reversal of corporate inversions signed today//repeal of Frank-Dodd//dismantling of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau....America first???
Apr 21, 2017 18:09:54 #
Today the President signed, amongst one of many executive orders , an order to reverse the penalty for US corporations to "invert" the tax to another country.
Yes this removes tax penalties when a US company to moves offshore. Note in the photos and videos of this event , Mnuchen is looking over the Presidents shoulder, grinning.
I wonder who is really in charge here? My guess is Mnuchen's ties to Goldman Sachs and loyalty to the Federal Reserve is running the show.
I fear that the next banking crash has been set in motion.
Yes this removes tax penalties when a US company to moves offshore. Note in the photos and videos of this event , Mnuchen is looking over the Presidents shoulder, grinning.
I wonder who is really in charge here? My guess is Mnuchen's ties to Goldman Sachs and loyalty to the Federal Reserve is running the show.
I fear that the next banking crash has been set in motion.
Apr 21, 2017 18:43:43 #
BrickelBrak wrote:
Today the President signed, amongst one of many ex... (show quote)
OH NO...you may lose your half jar of pennies....how sad.....how sad!
Apr 21, 2017 19:06:51 #
America Only wrote:
OH NO...you may lose your half jar of pennies....how sad.....how sad!
Ha! ha! good one.
During the financial crisis of 2008 you were either:
a) not paying attention
or
b) not born yet.
For b you get a pass.
If you are not the CEO of a major bank then this impacts you.
Apr 21, 2017 21:31:58 #
BrickelBrak wrote:
Ha! ha! good one.
During the financial crisis of 2008 you were either:
a) not paying attention
or
b) not born yet.
For b you get a pass.
If you are not the CEO of a major bank then this impacts you.
During the financial crisis of 2008 you were either:
a) not paying attention
or
b) not born yet.
For b you get a pass.
If you are not the CEO of a major bank then this impacts you.
During the financial crisis of 2008 you either were:
A) Too stupid to know how many years the fall was in the making.
B) Using a BONG so much you did not give a crap.
C) Did not pay any attention to the Bills passed by not one but two democratic presidents that started the ball rolling for all the disaster of the fall of wall street, beginning with Jimmy Carter....then with Billy Boy Clinton.
No I am not the CEO of any major financial institute...but have in my resume being the Vice President of Trans America Finance, Executive Director of Operations of General Finance, and own several success businesses now. So don't try to run some crap about what took wall street down...I know for a fact what happened and why. It damned sure was not due to the sitting president...it would have happened in 2008 if Walt Disney was in the White House.
Apr 22, 2017 10:42:54 #
Let me guess- what lead up to, and eventually crashed the market in 2008 was purely done by the actions of each Dem administration and policy starting with Carter.
Furthermore, after Carter, each Conservative administration and policy had absolutely zero direct culpability and no indirect contribution to the 2008 crash.
Fine.
You don't find it even slightly unnerving that each Treasury secretary since Regan was in one way connected with the banks that were bailed out in 2008?
Indeed President Trump intends for the taxpayer to no bail out the banks again, ( and I do strongly belive that) , but does Mnuchin support that? Does the Tresury secretary really belive that this is a reality, given his past with Goldman Sachs?
I'm guessing that G.W. did not want to aggrivate the taxpayers in this way but I'd imagine his hand was forced. (Paulson also being Golman Sachs alumi).
If I was the king of the universe, I'd humbly request a new "Contract with America" (similar to the one Gingrich layed out in the mid 90') be created, stating that not one cent of taxpayer dollars ever be used to bail out any private financial institution.
I'd imagine that Yellen and Mnuchen would get a good chuckle out of that......
Furthermore, after Carter, each Conservative administration and policy had absolutely zero direct culpability and no indirect contribution to the 2008 crash.
Fine.
You don't find it even slightly unnerving that each Treasury secretary since Regan was in one way connected with the banks that were bailed out in 2008?
Indeed President Trump intends for the taxpayer to no bail out the banks again, ( and I do strongly belive that) , but does Mnuchin support that? Does the Tresury secretary really belive that this is a reality, given his past with Goldman Sachs?
I'm guessing that G.W. did not want to aggrivate the taxpayers in this way but I'd imagine his hand was forced. (Paulson also being Golman Sachs alumi).
If I was the king of the universe, I'd humbly request a new "Contract with America" (similar to the one Gingrich layed out in the mid 90') be created, stating that not one cent of taxpayer dollars ever be used to bail out any private financial institution.
I'd imagine that Yellen and Mnuchen would get a good chuckle out of that......
May 13, 2017 13:30:32 #
BrickelBrak wrote:
Today the President signed, amongst one of many ex... (show quote)
Not much of an economist, are you? Well, as long as you think Republicans want to "Kill kill kill the poor", you never will be.
What Leftist/Liberals/Unholy Democrats kill is the soul of a person or a people,
May 13, 2017 13:32:00 #
BrickelBrak wrote:
Ha! ha! good one.
During the financial crisis of 2008 you were either:
a) not paying attention
or
b) not born yet.
For b you get a pass.
If you are not the CEO of a major bank then this impacts you.
During the financial crisis of 2008 you were either:
a) not paying attention
or
b) not born yet.
For b you get a pass.
If you are not the CEO of a major bank then this impacts you.
That comment shows just how much you know. Zilch, Zero, Nada, Nothing. When I have time, I'll inform you. That is, if I cared....
May 13, 2017 23:45:36 #
May 13, 2017 23:54:58 #
America Only wrote:
.
C) Did not pay any attention to the Bills passed by not one but two democratic presidents that started the ball rolling for all the disaster of the fall of wall street, beginning with Jimmy Carter....then with Billy Boy Clinton.
ld.
