The Nation's Financial Condition

[a fan]

Yesterday, again on NPR, they were discussing the new NAFTA deal. One of the guest said the new deal was good for the USA, which is what the President should be doing. WHat he said he would do. You could just feel the unease over the radiowaves with that truth, that our elected officials should be looking out for its citizens. First.

Surely you're joking.

Every politician we've ever had has told that "truth"...that they were looking out for its citizens. Did you believe them? Or do you just believe that today, Aug. 30?

What's in the deal, btw? I'd wager you have no idea. But you accept that Trump is looking out for citizens?

BTW, did you just get finished implying you're a fiscal conservative? If this new NAFTA deal includes more protectionism, you're happy with that?

[runrussellrun]

The Government is the only truth. Everyone else is lying but our leader! Media is the enemy, bow down to your all-knowing Government!

I'm curious, which city in North Korea did you grow up in, comrade? How's the kimchi?

You are both being disingenous.

Of course I am. Bandito is lecturing, and isn't engaging. Or, he's just trolling. Humor is the only tool in the box with guys like that.

Shameful that Trump and Congress passed the biggest spending bill ever, and anyone calling themselves a fiscal conservative supporting it. But, of the tens of thousands of negative examples or slantism, afan, look no further than the Wash/Post article about Trump denying passports to US border residents. (Headline on NPR radio this morning too.....making it seem like Trump is doing something new ) Trump is NOT doing anything new. Nurse/midwives have admitted to forging documents and lying about where people are born. BOth Bush and Obama administrations investigated US Passport violations. But, you gotta be kidding me if you can find a Wash/Post front page story about it dating from 2009-2017

And this is new? Do you think that there weren't slanted stories that made Clinton, Bush, and Obama look bad? Welcome to the Presidency. People throw elbows here.

SO why you busting someones nuts over a statement that you agree with? (negative slant against Trump) But I don't recall, and neither do you, anyone calling Obama's first inaugural speech "fascist" and other negative superlatives. Not even faux news. The proportions are pretty obvious.....just look at all the articles/coverage of the NAFTA deal. You would be hard pressed to find a strict news story, from the established to demounderground, etc. Prove me wrong

[foreverlax]

From the WSJ

The deal announced Monday has moving parts and there is still time to make improvements before it is signed and sent to Congress. We’re glad to see Mr. Trump step back from the suicide of Nafta withdrawal, but on the public evidence so far his new deal is worse.

Trump will claim a win by simply changing the name. Classic rebranding....even The Trump Organization is running from their own name.

[dislaxxic]

i'm starting to wonder if Bandito went to Hobart around 59...

Style doesn't seem quite right though...

..

[a fan]

I'm busting you because you're implying that this is new, runrusselrun. You've got a whole swath of Americans who think media bias started the day Trump was sworn in. Same for the "Deep State". As if insiders sticking it to Presidents is new.

That's why. If you agree that yep, same as it ever was, great.

And you think that they didn't do that to Obama at FoxNews? You can't be serious. Why do you think fully 1/2 of Republicans think Obama is a Muslim? They all at once, coincidentally, decided that on their own? Or that millions of Americans thought that the economy of a 8 year long Bull Market was terrible? Riiight.

Come on. FoxNation hammered Obama non-stop for 8 years, and you know it. I know because I watched/listened to it happening. And now that it's happening to Trump, FoxFans are shocked, shocked to find that there's gambling at this establishment.

[runrussellrun]

Yesterday, again on NPR, they were discussing the new NAFTA deal. One of the guest said the new deal was good for the USA, which is what the President should be doing. WHat he said he would do. You could just feel the unease over the radiowaves with that truth, that our elected officials should be looking out for its citizens. First.

Surely you're joking.

Every politician we've ever had has told that "truth"...that they were looking out for its citizens. Did you believe them? Or do you just believe that today, Aug. 30?

What's in the deal, btw? I'd wager you have no idea. But you accept that Trump is looking out for citizens?

BTW, did you just get finished implying you're a fiscal conservative? If this new NAFTA deal includes more protectionism, you're happy with that?

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but it is MY truth that politicians should be looking out for their constiuants first. That the POTUSA should be American first. Kind of a no brainer.

Oh, I very much know what is in the deal but that's not the point to your endearing, condescending point. I can't make this any clearer. The NPR guest said, not me, that it was a good deal for the USA. If you don't hear the "global economy" argument that is bantered about when destroying our neighbors employment prospects.

If being a fiscal conservative begins with accountability and a paper trail, than yes. What part of the "new" nafta deal don't you like? Be specific, since you clearly you have an idea , unlike me?

[Bandito]

Good points. Most didn't vote for Trump because he was a true conservative. He is a breath of fresh air. Not a swamp rat like most politicians. He is putting ALL americans first. He is doing his damnest to put an end to illegal immirgration which is the job of the national government-to protect our borders. He has helped the economy boom ten fold. He is living up to his campaign promises. Very excited about the next few years. Finally a voice for ALL americans.[/quote]

Trump a true conservative??

