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?

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.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/26/debt-ceiling-crisis-boehner-s-hypocritical-response.html

I agree with most of this

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.

See bolded part?

"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."

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).

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).

Correct, that way he does not have to disclose the billions he will spend, to supporting the reelection of Nobama

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

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

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.

GASP,,,, You dont mean, like what happened in England?!?!?!?!?

More proof of job killing regulations from left leaning EPA

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/right-out-of-atlas-shrugged-hear-an-exasperated-alabama-businessman-tell-the-feds-im-just-quitting/

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/07/obama-team-urges-boehner-reid-compromise/1

And the comments at the end of the article are nearly unanimous in calling out obama

How is it calling out Obama when he mentioned Dems and Pubs?

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

Major failure at reading comprehension.

He said THE COMMENTS at the end as in from people on the interwebz.

Whats gonna work,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, MORE TAXES!!

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

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

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

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?

Well, raising taxes ALWAYS brings in more money, and CREATES more jobs. Duh!!

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?

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.

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.

But it's always fair when it's someone else's money!

Seriously, no one can convince me either. When some shell out over half their income to the govt, and almost half of America has no federal tax liability, it's no wonder we're in the mess we're in.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43924372

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

Langone makes a couple of great points (while managing to sound petty and old-fashioned with his "don't go into the oval office without a jacket")
- the wealthy shouldn't get SS...So phase this out for incomes above $X amount (say, top 5% of people) and that's going to be at least a 5% reduction in benefits?
- willing to pay more taxes IF that goes to debt reduction...I agree, no reason to keeping putting gas in the tank as Obama/Pelosi/Reid floor it downhill

We bow to you, Oh great One, King Obama:

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

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/

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."

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."

So let it be written, so let it be done.

Q1 GDP just revised down from 1.9% to a meager 0.4% --- incredible adjustment. This ship continues to list while obama policies thwart any potential whatsoever for sustainable growth. November 2012 cannot arrive soon enough.

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."

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."

SMH

Its being reported that the Muslim Brotherhood, will be gaining the power in Egypt. Not good for America or Israel.