2026 Mid-Term Elections

[Elixir]

Now, in the case of a lot of people, that's just an example (Trump's/Epstein's shared pedophilia and sexual escapades) of Trump being far worse than the horrible person we have believed him to be.

Actually he has proven to be precisely the entitled, self adoring, low IQ lying fucktard I judged him to be ca 1981 when he was calling radio stations, lying about being his own publicist, and praising himself in every way possible.
What surprises me to this day, is how slow most people are on the uptake. It’s not like the fucking idiot child ever hid his perversion, greed, dishonesty or stupidity.
The sad truth is that collectively, Americans are fucking stupid lovers of TRULY insufferable pricks.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Bullshit. What creates monopolies is allowing mergers that reduce competition and innovation.

Technically monopolies mean that there is no competition because there is only one player.

Note that some industries require an oligopoly because the requirements for capital investment make the existence too many independent players not feasible. Cars for example. Or aerospace.

If it is bad for media—and it is very bad indeed—it is bad for other businesses as well.

That's what antitrust laws are supposed to be about. But, again, healthy competition is not incompatible with existence of billionaires. Especially since a billion dollar is worth a lot less than even just 10 years ago. $1G today is worth about $728M in 2016.

Yes, when competitors merge or are all taken over by a single entity, they form a monopoly.

Antitrust laws should prevent monopolies. That does not seem to be the case re: Amazon who now wants to provide medical care in addition to selling you everything or media mergers/acquisitions, for a couple of examples.

No person or entity should ever control so much of the market that it is functionally a monopoly.

What's needed is the existing laws to be enforced.

Major players should not be allowed to merge except in situations where the alternative is one going under.

But that doesn't mean you won't have monopolies. Apple is the sole producer of the iPhone. They didn't gobble up anyone to get there. And while Amazon has gobbled up a lot that's not how they got where they are. Rather, they are in a field that rewards the largest. They have warehouses all over the place, driving down shipping costs because most things come from nearby. Nobody not of their size can do this. Amazon's gobbling is due to the tax code. If Amazon made a profit they would pay tax on it--but money spent buying up other companies isn't considered to be profit. Thus Amazon spends as much of it's profit as possible buying up suppliers. The only acquisition I'm aware of that was remotely similar is Woot!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

At least I do not see any reason to think that. Do you?

Well, he spent $500M to buy a yacht recently (plus $75M to buy a tender for it), and $25M to $30M every year since to keep it up...

But you don't go down to Yachts-R-Us and buy a $500M yacht. That's clearly a custom item, no doubt paid for during construction and over a period of years.

 

[Toni]

Now, in the case of a lot of people, that's just an example (Trump's/Epstein's shared pedophilia and sexual escapades) of Trump being far worse than the horrible person we have believed him to be.

Actually he has proven to be precisely the entitled, self adoring, low IQ lying fucktard I judged him to be ca 1981 when he was calling radio stations, lying about being his own publicist, and praising himself in every way possible.
What surprises me to this day, is how slow most people are on the uptake. It’s not like the fucking idiot child ever hid his perversion, greed, dishonesty or stupidity.
The sad truth is that collectively, Americans are fucking stupid lovers of TRULY insufferable pricks.

See, this is how we differ: I absolutely knew and believed all of those things but never anticipated just how much worse this time around. I did not envision ICE as an occupying force in American cities, kidnapping the leader of a sovereign nation or attacking fishing boats in the Caribbean. Or DOGE.

To be very honest I think to the extent that his first administration was not a complete and total abrogation of every single American ideal was due to the fact that at least some of his advisors/Cabinet wanted to keep the wheels on the track. They —or some of them-actually loved America.

This bunch loves fascism, denigrating anyone who is not white and male and turning this country into some updated version of the Third Reich, complete with concentration camps. Also money. And themselves —but not each other

 

[Toni]

Bullshit. What creates monopolies is allowing mergers that reduce competition and innovation.

Technically monopolies mean that there is no competition because there is only one player.

Note that some industries require an oligopoly because the requirements for capital investment make the existence too many independent players not feasible. Cars for example. Or aerospace.

If it is bad for media—and it is very bad indeed—it is bad for other businesses as well.

That's what antitrust laws are supposed to be about. But, again, healthy competition is not incompatible with existence of billionaires. Especially since a billion dollar is worth a lot less than even just 10 years ago. $1G today is worth about $728M in 2016.

