One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Trump's Attacks on the Working Class: 1 - The Fiduciary Rule
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
Apr 27, 2018 11:40:43   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
So, while fans continue to celebrate the "successes" of the Trump administration, the rest of us are wondering how it is they can't see that a lot of Trump's efforts are designed to screw the American working class. I'm starting to suspect this has a lot to do with language. They understand the terms used in Trump's rhetoric like "criminals" and "missiles" because these are things that feature prominently in movies and TV, but terms like "net neutrality" and "fiduciary" bore them, so they ignore the associated stories.

So I am exploring approaches to bring the most serious threats to the American people out of the boring zone and into a context maybe more people will understand. here it goes...

Fact #1: Americans trying to save for their retirement are getting ripped off by financial advisers to the tune of $17 billion per year.

Fact #2: As a consumer protection measure, the U.S. Department of Labor proposed a fiduciary rule that requires financial advisers to act in the best interests of clients when it comes to overseeing retirement accounts.

Fact #3: There is fierce opposition to the rule, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It's pretty obvious they represent the "right" for financial advisers to rip people off and get that $17 billion.

I have a lot to say about who is taking sides on this issue, but I don't want to loose focus so I'll just state that Obama supported he fiduciary rule and Trump opposes it.

Really, what more needs to be said?

Opponents of the rule are trying to use the argument that such a rule will limit consumer choice. This by now should be a familiar argument because it's a trick that politicians have noticed works pretty well with a population that is convinced that more choices are always better. As if Starbucks could improve their menu by adding battery acid and bleach to their options.

Yes, the the rule would reduce the choices because it would eliminate the choices that are designed to rip them off.

Now, why on earth would a president be so opposed to something that safeguards the interests of the American people?

Reply
Apr 27, 2018 14:05:02   #
vernon
 
straightUp wrote:
So, while fans continue to celebrate the "successes" of the Trump administration, the rest of us are wondering how it is they can't see that a lot of Trump's efforts are designed to screw the American working class. I'm starting to suspect this has a lot to do with languagennthat feature prominently in movies and TV, but terms like "net neutrality" and "fiduciary" bore them, so they ignore the associated stories.

So I am exploring approaches to bring the most serious threats to the American people out of the boring zone and into a context maybe more people will understand. here it goes...

Fact #1: Americans trying to save for their retirement are getting ripped off by financial advisers to the tune of $17 billion per year.

Fact #2: As a consumer protection measure, the U.S. Department of Labor proposed a fiduciary rule that requires financial advisers to act in the best interests of clients when it comes to overseeing retirement accounts.

Fact #3: There is fierce opposition to the rule, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It's pretty obvious they represent the "right" for financial advisers to rip people off and get that $17 billion.

I have a lot to say about who is taking sides on this issue, but I don't want to loose focus so I'll just state that Obama supported he fiduciary rule and Trump opposes it.

Really, what more needs to be said?

Opponents of the rule are trying to use the argument that such a rule will limit consumer choice. This by now should be a familiar argument because it's a trick that politicians have noticed works pretty well with a population that is convinced that more choices are always better. As if Starbucks could improve their menu by adding battery acid and bleach to their options.

Yes, the the rule would reduce the choices because it would eliminate the choices that are designed to rip them off.

Now, why on earth would a president be so opposed to something that safeguards the interests of the American people?
So, while fans continue to celebrate the "suc... (show quote)


I heard on Varney this morning that with the tax cut and increased wages amounted to an average of 2900$.If this is true I don't think

trump is trying to hurt the working man.

I'm not familiar with this rule but I will check it out.

Reply
Apr 27, 2018 14:27:35   #
woodguru
 
Wallstreet has dozens of fees and commissions that they take from funds they manage. Financial planners don't make any money on money that is sitting, there is always a new "best" investment to park people's money in. They get paid when they sell a stock, and get commissions on the new stock they buy. Creative financial planners are working their portfolios twice a year. The new replacement can seem like an improvement on paper, but this is a Ponzi scheme that gets sorted out when the market "adjusts" to reflect that these funds are not worth nearly as much as their meaningless stock value says they are.

People lose large percentages of their wealth while their advisers are laughing all the way to the bank.

Reply
 
 
Apr 27, 2018 14:30:48   #
woodguru
 
vernon wrote:
I heard on Varney this morning that with the tax cut and increased wages amounted to an average of 2900$.If this is true I don't think

trump is trying to hurt the working man.

I'm not familiar with this rule but I will check it out.


So a miniscule increase in income blinds people to the bulk going to billionaires who don't need it? How about waking up and realizing that if people used their brains they could get the tax break for working people and increase the taxes back to pre Bush era levels and make wealthy people who don't need it pay for their breaks that would make a difference to working class people?

