Yeah I remember when there was similar dirt on GW--didn't matter. (Cocaine use, AWOL from National Guard, alcoholism, etc.) The fact is, this discussion of college transcripts and crack cocaine will have zero bearing on whether Romney is pressured into releasing his tax returns. If it helps you feel better I guess keep complaining aboutt the inequity of it all, but it seems like wasted energy to me.

freeman2 wrote:Yeah I remember when there was similar dirt on GW--didn't matter. (Cocaine use, AWOL from National Guard, alcoholism, etc.) The fact is, this discussion of college transcripts and crack cocaine will have zero bearing on whether Romney is pressured into releasing his tax returns. If it helps you feel better I guess keep complaining aboutt the inequity of it all, but it seems like wasted energy to me.

Just a double standard you seem comfortable with: full disclosure for Romney; full protection for your guy.

Well no, because Obama has already released his tax returns.

Fact is that, rightly or wrongly, candidates do now seem to be required to put their personal tax affairs into the public domain. It's not a legal requirement but increasingly there seems to be a political imperative which forces that disclosure. Nobody here is saying Romney should be forced to go along with this, it's just that some of us are raising an eyebrow at the fact that he's refusing to do so.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:Danivon:

and it takes a long time to get the benefit from energy exploration

I know, I believe we had this same discussion about 6 years ago. There's nothing wrong with government thinking about the long term.

No, but it's naive to think long term planning would have an effect on growth in the short term enough to mitigate the current deficit and a policy of tax cuts.

Of course, real long term planning on energy would also take account of climate change.

Sure, although there are 2 mitigating factors. The first is that some of the oil produced from US land and water just replaces foreign oil, and not be a net loss to the environment. We would be better able to create tough sanctions on Iran or Venezuela if we had more domestic production. Also, US sourced oil may have fewer environmental consequences than foreign oil on the assumption that we have better environmental regulations than say Venezuela.

I do take your point on the environment. It is much tougher to tackle it if you have lackluster economic growth. It's human nature to focus on getting a job instead of your carbon footprint in times like these.

fate

Has anyone read his college thesis? Why not?

As far as has been determined, Barack Obama did not produce a formal thesis for his degree at Columbia University; the closest match is a paper he wrote during his senior year for an honors seminar in American Foreign Policy. However, Columbia University has said it did not retain a copy of that paper, Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt has said that Barack himself does not have a copy, and the professor to whom the paper was submitted has said that he no longer has a copy in his possession either: In 1983, as a senior at Columbia in New York, Barack Obama enrolled in an intense, eight-student honors seminar called American Foreign Policy. His former professor, Michael Baron, recalled in an interview with NBC News that Obama easily aced the year-long class. But Baron says he never had any inkling that the gangly senior would scale such heights.

[Baron] had saved Obama's senior paper for years, and even hunted for it again [in July 2008] in some boxes. But he said his search was fruitless, and he now thinks he tossed it out [in 2000] during a move.

Baron described [Obama's] paper as a "thesis" or "senior thesis" in several interviews, and said that Obama spent a year working on it. Baron recalls that the topic was nuclear negotiations with the Soviet Union.

"My recollection is that the paper was an analysis of the evolution of the arms reduction negotiations between the Soviet Union and the United States," Baron said in an e-mail. "At that time, a hot topic in foreign policy circles was finding a way in which each country could safely reduce the large arsenal of nuclear weapons pointed at the other ... For U.S. policy makers in both political parties, the aim was not disarmament, but achieving deep reductions in the Soviet nuclear arsenal and keeping a substantial and permanent American advantage. As I remember it, the paper was about those negotiations, their tactics and chances for success. Barack got an A."

Baron said that, even if he could find a copy of the paper, it would likely disappoint Obama's critics. "The course was not a polemical course, it was a course in decision making and how decisions got made," he said. "None of the papers in the class were controversial."

So would it provide any political ammunition today? "I don't think it would at all," Baron said. "It wasn't a position paper; it was an analysis of decision-making."

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/co ... zGJv2tg.99

Ray Jay wrote:Sure, although there are 2 mitigating factors. The first is that some of the oil produced from US land and water just replaces foreign oil, and not be a net loss to the environment.

Debateable. Rather than displacing foreign oil, what it would likely do is increase overall supply, reducing the price (which is high), making oil more attractive in the global market.

We would be better able to create tough sanctions on Iran or Venezuela if we had more domestic production.

True, but at the same time, other countries would be more able to get oil from those sources if the US is not importing as much, potentially rendering such sanctions useless unless backed by force or coercion.

Also, US sourced oil may have fewer environmental consequences than foreign oil on the assumption that we have better environmental regulations than say Venezuela.

Firstly, I'd like to see more than an assumption. Secondly, standards are not the same as practice. Thirdly,

I do take your point on the environment. It is much tougher to tackle it if you have lackluster economic growth. It's human nature to focus on getting a job instead of your carbon footprint in times like these.

Actually, low growth (or recession) tends to be better for the environment, Lower overall production means less energy being used to create goods, or support services. Less trade means less things being transported about. I agree that politically the environment will be less of a priority, but actually countries are much more likely to be meeting their CO2 targets from Kyoto and other agreements because of the recent recession and slow recovery/double-dip.

It's also an assumption than faster growth will make it easier to 'go green'. I am not so sure. the main way to reduce our pollution and emissions is through lower energy use, which can largely come about through greater efficiency. Tougher economic times will increase the pressure to be more efficient, as margins are squeezed, which would have the side-effect of helping reduce energy demand.

An example is that my company are aiming to reduce costs by having more people avoid travelling to meetings and use tele- or video-conferencing instead. As are our customers.

Ricky:

... it makes the point that regulation was originally a response to the problem. Anyone complaining about the problem should first look at the origins of the problem and explain how ending the regulation won't lead to the reoccurrence of the problem...

Where do I begin? Let's define the debating topic. I define the question as, "does some regulation hinder economic growth". Points that you make that are extraneous to this I'm not going to engage because we will just end up with our typical meandering conversation.

From the Wikipedia entry on SARBOX (after the bit that you posted):

Foley & Lardner Survey (2007): This annual study focused on changes in the total costs of being a U.S. public company, which were significantly affected by SOX. Such costs include external auditor fees, directors and officers (D&O) insurance, board compensation, lost productivity, and legal costs. Each of these cost categories increased significantly between FY2001 and FY2006. Nearly 70% of survey respondents indicated public companies with revenues under $251 million should be exempt from SOX Section 404.

From a summary of that survey:

External audit fees have continued to increase and represent a significant expense for public companies. The increases seen in connection with the initial implementation of Section 404 in fiscal year 2004 have been sustained in fiscal years 2005 and 2006.

On average, external audit fees have increased 271 percent between fiscal years 2001 and 2006 for companies with under $1 billion in revenue.

Ricky:

To be clear, its your contention that SO is somehow affecting the ability of public companies to 1) invest or gain investment? 2) be profitable? And your basing this on some accountants you know who get paid to do the compliance paperwork.

It's causing some businesses to relocate to England. That goes directly to US economic growth.

From Wiki:

Some have asserted that Sarbanes–Oxley legislation has helped displace business from New York to London, where the Financial Services Authority regulates the financial sector with a lighter touch. In the UK, the non-statutory Combined Code of Corporate Governance plays a somewhat similar role to SOX. See Howell E. Jackson & Mark J. Roe, “Public Enforcement of Securities Laws: Preliminary Evidence” (Working Paper January 16, 2007). London based Alternative Investment Market claims that its spectacular growth in listings almost entirely coincided with the Sarbanes Oxley legislation. In December 2006 Michael Bloomberg, New York's mayor, and Charles Schumer, a U.S. senator from New York, expressed their concern.[22]

Ricky:

And your basing this on some accountants you know who get paid to do the compliance paperwork... Please correct me if I'm overstating or misconstruing. Its hard to know when you just throw vague claims out

I didn't say that my information was from an accountant so I am sure that you are being inaccurate (at best). It's not hard (for most people) to realize that you are misconstruing when you make things up and pretend that someone else said them. Most people would be embarrased at this point ...

Ricky:

SO only affects companies that are publicly held by the way.

