It's a little misleading. But you should know I like hyperbolic titles for my threads.


I had a feeling either you, flsprt, or jt$ would catch it.


But it's typical of you conned-servatives to deflect the main point.

 

It's a little misleading?  LOL.  Is that the same as being a "little bit pregnant"?

 

So what is your main point that I'm supposedly deflecting from?  Your topic title says that "Trump wants to ban all financial regulation".  That is completely FALSE.

 

Your OP says that "he proposes to completely deregulate Wall Street" and based on the link that you provided that is completely FALSE.

 

So where am I deflecting?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

There should be a carrot and stick approach. There should be incentives to bring businesses back to the usa and tax increases for those corporations that are dodging the USA out of taxes with these corporate inversions and outsourcing.

 

Oh, you mean like a tariff?

---

It's a little misleading. But you should know I like hyperbolic titles for my threads.


I had a feeling either you, flsprt, or jt$ would catch it.


But it's typical of you conned-servatives to deflect the main point.

It's a little misleading?  LOL.  Is that the same as being a "little bit pregnant"?

 

So what is your main point that I'm supposedly deflecting from?  Your topic title says that "Trump wants to ban all financial regulation".  That is completely FALSE.

 

Your OP says that "he proposes to completely deregulate Wall Street" and based on the link that you provided that is completely FALSE.

 

So where am I deflecting?

 

So where did mister "made-up deflection" Anchor boy go?   :whistling:

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I think the idea is to create a business friendly environment. This by itself is the establishment playbook, but coupled with an anti-trade agreement stance (non-establishment stance), maybe it would work. I would hope the idea is to remove the benefit of foreign factories with slave labor wages and increase benefit of factories returning to this country.

You know that's never going to happen right? People buy from China and overseas with a click of the button and an address!


It's like everybody thinks we can go back to 1950.


So is it safe to assume conservatives are Pro-Union now? Going to return all the factory jobs with 25/HR gigs?

---

So where did mister "made-up deflection" Anchor boy go? :whistling:

I didn't think I had to spell it out for you, but looks like too much Sean Hannity has made your mind into mush.


Here's a slow pitch, choke up on the bat, keep your eye on the ball, and swing through...


Is the GOP play book getting rid of regulations and supply side economics?

---

I didn't think I had to spell it out for you, but looks like too much Sean Hannity has made your mind into mush.


Here's a slow pitch, choke up on the bat, keep your eye on the ball, and swing through...


Is the GOP play book getting rid of regulations and supply side economics?

 

Limited government intervention and lower taxes has been a cornerstone of the conservative platform for pretty much the past 50 years.  It's not "getting rid of" all regulations.  Simplification is certainly warranted.  I read somewhere the added regulations this president has hoisted upon us by royal decree are costing this country an extra $100 million per year in taxpayer dollars to enforce more than 600 new regulations he has put in place.  The quagmire of legalese that someone looking to start a new business has to contend with makes it almost impossible for someone to forge on depending on the industry they're getting into, the biggest of these penalties being the Obamacare mandate.

 

The amount of red tape this administration has created is hardly business friendly....unless you happen to be a green company.

 

There are always going to need to be sensible regulations, but this administration has used them as a weapon to punish industries they want nothing to do with.  It's funny listening to the pantsuit princess in her shrill yelling way telling coal miners in West Virginia she's there for them as they're seeing their industry completely vanish thanks to policies she supports. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Oh, you mean like a tariff?

TAM is turning into a little Trumpster. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I didn't think I had to spell it out for you, but looks like too much Sean Hannity has made your mind into mush.


Here's a slow pitch, choke up on the bat, keep your eye on the ball, and swing through...


Is the GOP play book getting rid of regulations and supply side economics?

 

I'll type this slowly so that perhaps you can read it a little bit more clearly.  I'll even try to use smaller and simpler words.

 

You made this thread with the headline proclaiming that "Trump proposes a ban on all financial regulation".  That has been called out by me as being not only FALSE, but also misleading.

 

You stated that "it's a little misleading" and I asked you if it's the same thing as being "a little bit pregnant".

 

In your OP you stated that "Trump wants to completely deregulate Wall Street".  I used the link to the article that you provided to see what your justification for that comment was, and couldn't find anything that would lead anyone rational to agree with your statement.

