RedSpawn

Saving our economy? LOL. You hear that giant sucking sound? It is the interest expense we pay on our federal public debt of $20 trillion. It acts as a vacuum cleaner and sucks the life out of our federal budget. Why? Because the amount we pay as interest annually is roughly 50% of the ENTIRE annual Department of Defense (DoD) budget! The annual DoD budget is $800 billion. Our annual interest on public debt outstanding is $400 billion and keeps rising.... See https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm

See http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-paris-climate-agreement-china-winner-us-decision . What say you now? You should consider selling that oracle you have been using on Ebay. 😏

I saw this when researching online....but thought it was doctored. Nope, it's real. It's amazing how one man can cause so much controversy and contempt. You rarely see a news outlet cater to the baser human instinct and get this angry!

Small businesses are having difficulties obtaining loans because our central bank has been promoting an "easy" monetary policy since late 2008. For example, our central bank is lending money to commercial banks at a low APR of 1.5%. It is more profitable for retail banks to park their money short term at the Federal Reserve Bank than to make small business loans to customers since the default risk on said loans is high and difficult to mitigate. The central bank must increase the discount rate significantly and thereby make the cost of short term borrowing more expensive for commercial banks. Then banks will have a profit motive to park their money elsewhere and/or offer small business loans to customers who qualify.

AMEN!

Ummm, yes their analysis is biased but so is the coverage because they have confirmation bias. They will focus on Trump's gaffes before they discuss or review any accomplishments.

I think what is interesting is that the supporter is implicitly admitting that his support of Trump appears to be emotional/conflict-based. And exactly who are "people like Rachel Maddow and Kathy Griffin"? See https://www.fastcompany.com/3058916/the-psychology-behind-why-people-support-certain-presidential-candidates for additional information.

I missed this one. That's a very fair rebuttal. I hope Former FBI Director Comey testifies next week about: Why he felt compelled to announce re-opening HRC's e-mail server investigation before the election; and How he decided to remain woefully quiet about his concerns over Trump's and his associates' dubious business relationships. With all of the contemporaneous notes he took while talking to Trump, he should be able to adequately address this question.

Good point, I didn't consider the compliance costs for smaller banks who indeed are paying a hefty price for the misdeeds of the big banks who almost destroyed our banking system. However, I still don't see a compelling business need to revoke the Volker rule or to declaw the Consumer Protection Financial Board (CPFB). Those are two changes in the The Financial CHOICE Act that appear unconscionable to me and smack of catering to special interests. Small community banks, credit unions, or even large commercial banks do not need to put customers' deposits into highly speculative instruments such as hedge funds and derivative based products. These institutions can use their own generated capital for such risky investments. Also, I think a tiered compliance system based on total $ asset size makes sense. Therefore, "big banks" are subjected to much higher compliance requirements than small banks whose asset size are not material to the entire banking system. Finally, the Financial Choice Act seeks to retroactively repeal the authority of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) to designate firms as systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs). See https://blogs.wsj.com/briefly/2016/03/30/what-you-need-to-know-about-sifis-the-short-answer/ for additional information. So far, there are four nonbank SIFIs in the U.S.: AIG, Prudential Financial Inc., MetLife Inc. and GE Capital, the financing arm of General Electric Co. Large banks are also considered systemically important, and under Dodd-Frank any U.S. bank holding company with more than $50 billion in assets is automatically subject to stricter rules and higher "stress test costs" since these companies pose a bigger risk to the broader economy should they fail. With respect to AIG and the housing bubble collapse: See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_International_Group for additional information. So, the Choice Act wants to eliminate the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) and remove the SIFI designation for "big banks" and for "nonbanks" thus removing them from federal regulation such as "annual financial stress tests". . . .sounds like a winning plan to me.

(Thunderous applause) News is now entertainment based and entertainment is now news. As viewers and subscribers, we have to do our due diligence and recognize the programming changes and glaring omissions. Unfortunately, our corporate media complex is more concerned about managing ratings and advertising revenue, than fulfilling its civic duty to inform the public about pressing world events that impact our foreign policy and military intervention strategies.

{Thunderous applause} Something tells me those "favorable" Trump ratings at Fox News Channel will decline with the ousting and sudden death of Roger Ailes, the subsequent change in upper management, and the coincidental change in the FOX programming line-up sans Bill O'Reilly, Megan Kelly, Gretchen Carlson, and Greta Van Susteren. EDIT: BREAKING NEWS: Please add Jenna Lee to the exodus at Fox News Channel. The breakup and shake up continues....

