Summations Only

Hello Percy, I didn't get a chance to respond to your last reply to me (on Christmas day) in the other thread because of a death in the family, and it faded from memory in the weeks that followed, but this message of yours awakens an important point I was trying to make. I'll respond to each of these points of yours, then clarify what that point was, with a brief quote from that thread. Barack Obama's forcing of his extreme far-left agenda on an unwilling country by executive orders, left wing judges, and obsequious bureaucrats over a period of 8 years leaves his properly elected successor little choice but to do some unpredictable things to start down the long road to right that far left agenda, according to the will of those who elected him. In yet another earlier exchange with you, I put a link up for you that showed that U.S. small business closures now outnumber small business openings for the first time in decades. You acknowledged it, but didn't comment on it. Why do liberals call themselves progressives if they want to shut down progress? The national debt went up almost $1 trillion a year under the Obama administration. Do you think that can keep happening indefinitely? Do you think it can be addressed if actual progress is constantly thwarted by the Democrat party? You're assuming that Mexico automatically has the upper hand in future negotiations with the U.S. The U.S. doesn't need Mexico any more than Mexico needs the U.S. We can get the goods that Mexico supplies us with from other countries if necessary. It was Trump who actually suggested he cancel the trip for now. Having a president with a Theodore Roosevelt type backbone is something that will take a lot of getting used to, I know. He was elected on his promises to be able to make deals that are in the best interests of the U.S. These things are part of that plan. It's probably a pretty complex, ongoing plan. He didn't get to be a billionaire by not understanding deal making and financing. This is the knee-jerk reaction, and it's just about all the information you're going to get from the NY Times. This goes back to my point from the other thread, about how multiple sources of information can often lead to a much better overall view of the situation. From the other thread; I wasn't addressing how accurate they were, I was saying that those things should be balanced by other equally true things, that don't necessarily favor one political view.Here's a quote from 1799 by one of the first justices of the supreme court, appointed by George Washington, that you're not going to see in the NY Times;

quote:

---

Any alien coming to this country must or ought to know, that this being an independent nation, it has all the rights concerning the removal of aliens which belong by the law of nations to any other; that while he remains in the country in the character of an alien, he can claim no other privilege than such as an alien is entitled to, and consequently, whatever risque he may incur in that capacity is incurred voluntarily, with the hope that in due time by his unexceptionable conduct, he may become a citizen of the United States. ~Justice James Iredell, 1799

---

This is at the beginning of a link that shows exactly why and what Trump did, and why it's not nearly the big deal that the mainstream media and gangs of uninformed protestors think it is.Conservative Review - 404 Not FoundNow this is from ~conservative review~, something most liberals will undoubtedly hand wave away without looking at it, but I'd hope a few of you will read this over and see if there's anything there that's not a simple fact. Here's another from that link;

quote:

---

There is no affirmative right, constitutional or otherwise, to visit or settle in the United States. Period.

---

Just about everyone in the U.S. has some negative things throughout their lives that can be brought up, that can put them in a bad light. It's obvious that most of the mainstream media including the NY Times is focused on doing only that to Trump, not only excluding ANYTHING good about him, but at least somewhat jeopardizing the overall good of the U.S. in the process. The last election proves that the U.S. public is starting to get its information from places other than the mainstream media. They're the best informed, you should consider joining them. I must say I agree with you there, I don't know why he's concerned about that. D.C. is mostly populated with government-dependent Democrat voters, why he thinks a crowd in that area would favor him is beyond me. Oh there are a lot of people that care about that. California is loaded with illegal Mexicans, that was the only state where Trump heavily lost the popular vote. I've heard that California doesn't require documents when registering people to vote. Some reporters at the press conference with Sean Spicer, when hammering on him to provide evidence of voter fraud, now seem to wish they hadn't asked, now that Spicer said there very well might be a voter-fraud investigation. Some of us think it's the best, cleaning up the messes made by not only Obama, but Bush and Clinton, isn't going to be pretty or quick and painless. But we need to get started. And Trump is, it's what he was elected to do.

Today's Democrat party is nothing like it was in the late 60's, and today's sensationalizing mainstream news media is nothing like it was in the late 60's.

