Trump signs EO to begin the rollback of Dodd-Frank

[Original Mountaineer1]

I think this is the classic example of good intentions (more people owning homes) leading to disastrous results. I don't think libs are evil. I think they fervently believe that big government will cure lots of social ills. Big government then crafts legislation with good intentions but often with terrible consequences. Bush was a big culprit in this one as well (compassionate conservatism).

What I have learned is that individuals must take personal responsibility. They must make good decisions. Government, in trying to help them, actually ends up hurting them, creating dependency that is often passed down from generation to generation. I have seen this first hand in West Virginia. Generations of people on welfare, fully capable of working, but choosing not to. We naturally want to help those who can't help themselves. But for those that can, tough love is often the cure.

Look at the Welfare reform bill. It had a work requirement. Suddenly, those on welfare plummeted. They got jobs. They got skills. They were supporting themselves and there is great personal satisfaction in doing that. They became independent. They became contributing members of society. I think back to JFK's inauguration. "Ask now what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Be a positive force for your country. Do your part.

Dems have good intentions, for the most part. But their prescriptions often turn out very bad. The current Dem party has moved much too far to the left. Many, now have bad intentions which include things like taking away religious freedoms. I have read more and more articles on this topic and the writer's are actually scary in what they are suggesting. And as we have seen on campus, the First Amendment is in grave jeopardy on campuses. Frequently lead by faculty and administrators. Insane.

I thought this is the best post I've seen on this board in a while until the last paragraph. Anyone could take Trumps EOs and show how they only benefit his cronies and wealthy people. The EO on eliminating the fiduciary rule.......wtf? I resently revied how an online broker revamped their compensation structure by heavily incentivizing new money and new customer vs paying profit based on the investment product they chose for the customer...basically eliminating the brokers incentive to place people's money in high commission products like annuities. this firm didn't change the total comp of their sales force but it radically change the impact on the customer for the better. What was wrong with that? Eliminate the incentive to put a customer in the wrong investment seems good to most. Me and you might be able to choose the best investments for us. My wife makes over 100 k a year her profession and would have no clue how to manage an investment portfolio or realize when a broker is ripping her off.

I have said many times, regulations are generally reactions to bad behavior.

 

[Original Mountaineer1]

I concur. The essential fallacy of Governmental activism PAX is that it can alter human behavior outside of a person's willingness to change. Government operates by force, or pretends to be arbiter of good intentions, all the while disrespecting or not even recognizing the individual's ability to make decisions on their own. Or forcing them to make decisions against their will.

It's a fundamental flaw in all Government largess. Lack of trust in individuals. What you said about Welfare, what I mentioned in my previous post about the housing mess, the disaster we see in the ACA, and just about every other Government run initiative the results are always the same--unintended consequences that result from removing individual responsibility from the equation.

It's pattern easy to see if you sit on the Right as you and I do, but Leftists get violently angry when you suggest their good intentions have negative consequences such as you and I are describing. They never want to be judged on their results, only by their intentions.

However the results of their intentions usually always end up in disaster both for the individual and the Nation as a whole as they rob people's initiative, means, and ability to do for themselves what Government promises it can do better for them while leaving us with a massive pile of debt from their failures.

See your 2nd paragraph....lack of trust in individuals. See Bernie Madoff. See Countrywide Mortgage. See Wells Fargo. See British Petroleum. Without regulation, money is king and damn the little guy, employee, and customer. It is proven over and over.

 

[WVPATX]

I concur. The essential fallacy of Governmental activism PAX is that it can alter human behavior outside of a person's willingness to change. Government operates by force, or pretends to be arbiter of good intentions, all the while disrespecting or not even recognizing the individual's ability to make decisions on their own. Or forcing them to make decisions against their will.

It's a fundamental flaw in all Government largess. Lack of trust in individuals. What you said about Welfare, what I mentioned in my previous post about the housing mess, the disaster we see in the ACA, and just about every other Government run initiative the results are always the same--unintended consequences that result from removing individual responsibility from the equation.

It's pattern easy to see if you sit on the Right as you and I do, but Leftists get violently angry when you suggest their good intentions have negative consequences such as you and I are describing. They never want to be judged on their results, only by their intentions.

However the results of their intentions usually always end up in disaster both for the individual and the Nation as a whole as they rob people's initiative, means, and ability to do for themselves what Government promises it can do better for them while leaving us with a massive pile of debt from their failures.

Dennis Prager wrote a great book on this topic. He concluded that Dems want to FEEL good about what they enact. And the GOP wants to DO GOOD. There is a very big difference.

