Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 03-23-2017, 07:50 PM   #1
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,646
Trumps bleak economic future.

Those banking on Trumps policies to make the economy boom again, and who view the rising stock market as a sign of that, may be in for a very rude awakening of the opposite.

detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2017, 04:53 AM   #2
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 1,447
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/25/how-d...cy-schiff.html
wdmso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2017, 06:17 AM   #3
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,252
The day after the election, Paul Krugman (a Nobel Prize winning, and therefore Marxist, economist) said the US financial markets would never recover form a Trump presidency. Much speculation, no one can know for sure.

Interest rates have nowhere to go but up.

Many feel the stock market is unjustifiably high and ripe for a correction (that goes back to the Obama era)

Many feel there that federal and state levels of unfunded debt are going to trigger the next recession.

Countering that, are many business leaders, who are confident that we have an administration, and a Congress, that are much friendlier to business than any in recent memory. That may, MAY, instill large companies with the confidence to invest in growth.

Also, Trump has promised (who the hell knows if he will keep said promise) to modify trade relations in our favor.

Many, many unknowns. Me personally, I am betting on the market to rise, but I have strict stop-loss protections to get out early if/when things head south.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2017, 07:17 AM   #4
Ian
Idiot
iTrader: (0)
 
Ian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Glastonbury, CT
Posts: 1,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
The day after the election, Paul Krugman (a Nobel Prize winning, and therefore Marxist, economist) said the US financial markets would never recover form a Trump presidency. Much speculation, no one can know for sure.

Interest rates have nowhere to go but up.

Many feel the stock market is unjustifiably high and ripe for a correction (that goes back to the Obama era)

Many feel there that federal and state levels of unfunded debt are going to trigger the next recession.

Countering that, are many business leaders, who are confident that we have an administration, and a Congress, that are much friendlier to business than any in recent memory. That may, MAY, instill large companies with the confidence to invest in growth.

Also, Trump has promised (who the hell knows if he will keep said promise) to modify trade relations in our favor.

Many, many unknowns. Me personally, I am betting on the market to rise, but I have strict stop-loss protections to get out early if/when things head south.
So if things go wrong, it's obamas fault... I like this game, it's fun
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The artist formerly known as Scratch59.
Ian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2017, 08:26 AM   #5
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian View Post
So if things go wrong, it's obamas fault... I like this game, it's fun
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Please read my post again, and tell me where I said anything was Obama's fault. I said (correctly) that some people were concerned that during Obama's presidency, the stock market increased unjustifiably. The concern is that artificially low interest rates, and massive buying back of bonds (quantitative easing) caused an artificial increase.

Trump wasn't president when those policies were enacted. That is a fact.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2017, 03:51 PM   #6
Got Stripers
Ledge Runner Baits
iTrader: (0)
 
Got Stripers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: I live in a house, but my soul is at sea.
Posts: 3,819
I wouldn't be surprised at all based on the inability to get much done to date, Trump care isn't going anywhere. Looks like Trump is going to move on to tax reform to see if he can win at something, so far it's no travel ban, no wall, no repeal and replace.

Thankfully on a scale of 1 to 10, I'm invested at a level of risk at 3, so my exposure isn't going to kill my retirement planning.
Got Stripers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2017, 04:54 PM   #7
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers View Post
I wouldn't be surprised at all based on the inability to get much done to date, Trump care isn't going anywhere. Looks like Trump is going to move on to tax reform to see if he can win at something, so far it's no travel ban, no wall, no repeal and replace.

Thankfully on a scale of 1 to 10, I'm invested at a level of risk at 3, so my exposure isn't going to kill my retirement planning.
He's helped you so far and it's only been 50 days
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
buckman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2017, 08:07 PM   #8
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman View Post
He's helped you so far and it's only been 50 days
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Stop posting facts unless they support liberalism.

The first time Obama pushed Obamacare, it died. The democrats went home to try and sell it to their constituents, and everyone hated the idea. Was it that long ago that I'm the only one who remembers?

That said, I think they were stupid to lead with healthcare. It's too important to try and rush it through, take 6 months or a year to get it right, and in the meantime go for low hanging fruit that most people endorse, like paid family medical leave and tax credits for childcare.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2017, 08:15 PM   #9
Got Stripers
Ledge Runner Baits
iTrader: (0)
 
Got Stripers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: I live in a house, but my soul is at sea.
Posts: 3,819
Not as easy as negotiating a hotel and golf course deal, welcome to the whitw house
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Got Stripers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2017, 11:47 AM   #10
Justfishin'
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Not close enough to the water!
Posts: 396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post

Interest rates have nowhere to go but up.


Countering that, are many business leaders, who are confident that we have an administration, and a Congress, that are much friendlier to business than any in recent memory. That may, MAY, instill large companies with the confidence to invest in growth.

