September 26th, 2016, Presidential Debate Secretary Hillary R. Clinton vs Mr. Donald J. Trump - By Stanley Yavneh Klos – September 27, 2016
First, let me say that both Mr. Trump’s “Make America Great Again” and Secretary Clinton’s “Stronger Together” MOVEMENTS are merely the manifestations of a confused electorate, seeking to bring their ideas, hard work and sensibilities to the Halls of Government. Neither a vote for Secretary Clinton nor Mr. Trump will realize the U.S. Constitution’s intent of empowering the collective wisdom of the people in the House of Representatives to check the federal bureaucracy. The people must accept this inherent constitutional duty by repealing the 1929 House Apportionment Act and then cap Congressional Districts at 50,000 citizens, as proposed by Article the First, which was the original First Amendment proposed in the 1789 “Bill of Rights.” Only a House of Representatives filled with citizens from all walks of life, answerable to their neighbors, can bring meaningful change to the federal bureaucracy and restore fiscal responsibility to the United States of America.
SECRETARY CLINTON’S DEBATE PERFORMANCE: There is no doubt that Secretary Clinton is Presidential Timber. Her credentials, experience and intellect are impressive on many levels and despite her “server” and “foreign policy” transgressions; I am listening to her side of the questions. Unfortunately, instead of demonstrating the genius of learning from her own and other people’s mistakes, Secretary Clinton failed to provide a clear path for change. Her rhetoric was primarily crafted to bolster the recent 200 million Ad campaign by doubling down on the branding of Mr. Trump as a racist, sexist blowhard, tax evader and 21st Century P.T. Barnum, who is incompetent and not qualified to be President of the United States. This was disheartening, because I was hoping to see a glimmer of the old Clinton Administration, which, after losing Congress in 1994, worked with Republicans to enact meaningful legislation that, by 1997, ended deficit spending and reversed the debt clock. Instead, Secretary Clinton’s oratory was grossly partisan and reinforced my suspicion that the Secretary just might believe that ½ of Trump’s supporters (numbering 28,350,000 by my last poll estimate) are a “basket of deplorables” that are “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic ….” Sadly, judging from the post-debate posts of my many pro-Secretary Clinton friends, they concur with her “basket of deplorables” statement.
MR. TRUMP’S DEBATE PERFORMANCE: Initially, I was excited about Mr. Trump’s candidacy for fiscal responsibility reasons and understand why most pro-Trump pundits maintain that he successfully hammered home, over and over again that the nation has had 30 years of Clinton with no change; that creating jobs is his forte; that bad trade deals costing thousands of blue collar jobs are Clinton's trade legacy; that he is the "Law and Order" candidate citing law enforcement endorsements and the support of stop and frisk legislation. Sadly, so much of his inductive evidence supporting these pronouncements was the product of his non-conformity of the mind to reality with the intent to get elected. This mindful nonconformity was so prevalent that it brings into question his other, more likely, assertions, such as that he will bring in government infrastructure and other large capital projects under budget and ahead of schedule. His whoppers include: 1) that President Obama doubled the National Debt 2) that China is still devaluing its currency 3) that he did not call Global Warming a Hoax 4) that, in fact, in his real estate career he had many stumbles and his father came to his rescue financially on numerous occasions. There is more, but you get the picture; these fallacies have had little effect on the partisan because Secretary Clinton has had her share of mind nonconformity with the intent to get elected. All this aside, Mr. Trump went into the debate as the underdog, beleaguered by Secretary Clinton’s HUGE negative Ad campaign but with rising poll momentum from his slide in August and demonstrated that he was not the demon his detractors claim.
THE MAJOR DISAPPOINTMENT IN THE DEBATE FOR ME was Mr. Trump’s failure to address Secretary Clinton's issue that the Republicans were responsible for the 2008 financial crisis, which Mr. Trump should know, as a real estate professional, was a product of the Bipartisan 1986 Tax Act and Capitol Hill turning a blind eye to sub-prime mortgage lending. Perhaps he avoided this because Trump Mortgage LLC, formed to capitalize on subprime mortgage markets had a rocky history. Even a cursory search can find YouTube clips of Senator Clinton blaming the housing collapse on homeowners. It was a layup, a chance to set the record straight, which could result in legislation to correct the systemic 1986 Tax Act flaw, but Mr. Trump fumbled that opportunity.
