Also, Republican policy is only 'good for the economy' if your definition of 'good for the economy' is 'it benefited a small, narrow subset of wealthy people in a handful of fields'.
For the vast majority of people, their policies are actively damaging.
I really don't care that Steve the Investment Banker got to keep his job gambling with peoples investments if the same set of policies also wipes out the life savings of thousands of lower earning families.
Can we not obliquely compare the Republican Party to the Nazi Party?
I don't know, can the Republican party not be horribly racist and sexist? Cause these two things, they are intimately connected. That's the point of the example.
You'd think the recent reactions to the whole Confederate Flag thing would have made this quite clear.
While parallels exist, so do with any far right nationalistic political party, it's the nature of the beast.
We still should avoud Godwinning the thread.
I like to joke about how the difference between Confederate Flag and Swastika is, that swastika has actual historical background not steeped in racism.
That does not follow that people using the confederate flag are as bad or worse, or even that similar, to Nazis.
But again, the whole discussion is "Is it ok to vote for a party of racism and bigotry because of their economic policy?".
So you bring up an example of a party of racism and bigotry that nobody argues isn't one, like the neo-nazis. Because it doesn't actually matter if the party in question is racist against blacks or jews or latinos or asians or whatever. It's all the same shit to the question.
If the Nazis had stopped at just being racist then the 30's would have been a picnic.
What I really don't understand is how so many people can buy into the Republican line about trickle-down economics.
I mean, what evidence is there that taxing rich people more is bad for the economy? The 1% doesn't spend any more money on creating jobs just because they aren't paying higher taxes, they just keep putting it into ways that generate money for them without having to pay more taxes.
What I really don't understand is how so many people can buy into the Republican line about trickle-down economics.
I mean, what evidence is there that taxing rich people more is bad for the economy? The 1% doesn't spend any more money on creating jobs just because they aren't paying higher taxes, they just keep putting it into ways that generate money for them without having to pay more taxes.
It's absolutely ridiculous, because it's been tried what, three times now? And each time the money's never "trickled down".
What I really don't understand is how so many people can buy into the Republican line about trickle-down economics.
I mean, what evidence is there that taxing rich people more is bad for the economy? The 1% doesn't spend any more money on creating jobs just because they aren't paying higher taxes, they just keep putting it into ways that generate money for them without having to pay more taxes.
It is ver ingrained in American society that you worth as a person equals the size of your bank account. Cos of the whole Calvinist attitude. I see a lot of people being decidedly uncomfortable with the idea of criticizing the wealthy in any capacity
Can we not obliquely compare the Republican Party to the Nazi Party?
I don't know, can the Republican party not be horribly racist and sexist? Cause these two things, they are intimately connected. That's the point of the example.
You'd think the recent reactions to the whole Confederate Flag thing would have made this quite clear.
While parallels exist, so do with any far right nationalistic political party, it's the nature of the beast.
We still should avoud Godwinning the thread.
I like to joke about how the difference between Confederate Flag and Swastika is, that swastika has actual historical background not steeped in racism.
That does not follow that people using the confederate flag are as bad or worse, or even that similar, to Nazis.
But again, the whole discussion is "Is it ok to vote for a party of racism and bigotry because of their economic policy?".
So you bring up an example of a party of racism and bigotry that nobody argues isn't one, like the neo-nazis. Because it doesn't actually matter if the party in question is racist against blacks or jews or latinos or asians or whatever. It's all the same shit to the question.
If the Nazis had stopped at just being racist then the 30's would have been a picnic.
If the GOP would stop at expressing racist views instead of implementing racist policies, we'd be having a lot better time of things too. Obviously a literal equation of the GOP and the Nazis is ridiculous, but it's inescapably true that the GOP is, by and large, the party of bigotry in America, and that extends to their actions as well as their words.
I'm sure many members of the party, maybe even most, are unhappy with that state of affairs, and I can't blame them. It's important to recognize that this is a shitty situation that grows in part from our stupid two-party system, which ends up lumping all kinds of disparate interests and viewpoints into single power blocs. There is no party for people who favor Republican economic and environmental policies but support gay marriage and liberal immigration policy, for instance, which is a bummer for anyone in that group.
It seems like the central question we're debating here is whether a reasonable person can justifiably vote for the GOP in these circumstances. I don't know, I don't want to vilify close to half the nation, but it's certainly not a case I can even attempt to argue. But then I don't like almost any part of their platform, so I'm not really the person to ask.
Rather than fighting about this amongst ourselves I would be more interested in hearing the rationale of someone who's made the decision to vote GOP for themselves, despite an awareness of the regressive social policies that entails supporting. We've gotten a hint of that from Captain Marcus, but not enough to be very illuminating.
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
Trickle down economics was, back in the day, called the horse-and-sparrow theory. The idea is, you feed a horse enough oats and some of it will pass through and the sparrows can eat some oats on the back end.
What I really don't understand is how so many people can buy into the Republican line about trickle-down economics.
I mean, what evidence is there that taxing rich people more is bad for the economy? The 1% doesn't spend any more money on creating jobs just because they aren't paying higher taxes, they just keep putting it into ways that generate money for them without having to pay more taxes.
It's a bunch of rich people telling you what will make money. That they are rich is usually enough to give them economic credibility in the eyes of many. They just neglect to mention where the money will predominantly go.
What I really don't understand is how so many people can buy into the Republican line about trickle-down economics.
I mean, what evidence is there that taxing rich people more is bad for the economy? The 1% doesn't spend any more money on creating jobs just because they aren't paying higher taxes, they just keep putting it into ways that generate money for them without having to pay more taxes.
It's a bunch of rich people telling you what will make money. That they are rich is usually enough to give them economic credibility in the eyes of many. They just neglect to mention where the money will predominantly go.
Indeed, the ultra-wealthy are very skilled at getting all the money away from everyone else. What's unclear is why that means we should want their advice about how to structure the economy so that everyone has some money.
What I really don't understand is how so many people can buy into the Republican line about trickle-down economics.
I mean, what evidence is there that taxing rich people more is bad for the economy? The 1% doesn't spend any more money on creating jobs just because they aren't paying higher taxes, they just keep putting it into ways that generate money for them without having to pay more taxes.
It's a bunch of rich people telling you what will make money. That they are rich is usually enough to give them economic credibility in the eyes of many. They just neglect to mention where the money will predominantly go.
Indeed, the ultra-wealthy are very skilled at getting all the money away from everyone else. What's unclear is why that means we should want their advice about how to structure the economy so that everyone has some money.
Because we don't want everyone to have some money. If we did, we wouldn't be all too eager to cut up the safety net, or keep a pitiful minimum wage. We want certain people like us to have some money. And what we are is 'not yet rich'
Why do you feel republican economic policy is better?
Were there more jobs at the end of 2008 after 8 years of republican everything? Or are there more jobs and a better economy currently?
The 2008 crash was the result not of just W's time in office, but an unbroken string of neoliberal anti-regulation economic policy kicked off by Reagan and happily continued by Clinton. We do tend to characterize that as "Republican" economic policy but to be fair the centrist Democratic bloc is virtually indistinguishable on this issue at this point.
Which is part of why I don't have a great deal of faith in Hillary Clinton to make substantial progress on this front. Campaign statements aside, this is her power base. She owes too much to entrenched plutocratic interests to fight unencumbered. I certainly expect she'll be better than whoever the GOP puts up, but she's not my preferred representative.
So history has shown the GOP to be completely wrong about the economy, what's history? Words on a page, if we try tax cuts for the wealthy this time, I swear it'll work this time for everyone and not just the mega rich.
Besides I don't want my theoretical taxes going up, see I'm not poor I'm a displaced millionare, with this tax cut to the mega wealthy I'll finally get mine.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
Or there is the cultural stuff that makes people go republican, like when the left started to look down on Christians. Like, "Haha there goes churchie! Eaten any magical fleshcrackers today churchie?". Stuff like that. A dark chapter.
Yes I totally remember when the democrats became the anti christian party in merica. I mean electing a hidden muslim was one thing, but the christmas purges were awful.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Yes I totally remember when the democrats became the anti christian party in merica. I mean electing a hidden muslim was one thing, but the christmas purges were awful.
Personally, I thought the FEMA run protestant gulags were a bit much.
0
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
Can we not obliquely compare the Republican Party to the Nazi Party?
I don't know, can the Republican party not be horribly racist and sexist? Cause these two things, they are intimately connected. That's the point of the example.
You'd think the recent reactions to the whole Confederate Flag thing would have made this quite clear.
While parallels exist, so do with any far right nationalistic political party, it's the nature of the beast.
We still should avoud Godwinning the thread.
I like to joke about how the difference between Confederate Flag and Swastika is, that swastika has actual historical background not steeped in racism.
That does not follow that people using the confederate flag are as bad or worse, or even that similar, to Nazis.
But again, the whole discussion is "Is it ok to vote for a party of racism and bigotry because of their economic policy?".
So you bring up an example of a party of racism and bigotry that nobody argues isn't one, like the neo-nazis. Because it doesn't actually matter if the party in question is racist against blacks or jews or latinos or asians or whatever. It's all the same shit to the question.
If the Nazis had stopped at just being racist then the 30's would have been a picnic.
If the GOP would stop at expressing racist views instead of implementing racist policies, we'd be having a lot better time of things too. Obviously a literal equation of the GOP and the Nazis is ridiculous, but it's inescapably true that the GOP is, by and large, the party of bigotry in America, and that extends to their actions as well as their words.
I'm sure many members of the party, maybe even most, are unhappy with that state of affairs, and I can't blame them. It's important to recognize that this is a shitty situation that grows in part from our stupid two-party system, which ends up lumping all kinds of disparate interests and viewpoints into single power blocs. There is no party for people who favor Republican economic and environmental policies but support gay marriage and liberal immigration policy, for instance, which is a bummer for anyone in that group.
It seems like the central question we're debating here is whether a reasonable person can justifiably vote for the GOP in these circumstances. I don't know, I don't want to vilify close to half the nation, but it's certainly not a case I can even attempt to argue. But then I don't like almost any part of their platform, so I'm not really the person to ask.
Rather than fighting about this amongst ourselves I would be more interested in hearing the rationale of someone who's made the decision to vote GOP for themselves, despite an awareness of the regressive social policies that entails supporting. We've gotten a hint of that from Captain Marcus, but not enough to be very illuminating.
I sure can
where are these people when the party whines about affirmative action
where were they when the supreme court struck down the voting rights act
if these people are bothered by racism, it's obviously not enough to say anything or do anything, which means they are a negative value in that struggle
Shorty on
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
What is the opportunity cost of trying to determine what this non-participant group wants, a group that may not be (and likely isn't) uniform in its composition?
It depends. How badly does she want to win?
It'd be nice, if you know, this group of "voters" (hahahahahahahaha) actually contributed in some way to clarify what it was their desires were.
It'd be nice if the Dems gave them a reason to.
You are aware that after the Tea Party took over, self-identification among Republicans has fallen significantly while their vote share has stayed relatively flat, right? The vast bulk of self-identification 'Independents' are just embarrassed Republicans.
I know a lot of people that vote republican but won't identify as republican because of the regressive social stances. They really just want a party that aligns with their economic views and the republicans are the closest for that so they vote despite the racism, homophobia, etc.
Contemptible, if true.
Neither party is going to represent all your views, so you have to choose what is most important to you. I don't think it is contemptible to prioritize economic issues.
At the expense of embracing homophobia and racism? Yeah, it 100% is.
Would you say that by voting for the Dems you embrace every one of their stances? Political choice is a hammer, not a scalpel, in America.
Well, in this case, you can have it both ways, because the Democrats are also who you should be voting for to prioritize economic issues unless your last name is Walton or Koch.
That's absurd. There are plenty of reasons to prefer the Republican economic model of less regulation, lower taxes and more business subsidies.
Is it just the "less regulations" piece? Because otherwise you just rattled off the Democratic economic model.
Democratic Party is not in favor of tax cuts for business to the extent GOP is, and are in favor of higher individual rates. GOP is generally more inclined to hand money to established businesses too. These are not necessarily good policy positions, but I know plenty of people that support the GOP because it's good for (their) business.
Personally, I benefit from regulation (regulations = need more legal services) but most of my clients vote Republican I'm sure, purely for economic reasons.
And this is, as I said at the start of this conversation, utterly contemptible because it means they are voting for a party or racism and bigotry because it benefits their take-home.
You are allowed to hold different priorities without being contemptible. I think it is totally reasonable to say "I don't think the government should be involved in regulating what consenting adults do in the bedroom, but economic policy is the most important issue to me and that is how I vote." if you have to agree with and endorse every position of the person you vote for, no one could ever vote.
People are absolutely allowed to prioritize what they want.
And other people are allowed to judge them for those priorities.
And I personally have little trouble saying that a person who values making money over all else is not only incredibly selfish but remarkably short sighted.
The flip side is that who you vote for probably won't impact a lot of social issues much. They tend to talk about them more than act on them. But who you vote for probably does have a direct and meaningful impact on your personal finances. In the IRA investment manager context I brought up, whether a Dem or Republican wins will literally determine if these people have a job or not. That is a much greater impact than almost anything else that someone may do in office.
I really don't see how making them act as fiduciaries eliminates their jobs unless they are currently acting in ways that are...questionable ethically. Which, given the reasons for the proposed rules change, is probably likely. I mean, fiduciary requirements are not new, and its not as though people currently acting in those capacities are all volunteers who help people with their finances in between the soup kitchen and tutoring.
What they are doing is taking people who currently reccomended alternative investments to IRAs in a non fiduciary salesman capacity and turning those people into fiduciaries. They are also prohibiting fiduciaries to IRAs from getting paid in connection with reccomending alternative investments, even if they are in the best interest of the IRA. It literally makes it impossible to be in the business of facilitating IRA investment in alternative investments. If that was your job, you won't have a job anymore.
0
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
Why do you feel republican economic policy is better?
Were there more jobs at the end of 2008 after 8 years of republican everything? Or are there more jobs and a better economy currently?
The 2008 crash was the result not of just W's time in office, but an unbroken string of neoliberal anti-regulation economic policy kicked off by Reagan and happily continued by Clinton. We do tend to characterize that as "Republican" economic policy but to be fair the centrist Democratic bloc is virtually indistinguishable on this issue at this point.
Which is part of why I don't have a great deal of faith in Hillary Clinton to make substantial progress on this front. Campaign statements aside, this is her power base. She owes too much to entrenched plutocratic interests to fight unencumbered. I certainly expect she'll be better than whoever the GOP puts up, but she's not my preferred representative.
all of which is true, but it's still important to note that one of the parties is all for committing to the same ideas even harder and one of them is at least in large part like "hey maybe let's reconsider this"
+4
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Why do you feel republican economic policy is better?
Were there more jobs at the end of 2008 after 8 years of republican everything? Or are there more jobs and a better economy currently?
I don't think republican economic policy is better. I don't think dem policy is that great either though. Neither favors high tax rates or tighter regulatory control over industries, both of which I think we need. To be honest, the only real difference between the parties if if a few points should be chopped off the already historically low top rate bracket.
But people who believe in the free market obviously have reason to prefer the Republicans, because they favor less regulation than the very weak regulations that the Dems push.
What is the opportunity cost of trying to determine what this non-participant group wants, a group that may not be (and likely isn't) uniform in its composition?
It depends. How badly does she want to win?
It'd be nice, if you know, this group of "voters" (hahahahahahahaha) actually contributed in some way to clarify what it was their desires were.
It'd be nice if the Dems gave them a reason to.
You are aware that after the Tea Party took over, self-identification among Republicans has fallen significantly while their vote share has stayed relatively flat, right? The vast bulk of self-identification 'Independents' are just embarrassed Republicans.
I know a lot of people that vote republican but won't identify as republican because of the regressive social stances. They really just want a party that aligns with their economic views and the republicans are the closest for that so they vote despite the racism, homophobia, etc.
Contemptible, if true.
Neither party is going to represent all your views, so you have to choose what is most important to you. I don't think it is contemptible to prioritize economic issues.
At the expense of embracing homophobia and racism? Yeah, it 100% is.
Would you say that by voting for the Dems you embrace every one of their stances? Political choice is a hammer, not a scalpel, in America.
Well, in this case, you can have it both ways, because the Democrats are also who you should be voting for to prioritize economic issues unless your last name is Walton or Koch.
That's absurd. There are plenty of reasons to prefer the Republican economic model of less regulation, lower taxes and more business subsidies.
Is it just the "less regulations" piece? Because otherwise you just rattled off the Democratic economic model.
Democratic Party is not in favor of tax cuts for business to the extent GOP is, and are in favor of higher individual rates. GOP is generally more inclined to hand money to established businesses too. These are not necessarily good policy positions, but I know plenty of people that support the GOP because it's good for (their) business.
Personally, I benefit from regulation (regulations = need more legal services) but most of my clients vote Republican I'm sure, purely for economic reasons.
And this is, as I said at the start of this conversation, utterly contemptible because it means they are voting for a party or racism and bigotry because it benefits their take-home.
You are allowed to hold different priorities without being contemptible. I think it is totally reasonable to say "I don't think the government should be involved in regulating what consenting adults do in the bedroom, but economic policy is the most important issue to me and that is how I vote." if you have to agree with and endorse every position of the person you vote for, no one could ever vote.
People are absolutely allowed to prioritize what they want.
And other people are allowed to judge them for those priorities.
And I personally have little trouble saying that a person who values making money over all else is not only incredibly selfish but remarkably short sighted.
The flip side is that who you vote for probably won't impact a lot of social issues much. They tend to talk about them more than act on them. But who you vote for probably does have a direct and meaningful impact on your personal finances. In the IRA investment manager context I brought up, whether a Dem or Republican wins will literally determine if these people have a job or not. That is a much greater impact than almost anything else that someone may do in office.
I really don't see how making them act as fiduciaries eliminates their jobs unless they are currently acting in ways that are...questionable ethically. Which, given the reasons for the proposed rules change, is probably likely. I mean, fiduciary requirements are not new, and its not as though people currently acting in those capacities are all volunteers who help people with their finances in between the soup kitchen and tutoring.
What they are doing is taking people who currently recommended alternative investments to IRAs in a non fiduciary salesman capacity and turning those people into fiduciaries. They are also prohibiting fiduciaries to IRAs from getting paid in connection with recommending alternative investments, even if they are in the best interest of the IRA. It literally makes it impossible to be in the business of facilitating IRA investment in alternative investments. If that was your job, you won't have a job anymore.
No, it doesn't. It just makes it impossible for their job to be paid by commission. And you know what? Most other salespeople aren't paid on commission! They just earn a salary instead! For doing their job which continues to exist! Which typically works better from both a customer service standpoint, as far as businesses are concerned, as well as from an ethical/incentive standpoint. If the billable hour were suddenly made illegal would you be fired from your job, start bartering your services for chickens, or would you earn base pay + a set percentage of profit sharing rather than one based on billable time? I'm going to guess the last one.
+6
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
What is the opportunity cost of trying to determine what this non-participant group wants, a group that may not be (and likely isn't) uniform in its composition?
It depends. How badly does she want to win?
It'd be nice, if you know, this group of "voters" (hahahahahahahaha) actually contributed in some way to clarify what it was their desires were.
It'd be nice if the Dems gave them a reason to.
You are aware that after the Tea Party took over, self-identification among Republicans has fallen significantly while their vote share has stayed relatively flat, right? The vast bulk of self-identification 'Independents' are just embarrassed Republicans.
I know a lot of people that vote republican but won't identify as republican because of the regressive social stances. They really just want a party that aligns with their economic views and the republicans are the closest for that so they vote despite the racism, homophobia, etc.
Contemptible, if true.
Neither party is going to represent all your views, so you have to choose what is most important to you. I don't think it is contemptible to prioritize economic issues.
At the expense of embracing homophobia and racism? Yeah, it 100% is.
Would you say that by voting for the Dems you embrace every one of their stances? Political choice is a hammer, not a scalpel, in America.
Well, in this case, you can have it both ways, because the Democrats are also who you should be voting for to prioritize economic issues unless your last name is Walton or Koch.
That's absurd. There are plenty of reasons to prefer the Republican economic model of less regulation, lower taxes and more business subsidies.
Is it just the "less regulations" piece? Because otherwise you just rattled off the Democratic economic model.
Democratic Party is not in favor of tax cuts for business to the extent GOP is, and are in favor of higher individual rates. GOP is generally more inclined to hand money to established businesses too. These are not necessarily good policy positions, but I know plenty of people that support the GOP because it's good for (their) business.
Personally, I benefit from regulation (regulations = need more legal services) but most of my clients vote Republican I'm sure, purely for economic reasons.
And this is, as I said at the start of this conversation, utterly contemptible because it means they are voting for a party or racism and bigotry because it benefits their take-home.
You are allowed to hold different priorities without being contemptible. I think it is totally reasonable to say "I don't think the government should be involved in regulating what consenting adults do in the bedroom, but economic policy is the most important issue to me and that is how I vote." if you have to agree with and endorse every position of the person you vote for, no one could ever vote.
People are absolutely allowed to prioritize what they want.
And other people are allowed to judge them for those priorities.
And I personally have little trouble saying that a person who values making money over all else is not only incredibly selfish but remarkably short sighted.
The flip side is that who you vote for probably won't impact a lot of social issues much. They tend to talk about them more than act on them. But who you vote for probably does have a direct and meaningful impact on your personal finances. In the IRA investment manager context I brought up, whether a Dem or Republican wins will literally determine if these people have a job or not. That is a much greater impact than almost anything else that someone may do in office.
I really don't see how making them act as fiduciaries eliminates their jobs unless they are currently acting in ways that are...questionable ethically. Which, given the reasons for the proposed rules change, is probably likely. I mean, fiduciary requirements are not new, and its not as though people currently acting in those capacities are all volunteers who help people with their finances in between the soup kitchen and tutoring.
What they are doing is taking people who currently recommended alternative investments to IRAs in a non fiduciary salesman capacity and turning those people into fiduciaries. They are also prohibiting fiduciaries to IRAs from getting paid in connection with recommending alternative investments, even if they are in the best interest of the IRA. It literally makes it impossible to be in the business of facilitating IRA investment in alternative investments. If that was your job, you won't have a job anymore.
No, it doesn't. It just makes it impossible for their job to be paid by commission. And you know what? Most other salespeople aren't paid on commission! They just earn a salary instead! For doing their job which continues to exist! Which typically works better from both a customer service standpoint, as far as businesses are concerned, as well as from an ethical/incentive standpoint. If the billable hour were suddenly made illegal would you be fired from your job, start bartering your services for chickens, or would you earn base pay + a set percentage of profit sharing rather than one based on billable time? I'm going to guess the last one.
It bans all compensation for the service of recommending alternative investments to IRAs. That means no companies will recommend alternative investments to IRAs, so they will fire the people who did that work.
SKFM if companies are going to stop recommending alternative investments to IRA because they don't get paid extra for recommending such a course of action, then maybe that's because that's a shit recommendation to begin with.
Because if it was the right thing for the client to do, then regardless of the lack of compensation, companies will still recommend it to the client.
SKFM if companies are going to stop recommending alternative investments to IRA because they don't get paid extra for recommending such a course of action, then maybe that's because that's a shit recommendation to begin with.
Because if it was the right thing for the client to do, then regardless of the lack of compensation, companies will still recommend it to the client.
What? Why would an investment manager give advice for free? To be clear, the people I am talking about are explicitly in the business of identifying, reccomending and facilitating investments in alternative assets. It isn't that a normal IRA manager just offers these as part of a portfolio. This is a seperate manager who is just making these types of investments possible.
0
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
SKFM if companies are going to stop recommending alternative investments to IRA because they don't get paid extra for recommending such a course of action, then maybe that's because that's a shit recommendation to begin with.
Because if it was the right thing for the client to do, then regardless of the lack of compensation, companies will still recommend it to the client.
What? Why would an investment manager give advice for free? To be clear, the people I am talking about are explicitly in the business of identifying, reccomending and facilitating investments in alternative assets. It isn't that a normal IRA manager just offers these as part of a portfolio. This is a seperate manager who is just making these types of investments possible.
Would those alternative assets include things like mortgage backed securities and credit default swaps by any chance?
SKFM if companies are going to stop recommending alternative investments to IRA because they don't get paid extra for recommending such a course of action, then maybe that's because that's a shit recommendation to begin with.
Because if it was the right thing for the client to do, then regardless of the lack of compensation, companies will still recommend it to the client.
What? Why would an investment manager give advice for free? To be clear, the people I am talking about are explicitly in the business of identifying, reccomending and facilitating investments in alternative assets. It isn't that a normal IRA manager just offers these as part of a portfolio. This is a seperate manager who is just making these types of investments possible.
I never said they'd do it for free, because if it's their job, then they get paid their salary/wage.
There is no one-size-fits-all investment strategy, but as the system currently goes, investment managers are encouraged to steer their clients towards whatever investment strategy makes them the biggest commission, rather than what's best for their client's financial future.
But sure, keep trying to sell me on how great variable annuities are.
Why do you feel republican economic policy is better?
Were there more jobs at the end of 2008 after 8 years of republican everything? Or are there more jobs and a better economy currently?
I don't think republican economic policy is better. I don't think dem policy is that great either though. Neither favors high tax rates or tighter regulatory control over industries, both of which I think we need. To be honest, the only real difference between the parties if if a few points should be chopped off the already historically low top rate bracket.
But people who believe in the free market obviously have reason to prefer the Republicans, because they favor less regulation than the very weak regulations that the Dems push.
So we need tighter regulatory control over industries. But the government shouldn't regulate how financial managers are compensated. Okee.
edit: because it sounds like you're saying "More regulation! Except for my industry!" which is, uh, yeah.
DivideByZero on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
What is the opportunity cost of trying to determine what this non-participant group wants, a group that may not be (and likely isn't) uniform in its composition?
It depends. How badly does she want to win?
It'd be nice, if you know, this group of "voters" (hahahahahahahaha) actually contributed in some way to clarify what it was their desires were.
It'd be nice if the Dems gave them a reason to.
You are aware that after the Tea Party took over, self-identification among Republicans has fallen significantly while their vote share has stayed relatively flat, right? The vast bulk of self-identification 'Independents' are just embarrassed Republicans.
I know a lot of people that vote republican but won't identify as republican because of the regressive social stances. They really just want a party that aligns with their economic views and the republicans are the closest for that so they vote despite the racism, homophobia, etc.
Contemptible, if true.
Neither party is going to represent all your views, so you have to choose what is most important to you. I don't think it is contemptible to prioritize economic issues.
At the expense of embracing homophobia and racism? Yeah, it 100% is.
Would you say that by voting for the Dems you embrace every one of their stances? Political choice is a hammer, not a scalpel, in America.
Well, in this case, you can have it both ways, because the Democrats are also who you should be voting for to prioritize economic issues unless your last name is Walton or Koch.
That's absurd. There are plenty of reasons to prefer the Republican economic model of less regulation, lower taxes and more business subsidies.
Is it just the "less regulations" piece? Because otherwise you just rattled off the Democratic economic model.
Democratic Party is not in favor of tax cuts for business to the extent GOP is, and are in favor of higher individual rates. GOP is generally more inclined to hand money to established businesses too. These are not necessarily good policy positions, but I know plenty of people that support the GOP because it's good for (their) business.
Personally, I benefit from regulation (regulations = need more legal services) but most of my clients vote Republican I'm sure, purely for economic reasons.
And this is, as I said at the start of this conversation, utterly contemptible because it means they are voting for a party or racism and bigotry because it benefits their take-home.
You are allowed to hold different priorities without being contemptible. I think it is totally reasonable to say "I don't think the government should be involved in regulating what consenting adults do in the bedroom, but economic policy is the most important issue to me and that is how I vote." if you have to agree with and endorse every position of the person you vote for, no one could ever vote.
People are absolutely allowed to prioritize what they want.
And other people are allowed to judge them for those priorities.
And I personally have little trouble saying that a person who values making money over all else is not only incredibly selfish but remarkably short sighted.
The flip side is that who you vote for probably won't impact a lot of social issues much. They tend to talk about them more than act on them. But who you vote for probably does have a direct and meaningful impact on your personal finances. In the IRA investment manager context I brought up, whether a Dem or Republican wins will literally determine if these people have a job or not. That is a much greater impact than almost anything else that someone may do in office.
I really don't see how making them act as fiduciaries eliminates their jobs unless they are currently acting in ways that are...questionable ethically. Which, given the reasons for the proposed rules change, is probably likely. I mean, fiduciary requirements are not new, and its not as though people currently acting in those capacities are all volunteers who help people with their finances in between the soup kitchen and tutoring.
What they are doing is taking people who currently recommended alternative investments to IRAs in a non fiduciary salesman capacity and turning those people into fiduciaries. They are also prohibiting fiduciaries to IRAs from getting paid in connection with recommending alternative investments, even if they are in the best interest of the IRA. It literally makes it impossible to be in the business of facilitating IRA investment in alternative investments. If that was your job, you won't have a job anymore.
No, it doesn't. It just makes it impossible for their job to be paid by commission. And you know what? Most other salespeople aren't paid on commission! They just earn a salary instead! For doing their job which continues to exist! Which typically works better from both a customer service standpoint, as far as businesses are concerned, as well as from an ethical/incentive standpoint. If the billable hour were suddenly made illegal would you be fired from your job, start bartering your services for chickens, or would you earn base pay + a set percentage of profit sharing rather than one based on billable time? I'm going to guess the last one.
It bans all compensation for the service of recommending alternative investments to IRAs. That means no companies will recommend alternative investments to IRAs, so they will fire the people who did that work.
No, it bans specific forms of compensation. Unless you are literally telling me that current fiduciaries earn $0 for their work. Because I'm pretty sure that isn't the case. Otherwise how would NAPFA pay its rent?
Can we not obliquely compare the Republican Party to the Nazi Party?
I don't know, can the Republican party not be horribly racist and sexist? Cause these two things, they are intimately connected. That's the point of the example.
You'd think the recent reactions to the whole Confederate Flag thing would have made this quite clear.
While parallels exist, so do with any far right nationalistic political party, it's the nature of the beast.
We still should avoud Godwinning the thread.
I like to joke about how the difference between Confederate Flag and Swastika is, that swastika has actual historical background not steeped in racism.
That does not follow that people using the confederate flag are as bad or worse, or even that similar, to Nazis.
But again, the whole discussion is "Is it ok to vote for a party of racism and bigotry because of their economic policy?".
So you bring up an example of a party of racism and bigotry that nobody argues isn't one, like the neo-nazis. Because it doesn't actually matter if the party in question is racist against blacks or jews or latinos or asians or whatever. It's all the same shit to the question.
If the Nazis had stopped at just being racist then the 30's would have been a picnic.
If the GOP would stop at expressing racist views instead of implementing racist policies, we'd be having a lot better time of things too. Obviously a literal equation of the GOP and the Nazis is ridiculous, but it's inescapably true that the GOP is, by and large, the party of bigotry in America, and that extends to their actions as well as their words.
I'm sure many members of the party, maybe even most, are unhappy with that state of affairs, and I can't blame them. It's important to recognize that this is a shitty situation that grows in part from our stupid two-party system, which ends up lumping all kinds of disparate interests and viewpoints into single power blocs. There is no party for people who favor Republican economic and environmental policies but support gay marriage and liberal immigration policy, for instance, which is a bummer for anyone in that group.
It seems like the central question we're debating here is whether a reasonable person can justifiably vote for the GOP in these circumstances. I don't know, I don't want to vilify close to half the nation, but it's certainly not a case I can even attempt to argue. But then I don't like almost any part of their platform, so I'm not really the person to ask.
Rather than fighting about this amongst ourselves I would be more interested in hearing the rationale of someone who's made the decision to vote GOP for themselves, despite an awareness of the regressive social policies that entails supporting. We've gotten a hint of that from Captain Marcus, but not enough to be very illuminating.
I sure can
where are these people when the party whines about affirmative action
where were they when the supreme court struck down the voting rights act
if these people are bothered by racism, it's obviously not enough to say anything or do anything, which means they are a negative value in that struggle
I mean, it happens. You occasionally hear Republicans complaining about the regressive social stuff. Mostly voters, activists, and pundits, though, rather than politicians - and yeah, not as many as you'd hope.
Yes I totally remember when the democrats became the anti christian party in merica. I mean electing a hidden muslim was one thing, but the christmas purges were awful.
Personally, I thought the FEMA run protestant gulags were a bit much.
What I really don't understand is how so many people can buy into the Republican line about trickle-down economics.
I mean, what evidence is there that taxing rich people more is bad for the economy? The 1% doesn't spend any more money on creating jobs just because they aren't paying higher taxes, they just keep putting it into ways that generate money for them without having to pay more taxes.
Because if we expanded social programs, a lot of people believe the benefits would go to black people, not working class white people.
I mean pretty it up all you want, ultimately that's the reason this country does not have class consciousness the way Europe does.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+25
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
What I really don't understand is how so many people can buy into the Republican line about trickle-down economics.
I mean, what evidence is there that taxing rich people more is bad for the economy? The 1% doesn't spend any more money on creating jobs just because they aren't paying higher taxes, they just keep putting it into ways that generate money for them without having to pay more taxes.
Because if we expanded social programs, a lot of people believe the benefits would go to black people, not working class white people.
I mean pretty it up all you want, ultimately that's the reason this country does not have class consciousness the way Europe does.
It's kind of a shock when you realize that white Americans had no problem with big government as long as it was only big for white people.
+5
Options
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
Which is insane to me. I can't imagine being so bigoted against some people I would rather not have something than let them have it. But maybe I'm just selfish like that, I'd rather have stuff that benefits me than make sure no one gets anything.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
What is the opportunity cost of trying to determine what this non-participant group wants, a group that may not be (and likely isn't) uniform in its composition?
It depends. How badly does she want to win?
It'd be nice, if you know, this group of "voters" (hahahahahahahaha) actually contributed in some way to clarify what it was their desires were.
It'd be nice if the Dems gave them a reason to.
You are aware that after the Tea Party took over, self-identification among Republicans has fallen significantly while their vote share has stayed relatively flat, right? The vast bulk of self-identification 'Independents' are just embarrassed Republicans.
I know a lot of people that vote republican but won't identify as republican because of the regressive social stances. They really just want a party that aligns with their economic views and the republicans are the closest for that so they vote despite the racism, homophobia, etc.
Contemptible, if true.
Neither party is going to represent all your views, so you have to choose what is most important to you. I don't think it is contemptible to prioritize economic issues.
At the expense of embracing homophobia and racism? Yeah, it 100% is.
Would you say that by voting for the Dems you embrace every one of their stances? Political choice is a hammer, not a scalpel, in America.
Well, in this case, you can have it both ways, because the Democrats are also who you should be voting for to prioritize economic issues unless your last name is Walton or Koch.
That's absurd. There are plenty of reasons to prefer the Republican economic model of less regulation, lower taxes and more business subsidies.
Is it just the "less regulations" piece? Because otherwise you just rattled off the Democratic economic model.
Democratic Party is not in favor of tax cuts for business to the extent GOP is, and are in favor of higher individual rates. GOP is generally more inclined to hand money to established businesses too. These are not necessarily good policy positions, but I know plenty of people that support the GOP because it's good for (their) business.
Personally, I benefit from regulation (regulations = need more legal services) but most of my clients vote Republican I'm sure, purely for economic reasons.
And this is, as I said at the start of this conversation, utterly contemptible because it means they are voting for a party or racism and bigotry because it benefits their take-home.
You are allowed to hold different priorities without being contemptible. I think it is totally reasonable to say "I don't think the government should be involved in regulating what consenting adults do in the bedroom, but economic policy is the most important issue to me and that is how I vote." if you have to agree with and endorse every position of the person you vote for, no one could ever vote.
People are absolutely allowed to prioritize what they want.
And other people are allowed to judge them for those priorities.
And I personally have little trouble saying that a person who values making money over all else is not only incredibly selfish but remarkably short sighted.
The flip side is that who you vote for probably won't impact a lot of social issues much. They tend to talk about them more than act on them. But who you vote for probably does have a direct and meaningful impact on your personal finances. In the IRA investment manager context I brought up, whether a Dem or Republican wins will literally determine if these people have a job or not. That is a much greater impact than almost anything else that someone may do in office.
I really don't see how making them act as fiduciaries eliminates their jobs unless they are currently acting in ways that are...questionable ethically. Which, given the reasons for the proposed rules change, is probably likely. I mean, fiduciary requirements are not new, and its not as though people currently acting in those capacities are all volunteers who help people with their finances in between the soup kitchen and tutoring.
What they are doing is taking people who currently recommended alternative investments to IRAs in a non fiduciary salesman capacity and turning those people into fiduciaries. They are also prohibiting fiduciaries to IRAs from getting paid in connection with recommending alternative investments, even if they are in the best interest of the IRA. It literally makes it impossible to be in the business of facilitating IRA investment in alternative investments. If that was your job, you won't have a job anymore.
No, it doesn't. It just makes it impossible for their job to be paid by commission. And you know what? Most other salespeople aren't paid on commission! They just earn a salary instead! For doing their job which continues to exist! Which typically works better from both a customer service standpoint, as far as businesses are concerned, as well as from an ethical/incentive standpoint. If the billable hour were suddenly made illegal would you be fired from your job, start bartering your services for chickens, or would you earn base pay + a set percentage of profit sharing rather than one based on billable time? I'm going to guess the last one.
It bans all compensation for the service of recommending alternative investments to IRAs. That means no companies will recommend alternative investments to IRAs, so they will fire the people who did that work.
No, it bans specific forms of compensation. Unless you are literally telling me that current fiduciaries earn $0 for their work. Because I'm pretty sure that isn't the case. Otherwise how would NAPFA pay its rent?
Current fiduciaries are paid for their work, including reccomendations of alternatives because there is no prohibition on paying them. This rule is prohibiting paying for that service, even if you can demonstrate that the investment is in the best interest of the plan. Under this rule, fiduciaries cannot be paid for anything related to alternatives (by the IRA or the investment). It is a major change and the industry is pushing back hard because it will literally cost a lot of people their jobs. Whole companies will shut down.
Which is insane to me. I can't imagine being so bigoted against some people I would rather not have something than let them have it. But maybe I'm just selfish like that, I'd rather have stuff that benefits me than make sure no one gets anything.
That's not the process. The process is first you assume all the goodies are going to other people who are worse off than you. Then you oppose the goodies.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Posts
Fuuuuuuuuuuuccccccckkkkk thaaaaaaaattttt nooooooiiiiiisssseeeee.
For the vast majority of people, their policies are actively damaging.
I really don't care that Steve the Investment Banker got to keep his job gambling with peoples investments if the same set of policies also wipes out the life savings of thousands of lower earning families.
If the Nazis had stopped at just being racist then the 30's would have been a picnic.
I mean, what evidence is there that taxing rich people more is bad for the economy? The 1% doesn't spend any more money on creating jobs just because they aren't paying higher taxes, they just keep putting it into ways that generate money for them without having to pay more taxes.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
It is ver ingrained in American society that you worth as a person equals the size of your bank account. Cos of the whole Calvinist attitude. I see a lot of people being decidedly uncomfortable with the idea of criticizing the wealthy in any capacity
If the GOP would stop at expressing racist views instead of implementing racist policies, we'd be having a lot better time of things too. Obviously a literal equation of the GOP and the Nazis is ridiculous, but it's inescapably true that the GOP is, by and large, the party of bigotry in America, and that extends to their actions as well as their words.
I'm sure many members of the party, maybe even most, are unhappy with that state of affairs, and I can't blame them. It's important to recognize that this is a shitty situation that grows in part from our stupid two-party system, which ends up lumping all kinds of disparate interests and viewpoints into single power blocs. There is no party for people who favor Republican economic and environmental policies but support gay marriage and liberal immigration policy, for instance, which is a bummer for anyone in that group.
It seems like the central question we're debating here is whether a reasonable person can justifiably vote for the GOP in these circumstances. I don't know, I don't want to vilify close to half the nation, but it's certainly not a case I can even attempt to argue. But then I don't like almost any part of their platform, so I'm not really the person to ask.
Rather than fighting about this amongst ourselves I would be more interested in hearing the rationale of someone who's made the decision to vote GOP for themselves, despite an awareness of the regressive social policies that entails supporting. We've gotten a hint of that from Captain Marcus, but not enough to be very illuminating.
My opinion is that if you have more than eight digits to your name, you can afford to be criticized.
See how I made a joke there? But I'm being serious.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Which is to say, the idea is literally shit.
It's a bunch of rich people telling you what will make money. That they are rich is usually enough to give them economic credibility in the eyes of many. They just neglect to mention where the money will predominantly go.
Indeed, the ultra-wealthy are very skilled at getting all the money away from everyone else. What's unclear is why that means we should want their advice about how to structure the economy so that everyone has some money.
Because we don't want everyone to have some money. If we did, we wouldn't be all too eager to cut up the safety net, or keep a pitiful minimum wage. We want certain people like us to have some money. And what we are is 'not yet rich'
Why do you feel republican economic policy is better?
Were there more jobs at the end of 2008 after 8 years of republican everything? Or are there more jobs and a better economy currently?
The 2008 crash was the result not of just W's time in office, but an unbroken string of neoliberal anti-regulation economic policy kicked off by Reagan and happily continued by Clinton. We do tend to characterize that as "Republican" economic policy but to be fair the centrist Democratic bloc is virtually indistinguishable on this issue at this point.
Which is part of why I don't have a great deal of faith in Hillary Clinton to make substantial progress on this front. Campaign statements aside, this is her power base. She owes too much to entrenched plutocratic interests to fight unencumbered. I certainly expect she'll be better than whoever the GOP puts up, but she's not my preferred representative.
You don't even need to go all the way back to 2008. Just look at current day Kansas, Wisconsin, and Louisiana.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Besides I don't want my theoretical taxes going up, see I'm not poor I'm a displaced millionare, with this tax cut to the mega wealthy I'll finally get mine.
pleasepaypreacher.net
pleasepaypreacher.net
Personally, I thought the FEMA run protestant gulags were a bit much.
I sure can
where are these people when the party whines about affirmative action
where were they when the supreme court struck down the voting rights act
if these people are bothered by racism, it's obviously not enough to say anything or do anything, which means they are a negative value in that struggle
What they are doing is taking people who currently reccomended alternative investments to IRAs in a non fiduciary salesman capacity and turning those people into fiduciaries. They are also prohibiting fiduciaries to IRAs from getting paid in connection with reccomending alternative investments, even if they are in the best interest of the IRA. It literally makes it impossible to be in the business of facilitating IRA investment in alternative investments. If that was your job, you won't have a job anymore.
all of which is true, but it's still important to note that one of the parties is all for committing to the same ideas even harder and one of them is at least in large part like "hey maybe let's reconsider this"
I don't think republican economic policy is better. I don't think dem policy is that great either though. Neither favors high tax rates or tighter regulatory control over industries, both of which I think we need. To be honest, the only real difference between the parties if if a few points should be chopped off the already historically low top rate bracket.
But people who believe in the free market obviously have reason to prefer the Republicans, because they favor less regulation than the very weak regulations that the Dems push.
No, it doesn't. It just makes it impossible for their job to be paid by commission. And you know what? Most other salespeople aren't paid on commission! They just earn a salary instead! For doing their job which continues to exist! Which typically works better from both a customer service standpoint, as far as businesses are concerned, as well as from an ethical/incentive standpoint. If the billable hour were suddenly made illegal would you be fired from your job, start bartering your services for chickens, or would you earn base pay + a set percentage of profit sharing rather than one based on billable time? I'm going to guess the last one.
It bans all compensation for the service of recommending alternative investments to IRAs. That means no companies will recommend alternative investments to IRAs, so they will fire the people who did that work.
Because if it was the right thing for the client to do, then regardless of the lack of compensation, companies will still recommend it to the client.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
What? Why would an investment manager give advice for free? To be clear, the people I am talking about are explicitly in the business of identifying, reccomending and facilitating investments in alternative assets. It isn't that a normal IRA manager just offers these as part of a portfolio. This is a seperate manager who is just making these types of investments possible.
Would those alternative assets include things like mortgage backed securities and credit default swaps by any chance?
I never said they'd do it for free, because if it's their job, then they get paid their salary/wage.
There is no one-size-fits-all investment strategy, but as the system currently goes, investment managers are encouraged to steer their clients towards whatever investment strategy makes them the biggest commission, rather than what's best for their client's financial future.
But sure, keep trying to sell me on how great variable annuities are.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
So we need tighter regulatory control over industries. But the government shouldn't regulate how financial managers are compensated. Okee.
edit: because it sounds like you're saying "More regulation! Except for my industry!" which is, uh, yeah.
No, it bans specific forms of compensation. Unless you are literally telling me that current fiduciaries earn $0 for their work. Because I'm pretty sure that isn't the case. Otherwise how would NAPFA pay its rent?
I've used the phrase "It's fuck or walk" before. It's a great phrase.
I mean, it happens. You occasionally hear Republicans complaining about the regressive social stuff. Mostly voters, activists, and pundits, though, rather than politicians - and yeah, not as many as you'd hope.
I support my local NEW WORLD ORDER.
Do you?
Because if we expanded social programs, a lot of people believe the benefits would go to black people, not working class white people.
I mean pretty it up all you want, ultimately that's the reason this country does not have class consciousness the way Europe does.
It's kind of a shock when you realize that white Americans had no problem with big government as long as it was only big for white people.
Current fiduciaries are paid for their work, including reccomendations of alternatives because there is no prohibition on paying them. This rule is prohibiting paying for that service, even if you can demonstrate that the investment is in the best interest of the plan. Under this rule, fiduciaries cannot be paid for anything related to alternatives (by the IRA or the investment). It is a major change and the industry is pushing back hard because it will literally cost a lot of people their jobs. Whole companies will shut down.
That's not the process. The process is first you assume all the goodies are going to other people who are worse off than you. Then you oppose the goodies.