 

You then tell me that I'm "deflecting" from the topic.

 

Your answer is then some babble about Sean Hannity and the "GOP playbook".

 

You're using the classic liberal tactic(s) of misleading then changing the topic.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Now TAM, if you want to debate economics, we can take a look at what the article that you posted really states.

 

First of all, Donald Trump is proposing a temporary moratorium and will not propose new financial regulations until the economy shows significant growth.  To me that's a positive.  Contrary to what most of the liberal media says, the economy is in pretty bad shape right now.

 

He is proposing regulatory relief for small businesses.  That's a good thing since small business is a huge factor in our economy.

 

He is proposing repealing the estate tax (death tax) which in my mind is a good thing.  Heirs inheriting a deceased family member's assets shouldn't have to give up nearly half of the value.

 

He's calling for the elimination of special tax treatment for carried-interest income at private-equity firms and other investment firms.  That's a good thing and also happens to be what Hillary is for.

 

He is opposed to the TPP which if I recall correctly you also oppose.

 

If you bother to read the actual article that you linked in your OP, it actually makes a lot more sense than what Hillary proposes.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I hear this term, business friendly environment, alot. It's a crock. Lowering the tax rate on a business sounds great in theory. It's been proven over 3 decades to be total hogwash. A lower tax rate is pocketed by the elite and then distributed back to themselves in the form of dividends.

 

That would be the immediate effect. In the long term, prices would come down. If you look at the trend, most large businesses operate on a 8-10% profit range, no matter what the tax is. Corporations don't pay a tax. Customers pay the tax through increased prices.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

@JIB

 

Oh hey!

 

I knew that if I just ignored your ignorance of my actual original post you'd get back on topic of the OP.  

 

Let's take it one issue at a time...

 

Since it's my thread, I'll choose the issue that you brought up to discuss:

 

I'm gonna start with the second point you brought up:  

 

"He is proposing regulatory relief for small businesses.  That's a good thing since small business is a huge factor in our economy." (Quoted from JIB's post)

 

I expect you to answer this specific point before we move on to the next point.  If you try to deflect from this point I will point it out and expect you to either respond with a logical reason for it, or concede and move on to the next point that I get to choose from the list you provided.  (Of course you can ignore all this an start another thread to moderate your own positions, but I would consider that a punk move if you just run away from this discussion).

 

So here we go:

 

Your statement (as a reminder)  He is proposing regulatory relief for small businesses.  That's a good thing since small business is a huge factor in our economy.

 

My response:

What regulatory relief for small businesses do you think will help small business?  Is there a specific regulation that kills small businesses from being successfull?  If so, which one is it that trump is planning on repealing? 

 

Now, I know you think us liberals don't know anything about business...  But as someone within the industry of legislation and state and federal taxation, I will submit to you that there is no regulation that hinders small business more than the Conned-servative business plan that focuses on oligopolies.  

 

For instance, if you allow large businesses that have a high market share within an industry to merge, you are excluding small business from entering the market. That's the law of economy of scale.  So actually, the better thing to do would be to uphold regulations like anti-trust acts and make sure monopolies and oligopolies are not created.

 

Do you think that there is a specific liberal law that destroys small business?  If so, please inform me.  Otherwise, you must concede that small business are not hindered by regulations other than the deregulation that has allowed for markets to be controlled by monopolies and oligopolies.

---

@JIB

 

Oh hey!

 

I knew that if I just ignored
your ignorance of my actual original post you'd get back on topic of the OP the fact that my topic title and OP were false and misleading I could somehow steer the debate in a different direction
.  

 

Let's take it one issue at a time...

 

Since it's my thread, I'll choose the issue that you brought up to discuss:

 

I'm gonna start with the second point you brought up:  

 

"He is proposing regulatory relief for small businesses.  That's a good thing since small business is a huge factor in our economy." (Quoted from JIB's post)

 

I expect you to answer this specific point before we move on to the next point.  If you try to deflect from this point I will point it out and expect you to either respond with a logical reason for it, or concede and move on to the next point that I get to choose from the list you provided.  (Of course you can ignore all this an start another thread to moderate your own positions, but I would consider that a punk move if you just run away from this discussion).

