Hey, I just met you, and this is Lazy... get these fast finance fixes and mail me, maybe?

What Were You Expecting from Donald Trump?

40
Comments
Written by

I hope you had a good holiday weekend. I learned that a package of 20 glow-sticks from the local Dollar Store is perhaps the best use of 100 cents possible when you have a one year old and a two year old.

This article is probably a little late. However, I couldn't let the topic die without writing something on it. The first paragraph on this Gawker article (warning: strong language) summed it up really well. The list of companies kicking Trump to the curb is growing everyday. The only question is why it took so long.

(The only mistake the Gawker article made is that Outsourced was a good show and one that many of my Indian friends enjoyed. It made more fun of Americans and how they react when they are in an unfamiliar environment.)

The question is what did anyone expect from Donald Trump? He's acted how he's always acted. His comments about Rosie O'Donnell a few years back were actually quite reflective on how he represented himself recently.

For some strange reason, people have considered him a credible source of financial information. Wikipedia cites four of businesses that have filed for bankruptcy. It looks like there was a personal bankruptcy in play as well.

He wrote Why We Want You to Be Rich with Robert Kiyosaki. When it came out, many personal finance bloggers rushed to read and review it. However the reviews of the book were horrible.

It isn't surprising.

Kiyosaki and Trump are often considered the two biggest supporters of Multi-Level Marketing. The MLM people say, "Kiyosaki and Trump say it is it the future." They don't know about Robert Kiyosaki and MLM. Kiyosaki is a failed Amway distributor who got on the best seller list because the organization pushed his book Rich Dad, Poor Dad. While many (including myself) find the book inspirational, there's not many actionable steps outlined in the book. The fact that he's against 401Ks and for putting his five-figure training seminars on credit cards seems to speak volumes.

However, Trump took it to another level, which I covered here: MLM and Donald Trump. He licensed his name to an MLM company. People with more information than I have reported that the company paid steep royalties on the Trump name and it became a liability to the company before it was sold for pennies on the dollar.

Neither Kiyosaki or Trump have successfully put their money where their mouth is to become a successful MLM distributor. They know that there's no gold in those hills. Instead, they are happy to tell the story of the riches there while selling shovels and maps to anyone and everyone.

I think Trump may be finally hitting his Charlie Sheen moment... except that it is even worse. I think this closes the book on Trump in my eyes. I hope that mainstream media agrees and starts giving attention to people who deserve it.

P.S. For those wondering if this is about politics, it isn't. It is about racial equality. It is about not trying to give terrible advice which makes them poorer in an attempt to sell material to make yourself richer. It isn't Republicans vs. Democrats.

Last updated on July 5, 2015.

This post deals with:

,

... and focuses on:

MLM

Don't forget to these five minute financial fixes to save thousands!

40 Responses to “What Were You Expecting from Donald Trump?”

  1. Homer Dokes says:

    Well you just lost me. Your position on Trump has exposed your lack of intellectual honesty. I’m not suggesting Trump is our next leader, tho we can and have done worse (most notably the current extremely poor excuse of a ‘leader’ and god help us should Hillary make it). While some question the delivery, hell the delivery on what you write in every article absolutely stinks as your grammar/spelling is the worse I have seen of any blogger, what Trump stated is dead spot on. There was NOTHING racial about it. They are facts. Your inability to accept them or even recognize them as so when they have been so blatantly obvious reveals just how PC influenced you really are. This PC crap has been the primary contributor to this country’s huge decline. At this stage you have lost all credibility in my eyes and I will look elsewhere for financial information. Yours is obviously tainted.

  2. Paul N says:

    I do however like to know what is so wrong with asking citizens of a foreign country to legally immigrate? Allowing them to bypass the rules is a slap in the face to those that do follow the correct process.

    The Donald just has a bad way of expressing that and many other things.

  3. Lazy Man says:

    Homer,

    I don’t think I’m alone in rejecting Trump. The way his sponsors dropped him like a hot potato shows me I’ve got plenty of company who doesn’t approve of what he said.

    Finally, I’ve said at the outset that I don’t proofread my articles. Sometimes I change up sentences while I am writing them and that makes the grammar not agree. I do use a spell check, so there should be very minimal errors on that front. Considering that I make very little money and I put ginormous time and effort to help people, I think your criticism is rather weak. I’d counter by saying that I don’t know another blogger that responds back to almost every comment left. I believe my level of service is unparalleled in that area.

    You might not find the remarks racist, but nearly everyone else does. For example, MSNBC, Us Magazine does and dozens more do. You’ll soon have nothing left to read if you extend your boycott to other websites.

    I believe that Trump is an extremely smart person and he might even some good ideas. To piggyback on what Paul N. said he has a bad way of expressing things. You can’t have that as a political candidate. However, this pales in comparison to his supporting of MLM/pyramid schemes.

    Paul, I agree with you 100% as long as the rules are reasonable… and probably 99.99% even if the rules aren’t reasonable. Personally, I haven’t taken the time to read and evaluate the rules which I’d like to do before establishing an opinion there. I’ve got other things on my plate that I’m much more interested in.

  4. Vogel says:

    The issue at hand, which the 2 previous posters seemed to miss entirely, is that Trump didn’t offer an intelligent critique of immigration policy; he simply accused Mexican immigrants (not illegal immigrants mind you but all immigrants) of being rapists and murderers.

    That highly offensive statement was a PR liability for those organizations that have business relationships with Trump, so they severed them, and in so doing exercised the will of the free market. Nothing could be more consistent with capitalism.

  5. Homer Dokes says:

    The venue from which Trump was speaking was not one in which he neither should have or was required to provide a critique of our immigration policy. He never was talking about immigrants, he was talking about illegal aliens and what he stated was factually correct and NEEDS to be said. Everyone seems to be going out of their way to take his comments out of context. Again, it shows the tremendous lack of intellectual honesty which is prevailing in this country.

    While I have followed Lazy Man for few months now, had I judged him on his poorly grammatical inability to convey his message because he is to ‘lazy’ to proof read his own editorials I would have never gotten passed the first post I read. I gave him the benefit of the doubt anyway.

