Live data from Hacker News

FBI, EPA, and Treasury told Citibank to freeze funds to claw back climate money

techcrunch.com

141–143 of 143 posts

Re: FBI, EPA, and Treasury told Citibank to freeze funds to claw back climate money

#141
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Biden gave Trump way more leniency about improperly storing classified documents than he gave himself. Because trump didn’t merely improperly store those documents, he stole them and then hid them and then lied about their existence when questioned about them, and then refused to give them back when formally asked for them. Stop pretending that Trump is the same as Democrats. He is in a league of criminality that he…

He's not the same, he's an improvement. The Democrats are the sort of people who lose to Trump; they aren't very impressive.

You're in a cult.

Re: FBI, EPA, and Treasury told Citibank to freeze funds to claw back climate money

#142
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry but this is a ridiculously naive take.

Said the one that didn't even bring a proof for their statements

I'm guessing there is no proof that could be provided that you wouldn't dismiss as a right-wing conspiracy.

Re: FBI, EPA, and Treasury told Citibank to freeze funds to claw back climate money

#143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you read any of the disclosure forms? They're a joke. I read the 990 for one organization (NLIHC [0]), a mostly-government-funded organization with >10M in "revenue". They're required to list their three most cost-intensive activities in field 4a of the 990, and brother, those people don't do a damn thing. They listed 1) they helped local governments spend tax money 2) made 8 pamphlets (the one I saw was ~10 pag…

I'm really not sure how to take the comment on the CEO's salary. Some days on HN, 400k is called one good software engineer's salary. Other day's its alluded to as being to as being an overpaid CEO. And then other days people try to justify CEOs making 100M a year.

It helps to understand why high CEO pay can be a good thing. It can be good because the difference between a 'meh' CEO and a fantastic CEO can be huge. If you really want to know why a Fortune 500 company's CEO might be worth 100M, just compare Ballmer's tenure to Nadella's!

Anyway, this isn't business. We're talking about an organization which employed 40 people, and whose own ordering of their deliverables by importance saw 'published 8 pamphlets' in their top 3. What, precisely, was the marginal benefit of paying the CEO 400K as opposed to say, 200K (which still amounts to ~5X the median personal income)? Did that 200K net an additional webinar production and another two pamphlets?

Post reply on HN