2016 Presidential Horse Race

[EddytoNow]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Pocahontas is at it again! Goofy Elizabeth Warren, one of the least productive U.S. Senators, has a nasty mouth. Hope she is V.P. choice.</p>— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/741240449906663424">June 10, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

And Trump's policies are? His solutions to our problems are? He has no depth of knowledge on any subject except counting his own money. And apparently he's not very good at that since he's afraid to release his tax returns and doesn't want anyone to know what he earns and what he pays in taxes.

It looks like his solution to every problem is to bad-mouth and ridicule women, minorities, the LGBT community, you name it. Trump is a man of many insults and few solutions. He definitely doesn't like strong, intelligent women. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Elizabeth Warren are going to back down in the face of his bullying tactics. Trump is so thin-skinned, he's going to whine every time he gets back what he likes to dish out.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Trump cares about no one but himself. Keep giving him a dose of his own medicine, Elizabeth. It's fun watching the bully squirm when he comes across someone he can't bully or intimidate.

 

[woolybug25]

I agree with most of your point. I am definitely not a "big government" guy and believe a lot of cost is due to the expenses of dealing with governmental rules and regulations. With that being said, if the government is footing the bill then they are now the customer in this case. If you are correct that there was no original deal, then put one in place. As a customer, do you not negotiate when you are making purchases. If not, that is your fault. Heck, a few years ago I had a Macy's sales clerk chase me down three flights of stairs into the parking lot because I was leaving without buying "what I came for." Right then I knew I was walking out with that item (a bed) at the price I wanted to pay for it.

The government is not the customer of medication, they are the customer for healthcare. There is a distinct difference. They have a responsibility to their part to legislate fair and equitable healthcare systems, but not (nor should they) the quality of the tools of healthcare. They shouldn't be mandating the costs of medication, medical devices or the like. They have a responsibility of unfair business practice or predatory activities, but that is different than "making a deal" with drug companies.

Furthermore, negotiation requires that both parties have something to give and something to relent. Government has neither. There is a long list of ill-conceived tax breaks that have been put into the tax code over the years for drug companies but the best place to start is with the drug industry’s credit for research. As a result of this and other tax breaks the pharmaceutical industry pays just 5.6 percent of its profits in taxes. What? Should they offer a zero tax rate? How would that go over with the voters? It would also be ill conceived to reduce regulation, as there is a reason that we have rules on how drugs come to market. The government literally has nothing to offer nor relent to the drug industry.

In all fairness, if you can tell banks what to do, people that they have to get health coverage, there's no reason why they can't tell drug companies not to over charge. Just one more regulation on top of the mountain that exists today.

The R&D + costs have a little relevance, but not much in the larger scheme of things. There a plethora of documentation out there which suggest US population is getting F'd comparative to the rest of the world. The FDA is a friggin' joke as well.

If I were going to go after companies, it would not be the Cokes and Walmarts of the world. It would be the health/drug and insurance companies.

The big difference is that banks aren't private sector industry. They are part of federal treasury activity and regulated as such. Drug companies are already mandated to not over charge (see CEO Martin Shkreli), but that is not what people are arguing here. People are calling for an artificial price fixing in the name of "fairness".

R&D is not something of little relevance. It's the largest cost for drug companies across the entire industry. They dump billions annually into finding new drugs and then proving through study that they are safe. Even with the "joke" that is the FDA, we still constantly are having drugs recalled and drugs being unsafely brought to market. Those cost, along with the constant barrage of litigation they face, create a huge cost burden to their industry. A burden, that to some extent, is necessary. These are American companies complying with with American laws. When they go into the global market, they aren't faced with those cost loads. Nor is their global competition. So they compete globally under the rules of global markets and competition. It is also not our government's job to make rules for how private companies operate in foreign countries, especially when they are acting responsibly and under the rule of law of the country being served.

 

[ACamp1900]

The government is not the customer of medication, they are the customer for healthcare. There is a distinct difference.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

...it's almost like the only long-term threat to the nation's finances is that we spend way too much money on health care for a pathetically sick population.

Wake me up when conservatives have any decent ideas on combating health costs. The sort of ideas that have been tried and tested elsewhere in the world, where they have lower health care costs and aren't seeing this sort of spending eat away (ha! Obesity pun) at their government and private budgets.

Or when conservatives don't have an aneurysm and cry "NANNY STATE!" any time even a local government (that's the level Conservatives point to when the say the Constitution empowers them and not the federal fellows) tries to stop Coca-Cola, McDonald's, etc from continuing their American obesity onslaught.

Also lastly how many times do I have to mention that the CBO is not an oracle? They are an accounting office that projects based on hypothetical scenarios. Nothing in any CBO projection tells the actual future, just what would happen if XYZ did or didn't change the programs. There are, as you should know, a whole host of reforms that can save all of those programs. Conservatives though put their fingers in their ears every time it comes up, and to add to that added Medicare Part D under their last President to buy votes. 10/10 hypocrisy, per usual.

How many times do I have to mention that it's impossible to say Denmark's healthcare system will work in the US? Vermont already tried single payer and it failed miserably. Alright forget the CBO. Let's do 6th grade math and we'll arrive at the same conclusion: ACA will fail first, then SS, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Which leads me back to my original question to GoIrish41: who will take care of our country's poor when all these programs are gone? A new "New Deal"? Another "Great Society" full of more programs and promises from the feds?

 

[Buster Bluth]

How many times do I have to mention that it's impossible to say Denmark's healthcare system will work in the US? Vermont already tried single payer and it failed miserably.

Who said anything about Denmark?

Alright forget the CBO. Let's do 6th grade math and we'll arrive at the same conclusion: ACA will fail first, then SS, Medicare, and Medicaid.

This one of the big problems with modern Conservatives: thinking econ 101 concepts, "common sense," run the govt like a business mindsets are all you need to know to have a superior opinion on spending.

Which leads me back to my original question to GoIrish41: who will take care of our country's poor when all these programs are gone? A new "New Deal"? Another "Great Society" full of more programs and promises from the feds?

The corporations, duh.

Hahahahahahahaha

 

[Irish YJ]

The government is not the customer of medication, they are the customer for healthcare. There is a distinct difference. They have a responsibility to their part to legislate fair and equitable healthcare systems, but not (nor should they) the quality of the tools of healthcare. They shouldn't be mandating the costs of medication, medical devices or the like. They have a responsibility of unfair business practice or predatory activities, but that is different than "making a deal" with drug companies.

Furthermore, negotiation requires that both parties have something to give and something to relent. Government has neither. There is a long list of ill-conceived tax breaks that have been put into the tax code over the years for drug companies but the best place to start is with the drug industry’s credit for research. As a result of this and other tax breaks the pharmaceutical industry pays just 5.6 percent of its profits in taxes. What? Should they offer a zero tax rate? How would that go over with the voters? It would also be ill conceived to reduce regulation, as there is a reason that we have rules on how drugs come to market. The government literally has nothing to offer nor relent to the drug industry.



The big difference is that banks aren't private sector industry. They are part of federal treasury activity and regulated as such. Drug companies are already mandated to not over charge (see CEO Martin Shkreli), but that is not what people are arguing here. People are calling for an artificial price fixing in the name of "fairness".

R&D is not something of little relevance. It's the largest cost for drug companies across the entire industry. They dump billions annually into finding new drugs and then proving through study that they are safe. Even with the "joke" that is the FDA, we still constantly are having drugs recalled and drugs being unsafely brought to market. Those cost, along with the constant barrage of litigation they face, create a huge cost burden to their industry. A burden, that to some extent, is necessary. These are American companies complying with with American laws. When they go into the global market, they aren't faced with those cost loads. Nor is their global competition. So they compete globally under the rules of global markets and competition. It is also not our government's job to make rules for how private companies operate in foreign countries, especially when they are acting responsibly and under the rule of law of the country being served.

Sure they spend on R&D, it's their job to invent new drugs and be competitive against the others. You and I can disagree and that's OK, but the numbers clearly show that drug companies easily hold the highest profit margins of the 5 main sectors. Hell, Phizer was running 42% (that's just crazy) last year or the year before. Banking isn't far behind and is about as disgusting as the drug and insurance companies to me.

 

[woolybug25]

Sure they spend on R&D, it's their job to invent new drugs and be competitive against the others. You and I can disagree and that's OK, but the numbers clearly show that drug companies easily hold the highest profit margins of the 5 main sectors. Hell, Phizer was running 42% (that's just crazy) last year or the year before. Banking isn't far behind and is about as disgusting as the drug and insurance companies to me.

What? First of all, that's just incorrect. Secondly, there is only one drug company (J&J) in the top ten most profitable companies in the world. Only one... How are banks "close behind" when three of them are banks and all three are more profitable than J&J?

That's how capitalism works, my man. Drug companies are private sector organizations with a responsibility to their workers and shareholders. We can't just arbitrarily decide "they are making too much money". That's nonsense and against the fundamental principles of capitalism.

Finally... and this is just a note... Pfizer's net profit margin was roughly 14% last year, not 42%, and has been declining for several years. Maybe we should tell them to quit making so much money?

https://www.stock-analysis-on.net/NYSE/Company/Pfizer-Inc/Ratios/Profitability

 

[ACamp1900]

Omg...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Cheesesteak_heaven.jpg

 

[Irish YJ]

What? First of all, that's just incorrect. Secondly, there is only one drug company (J&J) in the top ten most profitable companies in the world. Only one... How are banks "close behind" when three of them are banks and all three are more profitable than J&J?

That's how capitalism works, my man. Drug companies are private sector organizations with a responsibility to their workers and shareholders. We can't just arbitrarily decide "they are making too much money". That's nonsense and against the fundamental principles of capitalism.

Finally... and this is just a note... Pfizer's net profit margin was roughly 14% last year, not 42%, and has been declining for several years. Maybe we should tell them to quit making so much money?

https://www.stock-analysis-on.net/NYSE/Company/Pfizer-Inc/Ratios/Profitability

Pharmaceutical industry gets high on fat profits - BBC NewsPharmaceutical industry gets high on fat profits - BBC News

2014 42%

Last year, US giant Pfizer, the world's largest drug company by pharmaceutical revenue, made an eye-watering 42% profit margin. As one industry veteran understandably says: "I wouldn't be able to justify [those kinds of margins]."

Last year, five pharmaceutical companies made a profit margin of 20% or more - Pfizer, Hoffmann-La Roche, AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Eli Lilly.

 

[Irish YJ]

and here's another speaking to the price gouging of medicare.

Big Pharma Pockets $711 Billion in Profits by Robbing Seniors, Taxpayers

 

[woolybug25]

Pharmaceutical industry gets high on fat profits - BBC NewsPharmaceutical industry gets high on fat profits - BBC News

2014 42%

Dude... I posted their actual financial statements. Their net profit margin in 2014 was 18.42%. I took a look at other years and they had a 42% in 2013 though. Driven by their release of a revolutionary cancer drug (XALKORI) that took years and over a billion dollars to bring to market. In 2012 and 2013 they had big years, then returned to the same 10-15% profit margin they historically have always had. I don't see anybody saying that when they had lower profit, that the government pay them back for the money they invested to create drugs? They are a private sector business, they aren't required by the government to create innovations. Nor should they.

There is an uncountable amount of US companies with 50% profit margins on the regular. Why is a historical profit margin in the teens so horrific? I frankly think it should be higher for a company of their size. Chase Bank and Wells Fargo both had over 25% net profit margins last year? Should we punish them as well? Apple has had a 20%+ net profit margin for over a decade. Should we send the feds in their doors to save America?

 

[kmoose]

Pharmaceutical industry gets high on fat profits - BBC NewsPharmaceutical industry gets high on fat profits - BBC News

2014 42%

Ok........ but how much of that money went back into R&D for the next greatest AIDS drug or cancer drug?

I work in an industry (transportation security) where companies see excellent profits on the equipment that they sell to the government. But the lion's share of those profits goes back into developing the next generation of screening equipment. Those body imagers didn't come from government grants; they came from tons of margin funneled back into R&D.

 

[GATTACA!]

Hillary sinks to third place among independent voters

It looks like Hillary Clinton can’t swing the crucial swing vote.

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee took a beating from independent voters in the latest Fox News poll, finishing third behind relatively unknown Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson.

GOP candidate Donald Trump led among independents with 32 percent of the vote, followed by Johnson, a former governor of New Mexico, who got 23 percent. Clinton pulled in just 22 percent of the independents

 

[NDinL.A.]

Hillary sinks to third place among independent voters

Lost in all that is the most important thing...Trump lost a whopping 6 points in that poll, going from winning (pretty much the only poll which he had a lead in) to losing in 3 short weeks. His horrible couple of weeks but him in the ass. Still early though.

Also, Trump dropped 11 points with independents, which he desperately needs to do well with, considering his poor numbers with minorities and women. If he loses independents and Republicans to the libertarians, he gone.

 

[GATTACA!]

Lost in all that is the most important thing...Trump lost a whopping 6 points in that poll, going from winning (pretty much the only poll which he had a lead in) to losing in 3 short weeks. His horrible couple of weeks but him in the ass. Still early though.

Also, Trump dropped 11 points with independents, which he desperately needs to do well with, considering his poor numbers with minorities and women. If he loses independents and Republicans to the libertarians, he gone.

I thought the most interesting thing was how high Gary Johnson was polling. If those numbers where to be true he would easily qualify for the debates.

 

[NDinL.A.]

I thought the most interesting thing was how high Gary Johnson was polling. If those numbers where to be true he would easily qualify for the debates.

I agree, and he should be able to participate in the debates. I looked into voting for him, and I think the Libertarians are friggin cookoo personally (I'm all for limited govt, but they are pretty much anarchists - their convention was nuts), but he is starting to get a lot love so he should be able to get on the debate stage and have at it.

 

[GATTACA!]

I agree, and he should be able to participate in the debates. I looked into voting for him, and I think the Libertarians are friggin cookoo personally (I'm all for limited govt, but they are pretty much anarchists - their convention was nuts), but he is starting to get a lot love so he should be able to get on the debate stage and have at it.

He was on Joe Rogans podcast last week. Pretty good interview. Seems like an actually good person which is refreshing. I'm on mobile so I can't embed, but here's a link https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KQIuHGbKckY

I agree some of the libertarian ideas are goofy but unless he comes up with some really good ideas that everyone agrees on his presidency would essentially be a baulk. Sort of the same way I feel Trump will have pissed off so many establishment Republicans he will make it impossible for himself to get anything done, a third party president wouldn't have tons of support on either side of the aisle.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

...it's almost like the only long-term threat to the nation's finances is that we spend way too much money on health care for a pathetically sick population.

Wake me up when conservatives have any decent ideas on combating health costs. The sort of ideas that have been tried and tested elsewhere in the world, where they have lower health care costs and aren't seeing this sort of spending eat away (ha! Obesity pun) at their government and private budgets.

Or when conservatives don't have an aneurysm and cry "NANNY STATE!" any time even a local government (that's the level Conservatives point to when the say the Constitution empowers them and not the federal fellows) tries to stop Coca-Cola, McDonald's, etc from continuing their American obesity onslaught.

Also lastly how many times do I have to mention that the CBO is not an oracle? They are an accounting office that projects based on hypothetical scenarios. Nothing in any CBO projection tells the actual future, just what would happen if XYZ did or didn't change the programs. There are, as you should know, a whole host of reforms that can save all of those programs. Conservatives though put their fingers in their ears every time it comes up, and to add to that added Medicare Part D under their last President to buy votes. 10/10 hypocrisy, per usual.

Correct. The CBO would just about fuck up a wet dream.

I mean to show how irrelevant their numbers are, just look at the Medicare fraud perpetrated in each of the last six years. Does anybody give a damned about it? Apparently, the media and politicians are mostly on the payroll of the fraudsters.

Gotta be.

If the theft and fraud were reduced by 50 percent, in all government programs, (and no the majority of this is not being perpetrated by recipients,) all the CBO, conservative, and libertarian numbers would be out the window.

And if we held our government officials and all their bureaucratic minions accountable, there would be no more libertarian argument. It would evaporate. But who is willing to put aside greed, avarice, and self-promotion, to do the right thing?

 

[Graybeard52]

Dude... I posted their actual financial statements. Their net profit margin in 2014 was 18.42%. I took a look at other years and they had a 42% in 2013 though. Driven by their release of a revolutionary cancer drug (XALKORI) that took years and over a billion dollars to bring to market. In 2012 and 2013 they had big years, then returned to the same 10-15% profit margin they historically have always had. I don't see anybody saying that when they had lower profit, that the government pay them back for the money they invested to create drugs? They are a private sector business, they aren't required by the government to create innovations. Nor should they.

There is an uncountable amount of US companies with 50% profit margins on the regular. Why is a historical profit margin in the teens so horrific? I frankly think it should be higher for a company of their size. Chase Bank and Wells Fargo both had over 25% net profit margins last year? Should we punish them as well? Apple has had a 20%+ net profit margin for over a decade. Should we send the feds in their doors to save America?

Exxon gets demonized pretty much every time the amount of their profit is released. What people don't hear is their profit margin is less than 5%. I don't think theirs has broken into the double digits in several years.

 

[Graybeard52]

Correct. The CBO would just about fuck up a wet dream.

I mean to show how irrelevant their numbers are, just look at the Medicare fraud perpetrated in each of the last six years. Does anybody give a damned about it? Apparently, the media and politicians are mostly on the payroll of the fraudsters.

Gotta be.

If the theft and fraud were reduced by 50 percent, in all government programs, (and no the majority of this is not being perpetrated by recipients,) all the CBO, conservative, and libertarian numbers would be out the window.

And if we held our government officials and all their bureaucratic minions accountable, there would be no more libertarian argument. It would evaporate. But who is willing to put aside greed, avarice, and self-promotion, to do the right thing?

I once read that when Medicare first got rolling back in the mid-60s, it originally cost $3B a year and was projected by The House Ways and Means Committee to cost $10-12B in 1990. Let's just say they were off by just a wee bit.

Generally speaking, the CBO's projections are based on the numbers presented to them in spending bills. Their projections are best case scenarios based on those numbers and never really take account recessions/unemployment, cost changes, etc.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Hillary sinks to third place among independent voters

IIRC, I quoted a post from last week about a MTV poll and how indep. millennials will end up voting for Hillary. That poll asked 500 people, I believe. Well TYT did their own and 20,000+ people responded. I can't remember the exact number, but it was over 80% were in the #NeverHillary camp. That's a staggering piece of data. Granted, TYT listeners strongly support Bernie and depending on what happens between now and Nov, that number can change. But the HRC camp has to be a little concerned here.

Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are likely to see huge bumps in their numbers. Not enough to win, but like others have mentioned, maybe enough support to gain access to the debates.

 

[GATTACA!]

Hillary Clinton: Those Under FBI Scrutiny ‘Shouldn’t Be Able to Just Go Buy a Gun’


So Hillary doesn't think Hillary should be able to buy a gun lmao.

 

[GATTACA!]

IIRC, I quoted a post from last week about a MTV poll and how indep. millennials will end up voting for Hillary. That poll asked 500 people, I believe. Well TYT did their own and 20,000+ people responded. I can't remember the exact number, but it was over 80% were in the #NeverHillary camp. That's a staggering piece of data. Granted, TYT listeners strongly support Bernie and depending on what happens between now and Nov, that number can change. But the HRC camp has to be a little concerned here.

Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are likely to see huge bumps in their numbers. Not enough to win, but like others have mentioned, maybe enough support to gain access to the debates.

Yeah I think the people banking on millenials voting for Hillary are in for a rude awakening. Not that they are going to switch from Bernie to Trump, but rather a large portion wont vote at all. Bernie has had issues with young voter turnout, idk why people think Hillary, someone who they have hated for months, will be able to get them to come out and vote.

 

[Irish YJ]

We all know how much Matt's endorsement means.....

Matt Damon rips Trump and bankers in MIT speech - CNN Video

Sorry Wooly, Matt doesn't like you either.

 

[woolybug25]

Sorry Wooly, Matt doesn't like you either.

 

[DomeX2 eNVy]

This article is a must read for people who have bought Trump's B.S. about being perfect and brilliant in business. Sorry it is a long read, bu it is very well written. I have been in the gaming business for many years and this is what I recall of the Trump experiment - it was all about Trump and his wallet, and screw everybody else. I never worked for Trump or met the man; but I did a lot of work with is company and casinos, and know a few people who did work for him. I can honestly say I don't know one of these people who will be voting for him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/nyregion/donald-trump-atlantic-city.html?_r=0

There are numerous great quotes, but here are a few favorites of mine:

"He put a number of local contractors and suppliers out of business when he didn't pay them," said Steven P. Perskie, who was New Jersey's top casino regulator in the early 1990s. "So when he left Atlantic City, it wasn't, 'Sorry to see you go.' It was, 'How fast can you get the hell out of here?'"

Beth Rosser of West Chester, Pa., is still bitter over what happened to her father, whose company Triad Building Specialties nearly collapsed when Mr. Trump took the Taj into bankruptcy. It took three years to recover any money owed for his work on the casino, she said, and her father received only 30 cents on the dollar.
"Trump crawled his way to the top on the back of little guys, one of them being my father," said Ms. Rosser, who runs Triad today. "He had no regard for thousands of men and women who worked on those projects. He says he'll make America great again, but his past shows the complete opposite of that."

And here is how he treats people who correctly challenge him - the definition of a bully and definitely un-democratic.

Less than two weeks before the casino (Taj Mahal) opened, Marvin B. Roffman, a casino ananlyst at Janney Montgomery Scott, an investment firm based in Philadelphia, told The Wall Streeet Journal that the Taj would need to reap $1.3 million a day just to make its interest payments, a sum no casino had ever achieved.
"The maket just isn't there," Mr. Roffman told The Journal.
Mr. Trump retaliated, demanding that Janney Montgomery Scott fire Mr. Roffman. It did.
"It was doomed way before the start," said W. Bucky Howard, who was promoted by Mr. Trump to president of the Taj five days after it opened, in a recent interview. "I told him it was going to fail. The Taj was underfunded.

By December 1990, when Mr. Trump needed to make an $18.4 million interest payment, his father, Fred C. Trump, sent a lawyer to the Castle to buy $3.3 million in chips, to provide him with an infusion of cash. The younger Mr. Trump made the payment, but the Casino Control Commission fined the Castle $65,000 for what had amounted to an illegal loan.

The article also does a good job in detailing how Mr. Trump shifted his personal debt of over $100 million onto the casinos and shareholders. He sold high rate junk bonds and created new public entities to do this - all while making sure he had control to manipulate the finances as he needed to in order to protect himself. Then with his debt buried in the casinos, they went bankrupt. Nice!!! What a leader for the people.

