Kozmozag said:

---

Ita understandable why Spreading bull would not see the issue of a public servant lieing on mortgage forms and applications.

---

That's not an accurate statement.

You have a sitting Board member of the Federal Reserve Bank committing Bank Fraud.

That is not OK.

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

The meaning of "for cause" will have to be determined by the judges. Early reads is that it is likely not going to stand and will just be another Roy Cohn-esque jab by Trump's team.

---

---

I would be interested in reading any analysis you have seen that concludes that "for cause" will not include the pertinent issue in this case.

All of that said, it's still going to come down to what the courts say.

Whether you like it or not, or believe it should be different, is irrelevant.

That's just reality.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

All of that said, it's still going to come down to what the courts say.

Whether you like it or not, or believe it should be different, is irrelevant.

That's just reality.

---

So you think Trump has to comply? Because reality is he doesn't have to.

Perhaps a check of the Constitution is in order.

Good read on the subject.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2025-08-26/trump-s-bid-to-oust-fed-s-cook-may-turn-on-definition-of-cause

Quote:

---

he law underpinning Fed operations says the president can only remove Fed officials "for cause," but it unhelpfully doesn't define the term.

Laws that do describe "for cause" generally define it as covering three possibilities: inefficiency; neglect of duty; and malfeasance, meaning wrongdoing, in office. Once again, there's no consensus on what exactly those terms mean.

It's far from clear that the allegations against Cook are enough to meet the bar for any of the "for cause" descriptions. There hasn't yet been a formal investigation into Cook and she hasn't been charged, let alone convicted. That means the allegations, first raised by a Trump ally, are just that allegations.

And even if they turn out to be true, it's unclear that the conduct would meet the "for cause" bar because it doesn't relate to her conduct as Fed governor.

Elliott Stein, a senior litigation analyst with Bloomberg Intelligence, said he believes a judge likely would allow Cook to remain in place during litigation, even though the allegations on their own are damaging.
"Mere allegations of fraud are likely insufficient to meet the 'for cause' removal standard unless actual wrongdoing is established, which at minimum likely requires an investigation and possibly a conviction," Stein said in a note for Bloomberg Terminal clients.

---

And thank God the executive is not the final ruler of our country. Good Lord, we fought a revolution to be free of autocrats.

I'm glad the courts pushed back on Biden's nonsense where he decreed certain things only to be overruled by the courts where he stepped beyond his constitutional and legislatively-granted powers.

A former Supreme Court justice once said the SC is not final because it's infallible... it's infallible because it's final.

Trump doesn't have the last word in this. I know that's really hard for some people to accept, but that's the way it is.

On the surface, it looks like his decision to fire her will stick... after it survives judicial review.

BREAKING: Lisa Cook still works for the Fed despite President Trump firing her on Monday.

What on earth is going on? Why is Jerome Powell defying a lawful order from the duly elected President of the United States?@Jenniferisms just broke news. Incredible journalist. pic.twitter.com/ikablJ9ouU

— James Fishback (@j_fishback) August 27, 2025

These are all historical views that do not take into account the trend in the courts that all agencies that are not "Legislative" or "Judicial," and exercise some form of Executive power, are subject to the control of the President.

Just because Congress wanted to create… https://t.co/5713VGbEMZ

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) August 27, 2025

If this were a former Trump appointed gov. the calls for resignation would be through the roof from the MSM and usual dem loud mouths.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

And thank God the executive is not the final ruler of our country. Good Lord, we fought a revolution to be free of autocrats.

I'm glad the courts pushed back on Biden's nonsense where he decreed certain things only to be overruled by the courts where he stepped beyond his constitutional and legislatively-granted powers.

A former Supreme Court justice once said the SC is not final because it's infallible... it's infallible because it's final.

Trump doesn't have the last word in this. I know that's really hard for some people to accept, but that's the way it is.

---

Can you show us where the Constitution says this?

You are correct that Trump doesn't have the last word. If Congress wants to impeach, convict and remove, let them have at it.

But no court is above POTUS.

Did you miss the separate but EQUAL part?

We fought a war over self-determination and self-governance and not being taxed and having laws applied with no say / representation. We did not fight a war solely cause we hate kings and queens.

flown-the-coop said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

All of that said, it's still going to come down to what the courts say.

Whether you like it or not, or believe it should be different, is irrelevant.

That's just reality.

---

So you think Trump has to comply? Because reality is he doesn't have to.