What are some examples of differences in the Republican party of the 60's versus today?Here are a few of the Democrats;*Someone with an open fondness for a communist dictator like Fidel Castro (Bernie Sanders) wouldn't have gotten anywhere near a Democrat presidential nomination in the 60's.*There was no EPA in the 60's, no global warming / climate change movement.*There was no attempt to involve the government with health care in the 60's.*There were no filthy mouth Hollywood celebrities like Madonna spouting in front of an open mike without condemnation from the 60's Democrats.*60's Democrats weren't pushing for special rights for gays, trannies, foreigners from enemy nations, abortion seekers, to near the extent they do today.*A 60's Democrat said "ask NOT what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". No current Democrat is going to get near that.Republican examples? What's different about you since the 60's? I'm about the same - my political views haven't changed. By the way, the Constitution hasn't changed either.

There is actually no similarity between any fondness Trump has for Putin versus Sanders admiration for Castro.Bernie Sanders praised Cuba's Fidel Castro in 1985 TV interview | Daily Mail Online

quote:

---

Bernie Sanders praised Fidel Castro in 1985 interview: 'He educated their kids, gave their kids health care, totally transformed society'

---

Sanders admired Castro for the way he treated his people, the way he governed his society. I don't think you'll find anything on the net that indicates Trump admires anything about the way Putin treats his people. In WWII, the U.S. and Russia grudgingly worked together to defeat the Nazi's. It didn't mean they were close allies. Trump sees the same possibilities in the war against ISIS. It depends on your definition of "turmoil". As I mentioned to you before, during my evening meals I like to hold my nose and watch "WORLD NEWS TONIGHT" with David Muir. A few nights ago, it started with; "tonights headlines, Trump uses 2 words - GO NUCLEAR" then he went on to the other big summaries of the day, then sloppily explained how Trump was referring to the Republican majorities power to adjust the rules in a similar Harry Reed did when he was the majority leader, to gain political power for his own party. But any casual Democrat viewer with a short attention span thinks, AAAAHHHHHH, TRUMP WANTS TO START A NUCLELAR WAR!!!!!!!!!!!This is one of many ways the news media twists and distorts, my first thought was, why does Trump use words like that? He should know what the news media will do with it. But after a little thought, I suspect Trump knew exactly what they would do. He baits them, and laughs when they take the bait. He's the first president who bluntly calls the news media out for who they are, and knows much of the public sees it too. They just make it all the more clear exactly who they are the more unhinged they get.

That's right, the basics of living and the concerns of the working man grow more obvious when the left doesn't show understanding of issues like the runaway national debt, or enormous government regulations that have small business closures now outnumbering small business openings for the first time in decades. Here it is again; Page Not Found Before he announced his candidacy for president, I never paid much attention to him. I saw a few references to his "apprentice" shows, and I sure didn't like some arrogant rich guy looking down his nose and telling people "you're fired". But I didn't hate him, because I knew he didn't have the power to fire me. He didn't have the power to fire a few hundred million Americans, and I figured he was aware of that. So when he made his presidential announcement, I listened with an open mind. What he said made sense, in U.S. trade problems, in big government restrictions on commerce within the U.S. etc.Like many Americans, I wasn't burning with jealousy of him because of his success, or his tireless ambition. That's the main reason he's so hated, but some people's jealousy isn't so intense that they won't change their minds once they see the seemingly drastic things he has to do, to undo the damage that's been done over the past several decades. He'll get a comfortable win for re-election in 4 years. He promised a lot more than that. It contains plenty more economic promise than gay rights and abortion rights and global warming mandates. Fishing streams contain economic promise? Just like the jealous news media has an amazing ability to convince people that he's not. Should be a fun 4 years to see who's right!