    MSNBC? Really? I rest my case.

  6. robyn says:

    trump endorsed video-phones when skype was free, urged his downliners to pay their utility bills through his overpriced video-phone MLM, classic MLM scam [i went to a seminar so a friend could get credit]
    and his bankruptcies? really? you’re going to trust him with the country’s economy when he can’t keep his own head above water?
    really?
    i will quote my parents, who knew HIS parents: they are all lying, cheating thieves.

  7. Homer Dokes says:

    Seems to me that at a net worth of over 9 billion dollars Trump has done a pretty good job at keeping his head above water. Yeah…. I’d take that guy!

    I’d prefer him as the Secretary of State however.

  8. Vogel says:

    Homer Dokes said: “The venue from which Trump was speaking was not one in which he neither should have or was required to provide a critique of our immigration policy.”

    Trump is running for the GOP presidential nomination. His ONLY responsibility is to talk about policy.

    Homer Dokes said: “He never was talking about immigrants, he was talking about illegal aliens.”

    He did not restrict his comments to illegal immigrants. This is what he said in reference to the Mexican government:

    “They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

    Homer Dokes said: “what he stated was factually correct and NEEDS to be said.”

    It’s no more factually correct than saying that Americans are rapists; but some, I assume are good people. In what sense did that “need to be said”? To whip up outrage among his xenophobic base?

    Homer Dokes: “Again, it shows the tremendous lack of intellectual honesty which is prevailing in this country.”

    Hardly. It shows that Trump will stoop to hate-mongering for political expediency. He has the right to say such inflammatory things, and the marketplace has the right to respond in a manner that it considers appropriate. The First Amendment doesn’t make one immune to criticism.

  9. Lazy Man says:

    I think it’s been said that Trump’s net worth was closer to 4 billion. Either one is a lot of money, but no need to exaggerate it. As Robyn pointed out Trump makes money pitching ACN, which appears to be a pyramid scheme.

    So either Trump isn’t smart enough to realize he was promoting a pyramid scheme or he was knew he was doing dishonest. I find it hard to back him in either scenario.

  10. Vogel says:

    Homer Dokes said: “Seems to me that at a net worth of over 9 billion dollars Trump has done a pretty good job at keeping his head above water. Yeah…. I’d take that guy! I’d prefer him as the Secretary of State however.”

    Riiight…Secretary of State…because of his extensive foreign policy experience and diplomatic skills??? A donkey in a business suit would be less of a liability. You should crack a book someday and learn what the job of Secretary of State actually entails.

    If money is the only benchmark for suitability, why not just nominate the Koch Bros for the GOP ticket? Together they’re worth at least 10 Donald Trumps. That must mean they’re 10 times more qualified right?

  11. Homer Dokes says:

    Trump himself declared $9 billion in assets during his presidential announcement. I exaggerated nothing.

    Regarding bankruptcy, those who have never been in business for themselves have little understanding what it takes to keep a business together with the changing times and conditions. Trump has endured 1 bankruptcy that left him in the red in the ’90s. Unlike many who would have succumb to such a devastating experience, Trump managed to come back…. in tremendous fashion. I pity those who can not find inspiration in that alone.

    Worth noting, the 4 other bankruptcy ‘filings’ associated with Trumps name are all related to the Atlantic City casino of which he owns only a 10% stake in. As the casino is still open for business, i’d say the reorganization, a far cry different than a total bankruptcy, did exactly what it was suppose to do. People are STILL working where they wouldn’t have been otherwise.

    Vogel, am I to understand that what we have had for secretary of state between Hillary and Carey has been effective and to the benefit of the united states. That’s an impossible sell. You were only lightly incorrect when you said donkey in a business suit. These two jack asses in suits have never had the country’s best interest in mind, only their own. They absolutely had/have NO clue what the hell they were/are doing and we currently have a world in tremendous turmoil to show for it. Talk about liabilities.

    Should the Koch brothers decide to run, it would probably be the best thing that ever happened to the United States since Reagen. Again, anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty and taking the time to actually research it a bit, knows that the Koch brothers have gone out of their way to promote business for all in these United States. I could go on forever with what they have done and contributed to. Oh…. and it should be noted that they both are Libertarians.

    It’s not my desire to throw stones back and forth here. I have no use for either the Democratic party or the Republican party. They both stink. But as a constitutional conservative, It is damned refreshing to see the likes of a Trump, Cruz, Fiorina, and the like actually speaking truth and saying what needs to be said without fear of being shutdown by those who lack any intellectual honesty and integrity at all. It has long since been absent in these what was once great United States.

  12. Lazy Man says:

    Trump has been known to declare a lot of things. As some have covered, they aren’t exactly true.

    I’ve been in business for 9 years now, don’t try to paint me as someone who doesn’t know the challenges of business.

  13. Homer Dokes says:

    Quite the contrary Lazy Man, I stated ‘those who have not been in business for themselves have little understanding’. Given you have 9 years in business (and a profound kudos to you for your 9 years and I hope for many more) you obviously do not fall into this category and I’m sure understand my statement in the first place. Most new businesses do not last beyond 5 years.

  14. Lazy Man says:

    Well, it wasn’t clear who you were referring to. I’d be the only person in the conversation who has clearly shown the ability to run a business.

    There’s a great article here about how Trump got his start. He ran took over his father’s business which was already successful and had an inheritance estimated between $40 million to $200 million.

    So let’s not give Donald Trump too much credit here. A lot of initial cash and a lot of leverage (his real estate investments) can lead to a big amount of net worth on paper. It can also lead to bankruptcies as he’s experienced.

  15. Homer Dokes says:

    Good Grief,

    See how easy it is to misinterpret someones statement? I thought the sentence “‘those’ who have never been in business for themselves have little understanding what it takes to keep a business together with the changing times and conditions” was pretty clear. Just as it was clear to me Trump was not calling all Mexicans rapists and drug dealers.