Perhaps a check of the Constitution is in order.

---

She doesn't have to leave if the courts say she can stay.

I don't think that's the most likely outcome, but it's a possibility.

If you want to see Trump fall from grace, then just wish for an outcome where the courts say she can stay and he tries to physically keep her from attending Fed meetings. You haven't seen a **** show like that would create, and he would come out of it a loser.

He made his decision. He's better to just let the legal process play out.

I'm hanging up the cleats on this one... no sense going around in circles.

The courts will have the final say no matter how hard Trump or his supporters stomp their feet about it.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

I'm hanging up the cleats on this one... no sense going around in circles.

The courts will have the final say no matter how hard Trump or his supporters stomp their feet about it.

---

I don't think you a understanding what coop is saying.

The President is NOT bound by what any inferior court says. Yes, they play nice and Trump has 100% complied with EVERY ruling(however bad) the Judiciary has decreed.

The president can disregard any order from a judge he so chooses. Now there will be consequences in public perception, etc. And we all know the MSM is the mouthpiece of the left. They would scream and kick about it.

The REMEDY is for the Legislators the impeach and convict if that is what they decide.

The Judiciary has no enforcement behind their rulings. What are they going to do? Ask the DOJ to arrest the President? LOL.

Even if the DOJ did try to arrest the President he could just fire whoever the AG was and appoint someone else.

All that to say... Coop is just saying the judiciary has no way to force the President to do anything.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

I'm hanging up the cleats on this one... no sense going around in circles.

The courts will have the final say no matter how hard Trump or his supporters stomp their feet about it.

---

Amen, f the constitution. SCOTUS rules!

Laughably un-American.

Thanks. As you usually do, you said it clearer and more diplomatic than I do.

People really need to hear the preaching that the judiciary is not the final word on things in the United States of America. If they were, why vote? We don't vote for SCOTUS justices but they are supposedly the final arbiters of the other two branches? Doesn't feel like the will of the people and certainly does not feel like separate, but equal branches of government.

Hell, it always seemed to me that the judiciary was sort of an afterthought regarding the Founding Fathers and the birth of our Country. More of a "oh ****, we need to add in this judiciary piece or we may have some issues. And its primary purpose was to ensure laws were constitutional. It was not to ensure POTUS behaved in accordance with the wishes of the SCOTUS justices.

will25u said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

I'm hanging up the cleats on this one... no sense going around in circles.

The courts will have the final say no matter how hard Trump or his supporters stomp their feet about it.

---

I don't think you a understanding what coop is saying.

The President is NOT bound by what any inferior court says. Yes, they play nice and Trump has 100% complied with EVERY ruling(however bad) the Judiciary has decreed.

The president can disregard any order from a judge he so chooses. Now there will be consequences in public perception, etc. And we all know the MSM is the mouthpiece of the left. They would scream and kick about it.

The REMEDY is for the Legislators the impeach and convict if that is what they decide.

The Judiciary has no enforcement behind their rulings. What are they going to do? Ask the DOJ to arrest the President? LOL.

Even if the DOJ did try to arrest the President he could just fire whoever the AG was and appoint someone else.

All that to say... Coop is just saying the judiciary has no way to force the President to do anything.

---

All of that is essentially correct in theory.

As a practical matter, the executive branch adheres to court rulings and appeals the ones they don't agree with. Sometimes they win on appeal; sometimes they don't. But they abide by court rulings, win or lose. Show me a high profile case in modern times where the SC ruled on an issue and the President willfully defied it. You won't find it.

Continuing on the practical approach, court rulings are the vehicle by which Congress would impeach Trump if he defied it. If this goes to the SC and they rule there was not "cause" for firing her, do you really believe that Trump could send US Marshals to prevent her from taking her seat at the Fed and that he would survive that politically?

No way! He would be impeached and convicted (removed from office) quicker than a New York minute if he tried that. And he won't try that because he is smarter than that.

Judicial review is part of the constitutional process. The Fed is not enshrined in the constitution. The president's authority to fire a Fed governor is not the same as his commander-in-chief military authority which IS embedded in the constitution. The Fed was created by legislation approved by Congress, and the implementation of that by the executive is subject to judicial review.

As a practical matter, and a fact.

Just get rid of the Fed and let the free market system take care of itself.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Amen, f the constitution. SCOTUS rules!

Laughably un-American.

---

The president's authority to remove a Fed governor for cause is not in the constitution.