 

So here we go:

 

Your statement (as a reminder)  He is proposing regulatory relief for small businesses.  That's a good thing since small business is a huge factor in our economy.

 

My response:

What regulatory relief for small businesses do you think will help small business?  Is there a specific regulation that kills small businesses from being successfull?  If so, which one is it that trump is planning on repealing? 

 

Now, I know you think us liberals don't know anything about business...  But as someone within the industry of legislation and state and federal taxation, I will submit to you that there is no regulation that hinders small business more than the Conned-servative business plan that focuses on oligopolies.  

 

For instance, if you allow large businesses that have a high market share within an industry to merge, you are excluding small business from entering the market. That's the law of economy of scale.  So actually, the better thing to do would be to uphold regulations like anti-trust acts and make sure monopolies and oligopolies are not created.

 

Do you think that there is a specific liberal law that destroys small business?  If so, please inform me.  Otherwise, you must concede that small business are not hindered by regulations other than the deregulation that has allowed for markets to be controlled by monopolies and oligopolies.

 

I fixed your post that I quoted for you.

 

As far as regulation towards small business, a good start is the extra burden placed on small businesses when it comes to filing taxes.  Incidentally these regulations were part of Obamacare.

 

Also, here is a nice summary that outlines how government regulation hurts/hinders small business.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I fixed your post that I quoted for you.

 

As far as regulation towards small business, a good start is the extra burden placed on small businesses when it comes to filing taxes.  Incidentally these regulations were part of Obamacare.

 

Also, here is a nice summary that outlines how government regulation hurts/hinders small business.

 

Oh please, those regulations are not killing small businesses!!  It may be a little extra paperwork but no businessman I've dealt with ever said these filing requirements are making them un-competitive.  That's total hogwash.  The paper work is an added expense at most, but to think that additional paper work (which only occurs after you have 50 employees) is causing harm to small businesses is just not true---  And really lazy economics!!!

 

From a micro economic and macro economic standpoint, the problem small businesses have, as I said earlier, is that deregulation has created oligopolies in almost every industry.  Do some reasearch on oligopolies.  Once a market/industry reaches this level, the squeeze on small companies pushes them out.

 

That's just the facts, friend.  If you want to whine and complain about paperwork, go for it.  But you don't understand businesses if you think that what makes or breaks a business is their federal filing requirements.  

---

Regulation and taxes CAUSE oligopolies. Only companies with inordinate pre-existing consumer bases have the gross revenue to meet the ever increasing cost of compliance. That's why big corporate entities love regulations, to put their competitors out of business.

---

Case and point on financial regulation, since Dodd frank etc. You have seen mostly community banks go under while those deemed to big to fail buy them up while being propped up through monetary and fiscal policy.


The nature of the market system is dynamic change over time. This is distorted when big companies buy the halls of congress to write rules excluding anyone but them from owning the means of production.

---

Oh please, those regulations are not killing small businesses!!  It may be a little extra paperwork but no businessman I've dealt with ever said these filing requirements are making them un-competitive.  That's total hogwash.  The paper work is an added expense at most, but to think that additional paper work (which only occurs after you have 50 employees) is causing harm to small businesses is just not true---  And really lazy economics!!!

 

From a micro economic and macro economic standpoint, the problem small businesses have, as I said earlier, is that deregulation has created oligopolies in almost every industry.  Do some reasearch on oligopolies.  Once a market/industry reaches this level, the squeeze on small companies pushes them out.

 

That's just the facts, friend.  If you want to whine and complain about paperwork, go for it.  But you don't understand businesses if you think that what makes or breaks a business is their federal filing requirements.  

 

Obviously you didn't read the links that I provided.  The part in bold, specifically the number of employees is simply not true.

 

 

Economists believe that regulation hurts small business in four ways. First, as Nicole and Mark Crain of Lafayette University explain, regulatory compliance exerts a disproportionately large burden on small companies because the fixed costs of adhering to rules can be spread out over more revenue in large firms than in small ones. Crain and Crain estimated the per employee cost of complying with Federal regulations at $10,585 for businesses with fewer than 20 employees but only $7,755 for businesses with more than 499 workers.

 

More from the article in the second link that I provided.

