CharonY Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 Removing protection from the ninety-nine percenters? 63% of Americans don't have enough savings to cover a $500 emergency http://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2016/01/06/63-of-americans-dont-have-enough-savings-to-cover-a-500-emergency/#ad25afa6dde1 70% of Americans don't have $1000 in savings. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2016/10/09/savings-study/91083712/ So you are not talking about 99% are you? You one percenters with your fancy STEM jobs ain't fooling anyone. This is kinda off topic, but as an STEM academic i had to laugh. And throw up a little bit. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 This is kinda off topic, but as an STEM academic i had to laugh. And throw up a little bit. Funny how he likes to pop in and chin-wag with STEM types. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 Removing protection from the ninety-nine percenters? 63% of Americans don't have enough savings to cover a $500 emergency http://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2016/01/06/63-of-americans-dont-have-enough-savings-to-cover-a-500-emergency/#ad25afa6dde1 70% of Americans don't have $1000 in savings. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2016/10/09/savings-study/91083712/ So you are not talking about 99% are you? You one percenters with your fancy STEM jobs ain't fooling anyone. Maybe the thirty-percenters, but when have you let facts get in the way? I mean, really, how many actual one percenters work in STEM? Rolling back the fiduciary protection rule serves to allow these people to rip off their customers. Clearly there's a large swath of people who will not be affected, but the administration wants to take away their access to health care - one of the obstacles to financial independence- and since Trump has just allowed companies to pollute more, and made it harder to enact new protections, they are going to need it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arete Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 To be in the top 1% in the US, one needs to earn over $344,000 pa and have a net worth of over $13.98 million. As I'm at a public university, salaries are publicly available in a searchable database. Only one person on campus earns enough to be in the 1% and that's the chancellor. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 The president began talking about how “radical Islamic terrorists are determined to strike our homeland” as they did on 9/11, in the Boston Bombings and in San Bernardino. He said it’s also happening “all over Europe” like in Paris and Nice. “It’s gotten to a point where it’s not even being reported. In many cases, the very, very dishonest press doesn’t want to report it. They have their reasons and you understand that,” Mr. Trump said. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-claims-media-is-covering-up-terror-attacks/ So in addition to Trump promoting unsubstantiated claims about crowds at his igauguration, illegal voting, fake polling by media, and his conflicts of interest Mr. Trump is now claiming that the media sweeps terror attacks under the rug without reporting on them!!!! At what point does this become akin to screaming FIRE in a crowded theater? It is one thing for a uncredited blogger to promote conspiracy but for the POTUS to do so is wildly dangerous! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waitforufo Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 What's interesting to me, waitforufo, is that you've personally made smart decisions with your money across your career and have chosen to be conservative in your approach (instead of spending heavily today for immediate gratification), yet your argument around these rules and regulations distills down to you wanting banks to do the exact opposite. The logical outcome of your position is that you'd rather banks gamble recklessly today and do so with all our money instead of their own (along with the money of those we love)... and in a way where they'll lose more often than not (like Vegas)... instead of proceeding intelligently and with a long-term focus like you have done... using a slow and steady consistent upward growth approach less subject to risk and volatility. The only reason we had to put the regulations in place was because they proved themselves to act like the very people you laugh at who manage their money stupidly, except their stupid actions were executed with OUR cash. Had they been smart with all our money (like you've been with yours) then I could easily join you in support of the removal of regulations, but time and again they've shown themselves to be ignorant addicts, like gamblers who follow bad decisions with worse ones. I'd rather not enable them to be stupid any more. I'd rather we help break the harmful addictions they've exhibited, while still supporting their ability to run an awesome industry. Perhaps we can be allies at least on that one small point, so long as we do so in a way that still allows for growth and creativity and the ability to generate wealth? No, I don't want the government controlling what my money is invested in via regulation of investment firms. What gives the government the right to tell me how much risk I take with my retirement accounts? Isn't the money I invest mine, and can't I choose to invest it however and with whomever I choose? So if my options are limited by government regulation based on a government imposed fiduciary rule, can I sue my investment managers for not taking enough risk and thereby not making me enough money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 No, I don't want the government controlling what my money is invested in via regulation of investment firms. What gives the government the right to tell me how much risk I take with my retirement accounts? Isn't the money I invest mine, and can't I choose to invest it however and with whomever I choose? So if my options are limited by government regulation based on a government imposed fiduciary rule, can I sue my investment managers for not taking enough risk and thereby not making me enough money? Regulations requiring investors to act in your best interest with regards to retirement accounts in no way shape or form limits what you can invest your money in or how much you can chooe to risk. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arete Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 Regulations requiring investors to act in your best interest with regards to retirement accounts in no way shape or form limits what you can invest your money in or how much you can chooe to risk. No to mention that one of the major causes of the subprime mortgage crisis was the repackaging of high risk investments in order to make them appear low risk. Regulations preventing such manipulation and deception make it easier for investors to determine the correct level of risk an investment represents, and make more accurate decisions. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrmDoc Posted February 6, 2017 Author Share Posted February 6, 2017 (edited) The president began talking about how “radical Islamic terrorists are determined to strike our homeland” as they did on 9/11, in the Boston Bombings and in San Bernardino. He said it’s also happening “all over Europe” like in Paris and Nice. “It’s gotten to a point where it’s not even being reported. In many cases, the very, very dishonest press doesn’t want to report it. They have their reasons and you understand that,” Mr. Trump said. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-claims-media-is-covering-up-terror-attacks/ So in addition to Trump promoting unsubstantiated claims about crowds at his igauguration, illegal voting, fake polling by media, and his conflicts of interest Mr. Trump is now claiming that the media sweeps terror attacks under the rug without reporting on them!!!! At what point does this become akin to screaming FIRE in a crowded theater? It is one thing for a uncredited blogger to promote conspiracy but for the POTUS to do so is wildly dangerous! Donald was referring to unreported terror attacks like the Bowling Green Massacre that occurred in Kellyanne Conway's mind, which the media and, possibly, Kellyanne didn't and doesn't have access to. On events entirely in Conway's and Trump's world of imagination, I think we can forgive the media for not reporting fake news--which is something the Donald really hates. Edited February 6, 2017 by DrmDoc 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 Also it is meant to address an inherent conflict of interest. After all, a broker would benefit most from selling high-commission products, regardless of performance and risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 Donald was referring to unreported terror attacks like the Bowling Green Massacre that occurred in Kellyanne Conway's mind, which the media and, possibly, Kellyanne didn't and doesn't have access to. On events entirely in Conway's and Trump's world of imagination, I think we can forgive the media for not reporting fake news--which is something the Donald really hates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 No, I don't want the government controlling what my money is invested in via regulation of investment firms. What gives the government the right to tell me how much risk I take with my retirement accounts? Isn't the money I invest mine, and can't I choose to invest it however and with whomever I choose? So if my options are limited by government regulation based on a government imposed fiduciary rule, can I sue my investment managers for not taking enough risk and thereby not making me enough money? The upshot of this mentality is that anyone who isn't you can go fuck themselves. It's not conducive to the mechanics of a modern society, not to mention it's just horribly un-human to assume that only your little circle is worthy. Glad most of us matured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 (edited) It's not even that, Phi. It's the twisted logic used to suggest this is about government limiting his investment choices instead of being about preventing banks from selling snake oil to people (or from being able to borrow forty times more than their equity warrants / over leverage in the extreme). The hatred of "government" is so overwhelming that the real and present danger of the bankers gambling with his money gets completely ignored. He's done well, so understandable this is less pressing of an issue (though, perhaps had we had this conversation in 2009 the idea of protecting peoples savings would be more warmly received). It's those who are largely helpless (the elderly, the poor, the less educated) that I'd like to ensure have some help. When everything and anything in any way even remotely associated with the government is an evil to be eradicated, though, it's challenging to even begin the discussion. More in common than not. Always and forever, no matter what they say. We're more alike than dissimilar, and that will remain true regardless of what wedges are driven between us for control. Edited February 7, 2017 by iNow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waitforufo Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 (edited) The upshot of this mentality is that anyone who isn't you can go fuck themselves. It's not conducive to the mechanics of a modern society, not to mention it's just horribly un-human to assume that only your little circle is worthy. Glad most of us matured. Well, maybe you want the government tucking you in at night, placing a kiss on your forehead, and telling you everything will be just fine, but I'll keep my liberty thank you. By the way the banking problems we had were caused by government lowering lending standards and then driving those standards through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Ask Maxine Waters. By the way, let's talk again about how you feel about government after eight years of Trump. Edited February 7, 2017 by waitforufo -4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 Well, maybe you want the government tucking you in at night, placing a kiss on your forehead, and telling you everything will be just fine, but I'll keep my liberty thank you. The government is just a tool, hopefully one crafted for the job of aiding the prosperity of its citizens. If you think government is for taking away everyone's aches and pains, its because that's what your party has tried to make it so they can ridicule it. Personally, I'd like to see our government do all it can to promote fair practices in all facets of life (if you're against this, let me know). Most of our consumer laws are trying to raise us above the barbarity of caveat emptor, since we are a specialized society and not everyone can study investments or finances or law. You make it sound like we're children for wanting protection from predatory business practices. Do you feel the same way about the police, that they're unnecessary, you