The Trump Effect

[UACFlyer]

Originally Posted by ud69 Just another Swampy swing and miss? https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-b...tial-liability

The New York Times is waging war against Trump and has the resources to do so. No surprise there.

There is more than a small chance that the entire Trump enterprise is and has been a scam operation built and sustained for decades at the expense of every entity it ever dealt with...including the U.S. Government and its taxpayers.

And you know what? Most of the voters won't care one bit as long as the economy is strong and they have well paying jobs.

But, one never knows. As Yogi once said: "It's hard to make predictions...especially about the future".

[TA111]

Originally Posted by jack72 Private payrolls rose by 230,000 jobs in September. This was way above the expectations and doom and gloom of the worker shortage, low wages' pessimists. It was the highest increase in seven months. Dow with another record this morning. Mike Pompei is again meeting with North Korea this weekend. Still no missiles being launched in many months. Canada signs onto the trade agreement. And it is only Wednesday morning.

Trust me, this will only cause the wacko leftists to go crazier since Trump has been so successful. I remember when these clowns said the economy would tank because of Trump. How many more times do they have to be proven wrong before we totally disregard anything they say?

[TA111]

Rip roaring Trump economy per CNBC. Liberal heads exploding.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/03/priv...k-est-adp.html

[cj]

Has anyone seen the unemployment rate?? 3.7%

Has anyone seen any reporting of potential witness tampering regarding the Kavanaugh investigation?

[jack72]

Highest Treasury rate in 7 years is tearing the market down.

[IAFlyer]

The only US car company to NOT take bailout money is bleeding due to the tariffs.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/business...ost-company-1b

[ud2]

Early voting in Ohio started today, so I voted today. Seemed fairly busy, which was surprising to me. There is usually almost nobody there.

[Mich Flyer]

Originally Posted by jack72 Highest Treasury rate in 7 years is tearing the market down.

Which bonds does this include? I Bonds, E Bonds? Does it work retroactively for bonds someone already has? Does anybody know?

[NJFlyr71]

Mich Flyer

Typically old bond rates do not change when the rate goes up or down. However old bond values change. i.e. worth more or less in dollars New bonds likely will be purchased using the 'new' rate, what ever that is.

I Bonds are inflation adjusted bonds and are sold at a fix component during 2 times of the year (May and Nov ... IIRC). The fixed rate is for 30 years. This fixed rate is set by the treasury. There is an inflation component set by the government during these 2 periods. The 'I' component is adjusted every 6 months. This component can go up or down (to zero). Your interest is calculated as a composite rate which includes both the fixed and inflation components. I think the fixed rate is based upon some treasury bonds (which ones I don't recall). But once you purchase the bond that rate is fixed and doesn't change. The inflation component can change either up or down based upon the CPI (again IIRC). During times of steady inflation the bond will see a steady increase in this I component. Hence the inflation protection is built into these I bonds. Any new I bonds you purchase (say like this coming NOV) could have a new fixed rate based upon this slow up-ward movement of the rates we see now.

And ladies and germs, that's my $0.02 cents worth.

[NJFlyr71]

The market tumble is as normal based upon emotion based upon some facts.

Over the last few years the Fed has slowly increased interest rates. The 10 year rate over time is shown in this link.


https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/?symbol=US10Y

A recent low point was early July 2016. It is now (Oct 11) higher than its been for a few years going back to 2012. The FED stated late last year they would increase FED rates 4 times this 2018. I think we have had 3 so far. It looks like we get 1 more for Christmas. The unemployment rate is at ridiculous LOW levels (well below the 'normal' full employment # economist use to use). Trade tariffs are in play.

(Note: treasury rates are not historically high. Historically meaning within this century.)

Hence, all these facts lead to the probability but not certainty that this all will play havoc with economic activity in a negative way. So we get sell offs like we just saw.

Incidentally, If anyone of you has followed historical activity on the stock market OCTOBER tends to be VERY UNKIND to stock holders. And so we see yet again it's October!

[Furio]

Mich go to TreasuryDirect.gov for answers. E bonds have stopped earning interest but can be redeemed. E bonds stopped issuing in 1980. They were followed by EE bonds which can still be bought.
Jacks post was referring to 10 year treasury bonds which is different.

[Mich Flyer]

Trump is not too happy with the Feds raising the interest rates. It has the effect of slowing the economic boom. The Fed and millionaires playing with the market can lead to sabotage.

[jack72]

Fed Chairman Powell said, "We are a long way from neutral rates." So the market is not reacting to the small increase in rates. It is instead reacting to the future guess of more interest rate increases sooner.

It is now up to earnings and guidance of companies, as to where this selloff stops.

Of course a trade deal with China will Trump all of this.

As all experts say, the effect of the tax cuts kick in at about 12 months, so good news still to come.

[Alberto Strasse]

has raised interest rates just a month prior to election day and effectively erased all of the growth in the past year. This was not permitted during the Obama administration. The "Swamp" has retaliated against the President to derail the image of his remarkable economic success.

[CE80]

Originally Posted by Alberto Strasse has raised interest rates just a month prior to election day and effectively erased all of the growth in the past year. This was not permitted during the Obama administration. The "Swamp" has retaliated against the President to derail the image of his remarkable economic success.

The Fed interest rate needed to be raised at some point. It is better that it was done under Trump with the economy as strong as it is than under Obama which would have been a disaster. I am not sure what has happened in the market can technically be called a correction yet but it was bound to happen sooner than later.

[UACFlyer]

Originally Posted by CE80 The Fed interest rate needed to be raised at some point. It is better that it was done under Trump with the economy as strong as it is than under Obama which would have been a disaster. I am not sure what has happened in the market can technically be called a correction yet but it was bound to happen sooner than later.

Let the market react any way it wants. Rates still are way too low....favoring debtors at the expense of savers, while killing seniors.

