Trump's Imprecise Language, More Reasons to Shun Him (a Tom Friedman Column), Whither Retail, a Baseball Analogy and a Plea for Newspapers

                                 

More Reasons for Americans of All Parties to Shun Trump

Last week “Dangerous Donald” Trump accused Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton of being the founders of the Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL).  He has somewhat clarified this by implying that their actions in the Middle East, specifically removing American troops, was tantamount to their being the founders of ISIS. (He ignores the fact that the Shia-dominated Iraqi government would not provide an acceptable “status of forces” agreement for any troops we maintained there, meaning that American troops accused of committing crimes would be tried in Iraqi courts, not American military courts.  Bottom line: The Iranian-backed Iraqi government did not want our troops there.) 

Of course, “Dangerous Donald” is just posturing, hoping this type of phony accusation will get him a few more votes.  He appeals to a constituency which is ready to believe anything negative he might say, truthful or not, about the President and Hillary Clinton. Even something as ridiculous as their being the founders of ISIS! 

And when "Dangerous Donald" recognized (or was finally told, probably by a family member) how transparently phony his accusation was, he ends up claiming that his critics just aren't capable of comprehending his "sarcasm." Late news:  Sarcasm is a quality we should be looking for in choosing a President.  Not in my country!

The danger of such phony accusations (if Obama and Clinton “founded” ISIS, it follows that they would have committed treasonous acts ... that's the conclusion which "Dangerous Donald" wants his supporters to reach.) is that there are enough wackos out there who might believe them.  This kind of accusation, along with his Second Amendment comment, can result in violence.

With that in mind, I offer you Thomas Friedman's August 9 New York Times column where he points out how such subtle or not so subtle inflammatory oratory can have fatal results when it inspires ardent believers to commit violent acts.  That is the scenario that led to the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin by an individual opposed to Rabin’s willingness to seriously negotiate with the Palestinians.  And that is the road that “Dangerous Donald,” master of imprecise and ambiguous language, is taking!  If you read no further in this blog, you must read Friedman’s column!  To do so, just click right here ! 

Jack Lippman  

                                 

The Intentional Imprecision of Donald Trump

“Dangerous Donald” Trump’s language is often very imprecise, leaving the listener to decide what he is saying, and leaving him an “exit ramp” if he is criticized for what he is saying.  It is akin to a slick salesman’s vaguely smoothing over a contentious point in his pitch by planting an incomplete idea in the customer’s mind, and allowing that customer to make an incorrect assumption.  He might declare that the air conditioner you are buying is guaranteed for five years, but when it breaks down a year later, and you read the fine print, you find that the five year guarantee is filled with exceptions and isn’t what you thought it was.

Look at these examples, and note my comments in red.

          

1. We’ll start with Trump’s recent Second Amendment verbatim comments which are in in blue.

 "Hillary wants to abolish -- essentially abolish the Second Amendment.”  

 Trump knows Hillary doesn’t want to abolish the Second Amendment, and to avoid being called a liar, he modifies his accusation with the non-specific word “essentially,” which his listeners don’t hear.” 

“By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people,”

He just mentions the “Second Amendment people,” saying nothing about them, leaving the listener to possibly supply a verb. 

"maybe there is, I don't know,"   

Trump’s words “maybe there is” just hanging there certainly apply to the “Second Amendment people” but he goes no further with this line of thought.” Some listeners might go further with them though and in their heads complete the thought to read “maybe there is action they might take.”  But then, the final “I don’t know” disclaimer removes him from responsibility for those who take it that way and dream of violent action.  And he did mumble “maybe” too, taking him still further off of any hook.

"But I tell you what, that will be a horrible day, (pause) if Hillary gets to put her judges in, right now we’re tied."

Does he mean it will be a horrible day if the Second Amendment people take some violent action when Hillary appoints liberal judges, or does he simply mean it will be a horrible day if Hillary gets to appoint judges.  An intentional ambiguity, leaving it to the listener to interpret his words.

           

2. Now let’s go back a year to a CNN interview in which Trump attacked Fox News’ Megyn Kelly who had moderated a G.O.P debate.  His words are in blue and my comments are in red.  

"You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever." 

Use of the words "you could see" left responsibility for the vulgar sexual connotation which almost all viewers attached to his comment to those viewers, getting him off of the hook.  And because “whatever” is a meaningless word, Trump left it to the viewer to provide a more precise meaning for it.  It could mean anything and in fact, in a subsequent "tweet," he suggested it might refer to her nose as well as elsewhere.  Use of an imprecise word like “whatever” allows Trump to have an “exit ramp.”

           

3. And in regard to Ghazala Khan, mother of the Muslim United States war hero, Trump was similarly ambiguous in his interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC News.  Trump’s words, verbatim, are in blue.  My comments are in red.

