest? Still with me? When you cut regulations, what YOU think is that the money is gone. It isn't gone. The companies still have it. They WILL use it. What is also does is incentivise them not to leave anymore. When they leave we lose even more tax revenue. SO, what are you missing? As members of society, we do this simple thing every day. We make X dollars and decide how to best spend it based on a variety of factors. When I am taxed less I don't just go burn the savings in a bonfire.......
Then tell the government to get the fuck out of the way. They are the single biggest contributor to it. The private sector growth is what will get us out of debt. Not the government. Trumps talk of government spending is an investment. It's meant to have a return. Thus far liberal EPA policies have not given us a return. Unless you are a lizard in Midland-Odessa, then you have a "safe" space. @Winston1 is right.
The $380 billion number is not money that is going to the government for the most part. It is money that is spent hiring other private companies to do tests and studies, to mitigate damage from development etc. That money doesn't go to government, it is an overall cost of regulation. When companies leave, they just move their headquarters, they don't stop doing business. That's a taxing issue, not a regulation issue. You are confusing and interloping so many different issues that it's hard to even point you in the right direction. Yes, that money stays with the private citizen that has it but to reduce the deficit which is what I was talking about in my post that started this, all of that money saved would have to go either directly into the government revenues or be cut from government expenses. Surplus/(Deficit) = Govt revenue - Govt expenses So if you want to spend $170 billion/year on infrastructure then to be deficit neutral you have to either bring in 170 billion more in revenue or spend $170 billion less in other places. If you think you can save $100 billion out of that $380 billion that doesn't count against the $170 billion. Only the amount that would ultimately be taxed and become revenues that otherwise wouldn't have had it been spent on "regulations". Look at it one more way. Regulations make a 5 dollar item cost $5.35. This number has no direct bearing on our deficit. It could affect it indirectly through higher costs but that $.35 isn't creating our deficit even though that cost is tied to regulations imposed by the government.
Its a cost to US companies which does go to the government to manage and manage poorly. Its both. We lose tax revenue from the jobs. Regulations cause them to leave. Higher costs of doing business in the US. It is all related. Manufacturing has high regulation costs per employee in the US. No you are just slow. One last time. By reducing the burden (costs) to companies you increase revenue. Companies will invest and if the government gets the fuck out of their way and makes it appealing to invest here -- More people working = more tax revenue. I mean, its like a company building a plant. Upfront costs, but its the opportunity costs you are forgetting. You dont have to be deficit neutral if you grow tax revenue by growing the economy. ITs not a hard concept. Trump wants growth and we have to invest in that. Yes regulations do when they cause a business to be less competitive than a company that can make the same item overseas AND ship it back for cheaper.
How did a thread go from legalizing pot to 4 paragraph posts on government spending. I've got a headache reading it. Thank goodness Red isn't around.
