Republicans also know that Supply-side or trickle down economics doesn't work--unless you are the top .5%. Republicans have always known that tax cuts for the wealthy don't grow an economy. The GOP is simply catering to their TRUE base, the very wealthy. But there's a problem with doing this: only the very wealthy would support such a tax policy as promoted first by Reagan and then Bush II because everyone else suffers. And enough of the non-wealthy are conned into believing the Big Lie.
Thom is one of my biggest heroes. The republican party is for money. They democratic party is for people. It doesn't get any easier than that. While there are some conservative democrats there are NO progressive republicans.
@ttwalsh82 That's quite hilarious considering that most billionaires are Liberals. Let me educate your feeble mind: Rich people LOVE income tax because they don't pay income tax. Don't listen to Democratic propaganda for the elite .05%.
@IWillMolestYou what is quite hilarious? That there are no progressive republicans? And i am fully aware that the wealthy don't pay income tax, they pay capital gains tax at a terribly low rate of around 15% I don't really understand your reply. Its good their are liberal billionaires, even though I doubt its a majority. So many hungry and desperate people rely on the philanthropic nature of some good billionaires like Bill Gates
Obama spoke about declines in income of the bottom 90% in the past decade, whereas Hartmann is speaking about an increase in this same bottom 90% over the past 30 years, albeit a very slight increase. I wonder how much increase we would see if we excluded the last ten years. Then we could isolate the apparent effects of each tax policy and quantify them more clearly.
@nobodady1 Hartmann is talking about a numerical rise, not a real rise. Compared to the rise of the very top, it's a decline. The top 1% income went up 310%, and the bottom 99% income went up 16%. Relatively speaking, the 99% have been left behind.
The funny thing is, rebublicans think of this guy as more to the socialist end of the scale. In Sweden, our "Republicans" are more socialistic than him!
First of all Thom, where, other than the US has supply side economics been tried? TDE super simplified: You get a raise, you buy more things for your house and family. The effects of your raise "trickle" down to the rest of your family. Too simple? Okay, imagine you want to start a widget store. The government says they will not steal as much of your money, and you can then start your widget company. That creates jobs, those people have money to buy more stuff which creates more jobs, etc.
@founoe So what is the problem with people getting richer? People act like there is a finite amount of money and it is all getting stockpiled by a few. Well, there is NOT a finite amount of money, yes that means the wealthy may indeed become wealthier. It also means that the poor can and will become wealthier as well. When you see wealth in terms of actual people instead of groups, you see that people rise through these groups. Most people do NOT stay poor.
"So what is the problem with people getting richer?"
Some people might need that money to not starve to death, instead it ends up in the hands of people who want it for no other reason that they're greedy.
"People act like there is a finite amount of money"
Well... because there is a finite amount of money.
"Well, there is NOT a finite amount of money"
You should tell the people who are starving to death about this. They'll be happy to hear it.
"Some people might need that money to not starve to death, instead it ends up in the hands of people who want it for no other reason that they're greedy."
And? Stop bringing your emotional bias into the debate. Our country was founded on freedom and rights, not economic "equality."
"Well... because there is a finite amount of money."
And it's no one's responsibility to give you that finite amount of money to you. You're responsible for yourself.
"Our country was founded on freedom and rights, not economic "equality.""
You should read section 8 of the US constitution. I will sort of disagree with you. Heck, even the preamble speaks about promoting the general welfare.
Oh, and while we're talking about the constitution, can you show me which section describes the USA as a free market capitalist nation? Because I haven't found it yet.
@iamjswann Most people do stay poor. In America anyway. out of the thirty most industrialized nations, we rank twenty-ninth only ahead of Singapore in social mobility according to an the FBI and InterPol report. Americans are least likely to advance in the socio-economic scheme than nearly any other nation. So I dont know where you are getting that info from. Also, the federal reserve is a private corporation, they control how much money there is, and who gets it.
@iamjswann If there is a demand for widgets, then you will line up customers, and hire the amount of workers you need to produce the amount of widgets there is demand for. then you sell em. No one just starts making widgets and hopes someone needs them. The government is not stealing tax money. They provide you with highways and roads to get raw materials delivered on, and to get your widgets to market, they provide a publicly educated workforce so you employees can read and write
Repub buddy, Obama, is starting to sound like candidate Obama. He knows hoe to sweet talk the Dem base ,. I wonder how many will be fooled this time? Another short honeymoon for the f'ing retarded base
You gotta love people like Thom Hartmann for the work he does. The American mainstream media is such a corporate puppet show that things like this are never revealed and Thom H. is showing why that is.
The claim of redistribution of wealth by republicans is a smoke screen. The congress and it's major campaign donors have seen fit to DISTRIBUTE the wealth to the top tier Americans while the rest of us suffer. THEY are not bothered by this economy, it means nothing to them.
Hold up.. Tax break give right more money.. But bailouts.. Give the rich more.. money? Please explain how that is different.. Obama EXTENDED Bush's tax cuts his first year in power.. What else has he done? Extended Bush's warmongering and giving money to the rich. It's just the same shit, different name.. Or should I say party..
neocon right wing nuts everywhere...probably more koch paid trolls...if wages for the middle class had not been stagnant for 40 years....they would pay more federal income tax....actually they are paying the tax...the rich just steal it off the top of middle class wages, pay their tax with it and then wine about how much tax they pay...its time for the 90-99%, the real "WE THE PEOPLE," to take this country back...no more supply side voodoo.
YOU ARE REALLY REALLY REALLY KILLING ME. I HAVE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR 30 YEARS NOW??? IT IS NICE TO HEAR THIS FROM SOMEONE ELSE... FOR A CHANGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I was debating my conservative friend about the 35% corporate income tax & pointed out how many huge corp. pay 0 taxes, due to all the loopholes.
This is what he said.
Your wrong, corporations pay taxes. they just shift profits to places like ireland and switerland where they pay those taxes in those countries, and show no profit in the US
@Lightmane321 It´s exactly the same in Europe: big corporations find the way to pay low tax rates, while the nominal corporate tax rate is payed by small businesses
Republicans love to play fun games with numbers, which only goes to prove you really can do anything with statistics, but the numbers in this video are just plain facts of history. No playing with numbers here.
30 years of super low taxes on the wealthy has concentrated all the wealth to the wealthy. Don't believe me. Go to lcurve dot org & see for yourself what reaganomics has done to this country.
Talk about a re-distribution of wealth. But republicans are masters at getting around truth
@Lightmane321 The american wealthiest 10% pay the largest share of any OECD country: a 45% of all taxes. Compared with 31% in Germany, 28% France, 27% Sweden, 21% Switzerland. In most european countries, that lower contribution is a consequence of higher taxes on consumption and labor income. In America there´s not even a national sales tax. So tax codes in Europe are less progressive than in America: the Social State is sustained by consumers and the middle class, rather than the wealthy.
@Lightmane321 It doesn't matter that the wealthy got wealthier. Both poor and rich should pay about the same ammount of money in my opinion. I know that's not realistic because the low-educated ppl who live off of welfare can't pay enough to keep the country going. So instead, the well educated people who has fought for their fortune gets to pay alot more just because they fought to make more money.
@hajhej3 Or you do like we swedish people do. lets say the avrage man earns 10.000 dollars (this is just a easy number to count with) so the first 10.000 we pay about 30 % to the state. Lets say now that you own more money then 10.000. you pay only more on the money over 10.000 . So lets say you earn 15.000 then you pay 30% on the first 10.000 and then a bit more on the rest 5.000
@TheSweetaffroman Är svensk. Som sagt tycker jag det hade varit "rättvist" om alla skulle betala samma skatt ner till minsta krona. Men vet såklart att det inte är realistiskt!
Thom Hartmann is absolutely correct on this issue. If the rich had their way, I'm sure they wouldn't even want us to know that they control 95% of the nations wealth. Let alone all of the huge tax breaks, corporate subsidies, and welfare that they get meaning at the end of the day, an honest middle class individual pays more income taxes than the rich. How is that justice and fairness? Thom, you are right, and thanks for bringing this to our attention.
@PoliticsILove Go to IRS by googling "SOI TAX STATS iNDIVIDUALS" and see that the top 50% of tax payers pay 97.3% of all income taxes. Top 2% Obama says need to pay their fair share, pay 46% of all income taxes. Thom is an idiot, and a liar, but you are not a liar. You are just one more fucking leftist moron.
@Lightmane321 What counts is tax revenue, not tax rates. Over time, the way to measure is by % tax revenue to GDP. It is easy to get these statistics, and reality is that the tax rates of the 1950`s were 90% personal, 50% corp, yet the tax revenue, as % of GDP was equal to the revenue stream after the Bush cuts, around 17.4%. Look it up. The high rates did NOT return tax revenue any more than the low ones. This is because people react. More income is offered up to be taxed, at low rates.
@luvcheney1 We all know what the tax rate they suppose to pay, but most likely there's deductions and write off's. Plus, like I mentioned before the wealthy in this country own 95% of the nations wealth. How else would you recommend funding the government, taxing poor and middle class people? Tax rates were actually much higher under Eisenhower. He has taxes up to 90%!
@PoliticsILove The rate I quoted is the results of the tax policies, IRS stats. It is the % of tax revenues actually collected, broken down by income levels. I didnt mention anything, nor does the IRS either on this table, about tax rates. It is just the result. Tax rates were higher under Eisenhower, yet the tax revenue to Fedc Govt was avg of 17.3% of GDP during the `50`s, and was 17.4% during Bush admin. Those high rates did not give high returns, as nobody volunteered to pay the 90%.
@luvcheney1 The problem with our current tax code is the wealthy in this country are continuing to get their tax breaks, corporate welfare, write-off's etc, and the middle class are the ones that are getting the burden with our tax system. I would like to see a tax system where there is no more subsidies, tax breaks, and hand outs for corporations and they pay their fair share. This will cause the middle class to have more money in their pocket, and we'll see this economy revitalize again.
@PoliticsILove 1) the top 50% of taxpayers with a positive AGI pay 97% of ALL income taxes. That means those in the middle are not paying much. 2) Corporate taxes are paid by those who are customers of corporations. That means you. When you buy a cheeseburger at McDonalds, YOU pay the employrs share of the SS and MediCare taxes. Its in the price. ALL costs of doing business, in any business, is paid for by customers. YOU. You think raising taxes on corporations helps you? Thats funny.
@luvcheney1 Using your "cheeseburger" example. The increased cost of a burger, due to an increase in corporate taxes, would only be a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the of income gained by a single middle class consumer by lowering their respective tax burden.
One customer does not keep McDonald's afloat. The price of one cheeseburger will not sink a consumer; after all, they don't have to eat the cheeseburger, but McDonald's has to sell them.
@o0soda0o One dollar more in corp taxes, without a corresponding increase of one dollar more in the price charged, to offset higher taxes, will result in one dollar less profit. Financial markets, In Wall St, and everywhere else on earth, are daily observing, and moving capital where the return is higher. Higher tax rates here, will make for either 1) passing through the cost or 2) lower profit levels, which will cause capital to flow away from the corps in the nation raising tax rate.
You are assuming that if a corporation is taxed a penny more, that an additional penny would be applied to the price of every single unit of merchandise, rather than a relative percentage of that penny.
Also, why has the scenario which you've described NEVER been the case? Do you always fall back on conjecture immediately?
@o0soda0o If any new cost is not passed through, profit will be less. Capital is moved, through financial markets, seeking higher returns. Profit margins are always returning to the "norm" for the particular industry. I assume that markets very close to the norm ( slightly below avg) , because of the return on investment ( PE ratio) of S&P500. So if profits are lowered by more US taxes, capital will flow out of the US, where the costs remained equal. Or passed through. Either way sucks.
@luvcheney1 Since when does "passing through the costs" suddenly equate to exponentially multiplying?
For example, a one dollar tax increase, distributed across one hundred units, would result in an additional penny of cost to the consumer per unit- not a price increase one dollar per unit, which you are implying.
@o0soda0o When I say profit must be raised, obviously, over the entire production of the corp.OR, we can just make the domestic corporations less competitive.
@luvcheney1 Increasing the corporate tax rate and eliminating ridiculous loopholes will not and has never made a domestic corporation less competitive.
@o0soda0o Eliminating loopholes, in English, means raising taxes. That reduces after tax profit. Less profit does not reduce competitiveness? You see, Libs carry signs, bitch, moan, turn over trash cans when they get mad. Corporations just leave the country. Or is outsourcing not real? Do they move out to make LESS money?
@luvcheney1 Eliminating loop holes means actually paying their fair share of taxes in practice, rather than theoretically. Less "profit" (ie: stockpiling trillions of dollars, thereby removing it from circulation and causing inflation) does not reduce competitiveness, and you still can not provide a single, practical example otherwise. Bipartisan tribalism does not help anything, it only serves as a means to divide a population and prevent them from achieving common goals.
@o0soda0o You said, "(ie: stockpiling trillions of dollars, thereby removing it from circulation and causing inflation)" Removing money causes deflation, not inflation. The word "inflation" comes from inflate. I am talking to an idiot. You can call stopping loopholes getting their "fair share", but it means paying higher taxes. Taxes are not the ONLY reason profit may be lower. But, ANY higher cost makes the US a worse place to work. We eat, not by a farmers generosity, but his GREED.
@luvcheney1 Drastically increasing the amount of currency in circulation and then hoarding it, effectively removing it from the economy, doesn't cause severe inflation?
I am serious having doubts as to whether or not you are just a shill, because you sound just like one, spouting off the same unfounded talking points and ignoring the numerous times you are called to defend your statements with actual evidence.
@o0soda0o Inflation caused by supply of money increasing at faster rate than goods/ services. Corps dont print money. If they take money, and sit on it, that reduces the amount of money to bid on goods/ services, and is deflationary. Do I need evidence to prove outsourcing? Do I need evidence to state outsourcing is caused by Corps who see they can make higher profit out of the US? You think they leave to make less? Outsourcing isnt happening? Want them to not outsource? Help the make MORE $!
@luvcheney1 Fiat money explained - /watch?v=9AYAJXdc23g
It even has little pictures and everything, so you shouldn't have too much trouble following along.
It's a shame that Sean Hannity and Glen Beck didn't teach you this stuff. Though, I supposed neither of them are the best individuals to turn to if you are seeking advice on how not to look like a fool in a public forum, but I digress.
@o0soda0o You say, "ie: stockpiling trillions of dollars, thereby removing it from circulation and causing inflation)". Your statement was FALSE. Money going INTO circulation, causes inflation, not coming OUT. The video deals with fractional reserve banking, which is not a new thing. A $10 deposit allows $90 in loans, at a 10% reserve requirement, the video avoids this completely. I get my info from Von Mises, Hazlitt, became informed of gold standard years ago, savings up 5 times last 10 yrs.
@luvcheney1 Fractional reserve practices are only a portion of the problem. Fiat money, given to privately owned banks and passed onto other corporations is the main issue.
My statement was most definitely not false and was proven by the practice highlighted in that video, it doesn't surprise me that you completely ignored it and chose to focus on another portion, on another practice as a diversion.
@luvcheney1 Now, would you care to back up the numerous, baseless claims you've made?
No? I didn't think so. I've already given you those opportunities and you have not managed to provide a single historical or practical example. If all you are able to do is spout scare tactics and neocon hearsay, maybe you should reevaluate your position. Though, what kind of a shill would you be if you were to do that?
@o0soda0o Through each business cycle, savings rates increase, as fear increases at end of boom. Presently, savings rates are far, far higher than during the boom times, before the crash. We have heard banks and corporations are sitting on large amounts of cash. Deflationary pressures are everywhere now, observable in commodities, housing, and banking, crude oil, financial stock share prices falling. Yet, we sit on Trillions in cash. Exactly. We SIT on it, do NOT put it OUT into circulation.
They are "sitting" on the cash in order to purchase commodities and goods much cheaper, before that cash it put into circulation. Once they make there purchases, (with money accrued from the interest on the money they didn't pay in taxes or were loaned from banks), all of that money, which appeared from thin air, is injected into the economy; thus devaluing our savings and causing inflation. They are gaming the system at our detriment.
@o0soda0o Talk about conjecture! You think banks sit on capital so they can go buy goods, and commodities? You think Apple is about to buy pork bellies? Please continue your own conjectures. People save more when they are scared. People means the little guy, and corporations, because corporations are owned by people who get scared too. We have a bad economy, and a 3rd world govt in place. Saving makes the most sense, for everybody, especially business. There is no telling what Govt will do.
@luvcheney1 I'll ask you once more, to back up your claims with evidence; sourced, historical, practical and mathematical.
No more conjecture and pre-fed neocon talking points. No more tangents, lies and speculation.
Ignoring every point and attempting to focus on the insignificant bits and twist them in your favor is not going to work this time. Either argue the facts, admit you are just a pathetic shill or concede- anything short of that will not warrant any further response.
@luvcheney1 Finally, the outsourcing of jobs to other countries is happening NOW, it happens regardless of the tax rate, not as a direct result of increasing it. Greed is their motivating factor, not simply a fair tax rate.
@luvcheney1 Corporations that close factories here, only to open new factories offshore and import their goods back into the country should be penalized, HEAVILY! If you are not a good coporate citizen, then you should damn well pay the price!
