Thread: DETAILS EMERGE SHOWING LATEST TRUMP ACCUSER Tied To Clinton Foundation

BREAKING: DETAILS EMERGE SHOWING LATEST TRUMP ACCUSER Tied To Clinton Foundation

By 100% FED Up -
Oct 13, 2016

• 
  
  

YOU KNEW IT WOULD HAPPEN! The latest bs story to try and tarnish Trump to win the election is totally tied to the Clinton Foundation! This is how you know we’re winning! The Democrats are desperate and ruthless…The elitists in the Republican party are enablers of this desperate move by the Clinton machine. Do you REALLY want more of the crooked Clinton machine in our White House? These people are sickening!

Jessica Leads, who is accusing Trump of rape, allegedly has the same phone number as the Clinton Foundation… that’s curious From Podesta Wikileaks e-mails:

Twitter source:

Jessica Leads, who is accusing Trump of rape, has the same phone number as the Clinton Foundation… that's curious https://t.co/m3FJIqJM8e pic.twitter.com/ZzQgzu9yKO— ProudBoy MAGAzine (@ProudBoyMag) October 13, 2016

An added bit of damning evidence against Jessica Leads: Trump accuser Jessica Leeds claims Trump lifted the armrest and groped her. But armrests in all 80’s planes don’t lift.



http://100percentfedup.com/breaking-...on-foundation/

LOL!!! Like Trump said today, they can prove she's a LIAR!!!

These stupid, stupid people doing this are wackos who have never flown first-class in the 1980's. They're part of an organization committed to electing the first female President. It's not even about Hillary, it's about the FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT. Just like Obama wasn't about Obama, it wasn't about his knowledge, experience or track record, because he didn't have any, it was about FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT.

We can't elect Presidents on their race or gender. It's discrimination, it's incompetence, it's silly and it's counter-productive.

http://www.alipac.us/f19/boeing-buil...8/#post1520730

Yeah, Newmexican, first time in the history of the Boeing Company. They did that because of the Ex Im Bank Financing the Congress failed to renew last summer. This was Ted Cruz's big contribution to our country, he opposed renewal of Ex Im Bank Financing, while Boeing was telling Congress, if you don't renew this, we can't compete, and our next plant will be built in China that has Ex Im Bank Financing. And, away Boeing went. Others were involved besides Cruz, but he's the one who grand-standed the issue, defeating the renewal bill, it's why he called Mitch McConnell a liar on the Senate floor because McConnell let the supporters of renewing Ex Im Bank Financing debate what was going on.

Jessica Leeds (the one on the airplane) was on Anderson Cooper tonight, and she said this happened in 1979. She said she's 74 today, which means she was 37 at the time, 4 years older than Trump. She also said that she let him paw all over her breasts and kiss her for 15 minutes and when he tried to put his hand up her skirt, that's when she claims she got up and went to the back of the plane. Why she didn't return to her original seat, not sure, but in any event, that's her statements on Anderson Cooper.

Does anyone believe that Donald Trump at 33 would be pawing all over a 37 year old woman on an airplane without her consent? How would he know she wasn't consenting when she's letting him paw her and kiss her?

This victim will be destroyed on the witness stand by a good lawyer.

Her friend was on Don Lemon's show supporting her story, although the only thing the friend knows is what the woman told her about 1 year ago when it looked like Trump was going to run for President. Her friend has only known her for 3 years.

So the two gay men on CNN get the two female interviews related to 1 of Trum'sp accusers. Interesting, huh? The two commentators who wouldn't know a thing about heterosexual activity.

That makes me want to laugh, so I will!!

LOL!! LOL!!

Originally Posted by Judy

Yeah, Newmexican, first time in the history of the Boeing Company. They did that because of the Ex Im Bank Financing the Congress failed to renew last summer. This was Ted Cruz's big contribution to our country, he opposed renewal of Ex Im Bank Financing, while Boeing was telling Congress, if you don't renew this, we can't compete, and our next plant will be built in China that has Ex Im Bank Financing. And, away Boeing went. Others were involved besides Cruz, but he's the one who grand-standed the issue, defeating the renewal bill, it's why he called Mitch McConnell a liar on the Senate floor because McConnell let the supporters of renewing Ex Im Bank Financing debate what was going on.

Thank you Sen. Ted Cruz!

Export–Import Bank: Cronyism Threatens American Jobs

By Diane Katz

The Export–Import Bank (Ex–Im) funnels billions of taxpayer dollars each year to overseas businesses for the purchase of American products. This subsidized financing is supposedly a win-win proposition for exporters and their customers abroad. But rare is a subsidy that does not produce disparity elsewhere. In the case of Ex–Im, the losers include domestic companies that are left to compete against foreign firms bankrolled by the U.S. government.