It was created by law, approved by Congress, and the executive's implementation of it is subject to judicial review, just like any other law.

Pretty simple, really.

I think you've unintentionally conflated the president's constitutional authority with this case. His role as commander-in-chief for example is not subject to congressional or judicial review. He has other powers as well that are enshrined in the constitution and can't be regulated by a judge.

This just isn't one of them.

Quote:

---

The president's authority to remove a Fed governor for cause is not in the constitution.

---

The President's authority to remove any Federal officer is not in the constitution. Congress had to take it up in the second George Washington term and came up with the Decision of 1789 which was the first sort of common law adjustment nod wink that gave Adams, Jefferson, et all the ability to reshape their administrations.

Justices and legal theorists squabble to this day over just what was agreed to in that session.

But none of that is relevant because the Humphrey's Executor decision clearly stated that the Congressional and Judicial branches can have shared entities like the Fed that exist outside even full application of the Decision of 1789 precedent.

We are talking past each other. Or you are not comprehending what I said.

I said there would be public ramifications as well as impeachment by the legislature as a possibility. But those are the ONLY ways a President could be held accountable.

This is going to be over the top...

DHS arrested a known terrorist leader. Say Osama Bin Laden level. Bin Laden sued and a judge heard the case and said... I find against bin Laden and you must immediately kill him in this courtroom before anyone gets to leave.

Now what? The judge said it must be done. So the Marshals there in the courtroom MUST kill that person right then?

The judiciary is not the final say. They are EQUAL. With no branch superior. So in this case I don't see the Executive carrying out that judges unconstitutional order.

Anyway I am headed home for the day, y'all can continue... Or not.

flown-the-coop said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Also, as mentioned, Biden admin canned 3 at Pocahontas smoke signal. But you think because Trump did it then the Fed will lose credibility?

If anything, Trump continues to show why the Fed is not needed as it serves as some clubhouse for political friends to collect a check and notoriety whilst undoubtedly benefiting themselves and their friends through their MANIPULATION of the monetary policy.

Sorry, but the Goose has been Cook-ed.

---

When did this happen?

---

Jan 20, 2021 to Jan 20, 2025.

---

They didn't "can" anyone. All three stepped down on their own.

I disagree. That's fine.

It is far far from settled law on what the reach of the Executive is.

Regarding these quasi this and that agencies… a SCOTUS that has respect for the Constitution would judge all such agencies are unconstitutional. Separation of powers does not provide for "shared" agencies… this issue being anytime example.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Also, as mentioned, Biden admin canned 3 at Pocahontas smoke signal. But you think because Trump did it then the Fed will lose credibility?

If anything, Trump continues to show why the Fed is not needed as it serves as some clubhouse for political friends to collect a check and notoriety whilst undoubtedly benefiting themselves and their friends through their MANIPULATION of the monetary policy.

Sorry, but the Goose has been Cook-ed.

---

When did this happen?

---

Jan 20, 2021 to Jan 20, 2025.

---

They didn't "can" anyone. All three stepped down on their own.

---

Okay. You got me.

Jeebus.

Lowering rates isn't going to help without some sort of government regulation on pricing.

When rates go down and money is cheap prices skyrocket. The cheap rates of 2020 and 2021 are the key drivers of our last few years of skyrocketing inflation. You get like 6 months of affordability.

Logos Stick said:

---

jwhaby said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

jwhaby said:

---

94chem said:

---

jwhaby said:

---

94chem said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Signing two different mortgage notes within 30 days of eachother, both attesting that they will be your primary residence, is way, way, way worse than any statement that might have inflated the opinion of value of a property you held.

---

Is it? I mean, I don't know how to rank these things. I mean, I can't claim real estate depreciation on my taxes because I make $150K, but he can lie about his real estate value to get better terms. Rules for thee... Is it worse than calling hush money to your side piece a business expense?

---

Real estate valuations are subjective if they're not part of a transaction between a willing seller and a willing buyer. That's why the lender on a mortgage will order an appraisal to estimate the value of the underlying collateral. It doesn't matter what the borrower thinks his asset is worth, only the lender's opinion counts. Also, Trump can't claim depreciation on an estimated value that he made up, so you can rest assured.

---

First, you don't seriously believe that Trump went through the same appraisal process that you or I would go through, do you? The court documents explain this clearly.

