So the worse President in American History sure has good economic numbers

Unemployment below 4......wow......black unemployment lowest since early 1960......gdp numbers better than President Obama......the truth is this evil man is making things better for average Americans....who knew.

And that's without the 40 BILLION injected by the fed monthly for years under Obama.

But they'll be raising interest rates soon and repeatedly. Stay tuned.

2seaoat wrote:Unemployment below 4......wow......black unemployment lowest since early 1960......gdp numbers better than President Obama......the truth is this evil man is making things better for average Americans....who knew.

On top of that, according to the latest Reuters poll, his approval numbers are at 48%. That should scare the hell out of Democrats for the midterms.

http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/CP3_2/


We'll see, it's still early innings.

The worst president in American History is kicking asz. It pains me to say those words, but the illusion of the talking heads that Americans are even listening to them. They are racist who do not like black and Mexicans....the President makes them happy. They have low educations and are tired of being talked down to........they have had the chit knocked out of them the last 20 years as globalization has been tough on their world......and into this celebration is the arrogance of Trump is a bad person....same routine as with Obama......political opponents demonize and slant everything.....but an objective person has to tell the truth.....things are going pretty good with the worst president in American history, and this idea that the house is going to turn......not a chance.

“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”—H.L. Mencken (1920)

He's been lucky that he inherited good economic trends and they've been continuing... mostly because he didn't actually do much of anything that really affected them. Trends have been slowing since his election, though, and since the tax cut, they've have been slowing even more. The numbers are still going in a good direction... but not at the rate they were before.

O' course, some of that would be true whether it was Trump or Hillary. Obama inherited a shit economy and had to do massive amounts of recovery... which he did. He damn near tripled the stock market, and added massive numbers of jobs. Trump inherited a strong economy, so he had a lot less room for growth.

Things are still going well, but don't just look at the benchmarks (which were already on the cusp of being reached) -- look at the rates. In Trump's first five months, 863,000 new jobs were added. That's good, but it's a slowdown from the 908,000 added in the final five months of Obama's presidency. And during the same period a year ago, Obama added 955,000 jobs. Trump's first year of job growth was slower than those of Obama's last six years.

So, if you look at the rates of growth, things are actually slowing under Trump. What's good is, Obama had 'em cranked up to such a high rate of speed that there's still a good bit of impetus. Even if it's slowing, it's still doing well at this point in time.

Conservatives are all excited because they think they can take credit for it. Also, they absurdly think that the economy was doing badly under Obama. I still talk to conservatives who actually believe the Dow was 7000 when Obama left office, and that it was higher under Bush! They think jobs were lost under Obama. They believe all sorts of ridiculous, crazy shit 'cuz they're so desperate to have Obama be a "failed" president, and Trump be a "great" one. But the real facts are, as much as the right hates to accept it, Obama's a tough act to follow. He set a high benchmark. They've been happy to try to play make-believe that none of it happened and all just popped up under Trump, but the fact is, damn near everything that's going on now is part of a trend that's been going on for years, and just hasn't stopped yet.

It's like I've said before, if the economy was ice cream, then Obama put in the bananas, all the ice cream, the chopped nuts, the whipped cream, and the chocolate syrup... then Trump showed up, dropped a cherry on top, and all the Trump cultists yell, "LOOK! TRUMP MADE A SUNDAE!"

Now that Trump's made some moves, you're likely going to see a bigger slowdown. I hope not, because I want the economy to do well more than I want Trump to look bad, but damn near all of Trump's tax cuts went into stock-buying that won't do much for the actual economy. Wages aren't going up as fast as the rest, which isn't good. Interest rates are likely to start spiking, which will also hurt... and this fucking around with tariffs is an idiotic idea that's already got a lot of farmers in my area freaking out. The bottom's falling out of soybeans 'cuz China flat-out 'cut 'em off, and they're about 60% of the soybean market. You see Trump making sheepish noises about "revisiting" TPP, because that's royally fucking us. I know a lot of the lefties hated TPP, but without it, other countries are getting the lion's share of trade. They've decided to work around Trump and are forming new partnerships that we aren't included in, so places like Brazil, China, India, and Russia get stronger while we get weaker... and once new alliances are formed, it's hard to get back in.

I hope the economy stays strong. I don't think it'll be enough to save the Republicans in elections, anyway -- the country's getting worn out with 'em, and even a lot of hardcore Republicans are getting burned out and embarrassed at Trump (the evangelicals around here are terrified -- they see their pretense at credibility totally gone, maybe permanently... hell, even RedState is freaking out). And as more indictments fall, that's only going to get uglier.

Well said Z and true. Trump has been riding on Obama's waves since he's been office. He's no doubt done a lot to make things worse like dismantling the Consumer Protection Office,cutting school lunches for poor kids, increasing Obamacare premiums just to name a few.

