iftttwall

Presented with no comment…

Source: Townhall.com

via http://ift.tt/2jOUku0 Tyler Durden

Submitted by Michael Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

The IMF has once again threatened to pull out of the Troika following a warning that Eurogroup Loan Measures Not Enough for Greek Debt.

Greek debt yields had already been rising and spiked on the news.

Let’s take a look at what’s happening, culminating with an explanation of seemingly preposterous positions from all involved.

In the IMF’s baseline scenario, Greece’s government debt will reach 275 percent of its gross domestic product by 2060, when its financing needs will represent 62 percent of GDP, the report obtained by Bloomberg says. The government estimates public debt around 180 percent of GDP at present.

 

Europe Responds

The IMF board is set to discuss Greece’s ability to service its debt on Feb. 6. The fund has resisted pressure from countries including Germany and the Netherlands to contribute to the bailout program, seeing it as doomed unless Greece takes further steps to rein in spending or euro-area governments ease the terms of the loans.

 

Europe’s aid program for Greece is credible and backed by contingency measures to handle unforeseen events, a spokesman for the European Stability Mechanism, an EU agency that provides bailout loans to Greece, said in e-mailed statement Sunday.

 

IMF Proposals

As in the past, the IMF is proposing that Europe extend grace periods and maturity dates on the loans. The document also calls for further deferral of interest payments and to lock in interest rates.

 

Greek debt is “highly unsustainable” and “even with the full implementation of policies agreed under the European Stability Mechanism program, public debt and financing needs will become explosive in the long run,” the document says. A “substantial restructuring” of European loans to Greece is required to restore debt sustainability, it says.

 

The IMF agrees with Greece’s euro-area creditors on one point. Both want Greece to introduce a law triggering austerity measures if the country fails to maintain a budget surplus before interest payments of 3.5 percent of GDP. Greek Finance Minister Euclid Tsakalotos last week rejected that demand as “unacceptable.”

Greek Bond Yields Soar

Reuters reports Greek Bond Yields Soar on Worries about IMF role in Bailout.

Yields on short-dated bonds spiked 300 basis points, on track for their biggest one-day jump since July 2015, while 10-year bond yields rose to their highest in almost three months.

 

Germany said on Monday it believed the IMF would participate and that it was too early to start thinking about other possible scenarios.

 

But concerns were heightened after a leaked report that the Fund expects Greek debt to explode to 275 percent of GDP by 2060, analysts said.

 

“There’s a bit of disquiet regarding the IMF’s role…,” said Orlando Green, European fixed income strategist at Credit Agricole.

 

“The bottom line is that the IMF wants debt relief for Greece and the EU has taken baby steps towards this, but it is not what the IMF is looking for long-term. When there are divisions between the EU and IMF, that arouses concerns about Greece.”

 

He was answering a question about a report in the Bild newspaper that said Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble would argue for a Greek exit from the euro zone should the IMF withdraw from the third bailout programme.

 

Short-dated government bond yields in Greece rose as far as 9.98 percent, their highest level in about seven months.

 

Five and 10-year Greek bond yields also rose sharply, with 10-year yields climbing 50 bps to around 7.76 percent – their highest since early November.

Perpetual Nonsense

The IMF argues correctly that Greek debt is unsustainable. Previously the IMF correctly argued Greece could not maintain a primary account surplus of 3.5 percent.

Yet the IMF now demands Greece automatically implement rules forcing it to have a primary account surplus of 3.5 percent of GDP as far as the eye can see.

Last week Eurointelligence reported that Greek officials were elated the much-despised IMF might exit the program. Although Greece hates the IMF, the IMF has at least been partially on Greece’s side, arguing for debt reductions.

Were the IMF to actually pull out to happen, Schaeuble wants Greece out of the Eurozone.

Meanwhile, Eurozone officials pretend the program is working when they know full well its not.

WTF Moments

This is one of those WTF moments where statements from Greece, from the IMF, and also the Eurozone make no apparent sense.

Yet, despite the obviously apparent nonsense, it’s possible to piece together what’s happening.

1. Neither Germany nor the Netherlands is willing to throw Greece the smallest of bones for fear of election consequences. It’s far easier for Eurozone nannycrats to pretend things are running smoothly.
2. Schaeuble has long wanted Greece out of the Eurozone. But Germany does not want to take the blame. Instead, Schaeuble wants the IMF or Greece to take the blame.
3. The IMF does not want the blame either, so it takes a preposterous stance that the debt is not sustainable but a 3.5% primary account surplus for as far as the eye can see is sustainable. The IMF takes this view despite having argued many times that 3.5% is not sustainable.
4. By pretending to now be in favor of 3.5% perpetually, the IMF can argue it is not one-sided to Greece.
5. Despite the fact the IMF is more on Greece’s side than Germany or the Eurozone nannycrats, Greece hates the IMF so much that its position of not wanting the IMF involved overrides common sense.
6. As an alternative to point 5, consider the possibility that Greece wants outs of the Eurozone, but none of the politicians want to take the blame. Instead, the politicians want to blame the IMF or Germany and are just itching for the IMF to get the hell out so they could do what they wanted to years ago (exit the eurozone). In this possibility, Greece looks to place the blame elsewhere and is waiting for the right moment.

Troika Blame Game Theory

Points 1-4 are certain. Points 5-6 are pick one. Despite the apparent absurdity of conflicting views and the IMF’s changing stance, blame game theory explains all you need to know. Here is a shorter synopsis.

1. Greece wants to blame the IMF and Germany
2. Germany wants to blame Greece and the IMF
3. The IMF wants to blame Greece and Germany

via http://ift.tt/2kKdM9N Tyler Durden

In addition to creating mass chaos in America’s airports and general confusion around the world, Trump’s immigration ban is putting Saudi Arabia, a key ally in the middle-east, in a fairly awkward position.  Per the Wall Street Journal, Trump’s immigration ban, which currently does not include Saudi Arabia, has put the country in the awkward position of having to manage a desire to pursue stronger ties with the U.S. at the risk of alienating key allies, like Yemen and Sudan, that will inevitably view such a move as abandoning Muslim neighbors.

The monarchy’s desire to cultivate a better relationship with the Trump administration than it had with the U.S. under Barack Obama is exposing Saudi Arabia to criticism that it is unwilling to stand up for its Muslim allies, particularly those caught in an executive order that restricts entry to the U.S. for citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries.

 

“The ban puts Saudi Arabia in an awkward position,” said Ibrahim Fraihat, a professor of conflict resolution at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies. “Saudi Arabia will be expected to take a position against it because some of the countries included in the ban like Sudan and Yemen are key allies and because it projects itself as leader of the Muslim world.”

 

The ban applies to citizens of Sudan, a member of the coalition of Muslim countries assembled by Saudi Arabia to combat terrorism. Also included is Yemen, where Saudi Arabia intervened militarily in 2015 against Iran-backed Houthi rebels with the aim of restoring President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi to power. The ban applies to Syrians fleeing their country’s war, too, and Riyadh is a key supporter of Syrian rebels fighting President Bashar al-Assad as well as his Iranian and Russian backers.

For now, at least publicly, the Kingdom has decided to support the Trump administration’s travel restrictions with the official Saudi Press Agency saying that “the view of the two leaders were identical…the president requested and the King agreed to support safe zones in Syria and Yemen, as well as supporting other ideas to help the many refugees who are displaced by the ongoing conflicts.”

“The president requested and the King agreed to support safe zones in Syria and Yemen, as well as supporting other ideas to help the many refugees who are displaced by the ongoing conflicts,” the White House said.

 

A statement carried on the official Saudi Press Agency said “the view of the two leaders were identical” on issues that included confronting terrorism and extremism, along with countering “those who seek to undermine security and stability in the region and interfere in the internal affairs of other state,” a reference to Iran and to the activities of its regional proxies.

