=================
All the prior statements you've posted, showed you disliked president Trump. His economic policies, his global political relations with other nations, his overall performance in this country.

President Trump may not be a scholarly economic brilliant but he is practically economic savvy and successful on all his practical endeavors. President Trump is not a politician. He is a pragmatist, an advocate of the approach that evaluates theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application.

Now, you are trying to convince me and the world you support him?
Where do you stand? You are confusing me, so as many others.

I hope you are consistent and stand firm on your decisions. Real men of integrity do that. Now your turn. Good luck!

======================

I think the P**********l advisory brains trust who wrote the speech had a strategy to plug up, using Trump, the US as an emerging plethora after a monumental ruinous event.

Ans. All US presidents have their own Speech Writer. The tone of President Trump's speech indicated that he prepared it himself. Your encroachment to the US sovereign rights dictates your clear hatred for president Trump. Thus, showing a biased opinion, which sounds like that of Iran’s Ayotollah, Hamas, and CAIR, and the Four Squad.
-------------
Nearly every occupier of a seat in that auditorium except for Boris Johnson would have for sure believed before the speech that there was no great calamity felt by them, which they needed to be emotionally reassured about, after the speech probably everyone was seeking such a reassurance.

Ans. The speech of president Trump was one of the greatest delivered at the UN Assembly. The speech indicated common bond of cooperation and respect for peace and unity to all nations, bonded with love for its sovereign rights. It is about patriotism of their people. It mentioned about abuses of its leaders, and to providing aid to those struggling nations as a result of the evils of the leadership like Iran, and Venezuela. But they have to return to democracy and freedom so that their people could excel, thrive and grow in prosperity and freedom. It mentioned about the trade abuses of China, that must be corrected to be fair and balance with the US.
-------------
Another missed opportunity to expose his intuition, used instead to prevaricate and promote a high falutin meaningless utopian sentiment.
------------
Ans. I think you are speaking nonsense. It sounds like that of the Ayatollah of Iran.
The president was direct and assertive in presenting all the failures of countries particularly Iran, and abuses of China's trade with the US. US wants fair and balanced trade. But he also offered support for the people of Iran who badly needed it. Only the leader must give up nuclear proliferation and avoid attacking the neighbors.

=====================
You are not worth of my time. All your information do not prove the facts that happened. Your book resource is not even reliable. Every one could write a book. That does not mean it is part of history, the source of facts. You are talking non-sense.

Don't change the history of this country. You don't know what you are talking about. Here are the purposes of the Iraq war.

The U.S. Iraq war's intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world."[1] For the invasion of Iraq the rationale was "the United States relied on the authority of UN Security Council Resolutions 678 and 687 to use all necessary means to compel Iraq to comply with its international obligations".

In addition, Sadam Hussien, in cahoots with a UN official with Saddam who stole $1.7 billion the UN emergency funds "oil for food program" supposed to be for the suffering Iraqi's. Fact was the UN official in cahoots with the crime was terminated from the UN. Sadam's 2 sons have been feeding the Christians to the team of Lions on their cage that they have.

Your information about the 1996 Sub-Prime lending were all non-sense unreliable. Those were not facts. I have already detailed all the facts that happened and results earlier on my post about the Sup-Prime lending. Read all those highlights in blue on my earlier posts. Those were facts.

Then you create your own statistics, and figures that were made up non-sense. You are wasting my time, but I won't allow you mislead the people and make fool of yourself. Why don't you discuss about your own financial issues in Australia?

==================
Sorry to tell you that you've misunderstood the whole purpose of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Yours had a very wrong interpretation about president Bush in 1992, entering into the Iraq war, your allegations of helping people who don't have the qualification of obtaining loans. That was Mr. Obama's demand in 1996 demanding banks to provide loans to low income people. Unfortunately substantial parts of those loans were sold to Fannie and Freddie Mac subsidies under the system of Sub- Prime lending.

