Pages: 1 ... 101 102 [103] 104 105 ... 331   Go Down

Author Topic: Trump II  (Read 918293 times)

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18092
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Trump II
« Reply #2040 on: April 03, 2017, 07:37:58 pm »

A valid, but specious point.  One also made ad nauseum by the bankers.

However, depriving the global economy of something in the order of ten trillion dollars and half a decade of economic growth still constitutes a crime by any reasonable measure....

You can't create a crime retroactively. You can't create one just because you do not like consequences of otherwise legal actions. Recessions are cyclical. Shall we send a couple of hundred of people to jail every couple of years when recessions happen again? While capitalism goes through boom and bust cycles, and wealth destruction happens, it is still superior to a five-year socialist planning. Allowing for failure is a virtue of capitalism, not sin.

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4690
Re: Trump II
« Reply #2041 on: April 03, 2017, 07:55:08 pm »

You can't create a crime retroactively. You can't create one just because you do not like consequences of otherwise legal actions.
Please.  I understand your adherence to the literal term "crime".  I agreed to that.

Quote
Recessions are cyclical... wealth destruction happens...allowing for failure is a virtue of capitalism, not sin.

This was no cyclical recession.  This was a systematic attack. A gaming of the system on a scale not seen before.

Quote
it is still superior to a five-year socialist planning.

It's unnecessary and irrelevant to escalate this to a socialism vs capitalism issue.  This is a greed and ethics issue.
Logged

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5024
Re: Trump II
« Reply #2042 on: April 03, 2017, 09:01:37 pm »

A gaming of the system on a scale not seen before ...

This is a greed and ethics issue.

Although I do agree there is culpability with the bankers over the last rescission, none of which was illegal nor should they be punished in a court of law for any of it, do you give any culpability to those whom took out loans they knew they could not pay?  Or how about all of the people whom took out loans who could not pay them back but were too stupid to realize it? 

I think there is plenty of blame to go around.  There were plenty of really stupid people on both sides here, and never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. 

Of course, all of this was made more possible by the really stupid people at the department of education whom feel every student is college bound and took home economics out of the course curriculum.  (Former high school math teacher here and I cant remember ever discussing the teaching of home economics as a course requirement.) 

With all of this said though, boom and bust and grows the economy in the long run faster then not having any recessions. 
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5024
Re: Trump II
« Reply #2043 on: April 03, 2017, 09:05:16 pm »

Yes, you're right.  The president has lied constantly.  "You can keep your doctor."  "The ACA will lower insurance costs." 

Ahhh if only, if only Obama didn't "gruber" us on health care, and I believe it was revealed he knew when he made those statements that it would most likely not be the case. 

So much for truthfulness I guess. 

Thankfully my doctor is a family friend, it was never a question of me loosing my doctor.  But my insurance rates has skyrocketed; this year they went up 43%. 
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4690
Re: Trump II
« Reply #2044 on: April 03, 2017, 09:11:38 pm »

do you give any culpability to those whom took out loans they knew they could not pay?  Or how about all of the people whom took out loans who could not pay them back but were too stupid to realize it?

Yes. Of course.  But not nearly as much culpability as those who laughingly, greedily took advantage of their ignorance to line their own pockets at the expense of everyone else.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump II
« Reply #2045 on: April 03, 2017, 10:13:32 pm »

Yes. Of course.  But not nearly as much culpability as those who laughingly, greedily took advantage of their ignorance to line their own pockets at the expense of everyone else.
Look, a guy making $35,000 a year buys a house for $600,000 figuring he'd flip it in 6 months at $725,000 and pocket the difference.  Certainly he had no allusions he could afford the house long term.  He was greedy and took a chance.  Of course the bank should have checked his salary and insisted on 20% down like now and in the old days.  But Congress looking for votes was insisting that banks loan money to people who shouldn't own a home so they could own a home. So the banks complied under Congressional pressure and gave money to anyone who could write an X in the signature line.  Meanwhile, the Fed opened the spigots to provide the financing to the banks for this purpose and the rating agencies triple AAA rated the instruments to help their buddies and customers the banks that made up these bad loans so the banks could unload them on unsuspecting buyers also looking to make a fast buck.  Then the real estate bubble was pricked as all bubbles eventually are and it all came crashing down.  Whew!

Send them all to prison!

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Trump II
« Reply #2046 on: April 03, 2017, 11:56:26 pm »

Yes, Obama's lies got people killed and screwed up the entire medical insurance industry.

