World News

Cory Booker Slams ‘Racist’ House GOP Candidate Madison Cawthorn

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) on Sunday slammed North Carolina Republican congressional candidate Madison Cawthorn after he attacked his Democratic opponent with what appeared to be a racist smear that also accused the Black senator of aiming “to ruin white males.”

“It just really personally saddens me that somebody who is so clearly racist is a nominee of a major party, and I think it’s a disrespect of the entire community,” Booker told HuffPost in an interview Sunday. “It’s really unfortunate.”

Cawthorn, 25, is a white GOP candidate whom President Donald Trump and national Republicans have backed; he spoke at the Republican National Convention in August. He’s favored to win the race for North Carolina’s 11th Congressional District, a rural seat previously held by White House chief of staff Mark Meadows. 

Earlier this week, Cawthorn’s campaign put up a website slamming his Democratic opponent, Moe Davis, alleging that a Pulitzer Prize-winning local journalist, Tom Fiedler, worked with Davis allies. He described Fiedler, who is white, as working for “non-white males, like Cory Booker, who aims to ruin white males.” (Davis is also white.)

Cawthorn later claimed in a statement the website contained a “syntax error” that was “unclear and unfairly implied I was criticizing Cory Booker.” The website now calls Fiedler “an unapologetic defender of left-wing identity politics,” according to The Washington Post.

But Booker — who accused Trump of regularly hitting him and other Black members of Congress with racist stereotypes — said he took the attack from Cawthorn’s campaign personally because he spent time in the district when he was younger. 

“My dad worked in that district. My dad is from Hendersonville, North Carolina, and I know the grace and goodness of that district,” Booker told HuffPost. 

The New Jersey senator connected Cawthorn’s “rank racism” to a broader trend within the GOP under Trump, including its increasing support by white supremacist groups and the bonkers conspiracy theory QAnon, which Republican incumbents in the Senate are actively courting. 

“It speaks of the kind of vicious, degrading, demeaning streams within the Republican Party that they should ― not we should ― the Republican Party should reject,” Booker said. “It’s tearing their party apart and delegitimizing them in the face of our country, and for him to be the nominee is really unfortunate.”

The controversy over Cawthorn’s campaign website isn’t the first time he has had to defend himself against accusations of racism.

In August, photos emerged of his 2017 visit to Adolf Hitler’s vacation house in Germany, known as the Eagle’s Nest. Cawthorn wrote that the location had been “on my bucket list for years. And it did not disappoint.”

He added: “Strange to hear so many laughs and share such a good time with my brother where only 79 years ago a supreme evil shared laughs and good times with his compatriots.”

Davis’ campaign recently reported an internal poll that showed the Democrat with a slight lead over Cawthorn. The district leans Republican ― Meadows held it for eight years ― but redistricting has made it more competitive for Democrats.

Cawthorn’s campaign said Booker should also be concerned by Davis’ rhetoric from last year saying he wanted to “stomp” on the necks of GOP “extremists.”

“Cory Booker knows better,” Cawthorn spokesman John Hart said in a statement. “Madison Cawthorn has repeatedly used the national stage to condemn racism, promote equality and defend the American and MLK’s dream. He looks forward to working with Sen. Booker when he’s elected to Congress.”


Source: Read Full Article

World News

Senate Advances Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court Nomination

The U.S. Senate voted Sunday in a rare weekend session to advance Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court, setting up a final vote to confirm President Donald Trump’s pick on Monday, a little over a month since the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The vote to end debate on Barrett’s nomination was 51-48, with all Democrats opposed. GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska also voted not to advance the nomination, citing the upcoming election.

But Murkowski said she will ultimately vote to confirm Barrett, calling her qualified for the job.

Democrats had few procedural tools available to block the nomination, which they argued was “illegitimate” because of the GOP’s hypocrisy in confirming a Supreme Court nominee during a presidential election year.

