Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 21:30:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2020 1:33:20 GMT
Rather then start another thread I decided to edit this one to include a poll. Bernie Sanders had a heart attack in October. Bernie Sanders is 78. Bernie Sanders is running for President. Sanders has released some medical records and refuses to release anymore. But apparently what is missing from the information released is the damage, if any, done by the heart attack. This is like trump and his tax returns, there is some financial information “out there” but you get the feeling he is hiding something because he won’t release all his financial records meaning his tax returns. Now we have this same crap going on with Sanders.
linkSanders... ”Macy's made $1 billion in profits last year. Its CEO makes 580 times more than the median worker. Macy's paid $0 in taxes in 2017. Now it's laying off 2,000 hard-working employees to make more profits. Corporate America's greed has got to end.” Based on what is in this tweet from a candidate for President of the United States, Macy’s, a brick & mortar store, is cutting all these jobs for the sole purpose to increase their profits. Funny thing, attached to his tweet was a story in the Washington Post that told the rest of the story. From the article.. “Macy’s is closing 125 stores and laying off 2,000 employees”“The legacy retailer Macy’s is closing 125 stores — about a fifth of its total — and laying off about 2,000 workers as it struggles to shore up sales after a disappointing holiday season. The department store chain is also shutting down its headquarters in Cincinnati and will move operations to its main headquarters in New York, the company announced in a statement on Tuesday. The company also plans to close offices in San Francisco and Lorain, Ohio, as well a customer service center in Tempe, Ariz., resulting in a 10 percent reduction of corporate and support staff. “The changes we are making are deep and impact every area of the business, but they are necessary,” Jeff Gennette, chief executive of Macy’s, said in a statement. “We are taking the organization through significant structural change to lower costs, bring teams closer together and reduce duplicative work." & ” But changing consumer habits and mounting competition from Walmart, Amazon and TJ Maxx have been reversing its fortunes. The retail giant has closed dozens of underperforming stores, many of them in shopping malls, over the past four years, as it invests in its most lucrative properties. Even so, Macy’s has struggled to win over customers who are increasingly buying online. (Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s founder and chief executive, owns The Washington Post.)Analysts said the closures, set to take place over three years, would hurt some of the country’s most vulnerable shopping malls, and lead to a ripple effect of declining foot traffic and revenue for nearby stores. Dozens of shopping malls have closed in the past decade, and hundreds more are in decline as they lose key anchor stores. One in four U.S. malls is expected to close by 2022, according to a 2017 report by Credit Suisse. Macy’s did not specify which locations it plans to close but said closures would be in “lower tier” malls.“ It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know the brick & motor stores are under attack by e-commerce and discount stores. Maybe the message should be that Macy’s like a lot of brick & mortar stores are doing what they can to stay in business so they can continue to employ people. This was a cheap misleading tweet by Sanders. And unnecessary. IMO |
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Feb 7, 2020 1:45:20 GMT
While I don’t disagree with anything you said and I don’t think it’s the job of the feds to get involved ... I do find it very unseemly that the CEO of a failing company should earn 580 times what the average employee gets paid. There is something fundamentally wrong with our system.
|
|
|
|
Post by lisae on Feb 7, 2020 1:48:54 GMT
I'm surprised Macy's made any profit at all last year. I thought they were in trouble everywhere. I always hate it when the spout out what the profit numbers were. It's really the return on sales or return on investment that matters in a business.
In the case of the salary, we don't know what the median worker makes so we really don't know what the CEO makes.
CEO's often do make huge salaries but the funny thing is we don't criticize the athletes or the actors or singers for their huge annual incomes. A CEO has the weight of the company on their back. Some of them, like Wells Fargo's CEO, certainly don't deserve it. What I'd like to see are the golden parachutes disappear but this isn't the issue I'm going to get as worked up over as so many other things that matter to me.
The only part of the tweet that matters to me is the zero taxes. We are creating a huge legacy of national debt and greatly jeopardizing all of our safety nets with the corporate tax cuts as they stand now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Feb 7, 2020 1:49:35 GMT
When someone pulls a stat from 3 years ago, you can be sure there's a reason. Macy paid a 22% tax rate last fiscal year and a 19% rate for the first 9 months of this fiscal year (their fiscal year ends in March). If you're looking for a poster child of corporate tax avoidance they're a pretty poor example. Take a look at their five year numbers - when your revenue is down 12% and income is down almost 30% - corporate greed seems to be the wrong narrative - more like a company trying to survive.