 

 

Fourth, new regulations often have unintended consequences. Consider the new health care law, which requires businesses to file 1099 forms for all payments to a single payee exceeding $600 per year beginning in 2012. The effort to increase health insurance coverage has resulted in an unrelated tax filing that imposes heavy compliance costs on small business owners, an outcome that even surprised many in Congress who voted to pass the law.

 

Face it.  Heavy federal regulation hurts small business.  Your misleading title says that Trump wants to "ban all financial regulation".  That's simply not true based on the article from YOUR OP.  I simply took a few bullet points out of the article that YOU POSTED to back your false claim
, and showed that there was nothing in there supporting neither the topic title, or the subject of YOUR OP (you know, your claim that Trump wants to completely deregulate Wall Street).

 

You accused me of deflecting from the subject of this thread, and once again I've done nothing of the sort.  You saw an opening to talk about one of the bullet points that I pointed out from the article that YOU POSTED to try to change the topic of conversation.  It has nothing to do with your OP.  I would call that a deflection.

 

The topic of this thread and YOUR OP is all about Donald Trump wanting to ban all financial regulation and completely deregulate Wall Street.  However, you have posted nothing to back your topic title up or your OP.

 

We could keep doing this, or you could concede the fact that your liberal talking point(s) (the topic title and your OP) are false.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Case and point on financial regulation, since Dodd frank etc. You have seen mostly community banks go under while those deemed to big to fail buy them up while being propped up through monetary and fiscal policy.


The nature of the market system is dynamic change over time. This is distorted when big companies buy the halls of congress to write rules excluding anyone but them from owning the means of production.

 

The nature of the market system, is to drive towards monopoly...  Bigger companies drive out competition or buy them out...  Sherman anti-trust and regulations similar to that that break up and disallow oligopoloy and monopoly is the solution.

---

Obviously you didn't read the links that I provided.  The part in bold, specifically the number of employees is simply not true.

 

More from the article in the second link that I provided.

 

Face it.  Heavy federal regulation hurts small business.  Your misleading title says that Trump wants to "ban all financial regulation".  That's simply not true based on the article from YOUR OP.  I simply took a few bullet points out of the article that YOU POSTED to back your false claim
, and showed that there was nothing in there supporting neither the topic title, or the subject of YOUR OP (you know, your claim that Trump wants to completely deregulate Wall Street).

 

You accused me of deflecting from the subject of this thread, and once again I've done nothing of the sort.  You saw an opening to talk about one of the bullet points that I pointed out from the article that YOU POSTED to try to change the topic of conversation.  It has nothing to do with your OP.  I would call that a deflection.

 

The topic of this thread and YOUR OP is all about Donald Trump wanting to ban all financial regulation and completely deregulate Wall Street.  However, you have posted nothing to back your topic title up or your OP.

 

We could keep doing this, or you could concede the fact that your liberal talking point(s) (the topic title and your OP) are false.

 

No I read it.  It's hogwash...  But that's just been my experience.  I guess if I didn't know any better I'd listen to that bogus article.  But whatever floats your boat.

 

You also need to go back an re-read the entire thread.  I already explained the purpose of my thread's title and the body of my OP is legit.  

---

No I read it.  It's hogwash...  But that's just been my experience.  I guess if I didn't know any better I'd listen to that bogus article.  But whatever floats your boat.

 

You also need to go back an re-read the entire thread.  I already explained the purpose of my thread's title and the body of my OP is legit.  

 

So it's my turn.

 

Explain how the evidence of this thread title and your OP is "legit".  I've seen nothing yet from you or anyone else in this thread that supports your claim that "Trump wants to ban all financial regulations" and your claim that "Trump wants to totally deregulate Wall Street".

 

Regarding the part in bold in your quote.  The "purpose" of the thread title and your OP is to spread false information.  You so far have provided no proof of your claims, and I've proved using your initial link that the article that you cited provides no proof of your claims.

 

So if you're going to start a thread with part of the title saying "Trump proposes a ban on all financial regulation" and in your OP state that "Trump wants to totally deregulate Wall Street", then back it up.

 

I'll wait.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Anything that ties a leash around Rich Cordray's neck and strangles whatever "authority" he claims out of him and his CFPB is good in my book.

---