Reply
Apr 27, 2018 15:18:07   #
lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas
 
straightUp wrote:
So, while fans continue to celebrate the "successes" of the Trump administration, the rest of us are wondering how it is they can't see that a lot of Trump's efforts are designed to screw the American working class. I'm starting to suspect this has a lot to do with language. They understand the terms used in Trump's rhetoric like "criminals" and "missiles" because these are things that feature prominently in movies and TV, but terms like "net neutrality" and "fiduciary" bore them, so they ignore the associated stories.

So I am exploring approaches to bring the most serious threats to the American people out of the boring zone and into a context maybe more people will understand. here it goes...

Fact #1: Americans trying to save for their retirement are getting ripped off by financial advisers to the tune of $17 billion per year.

Fact #2: As a consumer protection measure, the U.S. Department of Labor proposed a fiduciary rule that requires financial advisers to act in the best interests of clients when it comes to overseeing retirement accounts.

Fact #3: There is fierce opposition to the rule, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It's pretty obvious they represent the "right" for financial advisers to rip people off and get that $17 billion.

I have a lot to say about who is taking sides on this issue, but I don't want to loose focus so I'll just state that Obama supported he fiduciary rule and Trump opposes it.

Really, what more needs to be said?

Opponents of the rule are trying to use the argument that such a rule will limit consumer choice. This by now should be a familiar argument because it's a trick that politicians have noticed works pretty well with a population that is convinced that more choices are always better. As if Starbucks could improve their menu by adding battery acid and bleach to their options.

Yes, the the rule would reduce the choices because it would eliminate the choices that are designed to rip them off.

Now, why on earth would a president be so opposed to something that safeguards the interests of the American people?
So, while fans continue to celebrate the "suc... (show quote)


That last question is easy to answer; Trump does not consider himself to be "American people", i.e. working class. The higher up one gets on the socioeconomic scale, the more avarice and greed control one's behavior. Trump has never been one of the people, associated with working class stiffs, or has a clue about what they need. The election campaign was designed by a used car salesman, who is absolutely clueless about how automobiles work, but once you drive away with clunker he sold you - his job is done.

Reply
Apr 27, 2018 18:05:15   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
woodguru wrote:
Wallstreet has dozens of fees and commissions that they take from funds they manage. Financial planners don't make any money on money that is sitting, there is always a new "best" investment to park people's money in. They get paid when they sell a stock, and get commissions on the new stock they buy. Creative financial planners are working their portfolios twice a year. The new replacement can seem like an improvement on paper, but this is a Ponzi scheme that gets sorted out when the market "adjusts" to reflect that these funds are not worth nearly as much as their meaningless stock value says they are.

People lose large percentages of their wealth while their advisers are laughing all the way to the bank.
Wallstreet has dozens of fees and commissions that... (show quote)


Creative finance does has a tendency to resort to game theory, so you're generally dealing with a lot more risk that advisers can hedge their bets on, where the person trying to save for retirement might not.

American families need protection from Wall Street sharks. The retirement accounts they depend on are obviously crucial to their survival in later years. Fiduciaries are essentially advisers that promise to act in the best interest of their clients - it's a simple idea carried over from British Common Law where the the need for fiduciaries go back to at least the 18th century. The Fiduciary Rule is to the financial adviser, what the Hippocratic oath is to the doctor.

So we can talk about all the details and the challenges of being doctor, but can any of that justify a move to ban the Hippocratic Oath? This is what I'm trying to bring this issue too... Despite all the excuses Wall Street comes up with, can there ever be justification to blocking a rule that protects American families from getting scammed by Wall Street sharks?

Obviously, Trump is NOT on the side of the American family.

Reply
Apr 27, 2018 18:33:05   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
woodguru wrote:
So a miniscule increase in income blinds people to the bulk going to billionaires who don't need it? How about waking up and realizing that if people used their brains they could get the tax break for working people and increase the taxes back to pre Bush era levels and make wealthy people who don't need it pay for their breaks that would make a difference to working class people?

That would be nice wouldn't it?

There aren't any hard-core conservatives on the thread yet... (too many words in the title) But if there were, I'm sure they would throw out the same old ridiculous notion that cutting taxes creates jobs. Fortunately, we won't have to waste time bickering over the Laffer Curve.

Being something of a geolibertarian, I think ALL taxes should come from excess as determined by the free market. It amazes me how well the plutocracy has managed to keep solutions like buried in obscurity, but if we did this, American workers would not have to pay taxes at all and yet our government could still pay down the national debt in less than one presidential term AND increase spending on programs to make America a safer and better place.

You're absolutely right... we just need to our brains.

