https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-trump-taxes-ny...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ap-trumps-apprentice-moved-cap...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37535643



Julian Assange threatening to drop a huge bomb on Clinton on Wednesday. Wonder what he has.

Morals where? Truth where?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-donations-charl...

Opps,sorry,thought you saw the light and were talking about Mrs. Clinton.

My bad.

As a Christian I try very hard not to hate anyone.

I'm not a finance person.(I hate risk)
But I have several friends who are brokers or financial planners.

They all say the same thing.
The financial markets are "overinflated".

They're being kept artificially high by companies buying back their own stock.
I really don't understand how that works.
But they all say, no matter who wins in November, expect a major "correction".

Kaine slices & dices Pence.

Well, for the last 40 minutes of it that I heard on radio.

Clinton definitely 2, Trump no.

That's Trumpian--simple, cynical and not true.

Well, it hasn't been for the last eight years since the Republicans handed us the Bush collapse, which was a house of cards.


Could it crash again. Of course; that's always possible.


But to deny that the recovery has been pretty effective is unfair.



Yes, the recovery has brought change and some are still hurting. But all in all it's been pretty effective.

First,my "house of cards" comment came from people who do finance for a living.
My broker friends have moved a good chunk of their investments to less volatile ones.They also said they have "stop/sell" orders on all their stock accounts, just in case things go south fast.
They also said that the "flash traders" scare the crap out of them.

Calling it the "Bush Collapse" isn't factually accurate.

It was caused by a number of factors,including the mortgage crisis.

The mortgage crisis came about in large part because banks were forced to give a lot of people mortgages who shouldn't have qualified.
If I recall correctly,that policy,using to a great extent,Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,was started by democrats and pushed by the Clinton Administration.
The policy included subrpime mortgages wish were pretty much "Russian Roulette".

The feeling was,everyone,whether qualified or not,gets a mortgage.

As far as the recovery being "pretty effective" it depends on who you talk to.

In N.J. a lot of companies I work with now hire only part-time employees.
Why?
To avoid paying benefits,especially health care.

If you're an older "non professional",finding any job out here is tough.
One of my friends, who is over 60, went to a job fair for older workers.
He was told "try to hold out until you can get Social Security".

I also believe that,as it pertains to the percentage of people unemployed,part-time and full time employment are counted the same.
As I'm sure you're aware,when it comes to unemployment percentages,if you've exhausted your unemployment benefits and gave up looking for work,you're not unemployed.That really skews those numbers.

I also believe the number of people on Food Stamps has increased dramatically the past 8 years.

I'm sorry but that is not a fair representation. Bush was in the White House for 8 years leading to the date of the collapse. Fighting wars without funding them and other factors were much more prominent in the collapse than the relatively small number of 'forced' loans to those who couldn't qualify. The problem was the MUCH GREATER number of voluntary loans to those who couldn't qualify.

The collapse was not because of those small number of forced loans.

Look, ya think it's ever been easy for those over 60 to get hired? I believe that the number of firms which hire part-timers is small, not statistically significant (espec compared to that type of hiring generally).

Cite your little anecdotes. Surely you can put up hundreds of thousands or millions of them. Because at any time, even in the best of times, millions are un or under employed.

But if you don't think that the stewardship and recovery during a time when Obama has been in the White House has been pretty good, then you are just N E V E R going to admit anything that you don't believe, regardless of how facts may contradict your beliefs.


I joked about Kaine winning....It was pretty much a draw. Either side could make a credible case for winning or the other side losing. See--one has to be able to recognize the truth, admit the truth at some point, like it or not.

Like Solich is the definition of mediocre--what only 2 season with less than five losses in 11 years of the weakweakweak MACEast, I think. And no MAC title. But, sure, he's really doing a great job. Because comparing him to the 30 some years before him (including 18 wins in 11 years) is really the standard to hold him to.

Not saying that this is perfect in all it addresses, but fair is fair

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/if-you-voted-for-romn...

For what it's worth, I work for a company that hires on behalf of companies of all shapes and sizes, and hiring -- both permanent and contract -- is up pretty substantially over the last year and change. Year over year, 2.5 million more Americans are employed as of August 31 than were August 31 last year.

I'd also seriously caution looking to retailers hiring practices as indicative of anything on a national scale. Retail, in general, is struggling. The job growth is going to be in warehouse/transportation as more and more shopping is done online.

In fact, retailers and other sectors with large holiday season hiring needs are projecting a serious struggle in meeting part-time/seasonal hiring needs. They're holding seasonal recruitment fairs earlier, have increased pay, and many are removing restrictions on hiring people with criminal backgrounds because the labor market is so competitive at the moment.

None of that's indicative of a weak labor market.

Also, just an fyi, contract workers all must be offered benefits assuming they work more than 30 hours a week on an annualized basis. The ACA no longer allows the contract worker loophole, at least for full-time people.

I don't know if I'd refer to all of the economists who consider the subprime mortgage crisis as one of the causes of the financial collapse as "fringe".

The subprime mortgage crisis resulted in unqualified people getting mortgages.
What's worse is that, in a lot cases,the lenders knew these people could never pay them off.

Then these lenders,I believe "Countrywide" was one of them,"packaged" and sold them to large financial institutions.

When the people couldn't pay their mortgages,the financial institutions had a lot of worthless paper.

The fact that many more people were able to get mortgages pushed up prices, helping to create the "housing bubble".
In this area people were buying properties at inflated prices.They figured prices would keep going up and they could sell at a profit anytime.

As I said before,I do land surveying.
I still remember clients saying that they were buying property "A" for an investment.
They planned on holding it for a year or so,selling for a huge profit,then doing it again.

One client told me he figured that by doing this he could retire in few years.

Then the bubble burst.

All of sudden "prime" borrowers as well as subprime were "under water".

That led to properties being abandoned and foreclosed.

I've seen towns where whole blocks are empty.
That reduces property values around them and lost real estate taxes in those towns.
Municipalities can file liens for back taxes,but until the property gets sold,they still put a whole in local budgets.

It's like you don't even read the responses to your posts. I didn't say that economists pointing to the subprime mortgage crisis as a cause of the crash are fringe. The subprime mortgage crisis was absolutely the number one cause of the crash. What I said was that very few economists would say that "forced" loans were the reason. It was a dialing back of regulations by both parties that caused the subprime mortgage crisis, not the government "forcing" banks to give unqualified people loans. That's the point. There is a very big distinction.