Pelosi: Impeachment Is Moving Forward

[Loren Pechtel]

Which can easily be done by simply putting perfectly reasonable caps on compensation differentials. I noted this on another forum, but if Jeff Bezos gave every single one of Amazon's 750,000-odd employees a $10,000 monthly raise, he would STILL earn something like $500,000,000 every month.

It's already been discussed on here--outsourcing. Your approach doesn't work.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I had seen some data many years ago that compared income disparity in the US vs other industrialized countries and I think that I recall that it was Japan where the income of the CEO of a company like Toyota or Canon was no were near the orders of magnitude difference in the US. I don't know if it's laws or culture or both.

Most of the difference disappears if you consider company size. We have more bigger companies, CEO pay goes as the company size, not as the top x companies.

 

[Gun Nut]

Which can easily be done by simply putting perfectly reasonable caps on compensation differentials. I noted this on another forum, but if Jeff Bezos gave every single one of Amazon's 750,000-odd employees a $10,000 monthly raise, he would STILL earn something like $500,000,000 every month.

I have no problem with someone making a LOT of money off of their intelligence, strategy, genius, hard work; whatever you want to call it--and I have reservations about how to best value someone else's contribution to that overrall effort, such as an assistant or junior analyst, etc--but reasonableness should be something we can all agree on and it seems to me that $500M per month is way beyond merely reasonable, so what could his objection possibly be?

It goes beyond good citizenship--a deliberately forgotten/obscured concept (primarily by Republicans) so that only the first two acts of Wall Street are emulated, never the third--and into (arguably) criminally unethical behavior.

But, how to regulate it, as always, becomes the issue since greedy cocksuckers like Bezos evidently won't do it voluntarily.

I tend to think the simplest and easiest way is a more progressive income tax. It's already been done so there's no constitutional barriers to negotiate. But yeah, it's ludicrous to rely on the good will of a charitible heart. I don't go that far in trusting any economic class, let alone the titans of business. Fortunately that's what we have governments for. Doing what's good for the country despite the basic instinct to look out for number one.

I agree.. "earning" a billion dollars a year in income should be taxed at like 90%.. and earning less than 50k should be pretty close to 0.

 

[Treedbear]

...
I agree.. "earning" a billion dollars a year in income should be taxed at like 90%.. and earning less than 50k should be pretty close to 0.

And that 90% only applies to the marginal amount over 1 billion (or whatever), not to every cent of income. People I know who are just scraping by often think taxing the super rich at even 75% is just unfair. But they don't realize that everything below that level is at the lower rate. It's only the crazy amount of income over one billion (or whatever) that gets taxed at the crazy rate. They worry about fairness but don't realize that having that kind of wealth is an insane advantage.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Which can easily be done by simply putting perfectly reasonable caps on compensation differentials. I noted this on another forum, but if Jeff Bezos gave every single one of Amazon's 750,000-odd employees a $10,000 monthly raise, he would STILL earn something like $500,000,000 every month.

I have no problem with someone making a LOT of money off of their intelligence, strategy, genius, hard work; whatever you want to call it--and I have reservations about how to best value someone else's contribution to that overrall effort, such as an assistant or junior analyst, etc--but reasonableness should be something we can all agree on and it seems to me that $500M per month is way beyond merely reasonable, so what could his objection possibly be?

It goes beyond good citizenship--a deliberately forgotten/obscured concept (primarily by Republicans) so that only the first two acts of Wall Street are emulated, never the third--and into (arguably) criminally unethical behavior.

But, how to regulate it, as always, becomes the issue since greedy cocksuckers like Bezos evidently won't do it voluntarily.

We've got no one to blame but Amazon Prime members. *101 million members times $119 a year and IMHO it's almost pure profit for the company. Consider too, if Buster Bezos actually gave the raise you mention, it might crimp his plans to send the well-heeled on quarter million dollar space jaunts. We can't have that now can we?




*I may be the lone holdout.

