-
Comment -
Serious? Well most still believe in the idiotic paradigm thats presented to them on how government works for one. Two, Donald will be no different than any other president youve known, that is a fact. The presentation only differs not the results. Three, in reality, many people dont realize how much the so-called elected president's hands are tied and how people are chosen for him, which makes him nothing but a puppet. Anyway people are just stupid, we are talking presidents here, in a real world, even though we dont live in one, the very notion of wanting a reality tv personality whose interest has never been the interests of unelite people such as we, to be the face of their country is insane.Comment -
-
Unless there was a complete overthrow and revolution the presidency will never go to a independence or libertarian. I'm sorry it won't happen. Trust me bro I can see threw all the bull shit...I'm not some Fox News sheep. I just can't stand the progressive left. I realize it's all mostly fuked.Comment -
I'm embarrassed that on a GAMBLING FORUM, there are so many cucks and pussies here. It's sickening. All of you beta pussy lazy socialist pajama men, please leave. There's a million other places on the internet to whine about being a loser.Comment -
I agree, it will never happen. Thats another thing, theyve tricked regular pubs, good people like yourself, into thinking the things you see on tv is the progressive left. Its all crooked mirrors strung along the halls of the funhouse theyve created. People in control are fascists, have been since day one. All through history leftists movements have been crushed by them in a variety of ways. Theyve long attached blatantly wrong ideas to liberalists to trick people. Look up the meaning, the things you see on tv arnt and portrayed isnt about being liberal. Theyve hijacked it and sent useful idiots forth to smear it. These are old common tricks the average citizen knows nothing about. Theyve blinded people to what really is the issue and that is and has always been those oligarchists, those ultra elitest who want to control vs. the average citizen. In order to reduce and control you manipulation is needed via division. Here is what liberalism means
Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democraticsocieties, secular governments, gender equality, and international cooperation
Its basic human decency, gender equality is about respecting male and female in the workplace as far as wages are concerned and publicly, not gender bender or trannies or nothing like that. I could go on and on and about every other citizen idea theyve hijacked, but thats one way how people are conned.Comment -
Dude I just call it that true liberals are not around. I'm very awake bro. I see the readings of people like William cooper and many others I understand what's going on. I honestly believe trump has americas best intentions at heart but he can't deliver it's impossible...same reason why someone like Ron Paul never had a chance and never will. SadComment -
All administrations are Pro Establishment...
Trump got elected for his promise to be anti establishment by draining the "swamp" as he put it..
Not only is Trump Pro Establishment he is adding Super Gators to this swamp establishment.
No other presidents ever campaigned on this.......Comment -
you clearly forgot who won last November.
you don't even know the first time he used the saying lol That is not why he got elected. Only pos lie, are you a pos pauly?
wrong, he is actually doing EXACTLY the opposite of what the establishment want and that is undeniable especially when you factor in his appointments to certain positions like supreme court, education and EPA. Why do you lie or would you like to admit your ignorance?
well, since you missed the first three I'll be generous and say you're right that no other president campaigned like trump.
but 1/4 is not good pauly, you're going down hill fast. Trend can not be denied.Last edited by brooks85; 07-17-17, 09:29 AM.Comment -
you got brutalized pauly and it will only get worse the more you post BS.
You're either a lying sack of shit or an ignorant, naive, sheep.
are you smart enough to know which one to admit to?Comment -
it's idiots like d2 and thread starter that don't understand even the basics of economics, the stock market or anything about the business world. Their level of understanding begins and ends with supply and demand, something children understand. They think any ex-GS employee is a conspiracy while anyone in the know, like myself, knows being an ex-GS is a dime a dozen lolComment -
FINANCIAL ADVISERS WANT TO RIP OFF SMALL INVESTORS. TRUMP WANTS TO HELP THEM DO IT.
