Trump-Mueller tensions escalate

[Jig_Saw]

You individually may not be bankrupting the country but the program is. The cost of Medicare part be was $313 billion last year. Individual recipients paid 23% of that, general tax revenues paid for the rest (the Medicare payroll tax paid for none of it). But, the problem is Bush and Obama never balanced the budget, so our grandchildren will be paying for you Medicare benefits. Why do our future generations need to sacrifice for your benefits, Why shouldn’t beneficiaries pay 100% of the cost themselves?

But isn’t that the case in many things in a society? We chose to fund public education because it enhances the entire society. We chose to have social programs to ensure that the elderly do not end up in poor houses or without access to medicine. We chose to let university professors pursue research with no practical impact on society while expecting undergraduates (and indirectly the federal government) to support this research instead of demanding the professors be in the classroom.

 

[jesucated]

Which is why it is always good to have statistics to back up our preconceived notions. So, the question for you is: what is the average net worth of those over 65? If it is obvious that they are all poor, then that should be pretty easy for you to answer.

Net worth is probably not the right figure as it includes home equity into the equation. Either net worth minus home equity or annual income (i.e., wealth that can reasonably be drawn upon to pay bills) would seem to be better figures for this conversation.

Either way, here’s some info businessinsider.com/heres-the-average-net-worth-of-americans-at-every-age-2017-6

 

[stinkcat_14]

Net worth is probably not the right figure as it includes home equity into the equation. Either net worth minus home equity or annual income (i.e., wealth that can reasonably be drawn upon to pay bills) would seem to be better figures for this conversation.

Either way, here’s some info businessinsider.com/heres-the-average-net-worth-of-americans-at-every-age-2017-6

Home equity is not wealth? Source? It is a resource that can be tapped to pay for healthcare instead of making working people sacrifice.

 

[josie_L]

And, as I stated before, this is evidence available to us, the general public, that more than justifies the investigation and we have no idea what the investigators know and when.

And, the emails invalidate nothing you said.

But I doubt I will sway you on this matter and I guess we must respectfully disagree.

The emails do not prove and is not even evidence of collusion in the manner propagated by the Steele dossier and thereafter the media (and at the time of the meeting there was no hysteria associated with Russia, i.e., Russian interference in the elections was yet unknown), but I digress, here’s a wonderful article from the WSJ, please read:

wsj.com/articles/mueller-and-associates-1500668345

 

[jesucated]

Home equity is not wealth? Source? It is a resource that can be tapped to pay for healthcare instead of making working people sacrifice.

Home equity is certainly wealth, but this gets us into a robbing Peter to pay Paul conversation. This is especially true if retirees have paid off their home, and drawing against that value to pay medical bills would not eliminate debt but simply move it around by introducing new payments on an equity line.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Home equity is certainly wealth, but this gets us into a robbing Peter to pay Paul conversation. This is especially true if retirees have paid off their home, and drawing against that value to pay medical bills would not eliminate debt but simply move it around by introducing new payments on an equity line.

Home equity is a very limited form of wealth because you can only access it by selling it, in which case you then have to find a way to have a home again, or you can borrow against it and pay for it all over it again, or you can borrow against it with such things as a reverse mortgage, in which case the “wealth” aspect of it is consumed, though you do have a home (at least until some extended hospitalization).

To me, it is more a consumer good than it is anything else.

 

[jesucated]

Home equity is a very limited form of wealth because you can only access it by selling it, in which case you then have to find a way to have a home again, or you can borrow against it and pay for it all over it again, or you can borrow against it with such things as a reverse mortgage, in which case the “wealth” aspect of it is consumed, though you do have a home (at least until some extended hospitalization).

To me, it is more a consumer good than it is anything else.

It’s rare when we agree, but I think you’re making great points here.

I’d add that reverse mortgages are predatory loans.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Home equity is certainly wealth, but this gets us into a robbing Peter to pay Paul conversation. This is especially true if retirees have paid off their home, and drawing against that value to pay medical bills would not eliminate debt but simply move it around by introducing new payments on an equity line.

No, it is using your own resources to pay for your own needs. There are plenty of options. One can sell their house and move into an apartment. One can sell their house and move in with their kids. One can take out a reverse mortgage. If people have resources, there is no reason the taxpayer needs to get involved.