“If you look at his wife, she was standing there, she had nothing to say. She probably, maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say.”

Trump asks the viewer (you) to look at her and draw your own conclusions. When he comments that she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say, an attack on the role of women in some parts of the Islamic world, he includes the words “probably” and ‘maybe.”  This takes him off of the hook and leaves it to the viewer to come to the conclusion Trump has reached but will not himself unequivocally state.  He entirely passes the buck to the viewer with his final three words.

“You tell me.”

This “You tell me” and the “I don’t know” comment in regard to his Second Amendment gaffe are the ways this slick snake oil salesman puts his ideas into the minds of his gullible followers while maintaining his own innocence.  (Same thing goes for his use of “whatever” as cited above.) 

 Who me?  I nevah said that!

That “Dangerous Donald” Trump was merely encouraging “Second Amendment people” to get out and vote rather than half-humorously suggesting that they might take some more violent action if Clinton is elected and appoints liberal justices is something only unbelievably naïve voters (and paid Trump staffers) would believe. 

His use of the expression “Second Amendment people” is strange too.  It is coded language actually meaning “gun owners” but saying that would put his remarks in a far more ominous light, less easy to slither away from.   


A Second Amendment Person

But did "Dangerous Donald" actually mean to suggest some sort of violent action?  You’ll never know because of the intentionally imprecise language he uses. 

“Dangerous Donald” Trump believes we all are gullible and stupid, like some of the people in the real estate and casino businesses whom he has bilked over the years with his “deals.”  That is not the case.  Every day, thousands of Republicans are waking up to this and deciding to either stay away from the polls on Election Day or even planning on voting for Hillary Clinton.  They put country ahead of party, once they realize that "Dangerous Donald" puts himself ahead of both country and party.

The great mystery which future historians will address is determining what factors in the United States of America in 2015 and 2016, and more specifically, in the Republican Party, resulted in his getting the G.O.P. Presidential nomination.

JL

                         

On Its Way Out - Retail

I recall standing in a check-out line, about five years ago, in a discount department store, probably TJ Maxx or Marshalls.  In front of me was a man in his fifties and a younger woman, probably his adult daughter.  The line was moving slowly, what with some customers having coupons, some presenting merchandise without price tags and still others swiping credit cards that didn’t work.  I overheard the man speaking loudly to his daughter.   ““Look at this. Isn’t it awful. Now, can you see why I’ve always been glad we never were in ‘retail.’ What a mess!”

Waiting in line at Target

Obviously, the man’s business did not involve his dealing with the ultimate consumer of his stock in trade, whatever it was.  It was easier to be a distributor or wholesaler, where expenses and receipts were easily calculated from a limited number of clients, than a retailer dealing with the vagaries of thousands of different customers each day.  That’s true today too, and the availability of merchandise on the internet via Amazon and many other sites, has made retailing even more hazardous.

Just recently, Sports Authority has closed all of its stores.  Walmart is planning on closing 243 of theirs and Macy’s recently announced that 100 of its locations will disappear within a year.  Retailing as we have known it over the past half a century, is on its way out.  And many jobs will be lost.

It will be replaced, I suspect, by even more purchases being made on the internet or in discount wholesale operations such as Costco or BJ's.   Hopefully, they, and internet warehouses filling online orders, will be hiring laid off retail store employees.

 

Those stores and chains that survive will be those which deal in very high priced, exclusive and individualized merchandise (Jewelry and high couture designer apparel), extremely inexpensive merchandise of just temporary appeal (H&M, Charming Charlie) or clearance outlets for manufacturers overruns (Marshalls, Bealls, etc.).  Everything else will slowly shift to the internet.

JL

                                             

That's Baseball!

When there is a close call in a baseball game, challenged by the team the umpire’s call went against, the umpiring crew gathers and gets on the phone with an umpiring crew housed in New York City (they actually are at Chelsea Piers on the Hudson River at about 20^th Street) which reviews all available videos and comes to a decision, either confirming the game umpire’s call, or overruling it … and that decision is final.  Usually, there is some consternation in the dugout of the team the decision goes against, but they accept it as having gone through an appeal process.  It’s final. That’s baseball.

But politics is different.  Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s involvement in the tragic attack on our Consulate in Behghazi has been reviewed by innumerable panels, including hours of her testimony before a hostile House Committee.  And they have not come up with anything with which to condemn her.  Similarly, the FBI has thoroughly examined her use of a private email server, and while extremely critical of her doing so, had decided that there is nothing there to prosecute her for.  Decisions have been made in both cases after extensive review of the evidence.  But unlike angry baseball players in the dugout after the umpires in New York have ruled against them, who know how to take a decision like men … Republicans do not.  Their anger persists.  They should watch a few baseball games and learn something.  

