Clown Calvacade #Eleventy-Billion

I am on an antenna tonight, is a network hosting the debate, or is it cable. I will try to watch it online, but honestly.......I do not want to waste limited bandwidth off my two cell phone tethers.

2seaoat wrote:I am on an antenna tonight, is a network hosting the debate, or is it cable.  I will try to watch it online, but honestly.......I do not want to waste limited bandwidth off my two cell phone tethers.

Mr. Oats, it is on the FOX Business channel FOXB

I joined a little bit late but notice this was the first question they asked him and seem to be ignoring him.

Now he's going after Cruz and Cruz looks kind of intimidated.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Birther Fight!!!!! Trump and Eduardo are fighting over Cruz's eligibility to run for president. They should just hand them boxing gloves.

Why doesn't Dreamer Anchor Baby Rubio get in on this?

As a group they certainly have no boundaries as to how low they are willing to go . . . . . civility in America belongs in the Smithsonian!

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:You can tell JEB! is being advised by the same neocons that advised his brother. He is going to be a war president for sure if he gets elected. He is going to throw trillions at the DOD, so we are spending more than ever on the military. The MIC has Bush right in their pockets.

It's questionable whose in whose pockets. I'm so glad you're watching this crap so I don't have to.

This is my cousin's FB comment:



"What country are these clowns elected to represent? They are doing more harm to the population than our sworn enemies!!"

othershoe1030 wrote:To find Cruz supported by Goldman is not a shock but tarnishes his outsider costume. Unfortunately those who support him the most are of the Evangelical Christian type and may not pay attention to things like Wall Street and the big banks?

Although I think people are attracted to Trump because they know (or think it is true if it isn't) that no one but him holds the purse strings for his campaign. He is his own man for better or worse.

I think even the least observant must sense that the government is not being run by the politicians but by big business interests and Trump can tell them all to go fly a kite. That's appealing to the "Don't Tread on Me" types.

Sanders is the only one who is not just a front for the money folks. I think that's why his campaign is giving Hillary such a challenge.

Although you can probably never convince the die-hard Trump types, Trump is NOT funding his own campaign...

https://verdict.justia.com/2015/12/07/donald-trumps-campaign-financing-dodge

There appear to be three major prongs to Donald Trump’s campaign to become our next president. First, he is long on personal attacks—Marco Rubio drinks too much water; Carly Fiorina doesn’t have the face of a president, Ben Carson (the internationally-renowned pediatric neurosurgeon) is only an “OK doctor,” and reminds him of a child molester, any Iowa voters who do not support him are “stupid.” And so it goes, on and on.

The second and third prongs are actually issues. First, he’s against immigration and many of the Mexican immigrants are “rapists.” Last, there is campaign finance.

People should vote for the billionaire because he’s a billionaire, he says repeatedly. “I am self-funding my campaign,” he says, “and therefore I will not be controlled by the donors, special interests, and lobbyists who have corrupted our politics and politicians for far too long.” Like his other signature issues, his assertions are not true.

First, Mr. Trump’s campaign is not self-financing. He is soliciting donors, not just relying on his personal wealth. As of last month, Trump received almost $4 million in what his campaign called “unsolicited donations.” Trump claims he does not solicit donations, but it’s hard to call them “unsolicited” when his campaign website posts a prominent “donate“ button. As the New York Times reported, “[Trump] is no longer self-financing his campaign.”

Perhaps Trump is unaware of what he claims on his own website. That’s possible if you believe Trump’s statement during the CNBC debate, when Becky Quick asked him about his comment that referred to Senator Rubio as Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s “personal senator.” Trump’s response: “I never said that, I never said that.” He doubled down on his denial, “Somebody’s really doing some bad fact-checking,” he claimed. And then he repeated it again. Yet, he prominently says (on his own webpage), that “Mark Zuckerberg’s personal Senator, Marco Rubio, has a bill to triple H-1Bs that would decimate women and minorities.” His assertion is still there and he has not withdrawn his false assertions that Becky Quick has a bad fact-checker.

Perhaps Trump is blissfully ignorant of what he publishes on his campaign website. Or, perhaps Trump is just lying (a trait found in politicians and sharp businessmen). Mr. Trump’s “self-financing” claim is hypocritical—another trait not unusual among politicians and sharp businessmen.

However, there is more to his assertion that he is self-financing his campaign while soliciting donations. If one believes that campaign contributions corrupt, Trump’s method of financing corrupts more (not less), because the campaign contributions to his campaign go directly into his pocket. This problem is not hypocrisy but the specter of actual corruption—he has set up his campaign financing so that donations to his campaign go to him, personally. That’s much more serious. (This problem is in addition to any Super PAC that supports Trump.)