Our Founders were incredibly wise. They wanted a small central government with limited powers. They wanted the states, which are much closer to the people to have the most say in their lives. The reason is that they knew a central government is far removed from the people and that each state can and is very, very different. Different needs, different cultures, different attitudes, different problems, therefore different solutions. A huge central government simply can't get it right. And in today's U.S., it is even more pronounced. New York and Texas could not be more different. California is one of a kind.

Success in life can be pretty simple for most. Stay in school. Get an education, make good grades. Don't have a child until marriage. For those that follow these simple rules, their future is so much brighter than that of those that don't follow them. The stats are overwhelming.

If our central government does anything, it should focus on these simple rules and do all it can to encourage that we follow them.

 

[atlkvb]

It is your way or no way with zero compromise.

No not really OM. First of all I am entitled to my opinions, and you are free to disagree with them. However when I make a statement such as "Government is ineffective", that's certainly open to debate. I give my reasons and examples why I believe this to be so, and you of course are free to counter that.

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm right. I look at the evidence, and draw my conclusions based on what the evidence shows me. OK, you disagree with my conclusions...that's fine.

We debate that. So why does that make me not open to debate? Or should I just agree with you and the rest of the Left that big Government income redistribution schemes actually work?

 

[atlkvb]

See your 2nd paragraph....lack of trust in individuals. See Bernie Madoff. See Countrywide Mortgage. See Wells Fargo. See British Petroleum. Without regulation, money is king and damn the little guy, employee, and customer. It is proven over and over.

No OM, not at all. In each of those cases you cite, where did Government either prevent the horrible scenarios from occurring, or in most of those cases how did its misguided policies or unintended consequences actually encourage them?

What were the results of the Government's good intentions?

 

[bornaneer]

The Bush And Clinton mandates to increase home ownership was outside of CRA and abused by all. Bankers and mortgage companies make money on volume. With Fannie and Freddie you had government sponsored entities encouraging or facilitating volume secured by poorly underwriten loans. And as you know, when values were skyrocketing, who cared? Just like any Other Ponzi scheme, when it broke, the players last standing lost. I don't know what the totals were but remember there was a lot of private investment too. This wasnt all caused by the government but no doubt the bush and Clinton mandates were abused and were a very big part of the problem.

Thanks for answering.....Is it fair to say that you believe your above comments identify a cause for the housing collapse which in turn contributed to the banking crises.

 

[atlkvb]

Dennis Prager wrote a great book on this topic. He concluded that Dems want to FEEL good about what they enact. And the GOP wants to DO GOOD. There is a very big difference.

Our Founders were incredibly wise. They wanted a small central government with limited powers. They wanted the states, which are much closer to the people to have the most say in their lives. The reason is that they knew a central government is far removed from the people and that each state can and is very, very different. Different needs, different cultures, different attitudes, different problems, therefore different solutions. A huge central government simply can't get it right. And in today's U.S., it is even more pronounced. New York and Texas could not be more different. California is one of a kind.

Success in life can be pretty simple for most. Stay in school. Get an education, make good grades. Don't have a child until marriage. For those that follow these simple rules, their future is so much brighter than that of those that don't follow them. The stats are overwhelming.

If our central government does anything, it should focus on these simple rules and do all it can to encourage that we follow them.

As much as you and I know that formula works PAX, the Left considers it "unrealistic".

Suppose you're poor, or uneducated, or had Parents who didn't care about you, or you're the victim of "racism, sexism, homophobia" etc? That's how their counterargument to what you said runs.

Rather than focus on the simple, they delve into the complex and try to extrapolate out of our uniqueness...equality. Equality of results, equality of motives, equality of ability, and even equality of uniqueness.

There is no difference between Men and Women, Gays or straight, White or Black, Rich or Poor, stupid or intelligent....on and on it goes. They strive to force everyone into the same bubble, and again they do not respect individual initiative, Freedom, or uniqueness.

They govern by race, class, gender, sexual preference, social status...group victimization. Everyone a victim of some White, Christian sponsored or Capitalist "ism".

It's their way or no way. Conform, or STFU.

Political correctness. Sameness. Unity. Forced compliance. No individuality. Dependence. On Leviathan.

Nauseating.

 

[WVPATX]

I thought this is the best post I've seen on this board in a while until the last paragraph. Anyone could take Trumps EOs and show how they only benefit his cronies and wealthy people. The EO on eliminating the fiduciary rule.......wtf? I resently revied how an online broker revamped their compensation structure by heavily incentivizing new money and new customer vs paying profit based on the investment product they chose for the customer...basically eliminating the brokers incentive to place people's money in high commission products like annuities. this firm didn't change the total comp of their sales force but it radically change the impact on the customer for the better. What was wrong with that? Eliminate the incentive to put a customer in the wrong investment seems good to most. Me and you might be able to choose the best investments for us. My wife makes over 100 k a year her profession and would have no clue how to manage an investment portfolio or realize when a broker is ripping her off.

