Ray Jay wrote:Ricky:

But if they aren't sincere about their plan - then the budget offered is a farce. It has no chance of a mathematical conclusion that doesn't result in massively increased debt.

Unless reducing regulation and increasing domestic energy exploration can generate better economic growth.

On the flipside, does increasing regulation (esp. EPA regulations) and suppressing domestic energy exploration generate economic growth?

While some may want more detail so they can "crossover" and vote for Romney, they have no specific details from President Obama either. Raising taxes on "the rich" is not going to put any kind of dent in anything, particularly when the President is out promising to "invest" more at every campaign stop.

Did anyone notice Sunday's interview with the AP? During a second term, the President says, he would make compromises with the Republicans.

If Republicans are willing, Obama said, “I’m prepared to make a whole range of compromises” that could even rankle his own party. But he did not get specific.

Gee, if he'd done that in the first term, this might not be a race. So, is that a "lobster trap," rickyp?

What about compromising now, BEFORE we go off the "fiscal cliff?"

Nope, he and the Democrats would rather use "compromising" language, like "The Republicans are holding the middle class hostage."

danivon wrote:The point is not would he get criticism (he will, all politicians do), but whether it really is damaging. I can't see him paying his tithes being an issue, any more than anyone else contributing to their church, and certainly not one that would lose him many moderate votes. Pressing it would probably make his opponents look silly.

Right.

Sorry, you're naive.

Maybe they wouldn't press that point, but would look at how the Church spends the money--on lavish Temples, which would lead to discussions about baptism of the dead, sealing ceremonies, temple garments, becoming gods, etc. I think, for Romney, the less Mormonism is discussed, the better.

I could see interest deductions being an issue, if he has mortgages. There are all manner of things in a tax return as long and complex as I'm sure his is, that would make good fodder.

Again, politically, it would be malpractice to release more than is necessary. It might be right morally, but I don't think it will lose him votes to not do it. Anyone committed to voting for Obama, who thinks he is doing a good job, is not going to change because Romney releases more tax info.

fate
On the flipside, does increasing regulation (esp. EPA regulations) and suppressing domestic energy exploration generate economic growth

Actually it can lead to entire new industries... Someone has to invent and produce the the machinery that can help certain processes meet EPA standards.
In the case of energy conservation, it can free up expenditures on energy by reducing the requirement for energy. Imagine if milage standards had been much tougher trhough the 90's and the American use of automobile fuel had been say 10% less? The price of oil would have alays been lower .... the trade balance would always hae been lower ....
Imagine if electricity use had been 10% lower over that period of time due to increased efficiency.
In fact the greatest gains on the energy front have been on conservation.
Example: Battery performance in computers increased by 10% every year since 1992....
If that engineering performance is replicated in other places capacitors are used and are being considered.... much of the expensive energy that is being cosidered for production at the moment may be unprofitable ...

fate
Maybe they wouldn't press that point, but would look at how the Church spends the money--on lavish Temples, which would lead to discussions about baptism of the dead, sealing ceremonies, temple garments, becoming gods, etc. I think, for Romney, the less Mormonism is discussed, the better.

Why should people get a tax break for donations to churches Fate?

Ricky:

Example: Battery performance in computers increased by 10% every year since 1992....

without regulation ... an example that supports Dr. Fate's and my point.

rickyp wrote:fate
Maybe they wouldn't press that point, but would look at how the Church spends the money--on lavish Temples, which would lead to discussions about baptism of the dead, sealing ceremonies, temple garments, becoming gods, etc. I think, for Romney, the less Mormonism is discussed, the better.

Why should people get a tax break for donations to churches Fate?

I dunno.

Here's what I can tell you: there are two deductions that one will tamper with to his/her peril. The first is home mortgage deduction. You maybe be able to reduce it on an inflation-adjusted basis on home over x or you may be able to limit it to one home. However, try to get rid of it? Not a chance. The second is charitable deductions. Go ahead and try. All you'll hear is "war on religion" and "hurting the poor." Again, some reductions are conceivable, but would have to have only a slight impact on the well-to-do, which is the kind of thing Ryan has talked about.

Ray Jay wrote:Ricky:

Example: Battery performance in computers increased by 10% every year since 1992....

without regulation ... an example that supports Dr. Fate's and my point.

Yeah, I'm learning to get out of his way. The more he argues against me, the better my side looks.

ray

without regulation ... an example that supports Dr. Fate's and my point

Well your pointless then, There's tons of regulations Pollution in battery maufacturing being a major problem that required a great deal of regulation . see below. (The second link is the best ...sorry about the length.)

http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/sectors/computer.html

http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/00001CFM.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=1986+Thru+1990&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C86thru90%5CTxt%5C00000000%5C00001CFM.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=p%7Cf&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL

rickyp wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:On the flipside, does increasing regulation (esp. EPA regulations) and suppressing domestic energy exploration generate economic growth

Actually it can lead to entire new industries... Someone has to invent and produce the the machinery that can help certain processes meet EPA standards.