Excellent points. Always question the collection method, veracity, and motives of the source--especially when the narrative seems askew or conflicts with other sources. "News has become more superficial and sensational ... News is too often degenerating into 'disastertainment' ... Sensationalism and oversimplification are affecting the output of all media. There is a less room for a balanced approach, for analysis instead of going for the crass headline or extraordinary story." See https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/aug/16/mondaymediasection.politicsandthemedia for additional information.

Wait a minute. Allow me to introduce into evidence, Exhibit A. Please click this following link which shows the unedited suicide note the FBI sent Dr. Martin Luther King (MLK) under the leadership of J. Edgar Hoover. If memory serves me correct, MLK was an (adulterous) minister who led the nonviolent Civil Rights Movement. The FBI had a very difficult time digesting King's message especially since it had conducted unconstitutional surveillance on him and uncovered his deepest secrets and fetishes. To the FBI, MLK was a fraud who was unfit for leadership or hero status. He was a flawed, hypocritical, sexually deviant clergy member who had the nerve to invoke God's name in stirring, compelling speeches about equality, racial justice, and an integrated society. The FBI needed to be expose King as a fraud to discredit him and slow down the momentum of his (radical) movement. Technically, MLK was a national security threat who was disturbing the peace and causing social upheaval by bringing the Constitution to the discussion table. He challenged the status quo of the American establishment which knowingly subjugated a group of people based on the melanin content of their skin. He quickly became an enemy of the state by demanding systemic and structural change. He contended that African-Americans should be treated as 1st class citizens and have equal access to educational, financial, governmental, corporate, legal, and social institutions. That was dangerous revolutionary thought for the 1960s. Read the chilling suicide note prepared by the FBI and tell me if you are indeed ready for a surveillance state where the intelligence community knows more about you than your own mother! By the way, I wonder who could have sent the unsigned letter to the Washington Post? Is it remotely possible that a Western intelligence "brother" sent that unsigned letter to WaPo which was later corroborated by the same brother and validated by a "Big Brother" and further substantiated a "Bigger Brother"? Hmmmm. http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/fbis-suicide-letter-dr-martin-luther-king-jr-and-dangers-unchecked-surveillance

What you call a conspiracy, I call a clever choreography of coincidental circumstances. B-) Question: If Kushner is the evil guy that the Western intelligence agencies purport him to be, why not file the charges right now? Oh that's right, our government needs Kushner to testify under oath in a Congressional hearing so hopefully he will incriminate himself. Why? Because our government doesn't have sufficient evidence in a federal court to win strictly on the code of federal law. If the government already had a compelling case, they wouldn't need to try him 1st in the court of public opinion through media outlets. So the FBI has labeled him a person of interest which means that he has not been arrested or formally charged with a crime. He is "on their radar" as they continue their witch hunt investigation. Yet with all of these types of admissible evidence in a federal court, Kushner is still a person of interest. The beauty behind trying Kushner in the court of public opinion is that the electorate will get easily sidetracked by incidents of irrelevant and potentially distracting facts. Politicians can score political points with their constituents by creating a controversy over Kushner. However, that tactic will fail horribly in a federal court because the Federal rules of evidence don't allow a smear campaign of glaring omissions, innuendo, conjecture, and dubious business associations to replace hard core evidence and facts relevant to the commission of a crime. Kushner needs to explain how he forgot to disclose the discussions he had with Russian ambassadors and a Russian bank official on his security clearance application last year. The request for the back channel with Russia to facilitate a diplomatic discussion is definitely eye-raising and concerning, but it hardly rises to the level of the commission of a crime or a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917. He might be guilty under the Logan Act if he did not have the authority of the United States; however, if President-Elect Donald Trump approves of that request for a back-channel, doesn't Kushner have the implied consent of the authority of the United States since a President-Elect endorses the action? Hmmmm. A federal judge would probably rule in Kushner's favor since the constitutionality of the Logan Act as written is questionable anyway and no one has ever been convicted under it.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/31/trump-impeach-polling-238947 Thanks for the feedback. NOTE: I will need to do major editing of this posting: I am not sure why the corporate media complex is conducting polls to determine whether or not we should be impeaching a President. Either Congress has the evidence that meets the legal standard for "high crimes and misdemeanors" per the Constitution or it doesn't. No one should be conducting a poll to determine the electorate's view on this matter unless a politician is more concerned about his CONSTITUENTS and CAREER than he is the Constitution and rule of law. Congress does not impeach a sitting President based on a plebiscite. What we have now is a whole lot of innuendo, speculation, dubious business associations and strange behavior, but not much else. Don't get me wrong, we have enough to pursue an investigation but I can not understand the media circus and the desire to undo the results of an election less than one year ago. Now is not the time for political vendettas.