|
|
|
|
Post by lisae on Feb 7, 2020 1:53:46 GMT
When someone pulls a stat from 3 years ago, you can be sure there's a reason. Macy paid a 22% tax rate last fiscal year and a 19% rate for the first 9 months of this fiscal year (their fiscal year ends in March). If you're looking for a poster child of corporate tax avoidance they're a pretty poor example. Take a look at their five year numbers - when you're revenue is down 12% and income is down almost 30% - corporate greed seems to be the wrong narrative - more like a company trying to survive. That is a good point, I didn't even catch that the tax number wasn't for the same year as the profit number was. Very irresponsible tweet and it seems to say more about Sanders than it does Macy's. This seems more like something Trump would do - cherry picking his facts in a tweet. |
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Feb 7, 2020 1:59:24 GMT
I'm surprised Macy's made any profit at all last year. I thought they were in trouble everywhere. I always hate it when the spout out what the profit numbers were. It's really the return on sales or return on investment that matters in a business. In the case of the salary, we don't know what the median worker makes so we really don't know what the CEO makes. CEO's often do make huge salaries but the funny thing is we don't criticize the athletes or the actors or singers for their huge annual incomes. A CEO has the weight of the company on their back. Some of them, like Wells Fargo's CEO, certainly don't deserve it. What I'd like to see are the golden parachutes disappear but this isn't the issue I'm going to get as worked up over as so many other things that matter to me. The only part of the tweet that matters to me is the zero taxes. We are creating a huge legacy of national debt and greatly jeopardizing all of our safety nets with the corporate tax cuts as they stand now. We know exactly what their CEO makes - it's in their annual filings. I think it's a pretty ridiculous comparison though as a huge portion of all retail employees are seasonal - so you're comparing apples and oranges. |
|
TheOtherMeg
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,541
Jun 25, 2014 20:58:14 GMT
|
Post by TheOtherMeg on Feb 7, 2020 2:12:36 GMT
The CEO salary and the tax situation irk me, though it's interesting to read that the tax info is a few years old. Weird that Macy's all the sudden started paying taxes. Definitely fact cherry-picking by Sanders, which is very Trumpian.
I hear/read plenty of criticism regarding athlete and actor salaries. I don't feel guilty about having a negative opinion of CEOs who make several hundred times what their rank and file employees are making while the company is laying off said employees due to "financial hardship."
|
|
|
|
Post by ntsf on Feb 7, 2020 2:21:49 GMT
and for sanders . he should know the point of macys is to make a profit. if they don't keep making profits, they are totally out of business.. called it capitalism, like it or not. it is our system.. we don't protect whip makers.. cause they are making a profit anymore and haven't for a long time.
|
|
|
|
Post by lisae on Feb 7, 2020 2:52:18 GMT
I'm surprised Macy's made any profit at all last year. I thought they were in trouble everywhere. I always hate it when the spout out what the profit numbers were. It's really the return on sales or return on investment that matters in a business. In the case of the salary, we don't know what the median worker makes so we really don't know what the CEO makes. CEO's often do make huge salaries but the funny thing is we don't criticize the athletes or the actors or singers for their huge annual incomes. A CEO has the weight of the company on their back. Some of them, like Wells Fargo's CEO, certainly don't deserve it. What I'd like to see are the golden parachutes disappear but this isn't the issue I'm going to get as worked up over as so many other things that matter to me. The only part of the tweet that matters to me is the zero taxes. We are creating a huge legacy of national debt and greatly jeopardizing all of our safety nets with the corporate tax cuts as they stand now. We know exactly what their CEO makes - it's in their annual filings. I think it's a pretty ridiculous comparison though as a huge portion of all retail employees are seasonal - so you're comparing apples and oranges. I realize the information is available. Sanders just didn't put it in his tweet. He went for the shock value. |
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Feb 7, 2020 4:12:10 GMT
Even if the CEO was to take a dramatic salary decrease, it wouldn’t be enough cash flow to save all those foundering brick and mortar stores.
But, I’ve become increasingly aware that a portion of Bernie supporters are almost as fanatical as Trump supporters and won’t criticize anything he says, no matter how misleading.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 21:30:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2020 0:45:02 GMT
Yesterday on MSNBC Sanders said this in answer to a question from Chris Hayes if he agreed with what President Obama’s former campaign manager said..
”Sen. Sanders says if a Democratic candidate won a clear plurality of delegates — but not a majority — and was not nominated at the Democratic National Convention, it would be "very divisive."
Not knowing the rules I looked then up.
For 2020 there are 3,979 pledged delegates plus an additional 771 superdelegates.
In order to get the nomination in the first round the candidate must have 1,900 delegates out of 3979. In the first round the superdelegates don’t count.
If not one candidate gets/has 1900 delegates in the first round then they go to round 2. Where the winning candidate must get 2,376 out of 4,750 delegates because now the superdelegates count. And the winner would need to hit 2376 in every vote after that to be declared the winner.
If I understand what Sanders is suggesting/agreeing with is that if the candidate doesn’t quite have the 1900 delegates that person should just get the nomination anyhow or people will be pissed.
If I’m understanding this correctly, this is how you get in trouble when you start changing the rules mid-term. There has been talk about the candidates not having enough delegates the first round for weeks.
There are two separate branches of the Democratic Party, the progressives and the moderates. And right now the moderate branch has more delegates than the progressive branch of the party. And it is possible that either the top progressive or the top moderate candidate may be close to 1,900 but not at 1,900 by the time the primaries end. But you just don’t give someone the nomination because they are close.
The rules are clear first ballot one needs 1,900 to win. Second ballot you need 2,376 to win and if no one gets that amount in the second ballot, you keep voting until they do. No where does it say, Ah since he or she is close to 1,900 how about we just give them the nomination. And I believe after the first vote the delegates are no longer obligated to vote for the same candidates they are required to vote for in the first vote. Which could mean the delegates would be free to all vote for one moderate and one progressive candidate instead of splitting their votes between two from each branch, which is possible the way things are going.
I don’t know why the Obama guy thought this would be a good idea but this is exactly what Sanders would want if he thought it would help him.
Its a dumb idea IMO.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,919 
|
Post by lizacreates on Feb 14, 2020 1:07:55 GMT
Right, because the prediction is that votes could be splintered because we have too many candidates. Btw, it’s 1,991 delegates needed on the first ballot. I’ll wait and see because Super Tuesday will probably eliminate some candidates. If the frontrunner is still short 1,991 delegates by the time the Democratic Convention rolls around, there will definitely be some fighting going on. So in that regard, Sanders is correct in that it will be divisive. However, it’s up to the DNC to figure it out. I’ve been around a long time and I’ve never seen a second ballot. This might be the first time I’ll see one.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 21:30:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2020 1:26:02 GMT
Here is the way I see it.
Yes there could very well be multiple candidates at the end of the primary season and going into the convention with not one of them hitting the magic number needed in the first round.
But because there two distinct camps, you just can’t hand the nomination to one person, no matter how close they are to the magic number and skip the process. To do that would certainly alienate the other side. For sure. That is what we don’t need.
And yes I understand there will be hard feeling if someone from their branch doesn’t get the nomination. But to award the nomination just because they are close and without going though the process would be far more divisive. You don’t want a bunch of people thinking “what if” when the nomination is awarded because the procedure wasn’t followed.
IMO
CA’s Lt Gov just endorsed Mayor Pete.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,919
|
Post by lizacreates on Feb 14, 2020 1:38:45 GMT
Here is the way I see it. Yes there could very well be multiple candidates at the end of the primary season and going into the convention with not one of them hitting the magic number needed in the first round. But because there two distinct camps, you just can’t hand the nomination to one person, no matter how close they are to the magic number and skip the process. To do that would certainly alienate the other side. For sure. That is what we don’t need. And yes I understand there will be hard feeling if someone from their branch doesn’t get the nomination. But to award the nomination just because they are close and without going though the process would be far more divisive. You don’t want a bunch of people thinking “what if” when the nomination is awarded because the procedure wasn’t followed. IMO CA’s Lt Gov just endorsed Mayor Pete. That’s why it’s up to the DNC to figure it out IF we do find ourselves in that position. This is pretty much the same argument Sanders had in 2016 when he was competing with Clinton, remember? Before Hillary won a supermajority of pledged delegates (meaning superdelegates had not yet voted), he was saying that if he can win a majority of the delegates, we should wait until second balloting because superdelegates are more likely to vote for the one who has the majority. This did not have to be fought over because as it turned out Hillary won a supermajority on the first ballot so Bernie’s argument became moot. This time, we could be facing an entirely different scenario because not one candidate so far has majority support. That’s why we’ll just have to wait and see. Bernie will always argue this, but it’s the DNC that prevails. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 14, 2020 2:02:22 GMT
Bernie is not a Democrat and needs to stop whining about the “unfair” Democrats.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 21:30:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2020 2:07:08 GMT
Again if I’m understanding this correctly, the rules have been set and everyone should know what they are by now.
Sanders got some the changes he wanted for the superdelegates.
And I’m not a fan of changing rules midstream. Besides, wouldn’t changing the rules midterm really alienate the other side?
Anyway that’s the way I see it. It could be real interesting come convention time.
|
|
Sarah*H
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,098
|
Post by Sarah*H on Feb 14, 2020 2:07:36 GMT
Favreau/Vietor/Lovett/Pfeiffer warned yesterday that if we go into Super Tuesday with this many candidates and Sanders wins California, he will get the nomination because there are no winner take all states left after that and with the delegate split, there will be no way for any single candidate to catch up to Sander's 100+ delegate advantage at that point.
And I kind of thought this was idle worry until I saw that Liz has 4000 people at her SC rally tonight. The winnowing may not happen. And Bloomberg is looming in the background.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,919
|
Post by lizacreates on Feb 14, 2020 2:43:07 GMT
Again if I’m understanding this correctly, the rules have been set and everyone should know what they are by now. Sanders got some the changes he wanted for the superdelegates. And I’m not a fan of changing rules midstream. Besides, wouldn’t changing the rules midterm really alienate the other side? Anyway that’s the way I see it. It could be real interesting come convention time. I understand what you’re saying, and that’s why I said this may be the first time I’ll see a second ballot (per rules). However, if the DNC does not want to do that, then some negotiation needs to occur because if we end up with no single candidate with 1,991 delegates, what else should we do? It’s either name a nominee with the plurality of delegates or go into second ballot. |
|
PrettyInPeank
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,691
|
Post by PrettyInPeank on Feb 14, 2020 2:55:00 GMT
Are the only primaries left the ones on Super Tuesday? This whole thing is seriously intense, almost as intense as the mid-terms when Democrats took the House. Side note: shame on Bernie for not fact-checking and/or being purposefully misleading. But like Lucy said, the steep incline of CEO salary is not okay though and I agree with Bernie and Warren that it needs to change.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,919
|
Post by lizacreates on Feb 14, 2020 2:59:09 GMT
Are the only primaries left the ones on Super Tuesday? This whole thing is seriously intense, almost as intense as the mid-terms when Democrats took the House. Side note: shame on Bernie for not fact-checking and/or being purposefully misleading. But like Lucy said, the steep incline of CEO salary is not okay though and I agree with Bernie and Warren that it needs to change. No, we have primaries until June. |
|
PrettyInPeank
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,691
|
Post by PrettyInPeank on Feb 14, 2020 3:08:34 GMT
Are the only primaries left the ones on Super Tuesday? This whole thing is seriously intense, almost as intense as the mid-terms when Democrats took the House. Side note: shame on Bernie for not fact-checking and/or being purposefully misleading. But like Lucy said, the steep incline of CEO salary is not okay though and I agree with Bernie and Warren that it needs to change. No, we have primaries until June. I phrased that wrong. I meant is there anything left before Super Tuesday? |
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,919
|
Post by lizacreates on Feb 14, 2020 3:18:45 GMT
Favreau/Vietor/Lovett/Pfeiffer warned yesterday that if we go into Super Tuesday with this many candidates and Sanders wins California, he will get the nomination because there are no winner take all states left after that and with the delegate split, there will be no way for any single candidate to catch up to Sander's 100+ delegate advantage at that point. And I kind of thought this was idle worry until I saw that Liz has 4000 people at her SC rally tonight. The winnowing may not happen. And Bloomberg is looming in the background. I had to think awhile on this and couldn’t figure out how they could have thought that. Then I realized it’s because California moved its primary to Super Tuesday. So they could very well be correct. |
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,919
|
Post by lizacreates on Feb 14, 2020 3:19:36 GMT
No, we have primaries until June. I phrased that wrong. I meant is there anything left before Super Tuesday? Yes. Nevada caucus and S Carolina primary. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 21:30:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2020 3:27:02 GMT
