Concerning events in our government over the last couple weeks

[astonmartin708]

• The halt on the fiduciary rule that financial advisers must act in the investors best interest.
• The halt on the FHA mortgage insurance drop that would have helped Americans get homes.
• The repeal in the House barring of the mentally impaired from buying firearms.
• The support for the Johnson Amendment's repeal. Allowing tax free dollars to go to political campaigns.
• The draft of the executive order promoting religious intolerance.
• The appointment of Jerry Fallwell Jr. to head the committee exploring higher education practices.
• The Trump commitment to role back protections put in place after the great recession.

If Trump didn't have that ridiculous hair, I might be tempted to call him Lex Luthor.

 

[lawpoke87]

MAGA

 

[astonmartin708]

MAGA

I can't tell if that's sarcasm or not?

Some of those things are pretty blatantly bad. Others I could see some people on this board supporting, but everyone would have to acknowledge the fact that they're not productive to national comradery.

 

[lawpoke87]

• The halt on the fiduciary rule that financial advisers must act in the investors best interest.
• The halt on the FHA mortgage insurance drop that would have helped Americans get homes.
• The repeal in the House barring of the mentally impaired from buying firearms.
• The support for the Johnson Amendment's repeal. Allowing tax free dollars to go to political campaigns.
• The draft of the executive order promoting religious intolerance.
• The appointment of Jerry Fallwell Jr. to head the committee exploring higher education practices.
• The Trump commitment to role back protections put in place after the great recession.

If Trump didn't have that ridiculous hair, I might be tempted to call him Lex Luthor.

Fiduciary duty has always existed when it came to investors. I don't mind the actual rule but the reporting requirements should be addressed.

Would like to see something done with MPI rates on FHA loans for lower income Americans. Keep the break

No idea on the repeal of the mentally deranged from buying guns....doesn't sound like the best plan

Don't mind tax free dollars to go fund campaigns. Would like to see a limit placed so the super rich at least aren't buying their politicians AND getting a tax break

Wouldn't call the order promoting religious intolerance. Most of it addresses the ACA. That said...not really a fan of the EO. Hell...not fan of EO's period

Know nothing about Fallwell Jr. other than who his dad is

Assume your talking about Dodd-Frank here. This was an overreach imo and is driving many small banks out of business due to the burden of all the new federal regulations. The reporting requirements are insane. The Act needs to be amended to address the needs of the smaller banks and loosen some of the lending requirements for lower income and poorer credit borrowers. Goes along with lower rates for PMI on smaller FHA loans. Having a handful of huge Wall Street Banks as our only borrowing options is a bad thing and Dodd-Frank is pushing us in that direction.

While we're at it can we address some of the ridiculous regulations which were placed on real estate transaction a year ago? There is no way the people who wrote these things have ever worked in the industry.

 

[URedskin54]

ACLU, NRA, doctors, and disability advocates were all on the same side against the gun regulation. It was too broad and had no due process considerations. Basically allowed guns to be taken away from old people if they have someone else handle their finances. Nothing to see there

 

[ctt8410]

• Agreed. This is straight out of Liar's Poker and the only purpose is to help banks collect unnecessary fees and advisors boost their commissions.
• PMI is an important protection for lenders. Is the rate too high? Maybe, but considering this was a small change and it hadn't even been implemented yet, seems silly to be outraged about this.
• Even the ACLU disagreed with this one. You can't remove someone's rights without due process and you can't use SSA designations to assume a person is a danger to society.
• Agreed. You want your nonprofit supporting candidates? Start a separate PAC.
• I'm not gonna get worked up about rumored EO drafts.
• Agree. I don't want Falwell anywhere near education policy.
• This is too generic to be outraged about yet. I'll wait to see what specific changes are made.

 

[lawpoke87]

ACLU, NRA, doctors, and disability advocates were all on the same side against the gun regulation. It was too broad and had no due process considerations. Basically allowed guns to be taken away from old people if they have someone else handle their finances. Nothing to see there

I am assuming you're talking about some sort of guardianship order based on the explanation. Don't really have a problem of that repeal if true. Can't remember the last time we had an issue with blue hairs going around killing people. People who are found mentally impaired outside of this scenerio have no business with guns tho imo.

