|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 4, 2016 15:17:34 GMT
www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-money/2016/03/morning-money-213005WALL STREET HOPES TO NUKE TRUMP — POLITICO’s Ben White — “Wall Street is getting ready to go nuclear on Donald Trump. … Terrified that the reality TV star could run away with the Republican nomination and bring his brand of anti-immigrant, protectionist populism to the White House, some top financiers are writing big checks to fund an effort to deny Trump a majority of delegates to the GOP convention. The effort is centered on the recently formed Our Principles PAC, the latest big money group airing anti-Trump ads, being run Katie Packer, a GOP strategist and deputy campaign manager in 2012 for Mitt Romney.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 4, 2016 16:42:50 GMT
www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-money/2016/03/morning-money-213005WALL STREET HOPES TO NUKE TRUMP — POLITICO’s Ben White — “Wall Street is getting ready to go nuclear on Donald Trump. … Terrified that the reality TV star could run away with the Republican nomination and bring his brand of anti-immigrant, protectionist populism to the White House, some top financiers are writing big checks to fund an effort to deny Trump a majority of delegates to the GOP convention. The effort is centered on the recently formed Our Principles PAC, the latest big money group airing anti-Trump ads, being run Katie Packer, a GOP strategist and deputy campaign manager in 2012 for Mitt Romney. Precisely the wrong thing to do. There is a coterie of extremely well paid lobbyists, publicists and 'strategists' who have their snouts in the electioneering trough. All the monies raised 'to support campaigns' goes into these people's pockets. Every 2 years they get a harvest of $millions and they need to ensure that continues. So the 'lobbyists' and backers provide money to the politicians in return for promises. The politicians then pass the money on to their 'strategists' and 'publicists' (some of whom are lobbyists)to run (ruin) their campaigns. When a politicians drops out the 'team' often just move on to another group. It seems that in Congress and the Senate to get onto committees junior politicians have to raise money for the committee chairs and if they get enough can buy their way on. It is strange that middle class congressmen after 2 years always seem to become millionaires. The same effect in the Senate. This is probably why the 'tea party candidates' roll over and cooperate, a new 'hard line' speaker takes over and immediately agrees a pork laden budget. Into this comes a billionaire who is going to pay his own way. Panic now breaks out among the junior congressmen who see possibilities of the troughs being pulled away. All the lobbyists and strategists are also in a panic - if someone can 'self fund' and win they are shown to have feet of clay. Even the new hardline speaker is given a talking point to spout to the media based on a non-issue. So they bring in favors and all the previously paid politicians and out to grass candidates are pulled out of the woodwork and given talking points speeches many of which contradict what they were told to say only a year or so previously. This is all happening with a public that has now seen behind the curtain, democrats and republicans both are fed up to the back teeth with all these politicians who are really parasites grubbing for money. So hearing well paid over fed parasites wailing about a billionaire self funding candidate not being a true member of their clan actually improves that candidate's standing. It makes it apparent that he is precisely what they want. The media many years ago decided it was Hillary's turn so spend all their time throwing fat on the fire and long ago ceased to ask real questions of presidential candidates that they will never anoint, all they want is good yah boo sucks television to bring in the ratings before Hillary's coronation. This is aided by the Republican Establishment who would really rather prefer to be out of power and have their cozy money making schemes and not have to think. The one ray of hope is the move to hold a convention of states. I am reminded of the speech of Oliver Cromwell to the House of Commons in 1653 closing down 'the long Parliament' -- "It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonoured by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.
Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?
Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!"
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Mar 4, 2016 17:56:59 GMT
Trump is a businessman -CEO and has the characteristics that go with it. All CEO’s that I know are egotistical (why shouldn’t they be?), braggers and bullies. By bully I don’t mean pick on a helpless kid in the neighborhood, I mean use threats (no promotions or raises) and other means to make sure their employees meet and exceed expectations.
I and my children who are all CEO’s, exhibit these characteristics. We also use incentives and accolades to achieve our goals. We all like to think we are good people but others may not agree.
CEO’s have one other characteristic, they are cost-cutters by nature.
Is it time for a businessman to be president?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 4, 2016 18:08:34 GMT
Trump is a businessman -CEO and has the characteristics that go with it. All CEO’s that I know are egotistical (why shouldn’t they be?), braggers and bullies. By bully I don’t mean pick on a helpless kid in the neighborhood, I mean use threats (no promotions or raises) and other means to make sure their employees meet and exceed expectations. I and my children who are all CEO’s, exhibit these characteristics. We also use incentives and accolades to achieve our goals. We all like to think we are good people but others may not agree. CEO’s have one other characteristic, they are cost-cutters by nature. Is it time for a businessman to be president? The past practice of electing politicians has been a demonstrated failure. Our National Debt sky rockets. Up Approx $1 TRILLION since October 1, 2015. And all the US gets out of it is a measly .75% growth in the 4th Qtr? I am not afraid of change, trying something different. IN FACT, I DEMAND change. The current path is NOT working well.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 4, 2016 18:12:10 GMT
!/2 the US public can't make enough money to pay income taxes. It isn't that rates are too low, it is that the economy SUCKS!
