Exploring Opinions on Mitt Romney's Candidacy

[mheslep]

First, I'm not waiving it away- I'm pointing out that its empirically wrong. This isn't controversial- its discussed in macro textbooks as I referenced.

Second, the permanent income hypothesis and the related ricardian equivalence are simplifying assumptions made for models. They aren't empirical. Your argument goes like this
1. assume that deficits are always a drag on the economy
2. point the existence of a deficit

if this is true, the deficit should have been a huge drag starting under Reagan, all the way to today. Where is the evidence of that? What sectors of the economy correlate negatively with the deficit?

Not all deficits. Expectations about the future for small loans and debts are not grim for people, business, or government. Large and persistent deficits against an already large debt, as I took care to say, create a very different expectation. That expectation is not controversial: Bernanke, Simpson-Bowes, Standard and Poors have all said the current situation is not sustainable with radical changes, and of course we see the examples of Greece, etc going down the drain. None of those economic voices were forecasting doom about $50B-$200B/year deficits against a third to a half this debt load.

 

[Angry Citizen]

None of those economic voices were forecasting doom about $50B-$200B/year deficits against a third to a half this debt load.

Debt is a function of GDP, not total debt and deficit. We in the US are stable since the deficit is going to plummet here in the next few years, as I believe I've shown in either this thread or one of the other 'candidacy' threads. It would, in fact, be relatively simple to balance the budget if we returned to Kennedy-era taxation and dropped the military by a hundred billion or so (much less than what I'd recommend). Plus, Afghanistan will wind down in 2013, which will save us, what, sixty billion a year?

The only uncertainty is if a Republican comes in and destroys the economy again - a Republican like Mitt Romney. I actually think Mitt's more dangerous than someone like Ron Paul in terms of fiscal sanity, because he's at the absolute worst part of the spectrum: he's a big-spending, low-taxing Republican. This would cause the deficit to skyrocket, just like it did under Bush, who was a similar big-spending, low-taxing Republican. Fiscal sanity comes from balancing your income with your spending. This can come from low-spending and low-taxes, or big-spending and high-taxes. Choose one. Do not try to choose both.

 

[mheslep]

Counterexample- Leo Apotheker. He nearly destroyed SAP,
moved on to HP, and in an awful 11 month tenure his about-face on webOS and decision to kill their touchpad less than a month after its launch not only embarrassed the company but dropped the stock by half.

Apotheker was a disaster at HP and I doubt he will ever hold the CEO title again as result. It is hyperbole to say he destroyed SAP during his short reign during the financial crisis. SAP just made $1B on $20B revenue.

 

[mheslep]

... We in the US are stable since the deficit is going to plummet here in the next few years, as I believe I've shown in either this thread or one of the other 'candidacy' threads.

I'd be happy to see an actual rough calculation. But so far AC, no, you rarely show, you assert as fact and keep moving. I

It would, in fact, be relatively simple to balance the budget if we returned to Kennedy-era taxation and dropped the military by a hundred billion or so (much less than what I'd recommend). Plus, Afghanistan will wind down in 2013, which will save us, what, sixty billion a year?

$1100B/year AC. Do the math. While you are at it, take a look at the $200B to $400B interest payments on the debt, and recalculate them at around a 5%

 

[WhoWee]

Debt is a function of GDP, not total debt and deficit. We in the US are stable since the deficit is going to plummet here in the next few years, as I believe I've shown in either this thread or one of the other 'candidacy' threads. It would, in fact, be relatively simple to balance the budget if we returned to Kennedy-era taxation and dropped the military by a hundred billion or so (much less than what I'd recommend). Plus, Afghanistan will wind down in 2013, which will save us, what, sixty billion a year?

The only uncertainty is if a Republican comes in and destroys the economy again - a Republican like Mitt Romney. I actually think Mitt's more dangerous than someone like Ron Paul in terms of fiscal sanity, because he's at the absolute worst part of the spectrum: he's a big-spending, low-taxing Republican. This would cause the deficit to skyrocket, just like it did under Bush, who was a similar big-spending, low-taxing Republican. Fiscal sanity comes from balancing your income with your spending. This can come from low-spending and low-taxes, or big-spending and high-taxes. Choose one. Do not try to choose both.

Please label as Opinion - or support with specifics.

 

[Angry Citizen]

I'd be happy to see an actual rough calculation. But so far AC, no, you rarely show, you assert as fact and keep moving.

Nice personal attack.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=&chart=G0-fed&units=b

Okay, so a six hundred billion deficit in 2015. We can fix that, eh?

Let's assume that these two sites are accurate - and while they're not academic sources like I'd prefer, let's just use them as a ballpark figure:

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/fed_revenue_2012USrn

The first states that the top 1% pay approximately 36.73% of federal income taxes in the US. The second shows how much the federal government takes in in income taxes (1.5 trillion). Multiplying these two, we find that approximately 551 billion dollars are paid by the top 1%. Let's say that doubling the top rate (Kennedy-era taxation brackets being much higher than that: http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/151.html) will bring in an extra four hundred billion - a conservative estimate. This means that two hundred billion must be made up in cuts to the military and the wars. Given my previous desire to slash the military by a hundred billion, this leaves one hundred billion left.