 

[angelo]

I think the idea that someone is suggesting Nancy Pelosi or 98% of the Democrats elected in Congress are socialists is quite funny... actually hilarious.

The sharp turn to the left began long before, but accelerated under the Obuma administration and is adopted by most Democrat wannabees in 2020.

 

[KeepTalking]

Which can easily be done by simply putting perfectly reasonable caps on compensation differentials. I noted this on another forum, but if Jeff Bezos gave every single one of Amazon's 750,000-odd employees a $10,000 monthly raise, he would STILL earn something like $500,000,000 every month.

I have no problem with someone making a LOT of money off of their intelligence, strategy, genius, hard work; whatever you want to call it--and I have reservations about how to best value someone else's contribution to that overrall effort, such as an assistant or junior analyst, etc--but reasonableness should be something we can all agree on and it seems to me that $500M per month is way beyond merely reasonable, so what could his objection possibly be?

It goes beyond good citizenship--a deliberately forgotten/obscured concept (primarily by Republicans) so that only the first two acts of Wall Street are emulated, never the third--and into (arguably) criminally unethical behavior.

But, how to regulate it, as always, becomes the issue since greedy cocksuckers like Bezos evidently won't do it voluntarily.

We've got no one to blame but Amazon Prime members. *101 million members times $119 a year and IMHO it's almost pure profit for the company. Consider too, if Buster Bezos actually gave the raise you mention, it might crimp his plans to send the well-heeled on quarter million dollar space jaunts. We can't have that now can we?




*I may be the lone holdout.

Why are you blaming me? Amazon Prime is a service that offers great value for me, even if you just count the media services that come along with it. Free 1-2 day shipping for Amazon purchases is just icing on the cake. I have no control over how much Bezos is paid, or how much he pays employees. That is why I vote for progressive candidates, so that maybe some day the government will do something about it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Which can easily be done by simply putting perfectly reasonable caps on compensation differentials. I noted this on another forum, but if Jeff Bezos gave every single one of Amazon's 750,000-odd employees a $10,000 monthly raise, he would STILL earn something like $500,000,000 every month.

I have no problem with someone making a LOT of money off of their intelligence, strategy, genius, hard work; whatever you want to call it--and I have reservations about how to best value someone else's contribution to that overrall effort, such as an assistant or junior analyst, etc--but reasonableness should be something we can all agree on and it seems to me that $500M per month is way beyond merely reasonable, so what could his objection possibly be?

It goes beyond good citizenship--a deliberately forgotten/obscured concept (primarily by Republicans) so that only the first two acts of Wall Street are emulated, never the third--and into (arguably) criminally unethical behavior.

But, how to regulate it, as always, becomes the issue since greedy cocksuckers like Bezos evidently won't do it voluntarily.

We've got no one to blame but Amazon Prime members. *101 million members times $119 a year and IMHO it's almost pure profit for the company. Consider too, if Buster Bezos actually gave the raise you mention, it might crimp his plans to send the well-heeled on quarter million dollar space jaunts. We can't have that now can we?




*I may be the lone holdout.

I thought the cloud servicing was the source of Amazon's profits. Amazon wasn't making huge amounts of money until that really got its footing.

Wait... why are we talking about Jeff Bezos in a thread about the impeachment?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Getting back on topic Pelosi said she is content to hold onto the articles of impeachment. If Mitch and friends want to do a dog and pony show it sounds like she will buy the popcorn.

This is good whether Trumpo is reelected or not.

 

[Treedbear]

... Wait... why are we talking about Jeff Bezos in a thread about the impeachment?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Getting back on topic Pelosi said she is content to hold onto the articles of impeachment. If Mitch and friends want to do a dog and pony show it sounds like she will buy the popcorn.

This is good whether Trumpo is reelected or not.