This and other drawbacks of Ex–Im are important to acknowledge as Congress considers whether to reauthorize the bank before its charter expires on September 30. The decision should be an easy one. Ex–Im effectively ignores the impact of its actions on American workers, as well as the risks to taxpayers, while exaggerating the benefits of those actions.

Government authorities have documented a variety of problems with bank operations,[1] but the fact that Ex–Im financing handicaps at least some American businesses is sufficient reason to end it. Recently, for example, the bank approved $694 million in financing for U.S. equipment to develop an open-pit iron ore mine in Australia (owned by the country’s richest woman).[2] The deal was consummated despite warnings from the United Steel Workers, the Iron Mining Association, and all four Senators from Minnesota and Michigan that the subsidies would jeopardize thousands of U.S. mining jobs.[3]

Global trade benefits the U.S. economy, but Ex–Im subsidies confer a competitive advantage to a select group of favored firms. Rather than perpetuate this cronyism, Congress should allow the bank’s charter to expire and undertake tax and regulatory reforms that would strengthen the competitive position of all U.S. businesses.

Economic Impacts Ignored

Foreign firms receive Ex–Im financing to purchase U.S. equipment for manufacturing and resource extraction or to provide commercial services. However, the bank’s charter[4] prohibits financing under three conditions:

1. The recipient’s production is likely to create a surplus in world markets;
2. The recipient competes with U.S. production of the same, similar, or competing commodity; or
3. The financing would cause “substantial injury” to American producers of the same, similar, or competing commodity.

These statutory prohibitions are intended to balance the interests of U.S. exporters and the domestic firms that would compete against subsidized businesses overseas. But there is a major loophole: The charter allows the bank’s board of directors to override the constraints if they decide that a transaction would produce a “net benefit” to the U.S. economy.

In order to determine the potential effects of an export subsidy, the bank is supposed to perform an economic impact analysis, but a review by Ex–Im’s inspector general (IG) of the analyses conducted between 2002 and 2009 found that the bank

did not address directly several elements of economic impact contemplated by the Charter, omitted relevant data and analysis beyond that considered necessary to support the staff’s recommendation, did not state the limitations and qualifications of the data, assumptions, estimates, methods and analysis, did not fully address the sensitivity of the staff’s conclusions to possible changes in assumptions and estimates that could be reasonably anticipated.[5]

Indeed, none of the Ex–Im personnel interviewed by the IG’s office possessed professional training or expertise related to economic impact analysis. Moreover, the bank does not consider the impact of any finance deal involving less than $10 million, which excludes some 80 percent of Ex–Im transactions.

All of this means that bank officials dole out billions of taxpayer dollars to foreign firms without a meaningful consideration of the impacts on American workers and the businesses that employ them.

Distorting Competition

Every type of industry undergoes booms and busts. Neither one typically results from a single cause but instead is a product of myriad factors, including changes in demand, currency fluctuations, and innovation. But government policy can dampen gains and exacerbate losses, which is the case with export subsidies. Ex–Im financing of coal mining in Colombia, copper excavation in Mexico, and airplanes for India has been identified as contributing to losses among domestic firms.[6]

The following Ex–Im deals have been cited by lawmakers and industry experts as examples of just some of the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies that put domestic firms at a competitive disadvantage:

• Australia’s Roy Hill mine ($694 million). The mine’s expected output (over the life of the financing) is expected to displace nearly $600 million worth of U.S. iron ore exports and cause a reduction of some $1.2 billion in U.S. domestic sales.[7]
• South Africa’s Kusile Coal power plant ($805 million); India’s Sasan coal power plant and mine ($917 million). Notwithstanding the Obama Administration’s war on coal,[8] Ex–Im has been a generous source of public financing for coal projects abroad.[9] These and other projects have exacerbated a 70 percent decline in coal prices since 2008.[10]
• Mongolia’s Oyu Tolgoi copper mine ($500 million). The copper from this open-pit and underground mine competes with excavations in Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, Nevada, and Montana just as global refined copper production is expected to exceed demand by more than 390,000 metric tons this year.[11]
• Papua New Guinea’s Liquid Natural Gas Project ($3 billion). Despite regulatory challenges faced by U.S. producers of liquid natural gas, Ex–Im approved $3 billion in financing for development of gas fields, on-shore and off-shore pipelines extending 400 miles, a gas liquefaction plant, and marine export facilities.
• Air India ($3.4 billion). The financing will guarantee the purchase of 27 Boeing aircraft intended for international service, including U.S. destinations. According to the Air Line Pilots Association, Air India will enjoy rates and terms that are not available to U.S. airlines, giving it a cost advantage of about $2 million per airplane. Surplus seat capacity resulting from Ex–Im airline subsidies—totaling about $50 billion between 2005 and 2011—has resulted in the loss of approximately 7,500 U.S. jobs.[12]

A No-Brainer

Ex–Im beneficiaries argue that export financing preserves American jobs, but the vast majority of bank subsidies benefit very large corporations that could self-finance or obtain private investment—as is the case for 98 percent of all U.S. exports. Rather than perpetuate these subsidies, Congress should help all American businesses by reducing corporate tax rates and regulatory burdens.

