The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Politics]

If you're younger than 30 or so and intend to support and vote for Sanders, here's something to think about.

One of his "signature" proposals is to make college "tuition free" for everyone.  Nice, right?

Ok, so let's say you're graduating, oh, say how about right now.  You have some college debt, maybe a lot of it.  You probably (if you're average) have $20, 30 or $40,000 worth of said debt.  You might have $100,000 worth of it or more.

Even if Sanders manages to get you the ability to refinance it at the 10 year Treasury rate, and that rate is around the 2% it is now when he does this (both unlikely by the way), you still will have a payment of $374.52 a month due, or $4,500 a year.  It'll be more if he can't get the interest reduction through Congress, incidentally.

So let's say Sanders gets into office and four years later the first graduates come out with zero student debt.

You, my friend, are going to get screwed blind by the very man you put in office!

Said new graduate is going to take your job. He or she is going to take your job because he or she can do your job for $4,500 less a year and have the same standard of living.

Those newly-minted degree holders will do exactly that and their employers will fire you and hire them.

This is the same reason that companies want H1B visa holders, by the way, and why Disney and dozens of other firms had their employees train their replacements that were brought in under H1Bs!  Those people came from India -- with no student debt -- the exact same thing you are arguing for here.

When you find yourself fired, broke and bankrupt, and you realize you blew your own heads off economically, what are you going to say when this sign comes out as you're whining about not being able to find a job that will pay your bills?


View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

A man who will do anything, including blatantly lie, to get elected...... what will he do once in office?


View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Huckabee had the good sense to call it a day and go home.

The others who saw their dreams blown to bits, not so much, with the exception of Malloy on the Democrat side (who also displayed a bit of competence.)

Cruz, Trump and Rubio go forward with a good argument for continuing.  Carson might be able to make such an argument, but he runs out of gas in New Hampshire unless he manages to at least place.

None of others have a prayer in Hell on the Republican side.  There is no future for Rand Paul, Jeb, Fiorina, Kasich, Christie, Santorum or Gilmore.  Rand and Jeb got one delegate each, while none of the others got any, all polling under 2%.

That's Libertarian Candidate territory, and is a complete waste of time.  Any money donated to these people beyond this point is literally set on fire with the ashes flushed down the toilet.

There are many who wish to attach big significance to Cruz's win, but I don't.  Iowa is rarely able to predict anything; it's just how it is.  Their claim to fame is being first, not accurate.  Nonetheless you have to be able to post up some credible support there to have a shot, and there are really only three who can make that claim, with one "maybe."

Good riddance to Rand and Jeb.  The rest never had anything to offer in the first place, and thus are and were utterly immaterial.

Carson's biggest problem is that he comes off soft in places you can't as a President (e.g. internationally) and refuses to take on the medical monopoly issue, where he could win big among Republicans.  Oh sure, he'd***** off the entire pharma and hospital industry, along with the insurance companies, but remember that only people vote, not corporations.  He's also nearly immune to attacks from them because he's a surgeon and, apparently, a good one, so going after him on this point with attacks are likely to run off like water on a duck's back.

But.... he's had months and hasn't done it -- and that means that after New Hampshire he's probably done.

We'll see how big the narcissistic trait is among everyone else, and how long they continue to lie to themselves (and their supporters) about having a crack at the nomination.

Takeaway: This morning there are four Republican contenders -- period.

As for the Democrats Sanders is fun to watch.  He'd be an utter disaster for the nation as President, as his stock in trade is innumeracy among the population.  Then again, Hillary's calling card is made out of lies, deceit, complicity in the abuse of women by her husband and arguably high treason, but that hasn't stopped her.

And that leads to my closing question: Is there a nation here worth saving?

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Who won last night's debate?

Trump.  And he wasn't there.

Who lost?  Fox News, which led the "debate" with a cheap shot at Trump.  Megyn did herself no favors in that regard, and she had better hope that nothing ever disrupts the media oligopoly (a losing bet, IMHO) as if it does she's going to find her best and highest calling in Nevada somewhat outside of Clark County.

The program Trump put together, with essentially zero notice, was very nice.  It was the best political speechifying and rallying that I've seen since I have been sentient enough to pay attention to it.  It was so because it was uplifting and yet not promotional for oneself; it was in fact selfless.

Trump instead took to praise other people, to uplift others, and instead of raising funds for himself and his political ambitions he managed to pop up somewhere north of $6 million for veterans with one of those millions being his, personally.

When was the last time you saw a politician give away his own money instead of beg for yours -- or even more commonly, collect it from people who are effectively bribing him?

Those veterans organizations that preemptively decided they didn't want the money before they saw the program are fools.  If they expected Trump to use this as a political polemic device they were wrong.  He didn't, although he certainly could have; posting up a million smackers of his own cash gave him every right to do exactly that. Instead he had a vet with a prosthetic leg give a nice little speech on what life's like after serving one's nation and having one of your limbs removed as a consequence.

It was a particularly poignant reminder of two things, which our nation needs to see more of.

First, freedom isn't free and those who volunteer for such duty sometimes come home in a box or missing parts of their body.  For everyone who garfs about veterans "using" the nation for benefits such as the GI Bill and other privileges there are many who come home permanently damaged, at room temperature or who never return at all.  If you want to argue over politics as relates to our military a good place to start is who you want in the left seat of power in America that will reduce the risk of our men and women in uniform being utilized in a fashion that results in these outcomes.  Do you want someone who speaks out of both sides of one's mouth and repeatedly fails to bring peace (witness anyone named "Bush", "Clinton" or "Obama") or do you want someone the world is literally terrified to screw with because they know what will happen?

Millennials weren't around when Reagan took office but they damn well ought to read history.  There are many legitimate criticisms about Reagan, particularly on the economic front, but one thing is indisputable: He won big twice internationally without having to fire a single shot, drop a single bomb or get one American maimed or killed; first with Iran and the hostages (they folded before he even put his hand on the Bible) and then again with the USSR; his bet that they couldn't fiscally afford an arms race but that he could successfully goad them into economic and political self-destruction via one proved correct.  Big balls are often seen as a liability but there are times that displaying them saves countless lives and even more maimed soldiers.  Who's the one candidate to put that forward on the stage today?

There's only one, folks, and you know it.

The second is that big balls without grace, or worse, with actual malice, is dangerous.  Very dangerous.  Using a system of laws to make money doesn't qualify as malice.  Personal avarice and willful disregard of the law to the point of ignoring state secrets is another matter.  So is playing games with American jobs and our economy for personal profit, something that all of those who stepped on that stage last night with Faux News support and promote.

Incidentally, so does Fox News itself, which is why they're terrified of Trump.  These people literally want to see you impoverished to improve their own personal bottom line and wealth.

In asking the question of “what’s wrong over there?” Trump has shined a spotlight on one of Washington’s best kept secrets: namely, Fox’s role via its founder Rupert Murdoch in pushing an open borders agenda. The Trump campaign is a direct threat to Murdoch’s efforts to open America’s borders. Well-concealed from virtually all reporting on Fox’s treatment of Trump is the fact that Murdoch is the co-chair of what is arguably one of the most powerful immigration lobbying firms in country, the Partnership for a New American Economy (PNAE).

In addition to blanketing the country, media, and politicians with literature, advertisements, and a barrage of lobbyists pushing for open border immigration policies, the Partnership for A New American Economy (PNAE) was a prime lobbyist for one of the biggest open borders pushes in American history.

Oh, and it gets better -- Fox's VP of News and Washington managing editor is the father of Rubio's Press Secretary.  Ailes, Fox News' President, is strongly on board with this agenda as well.

Oh, and by the way, that view is shared by Bloomberg as well.

But of course it is.  It's also shared by Zuckerberg, because it would allow him to fire thousands of high-paid Americans and replace them with H1B visa-holders from India, further feathering his own nest while screwing you blind.

This isn't some random thought.  It's systemic; Disney along with dozens of other firms have been engaged in this for decades, and they will continue for as long as you allow it.

Trump will stop it, first by enforcing existing immigration laws (something neither Democrat or Republican executives have done for the last 20 years) and then by using the bully pulpit of the Presidency to point out the economic and social costs to the American people, inciting them to demand changes in the laws that will restore immigration to its proper place in America.

Look folks, we're all immigrants in this nation unless you're a native American, and few (percentage wise) are.  I was privileged to attend the naturalization ceremony of a good friend a few days ago, and it was quite the moving experience.  Part of it included each petitioner saying a couple of sentences about who they were and how long they'd been here.  Most had spent more than a decade pursing naturalization as Americans and they did it legally, through arduous process and procedure.  That's the right way, and I was honored to watch 60-odd new American Citizens take the oath in Tallahassee at the federal courthouse.

Trump is not anti-immigration; he is anti cheating and jumping the line.  He's an immigrant and he knows it; so are family members.  But every one of them in his lineage and family did it the right way.

Might Trump be a lying snake on both of these points?


But then again, maybe not.  And as things stand right now if you have a desire to see either of those things become front and center in America, two points that will be central to halting and reversing the decay of this nation, there is only one candidate who says he will do these things.

All the rest are saying in plain English that they'll do the opposite.

How many more jobs do you want to lose and how many more of our American servicemen and women do you want to have missing legs -- or lives?

That's your choice folks.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

In a decision that is certain to mark something quite important Donald Trump has decided he will not be attending the next Fox News debate.

The decision was taken after Fox decided that they'd do a bit of editorializing on Trump's dispute with Ms. Kelly, who IMHO he has every right to be unhappy with -- and Fox's support of her.

The truth is that essentially none of what passes for "journalists" these days on any of the major networks are anything more than "pretty faces" hired for their boobs rather than their brains.  Kelly is just one of the more-glaring and outrageous examples.

Someone is going to get badly wounded and perhaps destroyed as a consequence of this decision.  Either Trump will have his candidacy severely damaged or the Snooz Media is going to be rendered virtually impotent and irrelevant in this campaign cycle.

My money is on the latter, and IMHO it's well-deserved; Trump has the right idea here, choosing instead to hold a benefit event for wounded veterans at the same time in a bid to trash Fox's ad revenue and viewership in that time slot.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
Convention Of States?

Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access

Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.