But you're right, I should have done more research - turns out the Afghanistan war costs well in excess of a hundred billion per year (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/afgh...s-announcement/story?id=13902853#.Ty6y8MglS30). Ending it will bring us into the green, under extremely conservative estimates that only tax the one percent. Personally, I'd make it easier and extend it to the top five percent.

 

[Angry Citizen]

$1100B/year AC. Do the math. While you are at it, take a look at the $200B to $400B interest payments on the debt, and recalculate them at around a 5%

Please see previous post showing that the 1100B figure is not representative of future samples. Furthermore, interest payments are included in the deficit figure.

 

[WhoWee]

Nice personal attack.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=&chart=G0-fed&units=b

Okay, so a six hundred billion deficit in 2015. We can fix that, eh?

Let's assume that these two sites are accurate - and while they're not academic sources like I'd prefer, let's just use them as a ballpark figure:

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/fed_revenue_2012USrn

The first states that the top 1% pay approximately 36.73% of federal income taxes in the US. The second shows how much the federal government takes in in income taxes (1.5 trillion). Multiplying these two, we find that approximately 551 billion dollars are paid by the top 1%. Let's say that doubling the top rate (Kennedy-era taxation brackets being much higher than that: http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/151.html) will bring in an extra four hundred billion - a conservative estimate. This means that two hundred billion must be made up in cuts to the military and the wars. Given my previous desire to slash the military by a hundred billion, this leaves one hundred billion left.

But you're right, I should have done more research - turns out the Afghanistan war costs well in excess of a hundred billion per year (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/afgh...s-announcement/story?id=13902853#.Ty6y8MglS30). Ending it will bring us into the green, under extremely conservative estimates that only tax the one percent. Personally, I'd make it easier and extend it to the top five percent.

I'm not certain what this has to do with the topic of the thread?

However, (I agree more research is required before posting as factual) what are the assumptions for 1.)growth and 2.)the effects from PPACA implementation?

 

[Angry Citizen]

You're kidding, right? I said ballpark estimate - I'm not going to conduct a massive scientific study on this just for you to hand-wave it away. If you want to refute my links (the first of which is heavily sourced), it is your responsibility to ascertain the assumptions and then tell me why these assumptions are mistaken or overly optimistic. And lastly, my point wasn't to solve the debt crisis in the PhysicsForums thread "Mitt Romney's candidacy". My point was to show that solutions exist and would be economically feasible using historical tax levels and modest cuts to the military. I honestly don't have time to support my points if no one is going to bother refuting them.

 

[WhoWee]

You're kidding, right? I said ballpark estimate - I'm not going to conduct a massive scientific study on this just for you to hand-wave it away. If you want to refute my links (the first of which is heavily sourced), it is your responsibility to ascertain the assumptions and then tell me why these assumptions are mistaken or overly optimistic. And lastly, my point wasn't to solve the debt crisis in the PhysicsForums thread "Mitt Romney's candidacy". My point was to show that solutions exist and would be economically feasible using historical tax levels and modest cuts to the military. I honestly don't have time to support my points if no one is going to bother refuting them.

Apparently I need to re-read the rules - perhaps they've changed in the past few weeks?

 

[MarcoD]

Nobody immigrates to Norway or Spain or France to really make a success of themselves, unless they're coming out of a third world nation, where one of those nations is a real step up.

People do migrate in Europe, but the numbers are smaller. But Europe isn't the US, and probably will never be for a number of centuries. People in Europe often migrate for very different reasons than in the US. For the adventure, to get an education, because they are sick of their own country, or because they got into a relationship. People do migrate for economic reasons, either for better opportunities or for the adventure, but the numbers are just way smaller.

The only reason some people migrate easily to the UK from northern Europe is because everybody speaks English. For the rest, the UK certainly isn't more economically or culturally attractive than most European countries, except for London which has an international appeal. Sometimes people from the UK migrate to Spain or France to start an hotel, both for the adventure and economic reasons.

Most of the European economies are, maybe I should say were, strong enough that there is little incentive to leave. Migrating implies swapping your own culture to live among people who speak a different language, who you might not understand, and sometimes might not even like.

Cultural differences are very large in Europe. Most people in the US probably have a list of two opinions: Mexico and Canada. I have a list of more than twenty. Discussing migration in Europe is the same as discussing migration in Northern America. Given that the US wants to build a wall on the Mexican border, I think everyone can see the problem.

 

[WhoWee]

Mitt Romney won in Nevada last night. Itsounds like he's trying to stay focused on the end target.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/04/politics/gop-nevada-caucuses/index.html

"Romney again turns attention to Obama after Nevada win"

 

[CAC1001]

The only uncertainty is if a Republican comes in and destroys the economy again - a Republican like Mitt Romney.

A Republican didn't almost destroy the economy in the first place. No one particular person, group, or party did.

I actually think Mitt's more dangerous than someone like Ron Paul in terms of fiscal sanity, because he's at the absolute worst part of the spectrum: he's a big-spending, low-taxing Republican. This would cause the deficit to skyrocket, just like it did under Bush, who was a similar big-spending, low-taxing Republican.

I agree on low taxes should equate to low-spending. The deficit didn't skyrocket under Bush, it actually was well on the way to becoming a balanced budget, although one could argue that this was due to revenue from the housing bubble. The problem regarding spending is that if you raise taxes, oftentimes the government just increases spending further. The Congress did this under Reagan and Bush Sr. when they signed tax increases.

