Department of Labor proposals regarding who is considered a fiduciary

Discussion in 'Retail Brokers' started by Trader7793, May 25, 2011.

  1. It seems that the Department of Labor is really going to at least attempt to go ahead with those changes to expand the definition of who is considered a fiduciary for retirement plans. If these proposed changes were allowed to happen, self directed IRAs would face drastic changes. This would have a very negative effect on some of the smaller online brokerage firms, that derive a lot of their revenues from the commissions generated by trades in customer IRA accounts.

    I never thought that the American investor would go along with this much intrusion into their investment activities, but then again I thought the same thing when the PDT rule was just a proposal.
  2. clacy


  3. gnode


    Jesus fuck. When will these guys just die or something?

    They are actively trying to destroy capitalism.

    At this point, I think the world would honestly be better off with 0 governments.

    I mean what do they really do on balance? Take half your money and give half of that to non-producers and the other half is used to kill brown people. Then the 3rd half (printed/borrowed) is used to make rules about what you can do with the half you keep.

    What the fuck?
  4. So would this mean no more active trading in IRAs?
  5. LEAPup


    This is Socialsim at it's height! America, the soon to be newest 3rd World Country.:mad:

    When oh when will we finally take back OUR Country by force, and restore the Constitution?:(
    That's what it will take as the US population is no longer smart enough to be even allowed to vote anymore. So sad!
  6. gnode


    I am starting to understand why only property owners were allowed to vote back in the day.

    Maybe what we need is to require that someone have at least $10k or $50k liquid to be allowed to vote. That shows they at least have an ok job and the economic sense to save something. Also filter out people who are still children physically or mentally.
  7. At the very least, people, companies, and unions who receive any money from the government (ie take money from other taxpayers) should not be allowed to contribute to campaigns or participate in politics. Or vote.
  8. LEAPup



    And as for the earlier post about land owners only being able to vote, can you imagine if that were re-instated? That would be amazing in my eyes, but the black community by and large, who's housing, food, etc., we pay for would be flipping out. Blacks voted 99% for Odumba. They also vote 94-95+% Dumbocrat, liberal trash who promise to keep them in their "free" gubmit stuff. Blacks are majority extremists, and they DO vote.

    Conversely, the far, far right votes, and they too are extremists. The problem is the people with common sense have all but given up on voting as elections these days are a battle between extremists...

    Something has to give...
  9. gnode


    Thats why I think having some assets matters. It at least shows some common sense.

    I mean if someone doesn't have at least 10k cash, they either:
    1. Don't have common sense
    2. Don't provide enough value to the economy, which suggests they are uneducated/unproductive/untrained/ignorant

    Even if a poor person really wanted to vote, and saved up for FIFTEEN YEARS to get their "voter bond" then congratufuckinlations, you deserve to vote. In spite of not being able to earn/produce, you at least had the common sense to save some fuckin money.
  10. clacy


    Even if you set the "voter bond" at $2,000 it would pretty much knock out at least half of the Democratic/Socialist voting block. All the deadbeats would be gone. That is easily 30-40% of their voting block.

    Another 15% of their block would be wiped out because all of the retarded 20-somethings that have never had to earn a paycheck or actually pay a bill, but have taken 4 years of liberal arts classes and think free health care for everyone is fantastic and actually "free", would likely not want to get their hands dirty by working enough to earn the $2 g's.
    #10     May 27, 2011