    Regardless on how an individual gets their start, their ability to take it forward and make/keep it a success speaks volumes. I don’t care who it is. We ALL have taken two steps back and one step forward through life. It’s nearly impossible to avoid. And if you are fortunate enough to not have experienced that yet, give it time…. you will… and most likely through no fault of your own. And if/when it does happen… will you be content to accept defeat? I hope not. Life is a timeline of experiences… both good and bad. You learn from the bad and continue to march, and thank your lucky stars for the good.

    Give the man (Trump) a break! Why does today’s society want to kick a man who has had what it takes to become a success? Particularly on more than one occasion in Trumps case. Who wouldn’t want to be in his shoes? Pretty certain success (defined at the very least as financial independence) is what your shooting for… as am I. After all, there is little other reason to endure the hardships of a business owner otherwise. And don’t tell me they don’t exist.

    I see from your latest posting Lazy Man that you are a vet. Thank you for your service. I to spent a number of years (6) in the service.

  16. Lazy Man says:

    Your sentence was clear, but it made no sense in the context of the conversation. It could be applicable to:

    A) Me, as I have do have an idea of how to run a business for a long time.
    B) the other people -in this conversation, as you don’t know their backgrounds
    C) Trump, who had his big business handed to him, presumably with lots of guidance on how to run it.

    I’m not that sorry if I misinterpreted your intentions as being relevant to the conversation when they were in fact random.

    It was pretty clear to everyone else that Trump was calling Mexicans rapists and drug dealers. I’m fairly sure no one assumed “all”, because he added in that some may be good people.

    The way I see it, you have to have some kind of luck, intelligence, and work ethic to be financially successful. If you don’t have enough of one, you can make it up with others. I’ve already said that Trump is fair intelligent. We know he had a ton luck. I don’t know much about his work ethic, holding an managing real estate can be easily delegated.

    For the most part Trump’s business is in real estate, which has obviously appreciated everywhere in his lifetime. My parent’s house bought around 1975 for $20,000 is worth around $550,000 today. The rest of the neighborhood did the same. I guess everyone is about as smart as Trump due to the enormous success of their investment. However, if you ask them, they’d tell you that they didn’t do anything special, the market did. That appears to be what has happened with Trump, but obviously with a larger scale to start with.

    I’m not seeing a lot of Trumps businesses, aside from real estate investments, doing all that well. I think the pageant business was bigger when I was a kid. I don’t know anyone who plays, “Trump The Game.” Did we cover how his casinos went bankrupt? What else does he have? I read that he had a “GoTrump” travel site, but I don’t see it up and running.

    Aside from the real estate investments, he appears to have zero moral compass. Before any of his recent comments, it should have been clear by his partnering with pyramid schemes and writing books which promoted them. This is what my article is focused on. It isn’t intended to a debate of how many billions of dollars he has. One does not reflect on the other.

    Everyone chooses which way they want their moral compass to point. Trump repeatedly chose to point his towards making money at the expense of others (pyramid schemes) even when he doesn’t need it. Why is that deserving of a break?

    It’s not that people want to kick a man who has success. No one wants to kick Mark Cuban. You are confusing Trump, the financially successful person, with Trump, the bumhole.

    My wife is active duty, but thanks for the comment anyway… and thank you for your service. (Hey, I thought you weren’t reading my articles any more.)

  17. Vogel says:

    Homer Dokes said: “it was clear to me Trump was not calling all Mexicans rapists and drug dealers.”

    No of course not. Some, he assumes, are good people. Pfft!

    Homer Dokes said: “Give the man (Trump) a break!”

    You do realize that this situation is entirely of his own making, and Trump is not apologizing — he’s doubling down. His hateful foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric has gotten so bad that even his own party’s leadership has requested that he shut up.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-could-damage-the-republican-image-party-leaders-worry/2015/07/08/2ec75b4c-25ab-11e5-b72c-2b7d516e1e0e_story.html

    Trump is an embarrassment to the GOP and to himself. Sadly, Homer likes this sort of hate speech and, amazingly, things this demonstrates the leadership qualities necessary to be president.

    Homer Dokes said: “Why does today’s society want to kick a man who has had what it takes to become a success?”

    Um, maybe it’s because he’s an orange-faced divisive big-mouth a-hole with a fox pelt on his head?

  18. Homer Dokes says:

    Or D) ‘Those’ who have never been in business for themselves.

    I for one would kick Mark Cuban. He has shown himself to be an absolute jerk.

    “It was pretty clear to everyone else”… you have a habit of encompassing ‘everyone’ within your statements. Given that Trump is currently at #2 in the poles and #1 in some…. I’m not so sure ‘everyone’ is in agreement with you.

    Again, I’m not and never have stated that I want to see him as president…. I have stated he would be a WHOLE lot better than what we have currently. I do however hope Trump goes the distance as he is forcing the conversations where they need to be… in reality. I’m so damned tired of other politicians talking about how they can ‘reach’ out to the other side it’s sickening. It’s the other side that has given us the current state of chaos and the nanny state we are in.

    I stand corrected, kudos to your wife and her service to our country.

    While we have indeed strayed ‘Off topic’ here a bit in this blog it has provided me an opportunity to ‘know’ you a bit better than I had prior. Not a lot… just a bit… enough to continue to give you the benefit of the doubt. I’ll stick around for a while. :)

  19. Homer Dokes says:

    Oh… and one last note… Vogel has also provided just enough commentary to let others know he’s a lost cause.

    If he is incapable of recognizing the difference between ‘hate’ speech and the truth it isn’t worth the time of day to continue with him any further. He can put his PC where it is most appropriate.

    It says something about a man who gets reduced to petty name calling.

    For the record… the GOP is an embarrassment to the GOP.

  20. Vogel says:

    Homer Dokes said: “Trump goes the distance as he is forcing the conversations where they need to be.”

    Um…really. Like the economy perhaps? Foreign policy? Education? Nope. Doubling down on birtherism — check. Whipping up the base into a foamy froth of Santorum by race baiting — check.

    Homer Dokes said: “Vogel has also provided just enough commentary to let others know he’s a lost cause. If he is incapable of recognizing the difference between ‘hate’ speech and the truth it isn’t worth the time of day to continue with him any further.

    So you’re doubling down too eh? Your version of the “truth” is that Mexicans are rapists and murderers. God help you myopic hatemonger.

  21. Paul N says:

    I have been following this little cat fight with vague interest.
    Being more interested in financial themes or your MLM interactions then politics.
    I think we can all agree Donald is not exactly the right person to run a country. He makes his points poorly. He goes too far in his comments for sure. I do have to commend him for actually making a point. All the other candidates just dance around questions and try more to not say anything to hurt their candidacy more so then do good for the public in general.

    The left likes to call the right crazy. Well the left has some pretty crazy ideas themselves. They just seem to have this ” holier then thou” attitude as the feel they are “intellectually superior” no matter if the right makes sense or not. I think the two parties are polar opposites of one another. The left does not want to accept that.

    Why don’t the left want to face issues like border security? The idea of trying to get Mexico to shoulder some of the costs related to the influx of illegal aliens is actually pretty smart. How does it make sense when millions of non tax paying people use services that taxpayers pay for for free? It waters down the level of the services for everyone.

    People forget in New Mexico for example border guards and rancher families have been killed by illegals coming over the border. Why is that less important and discussed in the media less then some starlets drug issues which have zero consequence on any of our lives.
    Politics sucks now. It’s not for the people. It’s for agendas and to make sure one gets elected again. We are suffering because of many bad policies that only vague references to look into fixing them, are made by hopeful candidates, that never get resolved after being elected.

    Common sense in many every day situations seems to have permanently left the building. I keep referring to the movie Idiocracy from 2006. So much of this movie seems to be unfolding in real life. Somehow we al have to come together before it really does become reality.

  22. Lazy Man says:

    Paul N., I try not to get into politics. I don’t see racism as a left or right issue. I don’t see supporting MLMs/pyramid schemes as a left or right issue. That’s what I as aiming to say at the bottom. I thought people might view the post as a political issue instead of Donald Trump one.

    I’m sure some people have been killed by illegals. On the other hand, when I lived in CA, I think I could say that many illegals were productive members of society. Some legals have killed people too. Other legals have done exceptional work and been productive members of society. I don’t think their citizen status determined their personalities. That said, I’m all for rules of people coming into the country legitimately.

  23. Vogel says:

    Paul N said: “Donald is not exactly the right person to run a country. He makes his points poorly. He goes too far in his comments for sure.”

    Agreed.

    Paul N said: “ I do have to commend him for actually making a point. All the other candidates just dance around questions and try more to not say anything to hurt their candidacy more so then do good for the public in general.”

    I’d phrase it slightly differently. At least Trump has the temerity (or maybe it’s just poor judgment and a lack of political savvy) to state his xenophobic hatemongering views explicitly instead of using shibboleths and dog whistles like others in his party. I’m all for people saying exactly how they feel; and then reaping the rewards or suffering the consequences accordingly.

    Paul N said: “The left likes to call the right crazy.”

    You’re jumping into a morass by seizing on this as a right/left issue when it’s simply a matter of Trump being an idiot – both with respect to MLM and his ill advised statements about Mexicans. It’s a false equivalency and a red herring. Saying “yah but the left is bad too” is just deflecting from Trump’s buffoonery. Leaping off on tangents like that makes it difficult to have a serious intelligent conversation.

    You also seem to be ignoring the massive and very loud media effort on the part of conservative GOPers to call “the left” crazy (and everyone who is a member of or even remotely sympathetic with the current administration) on pretty much a continuous basis (eg, FOX/Murdoch, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, GOP members of Congress, and handful of other rabid commentators and deep pocketed befefactors).

    Paul N said: “I think the two parties are polar opposites of one another. The left does not want to accept that.”

    Again, that’s a very distorted perception. The left (a) has no problem accepting the idea that their party is far away from the GOP on the political spectrum and (b) hasn’t moved any further to the left (if anything, the opposite is true); it’s that the right has swung much farther to the right. The fairer statement would be that there are now two wings of the GOP; one that’s farther to the right than the moderate GOPers of the past, and another that’s so rabidly conservative they make Reagan look liberal by comparison. Ideological purity is what the party values now; compromise is vilified. That’s not so much an indictment as a simple statement of fact.

    Paul N said: “Why don’t the left want to face issues like border security?”

    Why ask misleading straw-man questions like that? The Dems put a comprehensive immigration reform package on the table, which included border security and the House didn’t even take it to a vote. What serious proposals about border security has the right put forth?

    There’s a world of difference between proposing sound actionable policies and merely throwing out red-meat to the base with the use of inflammatory statements and backasswards impractical talking points, like a massive border fence as the panacea for the “immigration issue”.

    Do you know how many illegal immigrants enter the country by crossing at unmanned entry points on the Mexican border? It’s a drop in the bucket compared to the number who enter by road, sea, or air as visitors and simply decide to stay, or who entered many years ago. Aside from that, fences aren’t impenetrable (there are these things called chain-cutters y’know). So what’s the next step? Concrete fences ala the Berlin Wall along the length of the border with electrified barbed wire on top, continual drone surveillance along every inch, and a massive deployment of border guard personnel? Any idea how much that would cost? The economic damage from a proposal like that would probably far outweigh any economic downside from illegal immigration. Would be better off if that money were spent on better educational opportunities, tech development, useful infrastructure, and expansion of job opportunities – almost anything else?

    If you’ve figured out a way to secure the border in a manner that’s net cost effective, make sure to let everyone know.

    And of course regardless of how big or how small the issue is, the use of racially discriminatory invective is unconscionable.

    Paul N said: “The idea of trying to get Mexico to shoulder some of the costs related to the influx of illegal aliens is actually pretty smart. How does it make sense when millions of non tax paying, people use services that taxpayers pay for for free? It waters down the level of the services for everyone.”

    Again, that’s a somewhat cockeyed representation of the true situation. Many (or at least some) illegal aliens get taxes deducted from their paychecks just like everyone else, and all of them pay taxes in the form of retail state and local sales taxes; it’s actually quite a significant amount. They also stimulate the consumer goods and service sectors, because like everyone else, they have to eat; buy clothes, cell phones, furniture, staples, and cars; ride buses and taxis; rent apartments; etc. That’s why the pro-business moderate GOPers aren’t necessarily in such a big hurry to take a hard-line stance. I would imagine that there are quite a few places in the U.S. that would take a significant hit economically if Mexicans were chased out.