The first states that the top 1% pay approximately 36.73% of federal income taxes in the US. The second shows how much the federal government takes in in income taxes (1.5 trillion). Multiplying these two, we find that approximately 551 billion dollars are paid by the top 1%. Let's say that doubling the top rate (Kennedy-era taxation brackets being much higher than that: http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/151.html) will bring in an extra four hundred billion - a conservative estimate. This means that two hundred billion must be made up in cuts to the military and the wars. Given my previous desire to slash the military by a hundred billion, this leaves one hundred billion left.

Remember though that the Kennedy-era taxes had a lot of loopholes to them so that people didn't have to actually pay taxes at those top rates. When the top rate was reduced to 28% under Reagan, a lot of those loopholes were closed.

 

[mheslep]

Nice personal attack...

I don't mean to criticize you personally and don't think I have. I'm criticizing the content of your posts.

 

[jduster]

cac1001 has the better end of this argument

 

[ThomasT]

A Republican didn't almost destroy the economy in the first place. No one particular person, group, or party did.

I agree. The problem is the status quo. Business as usual. Imo, it can't and won't be changed by either Democrats or Republicans.

The US is currently on a downward trend, imo. In order to improve, it will need to make significant changes in its policies. And, imo, those policies will not be significantly changed by either Democrats or Republicans.

 

[ParticleGrl]

You're right in a sense, it would be dramatic if an improvement of a few hundred billion were dramatic anymore. It's not. I did say large deficit ($1100B), and that is also against a large debt (%100 GDP), which is relevant when interest on that always-rolling-over debt climbs again.

By the numbers I have available, if we achieve a return to full employment over two years and run slightly higher inflation (5%), the reduction in unemployment/increase in nominal GDP/reduction in medicaid expenditure should reduce us from about 8.5% of GDP (where we are now) to between 3-4% of GDP. We can cut the deficit by more than half-just by getting people back to work. That reduces the deficit to slightly more than the average Bush years, but not tremendously so. If we manage to push GDP growth up to near the old trend, that number is even smaller.

Of course, if we keep having a run of crises both unavoidable (earthquakes in Japan) and self-made (the debt-ceiling debacle, Europe's central banking failures) then it might be awhile till we get anywhere near full employment.

As to debt servicing- the debt rolling over now and the debt being taken out now is at very low interest rates out to 10 years. I honestly don't know what the world will be like 10 years from now, I doubt anyone does. Maybe 'Obama-care' will dramatically improve healthcare and in a decade we run massive surpluses. Maybe 'Obama-care' will have precipitated total economic collapse and we'd already defaulted on debt before it rolls over.

 

[WhoWee]

Can we please stay on topic? Thanks to Oltz - we have Romney's plan.

Just to refresh everyone on the Romney plan. Ohh and to mention that he actually has a fairly detailed plan something that we still have never seen from the current administration unless we "pass it so we can read it".

I have just re read the PDF detailing each of these points and must honestly say I can not out right shoot down any of them which I was suprised by. Can someone like Evo or another more "liberal" person please actually read the 59 points and maybe even the entire PDF and give a real "dem" review ?

I still am not sure what I think of Romney, but these seem like sane and reasonable points. The simple existence of a coherent plan makes me feel better about him and his team.

http://mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/BelieveInAmerica-PlanForJobsAndEconomicGrowth-Full.pdf