And this is the guy who has recently said that he never settles law suits:

Mr. Roffman had won a $750,000 arbitration award from Janney Montgomery for his dismissal and settled a lawsuit against Mr. Trump for an undisclosed sum (emphasis added)

Shareholders sued, alleging that the Castle's purchase price ($525 million), which included roughly $175 million in cash to Mr. Trump's private holding company, had been a "gross and unjustified" sweetheart deal for Mr. Trump. (He alter settled the suit.)(emphasis added)

. . . Mr. Trump's longtime investment bankers at Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette had backed out of a deal with Mr. Trump to invest in the company shortly before the bankruptcy was filed. Suing for $26 million in fees, the bankers said in court papers that the casinos would be back in bankruptcy court within five years because Mr. Trump's revenue projecttions were too rosy and the company was still carrying too much debt.
"The Trump name does not connote high-quality amenitities and first-class service int he casino industry," lawyers for the investment bank said. "Rather," the Trump name is associated with "the failure to pay one's debts, a company that has lost money every year, and properties in need of significant deferred maintenance and lagging behind their competitors." (The dispute was later settled.)(emphasis added)

As for his ability to always tell the truth:

Though he has acknowledged mistakes in piling crippling debt on Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts, Donald Trump has steadfastly maintained that his resorts were the best-run and highest-performing casinos in Atlantic City.
"The casinos have done very well from a business standpoint," he told Playboy magazine in 2004. "People agree that they're well run, they look good and customers love them."
In reality, the revenue at Mr. Trump's casinos had consistently lagged behind their competitor's for a decade before larger forces ravaged the industry. Beginning in 1997, his share of the Atlantic City gambling market began to slip from its peak of 30 percent.
Revenues at other Atlantic City casinos rose 18 percent from 1997 through 2002; Mr. Trump's fell by 1 percent.
. . .
Had Mr. Trump's revenues grown at the rate of other Atlantic City casinos, his company could have made its interest payments and possibly registered a profit. But with sagging revenues and high costs, his casinos had too little money for renovations and improvements, which are vital for hotels to attract guests. The public company never logged a profitable year.
"There's something not right when every single one of your projects doesn't work out," said Mr. Forrman, the casino analyst.
In a recent interview, Mr. Trump attributed hes declining market share in those years to the fact that his three casinos were competing with one another, a tacit acknowledgment that he overbuilt.
"That was the bad news," he said. "The good news is that I saved a lot of money in terms of dealing with costs."
The year the Borgata opened, Mr. Trump was already asking his bondholders to accept less money, in preparation for a third casino bankruptcy. Yet, at the same time, he managed to pull more money out of the company for himself, The Times found.

Again, I don't always trust journalist (and have been a victim of article mis-context before, ironically by this same NY Times); but this matches my memory of what happened and then some.

 

[GoIrish41]

Obama Excoriates Republican Obsession With The Term 'Radical Islam'

 

[NDgradstudent]

It is remarkable, is it not, that we now have a major political party committed to a view that the right to bear arms -a right actually in the text of the Constitution- is not only less protected than various other rights without any textual basis (such as the right to abortion) but that the right to bear arms in fact does not exist at all.

As Judge Joseph Story wrote in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States:

The next amendment is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

Indeed.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

It is remarkable, is it not, that we now have a major political party committed to a view that the right to bear arms -a right actually in the text of the Constitution- is not only less protected than various other rights without any textual basis (such as the right to abortion) but that the right to bear arms in fact does not exist at all.

As Judge Joseph Story wrote in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States:



Indeed.

Okay. Then let's cut the military to zero and pull out of any foreign entanglements. Cool?

 

[NDgradstudent]

Okay. Then let's cut the military to zero and pull out of any foreign entanglements. Cool?

Are those constitutional obligations? There is no constitutional prohibition on a standing army nor on foreign war. That said, I'd be happy to pull out of foreign entanglements; I've long been of the view that it is fruitless for the military try to "civilize" or bring "democracy" to foreign peoples wholly unsuited to that form of government.