I have a super-duper money market "plus" account at one of the nation's largest banks. Because my balance is above a certain level I get a 25% interest rate "boost" bringing my interest rate up to 0.06%...0.06%.....the bank's highest rate, but well below the rate of inflation.
This is nuts! The Feds plan to continue gradually increasing rates through 2019 makes perfect sense. And the time to do it is when the economy is strong, i.e., NOW.

And our loony President is howling that the Fed is crazy!

[ud2]

[Furio]

Originally Posted by UACFlyer Let the market react any way it wants. Rates still are way too low....favoring debtors at the expense of savers, while killing seniors. I have a super-duper money market "plus" account at one of the nation's largest banks. Because my balance is above a certain level I get a 25% interest rate "boost" bringing my interest rate up to 0.06%...0.06%.....the bank's highest rate, but well below the rate of inflation. This is nuts! The Feds plan to continue gradually increasing rates through 2019 makes perfect sense. And the time to do it is when the economy is strong, i.e., NOW. And our loony President is howling that the Fed is crazy!

You might want to shop around. PNC bank offers 1.25 percent and more on
accounts over 25,000 dollars. Mutual fund money markets offer 2 percent plus.

[Fudd]

Originally Posted by UACFlyer Let the market react any way it wants. Rates still are way too low....favoring debtors at the expense of savers, while killing seniors. I have a super-duper money market "plus" account at one of the nation's largest banks. Because my balance is above a certain level I get a 25% interest rate "boost" bringing my interest rate up to 0.06%...0.06%.....the bank's highest rate, but well below the rate of inflation. This is nuts! The Feds plan to continue gradually increasing rates through 2019 makes perfect sense. And the time to do it is when the economy is strong, i.e., NOW. And our loony President is howling that the Fed is crazy!

If you are still getting 0.06% that is crazy. You should be getting 1.5% minimum now. You can get as much as 2% from online banks.

[Bat'71]

The Fed has kept rates too low(negative real rates actually) for too long. Stocks have been the prime beneficiary of this (along with Quantitative Easing). Now, it is quite likely that the stock markets which have been priced for perfection and (IMHO) got way ahead of itself, got spooked by recent Fed tightening of monetary policy, may still give up more ground.

Trump, in all likelihood, is castigating the Fed's recent rate increase and unwinding of QE positions as much for the timing of the move as opposed to the move itself, as it comes just before the mid-term elections. If it had been implemented earlier (say August) or delayed until late November, he probably would not have been so outspoken. Remember, Greenspan's tightening of monetary late in Bush Sr's first and only term, ushered in a slight recession just prior to the Presidential elections. Now, with higher rates in the offing heralding in a steeper yield curve this could impact consumer demand and small business expansion and thus have some impact on near-term economic growth. Couple this with China threatening to pull back from US Treasury auctions and rates could go higher than anticipated. This puts added pressure on striking an agreement with China on trade...one that bolsters it's negotiating position. So in that context, DJT's remarks were quite natural and should not have been unexpected, IMHO.

[jack72]

Originally Posted by UACFlyer Let the market react any way it wants. Rates still are way too low....favoring debtors at the expense of savers, while killing seniors.

How is low interest killing seniors? An increasing market helps all seniors with 401k's and Rollovers. Please explain how higher rates, which also come with higher inflation helps seniors.

[Bat'71]

Jack'72, abnormally low yield curves hurt seniors who are normally more risk averse in their retirement years, by reducing returns on bond /fixed income investments; negative real rates have been the order of the day for the past decade. The normalized rule of thumb for the yield on Treasury 10-year bonds had been inflation plus 3%. The Fed has kept that rate artificially low and it has hurt many retirees whose asset allocation models were more risk averse (60/40 stocks to bonds or 50/50) than younger investors.

BTW, higher rates do not just come with higher inflation...higher rates are in response to the risk of higher inflation and meant to put the breaks on it. Inflation saps purchasing power and is detrimental to those on fixed incomes and lower wage earners, so rate increases by the Fed along with a steeper yield curve are necessary to keep inflation under wraps. It can, along with tighter monetary policy, also have a negative effect on stocks by making margin debt more costly and providing alternative, safer investments more attractive (i.e. taking away the punch bowl.)

[ud2]

Looks like the long-term average fed funds rate is 4.82%. Looks like the current fed funds rate is 2.25%.

https://ycharts.com/indicators/effec...ral_funds_rate


https://www.thebalance.com/current-f...-rates-3305694

[UACFlyer]

Originally Posted by Furio You might want to shop around. PNC bank offers 1.25 percent and more on accounts over 25,000 dollars. Mutual fund money markets offer 2 percent plus.

Originally Posted by Fudd If you are still getting 0.06% that is crazy. You should be getting 1.5% minimum now. You can get as much as 2% from online banks.

Thanks guys, I'm aware of these things. I have cash in a money market fund at another bank and with a money market mutual fund, the latter paying 1.85%. The reason I do business with the bank paying 0.06% is because of several other connections with that bank that I do not want to change.

I am also aware of rates paid by on-line banks; but I refuse to conduct any financial transactions on-line.

Originally Posted by Bat'71 The Fed has kept rates too low(negative real rates actually) for too long. Stocks have been the prime beneficiary of this (along with Quantitative Easing). Now, it is quite likely that the stock markets which have been priced for perfection and (IMHO) got way ahead of itself, got spooked by recent Fed tightening of monetary policy, may still give up more ground. Trump, in all likelihood, is castigating the Fed's recent rate increase and unwinding of QE positions as much for the timing of the move as opposed to the move itself, as it comes just before the mid-term elections. If it had been implemented earlier (say August) or delayed until late November, he probably would not have been so outspoken. Remember, Greenspan's tightening of monetary late in Bush Sr's first and only term, ushered in a slight recession just prior to the Presidential elections. Now, with higher rates in the offing heralding in a steeper yield curve this could impact consumer demand and small business expansion and thus have some impact on near-term economic growth. Couple this with China threatening to pull back from US Treasury auctions and rates could go higher than anticipated. This puts added pressure on striking an agreement with China on trade...one that bolsters it's negotiating position. So in that context, DJT's remarks were quite natural and should not have been unexpected, IMHO.