    Under the terms of executive action by the current administration, long-term resident illegal aliens and those with familial connections who qualified would pay income/payroll/FICA taxes in exchange for being allowed to reside and work legally in the U.S., without granting of citizenship or full benefits. If taxes were the issue, rather than principle alone, that would be a pragmatic solution to the dilemma you’re concerned about. Earlier this year, something like 26 red states sued to block the executive action.

    So as you can see, it’s a complex issue, and one that isn’t well served when loudmouths like Trump resort to anti-Mexican scapegoating, or when members of his party double down and encourage him.

    In principle, I’m all in favor of Mexico shouldering costs of illegal immigration. The questions are (a) what exactly are those costs in concrete terms; and (b) how do you propose to make Mexico agree to such a deal. Aside from the economic blowback, you must remember that with the shifting demographics in the US, you can’t always expect to be able to get away with taking a hardline anti-Mexican stance without it being politically lethal.

    Paul N said: “Common sense in many every day situations seems to have permanently left the building. I keep referring to the movie Idiocracy from 2006. So much of this movie seems to be unfolding in real life.”

    How ironic that you would say that. I feel like I’m witnessing it right now.

    Paul N said: “Somehow we all have to come together before it really does become reality.

    Agreed. I and legions of others like me are waiting for you to come over and meet us at the halfway mark. Let’s begin by agreeing that race-baiting isn’t the way to go. It’s an ago-old divisive tactic to portray immigrants as degenerate criminal leeches who carry diseases. It’s been done to the Black population, Native Americans, Chinese, Latinos, etc. Illegal immigration is by no means the greatest challenge facing this country, but it sure is a convenient distraction.

  24. Paul N says:

    Riiiight….
    Like I was saying polar opposites.
    I disagree with some of your replies. Everything is left or right now. No one seems to be able to give a non politically correct opinion or statement without fear of monetary or character attacks. Think of the recent Elton John – DG disagreement for example. Boycott their business just because they disagree. That’s ridiculous.

    You cite hannity and beck etc. on the left we have even nuttier people like Bill Mahar or Jon daily. Even this new ridiculous show Vice. Magazines like Bloomberg business that try’s to spin financial stories into left leaning opinion pieces. Bill constantly alters stats to make points to promote his message. Every weak right leaning guest he invites is picked so he can eventually portray them as a nut. He should maybe bring someone like David Webb on one day try his BS show on him.

    As for your ideas for the border? (their not mine). I would simply think taking away the incentives that would make ANY illegal person to want to stay in the USA would be the right course. Right now it’s just the opposite. As for them paying tax. They making minimum wage or being paid cash they don’t pay much tax at source. I would also venture they have to make the most of the money they have, so there would be a lot of inter community trading of goods and services where no tax is generated as well. I believe that the amount of tax is disproportionate to the services and benefits given.

    I also think there is cause for discussion of many issues. I also don’t feel forced “redistribution” of wealth is the answer to anything. I find it amazing that governments create inflation by printing money so everything costs more, so the fix for that is to vilify businesses to raise the minimum wage? Great plan.

    How would you fix things? For example Get the1/5th of the population off of some kind of social assistance. Get the real 20% unemployment number down to the stated 5.5%. How do we get real change ? I really don’t see this happening with any of the parties. There needs to be a whole new direction.

  25. Lazy Man says:

    John Daly the golfer or Jon Stewart of the Daily Show?

  26. Paul N says:

    I walked into that one. Should I triple down like the Donald and say the golfer?

    This is the second time I mixed up a name publicly. First time was two Derek’s. The one that wrote “The Lazy investor”, the other was some kind of musician.

  27. Vogel says:

    Paul N said: “I disagree with some of your replies. Everything is left or right now.

    Care to elaborate? Criticizing the proposal to build a border fence as the primary means of stopping illegal immigration is not a right/left issue. It’s just economic pragmatism. I find that reply to be intellectually disingenuous. I spoke to you in practical non-partisan terms and you simply dismiss it by saying it’s a right-left issue.

    Paul N said: “No one seems to be able to give a non politically correct opinion or statement without fear of monetary or character attacks. Think of the recent Elton John – DG disagreement for example. Boycott their business just because they disagree. That’s ridiculous.”

    You’re really broadening this thread into a general gripe about politics that has nothing to do with Trump whatsoever, but I’ll bite anyway. Choosing to not do business with companies whose policies one finds disagreeable is not ridiculous; it is the ultimate form of free market capitalism and consumer choice at work. Let the consumer decide where to spend their money right? The point you seem to be missing is that while the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, it doesn’t make one free from criticism. People are entitled to say what they like but they have to accept the consequences of those statements. Very basic stuff Paul.

    Paul N said: “You cite hannity and beck etc. on the left we have even nuttier people like Bill Mahar or Jon daily.”

    You do realize that you’re comparing Murdoch’s right-leaning news media empire to 2 comedy shows right (and it’s Jon Stewart by the way, not “Jon daily”)? Do you ever wonder why the right doesn’t try to pull off a political humor show like that? Because their positions aren’t the least bit funny, except perhaps unintentionally and not in a way that wouldn’t revolt most of mainstream America if presented as comedy. Trump is learning that lesson now. If he wants to resort to callous political theater, there’s a price to pay for it.

    Paul N said: “As for your ideas for the border? (their not mine). I would simply think taking away the incentives that would make ANY illegal person to want to stay in the USA would be the right course. Right now it’s just the opposite. As for them paying tax. They making minimum wage or being paid cash they don’t pay much tax at source. I would also venture they have to make the most of the money they have, so there would be a lot of inter community trading of goods and services where no tax is generated as well. I believe that the amount of tax is disproportionate to the services and benefits given.”

