Trump goes all KGB on EPA

[starsky]

I didn't vote Hillary or trump, but I really like his interior choice and have hope for his Supreme Court choice.

I hope he gets rid of Obamacare, keeps what worked well and replaces what didn't, that's how it should work.

I like that 2a will hopefully be untouched under his watch, and I hope if any land bills get to his desk he breaks out the veto stamp out.

I don't like that he seems to be unable to understand the separation of power, he won't be able to waive his hand and be done with it. That will be hard for him to deal with, or a basic understanding of the constitution and its contents as he has made comments that fly directly against it.

I think building a wall, that US taxpayers are going to pay for one way or the other is idiotic and won't help. I've been to sections on the border where I could literally WALK back and forth from the US to Mexico, there was literally walls then nothing right next to each other. Unless he plans on building the Great Wall of china and stationing armed guards 24/7 it won't make a difference, as they are already digging in to this country.

His immigration ban would have been appeals proof if he would have consulted people outside his White House circle. I don't believe a day will go buy where he thinks he is not the smartest man in the room. Unfortunately he will be wrong in that aspect. I hope he trusts and listens to his staff, even if they don't agree with him.

He needs to stay off twitter and cut down on the disparaging remarks, your the POTUS now, time to go to work, quit firing shots on twitter and let your actions do the talking, 4 years goes quick.

I'm all for cutting back EPA regulations but I'm not foolish enough to believe abolishing it will be "good" for the environment.

I have worries about what he plans to cut out of the Dodd-Frank.

Spicer is a buffoon and needs to be fired, he doesn't have the ability or the demeanor to do his job.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for actually answering.

 

[starsky]

I voted Johnson the last two elections because I couldn't stomach any of the other choices.

I like a lot of what Trump is doing but listening to narcissistic manner in which he talks makes my head explode.

So you don't like the way he talks. Got it.

 

[R_burg]

What do you like about Dodd-Frank? It only put smaller banks out of business and made big banks bigger with no real overwatch.

This is my business. I will tell you first hand you are misinformed.

A real HUGE additional cost in oversight? AML (anti money laundering). Which is sold as "anti terrorism" and isnt going anywhere.

First off, small banks balance sheets are fine. If they aren't, thats their CFO and credit departments fault. Second off, Dodd Frank mostly affects banks 10 billion or more, which isn't small. Third off, the real regulation is at the CCAR level which is 50 billion and more. Fourth, the real money being thrown around to lobby is by the largest banks, and they want the capital requirements reduced so they can lever more again. Yeah, its sold to you as something that is hurting the little guy, but thats not the case on the ground. (Notice a pattern here? Everything is sold to middle America as helping the little guy. You think the little guy is throwing around money?) Dodd Frank mostly causes bank's to hire more normal people like you or I for the work required for that oversight, and reduces the bonuses given out to at the officer level. Big deal, they still make a lot more than we do. By the way, at the CCAR level, this does take some man power. At 50 billion and below it is not nearly as extensive as you would assume.

Banks make money off a float. If you can't do that, you should be out of business. Bank's aren't going anywhere because of a little additional oversight.

 

[tipsntails7]

This is my business. I will tell you first hand you are misinformed.

A real HUGE additional cost in oversight? AML (anti money laundering). Which is sold as "anti terrorism" and isnt going anywhere.

First off, small banks balance sheets are fine. If they aren't, thats their CFO and credit departments fault. Second off, Dodd Frank mostly affects banks 10 billion or more, which isn't small. Third off, the real regulation is at the CCAR level which is 50 billion and more. Fourth, the real money being thrown around to lobby is by the largest banks, and they want the capital requirements reduced so they can lever more again. Yeah, its sold to you as something that is hurting the little guy, but thats not the case on the ground. (Notice a pattern here? Everything is sold to middle America as helping the little guy. You think the little guy is throwing around money?) Dodd Frank mostly causes bank's to hire more normal people like you or I for the work required for that oversight, and reduces the bonuses given out to at the officer level. Big deal, they still make a lot more than we do. By the way, at the CCAR level, this does take some man power. At 50 billion and below it is not nearly as extensive as you would assume.