I think Pelosi played a good card, but McConnell played his "No Shame" Card, and appears to have indicated he has boxes full of them to play. Pelosi needs to send them through now... with a public conference where she quickly reviews those that should be witnesses and a short explanation as to why they should be witnesses. Get this stuff out there and it proves that she has a case that can be made and McConnell again will be the obstructionist covering up the crime.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Meanwhile:

"I have asked Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler to be prepared to bring to the Floor next week a resolution to appoint managers and transmit articles of impeachment to the Senate," Pelosi wrote in a letter to her caucus. "I will be consulting with you at our Tuesday House Democratic Caucus meeting on how we proceed further."

 

[Elixir]

Getting back on topic Pelosi said she is content to hold onto the articles of impeachment. If Mitch and friends want to do a dog and pony show it sounds like she will buy the popcorn.

This is good whether Trumpo is reelected or not.

I think Pelosi played a good card, but McConnell played his "No Shame" Card, and appears to have indicated he has boxes full of them to play. Pelosi needs to send them through now... with a public conference where she quickly reviews those that should be witnesses and a short explanation as to why they should be witnesses. Get this stuff out there and it proves that she has a case that can be made and McConnell again will be the obstructionist covering up the crime.

I still think it's a mistake. No matter what she "makes apparent" to the public today, the public will dutifully forget it entirely by the following week. She's giving Moscow Mitch the last word. That last word is what the public will remember and Cheato will make sure of it, repeating the exoneration mantra, hoax proven, democrat corruption etc. all the way to November. By late summer nobody will even remember that he IS an impeached president.

We would all be better off if she held out for a fair trial or until the week of, or after the election.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Getting back on topic Pelosi said she is content to hold onto the articles of impeachment. If Mitch and friends want to do a dog and pony show it sounds like she will buy the popcorn.

This is good whether Trumpo is reelected or not.

I think Pelosi played a good card, but McConnell played his "No Shame" Card, and appears to have indicated he has boxes full of them to play. Pelosi needs to send them through now... with a public conference where she quickly reviews those that should be witnesses and a short explanation as to why they should be witnesses. Get this stuff out there and it proves that she has a case that can be made and McConnell again will be the obstructionist covering up the crime.

I still think it's a mistake. No matter what she "makes apparent" to the public today, the public will dutifully forget it entirely by the following week. She's giving Moscow Mitch the last word. That last word is what the public will remember and Cheato will make sure of it, repeating the exoneration mantra, hoax proven, democrat corruption etc. all the way to November. By late summer nobody will even remember that he IS an impeached president.

We would all be better off if she held out for a fair trial or until the week of, or after the election.

You've got to admit that she is dragging this thing through the light of day for all that it may be worth. She seems to realize she doesn't have any other option but to let the public debate continue in hopes it persuades enough people that there is real scumbaggery here.

Certainly it would be easier for her to just fold, essentially admit defeat, to get on with politics as usual, she has nothing more to gain personally, unlike Trumpo.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Well, so now we know Bolton will actually be telling the truth: John Bolton impeachment testimony will be blocked, Donald Trump says.

 

[Patooka]

Well, so now we know Bolton will actually be telling the truth: John Bolton impeachment testimony will be blocked, Donald Trump says.

From the article:

But he went on to say “there are things that you can’t do from the standpoint of executive privilege”.

“Especially a national security adviser,” Trump added. “You can’t have him explaining all of your statements about national security concerning Russia, China and North Korea, everything. You just can’t do that.”

What the fuck does that mean? It appears to me that Trump thinks it's unfair that people hold him accountable for what he says and does. It will be entertaining to watch the Trumpistas try and rationalize this away.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Getting back on topic Pelosi said she is content to hold onto the articles of impeachment. If Mitch and friends want to do a dog and pony show it sounds like she will buy the popcorn.

This is good whether Trumpo is reelected or not.

I think Pelosi played a good card, but McConnell played his "No Shame" Card, and appears to have indicated he has boxes full of them to play. Pelosi needs to send them through now... with a public conference where she quickly reviews those that should be witnesses and a short explanation as to why they should be witnesses. Get this stuff out there and it proves that she has a case that can be made and McConnell again will be the obstructionist covering up the crime.