    I didn’t propose any ideas for the border for you to disagree with. I merely stated that talking heads harping about border fences as the primary solution for the “immigration problem” is mere political theater and not pragmatic. Like I said before, some undocumented immigrants pay taxes at source (deducted from their paychecks) and all of them pay sales taxes, and that is not insubstantial. I think your suggestion that Mexicans largely avoid this through barter and trade is baseless speculation and in all likelihood, largely untrue. Have you ever tried bartering for a cell phone, a taxi or a bottle of Gatorade? C’mon man, keep it real eh?

    Furthermore, what evidence do you have that illegal immigrants are a net drain on the country economically? Put hard numbers on the table that factor in both the services they use and the amounts they contribute in the form of taxes and increased business productivity. If you’re proposing to spend billions trying to keep them out, then put forth the numbers showing that it would be of net economic benefit to do so.

    You need to realize Paul that the “immigration issue” gets disproportionate attention because it makes for great political theater. It’s an effective way to distract from issues like record-high corporate profits and a dwindling middle class, for example. This redirection tactic has been used for centuries because it’s easier to stoke resentment and divide people (ala Trump) than to propose meaningful economic policies.

    Paul N said: “I also think there is cause for discussion of many issues. I also don’t feel forced “redistribution” of wealth is the answer to anything.”

    By “forced redistribution of wealth” I presume you mean taxes. Taxation is the price of civilization and it is a fact of life. I don’t envision that the U.S. would be a utopia without taxes; quite the opposite – it would be Armageddon. It’s rather silly to suggest we eliminate taxation, so instead the argument should focus on deciding what would be a “reasonable” level of taxation, and the rates we are paying now are well below historical highs.

    Paul N said: “How would you fix things? For example Get the1/5th of the population off of some kind of social assistance. Get the real 20% unemployment number down to the stated 5.5%. How do we get real change? I really don’t see this happening with any of the parties. There needs to be a whole new direction.”

    So you’ve taken this from a discussion about Trump to an open-ended question about how do we fix every problem the nation faces? That’s a bit much don’t you think Paul? I’d say it’s a far cry better than simply pointing the finger at immigrants and stoking hatred, but you’re still missing the point. And BTW, the unemployment rate is not 20%. You can’t jigger the stats by factoring in labor participation rates; that’s just not how unemployment rates have ever been calculated, until now of course when they’re low but admitting it would mean giving kudos to a President you loathe for some inexplicable reason.

  28. Paul N says:

    I kind of like to work with proper stats rather then a lot of flashy discussion.

    “Except the facts are there. The Feds do track legal status, and the numbers are startling….

    Of 78,022 primary offense cases in fiscal year 2013, 38.6 percent were illegal immigrant offenders. The majority of their cases (76 percent) were immigration related. Of total primary offenses, 17.6 percent of drug trafficking offenses and 3.8 percent of sex abuse were illegal immigrants. Of 22,878 drug crime cases, 17.2 percent were illegal immigrants.”

    Apparently in Texas alone in one year over 900 sex abuse offences of children by illegals.

    Thiese numbers to me are pretty disturbing. Particularly when you hear the phrase ” one child is too much”. As you often hear in the media. Particularly if there is some high profile gun related shooting attached to it. Possibly we select certain children that that slogan need not apply too?

    There is a big problem. I have stats for the costs related to illegals as well, should I post those for you as well?

  29. Lazy Man says:

    I am on my mobile so I can’t see all the detail, but that quote seems to come from Trump and from what I see on Washington Post, the numbers are not disturbing…

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/07/08/donald-trumps-false-comments-connecting-mexican-immigrants-and-crime/

  30. Vogel says:

    Paul, you seem to bending over backwards to make a case that has no basis in reality. The only thing that I’m mildly curious about at this point is whether you do it to justify your disdain for Latinos or if it’s simply a case of being incredibly dense and gullible. One thing that’s clear from your comments is that you lack the objectivity and wherewithal to contribute anything meaningful to a discussion about immigration policy.

    Double down on Trump and you can be sure of one thing — the Dems will stay in the White House for a long time to come.

  31. Lazy Man says:

    Now that I’m back on my desktop, I can respond in more detail.

    What if we made it trivially easy for Mexicans to emigrate to the United States? Thus they wouldn’t be “illegals”, but “legals.” This solves the problem, right? Then everyone is a legal American. My point is that I don’t think the label of “illegal” or “legal” is changes the habits of people who sexually abuse children?

    Sex abuse of children seems to be a “human” problem, not a “Mexican” or an “American” one. You are right that one is too many. I’m just not sure how we solve “human” problems (short of just letting robots take over). Do you propose we deport all Americans who could potentially be sex abusers? I’m not sure how you accomplish that… it is logistically very difficult. I’m sure that there were many more sex abusers in America by current “legals” than “illegals” (if for no other reason than the amount of legals)… so shouldn’t we focus on that problem?

    I don’t think you solve sexual abuse of children by keeping some people out of the country. You might segregate it to another place, but you don’t change behavior. One, even in Mexico, is still too many in my eyes. I think one could make a case that at least in our country we have the ability to police sex abusers. Then we have some control of limiting sexual abuse, which would be a net gain when you look at children as humans rather than Mexicans or Americans.

    If the act of emigrating to America triggered sexual abuse, you’d have a strong argument against that. I’m just not sure how you are going to show that.

    When it comes to gun control though, there are proposed improvements that aren’t logistically difficult. They are politically difficult to implement. I see guns as a “human creation.” I don’t think humans created “sexual abuse of children” in the same way.

    However, again, this article and comments weren’t supposed to be about politics. It was about Trump (and Kiyosaki) padding their wallets by giving people bad financial advice… and it was about corporate sponsors finally figuring out what they should have realized long ago.

  32. Paul N says:

    @vogel

    I am white. I’m married to a person that is definitely not white. She applied from her home country legally. She went through the various checks to make sure she was eligible. That included a police background check. She paid the fees and the rest is history. So your ignorant comment about me hating Latinos is just that, ignorant. I believe in my first post my comment was that all people should come to America or anywhere through a legal process. Anything other then that should be not allowed. The left loves to pivot and attack or change the subject when confronted with reality. Like calling someone a racist for having a different view …

    My stats comment is simply to demonstrate that the media downplaying & trivializing the frequency of crimes by illegal people is wrong.

