Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Fox News"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trump and son(s) appeared to be engaged in a real estate project in another state (not New York) - and made public appearances during events and appeared in TV ads to promote it and give the impression that they had a stake in the project.
In reality they got licence fees, put their "good" name on it - many regular wealthy citizens associated the name Trump with being a rich successful real estate investor. - Professionals, real estate insiders did not fall for it - in New York he was notorious after his bankrupcies. Well the marketing did not target professionals, and insiders, they targeted consumers. And the internet had not yet become a major source of information.
He did not get any money from the U.S. banks after his several major bankrupcies (or near bankrupcies they had to to make massive write-offs). That makes it plausible that he is now in bed with Russian banks / oligarchs or with other shady financial institutions and may have laundered money. No one (except a few people at the IRS) know if he is as rich as he claims to be, there is a reason he does not release his taxes.
That project was in another state - not in New York where he was well known - and not in a good way. Meaning if he had targeted New York consumers the local press and media might have talked about his former shenanigans, so he would not have been a good front for questionable projects there.
The country wide press and TV did not a thorough job on his failings. They liked the yellow press aspect (the divorces, the luxury life style, the weddings, the trophy wives, the TV show, the beauty contests, his flamboyance). Whatever they thought of him as business man - he was not very much exposed. Trump father had created the myth, Donald Trump could hold on to it as long as the market was good (and it was easy to make money). And he had the outgoing brash personality that made it interesting to report on him.
So countrywide Trump could sell himself as good businessman when New Yorkers who were naturally more tuned in would have begged to differ.
Wealthy unsuspecting people OUTSIDE OF NEW YORK fell for the myth - as they were supposed to. When he and Eric appeared on stage and in ads to praise the unvetted real estate project, potential clients assumed the project had his money in it, that he worked on it , and that the project was well vetted. And they assumed that the Trumps who continued to MANAGE projects like he did in the beginning. Trump does not build and finance, he mainly gives the name - well at least before he could exploit the office of POTUS, that helps big time with international deals - Malaysia, Argentine, Saudi Arabia, China (for Ivanka).
Trump having a stake as experienced savvy real estate tycoon was exactely the impression that the people that pulled off the project wanted to create when they paid the Trumps for advertising for them.
The scheme was unvetted, it went bust, the investors lost money.
A professional investor would have wondered why the Trumps and their business partners would be raising money that way. With a savvy real estate tycoon on board any project would get cheap bank loans, no ? Being the sole investors with help of banks loans would mean they can cash in all the benefits and profits themselves and do not need to share. Large investors with a good reputation do get cheap money, it was certainly available at that time. Interest rates had been lowered substantially by Greenspan.
The people that really were behind the project did not get bank loans, the banks had examined the business plan (and found it unconvincing) that was the whole point of collecting funding from unexperienced investors with Trump as front puppet.
Trump did not lose money though - HE made a good profit of the project, he had extracted high licence fees / fees for advertising before they got bust (paid for with the downpayments of duped investors), THEY got paid - for the job of deceiving the investors.
They had not stakes in the investment and no legal liability either. I am sure they had carefully crafted the statements so the investors could not sue. He was just doing an advertisement - while the people were led to believe he had more stakes in it.
You must be a real crook and/or incompetent or greedy/desperate for money _ to not vet your licence projects better_ Verifying what your (allegedly) good name is used for.
My take on this affair: they were really desperate to get their hands on money, danmed be ethical considerations. He must have good contacts with the media (then !) that he did not get more negative press. Well, in a legal sense he had his ass covered, and he had a reputation to sue as well.
Some bribes to the management might have gone a long way. Going with the story of the flamboyant business man got ratings, exposing him would only in detail interest the "nerds" or "insiders" and might create legal problems ... so they did not bother.
Trump continued to enjoy an undeserved reputation as savvy business man. Only in New York a broader audience (inc. consumers) was aware of his real track record.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The claim of the NRPC guy is not true, not regarding costs and it is not "government" run : Single payer healthcare is in place in Europe, Canada, Australia, .... in most wealthy countries since the 1950s. (I live in one, Germany and also know the system of Austria: worries about healthcare insurance or treatment are non-existent. I mean people are worried about being sick of course, but not of the costs ide of treatment or the costs of insurance).
People here that do not know about the U.S. situation would be genuinely perplexed.
Everyone has insurance, everyone uses the same good facilities. The DOCTORS decide what is medically warranted. I mean - no one likes to get treatments so there is no danger that people would "consume" too much. And if a treatment makes sense (helps you to recover quicker, saves the life, prevents further damage, you continue to be able to earn a living or taking care of the family) - then it strengthens society to provide that.
A for profit insurance agency cannot consider those ripple effects, a non-profit has to stay within the budget, but no profit for the middlemen (the "investors" or shareholders). And if they need more money and it makes sense in the larger pricture - they would have to argue their case.
(That is theoretical - but if a treatment would be very costly but also beneficial - let's say a revolutionary cancer treatment - I can imagine such a discussion. And it would be a political issue. And either everyone or no one is getting it).
There are constly consequences (like the impact of family and the future ability to work or live unassisted) that are not immediately obvious but still play out in the larger picture.
The public non profit agency is kind of government related and apart from the wage deductions which are earmarked and go to the agency there is also tax funding. But governments come and go - the agency (agencies there are a few of them per state) stay the same. And neither the center left or the center right government would dare to not properly fund them. That would be a sure way to lose elections.
All these countries (tiny Iceland with 300,000 people or Germany with 85 millions people) pay much less per person for healthare (all ! that is spent in the country divided by number of people = healthcare per capita expenditures).
The mandatory "insurance" is a percentage of the wage (employers have to double that). It is known in advance !! it is affordable AND there are no unexpected payments when treatment is needed. Dependent family members are included, and also provisions for people w/o a job.
Here in Germany it is per capita healthcare expenditures of 5,600 USD per person which is at the higher end of the European average - add about 65 % and you land at the U.S. level of 9,200 USD.
Now, the population in Germany is on average older so the U.S. should beat Germany on demographics alone (I got the numbers from the World Bank - health care expenditures
If I remember correctly the costs were 18 trillions BUT you have to consider that there are NO costs for private contracts. No co- payments. nd a public non-profit insurance agency (that is what single payer means) has no incentive to play games with the insured / the patients
1
-
Taxation means the mandated contribution for everyone in equal circumstances that helps to keep the system afloat. The very system that makes high income and profits possible. - and that mandated payment is equal for people in comparable situations (income bracket, etc.).
Her proposal for the SYSTEM * (it is not only about funding government) is not debunked by advising HER (alone !) to act voluntarily in the spirit of her proposal.
The action of a few do not make a dent. We do not suggest to people to drive reasonably and to no to drive at too high speed. ("After all we have all the goal to travel savely, with speed and to arrive in good health".) That does not work in large organisms of people. There must be some steering. In traffic it is laws and precise rules - and they are enforced.
In funding the government spending it is a general framework of what income class pays how much for the infrastructure and for a functioning society.
* and taxation is not only about money - and it should not be considered a matter of individual preferences.
If we are asked on an individual level - we all would like to keep all our money. That does not get us anywhere.
It is not a question what we like or what is "fair" - certain taxation and government spending policies have certain outcomes.
If we chose the outcomes we have to shape the taxation and policy framework . No need to reinvent the wheel, the experiments were done over decades in all developed nation.
Golden Era 1940 - 1970 in the U.S. (the oil crises were a disruptor in the 1970s), the 1980s were the start of a new paradigm
In continental Europe it was with the mid 1990s.
The era of neoliberalism, lower taxation, globalization (= outsourcing), tax evasion
1980/1990 - until now.
How many major bank crashes, private debt, bankrupcies, middle class, job security, government debt, income inequality, influence of money in politics.
How content, positve are the citizens ?
Development of wages vs. productivity.
1
-
The usual reason to have an EARLY STAGE abortion (incl. the SECRET abortions of Conservatives)
Economic reasons to not have (another) child, already being burdened with extra care (for a relative or a disabled child), poverty, no relationship and no family network, or a dysfunctional relationship, disruption of the career *, losing status for having a child out of wedlock *, not being able to pursue education *, non-life threatening defects of the child *
* these are often the reasons for well-off CONSERAVATIVE women and men ! who purport to be anti-abortion to have their SECRET abortions. And like in the former days money helps them to get the abortion while maintaining the facade.