ONE OF THE most important investor protections in decades took effect on June 9. The new rule, issued by the Department of Labor, sets in motion a seemingly commonsense requirement that those who advise on retirement investments must put their clients’ interests ahead of their own. Yet it marks a revolution in retirement security, the result of an epic seven-year battle between consumer advocates and the financial industry that sunk millions of dollars into white shoe lobbying firms, industry-sponsored studies, congressional campaign contributions, and major lawsuits in an effort to block the rule.
“Investment advisers shouldn’t be able to steer retirees, workers, small businesses, and others into investments that benefit the advisers at the expense of their clients,” Assistant Labor Secretary Phyllis Borzi, who developed the rule, said in 2011. “The consumer’s retirement security must come first.”
The rule, finalized in April 2016, was scheduled to take effect a year later in order to give firms time to comply. It only survived till now thanks to a veto by President Obama of legislation that would have permanently blocked its implementation; Rep. Paul Ryan, who led the charge in Congress, had tarred the rule as “Obamacare for financial planning.”
Since the rule was already final when President Trump took office, it was invulnerable to his day one directive freezing all pending rule making. Nevertheless, within two weeks Trump signed a memo directing the DOL to review the rule and potentially rescind it. In March, before Trump’s labor secretary had even been confirmed, the Department of Labor issued a proposed rule delaying implementation for 60 days — bringing us to June 9 of this year.
In April, Sen. Elizabeth Warren joined consumer groups and the AFL-CIO to unveil a “Retirement Ripoff Counter,” a digital projection tallying the costs to retirement savers of delaying implementation of the rule — which they calculated at $46 million a day. And in late May, Alexander Acosta, Trump’s newly minted labor secretary, announced in the pages of the Wall Street Journal that the administration had exhausted every “principled legal basis” for further delaying the rule. And so it was that key portions of the fiduciary rule finally went into effect last month.
Whether the rule will survive the Trump administration’s deregulatory campaign is an open question.
Comment -
lol good idea pauly, if I was you I'd ignore me too. At least you know when you're outmatched you liar.Comment -
FINANCIAL ADVISERS WANT TO RIP OFF SMALL INVESTORS. TRUMP WANTS TO HELP THEM DO IT.
ONE OF THE most important investor protections in decades took effect on June 9. The new rule, issued by the Department of Labor, sets in motion a seemingly commonsense requirement that those who advise on retirement investments must put their clients’ interests ahead of their own. Yet it marks a revolution in retirement security, the result of an epic seven-year battle between consumer advocates and the financial industry that sunk millions of dollars into white shoe lobbying firms, industry-sponsored studies, congressional campaign contributions, and major lawsuits in an effort to block the rule.
“Investment advisers shouldn’t be able to steer retirees, workers, small businesses, and others into investments that benefit the advisers at the expense of their clients,” Assistant Labor Secretary Phyllis Borzi, who developed the rule, said in 2011. “The consumer’s retirement security must come first.”
The rule, finalized in April 2016, was scheduled to take effect a year later in order to give firms time to comply. It only survived till now thanks to a veto by President Obama of legislation that would have permanently blocked its implementation; Rep. Paul Ryan, who led the charge in Congress, had tarred the rule as “Obamacare for financial planning.”
Since the rule was already final when President Trump took office, it was invulnerable to his day one directive freezing all pending rule making. Nevertheless, within two weeks Trump signed a memo directing the DOL to review the rule and potentially rescind it. In March, before Trump’s labor secretary had even been confirmed, the Department of Labor issued a proposed rule delaying implementation for 60 days — bringing us to June 9 of this year.
In April, Sen. Elizabeth Warren joined consumer groups and the AFL-CIO to unveil a “Retirement Ripoff Counter,” a digital projection tallying the costs to retirement savers of delaying implementation of the rule — which they calculated at $46 million a day. And in late May, Alexander Acosta, Trump’s newly minted labor secretary, announced in the pages of the Wall Street Journal that the administration had exhausted every “principled legal basis” for further delaying the rule. And so it was that key portions of the fiduciary rule finally went into effect last month.