Bat, wrong reasons for Trump's remarks, He said what he said because he's ignorant. "The Fed is crazy!" "The Fed is out of control!". Bone head.

[UACFlyer]

Originally Posted by jack72 How is low interest killing seniors? An increasing market helps all seniors with 401k's and Rollovers. Please explain how higher rates, which also come with higher inflation helps seniors.

An increasing market helps seniors that have 401(k)s and IRAs. But a very large percentage of seniors live primarily on Social Security income and from relatively meager interest-bearing savings. (Senior) posters in this forum are not typical of the senior population nationally. Many seniors have money in banks accounts.

Personally. I am fortunate to have a substantial 401(k). But I have always done my investing on my own outside that account. My 401(k) has always been invested in guaranteed investment contracts issued by insurance companies and held is a "stable value fund" available only in 401(k)s....a very popular choice among 401(k) owners. The interest rate paid in such an account is directly tied to interest rates. Such stable value funds have been walloped by low interest rates over the last several years. I will benefit greatly
by a return to normal for interest rates. Currently we're not yet close to "normal"....the President's ill-informed wailing notwithstanding.

[jack72]

Originally Posted by UACFlyer An increasing market helps seniors that have 401(k)s and IRAs. But a very large percentage of seniors live primarily on Social Security income and from relatively meager interest-bearing savings. (Senior) posters in this forum are not typical of the senior population nationally. Many seniors have money in banks accounts. Personally. I am fortunate to have a substantial 401(k). But I have always done my investing on my own outside that account. My 401(k) has always been invested in guaranteed investment contracts issued by insurance companies and held is a "stable value fund" available only in 401(k)s....a very popular choice among 401(k) owners. The interest rate paid in such an account is directly tied to interest rates. Such stable value funds have been walloped by low interest rates over the last several years. I will benefit greatly by a return to normal for interest rates. Currently we're not yet close to "normal"....the President's ill-informed wailing notwithstanding.

That is your personal choice. I, nor most seniors I know, have money in stable value funds. So let's agree to disagree, that rising rates are good for those who take your track, and bad for those who take mine, which is stock and bond funds.

Those who are keeping money in savings accounts have so little it is not material. If someone has only $50,000 in savings, each percentage point is only worth about $450 after tax.

[jack72]

Originally Posted by Bat'71 Jack'72, abnormally low yield curves hurt seniors who are normally more risk averse in their retirement years, by reducing returns on bond /fixed income investments; negative real rates have been the order of the day for the past decade. The normalized rule of thumb for the yield on Treasury 10-year bonds had been inflation plus 3%. The Fed has kept that rate artificially low and it has hurt many retirees whose asset allocation models were more risk averse (60/40 stocks to bonds or 50/50) than younger investors. BTW, higher rates do not just come with higher inflation...higher rates are in response to the risk of higher inflation and meant to put the breaks on it. Inflation saps purchasing power and is detrimental to those on fixed incomes and lower wage earners, so rate increases by the Fed along with a steeper yield curve are necessary to keep inflation under wraps. It can, along with tighter monetary policy, also have a negative effect on stocks by making margin debt more costly and providing alternative, safer investments more attractive (i.e. taking away the punch bowl.)

I agree with your bond assessment at higher interest, but for those of us who have bought in at lower interest bonds in the last 10 years, we are going to get screwed as rates rise.

[Chris R]

The problem with the Fed and setting rates is we have a Fed and it sets rates. True capitalism doesn't need a Fed. Let the market decide where lending terms should be. Put the risk where it belongs: the bank employees and shareholders, and the depositors. The Fed is the biggest moral hazard in our economy. It encourages uninformed people to do uninformed things at uninformed times. Encourages the same irresponsibility from the banks.

[Bat'71]

No, UAC, Trump is not ignorant in making his remarks, nor is he the first President to castigate the Fed's tighter monetary policy. Just because you have a visceral dislike for the man, don't let it blind you to the validity of some of his pronouncements. Since rates have been so artificially low for so long, no one was pushing for looser monetary policy...it couldn't get much looser. Here's a little something to ponder before you start calling others ignorant;
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/21/dick...t-the-fed.html *

*BTW, the Fed facilitated the huge build up in the Federal deficit spending during the BHO spendthrift administration by keeping rates so artificially low and monetizing the debt through quantitative easing. As rates rise (as pointed out at the end of the article) the cost of servicing the Federal debt will explode. When you factor in the premium rates demanded on weaker credits, from state and municipal debt, the squeeze on state and local budgets will cause added pain.

[UACFlyer]

Originally Posted by jack72 That is your personal choice. I, nor most seniors I know, have money in stable value funds. So let's agree to disagree, that rising rates are good for those who take your track, and bad for those who take mine, which is stock and bond funds. Those who are keeping money in savings accounts have so little it is not material. If someone has only $50,000 in savings, each percentage point is only worth about $450 after tax.

Jack, my "track" is not that different than yours. I have a portfolio of stocks and mutual funds. And I have a stable value fund in a 401(k).

But you are mistaken re your dismissal of the little guy with only $50,000 in savings. There are many more of those guys than people like us Jack. And each 1% difference in a bank's interest rate matters greatly to those people. The difference between 1% and 4%, lets say, is $1500...those people pay little or no tax.

The median family income in some states is well below $50,000....in CT, the wealthiest state it's about $60,000. For retired seniors the figures are quite a bit less. To these people a $1500 a year difference is a big deal.

(By the way, my stable value fund is currently paying 3.85% )
______________

One more thing re "Is DJT right that interest rates are too high and should not rise...". Every rate mentioned by Priders in the preceding posts,...PNC's 1.25% rate on large deposits, 2% from on-line bank rates, 2% money market mutual fund rates,...
every rate example given is less than the current rate of inflation. To get to "normal" those rates should be one-to-two percentage points higher than the rate of inflation. And Trump is on the Fed's case for raising rates! Rates are way too low.

[UACFlyer]

Originally Posted by Bat'71 No, UAC, Trump is not ignorant in making his remarks, nor is he the first President to castigate the Fed's tighter monetary policy. Just because you have a visceral dislike for the man, don't let it blind you to the validity of some of his pronouncements. Since rates have been so artificially low for so long, no one was pushing for looser monetary policy...it couldn't get much looser. Here's a little something to ponder before you start calling others ignorant; https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/21/dick...t-the-fed.html * *BTW, the Fed facilitated the huge build up in the Federal deficit spending during the BHO spendthrift administration by keeping rates so artificially low and monetizing the debt through quantitative easing. As rates rise (as pointed out at the end of the article) the cost of servicing the Federal debt will explode. When you factor in the premium rates demanded on weaker credits, from state and municipal debt, the squeeze on state and local budgets will cause added pain.

The financial crisis of 2008-2009 got us on the track of what you admit are "artificially low" interest rates. Absent the Feds actions at that time there would have been a financial calamity.

It has bee argued that the Fed held rates too low for too long. I agree with that. So, now that we have a strong economy a gradual to "normal" rates is sound policy. That will hurt investments and investors that took advantage of the low-rate abnormality. That can't be avoided. I think most agree that so long as the rate increase is gradual we'll be OK.

Other Presidents have clashed with the Fed without referring to the Fed as "crazy" and "out of control". This from a guy who throughout his business life lived on excessive, highly leveraged borrowing for ill-conceived ventures then, as his game plan, as they failed one after another, would declare bankruptcy, walk away leaving others holding the bag.

As rates rise interest on the Federal debt will rise greatly....we know that. Perhaps that's what it will take to reign in Federal spending, restructure senior entitlements, etc.

For sure, retaining "artificially" low rates will only ensure that the problem worsens.

[Bat'71]

The zero rate policy that was initiated in 2008 was needed initially to stave off a total melt down in the markets and to keep major financial institutions from imploding. However, as mentioned, rates were held to artificially low levels for way too long, which allowed the spendthrift Congress and BHO, to darn near break the bank. We will be paying for this profligacy for years to come, but you can bet the ranch neither Obama nor Bernanke will get the blame. Just like Greenspan and the Democrats in Congress dodged responsibility for the housing bubble with their "Affordable Housing" drive , which led to"low doc" and "no doc" mortgage applications and rampant speculation in the housing market (aided and abetted by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac)


So now calling the Fed "crazy" for implementing a tighter monetary policy and draining cash reserves from the banking system right before a critical mid-term election is now beyond the pail? It's "Trump-speak" for Gawd's sake. Why do you take the man literally? Once again, UAC, you seem to place greater weight on style over substance. Yeah, sometimes Trump will make you wince when he opens his mouth, but compared to what he has accomplished and the message he's trying to convey nationwide, it's nothing really to get over wrought about IMHO.

[UACFlyer]

Originally Posted by Bat'71 The zero rate policy that was initiated in 2008 was needed initially to stave off a total melt down in the markets and to keep major financial institutions from imploding. However, as mentioned, rates were held to artificially low levels for way too long, which allowed the spendthrift Congress and BHO, to darn near break the bank. We will be paying for this profligacy for years to come, but you can bet the ranch neither Obama nor Bernanke will get the blame. Just like Greenspan and the Democrats in Congress dodged responsibility for the housing bubble with their "Affordable Housing" drive , which led to"low doc" and "no doc" mortgage applications and rampant speculation in the housing market (aided and abetted by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) So now calling the Fed "crazy" for implementing a tighter monetary policy and draining cash reserves from the banking system right before a critical mid-term election is now beyond the pail? It's "Trump-speak" for Gawd's sake. Why do you take the man literally? Once again, UAC, you seem to place greater weight on style over substance. Yeah, sometimes Trump will make you wince when he opens his mouth, but compared to what he has accomplished and the message he's trying to convey nationwide, it's nothing really to get over wrought about IMHO.

Bat, I do not place "greater weight" on style over substance, But, Bat, ignoring 'Trump-speak" all the time is another extreme, We all have learned that words and style matter.

Re what Trump has accomplished: Plenty, but with deserved reservations. The President's approach to trade has no certain outcome...and threatens his economic successes.

As for the impact of rising interest rates on the Federal budget: More important than the share of Federal spending consumed by paying interest on the national debt is the fact that the debt is increasing by nearly $1 trillion (with a "T") annually at a time of a booming economy and record Federal revenues. When did you last hear the President comment about that? What plan to address that issue have you ever heard the President or his economic advisers discuss? Some Priders have opined that the President will tackle that issue next year. Yeah, right.

[jack72]

UAC is right! Words and style do matter, and it is part of what makes Trump so successful. Better that UAC is criticizing style points and not substance, as we had to do with Obama. When the Trump critics say that stuff I think they are admitting that Trump is doing a great job getting things done. As they say in business, better to be respected than loved.

BTW for those keeping score, kudos to the President for more substance, getting the pastor freed from Turkey with no plane full of cash.

[Chris R]

Originally Posted by jack72 ... kudos to the President for more substance, getting the pastor freed from Turkey with no plane full of cash.

Or five terrorists.

[ud2]

Trump actually has a better favorability rating than Paul Ryan, McConnell, Pelosi, and Schumer. Wow.

For somebody that is seemingly the butt of every joke, he is not doing too badly.


Favorability Ratings: U.S. Political Leaders

Favorable Unfavorable Spread

Donald Trump 41.5 54.5 -13.0
Nancy Pelosi 27.8 52.5 -24.7
Paul Ryan 30.7 52.3 -21.6
Chuck Schumer 29.3 43.0 -13.7
Mitch McConnell 22.8 47.5 -24.7

[Swampy Meadows]

Elizabeth Warren to release DNA results: she’s Native American:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/elizab...a-test-results
Posted via Mobile Device

[rollo]

6 to 10 generations = somewhere between 1.56% and 0.098%. That doesn't meet the definition of anything other than 'mutt'...which is royally appropriate for her.

[ud2]

I thought this was clever and worth reading. The NYT wrote 2 hypothetical, future postscripts, imagining that it was the day after the 2020 election.

One piece explained why Trump got reelected, one explained why he lost.

I thought the piece on Trump winning was more plausible.

Both pieces sort of capture the 30,000 foot overview of where we are now and where we are headed.




Trump and Pence vs. Elizabeth Warren and running mate Sherrod Brown, Trump wins.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/26/o...tion-2020.html





Trump and Pence vs. Warren and Eric Holder, Trump loses.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/29/o...pgtype=Article

[TA111]

Originally Posted by Swampy Meadows Elizabeth Warren to release DNA results: she’s Native American: https://www.thedailybeast.com/elizab...a-test-results Posted via Mobile Device

Total BS. She’s as much Native American as I am. Going back 10 generations? That’s ridiculous. She lied on her applications, period. https://hotair.com/archives/2018/10/...rens-dna-test/

[rollo]

So now we're finding out that in lieu of actual native American genes, the scientist used Columbian, Peruvian and Mexican DNA to stand in for native American...but don't tell the stupid people this...it'll only be used to justify more chaos in Portland.

[Fudd]

Originally Posted by rollo So now we're finding out that in lieu of actual native American genes, the scientist used Columbian, Peruvian and Mexican DNA to stand in for native American...but don't tell the stupid people this...it'll only be used to justify more chaos in Portland.

So she is 1/1000th Peruvian? That is all that Swampy and Fake News CNN need for their fact-checking, and it explains her high cheekbones.

[TA111]

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/10/...tive-american/
1/1024th Native American. Hilarious. I guess I should apply for a casino license.

[rollo]

[Chris R]

This might be the greatest self-own in political history. Her chances at the POTUS may have just died today.

Who else might be 1/1024 of something and then claim minority status in Law School Directories and identify as Native American with Penn and Harvard. As a white guy, there's a greater than 50% chance I have more African in me than Warren has Native American. Warren is potentially more white than the average caucasian by a factor of 2.

If you were 31/32 or something -- nevermind 1023/1024 of something, would you publicly shun the overwhelming preponderance for the sliver? How can you be 1/32 or 1/1024 of something and BE THAT, but you can have an XX chromosome pair and NOT be that.

Warren said her parents actually had to flee because of Cherokee backlash on her mother's side -- her mother is white and her death certificate says white.

Most Native American tribes keep "membership" lists for lack of a better word. She ain't on it. And 1/16th is usually the lowest cutoff to claim any half-way legitimate NA ancestry to get an official CDIB (Certificate Degree of Indian Blood) from the Dept of Interior. Many tribes require far more like 25% or 50% direct blood.

This is literally the funniest thing I have read in months. High cheekbones aren't enough honey.

That said, Trump did say he'd pay her a million dollars if she were NA. So he should cut her a check for $976.56 which is 1/1024th of a million and send it to her in buffalo head nickels and one honest Abe penny.

In the end, nobody really cares what Warren's ancestry is. That's not the point. She's a mutt like the rest of us. It was her leveraging of such infinitesimally small (almost untraceable) minority ancestry and using that as a weapon to further her traction that's despicable. It makes a mockery of those with legitimate NA ancestry who have suffered legitimate NA struggles.

Every single one of us is at least 1% of something other than what we identify with on our birth certificate. Even Pocahontas was not 100% Native American Indian -- there's no such thing. The NAs came from Canada, Mexico/Central America and the Bering Strait as East Asians, migrating south as nomadic hunter-gatherers. Sitting Bull didn't just grow from the soil like a tulip. At what point does it become absurd to play the infinite fraction game?

[Furio]

Glad we focus on important things in this country lol.
In the mean time the USA budget deficit for fiscal year ended
2018 rose 17 percent to 779 billion dollars.
Increase in revenues of 14 billion swamped by 127 billion
rise in expenditures.
Back to the 24 and me ads now

[TA111]

She just continues to dig the hole deeper. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guyben...proof-n2528599

[ud2]

I am not an expert, but her being at most 1/64th or 1.6% Native American, seems pretty shaky.

And she could be as little as 1/1,024th NA, or 0.09766%.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliz...rican_heritage

[cj]

That may be Swampys biggest swing and miss ever. And that is saying something!

Remember Rachel Dolezal? I bet she is more black than Warren is Native American!

[CE80]

Trump should have owned the $1M offer. Tell her to arrange a meeting with her tribe leader and he will present the check.

[longtimefan]

Warren and Swampy look even sillier now than they did before.

[Mich Flyer]

"Current DNA tests do not even distinguish whether a person’s ancestors were indigenous to North or South America," Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. said in a press release.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/che...al-citizenship

[ClaytonFlyerFan]

Originally Posted by Swampy Meadows Elizabeth Warren to release DNA results: she’s Native American: https://www.thedailybeast.com/elizab...a-test-results Posted via Mobile Device

The 1 / 1,024 of me that is democrat says this post, and anyone who reposts and believes this crap is a disgrace to the democratic party.

You need to ditch the donkey and start using the titanic as your party logo. At this rate you can soon replace it with the Dodo

[UACFlyer]

Originally Posted by longtimefan Warren and Swampy look even sillier now than they did before.