C) Did not pay any attention to the Bills passed by not one but two democratic presidents that started the ball rolling for all the disaster of the fall of wall street, beginning with Jimmy Carter....then with Billy Boy Clinton.
Yes indeed Carter kicked off the requirement for banks to provide loans to low income households for housing.
But no one forced the banks to screw over eachother and hide these bad loans ( a.k.a toxic assets) in big bundles, Banking de-regulation did allow for some of that to happen.
I am not defending any Democrat. No, never.
But to say that the 2008 crash , and subsequent bail outs were entirely the fault of the Carter and Clinton administrations is quite a stretch, don't you think?
May 14, 2017 00:23:23 #
So anyone who criticizes the current administration is automatically deemed a lefty liberal? Ok I see.
Sure thing Mr Stalin.
Sure thing Mr Stalin.
May 14, 2017 16:25:45 #
BrickelBrak wrote:
So anyone who criticizes the current administration is automatically deemed a lefty liberal? Ok I see.
Sure thing Mr Stalin.
Sure thing Mr Stalin.
You don't understand. ALL Liberals are Leftist. Didn't know that, did you?
May 16, 2017 11:44:05 #
Yes all liberals are leftists and vice versa, my point is that any dissenting opinion from the mainline is automatically deemed a leftist point of view.
This is why , In my opinion, the GOP needs the Democrats around in order to survive as a party.
The worst thing possible that could happen to the GOP is if all Democrats suddenly disappeared.
To parallel with an abstract:
In the former Soviet Union, the dissenting party was removed after the Bolsheviks took power.
Without a competing party, the Bolsheviks looked inward and the great purge began.
Just a few years after what was thought to be a populist "peoples" revolution. Without an internal dissenting opinions the Soviet Union quickly became a totalitarian regime.
Conversely:
Should the Republicans suddenly vanish, the Democrat party would degenerate to in-fighting and purging and a totalitarian regime would emerge.
In my opinion, a nation must have alternate points of view on how the country should be ran in order for politics to be somewhat balanced and semi-rational.
Plus - if there was not a Right vs Left, this would not be any fun!
They are called political "parties" for a reason...
This is why , In my opinion, the GOP needs the Democrats around in order to survive as a party.
The worst thing possible that could happen to the GOP is if all Democrats suddenly disappeared.
To parallel with an abstract:
In the former Soviet Union, the dissenting party was removed after the Bolsheviks took power.
Without a competing party, the Bolsheviks looked inward and the great purge began.
Just a few years after what was thought to be a populist "peoples" revolution. Without an internal dissenting opinions the Soviet Union quickly became a totalitarian regime.
Conversely:
Should the Republicans suddenly vanish, the Democrat party would degenerate to in-fighting and purging and a totalitarian regime would emerge.
In my opinion, a nation must have alternate points of view on how the country should be ran in order for politics to be somewhat balanced and semi-rational.
Plus - if there was not a Right vs Left, this would not be any fun!
They are called political "parties" for a reason...
May 16, 2017 16:47:15 #
BrickelBrak wrote:
Yes all liberals are leftists and vice versa, my p... (show quote)
I would safely say the people of America can not tell the difference between Leftism, Liberalism and the Democratic Party, and with good reason. Nor have you been able to, or seen fit to, enlighten them. Just saying not all Democrats are Leftists---if that is indeed what you are saying---isn't going to cut it.
May 16, 2017 20:18:05 #
I do not feel the need to enlighten anyone on the the differences on the Left, Liberalism or the Democratic Party.
If you want those definitions , I think some of Noam Chomskys writings would clear that up, but I'm not sure.
Let me remove that first part so we don't get hung up on that and start over:
In my opinion, the GOP needs the Democrats around in order to survive as a party.
The worst thing possible that could happen to the GOP is if all Democrats suddenly disappeared.
To parallel with an abstract:
In the former Soviet Union, the dissenting party was removed after the Bolsheviks took power.
Without a competing party, the Bolsheviks looked inward and the great purge began.
Just a few years after what was thought to be a populist "peoples" revolution. Without an internal dissenting opinions the Soviet Union quickly became a totalitarian regime.
Conversely:
Should the Republicans suddenly vanish, the Democrat party would degenerate to in-fighting and purging and a totalitarian regime would emerge.
The same thing would happen if all Republicans suddenly vanished: the Democrats would go un-checked.
In my opinion, a nation must have alternate points of view on how the country should be ran in order for politics to be somewhat balanced and semi-rational.
If you want those definitions , I think some of Noam Chomskys writings would clear that up, but I'm not sure.
Let me remove that first part so we don't get hung up on that and start over:
In my opinion, the GOP needs the Democrats around in order to survive as a party.
The worst thing possible that could happen to the GOP is if all Democrats suddenly disappeared.
To parallel with an abstract:
In the former Soviet Union, the dissenting party was removed after the Bolsheviks took power.
Without a competing party, the Bolsheviks looked inward and the great purge began.
Just a few years after what was thought to be a populist "peoples" revolution. Without an internal dissenting opinions the Soviet Union quickly became a totalitarian regime.
Conversely:
Should the Republicans suddenly vanish, the Democrat party would degenerate to in-fighting and purging and a totalitarian regime would emerge.
The same thing would happen if all Republicans suddenly vanished: the Democrats would go un-checked.
In my opinion, a nation must have alternate points of view on how the country should be ran in order for politics to be somewhat balanced and semi-rational.
May 18, 2017 13:32:15 #
BrickelBrak wrote:
I do not feel the need to enlighten anyone on the ... (show quote)
Then don't. Just keep it to yourself. I won't tell anyone.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.