@sep0507 OK, lets think out your words. If a US Corp goes outside the US, and makes products at lower cost abroad, YOU want to Penalize them? Since they are GONE, taxation is not a viable option. You must want to put a tariff on the product, lifting its cost, to customers? Fucking customers isnt fucking the business.
@luvcheney1 I say fuck the corps by not letting them re-introduce their products BACK into the US. FUCK THEM! The greedy pricks kill American jobs, go elsewhere for cheaper labor and no environmental laws, sell their products at huge profits. What part of un-American don't you get? What part of coporate citizenship don't you get?
@sep0507 Sir, you, and idiots just like you cant make your own cars, petroleum, plastic spatulas, TV`s, and every other thing you see in your home. If you dont allow anyone to bring things in, what are you going to do, whittle a TV? Perhaps you think keeping inexpensive products out, and only allowing too expensive US products is good for the poor? They will be so happy to know you think far higher prices, for them, is fucking a Corp? No, it fucks one corp, and the people, to help ANOTHER CORP
@luvcheney1 idiots like me? LOL WE invented everything you claim WE can't make. WE just need to return the manufacturing of OUR stuff back into the US. It isn't inexpensive products that I want kept out, it's products WE MADE HERE that are now being made elsewhere all for the advantage of higher profits, and cheap labor. Their products are NO LOWER IN COST than they were when WE MADE THEM HERE, so don't use the excuse WE are getting a bargain. You're a typical coporate sheeple.
@sep0507 There is no such thing as "higher" profits in the long run. Since it is cheaper to manufacture elsewhere, for many reasons, profits are higher, temporarily only. All greedy capitalists all over the globe see the higher profits, and want in on the game too. Soon, over a few years, the supply of manufacturers in the "high profit" country is increasing the supply of these goods, as the 3rd world nation expands its industries, The increased supply pushes prices down, and returns to normal.
@sep0507 Why did you remove your stupid post? Sure, the percent of GDP paid in taxes by US Corporations has declined a lot over the decades. Why? They want profits earned outside the US, where rates are lower. When you average US profits taxed, with profits made abroad and NOT TAXED, libs say the average tax paid is way below the 35% rate. No shit, 35% plus 0%, divided by 2 is 17.5%. We get less tax revenue, corps have LEFT. Jobs gone too.
@luvcheney1 Was it stupid or on the mark? Did you know that the top 10 American corporations paid more for lobbying than they did in taxes? Did you know they paid their CEO's more money than they did in taxes? Did you know that together they have over 500 business entities registered in tax haven countries, most of them just postal boxes? They're hiding money. PERIOD. They're STEALING from the US government and the rest of us. It isn't lib or conservative, it's WRONG ANY WAY you look at it.
@sep0507 Tax fraud is a crime. Leaving the country, making money abroad, and leaving it abroad is perfectly legal. It is not stealing, it is prudent. Mo nation who is greedy in its tax rates will actually collect. Cite your source for top 10 US Corps paying more in taxes than lobbying, CEO pay, etc. I will look at it.
@luvcheney1 Damn, I've got to do your work? OK, try Reuters, NYTimes, The Atlantic, Washington Post, just to name a few. Their HEADQUARTERS are in tax haven countries, but they are a registered US Corporation. It is stealing. It is morally obscene. They are NOTHING like the men and women who built this Nation. They are greedy pricks. PERIOD!
@luvcheney1 •eBay: CEO John Donahoe earned $12.4 million while the company was refunded $131 million on its 2010 U.S. taxes. Boeing: CEO Jim McNerney earned $13.8 million while the company paid $13 million federal income taxes then spent $20.8 million on lobbying and campaign spending. General Electric: CEO Jeff Immelt earned $15.2 million in 2010 while his company got a $3.3 billion federal refund and invested $41.8 million in lobbying and political campaigns. And you're OK with that BS?
@o0soda0o The 34 OECD nations have been cutting corp tax rates for quite a while, and they are increasing the percent of GDP PAID to govt, with the lower rates. This is happening because corps are moving out of high tax countries, into the lower tax countries. This is also visible withing our own 50 states, where corps move out of high tax states to the low. Job growth in the friendly places, not the unfriendly. Corp move, to make more money. Any policy that reduces profit hurts job creation.
@PoliticsILove You're wasting your time with luv. He's convinced the republicans are right & we're wrong & nothing you say is going to change his mind, which is why I rarely respond to these people anymore. It's a waste of time. They still believe that reaganomics works - ROFL
This video is clear proof of what reaganomics did to this country. Reaganomics is voodoo economics & only helps the rich. But facts of history don't matter to republicans. Just their talking points & bs
@luvcheney1 Again, these type of states have no merit out of context.
~49% of the top tax payers you mention are also in the 99% of the population that is being extorted. The top <1% should be paying more taxes relative to their income, just like everyone else.
Twenty million dollars to someone pulling down billions is a drop in the bucket. Five thousand dollars to someone only pulling down thousands is everything.
NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN. especially with the koch brothers trying to make the middle class suffer and segregating schools. segregating schools......for real. republicans are paid off by some sick fucks that are sending us back to the 50's
The establishment of race mix propaganda and acceptance to make you feel guilty for hating 3rd world scabs the rich use to grind down your wages and max out their profits. Kill the establishment and end their sue of 3rd worlds slave labor end race mix acceptance propaganda forever!!!!
@MrAppleseed88 Tsk, tsk. Any financial junkie knows that the dividend return of the S&P 500 today is not at all near max percent of profit on a historical view. Where do you guys get this bullshit you think from? For Christ`s sake, the dividend return today of Exxon Mobile is only 2.6%. Fuck, I wouldnt own Exxon, I cry when I make 15% in a year.
@luvcheney1 typical jew tactic to divert form the issue so they do not have to talk about it. You are a lying jew. post your returns or shut the fuck up.
@MrAppleseed88 Go ahead, google "PE ratio S&P 500". Its 19.75 today. That means $19.75 invested gives a profit in dividends of $1, in one yr. So, $1 divided by $19.75= 5.06%. From 1962, till about 1990, it was under 20, higher dividend profits than today! 1977 to 1982 it was even under 10. 10 means this, $10 invested 1 yr gives $1 dividend. Using a Jew concept called "arithmetic", $1 divided by $10= 10%, double that of today. Your statement of max profit is stupid, go to a Jew school. Moron.
@luvcheney1 dip shit. I said the rich use 3rd world scum as scabs to max out profits and you are talking hogshit about oil... No one holds oil for the long term to max out profits, 95% of all people lose money in stocks, and I am sure your one of them. Besides you fail to address the issue of vertical integration which Exxon and all the others exploit. So it looks like they have small margins but though out the supply chain it all adds up. You stupid jews fool no one.
@MrAppleseed88 Public Corps have executives, and mgt teams who earn their livings by making the most profit possible. The owners are stockholders, who hold them accountable to do that through the Board of Directors. All those need accounting to see results, as do SEC, and IRS as well. All this info is well documented, and available to the public. I do well in stocks, favoring mining stocks. As a right wing wacko, Gold Standard guy, Gold in safe deposit boxes, gold, silver miners, GDX, GDXJ, etc
I love it. Thom PROVES that Reaganomics is what RUINED this country & yet these loons on the right still spew their lies claiming that socialism never worked. ROFL.
Socialism blended with REGULATED Capitalism not only worked, it fricken MADE America the greatest nation on earth. Reaganomics has destroyed our economy. If we don't go back to Alexander Hamiltons plan, America is screwed & will remain at the mercy of the super wealthy, who don't give a crap about any of you. WAKE UP!
@Turbo05Dodge well, you're probably right, but I don't know much about America politically, prior to 1913, but thanks for the info. I've heard this before, so you're probably right, but it doesn't change what reaganomics has done to this country. run up massive debt & then declare that we can't afford these "entitlement" programs anymore, which is like saying "we can't afford to pay you at your job anymore"
@Lightmane321 Until around 1910, total Govt tax revenue was less than 5% of the economy, Fed. State and local. By then, we were the world`s manufacturing and agricultural leaders. That didnt leave much room for Socialism.
@luvcheney1 I know very little about our economy prior to the 1920's, but thanks for that info. But if you're saying you not for Socialism, then you truly don't know what Socialism is, for I assure you that almost every american is "for" socialism. They just think they aren't because of the lies from the republicans. They always lie. They lie about Social Security, Medicare, etc. It's their way. It's what they do & they're good at it too : )
@Lightmane321 The US Govt publishes a Trustees Report, and the Govt itself says Social Security, and MediCare have unfunded liabilities, about $17 Trillion for SS, and $40 Trill for MediCare. The entire national debt is only $14 Trill. Those systems have to be changed fundamentally, it is just arithmetic. Arithmetic applies to Liberals, as well as Conservatives. Its just that the Libs dont want to deal with the math.