JL

                                                 

Newspapers Must Survive 

In a recent Washington Post column, Kathleen Parker bemoaned the continuing attrition in the newspaper industry.  She leaned heavily on a recent TV blast by HBO's John Oliver. Without paying subscribers, newspapers will die, despite their efforts to carry on alongside of their internet versions, which soon may be their only access to the public.

   

    
John Oliver and Kathleen Parker

Then, Parker and Oliver ask, where will the supposed news sources on television and on the internet, get their news?  Both news and investigative reporting by newspaper journalists are what TV and internet “news” programs lean heavily upon.  See how often what they are talking about is credited to a “print” newspaper.  What will they do when there are no print newspapers around from which they can absorb information?  The staffs of national networks and local outlets are very limited in size and cannot cover the wide spectrum of news events occurring daily in our country. Newspapers can.   But Parker, quoting Oliver, said it far better than I can so click here to read her column.

Subscribe to a newspaper!  Have it delivered to your door every day, even if you don’t read it.   Its existence will enable the news you see on TV or online to continue to exist as well.

JL

                                                                     

HOW TO BE ALERTED TO FUTURE BLOG POSTINGS.

Many readers of this blog are alerted by Email every time a new posting appears.  If you wish to be added to that Email list, just let me know by clicking on Riart1@aol.com and sending me an Email.  

HOW TO CONTACT ME or CONTRIBUTE MATERIAL TO JACK'S POTPOURRI. 

BY CLICKING ON THAT SAME ADDRESS, Riart1@aol.com   YOU ALSO CAN SEND ME YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO BE PUBLISHED IN THIS BLOG AS WELL AS YOUR COMMENTS.  (Comments can also be made by clicking on the "Post a Comment" link at the blog's end.)

MOBILE DEVICE ACCESS.

DID YOU KNOW THAT www.jackspotpourri.com IS ALSO AVAILABLE ON YOUR MOBILE DEVICES IN A MODIFIED, EASY-TO-READ, FORMAT?   

HOW TO VIEW OLDER POSTINGS.                                                

To view older postings on this blog, just click on the appropriate date in the “Blog Archive” midway down the column off to the right, or scroll down until you see the “Older Posts” notation at the very bottom of this posting.  The “Search Box” in the right side of the posting also may be helpful in locating a posting topic for which you are looking.

HOW TO FORWARD POSTINGS.

To send this posting to a friend, or enemy for that matter, whom you think might be interested in it, just click on the envelope with the arrow on the "Comments" line directly below, enabling you to send them an Email providing a link directly to this posting.  You might also want to let me know their Email address so that they may be alerted to future postings.

Jack Lippman 

Fourteen Columnists, That 400 Million Dollars, Why Hillary Will Win and Job Rationing

                              

Fourteen Columnists Can't Be Wrong

The Palm Beach Post publishes fourteen columnists each week, one “from the left” and one “from the right” each day.  Those from the” left” are Paul Krugman, Mary Sanchez, Maureen Dowd, Thomas Friedman, E.J. Dionne, Jr., Gail Collins and Leonard Pitts.  Those from the “right” are Mona Charen, Ross Douthat, Michael Gerson, Kathleen Parker, David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer and George Will.

I read them all and from what they have been writing I have concluded that all of those “from the left” will be voting for Hillary Clinton, and that none of those “from the right” will be voting for Donald Trump.  This does not mean they will be voting for Hillary Clinton, but from what they have written, it doesn't look as if they will vote for Donald. What a sorry state of affairs for the party of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and the Bush family. 

What happened to cause this?  Recognizing that they had become a minority party in the nation, the G.O.P. welcomed all to join with them under their big tent.  That was the only way they could manage to corral enough support to elect local, state and national candidates.  And that is how racists (closet and otherwise), gun enthusiasts, anti-abortionists, isolationists, foes of immigration, those who wished to minimize the regulatory and socio/economic role of government and assorted “haters” and “crazies” came to dominate their party.  This resulted in the victories of Donald Trump in the primaries and at the G.O.P. convention.


Trump agrees with the N.R.A.

  

Some of this group originally called themselves the Tea Party, likening their opposition to our government’s increasing role in our society to the dumping of tea into Boston harbor in 1773 by the Sons of Liberty, a protest by colonists against arbitrary taxation by the English government.  This supposedly gave them claim to a legitimate heritage, which masked their true role as reactionaries bent on instituting eighteenth century limited government in our twenty-first century world.  Well, they got what they wanted, a totally unqualified Donald Trump as their candidate, and along the way, destroyed the Republican Party, which brought all of this upon itself.

