Republican 2012 Nomination Thread

[NorthSideSox72]

Some of those things need to die. SOX has been nothing but a drain on corporations and hasn't actually prevented anything. We still see a respective level of fraud. If management is willing to lie, another agency to lie to isn't going to make them stop and suddenly have a conscious.

Specific laws, he is willing to make a policy of outright killing, because it is actually possible and practical. Still won't happen most likely thought.

 

[StrangeSox]

Of course he wants to kill it - but he recognizes he can't practically do so. So unlike Perry, not only does Gingrich actually remember which agency, he also makes it a policy to try to put a big old leash on it. Make it do less.

 

Why does this make Newt different than, say, Perry? It says that Newt has a better grip on reality. I may not agree with either one on this particular issue, but Newt is a lot less scary because he isn't completely ignorant.

 

This is a subtle but important difference.

 

Not really, because the end result is still heavily gutted environmental regulations.

 

edit: the EPA wasn't the agency Perry forgot, it was the DOE. Someone else shouted out EPA when he was caught in the headlights. What Perry's flub says to me is that they were just talking points and he wouldn't actually eliminate these huge departments with pretty diverse functions. If he actually cared that much about it, if it was a real issue, he'd remember pretty easily.

Edited November 30, 2011 by StrangeSox

[VictoryMC98]

Some of those things need to die. SOX has been nothing but a drain on corporations and hasn't actually prevented anything. We still see a respective level of fraud. If management is willing to lie, another agency to lie to isn't going to make them stop and suddenly have a conscious.

 

How is it a drain on Corporations? And we haven't had a Eron/tyco.etc since it went into place.. I think it is doing it's job quite well.

[StrangeSox]

SOX compliance is not cheap.

[southsider2k5]

SOX compliance is not cheap.

 

It is hugely expensive. And we have had plenty of accounting fraud since then. V, have you ever heard of Refco for example? MF Global?

[VictoryMC98]

Not really, because the end result is still heavily gutted environmental regulations.

edit: the EPA wasn't the agency Perry forgot, it was the DOE. Someone else shouted out EPA when he was caught in the headlights. What Perry's flub says to me is that they were just talking points and he wouldn't actually eliminate these huge departments with pretty diverse functions. If he actually cared that much about it, if it was a real issue, he'd remember pretty easily.

 

That his donors want gone. IF people are going to think the re-tooled ESA, is going to have the power as the EPA, I have a bridge in San Fran to sell you. Newt will water it down just like ClintonAdmin did to the federal regulators in the finance districts.. in a sense killing the dept. of any real chance to make a difference.

 

And can one of these candidates tell us why the EPA is so bad? And give concrete reason to why? (General Question, not direct at you or anyone else)

 

[VictoryMC98]

It is hugely expensive. And we have had plenty of accounting fraud since then. V, have you ever heard of Refco for example? MF Global?

 

I have not heard of them.. I do a little research in the coming days.. and get back to you.

 

Just a quick Google on MF global, they are a derivatives broker.. enough said. Derivatives make no logical sense to me, and what I mean by that is Derivatives (which are bets for or against something) make up more money than the whole global economy is worth. The idea that after 2008, we allow these to be unregulated is just mind-blowing. And from Wiki, it states they found loopholes around SOX... Simple close the loopholes.

Edited November 30, 2011 by VictoryMC98

[NorthSideSox72]

Not really, because the end result is still heavily gutted environmental regulations.

 

edit: the EPA wasn't the agency Perry forgot, it was the DOE. Someone else shouted out EPA when he was caught in the headlights. What Perry's flub says to me is that they were just talking points and he wouldn't actually eliminate these huge departments with pretty diverse functions. If he actually cared that much about it, if it was a real issue, he'd remember pretty easily.

Yes I know it was Energy, I just couldn't resist the joke.

 

And you are missing my point. I didn't say the result is good. I am saying that Rick Perry is thinking people are gullible, and that they'll actually believe it is even possible for him to get rid of entire agencies of government like that. It plays well short run, but then falls apart. Gingrich is smarter than that. That's what I'm saying.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I have not heard of them.. I do a little research in the coming days.. and get back to you.

 

Just a quick Google on MF global, they are a derivatives broker.. enough said. Derivatives make no logical sense to me, and what I mean by that is Derivatives (which are bets for or against something) make up more money than the whole global economy is worth. The idea that after 2008, we allow these to be unregulated is just mind-blowing. And from Wiki, it states they found loopholes around SOX... Simple close the loopholes.

It might be hard for people to agree with your sentiments (no matter where you stand) on things like Dodd-Frank or SOX or other Fin Reg, when it is clear you have no understanding whatsoever of financial markets. If you haven't heard of Refco or MF Global or Bear Stearns or Baring, you may want to do some homework before taking a stand on what derivatives are, what they mean, and how they should be refulated.

[StrangeSox]

Yes I know it was Energy, I just couldn't resist the joke.

 

And you are missing my point. I didn't say the result is good. I am saying that Rick Perry is thinking people are gullible, and that they'll actually believe it is even possible for him to get rid of entire agencies of government like that. It plays well short run, but then falls apart. Gingrich is smarter than that. That's what I'm saying.

I'll grant you that gingrich is smarter than perry. I guess I don't understand why you are bringing that up, though. Is it supposed to make gingrich less bad because he would be more effective at implementing his terrible policies?

