Showing posts with label Financial. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Financial. Show all posts

October 18, 2018

Saudi Arabia Delivers $100 Million Pledge to US As Pompeo Lands in Riyadh..What is the Money for? Timing?

I was just wondering..What would be the commision the Trump's will get off $100 Million. Trump is not supposed to get anything but his family (which is the reason a family should not be involved in business transactions that involve anyone high up in the government). The Trump's have ignored that as they ignore the law. Most of it they don't know but they don't care about learning from their lawyers. Again supposed it was a 15% comm= $15 million dollars. My point on this is that Trump will not do anything to Saudi Arabia when they finally come out with the truth or Turkey comes out with proof and the Saudis play dumb.

No matter how much The Senator from South Carolina might jump up and down, which he has become good at it and sheds his rainbow plumage, he has less power with Trump that he thinks. He sold his firing powder with the vote of the Supreme Court. His gun is got no more bullets and the personal gun is been empy of gun powder for a long time! Hope he zips that big mouth of his and "boos himself."   🦊Adam

Image result for pompeo with the king in saudi
 Pompeo and the Powerful Crown Prince business friend of Jarred Kushner

This summer, Saudi Arabia promised the Trump administration $100 million for American efforts to stabilize areas in Syria liberated from the Islamic State.
That money landed in American accounts on Tuesday, the same day that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo landed in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, for discussions with the kingdom’s leaders about the fate of a missing Saudi dissident.
Securing the funding is a win for President Trump, who has complained about how much the United States spends abroad and has tried to get allies to foot more of the bill. But the timing of the money’s arrival raised eyebrows even among some of the bureaucrats whose programs will benefit from the influx of cash.
“The timing of this is no coincidence,” said an American official involved in Syria policy who spoke on condition of anonymity because this person was not authorized to speak to journalists. The official confirmed that the money arrived on Tuesday.
The disappearance of the Saudi journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, has battered the image of Saudi Arabia and of its powerful crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, a key player in many of the Trump administration’s ambitions for the Middle East. Turkish officials say that Mr. Khashoggi was slain inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul by Saudi agents on Oct. 2 while he was trying to secure a document he needed to get married.
Saudi leaders have denied harming Mr. Khashoggi, but have not provided a credible explanation of what happened to him.
Mr. Trump threatened “severe punishment” if it was confirmed that Saudi Arabia killed Mr. Khashoggi. But after speaking with King Salman of Saudi Arabia on Monday, he suggested that “rogue killers” could have been responsible and dispatched Mr. Pompeo to Riyadh to see the Saudi king.
In his strongest language to date over the mystery surrounding the missing journalist, Mr. Trump said in an interview with The Associated Press on Tuesday: “Here we go again with you’re guilty until proven innocent.”
On Monday, a person with knowledge of Saudi Arabia’s plans said the kingdom was planning to blame the killing on rogue elements who did not act on official orders — a scenario that could allow the monarchy to acknowledge Mr. Khashoggi’s death while protecting its leaders from culpability.
An endorsement of that conclusion by the Trump administration could help limit damage to Saudi Arabia’s international reputation.
Brett McGurk, the United States envoy to the coalition fighting the Islamic State, dismissed the idea that Mr. Pompeo’s visit and the disbursement of funds were connected. The Saudis had committed the money in August, he said, and the United States had expected to receive it in the fall.
“The specific transfer of funds has been long in the process and has nothing to do with other events or the secretary’s visit,” Mr. McGurk said.
But the official involved in Syria policy said the payment process had been unpredictable.
The money was pledged in August but it was unclear when it would show up, if at all until it suddenly landed in American accounts on Tuesday.
Since he took office, Mr. Trump has been trying to limit the role of the United States in Syria, where a seven-year war has shattered the country, killed hundreds of thousands of people and left entire cities in ruins.
He has spoken positively about the idea of withdrawing the approximately 2,000 American soldiers who are based in eastern Syria in areas once controlled by the Islamic State, although he now appears committed to leaving them there. In August, his administration decided not to spent $230 million that had already been earmarked for stabilization programs in that area.
The Saudi money, in addition to another $50 million given by the United Arab Emirates, will allow American programs there to continue, but on other countries’ tabs.
The funds will be used by USAID and the State Department for a variety of programs, including infrastructure repairs and provision of health, education and sanitation services