Republicans who saw what was happening, like former House Speaker John Boehner, got out of the way.  Others, like Jeb Bush, were swept away by the onslaught.  The “from the right” columnists mentioned above have also jumped ship or are poised to do so. Those Republicans that remain, like Paul Ryan (a pretty conservative guy himself with still untested abilities) are in a quandary, hitched to a wild horse pulling the G.O.P.’s wagon toward a precipice.  Should they jump off, or go over the cliff with the crazed horse and the wagon?

                                
Jack Lippman

                                      


That $400,000,000 Refund to Iran 

Here in a nutshell is the truth about what Donald Trump and the Republicans are screaming about in regard to the United States supposedly paying a ransom to facilitate the release of four Americans being held in the Iranian “judicial” system.

Back in 1979, the Shah of Iran’s government ordered some jet aircraft from the United States, for which they paid us 400 million dollars in advance.  That year there was a revolution in Iran, which threw out the Shah, and installed the present government so the planes were never delivered.  At that time, the Iranians took several hundred Americans prisoners and held them as hostages until 1981, when Ronald Reagan took office.  Their release was worked out at a conference in Algiers, at which time an international court, the Iran-United States Claim Tribunal, was set up to handle outstanding claims between the two countries.

One of these was the Iranian request for a 400-million-dollar refund for the undelivered planes.  Because it was, and still is, illegal for us to send money to Iran’s present regime, we had been sitting on that 400 million ever since, and it had been accumulating at interest all the while.  The matter has remained in that Claim Tribunal ever since, and it looked as if, sooner or later, we would have to return their money.  It appeared that the Tribunal’s decision, based on the passage of time, would be for a much greater amount than the $1,700,000,000 to which the $400,000,000 claim, including interest, had now grown over 37 years, so it was a wise decision for our government, back in January of this year, to start planning on the mechanism of starting to return the money, which was a complicated task since it is still illegal to send dollars to Iran. 

 The four hundred million, in currency equivalents other than in dollars, which would be against U.S.laws, was carried in a Swiss Air Force plane.  Trump erroneously claimed, and later retracted, his statement that this picture was from an Iranian propaganda video.  The picture was actually taken in Geneva.  

When the payment was finally made to Iran, the Iranians found it to be a convenient time to release the four Americans being held there.  Their doing so made it seem as if we were succumbing to a ransom request.  We were not.  The money would have been returned even if no prisoners had been involved.

Actually, the 400 million is the first installment of a total of the $1,700,000,000 mentioned above.  Regardless of how it appears, and the impression the Iranians attached to this repayment, it was not our giving in to a ransom demand that Trump and the desperate Republicans paint it to be.  And the only money involved was Iranian money we had been holding and the interest it had accrued.

Foreign relations and diplomacy are complicated areas for which professionals at all levels spend years developing expertise, learning how to solve problems without resorting to violence.  Much of what happens takes place behind the scene in covert, confidential meetings, often involving intermediaries. It is an area of “deal-making” in which Donald Trump is pitifully prepared to operate.  He may bellow and scream and criticize, but that is the limit of his diplomatic skill.

For a detailed description of the entire matter and an overview of our relationship with Iran, just click right here!  This article served as my source for most of the information reported above.

JL

                                            



Why Hillary Clinton Will Be Our Next President

Let’s talk about why a majority of Americans in enough states to produce 270 electoral votes will be choosing Hillary Clinton to be our next President, providing her with a Democratic majority in the Senate and significantly reducing the Republican majority in the House of Representatives.  (Please note that the name of the Republican nominee for President is not mentioned, not even once, in this article!)  

Check out Larry Sabato's predictions from the University of Virginia's Center for politics.  Take a look at his Electoral College map. Click right here to see it.  He predicts, as of August 4 (but things can change), a Clinton victory by an Electoral count of 347 to 191.   You can play around with it on his map, moving states from one candidate to the other if you wish.

But here's why Hillary Clinton will win.  The economy must be recalibrated to stress job creation and growth, reflected by a rising Gross Domestic Product.  It would be wonderful if this could be accomplished, as Republicans always unsuccessfully claim it can, by the private sector alone via “trickle down” theories.  That has never worked.  Even for Ronald Reagan.  Businesses exist to make a profit.  If outsourcing jobs to places where labor is cheaper, or eliminating jobs here by taking advantage of advances in technology, will produce a better bottom line, the private sector will do it!  Businesses do not necessarily work with a sense of social responsibility. 