Also, Trump has promised (who the hell knows if he will keep said promise) to modify trade relations in our favor.

.
As long the business leaders invest in the countries growth and not their own, we, as a country can get on track and out of debt. I'm hoping that Trump keeps his word on hitting companies that send their work offshore with heavy tariffs.
Justfishin' is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2017, 10:11 AM   #11
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,662
I thought the Repubs. where in favor of pushing things to the state level?


WASHINGTON — By a single vote, the Senate gave final approval on Thursday to a measure to block cities and counties from organizing retirement savings accounts for workers who have no access to employer-sponsored plans. The vote reverses a Labor Department rule that allows local governments to automatically enroll private-sector workers in retirement plans unless they opt out.

The 50-49 vote was a startling reversal for many Republicans, who have argued for much of their careers that overzealous federal regulators were trampling the rights of state and local governments. In this case, congressional Republicans protested that President Barack Obama’s rules gave local regulators too much leeway.

Representative Virginia Foxx, Republican of North Carolina, a sponsor of the legislation, called it “unconscionable” that the Obama administration’s rule was denying workers federal consumer protections. The White House has indicated that President Trump will sign the measure into law.

New York City, Philadelphia and Seattle all have considered retirement plans taking advantage of the Labor Department rule — what they call a “safe harbor” — that Republicans seek to reverse. Five states have also passed legislation permitted by a similar Labor Department regulation, which gives the states the power to appoint private money managers who would oversee portable savings accounts for workers.

The Senate is expected to soon take up a separate House resolution rolling back that state rule.

The consequences of the Senate’s votes could be significant. The Labor Department rules were designed to give around 13 million people in the five states access to retirement accounts, out of 55 million nationwide who lack employer-sanctioned retirement programs. Among those affected most by the measure passed on Thursday will be small business owners and employees who have blanched at the cost of conventional 401(k) plans or pensions.

In a joint statement, Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York, the City Council president, the city’s public advocate and a council member said that they were “deeply disappointed that Congress has voted to overturn the Department of Labor rule providing a safe harbor for us to create retirement savings plans for private sector employees.”

“This vote does little more than block them — the majority of whom are women and people of color — from securing their futures,” the statement said.

Thursday’s vote was only the latest regulation that Republicans have rolled back this year using the 1996 Congressional Review Act, which had hardly been used in the two decades before Mr. Trump’s inauguration. Seven rollbacks have been signed into law by President Trump, with several others awaiting his signature.

But in this case, Republicans were replacing local regulatory authority with federal control — taking up a cause of investment banks that fear competition from state and local governments. The Obama Labor Department’s rule actually gave states more autonomy in reaching contracts with private-sector financial managers to handle the savings accounts. State governments could be administrative conduits, keeping records while passing on funding to private consultants, who would manage the money in place of state treasurers.

“Too many states have made questionable decisions when it comes to managing retirement funding,” said Representative Phil Roe, Republican of Tennessee.

Republicans maintained that government-sponsored retirement savings accounts free of federal consumer protection rules had an unfair advantage over plans from private-sector providers.

Under the law that governs pensions, employers must show that they are managing their retirement programs on behalf of their workers, not the investment funds — a provision some Republicans argued that state and city plans could skirt.

In fact, many states that have passed legislation to take advantage of the Labor Department regulation have included a similar “fiduciary responsibility” requirement in their auto-enrollment programs. And Congress has acted to reverse an Obama administration regulation that demanded that all investment advisers make their clients’ interests paramount.

Senators in both parties lobbed comments on the issue on the Senate floor Wednesday. Critical of what he called the “competitive advantage” that the rules might give cities and states over private-sector retirement offerings, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, said the Labor Department statutes spelled “more government at the expense of the private sector.”

“These retirement savings regulations are a classic case of the whole being worse than the sum of its parts,” he said.

Both of Oregon’s senators, who are Democrats, spoke on behalf of the Labor Department rules, which would protect their state’s “OregonSaves” retirement accounts, scheduled to open in July.

“I hear all the time in here about states’ rights. I hear all the time about how states are the place for experimentation to see what works and what doesn’t work,” Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon said. “This Congressional Review Act proposal says the opposite. It says, ‘Let’s stomp out experiments by our municipalities.’”

Some liberals see the fight over the House bills as a proxy battle that Republicans were eager to wage on behalf of the financial services industry.

“They’re ignoring the fact that the idea of the auto-I.R.A. came out of the Heritage Foundation and Brookings,” said Joshua Gotbaum, chairman of the board responsible for setting up Maryland’s version of the plan, referring to a conservative research institution and the more liberal Brookings Institution. “It’s supported by the Republican state treasurer of Utah and Indiana — real honest-to-God Republican states.”