Banks make money off a float. If you can't do that, you should be out of business. Bank's aren't going anywhere because of a little additional oversight.

Well ****, at this point I don't know shit about how Dodd Frank actually effects anyone, I thought I did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dotman]

This is my business. I will tell you first hand you are misinformed.

A real HUGE additional cost in oversight? AML (anti money laundering). Which is sold as "anti terrorism" and isnt going anywhere.

First off, small banks balance sheets are fine. If they aren't, thats their CFO and credit departments fault. Second off, Dodd Frank mostly affects banks 10 billion or more, which isn't small. Third off, the real regulation is at the CCAR level which is 50 billion and more. Fourth, the real money being thrown around to lobby is by the largest banks, and they want the capital requirements reduced so they can lever more again. Yeah, its sold to you as something that is hurting the little guy, but thats not the case on the ground. (Notice a pattern here? Everything is sold to middle America as helping the little guy. You think the little guy is throwing around money?) Dodd Frank mostly causes bank's to hire more normal people like you or I for the work required for that oversight, and reduces the bonuses given out to at the officer level. Big deal, they still make a lot more than we do. By the way, at the CCAR level, this does take some man power. At 50 billion and below it is not nearly as extensive as you would assume.

Banks make money off a float. If you can't do that, you should be out of business. Bank's aren't going anywhere because of a little additional oversight.

So do you not feel the big banks have become even bigger or did you just read that one post of mine because you pretty much are saying what I have, all Dodd-Frank did is make the big banks bigger and even more of can't allow to fail situation? Do you think investment banking should be separate from Commercial? Before Glass-Steagall was slowly stripped in the 70's until it was repealed many of the safe guards were already in place that would have prevented the CDO debacle. Also seems like we had far more smaller commercial banks then.

I'm guessing you didn't read this https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/Peirce_SmallBankSurvey_v1.pdf

I agree, small banks that are poorly managed will fail I dont see any big banks on this list. FDIC: Failed Bank List.

Another decent read https://www.dallasfed.org/~/media/documents/research/papers/2016/wp1604.pdf

Imo, breakup the big banks, bring back Glass-Steagall which will separate investment and commercial banking, keep some aspects of Dodd-Frank with simpler compliance regulations that are more efficiently managed and properly enforce regulations that remain in place.

 

[R_burg]

So do you not feel the big banks have become even bigger or did you just read that one post of mine because you pretty much are saying what I have, all Dodd-Frank did is make the big banks bigger and even more of can't allow to fail situation? Do you think investment banking should be separate from Commercial? Before Glass-Steagall was slowly stripped in the 70's until it was repealed many of the safe guards were already in place that would have prevented the CDO debacle. Also seems like we had far more smaller commercial banks then.

I'm guessing you didn't read this https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/Peirce_SmallBankSurvey_v1.pdf

Like any industry, consolidation happens. There is not a ton of growth in the banking sector, which forces larger banks to buy smaller ones. This does happen for capitalization reasons (which helps make your point) as deposits are harder to grow organically, while capitalization requirements do encourage. However, it also happens for normal, economic reasons. Growth is the goal of a business, and it's easier and cheaper to purchase an outside institution.

I didn't read but did quickly skim the paper. It is exactly what I was talking about. I work with these Banks. CEOs will be making 2 million a yr but its the end of the world to pay 25k for a study of their balance sheet that really needs to be done every 5 yrs or so. Its preposterous. Of course they are complaining. These same institutions that almost went under also think they dont need any help with their balance sheet. Its ironic of course, because the good banks with good management have no problem spending the money because they use such information to help themselves internally, and they gain understanding of their balance sheet and where they can become more efficient as well inherent risks. Crappy bank's with poor management don't. Who do you think goes under first?


I agree with your point about Glass Steagall. I didn't mean to cherry pick that post, but I didn't go through the entire thread either. I have no problem trying to read more of it tomorrow and responding to that as well. Sorry if you didn't feel I gave you a fair shake, it wasn't my intention.

 

[dotman]

Oh no not at all, I was just thinking that one post caught your eye only