As the 'King of Debt,' Trump Borrowed to Build His Empire. Then He Began Spending Hundreds of Millions in Cash.

By Jonathan O'Connell, David A. Fahrenthold and Jack Gillum, The Washington Post

06 May 18



"In the nine years before he ran for president, Donald Trump’s company spent more than $400 million in cash on new properties — including 14 transactions paid for in full, without borrowing from banks — during a buying binge that defied real estate industry practices and Trump’s own history as the self-described “King of Debt.”

Trump’s vast outlay of cash, tracked through public records and totaled publicly here for the first time, provides a new window into the president’s private company, which discloses few details about its finances.

It shows that Trump had access to far more cash than previously known, despite his string of commercial bankruptcies and the Great Recession’s hammering of the real estate industry.

Why did the “King of Debt,” as he has called himself in interviews, turn away from that strategy, defying the real estate wisdom that it’s unwise to risk so much of one’s own money in a few projects?

And how did Trump — who had money tied up in golf courses and buildings — raise enough liquid assets to go on this cash buying spree?

From the outside, it is difficult to assess how much cash the Trump Organization has on hand.

Eric Trump, a son of the president who helps manage the company, told The Washington Post that none of the cash used to purchase the 14 properties came from outside investors or from selling off major Trump Organization assets.

Instead, Eric Trump said, the firm’s existing businesses — commercial buildings in New York, licensing deals for Trump-branded hotels and clothes — produced so much cash that the Trumps could tap that flow for spending money.

“He had incredible cash flow and built incredible wealth,” Eric Trump said. “He didn’t need to think about borrowing for every transaction. We invested in ourselves.”

He added: “It’s a very nice luxury to have.”

The cash purchases began with a $12.6 million estate in Scotland in 2006. In the next two years, he snapped up two homes in Beverly Hills. Then five golf clubs along the East Coast. And a winery in Virginia.

The biggest cash binge came last, in the year before Trump announced his run for president. In 2014, he paid a combined $79.7 million for large golf courses in Scotland and Ireland. Since then, those clubs have lost money while Trump renovated them, requiring him to pump in $164 million in cash to keep them running.

Trump’s lavish spending came at a time when his business was leaning largely on one major financial institution for its new loans — Deutsche Bank, which provided $295 million in financing for big projects in Miami and Washington.

Eric Trump said his father wasn’t forced to turn to a cash-heavy strategy. Trump could have borrowed more if he wanted, he said. But he had soured on borrowing in general, Eric Trump said, after contending with unpaid debts in the early 1990s.

“Those lessons undoubtedly shaped his business approach and the conservative nature of how we conduct business today,” Eric Trump said.

Real estate investors typically don’t buy big properties with their money alone. They find partners to invest and banks to lend alongside them. That allows the investors to amplify their buying power, and it increases the odds of earning higher returns.

“For privately held real estate firms, basically they like to use as much debt as they can. The only brakes are put on by the lending institutions, who don’t want to lend too much,” said David Geltner, a professor of real estate finance at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Industry experts said avoiding loans can alleviate risk for real estate companies and allow them to maneuver more quickly.

But they said that approach is typically undertaken by cash-rich investors that aren’t focused on maximizing the money they make off a property or by companies that aren’t trying to minimize their tax bills, because interest payments on mortgages are often tax-deductible. Companies that have trouble obtaining loans would also turn to cash, they noted.

Particularly when pursuing major projects, private real estate firms usually borrow. “I still think at the end of the day, you want some debt,” said Ed Walter, a Georgetown University real estate professor and former chief executive of Host Hotels, which owns more than 100 hotels under various brands.

Trump himself embraced that philosophy — extolling the virtues of borrowing big, even more enthusiastically than other real estate executives. Until, suddenly, he didn’t.

To total up Trump’s cash payments in real estate transactions, The Washington Post examined land records and corporate reports from six U.S. states, Ireland and the United Kingdom. These records show purchase prices for Trump’s properties, details about any mortgages and — in the United Kingdom and Ireland — the amount of cash Trump plowed into his clubs after he bought them. The Post provided the figures it used to the Trump Organization, which did not dispute them...



[...]

https://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/49940-as-the-king-of-debt-trump-borrowed-to-build-his-empire-then-he-began-spending-hundreds-of-millions-in-cash

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

Imagine the economy is the fed were still pumping 40 BILLION air dollars a month to the 1% like Obama.

Good times.... eh?

Thank you Obama.

PkrBum wrote:Imagine the economy is the fed were still pumping 40 BILLION air dollars a month to the 1% like Obama.

Good times.... eh?

Thank you Obama.

None of that would have been necessary had Reagan and the 2 Bushes not had disastrous economic policy and in particular had George W Bush not started 2 wars on the credit card. None of it. And now we're headed there again, thanks to the GOP "leadership" and Herr Drumpf.