He has admiration for him as a leader. It's not uncommon for someone to admire someone else who is good at what he also believes himself to be good at.As you noted, Trump also said this;

quote:

---

I respect Putin and Russians but cannot believe our leader (Obama) allows them to get away with so much...Hats off to the Russians

---

He was praising Putin for good leadership for himself and his people, but not necessarily for the actions he took (takes) for the rest of the world. Sanders' praise of Castro wasn't the same, he praised him for the actions he took, implying that the American people should have those exact same actions taken against them. Sanders saying that Castro wasn't perfect with no specificity, isn't much of a statement, nobody's perfect. Sander's campaign of put-downs of American success, his ideas for America's common people, showed a longing for Castro's power and action. Trump neither desires or needs any of Putin's ideas, but his co-operation in fighting ISIS, and an avoidance of making him an enemy, could be to a Trump and U.S. advantage.

Double postEdited by marc9000, : Double post

I don't think financial collapses happen because of a lessening of the size and scope of government, I think they happen because of real-economic events, like the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and like the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. $4.70 per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel in early 2008 didn't help either. I think it makes clear the necessity of FEWER environmental regulations that make the U.S. so dependent of unstable world oil markets. It also makes clear the importance of not repeating the social engineering mistakes that led to the Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac disaster. No one contributed to it more than the ~Frank~ in Dodd-Frank, a big government liberal named Barney Frank. His powerful position on the House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services gave him leverage to force through legislation and policies which pressured banks and other lenders to grant mortgage loans to people who would not qualify under the standards which had long prevailed, and had long made mortgage loans among the safest investments around. This was done in the name of promoting more home-ownership among people who had neither the income nor the credit history that would meet traditional mortgage lending standards.I'm not in favor of big financial cushions. Not only do they have costs, but their existence makes those like Barney Frank less accountable for their actions. Makes the public less aware of what actually happened. And makes our society less likely to avoid repeating those mistakes in the future. Maybe Trump looks at it that way too. I hope the government leaves to free markets who can and can't afford a home. His record's incredible all right, he's actually doing the things he campaigned on. Most of the turmoil, fear and confusion is just all the news media sensationalism. There are many montages on youtube showing all the arrogant Hollywood elites, some Democrat politicians, and some news media experts taunting how Trump was never going to be president. They were so desperate to gloat about that after the election that they took a chance and went out on a limb with their predictions. The limb broke, and they do actually blame Trump for it. They're always going to hate him. Trump's not against trade, he's against the wrong kind of trade. Since we're $20 trillion in debt, a critical look at current trade practices, along with a critical look at production-stifling government regulations, makes sense to some people. I heard, and I saw economic promise in that bill. I'll never understand how you can think that imposed costs, with no product or service as a result, can be good economically.If they don't dump slag in those rivers and streams, then they'll have to pay more to transport it somewhere else. They can't send it to outer space, so it will end up somewhere else on this planet. Or they can quit producing coal, resulting in higher energy prices for everyone. Common sense science, not emotion or the maintenance of environmentalists lifestyles, should make determinations about how much waste slag is too much in any particular area. Way, way back? He was a private businessman until very recently, what did his activities have to do with you? As I said earlier, I didn't pay much attention to him because he couldn't fire me. Did he fire you?I don't concern myself with people who can't interfere with my life unless I choose to do business with them. So that rules out most people, except politicians and bureaucrats. Trump is one now - he deserves a chance of more than a couple of weeks.

Haha, that does go both ways. Maybe a revolution didn't happen because Cubans weren't allowed to have guns.

His workers, but not the general public.

quote:

---

Fidel Castro made his victorious post-revolution entry into Havana, Cuba on January 8, 1959. The next day, Castro's regime began collecting guns and disarming the population.

---

www.RadioShowNotes.com: Fidel Castro's "common sense" gun control pitchFrom his January 9th, 1959 address;

quote:

---

As soon as possible I will take the rifles off the streets. There are no more enemies, there is no longer anything to fight against, and if some day any foreigner or any movement comes up against the revolution, all the people will fight. The weapons belong in the barracks. No one has the right to have private armies here.

---

Kind of reminds us of Bernie Sanders, or.....Hillary Clinton, or.....Barney Frank, or.......just about any Democrat!

I did, and didn't have to read far before my above reply.Dodd-Frank Versus Glass-Steagall: How Do They Compare?

quote:

---

The 849-page Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation, enacted four years ago in 2010, mandated 398 new rules; just 208 of those rules, or 52 percent, have been enacted and none of them seem to be reining in excesses on Wall Street.