June 11, 2018

With An Ignorant President You Have the G7 Allies Getting Trump's Insults

Felixstowe portImage copyrightGETTY IMAGES

  • Business lobbies are growing more concerned at the prospect of Brexit putting expensive, time-consuming barriers in the way of trade
  • The opening salvos in Donald Trump's trade war are already raising prices for American manufacturers and consumers. 
  • Why do we trade? Maybe we've taken it for granted, and need a refresher course in why it works for all sides - though for all groups within countries, and that's why pressure on trade has been rising.
  • Scotland is being challenged to be more deliberate and strategic in growing exports, at a time when the international outlook is getting more complex.
Perhaps we take it for granted. Few of us realise how much it shapes our lives. But trade has rarely been such a focus of attention, and rarely has it been under so much threat.
The prospect and growing chances of a hard Brexit is focussing the minds of business, and particularly in Britain.
The UK government has gone out of its way in recent days to be seen to be listening to the business lobby. But when they do, the warnings are getting louder and starker.
From the CBI at week's end, there was another warning about Brexit uncertainty. With the weakened pound and strong demand from overseas, this ought to be a good time for a rebalancing towards more exporting, it says.
Yet the mood at home is of hesitancy and uncertainty. The employers' organisation says government needs to offer more clarity and signs of progress on the road to Brexit, or else business will hold back on investment.

Playing chicken

A forceful message came earlier in the week from hauliers - the people who will be on the front line if a customs curtain comes down at Dover and numerous other ports.
James Hookham, deputy chief executive of the Freight Transport Association, said it made eight requirements of government at the start of the year, and none of them has made any progress since then.
He points to a lack of place or system to check goods at the border. One in eight UK truck drivers is a non-UK national, so it's not clear what their status will be, or whether UK drivers will have their qualifications recognised on the other side of the channel.
And he says there are only 103 international haulage permits to go round 300,000 overseas trips by UK trucks each year.
If you didn't see his comments, it's worth getting a sense of the anger and frustration, which Mr Hookham says is building daily. "Logistics businesses simply cannot answer their customers' questions about how they will move goods after Brexit. Manufacturers and retailers are losing faith and fear that post-Brexit Britain is at real risk of becoming nothing more than a series of road blocks at our ports and airports. 
"What is really making our members angry is that these real, legitimate concerns are simply being dismissed by some members of the Government on the basis that it will not be in the EU's interests to impose them. This is a reckless attitude to take and is playing chicken with crucial parts of the British economy and the livelihoods of the seven million Britons in the industry." In Brussels over the past week, I heard a similar - though more diplomatic - message from the American Chambers of Commerce in the EU. Its director, Susan Danger, was citing figures for delays at European borders.
A truck carrying goods certified from within the single market takes an average two minutes to process, she said. Coming from outside the EU, for instance from Turkey, takes between 20 and 90 minutes.
The US Chambers reckon that a small increase from two to only four minutes average processing time between Dover and Calais would mean a 25 kilometre build-up of waiting traffic. 
And that's apart from the tariffs that could be imposed if there's a default to the levels compatible with World Trade Organisation rules.
One member of the organisation, Mars, moves ingredients and finished products across numerous borders to and from numerous plants and customers. It is looking at the possibility of a 30% tariff on confectionary and 15% on grains. 
If not absorbed by companies, that extra cost falls on customers.

Protective wall

If you want to learn more about the impact of tariffs, have a chat with steel importers in the United States. The imposition of 25% import tariffs by the Trump administration has had a powerful impact already, and that was before it was extended to Canada, Mexico and the European Union.
According to market analysts Jefferies, total imports of steel to the US last month were down 21% on April and 15% on May 2017. Unfinished steel was down 32% month-on-month, and 31% year-on-year. The reason seems clear. Companies were cancelling orders as tariffs were imposed and uncertainty about future trade policy soared.
The immediate result is that US producers have firmed up the prices they charge to US manufacturers for whom steel is an input. They, in turn, raise prices to end consumers. One economic study in the US reckons that half of the advantage to families of the recent tax cut will be lost by higher prices due to these trade measures.
Why? The effect of tariffs is to put a domestic industry behind a protective wall. That allows them to maintain or increase inefficiency.
They may, meantime, rise to the opportunity to grab market share by investing in new steel-making capacity. 
"The administration's goal is ostensibly to boost domestic production/employment," Jefferies said in its analysts' note. 
"But, who really thinks that the US will continue to levy tariffs against three of its most important allies? We don't. And likely, neither do mills. The lack of visibility supporting current policy is likely to delay US capacity growth, which is reliant on policy longevity well beyond the Trump administration."

