Forced to look at Retirement Savings (puking)

Bonestorm said:
LOL @ "the recovery hasn't really started yet" and "markets artificially propped up." I love how you casually assert these as though they are fact.
Click to expand...

Um... One doesn't have to search hard to find that quantitative easing is happening. In fact the markets fell a bit yesterday based on somebody (the FED chief) stating that they might ease off a bit on that QE3 thing.

And the fact we have the lowest employment participation rate since the Great Depression is a sign that the recovery hasn't really started yet. Now you do know what the word "sign" means, right? Look it up when relating to this kind of thing, it will help you understand that it wasn't stated as "fact" it was noted as one sign of something.
 
Bonestorm said:
Your claim that the Clinton Administation held up the regulations for a year is not true. The Clinton Administration complied with the statutory deadline. There was no delay. Then the Bush Administration pushed off the effective date of the regs over and over and over again.
Click to expand...

LOL... ok Dung... They pushed it beyond his term with the original bill. They didn't do so while he was in office. Then when the two parties still couldn't agree, the two parties kept pushing it. Like Desh, you pretend it was the Reps alone delaying it. It was the fact that the two parties could not agree that kept pushing it. But please, continue showing us how intelligent you are... just like Desh.
 
Damocles said:
LOL. Desh... that's like congratulating somebody for telling you that the sun is on the other side of the earth when it is dark outside. Of course the markets will "recover" before jobs, it has every time in the past so it will be in the future. Jobs are a lagging indicator of a recovery. In this case, people are still leaving the job market in record numbers as they give up on the job search, that is a sign that this "recovery" hasn't really started yet and that the markets were artificially propped up by something called "Quantitative Easing".

Now go look at the sky, see it is blue, and then tell me what a genius I am for telling you that it would be. Or better yet, self congratulate after repeating that the sky will be blue then looking outside to find you were almost psychically "right" about the color of the sky. I don't need affirmation, but you apparently do.
Click to expand...

thank you for the gracious acceptance of my apology for me getting caught up the alternative theories.


Now please help explain to me why the SEC held back the broker rules written into Gramm Leach bleily act for nearly a decade
 
Superfreak said:
LOL... ok Dung... They pushed it beyond his term with the original bill. They didn't do so while he was in office. Then when the two parties still couldn't agree, the two parties kept pushing it. Like Desh, you pretend it was the Reps alone delaying it. It was the fact that the two parties could not agree that kept pushing it. But please, continue showing us how intelligent you are... just like Desh.
Click to expand...



then go get your proof that is how it went down
 
Damocles said:
Um... One doesn't have to search hard to find that quantitative easing is happening. In fact the markets fell a bit yesterday based on somebody (the FED chief) stating that they might ease off a bit on that QE3 thing.
Click to expand...

Yes, QE is happening. Whether QE is artificially propping up the stock market is the opinion part.


Damocles said:
And the fact we have the lowest employment participation rate since the Great Depression is a sign that the recovery hasn't really started yet. Now you do know what the word "sign" means, right? Look it up when relating to this kind of thing, it will help you understand that it wasn't stated as "fact" it was noted as one sign of something.
Click to expand...

Actually, it isn't a sign that the recovery hasn't started yet. It's just a piece of information. How you interpret that piece of information is your opinion, not a fact.
 
This talk has me flipping through my files. I found a double-E savings bond I bought in 1993 for $5000. I went to the Treasury site where you can calculate the current value. It's now worth $14,500.

By the time I'm ready to cash it in, it'll probably be worth $30,000, although with anticipated inflation, who knows what $30,000 will be worth then.

The point being, it just takes a little discipline to put *SOMETHING* away. But if parents are economic dunces, it only stands to reason they'll pass that on.
 
lowest employment participation rate since the Great Depression ?

hmmmmmm.

what connects people not working today and the great depression?

a baby boom
 
Superfreak said:
LOL... ok Dung... They pushed it beyond his term with the original bill. They didn't do so while he was in office. Then when the two parties still couldn't agree, the two parties kept pushing it. Like Desh, you pretend it was the Reps alone delaying it. It was the fact that the two parties could not agree that kept pushing it. But please, continue showing us how intelligent you are... just like Desh.
Click to expand...