@Lightmane321 Go find the Trustees Report. I did. Read it. Do I have to go find it for you? From the Report: "Conclusion
Projected long-run program costs for both Medicare and Social Security are not sustainable under currently scheduled financing, and will require legislative corrections if disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers are to be avoided." In other words, DO SOMETHING. Paul Ryan knows this, I do, why dont YOU?
@luvcheney1 You really need to stop with the condesending bullshit. Why people always have to act like they're intellectually superior to the person they're debating with is beyond me & I could care less if you are. Bernie Sanders says Social Security has a 2.6 Trillion Surplus & can pay out every benefit due for the next 26 years & 80% after that. IS HE LYING? Bernie also has a proposal to make it 100% solvent for the next 75 years. Paul Ryan is a lying slime, but you believe him. Fine.
Unfunded liabilities doesn't mean it's broke. It means the govt has borrowed against it. Social Security is fine. Paul Ryan wants to end Social Security because he hates Social Security & Wall Street wants that 2.6 trillion. I've never seen or heard anyone as slimy as Paul Ryan. I'm shocked you believe anything that comes out of his mouth.
@Lightmane321 Because the Trust Fund, by law, was used to buy US Treasury bills, which were immediately SPENT. That surplus is gone, it is just an accounting number. When SS needs that cash, the Federal Govt will need to go get that $2.6Trillion, in addition to all the other spending it is doing, an additional expense. The money was not invested outside of Govt, it was loaned, and spent already by govt. Sorry, you dont know shit. Its not mu fault. Thats why you believe Bernie. Look it up.
@Lightmane321 Right on! Also, the right-wing conservatives will say some of the government services don't work because they don't want them to work. They will purposely try to destroy it just to prove their own point.
@PoliticsILove Gotta love it, and now they've ruined the post office & are now saying "see, they're broke, because government sucks" - ROFL - when they're the ones who caused the post office to go broke. Thom totally exposed this too. Republicans are lying cheating crooks. So are many Democrats, which is why nothing is getting done, because Corporate America is in control now, which means we're all screwed.
That's a lot of words, Thom, but what is your point?
Do you want the government to confiscate all the wealth in the country and distribute it "fairly". Why not say it directly? We all know why. Nobody would listen to your drivel if you stated it plainly. Anybody with any understanding of history knows that your socialist ideology has been tried and it has failed. You spoon-feed this bankrupt ideology to the uneducated. Wealth is not created by government.
@KayPossumm I agree. Why does it surprise Thom that our society's alpha producers have said "Fuck you" to progressives and fought back successfully? They didn't get rich in the first place by having sissy personalities like Thom's. If Thom really wants to help the allegedly downtrodden, he'd stop feeding their envy and instead teach them something they can do directly to improve their lives, like learning personal finance.
@KayPossumm Oh....really? Check out a country called The United States of America, circa 1950-1980. Tell me how miserably that experiment failed. There were still plenty of Bentley's rolling on the highways, but the average family actually lived, not merely survived. Women stayed home and raised their kids, kept a clean home, cooked healthy meals etc. Your argument is crap. And somehow I doubt that you are one of the .001% that Hartmann mentions in this piece.
@Waszma That was before Japan moved into manufacturing, then Taiwan, Korea, and now China. Screwing bumpers on Chevy`s, and making plastic Barbie Dolls is not going to get us far today. Exactly WHY ought American workers be able to be rich screwing on bumpers? Dont you think Chinamen would be ecstatic to earn even half what we do?
@luvcheney1 Screwing on bumpers huh? You make 40 hours a week of labor sound so insignificant. Maybe the CEO who sits on his ass in the board room should try it for a week. Ever watch Undercover Boss? The higher ups are always shocked at the effort required to do these "meaningless tasks". No Luvvy, I think the country is much better off with all of the poverty and foreclosures, makes it more adventurous to live here. Let's Mad Max ourselves right into a fucking wasteland. BTW, Cheney blows.
@Waszma First, we had agriculture as the main occupation. Then, industrialization drove wages, standard of living higher. ( Screwing on bumpers). Now, the world is moving into high tech: computer software, bio medicine, pharmacueticals, intellectual properties, etc. Farming with a plow, screwing bumpers, making Barbies, will no longer make us middle class. The future is high tech. BUT, Govt, Union school monopolies leave our kids unprepared to work in the future. We lag. We lose. Game over,.
@luvcheney1 If manufacturing doesn't matter anymore, walk into a Walmart, flip over 99% of the products on the shelf. You'll find they're made in, yeah China, our new landlord. Also, make sure you tell the Koreans to stop sending all those Hyundai's and Kia's over here...they're wasting their time manufacturing all that crap, but somehow it ends up on our highways...hmm.
@Waszma When I was a boy, Japan made all the crap, the kind of stuff we see today from China. After 4 or 5 decades, Japan isnt known for crap, but high quality stuff, and their wealth is better! Korea is ahead of China, but in a few decades, the "opressed" Chink will be driving nice cars, and living like Japs. We must stay ahead, or become equals to them. Choose.
@luvcheney1 The real problem in this country, and really, think about this, is that corporate profits can be sky high at the same time as record breaking unemployment levels. You hear about the Verizon layoffs after a huge profit year? That's the main problem here, not that there isn't enough wealth, just that it's in the hands of very few people. I don't want to live in a country where 90% of the people are destitute, if I did I'd move to Somalia, I could get a house on the beach for $6.43
@Waszma Verizon stock today is at the same level it was in 1997, 14 yrs ago. 2010 income statement shows $3.06 billion after tax profit, on $106.6 billion revenue, or 2.87% profit. Gee, how horrible! For every $100 I spend with Verizon, they make $2.87! Go fuck yourself stupid.
@luvcheney1 Verizon is literally swimming in cash. In the first quarter of this year, it tripled its profits, compared to the previous quarter, and it’s been consistently outperforming the stock market now for the past several years. And yet, even with such a profitable company, you have a situation where it is demanding unprecedented givebacks from its workers. Oh, sorry, you'll have to wait for me to recuperate before I can fuck myself, I just got done ramming your wife into a coma.
@luvcheney1 Verizon 5-Year Averages Return on Equity 16.9% Return on Assets 3.6% Return on Invested Capital 8.8% Gross Profit Margin 59.5% Pre-Tax Profit Margin 13.6% Post-Tax Profit Margin 7.4% Net Profit Margin (Total Operations) 7.6% R&D as a % of Sales 0.0% SG&A as a % of Sales 28.9% Debt/Equity Ratio 0.92 Total Debt/Equity Ratio 1.06
@Waszma "5 yr averages". Your figures, of after tax profit, are 7.4%. Wow, for every $100 I spend, they make $7.40. This is excessive? Of course, maybe we can get those workers more, so Verizon can get a bailout, go bankrupt like GM with the UAW did, instead of paying the taxes you stated, the difference between 13.6% and 7.4%. They were "allowed" to keep just 54.4% by the Feds. You want most of that given to those poor workers? Stupid motherfucker.
@luvcheney1 Who do you want it given to "stupid motherfucker"?, since we're hurling insults. Let's make it simple for your simple mind, ok? Was the quality of life not better from 1950-1980? We we not the worlds larget creditor? Now the quality of life here blows and we are the biggest debtor nation on the planet, no? Can your feeble brain not connect the dots? Hyper fucking greed my boy...that is the problem. You want this country to become Mexico? 1% filthy rich, 99% dirt poor? Go live there.
@luvcheney1 Hey Einstein, did the guy who "screwed on the bumpers" design the shit that came out of Detroit for the past 40 years? I don't think so. In the late 70's, when ships carrying 5-6,000 Datsuns and Toyota's were docked in port Newark etc., you'd think the brain trust would have seen the ass kicking coming. Or the lame ass govt would have slapped some nice tariffs on em. Maybe both. You seem to have a lot of contemp for the American worker. You've been brainwashed by fat as Limbaugh huh?
@Waszma 1950-1980 the US was the world`s manufacturer. I guess we should have bombed Japan, China, Korea, Taiwan into the stone age, then we could STILL be the only one! GM bankruptcy and which cars were doomed? Small ones! Saab, Pontiac (no truck-suv), Saturn. What is saved? Big ones. Chevy (truck-suv), Caddy, GMC, Buick. Hummer sold FEW cars, irrelevant. Chevy has small cars, made in Korea. UAW makes it impossible to profit in US with SMALL cars. Making cars that lose money is your idea?
@luvcheney1 BTW, in Germany in a company that has 1,000 or more employees, 50% of the board of directers must be made up of labor reps. And their economy makes ours look like shit. If you've shopped for a BMW, Audi or Mercedes lately, they don't give their shit away. How is it that it works there but not here? Also, was it a "bumper screwer" who decided not to spend a few dollars on a rubber bladder that would have kept people from burning to death? Cost Ford $125,000,000. Greed baby, greeeeeed!
