Republican 2012 Nomination Thread

[southsider2k5]

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

 

My plan would be to weight it down on the punishment side.

[Texsox]

I would answer with MF Global and UBS.

 

What I am suggesting is the longer the law is in place, the less likely there will be another MF Global. As the industry and regulators get better at administering the law, the higher the compliance will be.

[southsider2k5]

What I am suggesting is the longer the law is in place, the less likely there will be another MF Global. As the industry and regulators get better at administering the law, the higher the compliance will be.

 

The law is almost 10 years old now. Nothing has changed.

[Texsox]

The law is almost 10 years old now. Nothing has changed.

 

Good point. It doesn't seem like 10 years.

[southsider2k5]

Good point. It doesn't seem like 10 years.

 

It came about in July of 02, after all of the Enron fun.

[VictoryMC98]

My plan would be to weight it down on the punishment side.

 

Can you give me/us some examples, of how you would do this.. That would straigten this out?

 

 

[southsider2k5]

Can you give me/us some examples, of how you would do this.. That would straigten this out?

 

The delusion here is that there is something that will "fix" this. There are reasons we have prisons full of people. If people want to commit a particular crime, you aren't going to stop them. Fraud happens all of the time, despite all of the laws against it.

[VictoryMC98]

The delusion here is that there is something that will "fix" this. There are reasons we have prisons full of people. If people want to commit a particular crime, you aren't going to stop them. Fraud happens all of the time, despite all of the laws against it.

 

Prisons are full of people, because most states made prisons a private industry, which means a company gets tax dollars to house "criminals". An unfilled prison is lost revenue on the company bottom line. But that is beside the point, and has nothing to do with why SOX is wrong/right.

 

By your logic, Why do we have murder as illegal since people still do it, there is no point in trying to stop it? And people tend to get away with it most times, just think of how much money we as tax payers are wasting by having this law on the books.

 

[southsider2k5]

Prisons are full of people, because most states made prisons a private industry, which means a company gets tax dollars to house "criminals". An unfilled prison is lost revenue on the company bottom line. But that is beside the point, and has nothing to do with why SOX is wrong/right.

 

By your logic, Why do we have murder as illegal since people still do it, there is no point in trying to stop it? And people tend to get away with it most times, just think of how much money we as tax payers are wasting by having this law on the books.

 

That's not accurate at all. More accurate would be founding a governmental agency that required each person to document and prove that they weren't murdering people four times a year, along with with a more formal document filing once per year.

 

Fraud has always been illegal. In each of the cases, such as Enron, that happened before SOX, hundreds, if not thousands, of laws were broken. 10 years later with SOX, I'm betting Jon Corzine and company broke hundreds of pretty much the exact same laws, and just added faked 10Ks and 10Qs to that list. It didn't prevent anything. And it cost the firms that were in compliance billions of dollars to prove the same thing that MF Global "proved".

[VictoryMC98]

That's not accurate at all. More accurate would be founding a governmental agency that required each person to document and prove that they weren't murdering people four times a year, along with with a more formal document filing once per year.

 

Fraud has always been illegal. In each of the cases, such as Enron, that happened before SOX, hundreds, if not thousands, of laws were broken. 10 years later with SOX, I'm betting Jon Corzine and company broke hundreds of pretty much the exact same laws, and just added faked 10Ks and 10Qs to that list. It didn't prevent anything. And it cost the firms that were in compliance billions of dollars to prove the same thing that MF Global "proved".

 

We just have to agree to disagree; I agree more with NSS that it needs to be tweaked. But, you seem to think that because people break a law, lets get rid of the law because it cost money to enforce. My guess SOX was an overreaction to loopholes in the Fraud law. And the public outcry to the Enron scandal.

 

By your logic, as with the my over simplification of Murder example, we could get rid of every single law known to man, to save on costs.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

We just have to agree to disagree; I agree more with NSS that it needs to be tweaked. But, you seem to think that because people break a law, lets get rid of the law because it cost money to enforce. My guess SOX was an overreaction to loopholes in the Fraud law. And the public outcry to the Enron scandal.

 

By your logic, as with the my over simplification of Murder example, we could get rid of every single law known to man, to save on costs.

Well to be clear, since I was invoked here... I think Dodd-Frank was a terrible implementation of what could have been good law. Same with SOX. So yes, the laws need tweaking. But I have previously agreed with SS2K5 on the fact that monitoring and enforcement are major problems, that are not at all fixed (and in fact are probably made worse) by simply making more specific things illegal. You need to consolidate all market regulation into a single agency, and you need to make much more use of technology to reduce the need for so much personnel and paperwork overhead (for both the government and the industry).

 

[southsider2k5]

We just have to agree to disagree; I agree more with NSS that it needs to be tweaked. But, you seem to think that because people break a law, lets get rid of the law because it cost money to enforce. My guess SOX was an overreaction to loopholes in the Fraud law. And the public outcry to the Enron scandal.

 

By your logic, as with the my over simplification of Murder example, we could get rid of every single law known to man, to save on costs.

 

No. You don't understand at all. It isn't the laws I am talking about.

[VictoryMC98]

Well to be clear, since I was invoked here... I think Dodd-Frank was a terrible implementation of what could have been good law. Same with SOX. So yes, the laws need tweaking. But I have previously agreed with SS2K5 on the fact that monitoring and enforcement are major problems, that are not at all fixed (and in fact are probably made worse) by simply making more specific things illegal. You need to consolidate all market regulation into a single agency, and you need to make much more use of technology to reduce the need for so much personnel and paperwork overhead (for both the government and the industry).

 

IMO Dodd-Frank is extremely weak, and I think you already know what I believe we should go back to. I recall watching “The Daily Show” only 30+ some odd rules out of the 200+ were implemented a year after the bill became law.