Republicans refused to give President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court pick, Merrick Garland, a hearing or a vote in early 2016, insisting that voters deserved to weigh in before filling a seat to the court.

Now, with more than 50 million votes already cast in the upcoming election, Republicans are rushing to confirm Barrett, a conservative judge who clerked for the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Her appointment would solidify a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court for the foreseeable future ― a majority that could block Democrats’ priorities even if Joe Biden wins the White House next month.

“The Republican majority is steering the Senate towards one of the lowest moments in its long history,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) warned. “The Republican majority is on the precipice of making a colossal and historic mistake. And the damage it does to this chamber will be irrevocable.”

Democrats tried to slow the confirmation process by forcing procedural votes and a rare closed session on Friday, but Republicans quickly defeated their efforts with 51 GOP votes. They argued there’s nothing illegitimate in filling a Supreme Court seat so close to a presidential election when the same party controls both the White House and Senate.

“Judge Barrett’s confirmation process has followed every rule. It’s followed the Constitution in every respect. We have abided by the norms and traditions dictated by our history,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said.

Barrett’s appointment could have an immediate effect on several cases before the Supreme Court, including a lawsuit seeking to strike down all of Obamacare that is due to be heard just days after the election, as well as several challenges to early voting accommodations in key battleground states such as Pennsylvania and North Carolina. 

Barrett, a judge on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, was evasive during her confirmation hearings earlier this month. She declined to say how she will rule on the challenge to the health care law and other issues such as abortion rights and matters involving the election.

Democrats pointed to her previous criticisms of Supreme Court rulings upholding Obamacare as evidence that she will rule to strike down the law. They also warned that her pro-life background suggested that she will vote to curtail abortion rights and same-sex marriage nationwide.


Source: Read Full Article

World News

GOP Lawmaker’s Wife Has ‘Prophetic’ Dream Of Feds Seizing Couple’s Guns And Knives

Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) decided to alert the public Friday that his wife “has the gift of premonition” and she recently awoke crying from a nightmare of an apocalyptic future where federal officials seize their guns, knives and other items.

Now Higgins’ Democratic opponent in this year’s election is using the strange tale to raise campaign funds. “This is what we’re up against,” tweeted rival Rob Anderson.

Higgins had posted on Twitter that his wife, Becca, “dreamed that Federal squads were in our home seizing guns, knives, ‘unauthorized foods’ and stored water.” Becca “awoke crying,” he added. “‘What happened to our freedom?’ she asked.”

Higgins, first elected to his seat in 2016, concluded ominously: “What indeed.”

Anderson shot back an hour later with his fundraising appeal.

Reactions to Higgins’ tweet included theNew Orleans-based Gambit Weekly wondered if Higgins had just accused his wife of witchcraft.

Walter Shaub, former director of the federal Office of Government Ethics, said the “level of crazy” in Higgins’ tweet managed to break through an exceptionally crazy year. And author Kurt Eichenwald suggested anti-psychotics.

Others wondered why the feds would seize “stored water.”

Many found it especially creepy that someone with the alleged gift of foresight would primarily be worried about losing her guns, especially amid the coronavirus pandemic that, President Donald Trump’s insistence notwithstanding, shows no signs of ebbing.

Several reminded Higgins that Breonna Taylor lost her life when Kentucky police officers broke into her home in March in a botched raid in which she was not a suspect.

Higgins spurred controversy last month when, ahead of a scheduled Black Lives Matter protest in Louisiana, he threatened to use one of his guns to “drop … any 10” who might be armed. “One way ticket, fellas,” he said on a Facebook post illustrated with a photo of Black men. The social media outlet eventually deleted the post.

Source: Read Full Article

World News

Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner Threaten To Sue Lincoln Project Over Times Square Billboards

First daughter Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, have threatened to sue The Lincoln Project over two Times Square billboard ads that attack the two senior White House advisers.

The anti-Donald Trump Republican group snapped back with a statement that it plans to make its response ― a “civics lesson” on First Amendment rights ― as “painful as possible.”

The Lincoln Project’s giant ads feature Trump’s daughter and son-in-law smiling next to a tally of U.S. deaths from COVID-19.

Attorney Marc Kasowitz blasted the ads in a letter Friday to The Lincoln Project as “false, malicious and defamatory” — as well as “outrageous and shameful libel.” 

The letter notes that the ads show “Ms. Trump smiling and gesturing toward a death count of Americans” and “attribute to Mr. Kushner the statement” that New Yorkers are going to “suffer and that’s their problem.”

Kasowitz added: “Of course, Mr. Kushner never made any such statement, Ms. Trump never made any such gesture.”

“If these billboard ads are not immediately removed, we will sue you for what will doubtless be enormous compensatory and punitive damages,” Kasowitz concluded. 

Ivanka Trump’s gesture appears to be taken from a photo she posted in July on Twitter holding a can of Goya beans after the company’s CEO praised her dad. She appears to be wearing the same white dress in the ad. The can has been edited out of the Times Square image.

Vanity Fair, citing an unidentified source, reported in September that Kushner had complained New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) didn’t plead hard enough with the White House to get coronavirus protective gear for his state. “His people are going to suffer and that’s their problem,” Kushner is quoted as saying.

Neither Trump nor Kushner could immediately be reached for comment.

The Lincoln Project posted a copy of Kasowitz’s letter Friday evening with the comment: “Nuts!” 

It quickly slammed back with a statement that the “level of indignant outrage Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump have shown towards The Lincoln Project for exposing their indifference for the more than 223,000 people who have lost their lives … is comical.”

It added that “their empty threats will not be taken any more seriously than we take Ivanka and Jared. It is unsurprising that an administration that has never had any regard or understanding of our Constitution would try to trample on our First Amendment rights, but we fully intend on making this civics lesson as painful as possible.”

The billboards “will stay up,” the statement declared. “We consider it important that in Times Square, the crossroads of the world, people are continuously reminded of the cruelty, audacity and staggering lack of empathy the Trumps and Kushners have displayed toward the American people.”

  • Get the latest coronavirus updates here
  • What will life be like once a coronavirus vaccine arrives?
  • Everything you need to know about face masks right now.
  • What should you still be disinfecting to prevent COVID-19?
  • Is it possible you had coronavirus earlier this year?
  • Constantly arguing with your partner about coronavirus risks? You are not alone.

Everyone deserves accurate information about COVID-19. Support journalism without a paywall — and keep it free for everyone — by becoming a HuffPost member today.

Source: Read Full Article

World News

Senate Democrats Plan To Boycott Amy Coney Barrett’s Committee Vote

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee plan to boycott Thursday’s committee vote on Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court nomination as a protest against Republican efforts to rush her through before the election.

The plan hasn’t been finalized yet, according to a Democratic aide, but Democrats are preparing to fill their empty seats with poster-sized photos of people who would be hurt by Barrett potentially casting a deciding vote against the Affordable Care Act. These would be the same pictures of people Democrats had on display during Barrett’s confirmation hearing last week.

Democrats also intend to hold two press conferences to push back on Barrett’s confirmation ― one on the Capitol steps and one on the Supreme Court steps. They will go to one or both of these pressers during the committee vote, according to the Democratic aide.

“Throughout the hearings last week, committee Democrats demonstrated the damage a Justice Barrett would do – to health care, reproductive freedoms, the ability to vote, and other core rights that Americans cherish. We will not grant this process any further legitimacy by participating in a committee markup of this nomination just twelve days before the culmination of an election that is already underway,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and his caucus said in a statement Wednesday afternoon, after HuffPost’s story went up.

A boycott will delight progressives, who have been clamoring for a big fight by Democrats over Barrett’s confirmation. It won’t stop Republicans from advancing Barrett’s nomination, though.

Feinstein has come under particular criticism and scrutiny from her own party. She undercut Democrats’ message that the proceedings were a “sham” and “illegitimate” by praising both Barrett and committee chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

“This has been one of the best set of hearings that I’ve participated in,” Feinstein said at the conclusion of the hearings last week. “It leaves one with a lot of hopes, a lot of questions and even some ideas perhaps of good bipartisan legislation we can put together.”

Both NARAL Pro-Choice America and Demand Justice, a progressive judicial advocacy group, called on the party to replace Feinstein as the top Democrat on the committee. 

Schumer also said he had “a long and serious talk” with her but refused to give more details.

Asked Wednesday what would happen if Democrats don’t show up to Barrett’s hearing, Graham said, “We’ll vote the nominee out.”

This story has been updated with comment from Schumer.

Igor Bobic and Amanda Terkel contributed reporting to this story.

Source: Read Full Article

World News

Pelosi 'optimistic' of stimulus agreement with the White House before the weekend. 'Both sides are serious about finding a compromise.'

  • House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is "optimistic" of agreeing a stimulus deal with the White House before the weekend, she said Tuesday.
  • A deal agreed this week could pass into law before the November 3 election, she said.
  • Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin found "common ground" Tuesday, and Pelosi said "both sides are serious about finding a compromise."
  • But Senate Republicans remain set to block the deal, set to be worth more than $1.8 trillion, from becoming law. 
  • Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday that she was "optimistic" of agreeing a stimulus package with the White House by the end of the week, after her and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin established more "common ground" during a phone conversation.

Pelosi is pushing for a $2.2 trillion stimulus package — the White House is offering $1.88 trillion, but Senate Republicans warned Tuesday they would likely block any deal worth $1.8 trillion or higher.

After her latest call with Mnuchin on Tuesday afternoon, Pelosi told Bloomberg: "I'm optimistic because I do think we have a shared value … we want to crush the virus."

When asked about the chances of agreeing a compromise this week, Pelosi said: "That's the plan. That's what I would hope."

Pelosi had previously set a Tuesday deadline for an agreement, but walked that back, and said that a deal agreed this week could pass into law before the November 3 election.

In a letter to House Democrats on Tuesday, Pelosi said her conversation with Mnuchin "provided more clarity and common ground as we move closer to an agreement."

The Tuesday deadline had "enabled us to see that decisions could be reached," she said, adding: "both sides are serious about finding a compromise."

White House chief of staff Mark Meadows told CNBC that he hoped to see "some kind of agreement before the weekend."

Pelosi and Mnuchin had made "good progress" during talks, Meadows said, but added there was still "a ways to go" before a deal was agreed. "We're not just down to a difference of language and a few dollars," he said.

Pelosi and Mnuchin will speak again on Wednesday.

Even if the two sides agree a deal, Republicans in the Senate could stop it becoming law.

At a closed-door lunch with Senate Republicans on Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell warned the White House against striking an agreement with Democrats before Election Day, the Washington Post first reported.

Later in a press conference Tuesday, McConnell said that if the House agreed to a comprehensive coronavirus stimulus package, "at some point we'll bring it to the floor," but he didn't specify how long the process would take or whether he would support such a deal.

Pelosi is pushing for a $2.2 trillion stimulus package. The Trump administration's offer has increased to $1.88 trillion, Meadows said, but President Donald Trump said Tuesday he was willing to go higher than even the Democrats were proposing.

Senator Mitt Romney told reporters Tuesday that a stimulus package costing $1.8 trillion or higher would most likely not make it through the Senate. "I don't support something of that level," he said, per Bloomberg.

Senator Richard Shelby also said Tuesday that the White House's proposal was too costly. "I'm not optimistic about us doing anything," he said.


Do you have a personal experience with the coronavirus you’d like to share? Or a tip on how your town or community is handling the pandemic? Please email [email protected] and tell us your story.

Get the latest coronavirus business & economic impact analysis from Business Insider Intelligence on how COVID-19 is affecting industries.

Source: Read Full Article

World News

Prominent New York hotel developer Chang's businesses received millions in PPP loans

  • At least eight businesses owned by Sam Chang received between $2.8 million and just over $7 million in federal small business loans.
  • Though Chang owns many New York hotels, he does not manage them and would not have applied for the loans himself.
  • A spokesman told CNBC in a statement that the loans were intended, in part, to help retain employees.

Companies controlled by one of New York's most prominent hotel developers received millions of dollars in loans from a government program intended to support small businesses as the coronavirus hammered the economy.

At least eight businesses owned by Sam Chang received between $2.8 million and just over $7 million in federal small business loans, according to a list of transactions made public this summer. The amount and the way in which the funds were distributed to Chang's businesses had yet to be reported.

More than 660,000 businesses were approved for the Paycheck Protection Program, which is run by the Treasury Department and the Small Business Administration. Loans went to companies both small and large while the coronavirus swept through the country. Congress and the Trump administration continue to negotiate over more stimulus funds. The Senate plans to vote on a separate GOP backed coronavirus bill on Wednesday.

Chang founded the McSam Hotel Group, which is known for buying and developing hotel properties that offer affordable accommodations. Some of those properties include hotels in and around Times Square, such as the Hampton Inn, Candlewood Suites and Holiday Inn.

Chang once said he was worth $200 million in cash, according to a New York Times report from 2006. The Wall Street Journal reported in 2019 that he was planning to retire.

Though Chang owns many New York hotels, he does not manage them and would not have applied for the loans himself. The commercial real estate and hotel industries suffered major losses after the pandemic hit the U.S.

McSam spokesman Sam Goldstein told CNBC in a statement that the loans were intended, in part, to help retain employees.

"The hospitality industry, as has been extensively documented, is among the hardest hit sectors of the economy due to the Covid-induced downturn, especially in New York City," he told CNBC in an email.  "A number of these sites provided accommodations for health care professionals and others working for Covid-related purposes. The PPP loans enabled the hotels to retain much of their workforces for a longer period of time and to continue operating despite extraordinary drops in guests and revenue."

Most of the loans went through obscure limited liability companies to single properties that Chang owns, records show. Meanwhile, McSam Hotel Group saw between $150,000 and $350,000, but the total went toward Chang's corporate office, according to McSam's spokesman.

The other federal loans went to seven other LLCs that do not bear his company name, such as the Grandsam Island LLC and the Brisam JFK LLC, the list shows. A company called Lopm 39 De LLC saw between $1 million and $2 million in federal loans. CNBC discovered that these LLCs are linked to Chang as searches on New York's business database showed that many list the same address as the McSam Hotel Group in Great Neck, N.Y.

LLCs named Grandsam Island, Brisam JFK, NDBPW 44, SCCQ Downtown, Lopm 39 De, LSCH and NYHK West 40, all of which received federal loans, are all Chang business entities that own single hotel properties in New York, according to the spokesman.

Grandsam owns the Radisson in Grand Island, N.Y. Brisam JFK owns the Holiday Inn hotel near John F. Kennedy Airport in Queens. NDBPW owns the TownePlace Suites by Marriott in Manhattan. NYHK West 40 owns a Manhattan Doubletree.

While Chang doesn't have direct ties to President Donald Trump, he did have a stake in Trump Entertainment Resorts years ago, according to The Real Deal. It was one of the president's previous companies that owned and managed properties such as the Trump Taj Mahal Casino in Atlantic City, New Jersey, before the business went bankrupt.

Many real estate businesses, some linked to Trump, saw a boost from the federal loan program.

G.H. Palmer Associates, a real estate firm run by longtime Trump backer Geoffrey Palmer, was approved for a loan. 

Palmer has been close to Trump for years. He was one of many corporate leaders of Trump's coronavirus business advisory council and has combined to give at least $6 million to pro-Trump super PAC America First Action, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.  

Dezer Development, a real estate company founded by Michael Dezer, says on its website that it has the same address as Trump International Beach Resort in Miami, Florida. The Dezer website says that its "branded real estate portfolio includes six-Trump branded towers." Dezer got between $350,000 and $1 million from PPP

Source: Read Full Article


I'm a financial planner, and my clients always panic about their investments around a presidential election. Here's what I tell them.

Personal Finance Insider writes about products, strategies, and tips to help you make smart decisions with your money. We may receive a small commission from our partners, like American Express, but our reporting and recommendations are always independent and objective.

  • As a financial planner, my clients panic every four years around election time, wondering if they should adjust their portfolios based on who's in the White House.
  • I took a look back at stock market returns under different presidents since 1980. In general, the market did better under Democrats than Republicans.
  • But ultimately, political parties don't matter much — what matters are the length of time you leave your money in the market, and fundamentals such as interest rates and unemployment.
  • Check out Vanguard Personal Advisor Services® to get the investment advice you need to help build the life you want »

First and foremost, this is not about politics. In fact, in this particular case, politics matters very little, which is great news for all of us. 

Every four years, we are lucky enough to be given the freedom to vote and choose a president to run our country. During these election years, especially over the past few elections, more and more of my clients have called questioning how we should "position" their portfolios. I hear things like;

"If this person wins, this industry should do great!"

"If this person wins, the economy is doomed!"

"Don't you think we should just go to cash and see what happens?"

As Mark Twain is reputed to have said, "History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes." So, with the caveat that past performance does not dictate future results, let's see what history tells us about investing and elections. 

Portfolio values under past presidents

Vanguard recently published a report detailing how, since 1860, a balanced portfolio of 60% stocks and 40% bonds has returned 8.2% under Republican presidents and 8.4% under Democratic presidents. Further, starting from that same time period, election year returns have averaged 8.9%, while non-election years have averaged 8.1%.

This shows us a couple things: First, the executive branch in our country doesn't control everything; it must share power with the legislative and judicial branches. While one party may control the White House, they don't control the entire government. Both parties over time end up with essentially the same types of returns because neither can go to either extreme in implementing their policies.

Second, while most people think election years are bad years to invest and they should get out of the markets and go to cash, they actually end up being better years than non-election years. This is likely due to emotional investors exiting the markets, allowing for those who stay to earn higher returns.  

Stock market returns from 1980 onward

Now, obviously 1860 was a long time ago, so some might argue these numbers are no longer relevant. With that in mind, let's look at a more modern time period, from 1980 to today, and how the S&P 500 performed during different presidential administrations.

For this analysis, I looked at the total return of the market over the full term of the presidents. For example, Ronald Reagan was elected in November of 1980, but his market returns are based on the years 1981-1988, when the S&P 500 compounded annually at 9.22%. 

The best market performance was under the Clinton administration, notching a compound annual growth rate of 14.86%. Next came President Obama with 11.96%, then George H.W. Bush at 11.54%. President Trump, through the market close on September 15, stands at 11.05%. President Reagan was next, followed by George W. Bush with a negative 4.42% return. 

Each presidency had its ups and downs; President Clinton's returns benefited from the internet, while President George W. Bush's returns were marred by the continued fallout of the dot-com bubble bursting, 9/11, and the Great Recession. The interesting takeaway for me is that, for most of the past 40 years, no matter which party controlled the White House, the S&P 500 averaged close to, or over, double-digit returns. 

Political parties don't matter, so what does?

So, if election years don't matter and which party or person controls the White House doesn't matter, what does? Fundamentals and time. 

Fundamentals still do and will always matter. The level of interest rates, how many people are working versus unemployed, how much companies earn or lose in a given year, and fiscal and monetary policy play a huge part in how the S&P 500 and other markets perform.

While those markets can be volatile and produce drawdowns over the short-term, time heals all wounds and all portfolios. If you pick any rolling 20-year period from 1950 to 2019, the S&P 500 has never had a negative compounded annual return. The worst performance still returned 6%, while the best returned 17%. On average, you could expect an 11.3% return. 

