I suppose one question is what the government can do to improve growth at a time when major trading partners like the EU are in trouble, and when even strongly growing economies like China are not expanding as quickly as before. US growth figures have been disappointing, but are still better than in countries where spending cuts are taking place. That is an issue both parties have to face when basing future budgets on assumed growth figures.

Even so, I think the Democrats are weak on this, as the stimulus has not been seen to work (it's arguable that it did work, but that things were worse than was thought) and it would be a political fight of massive proportions to try another one with a GOP House and probably Senate too.

Our government has a similar problem, as their policy of holding down spending and aiming to remove all structural deficit within 5 years has also not been seen to work (our economy has been in recession for 3 quarters and has had no net growth since the coalition took office), but of course to change course now when deficits are still high and debt is creeping up will cause them political pressures. It's definitely a bettter time to be in opposition - but not necessarily a good time to have that carry you into power.

danivon wrote: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.

You may be technically correct, but aren't you, ultimately, saying the same thing, "Mr. Romney, prove your innocence!"?

It certainly reads like a slight variation on the same theme.

danivon
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).

I realize that Danivon. Perhaps if you review you'll see he started with:


ray

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

To which I initially responded:

Rickyp

So I guess it depends on what you mean by deregulation? Often it’s just self serving suggestions from large corporations seeking to reduce costs

.
He then eventually offered Sarbanes Oxley as a regulation that hampered growth...
The whole point I'm making is that any discussion of how "streamlining" or "eliminating" regulations has to begin with specificity.
When you let politicians slide by with a generalization about cutting red tape , or cutting government waste, you give into a lazy unsupported statement.

Ray and I aren't necessarily disagreeing with the need to streamline Sarbanes Oxley even. But he made a claim about it that had no context, and until challenged he was generalizing. And left the impression that SO was unnecessary and had no positive effect. And therefore could be eradicated.
When challenged, and only when challenged did he admit that SO had positives and probably should be sustained in order to ensure the original goals of SO are maintained.

Fate, on the other hand is all for eliminating broad stretches of the federal government, especially harping on the evils of the EPA. The illustration of the battle against the effects of acid rain, including the effects of acid rain on the economy, is an illustration of how this mantra of regulation is evil is without context. Perhaps it because conservatives have short memories and can't understand the original reasons for the establishment of the EPA? Or perhaps they've seen too many "Clean Coal" advertisements on Fox News?

I'm all for the constant renovation and renewal of regulation to improve upon it. But, the idea that regulation is always ham stringing the economy is largely an over statement. Or ignores that goals of the regulation and its broad effects. Often, as in the case of Glass Steagal, or SO, regulation ensured that the economy could run efficiently without the constant hiccup of financial collapses big and small.

Asking for specificity is the same argument that should be made about broad generalizations whenever they are claimed. Wouldn't it be beneficial to know what tax deductions Ryan and Mitt are planning to end when they lower tax rates, and broaden the base? Conservatives don't seem to want to ask those kinds of question. They simply give in to the appeal of the general idea.

So Ray when you say

At least it is a plan. A more rational tax system

How is it rational if you don't have any glimmer of what they mean by broadening the base? They gonna get rid of deductions of mortgage interest or charitable donation? How? (politically impossible)
The CBO and dozens of qualified commentators have said that neither Mitt nor Ryans budgets are possible. That the math doesn't add up. At least not without some magical factor like runaway growth that appears because of the magic effect of deregulation...
For it to be rational, there has to be more specificity. And that includes proving that regulation streamlining is likely to create positives, and not lead to negatives... Good lord, the recent experience of repealing Glass Steagal should be reason enough to demand solid evidence rather than a belief in something ethereal like the wisdom of the markets...
See, for it to be rational, for it to be a realistic plan rather than pie in the sky, there shouldn't have to be a magical effect.

rickyp wrote:How is it rational if you don't have any glimmer of what they mean by broadening the base? They gonna get rid of deductions of mortgage interest or charitable donation? How? (politically impossible)

But, you could put caps on it, which would be possible, particularly home mortgage interest deductions. RJ could better speak to all the deductions which could be reduced/removed that would primarily hit large corporations or the rich.

The CBO and dozens of qualified commentators have said that neither Mitt nor Ryans budgets are possible.

The CBO doesn't score dynamically. It's also a bit of a calculator, failing to apply common sense in some cases--like letting you save and spend the same $716B if you say that's what you are going to do.

That the math doesn't add up. At least not without some magical factor like runaway growth that appears because of the magic effect of deregulation...

Watch what happens after Romney wins. You're going to call it luck. I'm going to call it the product of smart policy. Giving businesses reasons to be optimistic rather than hesitant or even pessimistic will have a dramatic effect.

Recoveries are usually reflective of the downturn--small downturn = small recovery. We had a deep recession and have had a meager recovery. The President has blamed everyone but you personally (so watch out during the DNC!).

Maybe, just maybe, his policies are holding the economy back.