@Waszma Germany, per capita GDP (PPP), $35,700, USA per capita GDP (PPP) $47,200. Your premise is silly, especially given the fact that over the last 6 decades, Germany doesnt need to spend money to protect itself, because we do it for them , in order to not have them cause a world war every few decades. BTW, BMW recalled 350,000 luxury vehicles, with dangerous brakes. Perfection is impossible.
@luvcheney1 Once again you didn't get the point. Yes, production is high, but wages are low, hence the huge percentage of people struggling and living in misery. Wages have been stagnant here for 30 fucking years man, that's bullshit. We're running out of consumers. Yeah, per capita GDP is higher in Germany, but since the wealth isn't as sharply concentrated as it is in this shithole, the bulk of the people live well. We have a lower standard of living despite production being high.
@luvcheney1 Just curious...what's your take on this? It's from 2005, it's most likely more ridiculous now. Ratio of CEO pay to average worker pay Japan 11:1 Germany 12:1 France 15:1 Italy 20:1 Canada 20:1 South Africa 21:1 Britain 22:1 Hong Kong 41:1 Mexico 47:1 Venezuela 50:1 United States 475:1
@Waszma Didn't you understand my last post? I was trying to explain to you that we should have been making cars that compete with the rice rockets 40 years ago. Poor communicators on corporate and labor sides fucked up the auto industry. They could have rolled out the math..."hey, we can pay you X Dollars an hour and make a car with better quality and performance than Japan. Either we agree on something that makes sense or we're doomed. Where was it that you read "make cars that lose money"?
@Waszma The highest selling vehicle in the US, for the last 34 years isnt a "rice rocket". It is a Ford, F-150 truck. #2 selling vehicle is a Chevy 1500 truck. UAW labor costs make it impossible to make smaller cars profitably here. Unless, they are made in a right to work state. Why would GM ditch the small car lines at bankruptcy if they MADE money?
@luvcheney1 Because they didn't make them soon enough, or well enough. Dude, you have probably misread me, I am not a socialist, I am not a right winger, I am not a progressive. I care only about what makes this country strong, or stronger. Fuck left or right, it's a balance that's been missing. Yeah, unions have been too demanding at times, so have the corporate heads. If there was sufficient intellegence on both sides they wouldn't seek to destroy each other. But, Ford Fiesta? Kicking ass now.
@luvcheney1 OK...you're not a dummy (painful to admit), I'd be interested to hear your opinion, let me ask you this; where do you think we fell down? And what do we need to do to get the train back on the track? BTW, nice job dodging the 475:1 ratio issue : ) But seriously, please answer those two questions.
@Waszma Feb `11, Fiesta sold 6270, F-150 sold 37,549 units. You are grossly uninformed. BIG is what sells. Libs hallucinate. 475-1 ratio: Corps have owners, known as stockholders. They are greedy, as is everyone. They will not pay one more penny to anyone they dont have to. They pay whatever it takes, to get CEO who will maximize stock value. Just like Yankees do. If far less secured talent, they would pay far less. "competition" in US for talent, thats all.
@luvcheney1 Your numbers make no sense. How many mid-sized pickups does the F-150 compete against....5? How many sub-compacts does the Fiesta compete against, 500? Big sells huh? You're saying more V-8 pickups were sold last year than econo boxes? I don't think so. As far as the stock holders/CEO argument goes, how does Germany do it with a 12:1 ratio? Seriously dude, greed has put us in this spot, but it's not as fashionable as it was a while ago. It's giving capitalism a bad name.
@Waszma German Directors must obviously find it far easier to find talent, than in the US. Perhaps, like Michelle Obama told us, go into non profit work, not go after the money. After all, high school grads here want to study Liberal Arts, not become MBA`s. Perhaps they ought to follow the money, but working for money is frowned upon.
@Waszma That is precisely why the UAW Corporations make bigger, higher profit vehicles. Because they cant compete price wise. GM sells small, econo boxes, but they are made in Korea. You just wait, they will sell the first Chinese cars too. Its not they can NOT make them its the fact they cant make them at a profit. GM, Chrysler has armies of retired UAW to support, and the competition has few retired draining resources. So, they make high profit vehicles, others not yet making.
Republicans also know that Supply-side or trickle down economics doesn't work--unless you are the top .5%. Republicans have always known that tax cuts for the wealthy don't grow an economy. The GOP is simply catering to their TRUE base, the very wealthy. But there's a problem with doing this: only the very wealthy would support such a tax policy as promoted first by Reagan and then Bush II because everyone else suffers. And enough of the non-wealthy are conned into believing the Big Lie.
Paolo7219 6 days ago
I blowed my mind out when i saw the 403%
TheSweetaffroman 1 month ago
Thom is one of my biggest heroes. The republican party is for money. They democratic party is for people. It doesn't get any easier than that. While there are some conservative democrats there are NO progressive republicans.
ttwalsh82 1 month ago
@ttwalsh82 That's quite hilarious considering that most billionaires are Liberals. Let me educate your feeble mind: Rich people LOVE income tax because they don't pay income tax. Don't listen to Democratic propaganda for the elite .05%.
IWillMolestYou 3 weeks ago
@IWillMolestYou what is quite hilarious? That there are no progressive republicans? And i am fully aware that the wealthy don't pay income tax, they pay capital gains tax at a terribly low rate of around 15% I don't really understand your reply. Its good their are liberal billionaires, even though I doubt its a majority. So many hungry and desperate people rely on the philanthropic nature of some good billionaires like Bill Gates
ttwalsh82 3 weeks ago
Obama speaks for the People, the question is which people does he speak for? ,
TheDano1947 1 month ago
Obama spoke about declines in income of the bottom 90% in the past decade, whereas Hartmann is speaking about an increase in this same bottom 90% over the past 30 years, albeit a very slight increase. I wonder how much increase we would see if we excluded the last ten years. Then we could isolate the apparent effects of each tax policy and quantify them more clearly.
nobodady1 2 months ago
@nobodady1 Hartmann is talking about a numerical rise, not a real rise. Compared to the rise of the very top, it's a decline. The top 1% income went up 310%, and the bottom 99% income went up 16%. Relatively speaking, the 99% have been left behind.
TheOtherErinWhalen 2 months ago
poor people are going to rise up, and take their share
smellyfooty 2 months ago 2
@smellyfooty That is hoped, but will they wake up from the Mesmerization of their minds.
withwingsaseagleeyes 3 weeks ago
Thom should make a video talking about HW Bush as opposed to W Bush & Reagan
YoungIvyScholar 2 months ago
mass-murderer and thief obama will one day burn in hell
mrspatrickcampbell 2 months ago
"This has already happened" Enough said?
its23intelligent 2 months ago
The funny thing is, rebublicans think of this guy as more to the socialist end of the scale. In Sweden, our "Republicans" are more socialistic than him!
oliven96 3 months ago 6
First of all Thom, where, other than the US has supply side economics been tried? TDE super simplified: You get a raise, you buy more things for your house and family. The effects of your raise "trickle" down to the rest of your family. Too simple? Okay, imagine you want to start a widget store. The government says they will not steal as much of your money, and you can then start your widget company. That creates jobs, those people have money to buy more stuff which creates more jobs, etc.
iamjswann 3 months ago
@iamjswann
That's what you say the idea is, but here is the result: The super rich get super richer.
founoe 3 months ago
@founoe So what is the problem with people getting richer? People act like there is a finite amount of money and it is all getting stockpiled by a few. Well, there is NOT a finite amount of money, yes that means the wealthy may indeed become wealthier. It also means that the poor can and will become wealthier as well. When you see wealth in terms of actual people instead of groups, you see that people rise through these groups. Most people do NOT stay poor.
iamjswann 2 months ago
@iamjswann
"So what is the problem with people getting richer?"
Some people might need that money to not starve to death, instead it ends up in the hands of people who want it for no other reason that they're greedy.
"People act like there is a finite amount of money"
Well... because there is a finite amount of money.
"Well, there is NOT a finite amount of money"
You should tell the people who are starving to death about this. They'll be happy to hear it.
HOLY FUCK ARE YOU RETARDED?
founoe 2 months ago
@founoe
"Some people might need that money to not starve to death, instead it ends up in the hands of people who want it for no other reason that they're greedy."
And? Stop bringing your emotional bias into the debate. Our country was founded on freedom and rights, not economic "equality."
"Well... because there is a finite amount of money."
And it's no one's responsibility to give you that finite amount of money to you. You're responsible for yourself.
IWillMolestYou 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IWillMolestYou
"Our country was founded on freedom and rights, not economic "equality.""