Mothers accompagny their young adult daughters to Hawaii. They could have legal abortions in their home state. But there the Republicans make ALL women jump through extra hoops. Facilities far away, many must close down due to arbitrary and made up "safety" regulations.
They must travel there several times (because of a mandatory waiting time).
More and more PP are shut down, so there are the specialized abortion only clinics - which of course attract the demonstrators, who write up licence plates, take photos. And since the Republicans limit the number of facilites it is often clear: when a woman goes to a certain facility that she is getting an abortion.
Planned Parenthood is more inconspicuous, most of their services have nothing to do with abortion (only 3 % of the treatments/procedures are abortions). But wealthy people do not use PP for regular women's health. If a young woman uses the services of a more expensive doctor (typical for her class) and then is "caught" entering the facility or is seen in the waiting room of PP - it is likely that she wants to get an abortion.
Which could undermine her "reputation". Like carrying the pregnancy to term and having the child would undermine her reputation (never mind that these families could help her out financially).
1
-
2:25 "The White House, we are tested regularily." Trump recently: we are testing too much (he meant, they "find" more cases incl. such with lighter symptoms. If it is about not looking good - then you do not want to identify those cases. - On the other hand if you want to get a grip on the virus then you want to find them and isolate them, and follow the chain of infections.
But that works only well in the nations that used the lockdown to ramp up testing, have sick leave with pay anyway, and people can afford to stay home 2 weeks, or so.
Low case numbers and then they follow all new infections, and they test strategically. Nipping it in the bud.
But Trump blew it, the case numbers are out of hand. It is very hard to contain it then with testing, one infected person can trigger a lot of strategic testing.
(never mind that in the U.S. people often cannot afford to do what would be necessary). In Florida they waited 7 - 10 days for test results mid of July. Plausible suspicion, contact with an infected person, these were affluent people, they quarantined just to be on the safe side.
Not everone can do that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The constitution also grants the freedom of individuals * . So mandatory waiting periods and being forced to have an ultrasound - no MEDICAL reason for that ! - violates the freedom of women. - it is expression of the view of reactionary law makers - usually men - who impose their religious views on women. They would prefer them to not have the abortion, and since they are unable to outright forbid them or punish the women and doctors - they for the second best option: putting up as many arbitrary road blocks as they possibly can.
Which is remeniscient of the old times: when abortions are hard to get, they become expensive and out of reach for the low(er) income women. The wealthy woman can easily afford the extra expenses and money helps them to navigate the unnecessary hassle.
Unfortunately the morning after pill was invented (it is a from of BIRTH CONTROL it is disputed whether or not it may in rare cases cause an egg that was already fertilized to be expelled). And then there is the abortion pill. Of course reactionary lawmakers earger to meddle with the private affairs (and private parts) of women are trying to concoct up extra obstacles to DENY women that independence, that accessible and affordable way to have a early term abortion. (it is not easy).
I am convinced that having good and affordable and quick access to abortions gives a woman more time to think it through. Including the option to consult some pro-life advice (organized and informally within her network) whether to welcome the future child into her life.
She can take her time when she knows she must not rush because it is so hard, costly, far away, and difficult to get the abortion - once she made the decision.
The Republican lawmakers would of course outlaw abortions - but they still live in a modern nation with a Supreme Court decision from the 1970s. So they can't do that. (and it does of course not prevent them from secretely having abortions in their families, while making them out of reach for their low-income constituents).
What they CaN do is BIG government INFRINGING on the personal life and the liberties of women. Red tape, extra road blocks, make arbitrary rules that makes it impossible to have abortions (facilities that had NO medical problems whatsoever, and could offer abortions at moderate costs).
* except the SECULAR laws that the nation gives itself - like in approx 1973 the decision that abortions are legal.
So then to force a women to watch an ultrasound picture of the fetus when she uses that legal right. There is NO plausible reason for that procedure that is FORCED upon her.
Mandatory waiting times, at least 2 appointments before a women that decided she is going to have an abortion can finally HAVE it (as is her legal right). That is an infringement on her rights.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1