---

Big government ideas, versus the realities of big government, are often VERY far apart. Glass-Steagal was 37 pages, Dodd-Frank is 849 pages. You imply that they're almost the same, they seem to be very different. This link also says;

quote:

---

The Glass-Steagall Act served this country incredibly well for 66 years until Wall Street lobbyists finally forced its repeal in 1999. It worked because of its simplicity — and its threat of five years of jail time for those who violated its key provisions.

---

I wonder if there's any jail time in Dodd-Frank. I'm not going to read it all to find out. I didn't spend hours poring over all this because I'm not all that interested. A partisan politician like Barney Frank can know all this stuff like the back of his hand, while an equally opposite partisan like......Paul Ryan, could know it every bit as well. And yet he and Frank would disagree on just about everything it says and does. But I quickly lose interest when I see "just 208 of those rules, or 52 percent, have been enacted and none of them seem to be reining in excesses on Wall Street." If I ask 10 politicians why, I get 10 different answers. That's why I'm not very interested in details of big government programs. They're always sloppy, when they don't have accountability like free markets. There was no financial collapse, but there were small-business-destroying financial hardships. The majority of Americans, those on payrolls, didn't really see it. Businesses and the self employed, like myself, saw it. I own a commercial truck, and my insurance went up $1500 from 01 to 02. Stayed about the same in 03, then tapered off gradually until about 08. (I had no claims, this was nothing but insurance companies making up their 9/11 losses.) About $6000 is what 9/11 directly cost me. As a $30,000 per year guy, I absorbed it, and moved on, and it wasn't easy. As did others much larger than me. The bigger they are, the more employees they had, the more it cost them. Few people notice, business owners don't go out and parade in the streets like Trump protesters, they don't have time. We have confusion all right, but not on my part. Environmental regulations CAUSE financial problems, which leads some to believe that new, sloppy, unapplied financial laws will solve problems that unreasonable environmental laws actually cause. The biggest player of all was government pressure to loan money to people who experienced bankers know can't afford it. We'll never agree on that, so we just have to leave it there. Did you see ABC World News Tonight with David Muir last night? This is supposed to be an objective, half hour summary of what happened in the world over the past 24 hours. As I've mentioned before, ever since Trumps Republican nomination, that "news" show has used its first 5 or 10 minutes as little more than an anti-Trump commercial. Last night, after about 7 minutes, part of their "report" consisted of playing a Saturday Night Live skit for about 30 seconds, featuring a new clown that portrays Sean Spicer. It's beyond amazing, are they actually too stupid to understand why Fox News beats them so badly in the ratings, or don't they care? ABC? The jealous David Muir? Or maybe Dan Rather in the past?He knows the difference between productive and non-productive people, he knows something about deals and finances, and he's done a lot of charitable things that never get reported. Why would he move on from his $billion fortune to get all the hate and threats that he now gets, if he only cared about himself?I'm now done with these past issues that we've discussed, Dodd-Frank, past environmentalism, and all that. I see you don't want this thread to go too far down associated political rabbit trails, and I respect that and don't have time for it anyway. But I hope this thread can stay open for the next 8 years , focusing mainly on Trump's day by day activities, and we'll see how it all goes.

You win a cookie. I figured at least one of you would try to rescue him from that one. What would you liberals do without each other? But you didn't disagree with him that I was "making things up" did you?Community Reinvestment Act - WikipediaBut as this link shows, everything was done perfectly, wasn't it?

quote:

---

The law, however, emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution.[3][4] An institution's CRA compliance record is taken into account by the banking regulatory agencies when the institution seeks to expand through merger, acquisition or branching. The law does not mandate any other penalties for non-compliance with the CRA.

---

Now, let's look at how swell that all went; The Clinton-Era Roots of the Financial Crisis

quote:

---

The Clinton administration lost the battle to use pensions to fund low-income housing, but it succeeded in winning the war by drafting Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the commercial banking system into the affordable-housing effort. It did so by exploiting a minor provision in a 1977 housing bill, the Community Reinvestment Act, that simply required banks to meet local credit needs.