 

[jesucated]

No, it is using your own resources to pay for your own needs. There are plenty of options. One can sell their house and move into an apartment. One can sell their house and move in with their kids. One can take out a reverse mortgage. If people have resources, there is no reason the taxpayer needs to get involved.

I guess we’ll have to disagree here.

Selling a house and then having to rent an apt. may well create a new bill (rent) that means debt is simply shifted but not reduced.

Not everyone has kids to move in with or kids that can afford to have someone move in with them.

Reverse mortgages are notoriously predatory.

I think that we have a responsibility to care for the elderly, disabled, and infirm, and that the cost is worth it.

 

[Jig_Saw]

The emails do not prove and is not even evidence of collusion in the manner propagated by the Steele dossier and thereafter the media (and at the time of the meeting there was no hysteria associated with Russia, i.e., Russian interference in the elections was yet unknown), but I digress,

The emails provide evidence that the highest level of the Trump campaign attempted to collude with the Russian government. That is public knowledge and that alone justifies the investigation. Furthermore, several intelligence agencies said the Russians were attempting to interfere in the election. Again, that alone, justifies the investigation. Now, I know we’re not going to agree on this, but I do not think you are looking at the evidence objectively.

here’s a wonderful article from the WSJ, please read:
wsj.com/articles/mueller-and-associates-1500668345

Thank you, but it is an opinion piece which is behind a paywall.

 

[Indigo_Cardinal]

No, it is using your own resources to pay for your own needs. There are plenty of options. One can sell their house and move into an apartment. One can sell their house and move in with their kids. One can take out a reverse mortgage. If people have resources, there is no reason the taxpayer needs to get involved.

In Denver, apartment rent is almost as high, if not higher, than a mortgage would be.

Not everybody has children they can move in with. Or the children might not be in a position to support their parents.

Reverse mortgages should be declared criminal.

And in the events somebody does all these things and a second disaster strikes them, what then? They no longer have resources to ‘cash in’.

 

[josie_L]

The emails provide evidence that the highest level of the Trump campaign attempted to collude with the Russian government. That is public knowledge and that alone justifies the investigation. Furthermore, several intelligence agencies said the Russians were attempting to interfere in the election. Again, that alone, justifies the investigation. Now, I know we’re not going to agree on this, but I do not think you are looking at the evidence objectively.

I am looking at it objectively, in fact, as a Canadian I don’t have anything per se to lose whether I am or am not in support of Trump, the thing is that the hysteria surrounding the Russia/Trump collusion wherein all things Russian in connection to Trump are now suspect, is ridiculous, in fact, no real evidence of collusion has been offered by the Mueller’s investigation thus far. And no crime has been committed. We just have an overgeneralized allegation of collusion without even questioning where the source of such a collusion came about? But I can tell you where it came about and/or came from, paid Russian sources of the Steele/Orbis dossier that was funded by Hillary donors for the Hillary campaign via the opposition research company, Fusion GPS. So the irony of all this is that Democrats and the media are willing to believe the unverified claims of collusion stated in the dossier sourced by Russians, thereby allowing the Kremlin (because I have no doubt that these sources are bogus sources created by the Kremlin) to interfere and influence your elections, the very thing that Trump is being accused of. And yes, 4 agencies of the Intelligence communities did state there was some Russian interference in the elections, but that interference was not claimed to have affected said results of the election, but this dossier most certainly has. .

The most under covered story of Russia Gate is the interconnection between the Clinton campaign, an unregistered foreign agent of Russia headquartered in DC (Fusion GPS), and the Christopher Steele Orbis dossier. This connection has raised the question of whether Kremlin prepared the dossier as part of a disinformation campaign to sow chaos in the US political system. If ordered and paid for by Hillary Clinton associates, Russia Gate is turned on its head as collusion between Clinton operatives (not Trump’s) and Russian intelligence. Russia Gate becomes Hillary Gate.

Neither the New York Times, Washington Post, nor CNN has covered this explosive story. Two op-eds have appeared in the Wall Street Journal (Holman Jenkins and David Satter). The possible Russian-intelligence origins of the Steele dossier have been raised only in conservative publications, such as in The Federalist and National Review.

