Wednesday, March 11, 2026
Home Blog Page 84

Real Estate Investor: The Downsides of Balloon and 1% Downpayment Mortgages

Fox News
-
0
Real Estate Investor: The Downsides of Balloon and 1% Downpayment Mortgages

Because of the Fed rate hikes of the past few months that have seen average thirty-year mortgage interest rates go from around 3% per year to the current 7.5% per year, very few people want to sign up for home mortgage financing. Also, current homeowners who would have wanted to sell and move elsewhere are dissuaded from doing so because they prefer to keep their 3% locked-in rates on their thirty-year mortgages, than sign up for the higher ones. Hence there is very little movement right now.

In order to survive and generate business, some developers are offering balloon-type mortgages and 1% downpayment mortgages. As a real estate investor, let me give you some in-depth information about these options.

In balloon-type mortgages, a buyer can have a very low monthly payment scheme for the first few years, but then needs to pay a big lump sum after that grace period has elapsed. The problem is if the buyer enjoyed the grace period but doesn’t really have the discipline to save up for the lump sum payment. Then that ends badly as a foreclosure.

As stated, the 1% downpayment mortgage only requires a 1% downpayment. Then the developer or seller contributes an additional 2% to get the total downpayment up to 3%. Seems like a good deal, but in reality, it’s still better to save for a higher downpayment if considered from a long-term perspective.

Although owning a home is how most people grow equity and build wealth, the current situation requires some careful thought. Both are not really optimal options. Usually, the best option for a prospective buyer is still to save as much as possible for a larger downpayment so that the loan portion is smaller. Remember that, although very few buyers can do this, the cheapest way to buy a house is to negotiate with the seller when you have the cash. The larger the loan amount, and the higher the interest rate, the more a buyer ends up paying.

Many of us accumulated personal savings during the pandemic from government cash gifts from the CARES Act and the fact that we mainly just stayed at home and didn’t have much to spend on. That personal savings has been depleted as we attempted to normalize our lives and have been replaced by increased debt spending, a lot of it on credit cards. Credit card debt has ballooned to over a trillion dollars. Add to that the fact that those who have student loans will restart payments in October 2023. For a lot of us, taking on a 7.5% mortgage at this time in this situation is not a good strategy.

Also, consider the fact that average home values in some areas (not all) have been declining slightly since June 2023. Note that average does not mean that the house being considered will decline in price. It just means on a national average, there is a slight decline. So if a buyer takes on a large loan for a house on high interest whose price is losing value, then they are losing money.

When someone buys a house, they will be responsible for all property taxes, insurance, and home repairs. While renting is purely an expense, it is the landlord who takes care of all these costs. Plus when the mortgage rate is high, a lot of their payments really just go into servicing those interest payments and not the principal loan for the home. Sometimes the best way to buy a house is to rent first, save as much as possible for a downpayment, then when the interest rates look better and a buyer has found the house they really like, that’s when to pounce.

What a buyer really needs to do is sit down with a financial adviser or use a reliable mortgage calculator to figure out how much each option will cost. Each buyer needs to figure out how much they can comfortably afford to shell out for mortgage payments each month.

A good percentage to aim for is around 30% of their debt-to-income ratio. That means that if a buyer pays 30% of their take-home income for their mortgage, the remaining 70% will go towards other bills and discretionary spending. Anything higher than 30% becomes too stressful for many people and increases the chances of foreclosure and damage to your credit rating.

On the other hand, young people who have good jobs often end up spending a lot on items they don’t really need or even use. Their spending sometimes is really just so they can. In those cases, if they can muster the discipline, they can save up for a large downpayment, then try to pay off the loan as early as possible. In that way, they don’t waste the fruits of their labor on useless purchases. Instead, they are able to save and build wealth by buying a house early.

Owning a home is still one of the best ways for most people to grow equity and build wealth. However, sometimes the best road to go somewhere is not the straight one. Sometimes renting first and saving for that larger equity downpayment while waiting for lower mortgage rates is the better option. That is if people have the discipline to save for a downpayment and not splurge it somewhere else.

Note that no one can predict the future and say with certainty that mortgage rates will go higher or lower next year, or the year after. But it is still a better option to try and save for the biggest downpayment you can muster while doing that instead of instantly signing without careful thought to those balloon and 1% mortgage contract agreements.

The information provided here is not investment, tax, or financial advice. You should consult with a licensed professional for advice concerning your specific situation.

