released. I believe the the Clinton camp had hoped that Sanders would hit a low ceiling of support and she could play the nice, tolerant one and coast to the nomination. That's not turning out to be the case and so watch for attack dogs like David Brock and John Podesta to be unleashed. In fact, according to journalist Mark Halperin, Brock has compared Sanders to Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez in a recent interview he did with Halperin. Halperin pushed him to explain and Brock danced around but wouldn't attempt to back it up. Halperin called the attack McCarthy-like. Pretty strong language coming from Halperin who is a pretty well-respected journalist even though I don't care all that much for him. A short time ago I thought Hillary was a shoe-in, I no longer think that. Gleefully so! However, she has an awfully lot of ammo, i.e. money, and a kennel full of seasoned attack dogs straining to be unleashed. I'm not betting that she won't yet win the nomination.
As for Trump.....I have a case of Blanton's bourbon bet that he will not be the Republican nominee.
Regards.......RR
Even the Huffington Post is saying Bernie Sanders is a better DEM candidate than Hillary Clinton.
Here are the 5 highlighted points... feel free to read the full article linked below.
Seems to me at least part of the reason Bernie is doing do well echoes the same sentiment fueling Donald Trumps staying power... the general popultion is sick and tired of politics as usual, dynastic entitlement mentalities, and the lies and obfuscations coming from all directions, left and right.
Clinton v Bush redux is looking less and less likely by the day.
Main points from the linked article in Huffpo:
1. Bernie Sanders has always embodied the value system that Democrats were supposed to uphold when polls weren't in the favor of progressives.
2. According to Quinnipiac University's Swing State Polls in July and August, voters in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Iowa and Virginia have an unfavorable view of Hillary Clinton and don't find her trustworthy.
3. Bernie Sanders never needed a private email server. Voters will eventually start asking why Clinton needed her public and private correspondence hidden from the government. Also, Bernie Sanders doesn't need an attorney to give an email server to the FBI.
4. Bernie Sanders is never embroiled in scandal and his campaign is free to focus on issues like wealth inequality, healthcare, and education. In contrast, Hillary Clinton must contend with intelligence agencies and the media; limiting time that should be spent on key topics.
5. Hillary Clinton and her supporters are at odds with the media and U.S. intelligence agencies. Because of this bizarre scenario, the eventual GOP nominee can exploit these rifts and win in 2016.
Sanders v Trump in 2016? Regardless of your pov, you have to admit it sounds much more interesting than Hillary versus Jeb!
"The ground he's buried in should reject his body and throw him back out." (Sounds better in the original language)
released. I believe the the Clinton camp had hoped that Sanders would hit a low ceiling of support and she could play the nice, tolerant one and coast to the nomination. That's not turning out to be the case and so watch for attack dogs like David Brock and John Podesta to be unleashed. In fact, according to journalist Mark Halperin, Brock has compared Sanders to Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez in a recent interview he did with Halperin. Halperin pushed him to explain and Brock danced around but wouldn't attempt to back it up. Halperin called the attack McCarthy-like. Pretty strong language coming from Halperin who is a pretty well-respected journalist even though I don't care all that much for him. A short time ago I thought Hillary was a shoe-in, I no longer think that. Gleefully so! However, she has an awfully lot of ammo, i.e. money, and a kennel full of seasoned attack dogs straining to be unleashed. I'm not betting that she won't yet win the nomination.
As for Trump.....I have a case of Blanton's bourbon bet that he will not be the Republican nominee.
Regards.......RR
I might just take you up on that bet, but I want fair odds.
I will repeat my offer to Hillary fans, I will give -300 against her winning the nomination.
As for a Trump vs Sanders GE, I do agree it would be more interesting than Clinton vs Bush, but a LOT scarier to me. I don't like Clinton, and haven't liked her for well over 30 years, but the country can survive a Hillary presidency. After 8 years of Obama, I don't think we would even recognize this country in four years if Obama was succeeded by an outright socialist.
Well, the wager was placed within days of Trump's announcing, before he got himself anointed front-runner. What do you consider "fair odds" that Trump will win the nomination. Just curious, I'm probably not ready to place anymore money on the races right now.
The reasons I feel that the Donald will not win are many. Some would be that I feel the media has been pretty nice to him thus far. They always love to encourage a circular firing-squad among the GOP but their knives will soon come out for Trump if he continues to do well. I even think it may well be beginning with the "scandal" being played up regarding how Trump handled the town-hall questioner who made comments about Muslims and Obama. Secondly, in my voting life-time I can only think of one other man, who'd never held public office, who might have come close to securing the nomination. That was Ross Perot before he dropped out. It's very difficult to convince people to give you the highest office in the land if you've never been elected to anything before. Too, the demographics of the country favor the democrats. Lastly, I believe that by the time to vote comes around a lot of people will have expended some of their current infatuation with Trump and that his overall style will not have worn well.