[/quote][/quote]
No I said that wasn't why he was elected. He isn't a true conservative. Check out my points above. That's why he was elected to a landslide electoral victory. The Dems put up one of the worst candidates in modern memory. That helped too.

[Bandito]

i'm starting to wonder if Bandito went to Hobart around 59...

Style doesn't seem quite right though...

..

No that would've made me a liberal loon

[a fan]

Oh, I very much know what is in the deal but that's not the point to your endearing, condescending point. I can't make this any clearer. The NPR guest said, not me, that it was a good deal for the USA. If you don't hear the "global economy" argument that is bantered about when destroying our neighbors employment prospects

Oh, so you know what's in it? The reason for my remark is that you're implying that you're a fiscal conservative, and prefer free markets to protected markets. That's not what this new deal is in its current form , and assuming Canada signs on.

That means you're ok with deepening our protectionist tariffs? Do I have that right?

[runrussellrun]

Not really interested in who's right or wrong, but all I know is the "new" NAFTA deal is unknown. Since all NAFTA correspondence is deemed classified, no one knows the actual text of the new NAFTA deal. I can't seem to find it anyway, just dribs and drabs that are disiminated to the press. Do have a link as to where I can read the details? It's certainly not in any of the "trump stinks" nafta of new articles online.

What I do know is tariffs of protection isn't all black and white. And, it's not clear to me how tariffs apply to our nations budget and spending, borrowing. It's also not clear as to why you ignore the inheritance, so easy to make it grow, when data shows it's not........discussion. Mike Tyson had the same amount of money at Willard Romney....at least they used to.

[a fan]

Not really interested in who's right or wrong, but all I know is the "new" NAFTA deal is unknown. Since all NAFTA correspondence is deemed classified, no one knows the actual text of the new NAFTA deal. I can't seem to find it anyway, just dribs and drabs that are disiminated to the press. Do have a link as to where I can read the details?

Nope. Which is another reason why I wrote that you don't know what's in it....I don't either! No one does! But Trump fans know it's awesome, of course....and that's the part I'm making fun of here.

What I do know is tariffs of protection isn't all black and white. And, it's not clear to me how tariffs apply to our nations budget and spending, borrowing.

Sounds to me like you're a moderate. The one single thing that Republicans have been selling----not practicing, but selling----is to get government(s) out of the way, and always prefer more freedom to more government control. Which it's why it's so funny to watch Republicans cheer this deal on....because the one part that has been released is that MX/US car companies will have to buy even more auto components from NAFTA countries, blocking other countries from competing fairly, and driving prices up for end consumers. This, if you don't know, is a wholly liberal way of handling trade: protect union jobs from competition, thereby driving up costs for cars for the end user. It's a form of subsidy, and the antithesis of Republican economic theory since Unions were at their height of power.

So funny part, obviously, is that if this is what Republican voters wanted, they should have said as much. Obama, the Dems, and the car unions he bailed out would have LOVED more protectionism. Trump has guys like Bandito so turned around that he could get them to agree to almost anything....it's quite the thing to witness.

It's also not clear as to why you ignore the inheritance, so easy to make it grow, when data shows it's not........discussion

The data shows what it looks like when idiots get their hands on tens of millions of dollars. All you need to do is drop it in a mix of index funds and TBills, and live off a portion of the interest. Boom. Done. This is not complex math. But these heirs don't do that....they live above their means, and eventually run out of money.

[dislaxxic]

The data shows what it looks like when idiots get their hands on tens of millions of dollars. All you need to do is drop it in a mix of index funds and TBills, and live off a portion of the interest. Boom. Done. This is not complex math. But these heirs don't do that....they live above their means, and eventually run out of money.

Taking this opportunity to cross-post an excerpt from an article posted this morning in the "Orange Duce" thread...

Donald Trump is the Bernie Madoff of politics: Con men from Queens who prospered from lies

"Trump began at his father’s real estate firm in Queens, building apartment buildings and renting out apartments. The business produced enough money to make his father a very rich man. But that wasn’t enough for Trump. He took an initial loan from his father and his connections to investors who wanted to put their money in real estate and moved to Manhattan. Trump began slapping his name on buildings all over Manhattan. But putting up buildings and selling condos and collecting rents wasn’t enough for Trump, so he branched out into casinos in Atlantic City, an airline, a phony college called “Trump University” and everything from frozen steaks to Trump vodka and bottled water.

When his casinos went belly-up, Trump vodka took a powder, Trump steaks sat in their freezers and his investments in buildings like the Plaza Hotel failed to make money, Trump turned to the banks. “I’m the king of debt!” he told one interviewer as his fortunes soared and fell. When one too many bankruptcies drove away the banks, he started unloading condos to Russian oligarchs, who paid in cash, and plastering the Trump on hotels and condo developments in places like Azerbaijan and Panama. Nobody could tell how much money he was worth, so he lied. Six billion, 10 billion, the Forbes list of the richest Americans. Who knew? He just kept lying."