It also affects companies that want to go public but find it too expensive to do so. From Wiki:

A research study published by Joseph Piotroski of Stanford University and Suraj Srinivasan of Harvard Business School titled "Regulation and Bonding: Sarbanes Oxley Act and the Flow of International Listings" in the Journal of Accounting Research in 2008 found that following the act's passage, smaller international companies were more likely to list in stock exchanges in the U.K. rather than U.S. stock exchanges.

Ricky:

As for the actual cost of SO compliance?

The 2007 study indicated that, for 168 companies with average revenues of $4.7 billion, the average compliance costs were $1.7 million (0.036% of revenue)

Also from Wikipedia (after the part that you quoted):

For example, during 2004 U.S. companies with revenues exceeding $5 billion spent 0.06% of revenue on SOX compliance, while companies with less than $100 million in revenue spent 2.55%.

This is a good example of how regulation hurts small businesses much more than large businesses.

Ricky:

Are you claiming tha a state of regulation that allowed the scandals listed above, and others, was healthy for the investment community?
SO may require streamlining or improvement, but in general without the greater transparency that SO provides, there would continue to be the fraud and abuse that was perpetrated before SO.
I think getting rid of the fraud and abuse improves investor confidence and confidence in the markets generally.

Regulations are passed to solve problems, but you always have to make sure that the cure is not worse than the disease. You have to look at costs as well as benefits. Anyone can justify anything if they only look at one side of the equation. By the way, the notion that SARBOX solve thiese problems is flawed when you consider all of the financial scandals that we have had since SARBOX.

ray

I didn't say that my information was from an accountant so I am sure that you are being inaccurate (at best).

Apologies. It wasn't accountants. It was "actual people at actual companies"

ray

I know of actual people who work for actual companies who tell me that the mountains of paperwork required are obscene and generally worthless.

ray

It also affects companies that want to go public but find it too expensive to do so

.

Is this a bad thing? If a company wants to go public but cannot afford the required compliance for transparency thats probably a good thing. Are these compaies Begging poverty in order to avoid the required transparency to become an investment worthy of listing on a major market? Why would you want to lower requirements and reinvite fraudsters?

All through the wiki, there's some negatives about SO, and positives. I don't doubt it could be improved. However, at the time it was approved by the senate 99-1 it was widely perceived to be essential to bring credibility back to the stock market. Are you suggsting that sarbane Oxley should be removed and that somehow its removal will help create economic growth? Why wouldn't business practices simply revert to the practice of fraud and deception that palgued the markets before SO?
Ray

By the way, the notion that SARBOX solve these problems is flawed when you consider all of the financial scandals that we have had since SARBOX

.
Was it supposed to solve everything?
Which specific problems are you refering to?If you mean what caused the 2008 melt down ..... I'll suggest that SO probably isn't at fault. But perhaps deregulation, such as the repeal of Glass Steagall or the loosened regulations on mortgages and credit default swaps.... If you can be specific we can analyze whetehr what you are referring is caused by over regulation or deregulation...

Ricky:

Are you suggsting that sarbane Oxley should be removed and that somehow its removal will help create economic growth?

No,perhaps that's what you've read, but that's not what I've written. I've written that regulations can be streamlined and improved. I've written that they need to evaluate the cost as well as the benefit. It's not really very different than what you've written:

I don't doubt it could be improved.

and

SO may require streamlining or improvement

I've never said that there should be no regulation. You just posited that.

Umm, Ricky, as lovely as this distraction is and all...

RJ did not call for removing all regulation. He suggested that removing it would help growth. DF has not even called for removing all regulation (although it appears that he sees vast swathes as in need of repeal or reform).

The question I wanted answering, which your intervention has kind of blatted all over, is: how much can we expect to see GDP grow by if regulations are cut as Romney's platform advocates, and taxes cut as well?

And, subsequent to that: is that growth enough to recoup the lost revenue that reduced taxes would cause, to the extent that the deficit would be greatly reduced with realistic spending cuts?

And, an ancilliary question: What would be the effect on GDP and growth of spending cuts?