With all of this Trump kabuki theater going on --- this VERY IMPORTANT financial regulatory "dismantling" has gotten lost in the news cycle. See link for more information: https://blogs.wsj.com/briefly/2017/02/03/financial-regulation-the-dodd-frank-dismantling-begins-at-a-glance/ Please note how a former President of Goldman Sach Group, now Trump's Chief Economic Policy Adviser, is asking the government to reduce capital requirements for big banks, abolish the Volcker rule, and declaw the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) which was making the financial industry accountable for their client relationships. The CFPA has saved consumers almost $12 billion in the 1st 6 years which equals less graft and corruption and profits for the banking industry. See http://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/why-republicans-want-declaw-nation-s-consumer-financial-watchdog-agency-n756486 for additional information. So, basically we are trying to recreate a financial regulatory environment similar to the one we had before the housing bubble crash and calling it choice? Which lobbyist(s) asked to have this sweetheart change made to our federal laws? Back in the olden days, banking used to be uninspired and boring; commercial banks did not use customers' deposits for speculative activity like hedge funds and derivative based products and proprietary trading. Now, we are allowing commercial banks to engage in the same financial shenanigans that contributed to the 2008 housing bubble crash? Here is a summary of the Financial Choice Act which abolishes the Volcker Rule, declaws the CFPA, and reduces capital requirements for big banks: http://financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/financial_choice_act_executive_summary_final.pdf Can someone tell me how dismantling Dodd-Frank is making American better for Main Street, because I can definitely see how it benefits Wall Street? It creates an atmosphere ripe for another financial market crash! The news sharks should have provided frenetic, repeated and continuous coverage of this programming change.

We are watching a power struggle in Washington between a deeply entrenched political establishment resistant to change and an inexperienced, "suspicious", nonconformist that clearly won't stick to script. This disturbs them. We are also watching a corporate media complex subvert what news is to accomplish a larger goal that is consistent with the desires and objectives of said establishment. The visceral, frenetic, machine gun paced media attacks against a President who hasn't even been in office for 5 months is not just alarming, it is revealing. The media is firing too many blanks in their preemptive strike and destroying what little credibility they have left. The ends don't justify the means here, even if a legal case can be made for Trump's impeachment. Too many career politicians in Washington are so worried about Trump's effect on the 2018 midterm elections, that they are willing to bring the government to a slow crawl with a litany of expensive investigations and hearings just to score political points with their constituents. We all know the story ending the D.C. establishment wants. And it is no surprise that the FBI has named Kushner a person of interest in their investigation. He is Trump's liaison and confidant, so maybe including Kushner in this legal/political dragnet will slow Trump down and compromise his ability to fulfill his campaign promises. Of course such a move will reinforce the confirmation bias the media and D.C. establishment already have about Trump. And hopefully when the ride on this political carousel ends, we will all be convinced that we should settle for the devil we know (Pence/Ryan) instead of the devil we don't know (Trump/Pence). Maybe then, the establishment can breathe a collective sigh of relief and go back to business as usual. Election be damned. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/17/mike-pence-president-trump-238525 ==> President succession planning https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/aug/16/mondaymediasection.politicsandthemedia ==> Incisive article about media bias Stay tuned for the next episode. . .