I have said many times, regulations are generally reactions to bad behavior.

My last paragraph is factual. The Dem party has moved very far left and if you are an intellectually honest person, you would admit it. JFK would not recognize the party, he, for example, was a tax cutter and believed fervently in American exceptionalism. Nor would giants like Scoop Jackson. When we have colleges instructing their students to stifle, stop or do what is necessary, even with violence, to prevent someone from saying something that the liberals don't like, that is not classic liberalism, it is fascism. Forcing the Little Sisters of the Poor to violate their religious oaths (thank goodness the court overruled) shows again how far left the Dems have moved. And a party platform that calls for legal abortion at any time during pregnancy is simply dreadful. And in the 2012 Dem Party platform, all references to God were removed. That is certainly their right to do so, but the Dems of even 20 years ago, would never have countenanced that.

I now see the Dem party moving very far left on economic issues as well. I believe in the near future, that socialism will be the rallying cry for the majority of the Dem party. Look at the polls. It is pretty shocking.

 

[WVPATX]

I thought this is the best post I've seen on this board in a while until the last paragraph. Anyone could take Trumps EOs and show how they only benefit his cronies and wealthy people. The EO on eliminating the fiduciary rule.......wtf? I resently revied how an online broker revamped their compensation structure by heavily incentivizing new money and new customer vs paying profit based on the investment product they chose for the customer...basically eliminating the brokers incentive to place people's money in high commission products like annuities. this firm didn't change the total comp of their sales force but it radically change the impact on the customer for the better. What was wrong with that? Eliminate the incentive to put a customer in the wrong investment seems good to most. Me and you might be able to choose the best investments for us. My wife makes over 100 k a year her profession and would have no clue how to manage an investment portfolio or realize when a broker is ripping her off.

I have said many times, regulations are generally reactions to bad behavior.

BTW, I have never said all regulations are bad. We do need government oversight. But we have no throttle. When you give someone power, they tend to overuse that power. Seek even more power. And then ultimately begin to abuse that power. It is human nature. Somehow, someway, we have to develop a method of regulation that serves the people by providing relevant protections but doesn't stifle the economy and jobs in the process. And we can't create government dependency, it is incredibly destructive to the individual and to the family.

 

[wvu2007]

That moment Original Mountaineer tries to interject as the expert on an issue and is still completely wrong. Embarrassing.

 

[atlkvb]

I believe in the near future, that socialism will be the rallying cry for the majority of the Dem party. Look at the polls. It is pretty shocking.

PAX, they would have nominated an avowed Socialist in Bernie Sanders were it not for the fraud and organized theft of delegates perpetrated onto the Democrat nominating process by Hillary and her cronies.

The rank and file (base) of that party is already there..."hard Left". The party leadership is close, but they also want to win so they know they just can't come right out and say they're a bunch of totalitarian Socialists. That is not the way to pick up purple states.

But they're trying to find a way to message it.

 

[atlkvb]

BTW, I have never said all regulations are bad. We do need government oversight. But we have no throttle. When you give someone power, they tend to overuse that power. Seek even more power. And then ultimately begin to abuse that power. It is human nature. Somehow, someway, we have to develop a method of regulation that serves the people by providing relevant protections but doesn't stifle the economy and jobs in the process. And we can't create government dependency, it is incredibly destructive to the individual and to the family.

Well said. If Government really wanted to help, it would first try to determine if there is even a need to do anything? Sometimes less is more.

I'd say as an operating 'MO' the theme ought to be...'Trust the people first, then if they can't handle it themselves, do no more harm helping them to do better for themselves'

What are the chances some bureaucrat decides they're not "needed"?

Ans: Zero.

 

[Original Mountaineer1]

Thanks for answering.....Is it fair to say that you believe your above comments identify a cause for the housing collapse which in turn contributed to the banking crises.

That coupled with ridiculous lack of understanding on the real estate concentrations and risk on balance sheets

 

[Original Mountaineer1]

That moment Original Mountaineer tries to interject as the expert on an issue and is still completely wrong. Embarrassing.

I tell you what, why don't you research the congressional report ( bipartisan) and the Feds report and get back to me instead of relying on anti government opinion.

When you can debate this issue with fact instead of relying on your mouthpieces, let's talk.

 

[Original Mountaineer1]

BTW, I have never said all regulations are bad. We do need government oversight. But we have no throttle. When you give someone power, they tend to overuse that power. Seek even more power. And then ultimately begin to abuse that power. It is human nature. Somehow, someway, we have to develop a method of regulation that serves the people by providing relevant protections but doesn't stifle the economy and jobs in the process. And we can't create government dependency, it is incredibly destructive to the individual and to the family.

