A thread for Democrats Only
POSTED BY: THGRRI
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 15:36
VIEWED: 755368
PAGE 72 of 725
We need to make stock buybacks illegal, as they were before 1982.
http://prospect.org/article/buyback-boondoggle-beggaring-america
Republicans branded their corporate tax cut as a way to make American corporations more profitable so they’d invest in more and better jobs. But they’re buying back their stock instead. Now that the new corporate tax cut is pumping up profits, buybacks are on track to hit a record $800 billion this year.
For years, corporations have spent most of their profits on buying back their own shares of stock, instead of increasing the wages of their employees, whose hard work creates these profits.
Stock buybacks are artificial efforts to interfere in the so-called “free market” to prop up stock prices. Because they create an artificial demand, they force stock prices above their natural level. With fewer shares in circulation, each remaining share is worth more.
Buybacks don’t create more or better jobs. Money spent on buybacks isn’t invested in new equipment, or research and development, or factories, or wages. It doesn’t build a company. Buybacks don’t grow the American economy. So why are buybacks so popular with corporate CEOs?
Because a bigger and bigger portion of CEO pay has been in stocks and stock options, rather than cash. So when share prices go up, executives reap a bonanza. The value of their pay from previous years also rises—in what amounts to a retroactive (and off the books) pay increase on top of their already outrageous compensation.
Buybacks were illegal until Ronald Reagan made them legal in 1982, just about the same time wages stopped rising for most Americans. Before then, a bigger percentage of corporate profits went into increasing workers’ wages.
But since corporations were already using their profits for stock buybacks, there is no reason to believe they’ll use their tax windfall on anything other than more stock buybacks.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yesterday:
The American People Win as President Donald J. Trump’s Priorities are Funded
— Budget & Spending Issued on: March 22, 2018
www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/american-people-win-president-
donald-j-trumps-priorities-funded/
Today:
Trump threatens to veto omnibus bill because it does not address DACA recipients, fully fund border wall
www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2018/03/23/trump-threaten
s-to-veto-omnibus-bill-because-it-does-not-address-daca-recipients/?utm_term=.6aa1fe76a168
Trump is an idiot. The bill passed yesterday, needless to say, was the same bill as the day before and the day before that.
The good news, I suppose, is that this is probably nothing more than Trump’s love of drama. He wants Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan to call and beg him to sign the bill. They’ll sigh, make the call, and I suppose Trump will then sign it.
Yes, he signed. Trump laboriously read off all the various military toys that have been funded by this bill. Helicopters, ships, planes, tanks: you name it, Trump is going to build it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This is shocking, just shocking, I say.
Originally posted by second:
The partisan gender gap among millennials is staggeringly large
www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/22/17146534/millennial-gender-g
ap-partisan
Women born after 1980 favor Democrats 70-23.
Women are more Democratic than men, and younger voters are more Democratic than older ones. The former has been true for decades, and the latter is a trend that’s at least 10 or 15 years old. But a new Pew survey using a huge sample to allow for insight into demographic details shows that the intersection of these two trends is staggeringly large.
Among millennials, which Pew identifies as people born between 1981 and 1996, men lean toward Democrats by 8 percentage points — far and away a bigger tilt toward Democrats than older cohorts of men. But millennial women favor Democrats by a staggeringly large 70-23 margin.
That means that even as millennial men are the most Democratic-friendly cohort of men, the millennial gender gap is also by far the largest of any cohort. In the Silent Generation, women are 8 points more favorable to Democrats. Among boomers, it’s 10 points. Among Gen-Xers, it’s 11 points, and among millennials, it’s 21 points.
That’s driven by what seems to be an explosive change in millennial women’s political sentiments over just the past two or three years even while most other groups’ views have stayed relatively stable.
Young people are, of course, notoriously fickle midterm voters. So how much this shift in sentiment is translated into a shift in actual policy outcomes will hinge, critically, on whether this big bloc of younger women shows up in November. But it’s fair to say that while a certain amount of gender polarization is nothing new to the political system, the scale that we are now witnessing among younger people is unprecedented.
Rumor has it the Sun rises in the East, according to men. Still, the Americans who believe the Sun rises in any direction other than the East remain overwhelmingly female.
The youngest adults have always been, by definition, Liberals. The more mature, more educated, less gullible, more experienced, more senior, more wise, have always been, by definition, Conservatives. As the young indoctrinated gullibles become mature and wiser, they open their eyes and become Conservative.
Shocking news!
Does this mean that tomorrow the Sun will also rise in the East, at least for Conservative men? How can this be? Shirley that is an unfounded prediction! It's not like it has been a reliable occurance for generations, has it?