Mutually beneficial

G7 leaders in La Malbaie, Quebec, Canada, on 9 June 2018Image copyrightREUTERS

Donald Trump took his battle for better trade terms to the G7 summit in Canada. He Tweeted his intentions in advance: "Getting ready to go to the G-7 in Canada to fight for our country on Trade (we have the worst trade deals ever made)".
France's President Macron, not that long after his Washington bromance, responded that if the US is going to treat the G7 that way, the other six would make their own agreements.
The talks between these long-time allies, we're told, were fractious. After strenuous efforts to find consensus, they appeared to agree to support "free, fair and mutually beneficial trade", based on a "rules-based system".
But then, having left early and taking offence at comments made by Canada's prime minister as the other six government leaders wound up their summit, Donald Trump instructed his officials not to sign up to the deal. 
As with so much of what he does and says, the American president was communicating with his voter base. The Economist magazine this week caricatured his trading policy as if Miley Cyrus astride a wrecking ball. 
But it was a communication that will be heard in every other forum, possibly making it more difficult for Mr Trump to strike other deals with other governments and people, if they think he will repudiate them while on the plane home.

Why trade?

All this should force us to take a longer, harder look at why we trade. Why not look after our own first, and ensure that we maintain our own industries, including digging coal and making steel?
Between Adam Smith and David Ricardo, more than 200 years ago, the very strong economic orthodoxy is that trade - between countries, between regions and, from way back in history, between towns and burghs - makes trading partners better off.
That's even if one of the partners is more efficient at producing goods and services. Trade pushes trading partners into focussing their efforts where they have a comparative advantage.

Cargo shipImage copyrightGETTY IMAGES

Tariffs were once the primary source of revenue for governments. They allowed industries to be built up, protected from overseas competition. But over time, that means the industries can operate inefficiently and as a result, consumers will pay more than they would otherwise pay, for often inferior goods.
Removing them has been a long haul. It has been one of the strongest economic movements of the post-1945 era, fuelled by the searingly painful experience of America's retreat into protectionism in the 1930s.
There's still a lot further to go. Progress towards that has slowed, not least because the more intransigent barriers to trade are in non-tariff barriers - around the regulation of goods and services, and the way in which countries insist distribution and sales operate.
The catch, though, is that generalisation that all sides benefit from trade, just as all sides lose out by a contraction of trade. That's not true if you look into a country as it is opened up to trade, and in recent years to globalisation.
Internally, there are winners and losers from more open trade. And the Trump Presidency is one manifestation of the backlash from those who have lost out - the steel-workers and coal-miners he has promised to protect and return to their glory days.
It was a similar coalition of the left-behind-by-globalisation who took the Leave campaign to victory in the Brexit campaign - resentful that the opening of barriers was not only shifting jobs to cheaper foreign locations, but allowing more foreigners in to compete for jobs.
The leaders at the G7 summit have challenges of that type within their countries. Much of government leadership, it is becoming clear, is about how to resolve the tensions between winners and losers from trade. Much of populism is about exploiting those tensions and building fear around them.

Smaller and deliberate

In Scotland, at least, there's been some better trade news in the past week. The first quarter of the year saw a 12% rise in the exports of goods from Scotland, according to HMRC figures. That may reflect a partial recovery from the oil and gas sector slump.
However, a report by Professor David Skilling, published by the Reform Scotland think tank, has some clear messages about the need to to raise Scotland's game, if it is to match his comparable group of small advanced nations.
This is the full report which helped inform the Sustainable Growth Commission led by Andrew Wilson, which reported to the SNP.
Small advanced economies are, notes the professor, more vulnerable to shocks from changes in the trading environment. But they are also better placed to pick up on the advantages.
They have benefited most of all from the liberalisation of trade as it picked up pace in the past 30 years or so, meaning scale was no longer necessary to maximise a country's potential. That was especially clear for those participating in Europe's single market. Looking at similar-sized countries, what Prof Skilling found was vital to driving their growth in exports was a "deliberateness", or what he calls a "strategic coherence" - not trying to do everything, but doing a few things very well.
This was reflected in Andrew Wilson's report, and much of it applies as much to Scotland within the UK as it would to Scotland if it were independent.
The implication is that it may not be enough to exhort companies to export, and then to export more. Small countries have succeeded by choosing where to make most effort, focussing on their strengths. 
Paradoxically, one concern about Scotland's trading position is that it is currently has too few companies dominating, across whisky, salmon and oil and gas.
After three decades of a benign environment of this, Prof Skilling notes that the outlook features growing challenges for small advanced nations - notably a "growing intensity of global competition" and a more complex and challenging international economic and political environment.
With rancour among allies in Quebec this weekend, and the Whitehall Cabinet unclear what kind of trading relationship it wants with the outside world, that environment seems to be getting more complex and challenging by the day. 

July 20, 2017

US Fines Exxon Over Russian Sanctions Violations

(L-R) Tillerson (which at the times was head of Exxon, Sechin (Russian Petroleum, Putin (Trump's bro) 

The U.S. Treasury Department on Thursday said it was fining global oil company Exxon Mobil Corp $2 million for violating sanctions on Russia in May 2014. 

The heads of the company's U.S. subsidiaries signed eight documents between May 14 and May 23, 2014 with Igor Sechin, the head of Russia's largest oil producer, Rosneft, Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control said in a statement on its website. 

Sechin (above in picture with Putin and Tillerson)  had been blacklisted by the United States just weeks earlier. 

The Treasury unit, which enforces sanctions, found ExxonMobil had not voluntarily self-disclosed the violations, "and that the violations constitute an egregious case.

Rex Tillerson, ExxonMobil's chief executive at the time of the dealings, is now U.S. secretary of state. The State Department referred questions about the fine and Tillerson's knowledge of the dealings to Exxon Mobil.  

Exxon said it fully complied with sanctions guidelines in 2014 from former President Barack Obama's administration that ongoing oil and gas business activities with Rosneft were allowed, but not personal dealings with Sechin.  

The oil company cited a May 2014 Treasury Department spokesman's comments that BP Plc Chief Executive Bob Dudley – an American citizen - would be allowed to remain on Rosneft's board so long as he did not discuss personal business with Sechin. 

The Treasury Department "is trying to retroactively enforce a new interpretation of an executive order that is inconsistent with the explicit and unambiguous guidance from the White House and Treasury issued before the relevant conduct and still publicly available today," Exxon Mobil spokesman Alan Jeffers said in a statement.   

On April 28, 2014, the Treasury announced it was sanctioning Sechin as part of a package of measures aimed at pressuring Russia over its intervention in Ukraine, and said he had shown "utter loyalty to Vladimir Putin," Russia's president. 

The sanctions prohibit U.S. citizens or those located in the United States from dealing with those on the blacklist. 


Reporting by Yeganeh Torbati and Ernest Scheyder; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama and Jonathan Oatis

July 12, 2017

The Gecko Looks Cute Until It Bites Your Finger and There is No Court to Sue CFPB Giving A Way Out of Arbitration

A federal consumer watchdog agency has issued a new rule that will prevent credit card companies and banks from requiring customers to agree to settle disputes by arbitration rather than going to court.
Most people don't realize how important this is because they ussually don't have to deal with negative bank decissions but this also applies to insurance companies.
I had a car accident while insured by Geico. I thought I was in good hands because of their commercials and lower rates. I would have gladly paid $100 more for my policy and not face myself in a situation in which they arbitrarily made a decission in which they assigned 80% of fault to me.  This is after an SUV slammed into the driver's side of my car, totaling my vehicle and sending me to the hospial. This happened while I was stopped waiting for the vehicle to pass while I was making a left turn. That decission meant I will only collect 20% from the other driver's insurnce to replace my car. I could not understaand why they will not use the film of the accident from a store of where it happened and it showed the other car flying thru in a 25 MPH zone.  They also would not use the police diagrahm made at the time of the accident. They never use all the evidence that showed I was not at fault.  They said their deission was based on something I told the cop at the time of the accident. What ever that was? Then I told them I was going to take them to court, they simply said there is no court for me but arbitration. I know how arbitration works and is a waste of time unless you are willing to try the courts anyways. These so called arbitrators are not going to vote against the people paying their salary. This is just a little example to show you what rbitration is and everynone that deals with financial institutions whch includes insurance companies, lending companies, banks got screwed by congress when took the right of a americans to go to court. It is so unamerican but that tells you about the power of money. If you have a problem and you are on the right you will be on the wrongside of the table without. judgee or jury. It doesnt guarrantee you will win if you are on the right but you are at least given a clean shot to have your case heard by someone who is in no way connected to any industry.
The decission released Monday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau explained:
"Hundreds of millions of contracts for consumer financial products and services have included mandatory arbitration clauses. These clauses typically state that either the company or the consumer can require that disputes between them be resolved by privately appointed individuals (arbitrators) except for individual cases brought in small claims court. While these clauses can block any lawsuit, companies almost exclusively use them to block group lawsuits, which are also known as 'class action' lawsuits."
CFPB Director Richard Cordray said the current rules "make it nearly impossible for people to take companies to court when things go wrong." He said the new rules would "stop companies from sidestepping the courts."
The CFPB has a website and a video explaining the new rule.

May 2, 2017

Duterte Invite Has to Do with Trump Tower/Manila Nearing Completion

 250 bed Luxury Tower

President Trump’s decision to invite Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte to the White House is problematic in at least two ways. Since taking office nearly a year ago, Duterte has overseen a campaign of extrajudicial executions of suspected drug addicts and drug dealers that has claimed more than 7,000 lives. International human rights groups have condemned him, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights urged a criminal investigation after Duterte claimed to have killed at least three people himself while serving as mayor of Davao City. Duterte’s response? He called the high commissioner an “idiot,” threatened to torch the United Nations headquarters in New York City and called President Obama a “son of a whore.” Obama condemned the assassinations and canceled a planned one-on-one meeting that was to have taken place in Laos.

The second problem with Trump’s invitation to Duterte has to do with the new 250-luxury unit, 57-story Trump Tower in Manila that is nearing completion and set to open soon. Trump’s developer in the project is Jose E.B. Antonio, whom Duterte recently appointed as the Philippines’ trade envoy to Washington. As with many of Trump’s hotels, it appears the Trump Organization licensed the name and brand to the project developed by Antonio, but that brand’s value in the Philippines now relies on the good graces of the Philippine government. That’s a problem. 

Despite these two problems — the Philippine leader’s abysmal human record and the American president’s conflicts of interest — Trump has spoken warmly about Duterte, as he has about other world leaders with bad human rights records. While some claim to see a measure of realpolitik in Trump’s invitation, suggesting that perhaps he’s trying to build solidarity among Southeast Asian nations to counter China’s efforts to increase its influence in the region, the truth is that his easy embrace of authoritarian leaders is troubling.

“Duterte’s encouragement of a violent vigilante culture to repress drug addiction and trafficking is indefensible

The United States’ effort to include a respect for human rights in its foreign policy determinations has always been a bit of a juggling act. The cold reality of the modern world and the demands of diplomacy can make it difficult to maintain a consistent moral position. China, for instance, has a long record of repressing political dissent, but little is to be gained and much could be lost by pursuing a policy of disengagement with such an enormous, nuclear-armed economic powerhouse. Similar concerns affect the U.S. relationship with Russia. Turkey hosts a major U.S. air base and is a key partner in trying to combat Islamic State, but President Recep Tayyip Erdogan embarked on a purge — including the imprisonment of thousands of journalists and political opponents — following a failed coup last year. Yet the U.S., for the sake of world stability and our national interests overseas, maintains relations with all those nations’ leaders. 

You wouldn't let a little thing like not having a corkscrew stop you from enjoying that bottle of wine you just bought, right? Watch these videos to see what lengths people will go to to open a bottle of wine in a pinch. 

The U.S. has enjoyed a long alliance with the Philippines. The two nations have been entwined since the U.S. annexed the Philippines at the end of the Spanish-American War, and Philippine immigrants now account for 4.5% of the 41.3 million immigrants living in the U.S. As a chain of islands marking the eastern edge of the China Sea, the Philippines is also strategically important in an increasingly tense region of the world. We do not mean to suggest that Trump should cut off communication with Duterte or that there might not eventually be a time when the two have to meet to discuss serious matters of mutual interest. But Trump’s seemingly impulsive invitation appears to lack substance or urgency. He would be mistaken to reward Duterte’s murderous campaign with a White House visit.

Trump previously hosted Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Sisi, despite the jailing of tens of thousands of political opponents, journalists and others (including some Americans) that made Sisi unwelcome in the Obama White House. In that visit, the Trump administration said it would not raise human rights abuses in public, but would consider discussing them with Sisi in private. Whether that ever happened is unknown, but it certainly should have.

Duterte’s encouragement of a violent vigilante culture to repress drug addiction and trafficking is indefensible. That Trump is willing to embrace him is worrisome. Defending human rights has been part of American foreign policy for four decades. Inviting the likes of Duterte over for a schmooze does not reflect well on the White House, or the nation.

