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 8
    Thumb down 17

    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 14
      Thumb down 5

      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 4
        Thumb down 5

        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 25, 2017 at 1:35 pm
          Confused says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 2

          “burning taxpayer money to bail out stockholders”

          AIG bailout = $182.3 billion
          AIG repayments = $205 billion

          If you pay me $1 and I pay you back $2, you can’t honestly try to argue that you burned $1 in the deal when you really MADE money.

          • April 26, 2017 at 8:19 am
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            ‘Burned money’ refers to stolen accounts at inadequate rates. That term has been circling the insurance industry in regard to AIG since 2009.

            Get a clue.

          • April 26, 2017 at 9:37 am
            Confused says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            So if you steal $5 from my account and then depost $8 in the account, you’re saying there is $5 in ‘burned money’ while disregarding the balance actually increased by $3?

          • April 26, 2017 at 4:25 pm
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            Clueless! I am not talking about Govt – AIG relationship.

          • April 26, 2017 at 4:28 pm
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            The LOAN by the USA was always known to be an interest bearing LOAN. The ‘burn’ USE of the money was contrary to the purpose of keeping AIG afloat; i.e. it stole accounts from other insurers by BURNING money by underpricing accounts to keep them from their competition. The LOAN by the USA should not have been used in that way…. BURN BABY BURN! … which is not to be confused with BERN BABY BERNED!

      • April 21, 2017 at 6:09 pm
        PolarBeaRepeal says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 4

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

        • April 25, 2017 at 1:04 pm
          UW says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 1

          No it’s not. Most economists say we were very near the same thing. We had a worldwide crash that lasted years because of what were essentially bank runs, or banking crises.

          • April 25, 2017 at 2:09 pm
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            Most economists today weren’t alive then. Prove your claim, which I just refuted. Proof does not consist of saying “no, it’s not.”

            The great depression lessons were taught to me by my parents, who lived through it, unlike you young punk millenial Libitteral.

    • April 21, 2017 at 2:25 pm
      Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 6
      Thumb down 12

      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 2

      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 4
        Thumb down 1

        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 3
          Thumb down 3

          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 3
            Thumb down 1

            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 3
            Thumb down 3

            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 25, 2017 at 2:30 pm
            mr opinion says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 1

            Sure, whatever you say. Let’s let the whole world burn because we just assume the economy will correct itself. Too big to fail is not a license of bad behavior, it’s a signal that the corporation and its decisions cannot be subject to a completely free market, because doing so puts the entire country at the mercy of the bad decisions of a few executives. As I said, the bailout should not have happened, because it should not have been necessary. I’m not saying Dodd-Frank is the answer, but letting these companies do whatever they want then letting the economy collapse because of their actions makes no sense. Stop their poor behavior before they tank the economy, stop them from being too big to fail or be prepared to either bail them out or endure another depression. Those are your choices.

          • April 26, 2017 at 8:30 am
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            The economy WILL correct itself if Socialist governments get out of the way.

            Unfortunately, there is Venezuela, Greece, Great Britain, Cana-duh, etc. fouling up the world economies.

          • April 26, 2017 at 10:03 am
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            “let the whole world burn…” = hyperbole & fear mongering.

            Parts of the world economy will eventually ‘burn’. It’s a ‘natural’ economic cycle.

          • April 26, 2017 at 5:04 pm
            mr opinion says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            easy to say after the fact, after it’s done, when you don’t have to worry about your life being destroyed by it. What IF I’m right about the result? Are you really SO sure it would fix itself that you would push for all americans to take that risk? Are you SO confident in your understanding of all the little nuances of economics that nobel laureates don’t seem as confident about, that the destruction of the national and possibly global economy is worth not considering a bailout, just because it appears too “socialist.” By the way, “Cana-duh” was among those impacted the LEAST by the financial crisis. Not the best example of the “wrong way” when discussing this topic…

  • April 21, 2017 at 11:28 am
    PolarBeaRepeal says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 13

    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 5

      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 4

          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 25, 2017 at 8:10 am
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            “Do you think the bottom 90% create any jobs?” Since jobs are created through demand, YES!!!!!! Honest question, would you, or do you know any successful businessperson who would expand and create jobs ONLY because their taxes were reduced? I would hope it would require an increase in demand for their product and/or service.

