Trump to Order Review of Dodd-Frank Reforms, Taxes for Insurers, Banks

By | April 21, 2017

  • April 21, 2017 at 11:23 am
    PolarBeaRepeal says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 6
    Thumb down 15

    I agree with the emphasis on revising regulatory oversight while lessening regulations that hinder banks and other financial instiutions from operating efficiently.

    The prior administrations (Bush and Obama) were more concerned with against ‘evil banks and insurance companies’ and less on market competition and Darwinian thinning of the herd that leads to a STRONGER industry. Instead, both two prior Administrations AND DEMOCRAT led Congress, favored BAILOUTS that buttressed the failing companies and penalized innocent taxpayers.

    The rule ‘two heads are smarter than one’ applies when stockholders in charge of companies in which they invest (e.g. AIG, Icahn)are compared to Congress and Presidents who are in over their head when the issue involves complex financial institutions and insurance organizations.

    ‘Lawyers becoming politicians’ are ill-prepared to regulate financial institutions, as evidenced by their emphasis on preventative regulation rather than oversight regulation combined with competitive markets. Truly competitive markets are largely self-regulated when consumers can shop around for the best firms that offer fair prices and fair service. {cue the Socialists, with flawed objections and cliches such as ‘rich banks’, ‘overpaid bank CEOs’, and ‘ripoffs’}.

    • April 21, 2017 at 1:20 pm
      terrymckq says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 13
      Thumb down 4

      Do you really believe thinning the herd would have been better than a bailout? Did you watch the markets collapse after Lehman Bros? Sorry, we already did a dry run from 1929-39. We know better now.

      • April 21, 2017 at 6:08 pm
        PolarBeaRepeal says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 4

        Yes, thinning the herd would have worked better than burning taxpayer money to bail out stockholders who understood they were taking risks in stock investments.

      • April 21, 2017 at 6:09 pm
        PolarBeaRepeal says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 3

        PS your 1932-39 analogy is improper, hyperbole, and fear mongering.

    • April 21, 2017 at 2:25 pm
      Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 11

      Great post Polar. You hit the nail on the head as usual even though your multi moniker down voter friends were not on board. Do you remember the prominent Democrats, Bawny and Chris for which this law came from say that Fannie & Freddie were sound and no cause for scrutiny? That was right before the financial meltdown. Liberal politicians have no clue on finances. All they know how to do is waste taxpayer money and create huge deficits.

    • April 24, 2017 at 8:52 am
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 0

      I see the BOT-less Libitterals were busy over the weekend, logging in and out of various IDs to censor my initial post in this thread.

      Here it is, re-posted:

      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 5
      Thumb down 15

      Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

      I agree with the emphasis on revising regulatory oversight while lessening regulations that hinder banks and other financial instiutions from operating efficiently.

      The prior administrations (Bush and Obama) were more concerned with against ‘evil banks and insurance companies’ and less on market competition and Darwinian thinning of the herd that leads to a STRONGER industry. Instead, both two prior Administrations AND DEMOCRAT led Congress, favored BAILOUTS that buttressed the failing companies and penalized innocent taxpayers.

      The rule ‘two heads are smarter than one’ applies when stockholders in charge of companies in which they invest (e.g. AIG, Icahn)are compared to Congress and Presidents who are in over their head when the issue involves complex financial institutions and insurance organizations.

      ‘Lawyers becoming politicians’ are ill-prepared to regulate financial institutions, as evidenced by their emphasis on preventative regulation rather than oversight regulation combined with competitive markets. Truly competitive markets are largely self-regulated when consumers can shop around for the best firms that offer fair prices and fair service. {cue the Socialists, with flawed objections and cliches such as ‘rich banks’, ‘overpaid bank CEOs’, and ‘ripoffs’}.
      Reply

      • April 24, 2017 at 11:57 am
        mr opinion says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        I think your analysis is rather simplistic, and I have no intention of talking about the “socialist cliches”. Thinning of the herd is a good thing, generally speaking, but we are talking about companies that were deeply interconnected throughout the economy. For example, AIG wasn’t just providing insurance, they were also one of the nation’s largest reinsurers (and reinsurance is not covered by the guarantee fund). If they went under, countless smaller insurance companies would have not been able to cover their claim obligations. So many in fact, that the guarantee funds themselves would likely have gone bankrupt, and possibly some states going bankrupt. Then we have countless businesses with uncovered liabilities, individuals who can’t get paid for their injuries, family member deaths and destruction of property. Now you have businesses and families all over the country who never knew AIG had anything to do with their lives going bankrupt (and that’s just insurance which is not at all the only industry AIG was involved in). And on and on it goes until the Great Depression looks like nothing but a bad day by comparison. It’s disgusting that a bailout was necessary to begin with, but anti-bailout rhetoric is just politicising after-the fact. I truly believe in a free market, but when companies get to the point where they can single-handedly destroy the economy, my passion for the free market has to take a back seat to the logical outcome of the extreme version of it.

        • April 24, 2017 at 1:12 pm
          RiceSusan Hacked the 2012 Election says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          Other (re)insurance cos. exist and can absorb the AIG book quite easily. Failed logic. Mom & Pop stores go OOB every day and their competition picks off the carcasses to increase their client bases.

          • April 24, 2017 at 3:25 pm
            mr opinion says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Really? Absorb? So the ceded premium payments the hundreds of small to mid-size insurance carriers paid to cover losses just disappears and Swiss Re, Munich Re and others write new treaties that retroactively cover all the risk that AIG was covering at no additional cost (that’s a bailout funded by the remaining reinsurers)? Ceded reinsurance costs for all except the largest carriers can be a larger component of the rate than their own cost since the cede more risk than they retain (not all, but a lot of them). Paying the same amount they already paid would bankrupt them faster than the un-reinsured claims. Sure, let’s go Darwinian and let the hundreds of insurance companies that were re-insured with AIG go bankrupt so there’s more for those that didn’t. Except now you have god-knows how many insurance company employees unemployed and hundreds of thousands of people and businesses with uninsured claims and states going bankrupt. Hospitals can’t collect auto no-fault and workers comp to pay for the treatment they give, doctors and nurses get laid off…and on and on. Complete domino effect throughout the entire US Economy. The remaining reinsurers (largely non-US companies by the way) will be the only ones to survive but there’s no one left who can afford insurance. If you’re an intelligent person who knows the mechanics of insurance, it was simply impossible that the US economy survived if AIG folded. It’s disgusting, but there was no choice.

          • April 24, 2017 at 6:51 pm
            RiceSusan Hacked the 2012 Election says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Really. Too big to fail shouldn’t be a license for poor corporate behavior at the expense of taxpayers. Get real with your whining about how their relationships cannot be unwound. Commutations are such a tool, and there are many others, such as guaranty funds that work fine for other insurers. If you can’t follow the details, let those who can handle the unwinding process do so.

  • April 21, 2017 at 11:28 am
    PolarBeaRepeal says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 12

    Apparently, some in Congress haven’t heard of Insurance Guaranty Funds.
    Or, they heard / know of them, but prefer a Socialist approach to control insurance, especially health insurance due to its’ greater degree of demand inelasticity versus other lines.

    • April 21, 2017 at 3:39 pm
      Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 4

      Polar, now the debate will go to Tax Cuts which America desperately needs, especially the Middle Class. The age old question Progressives ask is “How do you pay for it”? How about we cut $400 Billion out of a $4 Trillion budget and get rid of all unnecessary programs, departments, agencies and regulations? That is only 10% and all it needs is the will and courage to do it. Our monstrous government is about twice as big as it should be. Audit by a good CPA firm and make the recommendations.

      • April 21, 2017 at 4:13 pm
        Ron says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 0

        My proposal for tax cuts:

        1. Only the bottom 90% of earners since the top 10% will most likely not put the money back into the economy
        2. Tax credits to businesses that increase their workforce. If the reason for lowering taxes is to increase jobs, this should be very common and easy to earn.
        3. Tax credits for businesses that increase wages for current employees by at least 5%. The higher the wage increase, the greater the tax credit.

        If we are going to incur more debt in order to fund these tax cuts, let’s at least maximize our return on investment.

        • April 21, 2017 at 5:53 pm
          Agent says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 3

          Ron, your proposal is full of holes. Do you think the bottom 90% create any jobs? The bottom 30% pays no taxes as it is. I do agree that incentivizing business to create jobs is a good thing. Trump has been getting a good reception from business with his tax policy. Better tax policy is welcome news to the overbearing Progressive Tax Code that penalizes rather than encourages business. Create more jobs and the government gets more revenue. Cut wasteful government and you get to a balanced budget over time. Bernie Sanders & Hilliary theories on increasing taxes is about as dumb as it gets. We don’t want to be Venezuela by the way.

          Socialism leads to Communism – Lenin

        • April 21, 2017 at 6:10 pm
          PolarBeaRepeal says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 3

          Ron has a much too big bottom.

        • April 21, 2017 at 6:11 pm
          PolarBeaRepeal says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 3

          Prediction: Ron will strike out, 1,2,3 on his 3 wild Socialist swings at tax reform.

  • April 21, 2017 at 3:54 pm
    Bill Price says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 2

    Dodd-Frank was intended to stress Hometown American Business out of business so Wall Street Bankster Vultures could gobble them up, using FED funding,,, all under the charade of Keeping Banks solvent.

    The beginning of the takeover by the Banksters was the repeal of Glass-Steagall, resulting in Way to Bigger to Fail.

    Banksters will control rewrites of both to their benefit, and to the ultimate financial doom of Hometown American Business.

  • April 21, 2017 at 4:05 pm
    Bill Price says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 3

    Dodd-Frank is a fraud-scam intended to drive Hometown American Business out of business, so the Vulture Bankesters can gobble them up, using QE FED funding. (Paulson & Githner)

    Repeal of Glass-Steagall began the aggregation of Banksters into the Way-to-Big-to-Fail oligarchy. (Clinton)

    Rewrite of Both will be Controlled by the WS Banksters ( GS operatives) to the Ultimate Doom of Hometown American Business.

    BP



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features