The Fusion story has been known since Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) sent a heavily-footnoted letter to the Justice Department on March 31, 2017 demanding for his Judiciary Committee all relevant documents on Fusion GPS, the company that managed the Steele dossier against then-candidate Donald Trump. Grassley writes to justify his demand for documents that: “The issue is of particular concern to the Committee given that when Fusion GPS reportedly was acting as an unregistered agent of Russian interests, it appears to have been simultaneously overseeing the creation of the unsubstantiated dossier of allegations of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians.” (Emphasis added.)

Former FBI director, James Comey, refused to answer questions about Fusion and the Steele dossier in his May 3 testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Comey responded to Lindsey Graham’s questions about Fusion GPS’s involvement “in preparing a dossier against Donald Trump that would be interfering in our election by the Russians?” with “I don’t want to say.” Perhaps he will be called on to answer in a forum where he cannot refuse to answer.

The role of Fusion GPS and one of its key associates, a former Soviet intelligence officer, must raise the question as to whether the Steele dossier, which was orchestrated by a suspected unregistered agent of Russia, was a plant by Russian intelligence to harm Donald Trump?

forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/06/19/is-russiagate-really-hillarygate/#43fa80c85cf6

Thank you, but it is an opinion piece which is behind a paywall.

Perhaps you can access it from here:

realclearpolitics.com/

The title is “No Evidence, But Investigation Without Limit” (July 24th).

 

[stinkcat_14]

In Denver, apartment rent is almost as high, if not higher, than a mortgage would be.

Not everybody has children they can move in with. Or the children might not be in a position to support their parents.

Reverse mortgages should be declared criminal.

And in the events somebody does all these things and a second disaster strikes them, what then? They no longer have resources to ‘cash in’.

There is nothing like the government dole to kill the creativity in people. If my grandmother who had seven children in a 1200 square foot house could have her mother live with them, then I think many families could support their parents as well.

 

[EasterJoy]

The emails do not prove and is not even evidence of collusion in the manner propagated by the Steele dossier and thereafter the media (and at the time of the meeting there was no hysteria associated with Russia, i.e., Russian interference in the elections was yet unknown), but I digress, here’s a wonderful article from the WSJ, please read:

wsj.com/articles/mueller-and-associates-1500668345

Special prosecutors are a necessary evil—and yes, an evil Mr. Trump could have avoided if he were more politically realisitic than he was about his firing of Mr. Comey at the time he did—but the broad scope of their powers comes out of the power wielded by the target of their investigations. They are dogs of war, yes, but intended to protect the country from what criminal elements could do to places of political power if such a piece of legal artillery did not exist. (They are, for instance, how the Justice Department can protect itself from even the appearance of being unduly influenced by a self-protective Executive Branch.)

Wow, they can be very expensive, though. I do not like to think what this is going to cost, particularly if Mr. Trump and his family keep saying and doing things that even imply improper conduct may have taken place. How I wish Mr. Trump had the common sense to realize that he was in no position to stop an investigation that made him so obviously uncomfortable. He had no power to directly take the heat off of himself, and only made matters worse.

From here on out, I hope he will avoid the topic altogether and will promptly answer exactly the requests that the prosecutor makes: nothing more and nothing less. In other words, he needs to do exactly what his attorneys tell* him* to do, and not the other way around, for a change. I very much doubt that this is what he will do.

 

[EasterJoy]

I am looking at it objectively, in fact, as a Canadian I don’t have anything per se to lose whether I am or am not in support of Trump, the thing is that the hysteria surrounding the Russia/Trump collusion wherein all things Russian in connection to Trump are now suspect, is ridiculous, in fact, no real evidence of collusion has been offered by the Mueller’s investigation thus far. And no crime has been committed. We just have an overgeneralized allegation of collusion without even questioning where the source of such a collusion came about? But I can tell you where it came about and/or came from, paid Russian sources of the Steele/Orbis dossier that was funded by Hillary donors for the Hillary campaign via the opposition research company, Fusion GPS. So the irony of all this is that Democrats and the media are willing to believe the unverified claims of collusion stated in the dossier sourced by Russians, thereby allowing the Kremlin (because I have no doubt that these sources are bogus sources created by the Kremlin) to interfere and influence your elections, the very thing that Trump is being accused of. And yes, 4 agencies of the Intelligence communities did state there was some Russian interference in the elections, but that interference was not claimed to have affected said results of the election, but this dossier most certainly has. .

Perhaps you can access it from here:

realclearpolitics.com/

The title is “No Evidence, But Investigation Without Limit” (July 24th).