 

The White House also said they agreed on the “importance of rigorously enforcing” the nuclear deal Iran struck with other world powers including the U.S. in 2015. Mr. Trump and Saudi officials have repeatedly criticized the agreement, which lifted sanctions on Iran in exchange for curbs on its nuclear program.

Ironically, Saudi Arabia has produced more extremists that went on to carry out attacks on U.S. soil than any of the countries directly affected by the ban. Osama bin Laden, the late head of al Qaeda, was from one of the kingdom’s most prominent business families and 15 of the 19 Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers were Saudi. Only Tunisia has contributed more foreign fighters to the Islamic State, according to a 2015 study by the Soufan Group, a security consultancy.

Of course, this all comes as the ACLU is gearing up to fight the Trump administration in the Supreme Court on the basis that the new travel restrictions represent an unconstitutional ban of Muslims in direct violation of the First Amendment. 

Something tells us that Saudi Arabia is wishing that the millions of dollars they funneled to the Hillary Clinton campaign would have been a little more impactful. 

via http://ift.tt/2kbnGRR Tyler Durden

What a difference a week makes.

On January 23, Reuters reported that dialing back the Volcker Rule which limits banks’ ability to engage in speculative investments using their own balance sheet, has emerged a top priority for President Donald Trump’s nominee for U.S. Treasury secretary, Steve Mnuchin.  In written responses to questions posed by members of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee, Mnuchin said he would use his role as head of the interagency Financial Stability Oversight Council to give the Volcker Rule a stricter definition of proprietary trading.

At issue is the Volcker Rule, a contentious provision in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act that sought to prevent lenders from putting federally-insured deposits at risk through wagers on stocks, bonds and other assets.

“As Chair of FSOC I would plan to address the issue of the definition of the Volcker Rule to make sure that banks can provide the necessary liquidity for customer markets and address the issues in the Fed report,” Mnuchin wrote in the document, which also included senators’ questions and was verified by a Senate aide.

According to Reuters, Mnuchin also said that “regulators have applied proprietary trading prohibitions to too many activities” adding that “In the responses Mnuchin also made it clear he believes the rule should only apply to “a bank that benefits from federal deposit insurance.” The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation guarantees retail deposits at about 6,000 banks, including the consumer banking arms of the country’s largest investment banks.”

Just a few days later, in a follow up to Mnuchin’s written responses, this time from Bloomberg, the interpretation of his statement was 180 degrees opposite, and as Bloomberg reported, “Steven Mnuchin made clear he doesn’t want Wall Street banks getting back into the business of making risky market bets with their own capital, after Senate Democrats pushed him to clarify his responses to questions they asked during his confirmation process to be Treasury secretary.”

Why the difference? Because in the span of just two days, Mnuchin appears to have flip-flopped on Volcker:

Mnuchin’s updated comments, which Bloomberg News obtained, were made after several Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee felt his earlier responses weren’t adequate, according to a Jan. 25 letter that Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon wrote to Utah’s Orrin Hatch, the panel’s Republican chairman.

It appears that the biggest variance between the two sets of responses had to do with the new Treasury Secretary’s outlook on prop trading. Mnuchin’s Bloomberg added that in his written remarks to lawmakers, “Mnuchin said that even banking units that lack a government backstop should be restricted from making speculative trades.” 

“A legal distinction between the insured and non-insured entity is an important factor in eliminating risky activities within the institution that has” insured deposits, Mnuchin said in an amended response to a senator’s question about Volcker. “I do not believe that the uninsured entity should be able to perform proprietary trading.”

If Bloomberg’s interpretation of Mnuchin’s statement is accurate, it could cause substantial headaches for bank investors, many of which have priced in substantial deregulation, among which the return of the Volcker rule, as banks were once again expected to have free reign in a Dodd-Frank free environment.