Get out and vote — and let your money continue to grow in your investments. Just know that whomever you choose will not likely themselves have a direct impact on market returns, at least over the long term. 

Charles Weeks is the founding partner of Barrister, a registered investment advisor.

Disclosure: This post is brought to you by the Personal Finance Insider team. We occasionally highlight financial products and services that can help you make smarter decisions with your money. We do not give investment advice or encourage you to adopt a certain investment strategy. What you decide to do with your money is up to you. If you take action based on one of our recommendations, we get a small share of the revenue from our commerce partners. This does not influence whether we feature a financial product or service. We operate independently from our advertising sales team.

Source: Read Full Article


Warren Buffett and Joe Biden are bullish on America, agree the super rich should pay higher taxes, and want quarterly earnings guidance to end

Rick Wilking/Reuters

  • Joe Biden and Warren Buffett share the view that America has unrivaled potential to be a global leader.
  • “Just got off the phone with Warren Buffett, talking about how we have position unlike 50, 70, 80 years ago to lead the whole damn world in a way that no one else can,” the Democratic presidential candidate said last week.
  • The former view president and the billionaire investor also agree on the need for higher taxes on the super rich, and that quarterly earnings guidance should be scrapped.
  • “Warren Buffett said it best when he stated that he should not pay a lower tax rate than his secretary,” Biden’s campaign website reads.
  • Visit Business Insider’s homepage for more stories.

Joe Biden spoke to Warren Buffett about America’s revitalized potential to be a global leader ahead of a virtual fundraiser last week, marking the first reported conversation between the two men this year.

The Democratic presidential candidate and the billionaire investor have similar views on several subjects. Here’s a look at the topics they agree on:

1) The US has bright prospects

Biden and Buffett are both optimistic about America’s future influence and prosperity.

“Just got off the phone with Warren Buffett, talking about how we have position unlike 50, 70, 80 years ago to lead the whole damn world in a way that no one else can,” the former vice president said last week.

Biden’s comment echoed Buffett’s view at Berkshire Hathaway’s annual meeting in May. “Nothing can stop America when you get right down to it,” the Berkshire CEO said.

Read More: An ex-Wall Street chief strategist lambasts 3 ‘nonsensical narratives’ he says are pushing stocks to dangerous heights – and warns that the current rally is unsustainable

2) The super rich should pay higher taxes

Biden and Buffett agree that the wealthiest people in America should pay higher taxes.

As vice president to President Barack Obama, Biden unsuccessfully pushed for Congress to pass the “Buffett rule” to ensure those earning more than $1 million a year would pay an effective tax rate of at least 30%.

The proposal was named after Buffett because the investor famously observed that he pays a higher tax rate than his secretary.

“Warren Buffett, who many people in America have come to know as an extremely successful, generous, and gregarious man, shined a very, very bright light on this subject,” Biden said at a campaign event in New Hampshire in April 2012.

“He noted the absurd fact that he, as a billionaire under the current tax laws, pays a lower tax rate than his secretary pays,” the politician continued.

Read More: Buy these 7 unheralded stocks right now for near-term upside of at least 25% as growth accelerates to a new level, RBC says

Biden called for a change to that situation in a tweet at the time.

“I’m for the Buffett Rule because it just makes sense,” he said. “Like the President says-it’s not class warfare. It’s math.”

Biden plans to pursue a similar policy if he becomes president. Part of his plan to expand access to affordable healthcare is to eliminate capital-gains tax loopholes and roll back President Trump’s tax cut on the super wealthy, which would double the capital-gains tax rate to nearly 40% for those making over $1 million a year.

“Warren Buffett said it best when he stated that he should not pay a lower tax rate than his secretary,” Biden’s campaign website reads.

3) Corporations are too focused on the short term

Biden and Buffett have both flagged the problem of companies prioritizing short-term gains over long-term progress.