 

[lawpoke87]

• Agreed. This is straight out of Liar's Poker and the only purpose is to help banks collect unnecessary fees and advisors boost their commissions.
• PMI is an important protection for lenders. Is the rate too high? Maybe, but considering this was a small change and it hadn't even been implemented yet, seems silly to be outraged about this.
• Even the ACLU disagreed with this one. You can't remove someone's rights without due process and you can't use SSA designations to assume a person is a danger to society.
• Agreed. You want your nonprofit supporting candidates? Start a separate PAC.
• I'm not gonna get worked up about rumored EO drafts.
• Agree. I don't want Falwell anywhere near education policy.
• This is too generic to be outraged about yet. I'll wait to see what specific changes are made.

I would like to see PMI automatically come off every loan once the loan balance hits 80% to value. Borrowers can request the abatement but many don't know this is an option. I also like to see PMI prorated based on loan to value above the 80% threshold. Someone who puts 15% down should pay less than the person who pays 5% down.

 

[URedskin54]

I am assuming you're talking about some sort of guardianship order based on the explanation. Don't really have a problem of that repeal if true. Can't remember the last time we had an issue with blue hairs going around killing people. People who are found mentally impaired outside of this scenerio have no business with guns tho imo.

"This rule would require the Social Security Administration to forward the names of all Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefit recipients who use a representative payee to help manage their benefits due to a mental impairment to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)."

That category of people is pretty broad

 

[lawpoke87]

"This rule would require the Social Security Administration to forward the names of all Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefit recipients who use a representative payee to help manage their benefits due to a mental impairment to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)."

That category of people is pretty broad

Agree.

 

[astonmartin708]

Fiduciary duty has always existed when it came to investors. I don't mind the actual rule but the reporting requirements should be addressed.

Would like to see something done with MPI rates on FHA loans for lower income Americans. Keep the break

No idea on the repeal of the mentally deranged from buying guns....doesn't sound like the best plan

Don't mind tax free dollars to go fund campaigns. Would like to see a limit placed so the super rich at least aren't buying their politicians AND getting a tax break

Wouldn't call the order promoting religious intolerance. Most of it addresses the ACA. That said...not really a fan of the EO. Hell...not fan of EO's period

Know nothing about Fallwell Jr. other than who his dad is

Assume your talking about Dodd-Frank here. This was an overreach imo and is driving many small banks out of business due to the burden of all the new federal regulations. The reporting requirements are insane. The Act needs to be amended to address the needs of the smaller banks and loosen some of the lending requirements for lower income and poorer credit borrowers. Goes along with lower rates for PMI on smaller FHA loans. Having a handful of huge Wall Street Banks as our only borrowing options is a bad thing and Dodd-Frank is pushing us in that direction.

While we're at it can we address some of the ridiculous regulations which were placed on real estate transaction a year ago? There is no way the people who wrote these things have ever worked in the industry.

The fiduciary thing was to apply to financial advisers giving advice on retirement. It would automatically make those advisers elevate their practice to that of a fiduciary meaning they wouldn't be allowed to sell you on just an adequate plan that had hidden commissions for them or their bank anymore. They would have to clearly point out any fees / commissions / penalties that a client is going to incur. The administration is trying to sell it as a 'reduction of options' for the consumer, but really it's just a reduction of the worst options that a financial planner might be more inclined to push because they could make more money.

We agree on the PMI rates.

The mentally ill buying guns thing is just in the House so far. No guarantee if it will move to the Senate, so it's just a blip on my mental radar.

I don't like religious donations going to charity. Period. There's no way to limit them because you would essentially be limiting how much a person could give to a church, and it would clearly subvert campaign finance laws which are broken enough as it is.

I can totally see excluding non-profit organizations from the ACA mandates on certain procedures and provisions, but a public and tax paying company should operate in the same manner with regards to healthcare and service as anyone else. I'm sorry hobby lobby.

As for Dodd-Frank, I suppose there is some regulation that could be tweaked to assist smaller banks in their profitability; however, there's been a lot of talk about some of the significant changes that were made with the law. Most specifically I'm afraid they're going to do away with the Volcker Rule which prohibited certain entities (mostly large commercial) banks from making speculative investments via:
proprietary trading - when a firm or bank invests for its own direct gain instead of earning commission dollars by trading on behalf of its clients. This type of trading occurs when a firm decides to profit from the market rather than from the thin-margin commissions it makes from processing trades. Firms or banks that engage in proprietary trading believe that they have a competitive advantage that will enable them to earn excess returns. Proprietary trading can be exceptionally risky and when done incorrectly can royally screw up entire markets (Like the natural gas market in the mid 2000's) I think there's a lot of winging coming from small banks at Dodd-Frank which could be more correctly attributed to the lack of profits they're seeing from low interest rates.