October 26, 2016

There is No National Debt

The public is lied to when it comes to the so-called national debt. 
They're clueless about it, as are most, if not all, of our lawmakers. 
First off, there is no debt. The debt is dollars. The government spent $20 trillion more than it took away in taxes over the last 240 years, and those dollars, held by the non-government, comprise a big portion of the non-government's wealth. Nothing is "owed." It's owned, by us, the people. 
Second, there is nothing to pay back. The money was paid, ended up in someone's bank account and now it's being held in the form of Treasuries. What's a Treasury? A Treasury is a dollar, the only difference being it's a dollar with a term (duration) and a coupon (interest payment). Why would people hold dollars in the form of Treasuries? To earn some interest, that's all. It's like saying, why would you put your money in a savings account as opposed to a checking account? Same reason, to earn interest. If you want it back in your checking account, you tell your bank and it switches it back from your savings account to your checking account. 
That's how it works with the government, too. It "pays back" holders of Treasuries all the time. That's called a redemption and when Treasuries are redeemed the government simply instructs its bank, the Fed, to take back the securities and credit the individual's (or firm's or foreign government's or whomever's) bank account and, voila, it happens. Paid back. In fact, it happens so regularly and on such a big scale that it will totally blow your mind. 
I am about to give you some numbers. Mind you, these are not numbers I made up or to which had some kind of top-secret access. Nor is this inside information that I am exposing. Rather, these are publicly available figures that you can get -- free -- right off the U.S. Treasury Department's website. 
The resource is called the Daily Treasury Statement and it's really a fascinating document. It is posted daily on the Treasury's website and it's literally like looking at the checkbook of the federal government. Just like your checkbook, it has all the deposits and all the withdrawals, among other things. You can see everything. Every line item of spending (withdrawals) and every item of revenue (deposits) that runs through the government's accounts daily, monthly and yearly. 
On this document there is a table -- Table III-A -- that gives all the redemptions of bills, notes, bonds and other securities the government redeems (pays back) every day, month and year. 
If you go to the last statement of the fiscal year, Sept. 30, and you scroll down to that table I just gave you, Table III-A, you will see the government redeemed (paid back) $94.2 trillion in one year! I put a screenshot below. 
Please note: All figures on the daily Treasury statement are in millions, so don't come back to me and say it was only $94.2 million. It's $94.2 million million. That's $94.2 trillion. See the image below. 
Daily Treasury Statement
Ninety-four point two trillion! In a single year. And nobody knew about this. Furthermore, the world didn't fall apart, the dollar didn't collapse, interest rates didn't spike, we had no inflation and everything was fine. 
There is the proof, right in front of our noses, that the debt is meaningless. It's just a bunch of bookkeeping entries. Keystrokes. It's time we stop fretting over this. People need to educate themselves about what this debt is and how they are being manipulated and propagandized about it. 
The debt is not a bad thing, it is an asset of the non-government; however, ignorant, cynical, corrupt, dogmatic and self-serving groups like the Pete Peterson Foundation and organizations like Fix the Debt are in the business of keeping Americans misinformed and getting them to act against their own interests. These groups are bad and need to be stopped. 
There is no debt! 

May 24, 2016

Sanders to Block Help for Puerto Rico

Sanders says he will be blocking help for Puerto Rico by saying that is not good enough for Island’s Commonwealth. But he is unable to have any other plan in place that could possibly be approved by a Republican Congress and not having the ugly side effects of having Doctors, Policemen and everyone employed by the government go without pay.  The Independent on the Uk reported the following this morning:
Breaking from President Barack Obama and the White House, Senator Bernie Sanders is blasting a putative deal to install an oversight board to return order to Puerto Rico’s ruinous finances saying it would make things worse not better for the island’s residents.  The salvo fired by Mr Sanders threatens significantly to complicate the path ahead for an accord hammered out just last week by the Republican and Democrat leaderships in the House of Representatives with explicit White House support.
In a letter to colleagues in the US Senate, Mr Sanders urges them to reject the plan when it comes to their chamber for a vote, saying it would make a “terrible situation even worse”. He made the intervention with at least one eye on his battle for the Democratic nomination - one of the very last Democrat primaries will be held on the island in two weeks on 5 June. 
As it stands now, the proposal would give extensive powers to the new authority to introduce severe social spending cuts and restructure the island’s $70 in debt. Puerto Rico has already defaulted on almost $1bn in debt payments and is set to miss a bigger $2bn payment on 1 July. 
The tropical and essentially bankrupt isle, which as a territory of the US is neither an actual state nor a sovereign country in its own right - islanders have US passports, however, and can vote for presidents - is also struggling with a roughly $40bn shortfall in state pension obligations.   
While the government of Puerto Rico in San Juan had been begging Congress to do something to help it deal with the default crisis, it did not favour establishing an oversight board with such wide discretion essentially to run rough-shod over the island’s own elected representatives.
That is at the heart of the Mr Sanders’ objections.  The Senator claims, for instance, that the new “unelected and undemocratic oversight board” would give the Governor leeway to slash the minimum wage to a paltry $4.25 an hour for as long as five years. 
"We must stop treating Puerto Rico like a colony and start treating the American citizens of Puerto Rico with the respect and dignity that they deserve," he wrote to Senate colleagues. 
Puerto Rico is in a ten-year slump that has spurred an accelerating exodus to the US mainland. For the population of about 3.5 million left behind, the crisis has seen rapidly deteriorating services, including shuttering of schools and hospitals, and rising taxes.
With more than 67 delegates up for grabs in the 5 June primary, both the Hillary Clinton campaign and Mr Sanders have been vigorously courting its voters.   Former President Bill Clinton also spent part of last week hopscotching between its biggest cities. 
On his own swing through the island last week, Mr Sanders said it was time to end the twilight status of the island.  He urged the holding of a new referendum giving islanders a chance to choose between remaining with the status quo, becoming the 51st state of the US or cutting the cord and becoming a sovereign nation. 
"It is time for the people of Puerto Rico to be allowed to take charge of their political future and for the United States of America to redefine its legal relationship with the people of this Island," Sanders said at one rally in San Juan. “The people of Puerto Rico should not and cannot provide colonial like treatment of its citizens, the people of the United States cannot continue colonial-like relationship with the people of Puerto Rico.” 
Mr Sanders, who has vowed to keep battling Ms Clinton all the way to the Democratic Convention even though he has virtually no chance to stop her becoming the party’s nominee, has also gone further than her or anyone else arguing that the only short-term solution for Puerto Rico is a federal reserve bail-out, a step that would be anathema to Republicans. 
“If the Federal Reserve could bail out Wall Street, it can help the 3.5 million American citizens in Puerto Rico improve its economy and lift its children out of poverty,” he said. “Under current law, the Federal Reserve has the authority.”
Editorial from Adam Gonzalez, Publisher