You should read section 8 of the US constitution. I will sort of disagree with you. Heck, even the preamble speaks about promoting the general welfare.
Oh, and while we're talking about the constitution, can you show me which section describes the USA as a free market capitalist nation? Because I haven't found it yet.
"You're responsible for yourself."
Well, that's stupid.
founoe 3 weeks ago
@iamjswann tell that to africa
galatisnik5 1 month ago
@iamjswann Most people do stay poor. In America anyway. out of the thirty most industrialized nations, we rank twenty-ninth only ahead of Singapore in social mobility according to an the FBI and InterPol report. Americans are least likely to advance in the socio-economic scheme than nearly any other nation. So I dont know where you are getting that info from. Also, the federal reserve is a private corporation, they control how much money there is, and who gets it.
ttwalsh82 3 weeks ago
@iamjswann If there is a demand for widgets, then you will line up customers, and hire the amount of workers you need to produce the amount of widgets there is demand for. then you sell em. No one just starts making widgets and hopes someone needs them. The government is not stealing tax money. They provide you with highways and roads to get raw materials delivered on, and to get your widgets to market, they provide a publicly educated workforce so you employees can read and write
ttwalsh82 3 weeks ago
It must be an election year coming up.
Repub buddy, Obama, is starting to sound like candidate Obama. He knows hoe to sweet talk the Dem base ,. I wonder how many will be fooled this time? Another short honeymoon for the f'ing retarded base
Textynn 3 months ago
You gotta love people like Thom Hartmann for the work he does. The American mainstream media is such a corporate puppet show that things like this are never revealed and Thom H. is showing why that is.
daveusaz1218 4 months ago
The claim of redistribution of wealth by republicans is a smoke screen. The congress and it's major campaign donors have seen fit to DISTRIBUTE the wealth to the top tier Americans while the rest of us suffer. THEY are not bothered by this economy, it means nothing to them.
sep0507 4 months ago
Hold up.. Tax break give right more money.. But bailouts.. Give the rich more.. money? Please explain how that is different.. Obama EXTENDED Bush's tax cuts his first year in power.. What else has he done? Extended Bush's warmongering and giving money to the rich. It's just the same shit, different name.. Or should I say party..
bandgeekak87 4 months ago
Republicans are disgusting
shawnshawful 4 months ago
neocon right wing nuts everywhere...probably more koch paid trolls...if wages for the middle class had not been stagnant for 40 years....they would pay more federal income tax....actually they are paying the tax...the rich just steal it off the top of middle class wages, pay their tax with it and then wine about how much tax they pay...its time for the 90-99%, the real "WE THE PEOPLE," to take this country back...no more supply side voodoo.
tmikeb1717 4 months ago
Thom Hartmann--- Now there's a case of GENETIC INFERIORITY if there ever was one. -- from MSW, University of Oregon and 30 years US Military.
kenspurling 4 months ago
YOU ARE REALLY REALLY REALLY KILLING ME. I HAVE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR 30 YEARS NOW??? IT IS NICE TO HEAR THIS FROM SOMEONE ELSE... FOR A CHANGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OMG JUST THE TRUTH TV!!!
VOTE THIS COMMENT UP IF YOU LIKE JUST THE TRUTH!
JUSTTHETRUTHTV 4 months ago
THIS MUCH TRUTH IS KILLING ME. WE CAN HANDLE THIS MUCH TRUTH!!!
OMG JUST THE TRUTH TV!!!
VOTE THIS COMMENT UP IF YOU LIKE JUST THE TRUTH!
JUSTTHETRUTHTV 4 months ago
OMG JUST THE TRUTH TV!!!
VOTE THIS COMMENT UP IF YOU LIKE JUST THE TRUTH!
JUSTTHETRUTHTV 4 months ago
This is what will drag America into another civil war. And I am 100% ready for it. Are you???
redstar127 4 months ago
I was debating my conservative friend about the 35% corporate income tax & pointed out how many huge corp. pay 0 taxes, due to all the loopholes.
This is what he said.
Your wrong, corporations pay taxes. they just shift profits to places like ireland and switerland where they pay those taxes in those countries, and show no profit in the US
Any response???
Lightmane321 5 months ago
@Lightmane321 It´s exactly the same in Europe: big corporations find the way to pay low tax rates, while the nominal corporate tax rate is payed by small businesses
xaviqaz 5 months ago
Republicans love to play fun games with numbers, which only goes to prove you really can do anything with statistics, but the numbers in this video are just plain facts of history. No playing with numbers here.
30 years of super low taxes on the wealthy has concentrated all the wealth to the wealthy. Don't believe me. Go to lcurve dot org & see for yourself what reaganomics has done to this country.
Talk about a re-distribution of wealth. But republicans are masters at getting around truth
Lightmane321 5 months ago 10
@Lightmane321 The american wealthiest 10% pay the largest share of any OECD country: a 45% of all taxes. Compared with 31% in Germany, 28% France, 27% Sweden, 21% Switzerland. In most european countries, that lower contribution is a consequence of higher taxes on consumption and labor income. In America there´s not even a national sales tax. So tax codes in Europe are less progressive than in America: the Social State is sustained by consumers and the middle class, rather than the wealthy.
xaviqaz 5 months ago
@Lightmane321 the rich pays most taxes.
the rich pays 37 percent of all taxes
OrangeManIce 2 months ago
@OrangeManIce ROFL! Call Thom Hartmann & tell him that. He'll get a big laugh too.
Lightmane321 2 months ago
@OrangeManIce But they own 87% of all the wealth. How come they only pay 37% of the taxes? To be totally fair, they should pay 87% or the taxes.
TheOtherErinWhalen 2 months ago
@TheOtherErinWhalen Because wealth is not the same as income. Yes, I'm pretty sure you can't grasp that concept, so I'll just let it sink in.
Income-wise, the rich pay far more percentage-wise than they take in.
IWillMolestYou 3 weeks ago
@Lightmane321 and the bottom 50 pay 3 percentof all taxes
OrangeManIce 2 months ago
@Lightmane321 It doesn't matter that the wealthy got wealthier. Both poor and rich should pay about the same ammount of money in my opinion. I know that's not realistic because the low-educated ppl who live off of welfare can't pay enough to keep the country going. So instead, the well educated people who has fought for their fortune gets to pay alot more just because they fought to make more money.
hajhej3 1 month ago
@hajhej3 Or you do like we swedish people do. lets say the avrage man earns 10.000 dollars (this is just a easy number to count with) so the first 10.000 we pay about 30 % to the state. Lets say now that you own more money then 10.000. you pay only more on the money over 10.000 . So lets say you earn 15.000 then you pay 30% on the first 10.000 and then a bit more on the rest 5.000
TheSweetaffroman 1 month ago
@TheSweetaffroman Är svensk. Som sagt tycker jag det hade varit "rättvist" om alla skulle betala samma skatt ner till minsta krona. Men vet såklart att det inte är realistiskt!
hajhej3 1 month ago
Thom Hartmann is absolutely correct on this issue. If the rich had their way, I'm sure they wouldn't even want us to know that they control 95% of the nations wealth. Let alone all of the huge tax breaks, corporate subsidies, and welfare that they get meaning at the end of the day, an honest middle class individual pays more income taxes than the rich. How is that justice and fairness? Thom, you are right, and thanks for bringing this to our attention.
PoliticsILove 5 months ago
@PoliticsILove Go to IRS by googling "SOI TAX STATS iNDIVIDUALS" and see that the top 50% of tax payers pay 97.3% of all income taxes. Top 2% Obama says need to pay their fair share, pay 46% of all income taxes. Thom is an idiot, and a liar, but you are not a liar. You are just one more fucking leftist moron.
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@luvcheney1 typical righty, swearing like a drunken sailor & calling leftys fucking morons - ROFL
The wealthy pay the LOWEST TAX RATE they've EVER PAID since the 1920's
Billionaires pay a lower rate than their secretaries
Nice try
Lightmane321 5 months ago
@Lightmane321 What counts is tax revenue, not tax rates. Over time, the way to measure is by % tax revenue to GDP. It is easy to get these statistics, and reality is that the tax rates of the 1950`s were 90% personal, 50% corp, yet the tax revenue, as % of GDP was equal to the revenue stream after the Bush cuts, around 17.4%. Look it up. The high rates did NOT return tax revenue any more than the low ones. This is because people react. More income is offered up to be taxed, at low rates.
luvcheney1 5 months ago
The top 2% pay 46% of all income taxes? So what??? They make over 90% of the wealth.
Using numbers to make your case doesn't work. But it's all rightys know. Oh yeah. They know how to lie too.
The republicans are amazing liars.
Reaganomics RUINED AMERICA. What part of the last 30 years isn't proof enough for you?