* * *

In addition to Volcker, Mnuchin also weighed in on the issue of how to reform America’s GSE in particular, and mortgage-finance system in general, a topic that has huge consequences for the multitrillion mortgage industry and the fate of shareholders who’ve invested billions of dollars in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  In his response, Mnuchin wrote that “any solution will be dependent upon the GSEs being capitalized properly and other such controls that eliminate risk to taxpayers.”

The answer could cheer some advocates of preserving Fannie and Freddie, including investors, small lenders, and some affordable housing groups. Over the past few years, those groups tried to convince the Obama administration to allow the companies to rebuild capital to no avail. In the days after President Donald Trump’s surprise election win in November, his advisers pledged to dismantle Dodd-Frank and cut regulations broadly.

 

Mnuchin took a softer tone at his hearing before the Finance Committee. He said he mostly favors making changes to rules put in place in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, not repealing the law entirely. In his amended responses to the Finance panel, Mnuchin said he’d like to use “empirical assessments” to monitor the effects Dodd-Frank has had on the finance industry. He also said that he’ll advocate that any rules needed to protect “public safety” shouldn’t be included in the regulatory freeze Trump has ordered across all federal agencies.

* * *

Assuming that Mnuchin’s harsher, second set of responses is accurate, it may also be one of the reasons for today’s bank stock selloff, as yet another significiant decoupling between the post-Obama reality and the Trump hope was gently squeezed, prompting traders just how much will really change under Trump who is increasingly getting bogged down in day to day scandals and minutiae – involving both republicans and democrats – that have little to do with his economic promises, something which infurated none other than Matt Drudge earlier today.

via http://ift.tt/2kJAC0W Tyler Durden

Authored by Pepe Escobar via SputnikNews.com,

China's alleged deployment of a DF-41 strategic ballistic missile brigade to Heilongjiang province, bordering Russia, triggered a fascinating spectacle; how to spin – or not to spin – what necessarily represents a milestone in Russia-China's strategic partnership.

The Global Times stressed Hong Kong and Taiwan media interpreted pictures of the DF-41 were taken in Heilongjiang, admitting there was no official confirmation from Beijing while hoping the "strategic edge" would soon be confirmed.

Russian media was way more explicit, with military analyst Konstantin Sivkov stressing that the DF-41, as positioned, would not be able to target Russia's Far East and most of Eastern Siberia; and Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov noting that "if the reports prove correct, the military build-up in China is not perceived as a threat to our country."

Of course not. The Russia-China strategic partnership, which, as I argued, needs to be broken according to Trump's shadow foreign policy adviser Henry Kissinger's strategy, is a very serious business. If there were indeed a deployment, Russian intelligence would have been fully aware. Peskov's response also pre-empted the notion this might represent a Chinese response to potential US-Russia negotiations over nuclear disarmament.

Still, all of the above did not prevent the Chinese Foreign Ministry to issue an attempt at a non-denial denial, describing the alleged deployment as "speculation and crude guesses".

Go West, young missile

The timing of the alleged deployment, with Team Trump doubling down on anti-Chinese rhetoric on their war of positioning geared to extract further trade concessions, may indeed betray a very graphic Beijing message.

The DF-41, a three-stage solid-propellant missile, with a range of up to 15,000 km and capable of delivering up to 10 MIRVed nuclear warheads, is one of the most sophisticated – and secret — ICBMS on earth. Virtually everything about it is classified. Positioning in Heilongjiang, near the city of Daqing, close to the Russian border, implies a huge "dead zone" around it. So call it a mix of nuclear deterrence and a "message" to the ultimate target — the West Coast of the United States.

This propels the matter to an even more serious sphere than a possible upcoming crisis in the South China Sea, where the Pentagon, under the pretext of "freedom of navigation", is obsessed in maintaining "access", Trump or no Trump.

If there ever were an attempted American blockade in the South China Sea, it would be easy to take out the Chinese-developed islands/islets/rocks/shoals. But far from easy to grapple with the Chinese response; submarines with "carrier killer" missiles able to take out anything the US Navy may come up with.

