Sanders just submitted college for all bill.

[Arianrhod]

Great news! I can't wait to get my free college! Already have a degree but want another.

An undergrad degree at a state university? Let us know if the Sanders plan includes people who already have degrees. Now, if you have outstanding student loans for the first degree, even Hillary's promising refi rates.

Maybe we should of bailed out the student loans instead of the banks in 08. they are once again TOOO Big to Fail, yep.

"Should have" bailed out student loans? How would you do that?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When the broker writes the tax off as a loss doesn't that give him a tax break?

I want to know which brokers are going to take tens of billions in losses every year.
So I can short their stock.

Which brokers make "tens of billions" a year, much less make trillions so that a fraction of a percentage per transaction would result in "tens of billions" a year in losses?

Y'all are ridiculous.

Which brokers make "tens of billions" a year,

Well, Goldman made about $8 billion last year.
I'm sure they'd be glad to "write them off as a loss", to pay this idiotic tax.

much less make trillions so that a fraction of a percentage per transaction would result in "tens of billions" a year in losses?

Why are you confusing profits, "make trillions", with a tax on the trades of clients?
It's almost as if you have no clue about how this would work.

It could work one of two ways. They could do what they always do and pass the fees on to the clients, or they could be intelligent and absorb those fees themselves. If they were intelligent, they could even market themselves as "the guys who don't pass the fees on to our clients."

Then again, if "intelligent" and "broker" were comfortable in the same sentence, they wouldn't have caused the Crash of '08...

They could do what they always do and pass the fees on to the clients, or they could be intelligent and absorb those fees themselves.

Let's examine your "idea".
I buy 200 shares of a $50 stock at Ameritrade.
I pay $9.99 in commissions.
The tax is $50. You think it'd be a good idea for Ameritrade to "absorb" the tax?
Looks like a giant loser for Ameritrade, but I'm sure you can show how it would work.

Then again, if "intelligent" and "broker" were comfortable in the same sentence, they wouldn't have caused the Crash of '08...

Were you a broker in 2008? LOL!

Yes, Ameritrade can do it:


The chief executive of discount brokerage firm TD Ameritrade Holding Corp AMTD.N has signed a four-year employment agreement guaranteeing an annual base salary of $900,000 and target annual cash and stock incentives of $5.6 million through October 1, 2017.

The new contract for Fredric Tomczyk, effective at the start of the company's fiscal year in October, replaces a five-year agreement signed when he became CEO in 2008, the Omaha, Nebraska-based firm said in a regulatory filing on Thursday. Terms of the new contract are largely unchanged.

Tomczyk, who played varsity ice hockey at Cornell University will be reimbursed for moving expenses related to his relocation to Canada when his employment ends with the company, according to the new contract. He currently lives in New York City and works from TD Ameritrade offices in New Jersey.

The new employment contract covers car service transportation to and from work as well as the private plane business travel coverage that was in his previous contract.

Tomczyk's 2012 pay package totaled $6.5 million, including base salary of $700,000, and stock and incentive awards of $5.8 million. He was also granted $4.8 million worth of restricted future stock for his fiscal 2012 performance.TD Ameritrade CEO Tomczyk signs new contract at $6.5 million a year

But of course I imagine he s-----ts ice cream.

Yes, Ameritrade can do it:

Ameritrade can do what? Eat a tax that's higher than their commission?

 

[Penelope]

They can all split it amongst themselves. We all know about wall street.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Awesome idea! What will we do when trading operations relocate to London or Frankfurt?

Over a 0.05% fee? Not gonna happen.

Over a 0.05% fee?

Ummmmm.......

0.5% on stock trades

Perhaps you need a math class?

It has been estimated that this provision could raise hundreds of billions a year

Yes, hundreds of billions a year would be a great incentive to move operations.

Hundreds of billions? Some one might want to check their math. I mean .5% of the entire us economy is 90 billion.

What does the size of GDP have to do with a tax on stock purchases and sales?
If your "share of GDP" is $60,000 per year, does that limit your buys and sells to $60,000 a year?
I could do that much buying and selling in a single day.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Maybe we should of bailed out the student loans instead of the banks in 08. they are once again TOOO Big to Fail, yep.

The banks paid all those loans back. The Treasury made tens of billions in profits on those loans.
How would loaning students more money have helped?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They can all split it amongst themselves. We all know about wall street.

You know Wall Street but you failed math. LOL!

 

[baileyn45]

Awesome idea! What will we do when trading operations relocate to London or Frankfurt?

Over a 0.05% fee? Not gonna happen.

Over a 0.05% fee?

Ummmmm.......

0.5% on stock trades

Perhaps you need a math class?

It has been estimated that this provision could raise hundreds of billions a year

Yes, hundreds of billions a year would be a great incentive to move operations.

Hundreds of billions? Some one might want to check their math. I mean .5% of the entire us economy is 90 billion.

What does the size of GDP have to do with a tax on stock purchases and sales?
If your "share of GDP" is $60,000 per year, does that limit your buys and sells to $60,000 a year?
I could do that much buying and selling in a single day.

I understand that, I was just making a comparison. I just have hard time believing that this would result 100s of billions.

 

[baileyn45]

Maybe we should of bailed out the student loans instead of the banks in 08. they are once again TOOO Big to Fail, yep.

The banks paid all those loans back. The Treasury made tens of billions in profits on those loans.
How would loaning students more money have helped?

The banks paid those loans back after the fed bought their bad debt through QE.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Awesome idea! What will we do when trading operations relocate to London or Frankfurt?

Over a 0.05% fee? Not gonna happen.

Over a 0.05% fee?

Ummmmm.......

0.5% on stock trades

Perhaps you need a math class?

It has been estimated that this provision could raise hundreds of billions a year

Yes, hundreds of billions a year would be a great incentive to move operations.

Hundreds of billions? Some one might want to check their math. I mean .5% of the entire us economy is 90 billion.

What does the size of GDP have to do with a tax on stock purchases and sales?
If your "share of GDP" is $60,000 per year, does that limit your buys and sells to $60,000 a year?
I could do that much buying and selling in a single day.

I understand that, I was just making a comparison. I just have hard time believing that this would result 100s of billions.

Well, it wouldn't, because it would cause trading firms to move offshore.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Maybe we should of bailed out the student loans instead of the banks in 08. they are once again TOOO Big to Fail, yep.

The banks paid all those loans back. The Treasury made tens of billions in profits on those loans.
How would loaning students more money have helped?

The banks paid those loans back after the fed bought their bad debt through QE.

The Fed only bought Treasuries and guaranteed MBS. Not a bad debt in the bunch.
The banks lost hundreds of billions on their bad debt. And still paid back all the TARP loans.

 

[baileyn45]

UOTE="Toddsterpatriot, post: 13103351, member: 29707"]

QUOTE="Toddsterpatriot, post: 13102955, member: 29707"]

Maybe we should of bailed out the student loans instead of the banks in 08. they are once again TOOO Big to il, yep.

he banks paid all those loans back. The Treasury made tens of billions in profits on those loans.
ow would loaning students more money have helped?

Guaranteed by whom? Fannie and Freddie, who also had to be bailed out. Not a bad debt in the bunch? You must be kidding. The whole premise was to remove toxic MBS from bank balance sheets.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

UOTE="Toddsterpatriot, post: 13103351, member: 29707"]

QUOTE="Toddsterpatriot, post: 13102955, member: 29707"]

Maybe we should of bailed out the student loans instead of the banks in 08. they are once again TOOO Big to il, yep.

he banks paid all those loans back. The Treasury made tens of billions in profits on those loans.
ow would loaning students more money have helped?

Guaranteed by whom? Fannie and Freddie, who also had to be bailed out. Not a bad debt in the bunch? You must be kidding. The whole premise was to remove toxic MBS from bank balance sheets.

Guaranteed by whom? Fannie and Freddie

The US Treasury.

Not a bad debt in the bunch? You must be kidding.

If you held one of those guaranteed MBS, you would have received every interest payment, in full.
Principal too. Why would I kid about that?

The whole premise was to remove toxic MBS from bank balance sheets.

You're wrong.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Arianrhod]

And he'll pay for it by charging you for every Photoshop you post in lieu of intelligent discussion.

(Now, watch Viggi take this post seriously.)

 

[Vigilante]

And he'll pay for it by charging you for every Photoshop you post in lieu of intelligent discussion.

(Now, watch Viggi take this post seriously.)

Unfortunately you are too stupid to know that a "PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS"...But I expect that from a low 2 digit IQ'D subversive!

 

[Arianrhod]

...a "PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS"...