            “I do agree that incentivizing business to create jobs is a good thing.” Then you should be supporting my proposal.

            “Cut wasteful government and you get to a balanced budget over time.” I agree with you, but President Trump has not mentioned this in any substantive way. When is the last time he even mentioned the debt?

          • April 25, 2017 at 1:09 pm
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 3

            The bottom 90% create almost every job. There are no jobs without demand. There is almost no demand without the bottom 90%. The bottom 30% pay no federal income taxes, but they do pay gas, property, sales, etc taxes.

            The Sanders tax plan was basically the one that created a global superpower in the US, with a dramatically increasing middle class; the plan you support is the one Reagan and others since him have pushed that decimated the middle class.

          • April 25, 2017 at 2:11 pm
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            LOL at the unsubstantiated claim that the bottom creates jobs through demand.

            WHERE DO THEY GET $$$$ TO CREATE DEMAND?

            Logic isn’t your strength, I see.

          • April 25, 2017 at 3:21 pm
            Confused says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            “WHERE DO THEY GET $$$$ TO CREATE DEMAND?”

            According to you and Agent, welfare and food stamps.

          • April 25, 2017 at 5:43 pm
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            I see you have no answer to my question, so you diverted the discussion to welfare and food stamps.

        • April 21, 2017 at 6:10 pm
          PolarBeaRepeal says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 5

          Ron has a much too big bottom.

          • April 26, 2017 at 5:21 pm
            Agent says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            Polar, I do seem to remember the imbecile minority leader in the House saying that welfare, food stamps stimulate the economy. I say real jobs stimulate it far more. We saw what 95 million out of the work force did in the past 8 years. Oblama never hit 3% in GDP with his job killing proposals. Business is overjoyed that they will get better tax treatment and corporations hiding money offshore will be glad to repatriate trillions to this economy if they get favorable treatment. Net result, more investment, more jobs and more income.

        • April 21, 2017 at 6:11 pm
          PolarBeaRepeal says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 4

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

          • April 25, 2017 at 2:54 pm
            mr opinion says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            unbearable…you’re both right and you’re both wrong. the top 10% pays salaries to the bottom 90% who in turn buy goods and services providing money to the top 10%. It’s cyclical. They BOTH feed each other. The problem isn’t 10% vs 90%, you can inject money into either side and the result will be the same: a TEMPORARY economic boost. The Government needs to focus on elevating the middle class to the 10%. Some will succeed, most will not. But it’s that endeavor that stimulates the economy perpetually. Mega-corporations are forced to innovate and invest in order to keep their place. The ones that don’t will lose their place to new companies (free market). The new companies, until the become mega-corporations, are less centralized requiring more labor. Government needs to focus on funding new ventures and removing barriers to entry into markets. Doing so does not interfere with the free market. It is in-fact the barriers to entry themselves that stifle the free market, and need to be forcibly corrected to maintain a free market. We need to get back to the day where Sam Walton started Wal-Mart with $10,000. Even in today’s money, it’s impossible to build an empire with that little in this economy. THAT’s what we need to work on, not injecting money, or reducing taxes in any one point in the cycle. Remove the stranglehold some companies have and force them to re-join the “free” market and be just as vulnerable to it as everyone else. If they can do so, and still pay their CEO $26M a year, good for them. That’s success. Preventing anyone from competing or entering the market is unamerican.

          • April 26, 2017 at 5:25 pm
            Agent says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            Polar, absolutey correct. He went to the Socialist school of Economics and had no idea how a Capitalist economy works. That may come from him not paying Federal Income tax for years.

  • April 21, 2017 at 3:54 pm
    Bill Price says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 6
    Thumb down 3

    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 4

    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