I agree with the Washington Post that we do not meet the legal threshold for obstruction of justice charges against President Trump since there is no evidence of Trump's intent to threaten Comey. Advancing the impeachment story line would heighten the political kabuki theater and create enough controversy to hamper Congress' ability to debate bills and conduct the people's business. Don't let the propaganda deceive you. It's the media's job to control what you think; it will support the narrative that best aligns with its corporate agenda. Media bias is now the rule of law rather than the exception. Too many members of the Corporate Media Complex have transformed news into "entertainment" or "infotainment". That's why our current political dysfunction resembles a horribly written reality TV show with no end in sight. Instead of falling for the carefully placed distractions, we should be asking Congress, "What Have You Done for Me Lately"? The D.C. establishment and the media have been railing against Trump ever since he announced his candidacy for POTUS. They labeled him a carnival barker who lacks the political pedigree that the Presidency requires. They predicted he would not win. However, the electoral college proved them wrong and declared Trump President despite the popular vote. This happens sometimes, so we should just accept the political process for what it is and move on. However, the media and political establishment are still in denial about Trump's political victory. He wasn't supposed to win the election when the system had been rigged to favor political insiders. The establishment wants to neutralize the election results by leading a ruthless smear campaign--all because they don't like the impulsive, mysterious bully in the White House. They have been angling for an impeachment ending to this story line so Pence/Ryan can occupy the White House and stick to the script. They want the unpredictable outsider gone--NOW! Ever wonder why the media sat on this treasure trove of disturbing, yet titillating information about Trump until after Election Day? Hmmmm....just another isolated coincidence, I guess.

Fair enough, but. . . President Trump may have found a "work around" for this federal law by not compensating his family members, but it does set a new low for the Presidency. Why? Trump is implicitly showing by leadership example that it is okay to follow the letter of the law and ignore the spirit of the law. It is obvious that 5 U.S. Code § 3110 was constructed to put a halt to nepotism in the federal government. Why not honor the spirit of the law instead of searching for ways to circumvent it through "back door" escape clauses, such as not compensating his hired family members through the Treasury? If we can't get our own President to honor the spirit of the law, then why should we? The optics of this situation aren't appealing, but he may skirt this issue on a technicality.

First, I am assuming all of the above are true. It is coming from Western intelligence sources, but they can be wrong as was the case with the Iraq War, but let's assume this fact pattern is true. Jared Kushner was part of Trump's transition team. Therefore, the back-channel request will immediately send red flags to Congress, the Western intelligence community, and the general public. It paints a cloud of suspicion over the White House because the lack of transparency over the President-Elect's communications with a foreign enemy makes one question Trump's motives and loyalties as Commander-in-Chief (military & global) and President-Elect of the United States (diplomatic & domestic). See link for additional information. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/31/jared-kushners-russia-back-channel-diplomacy-is-it-legal.html The Western Intelligence Community has a motto, "In God We Trust, All Others We Monitor". Don't believe me? Try the following link: http://www.ebay.com/itm/IN-GOD-WE-TRUST-ALL-OTHERS-WE-MONITOR-THE-IC-HAT-PATCH-INTE-PIN-UP-GIFT-VETERAN-/400208260177?nma=true&si=PWTbohBmGo1%252FeLilR2HvYmB3crc%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557 Trump's desire to keep the FBI/NSA out of the loop on his diplomatic efforts with Russia is unacceptable to the intelligence community. They are "all-seeing" and "all-monitoring". There is too much US and Russian military intervention occurring at the Syrian border for our armed forces and intelligence gathering services to not know the exact nature of diplomatic deal making occurring between Russia and its own President-Elect! Our military and intelligence services would be at a comparative disadvantage to discover the nature of those discussions after Russia moderated them. The President is Commander in Chief of the United States military. The military's short-term objective in Syria may not reconcile with Trump's long-term diplomatic objective to broker peace between Russia and the US in the Syrian Civil War. He has a conflict of interest between his military role as Commander in Chief to the Department of Defense and his foreign-policy role under the United States Department of State. The only way to resolve this situation adequately is to remain TRANSPARENT to his own governmental agencies at each step of the process. Kushner's proper response to the Russian diplomat while on the transition team should have been, "I am happy to hear what you have to say to us, but we have one President at a time."--Eliot A Cohen The problem here is that President Trump is an insular businessman who has mastered brand marketing but has failed miserably at understanding the need for teamwork and networking. He can't be an effective President if he despises the media-industrial-complex, the D.C. establishment, and our intelligence community. Trump must learn to hold his family and friends close, but his perceived enemies even closer. Note: Interesting article about Kushner's relationship with Trump. https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-06-01/trump-s-biggest-goals-at-risk-as-kushner-is-sucked-into-probe

This gets to the heart of what constitutes good business ethics. You avoided a business relationship that would have created the appearance that a bribe/kickback influenced your math textbook selection. You avoided even the slightest appearance of impropriety by declining the fee until you were no longer in a position to determine textbooks for your math department. Therefore, you avoided a conflict of interest which would have cast a shadow over your motivations for your final textbook selection. It would be difficult to establish that you served the best interests of the math department while receiving compensation from a textbook company participating in your review. You would have had a professional duty to two organizations with competing interests and could not do justice to one organization without adversely affecting the other.