The Newsweek Expert Forum is an invitation-only network of influential leaders, experts, executives, and entrepreneurs who share their insights with our audience.What’s this?Content labeled as the Expert Forum is produced and managed by Newsweek Expert Forum, a fee based, invitation only membership community. The opinions expressed in this content do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Newsweek or the Newsweek Expert Forum.

Tesla will be an auto all-star in 2050, GM designer predicts

Fox News
-
0
Tesla will be an auto all-star in 2050, GM designer predicts

Vehicles at concours d’elegance are judged on style, condition, presentation, backstory and how closely they are prepared to the original specification. Many winning names at shows like Pebble Beach and Amelia Island are familiar, like Ferrari or Mercedes-Benz. Others are from long-gone brands like Duesenberg and Allard.

Legendary retired GM designer and 2023 Detroit Concours d’Elegance Chief Judge Ed Welburn and Assistant Chief Judge Nigel Matthews sat down with Newsweek at the annual event, held at the Detroit Institute of Arts. They talked about new styling in the electric era, what goes into a good concours car and what the show field might look like 30 years down the road.

Newsweek: We see Cord, Delahaye, Austin-Healey out here today, what brands do you think will be on the field in 2050?

Wellburn: “I think those brands will definitely be there and they will be stars of the show. But who knows what the next wave will be. It could be an SUV. Certainly, the supercars will become vintage cars and it will be part of that.”

Newsweek: Do you think new EV brands like Rivian and Lucid will be on the field? Will they become collector cars?

Welburn: “It depends. It’s not just the cars, it’s the shows and how will the shows evolve? And what will the venues be like? This is a great venue, I just absolutely love having this show right here. I hope they are live events like this. But that might change too. They might be digital.”

Newsweek: Can you get the same visceral feel in pictures as you can being here and seeing the cars and the textures and those body styles?

Welburn: “No, you can’t and I spend a lot of time looking at vehicles online, looking at videos but then when you see the car in person and you walk around, and you just get a feel for the shape and the textures, and materials and finishes throughout the vehicle. It just, there’s nothing like there’s nothing like it, and it can be a car that you’ve seen before but seeing it in a different light in a different setting and it becomes new again.”

Newsweek: So when we look at Detroit Concours 2050, Teslas are old by that point. Are we going to see them on the show field in 2050?

Matthews: “Well, I’ll start off with a joke which automotive people will understand. My crystal ball was made by Lucas, so we’re in trouble. But to get back to your question, I think we will see Teslas. Teslas have been a pioneer in electrification, and we’re probably going to see people be as interested in their SUV with a gullwing doors as they were with the Gullwing Mercedes back in the day.”

Newsweek: Let’s talk about Porsche. Taycan is their new electric car. Will that be the air cooled 911 of the future that everybody wants? Or will the 911 reign supreme even in 2050?

Matthews: “I’m a purist I’m afraid so it probably would prefer the original 911 bodystyle. I like the 993 era.”

Welburn: “I don’t know if I’ve changed, or Porsches have evolved. I think I’ve evolved a bit, but I absolutely love the brand. And I love how the brand has evolved over time. But if they vary too far away from that 911 shape they get yanked right back into where they really belong. And it’s a unique position, I think in the whole industry. No one else dares tread into that 911 territory.”

Newsweek: When you were back at the helm of GM design, there were things that held back design because you had more restrictions. Electric vehicle platforms have opened that box, but when we look back in 20 years will these new design choices be a mistake, or is it going to just permeate as we move forward?

Welburn: “It’s hard to predict the future, and although designers are thinking about a car that’s introduced today, they started work on it probably four or five years ago. And they have to sit there thinking five years in advance plus the car will be in production for another five years. They’ve got to think about a car ten years in advance. They really do.

“When I look at the architectures of electric vehicles, I think it gives designers great freedom to do a lot of very interesting things. And I know there are those that are still looking at fuel cell as an option down the road. It also gives great freedom for the design team and engineers to do some very cool stuff.”

Newsweek: I know you’re retired, but what on the show field inspires that creative interest inside you today?

Ed Welburn: “I’m still getting used to that word retired because my creative juices didn’t stop when I walked out of the door of GM Design. I think it just kind of blossomed into many different directions, fashion, other forms of transportation, in fact, in the movie industry as well. I get so inspired when I walk around here, you know, looking at cars from very different periods. You’re seeing them from a very different perspective, different lighting, being able to see a classic design with classic architecture all around it on a beautiful sunny day. It just It inspires me in a huge way.”