Why did she do it? It focuses attention on the silliness of the matter. Count on Trump to make her pay.

[rollo]

FWIW, humans share about 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, 90% with mice, 84% with dogs and 65% with birds.

In other words, Warren is more chicken than Cherokee.

FWIW II, I'm going to get my DNA tested and when it's proven that I'm 1/1,024th 'Kennedy', I'm headed to Martha's Vineyard next summer where I'll be hosting the inaugural UDPRIDE Regatta at my family's Estate! Clayton...Shocka...stay tuned...everyone's invited to 'my' house! BYOB...bring your own boat!

[Fudd]

Originally Posted by UACFlyer Why did she do it? It focuses attention on the silliness of the matter. Count on Trump to make her pay.

She gave Trump the greatest straight line in the history of politics.

I saw some video of Trump being asked about this DNA test by a reporter yesterday. Melania was standing in the background, and I could see her fighting back a smile as the question was asked. She knew Trump was going to unload on the silliness of 1/1000th native Mexican/Bolivian/Columbian claim. I'm sure he could riff on that subject for about 15 minutes of mockery over the stupidity of the whole subject. Is she really this desperate to play identity politics? It's like throwing him red meat. Someone could build an entire comedy routine over this.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/37149...ign=benshapiro

Even more embarrassing, a comprehensive study by geneticists estimated that the average European-American has 0.18% Native American DNA, which may be higher than Warren. Warren's gamble of desperately trying to prove her Native American ancestry appears to have backfired as she was widely mocked online. James Woods was quick to brand her as "Señorita Warren":

The average American might have more native American DNA than Warren. That is hilarious. Wouldn't it be great if Trump had more native American DNA than Warren? That would be comedy gold. He might have been right when he said he was more native American than Elizabeth Warren.

[rollo]

Originally Posted by cj That may be Swampys biggest swing and miss ever. And that is saying something! Remember Rachel Dolezal? I bet she is more black than Warren is Native American!

[shocka43]

Originally Posted by UACFlyer Why did she do it? It focuses attention on the silliness of the matter. Count on Trump to make her pay.

She never thought she would get called out for it.

[ud69]

Originally Posted by UACFlyer Why did she do it? It focuses attention on the silliness of the matter. Count on Trump to make her pay.

Because too many people like Warren - extreme left and right - live only in their own echo chambers where they all think alike. They never get any perspective on the real world. This is even more so for people like Warren who come out of academia.

Add to that the Boston Globe writer, Annie Linskey, who parroted the Warren press release - with bad math included - and called the results "strong evidence". One chance in a thousand is "strong evidence"? And these media folks still wonder why they are called out for "fake news". They have no clue.

[TA111]

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/10/...d-corner-baby/
If McCaskill wasn’t toast before this, she is now. What a fool. O’Keefe is amazing.

[TA111]

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/10/...ren-apologize/
This is great. The descendants of the real Pocahontas aren’t very happy with Fauxcahontas.

[Swampy Meadows]

Trump’s Tax Cut Was Supposed to Change Corporate Behavior. Here’s What Happened.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/12/b...-happened.html

Just Capital research finds that, since the tax cuts were passed, the 1,000 largest public companies have actually reduced employment, on balance. They have announced the elimination of nearly 140,000 jobs — which is almost double the 73,000 jobs they say they have created in that time. About half of those net losses came from companies in the restaurant and leisure industries, the analysis found.

[ud2]

Originally Posted by Swampy Meadows Trump’s Tax Cut Was Supposed to Change Corporate Behavior. Here’s What Happened. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/12/b...-happened.html Just Capital research finds that, since the tax cuts were passed, the 1,000 largest public companies have actually reduced employment, on balance. They have announced the elimination of nearly 140,000 jobs — which is almost double the 73,000 jobs they say they have created in that time. About half of those net losses came from companies in the restaurant and leisure industries, the analysis found.

So what was Trump supposed to do? Nothing? The corporate tax rate was too high, we were at a competitive disadvantage globally. Even the Dems were on board with lowering the corporate tax rate.

And small businesses account for about 50% of the US GDP and 62% of all US hiring.

[IAFlyer]

Originally Posted by ud2 So what was Trump supposed to do? Nothing? The corporate tax rate was too high, we were at a competitive disadvantage globally. Even the Dems were on board with lowering the corporate tax rate. And small businesses account for about 50% of the US GDP and 62% of all US hiring.

The majority of that tax cut is going to the large companies. As a small business owner, I am not seeing nearly as much as the 14% that was added to their bottom line.

Further, the amount of stock re-purchased was the highest ever (over $1 Trillion) in history. This makes sense for the corporation, so I am not saying they shouldn't have done it. It just shows that the money is not getting into the economy via the workers. Yes, companies paid bonuses and increased the pay of the lowest paid workers, that is true AND very good. The majority of the money is not going that direction.

As a small business owner, if I had gotten a reduction that big (14%), I would not necessarily hire someone unless my business needed that person and the thing holding me back from hiring was the amount of available revenue. Just because I have more cash doesn't mean the business needs more people. Again, this is why I pointed out that the companies did what they needed to do from their perspective. It just hasn't been a real economic stimulus - the dollar multiplier effect.

[jack72]

The majority of the money, tax savings or whatever, will never go to workers. That is not how capitalism works.

Some of the comments on this thread are not only naive, but just illogical. The economy is booming, wages are up, unemployment is extremely low, worker participation is high, 401k accounts are up. To say that the tax cut was not a contributor, and won't be, is just not logical.

Jobs have been reduced in food and leisure, so what? They are some of the lowest paying jobs, and secondly, many are seasonal, and thirdly, are being automated. Today Starbucks is laying off 5%. That is competition. Build too many stores and revenues fade in some stores. Starbucks just set a revenue record in the 3rd quarter. When we moved here 5 years ago there were 2 Starbucks in our neighborhood. Now there are 6. There are by far more jobs right now at low wage levels than people .