Agreed. A+B+C does not equal D. We just have more questions than our government is able or willing to answer on the matter even when the fact pattern indicates that several things are askew. That is so frustrating! We also have a government mired in $20 TRILLION in debt who has intelligence services from the rooter to the tooter and yet we can't get straightforward convincing answers on this matter. It's only natural to wonder is this political stonewalling or another poor example of our tax dollars at work?

Before we get to the Kushner/Russian angle, I think you should know that Donald Trump is in violation of 5 U.S.C. §3110. He can't hire his daughter and son-in-law into executive branch positions. :blink: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title5/pdf/USCODE-2010-title5-partIII-subpartB-chap31-subchapI-sec3110.pdf Two questions: Where the hell is Trump's White House legal counsel because they are asleep at the wheel? I am NOT on the federal payroll and found this in short order. Trump can NOT hire his son-in-law into a federal government position as Senior White House Advisor. How did the Office of Personnel Management not catch this violation of federal law? Did they miss Ivanka Trump's last name before they added her to the payroll register as Assistant to Trump. Just messy!

Processing. . . .Processing. . . .Processing. . .LOL. http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/images/data-positronic-brain.jpg

I want you to look at what we discussed from my original e-mail about almost everyone surrounding Clinton being mired in controversy: 1) Debbie Wasserman Schultz, DNC Chairwoman, fell from grace by claiming objectivity on national TV but clearly showing favoritism towards the Clinton campaign in her e-mails. a) she had to recuse herself from the DNC convention as she had become a distraction. b) she had to eventually resign from the DNC because her leadership and fundraising efforts became bad for political business. 2) Debbie Wasserman Schultz' staff sent brainstorming emails on how to sabotage Bernie by religious affiliation http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sanders-clinton.html?_r=0 3) Donna Brazile, DNC Vice Chairwoman, presided over the DNC convention since Schultz had to recuse herself. see 1)a) a) Donna Brazile had funneled debate questions to the Clinton campaign ahead of the CNN debates with Bernie Sanders. b) Donna Brazile had to resign as Commentator from CNN because she had violated her employer/client relationship in her zeal to assist the Clinton campaign. 4) AG Loretta Lynch's unscheduled meeting with Bill Clinton compromised her integrity and independence in the investigation of the Clinton e-mail server scandal. a) AG Lynch had to recuse herself from the investigation. b) She went on a public apology tour on the news networks trying to explain it as an innocent rendezvous between old work buddies. c) She agreed to accept whatever recommendations the FBI would make. I have to ask this question, because it gets to the heart of "conspiracy theories": HOW MANY ISOLATED COINCIDENCES CONSTITUTE REALITY OR (EQUAL A PATTERN)? Granted A+B+C≠D. True enough, correlation doesn't equal causality. Am I to believe instead that each and every one of these events are isolated coincidences that warrant no further consideration? Why does Hillary Clinton seem to have the worst of luck with her associates? The government is known to release propaganda. See link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda What the government calls propaganda I call programming. Why? When any series of "isolated incidences" conflict with the government's programming efforts (or narrative), the government can use its reputation, 241 year history, and information obtained from its intelligence gathering services as a shield against dissenters. The government has the upper hand because the burden of proof is always on the dissenter. The government doesn't have to release evidence that could implicate itself; it could classify that information, deny its existence, destroy evidence, fabricate evidence to smear the reputation of the dissenters, or delay addressing the concern to "stall" the momentum. The dissenters revealing the glaring inconsistencies are ostracized and relegated to "nut job" realm because the programming is THAT good and THAT repetitive and THAT continuous. A conspiracy has little downside risk for governments because as long as the government provides physical security and ample public goods to its citizens, the public will almost always grant the government official the benefit of a doubt even when there is growing evidence showing something amiss.