Yes 580x median salary is disgusting. But a FAR GREATER PROBLEM is the BILLIONS in PROFITS and NO or LOW federal income taxes. Billions in Profits, No Taxes: How the Trump Tax Code Let 26 Companies Off the Hook Company Paying No Tax : 2018 Profit Amazon : $10.8 billion Delta Air Lines: $5 billion Chevron : $4.5 billion General Motors : $4.3 billion EOG Resources : $4 billion Occidental Petroleum : $3.4 billion Duke Energy : $3 billion Dominion Resources : $3 billion Honeywell International : $2.8 billion Deere: $2.2 billion American Electric Power : $1.9 billion Kinder Morgan : $1.8 billion Public Service Enterprise Group : $1.8 billion Principal Financial : $1.6 billion FirstEnergy : $1.5 billion Prudential Financial : $1.4 billion Xcel Energy : $1.4 billion PulteGroup : $1.3 billion Molson Coors : $1.3 billion Devon Energy : $1.3 billion Pioneer Natural Resources : $1.3 billion DTE Energy : $1.2 billion Wisconsin Energy : $1.1 billion PPL : $1.1 billion Halliburton : $1.1 billion Ameren : $1 billion If we excuse this s#q(#*$ away, we deserve what we get - Not enough money for beds in treating those w/mental illness, not enough inspectors to inspect our highway bridges, not enough social workers to work w/our despairing youth and adults, etc. etc. etc. Stop the #(*$ w/billions in profits and $0 or <20% (at least!) in taxes. As Buffet likes to say, his effective tax rate is less than many of his employees. www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-tax-billions-profits-no-tax-bill-822428/ |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 21:30:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2020 3:40:49 GMT
When someone pulls a stat from 3 years ago, you can be sure there's a reason. Macy paid a 22% tax rate last fiscal year and a 19% rate for the first 9 months of this fiscal year (their fiscal year ends in March). If you're looking for a poster child of corporate tax avoidance they're a pretty poor example. Take a look at their five year numbers - when your revenue is down 12% and income is down almost 30% - corporate greed seems to be the wrong narrative - more like a company trying to survive. They made pre-tax income of 1.52 BILLION in 2018. The year they paid no federal income tax. So, it's completely valid to use them to show a broken system. As I put above, there are far better examples, but $1.52BILLION pre-tax and $0 in federal income tax is a valid point for him to make. And I'll even source it for you: www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/m/financials |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 21:30:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2020 20:19:01 GMT
NewsweekMark Ruffalo... ”Anybody making personal attacks against anybody else in my name is not part of our movement," Sanders said. "We don't want them. And I'm not so sure, to be honest with you, that they are necessarily part of our movement." He could be right that some of the Harassment comes from non Bernie supporters. But the way he worded the bolded part makes me think he believes whoever is doing this is not one of his supporters. He shouldn’t have said it.
|
|
|
|
Post by KikiPea on Feb 15, 2020 20:24:45 GMT
Actually, my DH and I do. We are huge football fans, but I absolutely hate hearing how much money they each make. We think it’s utterly ridiculous.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 21:30:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2020 15:57:27 GMT
Have Sanders and his supporters become the left’s version of trump and his supporters?
Aaron Blake..
”1) Sanders spox baselessly says Bloomberg had heart attacks.
2) Media point that out.
3) Sanders supporters respond by pointing out Bloomberg had stents implanted for a blockage, which is not a heart attack and is not what was alleged.
Does this formula feel familiar?”
This is all about Sanders not releasing additional medical records. Apparently, from what I read, what is not in the the medical information he has released was the damage the heart attack caused.
Here we go again, just like trump and his tax returns, what is Sanders hiding?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 21:30:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2020 16:00:26 GMT
John Berman...
”JUST NOW: Press Sec for @berniesanders equates questions on his medical records to "smear" campaign. & claims @mikebloomberg has "suffered heart attacks."
Bloomberg had an irregular heartbeat & stents. But I've seen no record of attack. Checking now.”
How is asking for additional medical records be released from a man who had a heart attack 4 months ago and is running for president a smear campaign?
|
|
|
|
Post by peatlejuice on Feb 19, 2020 16:25:06 GMT
Have Sanders and his supporters become the left’s version of trump and his supporters? I'm no fan of Bernie or his politics, but I wouldn't say he's a leftist Trump. He may bankrupt the country and move us all to the least common denominator in quality of life, but I do believe he has morals, which is something Trump and his new Republican party surely lack. That said, I do think many of his supporters (especially the most vocal ones) are the leftist version of Trump supporters. In my experience, both are blindly loyal, intolerant of criticism towards their leader, and remarkably angry at anyone who dares be more moderate than them. I've been very vocal about being a third party voter, but as the continued destruction of our Constitution goes on, I'm increasingly on board with "blue no matter who", with the exception of Bernie. And it's the above combination of bad policies and bad supporters that's kept me from being able to make that leap. I'm thankful, for the first time ever, that I live in a state where Trump will win decisively, because it means I can still vote with my conscience for a third party in the event of a Sanders-Trump contest. |
|