I bet every one of those households would jump for joy to pay Income Taxes today.
Sad sad commentary on value of wages received for work performed.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Mar 4, 2016 20:24:27 GMT
John Kasich has benefitted from the lack of attacks at the debates. Here’s what might come up if he is attacked.
Kasich:“I’ve cut taxes in Ohio.” I, DuWayne, am one of many who moved their residence from Ohio only because of the high taxes. To stem the outflow of wealthy residents, Kasich did cut the ridiculously high marginal rate on the personal income tax. But he then increased the sales tax thus shifting taxes from the rich to the poor.
Kasich: “I was reelected by 30% in Ohio.” His opponent’s hand-picked Lieutenant Governor running partner was found to have not paid his income taxes for several years. Then Kasich's opponent was found “making love” with someone who was not his wife in a parking lot. And then it was found he didn’t have a driver’s license. And so on. The problems built up to the point that the Democratic party gave up on their candidate but it was too late to name another. Kasich won in his first term by 2%. His votes in the second term were up by about 5% due in large part to the flame-out of his opponent. But he won by a large margin because the democrat vote fell by 25%.
“I balanced the budget in Ohio every year.” That is required by law. Every governor in Ohio has balanced the budget.
“I balanced the Federal Budget.” Newt Gingrich was the Chairman of the House Budget Committee and he worked over a number of years with many others to bring expenditures down to a balanced budget. Kasich is known for his abrasiveness but he followed Newt Gingrich and was there when the balanced budget was last achieved.
“I created XXXX number of jobs in Ohio.” Ohio has benefitted greatly from the shale oil boom. One part is the drilling activity but far more important is the availability of low cost feedstocks like natural gas liquids which lead to great economics for chemical upgrading plants. Each job in these industries leads to 3 or 4 additional jobs for those who supply the needs of the additional workers. Did Kasich create these jobs?
I think Kasich’s experiences as a governor and on the House Committees are very useful. So I’m not saying he would be a bad choice compared to some others. I’m just noting that his record has not been attacked like the other candidates. And upon such attacks his recent sunny disposition may revert to his historical abrasiveness. He will then no longer stand above the fray which is catalyzed by the media. If you like Kasich because he not involved in the childish name calling, remember how the normally mild-mannered Jeb Bush was as bad as anyone when he was attacked. I've seen Kasich's spittle carry quite a distance when he gets mad.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 4, 2016 21:32:55 GMT
All good points DuWayne.
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Mar 5, 2016 2:08:35 GMT
I want to get on board with Trump as our best hope, but he is not a regular businessman. In my opinion, he is a con man and a borderline criminal. He got rich with manipulated bankruptcies and lawsuits. He has launched dozens of business ventures of all types, and almost none of them have been successful, for anyone but Trump, who always finds ways to abscond with whatever was left. He calls the Trump University lawsuit a "small civil action", but if you were one of those saps dumb enough to hand over $36000 for essentially no gain, you would not view it the same as him.