Newsweek: When you’re judging the cars of yesterday or today, you’re looking at textures and colors and also the mechanics of it, how well restored it is and how it is presented. As we head toward this electrification era, there are less parts, less intricate materials on the interior, but still very interesting stuff. What does the judging process look like in the future?

Matthews: “It’s going to change things drastically because the way we judge today it’s all about originality and authenticity. And we have 20 line items that we judge, and we actually penalize vehicles for being over restored. We’re trying to save these vehicles for future generations to see, exactly how they came out of the showroom floor. I think it’s going to be very interesting, but there will always be that component of the vehicle being judged against itself as it was delivered on day one.”

Wellburn: “Well, the thing that I think is going to be fascinating, totally fascinating, is a return to coach-built vehicles. If the vehicles are built on what everyone calls a skateboard chassis, then there’s the opportunity to do a variety of bodies. And I’m envisioning companies that are coachbuilders that will develop bodies for vehicles limited productions, or one off bodies that will go on the skateboard chassis. That will be fun for judges to deal with. And we’ll see some very unique and custom designs. Is that authentic, or is that a one off that was done for this bit?”

Matthews: “So we might be turning the clock backwards.”

Newsweek: It does feel a bit that way. Especially as we talk about Pininfarina and Mercedes and Porsche custom design, where customers are actually going to the headquarters, they’re designing their vehicles in almost a way that that Bugatti and other automakers used to, and still do.

Wellburn: “And there will be some new companies that are pure coachbuilders that will create bodies of all configurations to go on those platforms. And more common architectures or chassis will help.”

Matthews: “And that dates back to how we judge cars today. Some of these cars were all coachbuilt cars. So you can’t definitely say that that Cadillac didn’t come with red, painted disc covers because it could have been ordered their way.”

Newsweek: The electrified market has buoyed a new generation of interest in kids. What would you want to tell those kids today from your position about why they should love the cars of today and the cars of yesterday?

Matthews: “Well, hopefully the younger ones that are here will remember these cars today because we never know what the future is going to bring to us.”

Welburn: “Young people are drawn in by some of the exciting new designs and breakthroughs that are developed. And then the process, they discover something cool like that white, silver and blue Oldsmobile convertible. And young people are walking around looking at it. They had no idea, they just did not know. This event and events like it are real discovery journeys.”

Union Bosses’ Coercive Agenda Is Simply Anti-Worker

Fox News
-
0
Union Bosses’ Coercive Agenda Is Simply Anti-Worker

Candidates understandably want to appeal to workers—after all they can’t get elected without their votes. Yet, maybe because for many Washington politicians the most visible representations of “workers” are the multi-million dollar union headquarters and PAC contributions they receive from those addresses, many candidates for office mistakenly believe the way to win working class votes is to support the agenda of the union officials who occupy those buildings.

The truth is, much of what Big Labor bosses advocate is directly contrary to employees’ interests and undermines their freedom.

Union bosses and their political allies may wish it was otherwise, but the fact is most workers are not only nonunion, but happily so.

Only one in 10 American workers, and just 6 percent of those in the private sector, are currently unionized. In a national poll last year, those non-union workers were asked if they were interested in joining a labor union and the answer was a resounding NO, with a sizable majority (58 percent) “not interested at all” and barely one in 10 “strongly interested” in union affiliation.

Since unions claim to be majoritarian organizations, those numbers show why it is unsurprising that union organizers have been largely unsuccessful in convincing workers to join their ranks.

Meanwhile, workers are increasingly seeking to remove existing union “representation.” The Biden National Labor Relations Board’s own statistics showing three consecutive years of increased worker-filed union decertification petitions. Cynically, the Biden NLRB’s response has been to make it easier for union officials to block such votes from actually happening.

Yet that is hardly the only example of union bosses and their allies pursuing an agenda that is explicitly anti-worker.

Take the “PRO-Act,” Big Labor’s top legislative priority in Congress which is a giant wishlist of new government-granted union powers, almost all of which undermine the rights of individual employees.

The PRO-Act would overturn all 27 current state Right to Work laws by federal fiat, granting union officials the power to threaten workers who aren’t even union members that they must pay up or be fired. Unsurprisingly, stripping workers of their choice over whether or not to financially support a union is unpopular, especially among workers.

The last time Gallup polled voters about Right to Work it found strong bipartisan support. When asked if they would vote for Right to Work, 65 percent of Democrats, 77 percent of Independents, and 74 percent of Republicans said yes.

