Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And that's good for America. This is why so many people in the industry are supporting Romney.
Quote:
"Wall Street has taken some of the blame for the financial crisis," said Viveca Novak of the Center for Responsive Politics. "The result of that has been increased oversight and regulation -- two things that are never popular."
When will this doofus learn that Wall Street needs LESS regulation, not more. I'm so glad Romney is running for office.
Since you obviously have detailed knowledge of the regulations governing Wall Street, perhaps you could inform us of, say, ten specific regulations that you believe should be struck down or made less onerous for Wall Street, with a brief explanation of how said regulation has hampered Wall Street to date.
Industry - what industry? That is what's wrong with the economy. We need to get back to an economy that is based on making things rather than making deals. That's why this country needs Obama, and not a corporate raider like Romney.
Industry - what industry? That is what's wrong with the economy. We need to get back to an economy that is based on making things rather than making deals. That's why this country needs Obama, and not a corporate raider like Romney.
I see you get all of your information on Romney from Obama campaign TV ads. What factual evidence do you have that Romney has caused harm to the economy through work at Bain?
And are you seriously claiming that Obama has helped economic growth?
Since you obviously have detailed knowledge of the regulations governing Wall Street, perhaps you could inform us of, say, ten specific regulations that you believe should be struck down or made less onerous for Wall Street, with a brief explanation of how said regulation has hampered Wall Street to date.
I will bet that you never get a real reply from the OP. "Less regulation" is just a faux news talking point.
Funny that after the Wall Street meltdown and bailout by taxpayers, the right wants LESS regulation.
Also an odd election cycle for the Republicans to nominate a true "1%er"
I would think the Tea Party and other low information voters would maybe be offended by a corporate raider, with wall street connections that made his fortune outscourcing their jobs.
Let us keep on topic. The OP is, no doubt, even now preparing his or her response to my question concerning which onerous Wall Street regulations he or she would like to see reversed.
I will note that of the 398 regulations mandated by Dodd-Frank, to date only 120 regulations have been enacted (it takes a while to write regulations, which includes getting public comments, and giving lobbiests time to collect and dispense of their cash offerings).
Anyway, I am wondering which of the implemented regulations the OP is thinking about. No doubt something to do with oversea derivative trading, or liquidity rules for banks and investment firms, etc.
Take Oblama administration's approach towards market makers and locate requirements, for example. Market makers need expemptions from locate requirements because they are the ones providing liquidity to the markets after all. Once again, Oblama is running the economy into the ground.
I will bet that you never get a real reply from the OP. "Less regulation" is just a faux news talking point.
Funny that after the Wall Street meltdown and bailout by taxpayers, the right wants LESS regulation.
Also an odd election cycle for the Republicans to nominate a true "1%er"
I would think the Tea Party and other low information voters would maybe be offended by a corporate raider, with wall street connections that made his fortune outscourcing their jobs.
Why, I actually take offense on the OP's behalf!
You are surely not suggesting that a person came to this board, created a new thread, took the trouble of 'linking' to an article, make a declaration that 'less regulations' would benefit Wall Street (and hence the country!), all without being unable to name at least one regulation said poster wants gone? That said poster was 'talking through his hat', as the old saying is?
No, sir. When a person goes to that kind of trouble, you can bet that they know exactly what they are talking about.
Take Oblama administration's approach towards market makers and locate requirements, for example. Market makers need expemptions from locate requirements because they are the ones providing liquidity to the markets after all. Once again, Oblama is running the economy into the ground.
Ah! An answer. It is a bit difficult to read, but that is my fault, no doubt. Reading about technical matters such as regulations concerning Wall Street (whether derived from Dodd-Frank, or some older regulation) makes my head swirl. I shall translate it into Spanish, then back into English, and see how my understanding increases.
Of course Romney is the better candidate for Wall Street! Shoot, Romney is the better candidate for North Devon Ln. Peoria ILL too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