There are many other difficulties facing him as well but the above are some of what comes to my mind.
In addition, there are wild cards like the fact that he may well get butt-hurt and say screw it and drop out entirely. He doesn't seem to handle criticism very well, to say he is mercurial is an understatement.
I don't believe that Sanders will be the nominee. It would be fine with me if he were because I don't think he could win the general election. I sure as hell hope the country hasn't moved that far left!
Regards.........RR
Jeb Bush is still the betting favorite to win the nod at about +175, but Trump has leapt up to second choice at 3-1. I guess I missed my chance at about 50-1 not all that long ago. On the Democratic side, Hillary is down to about -300, the exact odds I have been offering down from -700 just a few weeks ago.
I sort of agree with you about Sanders, but ANY chance of him becoming POTUS is too much for me. I can see all the financial markets tanking the very moment anyone even thought he had a chance
As for Trump winning the nomination, I agree with many of your points. Trump is a bit of a nut case, but not "Black helicopter" crazy like Perot, and unlike Perot, I think Trump, sensing a real chance to win is trying to act just a "little bit" less crazy, like when he didn't take the bait to bash Carly about her looks in the debate. The "old" Donald would not have been able to resist, Donald the frontrunner is starting to be a bit more measured. Notice I said a "bit" more, It's like me being "nice" on the boards, my "nice" is still anyone else's "fucking asshole" it's a relative term. lol
Then I would say VP Joe Biden is my second choice and Hillary Clinton is my third choice.
Here are the 5 highlighted points... feel free to read the full article linked below.
Seems to me at least part of the reason Bernie is doing do well echoes the same sentiment fueling Donald Trumps staying power... the general popultion is sick and tired of politics as usual, dynastic entitlement mentalities, and the lies and obfuscations coming from all directions, left and right.
Clinton v Bush redux is looking less and less likely by the day.
Main points from the linked article in Huffpo:
1. Bernie Sanders has always embodied the value system that Democrats were supposed to uphold when polls weren't in the favor of progressives.
2. According to Quinnipiac University's Swing State Polls in July and August, voters in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Iowa and Virginia have an unfavorable view of Hillary Clinton and don't find her trustworthy.
3. Bernie Sanders never needed a private email server. Voters will eventually start asking why Clinton needed her public and private correspondence hidden from the government. Also, Bernie Sanders doesn't need an attorney to give an email server to the FBI.
4. Bernie Sanders is never embroiled in scandal and his campaign is free to focus on issues like wealth inequality, healthcare, and education. In contrast, Hillary Clinton must contend with intelligence agencies and the media; limiting time that should be spent on key topics.
5. Hillary Clinton and her supporters are at odds with the media and U.S. intelligence agencies. Because of this bizarre scenario, the eventual GOP nominee can exploit these rifts and win in 2016.
Sanders v Trump in 2016? Regardless of your pov, you have to admit it sounds much more interesting than Hillary versus Jeb!
Enough said!
But it I sad to see the Clinton Arrack Dogs readying and chomping at the bit......the only way to get elected is thru the "politics of personal destruction"?
But the Secret Service will need to exponentially multiply security over that of BHO. For not only will every plutocrat and big corporation be calling for a "hit" on Bernie; but the Clintons have a history of losing adversaries and threats to fatal circumstances as well.
A Sanders vs Trump General election would be interesting on so many different levels, and the outcome would say much about us as a nation.
but any small businessman or anyone else who worked hard to get where they are today, or plan to succeed in the future will be willing to chip in for that hit as well. You can most definitely count on me to chip in a couple of bucks too.
I hate the very concept of socialism. I've worked my fucking ass off, I've taken risks that no sane person would take trying to make a better life for myself and for what? To have some socialist decide that he should share in the fruits of my hard work and sacrifice, fuck that, and fuck Bernie.
and if you hadn't noticed, Trump has gone on record saying he is fine with going after the hedge fund crowd. Bernie would go after everybody who had made an honest dollar which is as un-American a concept as I could possibly imagine.
But Gambler, don't you realize that there are plenty of politicians already in office that would be very willing to take what we've earned? They don't have to label themselves socialists. After all, don't you know that business guys like us "didn't build that"? We're doing nothing more than standing on the shoulders of the "workers" to elevate ourselves.
I think the Donald wants to raise the hedge-fund guys taxes because most of them are supporting Hillary with Jeb probably a close second. LOL
He stole it fair and square in the casino and building businesses.