State polls find similar support for Right to Work. Michigan, where presidents Biden and Donald Trump visited this week to appeal to autoworkers, recently passed a bill repealing its decade-old Right to Work law, but not because voters supported that. Not only did 74 percent of all voters oppose bringing back forced dues, but 71 percent of Michiganders from union households were against Right to Work repeal.

Other provisions of the PRO-Act show the vast divide between what union bosses advocate for and what is best for rank-and-file workers.

The PRO-Act also authorizes “card check” unionization, bypassing secret ballot elections in favor of a process where union organizers pressure workers into signing cards to be counted as “votes.” Yet even the AFL-CIO has admitted that these cards don’t represent employees’ actual wishes and are frequently just signed to “get the union off their backs.”

Another PRO-Act provision would allow the forced unionization of independent contractors and freelancers, who polls show often choose such work precisely for the flexibility that one-size-fits-all unionization cannot provide. Other parts of the PRO-Act would, as the Biden NLRB is already doing, block employees from voting out unwanted unions that a majority of workers oppose.

Because of his support for the PRO-Act, union officials overwhelmingly supported Biden in 2020, even as his policies directly put their members’ jobs at risk. One of Biden’s first actions in office was an executive order cancelling the Keystone Pipeline and therefore eliminating thousands of union jobs. His support for a forced transition to electric vehicles means slashed hours for autoworkers who were previously building traditional gas-powered vehicles, a root cause of the ongoing UAW strike.

Example after example shows that unions and employees have starkly different priorities. Unions that seek to represent workers should have to do so by voluntary means, not by undermining workers’ freedoms as they currently do.

Supporting workers, not union bosses, means opposing coercive power grabs like those in the PRO-Act and supporting Right to Work laws that simply trust workers to choose for themselves.

It might not generate union PAC contributions, but politicians who want to court workers’ votes would do well to support their actual priorities, rather than granting union bosses even more coercive powers.

Mark Mix is president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.

Neither Party Will Save Workers. Only Unions Can—the Power of the People

Fox News
-
0
Neither Party Will Save Workers. Only Unions Can—the Power of the People

President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump, the current frontrunners of the 2024 presidential race, held competing events with auto workers this week: President Biden joined striking members of the UAW on the picket line on Tuesday, while President Trump addressed nonunion auto workers in Detroit on Wednesday. These dueling events provided a glimpse into a fierce competition brewing between Democrats and Republicans for the votes of union and union-adjacent voters—which is not surprising, given that recent polling clearly indicates that the majority of the American people support unions. When it comes to the current ongoing labor battle between the UAW and the auto companies, a Gallup poll found three in four Americans siding with the auto workers.

Yet the political competition to gain the support of workers amounts to little beyond gamesmanship by the two political parties, a superficial show that may not yield any material gains for working-class people. Those gains should they see any will be the direct result of their own actions challenging the corporations that their labor helped make profitable and demanding that their contributions are reflected in better wages, work conditions and benefits.

In other words, the political spectacle of Democrats and Republicans fighting for the working-class vote will not yield anything tangible for workers fighting for their livelihoods. Only the power of the workers themselves—the power of the people through organized labor and action—will save the future of the American working class.

No doubt, the GOP is trying for a rebrand on this front. Republicans have traditionally scorned unions—a disdain which was on full display during the second GOP presidential debate, which took place at the same time as Trump’s address. The candidates on the stage tried to cast themselves as supporters of workers and haters of union bosses.

It was farcical, the level of cognitive dissonance stunning: How in the hell can you call yourself “for workers” and at the same time not see that the combination of factors that delivered us to this land of the lost? How can you posture as pro-worker and not condemn the things Republicans would never call out, like corporate greed, or the faulty public policy pushed by a corporatist agenda that created the current conditions in the first place?

Yet Democrats, too, have become corporatized, failing in their stated mission to be the beacons of light for the working class. Decades of trade deals like NAFTA and CAFTA have helped to erode most of the foundational heft of the middle class.

As we move beyond spectacle (I hope!) to substance, the real lesson of this week’s competing political photo ops with workers is not so much about the future of the Democrats or Republicans, of Biden or Trump. It is about the future of unions. And the future of unions is indelibly linked to the future of all working people.

During this moment of “Solidarity Summer,” the UAW is making it known that they will not continue to stand idly by while their members and other working class people are crushed by the weight of corporate greed and political indifference.