Fallwell Jr. is obviously Jerry's son. He's the president of Liberty U. A school that doesn't even teach accurate science and he's going to head up the national higher education committee that Trump is putting together.

As for the real estate regulations, I can't say I have a lot of knowledge other than what I've looked into for buying my own house and helping a family member refinance theirs recently.

 

[astonmartin708]

"This rule would require the Social Security Administration to forward the names of all Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefit recipients who use a representative payee to help manage their benefits due to a mental impairment to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)."

That category of people is pretty broad

The category is said to include some 75,000 people. Most of which I think probably don't need or shouldn't have a weapon. I would support the access to some kind of fast-tracked appeal process to those people though (with a psychologists' agreement) if they were adamant about wanting the firearm.

 

[lawpoke87]

Many of these things like Dodd-Frank don't need to be entirely gutted. They need to be tweaked like you said. Treating Bank of America like First National Bank of Sapulpa makes no sense.

 

[astonmartin708]

Many of these things like Dodd-Frank don't need to be entirely gutted. They need to be tweaked like you said. Treating Bank of America like First National Bank of Sapulpa makes no sense.

I can agree with that. There were already a lot of concessions made to the smaller banks to exclude them to some degree, but evidently the regulations they have had to follow might be too much. I support re-examining that. But the big banks still need to play by the rules. It's the guys on Trump's CEO board that I'm worried about. JP Morgan, Blackstone, etc...

 

[URedskin54]

The category is said to include some 75,000 people. Most of which I think probably don't need or shouldn't have a weapon. I would support the access to some kind of fast-tracked appeal process to those people though (with a psychologists' agreement) if they were adamant about wanting the firearm.

Even if I agreed with that, you have the process reversed. You shouldn't have to go back and prove you deserve the right before the government has shown a legit reason it should be taken away.

The category includes a whole lot of people without mental illness or dementia. What about someone who had a brain injury from an accident or maybe an IED and they just have memory problems? The law needs to go

 

[astonmartin708]

Even if I agreed with that, you have the process reversed. You shouldn't have to go back and prove you deserve the right before the government has proven it should be taken away.

The category includes a whole lot of people without mental illness or dementia. What about someone who had a brain injury from an accident or maybe an IED and they just have memory problems? The law needs to go

If you have brain injury from an IED there's a good chance that you might have some form of PTSD. In which case, having a gun might not be the best thing for you. Once again, if you pose a risk to others because of your mental state, then you shouldn't have access to a weapon for the same reason a five year old shouldn't be allowed to drive a car: You probably don't have the mental capacity to operate the tool in a responsible manner 100% of the time. If you believe you do, and a licensed professional agrees with that, then I'd be willing to take the risk, but not before.

If you are mentally competent enough to have and determine when to use a firearm for protection or "as part of a well regulated militia" you're not going to be on disability for a brain injury.

The story of the main character from American Sniper:

Routh was a 25-year-old U.S. Marine Corps veteran from Lancaster, Texas.[49] Kyle and Littlefield had reportedly taken Routh to the gun range in an effort to help him with his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Routh had been in and out of mental hospitals for at least two years and had been diagnosed with schizophrenia.[9] His family also said he suffered from PTSD from his time in the military.[50][51] On the way to the shooting range, Kyle texted Littlefield, "This dude is straight up nuts." Littlefield responded, "Watch my six", military slang meaning "watch my back".[52] Four months later, while he was in his jail cell, Routh shared with former Erath County Sheriff's Deputy Gene Cole: "I was just riding in the back seat of the truck, and nobody would talk to me. They were just taking me to the range, so I shot them. I feel bad about it, but they wouldn't talk to me. I’m sure they've forgiven me."[

Moral of the story: don't put weapons in the hands of people with mental conditions.

 

[lawpoke87]

If you have brain injury from an IED there's a good chance that you might have some form of PTSD. In which case, having a gun might not be the best thing for you. Once again, if you pose a risk to others because of your mental state, then you shouldn't have access to a weapon for the same reason a five year old shouldn't be allowed to drive a car: You probably don't have the mental capacity to operate the tool in a responsible manner 100% of the time. If you believe you do, and a licensed professional agrees with that, then I'd be willing to take the risk, but not before.