---

Exploiting? It's amazing how perfectly good government programs get "exploited" by someone, isn't it?

quote:

---

Bank regulators began to pressure banks to make subprime loans.

---

Pressure? I don't think the word "pressure" was anywhere to be found in the Community Reinvestment Act!

quote:

---

Guidelines became mandates as each bank was assigned a letter grade on CRA loans. Banks could not even open ATMs or branches, much less acquire another bank, without a passing gradeand getting a passing grade was no longer about meeting local credit needs. As then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testified to Congress in 2008, the early stages of the subprime [mortgage] market . . . essentially emerged out of the CRA.

​

Effective in January 1993, the 1992 housing bill required Fannie and Freddie to make 30% of their mortgage purchases affordable-housing loans. The quota was raised to 40% in 1996, 42% in 1997, and in 2000 the Department of Housing and Urban Development ordered the quota raised to 50%. The Bush administration continued to raise the affordable-housing goals. Freddie and Fannie dutifully met those goals each and every year until the subprime crisis erupted. By 2008, when both government-sponsored enterprises collapsed, the quota had reached 56%. An internal Fannie document made public after the financial crisis (HUD Housing Goals, March 2003) clearly shows that by 2002 Fannie officials knew perfectly well that these quotas were promoting irresponsible policy: The challenge freaked out the business side of the house [Fannie] . . . the tenseness around meeting the goals meant that we . . . did deals at risks and prices we would not have otherwise done.

---

What percentages were caused by the early 1990's exploitation of this 1977 legislation? By guidelines becoming mandates? By quotas going from 30% to 40%, then 50% to 56%? Your students at Duke and Dartmouth must not have been interested in researching that.

You do have some serious mood swings, don't you?

I understand that you don't like him and that's what invokes the name-calling, but I think I can possibly unlock what could be going on in your subconscious, that could help you better understand why you don't like him, and why it's not really very rational.Since the beginning of U.S. history, its presidents have always (until 8 years ago) been ~older white men~. Most of them, all but 9, have been over 50 years old. It's simple human nature for many people in their teens, twenties, and thirties to not be very interested in men over 50. Even as a little kid, in the days during and after the JFK presidency, I could see an excitement concerning Kennedy that was GONE when old-guy Lyndon Johnson took over. Then came old guy Nixon, old guy Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41. A new excitement comparable to Kennedy was re-kindled somewhat with the studly Clinton, even though he was border-line old.But Obama!! A 40 something black guy! We had 8 years of a brand new, deep rooted satisfaction that was popular with liberals, with most black people, with horny young white ladies who increasingly like black guys, with younger university indoctrinated young people, with environmentalists, with most of the news media. It was embedded in so many people that we no longer had an old white guy as president, and even with the presidential term limits that they're all aware of, they simply didn't prepare themselves for the day it was going to be gone. They were somewhat prepared to make the transition to a woman president, but since Trump was so laughed at and ridiculed in the news, it just turned out to be too much of a jolt when Trump, another old white guy, actually became president.Many people didn't even realize until after he was president that he had a clock-stopping gorgeous daughter. Or that all his children are successful and disciplined. It wasn't until after he became president that it became obvious that he is just as passionate about his campaign promises now as he was during his campaign.Presidential campaigns are very expensive, and have been for a long time. I'd guess he's the first in 50 years, maybe even 100 years, who doesn't owe a special interest anything now that he's president. You say he acts like an idiot largely because you simply don't like him personally. During his news conference he showed wit and humor like no past president. And like no past president, he shows no fear of the partisan news media. The news media is finally being policed, and it's going to work.He's made mistakes, like the "more electoral votes than anyone" line, etc. It gets harped on a lot, unlike Obama's reference to "57 states". I can explain him this way, he's 70 years old, and seems to have the enthusiasm of a 30 year old. This, his children, his past business successes make his opponents BURN with jealousy. There's nothing more juvenile than the mainstream media attacks on him for the past year and a half. He's only human, he's going to get a little bit blustery in the face of that much hate. There are a few things about him personally that I don't like. I don't have to like them, I want a LEADER. That's what he is.