I don’t see a single reason in the world that the Russians would not give themselves the means to interfere with everything and everyone, in an attempt to collude with both sides.

The oil companies contribute fantastic sums of money to both presidential campaigns. Why would the Russian government confine itself to getting pitch on the reputation or the poltiical effectiveness of just one side? It is more in their interest to be able to gum thiings up with innuendo and even crime no matter who won. The weaker the US President is, the better for their ability to do what they want in the world. It is not as if Putin fears the US justice system!!

 

[josie_L]

Special prosecutors are a necessary evil—and yes, an evil Mr. Trump could have avoided if he were more politically realisitic than he was about his firing of Mr. Comey at the time he did—but the broad scope of their powers comes out of the power wielded by the target of their investigations. They are dogs of war, yes, but intended to protect the country from what criminal elements could do to places of political power if such a piece of legal artillery did not exist. (They are, for instance, how the Justice Department can protect itself from even the appearance of being unduly influenced by a self-protective Executive Branch.)

Wow, they can be very expensive, though. I do not like to think what this is going to cost, particularly if Mr. Trump and his family keep saying and doing things that even imply improper conduct may have taken place. How I wish Mr. Trump had the common sense to realize that he was in no position to stop an investigation that made him so obviously uncomfortable. He had no power to directly take the heat off of himself, and only made matters worse.

I think he had no choice to fire Comey (as to timing not sure if it would have made a difference to the media), especially when Comey wouldn’t tell the public that he wasn’t under investigation and thereby spurring on the media with their spurious Russia/Trump narrative, although, he did state that the NYT story which started the ball rolling was false:

First, Comey characterized as “not true” the New York Times anonymous-leaks article, that initiated the collusion frenzy back in February. The Times article claimed that “members of Trump’s campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts (my italics) with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.” The Times story careened around the media, until it became Gospel truth of Trump-Russia collusion. It turns out the story was known to be false, but no one bothered to tell American voters.

The (abridged) exchange with Senator Risch (R-Idaho) proceeded as follows:

RISCH: You talked with us shortly after February 14th, when the New York Times wrote an article that suggested that the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians. Do you remember reading that article when it first came out?

COMEY: I do.

RISCH: After that, you sought out both Republican and Democrat senators to tell them that, hey, I don’t know where this is coming from, but this is not the case. This is not factual (my italics). Do you recall that?

COMEY: Yes.

RISCH: So, the American people can understand this, that report by the New York Times was not true. Is that a fair statement?

COMEY: In the main, it was not true. And again, all of you know this (my italics). Maybe the American people don’t.

Most damning in this exchange is Comey’s cynical “you know but the American people don’t.” Where is the outrage that the media collusion narrative was based on a falsehood of which U.S. senators were aware? The Times has issued no retraction and lamely states that “the immediate sources could not be reached” but “they have indicated that they believed the account was solid.” The anonymous sources can believe what they want, but the FBI head thinks otherwise.

forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/06/11/three-overlooked-statements-by-comey-that-blow-apart-the-russian-collusion-narrative/#701d6ece2583

 

[josie_L]

I don’t see a single reason in the world that the Russians would not give themselves the means to interfere with everything and everyone, in an attempt to collude with both sides.

The oil companies contribute fantastic sums of money to both presidential campaigns. Why would the Russian government confine itself to getting pitch on the reputation or the poltiical effectiveness of just one side? It is more in their interest to be able to gum thiings up with innuendo and even crime no matter who won. The weaker the US President is, the better for their ability to do what they want in the world. It is not as if Putin fears the US justice system!!

EasterJoy, Trump did not collude with Russia, that is in itself a Russian fabrication which originated from the dossier, and it only got traction after Hillary Clinton lost, blaming Russian interference. In January, Buzzfeed publicized the unverified sources of this dossier (which they are getting sued for), with the coup d’etat being provided by the NYT, the first media outlet to promote the narrative that Russia and Trump were working together to influence the election, even though Comey called the article false before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

 

[ProVobis]

What you pay for plan B is only about 25% of the total cost. The rest comes from general tax revenues, not the payroll tax. That is why Medicare is bankrupting our country.

Costs are generally negotiated by either the insurance companies or by Medicare. They always love to send you a bill showing high costs but generally only a fraction is paid.

Maybe the question should be if the government can negotiate low costs, why can’t the patients.