Second, I'm not saying thar Trump claimed depreciation on exaggerated base values. I'm merely saying that the Trump tax code punishes middle class real estate owners with small portfolios by making it difficult to deal with negative cash flow early in their ownership phase. It's very difficult to justify an otherwise good investment if you can't monetize increased equity or deduct operating losses.

Third, all of this is moot. We all know that POTUS is firing people so he can control interest rates. Is that really what you want?

---

Third, we all know that Powell is keeping interest rates high for political purposes. It's funny that he didn't have a problem cutting rates for his buddy Biden before the election when inflation was higher than it is now. Also, the Fed Funds Rate is sitting at 4.5%, while the ECB is at 2%, the Bank of Japan is at 0.5%, and China is at 1.4%. Why should we be paying interest rates that are 2.25x-9x higher than the rest of the world? Don't you think that's unfairly burdening the interest carry on our national debt and throttling our economy?

---

You've posted a bunch of rates with no context as justification for a rate reduction here. Right now, the EU YoY inflation rate is 2%. If we were at 2%, then it would be a no brainer to lower rates. We are at or headed back above 3%. PPI is 3.3%. CPI is 2.7%. PCE is 2.7%. The measure the fed favors is Core PCE which is 2.96%! Apples and oranges. The bank of Japan is willing to fund the government - buy bonds, etc - and economy for literally no return, always have been. Take Japan out of any comparison. China?! LOL. China is a not a free market economy. They are a centrally planned dictatorship. They also lie through their teeth. Using China as a guide for what we should do is foolish.

---

The EU inflation rate for July was 2.4% while the US was 2.7%. Not enough difference to justify a Fed funds rate that is 2.25x higher. A few more data points. The UK has a central bank interest rate of 4% and Canada is at 2.75%. Just admit it. Our interest rate is higher than other industrialized nations and it doesn't have anything to do with inflation.

---

The euro zone yoy inflation rate is 2% which is what the ECB uses to set their rates. I typed eu, but meant euro zone since that is what the ECB uses. There are countries that use the euro that are not part of the EU. You have to include it all. Feel free to educate yourself:

https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/macroeconomic_and_sectoral/hicp/html/index.en.html

There is no reason to lower rates right now. They are historically "normal" and we are well above our 2% target.

---

Wrong. All countries that use the euro are part of the EU. There are seven countries that are part of the EU that have their own national currencies. I'm pretty educated. Also, I think you're being obtuse in claiming that the eurozone inflation rate of 2.0% is vastly different from the EU inflation rate of 2.4%. I doubt that the 70 basis point difference in inflation rate between the US and the Eurozone is the reason that the ECB rate is less than half of the Fed Funds Rate.

You keep nibbling around the edges but won't address the meat of the argument. Inflation isn't the reason that US rates are higher. You know that but you don't want to admit it. Also, you can't just dismiss the central bank rates of Japan and China. They are the 5th and 2nd largest economies in the world, respectively. Take the L.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

A former Supreme Court justice once said the SC is not final because it's infallible... it's infallible because it's final.

---

Roe v Wade says hi.

BusterAg said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

A former Supreme Court justice once said the SC is not final because it's infallible... it's infallible because it's final.

---

Roe v Wade says hi.

---

Yep, and they just spoke again on it because they chose to... no one forced them. And their answer this time, while different from the first time, is final.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

A former Supreme Court justice once said the SC is not final because it's infallible... it's infallible because it's final.

---

Roe v Wade says hi.

---

Yep, and they just spoke again on it because they chose to... no one forced them. And their answer this time, while different from the first time, is final.

---

Until libs pack the court and end the filibuster to do so. Oh what a joyous day that will be for the worshippers of the judiciary!

Co-equal branches seems lost on you.

jwhaby said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

jwhaby said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

jwhaby said:

---

94chem said:

---

jwhaby said:

---

94chem said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Signing two different mortgage notes within 30 days of eachother, both attesting that they will be your primary residence, is way, way, way worse than any statement that might have inflated the opinion of value of a property you held.

---

Is it? I mean, I don't know how to rank these things. I mean, I can't claim real estate depreciation on my taxes because I make $150K, but he can lie about his real estate value to get better terms. Rules for thee... Is it worse than calling hush money to your side piece a business expense?

---

Real estate valuations are subjective if they're not part of a transaction between a willing seller and a willing buyer. That's why the lender on a mortgage will order an appraisal to estimate the value of the underlying collateral. It doesn't matter what the borrower thinks his asset is worth, only the lender's opinion counts. Also, Trump can't claim depreciation on an estimated value that he made up, so you can rest assured.