Let me explain. Federal election law allows the candidate to spend as much of his personal money on his own campaign as he wants, the “millionaire’s exception.” The theory of limiting campaign contributions is that the contributor might have special access to the candidate, which leads to the possibility of the appearance of corruption. However, one cannot corrupt himself, so Trump can spend as much as he wants on his campaign. However, Trump is not giving money to his campaign but lending it.

Trump argues that the people should vote for the billionaire because he won’t be beholden to campaign contributors. The Federal Election Commission’s report shows that in the most recent quarter, ending September 30, Trump raised $3.8 million, but spent only about $100,000 of his own money. When his campaign raises money from third parties, it pays off debts. A major creditor of Trump’s campaign is . . . Trump. Money goes from campaign contributors directly to Mr. Trump personally (with a brief visit to the official campaign treasury). I do not claim that Mr. Trump is corrupt, only that if he is correct that a politician accepting donations makes him obligated to the donors, Trump is talking about himself because he is collecting donations so his campaign can pay its debt to Trump.

What does Mr. Trump buy with his campaign funds? For one thing, he flies in his Trump-owned plane, a giant Boing 757, and that cost $100 million (before he remodeled it). He can spend his own money on that plane, but we know he only spent $100,000 of his own money last quarter. The Trump campaign pays Trump’s jet management company for the use of his plane. When the Trump Campaign pays for his airplane costs ($506,000 in the second quarter alone), Trump is, in effect, reimbursing himself for using his own plane. When someone gives money to the Trump Campaign, that money goes to the campaign bank account, where it rests a while, and then moves directly to Mr. Trump’s personal bank account or the bank account of one of his companies, to pay off some of the money that Trump lent to his own campaign.

Mr. Trump could calm concerns if he stopped lending money to his campaign while simultaneously claiming that he’s “self-financing” it. Or, he could refuse donations. After all, he insists that such donations are corrupting. Recall that when Megan Kelly asked him, in the first debate, what he got for his hundreds of thousands of dollars in political donations to Democrats, he said his political contributions made Clintons to go to his most recent wedding. “I’ll tell you what, with Hillary Clinton, I said, ‘Be at my wedding,’ and she came to my wedding. You know why? She had no choice, because I gave.” That’s a very expensive way to corral a wedding guest and it has nothing to do with political corruption. Unwittingly, Trump undercuts his whole theory of campaign funding. That’s what he got for his political contributions to others—he “forced” two people to come to his wedding.

In one of the recent debates, one of the questioners criticized Marco Rubio for cashing in part of his retirement assets in order to pay some bills. Donald Trump has echoed this charge, claiming that Rubio cannot handle his finances. (This argument dovetails nicely with Trump’s claim that the people should vote for him because he’s a billionaire. Rubio, it seems, is too poor to be president.

Actually, Rubio handles his finances the way many people do; he withdraws money from his accounts, pays taxes on the withdrawal, and then pays his expenses. While Trump has never personally declared bankruptcy, his companies have done so four times. That is another way to handle finances, although creditors prefer Rubio’s method, where the creditors get paid in full. Maybe Trump is the one who has trouble controlling his finances. His response is that he is proud of the bankruptcies. ““I used the law four times and made a tremendous thing.”

************

Floridatexan wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:To find Cruz supported by Goldman is not a shock but tarnishes his outsider costume. Unfortunately those who support him the most are of the Evangelical Christian type and may not pay attention to things like Wall Street and the big banks?

Although I think people are attracted to Trump because they know (or think it is true if it isn't) that no one but him holds the purse strings for his campaign. He is his own man for better or worse.

I think even the least observant must sense that the government is not being run by the politicians but by big business interests and Trump can tell them all to go fly a kite. That's appealing to the "Don't Tread on Me" types.

Sanders is the only one who is not just a front for the money folks. I think that's why his campaign is giving Hillary such a challenge.

Although you can probably never convince the die-hard Trump types, Trump is NOT funding his own campaign...

https://verdict.justia.com/2015/12/07/donald-trumps-campaign-financing-dodge

There appear to be three major prongs to Donald Trump’s campaign to become our next president. First, he is long on personal attacks—Marco Rubio drinks too much water; Carly Fiorina doesn’t have the face of a president, Ben Carson (the internationally-renowned pediatric neurosurgeon) is only an “OK doctor,” and reminds him of a child molester, any Iowa voters who do not support him are “stupid.” And so it goes, on and on.

The second and third prongs are actually issues. First, he’s against immigration and many of the Mexican immigrants are “rapists.” Last, there is campaign finance.

People should vote for the billionaire because he’s a billionaire, he says repeatedly. “I am self-funding my campaign,” he says, “and therefore I will not be controlled by the donors, special interests, and lobbyists who have corrupted our politics and politicians for far too long.” Like his other signature issues, his assertions are not true.