Yes, I don't see Wall St supporting Trump, they may be looking for a refund from both Jeb and Hillary if neither of them make it to the White House.
I know the stupid crowd (fat girl) is going to read my words and believe that I am some kind of blind supporter of Trump. Nothing could be further from the truth, but I do believe that Trump is less beholden to Wall St than either Clinton or Bush, and most likely no more so than even Sanders. I also believe that Carson probably is not bought and paid for either, but if he is going to get too much further in this race I am sure a bidding war for his soul will be breaking out soon.
So Trump stole it fair and square in the casino and building businesses???
This line sums up everything I said about you GaClown.
It also proves you really are clueless.
Who steals anything fair and square? Lol
Yes, I don't see Wall St supporting Trump, they may be looking for a refund from both Jeb and Hillary if neither of them make it to the White House.
I know the stupid crowd (fat girl) is going to read my words and believe that I am some kind of blind supporter of Trump. Nothing could be further from the truth, but I do believe that Trump is less beholden to Wall St than either Clinton or Bush, and most likely no more so than even Sanders. I also believe that Carson probably is not bought and paid for either, but if he is going to get too much further in this race I am sure a bidding war for his soul will be breaking out soon.
Well, yes he's made, and lost fortunes but consider this.....
Donald is probably not worth what he says he is, about 10 billion. Various outfits such as Forbes or Bloombergs, that are pretty good at estimating business worth, put his net worth at around 3 to 4 billion.
Consider that in 1974 his Father Fred Trump's business was worth about 200 million, making Donald's share/inheritance worth about 40 million. That was a lot of money in 1974. One could have put 40 million into an S&P index fund in 1974 and be worth about 3 billion today. So really, Donald has performed about as well as Joe Lunchbox who put his money into a Vanguard 401K. Granted, the numbers depend on exactly when in '74 you put the money in and how much in money management fees you paid. Nor does it factor in taxes paid on dividends and it assumes you paid no capital gains taxes because you bought and held. My comments are based on an analysis by National Journal reporter S.V. Date.
Trump has for many years bragged about his business smarts, his ability to negotiate deals and make great investments. That's really his whole argument as to why he'd be a terrific POTUS. I'm just not that impressed by his business record. I think his greatest achievement was being fortunate enough to inherit a lot of money, which of course was dumb luck and no achievement at all.
I'm not completely dismissive of the Donald but also not in awe of his abilities. Well, maybe a little in awe of his ability and success in the self-promotion department. LOL
I like Ben Carson and have for some time. But I gotta run for now so that will have to wait.
Regards........RR
Well, actually arguments can be made that we're both a little off on the dates. It depends on how one defines founded vs starting operations etc. John Bogle, widely agreed to have founded the first S&P index fund, convinced the directors of Wellington Funds to allow him to form the index fund in August of 1974. It wasn't until May of '75 that, with SEC approval in hand, they began operations. And it wasn't until about May of '76 that an IPO was held and they actually started taking in money to invest in the index. So, I believe one could make an argument for the first index fund "starting" anytime between 1974 and 1976.
But, the basic idea behind mutual funds dates back to at least the 1700's. Certainly wealthy individuals could choose to invest in a collection of investments, such as the S&P index on their own whether or not a company existed to do it for them.
I believe my example is a valid way to compare how D. Trump has performed vs. an "average" investment in something like the S&P index. As this is a "fuck board" and not a graduate level business school seminar class I don't care to get into a semantics argument about when the first index began. :>)
Regards......RR
-- Modified on 9/19/2015 7:28:25 PM
Just look at Lamar, Nelson and Herbert Hunt, sons of the legendary HL Hunt for example. Trump took millions and turned them into billions, The Hunt Brothers did the exact opposite, they took a huge fortune and turned it into a much smaller fortune. HL must have been rolling over in his grave watching some of the incredibly stupid business deals his sons got themselves into. Any one else remember Placid Oil co?
I didn’t consider myself in an argument, I’ll use the word analysis instead. Can you be specific about why you find the analysis weak?
Since you took issue with the date I used for the first post lets look at another analysis by the financial press.
I believe it was this past July that Trump filed paperwork and said he was worth ten billion dollars. Even though most financial experts say it’s much less, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and agree on the 10 billion. In 1982 Trump made the Forbes 400 list. Forbes claimed he was worth somewhere north of 200 million at that time, pretty good for a guy who started with about 40 million in ’74. Trump disagreed with Forbes figures and said he was worth 500 milllion. Again, lets give Mr. Trump the benefit and agree he was worth 500 million when the list was compiled in ’82.
I think we’d both agree that by say, Jan. of 1982 there were open-end mutual funds available to individual investors? So lets say that on Jan. 1st of 1982 one took 500 million and put it into a S&P index fund. From 01/01/82 thru 12/31/14 the index had an annualized return of about 11.86%. This would mean that every dollar put into the index in ’82 was worth about $40 at the end of 2014. So Trump’s $500 million would be worth $20 billion today or twice what he says he’s worth.
Another comparison…. In 1974 both D. Trump and Warren Buffet were worth about 40 million. Today, Trump claims a worth of 10 billion, a claim in dispute but I’m willing to use his figures. Today, Warren Buffet is worth north of 67 billion. I admire Buffet's business acumen, don't often agree with his politics.
As stated earlier, I’m not being totally dismissive of Trumps achievements. But I’m also not in awe of them. That’s all. I commend the Donald for not sitting back and simply collecting his dividends and capital gains had he invested in the index instead. After all, an index does not build anything, it is not the same sort of risk taking that capitalism thrives on. But when I think of great business people living today I think of people like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Andy Grove, Aubrey McClendon, Sergey Brin, Mark Zuckerberg and many others before Trump’s name comes to mind. But, that’s just me and I certainly respect others opinion. I try to anyway. :>)
I could make other points about why I’m not in awe of Trumps business accomplishments or what I do admire him for. I hope I’ve given you some insight into my reasoning.
Regards….
which is the only thing that matters when you are trying to build wealth. The real return of the S & P index – after taxes, inflation, and expenses – is only 5.97% over the 30 year period ending in 2013.
So your 11.86% figure would be nearly cut in half. Further, the risk he would take in “investing it all” in such a narrow asset class for 30 years would be tremendous. No one would actually do that. In 2008 he would have been climbing the walls.
So I think the S & P comparison is inaccurate. Comparing Trump to returns of Tech billionaires is also misleading, since the few who made it had unique ideas. And Warren Buffett is sui generis.
I think the better measure is to see how Trump prospered relative to his asset class.
As far as I know, most of the Trump wealth was generated from real estate, licensing the Trump brand, and television revenues. Whether he was a net gainer or loser from his casino operations is not entirely clear, but giving all the casino bankruptcy filings I ‘d guess he did not make much money there.
Let’s assume his primary real returns were from real estate. Not sure what the real return for commercial real estate was for the same period but if we assume it is something close to the real return over 30 years for residential real estate -.80%- then Trump did phenomenally well.
So let's give The Donald a little credit - as a businessman relative to his asset class, he was a superstar
Since you took issue with the date I used for the first post lets look at another analysis by the financial press.
I believe it was this past July that Trump filed paperwork and said he was worth ten billion dollars. Even though most financial experts say it’s much less, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and agree on the 10 billion. In 1982 Trump made the Forbes 400 list. Forbes claimed he was worth somewhere north of 200 million at that time, pretty good for a guy who started with about 40 million in ’74. Trump disagreed with Forbes figures and said he was worth 500 milllion. Again, lets give Mr. Trump the benefit and agree he was worth 500 million when the list was compiled in ’82.
I think we’d both agree that by say, Jan. of 1982 there were open-end mutual funds available to individual investors? So lets say that on Jan. 1st of 1982 one took 500 million and put it into a S&P index fund. From 01/01/82 thru 12/31/14 the index had an annualized return of about 11.86%. This would mean that every dollar put into the index in ’82 was worth about $40 at the end of 2014. So Trump’s $500 million would be worth $20 billion today or twice what he says he’s worth.
Another comparison…. In 1974 both D. Trump and Warren Buffet were worth about 40 million. Today, Trump claims a worth of 10 billion, a claim in dispute but I’m willing to use his figures. Today, Warren Buffet is worth north of 67 billion. I admire Buffet's business acumen, don't often agree with his politics.
As stated earlier, I’m not being totally dismissive of Trumps achievements. But I’m also not in awe of them. That’s all. I commend the Donald for not sitting back and simply collecting his dividends and capital gains had he invested in the index instead. After all, an index does not build anything, it is not the same sort of risk taking that capitalism thrives on. But when I think of great business people living today I think of people like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Andy Grove, Aubrey McClendon, Sergey Brin, Mark Zuckerberg and many others before Trump’s name comes to mind. But, that’s just me and I certainly respect others opinion. I try to anyway. :>)
I could make other points about why I’m not in awe of Trumps business accomplishments or what I do admire him for. I hope I’ve given you some insight into my reasoning.
Regards…..RR
Also, his assets are not very liquid so I wonder about the comparison in that regard.
I think it is funny some Rep pundits are talking about this not pointing out all the jobs Trump creates and citing that mistake by CV Date who loses some credibility thinking you could put money in S&P Index Fund in 1974.
-- Modified on 9/20/2015 9:10:58 AM