- Joined
- Nov 20, 2009
- Messages
- 4,733
- Reaction score
- 2,439
- Location
- here
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Trump promised to drain the swamp, but what does that really mean? And what effect will that really have? If he cuts 75% of federal regulations as promised, what will that mean for typical Americans? Are we really draining the swamp, or are we unleashing the swamp monster?
I've been finding it difficult to find information about specific regulations and their effects. Part of the problem is the sheer scope of the regulatory environment -- millions of rules with varying levels of necessity or efficacy.
In this thread, I'm hoping people on all sides will post links to information about federal regulations -- good or bad -- and why it should either be preserved or thrown on the fire. I'm talking about specific regulations and their direct effects. It's easy to say "government is always corrupt" or "government will save us," but the regulatory environment is much messier than that.
A couple examples of rules changes that I believe are potentially detrimental to average Americans:
Education Dept. voids rule prevents large fees on student loan debt -- This rule affects loans from a specific program that no longer is in effect (ended in 2010). Still, thousands borrowed under this program, and the regulation capped fees collectors could charge on student debt. Now, for people who are struggling to pay back student loans, collection agencies can tack on fees up to 16% of the principal. For example, a loan of $20,000 could balloon to over $23,000. IMO, this was a good regulation that should not have been cut.
White House stalls Obama rule on retirement advisers -- A rule was set to go into effect demanding financial advisers put their client's best interests first. Basically, there has been a practice of mutual funds paying advisers to steer clients to funds with higher fees or riskier returns. The rule was meant to add a level of accountability and prevent fraud. But because investment is speculative, it's difficult to determine when an adviser is or isn't doing his or her best for clients. It's an imperfect regulation meant to address an inherent conflict of interest in our system. Perhaps a better rule would prevent payment from fund managers to licensed advisers altogether.
I've been finding it difficult to find information about specific regulations and their effects. Part of the problem is the sheer scope of the regulatory environment -- millions of rules with varying levels of necessity or efficacy.
In this thread, I'm hoping people on all sides will post links to information about federal regulations -- good or bad -- and why it should either be preserved or thrown on the fire. I'm talking about specific regulations and their direct effects. It's easy to say "government is always corrupt" or "government will save us," but the regulatory environment is much messier than that.
A couple examples of rules changes that I believe are potentially detrimental to average Americans:
Education Dept. voids rule prevents large fees on student loan debt -- This rule affects loans from a specific program that no longer is in effect (ended in 2010). Still, thousands borrowed under this program, and the regulation capped fees collectors could charge on student debt. Now, for people who are struggling to pay back student loans, collection agencies can tack on fees up to 16% of the principal. For example, a loan of $20,000 could balloon to over $23,000. IMO, this was a good regulation that should not have been cut.
White House stalls Obama rule on retirement advisers -- A rule was set to go into effect demanding financial advisers put their client's best interests first. Basically, there has been a practice of mutual funds paying advisers to steer clients to funds with higher fees or riskier returns. The rule was meant to add a level of accountability and prevent fraud. But because investment is speculative, it's difficult to determine when an adviser is or isn't doing his or her best for clients. It's an imperfect regulation meant to address an inherent conflict of interest in our system. Perhaps a better rule would prevent payment from fund managers to licensed advisers altogether.