A Democratic Congress, and a Democratic President, will work together with the private sector to develop new areas where jobs will be created and funnel the benefits of to those at all levels on our economic ladder.  This will necessitate some revisions in our thinking about international trade agreements, cooperation with labor unions, massive skills retraining and the providing of government aid not only to individuals, but to businesses as well.  Americans, particularly those who are unemployed or underemployed, recognize that only a Democratic President can help solve these problems.  (For my long-term solution to these problems, one that even Hillary has not embraced, check out the final article on this posting.)

Improved healthcare is another area where on a Democratic President and Congress can accomplish something.  The partnership with the private health care insurance industry which the Affordable Care Act provides is more expensive and less effective than Medicare (in which the private insurance sector only serves to fill gaps).  Ultimately, we will have to have a single payer traditional Medicare-type health insurance program for all, replacing the Affordable Care Act.  Americans know that only Democrats can bring this about.

And there are other critical areas where only a Democratic President and Congress can do what is necessary: (1) Protecting our environment, (2) Dealing with climate change, (3) Providing greater opportunities for higher education for all, (4) Rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure.  (5)  Regulating Wall Street and the banking industry so that financial resources are available to all Americans in a fair and honest manner.  (6) Appointing Supreme Court Justices who will properly interpret the Constitution in regard to corporate involvement in politics (Citizens United), gun control (Heller vs. D.C.) and individual voting rights.  Americans recognize this and will vote Democratic!

Americans are aware of the fact that all of the above will cost a lot of money.  They know that taxes will have to be increased to provide it.  But they also know that these necessary tax increases will fall upon the very wealthy and upon corporations which choose to outsource jobs or relocate their domiciles outside of the country to avoid taxation.  Taxes on small businesses and all but the wealthy will not increase. Americans know that this is what they can expect from a Democratic Congress and President.   They also know on whose side the Republican Party always stands.

Finally, Americans know that a Democratic Congress and President are best for preserving world peace and conducting foreign affairs.  The Marshall Plan, which saved Europe from Communist domination after World War Two as well as NATO and our alliances in the Middle East and Southeast Asia, are Democratic accomplishments.  Even the United Nations, with all of its shortcomings, stems from the inspiration of Democrats like FDR and Harry Truman.  Our military has never been stronger than it has been during the past eight years of the Obama administration.  And Americans, most of all, know that a Democratic Congress and President will never rush to put American military might into action, risking American lives, without there being real concern for the nation’s security.  Democrats believe that diplomacy can often be a bloodless alternative to war, and Hillary Clinton has vast experience in that area as Secretary of State.  Americans know this and will vote Democratic.

(I try to watch Fox News, which generally is not favorable to Secretary Clinton, to get an idea of what those who do not think as I do are saying.  All I hear there are discussions of "Benghazi" and "missing emails" with rarely a word as to how Republicans would address any of the problems cited above. Secretary Clinton has provided reasonable explanations, unfortunately too often tied up in circuitous and legalistic language which opens her to perpetual criticism, in regard to both "Benghazi" and "the emails."  But still, they are reasonable explanations.  Only those interested in finding ways to attack her would persist in discussing these two things.)

The American people know what has to be done to keep America on track to accomplishing the goals discussed above.  Barack Obama has been trying to do these things, and Hillary Clinton will continue his efforts.  She will succeed, however, where President Obama's efforts fell short, but only if the American voter gives her a solid majority in the Senate, and significantly reduces (or even eliminates) G.O.P. control of the House, which exists only because of State-managed gerrymandering. But every thinking American must do their part to bring this about, and not depend on the other guy.
JL

                                                  

Job Rationing

Recently, Daniel Griswold, a Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University wrote a piece for the Los Angeles Times which touched upon the effect of trade on unemployment in the United States.

He pointed out that during the decade from 2000 to 2010 (basing his information on a study done at Ball State University), 5.6 million factory jobs disappeared in the United States.  Of this job loss, trade (and that means globalization) accounted for only 13% while productivity growth (and that means technological advances) accounted for 85%.  (I don’t know where the other 2% went to, but does it matter?).

So don’t be so fast to put the blame for job loss on globalization, NAFTA and other world trade agreements.  The main culprits in job loss are the advances we are making in technology.  Sure, the answer seems to be to create new jobs in new areas and educate Americans for those jobs, but I fear that further advances in technology will sooner or later cut into the number of those new jobs too!

As I have said before, we will soon become so efficient in this country that our economy will be able to function and grow vigorously with less and less labor.  


Not too many employees in this scene at the Coors brewery

This will be due to ongoing advances in technology.  Sure, there will be some high tech job growth in creating that very technology, but it will be relatively limited.  The important growth will take place in the economy, specifically in the gross domestic product (the dollar value of all goods and services produced in the country) which is much more crucial than simply increasing the number of jobs.  That growth in GDP will be independent of job growth.