First, Mr. Trump’s campaign is not self-financing. He is soliciting donors, not just relying on his personal wealth. As of last month, Trump received almost $4 million in what his campaign called “unsolicited donations.” Trump claims he does not solicit donations, but it’s hard to call them “unsolicited” when his campaign website posts a prominent “donate“ button. As the New York Times reported, “[Trump] is no longer self-financing his campaign.”

Perhaps Trump is unaware of what he claims on his own website. That’s possible if you believe Trump’s statement during the CNBC debate, when Becky Quick asked him about his comment that referred to Senator Rubio as Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s “personal senator.” Trump’s response: “I never said that, I never said that.” He doubled down on his denial, “Somebody’s really doing some bad fact-checking,” he claimed. And then he repeated it again. Yet, he prominently says (on his own webpage), that “Mark Zuckerberg’s personal Senator, Marco Rubio, has a bill to triple H-1Bs that would decimate women and minorities.” His assertion is still there and he has not withdrawn his false assertions that Becky Quick has a bad fact-checker.

Perhaps Trump is blissfully ignorant of what he publishes on his campaign website. Or, perhaps Trump is just lying (a trait found in politicians and sharp businessmen). Mr. Trump’s “self-financing” claim is hypocritical—another trait not unusual among politicians and sharp businessmen.

However, there is more to his assertion that he is self-financing his campaign while soliciting donations. If one believes that campaign contributions corrupt, Trump’s method of financing corrupts more (not less), because the campaign contributions to his campaign go directly into his pocket. This problem is not hypocrisy but the specter of actual corruption—he has set up his campaign financing so that donations to his campaign go to him, personally. That’s much more serious. (This problem is in addition to any Super PAC that supports Trump.)

Let me explain. Federal election law allows the candidate to spend as much of his personal money on his own campaign as he wants, the “millionaire’s exception.” The theory of limiting campaign contributions is that the contributor might have special access to the candidate, which leads to the possibility of the appearance of corruption. However, one cannot corrupt himself, so Trump can spend as much as he wants on his campaign. However, Trump is not giving money to his campaign but lending it.

Trump argues that the people should vote for the billionaire because he won’t be beholden to campaign contributors. The Federal Election Commission’s report shows that in the most recent quarter, ending September 30, Trump raised $3.8 million, but spent only about $100,000 of his own money. When his campaign raises money from third parties, it pays off debts. A major creditor of Trump’s campaign is . . . Trump. Money goes from campaign contributors directly to Mr. Trump personally (with a brief visit to the official campaign treasury). I do not claim that Mr. Trump is corrupt, only that if he is correct that a politician accepting donations makes him obligated to the donors, Trump is talking about himself because he is collecting donations so his campaign can pay its debt to Trump.

What does Mr. Trump buy with his campaign funds? For one thing, he flies in his Trump-owned plane, a giant Boing 757, and that cost $100 million (before he remodeled it). He can spend his own money on that plane, but we know he only spent $100,000 of his own money last quarter. The Trump campaign pays Trump’s jet management company for the use of his plane. When the Trump Campaign pays for his airplane costs ($506,000 in the second quarter alone), Trump is, in effect, reimbursing himself for using his own plane. When someone gives money to the Trump Campaign, that money goes to the campaign bank account, where it rests a while, and then moves directly to Mr. Trump’s personal bank account or the bank account of one of his companies, to pay off some of the money that Trump lent to his own campaign.

Mr. Trump could calm concerns if he stopped lending money to his campaign while simultaneously claiming that he’s “self-financing” it. Or, he could refuse donations. After all, he insists that such donations are corrupting. Recall that when Megan Kelly asked him, in the first debate, what he got for his hundreds of thousands of dollars in political donations to Democrats, he said his political contributions made Clintons to go to his most recent wedding. “I’ll tell you what, with Hillary Clinton, I said, ‘Be at my wedding,’ and she came to my wedding. You know why? She had no choice, because I gave.” That’s a very expensive way to corral a wedding guest and it has nothing to do with political corruption. Unwittingly, Trump undercuts his whole theory of campaign funding. That’s what he got for his political contributions to others—he “forced” two people to come to his wedding.

In one of the recent debates, one of the questioners criticized Marco Rubio for cashing in part of his retirement assets in order to pay some bills. Donald Trump has echoed this charge, claiming that Rubio cannot handle his finances. (This argument dovetails nicely with Trump’s claim that the people should vote for him because he’s a billionaire. Rubio, it seems, is too poor to be president.

Actually, Rubio handles his finances the way many people do; he withdraws money from his accounts, pays taxes on the withdrawal, and then pays his expenses. While Trump has never personally declared bankruptcy, his companies have done so four times. That is another way to handle finances, although creditors prefer Rubio’s method, where the creditors get paid in full. Maybe Trump is the one who has trouble controlling his finances. His response is that he is proud of the bankruptcies. ““I used the law four times and made a tremendous thing.”