59 Policy Proposals That Will Get America Back To Work
1. Maintain current tax rates on personal income
2. Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
3. Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
4. Eliminate the death tax
5. Pursue a conservative overhaul of the tax system over the long term that includes lower,
flatter rates on a broader base
6. Reduce corporate income tax rate to 25 percent
7. Pursue transition from “worldwide” to “territorial” system for corporate taxation
8. Repeal Obamacare
9. Repeal Dodd-Frank and replace with streamlined, modern regulatory framework
10. Amend Sarbanes-Oxley to relieve mid-size companies from onerous requirements
11. Ensure that environmental laws properly account for cost in regulatory process
12 Provide multi-year lead times before companies must come into compliance with
onerous new environmental regulations
13. Initiate review and elimination of all Obama-era regulations that unduly burden the economy
14. Impose a regulatory cap of zero dollars on all federal agencies
15. Require congressional approval of all new “major” regulations
16. Reform legal liability system to prevent spurious litigation
17. Implement agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea
18. Reinstate the president’s Trade Promotion Authority
19. Complete negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership
20. Pursue new trade agreements with nations committed to free enterprise and open markets
21. Create the Reagan Economic Zone
22. Increase CBP resources to prevent the illegal entry of goods into our market
23. Increase USTR resources to pursue and support litigation against unfair trade practices
24. Use unilateral and multilateral punitive measures to deter unfair Chinese practices
25. Designate China a currency manipulator and impose countervailing duties
26. Discontinue U.S. government procurement from China until China commits to GPA
27. Establish fixed timetables for all resource development approvals
28. Create one-stop shop to streamline permitting process for approval of common activities
29. Implement fast-track procedures for companies with established safety records to conduct
pre-approved activities in pre-approved areas
30. Amend Clean Air Act to exclude carbon dioxide from its purview
31. Expand NRC capabilities for approval of additional nuclear reactor designs
32. Streamline NRC processes to ensure that licensing decisions for reactors on or adjacent to
approved sites, using approved designs, are complete within two years
33. Conduct comprehensive survey of America’s energy reserves
34. Open America’s energy reserves for development
35. Expand opportunities for U.S. resource developers to forge partnerships with neighboring countries
36 Support construction of pipelines to bring Canadian oil to the United States
37. Prevent overregulation of shale gas development and extraction
38 Concentrate alternative energy funding on basic research
39. Utilize long-term, apolitical funding mechanisms like ARPA-E for basic research
40. Appoint to the NLRB experienced individuals with respect for the rule of law
41. Amend NLRA to explicitly protect the right of business owners to allocate their capital as they see fit
42. Amend NLRA to guarantee the secret ballot in every union certification election
43. Amend NLRA to guarantee that all pre-election campaigns last at least one month
44. Support states in pursuing Right-to-Work laws
45. Prohibit the use for political purposes of funds automatically deducted from worker paychecks
46. Reverse executive orders issued by President Obama that tilt the playing field toward organized labor
47. Eliminate redundancy in federal retraining programs by consolidating programs and funding streams,
centering as much activity as possible in a single agency
48. Give states authority to manage retraining programs by block granting federal funds
49. Facilitate the creation of Personal Reemployment Accounts
50. Encourage greater private sector involvement in retraining programs
51. Raise visa caps for highly skilled workers
52. Grant permanent residency to eligible graduates with advanced degrees in math, science,
and engineering
53. Immediately cut non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent
54. Reform and restructure Medicaid as block grant to states
55. Align wages and benefits of government workers with market rates
56. Reduce federal workforce by 10 percent via attrition
57. Cap federal spending at 20 percent of GDP
58. Undertake fundamental restructuring of government programs and services
59. Pursue a Balanced Budget Amendment

 

[skeptic2]

Why is it in an "Anybody but Obama" election year, the Republicans are nominating the candidate most like Obama?

 

[WhoWee]

Why is it in an "Anybody but Obama" election year, the Republicans are nominating the candidate most like Obama?

After reading the 59 point Romney list - I don't see a similarity with President Obama - other than maybe people like them both personally?

 

[WhoWee]

Perhaps one of our Nuclear experts would like to comment on these 2 points?

"31. Expand NRC capabilities for approval of additional nuclear reactor designs

32. Streamline NRC processes to ensure that licensing decisions for reactors on or adjacent to approved sites, using approved designs, are complete within two years"

Is this realistic?

 

[mheslep]

That reduces the deficit to slightly more than the average Bush years, but not tremendosly so.

Average Bush years (2002-2007, before recession, after surplus) deficit was $285B/yr with 911, two wars, Katrina, vs $1151B now. A return to 2006-7 spending can come close to zeroing the deficit. These measures head in that direction:

53. Immediately cut non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent
54. Reform and restructure Medicaid as block grant to states
55. Align wages and benefits of government workers with market rates
56. Reduce federal workforce by 10 percent via attrition
57. Cap federal spending at 20 percent of GDP

 

[mheslep]

Perhaps one of our Nuclear experts would like to comment on these 2 points?

"31. Expand NRC capabilities for approval of additional nuclear reactor designs

32. Streamline NRC processes to ensure that licensing decisions for reactors on or adjacent to approved sites, using approved designs, are complete within two years"

Is this realistic?

I'm no expert, but it certainly appears headed in a right and necessary direction. The NRC has never approved a reactor originally submitted under its watch 35 year watch. The existing 104 US plants were all proposed/broke ground prior to the NRC.

 

[daveb]

Perhaps one of our Nuclear experts would like to comment on these 2 points?

"31. Expand NRC capabilities for approval of additional nuclear reactor designs

32. Streamline NRC processes to ensure that licensing decisions for reactors on or adjacent to approved sites, using approved designs, are complete within two years"

Is this realistic?

The main drag on approval of new plants isn't usually the lack of NRC personnel, it's usually the environmental impact studies requirements, the lawsuits brought on by environmental groups claiming the study was flawed or needs more study, etc. Not to say that the environmentalists are wrong (not having read any of the studies), but that's a big portion of the problem. Add to that the public perception of nuclear power and the NIMBY attitude prevalent just about everywhere, and you have a recipe for very slow movement. Power companies are reluctant to even try to build additional plants (though some have been expanding where they already have a presence). Perhaps if Yucca Mountain ever opens things might ease up as well, but with Harry Red in the Senate, I don't see that happening anytime soon. As a health physicist, I support nuclear power, as long as it is shown to be safe within the typical margin for error for a LOCA.

 

[ThomasT]

Average Bush years (2002-2007, before recession, after surplus) deficit was $285B/yr with 911, two wars, Katrina, vs $1151B now. A return to 2006-7 spending can come close to zeroing the deficit. These measures head in that direction:

53. Immediately cut non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent
54. Reform and restructure Medicaid as block grant to states
55. Align wages and benefits of government workers with market rates
56. Reduce federal workforce by 10 percent via attrition
57. Cap federal spending at 20 percent of GDP

Would the net effect of these points be less money in the general economy?

Would reducing aid to the states force them to reform or simply do away with their pension plans (which seem to be a major factor wrt states' economic problems)?

 

[ThomasT]

9. Repeal Dodd-Frank and replace with streamlined, modern regulatory framework

This doesn't seem to me to be a good idea. Isn't lack of federal regulatory capability one of the main reasons that the financial sector became the problem that it is?

 

[WhoWee]

This doesn't seem to me to be a good idea. Isn't lack of federal regulatory capability one of the main reasons that the financial sector became the problem that it is?

Weren't (former Congresspeople) Barney Frank and Chris Dodd criticized for putting pressure on banks to make risky loans - before they attached their names to this legislation? Label IMO-LOL

 

[ThomasT]

Weren't (former Congresspeople) Barney Frank and Chris Dodd criticized for putting pressure on banks to make risky loans - before they attached their names to this legislation?

I don't know. I'll take your word for it that some irony can be associated with the Dodd-Frank bill. My question was, "Isn't lack of federal regulatory capability one of the main reasons that the financial sector became the problem that it is?". Romney obviously wants to go in the direction of deregulation, which seems to me to be an obviously bad direction to go in given recent history.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't know. I'll take your word for it that some irony can be associated with the Dodd-Frank bill. My question was, "Isn't lack of federal regulatory capability one of the main reasons that the financial sector became the problem that it is?". Romney obviously wants to go in the direction of deregulation, which seems to me to be an obviously bad direction to go in given recent history.

These few links indicate the legislation is not popular with small business.

http://smbiz.house.gov/Calendar/EventSingle.aspx?EventID=245671
"This increased pressure has the potential to hamper small business lending since some regulators are taking a disproportionally stringent view of small business lending and loan performance"

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/07/21/small-businesses-not-celebrating-dodd-franks-birthday/
"Small Businesses Not Celebrating Dodd-Frank's Birthday"

http://www.loansafe.org/community-bankers-speak-out-on-the-impact-of-dodd-frank-regulations
"(Source: House Committee On Financial Services) – Obama Administration officials are frantically trying to convince the public that the 400 new regulations tucked inside the 2,300-page Dodd-Frank Act are having absolutely no impact on small town and mid-sized banks. None. Whatsoever. So just move on, OK? Nothing to see here.

But, what are community bankers saying? A much different story in congressional testimony and in statements to their local newspapers:

One community banker from Illinois said, “The Dodd-Frank Act will add an additional, enormous burden, has stimulated an environment of uncertainty, and has added new risks that will inevitably translate into fewer loans to small businesses.”"

 

[mheslep]

Romney obviously wants to go in the direction of deregulation

Why would you say that? The Mitt plan says ... and replace with streamlined, modern regulatory framework

 

[ThomasT]

These few links indicate the legislation is not popular with small business.

http://smbiz.house.gov/Calendar/EventSingle.aspx?EventID=245671
"This increased pressure has the potential to hamper small business lending since some regulators are taking a disproportionally stringent view of small business lending and loan performance"

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/07/21/small-businesses-not-celebrating-dodd-franks-birthday/
"Small Businesses Not Celebrating Dodd-Frank's Birthday"

http://www.loansafe.org/community-bankers-speak-out-on-the-impact-of-dodd-frank-regulations
"(Source: House Committee On Financial Services) – Obama Administration officials are frantically trying to convince the public that the 400 new regulations tucked inside the 2,300-page Dodd-Frank Act are having absolutely no impact on small town and mid-sized banks. None. Whatsoever. So just move on, OK? Nothing to see here.

But, what are community bankers saying? A much different story in congressional testimony and in statements to their local newspapers:

One community banker from Illinois said, “The Dodd-Frank Act will add an additional, enormous burden, has stimulated an environment of uncertainty, and has added new risks that will inevitably translate into fewer loans to small businesses.”"

I read the links you provided. Here's a link to the text of the Dodd-Frank Act:
http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/wallstreetreform-cpa.pdf

What rules, provisions, etc. in it are detrimental to small financial institutions and small businesses? Just take them one at a time.

 

[ThomasT]

Why would you say that? The Mitt plan says ... and replace with streamlined, modern regulatory framework

From his points relevant to federal regulation, and interpreting the word "streamlined" to mean "less regulation", which is in the direction of deregulation.

 

[WhoWee]

I read the links you provided. Here's a link to the text of the Dodd-Frank Act:
http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/wallstreetreform-cpa.pdf

What rules, provisions, etc. in it are detrimental to small financial institutions and small businesses? Just take them one at a time.

I don't care much for the insurance-related section or this expansion of powers:

"Subtitle B—General Powers of the Bureau
SEC. 1021. PURPOSE, OBJECTIVES, AND FUNCTIONS.
(a) PURPOSE.—The Bureau shall seek to implement and, where
applicable, enforce Federal consumer financial law consistently for
the purpose of ensuring that all consumers have access to markets
H. R. 4173.605
for consumer financial products and services and that markets
for consumer financial products and services are fair, transparent,
and competitive.
(b) OBJECTIVES..The Bureau is authorized to exercise its
authorities under Federal consumer financial law for the purposes
of ensuring that, with respect to consumer financial products and
services.
(1) consumers are provided with timely and understandable
information to make responsible decisions about financial transactions;
(2) consumers are protected from unfair, deceptive, or abusive
acts and practices and from discrimination;
(3) outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations
are regularly identified and addressed in order to reduce
unwarranted regulatory burdens;
(4) Federal consumer financial law is enforced consistently,
without regard to the status of a person as a depository institution,
in order to promote fair competition; and
(5) markets for consumer financial products and services
operate transparently and efficiently to facilitate access and
innovation.
(c) FUNCTIONS..The primary functions of the Bureau are.
(1) conducting financial education programs;
(2) collecting, investigating, and responding to consumer
complaints;
(3) collecting, researching, monitoring, and publishing
information relevant to the functioning of markets for consumer
financial products and services to identify risks to consumers
and the proper functioning of such markets;
(4) subject to sections 1024 through 1026, supervising covered
persons for compliance with Federal consumer financial
law, and taking appropriate enforcement action to address violations
of Federal consumer financial law;
(5) issuing rules, orders, and guidance implementing Federal
consumer financial law; and
(6) performing such support activities as may be necessary
or useful to facilitate the other functions of the Bureau.
SEC. 1022. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY.
(a) IN GENERAL..The Bureau is authorized to exercise its
authorities under Federal consumer financial law to administer,
enforce, and otherwise implement the provisions of Federal consumer
financial law.
(b) RULEMAKING, ORDERS, AND GUIDANCE..
(1) GENERAL AUTHORITY..The Director may prescribe rules
and issue orders and guidance, as may be necessary or appropriate
to enable the Bureau to administer and carry out the
purposes and objectives of the Federal consumer financial laws,
and to prevent evasions thereof.
(2) STANDARDS FOR RULEMAKING..In prescribing a rule
under the Federal consumer financial laws.
(A) the Bureau shall consider.
(i) the potential benefits and costs to consumers
and covered persons, including the potential reduction
of access by consumers to consumer financial products
or services resulting from such rule; and
H. R. 4173.606
(ii) the impact of proposed rules on covered persons,
as described in section 1026, and the impact
on consumers in rural areas;
(B) the Bureau shall consult with the appropriate
prudential regulators or other Federal agencies prior to
proposing a rule and during the comment process regarding
consistency with prudential, market, or systemic objectives
administered by such agencies; and
(C) if, during the consultation process described in
subparagraph (B), a prudential regulator provides the
Bureau with a written objection to the proposed rule of
the Bureau or a portion thereof, the Bureau shall include
in the adopting release a description of the objection and
the basis for the Bureau decision, if any, regarding such
objection, except that nothing in this clause shall be construed
as altering or limiting the procedures under section
1023 that may apply to any rule prescribed by the Bureau.
(3) EXEMPTIONS..
(A) IN GENERAL..The Bureau, by rule, may conditionally
or unconditionally exempt any class of covered
persons, service providers, or consumer financial products
or services, from any provision of this title, or from any
rule issued under this title, as the Bureau determines
necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes and
objectives of this title, taking into consideration the factors
in subparagraph (B).
(B) FACTORS..In issuing an exemption, as permitted
under subparagraph (A), the Bureau shall, as appropriate,
take into consideration.
(i) the total assets of the class of covered persons;
(ii) the volume of transactions involving consumer
financial products or services in which the class of
covered persons engages; and
(iii) existing provisions of law which are applicable
to the consumer financial product or service and the
extent to which such provisions provide consumers with
adequate protections.
(4) EXCLUSIVE RULEMAKING AUTHORITY..
(A) IN GENERAL..Notwithstanding any other provisions
of Federal law and except as provided in section
1061(b)(5), to the extent that a provision of Federal consumer
financial law authorizes the Bureau and another
Federal agency to issue regulations under that provision
of law for purposes of assuring compliance with Federal
consumer financial law and any regulations thereunder,
the Bureau shall have the exclusive authority to prescribe
rules subject to those provisions of law.
(B) DEFERENCE..Notwithstanding any power granted
to any Federal agency or to the Council under this title,
and subject to section 1061(b)(5)(E), the deference that
a court affords to the Bureau with respect to a determination
by the Bureau regarding the meaning or interpretation
of any provision of a Federal consumer financial law shall
be applied as if the Bureau were the only agency authorized
to apply, enforce, interpret, or administer the provisions
of such Federal consumer financial law.
(c) MONITORING..
H. R. 4173.607
(1) IN GENERAL..In order to support its rulemaking and
other functions, the Bureau shall monitor for risks to consumers
in the offering or provision of consumer financial products
or services, including developments in markets for such products
or services.
(2) CONSIDERATIONS..In allocating its resources to perform
the monitoring required by this section, the Bureau may consider,
among other factors.
(A) likely risks and costs to consumers associated with
buying or using a type of consumer financial product or
service;
(B) understanding by consumers of the risks of a type
of consumer financial product or service;
(C) the legal protections applicable to the offering or
provision of a consumer financial product or service,
including the extent to which the law is likely to adequately
protect consumers;
