It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump wants to end regulation that protects seniors' retirements

page: 2
74
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Last I checked, Forbes was a highly respected business journal and besides, can you seriously doubt that people who talk about cutting government every day of their lives would want to do this???




posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328



Forbes is a fine reputable source.
This particular Forbes article is an opinion piece.
Trump didn't say anything in the authors article to give any validity to the article.

The people listed want to reform social security because it is a failing system that needs fixed before it collapses.
Many goverment programs are bloated cluster f&$$ that need fixed.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nickn3
Trump hasn't even taken office yet and the sky is falling. More news from the crybaby section. Give it a break.


Lol! you baby-man supporters haven't figured out yet that YOU are the crybabies? Really? One fact that's not idolizing or idealizing your baby-man and you all have a hissy-fit, tantrum, and crying and bleeding all over the place.

It's funny in a very grotesque kind of way.




posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 12:21 PM
link   
It's strange how people twist others words and then translate things based on how they believe it is. Don't look at that, look at this. Interpret what you read just like I interpret it. Strangely a lot of people do not open mindedly read the evidence to see what it actually says or consider the source.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

What the hell are people thinking when they've heard for decades now how Republicans want to get rid of regulations? This is a good example of what is meant. It's not to protect the little guy, it's to protect the big guy. The big guys know it, they just have to frame it as something good for the little guy.

Trump had no ideology coming into the campaign and said whatever he liked. Once the Koch ideology was given to him by his last campaign staff (who were given to him by ideology believer Mercer), Trump will no doubt sign what Congress gives him. Afterall, Trump can claim that it's the people's mandate.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

Typical liberal post,nothing but innuendo's and maybe's,I notice he said he would honor SS,sounds like someone searching for a reason to not like Trump,all based on assumptions,and you know what they say about those,don't ya



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

Typical liberal post,nothing but innuendo's and maybe's,I notice he said he would honor SS,sounds like someone searching for a reason to not like Trump,all based on assumptions,and you know what they say about those,don't ya



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Well there is a class of people that are predators of the elderly. Even the hard progressives have their eyeballs on the savings and wealth of the elderly. The other sort are called out by Jesus Himself ...."who devour widows houses"....lawyers and such the like. Always got to be on the lookout in this area for sharks. That being said it is also a good area to gin up emotions by falsely blaming folks.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: RomeByFire

Who said the sky was falling... other than yourself?

Ah, more of the "fake news."

Lol. Can't debate the topic - just yell fake news and/or attack the source.

Forbes is now on the "liberal fake news list."


You have to watch what Forbes posts. They have their in house publishing division which has a normal editing process and internal quality checks, but they also license their site out to host blogs (several news sites do this), which don't have that process, and where people can say whatever they want, with or without facts to back it up. This particular article comes from what's basically a blog they host.



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

Actually, the fiduciary rule is an awful rule. If you want a fiduciary you can go ahead and find one, there are many. They're not going away, but we don't need the government to mandate who does what for whom. If you want an aggressive advisor (to create higher returns but with higher risk) you can't find one as a senior. I'm all for allowing people to do what they will with their own money.



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 11:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
That was fast. Trump's not even in office yet and he wants to screw over seniors by getting rid of a rule that requires investors to serve seniors well instead of putting their retirement savings into funds with large fees. How ironic that Republicans are always indignantly denying that they want to bankrupt granny, but that's exactly what they always do when given the chance.




Another retiree protection on the chopping block in the Trump Administration is the Department of Labor's "fiduciary rule." Scheduled to go into effect next April, the rule mandated that financial advisers offering retirement advice and products act in the best interest of investors. Backed by the powerful business lobbies The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the securities and insurance industries, the anti-DOL forces have been suing to scrap the pro-investor rule. Trump and other Republicans had said they want to get rid of the DOL's signature firewall for retirees.


www.forbes.com...


What if they made more money in the funds with big fees. Would that make it ok with you?



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 11:23 PM
link   
OP - Finra and the SEC already mandate this, so the DOL is just adding another layer of BS to justify there own agency with one potentially huge problem for employment - it's currently the employer offering the 401k to shop and find the best deal, they are supposed to do this every year - but this laws seems to place the responsibility on the agents of the companies offering services and not a single one of them can say they offer a superior service to wealthfront or even vanguard who charge a pittance .25% and .75% while staffed operators are typically 2-3% - the problem with wealthfront and vanguard they both offer the same plan, buy and hold the market - typically these earning are 7-8% which are facts over time, but this advice is getting so whored out that it's becoming less and less true.

So effectively it's puts traders out of business and the systems to replace it gettings overblown and crashes too, leaving everyone either out of a job or broke, or both.

In this computer defined world the human insight will prove to be increasingly valuable as it's irrational foresight bucks the trend and that's usually where the profit is.

Also when computers run the stock market wholesale stocks will be flat, it's hopes and dreams that drive prices - which is why companies that never earned a dime can be worth billions and like Facebook can even exists in the first place.

so yeah Forbes is cutting off it's nose to spite it's face with this one #becauselefty



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 11:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
That was fast. Trump's not even in office yet and he wants to screw over seniors by getting rid of a rule that requires investors to serve seniors well instead of putting their retirement savings into funds with large fees. How ironic that Republicans are always indignantly denying that they want to bankrupt granny, but that's exactly what they always do when given the chance.




Another retiree protection on the chopping block in the Trump Administration is the Department of Labor's "fiduciary rule." Scheduled to go into effect next April, the rule mandated that financial advisers offering retirement advice and products act in the best interest of investors. Backed by the powerful business lobbies The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the securities and insurance industries, the anti-DOL forces have been suing to scrap the pro-investor rule. Trump and other Republicans had said they want to get rid of the DOL's signature firewall for retirees.


www.forbes.com...


I think you've misread this wrong all along. It gives the placers of those bets the ability to load up on higher yielding investments.

People are not doing as good individually as they could be if they were allowed to take higher risks. See, the rich are rich because they have money to invest. Finally, when you've worked all your life and have built some savings, you want to be able to invest and make it BIG like the other millionaires on the planet, right? Or do you want to just live off your meager savings?

Why can't people have both options?



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 01:37 AM
link   
a reply to: CB328
I do not see anything of what you claim in your thread title in that BLOG.

At least nothing of the sorts being said by Trump. The only one i see making such claims is the blog writer.


Nice thread...



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328




That was fast. Trump's not even in office yet and he wants to screw over seniors by getting rid of a rule that requires investors to serve seniors well instead of putting their retirement savings into funds with large fees


As opposed to the current guy that has screwed over seniors with the cost of living 'raise' for the last 8 years?

But then again why are seniors 'investing' at all.

That's why social security was created!

Not to mention the damaged Frank Dodd did to seniors, but HEY who cares right ?

Trumps still not even taken office yet.



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: 3daysgone




What if they made more money in the funds with big fees


If they make more money.

They pay more TAXES.

They pay the medicare capital gains surtax( triple taxation).



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

Con men always screw their victims.


The screwing is coming soon


I guess all those seniors in Florida will like this



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: 3daysgone




What if they made more money in the funds with big fees


If they make more money.

They pay more TAXES.

They pay the medicare capital gains surtax( triple taxation).


But they make more money.




top topics



 
74
<< 1   >>

log in

join