I know the theory, what I would like to see is some figures. We should be using more than hope and belief to justify major policy changes, surely?

rickyp wrote:fate

Has anyone read his college thesis? Why not?

As far as has been determined, Barack Obama did not produce a formal thesis for his degree at Columbia University; the closest match is a paper he wrote during his senior year for an honors seminar in American Foreign Policy. However, Columbia University has said it did not retain a copy of that paper, Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt has said that Barack himself does not have a copy, and the professor to whom the paper was submitted has said that he no longer has a copy in his possession either: In 1983, as a senior at Columbia in New York, Barack Obama enrolled in an intense, eight-student honors seminar called American Foreign Policy. His former professor, Michael Baron, recalled in an interview with NBC News that Obama easily aced the year-long class. But Baron says he never had any inkling that the gangly senior would scale such heights.

Interestingly, Bush 43 didn't release his academic records either, but Yale leaked them . . .

Some day, maybe after we're all dead and buried, all of the President's secrets will be revealed. I think Harry Reid should demand that now!

Oh wait. Wrong party.

Doctor Fate wrote:Has anyone read his college thesis? Why not?

It largely depends what you mean by 'thesis'.

He doesn't have a Masters degree, so he won't have completed a Masters thesis. His law degree, a JD, does not require a thesis. Perhaps he BA did, but it may not be a single document for bachelor degrees, are not likely to be original research or confined to a specific narrow topic, and they are generally not kept around.

I do have a copy of my degree project (which I guess would be equivalent to what Americans call a 'thesis', although over here we tend to use it more for the document produced to obtain a PhD doctorate), but it's not likely to have been retained by my university after 17 years. Neither would it make a lot of sense, because the bulk of the work would need you to have a Sun3 with the right X display settings and language set.

The fact that Bush43's college transcript was leaked does go some way to showing how it's not usually produced. I can see there's an abstract interest in it, but for a politician whose going to be in their late 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s... it's old history.

Most of us already agree that Reid's approach is wrong, DF. So do you need to labour the point by adopting it yourself? Do you really think it's a good idea to emulate someone you think is acting badly, stooping lower than ever before?

danivon wrote:Most of us already agree that Reid's approach is wrong, DF. So do you need to labour the point by adopting it yourself? Do you really think it's a good idea to emulate someone you think is acting badly, stooping lower than ever before?

It seems that his tactics may not be approved, but you all keep implying the same things as Reid.

Ridiculing it seems a fine thing to do.

No, we do not. We note that failure to produce a tax return leaves unanswered questions, and several have said they'd want to see them. That's not the same as implying Romney paid no taxes or that he broke the law, which was Reid's implication.

danivon wrote:Umm, Ricky, as lovely as this distraction is and all...

RJ did not call for removing all regulation. He suggested that removing it would help growth. DF has not even called for removing all regulation (although it appears that he sees vast swathes as in need of repeal or reform).

The question I wanted answering, which your intervention has kind of blatted all over, is: how much can we expect to see GDP grow by if regulations are cut as Romney's platform advocates, and taxes cut as well?

And, subsequent to that: is that growth enough to recoup the lost revenue that reduced taxes would cause, to the extent that the deficit would be greatly reduced with realistic spending cuts?

And, an ancilliary question: What would be the effect on GDP and growth of spending cuts?

I know the theory, what I would like to see is some figures. We should be using more than hope and belief to justify major policy changes, surely?

I think those are the right questions. There is certainly a lot of scholarly research that quantifies the cost of regulation, but as with much of this stuff it is driven by assumptions, and we can all fight about those assumptions till the end of time. We also don't know whether Romney will hire the right people to do it, and whether the entrenched bureaucracies will prevent it.

Re tax efficiency, I think the historical evidence is out there. Even so, we all see what we want to see on that as well, and can argue about it till the end of time too.

At least it is a plan. A more rational tax system, drilling for energy that is abundantly placed within and around our country, and lessening the regulatory load as a way to have GDP grow to better levels. GDP growth is ultimately what cures both deficit and jobs. I believe you've said it yourself (when arguing for stimulus.) Perhaps we will see the Democratic plan to increase growth to more than 2% per annum at the next convention? I don't think we've seen it so far.