Islands/islets/rocks/shoals in the South China Sea have no inherent strategic significance for the US. What their upgrading – the Beltway would say "militarization" — does represent is China's progressive attempt to eventually deny access to the US Navy.

Enter the "messenger" DF-41. The technical reasons why Russia does not see the DF-41 as a threat are simple – and may unveil the rationale behind the alleged deployment.

Beijing has been able to deploy its predecessor, the DF-31 – which is able to target Russia — for more than a decade now. And a simple analysis of distance and trajectory reveals that Heilongjiang province is the optimum location for the DF-41 to target the whole of the continental US.

It's virtually guaranteed that an official Chinese confirmation of the DF-41 deployment will accelerate a nuclear arms race, involving all players from Russia, China and the US to India and Pakistan and even North Korea.

But more than this, it will be yet another lethal blow to the Beltway's master strategy – first deployed by Dr. Zbig "Grand Chessboard" Brzezinski – of trying to prevent the emergence of any peer competitor, or worse, an alliance of peer competitors such as Russia-China.

Just at the start of the Trump era, the new reality could not be more striking. Not long ago, it was "say hello to Russia-China". Now it's "say hello to China's ICBMs."

via http://ift.tt/2klRHAx Tyler Durden

via http://ift.tt/2jO8rPW williambanzai7

One of the least convoluted, most insightful and thus best forecasts of what the first few months of the Trump administration will look like, came from one of the respondents of today’s Dallas Fed manufacturing survey. This is what the respondent said:

President Trump looks to do things that will be favorable for business, which would improve employment and growth if successful. However, protesters are all over the place, so I tend to think that will cause trouble for the country and for business.

Those 42 words, with a sufficient margin of error on either side, pretty much summarize everything that will happen in the next 6-12 months: a push to improve the economic growth (perhaps leading to overstimulation and a Fed that is far behind the inflationary curve, resulting in a sharp move higher in rates), offset by protesters who are “all over the place.”

In addition to the above snippet, the Dallas Fed respondents, among the most outspoken of all regional Feds, had several other notable comments on the state of the US economy. Here are some highlights, first regarding the Trump administration:

• We feel if the news of the new administration holds, we should be on an uptrend throughout the Trump presidency.
• One of our manufacturing facilities is in Mexico. There is some uncertainty around potential impacts related to NAFTA and other policy changes from the Trump administration. Several large chain customers are asking for backup plans should there be any supply chain disruption.
• We expect President Trump’s policies towards NAFTA and Mexico will have a negative impact in the borderland in the next six months.
• We are expecting President Trump to have a very positive impact on the business environment. We need less regulation, less red tape, better trade deals and lower taxes.
• We are waiting to see whether the new administration in Washington follows through on the threats to place additional tariffs on parts imported from Mexico and Asian countries. That could cause the price of our finished products to increase.
• Generally, since the election, all activity has increased and quote activity for projects down the road has increased.

And then, on various other secular trends within the US, and global, economy:

• The global economies and U.S. economy are very weak and uncertain.
• We have seen an improvement since the election.
• Imports coming from Asia continue to plague the drilling equipment market. Foreign-governmental subsidized products are being brought over and sold at unprecedented low prices (prices not seen in the last 35 years).
• The printing industry has been hurting for a long time and continues to decline. At the end of December we purchased a small print shop in order to increase sales, but we also increased overhead. Our lost sales have been a result of mergers and companies selling off divisions that are not profitable. We are still hopeful that a change in the economy will help increase sales.
• Equipment purchases remain sluggish with a “wait and see” approach being taken by the refinery operators regarding crack spreads and available cash flow.
• An unchanged outlook means it is still not good. I still seem to be in a secular 2–3 percent decline in sales. We are working to diversify, and while such efforts have been successful, they aren’t big enough yet to move the needle.
• Order and shipment volumes have increased from low fourth-quarter levels across most industry sectors. We are experiencing some material price pressure.
• Maybe it’s because we have hit the January doldrums that can occur for us this time of year, but it seems way slower with much less activity both in order entering and in quoting. It’s as if our customers are still out on vacation or taking a wait and see to the new president this Friday.

But perhaps the best recent Dallas Fed response had nothing to do with either Trump, or the economy, but instead was in response to a special question from last month’s survey, dealing with “transactions in the Permian Basin”, which had received significant attention in the second half of the year, with some reports of acreage being overvalued, according to the Dallas Fed. The following comment expressing concern over acreage prices stood out for obvious reasons:

“The Permian transactions are approaching price multiples associated with a bubble or a Ponzi scheme. Multiple private equity (PE)-backed buyers are simply trading assets from one to the other—very similar to transactions we witnessed in the early ‘80s real estate bubble, the tech bubble of ‘98–‘01 when venture capital firms co-invested with each other to drive up paper gains, and the oil transactions prior to 2014 when every PE fund, pension and endowment manager needed shale in their portfolios.”

Let’s hope that this time it’s different.

via http://ift.tt/2kJvsSV Tyler Durden

Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

The mindlessness is unbearable.

Amnesty International tells us that we must “fight the Muslim ban” because Trump’s bigotry is wrecking lives.

 

Anthony Dimaggio at CounterPunch says Trump should be impeached because his Islamophobia is a threat to the Constitution.

This is not to single out these two as the mindlessness is everywhere among those whose worldview is defined by Identity Politics.

One might think that Amnesty International should be fighting against the Bush/Cheney/Obama regime wars that have produced the refugees by killing and displacing millions of Muslims. For example, the ongoing war that Obama inflicted on Yemen results in the death of one Yemeni child every 10 minutes, according to UNICEF. Where is Amnesty International?

Clearly America’s wars on Muslims wreck far more lives than Trump’s ban on immigrants. Why the focus on an immigration ban and not on wars that produce refugees? Is it because Obama is responsible for war and Trump for the ban? Is the liberal/progressive/left projecting Obama’s monstrous crimes onto Trump? Is it that we must hate Trump and not Obama?

Immigration is not a right protected by the US Constitution. Where was Dimaggio when in the name of “the war on terror” the Bush/Obama regime destroyed the civil liberties guaranteed by the US Constitution? If Dimaggio is an American citizen, he should try immigrating to the UK, Germany, or France and see how far he gets.

The easiest and surest way for the Trump administration to stop the refugee problem, not only for the US but also for Europe and the West in general, is to stop the wars against Muslim countries that his predecessors started. The enormous sums of money squandered on gratuitous wars could instead be given to the countries that the US and NATO have destroyed. The simplest way to end the refugee problem is to stop producing refugees. This should be the focus of Trump, Amnesty, and Dimaggio.

Is everyone too busy hating to do anything sensible?

It is very disturbing that the liberal/progressive/left prefers to oppose Trump than to oppose war. Indeed, they want a war on Trump. How does this differ from the Bush/Obama war on Muslims?

The liberal/progressive/left is demonstrating a mindless hatred of the American people and the President that the people chose. This mindless hatred can achieve nothing but the discrediting of an alternative voice and the opening of the future to the least attractive elements of the right-wing.

The liberal/progressive/left will end up discrediting all critics, thereby empowering those to whom the liberal/progressive/left are most opposed.

via http://ift.tt/2kMuhVL Tyler Durden

The Koch Brothers and their political advocacy group, Americans for Prosperity, held a meeting this weekend in Indian Wells, California for their army of $100,000+ donors that collectively support several conservative groups backed by the brothers.  Among other topics, the Koch donor network, helmed by billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, discussed plans to rally support for Trump’s SCOTUS pick.  According to Axios, top Koch officials said they’re waiting for the nominee’s identity to be revealed, but they liked the initial list of names Trump released. 

The comments came just as Trump has confirmed his intention to reveal his pick for the Supreme Court tomorrow at 8pm EST.