I agree to a point. Still educated and independent people are ripped off daily by their advisors, agents, family, and even their employers.

But to your point, my paternal grandfather came here illegally with nothing and made a living although not a great one by any stretch. My mothers family had much more but my grandfather lost his job in the depression and lost everything. Still died in 1982 with assets of 250k without government assistance. We have created a whole segment of the population that depends on government for everything from food and rent to Obama phones.

 

[atlkvb]

I tell you what, why don't you research the congressional report ( bipartisan) and the Feds report and get back to me instead of relying on anti government opinion.

When you can debate this issue with fact instead of relying on your mouthpieces, let's talk.

OM I do respect the analysis you've brought to this debate, obviously you are very well versed in how banks both run their lending operations and how the Government regulates that activity.

Serous question: Is it possible that you may be a little too close to it to see what if any damage Government interference caused? As I read your responses, and explanations about what happened and what caused it, a common theme to me appears to be either a defense of Government's honest oversights or a total absolution of its participation in the crisis through its own mismanagement of the very activity it was set up to regulate?

I could be wrong. But this crisis wasn't the result of "greedy bankers" or effective legislation to curb them.
You've indicated there indeed were many contributing factors, but my honest question to you is do you consider Government regulatory malfeasance among them?

 

[WVPATX]

I tell you what, why don't you research the congressional report ( bipartisan) and the Feds report and get back to me instead of relying on anti government opinion.

When you can debate this issue with fact instead of relying on your mouthpieces, let's talk.

Frankly, OM, I would never trust a report from a Fox in the Hen House. Trusting the government to investigate itself is something I would be very skeptical of. Too many outside publications with deep expertise came to the conclusions I posted.

 

[WVPATX]

That coupled with ridiculous lack of understanding on the real estate concentrations and risk on balance sheets

The greatest risk we have today in the financial community is concentration risk, in other words too big to fail. This is absolutely insane. No one with a right mind would permit such a risk to exist. It could take down our entire financial system. Just insane.

 

[atlkvb]

That coupled with ridiculous lack of understanding on the real estate concentrations and risk on balance sheets

The sad fact of the matter is, we have not learned our lessons from the housing bubble burst. Because despite all of the so called "reforms" and Government intervention (not to mention Billions spent through TARP and refinancing bad debt) the reality as it exists today is we are in no better shape and have no greater protection from a another giant bubble bursting due to this heavy concentration of risk being carried on many balance sheets in the financial services sector.

It's almost as if the Government came in after the mess it helped create, decided it wasn't messy enough, and created a bigger mess with it's misguided "fixes".

Unreal.

 

[WVPATX]

The sad fact of the matter is, we have not learned our lessons form the housing bubble burst. Because despite all of the so called "reforms" and Government intervention (not to mention Billions spent through TARP and refinancing bad debt) the reality as it exists today is we are in no better shape and have no greater protection from a another giant bubble bursting due to this heavy concentration of risk being carried on many balance sheets in the financial services sector.

It's almost as if the Government came in after the mess it helped create, decided it wasn't messy enough, and created a bigger mess with it's misguided "fixes".

Unreal.

The Fed has played a huge role in creating artificial asset bubbles. I fear they have done so again with their very liberal interest rate policies and the printing of huge sums of money to buy Treasuries. We have bubbles in the economy operating just below the surface. They will rear their ugly heads sometime and we will pay.

 

[atlkvb]

The Fed has played a huge role in creating artificial asset bubbles. I fear they have done so again with their very liberal interest rate policies and the printing of huge sums of money to buy Treasuries. We have bubbles in the economy operating just below the surface. They will rear their ugly heads sometime and we will pay.

What you point out here PAX is something I've been posting about for months. You simply cannot defy basic economic laws, despite Obama's and the Fed's clever attempts to do so. Unless Trump's reforms (undoing DFA, Wall Street regulations) and tax policies get us moving towards real GDP exceeding 3 to 3.5%, the inflated M1 as well as unfunded obligations through Federal Pensions and entitlements will kill us as we try to use all existing discretionary funds simply to pay debt.

It's a very frightening tinder box we're sitting on, and quite frankly everything else we're arguing with each other about each day is going to sound like a bunch of little kids in the playground fighting over skittles if the U.S. goes financially insolvent from the Fed's cheap money policies.

I'm not sure even the Leftists who ejaculate over expansion of Leviathan understand that their sexy partner may prove to be a bad roll in the hay once she takes all of her clothes off and exposes herself naked.

We've got to get this economy moving again or nothing else matters.

 

[wvu2007]

Donovan Jackson KNOCKS down a 3