There was no delay. The statute said that rules must be promulgated with 18 months of enactment and they were. Then the Bush Administration delayed implementation of the rules. I haven't followed the back and forth between you and Desh, but I know for a fact that you're wrong on this one. And that leads me to question whether, notwithstanding your bombast, Desh is right on the other stuff.


Also, too, the two parties don't have to agree to anything when it comes to federal rulemaking. The regulatory authorities just issue them.
 
http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/baby-boomers-retire/


December 29, 2010









Baby Boomers Retire


10,000

Roughly 10,000 Baby Boomers will turn 65 today, and about 10,000 more will cross that threshold every day for the next 19 years.

As the year 2011 began on Jan. 1, the oldest members of the Baby Boom generation celebrated their 65th birthday. In fact, on that day, today, and for every day for the next 19 years, 10,000 baby boomers will reach age 65. The aging of this huge cohort of Americans (26% of the total U.S. population are Baby Boomers) will dramatically change the composition of the country.
 
Bonestorm said:
There was no delay. The statute said that rules must be promulgated with 18 months of enactment and they were. Then the Bush Administration delayed implementation of the rules. I haven't followed the back and forth between you and Desh, but I know for a fact that you're wrong on this one. And that leads me to question whether, notwithstanding your bombast, Desh is right on the other stuff.


Also, too, the two parties don't have to agree to anything when it comes to federal rulemaking. The regulatory authorities just issue them.
Click to expand...

LOL... ok Dung... we will just chalk you up to being another Desh. I know you are simply trying to fuel desh's stupidity... so do carry on.
 
Developments of Note

The FRB and the SEC approved Regulation R ("Final Regulation R") implementing the bank broker push out provisions under Title II of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 ("GLBA"). A bank or thrift (collectively, a "bank") must start complying with Regulation R on the first day of the bank’s fiscal year starting after September 30, 2008, which for many banks will be January 1, 2009.

Regulation R was proposed by the FRB and the SEC jointly in an effort to resolve a years-long impasse between the SEC and banks regarding the appropriate interpretation of 11 statutory exceptions in the GLBA. The exceptions were intended to preserve bank activity after Congress repealed the blanket bank exception from broker regulation. The repeal was long-sought by the SEC in order to provide for functional SEC regulation of bank broker activities in response to banks’ entry into broader financial services securities activities, including the retail sale of mutual funds, in the 1980s.

To provide greater certainty to banks, the SEC made several attempts to issue regulations (proposed Regulation B in 2004 and the Bank Broker-Dealer Interim Final Rules in 2001) – these attempts were criticized by banks, banking agencies, and some members of Congress. Last fall, in adopting the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006, Congress required the SEC to withdraw its rules and issue new rules jointly with the FRB in consultation with the other federal banking agencies.

Final Regulation R generally reflects proposed Regulation R, but also addresses banks’ concerns regarding legal and enforcement risk and contains further easing of bank regulatory burden in discrete areas, notably the "chiefly compensated" income test for exempted trust/fiduciary activity, the types of referral compensation permitted under the networking exemption, the scope of exempted custody activity, sweeps of deposit funds collected by another bank, and exempted transactions in variable insurance products effected with an insurance company.

Significant changes made by Regulation R, in comparison with previous proposals, are summarized below.



http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/52888/Fund+Management+REITs/FRB+and+SEC+Finalize+Regulation+R
 
evince said:
thank you for the gracious acceptance of my apology for me getting caught up the alternative theories.


Now please help explain to me why the SEC held back the broker rules written into Gramm Leach bleily act for nearly a decade
Click to expand...

You mean the law that failed to give the FED, or any other regulatory agency, the power to regulate large investment companies signed by President Clinton in 1999? The law that passed with strong D support, very strong.

Point out which ones you are talking about, Desh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm–Leach–Bliley_Act
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top