---

First, you don't seriously believe that Trump went through the same appraisal process that you or I would go through, do you? The court documents explain this clearly.

Second, I'm not saying thar Trump claimed depreciation on exaggerated base values. I'm merely saying that the Trump tax code punishes middle class real estate owners with small portfolios by making it difficult to deal with negative cash flow early in their ownership phase. It's very difficult to justify an otherwise good investment if you can't monetize increased equity or deduct operating losses.

Third, all of this is moot. We all know that POTUS is firing people so he can control interest rates. Is that really what you want?

---

Third, we all know that Powell is keeping interest rates high for political purposes. It's funny that he didn't have a problem cutting rates for his buddy Biden before the election when inflation was higher than it is now. Also, the Fed Funds Rate is sitting at 4.5%, while the ECB is at 2%, the Bank of Japan is at 0.5%, and China is at 1.4%. Why should we be paying interest rates that are 2.25x-9x higher than the rest of the world? Don't you think that's unfairly burdening the interest carry on our national debt and throttling our economy?

---

You've posted a bunch of rates with no context as justification for a rate reduction here. Right now, the EU YoY inflation rate is 2%. If we were at 2%, then it would be a no brainer to lower rates. We are at or headed back above 3%. PPI is 3.3%. CPI is 2.7%. PCE is 2.7%. The measure the fed favors is Core PCE which is 2.96%! Apples and oranges. The bank of Japan is willing to fund the government - buy bonds, etc - and economy for literally no return, always have been. Take Japan out of any comparison. China?! LOL. China is a not a free market economy. They are a centrally planned dictatorship. They also lie through their teeth. Using China as a guide for what we should do is foolish.

---

The EU inflation rate for July was 2.4% while the US was 2.7%. Not enough difference to justify a Fed funds rate that is 2.25x higher. A few more data points. The UK has a central bank interest rate of 4% and Canada is at 2.75%. Just admit it. Our interest rate is higher than other industrialized nations and it doesn't have anything to do with inflation.

---

The euro zone yoy inflation rate is 2% which is what the ECB uses to set their rates. I typed eu, but meant euro zone since that is what the ECB uses. There are countries that use the euro that are not part of the EU. You have to include it all. Feel free to educate yourself:

https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/macroeconomic_and_sectoral/hicp/html/index.en.html

There is no reason to lower rates right now. They are historically "normal" and we are well above our 2% target.

---

Wrong. All countries that use the euro are part of the EU. There are seven countries that are part of the EU that have their own national currencies. I'm pretty educated. Also, I think you're being obtuse in claiming that the eurozone inflation rate of 2.0% is vastly different from the EU inflation rate of 2.4%. I doubt that the 70 basis point difference in inflation rate between the US and the Eurozone is the reason that the ECB rate is less than half of the Fed Funds Rate.

You keep nibbling around the edges but won't address the meat of the argument. Inflation isn't the reason that US rates are higher. You know that but you don't want to admit it. Also, you can't just dismiss the central bank rates of Japan and China. They are the 5th and 2nd largest economies in the world, respectively. Take the L.

---

Complete nonsense. You don't understand the topic.

jwhaby said:

---

You keep nibbling around the edges but won't address the meat of the argument. Inflation isn't the reason that US rates are higher. You know that but you don't want to admit it. Also, you can't just dismiss the central bank rates of Japan and China. They are the 5th and 2nd largest economies in the world, respectively. Take the L.

---

I'll bite. Interest rates in other parts of the world are irrelevant. How about Mexico, Brazil, Turkey, etc. with rates that range from 10% to 40%? Take a look here cbrates.com at rates around the world. Many of them are higher than ours. Ours shouldn't be higher just because theirs are, nor should ours be lower because of other countries with low rates. Our rates should be based on our economic factors.

Inflation is absolutely the key reason for our current rates. Core inflation is much closer to 3.0% than the longstanding target of 2.0%. Even though Trump says there's no inflation, he's wrong. The impact of his tariffs is starting to show in inflation metrics and well-regarded economists think more is to come as tariffs move through the value chain. How much more inflation we see is anybody's guess. It could be quite sticky, or really not a big deal. It will probably be well into 2026 before we get a better sense of how it lands.