He is likely going to be the nominee, another amazingly disfunctional republican nomination result.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 5, 2016 2:08:50 GMT
Personally ... I think we need a new crop of occupations in Congress. We certainly have enough laws ... so perhaps we can dispense with the lawyers. Let's elect business men, engineers, and other people that either build or fix things.Would be interesting to see how that works out. Couldn't possibly be any worse, could it? ?? AND 86 THE ECONOMISTS TOO. They've ASSUMED our future away ... and their track record isn't any better than climate scientists. Hell, if you actually need a new law, we can just bid it out. Takes long enough anyway and they never read it. Hang a sign ... NO DAMN LAWYERS NEED APPLY. i'd reverse the nouns, but it's illegal.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 5, 2016 19:51:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Mar 5, 2016 20:46:34 GMT
I want to get on board with Trump as our best hope, but he is not a regular businessman. In my opinion, he is a con man and a borderline criminal. He got rich with manipulated bankruptcies and lawsuits. He has launched dozens of business ventures of all types, and almost none of them have been successful, for anyone but Trump, who always finds ways to abscond with whatever was left. He calls the Trump University lawsuit a "small civil action", but if you were one of those saps dumb enough to hand over $36000 for essentially no gain, you would not view it the same as him. He is likely going to be the nominee, another amazingly disfunctional republican nomination result. I personally have been involved with many business through venture capital. Many of the businesses went bankrupt. Mitt Romney was involved with private equity investment. Many of his investments went bad. Does that make Mitt Romney and me and millions of others, who started up businesses which failed, con men? Before retiring early to spend my full time on my own investments, I worked for a large industrial firm. Like anyone with a lot of money, we were the target of literally thousands of lawsuits. Here's an example from early in my career. I was looking to hire a technical assistant for my group which required science aptitude but not a bachelor's degree. The Human Resources Department insisted that I interview an African American, who on the surface was not qualified. They argued that this was perhaps an opportunity to help someone who was probably underprivileged. Upon interviewing the candidate, he showed no interest in a job that involved chemistry and physics. He had zero qualifications. But I was courteous with him and told him he would hear from the Human Resources Department. Soon he was sent a softly worded rejection notice. We then received a letter from a lawyer claiming bias and misleading statements. The claim said the interviewee thought he was going to get the job when he left the interview which is preposterous and that the interviewee then cancelled other very promising interviews. They asked for a $5,000 settlement. Our legal department concluded that we should try to reduce the payment but ultimately settle without going the extremely expensive route of fighting the case which would take a lot of my time and my subordinates time. I didn't like it at all, but that's what we did. When a civil case is brought against a business I don't jump to the conclusion that the business man is a con man. These cases are brought by the hundreds of thousands regardless of merit. It's easy money for the lawyers. If it is a criminal case it carries some weight but still isn't a certainty until there is a jury decision.
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Mar 6, 2016 2:24:21 GMT
I skipped the primary, but if he makes it further I will do some thorough due diligence on him. I will probably still end up voting for him no matter what I find, since Hillary's incompetence and anti-American nature is almost certainly much worse.
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Mar 6, 2016 2:50:33 GMT
As a person living in a country utterly dependant on the USA, I regard the current US political scene with dismay.
The choices seem to be between bad and worse.
Surely with the array of managerial talent at America's disposal, some 'better' candidates can emerge from the undergrowth?
I could make equally sour comments about the current Oz political scene.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 6, 2016 14:51:09 GMT
As a person living in a country utterly dependant on the USA, I regard the current US political scene with dismay. The choices seem to be between bad and worse. Surely with the array of managerial talent at America's disposal, some 'better' candidates can emerge from the undergrowth? I could make equally sour comments about the current Oz political scene. I think that the rot set in when 'professional politicians' were accepted. Politicians who have never done anything else in their lives and many that see politics as their 'career'. These politicians are only interested in winning votes, and this comes second to dong what is good for their country. They have very little experience of the real world and don't really see the need to try to understand the world outside their political bubbles. A real market for lobbyists with money which appears to be one of the main sources of politicians income in the US and possibly in the UK. The ultimate goal of these politicians is a European Union style of government where there are no elections for the European Commission and president, those posts are decided in back rooms by the Eurocrats and European politicians. This is the real reason that 'remain' UK politicians want to remain in the EU and are trying to persuade the voters not to vote for 'BREXIT'. Effectively, the USA was going the EU way, buggins turn between 'elite' political families with the party establishments deciding which of the potential candidates should be elected and set up the primaries/caucus timetable to ensure only 'their' beneficence can provide sufficient money for a chosen candidate to win. Trump much to their dismay has broken the system by self-funding. The anointed candidate Jeb Bush was therefore his first target. This is the reason for the establishment reaction: "anyone but Trump" which even includes favoring Hillary Clinton! So you can see how desperate the Republican establishment are to defend their status quo it is more important to them than the future of the USA. It is not all sweetness and light in the Democrat fold either, having set up the field to favor Hillary Clinton with the only real opposition from a 'weak' candidate: an elderly white independent socialist; they now find that he is actually pulling in lots of real voters not unlike Trump on the other side as even the Democrat voters are upset with the establishment Washington bubble. There are even calls from some Democrats for the 'super delegate' establishment thumb on the scales to withdraw their votes, as it is mathematically possible for the democrats to have more popular votes for Sanders and yet for Hillary to win due to 'establishment super delegates'. . The really disappointing aspect of the US Federal elections is that the Federal authority was intended by the authors of The Constitution to be extremely limited by the 10th Amendment to only the Enumerated powers in the Constitution. It is this overreach that the Convention of States is intended to wind back. So what we see in almost all the 'western' nations is the will of the people being disregarded and scheming politicians and in-fighting between them deciding who leads their countries and the future of their lives. It is getting to the stage where nobody has any faith or trust in any politicians. Politicians should carefully assess the career path of Mussolini.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 6, 2016 16:39:34 GMT
|
|