Obviously Trump wants more control over the Fed, but the backlash against this is also obviously propaganda. If she committed a felony, she shouldn't be in charge of anything. I don't think that's a controversial opinion. All of the reporting saying that the firing isn't being done in the proper manner is just hiding behind technicalities. At some point people have to accept that throwing out all laws so your side "wins" just benefits wannabe-dictators, and I don't see many of those on the left.
What are the chances that suddenly half the people in power that Trump wants to get rid of have committed a felony? And what are the chances that the people that Trump has put into power have committed the same felonies (or much worse) and are getting a pass? If that doesn't worry you then you have to stop statements like 'having studied history more than most' or something to that effect and realize that you are in uncharted territory. You are still applying normal standards to a blatant power grab and slide into a form of government that does not have a happy ending.
Politicians want to control the Fed so they can drop interest rates and cause a short-term economic and stock market boom, followed by really bad things in the long-term.
How are markets supposed to react to that?
If markets are going to go up, and then down, do you buy or sell?
If Trump is going to take over the Fed, the smart move is to buy. If there's going to be a huge party before the world ends, you go to the party.
But the cost of borrowing will go through the roof because the market knows the bad stuff will happen. So nobody is going to buy treasuries without a significant increase in return.
This post went from mid 20s on the front page to 37 on 2nd page in a matter of less than 5 minutes. What would cause that? Total points didn't go down. It isn't flagged.
Trump is going to screw around trying to rig markets to advantage his positions and his desire for "line go up", and accidentally expose that they're actually already rigged and incredibly fragile (because of all the measures taken to hide that rigging).
Go feed some basic undergraduate economics/finance/accounting homework question into whatever cutting edge LLM you have access to and look at the results.
> Even if proven, the administration’s claim — that Cook violated the law before her time in office by designating two different homes as her primary residence when applying for mortgages — probably wouldn’t meet the test.
Seriously that's the allegation? When I heard false information on a mortgage I assumed inflated income or assets or concealing the source of a downpayment. Is this even material? Can't a person have 2 homes and live in both?
One home is always the "primary residence" for legal purposes. You can have and live in as many homes as you want, but only one counts as your primary residence.
That said, the allegation is just that, an allegation. Further, it's coming from people who are highly motivated to exaggerate or lie.
You can have two homes and split your time in both but in the end if you want these kinds of finance benefits you can only claim one home as your primary and actually live there most of the time otherwise you are committing fraud. The lender's risk models and expected loan lifetimes are probably radically different if a property is going to be used as someone's primary residence versus an often-vacant vacation home versus a rental property. They'll have offered a different rate and qualification requirements if she said it was going to be a rental apartment.
It is still a pretty massive pot meet kettle argument though. Trump's a convicted fraudster. Let's remove everyone who has committed fraud from office. Can we add Ken Paxton to the list with Trump as well? Oh wait, not my guys...
I was talking with a neighbor raging about how corrupt Lisa Cook is and how these people just think they should get away with anything and how these people need to be put in prison for a long time. After pointing out Ken Paxton (someone they hope runs for Congress) claimed three houses as primary residences, well, that's different see...
One of Trump's primary objectives is destruction of the Fed, which is what gives the US Dollar status as the world reserve currency. His objective is directly aligned with Putin's, which should come as no surprise. They both realize that the very source of the US's power is the Federal Reserve. Don't take his actions as misguided - they are malevolent and intentional, without a doubt.
17 comments
[ 5.4 ms ] story [ 45.1 ms ] threadWhat? Name three please. You're just needlessly generalizing because you don't know anything.
How are markets supposed to react to that?
If markets are going to go up, and then down, do you buy or sell?
If Trump is going to take over the Fed, the smart move is to buy. If there's going to be a huge party before the world ends, you go to the party.
Good thing we're replacing BLS staff with sycophants!
Seriously that's the allegation? When I heard false information on a mortgage I assumed inflated income or assets or concealing the source of a downpayment. Is this even material? Can't a person have 2 homes and live in both?
One home is always the "primary residence" for legal purposes. You can have and live in as many homes as you want, but only one counts as your primary residence.
That said, the allegation is just that, an allegation. Further, it's coming from people who are highly motivated to exaggerate or lie.
It is still a pretty massive pot meet kettle argument though. Trump's a convicted fraudster. Let's remove everyone who has committed fraud from office. Can we add Ken Paxton to the list with Trump as well? Oh wait, not my guys...
I was talking with a neighbor raging about how corrupt Lisa Cook is and how these people just think they should get away with anything and how these people need to be put in prison for a long time. After pointing out Ken Paxton (someone they hope runs for Congress) claimed three houses as primary residences, well, that's different see...
3 strikes: Black. Woman. Appointed by Biden.