SO WHO WON? Revelation’s quote: "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth" has manifested itself as a Grand Canyon size partisan divide, especially in this election, which includes Congressional contests. Simply put, elections require large sums of campaign capital to reach the U.S. electorate and the majority of candidate funding comes from special interests that are, by nature, HOT and COLD on specific legislative issues. There is no money for the lukewarm compromising candidates despite the truth usually being found in the gray. There is also little chance, despite Trump’s broken pledge to self-fund his campaign, that the billionaire Presidential nominee will put the people’s interests ahead of his own special interests. Thus, the question is not - Which candidate won? But rather - “What special interests won? That list and why is much too long to cover in this post.
AS FOR CHANGE: If you want a government empowered by special interests to be checked by citizens from all walks of life, answerable only to their neighbors, bringing meaningful change to the federal bureaucracy restoring fiscal and social responsibility to the United States of America then EXPAND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
The Time has come to unchain Real Estate Investment to compete with Wall Street Equities. - By Stanley Yavneh Klos – July 4, 2016
It is a fact that since the earliest days of our republics, real estate investment has led the way in the expansion of citizen and national wealth. The 1787 Northwest Ordinance's Ohio land sales funded the last vestige of the Articles of Confederation government enabling it to launch a new federal republic after the March 4th, 1789, enactment of the current U.S. Constitution. Since then, real estate investing has provided the average person with the most realistic opportunity of building wealth, catalyzing individual entrepreneurship and realizing economic independence.
In 1987, however, this all changed with the enactment of the 1986 Tax Act. In short, this tax act has encouraged millions of US citizens to mortgagee their homes at maximum levels to take advantage of the "Earned Income" mortgage interest tax deduction. Moreover, the 1986 Tax Act has stimulates average citizens to invest in Wall Street Equities, rather than local real estate because real estate is relegated to a "Passive Income" tax code category while the potpourri of commodity, bond and stock equities are placed in the Wall Street friendly "Portfolio Income" tax category.
Since 1987, millions of working class citizens like plumbers, teachers and police officers chose not to diversify their investments into local real estate markets because these "Passive Income" losses/gains cannot be offset by the myriad of "Portfolio Income" equities losses/gains. Since then, middle class investment money has flowed out of "Main Street" real estate investments, controlled by citizens locally, into stocks, bonds and commodities that are controlled by the large international financial corporations yielding unprecedented company profits. The result has been a windfall for billionaire equity company executives and shareholders at the expense ordinary citizens who up until 1986 primarily built wealth and financial independence in their hometown real estate markets.
Additionally, the "Earned Income" mortgage interest tax deduction has fostered a citizen investment strategy of mortgaging homes to maximum levels funding everything from cars to student loans. Why? Mortgage interest is tax deductible and this coupled with low 30-year and/or “interest only” home equity loans payments are more preferable than non-tax deductible high monthly payment consumer and credit card loans. Now, 30 years later, the 200-year-old U.S. tradition of paying off your mortgage is dead while corporate equity and mortgage loan firms flourish thanks to the 1986 Tax Act.
In short, a major reason for the dramatic increase in United States income inequality is primarily due to these two aberrations in the 1986 Tax Act Code.
It is my position that a sound tax policy moving real estate investment into to the "Portfolio Income" tax category while limiting home mortgage interest tax deductions to loans no larger than 50% of the home’s original purchase price will build widespread citizen wealth and spur on economic development.
Simply put, these tax code changes will ignite "Portfolio Income" diversification into local real estate investment and development. It will also hold the line on citizens mortgaging their homes to 50% of their original value. This real estate tax code change of the 1986 Tax Act, will promote thrift and reverse the ever widening income gap between the wealthy and the working class.
As you can see by the attached Article, I warned the George H.W. Bush administration of this economic cancer back in1992, predicting the real estate mortgage crash by 2006, which finally came to pass in 2008. Despite RE/MAX and other real estate credentials this proposal has been dismissed by Congress, which is the only entity along with the President that is empowered to effect change on the U.S. federal tax code.
To date, none of the Presidential candidates see this real estate forest for the equities tree. Sadly, the gap between the rich and poor continues to widen as Presidential candidates on one side offer more failed socialist programs while candidates on the other side offer ideas of isolationism.