don't need them to hold your hand, you'll take care of the bad guys with your guns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 (edited) By the way the banking problems we had were caused by government lowering lending standards and then driving those standards through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.Nope. Not. Even. Close:http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/62828-how-do-you-disprove-an-economic-theory/page-2#entry650976 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/62828-how-do-you-disprove-an-economic-theory/page-3#entry651695 Wasn't true ten years ago, wasn't true five years ago, and isn't true now. Edited February 7, 2017 by iNow 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 The Massacre That Wasnt, and a Turning Point for Fake News@NYT ... Yet by the end of the weekend, it was Ms. Conways credibility that was receiving the most scrutiny (which she described as unfair and coming from a lot of the haters in her interview with Mr. Kurtz). Some, like the New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen, were calling upon the television networks to stop booking her. And CNN declined to have her as a guest on Sunday in part because the Trump administration offered her in lieu of Vice President Mike Pence, but also because of what the network told me were serious questions about her credibility. ... Real Fake News >> White House Announces Super Bowl Pre-Game Show Will Feature Tribute To Bowling Green Massacre Victims 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrmDoc Posted February 7, 2017 Author Share Posted February 7, 2017 (edited) Well, maybe you want the government tucking you in at night, placing a kiss on your forehead, and telling you everything will be just fine, but I'll keep my liberty thank you. By the way the banking problems we had were caused by government lowering lending standards and then driving those standards through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Ask Maxine Waters. By the way, let's talk again about how you feel about government after eight years of Trump. Really? Just how much is the Trump administration paying you to spew this alt-fact? I defer you to iNow's post for real facts. Edited February 7, 2017 by DrmDoc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 WASHINGTON — While President Trump is promising to launch an investigation into his belief that millions of illegal ballots were cast in 2016, the Republican-led House Administration Committee voted Tuesday to shut down the federal agency set up to help states improve their election systems. Rep. Gregg Harper, R-Miss., chairman of the House Administration Committee, said the Election Assistance Commission has “outlived" his usefulness. "It is time for the EAC to be officially ended," said Harper. "We don’t need fluff." http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/07/house-panel-votes-close-election-assistance-commission/97603326/ So at the same time the President claims there was millions of cases of voter fraud which led to a historic popular vote loss for the winning candidate his party removes the infstructure meant to ensure fair elections. In my opinion this is an assualt on democracy. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 White House press secretary Sean Spicer has repeatedly pointed to Atlanta, along with San Bernardino and Boston, as one of three U.S. cities that have been attacked by Islamist terrorists to argue that the Trump administration needed to act quickly to prevent another attack in the future. While the Boston bombing and shootings in San Bernadino were both carried out by Islamist terrorists, neither involved foreign nationals from the seven countries in Trump’s executive order. There has never been an Islamist terror attack in Atlanta. Source I have absolutely no idea whether that is strategy or incompetence. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrmDoc Posted February 8, 2017 Author Share Posted February 8, 2017 Source I have absolutely no idea whether that is strategy or incompetence. My money's on incompetence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 They're not mutually exclusive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 (edited) It is almost as if the administration is operating in an alternative world1 and are trying to merge it with the real world just by willpower. Considering what an hellscape the other world is, I'd rather not have them succeed. What does worry me is if their policy is based on the events of the other world. (1 You know, the one where there is American Carnage TM with ever increasing crime (black as well as various other darker hues), murder (ditto), terrorism (brown), job stealers (yellow I guess? but not orange. Orange is good) as well as a very successful Trump empire that never made debts as the released tax returns show). Edited February 8, 2017 by CharonY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 I have absolutely no idea whether that is strategy or incompetence. Think about who they're after with this kind of stuff. They have their base well in hand. The folks they want are the ones who're leaning their way. If a leaner checks out these stories, he finds out Atlanta was untrue, but that actually makes him convinced now that since Boston and San Bernadino were true then something needs to be done about them. It's a tactic that helps confirm biases already present, stapling them together in the leaner's mind with whatever the administration is calling for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 (edited) To be honest, I don't get that. They could as easily stick to the two actual attacks and just ignore the fact that the travel ban would have made no difference. Just adding a made-up story does not (in mind) strengthen the argument at all. Think about who they're after with this kind of stuff. They have their base well in hand. The folks they want are the ones who're leaning their way. If a leaner checks out these stories, he finds out Atlanta was untrue, but that actually makes him convinced now that since Boston and San Bernadino were true then something needs to be done about them. It's a tactic that helps confirm biases already present, stapling them together in the leaner's mind with whatever the administration is calling for. Edit: as it turns out it appears to be incompetence (or claimed as such). Spicer "clearly meant Orlando." Edited February 9, 2017 by CharonY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now