I have made my decision on who I will nominate for The United States Supreme Court. It will be announced live on Tuesday at 8:00 P.M. (W.H.)

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 30, 2017

Meanwhile, as we’ve noted before, Trump’s pick is expected to come amid vows from Democrats to block any nominee put forward by his administration.  Appearing on Rachel Maddow last week, Schumer said the open SCOTUS seat was ‘stolen’ by Republicans and that “it’s hard to imagine a nominee that Donald Trump would choose, that would get Republican support, that we could support.”

Under current rules, Republicans will need at least eight Democrats to support Trump’s nominee to overcome the 60-vote filibuster hurdle.  That said, Ted Cruz, among other Republicans, has already started lobbying for the “nuclear option” that would lower the confirmation vote threshold to a simple majority and pave the way for Republicans to confirm any Justice put forward, without Democrat support.  Per The Hill:

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R) said Republicans should fight to get President Trump’s coming Supreme Court nominee confirmed by any means necessary.

 

Trump has said he will be announcing his choice to fill the late Antonin Scalia’s seat on the bench next week.

 

Republicans will need at least eight Democrats to support Trump’s nominee to overcome the 60-vote filibuster hurdle. But Cruz suggested the GOP shouldn’t rule out the so-called “nuclear option” to reduce the threshold to a majority. The move would be a gamble, setting a precedent that could weaken the GOP’s position if Democrats come back into power.

 

“I think we should do whatever it takes to get him confirmed,” the former presidential candidate said on Fox News’ “Hannity” Tuesday night.

 

When pressed about whether Republicans would employ the nuclear option this week, McConnell simply said: “The nominee will be confirmed.”

But while the billionaire brothers may be aligned with Trump on his conservative SCOTUS picks, they have made no qualms about publicly opposing the new administration’s stance on the proposed “border tax” and immigration ban.  Per Fortune:

AFP Chief Executive Officer Luke Hilgemann, in an interview, called the measure “a massive tax increase” on U.S. consumers, who would pay more for foreign goods. He urged Ryan to “go back to the drawing board.”

 

AFP and its offshoot organizations have become a powerful force in U.S. politics, bolstering candidates and issues on federal and state levels.

 

Besides defying Republican leaders on the border tax, the Koch-led organization on Sunday challenged Trump on a policy he implemented on Friday to stop the movement of people from countries with large Muslim populations from traveling to the United States.

 

“The travel ban is the wrong approach and will likely be counterproductive,” said an official of the Koch network.

Finally, the brothers also vowed to increase their spending in the 2018 election cycle to $300-$400 million, up from $250 million in 2016…apparently they didn’t waste enough money opposing Trump last year…but we’re sure another $150 million should definitely guarantee success.

via http://ift.tt/2kb5asS Tyler Durden

HIAS (Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society) head, Mark Hetfield, debated Tucker Carlson this evening on the merits of accepting refugees into the country — declaring it was the responsibility of the United States to accept anyone in need — citing the plight of jews in 1921 and how we, as a nation, horribly failed them — which contributed to the death toll during World War 2.
 
Tucker called him out for applying a straw man, revisionist, argument — asking Mark to explain what are ‘American values’ and how many refugees are we supposed to take in, considering there are upwards of 60 million, globally.
 
I am sure you could imagine where this went.
 

 
It’s important to note that organizations like HIAS make a living off admittance of refugees into the country. They aren’t honest brokers on the subject matter, since their livelihoods are dependent on government funds quantified off a number of refugees entering the country. In recent years, they’ve enjoyed solid growth, with revenues surging from $25m in 2012 to $40m in 2015, according to their 990 form filed with the IRS.
 
More to that end, the directors of HIAS have enjoyed a prosperous living off the recent influx of refugees, allocating upwards of $17m (~50%) of revenues towards salaries and compensation.
 

 
At the end of the day, they’re crony capitalists, sucking off the tit of government handouts — fueled by idealogues.
 

Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com

via http://ift.tt/2joRAEW The_Real_Fly