 

I agree that we should utilize current or within the last 3 years technology, to help replace man hours. But, as we have seen with the 2008 issues, not having enough man power ends up costing us more in the long run. But from reading up on 08 issues, the government doesn’t spend the necessary money on technology, unless there is a gun pointed at their head, and still they try to get out of spending money.

 

IMO the only way we fix this, is nothing to do with this at all... Campaign Finance Reform, we fix that.. all other issues in DC will get solved.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

IMO Dodd-Frank is extremely weak, and I think you already know what I believe we should go back to. I recall watching “The Daily Show” only 30+ some odd rules out of the 200+ were implemented a year after the bill became law.

 

I agree that we should utilize current or within the last 3 years technology, to help replace man hours. But, as we have seen with the 2008 issues, not having enough man power ends up costing us more in the long run. But from reading up on 08 issues, the government doesn’t spend the necessary money on technology, unless there is a gun pointed at their head, and still they try to get out of spending money.

 

IMO the only way we fix this, is nothing to do with this at all... Campaign Finance Reform, we fix that.. all other issues in DC will get solved.

Dodd-Frank is weak in some places, but mostly it is too vague and in some cases outright incorrect in its assumptions. But what you fail to understand on this, which both SS2K5 and I have alluded to, is that the rules are not in the law - the rules are structured by the SEC, CFTC, etc. And those agencies have been very slow in making the rules solid, and even when they have, the rules are weak or impractical.

 

2008? What are you referring to, where more manpower was needed?

 

And fixing campaign finance is great and all, but has next to nothing to do with this.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

IMO Dodd-Frank is extremely weak, and I think you already know what I believe we should go back to. I recall watching “The Daily Show” only 30+ some odd rules out of the 200+ were implemented a year after the bill became law.

 

I agree that we should utilize current or within the last 3 years technology, to help replace man hours. But, as we have seen with the 2008 issues, not having enough man power ends up costing us more in the long run. But from reading up on 08 issues, the government doesn’t spend the necessary money on technology, unless there is a gun pointed at their head, and still they try to get out of spending money.

IMO the only way we fix this, is nothing to do with this at all... Campaign Finance Reform, we fix that.. all other issues in DC will get solved.

 

How does fixing corrupt campaigns stop companies from operating fraudulently to the detriment of their public investors?

 

 

[VictoryMC98]

How does fixing corrupt campaigns stop companies from operating fraudulently to the detriment of their public investors?

 

Because the law is no longer in their favor, then can't "bribe" their local congresswo/men to have the SEC get off the companies back, as what is done now.

Edited November 30, 2011 by VictoryMC98

[VictoryMC98]

Dodd-Frank is weak in some places, but mostly it is too vague and in some cases outright incorrect in its assumptions. But what you fail to understand on this, which both SS2K5 and I have alluded to, is that the rules are not in the law - the rules are structured by the SEC, CFTC, etc. And those agencies have been very slow in making the rules solid, and even when they have, the rules are weak or impractical.

 

2008? What are you referring to, where more manpower was needed?

 

And fixing campaign finance is great and all, but has next to nothing to do with this.

 

And Where does teh SEC,CFTC..etc get the power from those rules?

 

2008 Finance meltdown... From everything I have read, there wasn't enough man power to actually keep up with everything that was going on from 1999-2007

 

[NorthSideSox72]

And Where does teh SEC,CFTC..etc get the power from those rules?

 

2008 Finance meltdown... From everything I have read, there wasn't enough man power to actually keep up with everything that was going on from 1999-2007

Without technological overhaul, there is not enough front line manpower. If you consolidate agencies to remove some management redundancy, and add more technology to monitor and analyze more efficiently, suddenly you have more than enough front line manpower.

 

[southsider2k5]

And Where does teh SEC,CFTC..etc get the power from those rules?

 

2008 Finance meltdown... From everything I have read, there wasn't enough man power to actually keep up with everything that was going on from 1999-2007

 

And with the expansion of man power we got MF Global and UBS,and according to the numbers Balta found somewhere, a fall in the number of enforcements brought.

 

Its not dollars and its not laws.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

Because the law is no longer in their favor, then can't "bribe" their local congresswo/men to have the SEC get off the companies back, as what is done now.

 

the funny part is that our President is by far the leading recipient of money from Wall Street.

[southsider2k5]

And with the expansion of man power we got MF Global and UBS,and according to the numbers Balta found somewhere, a fall in the number of enforcements brought.

 

Its not dollars and its not laws.

 

Perfect example. Despite multiple document requests and the like, the SEC STILL has no idea what happened in the flash crash, after a year and a half.

[mr_genius]

the funny part is that our President is by far the leading recipient of money from Wall Street.

 

mmm hmmm

[Texsox]

Thank y'all for the education. Just a side note, and not exactly directly to this, but I'm still generally unclear on the law, but in an a global thought, should we scrap a law because some people have still done what the law is designed to protect? People and corporations break laws, but should be then just give up and not try? I see scrapping the law if the purpose is no longer supported, but not scrapping a law because people have gotten around it.

[EvilMonkey]

Thank y'all for the education. Just a side note, and not exactly directly to this, but I'm still generally unclear on the law, but in an a global thought, should we scrap a law because some people have still done what the law is designed to protect? People and corporations break laws, but should be then just give up and not try? I see scrapping the law if the purpose is no longer supported, but not scrapping a law because people have gotten around it.

Some people seem to think that way when the topic is legalizing drugs...................

[Texsox]

Some people seem to think that way when the topic is legalizing drugs...................

 

I think that comes to no longer supporting the goal or the law becoming unnecessary. Laws like riding a horse on main street during the Sabbath or sodomy laws fit in here.