Lightmane321 5 months ago
Calling Hartmann a fucking moron just proves you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
Hartmann is a fucking moron??? ROFL
Next you'll tell me that guys like GW & Perry are fucking geniuses - ROFL
Lightmane321 5 months ago
@Lightmane321 Did you look up to see what percent of GDP the 90% tax rate collected? Compared to 35%? Oh gee, it was the same.
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@luvcheney1 We all know what the tax rate they suppose to pay, but most likely there's deductions and write off's. Plus, like I mentioned before the wealthy in this country own 95% of the nations wealth. How else would you recommend funding the government, taxing poor and middle class people? Tax rates were actually much higher under Eisenhower. He has taxes up to 90%!
PoliticsILove 5 months ago
@PoliticsILove The rate I quoted is the results of the tax policies, IRS stats. It is the % of tax revenues actually collected, broken down by income levels. I didnt mention anything, nor does the IRS either on this table, about tax rates. It is just the result. Tax rates were higher under Eisenhower, yet the tax revenue to Fedc Govt was avg of 17.3% of GDP during the `50`s, and was 17.4% during Bush admin. Those high rates did not give high returns, as nobody volunteered to pay the 90%.
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@luvcheney1 The problem with our current tax code is the wealthy in this country are continuing to get their tax breaks, corporate welfare, write-off's etc, and the middle class are the ones that are getting the burden with our tax system. I would like to see a tax system where there is no more subsidies, tax breaks, and hand outs for corporations and they pay their fair share. This will cause the middle class to have more money in their pocket, and we'll see this economy revitalize again.
PoliticsILove 5 months ago
@PoliticsILove 1) the top 50% of taxpayers with a positive AGI pay 97% of ALL income taxes. That means those in the middle are not paying much. 2) Corporate taxes are paid by those who are customers of corporations. That means you. When you buy a cheeseburger at McDonalds, YOU pay the employrs share of the SS and MediCare taxes. Its in the price. ALL costs of doing business, in any business, is paid for by customers. YOU. You think raising taxes on corporations helps you? Thats funny.
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@luvcheney1 Using your "cheeseburger" example. The increased cost of a burger, due to an increase in corporate taxes, would only be a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the of income gained by a single middle class consumer by lowering their respective tax burden.
One customer does not keep McDonald's afloat. The price of one cheeseburger will not sink a consumer; after all, they don't have to eat the cheeseburger, but McDonald's has to sell them.
o0soda0o 4 months ago
@o0soda0o One dollar more in corp taxes, without a corresponding increase of one dollar more in the price charged, to offset higher taxes, will result in one dollar less profit. Financial markets, In Wall St, and everywhere else on earth, are daily observing, and moving capital where the return is higher. Higher tax rates here, will make for either 1) passing through the cost or 2) lower profit levels, which will cause capital to flow away from the corps in the nation raising tax rate.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1
You are assuming that if a corporation is taxed a penny more, that an additional penny would be applied to the price of every single unit of merchandise, rather than a relative percentage of that penny.
Also, why has the scenario which you've described NEVER been the case? Do you always fall back on conjecture immediately?
o0soda0o 4 months ago
@o0soda0o If any new cost is not passed through, profit will be less. Capital is moved, through financial markets, seeking higher returns. Profit margins are always returning to the "norm" for the particular industry. I assume that markets very close to the norm ( slightly below avg) , because of the return on investment ( PE ratio) of S&P500. So if profits are lowered by more US taxes, capital will flow out of the US, where the costs remained equal. Or passed through. Either way sucks.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 Since when does "passing through the costs" suddenly equate to exponentially multiplying?
For example, a one dollar tax increase, distributed across one hundred units, would result in an additional penny of cost to the consumer per unit- not a price increase one dollar per unit, which you are implying.
o0soda0o 4 months ago
@o0soda0o When I say profit must be raised, obviously, over the entire production of the corp.OR, we can just make the domestic corporations less competitive.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 Increasing the corporate tax rate and eliminating ridiculous loopholes will not and has never made a domestic corporation less competitive.
o0soda0o 4 months ago
@o0soda0o Eliminating loopholes, in English, means raising taxes. That reduces after tax profit. Less profit does not reduce competitiveness? You see, Libs carry signs, bitch, moan, turn over trash cans when they get mad. Corporations just leave the country. Or is outsourcing not real? Do they move out to make LESS money?
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 Eliminating loop holes means actually paying their fair share of taxes in practice, rather than theoretically. Less "profit" (ie: stockpiling trillions of dollars, thereby removing it from circulation and causing inflation) does not reduce competitiveness, and you still can not provide a single, practical example otherwise. Bipartisan tribalism does not help anything, it only serves as a means to divide a population and prevent them from achieving common goals.
o0soda0o 4 months ago
@o0soda0o You said, "(ie: stockpiling trillions of dollars, thereby removing it from circulation and causing inflation)" Removing money causes deflation, not inflation. The word "inflation" comes from inflate. I am talking to an idiot. You can call stopping loopholes getting their "fair share", but it means paying higher taxes. Taxes are not the ONLY reason profit may be lower. But, ANY higher cost makes the US a worse place to work. We eat, not by a farmers generosity, but his GREED.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 Drastically increasing the amount of currency in circulation and then hoarding it, effectively removing it from the economy, doesn't cause severe inflation?
I am serious having doubts as to whether or not you are just a shill, because you sound just like one, spouting off the same unfounded talking points and ignoring the numerous times you are called to defend your statements with actual evidence.
o0soda0o 4 months ago
@o0soda0o Inflation caused by supply of money increasing at faster rate than goods/ services. Corps dont print money. If they take money, and sit on it, that reduces the amount of money to bid on goods/ services, and is deflationary. Do I need evidence to prove outsourcing? Do I need evidence to state outsourcing is caused by Corps who see they can make higher profit out of the US? You think they leave to make less? Outsourcing isnt happening? Want them to not outsource? Help the make MORE $!
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 Fiat money explained - /watch?v=9AYAJXdc23g
It even has little pictures and everything, so you shouldn't have too much trouble following along.
It's a shame that Sean Hannity and Glen Beck didn't teach you this stuff. Though, I supposed neither of them are the best individuals to turn to if you are seeking advice on how not to look like a fool in a public forum, but I digress.
o0soda0o 4 months ago
@o0soda0o You say, "ie: stockpiling trillions of dollars, thereby removing it from circulation and causing inflation)". Your statement was FALSE. Money going INTO circulation, causes inflation, not coming OUT. The video deals with fractional reserve banking, which is not a new thing. A $10 deposit allows $90 in loans, at a 10% reserve requirement, the video avoids this completely. I get my info from Von Mises, Hazlitt, became informed of gold standard years ago, savings up 5 times last 10 yrs.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 Fractional reserve practices are only a portion of the problem. Fiat money, given to privately owned banks and passed onto other corporations is the main issue.
My statement was most definitely not false and was proven by the practice highlighted in that video, it doesn't surprise me that you completely ignored it and chose to focus on another portion, on another practice as a diversion.
o0soda0o 4 months ago
@luvcheney1
/watch?v=9AYAJXdc23g&feature=player_detailpage#t=84s
This is the portion you neglected. The stockpiled money, which you incorrectly described as "profits" are directly responsible for inflation.
Again, this has nothing to do with fractional reserve banking at the consumer level.
o0soda0o 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 Now, would you care to back up the numerous, baseless claims you've made?
No? I didn't think so. I've already given you those opportunities and you have not managed to provide a single historical or practical example. If all you are able to do is spout scare tactics and neocon hearsay, maybe you should reevaluate your position. Though, what kind of a shill would you be if you were to do that?
o0soda0o 4 months ago
@o0soda0o Through each business cycle, savings rates increase, as fear increases at end of boom. Presently, savings rates are far, far higher than during the boom times, before the crash. We have heard banks and corporations are sitting on large amounts of cash. Deflationary pressures are everywhere now, observable in commodities, housing, and banking, crude oil, financial stock share prices falling. Yet, we sit on Trillions in cash. Exactly. We SIT on it, do NOT put it OUT into circulation.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 I didn't ask for more conjecture.
They are "sitting" on the cash in order to purchase commodities and goods much cheaper, before that cash it put into circulation. Once they make there purchases, (with money accrued from the interest on the money they didn't pay in taxes or were loaned from banks), all of that money, which appeared from thin air, is injected into the economy; thus devaluing our savings and causing inflation. They are gaming the system at our detriment.
o0soda0o 4 months ago
@o0soda0o Talk about conjecture! You think banks sit on capital so they can go buy goods, and commodities? You think Apple is about to buy pork bellies? Please continue your own conjectures. People save more when they are scared. People means the little guy, and corporations, because corporations are owned by people who get scared too. We have a bad economy, and a 3rd world govt in place. Saving makes the most sense, for everybody, especially business. There is no telling what Govt will do.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 I'll ask you once more, to back up your claims with evidence; sourced, historical, practical and mathematical.