Whether the rule will survive the Trump administration’s deregulatory campaign is an open question.
lol people in the business and investing world actually know this is a crock of shit and actually hurts investing for the small guy. Fact.
pauly, you really are a sheep. Hilarious how you think the government can fix everything with words on a paper lol.. sheep.Last edited by brooks85; 07-17-17, 10:05 AM.Comment -
MARYLAND DEMOCRAT RUNNING FOR GOVERNOR WANTS INVESTORS TO FUND CHILD CARE. EXPERTS ARE SKEPTICAL.
POLITICIANS FOR DECADES have been calling for the nation to invest in its children. Now one politician wants to turn that metaphor into a genuine financial product.
Alec Ross, a former Obama State Department official running for the Democratic nomination for governor in Maryland, recently released a complex proposal to expand child care in Maryland, likening child care to college tuition, noting that both are significant costs for American families. Because the problem is similar, the campaign argues, the solution should be as well.
Ross’s campaign proposes establishing “a public-private Child Care Equity Fund” which “will be based on innovative solutions to the expanding student loan crisis” — namely, income-sharing agreements (ISAs). ISAs have been used in a handful of pilot projects as a replacement for traditional student loans. The way they work is that an investor subsidizes a student’s tuition costs; the student then agrees to pay a portion of their future income back over a set period of time. Purdue University teamed up with private investment firms to start offering ISAs in the 2016-2017 academic year.
Ross’s proposal would bring the ISA model to childcare. The state of Maryland would partner with private investors to create a Child Care Equity Fund that would, like ISAs, help subsidize child care under the condition that families would pay back the funds as a portion of their income.
The Ross campaign makes pains to distinguish this proposal from that of a simple loan. “The central idea is to shift away from loan based finances to a system [of] equity based financing,” its white paper reads. But that may be a tough sell for a model that requires parents to pay back child care costs to the state and private investors.
In interviews with The Intercept, economists and child care experts were skeptical of the program. Some, like Larry Polivka, who directs the Claude Pepper Center at Florida State University, worried that applying the ISA model to childcare would be akin to opening up child care financing to profiteering from Wall Street.
“It’s another way of allowing the financial sector to benefit at the expense of ordinary households,” he said. “It’s just another way to let most of the financial camel into the tent in place of publicly funding programs that should be funded primarily through tax dollars.”
He also didn’t buy the idea that the proposal isn’t a form of loan. “This is a more flexible, in that sense, less burdensome credit arrangement on family. I don’t see that as a qualitative distinction from an ordinary loan arrangement,” he said. “Somebody can point it out, but I don’t see it in the white paper.”
Sandra Black, an economist at UT Austin who served on the Council of Economic Advisers between 2015-2017, was generally supportive of the ISA concept for higher education, but did not see it neatly translating to childcare.
“I think moving toward an income-based repayment system is a much better place than where we currently are where you’re paying set payments over time,” she said of the ISA system for college tuition.
“Here [in the Ross proposal], you’re making an investment in very small children which I think is a very good investment to make, but the children aren’t going to see the return of that in terms of money for many, many years,” she noted. “So they’re not the ones who are paying back in an investment to them. It’s a little bit of a false comparison in my mind.”
The white paper states that “once it gains a healthy base of investment and return, the Fund will enter a virtuous cycle, not only becoming sustainable from payback income but also attracting more capital investors with the promise of reliable returns with a defined risk profile.”
Black was skeptical of the premise that the fund could be truly self-sustainable. She pointed out that in similar investment arrangements in the private sector, the market would simply risk adjust by charging poor people higher interest rates.
“If they think this is going to run at a profit, or some reasonable return, I don’t understand how that is going to work,” she concluded. “If you’re not charging interest and you’re giving this to low income people, its very hard to think about how the numbers will work if this is going to be a profit making proposal.”
Finally, she was concerned that the proposal as it stands would benefit middle class families more than low-income ones because the proposal aims to cover fifty percent of families’ childcare costs. “You’re low-income 50 percent might not be enough to make it affordable,” she said. “In which case the subsidy will be towards higher income people. If you cant afford 50 percent out of pocket then this isn’t going to help you.”
Daniel Ensign, a spokesperson for the campaign, told The Intercept that the plan is far better than the status quo. “Currently, for the vast majority of Maryland households (outside of the very low income), there is zero support for child care — not from public or private sources,” he wrote in an email. “This plan doesn’t propose to privatize something that is currently publicly supported. This plan proposes to introduce a public-interest financing option where none at all exists today. For the public system that partially reimbursement [sic] costs for low-income households, we propose sustaining and expanding that program in Maryland separate from this equity Fund concept.”
Steven Teles, a political scientist at Johns Hopkins University, dubbed this type of policy approach “kludgy” in an essay in National Affairs. “The complexity and incoherence of our government often make it difficult for us to understand just what that government is doing, and among the practices it most frequently hides from view is the growing tendency of public policy to redistribute resources upward to the wealthy and the organized at the expense of the poorer and less organized,” he wrote.
Others welcomed the focus on making it easier for parents to afford childcare, but pointed out that it’s unclear whether the proposal would provide the funding necessary for the childcare to be of the right quality.
“It’s always good to hear that policymakers are taking the issue of affordable child care seriously, as this is one of the key challenges facing families and workers today,” Caitlyn McLean, who works at the University of California Berkeley’s Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, told The Intercept. “So Ross is spot-on in identifying the importance of ensuring equitable access to high-quality early care and education in Maryland.”
“However,” she cautioned, “the issue is not just how to make sure parents can afford early care and education, but also to make sure that it’s high-quality…there’s no indication that these loans will be enough to cover the high costs of quality services – skilled teachers, low staff-child ratios, etc. — which is also a problem with our current financing models.”
Comment -
lol so an obama lackey wants to send more kids to the sheep farm on tax dollars?... wow pauly... what a revelation...Comment -
Trump's angry "to" where exactly?Comment -
wrong, as usual d2 lying his ass off.
The stock market was up because of a collapse. Once it recovered it had completely stagnated and business confidence plummeted to record lows SOLELY because of obama and the prospects of a hillary win. We have seen the exact opposite with trump.
You liars never give up and I will not either when it comes to calling you on your BS.Comment -
I stated facts. You stated bullshit opinions not based on facts. The S&P 500 was up over 13% in 2016 prior to election day. What we've seen since then is simply a continuation of the bull market that has been in place since 2009. It will take a little while for Trump to fukk it up. My finger remains on the sell trigger. I'm getting closer.Comment -
you just can't stop lying. From late 2014 to nov 2016 the market did nothing but stagnation. Lying sack of shit.
Again, the FACTS show the market had stagnated and business confidence was at record lows SOLELY because of the obama administration and the expected hillary win.Last edited by brooks85; 07-17-17, 03:03 PM.Comment -
2015 was flat, so I guess you can cherry-pick 1 year out of 8. But late 2014 to nov 2016 was still up.
Your thinking that market activity and movement can ever be due SOLELY to politics or executive office policy just confirms what I and virtually everyone else here already knows about you: that you're a homeschooled fukking idiot who lives in your mother's basement.Comment -
Can you explain why it is "a crock of shit"? A concrete list would be nice instead of your standard sheep and dummy comments that prove nothing to the world other than you are an unoriginal waste of semen.
Like all things in life one should do their research and learn about things before investing their hard earned money with any individual or group.Comment -
I can prove you wrong like I just did.
Again, obama owned nothing from a manipulated recovery by the FED. Once that was over the market was faced with the reality of the worst president in history and the market reacted accordingly.
Again, you lied. You were caught. Just another day.Comment -
Who is this brooks guy??
For his sake, I hope he is just trolling..
If not, I pity the poor guy for all the eccentric,chemical fireworks going off in his head....Comment
He's angry too? The only thing he's angry about is his sorry golf game.