Yes, when competitors merge or are all taken over by a single entity, they form a monopoly.

Antitrust laws should prevent monopolies. That does not seem to be the case re: Amazon who now wants to provide medical care in addition to selling you everything or media mergers/acquisitions, for a couple of examples.

No person or entity should ever control so much of the market that it is functionally a monopoly.

What's needed is the existing laws to be enforced.

Major players should not be allowed to merge except in situations where the alternative is one going under.

But that doesn't mean you won't have monopolies. Apple is the sole producer of the iPhone. They didn't gobble up anyone to get there. And while Amazon has gobbled up a lot that's not how they got where they are. Rather, they are in a field that rewards the largest. They have warehouses all over the place, driving down shipping costs because most things come from nearby. Nobody not of their size can do this. Amazon's gobbling is due to the tax code. If Amazon made a profit they would pay tax on it--but money spent buying up other companies isn't considered to be profit. Thus Amazon spends as much of it's profit as possible buying up suppliers. The only acquisition I'm aware of that was remotely similar is Woot!

iPhone isn’t the only option or the only feasible option, just as McDonalds isn’t the only fast food place to get a burger.

Amazon is definitely seeking to become monopoly, the sole provider of the necessities of life, including health care!

You are absolutely highlighting how and why Amazon is on its way to becoming as much of a monopoly of everything as possible.

I get that power and wealth can be seductive. They can become addictive, even.

That’s why we have laws and a tax code. This sort of accumulation of wealth and power needs to be curtailed. In no small part because it is extremely difficult to separate extreme wealth and power.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, I understand the value of management. But you are undervaluing the value of labor. I’m not suggesting that there should be no profits but profits that generate obscene wealth without any actual restraints on the ultra wealthy are wrong. Example: Epstein’s island. But there are plenty of of others. It’s not good for the individual or society.

People are earning more because Covid made employers actually deal with the fact that without labor, they had no business and also no customers.

People are earning more because Covid removed some workers. It's the balance between supply and demand.

I’ve says before and I’ll say again: the place I live is small enough that I know people at every strata of this society. I read a lot and I listen a lot. There are always jobs to fe found here—if you are willing to accept the pay and conditions. Employers here finally woke up to the necessity of paying labor. Guess what? There are still jobs to be found here. Not necessarily great or well paying jobs but for significantly more than minimum wage which was not true pre-COVID. I spent t a few years working for peanuts before deciding I could commute 100 miles a day because my kids were old enough to make their own dinner and do their homework. I immediately started earning almost $12/hr more than I ever earned in town plus good benefits and good working conditions and my annual raise was not $0.05/hr as it was in town. No, not exaggerating about that nickel an hour, sadly enough. And rich people are still rich. Well, one is dead now and a couple more are getting pretty old but still. Still plenty of poor people too but a more stable working class.

Because there's no need for local employers to offer more.

Your problem Loren is that you are doing well enough and you don’t like change and you absolutely love love love authority and see no reason that everyone couldn’t have things as good as you if only they had had the sense to be born male to well educated parents and with white skin and blonde hair and blue eyes.

I have no objection to change. It's just that I don't see tear down everything to be good.

The first test of any proposed system is does it work? If it doesn't work it doesn't matter how "good" it is. And you aren't applying this test.

 

[laughing dog]

The first test of any proposed system is does it work?

“Work” for whom?

If it doesn't work it doesn't matter how "good" it is. And you aren't applying this test.

Neither are you.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No. The government is supposed to serve people, not the other way around. Businesses are supposed to produce goods and services that are needed and wanted by people. People do not exist to serve businesses.

But you are treating it as if businesses exist to serve workers.

Instead of requiring loans/debt to attend university, universities should be more fully funded by the public. As they used to be. I graduated with zero debt. My husband had student loans that were $15.35/month. In today’s dollars, that’s still less than $90/month. We paid our kids’ tuition and on campus housing. Two attended private out of state schools and accrued modest student debt—until law school, unfortunately we needed to fund our retirement so that cost is theirs. Should be less than it was but they had a scholarship so it could have been way worse. I feel bad about that, though. But they weren’t 18 when they made that decision either. We did what we thought was our job to do. Not every parent t can do what we did and a lot won’t.

You both have a point.