************

Hillary Clinton Is Not Telling The Truth About Wall Street

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/hillary-clinton-wall-street_568ed8d6e4b0cad15e6415cd

WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton's campaign spent much of this week waging a dishonest attack on Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and his campaign's Wall Street reform platform. The risky attempt to make inroads with progressives on one of her weakest issues is damaging the credibility of some of her top lieutenants.

Clinton's attack on Sanders is as simple as it is untrue: Unlike Sanders,Clinton has argued,she is willing to take on "shadow banking" -- a broad term for various financial activities that aren't regulated as strictly as conventional lending.

Sanders has in fact proposed attacking shadow banking in two principal ways: by breaking up big financial firms that engage in shadow banking,and by severing federal financial support for shadow banking activities by reinstating Glass-Steagall.

These would be substantive changes. A lot of shadow banking takes place at firms with traditional banking charters, like JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America. Some of it takes place at specialized hedge funds,or at major investment banks like Goldman Sachs. Breaking them up would not eliminate the risk shadow banking poses to the economy,but it would limit it. Risky shadow banking activities cannot bring down institutions that are too-big-to-fail if there are no too-big-to-fail institutions.

Yet the Clinton campaign has repeatedly said Sanders is wholly ignoring shadow banking,accusing Sanders of taking a "hands-off" approach to it that would not apply to firms like Lehman Brothers and AIG. This barrage has come from Clinton's press aides,campaign CFO Gary Gensler,and Clinton surrogate Barney Frank.

In a bizarre appearance on Chris Hayes' MSNBC show,Frank claimed that splitting up Morgan Stanley or Bank of America "is not going to do anything, literally not anything to restrain shadow banking." He even said that since Lehman Brothers was "very small" when it failed,Sanders' break-up-the-banks plan would be unworkably broad and apply to too many firms.

It's hard to see these comments as anything but dishonest. Lehman Brothers was not "very small" when it failed. At $639 billion in assets,it was the single-biggest bankruptcy filing in American history. Only sixU.S. banks are now larger than Lehman was,and the next-largest institutions are almost half Lehman's size. AIG -- then the world's largest insurer -- was even bigger.

Breaking up major institutions and forcing banks that accept insured deposits out of the shadow banking system are not the only conceivable tactics for mitigating risks posed by shadow banking. Clinton's plan includes some vague but sensible proposals to take a harder look at the sector,require more transparency,and impose new leverage limits on some players. Her approach eschews a focus on the threat posed by large institutions in favor of monitoring risks across the financial system (she has repeatedly rejected calls to break up the biggest banks). The Clinton team could easily make a case for her approach without saying strange and false things about Sanders' plan.

And indeed,the Clinton camp's relentless references to Lehman and AIG undercut her own regulatory approach. If bank size were truly irrelevant to the shadow banking problem,then there would be no need to consistently highlight two too-big-to-fail institutions,one of which wreaked havoc on the economy by failing,and another of which was bailed out to avoid further havoc.

Jaret Seiberg,a regulatory specialist at Guggenheim Partners -- and one of the most astute finance-friendly observers of American politics -- issued a note to clients this week saying that key elements of Sanders' platform have bipartisan appeal and political viability that will put pressure on other candidates to present more aggressive anti-Wall Street messaging.

"This is not just about breaking up the biggest banks," Seiberg wrote. "Sanders is calling for a system in which financial firms are smaller,the government controls the interest rates that banks charge,certain fees are capped,the Postal Service becomes a viable competitor to banks and payday lenders [and] CEOs would be criminally liable if employees defraud customers.

"Sanders appears to argue that he could implement much of this agenda on his own even without the need for legislation," Seiberg continued. "We caution against dismissing this view. There is much that the White House, Treasury,or the financial regulators could do by executive order …. Bashing Wall Street is a populist message that appeals to conservatives and liberals. Sanders has now laid out the most radical option on the table that other candidates will be judged against."

So it's easy to see why Clinton would want to steal some of Sanders' populist thunder. But focusing on Wall Street could easily backfire on Clinton. Aside from giving opponents more opportunities to highlight speaking fees she accepted from Goldman Sachs and other banks,it risks demoralizing progressive voters. Financial reform is a major issue with the Democratic Party base. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has become one of the most popular figures within the party,built on her almost single-minded focus on Wall Street accountability. Too-big-to-fail and Glass-Steagall are major causes among Warren's supporters,many of whom have flocked to Sanders,but would be perfectly happy to vote for Clinton over a Republican in November.

Unless Clinton needlessly alienates them. Turning out an enthusiastic base has increasingly become essential for both parties over the past decade. With Clinton up more than 15 percentage points in Iowa polls and ahead by even wider margins nationally,it's hard to see the upside in her campaign's current assault on Sanders.

Making things up in order to criticize Sanders proposals that Democrats actually like only damages Clinton's credibility with Democratic voters.