Reply
 
 
Apr 27, 2018 18:50:39   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
vernon wrote:
I heard on Varney this morning that with the tax cut and increased wages amounted to an average of 2900$.If this is true I don't think

trump is trying to hurt the working man.

I'm not familiar with this rule but I will check it out.


It would have to be more than a tax cut and increased wages, it would also have to be more jobs... (increased wages don't help people who aren't on the payroll).

Also, none of that has any bearing on the fiduciary rule. It wouldn't matter if Trump gave every American a $1 million bonus, that still wouldn't stop financial advisers from scamming their clients.

Trump is trying to prevent the government from establishing a fiduciary standard that would protect American investors including working families trying to save for their retirement from being scammed by Wall Street sharks. That's not something anyone can justify with a promise of improved economic conditions. All that would mean is the sharks would have more scam.

This is very clearly and without a doubt a true indication that Trump *IS* scamming the working class.

BTW, you do realize that Trump only gave us a temporary tax cut, right? It's not permanent. It is for the wealthy but the part of the tax cuts that affect income, is temporary. I'm sure that was part of the sugar coating to get people to swallow the arsenic.

Reply
Apr 28, 2018 07:33:09   #
old marine Loc: America home of the brave
 
straightUp wrote:
So, while fans continue to celebrate the "successes" of the Trump administration, the rest of us are wondering how it is they can't see that a lot of Trump's efforts are designed to screw the American working class. I'm starting to suspect this has a lot to do with language. They understand the terms used in Trump's rhetoric like "criminals" and "missiles" because these are things that feature prominently in movies and TV, but terms like "net neutrality" and "fiduciary" bore them, so they ignore the associated stories.

So I am exploring approaches to bring the most serious threats to the American people out of the boring zone and into a context maybe more people will understand. here it goes...

Fact #1: Americans trying to save for their retirement are getting ripped f by financial advisers to the tune of $17 billion per year.

Fact #2: As a consumer protection measure, the U.S. Department of Labor proposed a fiduciary rule that requires financial advisers to act in the best interests of clients when it comes to overseeing retirement accounts.

Fact #3: There is fierce opposition to the rule, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It's pretty obvious they represent the "right" for financial advisers to rip people off and get that $17 billion.

I have a lot to say about who is taking sides on this issue, but I don't want to loose focus so I'll just state that Obama supported he fiduciary rule and Trump opposes it.

Really, what more needs to be said?

Opponents of the rule are trying to use the argument that such a rule will limit consumer choice. This by now should be a familiar argument because it's a trick that politicians have noticed works pretty well with a population that is convinced that more choices are always better. As if Starbucks could improve their menu by adding battery acid and bleach to their options.

Yes, the the rule would reduce the choices because it would eliminate the choices that are designed to rip them off.

Now, why on earth would a president be so opposed to something that safeguards the interests of the American people?
So, while fans continue to celebrate the "suc... (show quote)

Very interesting post. Except these rules were put in place BEFORE President Trump was elected. He has been too busy fighting the Demon-crat mudslinging, trying to work with the Demon-crat on bills, false charges, protecting our borders, dealing with world problems. He hasn't had time to pass legislation to do the things YOU POSTED.

Your dog is barking up the wrong tree. If you are right about the rules you claim sick your dog on Obamma and his Demon-crat party.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Have a nice day.....

Keep on draining the swamp.
Semper Fi brother's and sister's
God bless America and President Trump

Reply
Apr 28, 2018 09:32:59   #
buffalo Loc: Texas
 
The middle class working people did not need a income tax "cut" because they pay little to no income taxes. THEY NEED AN INCREASE IN THEIR LOW WAGES! But remember they still pay federal taxes-payroll and Medicare=15.35% if their income (including what their employer pays), federal excise taxes, gasoline taxes...etc. When all federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account, the bottom fifth of households pays about 16 percent of their incomes in taxes, on average. The second-poorest fifth pays about 21 percent. The vast majority have NO money to consider investing. It takes everything and then some to just feed, cloth and house their families because of the paultry wages their greedy corporate employers pay. But, hey, they damn well be thankful they have a job, how ever sorry, right?

Truimpy's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is a scam to further enrich the wealthy and big corporations at worker expense.