Here are the reasons why Fannie and Freddie were created.
FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created by Congress in 1938. They perform an important role in the nation’s housing finance system:
1. To provide liquidity, stability and affordability to the mortgage market. They provide liquidity (ready access to funds on reasonable terms) to the thousands of banks, savings and loans, and mortgage companies that make loans to finance housing.
2. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from lenders and either hold these mortgages in their portfolios or package the loans into mortgage-backed securities (MBS) that may be sold.
3. Lenders use the cash raised by selling mortgages to the Enterprises to engage in further lending.
4. The Enterprises’ purchases help ensure that individuals and families that buy homes and investors that purchase apartment buildings and other multifamily dwellings have a continuous, stable supply of mortgage money.

5. By packaging mortgages into( MBS), and guaranteeing the timely payment of principal and interest on the underlying mortgages.
6. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac attract to the secondary mortgage market investors who might not otherwise invest in mortgages, thereby expanding the pool of funds available for housing.
7. That makes the secondary mortgage market more liquid and helps lower the interest rates paid by homeowners and other mortgage borrowers.

8.Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also can help stabilize mortgage markets and protect housing during extraordinary periods when stress or turmoil in the broader financial system threaten the economy. The Enterprises’ support for mortgage lending that finances affordable housing reduces the cost of such borrowing.

9. Fannie Mae was first chartered by the U.S. government in 1938 to help ensure a reliable and affordable supply of mortgage funds throughout the country. Today it is a shareholder-owned company that operates under a congressional charter.

Note: Part of the Stimulus funds provided in 2009 was bailing out Fannie and Freddie
Here's what happened during the 2008 SupPrime crisis. Banks sold the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and therefore substantial loans were carried under the two charters. But when the SubPrime failed, substantial losses were incurred by both charters. According to an independent economic group, the Shadow Open Market Committee (SOMC), keeping the two agencies afloat cost taxpayers US$187 billion over time as the Treasury paid $116 billion for Fannie and $71 billion for Freddie.

Scored again, big time!

=======================

Sorry; I didn’t think you were serious, the $2 trillion wasn't lost because it was wasn't there to begin with, the $2 trillion wasn't anything to do with those subprime mortgages that triggered the run on the banks the subprime mortgages were genuine commitments by home owners who signed up without much of a deposit.

The $2 trillion was speculative asset adjustments of value which first took hold in the futures markets that all turned bearish, and then that contagion spread to all equities and property markets, and after that then resulted the original home owners who has signed up for a debt found that the value of their property was much less than the amount owed by them on the mortgage.
==============
Ans** Your statements were all theories speculations and assumption without credence. The total loss during the Sub-Prime lending was more than $2 trillion. Not related to all your answers according to your imagination, your theories of finance or economics do not apply to the actual events that happened. I can’t take that.

It so obvious that you are trying to protect Obama when in fact all these events happened were the works of the democrats starting from Mr. Obama. All your assumptions and theories are the opposite of the facts, and I am really tired of your made up lies defending the real culprits of these greatest financial failures.
You must know first know how these events of the Sub-Prime lending that turned disastrous to our financial market.
1. During 1996 Mr. Obama issued bill to requiring banks and lending institutions provide mortgage loan to b****s and Hispanics or other low income.
2. In addition, during the periods of 2001-2003 ACORN had been demonstrating to banks and lending companies requiring banks to provide mortgage loans to low income. As a result, banks and lending companies issued a SUB-PRIME lending to these non-qualified buyers. What is a Sub-Prime? A subprime loan is a type of loan offered at a rate above prime to individuals who do not qualify for prime-rate loans. Quite often subprime.
3. From 2002 to 2005 millions of home buyers on this category obtained mortgages. Demands were so high that interest rates went higher. By 2005 the buyers failed to meet their obligations, and therefore foreclosures were at its highest. Thousands of banks collapsed, and the biggest one was that of Lehman Brothers. The complexities of the problems delayed solutions the Federal system under the FOMC who makes decision. Congress had to interfere bailout and issued the Stimulus package of initially $720 billions in 2008 and which was processed during the 2009 under the Obama adm. The funds first to be released in 2009 was $185 billion, in 2010 was $400 billion, and in 2011 was $135 billion. Later on, this was not sufficient enough and was added $145 billion. Total bailout was $865 billion under the Obama administration. How these funds were handled to meet the requirements. I did now see where most of the funds went. But I know for a fact that there were funds distributed to areas that were not parts of the bail-out. E.g. Shovel ready jobs swindle, Egypt bailout $1.3 billion, Hamas was bailed out $900 million, Solyndra loan $500 million which was fraudulent and bankrupted within 5 months, cash for clunkers, some money bailed out to b****s who failed the mortgage so they could keep their homes. Some f the funds bailed out to Iran for $150 billion, plus $1.8 billion in cash. That made Iran now the greatest threat to the world's security.
But still millions of mortgages were all left unpaid. Several thousands of banks got bankrupt, dissolved, and the biggest victim was the Lehman Brothers.