I still think it's a mistake. No matter what she "makes apparent" to the public today, the public will dutifully forget it entirely by the following week. She's giving Moscow Mitch the last word. That last word is what the public will remember and Cheato will make sure of it, repeating the exoneration mantra, hoax proven, democrat corruption etc. all the way to November. By late summer nobody will even remember that he IS an impeached president.

We would all be better off if she held out for a fair trial or until the week of, or after the election.

I'm an old fuck, I remember Watergate. It was nothing until it became something, at which point the general conscientious congealed around the fact that something was amiss, that there was a problem, that someone had abused their power, and so Nixon was a fucked duck.

 

[Elixir]

I'm an old fuck, I remember Watergate. It was nothing until it became something, at which point the general conscientious congealed around the fact that something was amiss, that there was a problem, that someone had abused their power, and so Nixon was a fucked duck.

I remember it well myself. Conditions are very dissimilar in significant ways. Tapes were God. Today they're Fake News. And that's just one thing...
I will celebrate if the situation resolves in the manner you recall, but I don't expect it.

 

[TV and credit cards]

I still think it's a mistake. No matter what she "makes apparent" to the public today, the public will dutifully forget it entirely by the following week. She's giving Moscow Mitch the last word. That last word is what the public will remember and Cheato will make sure of it, repeating the exoneration mantra, hoax proven, democrat corruption etc. all the way to November. By late summer nobody will even remember that he IS an impeached president.

We would all be better off if she held out for a fair trial or until the week of, or after the election.

I'm an old fuck, I remember Watergate. It was nothing until it became something, at which point the general conscientious congealed around the fact that something was amiss, that there was a problem, that someone had abused their power, and so Nixon was a fucked duck.

But it's one offensive act after another with Trump. There's a numbing effect. I was too young during Watergate but was there this level of divisiveness, in the political body and the public? It feels like right and wrong has given way to us and them. Can it ever become "something" when the only concern is winning?

I think Pelosi should publicly state if we are not going to be assured a trial with all the evidence presented, the heck with it. Let Trump wear the House impeachment for the remainder of his days. It's better than an acquittal from a kangaroo court. His offenses are impeachable with the evidence thus far and we have maybe, maybe enough senators to avoid an immediate acquittal. We're just looking for all the evidence to see the light of day knowing full well the Senate still won't remove him from office and we can't even get that! F*#%'um. Let the history books write it as is with the evidence presented thus far. There will be more out in later years. It's better than having an acquittal in the history books.

Let Lindsey try and force a trial without Articles of Impeachment. See how long that floats.

 

[angelo]

Which can easily be done by simply putting perfectly reasonable caps on compensation differentials. I noted this on another forum, but if Jeff Bezos gave every single one of Amazon's 750,000-odd employees a $10,000 monthly raise, he would STILL earn something like $500,000,000 every month.

I have no problem with someone making a LOT of money off of their intelligence, strategy, genius, hard work; whatever you want to call it--and I have reservations about how to best value someone else's contribution to that overrall effort, such as an assistant or junior analyst, etc--but reasonableness should be something we can all agree on and it seems to me that $500M per month is way beyond merely reasonable, so what could his objection possibly be?

It goes beyond good citizenship--a deliberately forgotten/obscured concept (primarily by Republicans) so that only the first two acts of Wall Street are emulated, never the third--and into (arguably) criminally unethical behavior.

But, how to regulate it, as always, becomes the issue since greedy cocksuckers like Bezos evidently won't do it voluntarily.

I tend to think the simplest and easiest way is a more progressive income tax. It's already been done so there's no constitutional barriers to negotiate. But yeah, it's ludicrous to rely on the good will of a charitible heart. I don't go that far in trusting any economic class, let alone the titans of business. Fortunately that's what we have governments for. Doing what's good for the country despite the basic instinct to look out for number one.

I agree.. "earning" a billion dollars a year in income should be taxed at like 90%.. and earning less than 50k should be pretty close to 0.

Wouldn't that reduce incentive to zero?