The Fed is appropriately cautious on cutting rates while inflation metrics are moving up. They have a dual mandate to maintain full employment along with price stability, so they are paying close attention to the job market. Recent softening in hiring suggests the labor market might be weakening, but the unemployment rate is still very low, so it's not like it's a train wreck either. They can afford to be patient and fine tune interest rates to balance inflation and job market concerns.

To that word "balance," it's important we maintain that. Current interest rates are not high by historical standards. They are normal. They might feel high to some people, but that's only because they were artificially suppressed by the Fed the last two decades in response to the financial crisis and pandemic. Older people like me approaching retirement want higher rates to help create a reliable income stream after I stop working, while my sons want lower rates to buy their first homes. Somewhere in between those two wants is a good balance.

I get your implication that current rates are a conspiracy against Trump. As a three-time Trump voter, I'm not buying it. Yes, the Fed's move last fall appeared like a political gift to Biden at the time and I hated it. I also despise Trump's attempts to cut current rates "by three points or more"... he's off his rocker with that.

We're better off with rates determined by a bunch of nerdy, smart people than a politician demanding something in the moment to please a segment of his voting base. Short term interest rates should be heavily influenced by market forces, not politicians. Interestingly, if Trump is successful in pushing short term rates well below the market range, you can expect long term rates to come up because investors will expect a higher term premium if they view the Fed as politically controlled and unwilling to fight inflation as needed.

The nerdy, smart person Trump fired never worked outside of academia, most of her time spent at Harvard's, her focus ranging from from the Inequities of the South Sudan Bead and Bauble trade to how Jim Crow Laws Resulted in Few Patents for African Americans. At least one of those is a real thing she did.

So tell me, is the Fed really made of the best and brightest with nothing but the best interest of our Country at heart? Or are they dumb academic eejit who failed upward to a Fed Governor, studying, publishing and promoting copious volumes of DEI horse*****

You said this: "All countries that use the euro are part of the EU"


Questions:

Is Kosovo part of the EU?

What currency does Kosovo use?

You really should just ignore this thread or it's going to get worse.

flown-the-coop said:

---

The nerdy, smart person Trump fired never worked outside of academia, most of her time spent at Harvard's, her focus ranging from from the Inequities of the South Sudan Bead and Bauble trade to how Jim Crow Laws Resulted in Few Patents for African Americans. At least one of those is a real thing she did.

So tell me, is the Fed really made of the best and brightest with nothing but the best interest of our Country at heart? Or are they dumb academic eejit who failed upward to a Fed Governor, studying, publishing and promoting copious volumes of DEI horse*****

---

They should be exceptionally qualified for their role. I agree DEI is a cancer that has infiltrated many levels of government and business, including Fed appointments. Hell, Biden's VP was a DEI pick as was most of his cabinet. That is one area (among many) where I'm very pleased with Trump's aggressive posture to rip it out and defeat it. I thought it was here forever, and he has changed that within a matter of months. It's still a Dem-favored evil we'll have to fight going forward, but he has absolutely reset the clock on it.

Be careful what you expect and be consistent. Are Trump's Fed picks going to be exceptionally qualified for the role, or will he prioritize loyalty above all? Plenty of evidence to suggest he favors loyalty to his agenda first, and competency second. Will they have the courage to resist interest rate cuts if the data is clear that's the wrong choice? If you say loyalty is ok as the top criteria, then the same is fair game for the Dems with their picks.

Frankly, I prefer hiring really good people and letting them do their jobs, with some occasional guidance along the way. I think Trump struggles with that and prefers to call all the shots himself. His appointees to the Fed will run the risk of being labeled "yes men" and not independent thinkers.

He's tended to pick competency AND loyalty this time around.

He's got a few decent horses in the stable with him currently. Couple talking heads have opined that Trump wants Bessent close so maybe a Kevin Hassett as an obvious choice.

Though I like Ludnik as a guy, picking someone like him would be more indicative of a lap dog choice. For DEI I say **** it and put Charles Payne on the board.

I looked up Payne and recognized the face from TV. Seems to have an established track record in financial matters. Wouldn't be an out-of-left-field pick like Harris for VP who didn't even serve a full term as senator.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

A former Supreme Court justice once said the SC is not final because it's infallible... it's infallible because it's final.

---

Roe v Wade says hi.

---

Yep, and they just spoke again on it because they chose to... no one forced them. And their answer this time, while different from the first time, is final.

---

Until they speak again on this issue, of course......

Likely to be a few years to decades. Hope this country is still around long enough for this to come back into the cross-hairs.