The tax rates are working and our economy is proving it.

[UACFlyer]

Originally Posted by jack72 The majority of the money, tax savings or whatever, will never go to workers. That is not how capitalism works. Some of the comments on this thread are not only naive, but just illogical. The economy is booming, wages are up, unemployment is extremely low, worker participation is high, 401k accounts are up. To say that the tax cut was not a contributor, and won't be, is just not logical. Jobs have been reduced in food and leisure, so what? They are some of the lowest paying jobs, and secondly, many are seasonal, and thirdly, are being automated. Today Starbucks is laying off 5%. That is competition. Build too many stores and revenues fade in some stores. Starbucks just set a revenue record in the 3rd quarter. When we moved here 5 years ago there were 2 Starbucks in our neighborhood. Now there are 6. There are by far more jobs right now at low wage levels than people . The tax rates are working and our economy is proving it.

Jack, you're reading from the wrong page of the book...maybe even the wrong book! The deficit and growing national debt are like a cancer eating away at our economic well being.

[Fudd]

Originally Posted by UACFlyer Jack, you're reading from the wrong page of the book...maybe even the wrong book! The deficit and growing national debt are like a cancer eating away at our economic well being.

I would like to know who among the posters here believes that the tax cut was a bad thing for the country. Is the tax cut driving our current deficit? I would argue that it is a huge net positive for the country and 95% of the people in the country, including the lowest income earners. Please make a logical argument if you disagree. What happened to tax revenue? What happened to the economy?

At one point after the tax cut was passed in Congress, Swampy was making the case that the tax cut was a bad thing because it was not permanent. Now that Democrats have control of the House, I now expect that they will move to make the tax cut permanent. That will obviously please Swampy.

Once we establish if it was a good or bad thing for the country, then let us talk about who made this tax cut happen, and who voted for or against it.

[jack72]

Originally Posted by UACFlyer Jack, you're reading from the wrong page of the book...maybe even the wrong book! The deficit and growing national debt are like a cancer eating away at our economic well being.

What in the world are you responding to? Not my comments about why workers will not get most of the increased profits, and that the economy is booming.

I agree that the debt is "a cancer eating away at our economic well being", but nothing to do with what I posted.

[UACFlyer]

Originally Posted by jack72 What in the world are you responding to? Not my comments about why workers will not get most of the increased profits, and that the economy is booming. I agree that the debt is "a cancer eating away at our economic well being", but nothing to do with what I posted.

I don't see how you can tout a "booming" economy and at the same time acknowledge that the deficit/debt are a cancer eating away at our economic well being.

If the latter is true, as you say, the "booming" economy offers little to boast about. More like a sugar high.

Booming at the moment, OK,..sustainable, not a chance. Sustainable economic growth is what matters to our long term well being. So long as the deficit/debt are running out of control one can hardly claim that our economic situation is good.

[ud2]

Originally Posted by IAFlyer The majority of that tax cut is going to the large companies. As a small business owner, I am not seeing nearly as much as the 14% that was added to their bottom line. Further, the amount of stock re-purchased was the highest ever (over $1 Trillion) in history. This makes sense for the corporation, so I am not saying they shouldn't have done it. It just shows that the money is not getting into the economy via the workers. Yes, companies paid bonuses and increased the pay of the lowest paid workers, that is true AND very good. The majority of the money is not going that direction. As a small business owner, if I had gotten a reduction that big (14%), I would not necessarily hire someone unless my business needed that person and the thing holding me back from hiring was the amount of available revenue. Just because I have more cash doesn't mean the business needs more people. Again, this is why I pointed out that the companies did what they needed to do from their perspective. It just hasn't been a real economic stimulus - the dollar multiplier effect.

What would you have done instead of cutting taxes if you were the president?

[jack72]

Originally Posted by UACFlyer I don't see how you can tout a "booming" economy and at the same time acknowledge that the deficit/debt are a cancer eating away at our economic well being. If the latter is true, as you say, the "booming" economy offers little to boast about. More like a sugar high. Booming at the moment, OK,..sustainable, not a chance. Sustainable economic growth is what matters to our long term well being. So long as the deficit/debt are running out of control one can hardly claim that our economic situation is good.

You somehow include the National Debt and Deficit in the economy. I don't, nor would most financial people. But if you choose to define it that way, that is your right. It is like saying a company has a lot of debt, and has great revenue and profits, so they are failing.

I think we can all agree that the debt/deficit has had not effect on the USA in our lifetime. The GDP, grows and everything hums along. All our speculation is about the future and whether debt will have a negative affect. We both think it will. To throw it into the present is unsubstantiated.

[UACFlyer]

Originally Posted by jack72 You somehow include the National Debt and Deficit in the economy. I don't, nor would most financial people. But if you choose to define it that way, that is your right. It is like saying a company has a lot of debt, and has great revenue and profits, so they are failing. I think we can all agree that the debt/deficit has had not effect on the USA in our lifetime. The GDP, grows and everything hums along. All our speculation is about the future and whether debt will have a negative affect. We both think it will. To throw it into the present is unsubstantiated.

Re the company that has a "lot of debt", great revenue/profits: I'll assume that by a lot of debt/leverage you mean too much. If that company's debt is too large for its business and is growing rapidly the company is, indeed, failing. Why? Because that is an unsustainable situation.

The U.S. is now in that situation. The national debt is growing so rapidly that soon interest on the debt will suffocate everything else government needs to do. On our present path interest on the debt will exceed defense spending within a few years. That is almost incomprehensible, Jack.

Of course the health of the economy has to be viewed in light of the deficit and debt.

[ud2]

I am quickly coming to the opinion that my #1 request from the feds is to quit spending so much money.

Eventually, our runaway debt problem with the interest on the debt is going to crowd out other important functions.