“This is fundamentally a Republican idea,” Mr. Gotbaum added.

David John, a policy adviser at AARP and the deputy director of the Brookings Institution’s Retirement Security Project, wrote papers defending the auto-I.R.A. concept while he was at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

“This is a problem that could be just as easily dealt with at the federal level. But it’s not being dealt with. Rather than doing nothing, states are stepping in and recognizing that it’s in their financial interests to act and build these systems,” Mr. John said.

“With the state-sponsored plans, we’re seeing for the first time hundreds of thousands of people who have access to these from the day they go to work to the day they retire,” he added.

Mr. Gotbaum expressed confidence in states’ ability to defend their prerogatives.

“There’s going to be a lawsuit, and the lawsuit is going to decide this,” he said of the next step for them. “They’re going to go ahead no matter what.”
PaulS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2017, 10:29 AM   #12
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,252
"I thought the Repubs. where in favor of pushing things to the state level? "


And I thought liberals were in favor of federal laws that protect citizens from abuse and crime that would surely take place in the absence of those federal regulations?

That said, I don't see the harm in letting states do this if people want. I wouldn't want the people who run the state of CT within 100 miles of my IRA, but if someone wants to trust an idiotic Marxist with their retirement fund, it's their funeral.

But how does it prevent anyone from saving for retirement? Can't we all call Fidelity and open an IRA? Who is it, that cannot do this, without government interference?
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2017, 10:32 AM   #13
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
I thought the Repubs. where in favor of pushing things to the state level?


WASHINGTON — By a single vote, the Senate gave final approval on Thursday to a measure to block cities and counties from organizing retirement savings accounts for workers who have no access to employer-sponsored plans. The vote reverses a Labor Department rule that allows local governments to automatically enroll private-sector workers in retirement plans unless they opt out.

The 50-49 vote was a startling reversal for many Republicans, who have argued for much of their careers that overzealous federal regulators were trampling the rights of state and local governments. In this case, congressional Republicans protested that President Barack Obama’s rules gave local regulators too much leeway.

Representative Virginia Foxx, Republican of North Carolina, a sponsor of the legislation, called it “unconscionable” that the Obama administration’s rule was denying workers federal consumer protections. The White House has indicated that President Trump will sign the measure into law.

New York City, Philadelphia and Seattle all have considered retirement plans taking advantage of the Labor Department rule — what they call a “safe harbor” — that Republicans seek to reverse. Five states have also passed legislation permitted by a similar Labor Department regulation, which gives the states the power to appoint private money managers who would oversee portable savings accounts for workers.

The Senate is expected to soon take up a separate House resolution rolling back that state rule.

The consequences of the Senate’s votes could be significant. The Labor Department rules were designed to give around 13 million people in the five states access to retirement accounts, out of 55 million nationwide who lack employer-sanctioned retirement programs. Among those affected most by the measure passed on Thursday will be small business owners and employees who have blanched at the cost of conventional 401(k) plans or pensions.

In a joint statement, Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York, the City Council president, the city’s public advocate and a council member said that they were “deeply disappointed that Congress has voted to overturn the Department of Labor rule providing a safe harbor for us to create retirement savings plans for private sector employees.”

“This vote does little more than block them — the majority of whom are women and people of color — from securing their futures,” the statement said.

Thursday’s vote was only the latest regulation that Republicans have rolled back this year using the 1996 Congressional Review Act, which had hardly been used in the two decades before Mr. Trump’s inauguration. Seven rollbacks have been signed into law by President Trump, with several others awaiting his signature.

But in this case, Republicans were replacing local regulatory authority with federal control — taking up a cause of investment banks that fear competition from state and local governments. The Obama Labor Department’s rule actually gave states more autonomy in reaching contracts with private-sector financial managers to handle the savings accounts. State governments could be administrative conduits, keeping records while passing on funding to private consultants, who would manage the money in place of state treasurers.

“Too many states have made questionable decisions when it comes to managing retirement funding,” said Representative Phil Roe, Republican of Tennessee.

Republicans maintained that government-sponsored retirement savings accounts free of federal consumer protection rules had an unfair advantage over plans from private-sector providers.

Under the law that governs pensions, employers must show that they are managing their retirement programs on behalf of their workers, not the investment funds — a provision some Republicans argued that state and city plans could skirt.

In fact, many states that have passed legislation to take advantage of the Labor Department regulation have included a similar “fiduciary responsibility” requirement in their auto-enrollment programs. And Congress has acted to reverse an Obama administration regulation that demanded that all investment advisers make their clients’ interests paramount.

Senators in both parties lobbed comments on the issue on the Senate floor Wednesday. Critical of what he called the “competitive advantage” that the rules might give cities and states over private-sector retirement offerings, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, said the Labor Department statutes spelled “more government at the expense of the private sector.”

