So... not corporate greed this time? :)

#1 | Posted by sitzkrieg a

Who benefited from Piggy's initial round of tariffs after the finding they were obviously illegal and refunded?

The corporations of course.

IOW transfer of money from poor and middle class to corporations because of Piggys theft

Almost like it was planned.

I remind people that Piggy pardoned some US soldiers convicted of war crimes including murdering civilians

Pete Hegseth has been committing war crimes and perhaps he should suffer a similar fate

Christ these people are sick

Given this administration's track record this televised murder will be a fiasco

EVERYTHING TRUMP TOUCHES DIES

EVERYTHING AND I MEAN EVERYTHING HE IS INVOLVED IN IS A SCAM

EVERYTHING

Its even worse

The donations, (since they can be targeted to specific communities) might be used to pressure recipients into doing things that are in the best interests of a corporation, and not necessarily the best interests of the public.

For example, let's say a company wants to build a data center in your area. That company might try to effectively bribe locals by stuffing cash into the Trump Accounts of the area's kids. Or, an executive might lobby Congress against some regulation or other, on the grounds that the policy will hurt profits"and therefore, punish the children in a given lawmaker's district. Deregulate our industry, Mr. Congressman! Please"it's for the children! Hell, maybe the parents in that district will whip votes on the company's behalf, too.

You think that is a joke

The text of the new regulation nakedly pledges as much: "Donors are attracted by the hope that a stock contribution with a five-year holding period may lead recipients and their families to feel that they have a stake in the fate of the corporation to a greater extent than if the child's holdings of the corporation were only through an index fun

But the worst part is the lockup period where you can't dump the stocks

Not only are families barred from rejecting donated shares at the outset, they are also prohibited from selling those unwanted shares, in most cases for at least five years.6

The best time for an executive to offload stock is when they think it's overvalued, and may soon drop.

So a company realizes its stock price is inflated, "donates" the stocks to kids, the kids cannot sell the stock while the stock price plummets

YAY capitalism

The corporation sees a tax windfall as the donation (i.e. tax write off) is on an inflated value

And in this case, the gift recipient is a captive audience, which may help set a sort of price floor on a falling stock. After all, some portion of the company's shares can't get dumped for a while, no matter how crappy the stock looks.

Of course, this stock thing is likely illegal

But here is where the corruption and scamming comes into play

You can't refuse the "donation" even if it means your kid has to hold the stocks of a nazi.

Or maybe you work in an industry that has actual ethics that prohibit owning stocks. Too bad. FU

So, say a journalist who practices ethics and doesn't hold stocks now has his kid owning stocks in a company their parent is investigating.

But last week, the Trump administration changed the ways that these benefactors could benefact. Now, instead of giving cash, donors can give shares of individual stocks, so long as they give the stock grants to groups of at least 5,000 kids in a given age group and geographic area. Moreover, the recipients cannot refuse the gift.

So, you begin to see the issue. Our tax dollars set up an account for kids and then "philanthropic" corporations add donations to those accounts in the form of stocks. now our tax dollars are tied up in these stocks

Note that the donors can target which kids get the money and THEY CANNOT REFUSE IT

You beginning to smell the problem???

Hey Elom Musk's space x is taking advantage of this donation, which is a tax write off

Maybe you should ponder why the bond markets are acting the way they are.

Captain Obvious enters the chat

Then you must see a lot of dog shit

correction beefy not chunky

She minimized the crimes committed against the teenaged victims of Jeffrey Epstein, observing last fall that he victimized 15-year-olds, not 8-year-olds. (Kelly has a daughter about the same age as the girls that Epstein groomed and molested.)

Reminder that Kelly claims to have been sexually harassed by Roger Ailes, but refused to come forward until Gretchen Carlson filed a lawsuit against him.

She criticizes a young woman, drugged and gang raped at 18 for not immediately running to the police, when she was too cowardly to do anything when far less was done to her

This is your typical magat scum

Remember no amount of pain to magat scum personally offsets the joy they feel from making trans kids suffer

Keep in mind that there were more rapists in the Cornell 7 gang rape than there are trans athletes in college sports (of course Megyn Kelly thinks the gang rape victim enjoyed herself cause she is "chunky")

But, if a single trans kid cries, it makes it all worth it to magat scum