    Lazy man I appreciate your comments. Again, did I say I wanted trump for prez? No. I certainly also don’t want that plastic scripted flip flop queen to be either.

    We need people in office that create a framework for the population to work within. Then they need to step back. Government needs to be simplified and made more efficient overall. I’m tired of lying, cheating, say anything to get elected politicians. I also think political correctness (the way it is manipulated at times) is destroying a lot of good things. It’s even a reverse form of censorship.

    Have a good one guys.

  33. Lazy Man says:

    My retort to your stats comment was simply to demonstrate how easy it is to mislead people with cherry-picked stats. The Washington Post fact checker showed that it was the statistic that was wrong, not the media downplaying crime. In fact, the media generally up-plays crime… crime is “news.”

    I would have appreciated a comment addressing the majority (90%) of my previous response. I feel like you brushed them aside with your comment of “Did I say I wanted Trump for prez?” At the same time, I didn’t want this to be political and tried to steer it towards Trump’s pyramid scheme support.

    So I’d say, if you are intending to have any kind of political discussion, I think my response should be addressed. If you are intending to have a discussion of Trump’s pyramid scheme support, then let’s have that.

    If you are tired of lying, say anything to get elected politicians, then you must certainly agree that Trump’s record of supporting pyramid schemes (which obviously hurt consumers) to pad his bank account is EXACTLY the behavior you want to avoid.

    Thanks for proving my point, which was never about a political party, but about one person attempting a political run.

  34. Vogel says:

    Paul N said: “I am white. I’m married to a person that is definitely not white. She applied from her home country legally. She went through the various checks to make sure she was eligible. That included a police background check. She paid the fees and the rest is history. So your ignorant comment about me hating Latinos is just that, ignorant.”

    “Mostly definitely not white” eh? What color is that? Green? Don’t keep us in suspense. She must not be Latino or you would have simply said “my wife is Latino”. So then how does marrying a non-Latino immigrant have any bearing on your apparent disdain for Latino immigrants? Anyhow, your wife has my sympathy; must be tough.

    Paul N said: “The left loves to pivot and attack or change the subject when confronted with reality. Like calling someone a racist for having a different view”

    You’re not talking to “the left”; you’re just talking to me. You didn’t confront me with reality nor did I call you a racist. I questioned whether your myopic outlook on Trump and the issue of immigration was a result of having disdain for Latinos or simply a byproduct of your obliviousness to the granular details of the immigration debate.

    Paul N said: “I believe in my first post my comment was that all people should come to America or anywhere through a legal process. Anything other then that should be not allowed.”

    Well kudos to you Paul for winning the stating-the-F-ing-obvious award. Maybe you haven’t heard, but coming to America through anything other than a legal process is already not allowed. You’re really advancing this discussion! Good grief!

    The real question is how far you’re willing to go in an attempt to thwart illegal immigration; how many of my tax dollars are you proposing to spend doing it?

    I can just see your bumper sticker: “Small government; but big walls!” How ironic, right?

    Paul N said: “My stats comment is simply to demonstrate that the media downplaying & trivializing the frequency of crimes by illegal people is wrong.”

    Except everything you presented was one-sided and misleading. The “media” isn’t downplaying anything (they’ve been giving that idiot Trump non-stop coverage) and no one is arguing that Mexican immigrants don’t commit crimes; some surely do, as do some non-Mexican citizens. The real issue at hand is that painting all Mexican immigrants, illegal or not, as drug dealers, rapists and vectors for disease is unjustified and racist at its core. Trump said something incredibly stupid, offensive, and counterproductive, and you’re in effect doubling down.

    Like I said before, if you have a magic cost-effective solution for illegal immigration, please stop keeping it a secret. But don’t come back bloviating BS about a border fence, because that’s simply an ill-conceived unfeasible plan and a waste of my tax dollars. If Trump or the State of Texas proposed bankrolling it with their own cash instead of mine, I might consider it. Otherwise, blow me.

    The reality is that you and Trump don’t have any kind of a plan at all; you’re both just needlessly fomenting interracial animosity in the absence of any real insight into the issues. But isn’t it so much easier to sit on your porch yelling at those brown kids to get off your lawn, like a scared cranky old man?

    You haven’t made a valid point yet Paul. You haven’t proven that illegal Latino immigrants are disproportionately responsible for crime or the spread of disease, although you now seem to be trying to paint them as chronic sex offenders and child abusers, among other things.

    You haven’t proposed anything that would ease any tax burden associated with illegal immigration. You haven’t considered any of the economic factors that negate your gripes, like the fact that illegal immigrants already pay significant amounts of taxes into our coffers, or that eliminating illegal immigration isn’t going to lead to job growth for Americans, other than perhaps in the fruit picking landscaping, and fast food sectors where few Americans want to work (hence the hiring of immigrants to fill those positions). Is your grand plan to lure Americans to do these jobs and double their wages, so that we can all pay more for our fruit, gardening, and fast food?

    Please tell me, how is your vendetta with Mexican immigrants helping the average U.S. citizen? What is the upside to your attempt to rile people up and push Mexican immigration to the forefront of their consciousness? You want us to feel threatened by them; that they might leap out at any minute and try to rape or kill us, sell us drugs, abuse children, give us diseases, or at least, try to steal our jobs. But in reality, I have no need to feel threatened because those risks do not exist. The Mexican immigrants I’ve encountered are kind, loyal, extremely hard-working, religious, family-oriented community-minded people who pose no threat to me whatsoever. And, to paraphrase Trump — some I presume (like with all other groups) aren’t good people. You know who I really fear getting a disease from? Not a Mexican immigrant but the child of a Land Rover-driving white soccer mom who refuses to get her kid vaccinated.

    Don’t make the mistake of thinking that I’m arguing in favor of illegal immigration. I am merely arguing against the senseless racism that surrounds the issue, coming from people like Trump, and against hare-brained ideas that involve asymmetrically paying for $5 worth of solution to combat every $1 worth of problem.