Aside from the fact that the "entire medical insurance industry" was screwed up well before Obama was elected, exactly what lies did Obama tell that got people killed?
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Trump II
« Reply #2047 on: April 04, 2017, 01:21:28 am »

Well DOOOOH!


Trump can quietly draw money from trust whenever he wants, new documents show


Quote
Newly released records show the trust agreement that Donald Trump used to put his adult sons in charge of his company allows him to draw money from it upon his request, illustrating the thin divide between the president and his private fortune.

The filing, first reported by ProPublica and found on Page 161 of 166 of a bundle of documents released last week by the General Services Administration, says the trust that owns hundreds of Trump businesses “shall distribute net income or principal to Donald J. Trump at his request,” or whenever his son and a longtime employee “deem appropriate.”

I guess that "trust" he set up isn't in the least bit "blind" and I think we all can see behind that phony trust and it's not even subtle. I guess he want us to "trust" him that he won't do any self dealing...
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Trump II
« Reply #2048 on: April 04, 2017, 01:33:28 am »

Sorry gals...

Trump Pulls Back Obama-Era Protections For Women Workers

Quote
With little notice, President Donald Trump recently signed an executive order that advocates say rolls back hard-fought victories for women in the workplace.

Tuesday's "Equal Pay Day" — which highlights the wage disparity between men and women — is the perfect time to draw more attention to the president's action, activists say.

On March 27, Trump revoked the 2014 Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces order then-President Barack Obama put in place to ensure that companies with federal contracts comply with 14 labor and civil rights laws. The Fair Pay order was put in place after a 2010 Government Accountability Office investigation showed that companies with rampant violations were being awarded millions in federal contracts.

In an attempt to keep the worst violators from receiving taxpayer dollars, the Fair Pay order included two rules that impacted women workers: paycheck transparency and a ban on forced arbitration clauses for sexual harassment, sexual assault or discrimination claims.

Yeah, so how is that gonna help make America great again? Trump wants companies with federal contracts to NOT have to comply with 14 labor and civil rights laws? Probably not gonna make those women who voted for Trump happy that they voted for him.
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Trump II
« Reply #2049 on: April 04, 2017, 01:42:35 am »

Oh goodie...a TV show based on a reality TV show...

A Trump Talk Show, Courtesy of Comedy Central


Comedy Central is going to start a new late-night weekly series “The President Show” hosted by Anthony Atamanuik as Donald J. Trump. Credit Gavin Bond

Quote
President Trump has been the target of the late-night comics for long enough, so it’s only fair that he should get a late-night program of his own.

On Monday, Comedy Central said that it had picked up a new weekly late-night series, called “The President Show,” created by and starring Anthony Atamanuik, a noted Trump impersonator, who will play the president as he hosts his desk segments, comedy bits and guest interviews from the Oval Office. Peter Grosz (“Veep,” “The Colbert Report”) will also appear on the program as Mr. Trump’s sidekick, Vice President Mike Pence.

--snip--

In a statement, Mr. Atamanuik said: “Laughing at the president is a proud American tradition and we hope not to disappoint anyone in that department. But our political system is too broken for us to be content joking about one man, even though he is a disastrous silly little toddler boy.”

I think I feel a Twitter Rant coming on by the Big Cheeto...
Logged

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
    • advantica blog
Re: Trump II
« Reply #2050 on: April 04, 2017, 04:29:33 am »

Is Trump Suffering from Dementia?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3CFwkoqxIs
8 minutes, and quite interesting worrisome
Logged

Otto Phocus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 655
Re: Trump II
« Reply #2051 on: April 04, 2017, 06:45:06 am »

Yes, you're right.  The president has lied constantly.  "You can keep your doctor."  "The ACA will lower insurance costs."  "Benghazi was caused by a movie."

I kept my doctor and my medical costs (my expenses and my company's expenses) went down. 

I seriously doubt that I am in a unique position.
Logged
I shoot with a Camera Obscura with an optical device attached that refracts and transmits light.