I would like to see a lot more public funding of education--but it should be keyed to what is in demand. The public should not be funding degrees with little likelyhood of landing a position that needs such a degree.

 

[Toni]

No, I understand the value of management. But you are undervaluing the value of labor. I’m not suggesting that there should be no profits but profits that generate obscene wealth without any actual restraints on the ultra wealthy are wrong. Example: Epstein’s island. But there are plenty of of others. It’s not good for the individual or society.

People are earning more because Covid made employers actually deal with the fact that without labor, they had no business and also no customers.

People are earning more because Covid removed some workers. It's the balance between supply and demand.

I’ve says before and I’ll say again: the place I live is small enough that I know people at every strata of this society. I read a lot and I listen a lot. There are always jobs to fe found here—if you are willing to accept the pay and conditions. Employers here finally woke up to the necessity of paying labor. Guess what? There are still jobs to be found here. Not necessarily great or well paying jobs but for significantly more than minimum wage which was not true pre-COVID. I spent t a few years working for peanuts before deciding I could commute 100 miles a day because my kids were old enough to make their own dinner and do their homework. I immediately started earning almost $12/hr more than I ever earned in town plus good benefits and good working conditions and my annual raise was not $0.05/hr as it was in town. No, not exaggerating about that nickel an hour, sadly enough. And rich people are still rich. Well, one is dead now and a couple more are getting pretty old but still. Still plenty of poor people too but a more stable working class.

Because there's no need for local employers to offer more.

Your problem Loren is that you are doing well enough and you don’t like change and you absolutely love love love authority and see no reason that everyone couldn’t have things as good as you if only they had had the sense to be born male to well educated parents and with white skin and blonde hair and blue eyes.

I have no objection to change. It's just that I don't see tear down everything to be good.

The first test of any proposed system is does it work? If it doesn't work it doesn't matter how "good" it is. And you aren't applying this test.

If by no need to offer more that employers were not compelled to offer more by a shift in power of labor vs management, true.

But the absolute fact is that by under compensating employees in terms of wages and benefits and working conditions, the whole town paid. We paid more for extra help in schools for kids whose parents ts were not able to help them or even to keep them fed decently, whose families struggled under the weight of substance abuse and neglected health. We paid a lot more in city/county services who stepped in to try to ensure kids got care and food their parents ts struggled mightily to provide—and sometimes failed to be able to do. We paid more for special ed, policing, etc, all social services. Our home values were impacted negatively —which worked out just fine for the rich people who enjoyed the minimal taxes on their country homes, far from the neglected neighborhoods of their workers. They didn’t have to live with the consequences of their greed.

Now that they are paying their employees more—guess what? They are still AF.

 

[Toni]

No. The government is supposed to serve people, not the other way around. Businesses are supposed to produce goods and services that are needed and wanted by people. People do not exist to serve businesses.

But you are treating it as if businesses exist to serve workers.

Instead of requiring loans/debt to attend university, universities should be more fully funded by the public. As they used to be. I graduated with zero debt. My husband had student loans that were $15.35/month. In today’s dollars, that’s still less than $90/month. We paid our kids’ tuition and on campus housing. Two attended private out of state schools and accrued modest student debt—until law school, unfortunately we needed to fund our retirement so that cost is theirs. Should be less than it was but they had a scholarship so it could have been way worse. I feel bad about that, though. But they weren’t 18 when they made that decision either. We did what we thought was our job to do. Not every parent t can do what we did and a lot won’t.

You both have a point.

I would like to see a lot more public funding of education--but it should be keyed to what is in demand. The public should not be funding degrees with little likelyhood of landing a position that needs such a degree.

No: I am saying that businesses exist to provide goods and services to their customers. I wrote that directly in another post.

I’m saying that when businesses fail to compensate their employees with a living wage while the owners grow extremely wealthy, they are actually a drain on their community which must provide basics that the company’s wages will not provide for its workers.

I believe that people should treat each other fairly and with respect. Workers should give their best efforts and companies should provide the best goods/services they can for their market AND provide adequate wages and compensation. And everybody should pay taxes reflective of their earnings.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Google points to an X post citing stock sales of $15.7B in 2020-21 and $13.6B in 2023. The post appears to assume the entire amount was taxed as long-term gain.

Plenty of money to fund his yacht and other hobbies. So, no need to to borrow anything as part of "buy, borrow, die". Why do you then assume he did?