"Widespread publicity about corporations sharing a big slice of their huge Trump tax cuts with their workers through bonuses and wage hikes is mostly hype, this Americans for Tax Fairness analysis reveals. Even though America’s biggest corporations are poised to reap hundreds of billions in tax cuts, only 18 corporations in the Fortune 100 have announced any sort of employee benefits tied to those cuts, as of today. Only 46 of the Fortune 500—just 9%—have announced any plans to share the tax-cut wealth."

http://americansfortaxfairness.org/analysis-major-corporations-getting-huge-trump-tax-cuts-not-generous-workers/

Reply
Apr 28, 2018 10:31:11   #
old marine Loc: America home of the brave
 
buffalo wrote:
The middle class working people did not need a income tax "cut" because they pay little to no income taxes. THEY NEED AN INCREASE IN THEIR LOW WAGES! But remember they still pay federal taxes-payroll and Medicare=15.35% if their income (including what their employer pays), federal excise taxes, gasoline taxes...etc. When all federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account, the bottom fifth of households pays about 16 percent of their incomes in taxes, on average. The second-poorest fifth pays about 21 percent. The vast majority have NO money to consider investing. It takes everything and then some to just feed, cloth and house their families because of the paultry wages their greedy corporate employers pay. But, hey, they damn well be thankful they have a job, how ever sorry, right?

Truimpy's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is a scam to further enrich the wealthy and big corporations at worker expense.

"Widespread publicity about corporations sharing a big slice of their huge Trump tax cuts with their workers through bonuses and wage hikes is mostly hype, this Americans for Tax Fairness analysis reveals. Even though America’s biggest corporations are poised to reap hundreds of billions in tax cuts, only 18 corporations in the Fortune 100 have announced any sort of employee benefits tied to those cuts, as of today. Only 46 of the Fortune 500—just 9%—have announced any plans to share the tax-cut wealth."

http://americansfortaxfairness.org/analysis-major-corporations-getting-huge-trump-tax-cuts-not-generous-workers/
The middle class working people did not need a inc... (show quote)


This just prove that the nine percent are not money hungry Demon-crat. 😆

Semper Fi
Give Trump time to drain the swamp.
God bless America and President Trump

Reply
 
 
Apr 28, 2018 16:32:12   #
Louie27 Loc: Peoria, AZ
 
woodguru wrote:
So a miniscule increase in income blinds people to the bulk going to billionaires who don't need it? How about waking up and realizing that if people used their brains they could get the tax break for working people and increase the taxes back to pre Bush era levels and make wealthy people who don't need it pay for their breaks that would make a difference to working class people?


How does that work when the rich which make over





How does that work, when the rich have to pay $161,379 for $600,000, then plus 37% for all above that amount of taxable income? With those numbers it seems they pay more, percentage wise than those making $177,000 taxable income.
So where have you gotten your numbers?

Reply
Apr 28, 2018 17:29:35   #
old marine Loc: America home of the brave
 
Louie27 wrote:

How does that work, when the rich have to pay $161,379 for $600,000, then plus 37% for all above that amount of taxable income? With those numbers it seems they pay more, percentage wise than those making $177,000 taxable income.
So where have you gotten your numbers?

By using grade school math and common sense. Someone making $100,000 will not get back as a person mailing $1,000,000


Class dismissed

Semper Fi

God bless America and President Trump for draining the swamp

Reply
Apr 28, 2018 19:59:22   #
buffalo Loc: Texas
 
old marine wrote:
By using grade school math and common sense. Someone making $100,000 will not get back as a person mailing $1,000,000


Class dismissed

Semper Fi

God bless America and President Trump for draining the swamp


What about those families of 4 of 50% at the bottom making $30-60 thousand/year?

Reply
Apr 28, 2018 21:20:30   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
old marine wrote:
Very interesting post. Except these rules were put in place BEFORE President Trump was elected. He has been too busy fighting the Demon-crat mudslinging, trying to work with the Demon-crat on bills, false charges, protecting our borders, dealing with world problems. He hasn't had time to pass legislation to do the things YOU POSTED.

My friend, you got it backwards... I wasn't saying Trump put these rules in place. The fiduciary rules were consumer protection put in place by Obama... to PROTECT American families FROM Wall Street sharks... And apparently, Trump DOES have some time on his hands because he did actually sign an executive order directing the Department of Labor to review and potentially rescind a new regulation known as the “fiduciary rule”.

old marine wrote:

Your dog is barking up the wrong tree.

Nah, he's got the right tree, you're just trying to shoo him away.

old marine wrote:

If you are right about the rules you claim sick your dog on Obamma and his Demon-crat party.

Why? The rules are GOOD. You really aren't understanding this are you.

old marine wrote:

Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Have a nice day.....



old marine wrote:

Keep on draining the swamp.


Pretty sad, that a person would be so caught up in the partisan circus that he would refuse to acknowledge something that threatens his family. All you would need to do is put your gun down for 5 minutes and consider the facts. This is actually a very simple issue that even a child could understand. Do you have a retirement account sailor? If so, think about how important that money is to you and your loved ones. Don't you think it's good idea to protect it from scams? Wells Fargo just recently got caught ripping off customers by getting them to invest in more expensive retirement accounts resulting in less money saved and more money to the bank. Do you really think protecting Americans from scams like this is such a bad idea?

Reply
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.