Welp...

 

You know the establishment fears trump when he proposes to completely deregulate Wall Street.  That sounds like a great idea!!!  

 

He sure is anti-establishment.  In reality, his new economic plan is more trickle down economics.  There's nothing new or anti-establishment here.  This is the GOP's playbook.  No regulations,supply-side economics.  Great news for the rich, same old garbage for us working clash folks.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articl...egulations

---

I have seen this before. Just... Can't... Remember... Where...

---

The Big Short.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

Welp...

 

You know the establishment fears trump when he proposes to completely deregulate Wall Street.  That sounds like a great idea!!!  

 

He sure is anti-establishment.  In reality, his new economic plan is more trickle down economics.  There's nothing new or anti-establishment here.  This is the GOP's playbook.  No regulations,supply-side economics.  Great news for the rich, same old garbage for us working clash folks.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articl...egulations

 

It was like he was simply handed one of Paul Ryan's economic playbooks and read it word for word.

---

;

;

Welp...

 

You know the establishment fears trump when he proposes to completely deregulate Wall Street.  That sounds like a great idea!!!  

 

He sure is anti-establishment.  In reality, his new economic plan is more trickle down economics.  There's nothing new or anti-establishment here.  This is the GOP's playbook.  No regulations,supply-side economics.  Great news for the rich, same old garbage for us working clash folks.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articl...egulations

 

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.

---

It was like he was simply handed one of Paul Ryan's economic playbooks and read it word for word.

 

Paul Ryan is open borders and pro-TPP

---

Its shameful really. Most of the massive financial institutions that the left rails against were merged with the direct approval of the Clinton treasury department. Jamie dimon (the guy who basically invented the credit default swap) is still a major Hillary donor. Jeff immelt who helped sink ge with their cds involvement was on obamas jobs council. Fannie Mae (another failure from the Roosevelt coalition) was run into the abyss by the former head of the Clinton OMB.


The morale hazard of incest between big banks and the politicians they buy coupled with the inherent economic illiteracy of the central pricing of risk caused 08.

---

i like how the article says, "After Trump SAYS Hillary is owned by Wall-Street..." as if it's merely an accusation and not verifiable fact.

---

There's no question she is owned by Wall Street, lock, stock, and barrel.  Those on the board who were feeling the Bern are trying desperately to change the tune they're singing now that they're all in for Hillary, but Sanders was actually right about how deeply invested Wall Street is in getting a Clinton in the White House.  There's a reason she continues to refuse to release the transcripts of her paid speeches before the very same evil Wall Street banks that she vilifies in speeches now.  They are financing her campaign.  Those transcripts would reveal that what she says to the lemmings is not what she's saying to Wall Street behind closed doors.  There's a wink and a nod agreement here, but she's bought and paid for like a prominent NASCAR driver.

---

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

I'm under the impression that these "speeches" dont even take place.  They are simply a cover for bribes.

---

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.

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.


This is a fact that one cannot dispute. If anyone is truly sick of the establishment, then trump's speech on Monday should worry you. He's basically sold us out to the establishment and the wealthy.


The idea of collapsing free trade would have no effect on the fact that trickle down economics doesn't work. I'm sorry, badger, but I just don't see it, other than wishful thinking.

---

Its shameful really. Most of the massive financial institutions that the left rails against were merged with the direct approval of the Clinton treasury department. Jamie dimon (the guy who basically invented the credit default swap) is still a major Hillary donor. Jeff immelt who helped sink ge with their cds involvement was on obamas jobs council. Fannie Mae (another failure from the Roosevelt coalition) was run into the abyss by the former head of the Clinton OMB.


The morale hazard of incest between big banks and the politicians they buy coupled with the inherent economic illiteracy of the central pricing of risk caused 08.

So what's the republican solution?


Look, there's no doubt that Clinton lauded the boom of the nineties and he signed the laws that have created this mess. But these laws have the finger prints of the Heritage foundation all over them. These laws were passed by a republican congress for crying out loud. True democrats voted against it... Clinton obviously isn't a true democrat, he's a moderate corporate republican.


True democrats like Bernie Sanders have been trying to get enough attention to reign in wall street and corporate corruption along with the oligarchy that is destroying the middle class.


What have the republicans, any of them, offered up? They want continued deregulation and continued free trade. They have no answers than more of the same.


The real shameful part is that we all see the problem, and we wound up with a billionaire that has no intention of changing the system that made him wealthy and an establishment politician that is giving lip service but probably will maintain the status quo.


Progressive democrats are the only ones that speak about this issue and offer alternatives. Unless you know of any republicans... do you?

---

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.


This is a fact that one cannot dispute. If anyone is truly sick of the establishment, then trump's speech on Monday should worry you. He's basically sold us out to the establishment and the wealthy.


The idea of collapsing free trade would have no effect on the fact that trickle down economics doesn't work. I'm sorry, badger, but I just don't see it, other than wishful thinking.

 

I understand, but there needs to be some kind of financial benefit of big business providing jobs in this country vs overseas.  otherwise they will just continue to produce cheaply over there and sell high here

---

Welp...

 

You know the establishment fears trump when he proposes to completely deregulate Wall Street.  That sounds like a great idea!!!  

 

He sure is anti-establishment.  In reality, his new economic plan is more trickle down economics.  There's nothing new or anti-establishment here.  This is the GOP's playbook.  No regulations,supply-side economics.  Great news for the rich, same old garbage for us working clash folks.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articl...egulations

 

The title of this thread is so misleading.  Did you even read the article that you linked?

 

A temporary moratorium on new financial regulations != a ban on all financial regulations.

 

Also from the article that you linked.

 

The Republican presidential nominee’s speech will focus on providing regulatory relief for small businesses, according to senior campaign aides familiar with its contents. More broadly, Trump will say he will not propose any new financial regulations until the economy shows “significant growth,”
the aides said. Trump has previously said he would repeal and replace the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act.

---

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

So where is the OP?   :whistling:

 

Probably fabricating another misleading headline taking it in his dream "context".

---

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

So where is the OP? :whistling:


Probably fabricating another misleading headline taking it in his dream "context".

Look here, gramps... I sometimes have stuff to do.


As for your critique a temporary ban on regulations is still a ban, is it not???


And it's still not a smart idea.

---

I understand, but there needs to be some kind of financial benefit of big business providing jobs in this country vs overseas. otherwise they will just continue to produce cheaply over there and sell high here

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.

---

Look here, gramps... I sometimes have stuff to do.


As for your critique a temporary ban on regulations is still a ban, is it not???


And it's still not a smart idea.

 

LOL.  I figured that you would try to justify it somehow.  Is a temporary ban a ban on ALL financial regulation?  Is that what the article says?

 

Just admit it, it's a misleading title and your OP is also misleading.  I didn't see anywhere in the article where he "proposes to completely deregulate Wall Street" (your words not mine).

 

I get it.  It's what liberals do.

---

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

LOL. I figured that you would try to justify it somehow. Is a temporary ban a ban on ALL financial regulation? Is that what the article says?


Just admit it, it's a misleading title and your OP is also misleading. I didn't see anywhere in the article where he "proposes to completely deregulate Wall Street" (your words not mine).


I get it. It's what liberals do.

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. 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.

 

Hyperbole in my thread title?

 

It's more likely than you think!

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato