Home | About | Donate

Admitting His Contempt, Trump Says 'Poor Person' Shouldn't Run Economy


#1

Admitting His Contempt, Trump Says 'Poor Person' Shouldn't Run Economy

Jon Queally, staff writer

The former president of Goldman Sachs, that's who you want running things. Not poor people.

So said President Donald Trump Wednesday night during a campaign-style ralling Iowa.

And for a guy who campaigned on being a champion of regular folks, it was perhaps his most brazen admission to date regarding his opinion of low-income people, or those simply not wealthy.

"I love all people, rich or poor," President Trump said, but in positions like Commerce Secretary, now headed by billionaire Wilbur Ross, "I just don't want a poor person."


#2

Folks, it's all about transferring [legalized stealing of] vast sums of wealth—mainly from the middle class to the upper class. So much of the fruits of our nation's productivity has gone to the top executives, instead of the average workers. The compensation differences are so disproportionate.

Many global financial leaders were certainly most instrumental in the intentional and methodical schemes and machinations which led to the economic collapse (2007-2009)—in the first place.

You heard about "revolving doors," haven't you? Well, most of the top government posts for economic, banking, and financial regulatory agencies are filled by the very guys who were former heads of these financial industry companies. So, the very folks who caused the financial collapse—and profited lucratively—were placed in charge of fixing the very same problems which they were instrumental in creating. Go figure! It's like having the fox guard the chicken coop.

These large financial institutions colluded and conspired, amongst themselves, and with top global government officials, to run a financial scam of epic proportions upon the world. This included the banks, mortgage brokers, investment firms, insurance companies, and the major credit rating agencies.

First, the financial industry extensively lobbied the repeal or weakening of certain “inconvenient,” financial regulatory laws. Then, they ignored many rules of proper risk management. They—aggressively and deceptively—peddled countless sub-prime mortgages, which they knew would ultimately be defaulted upon. And finally, they intentionally bundled those worthless mortgages into complex structured finance packages, which they then unscrupulously and greedily sold to unsuspecting investors.

Such plans could not have been carried out without the complicity or acquiescence of key government officials—whose very job it was to protect us. There was definitely a wide-scale pattern of institutional fraud and deception, which was carried out over a period of years. Their greedy, psychopathic schemes and machinations led to a collapse of the world’s economy.

As a person with both an econometrics and finance background, I look at the real numbers, patterns, and the inter-relationships among the major dynamic forces. True analysts don't ever bank on any short-term fluctuations, natural adjustments/correction, numbers that can be fudged, or artificially generated positive economic numbers.

And yes, stock market values and the like can be artificially influenced and manipulated—at-will—by the major financial institutions and monopolistic corporate entities. Also, the government routinely fudges economic indicators. It can do this by either ignoring or downplaying certain negative variables in the equation.

One more point...

Much of the supposed wealth that powered the last boom (i.e., pre-2007) was artificial, i.e., those derivatives, inflated house values (inflated equity), credit, etc. Many people took out mortgages based upon the illusory excess equity in their homes. It is also unfortunate that so much income was derived from housing construction, real estate sales, and related industries.

Sad but true, the banks, primarily through mortgage brokers, knowingly sold homes to folks whom they knew would eventually default. They enticed those folks with ARMs and the likes. Folks were reassured that, even in tough times, they would have various options as to payment options. Also, they were told that the mortgage holders would always work with them.

Just like the 2007-2009 global economic collapse, things aren't always what they seem... Remember former-Prez Bush constantly reassuring the public? "The economy is fine; it's just going through some market adjustments." Then, just as he is leaving office, the bottom falls out. The Administration then provides trillions for the financial institutions and automakers, but nothing for the common folks.

And most folks adamantly believe that all the bailouts were necessary because the institutions were "too big to fail." Well, the corporations need the citizens, just as much as the citizens need the corporations. Besides, they should not have deregulated the financial industry in the first place. The resultant financial collapse was certainly predictable.

Meanwhile, because 70% of GDP is domestic spending, the bottom falls out when banks severely tighten credit. Why? Because although, for years, the productivity rate had been approximately 5% per year, income did not increase. So, how did folks afford to purchase all those goods and services? They borrowed money from the banks.


#3

Oh, Lordy... Donald, neither you nor any of your administration are giving up, "massive pay days" to be there. C'mon...


#4

It's the American way!

Step 1. Elect a president who doesn't reflect the will and needs of the people.
Step 2. Advertise that loudly in the media.
Step 3. Note that he she is very unpopular and cannot or will not get the right things done,.
Step 4. Publish about the dangers of the wild outside world threatening America's existence.
Step 5. Repeat 3 and 4 alternately, ad nauseum.
Step 6. Faced with fight or flight, the President starts a new war. In the latest twist, escalating existing wars is not enough. There must be a new location, a new country and region to destabilize.The hungry war machine is not simply perpetual war, as is often mentioned today. It is everywhere war.


#5

Trump delivers this hocum in a state that receives $48 Billion yearly in subsidies ( agribusiness ) and, through the efforts of Midwestern Senators has a $10 million capital gains tax exemption on family ( agribusiness) inheritance taxes. Woody Guthrie, " the farmer's taxes feed us all ". Well, Mr. Guthrie, not so much, anymore. It's Iowa; " rich white people talking to other rich white people ".


#6

Good analogy, just want to add one thing, The banks also bought off the rating firms to make the investments look good, then took out ins. policy's to bet against them. They were going to win either way.


#7

Credit default swaps are insurance against failed investments. Only very few investors raked in massive amounts of ill-gotten gain through such a device, almost likely through collusion and inside information. There was one investor who made obscene amounts of money via such a scheme; off-hand, I don't remember his name. In some cases, investment accounts were intentionally set up to secretly profit from such nefarious subterfuge, inveiglement and machinations.

If I recall correctly, AIG was infamous for similar types of shady dealings, of epic proportions


#8

Look at the face of the woman behind this horse's ass. Why do she listen so intently to his horseshit? Is she a self-serving, money grubbing acolyte or sociopathic simpleton?


#9

Love it! Perhaps step 1., "Elect" is no longer correct? See Mr.Greg Palast's report on election November 8, 2016. May I add one more step? Step 7.,"Money Worship"!


#10

If he were referring to rich in humanity, I could play along...


#11

Trump's base loves it.

Here's what the D-party tells its base: “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”


#12

The Powell Memo (or the Powell Manifesto): Text and Analysis
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/powell_memo_lewis/


#13

The real question is not if you want a poor person serving as Secretary of Commerce but whether you want someone who MADE OTHER PEOPLE POOR controlling the economy.


#14

This is an old capitalist/classist propaganda tool: forever labor to equate wealth with insight/success.


#15

Well, the folks at CommonDreams are nothing if not predictable! As we watched President Trump last night, I told my wife that his comment about leadership at the Commerce Department would show up in the headlines on this and other left-wing web sites I read. And, sure enough, I was not disappointed.

But give me a break. Do you really want to grab some guy out of the projects that never even finished high school and has never had anything other than a minimum wage job and put him in charge of developing one of the world's leading economies? Not a chance in hell.

If you want to create a climate where businesses can succeed, where they can create good paying jobs and compete on a level field with international competitors, you need to have someone at the helm that has demonstrated that they understand what a climate like that looks like. Someone that has run companies and invested wisely and understands from experience (rather than some set of Ivy League coursework) how the world of commerce really functions.

You're not going to find that kind of experience by looking in the welfare line.


#16

Yeah, and you saw how well that worked back in November. Didn't work in Georgia or SC on Tuesday, either. Maybe if the Democrats started focusing on (real) job creation and national security rather than finding a Russian hiding behind every tree they'd have a bit more success picking up those moderate Republicans.


#17

Two things, friend:

The moderates in the suburbs are white Republicans. The few that will swing D are eclipsed by the huge numbers of working class voters of all colors the D-party used to care about representing.

As for your comment above, I don't think picking someone out of a welfare line was the only alternative.


#18

Only addicted people running treatment centers.
Only criminals running courts and prisons.
Only torturers testing the reporting of truth.
Only human and drug traffickers guarding borders.
Etc.


#19

Agree that the Democrats would be better served trying to recover the working-class voters who abandoned them last November. But, again, that requires a shift from hunting Russians to hunting jobs. Standing in front of a microphone and promising to bankrupt the coal industry or coal-fired manufacturing plants, which also promises to put hundreds of thousands of families out of work (which is what drove them away in the first place), isn't a good way to win them back.

As for alternatives at Commerce, sure there were alternatives. But anyone qualified to head that agency is going to be "well off" financially. These days, if you make more than $250K a year you're considered "rich". Anyone with the experience and acumen to run a major cabinet department, especially the Commerce department, will be wealthy.

The CommonDreams writer is the one intimating that the President is cold and uncaring because he didn't think a poor person would be qualified for the job as Commerce Secretary. Would they really have preferred someone from the welfare line?


#20

You're missing the point: Trump ran against Hillary's ties to Goldman Sachs.

Now half a dozen GS alumni surround him. He could have looked at econ profs from Ohio State University for the commerce post. Instead, he went for an oligarch.

And coal jobs will continue their downward spiral. Nat gas is cheaper, technology mines coal, not people. There are far more jobs now in renewables--that's the future and Trump can lie about it but that won't change it.