Last Friday, I had the opportunity to talk to UAW Local 573 members at the Streetsboro, Ohio parts plant as they walked off the job and onto the picket line. As the cacophony of workers from all backgrounds chanted, lifted picket signs, and steadied themselves for this fight, it was clear that they had a deep understanding of the assignment. My conversation with Mike Kalman, the president of Local 573, illuminated why they fight and what is at stake. “As we go, the middle class gets lifted,” he told me. “We are not asking for millionaire pay; we are asking for our fair share.”

There it is.

I suspect that “Solidarity Summer” will morph into the other seasons as the house of labor refuses to accept the status quo and battles for the economic viability of working people. In their own way, they are working to secure a human rights economy and that is worth fighting for.

The Honorable Nina Turner is a former Ohio State Senator. In 2016 and 2020, she served as a national surrogate and national co-chair for Senator Bernie Sanders presidential campaigns. Currently, she is a Senior Fellow at The Institute on Race, Power and Political Economy at the New School. She is a contributor to the highly anticipated anthology, Wake Up: Black Women and the Future of Democracy due for release in 2024.

The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.

Housing market is least affordable this century

Fox News
-
0
Housing market is least affordable this century

Pending home sales plummeted in August, according to the National Association of Realtors (NAR), another indication that the housing market continued to suffer under the weight of high borrowing costs as mortgage lending rates hit the highest levels since the beginning of the century.

The data from NAR which gives insights into would-be home sales based on contract signings showed that it fell 7.1 percent last month and nearly 19 percent from a year ago. The data comes as the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, the most popular house loan, hit above 7.3 percent, a two-decade high.

The elevated rates are crowding out potential home buyers as they are scared away by the potentially expensive monthly payments they will have to make due to the exorbitant rates.

“Mortgage rates have been rising above 7% since August, which has diminished the pool of home buyers,” Lawrence Yun, NAR’s chief economist, said in a statement Thursday. “Some would-be home buyers are taking a pause and readjusting their expectations about the location and type of home to better fit their budgets.”

The current housing market is different from what it was at the start of the century, according to mortgage lender Freddie Mac, as it is accompanied by rising house prices.

“These headwinds are causing both buyers and sellers to hold out for better circumstances,” the lender said.

Part of the reason prices have jumped is due to the low availability of homes for sale. Construction of new homes has declined while sellers of previously owned homes are holding back as they are reluctant to do away with properties that they may have acquired during an environment of low rates.

“It’s clear that increased housing inventory and better interest rates are essential to revive the housing market,” Yun said.

Mortgage rates have soared as the Federal Reserve hiked rates to a two-decade high of the current level of 5.25 to 5.5 percent to battle inflation. Policymakers from the central bank have also indicated that they may raise rates at least one more time this year and keep them elevated for a while.

NAR suggested that the Fed may need to take a pause in its rate moves, especially as the policy environment may hit the rental market too.

“The Federal Reserve must consider the sharply decelerating rent growth in its consideration of future monetary policy. There is no need to raise interest rates,” Yun said.

The souring interest in home buying was felt across the country, the NAR said. Sales in pending homes fell in all four U.S. regions in August from last month and also compared to one year ago.

Another dynamic that may affect home sales is the impending shutdown of the government that may come as the Republican-led House of Representatives has struggled to move forward with spending bills that will keep federal agencies open beyond the September 30 deadline.

“Moreover, the government shutdown will disrupt some home sales in the short run due to the lack of flood insurance or delays in government-backed mortgage issuance,” NAR’s Yun said.

The Second Republican Debate Is a Total Farce

Fox News
-
0
The Second Republican Debate Is a Total Farce

On Wednesday night, seven people who won’t be the Republican Party’s nominee will gather to discuss what they plan to do if they become president, which they won’t. As soon as former President Donald Trump announced he was running again and decided to skip these debates, he turned them into a meaningless sideshow—fodder for news shows and op-ed columnists that will have little to no bearing on the shape of the 2024 election.

The vibe of the GOP debates so far is like a company that makes a big, public production out of holding a national search for an important executive position, even though everyone knows perfectly well there is an inside candidate who will get the job unless a dead body turns up in the trunk of their car. Lots of people waste time and energy applying for the gig, much jet fuel is burned flying them back and forth for interviews and ultimately that which was preordained does indeed come to pass.