And when that picture contributes nothing to the discussion except "I can haz Photoshop [that somebody else made]" it suggests a thousand words might be beyond the parameters of your vocabulary.

Try posting something relevant to the topic. Something in words. I mean, try. I bet you can do it.

 

[Vigilante]

...a "PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS"...

And when that picture contributes nothing to the discussion except "I can haz Photoshop [that somebody else made]" it suggests a thousand words might be beyond the parameters of your vocabulary.

Try posting something relevant to the topic. Something in words. I mean, try. I bet you can do it.

I do what I want, you being a terrorist leftist DEMANDS I do what you want... You STILL won't understand that!

 

[Arianrhod]

I do what I want...

Yes, you do. And I draw what conclusions I will.

 

[baileyn45]

Guaranteed by whom? Fannie and Freddie
The US Treasury.

Bingo. translation the tax payers. Not the banks that originally held these "toxic assets".

Not a bad debt in the bunch? You must be kidding.
If you held one of those guaranteed MBS, you would have received every interest payment, in full.
Principal too. Why would I kid about that?

Sure paid for with money pumped into the banks with fed dollars.

The whole premise was to remove toxic MBS from bank balance sheets.
You're wrong.

We'll have to disagree on that point. Basically you're telling me QE was used to purchase perfectly good MBS from the banks. To what end? If they were such great investments why remove them from the banks balance sheet?

I've yet to see an economic source that doesn't cite removing toxic MBS from bank balance sheets as a major goal of QE 1 thru 3 and operation Twist.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Guaranteed by whom? Fannie and Freddie
The US Treasury.

Bingo. translation the tax payers. Not the banks that originally held these "toxic assets".

Not a bad debt in the bunch? You must be kidding.
If you held one of those guaranteed MBS, you would have received every interest payment, in full.
Principal too. Why would I kid about that?

Sure paid for with money pumped into the banks with fed dollars.

The whole premise was to remove toxic MBS from bank balance sheets.
You're wrong.

We'll have to disagree on that point. Basically you're telling me QE was used to purchase perfectly good MBS from the banks. To what end? If they were such great investments why remove them from the banks balance sheet?

I've yet to see an economic source that doesn't cite removing toxic MBS from bank balance sheets as a major goal of QE 1 thru 3 and operation Twist.

Bingo. translation the tax payers. Not the banks that originally held these "toxic assets".

Yes, taxpayers guarantee these MBS, just like they guarantee US Treasuries.

Not the banks that originally held these "toxic assets".

When bonds are guaranteed, it's ridiculous to claim they are toxic.

Sure paid for with money pumped into the banks with fed dollars.

The banks aren't paying the mortgages on these homes.

Basically you're telling me QE was used to purchase perfectly good MBS from the banks.

From any willing sellers. The banks were increasing their guaranteed MBS positions at the same time.

To what end?

To add liquidity to the banking system.

If they were such great investments why remove them from the banks balance sheet?

If a bank wanted more cash, they sold. Most held their guaranteed MBS.

I've yet to see an economic source that doesn't cite removing toxic MBS from bank balance sheets as a major goal of QE 1 thru 3

The idea behind QE is that you don’t need a printing press to add money to an ailing economy. The Fed’s usual method of fighting recessions is to push down the interest rates banks charge each other for overnight loans, which allows banks to offer cheaper loans to businesses. But the Fed cut that rate almost to zero during the financial crisis five years ago, and more was clearly needed. So the Fed began buying bonds in hopes of driving down long-term rates that are usually outside its control. It wasn’t a new idea, but it had never been tried on such a massive scale. In the months after the crisis, the Fed bought $1.75 trillion in bonds. In 2010, with the recovery flagging, it bought $600 billion more in what was called QE2. In September 2012, with joblessness stubbornly high, the bank began snapping up $85 billion a month in Treasuries and mortgage-backed securities — QE3. Unlike earlier rounds, the Fed’s purchase plan was described as open-ended, with officials saying it would continue until the labor market “improved substantially.” The idea was that reducing the bond purchases gradually — that is, tapering them off — would make clear that the central bank would continue to offer support for the economy, just at lower levels.

The Fed Eases Off - QuickTake

No mention of toxic assets there.

and operation Twist

That was selling short-term Treasuries and buying long-term Treasuries, to drop long term rates.
Nothing to do with MBS.