Because that’s how billionaires minimize taxes.

So they are guilty without proof.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And you still have no idea what's going on.

Nobody said they are being paid shares of stock.

That is the very essence of the argument being made, that the ceo class is being paid in stocks rather than 1040 taxable income. You are not this dense.

If that's your argument, go home.

Nobody's saying they are being paid in shares. That's entirely a figment of your misunderstanding.

And being paid in shares is a taxable event. The strategy you say they are using doesn't work.

What is actually happening is that they have shares from when they created the corporation.

 

[laughing dog]

Google points to an X post citing stock sales of $15.7B in 2020-21 and $13.6B in 2023. The post appears to assume the entire amount was taxed as long-term gain.

Plenty of money to fund his yacht and other hobbies. So, no need to to borrow anything as part of "buy, borrow, die". Why do you then assume he did?

Because that’s how billionaires minimize taxes.

So they are guilty without proof.

Are you tacitly arguing that the ultra rich do not try to minimize their taxes or ironically demanding proof?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This whole argument is based upon people being paid in stock shares so they don't have to pay income tax. I have no idea where you are coming from.

If you are paid in stock, you still have to pay tax on it. You are confusing unrealized gains on stock that you already own, vs. receiving stock as compensation.

There are ways to structure generous stock packages so that no tax is due at time of grant.

But you don't get to use the money without paying the tax.

 

[laughing dog]

This whole argument is based upon people being paid in stock shares so they don't have to pay income tax. I have no idea where you are coming from.

If you are paid in stock, you still have to pay tax on it. You are confusing unrealized gains on stock that you already own, vs. receiving stock as compensation.

There are ways to structure generous stock packages so that no tax is due at time of grant.

But you don't get to use the money without paying the tax.

Ever hear of the phrase "a tax deferred is a tax not paid"?

 

[Toni]

Google points to an X post citing stock sales of $15.7B in 2020-21 and $13.6B in 2023. The post appears to assume the entire amount was taxed as long-term gain.

Plenty of money to fund his yacht and other hobbies. So, no need to to borrow anything as part of "buy, borrow, die". Why do you then assume he did?

Because that’s how billionaires minimize taxes.

So they are guilty without proof.

No. This is a well known strategy that wealthy people do not try to hide. They hire expensive accountants and Stoney’s in order to help them minimize their tax burden.

I don’t fault them for seeking to minimize their tax liability. Most people do the same.

I am refusing to pretend that they don’t do this, that they do not directly or indecently lobby legislators and local governments ts to minimize their tax burden. Or that society does not pick up the tab.

But then I don’t worship ultra wealthy .

 

[Toni]

This whole argument is based upon people being paid in stock shares so they don't have to pay income tax. I have no idea where you are coming from.

If you are paid in stock, you still have to pay tax on it. You are confusing unrealized gains on stock that you already own, vs. receiving stock as compensation.

There are ways to structure generous stock packages so that no tax is due at time of grant.

But you don't get to use the money without paying the tax.

Ever hear of the phrase "a tax deferred is a tax not paid"?

Been hearing that for most of my life..

 

[jonatha]

But you don't get to use the money without paying the

You do if you don't sell the shares but instead borrow against them...

 

[Harry Bosch]

This whole argument is based upon people being paid in stock shares so they don't have to pay income tax. I have no idea where you are coming from.

If you are paid in stock, you still have to pay tax on it. You are confusing unrealized gains on stock that you already own, vs. receiving stock as compensation.

There are ways to structure generous stock packages so that no tax is due at time of grant.

But you don't get to use the money without paying the tax.

Ever hear of the phrase "a tax deferred is a tax not paid"?

Retired people with RMD's coming due sure wish this were true!

 

[thebeave]

This whole argument is based upon people being paid in stock shares so they don't have to pay income tax. I have no idea where you are coming from.

If you are paid in stock, you still have to pay tax on it. You are confusing unrealized gains on stock that you already own, vs. receiving stock as compensation.

There are ways to structure generous stock packages so that no tax is due at time of grant.

But you don't get to use the money without paying the tax.

Ever hear of the phrase "a tax deferred is a tax not paid"?

Retired people with RMD's coming due sure wish this were true!

Eh... taxes on RMDs are for suckers. Roth IRA all the way for me!