Trump currently sports a 41.2-point lead in the Five Thirty Eight average of Republican primary polls, a number that has only grown since the former president opened up a gigantic lead this spring on his chief rival for the nomination, the hapless Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. No defeated president or former major party nominee has ever tried seriously to get his or her party’s nomination again during the binding primary era that began in 1972, and so we are without precedent both for what Trump is trying to do as well as the unhappy task his rivals have taken on. But the early returns suggest that one-term ex-presidents—figures once consigned to a pit of shame and informally banished from party power—will be a hard target.

That’s especially true because Trump, the inside candidate, the man considered by his millions of ardent, mind-wiped supporters to be the de facto incumbent who was robbed of the presidency by lying, big city Democrats, isn’t actually attending these debates. During the first debate in August, former Fox News propagandist Tucker Carlson aired a bizarre, pre-taped interview with Trump during which they discussed what really happened to Jeffrey Epstein among other burning issues.

This time, 45 will be in Detroit wooing striking auto workers, which you would think might be awkward since Trump recently said that “auto workers are being sold down the river by their leadership” and appointed three Lochner-era enthusiasts to the Supreme Court who further gutted what is left of labor rights in America. But thinking anything Trump says or does matters to the people who worship him is silly—he could personally bludgeon a striking worker to death on a picket line and three hours later Fox News would be talking about how he struck a blow against globalist elites.

But the Republican National Committee has decided that the show must go on, with or without the overwhelming frontrunner. To what end? None, since all the rival Republican candidates have been strong-armed into signing a pledge to support the eventual nominee, even though the likely nominee is going to be Trump, who has signed no such pledge and has about as much loyalty to the party as he does to some greasy spoon that hands him a punch card to rack up free burgers. Last month, they tied themselves in knots talking about what should be the extremely straightforward issue of Trump and his role in the post-2020 effort to dismantle American electoral democracy because all of them, except former New Jersey Chris Christie, are trying simultaneously to run for the nomination against Trump and also preserve their ability to serve in some capacity as his lap dog after the 2024 restoration.

This all might make for interesting psychodrama, but it isn’t a reason for anyone who isn’t an op-ed columnist or who has literally anything else on their dance card to tune in and watch. Why should we care what North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum has to say about anything? Of what consequence are Tim Scott‘s improvised thoughts about how to tackle inflation? Why should voters waste two hours of their lives listening to a bunch of future also-rans yap at each other as the elephant in the room stomps all over them?

The party’s voters have all but made up their minds, and they can’t be reached. They have hit the Do Not Disturb button and are letting democracy’s frantic calls go straight to voicemail. Pleas from Never Trumpers are labeled Spam Risks. These voters have seen everything that Trump has wrought, and they want it again, now please.

The rest of the field should probably just gather up whatever dignity they have left and get on with their lives. That they refuse to do so and instead plan to show up on national television tonight pretending that any of them have a chance to become the Republican nominee is no reason for you to indulge them in their fantasies.

David Faris is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Roosevelt University and the author of It’s Time to Fight Dirty: How Democrats Can Build a Lasting Majority in American Politics. His writing has appeared in The Week, The Washington Post, The New Republic, Washington Monthly and more. You can find him on Twitter @davidmfaris.

The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.

John Fetterman compares indicted Democratic colleague to Tony Soprano

Fox News
-
0
John Fetterman compares indicted Democratic colleague to Tony Soprano

Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania called for the resignation of Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey, while comparing his Democratic colleague to the notorious fictional mob boss Tony Soprano.

Menendez was indicted on federal corruption charges last week, with court documents revealing that the senator kept hidden at his residence large amounts of cash and gold bars that were allegedly obtained from bribes. Menendez has remained defiant, denying any wrongdoing and declaring that he is “not going anywhere.”

While Fetterman is one of several high-profile Democrats who have called for Menendez to step down after his indictment became public, he was the first Democratic Senate colleague of Menendez to call for his resignation.

During an MSNBC appearance on Tuesday night, Fetterman compared Menendez to the criminal protagonist of the legendary HBO series The Sopranos, saying that the evidence against him was “so clear.”

“Honestly, I was actually surprised that I was the first one [to call for his resignation],” said Fetterman. “I mean, it’s so black and white. I mean, it’s so clear. The last time there’s ever been a man with so much cash in their home in New Jersey was, uh, Tony Soprano … I mean, it’s not a close call.”

“If you were looking for the most incriminating kinds of evidence, nobody could even come up with gold bars in a mattress,” he continued. “He’s entitled to have his day in court, but he is not entitled to remain in the Senate. And he needs to go.”