    I think that what really cheeses your ass Paul is not that Mexican immigrants pose a disproportionate crime or health risk, or that they are a significant net drain on our economy; it’s simply that you don’t like the changing complexion of U.S. demographics. You wish things could go back to the “good old days” when you were less likely to encounter non-white Spanish-speaking Catholics (particularly at the ballot box), whose lack of sameness makes you feel uneasy. You can admit to being a nostalgic martinet. Better to be honest than to delude yourself into justifying your views with hate speech and erroneous crime statistics.

    Paul N: “I also think political correctness (the way it is manipulated at times) is destroying a lot of good things. It’s even a reverse form of censorship.”

    I can see why you would favor a world where people can say stupid shit ad nauseum on the public stage and face no consequences for it, but thankfully, the world never has and never will work that way. If you say dumb shit, you have to own it. Is the idea of personal responsibility so repugnant to you?

  35. Paul N says:

    Just stopping in to say “Hello” to you nice affable fellas. Have you made your plans to leave the country once “The Donald” is elected?

    You guys must be even more frustrated now than you were with your retarded replies and accusations and personal attacks above.

    Or maybe things will be so much better under Hillary as she NEVER lies or accepts any money from sources that could be a conflict of interest to the presidency… (Oh no quick – duck, there’s sniper fire…)

  36. Lazy Man says:

    I’m certainly not sure “The Donald” is going to be elected. My view is that America is “fed up.” Many of them have $400 or less for an emergency fund. I believe they just want “something different.”

    I haven’t heard ANY intelligent arguments for “The Donald.” Instead, I read well-reasoned arguments from Elizabeth Warren (who has helped protect consumers – i.e. all of us) such as the following:

    “Trump has built his campaign on racism, sexism, and xenophobia. There’s more enthusiasm for him among leaders of the KKK than leaders of the political party he now controls.

    He incites supporters to violence, praises Putin, and, according to a columnist who recently interviewed him, is “cool with being called an authoritarian” and doesn’t mind associations with history’s worst dictators.

    He attacks veterans like John McCain who were captured and puts our servicemembers at risk by cheerleading illegal torture. In a world with ISIS militants and leaders like North Korean strongman Kim Jong-Un conducting nuclear tests, he surrounds himself with a foreign policy team that has been called a ‘collection of charlatans,’ and puts out contradictory and nonsensical national security ideas one expert recently called “‘incoherent’ and ‘truly bizarre.'”

    Reflect on “There’s more enthusiasm for him among leaders of the KKK than leaders of the political party he now controls.”

    This blog post was never centered around politics. It was about why he’d try to cash in on his brand in supporting MLM/pyramid schemes.

    Please don’t make it political by focusing on Hillary. Bill Clinton was a paid speaker for the DSA (MLM lobbyist group) as well.

    My argument is to avoid politics and look at the actual points made. We should be strong enough to evaluate them on their merit… or lack of merit.

    Given that, I’ll up the anti with this information from 2008:

    “It is good news to see how people from the main stream are opening their minds to network marketing.

    Donald Trump is soon launching his Company and this is what Former President says… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_eGbfTPbGY Does Bill Clinton Endorse scams?”

    So how is Trump’s MLM company going? I wouldn’t be the first to call Bill Clinton’s ethics into question. However, if you click the YouTube video the DSA (i.e. MLM lobbyists) have claimed copyright and prevented people from watching it. That’s very, very telling to me.

  37. Paul N says:

    “Please don’t make it political by focusing on Hillary.”
    But YOU have just done that by posting that rhetoric from Elizabeth Warren. All the points she has written could be refuted or even applied in some degree to all the candidates. Why focus only on Trump? All the candidates have skeletons and big ones. Warren herself is no prize. She is like a female Paul Krugmann, all hot air and ideas that end in failure, that get somehow blamed on Republicans when they fail.

    I used to look forward to reading your blog. But after the way I was personally attacked by both you and that ass clown “Vogel” over this exchange, not so much.

    I’ll stop by again in November after Trump wins or loses. Maybe I’ll donate some bus fare if Vogel wants to go home. I hear Juarez is really nice in late fall.

  38. Lazy Man says:

    The most important point is that you don’t address anything related to the MLM stuff that this article is about.

    Please go back and address the main points mentioned rather than focusing on Elizabeth Warren.

    Are we clear on that? Good.

    Now to put a close on the Elizabeth Warren stuff, you said, “All the points she has written could be refuted or even applied in some degree to all the candidates. Why focus only on Trump? All the candidates have skeletons and big ones.”

    I’m not sure that the KKK supports Bernie Sanders more than the democratic party. If so, please cite the sources of how and why, but I’d be interested in reading it.

    I also pointed out that Hillary’s husband has supported MLM in the past. I forgive him a bit, because he seemed to paid for brief speaking gig. It’s far different than selling your name to an MLM company and different than pitching it as legitimate “opportunity” to make money.

    Again, this isn’t about broad political statements of candidates having skeletons in the closet. This is about the MLM focus.

    Can you please show me how Elizabeth Warren was involved in MLM to the same extent as Trump?

  39. Vogel says:

    Paul N said: “But after the way I was personally attacked by both you and that ass clown “Vogel” over this exchange, not so much.”

    Oh my stars, such an indignity! Someone prepare the fainting couch!

    Your fake umbrage makes me embarrassed on your behalf. You’re slinking away because you dug yourself into a hole with off-topic arguments that you couldn’t defend, and the rebuttals to which seemed to completely sail over your head. It has nothing to do with being “personally attacked”.

    Paul N said: “I’ll stop by again in November after Trump wins or loses. Maybe I’ll donate some bus fare if Vogel wants to go home. I hear Juarez is really nice in late fall.”

    (1) You know full well that you’re not going to part with so much as a nickel to send me anywhere, so why bother posturing?

    (2) I gave you no reason whatsoever to think that my home is in Juarez, so again you’ve managed to make a blatantly racist comment, only this time it’s even more cowardly and despicable because you’re taking the potshot over your shoulder while beating a hasty retreat.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous: New Opportunities are Just Around the Corner
Next: What Drives You for Better Personal Finance?
 
Also from Lazy Man and Money
Lazy Man and Health | MLM Myth | Health MLM Scam | MonaVie Scam | Protandim Scams | How To Fix | How To Car | How To Computer