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Trump II
« Reply #2052 on: April 04, 2017, 07:52:54 am »

Which law was broken?
Slobodan, it's a really complicated issue.  there were a number of laws and regulations that were broken but the Obama Justice Department and the Federal Attorney in New York did not want to prosecute but rather settle the cases.  This was something that I really disagreed with.  Some very big penalties $100s million have been paid by a number of big banks.  One of the better summaries is by William Cohan who follows banking issues:  https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/how-wall-streets-bankers-stayed-out-of-jail/399368/  Matt Tabibi documented the one prosecution of a very small bank in NY's Abacus Bank in Chinatown:  https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/the-tiny-chinatown-bank-that-was-scapegoated-after-the-financial-crisis
Logged

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Trump II
« Reply #2053 on: April 04, 2017, 08:10:51 am »

Look, a guy making $35,000 a year buys a house for $600,000 figuring he'd flip it in 6 months at $725,000 and pocket the difference.  Certainly he had no allusions he could afford the house long term.  He was greedy and took a chance.  Of course the bank should have checked his salary and insisted on 20% down like now and in the old days.  But Congress looking for votes was insisting that banks loan money to people who shouldn't own a home so they could own a home. So the banks complied under Congressional pressure and gave money to anyone who could write an X in the signature line.  Meanwhile, the Fed opened the spigots to provide the financing to the banks for this purpose and the rating agencies triple AAA rated the instruments to help their buddies and customers the banks that made up these bad loans so the banks could unload them on unsuspecting buyers also looking to make a fast buck.  Then the real estate bubble was pricked as all bubbles eventually are and it all came crashing down.  Whew!

Send them all to prison!
Congress had very little if anything to do with the housing meltdown.  It was a failure of the bank regulatory authorities but also the presence of unregulated shadow banks (Countrywide Mortgage is the best example here) along with investment banks that were repackaging mortgages into securities that nobody could understand and fools like Lehman and AIG that were insuring these securities only to find out that the insurance policies were not a 'cash machine' but a dagger aimed at the heart of the company when things went south.
Logged

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5024
Re: Trump II
« Reply #2054 on: April 04, 2017, 09:18:17 am »

Congress had very little if anything to do with the housing meltdown.  It was a failure of the bank regulatory authorities but also the presence of unregulated shadow banks (Countrywide Mortgage is the best example here) along with investment banks that were repackaging mortgages into securities that nobody could understand and fools like Lehman and AIG that were insuring these securities only to find out that the insurance policies were not a 'cash machine' but a dagger aimed at the heart of the company when things went south.

Come on Alan, although I do agree with all of these points, it has to be recognized that congress encouraged homeownership to the point of irresponsibility. 

Sure, they did not directly have anything to do with the recession, but they sure encouraged the actions that lead up to it.   
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5024
Re: Trump II
« Reply #2055 on: April 04, 2017, 09:34:43 am »

Sorry gals...

Trump Pulls Back Obama-Era Protections For Women Workers

Yeah, so how is that gonna help make America great again? Trump wants companies with federal contracts to NOT have to comply with 14 labor and civil rights laws? Probably not gonna make those women who voted for Trump happy that they voted for him.

Jeff, perhaps if, instead of huffing and puffing and stomping his feet around, Obama worked with congress in the last 6 years, laws, instead of just orders, would have gotten passed.   You know, sort of like George W Bush and Bill Clinton did. 

This is the problem with our current situation, not that we have strong opinions on either side, but that the executive office has over reached in the past couple of presidencies, especially with Obama.  Trump is just putting the natural order of things back in place. 

(This is why he choose all of those "unqualified" appointees.  I certainly agree most of them are unqualified to run those organizations, like the EPA and Dept. of Education, but they are all qualified to deregulate them, which is what their purpose is.) 

Congress is suppose to create laws through compromise; we are not suppose to be force feed executive orders from a president voted into office by one side.  This does nothing but create dissidents, and puts us ever closer to another 1861.  This is why I am also for states rights, not because I support the crazy ideas coming out of some of them, but because it is impossible to run a country with such a large geography and peoples under a strong federal government in the long run.  In this situation, Civil War becomes inevitable. 

Sure Norway, the pinnacle for all the leftists, does it, but then again Norway is small and pretty much consisted of one people.  We are not small nor consist of only one people. 

Insofar as the equal pay argument, it has been debunked several times.  As someone with mathematics degrees and significantly higher understanding of statistics then the average person, I consider the left's argument here to be a great example of "liars figure and figures lies." 

If you look at a sample of men and women, with the sample of men stratified to the sample of women according to job title and years experience, not all men vs. all women, which is statistically inequivalent according to the merits of the study, the wage gap all but disappears. 

Not to the mention the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (passed by congress I should mention, not executive order) already grants equal pay for equal work and qualifications regardless of sex.   