(D) rates of growth in the offering or provision of
a consumer financial product or service;
(E) the extent, if any, to which the risks of a consumer
financial product or service may disproportionately affect
traditionally underserved consumers; or
(F) the types, number, and other pertinent characteristics
of covered persons that offer or provide the consumer
financial product or service.
(3) SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS..
(A) IN GENERAL..The Bureau shall publish not fewer
than 1 report of significant findings of its monitoring
required by this subsection in each calendar year, beginning
with the first calendar year that begins at least 1 year
after the designated transfer date.
(B) CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION..The Bureau may
make public such information obtained by the Bureau
under this section as is in the public interest, through
aggregated reports or other appropriate formats designed
to protect confidential information in accordance with paragraphs
(4), (6), (8), and (9).
(4) COLLECTION OF INFORMATION..
(A) IN GENERAL..In conducting any monitoring or
assessment required by this section, the Bureau shall have
the authority to gather information from time to time
regarding the organization, business conduct, markets, and
activities of covered persons and service providers.
(B) METHODOLOGY..In order to gather information
described in subparagraph (A), the Bureau may.
(i) gather and compile information from a variety
of sources, including examination reports concerning
covered persons or service providers, consumer complaints,
voluntary surveys and voluntary interviews
of consumers, surveys and interviews with covered persons
and service providers, and review of available
databases; and
(ii) require covered persons and service providers
participating in consumer financial services markets
to file with the Bureau, under oath or otherwise, in
such form and within such reasonable period of time
as the Bureau may prescribe by rule or order, annual
H. R. 4173.608
or special reports, or answers in writing to specific
questions, furnishing information described in paragraph
(4), as necessary for the Bureau to fulfill the
monitoring, assessment, and reporting responsibilities
imposed by Congress.
(C) LIMITATION..The Bureau may not use its authorities
under this paragraph to obtain records from covered
persons and service providers participating in consumer
financial services markets for purposes of gathering or
analyzing the personally identifiable financial information
of consumers.
(5) LIMITED INFORMATION GATHERING..In order to assess
whether a nondepository is a covered person, as defined in
section 1002, the Bureau may require such nondepository to
file with the Bureau, under oath or otherwise, in such form
and within such reasonable period of time as the Bureau may
prescribe by rule or order, annual or special reports, or answers
in writing to specific questions.
(6) CONFIDENTIALITY RULES..
(A) RULEMAKING..The Bureau shall prescribe rules
regarding the confidential treatment of information
obtained from persons in connection with the exercise of
its authorities under Federal consumer financial law.
(B) ACCESS BY THE BUREAU TO REPORTS OF OTHER
REGULATORS..
(i) EXAMINATION AND FINANCIAL CONDITION
REPORTS..Upon providing reasonable assurances of
confidentiality, the Bureau shall have access to any
report of examination or financial condition made by
a prudential regulator or other Federal agency having
jurisdiction over a covered person or service provider,
and to all revisions made to any such report.
(ii) PROVISION OF OTHER REPORTS TO THE
BUREAU..In addition to the reports described in clause
(i), a prudential regulator or other Federal agency
having jurisdiction over a covered person or service
provider may, in its discretion, furnish to the Bureau
any other report or other confidential supervisory
information concerning any insured depository institution,
credit union, or other entity examined by such
agency under authority of any provision of Federal
law.
(C) ACCESS BY OTHER REGULATORS TO REPORTS OF THE
BUREAU..
(i) EXAMINATION REPORTS..Upon providing
reasonable assurances of confidentiality, a prudential
regulator, a State regulator, or any other Federal
agency having jurisdiction over a covered person or
service provider shall have access to any report of
examination made by the Bureau with respect to such
person, and to all revisions made to any such report.
(ii) PROVISION OF OTHER REPORTS TO OTHER REGULATORS..
In addition to the reports described in clause
(i), the Bureau may, in its discretion, furnish to a
prudential regulator or other agency having jurisdiction
over a covered person or service provider any
H. R. 4173.609
other report or other confidential supervisory information
concerning such person examined by the Bureau
under the authority of any other provision of Federal
law.
(7) REGISTRATION..
(A) IN GENERAL..The Bureau may prescribe rules
regarding registration requirements applicable to a covered
person, other than an insured depository institution,
insured credit union, or related person.
(B) REGISTRATION INFORMATION..Subject to rules prescribed
by the Bureau, the Bureau may publicly disclose
registration information to facilitate the ability of consumers
to identify covered persons that are registered with
the Bureau.
(C) CONSULTATION WITH STATE AGENCIES..In developing
and implementing registration requirements under
this paragraph, the Bureau shall consult with State agencies
regarding requirements or systems (including coordinated
or combined systems for registration), where appropriate.
(8) PRIVACY CONSIDERATIONS..In collecting information
from any person, publicly releasing information held by the
Bureau, or requiring covered persons to publicly report information,
the Bureau shall take steps to ensure that proprietary,
personal, or confidential consumer information that is protected
from public disclosure under section 552(b) or 552a of title
5, United States Code, or any other provision of law, is not
made public under this title.
(9) CONSUMER PRIVACY..
(A) IN GENERAL..The Bureau may not obtain from
a covered person or service provider any personally identifiable
financial information about a consumer from the financial
records of the covered person or service provider,
except.
(i) if the financial records are reasonably described
in a request by the Bureau and the consumer provides
written permission for the disclosure of such information
by the covered person or service provider to the
Bureau; or
(ii) as may be specifically permitted or required
under other applicable provisions of law and in accordance
with the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978
(12 U.S.C. 3401 et seq.).