If you are mentally competent enough to have and determine when to use a firearm for protection or "as part of a well regulated militia" you're not going to be on disability for a brain injury.

The story of the main character from American Sniper:

Routh was a 25-year-old U.S. Marine Corps veteran from Lancaster, Texas.[49] Kyle and Littlefield had reportedly taken Routh to the gun range in an effort to help him with his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Routh had been in and out of mental hospitals for at least two years and had been diagnosed with schizophrenia.[9] His family also said he suffered from PTSD from his time in the military.[50][51] On the way to the shooting range, Kyle texted Littlefield, "This dude is straight up nuts." Littlefield responded, "Watch my six", military slang meaning "watch my back".[52] Four months later, while he was in his jail cell, Routh shared with former Erath County Sheriff's Deputy Gene Cole: "I was just riding in the back seat of the truck, and nobody would talk to me. They were just taking me to the range, so I shot them. I feel bad about it, but they wouldn't talk to me. I’m sure they've forgiven me."[

While I agree with this a vast majority of cases involving the SS and assistance in benefits are due simply to age. Maybe make a distinction between age related issues and true mental illness? Seems like we're making a rule designed at the 1% which restricts the remaining 99% as well.

 

[astonmartin708]

While I agree with this a vast majority of cases involving the SS and assistance in benefits are due simply to age. Maybe make a distinction between age related issues and true mental illness? Seems like we're making a rule designed at the 1% which restricts the remaining 99% as well.

Do people with dementia really have a need for weapons? It's not like when the call up to militarize and throw off the oppressive yolk of our government that they're going to be the first people we call.

I suppose I could support the SSA making a sub designation for mental incapacity for age vs trauma and non-age related mental illness.

 

[URedskin54]

If you have brain injury from an IED there's a good chance that you might have some form of PTSD. In which case, having a gun might not be the best thing for you. Once again, if you pose a risk to others because of your mental state, then you shouldn't have access to a weapon for the same reason a five year old shouldn't be allowed to drive a car: You probably don't have the mental capacity to operate the tool in a responsible manner 100% of the time. If you believe you do, and a licensed professional agrees with that, then I'd be willing to take the risk, but not before.

Ah so now we're going beyond the law in question. PTSD is not proxy for "poses a risk to others" or "doesn't have the mental capacity to operate the tool responsibly." Extremely few pose any risk at all, and I'm pretty sure I know more than a few people who would be a little irritated that their mental capacity is compared to a 5 year old's ability to operate a car. You should not have to prove you're not a risk to exercise the right. They should have to prove that you are, just like for everything else. I honestly don't care what risk you're willing to take.

Cool, highlight the Chris Kyle example. I'm sure it would happen less often if people refused to seek help because they didn't want their guns taken away.

 

[lawpoke87]

Do people with dementia really have a need for weapons? It's not like when the call up to militarize and throw off the oppressive yolk of our government that they're going to be the first people we call.

I suppose I could support the SSA making a sub designation for mental incapacity for age vs trauma and non-age related mental illness.

Do we have issues with old people going around killing others? I understand your point but I frankly haven't seen many instances of crazy 90 year olds going on shooting rampages.

 

[astonmartin708]

Ah so now we're going beyond the law in question. PTSD is not proxy for "poses a risk to others" or "doesn't have the mental capacity to operate the tool responsibly." Extremely few pose any risk at all, and I'm pretty sure I know more than a few people who would be a little irritated that their mental capacity is compared to a 5 year old's ability to operate a car. You should not have to prove you're not a risk to exercise the right. They should have to prove that you are, just like for everything else. I honestly don't care what risk you're willing to take.

Cool, highlight the Chris Kyle example. I'm sure it would happen less often if people refused to seek help because they didn't want their guns taken away.

The problem with PTSD is that it's not evident at all times. I'm not saying that everyone that's ever had PTSD perpetually has the mental capacity of a five year old. What I'm saying is that at a certain time, a portion of the PTSD sufferers might not be making the rational decisions they (or we) would expect from a person that wasn't afflicted with the disorder. By taking disability due to mental disorders, you (or a professional on your behalf) have already acknowledged that your mental capacity isn't always (24 hours a day) up to the standards needed to function normally in our society. You've relinquished that right.

