jyamada;842763656 said:

---

The U.S. just elected a president who admitted on tape that he's a sexual pervert.

---

Who disagrees with you? Not me. Will he break the rules, at least morally, while in public office, as Bill did? You can swear he will, but it remains to be seen. I concede I think he will. I do not want him as President. But I won't get worked up as you are when, unfortunately, the other choice we had was likely the second worst choice we've had in 60 years, after Trump. I don't know anyone in my circle of friends or at my business who wanted either Trump or Clinton II. The difficult part is not that Trump won. It is that the major parties offered nothing better. Clinton even used Nixon dirty tricks to shut down little Bernie Sanders, who was harmless and didn't seem to be a liar. It was like attacking a crippled person. That is no better than Trumps childish offensive name calling toward the other candidates.

jyamada;842763656 said:

---

The U.S. just elected a president who admitted on tape that he's a sexual pervert.

---

This must be a joke... Are are we so fare down the road of ideology that you don't see how absurd that counter is?

1979bear;842763725 said:

---

Who disagrees with you? Not me. Will he break the rules, at least morally, while in public office, as Bill did? You can swear he will, but it remains to be seen. I concede I think he will. I do not want him as President. But I won't get worked up as you are when, unfortunately, the other choice we had was likely the second worst choice we've had in 60 years, after Trump. I don't know anyone in my circle of friends or at my business who wanted either Trump or Clinton II. The difficult part is not that Trump won. It is that the major parties offered nothing better. Clinton even used Nixon dirty tricks to shut down little Bernie Sanders, who was harmless and didn't seem to be a liar. It was like attacking a crippled person. That is no better than Trumps childish offensive name calling toward the other candidates.

---

I believe nearly half the country disagrees with me. I'd say Hillary might have been the 3rd worst choice......that said, the difference between the 2nd worst choice and the worst choice is huge, not just by a nose but Trump has lapped Hillary as far as being the worst candidate ever. I'm over the election and the country deserves Trump. I just hope he doesn't f**k things up too badly.

We have for several years been spoiled by Presidents who had fairly modest real estate assets. For those that did have a retreat outside of DC the Feds have always installed sophisticated security systems to protect our President and ex-Presidents at their own property. Millions were spent on the 'Western' White Houses of Nixon, Reagan, and Bush and the retirement home of Gerald Ford. And if the Obamas find a new residence I would expect millions to be spent there.

But most of these Presidential estates were in somewhat remote places; costs and security measures were far less than would be required in Manhattan for example. Not since Jackie have we had a First Family that will be taking a major blow to their standard of living by moving into the White House. And of course Trump has several properties that he uses on a regular basis, all of these would have to be security hardened to provide a 'safe' haven for the President.

If the Feds spent a few million on a ranch in Crawford, Texas; how much would be needed at Trump Towers, the NJ Country Club where he is meeting this weekend, the Florida estate where he got married, etc... All the costs of upgrades, upkeep and staffing will now transfer to the Federal government. $100 million might be a fair guesstimate, but the actual cost will be kept secret.
And if he moves into his new hotel instead of the nearby White House, well Ka-ching, Ka-ching. Ka-ching.

The problem is that the POTUS needs to be fully protected at all times; he is not going to take a vow of poverty in January; he is not getting rid of his properties; so the piper must be paid.

sp4149;842763735 said:

---

We have for several years been spoiled by Presidents who had fairly modest real estate assets. For those that did have a retreat outside of DC the Feds have always installed sophisticated security systems to protect our President and ex-Presidents at their own property. Millions were spent on the 'Western' White Houses of Nixon, Reagan, and Bush and the retirement home of Gerald Ford. And if the Obamas find a new residence I would expect millions to be spent there.

But most of these Presidential estates were in somewhat remote places; costs and security measures were far less than would be required in Manhattan for example. Not since Jackie have we had a First Family that will be taking a major blow to their standard of living by moving into the White House. And of course Trump has several properties that he uses on a regular basis, all of these would have to be security hardened to provide a 'safe' haven for the President.

If the Feds spent a few million on a ranch in Crawford, Texas; how much would be needed at Trump Towers, the NJ Country Club where he is meeting this weekend, the Florida estate where he got married, etc... All the costs of upgrades, upkeep and staffing will now transfer to the Federal government. $100 million might be a fair guesstimate, but the actual cost will be kept secret.
And if he moves into his new hotel instead of the nearby White House, well Ka-ching, Ka-ching. Ka-ching.

The problem is that the POTUS needs to be fully protected at all times; he is not going to take a vow of poverty in January; he is not getting rid of his properties; so the piper must be paid.

---

On the bright side, Trump will be a boost for the economy.

jyamada;842763738 said:

---

On the bright side, Trump will be a boost for the economy.

---

I work three blocks from Trump Tower. It's been a nightmare for the surrounding area.

sp4149;842763735 said:

---

We have for several years been spoiled by Presidents who had fairly modest real estate assets. For those that did have a retreat outside of DC the Feds have always installed sophisticated security systems to protect our President and ex-Presidents at their own property. Millions were spent on the 'Western' White Houses of Nixon, Reagan, and Bush and the retirement home of Gerald Ford. And if the Obamas find a new residence I would expect millions to be spent there.

But most of these Presidential estates were in somewhat remote places; costs and security measures were far less than would be required in Manhattan for example. Not since Jackie have we had a First Family that will be taking a major blow to their standard of living by moving into the White House. And of course Trump has several properties that he uses on a regular basis, all of these would have to be security hardened to provide a 'safe' haven for the President.

If the Feds spent a few million on a ranch in Crawford, Texas; how much would be needed at Trump Towers, the NJ Country Club where he is meeting this weekend, the Florida estate where he got married, etc... All the costs of upgrades, upkeep and staffing will now transfer to the Federal government. $100 million might be a fair guesstimate, but the actual cost will be kept secret.
And if he moves into his new hotel instead of the nearby White House, well Ka-ching, Ka-ching. Ka-ching.

The problem is that the POTUS needs to be fully protected at all times; he is not going to take a vow of poverty in January; he is not getting rid of his properties; so the piper must be paid.

---

This article goes into detail how the Secret Service will be protecting Trump in NYC.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/18/how-donald-trump-will-retrofit-midtown-manhattan-as-a-presidential-getaway/






Since Trump has a big family, it's going to cost a lot of money to protect them. Trump and his wife will, of course, need Secret Service protection.

But so will each of his five kids, their spouses and each of Trump's grandchildren.

NYCGOBEARS;842763739 said:

---

I work three blocks from Trump Tower. It's been a nightmare for the surrounding area.

---

Don't worry, NYCGOBEARS, only 50 more months of this -- at least!

jyamada;842763738 said:

---

On the bright side, Trump will be a boost for the economy.

---

It'll be a boost for the top 1%.

burritos;842763750 said:

---

It'll be a boost for the top 1%.

---

One thing for sure, it'll be a boost for the TOP ONE (at least in Trump's mind).

And compared to the White House. Traffic will be allowed on the streets around the Tower. Minimum security would require anti-vehicle bollards to prevent vehicles from getting within a 100 feet of the building (there are similar precautions inside bases which have much greater perimeter protection) NY DEMOCRATIC mayor says Fifth Avenue will not be shut down and that the NYPD must be reimbursed for extra overtime. Good luck on both. It would be extremely irresponsible and perhaps a treasonable offense to provide Trump with a smaller defensible perimeter than provided a base CO. (Note many Base COs choose to live off base at their own risk; the President is a special case, and it should not be an option to under protect).

I feel sorry for those who must try and get through the area; let alone work in the area. Lane closures and street bollards should be expected on at least three sides of Trump Tower. All the underground utility tunnels will have to be secured and guarded 24/7, as well as any nearby subway lines and stations. Any shop owners in the area with ties to areas with Islamic populations should expect to be relocated and hopefully compensated. AS the articles have stated this is unprecedented and I suspect the Secret Service, etc... did not have fully developed plans ready to implement.

The real question is should Trump have the same level of protection provided at the White House, whether at Trump Tower or if he moves into his new hotel near the White House? That may be a billion dollar question.

NYCGOBEARS;842763739 said:

---

I work three blocks from Trump Tower. It's been a nightmare for the surrounding area.

---

sp4149;842763773 said:

---

And compared to the White House. Traffic will be allowed on the streets around the Tower. Minimum security would require anti-vehicle bollards to prevent vehicles from getting within a 100 feet of the building (there are similar precautions inside bases which have much greater perimeter protection) NY DEMOCRATIC mayor says Fifth Avenue will not be shut down and that the NYPD must be reimbursed for extra overtime. Good luck on both. It would be extremely irresponsible and perhaps a treasonable offense to provide Trump with a smaller defensible perimeter than provided a base CO. (Note many Base COs choose to live off base at their own risk; the President is a special case, and it should not be an option to under protect).

I feel sorry for those who must try and get through the area; let alone work in the area. Lane closures and street bollards should be expected on at least three sides of Trump Tower. All the underground utility tunnels will have to be secured and guarded 24/7, as well as any nearby subway lines and stations. Any shop owners in the area with ties to areas with Islamic populations should expect to be relocated and hopefully compensated. AS the articles have stated this is unprecedented and I suspect the Secret Service, etc... did not have fully developed plans ready to implement.

The real question is should Trump have the same level of protection provided at the White House, whether at Trump Tower or if he moves into his new hotel near the White House? That may be a billion dollar question.

---

Why doesn't he just move into the White House? This is just the beginning of Trump doing things his way at the expense of the taxpayers. He's going to be so busy tending to his Trump brand, he's not going to have time to be president. What a disaster this is going to be for the next four years.

RaphaelAglietti;842763617 said:

---

Good grief 16 pages of arguing democrats v republicans. Any of you realize that party doesn't matter since both parties are ruled by their lobbyists. Politicos are like a crime syndicate/cartel and basically are interested in their own interests and feign interest in their constituents.

Nothing will change until there is a revolution and even then there's no guarantee.

The only way to get away from this nonsense is to get away from partisanship and stop having parties.

---

One of the most positive aspects of a Trump presidency is that he is the candidate that is least affected by lobbyists. He is far less dependent on Wall Street than was Obama. Trump has reportedly removed Christie from his transition team because he was stuffing the new staff ranks with ex-lobbyists.

In terms of conflicts of interests, his main business/personal objective is tied to the health of the real estate market, which is aligned with that of the general public. The same can't be said about the bankers which managed the bailout under Obama.

dajo9;842763639 said:

---

The context here is important. The Paula Jones civil suit was being used by the 5 year old Ken Starr Whitewater crooked witch hunt to depose anybody and everybody about Bill Clinton. It was being used politically as an attack cudgel against Clinton. So yes, Clinton settled and ended his fight with Paula Jones but the context is incredibly important.

---

The Clintons should have been indicted for fraud in their cattle trades at the very least, because turning $1,000 into $100,000 in a few months is mathematically impossible, it's a clear case of a payoff that went unsanctioned. This case dispels the myth that Starr was really intent on throwing the book at the Clintons, other than in the Lewinsky affair.

Cal88;842763808 said:

---

One of the most positive aspects of a Trump presidency is that he is the candidate that is least affected by lobbyists. He is far less dependent on Wall Street than was Obama. Trump has reportedly removed Christie from his transition team because he was stuffing the new staff ranks with ex-lobbyists.

In terms of conflicts of interests, his main business/personal objective is tied to the health of the real estate market, which is aligned with that of the general public. The same can't be said about the bankers which managed the bailout under Obama.

---

If you choose to be blind then you do not see

Cal88;842763808 said:

---

In terms of conflicts of interests, his main business/personal objective is tied to the health of the real estate market, which is aligned with that of the general public. The same can't be said about the bankers which managed the bailout under Obama.

---

Bank stocks are up 15-20% since Trump was elected partly due to the fact that Trump says he will deregulate the banking industry.

Cal88;842763808 said:

---

In terms of conflicts of interests, his main business/personal objective is tied to the health of the real estate market, which is aligned with that of the general public. The same can't be said about the bankers which managed the bailout under Obama.

---

Wasn't he the one who said he was rooting for the RE crash so that he could pick up more bargains? That doesn't seem like being aligned with that of the general public. The banker bailout was set in motion under Bush. Detroit otoh was bailed out by Obama's admin. Michigan went for Trump, go figure.

Rust belt voters thinking that jobs are coming back to them hopefully comes to fruition, but I don't see how it happens. But we will see. I do see how the oligarchs continue to enrich themselves(through tax cutting) while they stoke public dissent and get the non shareholder class to turn on one another.

People when they think of JFK tend to forget how Jackie trashed the state of the living quarters of the White House.
Remember 'little Donald' had more living space in Trump Tower than the Obamas had in the White House. Unless
Trump's ego is seriously deflated soon, the White House will be inadequate Unless considerably expanded and renovated.
Probably cheaper to rent his new hotel down the block.

jyamada;842763801 said:

---

Why doesn't he just move into the White House? This is just the beginning of Trump doing things his way at the expense of the taxpayers. He's going to be so busy tending to his Trump brand, he's not going to have time to be president. What a disaster this is going to be for the next four years.

---

BearGoggles;842761704 said:

---

FYI - the Republican mantra is to repeal and REPLACE. And the republican replacement plans have always contemplated continuing to insure all people with pre-existing coverage. Even back when Obamacare was passed, the republicans were on board for that and they continue to support it. In his interview with 60 minutes last night, Trump reaffirmed this point.

https://abetterway.speaker.gov/?page=health-care

https://abetterway.speaker.gov/_assets/pdf/ABetterWay-HealthCare-FAQ.pdf

Bottom line - the republicans cannot take away this entitlement without offering a reasonable replacement. The plan proposes subsidies for the poor and people with high risk conditions. The plan also proposes more options in the type of coverage people purchased.

---

People forget that "Obamacare" was "Romneycare" and was the Republican plan to begin with. It passed because big pharma and the insurance companies supported it. The GOP just ran a negative campaign against it as they did everything else associated with Obama--they didn't want him to have any successes. My prediction is the GOP repeals "Obamacare" and replaces it with something almost identical that they will claim is completely different "Trumpcare" to much applause.

BerkeleyChris;842759989 said:

---

I have the opposite prediction as you. If Trump truly goes down the road of trade protectionism and trade wars, massive infrastructure spending, tax cuts, and increasing employment and wages for the working class, then we will likely see significant inflation. Indeed, the bond markets have reacted accordingly out of fear of future inflation.

In fact, inflation is likely the only realistic solution for getting out of our current debt burden.

And much like Smoot-Hawley in 1930, trade protectionism will only exacerbate a sputtering economy and will worsen the coming downturn. There will be dark times ahead, my friend.



The Fed is a politically independent entity. Is there precedent for a new president to force out a Fed Chairperson before their term is up?

---

There are 2 Fed Board seats opening.
And yes, Trump could force out Yellen.

jyamada;842763832 said:

---

Bank stocks are up 15-20% since Trump was elected partly due to the fact that Trump says he will deregulate the banking industry.

---

So much for his senior advisor Steve Bannon's World View about the Banksters and Elites who have facilitated Globalization at the expense of the middle class.

Trump's conservative populist message may be a fraud


. But it rang strongly with those in the Rust Belt states....combined with the fact that Hillary was part of the Beltway establishment and ran a very poor campaign. (just ask her husband). The "Swamp" isn't being drained. It's just filling back up with the same crocs.

Dodd-Frank and the Volker Rule cut the balls off of investent banks. Their leverage ratios dropped from 25 - 30x to single digits. Every major I-Bank has jettisoned their commodity divisions. Any proprietary trade became a red flag. Goldman is lucky to have a piddly $25 million of equity value at risk on a daily basis in the US equity market. Guys on a fixed-income trading desk can't even go to the bathroom without getting an authorization from their compliance Department.

All that is about to reverse literally overnight. The lead candidate for Treasury Secretary is Trump's campaign finance guy, Steve Mnuchin.....a former Goldman Sachs Banker. Citibank's Jamie Dimon will most likely become an "outside" advisor. Billionaire Wilbur Ross is already heading to the Commerce Dept.

So much for relating to the struggling white middle class in the Rust Belt. The "swamp" is about to fill up with some of the biggest crocs you'll ever see.

Wags;842764247 said:

---

So much for his senior advisor Steve Bannon's World View about the Banksters and Elites who have facilitated Globalization at the expense of the middle class.

Trump's conservative populist message was a fraud. The "Swamp" isn't being drained. It's just filling back up with the same crocs.

Dodd-Frank and the Volker Rule cut the balls off of investent banks. Their leverage ratios dropped from 25 - 30x to single digits. Any proprietary trade became a red flag. Guys on a fixed-income trading desk can't even go to the bathroom without getting an authorization from their compliance Department.

All that is about to reverse literally overnight. The lead candidate for Treasury Secretary is Trump's campaign finance guy, Steve Mnuchin.....a former Goldman Sachs Banker.

---

If he's a Goldman Sachs banker he was probably a leading candidate for the Obama or Clinton White House who was back in the depth chart

GB54;842764273 said:

---

If he's a Goldman Sachs banker he was probably a leading candidate for the Obama or Clinton White House who was back in the depth chart

---

Meet the new Boss.
Same as the Old Boss.

jyamada;842763832 said:

---

Bank stocks are up 15-20% since Trump was elected partly due to the fact that Trump says he will deregulate the banking industry.

---

There is a joke that's been going around Wall Street this past week that had they known that Trump would have been this good for the bank stocks they wouldn't have voted for Hillary.

Wags;842764328 said:

---

There is a joke that's been going around Wall Street this past week that had they known that Trump would have been this good for the bank stocks they wouldn't have voted for Hillary.

---

Hillary's fee for speeches has gone from $500,000 to $82.78

dajo9;842759943 said:

---

I'm just going on record here. I sent this message to a finance professor at NYU. I share it here to be on record about my concerns in the upcoming years. Please add your 4 year predictions here if you like. Might be fun to look at down the road.

Professor, thanks for the great commentary. My own view is that recent market movements are transitory and based on preconceived notions about what a Trump Presidency would look like. They are about as valuable as the preconceived notions about what the election would be like. The real impacts of a GOP hegemony in the Federal Government won't be seen for years. In my view the signs point to negative interest rates in America from both fiscal policy and monetary policy impacts.

On fiscal policy, once you understand that low interest rates are a symptom of income inequality the current situation makes a lot of sense. If you look at a 100 year chart of income inequality and Treasury rates the negative correlation is unmistakeable (both hitting extremes in the 1930s, 1970s, and now).

The GOP's proposed policies of huge income tax cuts on the wealthy combined with cuts to benefits (like Obamacare) will push more money into the hands of investors and out of the hands of consumers. With inadequate demand, equity growth will be a challenge (equities will already be around record levels) and so more money will flow to the bond market driving rates down. One potential moderation of this would be a large infrastructure / jobs bill, however I don't think the GOP Congress will pass this without equal cuts elsewhere.

On monetary policy, there will be a push to drive up interest rates by many. There is a broad view (I've heard as almost concensus at places like Bloomberg Radio) that if the Fed would just raise rates it would benefit portfolios and spur the economy. This is an incredibly myopic and uneducated view of how the economy works but I think it will be the view held by those taking power in Washington DC. It will be interesting to see if Fed Chair Janet Yellen is allowed to keep her post. Ultimately, the more Washington tries to push up interest rates at the lower end, the more they will come down at the higher end.

Based on these factors, I predict negative interest rates in America before the end of Trump's first term. I have already made some minor adjustments to my portfolio.

---

So, you are saying that this chart will go below 0% for the first time ever?



Can you pls provide a chart for your assertion that
If you look at a 100 year chart of income inequality and Treasury rates the negative correlation is unmistakeable (both hitting extremes in the 1930s, 1970s, and now).

concordtom;842764371 said:

---

So, you are saying that this chart will go below 0% for the first time ever?



Can you pls provide a chart for your assertion that
If you look at a 100 year chart of income inequality and Treasury rates the negative correlation is unmistakeable (both hitting extremes in the 1930s, 1970s, and now).

---

Pretty ballsy call on my part isn't it. I should get odds for a call like that. But I offer it up to you straight up. Now if there is real fiscal policy spending my call is off, as I noted in my original post.

I don't have income inequality and treasury rates on one chart but here are both seperately. You can see the long term secular inverse correlation. Hitting extremes in the 1920s / 1930s, moving in opposite directions until hitting extremes again around 1980 and then moving in opposite directions again and hitting extremes again today.

http://www.cbpp.org/wealth-concentration-has-been-rising-toward-early-20th-century-levels-0
http://www.multpl.com/10-year-treasury-rate

GB54;842764343 said:

---

Hillary's fee for speeches has gone from $500,000 to $82.78

---

I think thee exaggerates. I heard but a 95% reduction. But that may be but the start of the Clinton Bear Market.

Get ready for more of this. White nationalists delivering actual Nazi salutes for Trump:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/richard-spencer-speech-npi/508379/

sycasey;842766045 said:

---

Get ready for more of this. White nationalists delivering actual Nazi salutes for Trump:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/richard-spencer-speech-npi/508379/

---

Hmmmm.

sycasey;842766045 said:

---

Get ready for more of this. White nationalists delivering actual Nazi salutes for Trump:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/richard-spencer-speech-npi/508379/

---

Oh, but we can forget all about that as we wait for those tax cut checks!

2 honest question, is Trump smarter than Bush? Would you rather have Sarah Palin as prez over Trump?

Number 031343;842766105 said:

---

Oh, but we can forget all about that as we wait for those tax cut checks!

---

And at least we didn't get a corrupt liar in office, like if we'd elected Clinton!

Never mind that fraud lawsuit that Trump just settled, after publicly saying he wouldn't.

burritos;842766146 said:

---

2 honest question, is Trump smarter than Bush? Would you rather have Sarah Palin as prez over Trump?

---

Until somebody stops Trump, then he is a genius.

Tina Fey and Katie Couric undid Palin.

Bush was eventually undone by his own actions.

But Trump is so far able to get away with stuff -- just this week, we've had the India, Argentina and British business controversies -- by deligitimitizing the media.