(edited to fit the space)

(A) IN GENERAL..The decision to issue a stay of, or
set aside, any regulation under this section shall be made
H. R. 4173.611
only with the affirmative vote in accordance with subparagraph
(B) of 2.3 of the members of the Council then serving.
(B) AUTHORIZATION TO VOTE..A member of the Council
may vote to stay the effectiveness of, or set aside, a final
regulation prescribed by the Bureau only if the agency
or department represented by that member has.
(i) considered any relevant information provided
by the agency submitting the petition and by the
Bureau; and
(ii) made an official determination, at a public
meeting where applicable, that the regulation which
is the subject of the petition would put the safety
and soundness of the United States banking system
or the stability of the financial system of the United
States at risk.
(4) DECISIONS TO SET ASIDE..
(A) EFFECT OF DECISION..A decision by the Council
to set aside a regulation prescribed by the Bureau, or
provision thereof, shall render such regulation, or provision
thereof, unenforceable.
(B) TIMELY ACTION REQUIRED..The Council may not
issue a decision to set aside a regulation, or provision
thereof, which is the subject of a petition under this section
after the expiration of the later of.
(i) 45 days following the date of filing of the petition,
unless a stay is issued under paragraph (1); or
(ii) the expiration of a stay issued by the Council
under this section.
(C) SEPARATE AUTHORITY..The issuance of a stay
under this section does not affect the authority of the
Council to set aside a regulation.
(5) DISMISSAL DUE TO INACTION..A petition under this
section shall be deemed dismissed if the Council has not issued
a decision to set aside a regulation, or provision thereof, within
the period for timely action under paragraph (4)(B).
(6) PUBLICATION OF DECISION..Any decision under this
subsection to issue a stay of, or set aside, a regulation or
provision thereof shall be published by the Council in the
Federal Register as soon as practicable after the decision is
made, with an explanation of the reasons for the decision.
(7) RULEMAKING PROCEDURES INAPPLICABLE..The notice
and comment procedures under section 553 of title 5, United
States Code, shall not apply to any decision under this section
of the Council to issue a stay of, or set aside, a regulation.
(8) JUDICIAL REVIEW OF DECISIONS BY THE COUNCIL..A
decision by the Council to set aside a regulation prescribed
by the Bureau, or provision thereof, shall be subject to review
under chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code.
(d) APPLICATION OF OTHER LAW..Nothing in this section shall
be construed as altering, limiting, or restricting the application
of any other provision of law, except as otherwise specifically provided
in this section, including chapter 5 and chapter 7 of title
5, United States Code, to a regulation which is the subject of
a petition filed under this section.
(e) SAVINGS CLAUSE..Nothing in this section shall be construed
as limiting or restricting the Bureau from engaging in a rulemaking
in accordance with applicable law.
H. R. 4173.612
(f) IMPLEMENTING RULES..The Council shall prescribe procedural
rules to implement this section."

 

[mheslep]

Would the net effect of these points be less money in the general economy?

I think you mean less aggregate demand, not the amount of money which is pretty much set by the fed. Anyway, my opinion is no it won't, not on net. It suppose it will lessen the AD directly attributable to govt. spending. But if that were the only issue every job would be with the government.

Would reducing aid to the states force them to reform or simply do away with their pension plans (which seem to be a major factor wrt states' economic problems)?

The block grant puts the states in charge, it doesn't take their money away. As they're closer to the problem, they have incentive and ability to innovate.

Rhode Island applied to the feds for a waiver and run their own program:

The results? After 18 months, Rhode Island's Medicaid spending, which was projected to reach $3.8 billion, has declined to $2.7 billion, according to a report by Mr. Carcieri's Office of Health and Human Services. The state implemented a blizzard of reforms, including wellness programs, co-payments, audits of hospitals and nursing homes, fraud prevention, and letting seniors move from nursing homes into home and community care. The state has also saved a bundle by replacing federal "any willing provider" rules—which require that Medicaid dollars flow to any federally approved doctor or hospital regardless of cost—with competitive bidding.

Not every Rhode Island reform has worked, and some critics question whether the savings are as large as advertised. The state HHS is studying that issue now. But what almost no one challenges is the improvement in the quality of patient care.

The Providence Journal investigated the program and acknowledged last year: "To the surprise of many, everyone involved seems satisfied with the way the state's much-debated 'global Medicaid waiver' is working—at least for now."

Kathleen Connell, the head of Rhode Island AARP, says her group supports the waiver because "Seniors have absolutely benefited from being moved out of nursing homes into home and community-based care. The program is moving in the right direction for seniors."

Steven Costantino, the state's new Medicaid director and former Democratic chairman of the state's House Finance Committee, says "The trend rate of spending [in Rhode Island] has been 7.6% per year, and that's not sustainable. I do believe that the waiver offers us the flexibility to make the necessary policy changes to transform the system."

Note the last part and sustainability. A decision to maintain the status quo is a decision to collapse the Medicaid system.

 

[Oltz]

Just like large established companies do not mind over regulation because they can afford it and small/new companies can not, thus enabling them to buy out or undercut and bankrupt startups.

The burdens of Dodd-Frank fall harder on smaller banks that have less to leverage.

Local small banks are more likely to loan to local small bussiness as they better understand the needs of a community and what it can sustain. No more time to explain or get sources maybeo somebody else can pick this up and run with it.