Allowing the bank’s charter to expire should be a no-brainer for lawmakers. (Even Barack Obama, as a presidential candidate, endorsed its end.[13]) With strong growth in privately financed exports, there is no justification for maintaining this Depression-era relic.

—Diane Katz is a Research Fellow for Regulatory Policy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, a department of the Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity at The Heritage Foundation.

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...-american-jobs

The Unseen Costs of the Export-Import Bank

Taxpayers and other businesses pay the price for the bank's activities.

[COLOR=#999999 !important]By Veronique de Rugy | Contributor July 7, 2014, at 10:45 a.m.
[/COLOR]

We don’t agree on much in Washington. But given all of the economic and social problems our nation faces, everyone should agree that the federal government should not direct our limited public resources primarily to wealthy, politically connected corporations. This is what the Export-Import Bank does.


Some say that there are good reasons to continue doing this. They say that the bank, known as the Ex-Im Bank, promotes U.S. exports, protects jobs and is a good deal for taxpayers. None of these arguments withstand scrutiny. For instance, we have long known that export-subsidy schemes like Ex-Im do not meaningfully improve national exports. The data confirm this point: Ex-Im backs less than 2 percent of U.S. exports each year, mostly to the benefit of giant companies like Boeing and Caterpillar.
Also, while the bank takes credit for supporting 205,000 jobs in 2013, we should view this number with a critical eye. For instance, the Government Accounting Office criticized the bank’s job calculation methodology for failing to consider how many jobs would have been created without Ex-Im, among other flaws.

The same doubts apply to the bank’s claim that it benefits taxpayers. A recent nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office report debunks claims of future Ex-Im profitability. Ex-Im is projected to yield losses for taxpayers over the next decade.

However, the real problem with Ex-Im pertains to the many groups who are affected by Ex-Im activities but have been ignored so far. These people don’t have connections in Washington, and they don’t have access to press offices and lobbyists. But they matter, too.

It is difficult, but extremely important, that we consider the unseen costs of political privilege, whether they take the form of market distortions, resource misallocation, job losses, destroyed potential or higher prices.

Think about it this way; Ex-Im supporters tout subsidized firms’ successes, but they do not consider the unseen costs imposed on everyone else involved with the other 98 percent of unsubsidized exports. In these cases, it is the firms’ own federal government — not a foreign government — that puts them at a competitive disadvantage.

For instance, Ex-Im harms these firms’ export opportunities by making it harder for unsubsidized buyers to secure their own financing. That’s because Ex-Im gives lenders an incentive to shift resources away from unsubsidized projects and towards subsidized ones, regardless of the merits of each project.

[READ: Should Congress Kill the Export-Import Bank?]

These capital market distortions have ripple effects. Subsidized projects attract more private capital while investors overlook other worthy projects. The subsidized get richer while the unsubsidized get poorer or go out of business.

Unfortunately, we’ll never see the businesses that could have been. Perhaps they would have been better, more efficient or more responsible than politically connected firms. But how about the negative impact the bank has on jobs? Unsubsidized employers may not expand hiring, or may not increase wages, or may even have to fire employees because they face Ex-Im subsidized competition.

Now, even assuming that the bank doesn’t immediately cost money to taxpayers, they too are unseen victims. The Ex-Im Bank transfers risk away from lenders and towards every single U.S. taxpayer. This creates what economists call a moral hazard. Since well-connected lenders, like Citibank and JP Morgan, bear almost none of the risk if a borrower defaults, they have less incentive to apply transaction oversight. They collect high fees on billion-dollar loans in good times, but normal tax-paying Americans must pick up the tab in bad times.

We all know who will benefit if the bank is reauthorized, because the beneficiaries are few enough in number that they can effectively organize and are wealthy enough to apply significant political pressure. But it is about time someone stands up for the many unseen costs imposed by the Ex-Im Bank on millions of average Americans. These forgotten Americans should not matter less than Boeing or GE or Caterpillar.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/econom...-and-taxpayers

Yes, Ted Cruz and the others who opposed the Ex Im Bank Financing renewal are the reason why Boeing is building a massive new airline plant in China that will now compete with all the Boeing US Plants. The Boeing China Plant is the first plant built by Boeing outside of the United States in its 88 year operating history.

http://www.alipac.us/f9/trump-block-...idents-338670/