coyotes22;841439 wrote:Soros to drop hedge fund:

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11198058/1/soros-returns-capital-avoids-dodd-frank.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEN

Why? Maybe so he does not have to disclose investment info?

gut;841459 wrote:I've been out of the loop, but hedge funds have had to register with the SEC for several years and disclose investments quarterly. I don't know what additional requirements Dodd-Frank imposes, but I suspect it's more a personal decision Soros chose to politicize. Although, knowing his politics it's a curious political statement.

Under new requirements from the Dodd Frank act, hedge funds are required to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission by March 2012 if the fund continues to manage more than $150 million in assets for outside investors. The new requirements would call for funds to report information about the assets they manage, potential conflicts of interest, and information on investors and employees. The act allows an exemption for what the Commission considers "family office" advisers.

"As those other exemptions are no longer available under the new regulations, Soros Fund Management will now complete the transition to a family office that it began eleven years ago."

gut;841481 wrote:I understand that. The new requirements, at least what was listed, don't seem like that much additional. Hedge funds were already subjected to many new reporting requirements when they had to register with the SEC back in 2004 or so. I'm just offering my opinion that his reason given is political rather than real. A few billion out of $25B in total assets is, in most cases, simply not worth dealing with investors (note it says this transition has been in the works for 11 years).

coyotes22;841490 wrote:Correct, that way he does not have to disclose the billions he will spend, to supporting the reelection of Nobama

gut;841498 wrote:Ahhh....You may be on to something there. Electing Obama may all be part of Soros' master plan to break the dollar.

Ty Webb;842038 wrote:How is it calling out Obama when he mentioned Dems and Pubs?

coyotes22;843091 wrote:Whats gonna work,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, MORE TAXES!!

http://cheshire.patch.com/articles/going-retro-tax-style

BGFalcons82;843224 wrote:Just a couple common sense questions:
Will their tax hikes result in more people and/or businesses moving to Connecticut or more people and businesses moving out?
Will people find ways to shelter their incomes more or be more willing to shell more out to their governor?

BGFalcons82;843224 wrote:Just a couple common sense questions:
Will their tax hikes result in more people and/or businesses moving to Connecticut or more people and businesses moving out?
Will people find ways to shelter their incomes more or be more willing to shell more out to their governor?

gut;843323 wrote:Between state, local and federal marginal rates at the top will be over 50%. I don't think anyone can convince me that giving the govt more than a 50/50 split on money you earn is remotely fair, I don't care how much you make.

QuakerOats;844699 wrote:http://www.cnbc.com/id/43924372

coyotes22;844819 wrote:We bow to you, Oh great One, King Obama:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/watch-live-obama-addresses-controversial-hispanic-group-la-raza/

jhay78;845139 wrote:You know they would've cheered louder if he had said, "And I intend to tear up the Constitution and acquire all the powers of government unto myself."

QuakerOats;845423 wrote:Business Leaders Unhappy With Obama Administration.
The Washington Times (7/29, Boyer) reports business leaders "are increasingly airing their fears that President Obama's policies are stifling job creation." The National Association of Manufacturers and other leading business groups "are in full-scale revolt against policies coming out of the National Labor Relations Board, now dominated by Obama appointees, in particular a clash in which the agency has sided with labor unions in seeking to prevent aerospace giant Boeing from opening a massive new, non-union manufacturing plant in South Carolina." Rosario Palmieri, vice president of regulatory policy at the National Association of Manufacturers "said the Obama administration has made 'significant shifts' toward easing regulations. 'We have certainly seen some progress and enhanced sensitivity on rule-making,'" he said. "But he added that a 'good test' will be whether the EPA moves forward next month with anticipated costlier rules on ozone standards, which NAM has estimated could cost 7.3 million jobs and trillions in extra regulatory expenses from 2020 to 2030."