“These retirement savings regulations are a classic case of the whole being worse than the sum of its parts,” he said.

Both of Oregon’s senators, who are Democrats, spoke on behalf of the Labor Department rules, which would protect their state’s “OregonSaves” retirement accounts, scheduled to open in July.

“I hear all the time in here about states’ rights. I hear all the time about how states are the place for experimentation to see what works and what doesn’t work,” Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon said. “This Congressional Review Act proposal says the opposite. It says, ‘Let’s stomp out experiments by our municipalities.’”

Some liberals see the fight over the House bills as a proxy battle that Republicans were eager to wage on behalf of the financial services industry.

“They’re ignoring the fact that the idea of the auto-I.R.A. came out of the Heritage Foundation and Brookings,” said Joshua Gotbaum, chairman of the board responsible for setting up Maryland’s version of the plan, referring to a conservative research institution and the more liberal Brookings Institution. “It’s supported by the Republican state treasurer of Utah and Indiana — real honest-to-God Republican states.”

“This is fundamentally a Republican idea,” Mr. Gotbaum added.

David John, a policy adviser at AARP and the deputy director of the Brookings Institution’s Retirement Security Project, wrote papers defending the auto-I.R.A. concept while he was at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

“This is a problem that could be just as easily dealt with at the federal level. But it’s not being dealt with. Rather than doing nothing, states are stepping in and recognizing that it’s in their financial interests to act and build these systems,” Mr. John said.

“With the state-sponsored plans, we’re seeing for the first time hundreds of thousands of people who have access to these from the day they go to work to the day they retire,” he added.

Mr. Gotbaum expressed confidence in states’ ability to defend their prerogatives.

“There’s going to be a lawsuit, and the lawsuit is going to decide this,” he said of the next step for them. “They’re going to go ahead no matter what.”
Don't know what the details in the weeds are here, but from the story it appears the Repubs. are stepping on themselves. At least the establishment Repubs. are. They do that a lot. They are not totally innocent of trashing the Constitution. They have a lot of Progressive tendencies, especially in the establishment types.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2017, 12:14 PM   #14
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
"I thought the Repubs. where in favor of pushing things to the state level? "


And I thought liberals were in favor of federal laws that protect citizens from abuse and crime that would surely take place in the absence of those federal regulations?The but but... defense. I thought Dems. where evil and Repubs where perfect - a little sarcasm there.
That said, I don't see the harm in letting states do this if people want. I wouldn't want the people who run the state of CT within 100 miles of my IRA, but if someone wants to trust an idiotic Marxist with their retirement fund, it's their funeral.

But how does it prevent anyone from saving for retirement? Can't we all call Fidelity and open an IRA? Who is it, that cannot do this, without government interference?
Studies have shown that people are much more apt to save if the $ is taken right out of their paycheck. The states prob. want to help make that happen.

I really read the article very fast and didn't think it was written the best and have no background on the issue.
PaulS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2017, 12:55 PM   #15
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
Studies have shown that people are much more apt to save if the $ is taken right out of their paycheck. The states prob. want to help make that happen.

I really read the article very fast and didn't think it was written the best and have no background on the issue.
"The but but... defense"

You began your post with a "but...but" assault, so I thought a "but...but" defense was appropriate.

" thought Dems. where evil and Repubs where perfect - a little sarcasm there"

I hear ya, I have been known to engage in sarcasm.

"Studies have shown that people are much more apt to save if the $ is taken right out of their paycheck. The states prob. want to help make that happen"

I cannot argue with that, I would have probably supported the idea of making participation automatic. I also like the idea of privatizing SS. I'd like to have the chance to earn better than 0.0001% return, but Bush got crucified.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 08:28 AM   #16
The Dad Fisherman
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
The Dad Fisherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Georgetown MA
Posts: 15,632
Maybe it has something to do with the contributions being automatically deducted unless they opt out. I would like to think it is available as an "Opt in."

Isn't that how Columbia Record club used to work.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
The Dad Fisherman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 08:54 AM   #17
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman View Post
Maybe it has something to do with the contributions being automatically deducted unless they opt out. I would like to think it is available as an "Opt in."

Isn't that how Columbia Record club used to work.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
That's an excellent point. The automatic opt in is not allowing the people in the states more local power, it is a tricky way of taking power away from them. So it is not a way of transferring power from the Federal government to local power, it is a way of giving local government more power over its people. And a way of giving more power of local governments over private sector business, as well, as McConnell pointed out, a competitive advantage of state governments over private insurers.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2017, 10:16 AM   #18
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 1,447
By March 2017, the coal industry employed approximately 77,000 miners

I guess green energy Jobs are Fake News ??
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	800x-1.png
Views:	19
Size:	135.2 KB
ID:	64123  
wdmso is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright 2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com