[southsider2k5]

I have not heard of them.. I do a little research in the coming days.. and get back to you.

 

Just a quick Google on MF global, they are a derivatives broker.. enough said. Derivatives make no logical sense to me, and what I mean by that is Derivatives (which are bets for or against something) make up more money than the whole global economy is worth. The idea that after 2008, we allow these to be unregulated is just mind-blowing. And from Wiki, it states they found loopholes around SOX... Simple close the loopholes.

 

There is no "closing loopholes" for the most important thing here. If executives are willing to lie and forge financial documents, SOX will always be worthless.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'll grant you that gingrich is smarter than perry. I guess I don't understand why you are bringing that up, though. Is it supposed to make gingrich less bad because he would be more effective at implementing his terrible policies?

It makes him less bad for two reasons. One, he understands what he actually can accomplish, and focuses on those things, instead of beating his head against a wall. Second, all else equal, I'd always prefer the smarter guy to the dumber one, which should be pretty obvious.

 

[VictoryMC98]

There is no "closing loopholes" for the most important thing here. If executives are willing to lie and forge financial documents, SOX will always be worthless.

 

So what is the plan to deal with this then, In your view?

[southsider2k5]

So what is the plan to deal with this then, In your view?

 

Not waste billions of dollars that doesn't change it?

[StrangeSox]

It makes him less bad for two reasons. One, he understands what he actually can accomplish, and focuses on those things, instead of beating his head against a wall. Second, all else equal, I'd always prefer the smarter guy to the dumber one, which should be pretty obvious.

If the smarter guy is going to be more effective at bringing terrible policy to fruition...

 

I'm also not sure that newt should get points over anyone for political pragmatism

[VictoryMC98]

Not waste billions of dollars that doesn't change it?

 

Great we get rid of SOX, what law do you create that stops the fraud? And how do you make sure it doesn't happen again?

 

And there are more important waste that we need to clean up, prior to this.

[Texsox]

It is hugely expensive. And we have had plenty of accounting fraud since then. V, have you ever heard of Refco for example? MF Global?

 

Isn't it also a situation where the longer the law is in affect, the better the results? Honest question.

[VictoryMC98]

If the smarter guy is going to be more effective at bringing terrible policy to fruition...

 

I'm also not sure that newt should get points over anyone for political pragmatism

 

I always have the memory of the one debate, where he called a question stupid because he didn't have an answer ready, or it seemed everyone else stole his thunder in regards to after they repeal health care reform, what would they put in its place.

[Texsox]

Yes I know it was Energy, I just couldn't resist the joke.

 

And you are missing my point. I didn't say the result is good. I am saying that Rick Perry is thinking people are gullible, and that they'll actually believe it is even possible for him to get rid of entire agencies of government like that. It plays well short run, but then falls apart. Gingrich is smarter than that. That's what I'm saying.

 

 

I believe a candidate should share their greater vision, the end point they are seeking. We should know the realities and how far they will actual get. It's the same thing I said when people talked about Obama not reaching all his goals. I want to see their greater vision, not the baby steps. Let me know what slippery slope you are taking us on.

[VictoryMC98]

Isn't it also a situation where the longer the law is in affect, the better the results? Honest question.

 

And I think that is a very vaild question and assumption.

[NorthSideSox72]

Great we get rid of SOX, what law do you create that stops the fraud? And how do you make sure it doesn't happen again?

 

And there are more important waste that we need to clean up, prior to this.

Here is where you will get a different answer from SS2K5 than me. Pretty sure SS wants to see SOX pretty much just gone, and have public reporting requirements simple follow GAAP where it applies, and fly by wire from there. I personally think SOX was the right idea, but implemented badly - which is what we are beginning to see with Dodd-Frank too. The problem is, Congress doesn't understand the mechanisms of what they are trying to fix. I think SOX should be replaced or reworked, by something put together by national accounting association type people, working in conjunction with fin reg agencies, to draft practical rules - THEN it goes to Congress to get voted on. Not the other way around.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

Great we get rid of SOX, what law do you create that stops the fraud? And how do you make sure it doesn't happen again?

 

And there are more important waste that we need to clean up, prior to this.

 

There are laws against fraud. Laws don't stop law breakers. The idea that making it more expensive for the 99.999999% who follow the laws makes it impossible for the others to break the law doesn't work.

[southsider2k5]

Isn't it also a situation where the longer the law is in affect, the better the results? Honest question.

 

I would answer with MF Global and UBS.

[VictoryMC98]

Here is where you will get a different answer from SS2K5 than me. Pretty sure SS wants to see SOX pretty much just gone, and have public reporting requirements simple follow GAAP where it applies, and fly by wire from there. I personally think SOX was the right idea, but implemented badly - which is what we are beginning to see with Dodd-Frank too. The problem is, Congress doesn't understand the mechanisms of what they are trying to fix. I think SOX should be replaced or reworked, by something put together by national accounting association type people, working in conjunction with fin reg agencies, to draft practical rules - THEN it goes to Congress to get voted on. Not the other way around.

 

It's hard to argue your logic on this, but with all the corruption that is now involved in politics, is this something you honestly think can be close to legit to correct the problem?

[VictoryMC98]

There are laws against fraud. Laws don't stop law breakers. The idea that making it more expensive for the 99.999999% who follow the laws makes it impossible for the others to break the law doesn't work.

 

So you plan is get rid of it, and let it be?