 

[EasterJoy]

I think he had no choice to fire Comey (as to timing not sure if it would have made a difference to the media), especially when Comey wouldn’t tell the public that he wasn’t under investigation and thereby spurring on the media with their spurious Russia/Trump narrative, although, he did state that the NYT story which started the ball rolling was false:

He didn’t have any choice? Oh, please. That is ridiculous.

**May 9: **Comey is fired. White House statement: “Today, President Donald J. Trump informed FBI Director James Comey that he has been terminated and removed from office. President Trump acted based on the clear recommendations of both Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Attorney General Jeff Sessions.”

May 10, Sarah Huckabee Sanders statement: "There’s also another nugget of big news, as you guys may have been paying attention, in regard to the termination of the former FBI Director Comey. The President, over the last several months, lost confidence in Director Comey. The DOJ lost confidence in Director Comey. Bipartisan members of Congress made it clear that they had lost confidence in Director Comey. And most importantly, the rank and file of the FBI had lost confidence in their director.

Accordingly, the President accepted the recommendation of his Deputy Attorney General to remove James Comey from his position. Before the news broke, the President spoke to several members of Congress to inform them of his decision. Those members are Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, Senator Chuck Grassley, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senator Feinstein, Senator Lindsey Graham, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and Congressman Bob Goodlatte. Later in the evening, he also spoke to Senator Bob Corker, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations…"

May 10, Nancy Pelosi: “*The President’s sudden and brazen firing of the FBI Director raises the ghosts of some of the worst Executive Branch abuses. We cannot stand by and watch a coverup of the possible collusion with a hostile foreign power to undermine American democracy.

“The interests of justice demand Congress act immediately to create an independent, bipartisan commission to pursue the Trump-Russia investigation free from the Administration’s attempts to silence it*.”

**May 11: **Trump Interview with Lester Holt:
Holt: Monday you met with the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
Trump: Right.
Holt: Did you ask for a recommendation?
Trump: What I did is, I was going to fire Comey. My decision. It was not —
Holt: You had made the decision before they came in the room.
Trump: I was going to fire Comey. There’s no good time to do it, by the way.
Holt: Because in your letter you said, “I accepted their recommendation.”
Trump: Well, they also —
Holt: So, you had already made the decision.
Trump: Oh, I was going to fire regardless of recommendation.

Trump went on to say (in part): …in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said you know this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, its an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election they should have won…"

In other words, Trump made up a bunch of stuff about lost confidence in the FBI director and low morale and implies pressure from Congress, but in fact he didn’t want the FBI investigating him any more, so he fired Comey. When the announcement was made, he tried to imply someone was pressuring him to fire Comey when he was in fact going to fire Comey no matter what anyone else said. Or maybe something else is the truth. Once someone has told two conflicting stories about a course of events, who knows if either one of those is even true?

He fired Comey because he wanted the investigation into anything having to do with himself and Russia to stop. I don’t care what the legal definition of obstruction of justice is. Donald Trump fired Comey primarily to stop an investigation into Trump and his aides. He made the decision all by himself. He attempted, however, to imply he made his decision based on independent recommendations and outside pressures. That isn’t true, even by Mr. Trump’s own account. The White House said the President fired Comey because Comey had lost the confidence of Congress and the rank and file in the FBI, but again, by Trump’s own account, that is not why he decided to fire Comey. Trump said he made the decision because he thought the investigation ought to be stopped.

By these actions, he asked for an independent prosecutor to take over the investigation. Really, what did he expect? I can believe Nancy Pelosi just said, “I understand. I’m sure your mind is made up. Thank you for calling.” If he made all the phone calls he did, however, then it was pure passive aggression if every Republican and every other lawyer he talked to did not explain exactly what he ought to expect to follow.

So no, he was not “forced” to fire Comey before the investigation was concluded. That is nonsense. If he had any common sense, he would have either fired Comey on Day One but made no attempt to do anything about any investigation into his activities or else waited until the investigation was over. He provided the impetus to appoint a special prosecutor all by himself, and he has himself to thank for it.

 

[meltzerboy]

There is nothing like the government dole to kill the creativity in people. If my grandmother who had seven children in a 1200 square foot house could have her mother live with them, then I think many families could support their parents as well.

Apart from the government dole, many or most families are just not what they used to be! The whole culture is not what it used to be.