Right, so lose jobs now and see energy prices "necessarily skyrocket" so that sometime in the unforeseeable future we will have some new expensive energy? Awesome idea! You should be President!

Getting way off topic, but this is how government works now: http://oversight.house.gov/release/over ... cafe-rule/

In other words, Obama dictates, industry follows, people can't buy cars they want. Technology is not going to meet these standards.

fate

Right, so lose jobs now and see energy prices "necessarily skyrocket" so that sometime in the unforeseeable future we will have some new expensive energy?

Its a scenario that you imagine...
But I challenge you to find examples in the US where innovation has been unreasonably hampered by regulation...Usually there's two or sometimes three sides to the arguement over the deregulation ...

Lets examine the Transcanada pipeline through Nebraska for instance. The local populace wanted it stopped from crossing their land, particularly where it was routed over the aquifer. Its a pretty good arguement because if that aquifer became polluted, life in that part of the country would become very difficult. Ranching ad farming, would end .
Plus, the idea that the XL would benefit US domestic economy might be tempered if it was widely known that Trans Canada intended to export (through tankers) most of the oil in the pipeline....(And that is the plan)

I'm all for the pipeline by the way. I just hope it gets routed safely. The operators don't have a great record on spills...

Ricky:

Well your pointless then, There's tons of regulations

My point is that a lot of regulation slows economic growth. Some of the regulation is good and necessary; some of it is not necessary and slows economic growth. Are you saying that battery efficiency is a function of regulation, cause that's what we were talking about?

Ricky:

(The second link is the best ...sorry about the length.)

How do you know it's the best? How much of that 140 pages of regulation is protecting the environment, and how much of it is helpful to lawyers and established companies? I have no idea, but you seem confident so maybe you've read all 140 pages. What does this regulation have to do with improved battery efficiency?

rickyp wrote:fate

Right, so lose jobs now and see energy prices "necessarily skyrocket" so that sometime in the unforeseeable future we will have some new expensive energy?

Its a scenario that you imagine...

Read what I said again.

Do we have higher energy prices?

Do we have more EPA regulations?

The only reasonable rebuttal would be: "You've not connected the dots." I could, but I don't really need to, particularly in light of your disconnected continuing paragraphs.

But I challenge you to find examples in the US where innovation has been unreasonably hampered by regulation...Usually there's two or sometimes three sides to the arguement over the deregulation ...

Eh?

That's not even close to what I said. Now, if you want to challenge me to show "where (production) has been unreasonably hampered by regulation," that won't be tough.

Lets examine the Transcanada pipeline through Nebraska for instance. The local populace wanted it stopped from crossing their land, particularly where it was routed over the aquifer. Its a pretty good arguement because if that aquifer became polluted, life in that part of the country would become very difficult. Ranching ad farming, would end .

You are way behind the times. We've already talked about this. Nebraska approved the pipeline. So, what the bleep are you talking about?

Plus, the idea that the XL would benefit US domestic economy might be tempered if it was widely known that Trans Canada intended to export (through tankers) most of the oil in the pipeline....(And that is the plan)

Right. And, I suppose the construction of the pipeline will take place in China and its maintenance outsourced to India?

ray

My point is that a lot of regulation slows economic growth. Some of the regulation is good and necessary; some of it is not necessary and slows economic growth. Are you saying that battery efficiency is a function of regulation, cause that's what we were talking about

If you present the arguement that "This specific regulation" hampers the way our industry can do business.... " The we look at that specific regulation and decide.
But the crippling deregulation we usually hear about is a blanket condemnation and under that blanket usually EPA regulations..
Hasn't Fate said he'd eliminate the EPA ?


ray

How much of that 140 pages of regulation is protecting the environment, and how much of it is helpful to lawyers and established companies? I have no idea, but you seem confident so maybe you've read all 140 pages. What does this regulation have to do with improved battery efficiency

?
I said best because it was specifically about batteries in computers. And helpful to established companies>? Well its helpful to know what levels of pollutants they can release? Or what substances cannot be allowed to leach into soil at their manufacturing facility? I'd think so.
But if the company doesn't really care about maintaining a healthy environment, I suppose they would find these "regulations" to be an encumbrance.
And they'd lobby politicians about them, and demand that the EPA be curtailed or even ended. Thats what the oil and mining industries did during the Bush years and the enforcement of regulations fell resulting in several disasters...
China has few regulations on their industries regarding the environment. A good example to follow?