Fetterman went on to say that his resignation call was about “the integrity” of the Senate. He said that he believes New Jersey “is a safe blue seat” and that Democratic Governor Phil Murphy, who has also called for Menendez to resign, was ready to appoint his replacement.

Newsweek reached out for comment to the office of Menendez via email on Tuesday night.

Menendez has faced allegations of corruption for many years, having been indicted on conspiracy and bribery-related charges in 2015. Charges against Menendez were dropped after his trial ended in a hung jury in 2017.

Appearing at a press conference on Monday, Menendez maintained that he was not guilty of the charges in the new indictment and predicted that he would be “exonerated” and remain in office “when all the facts are presented.”

In response to Menendez claiming during the press conference that the $480,000 in cash that federal authorities say they found stashed at his home was “for emergencies,” Fetterman quipped that, “We have an extra flashlight for our home emergencies,” in a post on X, formerly Twitter.

In the days since Fetterman urged Menendez to resign, he has been joined by at least nine other Democrats serving in the Senate, including Menendez’s fellow senator from New Jersey, Cory Booker.

“Senator Menendez fiercely asserts his innocence and it is therefore understandable that he believes stepping down is patently unfair,” Booker said in a statement on Tuesday. “But I believe this is a mistake … I believe stepping down is best for those Senator Menendez has spent his life serving.”

Tucker Carlson challenges Fox GOP debate, Trump speech

Fox News
-
0
Tucker Carlson challenges Fox GOP debate, Trump speech

Ex-Fox News host Tucker Carlson is again going head-to-head with his old network by releasing an online interview at the same time that a Republican presidential primary debate airs.

The second GOP debate for the 2024 election cycle, moderated by Fox Business host Stuart Varney, is set to air on Fox Business and Fox News on Wednesday night. The debate will once again take place without former President Donald Trump, who refused to participate and is expected to deliver a speech to blue-collar workers in Michigan around the same time.

Carlson released an interview with Trump on X, formerly Twitter, at roughly the same time that the first Republican primary debate took place last month. He is expected to release another online interview amid Wednesday’s debate and Trump’s speech, this time with fellow former Fox News host Bill O’Reilly.

The O’Reilly interview is set to be shared by Carlson on X at 8:30 p.m. ET, while the GOP debate will begin at 9:00 p.m. The timing of the Trump speech is less clear, with a live stream set to begin at 8:00 p.m. but the former president himself telling supporters on Truth Social to watch him at 8:15 p.m.

“When people are done watching President Trump’s speech that starts at 8:00pm, they can switch over to Tucker at 8:30,” Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung said in an email to Newsweek.

A teaser for Carlson’s interview was shared to X earlier on Wednesday. It shows Carlson, who was fired from Fox at the height of his popularity earlier this year, asking O’Reilly about his own experiences of being dismissed by the network. O’Reilly was Fox’s top opinion host when he was terminated in 2017 amid a sexual harassment scandal.

The preview clip shows Carlson asking O’Reilly how he kept himself from “getting bitter,” with O’Reilly answering with a chuckle: “I’m just bitter about everything anyway. So, how much more bitter can I get?” At another point, O’Reilly maintains that there is “an active evil” that “probably runs the television industry.”

Other moments appear to show the pundits waxing on conspiracy theories, with O’Reilly suggesting that Carlson could “know too much.” O’Reilly suggests that the “American people know the fix is in” after being asked if he expects to write “Killing Trump“ one day, referring to O’Reilly’s series of books about assassinations.

Newsweek reached out for comment to Fox News via email on Wednesday.

Shortly after Fox canceled The O’Reilly Factor in April 2017, Tucker Carlson Tonight took the same time slot and went on to become similarly influential among conservatives and successful in the ratings.

Jesse Watters Primetime began airing at the same time within weeks of Carlson being dismissed this April. While Watters’ show has yet to become as successful as Carlson’s, ratings for the program have been increasing in the months since it took the time slot.

Mark Milley says he’s taken "precautions" after Trump suggested execution

Fox News
-
0
Mark Milley says he’s taken "precautions" after Trump suggested execution

General Mark Milley has responded to former President Donald Trump‘s suggestion that he would have been executed “in times gone by,” revealing that he has taken “safety precautions” to protect himself and his family.

In a Truth Social post last week, Trump denounced the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman as a “woke train wreck” and said that his retirement on October 1 would “be a time for all citizens of the USA to celebrate.” The former president then suggested that reports claiming Milley called his Chinese counterpart in 2020 and promised to warn China of an impending attack meant that the general was guilty of a “treasonous act.”