Well, Ricky's points may be obscured but their are some diamonds buried in the rough. I am very suspicions of Romney's plan to reduce government regulation. What is that likely to mean in practice? A reduction in government regulation of Wall Street and the oil industry, two areas where a lack of regulation has led to recent catrastrophes. Here is a discussion of the recent article on recent losses by JP Morgan as a result ot is engaging in risky speculation: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/14/opini ... VH4bvfMc5A

Sure, let Wall Street be free of government regulation and our GDP will grow like crazy and let the oil industry be free ot onerous regulations on drilling, they will get us out of oil dependency. Give me a break. What was the old saying--insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the result to be different.

Generic proclamations about reducing government regulation are meaningless. Unless you identify which regulations you are getting rid of and why, we should ignore such pronouncments as being political spin. Or, actually, assume what you mean are reducing regulations in industries that contribute a lot of money to your party--the oil industry and Wall Street.

freeman2 wrote:Sure, let Wall Street be free of government regulation and our GDP will grow like crazy and let the oil industry be free ot onerous regulations on drilling, they will get us out of oil dependency. Give me a break. What was the old saying--insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the result to be different.

1. Gather straw.
2. Erect large human-like object.
3. Soak entirely with kerosene.
4. Step back.
5. Lob flaming object near straw man.
6. Enjoy the show.

Generic proclamations about reducing government regulation are meaningless. Unless you identify which regulations you are getting rid of and why, we should ignore such pronouncments as being political spin.

Had you treated Obama's proclamations on nearly every subject he spoke about with the same regard in 2008, you would not have voted for him.

Or, actually, assume what you mean are reducing regulations in industries that contribute a lot of money to your party--the oil industry and Wall Street.

Because Romney is greedy and rich . . . nice ad hominem.

That's two false arguments in one post! Well done!

I think that the alleged straw man argument was pardonable exaggeration and the ad hominem accusation does not apply because I never attacked anyone for who they were in rather than the argument made. But nice demonstration of your knowledge of fallacious argument. Well done!

freeman2 wrote:I think that the alleged straw man argument was pardonable exaggeration and the ad hominem accusation does not apply because I never attacked anyone for who they were in rather than the argument made.!

Sure you did. You said Romney would reduce regulations to industries that contribute to his party. What is that? You are attacking his motive.

I think he's more likely speaking to precedent. The amount of influence that donations buy in American politics is legendary, pertaining to both major parties. Why would Romney be any different?

Ricky:

And left the impression that SO was unnecessary and had no positive effect. And therefore could be eradicated.
When challenged, and only when challenged did he admit that SO had positives and probably should be sustained in order to ensure the original goals of SO are maintained.

Ricky, I think that many of our arguments are the result of your poor reading comprehension. I never said SARBOX was unnecessary and had no positive effect. If you got that impression, why don't you read more slowly so that your impression is based on my actual words instead of what you think I'm saying (based on your own biases).

For the oil and gas industry, much of the regulation prevents drilling off shore and in Alaska. You can maintain existing safety standards or even strengthen them. There's a lot of drilling that can be done that is cleaner than what is going on in Canada.

Dr. Fate

rickyp wrote:

How is it rational if you don't have any glimmer of what they mean by broadening the base? They gonna get rid of deductions of mortgage interest or charitable donation? How? (politically impossible)

But, you could put caps on it, which would be possible, particularly home mortgage interest deductions. RJ could better speak to all the deductions which could be reduced/removed that would primarily hit large corporations or the rich.

You can limit the amount of deductions that people making over a certain amount can take.
You can end the favorable tax free status of municipal bond interest income.

Didn't tax revenue go up substantially after the Tax Reform Act of 1986, even though rates went down?

As a sidebar, a real commitment to religious liberty demands an end to tithe/offering as a tax deduction. Why have the government rewarding people for making religious contributions?

It would seem that the most likely thing for a vulture capitalist to hide would be massive profits from the 2008 financial collapse. I mean if that wasn't the case wouldn't he want to show that he took the same kind of hit as every other Joe investor?

Do you find the religious contribution different than other charitable contributions?

ray

. I never said SARBOX was unnecessary and had no positive effect. If you got that impression, why don't you read more slowly so that your impression is based on my actual words instead of what you think I'm saying (based on your own biases).

heres what you said.
rickyp

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.

ray

I play Sarbanes Oxley. I know of actual people who work for actual companies who tell me that the mountains of paperwork required are obscene and generally worthless. Accountants refer to SARBOX as their full employment act. Your turn.

No matter how slowly I read this I read tha the work involved in doing SO compliance is generaly worthless. (I am quoting directly) so please tell me how I can infer anything differentky from your very specific description of SO as generally worthless.
You keep squirming away from assertions like this as you are challenged.... But the beauty of this forum is that I can always quote your original assertion.

ray

You can limit the amount of deductions that people making over a certain amount can take.
You can end the favorable tax free status of municipal bond interest income

.

You can. But what are they actually planning on doing. Don`t you want to know what the specifics of the plan are.
Without the actual specifics you know nothing. All yuou go on is the faith that the plan won`y hurt you that much....
I`m guessing that the people actually financing Romneys election have a far better idea of what to expect from `tax reform`then the rank and file voter...or party memebr for that matter. And I`ll bet they benefit greatly.