This problem will eventually impact every single aspect of the federal government and US economy.

Trump: we are literally paying for some/all of China's military buildup.

[rollo]

Originally Posted by Swampy Meadows Elizabeth Warren to release DNA results: she’s Native American: https://www.thedailybeast.com/elizab...a-test-results Posted via Mobile Device

No she's not...and admits it.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...DbN?ocid=ientp

"Sen. Elizabeth Warren said Tuesday that she was sorry that she identified herself as a Native American for almost two decades, reflecting her ongoing struggle to quiet a controversy that continues to haunt her as she prepares to formally announce a presidential bid."

"In addition to the DNA test, she released employment documents over the summer to show she didn’t use ethnicity to further her career. And in a speech a year ago she addressed her decision to call herself a Native American, though she didn’t offer the apology that some wanted at the time."

"But as Warren undergoes increased scrutiny as a presidential candidate, additional documents could surface to keep the issue alive.

Using an open records request during a general inquiry, for example, The Post obtained Warren’s registration card for the State Bar of Texas, providing a previously undisclosed example of Warren identifying as an “American Indian.” "

[ClaytonFlyerFan]

Originally Posted by rollo No she's not...and admits it. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...DbN?ocid=ientp "Sen. Elizabeth Warren said Tuesday that she was sorry that she identified herself as a Native American for almost two decades, reflecting her ongoing struggle to quiet a controversy that continues to haunt her as she prepares to formally announce a presidential bid." "In addition to the DNA test, she released employment documents over the summer to show she didn’t use ethnicity to further her career. And in a speech a year ago she addressed her decision to call herself a Native American, though she didn’t offer the apology that some wanted at the time." "But as Warren undergoes increased scrutiny as a presidential candidate, additional documents could surface to keep the issue alive. Using an open records request during a general inquiry, for example, The Post obtained Warren’s registration card for the State Bar of Texas, providing a previously undisclosed example of Warren identifying as an “American Indian.” "

So she is a compulsive liar. She has passed step #1 in qualifications for president.

[jack72]

I had to watch that debacle at StL, so I did not see the State of the Union. All reviews by non-left leaning media are that the President hit a home run. One guy said it was the best SOU in his lifetime. CBS poll said 76% approved of his speech.

Rumor is that shortly Trump will start a barn storming, speech making tour along the southern border.

[Fudd]

Part of the "Trump Effect" is that now Democrats do not like record low unemployment, people getting off food stamps, or rising wages. They looked straight ahead with morbid displeasure as these facts were celebrated by non-Trump-Derangement-Syndrome people on the House floor last night.

[JimBo]

Originally Posted by jack72 I had to watch that debacle at StL, so I did not see the State of the Union. All reviews by non-left leaning media are that the President hit a home run. One guy said it was the best SOU in his lifetime. CBS poll said 76% approved of his speech. Rumor is that shortly Trump will start a barn storming, speech making tour along the southern border.

Noteworthy to point out that polls from even left leaning media outlets, well that's the majority of them, show high approval numbers for the SOTU. I thought it was one of the better ones of my lifetime. Trump was successful in exposing the left for what they really are. I think he'll definitely see a significant bump in his own approval numbers.

[JimBo]

Originally Posted by Fudd Part of the "Trump Effect" is that now Democrats do not like record low unemployment, people getting off food stamps, or rising wages. They looked straight ahead with morbid displeasure as these facts were celebrated by non-Trump-Derangement-Syndrome people on the House floor last night.

Hell, most of them showed no reaction when Trump spoke about the Virginia gov approving of killing babies on the operating table..

[rollo]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...Kin?ocid=ientp

Lots of truth to Trump, Jrs comments...

"Donald Trump Jr., the president’s eldest son, questioned the timing of news that Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) listed her race as “American Indian” on her Texas bar registration card in the 1980s, which emerged shortly before his father’s State of the Union address.
“Suspicious timing for this to come out,” Trump Jr. tweeted along with an image of the registration card,..."

I wonder what swimpy thinks about this...but won't hold mt breath waiting for an ungolden reply.

[jack72]

I thought the women's congressional caucus, or whatever that was, looked like KKK in their white outfits.

[jack72]

For all of us who have stocks, 401k or retirement funds (50% plus of the working population), the market is up about 40% since Trump took office, and don't forget it was already considered to be at a higher point. Normal would be 15%

[cj]

Originally Posted by JimBo Hell, most of them showed no reaction when Trump spoke about the Virginia gov approving of killing babies on the operating table..

I disagree, they showed quite the reaction as just prior to Trump talking about this horrid law he had them all standing and applauding regarding family leave after a baby is born. The reaction was to immediately shut up and sit down. Their silence was deafening.

[San Diego Flyer]

Originally Posted by rollo No she's not...and admits it. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...DbN?ocid=ientp "Sen. Elizabeth Warren said Tuesday that she was sorry that she identified herself as a Native American for almost two decades, reflecting her ongoing struggle to quiet a controversy that continues to haunt her as she prepares to formally announce a presidential bid."

Still waiting for your reaction to this Swampy.

[Monster Man]

Originally Posted by San Diego Flyer Still waiting for your reaction to this Swampy.

You will be waiting a long time for any reaction. Like all liberals, if it doesn’t fit their pro-democrat narrative, they just ignore the story. I’m sure he was taught well at CNN.

[rollo]

Originally Posted by cj I disagree, they showed quite the reaction as just prior to Trump talking about this horrid law he had them all standing and applauding regarding family leave after a baby is born. The reaction was to immediately shut up and sit down. Their silence was deafening.

Do you still get family leave if you have the baby killed, er, I mean aborted, after a live birth?

[Fudd]

Originally Posted by jack72 I thought the women's congressional caucus, or whatever that was, looked like KKK in their white outfits.

The best description I heard today was "disgruntled pastry chefs".