My answer is to ration the available work in this country.  There isn’t, and will never again be, full time jobs available for everyone.  We could start with a maximum 30 hour work week, mandatory retirement at age 55 and not allowing anyone to have a second job!   Americans must learn to fairly share the jobs that are available!

In situations where such “rationed” employment in the private and public sectors cannot provide enough income to support families and provide for a comfortable retirement, the Government will have to step in and (1) enact vast and expensive changes in our Social Security program as well as (2) providing increased government support for families that won’t earn enough to live on from what a 30 hour work week would provide.

Families must have to have enough, not only for food, clothing and housing, but for generous consumer spending as well.  That, and spending by businesses and government will contribute to a vigorously growing GDP which will increase the tax base, to the point where govenment will be able to afford its additional responsibilities. 

   Undeniably, it initially will be expensive and taxes will have to increase significantly, but everyone will have a job, plus a lot of leisure time as well.  

JL

                                                 

HOW TO BE ALERTED TO FUTURE BLOG POSTINGS.

Many readers of this blog are alerted by Email every time a new posting appears.  If you wish to be added to that Email list, just let me know by clicking on Riart1@aol.com and sending me an Email.  

HOW TO CONTACT ME or CONTRIBUTE MATERIAL TO JACK'S POTPOURRI. 

BY CLICKING ON THAT SAME ADDRESS, Riart1@aol.com   YOU ALSO CAN SEND ME YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO BE PUBLISHED IN THIS BLOG AS WELL AS YOUR COMMENTS.  (Comments can also be made by clicking on the "Post a Comment" link at the blog's end.)

MOBILE DEVICE ACCESS.

DID YOU KNOW THAT www.jackspotpourri.com IS ALSO AVAILABLE ON YOUR MOBILE DEVICES IN A MODIFIED, EASY-TO-READ, FORMAT?   

HOW TO VIEW OLDER POSTINGS.                                                

To view older postings on this blog, just click on the appropriate date in the “Blog Archive” midway down the column off to the right, or scroll down until you see the “Older Posts” notation at the very bottom of this posting.  The “Search Box” in the right side of the posting also may be helpful in locating a posting topic for which you are looking.

HOW TO FORWARD POSTINGS.

To send this posting to a friend, or enemy for that matter, whom you think might be interested in it, just click on the envelope with the arrow on the "Comments" line directly below, enabling you to send them an Email providing a link directly to this posting.  You might also want to let me know their Email address so that they may be alerted to future postings.

Jack Lippman 

Why I'm for Hillary, Why Putin is for Trump amd Some Thoughts on Debt

 If You Like What You Read Here, Pass this Blog on to Others !

                              

Why Putin is for Trump

What’s with Trump and the Russians?  In the last posting, I promised more about this.  Here goes, despite the fact that Donald is very hard to pin down on anything, saying things and then “sort of” modifying them when criticized.  And then repeating his position later on but with a different rhetorical stance.  But let’s make a few observations:

 Donald

A couple of weeks ago, Trump raised new questions about our commitment to automatically defending our NATO allies if they are attacked, saying he would first look at their contributions to the alliance.  This, of course, greatly alarmed our NATO allies in eastern Europe, on the Russian border.  It certainly comforted Vladimir Putin, who would love to restore the Soviet “empire” as it existed at the end of the Second World War, to which a strong NATO is the prime obstacle.

Trump has repeatedly commented that Putin is a strong leader, but it never seems clear as to whether he was saying this with admiration, or just to contrast Putin’s leadership with that of Barack Obama of whose leadership he is highly critical. (Remember when he also questioned his birthplace.)  In any event, Putin had to have been pleased by Trump’s words, taking them as uttered with as much admiration as an American Presidential candidate might safely risk.

As for the Crimea, long a part of the Ukraine (in the days of the Tsars or the U.S.S.R., it didn’t matter for at that time, all Russia was then "one," as Putin wants it again), it seems from what he says that Trump is willing to consider it part of Russia instead of part of the Ukraine.  The problem is that a Russian-backed coup already took it over, making it part of Russia back in 2014.  Trump, in his sublime ignorance of foreign affairs and refusal to listen to knowledgeable Republicans, was unaware of this. 

A few years back, the now-independent Ukraine threw out their Putin-backed President, Victor Yanukovych, and installed its present government which opposes both Russia’s seizing of the Crimea and Russia’s continued support of pro-Russian dissidents in the eastern part of Ukraine.  Oblivious of this, Trump seems ready to accept Russia as the rightful owner of the Crimea and seems to deny the Russian involvement in eastern Ukraine, which includes Russian troops masquerading as locals.  If I were Vladimir Putin, I would be wearing a Trump button and a “Make America Great" hat!