Trying to take something away without being able to replace it with anything else is not what the People of Puerto Rico need. Is this the best plan for Puerto Rico?
No, the best plan for Puerto Rico would  have been to let it rearranged its debts like any other state would. That time passed already.  Since Puerto Rico is not a state is has been punished like if it was Puerto Rico’s fault it was taken over by the United States Army and Navy and made into a colony after the Spanish-American war. At this point in time where Puerto Rico is in default, this is the best deal the White House has been able to get from a Republican Congress that wont even fund a new vaccine for a new virus that’s threatening to make a lot children handicapped. Is Sanders saying he could do better? May be that is the same kind of thinking that’s telling him he can still win when he is already lost.
Mr. Sanders keeps giving us surprises on the political field as a sore looser and not a team player.     So far with his opposition to the person with the greatest number of delegates and less than 90 delegates to win the Primaries. At the same time not only is He giving ammunition to Trump but having the virtual winner fight on two fronts. He knows he can’t win on the present situation so he most be waiting for Clinton to be indicted and put in jail. May be she will break an ankle? For people like me who does not take most politicians seriously all these can be fun and games as long as people don’t start getting hurt. I think Sanders should have found a different way to get attention and to fight the White House for not supporting him in a different format. Would it be because he sees the present gubernatorial administration in Puerto Rico too aligned with the DNC?  Who according to him it has been very unfair to him like if it was their fault he is lost. Maybe he was no treated right when he was there(PR) or he listened to the Independent party there confusing it with his independants here.  The Independents in PR want nothing to do with the US and ask for independence for the island calling it still a colony. Up to this point I have not said one cross word about Sanders but now he is hit me in the heart by taking this Island and using it to get some political mileage on his now never-ending quest to live in a house it seems he is not qualify to live in. He is proven he is just like any other politician willing to play with people’s well being for political mileage.

May 19, 2016

Trump and Clinton Reveal their Net Worth


Presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump on Wednesday released his 104-page personal financial disclosure report, which details the assets and net worth of the businessman and his wife, Melania Trump.

“I filed my PFD, which I am proud to say is the largest in the history of the FEC,” Trump said in a statement on Tuesday.

The first 12 pages of the document list the more than 560 companies and entities with which Trump serves in some capacity. The last 45 pages detail his ownership stake in all those entities. 
Trump said the document shows that his annual income is more than $557 million and that his net worth is greater than $10 billion.

In his Capitol One checking and savings accounts, he lists having between $5 million and $25 million.

The real estate developer has a diverse portfolio of investments, including holding stocks and bonds in several companies that he has bashed on the campaign trail, including Ford, Pfizer, Amazon, Apple, Mondelez International, which owns Nabisco, and United Technologies, which owns Carrier.

Trump holds at least $500,000 worth of investments in Ford, at least $16,000 in Pfizer and anywhere from $50,000 to $100,000 in Amazon, which he has suggested might be violating antitrust laws.  

He has a minimum of $1.1 million invested in Apple, and earned anywhere from $100,000 to $1 million in dividends and capital gains on the investment last year. Trump called for Americans to boycott the company when it would not work with the FBI to hack into the phone of the San Bernardino shooters. 

Trump also lists having between $1 million to $5 million in U.S. Treasury bonds and three “family trusts” each worth a minimum of $123,025, $235,025 and $272,027, respectively, in addition to a trust from his father, Fred C. Trump, containing between $1 million to $5 million.

Melania Trump's skincare and accessories companies, the forms say, have a value that is "not readily ascertainable." She does have a real estate asset, 721 33H LLC, that is worth at least $1 million. 

He has at least $315.35 million in liabilities, including a loan for “over $50 million” from Deutsche Bank used on the Old Post Office, which Trump's development company won the rights to lease for $200 million. Trump has five liabilities listed as “over $50 million,” which make it more difficult to pin down his net worth.

Financial disclosure forms filled out by federal candidates and officeholders display wealth in wide ranges, allowing individuals to say that an asset or liability is worth anywhere between $5 million and $25 million, for example. 

Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton also released her personal financial disclosure form, which clocked in at 11 pages. She lists more than $5 million in royalties for her book "Hard Choices," and speeches by both her and husband Bill Clinton that netted a combined $6.725 million. 

Hillary Clinton gave six paid speeches last year before launching her White House run, totaling $1.475 million in income, with the largest payday coming from eBay, at $315,000. Bill, meanwhile, made 22 paid speeches in 2015, including 11 after Hillary had announced she would run for president, and earned $5.25 million. 

That's a steep decline from the level of paid speeches the duo had made in the past. In 2014, the Clintons earned about $18 million from around 100 speeches.

One of Hillary Clinton’s largest assets is a JP Morgan Chase custody account, which contains between $5 million and $25 million in cash. She also has anywhere from $5 million to $25 million invested in a Vanguard 500 Index Fund.

Clinton lists having no liabilities. 

Unlike Clinton, Trump has yet to release his tax returns, which would provide more details into his investments, charitable giving and income. 

He has said that there is “nothing to learn” from the forms, and that he cannot release them because they are so large and complex that the Internal Revenue Service audits him.

March 27, 2013

Dione on Money Trouble Again This Time $10.7 Millions

You might be seeing that leopard fannypack and that green sloth coat at a yard sale in front of Dionne Warwick's house sometime soon, because the IRS has got her number, hussy, and that number is $10.7 million. The L.A. Times says that Cousin Dionne wishes she had Lindsay Lohan's tax problems and the only way to pull her 72-year-old ass out from under the mountain of late payment notices from the IRS is to file for bankruptcy.
Dionne's rep says that she owes the IRS and the California Franchise Tax Board millions of dollars for taxes, late fees and interest, and she tried to work out some kind of payment plan with them, but they gave her a thumbs down and so she filed for bankruptcy in her home state of New Jersey. Dionne makes $20,950 a month and her expenses are $20,940 (including $4,000 to her assistant and $5,000 for housekeeping), so she's only got $10 leftover to pay the IRS. Dionne claims she only makes $1000 a month in in music royalties. Dionne's rep blamed her accountants for "negligent and gross financial mismanagement." 
First of all, why didn't one of Dionne's Psychic Friends tell her that her accountants were being gross and mismanaging her cash? That way she could've went on over there, pulled off her house slipper and handled them? Second of all, why does she need to spend $5,000 a month on housekeeping? Dionne can buy a broom at the Dollar Tree and sweep her own damn carpet. (Side note: Even though we had a vacuum, my abuelita insisted on sweeping the carpet and she'd never use a dustpan. She'd sweep all the dirt out the front door. It was probably a Catholic thing.)
Poor Cousin Dionne. Now I can't talk shit about her for taking part in this fucked up foolery with that low-rent Rebecca Black wannabe.
A check is a check even if the check is signed by an auto-tuned fetus.

December 19, 2011

Gary Dourdan from CIS } Having Problems $

Gary Dourdan (© 
Gary Dourdan, who played Warrick Dunn on the original “CSI: Crime Scene Investigation,” is facing a possible foreclosure. The actor missed a July payment and owes more than $61,000 as of September, according to TMZ.
Dourdan has been facing a lot of problems lately, both financial and with the law. He originally bought the home in Venice, California in 2004 for $922,000.00.
In 2008 there was media speculation surrounding Gary’s CSI contract negotiations with CBS. The parties could not reach a resolution, and as a result his contract was not renewed. It was reported on April 14, 2008, that Dourdan was leaving the show. His character was shot and left for dead in the Season 8 finale. The premiere of Season 9 revealed Dourdan’s character dying in the arms of his colleague and friend Grissom.
Besides the foreclosure Gary has had several legal troubles he was arrested on April 28, 2008 in Palm Springs after a Palm Springs Police Department officer located “suspected cocaine, heroin, ecstasy, miscellaneous prescription drugs and paraphernalia” in his possession.
Then again, this past June, Dourdan was arrested after he crashed his vehicle into two parked cars. He was charged with drug possession and possession of drug paraphernalia.
Dourdan was arrested at his home in Venice, CA, following an alleged altercation with his former girlfriend, Nicole Vail Cannizzaro. Her nose was broken during the argument. He was charged with felony battery. After pleading not guilty the judge issued a 3 year restraining order and threatened jail time if it was violated.
Is Gary Dourdan Still Acting?
The actor is in the industry, but jobs have been minimal since his departure from CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. He portrayed Chef McKenna in the 2011 film “Jumping the Broom.

Featured Posts

Thai Cabinet Backs Allowing Same Sex Unions

                Patpicha Tanakasempipat BANGKOK (Reuters) - Thailand’s cabinet approved a civil partnership bill ...