My other half laughs at this all of the time.  In the world of commercial photography, women make less then men.  However, almost all commercial photographers are self-employed, so it really has nothing to do with discrimination, and all with negotiations.  She, has on several occasions, gotten much more then I would have tried for with a certain project. 
« Last Edit: April 04, 2017, 10:06:03 am by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump II
« Reply #2056 on: April 04, 2017, 09:51:55 am »

Aside from the fact that the "entire medical insurance industry" was screwed up well before Obama was elected, exactly what lies did Obama tell that got people killed?
He lied in 2011 that the reason he's pulling out all troops was that the Iraqi President wouldn't agree to all terms for keeping them in.  That was a fig leaf.  He promised in 2008 he was going to remove the troops.  So that's what he did.  The removal of US troops created a vacuum for the Sunni insurgency and subsequently ISIS.  He lied all during the 2012 campaign for re-election that the terrorists had been stopped to help him win, that no terrorist were filling the vacuum he created.  Of course, we learned after the election just how bad it was when ISIS swept across Iraq and Syria killing thousands and conquering cities like Mosul and a third of Iraq.   Now we have thousands more people killed as Iraqi troops are re-conquering these ISIS areas.  He should have told the truth and reinserted troops back in or not removed them in the first place.  But he assumed that would lose him the election. 

The lies also continued in Libya in Benghazi for the same reason of the election here.   He claimed the attackers were demonstrating because of a video.  The truth was again, he didn't want to acknowledge those were terrorists or militia attacking our consulate and ambassador and troops because it would confirm the terrorists are getting an upper hand before our election.  That would make him look bad to American voters.  Heck, even I figured out the next day that it was a terrorist attack because demonstrators don't demonstrate shooting AK-47's and RPG's.   Anyone who read about that had to know immediately it was a planned attack.  Yet his National Security Adviser Susan Rice was still lying about it on 5 different Sunday TV news programs the following week.  And because they wanted to down play that it was a terrorist attack as it was going on, they failed to act to help the ambassador as he and the others were under attack.  He and Clinton also lied that before the attack that additional security was requested that they failed to provide.

He lied about the "red line" in Syria giving hope and encouragement to Syrians who were fighting the Syrian dictator Assad.  He knew he wasn't going to do anything.  When he failed to act as he promised, all those additional thousand of Syrians were killed who stuck their necks out against Assad.

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump II
« Reply #2057 on: April 04, 2017, 09:56:53 am »

I kept my doctor and my medical costs (my expenses and my company's expenses) went down. 

I seriously doubt that I am in a unique position.
Count yourself lucky you get yours from your employer.  Those people who have to buy their own insurance will see an average rise of 25% this year. 

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Trump II
« Reply #2058 on: April 04, 2017, 10:08:22 am »

Come on Alan, although I do agree with all of these points, it has to be recognized that congress encouraged homeownership to the point of irresponsibility. 

Sure, they did not directly have anything to do with the recession, but they sure encouraged the actions that lead up to it.
Joe, please point out to me how Congress encouraged the housing bubble that began in 2000.  Do not use the Community Reinvestment Act which has been thoroughly debunked.  Tell me how Congress interacted with WaMu, IndyMac, Wachovia, and Countrywide (the four largest subprime lenders).  There is nothing there.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump II
« Reply #2059 on: April 04, 2017, 10:11:01 am »

Congress had very little if anything to do with the housing meltdown.  It was a failure of the bank regulatory authorities but also the presence of unregulated shadow banks (Countrywide Mortgage is the best example here) along with investment banks that were repackaging mortgages into securities that nobody could understand and fools like Lehman and AIG that were insuring these securities only to find out that the insurance policies were not a 'cash machine' but a dagger aimed at the heart of the company when things went south.
The facts prove otherwise.  Congress forced Fannie May and Freddie Mac and banks to meet quotas for mortgages for low income people who couldn't afford to buy homes. (50% under Clinton and 55% under Bush).   Congressman Barney Franks was the major instigator.  Although he claims to have tried to reverse course as early as 2003, that was the year he made the oft-quoted remark, "I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation toward subsidized housing."  When it became obvious what was happening in 2007, Congress reversed course.  But it was too late.  The bubble was humongous (over $1 trillion) and ready to burst and did in 2008. 

Sure the banks contributed to it, as did credit rating agencies, the Fed and the people who got mortgages to make a quick buck.  But Congress's hands were just as dirty.

Here's an article from the  liberal The Atlantic, not exactly a magazine that favors banks.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/hey-barney-frank-the-government-did-cause-the-housing-crisis/249903/
Pages: 1 ... 101 102 [103] 104 105 ... 331   Go Up