Around this time would be when he entered the "deal(s) with the [Russian] devil", to get him out of debt when no western bank would touch the fool... Details of THAT part of the career of The Disgrace has yet to be told...

..

[youthathletics]

Here is an interesting excerpt from Tucker Carlson

From TWP...
....In fairness, the stereotype of anti-tax billionaire Republicans is not entirely irrational or completely outdated. While there are roughly equal numbers of billionaires that contribute more to liberal causes than conservative ones, the sheer size of the conservative-political war chest is extraordinarily lopsided: 82 percent of all donations from the Forbes 400 come from conservative-leaning billionaires ($46 million vs. $10 million). (Wonder why Republicans are more generous?)

In other words, Silicon Valley believes that the Democratic Party is good for emerging industries. I’ve argued that the modern emerging workforce of tech, urbanized professionals, and “gig economy” laborers all represent an entirely new political demographic pushing Democratic politicians to focus more on education, research and entrepreneurship, and less on regulations and the priorities of labor unions.

Democrats’ politics seem to now align with a broad new base of green businesses, schools, college graduates and self-employed workers.

As much as Republicans, the Democrats are now also the party of billionaires.

[MDlaxfan76]

Here is an interesting excerpt from Tucker Carlson

From TWP...
....In fairness, the stereotype of anti-tax billionaire Republicans is not entirely irrational or completely outdated. While there are roughly equal numbers of billionaires that contribute more to liberal causes than conservative ones, the sheer size of the conservative-political war chest is extraordinarily lopsided: 82 percent of all donations from the Forbes 400 come from conservative-leaning billionaires ($46 million vs. $10 million). (Wonder why Republicans are more generous?)

In other words, Silicon Valley believes that the Democratic Party is good for emerging industries. I’ve argued that the modern emerging workforce of tech, urbanized professionals, and “gig economy” laborers all represent an entirely new political demographic pushing Democratic politicians to focus more on education, research and entrepreneurship, and less on regulations and the priorities of labor unions.

Democrats’ politics seem to now align with a broad new base of green businesses, schools, college graduates and self-employed workers.

As much as Republicans, the Democrats are now also the party of billionaires.

I don't understand the last sentence. The article makes clear that the # of tech billionaires favor Dems (for the reasons the article explicates), but the $ from that group are the same sort of disproportionate balance of 82% going to Republicans. That doesn't exactly makes sense.

The comments on Tucker Carlson's tweet are hilarious. The ones that I think are most accurate make the point that Carlson is only attacking Bezos/Amazon because he owns the Post and Trump declared him an 'enemy'. He's not attacking Walmart or any other business that one could say the same of re workers etc. Bernie undoubtedly believes in his message, however Carlson is just mirroring Trump. Fundamentally, though, John Stossel's tweet response is correct.

[youthathletics]

I believe what they are saying is that Democrats, after lagging in the billionaire club and having now caught up, they are not as generous in their political giving as the republicans; no surprise there

[Trinity]

Or Democratic lackeys deliver less, you know, being the party of sick leave and weekends.

[MDlaxfan76]

I believe what they are saying is that Democrats, after lagging in the billionaire club and having now caught up, they are not as generous in their political giving as the republicans; no surprise there

Hmmm, not my takeaway.
"generous" is not the most apt descriptor for political donations.

Charitable giving a different story, perhaps.

But political donations at scale are usually about what they get in return.

Seems to me that the ROI for a billionaire donating to the party and pols promising to cut taxes on the top 1% or promising to support their particular industrial interest, especially defense and energy, is much clearer ROI than giving to the party that promises to support public education, etc. In addition to clearer ROI, the payback period is much shorter as well.

What seems interesting is the notion that a large % of tech entrepreneur billionaires appear to be bucking that prior ROI and payback impulse and are looking at other interests. The NYT article is speculating about why that may be, but clearly the actual $ favor R's regardless of the # of donors and that's most likely again due to the fewer # in the tech community donating to R's nevertheless understanding the ROI and payback and thus donating heavily.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I believe what they are saying is that Democrats, after lagging in the billionaire club and having now caught up, they are not as generous in their political giving as the republicans; no surprise there

This isn't conspiracy theory....this is how it works

This page documents how bills pushed by ALEC corporations would create tax giveaways to Big Business, give tax breaks to the richest, and eviscerate state legislatures' ability to raise revenue through tax increases. These "model bills" and resolutions also push for extending the Bush tax cuts and attempt to use temporary legislative majorities to tie the hands of future majorities to raise taxes to meet citizens' needs.

[Brooklyn]

https://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debt ... itedstates



Thank you, Trump.


Amazing how right wingers no longer concern themselves with this problem. Gee, I wonder why.

[youthathletics]

https://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debt ... itedstates



Thank you, Trump.


Amazing how right wingers no longer concern themselves with this problem. Gee, I wonder why.

Neither side cares about the debt.....that is so old news.