Vladimir

Incidentally, it doesn’t help that Trump’s present campaign manager, Paul Manafort, a professional lobbyist and political consultant, was the same political consultant who ran lobbying efforts for that same ousted pro-Putin Ukrainian President Yanukovych as well as dictators such as African despots Jonas Savimbi and Mobutu Sese Seko.  Certainly, Manafort has Russian connections and they are pro-Putin.

As for the possibility that Donald Trump himself has business connections with Russia (which might be why he is reluctant to release tax returns) is strengthened by his appointment of Carter Page as his adviser on Russia.  The National Review, not noted as a liberal publication, reported back in March that “Carter Page is an out-and-out Putinite. A consultant to and investor in the Kremlin’s state-run gas company, Gazprom, Page has a direct financial interest in ending American sanctions against the company. Not only that, but Page is tight with the Kremlin’s foreign-policy apparatus and has served as a vehement propagandist for it.”

Read the full National Review article by clicking right here.   Be sure to read the final sentence.

Needless to say, birds of a feather flock together.   Paul Manafort, Carter Page, Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump!  Hmmm?  Read the full National Review article and learn where Trump gets some of his weird ideas.  Be sure to read the final sentence of the article. This is just another reason why Donald Trump must not be our next President.

Jack Lippman

                                                  

Why I'm For Hillary

Unabashedly, I am for Hillary Clinton in the upcoming Presidential election.  Sure, she has some shortcomings, all of which you can be made aware of in a grossly exaggerated manner by spending a few minutes watching Fox News.  A minute of Sean Hannity should do the job.  

But anyone who is a “doer,” as is Hillary, invariably is not right 100% of the time.  And her explanations are reasonable.  Her experience and credentials certainly qualify her for the Presidency.  Her opponent, as this blog has pointed out, is eminently unqualified to be President.  He has no government experience, possesses questionable business ethics and has a temperament ill-suited for the job of the leader of the nation to which most of the free world looks for support and understanding.

 

I likened him in my last posting to a school bus driver without a driver’s license, no experience with either busses nor school children and who got the job only through political pull.  Just as you would not knowingly put your child on a school bus with such a driver, you should not even consider voting for Donald Trump for President.

Donald Trump, although he has secured the Republican Party’s nomination, is not a Republican.  Although appearing on the G.O.P.’s line on the ballot, he is his own person, a loose cannon, beholden to no one but himself.  His successes thus far are the result of the support of bigots who like his anti-immigrant positions and want America to be like the place they incorrectly recall it once was almost a century ago, the support of the ignorant who, like Trump, know nothing about economics, foreign affairs and history and most of all, the support of the gullible, who see in his snake-oil salesman pitches, a hope for easy solutions to the difficult problems which our global economy and technological advances present. 

If elected, Trump will resort to authoritarian methods to grope for solutions to these problems, destroying the framework established by the Constitution of the United States. This “deal maker” will not hesitate to deal with the devil if it suits his ends.  Donald Trump is a danger to the bedrock of democracy as it functions in our republic.  He must be defeated.  Republicans must join with Democrats to accomplish this.  It's not about political parties.  It's about our country. 

(A few weeks ago, I suggested that Republicans who cannot bring themselves to vote for Trump, but were not willing to vote for Hillary Clinton, might vote "Libertarian," at least taking a vote away from Trump.   That strategy, however, is now questionable since the two independent candidates are now serving to dangerously reduce the margin between poll-leader Clinton and Trump.  Intelligent Republicans:  Save you party.  Vote for Clinton or stay home.)

Hillary Clinton, at least, offers solutions to these problems.  They are neither simple nor inexpensive but they outline a reasonable way to better our economy, create jobs and maintain a peaceful world.  Trump offers only bombast.

So, I guess you know where I stand.  But why am I so vehement about the necessity of defeating Donald Trump?  A few months ago, I celebrated my eighty-fourth birthday.  Who knows if I will be around to vote in 2020 and thereafter?  All senior citizens should take it upon themselves to vote to save our country from one who threatens to tear it apart.  Seniors, your 2016 Presidential vote, perhaps the last one you will ever cast although I certainly hope not, will be the most important Presidential vote in your lifetime.  Even if you have never before "gotten involved" in an election campaign, you should do so now!

 

Centenarian shown voting as family watches. If he can, you can too!

JL

                                                   

Trying to Understand Debt

(Because economists with impeccable credentials often disagree, I have in the past likened “economics” to astrology or alchemy.   Followers of the contradictory ideas of esteemed twentieth century economists like Milton Friedman and John Maynard Keynes abound today.  There is vast disagreement as to the role of government in our economy, too.  With all of that in mind, as someone with little background in economics, I feel that I can throw my two cents into this confusing mix and offer some thoughts about “debt.”  If you have your ideas, please pass them on to me!  JL)

In an ideal world, there would be no debt.  Individuals wouldn’t owe anything to anyone. Businesses wouldn’t owe anything to anyone.  Governments wouldn’t owe anything to anyone.  How could this miraculous situation come about?  Easy!  Nobody would borrow anything in the first place, so nobody would owe anyone anything!  It would be great if we all were King Midas and have all the resources we might ever want or need, but that is not the case.