“This guy turned out to be a Woke train wreck who, if the Fake News reporting is correct, was actually dealing with China to give them a heads up on the thinking of the President of the United States,” Trump wrote. “This is an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH!”

Milley responded to the comment in an interview with CBS News anchor Norah O’Donnell, which is set to air on 60 Minutes on Sunday. Trump’s execution remark, which some have suggested amounted to a “marching order” to the former president’s supporters, was addressed in a preview clip posted to X, formerly Twitter, on Wednesday.

“That’s right, he said that, that’s correct,” Milley said after O’Donnell read Trump’s death penalty suggestion aloud. “I’m a soldier, I’ve been faithful and loyal to the Constitution of the United States for 44 1/2 years….You know, as much as these comments are directed at me, it’s also directed at the institution of the military.”

“Every single one of us, from private to general, are loyal to the Constitution, and we will never turn our back on it,” he continued. “No matter what the threats…I’m not going to comment directly on those things, but I can tell you that this military, this soldier—me—will never turn my back on the Constitution.”

In response to a question about whether “anything” about his phone calls to China was “inappropriate or treasonous,” Milley responded, “absolutely not.” O’Donnell then asked the general whether he was “worried about” his safety following Trump’s execution suggestion.

“I’ve got adequate safety precautions,” Milley replied. “I wish those comments had not been made, but they were. And we’ll take appropriate measures to ensure my safety and the safety of my family.”

Newsweek reached out for comment to Trump’s office via email on Wednesday night.

Milley was appointed to his current position as the nation’s highest-ranking military officer by Trump in 2019. The general’s relationship with the former president has significantly deteriorated since then, with Trump later dismissing Milley as a “nutjob.”

Just prior to suggesting Milley’s execution last week, outrage erupted over comments that Trump reportedly made to the general in 2019, which were published by The Atlantic one day earlier.

Trump purportedly admonished Milley for allowing a wounded war veteran to sing God Bless America during an event, telling him that “no one wants to see that, the wounded.”

Trump crosses 7 prominent names off his VP list

Fox News
-
0
Trump crosses 7 prominent names off his VP list

Former President Donald Trump has just ruled out selecting at least seven prominent Republicans as his 2024 presidential election running mate.

While delivering a speech at a non-union auto parts manufacturing company in Michigan on Wednesday, the former president suggested that all seven candidates taking part in the second GOP presidential primary debate at the same time would not be on his list of potential vice presidents.

“It’s all over television, this speech,” Trump said. “You know, we’re competing with the job candidates? They’re all running for a job. No, they’re all job candidates. They want to be in the…they’ll do anything. Secretary of something, they even say VP.

“I don’t know, does anybody see any VP in the group?” he continued. “I don’t think so.”

When asked whether the remarks meant that the debate participants had been dropped from running-mate consideration, Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung confirmed to Newsweek that all seven candidates had been ruled out, saying in an email, “President Trump was crystal clear.”

The candidates that took part in the debate were Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, former Vice President Mike Pence, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, businessman Vivek Ramaswamy, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina and North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum.

Trump refused to take part in the GOP presidential debate for a second time on Wednesday, with the frontrunner having also rejected making an appearance at the first debate last month.

Political observers have viewed at least some of the pro-Trump candidates who took part in Wednesday’s debate, such as Ramaswamy, as effectively “auditioning” to be considered as a running mate to the ex-president.

The former president had previously indicated that he would be considering other 2024 candidates as potential running mates, saying in a post to Truth Social weeks before the first debate that he would “let them debate” to see who he “MIGHT consider for Vice President.”

Trump had already ruled out Pence from consideration before even officially declaring his own candidacy, saying last year that the former VP “committed political suicide” by refusing to endorse his false claims of a “stolen” 2020 presidential election and failing to block the certification of President Joe Biden‘s victory in Congress on January 6, 2021.

Potential running mates for Trump who have not been publicly ruled out include former Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake, North Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Congressman Byron Donalds of Florida.

Meanwhile, polls indicate that the prospect of any of Trump’s rivals catching him to become the nominee for the top job may be very slim. As of Wednesday, an average of polls from RealClearPolitics shows Trump leading the GOP field by over 42 points.

Update 9/27/23 10:30 p.m. ET: This article was updated with additional information.

1...83848586Page 84 of 86

EDITOR PICKS

POPULAR POSTS

POPULAR CATEGORY