Economic growth and wage gains suffer when corporations pump up their stock prices instead of investing for the long run, Biden argued in a Wall Street Journal op-ed in September 2016.

Linking executive compensation to stock prices, unlimited buybacks, tax laws that treat investments as long term after one year, activist investors pushing for near-term gains, and a “financial culture focused on quarterly earnings and short-run metrics” all contribute to the issue, he said.

Buffett and JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon called for public companies to consider ditching quarterly earnings guidance in their own Wall Street Journal op-ed in June 2018. The two executives argued it encourages companies to sacrifice long-term progress and sustainability for short-term profits.

“Jamie Dimon & Warren Buffett’s call to end quarterly guidance is an important step toward ending our nation’s culture of short-termism,” Biden tweeted in response.

“America’s workers & investors will all be better off with a system that rewards those who build for the long-term,” he added.

A quiet alliance?

Biden shares Buffett’s positive view of America, his desire to raise taxes on the ultra wealthy, and his belief that a short-term focus hurts companies in the long run.

Buffett hasn’t publicly endorsed Biden for president, but given their agreement on several subjects, it’s easy to imagine the pair working together if the Democrat is elected.

Source: Read Full Article


U.S. reports highest number of new coronavirus case since late July as total climbs above 8 million

  • The United States reported more than 69,000 new coronavirus cases on Friday, bringing the country's total count to over 8 million reported cases, according to data compiled by Johns Hopkins University.
  • The last time the U.S. reported a daily count that high was in late July as the coronavirus swept through Sun Belt states.
  • The surge in cases comes as infectious disease experts warn the U.S. could face a "substantial third wave" of infections this winter.

The United States reported more than 69,000 new coronavirus cases on Friday, the highest daily count the nation has reported since late July.

The U.S. has now reported more than 8 million Covid-19 cases and at least 218,600 deaths since the beginning of the pandemic, according to data compiled by Johns Hopkins University.

The surge in coronavirus cases comes as infectious disease experts warn the U.S. could face a "substantial third wave" of infections that will be further complicated this winter by the spread of seasonal influenza, which causes many similar symptoms to that of the coronavirus.

As colder temperatures arrive in the Northern Hemisphere, more people will spend time indoors and likely fail to follow public health guidance, which creates a greater risk for the cornoavirus' spread compared with outdoor activities, Dr. William Schaffner, an epidemiologist at Vanderbilt University, said.

The U.S. is averaging roughly 55,000 new coronavirus cases every day, based on a weekly average to smooth out the reporting, a more than 16% increase compared with a week ago, according to a CNBC analysis of Johns Hopkins data. New cases were growing by 5% or more in 38 states as the number of infections in the Midwest continues to surge.

Zoom In IconArrows pointing outwards

"We need to pay more attention to this. We seem to forget that we're making progress, we're doing better, and then we kind of let go and we go back again," Dr. Carlos del Rio, a professor at the Emory University School of Medicine who specializes in infectious diseases, told CNBC on Friday.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation's leading infectious disease expert, has warned for weeks that the daily number of new cases has remained "unacceptably high" heading into the end of the year. However, it's not too late to "vigorously apply" recommended public health measures, such as wearing a mask and maintaining a physical distance from others, Fauci told Johns Hopkins University on Thursday.

When the U.S. descended from its first peak in April, the number of new coronavirus cases "got stuck" around 20,000 per day, Fauci said. Ideally, the U.S. would've reported less than 10,000 cases every day, he said.

Then cases resurged. The number of daily new Covid-19 cases swelled to a high of nearly 70,000 cases a day before subsiding once again. However, new cases have since hovered between 40,000 to 50,000 cases a day.

"You can't enter into the cool months of the fall and the cold months of the winter with a high community infection baseline," Fauci said. He added that the positivity rate, or the percentage of tests that are positive, is "going in the wrong direction" in more than 30 states.

— CNBC's Will Feuer and Nate Rattner contributed to this report.

Source: Read Full Article