The bailouts were passed on Bush's watch, not Obama's, as you well know, so stop trying to pretend otherwise.

Here's how the Fed (ours and others') is supposed to work...in times of economic downturn, not when the economy is rocking along...as it was when Obama left office. Wait until TSHTF from the "new" tax and trade policies.

August 11, 2007 4:00 PM ET
Adam Davidson
ADAM DAVIDSON

Twitter
Debbie Elliot 2010
DEBBIE ELLIOTT


This week's frantic news from Wall Street sent central banks around the world pumping money into the financial system, providing liquidity, or ready cash. Adam Davidson talks to Debbie Elliott about what exactly this means.

Let's say you own a big, beautiful $1-million house. The pizza delivery guy arrives with your dinner but you don't have any cash. He doesn't care how valuable your house is; he wants you to give him some money right now.

Banks basically work the same way. Every afternoon, they add up all the money they owe and all the money they have. The banks figure out whether they need money to meet their obligations. The banks that have extra money lend it to the banks that need money in the form of very short-term, overnight loans.

That constant process of lending extra cash provides the liquidity that funds the global economy.

This normally works very easily, but this past week there was a liquidity crisis. A few key banks around the world announced to everyone's surprise that they had a lot of sub-prime mortgages and that their assets were worth much less than anyone thought.

Banks began to worry: What if there are other banks that aren't disclosing how much their assets have shrunk. It caused a panic among banks, and they reduced lending to each other.

Suddenly, other banks that needed the money didn't have the ready cash to pay off the people who needed it.

The Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank and other central banks around the world stepped in, pumping extra liquidity — billions of dollars — into the system. The central banks provide extra cash all the time, but this week the amounts were much larger than normal.

But there's a potential downside to the central banks' action. Eventually, the fear is that they would pump so much money into economy that it would cause inflation. So the Fed will be keeping its eye out against that possibility and is likely to stop long before inflation sets in.

Related NPR Stories
Subprime Market Miseries Spread to Wall StreetAug. 11, 2007
Fed's Cash Infusions Settle Markets SomewhatAug. 10, 2007
Financial Markets Tumble Amid Credit CrunchAug. 10, 2007
Global Markets Respond to Credit SqueezeAug. 10, 2007


https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12716160

Floridatexan wrote:

None of that would have been necessary had Reagan and the 2 Bushes not had disastrous economic policy and in particular had George W Bush not started 2 wars on the credit card.  None of it.  And now we're headed there again, thanks to the GOP "leadership" and Herr Drumpf.

Funny, you forgot to mention the part that the Clinton Crime Family played in the 2008 Financial Crisis. I could post dozens of links, but you wouldn't read them.

Ask yourself why Hillary wouldn't release the transcripts of her Wall Street speeches? Reagan, the Bushes and the Clintons are all toadies of Wall Street and all of them played a part in the Crisis. It was a helluva lot more complicated than just the two wars.

Floridatexan wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Imagine the economy is the fed were still pumping 40 BILLION air dollars a month to the 1% like Obama.

Good times.... eh?

Thank you Obama.

None of that would have been necessary had Reagan and the 2 Bushes not had disastrous economic policy and in particular had George W Bush not started 2 wars on the credit card.  None of it.  And now we're headed there again, thanks to the GOP "leadership" and Herr Drumpf.

The bailouts were passed on Bush's watch, not Obama's, as you well know, so stop trying to pretend otherwise.  

Here's how the Fed (ours and others') is supposed to work...in times of economic downturn, not when the economy is rocking along...as it was when Obama left office.  Wait until TSHTF from the "new" tax and trade policies.

August 11, 2007   4:00 PM ET
Adam Davidson
ADAM DAVIDSON

Twitter
Debbie Elliot 2010
DEBBIE ELLIOTT


This week's frantic news from Wall Street sent central banks around the world pumping money into the financial system, providing liquidity, or ready cash. Adam Davidson talks to Debbie Elliott about what exactly this means.

Let's say you own a big, beautiful $1-million house. The pizza delivery guy arrives with your dinner but you don't have any cash. He doesn't care how valuable your house is; he wants you to give him some money right now.

Banks basically work the same way. Every afternoon, they add up all the money they owe and all the money they have. The banks figure out whether they need money to meet their obligations. The banks that have extra money lend it to the banks that need money in the form of very short-term, overnight loans.

That constant process of lending extra cash provides the liquidity that funds the global economy.

This normally works very easily, but this past week there was a liquidity crisis. A few key banks around the world announced to everyone's surprise that they had a lot of sub-prime mortgages and that their assets were worth much less than anyone thought.

Banks began to worry: What if there are other banks that aren't disclosing how much their assets have shrunk. It caused a panic among banks, and they reduced lending to each other.