The fact that it's a thing that people with actual perpetual mental problems can avoid it is the real issue as you said. It's not likely that a person who know they have thoughts of shooting people will voluntarily give those rights up. So what do we do about it? You can either take them away preemptively (bad option) or wait until they actually shoot someone (worse option). It's a sad situation for everyone, because nobody wants to see a person succumb to mental illness, but it's a fact of life. The brain is a fragile thing, and people with serious brain injuries can pose a threat to the rest of us, much like a person who has a deadly virus might be quarantined against their will until their condition changes (with help).

 

[Gmoney4WW]

There should be a stricter more defined labeling system for mental disabilities, and if there is a reason they should not handle a firearm then that should be notated by mental health facility/worker. For me it would have been the neuropsychologist on my case at the hospital and the neurologist on my case when I was declared mental disabled for a head injury. And this head injury was not related to anything which would relate to PTSD, as are a large % head injuries in the general public.

It took me 15+ years to gradually gain back most of the mental abilities that had been taken from me due to head trauma. I did not want a gun, nor do I now. But if I had wanted one for protection or hunting purposes, I should have had the right. There was virtually no point in my recovery, in which my knowledge of right and wrong situations to protect myself, was in any way impaired. My mental problems though great, did not fall into that category.

The only time my perceptions of the aforementioned nature, might have been impaired in any way, would have been during the first three or four months out of the hospital, in which I could not drive for precautionary reasons. This was related to physical and mental problems which would go away fairly quickly if they existed at all. I would not have had a problem being inhibited to have a firearm during that initial time period.

Many people out there without direct experience of mental deficiency's, paint with too broad of a brush.

 

[astonmartin708]

There should be a stricter more defined labeling system for mental disabilities, and if there is a reason they should not handle a firearm then that should be notated by mental health facility/worker. For me it would have been the neuropsychologist on my case at the hospital and the neurologist on my case when I was declared mental disabled for a head injury. And this head injury was not related to anything which would relate to PTSD, as are a large % head injuries in the general public.

It took me 15+ years to gradually gain back most of the mental abilities that had been taken from me due to head trauma. I did not want a gun, nor do I now. But if I had wanted one for protection or hunting purposes, I should have had the right. There was virtually no point in my recovery, in which my knowledge of right and wrong situations to protect myself, was in any way impaired. My mental problems though great, did not fall into that category.

The only time my perceptions of the aforementioned nature, might have been impaired in any way, would have been during the first three or four months out of the hospital, in which I could not drive for precautionary reasons. This was related to physical and mental problems which would go away fairly quickly if they existed at all. I would not have had a problem being inhibited to have a firearm during that initial time period.

Many people out there without direct experience of mental deficiency's, paint with too broad of a brush.

Something I can agree to.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

The category is said to include some 75,000 people. Most of which I think probably don't need or shouldn't have a weapon. I would support the access to some kind of fast-tracked appeal process to those people though (with a psychologists' agreement) if they were adamant about wanting the firearm.

I have hard time believing that figure is accurate.

 

[astonmartin708]

I have hard time believing that figure is accurate.

I'll have to find where I got that figure again.

 

[astonmartin708]

I'll have to find where I got that figure again.

According to NPR's Susan Davis, the measure being blocked from implementation would have required the Social Security Administration to send records of some beneficiaries with severe mental disabilities to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System. About 75,000 people found mentally incapable of managing their financial affairs would have been affected.

 

[WATU2]

Some study in the area of PTSD, mental illness and gun ownership could help clarify these issues and improve our understanding. Unfortunately our Rep Congress has prohibited funding such studies.

Ah so now we're going beyond the law in question. PTSD is not proxy for "poses a risk to others" or "doesn't have the mental capacity to operate the tool responsibly." Extremely few pose any risk at all, and I'm pretty sure I know more than a few people who would be a little irritated that their mental capacity is compared to a 5 year old's ability to operate a car. You should not have to prove you're not a risk to exercise the right. They should have to prove that you are, just like for everything else. I honestly don't care what risk you're willing to take.

Cool, highlight the Chris Kyle example. I'm sure it would happen less often if people refused to seek help because they didn't want their guns taken away.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

According to NPR's Susan Davis, the measure being blocked from implementation would have required the Social Security Administration to send records of some beneficiaries with severe mental disabilities to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System. About 75,000 people found mentally incapable of managing their financial affairs would have been affected.

If they are defining them as a severe and limited category, and not just all who are not in charge of their finances, then that makes more sense. I just thought it was across the board all who were not in control of their finances.