Some banks were given bail out money and Congress was involved but the Fed has authority to inject funds where necessary with the oversight of the Treasury Dept I think the figures you drew our attention to were to begin the nascent process of Quantative Easing, the Fed has never been audited so how much they give out and get back is always only ever conjecture.

The mortgages that ended up oversees as bundles were not bad debts until the banks started to fight each other and that was when Obama arrived a couple of year's later the repco market were one of the first signs that the Banks were digging into survival trenches, but last weeks injection were 10 times bigger sums of $ needed to prop up the inter bank over night lending market than was needed in 2008, officially the story is as you point out something to do with companies borrowing to pay taxes, well see.

The sub prime mortgages were Bushes bright idea to consolidate support for the invasion of Iraq, almost identical to Modern Monetary Theory just pust the $ out there as fast as possible.

Bank employees got a bonus for every mortgage they sold the builders got work people who otherwise couldn't afford homes were set for life, but property values plummeted when Obama came to Office.

Obama was a charismatic leader like Trump both above party politics so the deep State Henry Kissinger didn't have as much authority over the Government because of the charisma of the President.

The deep State controls the Party machine at branch level and when there is no charismatic leader, the deep State control everything that's why they call it deep.

If McCain and Palin would have won 2008 all hell would for sure have broken loose WW 3.

It's the Party machine that Powell will respond to because his home base is the branch banks same as a lack luster President is always threatened by the rank and file unless he has something over them, it all becomes very local grass roots family against family when there is no ultimate authority.

Australian Banks got involved when the Australian Wheat Board was had-up-for violating sanctions in the wheat for oil scheme which was said to be corrupt like Huawei is now, you'd probably find Trump wasn't responsible for that.

The Australian Wheat Board was smashed out of existence and became a private company owned by the growers in 1999, but now is much less effective especially in times of drought. .

The reason Australian banks were set upon by US deep State is because they didn't like us being strong and healthy so the Over Night Lending Rate was used to create liquidity problems for us by pushing up over night interst rates, that was Obama you're right to deduce that it was his Term.of Office but I'm sure he wasn't pulling the strings.

However it also happened in the Asian Financial crisis late 1990's and the one before before that was early 1990''s, I had a Government protected mortgage so was OK but 2 work mates were on the open market their interest rate went from 6% to 15% one had to sell up.

Australian Banks balance their day to day ledgers using the US banking overnight market.
============
Your Australian bank affected?? They are all your theories and assumptions. Prove that. Ask the democrats how the Sub-Prime begun. They'll all deny that since they are famous for doing that until now and its getting worst. Turning into socialism perhaps you desire that too to enriching their own interests, extorting from the American people who think and earn.

President Bush had nothing to do with the Sub-prime. It all started by the democrats in Congress, in 1996 till 2003 and then ended up bailing out during the Obama administration where money laundering was very active. Until he left the country bankrupt, where he doubled the national debts of all presidents combined to $19, 977 trillion.

I am tired of your nonsense; my time is so much used to answering all your unproven assumptions motivated by your liberal political encroachment in our US economy. This ends my communication with you.

Once again, Tulsi stands out as perhaps the only voice of reason in a field of "unreasonable" and hyper-partisan Democratic candidates running for president in 2020. Perhaps this is why the MSM and DNC refuse to give her any positive press and a voice in the second round of debates.

"I believe that impeachment at this juncture would be terribly d******e for the country at a time when we are already extremely divided. The hyperpartisanship is one of the main things driving our country apart," Gabbard told host Brian Kilmeade.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/terribly-d******e-tulsi-gabbard-refuses-join-fellow-democrats-calls-impeachment