Suddenly, other banks that needed the money didn't have the ready cash to pay off the people who needed it.

The Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank and other central banks around the world stepped in, pumping extra liquidity — billions of dollars — into the system. The central banks provide extra cash all the time, but this week the amounts were much larger than normal.

But there's a potential downside to the central banks' action. Eventually, the fear is that they would pump so much money into economy that it would cause inflation. So the Fed will be keeping its eye out against that possibility and is likely to stop long before inflation sets in.

Related NPR Stories
Subprime Market Miseries Spread to Wall StreetAug. 11, 2007
Fed's Cash Infusions Settle Markets SomewhatAug. 10, 2007
Financial Markets Tumble Amid Credit CrunchAug. 10, 2007
Global Markets Respond to Credit SqueezeAug. 10, 2007


https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12716160

None of it was necessary. You're just foolish enough to believe the leftist narrative.

Now if gazillions had gone to those ripped off and underwater... maybe I'd give you a break.

But your bs about saving the fucking banks and wall st and 1% is special stupid.

Even you wouldn't buy it if it hadn't come from your ruling elite.

Deus X wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

None of that would have been necessary had Reagan and the 2 Bushes not had disastrous economic policy and in particular had George W Bush not started 2 wars on the credit card.  None of it.  And now we're headed there again, thanks to the GOP "leadership" and Herr Drumpf.

Funny, you forgot to mention the part that the Clinton Crime Family played in the 2008 Financial Crisis. I could post dozens of links, but you wouldn't read them.

Ask yourself why Hillary wouldn't release the transcripts of her Wall Street speeches? Reagan, the Bushes and the Clintons are all toadies of Wall Street and all of them played a part in the Crisis. It was a helluva lot more complicated than just the two wars.

Are you capable of having a discussion without attacking me?

Floridatexan wrote:

Deus X wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
None of that would have been necessary had Reagan and the 2 Bushes not had disastrous economic policy and in particular had George W Bush not started 2 wars on the credit card.  None of it.  And now we're headed there again, thanks to the GOP "leadership" and Herr Drumpf.

Funny, you forgot to mention the part that the Clinton Crime Family played in the 2008 Financial Crisis. I could post dozens of links, but you wouldn't read them.

Ask yourself why Hillary wouldn't release the transcripts of her Wall Street speeches? Reagan, the Bushes and the Clintons are all toadies of Wall Street and all of them played a part in the Crisis. It was a helluva lot more complicated than just the two wars.

Are you capable of having a discussion without attacking me?

You can personalize it if it makes you feel better but what I'm attacking is that preposterous statement that the 2008 financial crisis was caused by "2 wars on the credit card" and your refusal to recognize the damage that the Clintons have done to this country with their slavering embrace of Wall Street.

I was a fervent supporter of Bill Clinton, as well, until the 2008 crisis when I started examining the record and the causes of that catastrophe.


Clinton installed Robert Rubin and Larry Summers in the Treasury, which resulted in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which officially did in Glass-Steagall and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which left the derivatives market a laissez-faire Wild West (not to mention a disastrous strong dollar policy that was a critical and underrated factor in the bubble). He also reappointed Ayn Rand-acolyte Alan Greenspan, who has as much responsibility as anyone for creating the crisis, as Fed chairman—twice.

Now it’s true that Clinton faced an extremely hostile Republican Congress for the last six years of his presidency. But his administration actively encouraged the big deregulatory legislation, and squashed its own dissenters, like Brooksley Born, who saw disaster ahead.

Clinton would have you believe that he signed those bills because his administration was forced to by a GOP that was beholden as usual to Big Business, but then what about the deregulatory legislation he signed in 1994, before Gingrich & Co. took Congress?

Riegle-Neal hasn’t got a tenth of the press that the CMFA and Gramm-Leach-Bliley have, but it was a milestone in the creation of Too Big to Fail, allowing banks to cross state lines, effectively gutting state regulation of banking. The Christian Science Monitor that year quoted a Wall Street analyst saying that, “‘It also didn’t hurt that NationsBank president Hugh McColl has a working relationship with President Clinton or that the comptroller of the currency, Eugene Ludwig, was a successful lawyer at Covington & Burling and NationsBank had been a major client.’” Hugh McColl gave us Bank of America.

https://archives.cjr.org/the_audit/bill_clinton_the_republicans_m.php

That's from the Columbia Journalism Review, not some hate-filled right-wing site. And it's just one source, I have dozens more from equally reputable sites.

I began to feel like a sucker that got scammed at political three-card monte. The more I read, the worse I felt.

The Clintons are  phony Democrats and bad news. FDR and LBJ are rolling over in their graves at the treachery of these two.

Guess what happens to the price of a commodity when literally everyone can get a loan to buy one?