Reagan Adviser: Why Trump Won’t Cut Taxes

http://bonnerandpartners.com/reagan-adviser-why-trump-wont-cut-taxes/

Lawrence Lessig compares the number of fundraisers between Presidents Reagan and Obama

http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2015/jan/20/lawrence-lessig/lawrence-lessig-compares-number-fundraisers-betwee/

"If you ask how many times did Ronald Reagan attend a fundraiser when he ran for re-election in 1984, the answer is eight times. If you say how many times did Barack Obama attend a fundraiser in 2012, the answer is 228 times," Lessig told the Monitor.

He continued, "And you think, how does a man, as a person, run the nation when he's attending 228 fundraisers? And the answer is not very well. It's pretty terrible for your ability to do your job. It's pretty terrible for your ability to be responsive to the American people, because -- let me tell you -- the American people are not attending 228 fundraisers. Those people are different."

When will markets recover?

I had a steak dinner with a former colleague I hadn't seen in years. He is doing well and it was nice to see him with his daughter, an adorable 4 year old. His methods of raising her resonated with me--he showered her with love, but when she got out of line, he wouldn't respond until she apologized and they exchanged hugs. No entitlement there...

Speaking of entitlement, does the honest, hard-working American worker deserve to foot the bill for government-subsidized bailouts of bad loans, badly-run financial institutions, and poor fiscal policies encouraging rampant speculative bubbles and busts?

Is there something more insidiuous at play? Many conspiracy theorists claim there is in the form of a Working Group formed by Ronald Reagan back in 1988, originally created to prevent a stock market collapse. Coined as PPT by a Washington Post reporter, this insider group of the nation's most influential financial leaders has long been rumored to be manipulating financial markets--for the benefit of market participants. But is it beneficial to the greater good--or just an elite few? Are they lining the pockets of their friends at the major banks? I won't go into it--it's easily Google-able, but what is surprising is that officials, including past Fed Chairmen, admit publicly it is their charter to do whatever is necessary to avert a financial collapse. Yet, when pressed specifically to address recent illogical market movements, they experience a sudden amnesia on what exactly it is they do to prevent said collapses. The normal defense is the market experiences corrections, but the frequency of these patterns is suggestive of market intervention.

Are these actions more harmful than helpful? Some very astute financier friends of mine have made me aware of these interventions, and their inclination is that these interventions are not only possibly illegal and immoral, they are also counterproductive--only delaying and exaggerating the market downturns. Financial manipulation is not only unethical, but it also doesn't work long-term. The Hunt brothers found out the hard way in their attempt to corner the silver market in the 70's. Let's hope this recent alleged intervention by the SEC, CFTC, Treasury Department, and more importantly, the Fed, doesn't turn this market "correction" into a rout. The last thing we need is a loss of confidence in the markets--and that the average Joe doesn't have a chance. Maybe that's why casinos are gaining in popularity.

I hope everyone had a happy Father's Day.