Only those who fail to follow or conceive history would be surprised. Oh, that's right, the target audience for that story IS the unthinking, the drones, the uncomprehending, which by definition are the Liberals and other Democraps.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
After many years of limited success against long-term homelessness, Finland decided to adopt the US 'Housing First' model on a national scale.
Houzing to solv the homeless problem? hqd u xunk?
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:Quote:
Originally posted by second:
After many years of limited success against long-term homelessness, Finland decided to adopt the US 'Housing First' model on a national scale.
Houzing to solv the homeless problem? hqd u xunk?
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
hqd u xunk?
Having a hard time reading that sentence, J0.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:A Republican would exclude it as a solution, insisting that if only the homeless person would do this or that thing, whatever the first thing pops into the Republican's head, the problem would go away.
Originally posted by JO753:Quote:
Originally posted by second:
After many years of limited success against long-term homelessness, Finland decided to adopt the US 'Housing First' model on a national scale.
Houzing to solv the homeless problem? hqd u xunk?
In Finland, they put a value on everyone and the penniless homeless are worth spending $$109,142 to build them a comfortable living space with a bathroom and a shared kitchen. The $109,000 is paid back to Finland in 6 years because Finnish government has reduced costs for police, courts, prison, social services, emergency room visits when the homeless have a permanent address.
Going in the opposite direction from Finland, in America, their bank account determines an American’s value. Since the homeless Americans don’t have money in the bank, they are not worth helping if it will cost $109,000.
Americans have been cruel to the homeless, even killing them, for centuries. Why change this tradition? Why buy the homeless a house? It can’t be done with taxes because Republicans would be upset by government helping the worthless homeless. Leave the homeless to the charities, not to the merciless local governments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States#Histor
ical_background
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Unkl Skam providez homez for the homeless who earn it by committing a felony.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
www.vox.com/2018/3/25/17162622/stormy-daniels-60-minutes-michael-avena
tti-abuse-power-bullying
Stormy Daniels: I was in a parking lot, going to a fitness class with my infant daughter. T-- taking, you know, the seats facing backwards in the backseat, diaper bag, you know, gettin’ all the stuff out. And a guy walked up on me and said to me, “Leave Trump alone. Forget the story.” And then he leaned around and looked at my daughter and said, “That’s a beautiful little girl. It’d be a shame if something happened to her mom.” And then he was gone.
Anderson Cooper: You took it as a direct threat?
Stormy Daniels: Absolutely.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:"Let’s look at the fact that there is an issue around how much we are paying — and again, this gets back to the economic cost — it costs us about $33,000 a year to lock somebody up. In California it costs about $75,000 a year," U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris said on July 18, 2017.
Originally posted by JO753:
Unkl Skam providez homez for the homeless who earn it by committing a felony.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/aug/09/kamala-harris/doe
s-it-cost-75k-year-lock-inmate-california/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You claim there is a savings due to the factor of "permanent address" - but that would not cause savings, and is not stated in the story.
Originally posted by second:Quote:A Republican would exclude it as a solution, insisting that if only the homeless person would do this or that thing, whatever the first thing pops into the Republican's head, the problem would go away.
Originally posted by JO753:Quote:Houzing to solv the homeless problem? hqd u xunk?
Originally posted by second:
After many years of limited success against long-term homelessness, Finland decided to adopt the US 'Housing First' model on a national scale.
In Finland, they put a value on everyone and the penniless homeless are worth spending $$109,142 to build them a comfortable living space with a bathroom and a shared kitchen. The $109,000 is paid back to Finland in 6 years because Finnish government has reduced costs for police, courts, prison, social services, emergency room visits when the homeless have a permanent address.
Going in the opposite direction from Finland, in America, their bank account determines an American’s value. Since the homeless Americans don’t have money in the bank, they are not worth helping if it will cost $109,000.
Americans have been cruel to the homeless, even killing them, for centuries. Why change this tradition? Why buy the homeless a house? It can’t be done with taxes because Republicans would be upset by government helping the worthless homeless. Leave the homeless to the charities, not to the merciless local governments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States#Histor
ical_background
From what I read, the savings comes from the centralized community, and the round-thr-clock care. The trained care negates the need for unnecessary emergency medical/police, and the whole group at the same address instead of dozens of dispersed locations, that seems to be where the saving lie.
Focusing on those elements, simulating a more independent and active version of "retirement home" could really be productive across many nations.
If it is shown to save the community money, I would expect many Republicans would agree with it. The ideas throwing away good money on the worthless are the ones Democraps will support - any excuse to waste Government funds.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME