Bannons origin story doesnt add up

[riversedge]

Interesting.
And I agree. How would less regulation help him?



Bannon’s origin story doesn’t add up



?uuid=ZXyGIA2VEeebDdJ8mEVUQA
White House chief strategist Stephen Bannon. (Jim Bourg/Reuters)



By Richard Cohen Opinion writer March 20

It is a story oft-repeated and, at first, quite moving. It is the story of Marty Bannon, father of the White House chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, and how he lost much of his nest egg when the financial system cratered in 2008. He had worked for AT&T for 50 years, buying the stock when it was as safe as gold (only gold paid no dividend) and was now watching it go south at such an alarming rate that he decided to sell it. In a flash, the system turned on Marty and a lifetime of savings was gone. For his son Steve, it was an unforgettable lesson. It made him the revolutionary he is today.

The story reappeared last week in the Wall Street Journal. ....................

That day, that October day when Marty Bannon panicked and took Jim Cramer’s advice from the TV and sold his AT&T stock, was when Steve Bannon had an epiphany: “Everything since then has come from there,” he said.


This could be Sen. Bernie Sanders speaking. This could be the indignant writers of the 2015 movie “The Big Short,” which ended by noting that almost no one went to jail for the giant scam. I also think of New York City cab drivers, many of them immigrants, who leveraged themselves for three generations to buy a cab and now have had their investment gutted by Uber. This is the human cost of disruption, which, if you don’t happen to be poor and drive a cab, is supposedly a wonderful thing.
....................

At some point in the Steve Bannon story I started wondering:.........................

But Bannon’s “administrative state” boogeyman is not what flattened his father’s nest egg. It was not excessive regulation that fleeced his father or, for that matter, changed AT&T from Ma Bell into just another business behemoth. Go home, Steve. You need to think.

[PJMcK]

1. Very interesting article

Thanks for posting the excerpts, riversedge. Could you please post a link to the complete article? Thanks, in advance.

[Warpy]

2. He's no revolutionary, he's just a wrecking ball

because once he's been allowed to wreck everything, he has no clue what to build up in its place unless it's a big heap of rubble with himself standing on top of it.

I agree he needs to go home. He could use a delousing along with the shower, haircut, shave, and suit decontamination. However, there is no way a man like this can think. If he could, he'd blame Jim Cramer and his dad for being dumb enough to take Cramer's advice.

[tanyev]

3. Hasn't Bannon been a prominent right wing Ahole since long before 2008?

[More_Cowbell]

4. link

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bannons-origin-story-doesnt-add-up/2017/03/20/8f2ef9f8-0d90-11e7-9b0d-d27c98455440_story.html?utm_term=.507f61f4e557

[yellowcanine]

5. I don't believe this. If he worked for AT&T for 50 years and reinvested

the dividends from day one he not only would have had a lot of AT&T stock but also a lot of "baby bell" stock because AT&T stockholders got stock in all of the companies created when AT&T was broken up in 1982. Furthermore, one of the big attractions of AT&T for retirees is that it does not miss dividends. In fact, dividends generally increase and did increase yearly right through the financial meltdown in 2008. So holding even if the stock value goes down means your income from the stock remains the same and increases yearly and not only that, your dividends buy more stock at the lower price, so you would actually gain in the long run. I don't know what Jim Cramer advised in 2008 but I really doubt that he would have advised long term investors to sell - he might have advised traders to sell as the stock was going down. It doesn't make sense that someone who has been holding AT&T stock for 50 years to sell because of what Jim Cramer says. Also even if he did liquidate his AT&T stock it would not have meant that a "lifetime of savings was gone." AT&T stock dropped about 25%. For someone who had been steadily investing and reinvesting dividends for 50 years this would have been a hit but should not have been a huge crisis. And if it was it was mostly of his own making, as he could have consulted someone other than a TV stock adviser who very likely would have advised him to hold, given the fact that the income was still coming in and not likely to go away. I think there must be much more to this story.

[Ken Burch]

6. Bannon's dad lost his savings due to massive financial deregulation...

Therefore, Bannon seeks revenge by fighting for...massive financial deregulation?