Individuals wouldn’t borrow via a mortgage to purchase a home.  Auto loans (and leases) wouldn’t exist.  Students couldn’t borrow to pay tuition.  Businesses wouldn’t be able to borrow funds or issue bonds to bring in money to expand and grow.  Governments (at all levels, local, state and national) wouldn’t be able to issue bonds to bring in money to meet their expenses and pay for long range projects.

But in this ideal debt-free society, few people would own homes or automobiles, higher education would be affordable only for the very rich, and business and governments would grind to a halt, since the money coming in from purchases or taxes would be inadequate to keep businesses, and government, from operating.  Expansion or growth would be impossible.  Unemployment would be rampant.

BUT THAT’S NOT THE WAY IT IS!  Money is available to be borrowed for all of these purposes.  It’s known as credit. And credit has a price.  It is known as “interest.”  Interest rates vary, dependent on the borrowers’ supposed ability to repay what they borrow, but basically, all interest rates in this country are developed from what the Federal Reserve Bank determines to be the “prime rate,” the rate they charge banks when they lend them the funds which the banking industry cautiously pumps back into the economy for the many purposes discussed above. 

Janet Yellin heads the Fed which sets the prime rate for borrowing.  Yes, that number is 18 Trillion!

In the arcane world of monetary policy, there is supposedly some relationship between that interest rate and unemployment, based on the idea that a lower prime rate would encourage borrowing for business expansion and hence reduce unemployment, increasing consumer spending and enhance the growth rate of the nation’s economy. Sometimes this works and sometimes it doesn’t.  

In a global economy, all of this is far more complicated because all nations do more or less the same thing and the availability of credit, and its corresponding debt, transcend international boundaries and currencies. Often, for lay people, economists, politicians and even bankers, what goes on defies understanding and conflicting theories as to how to manage debt abound at the highest levels worldwide. Visit Greece to see this confusion in operation!

Speculative markets offering the opportunity for the trading of the debt “instruments” (bonds) which make all of this possible can affect the cost of credit too.  Also, the United States Treasury sells all sorts of “paper” all over the world to bring in money to run the country.  Those who hold that paper, mostly Treasury bonds, are our government’s creditors, holding our debt.  Time for Tylenol, Aleve, Motrin or whatever you take when your head starts spinning!  This is not easy stuff.

So when politicians cry over the National Debt as a political issue, they usually ignore (or are ignorant of) where this debt comes from, and why it exists.  It isn’t an evil thing, irresponsibly developed.  Even though it is never thoroughly understood, debt is the other side of credit, without which all power would be centered with those who have great wealth and have no need to borrow.  The availability of credit, and its other side, debt, is what makes growth for everyone in a democracy possible, not just for King Midas.  

JL

                                               

HOW TO BE ALERTED TO FUTURE BLOG POSTINGS.

Many readers of this blog are alerted by Email every time a new posting appears.  If you wish to be added to that Email list, just let me know by clicking on Riart1@aol.com and sending me an Email.  

HOW TO CONTACT ME or CONTRIBUTE MATERIAL TO JACK'S POTPOURRI. 

BY CLICKING ON THAT SAME ADDRESS, Riart1@aol.com   YOU ALSO CAN SEND ME YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO BE PUBLISHED IN THIS BLOG AS WELL AS YOUR COMMENTS.  (Comments can also be made by clicking on the "Post a Comment" link at the blog's end.)

MOBILE DEVICE ACCESS.

DID YOU KNOW THAT www.jackspotpourri.com IS ALSO AVAILABLE ON YOUR MOBILE DEVICES IN A MODIFIED, EASY-TO-READ, FORMAT?   

HOW TO VIEW OLDER POSTINGS.                                                

To view older postings on this blog, just click on the appropriate date in the “Blog Archive” midway down the column off to the right, or scroll down until you see the “Older Posts” notation at the very bottom of this posting.  The “Search Box” in the right side of the posting also may be helpful in locating a posting topic for which you are looking.

HOW TO FORWARD POSTINGS.

To send this posting to a friend, or enemy for that matter, whom you think might be interested in it, just click on the envelope with the arrow on the "Comments" line directly below, enabling you to send them an Email providing a link directly to this posting.  You might also want to let me know their Email address so that they may be alerted to future postings.

Jack Lippman