No more conjecture and pre-fed neocon talking points. No more tangents, lies and speculation.
Ignoring every point and attempting to focus on the insignificant bits and twist them in your favor is not going to work this time. Either argue the facts, admit you are just a pathetic shill or concede- anything short of that will not warrant any further response.
o0soda0o 4 months ago
@o0soda0o He sure can spew right wing talking points.
sep0507 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 Finally, the outsourcing of jobs to other countries is happening NOW, it happens regardless of the tax rate, not as a direct result of increasing it. Greed is their motivating factor, not simply a fair tax rate.
o0soda0o 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 Corporations that close factories here, only to open new factories offshore and import their goods back into the country should be penalized, HEAVILY! If you are not a good coporate citizen, then you should damn well pay the price!
sep0507 4 months ago
@sep0507 OK, lets think out your words. If a US Corp goes outside the US, and makes products at lower cost abroad, YOU want to Penalize them? Since they are GONE, taxation is not a viable option. You must want to put a tariff on the product, lifting its cost, to customers? Fucking customers isnt fucking the business.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 I say fuck the corps by not letting them re-introduce their products BACK into the US. FUCK THEM! The greedy pricks kill American jobs, go elsewhere for cheaper labor and no environmental laws, sell their products at huge profits. What part of un-American don't you get? What part of coporate citizenship don't you get?
sep0507 4 months ago
@sep0507 Sir, you, and idiots just like you cant make your own cars, petroleum, plastic spatulas, TV`s, and every other thing you see in your home. If you dont allow anyone to bring things in, what are you going to do, whittle a TV? Perhaps you think keeping inexpensive products out, and only allowing too expensive US products is good for the poor? They will be so happy to know you think far higher prices, for them, is fucking a Corp? No, it fucks one corp, and the people, to help ANOTHER CORP
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 idiots like me? LOL WE invented everything you claim WE can't make. WE just need to return the manufacturing of OUR stuff back into the US. It isn't inexpensive products that I want kept out, it's products WE MADE HERE that are now being made elsewhere all for the advantage of higher profits, and cheap labor. Their products are NO LOWER IN COST than they were when WE MADE THEM HERE, so don't use the excuse WE are getting a bargain. You're a typical coporate sheeple.
sep0507 4 months ago
@sep0507 There is no such thing as "higher" profits in the long run. Since it is cheaper to manufacture elsewhere, for many reasons, profits are higher, temporarily only. All greedy capitalists all over the globe see the higher profits, and want in on the game too. Soon, over a few years, the supply of manufacturers in the "high profit" country is increasing the supply of these goods, as the 3rd world nation expands its industries, The increased supply pushes prices down, and returns to normal.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
Comment removed
sep0507 4 months ago
@sep0507 Why did you remove your stupid post? Sure, the percent of GDP paid in taxes by US Corporations has declined a lot over the decades. Why? They want profits earned outside the US, where rates are lower. When you average US profits taxed, with profits made abroad and NOT TAXED, libs say the average tax paid is way below the 35% rate. No shit, 35% plus 0%, divided by 2 is 17.5%. We get less tax revenue, corps have LEFT. Jobs gone too.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 Was it stupid or on the mark? Did you know that the top 10 American corporations paid more for lobbying than they did in taxes? Did you know they paid their CEO's more money than they did in taxes? Did you know that together they have over 500 business entities registered in tax haven countries, most of them just postal boxes? They're hiding money. PERIOD. They're STEALING from the US government and the rest of us. It isn't lib or conservative, it's WRONG ANY WAY you look at it.
sep0507 4 months ago
@sep0507 Tax fraud is a crime. Leaving the country, making money abroad, and leaving it abroad is perfectly legal. It is not stealing, it is prudent. Mo nation who is greedy in its tax rates will actually collect. Cite your source for top 10 US Corps paying more in taxes than lobbying, CEO pay, etc. I will look at it.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 Damn, I've got to do your work? OK, try Reuters, NYTimes, The Atlantic, Washington Post, just to name a few. Their HEADQUARTERS are in tax haven countries, but they are a registered US Corporation. It is stealing. It is morally obscene. They are NOTHING like the men and women who built this Nation. They are greedy pricks. PERIOD!
sep0507 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 •eBay: CEO John Donahoe earned $12.4 million while the company was refunded $131 million on its 2010 U.S. taxes. Boeing: CEO Jim McNerney earned $13.8 million while the company paid $13 million federal income taxes then spent $20.8 million on lobbying and campaign spending. General Electric: CEO Jeff Immelt earned $15.2 million in 2010 while his company got a $3.3 billion federal refund and invested $41.8 million in lobbying and political campaigns. And you're OK with that BS?
sep0507 4 months ago
@o0soda0o The 34 OECD nations have been cutting corp tax rates for quite a while, and they are increasing the percent of GDP PAID to govt, with the lower rates. This is happening because corps are moving out of high tax countries, into the lower tax countries. This is also visible withing our own 50 states, where corps move out of high tax states to the low. Job growth in the friendly places, not the unfriendly. Corp move, to make more money. Any policy that reduces profit hurts job creation.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 "Any policy that reduces profit hurts job creation." Again, this is just conjecture and has never been proven.
o0soda0o 4 months ago
@PoliticsILove You're wasting your time with luv. He's convinced the republicans are right & we're wrong & nothing you say is going to change his mind, which is why I rarely respond to these people anymore. It's a waste of time. They still believe that reaganomics works - ROFL
This video is clear proof of what reaganomics did to this country. Reaganomics is voodoo economics & only helps the rich. But facts of history don't matter to republicans. Just their talking points & bs
Lightmane321 5 months ago 4
@Lightmane321 Very true, and I could not agree with you more! Thank you!! :-)
PoliticsILove 5 months ago
@luvcheney1 Again, these type of states have no merit out of context.
~49% of the top tax payers you mention are also in the 99% of the population that is being extorted. The top <1% should be paying more taxes relative to their income, just like everyone else.
Twenty million dollars to someone pulling down billions is a drop in the bucket. Five thousand dollars to someone only pulling down thousands is everything.
o0soda0o 4 months ago
@o0soda0o I have to guess the meaning of this post. Make one point, make it clear, and I will respond.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 You are using those statistics out of context, ignoring a massive overlap and twisting them in a manner that fits your argument.
o0soda0o 4 months ago
Thats way you sheeple Should Vote Ron Paul
olmosm1 5 months ago
NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN. especially with the koch brothers trying to make the middle class suffer and segregating schools. segregating schools......for real. republicans are paid off by some sick fucks that are sending us back to the 50's
erockula 5 months ago 16
The establishment of race mix propaganda and acceptance to make you feel guilty for hating 3rd world scabs the rich use to grind down your wages and max out their profits. Kill the establishment and end their sue of 3rd worlds slave labor end race mix acceptance propaganda forever!!!!
MrAppleseed88 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrAppleseed88 Tsk, tsk. Any financial junkie knows that the dividend return of the S&P 500 today is not at all near max percent of profit on a historical view. Where do you guys get this bullshit you think from? For Christ`s sake, the dividend return today of Exxon Mobile is only 2.6%. Fuck, I wouldnt own Exxon, I cry when I make 15% in a year.
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@luvcheney1 typical jew tactic to divert form the issue so they do not have to talk about it. You are a lying jew. post your returns or shut the fuck up.
MrAppleseed88 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrAppleseed88 Go ahead, google "PE ratio S&P 500". Its 19.75 today. That means $19.75 invested gives a profit in dividends of $1, in one yr. So, $1 divided by $19.75= 5.06%. From 1962, till about 1990, it was under 20, higher dividend profits than today! 1977 to 1982 it was even under 10. 10 means this, $10 invested 1 yr gives $1 dividend. Using a Jew concept called "arithmetic", $1 divided by $10= 10%, double that of today. Your statement of max profit is stupid, go to a Jew school. Moron.
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@luvcheney1 dip shit. I said the rich use 3rd world scum as scabs to max out profits and you are talking hogshit about oil... No one holds oil for the long term to max out profits, 95% of all people lose money in stocks, and I am sure your one of them. Besides you fail to address the issue of vertical integration which Exxon and all the others exploit. So it looks like they have small margins but though out the supply chain it all adds up. You stupid jews fool no one.
MrAppleseed88 5 months ago
@MrAppleseed88 Public Corps have executives, and mgt teams who earn their livings by making the most profit possible. The owners are stockholders, who hold them accountable to do that through the Board of Directors. All those need accounting to see results, as do SEC, and IRS as well. All this info is well documented, and available to the public. I do well in stocks, favoring mining stocks. As a right wing wacko, Gold Standard guy, Gold in safe deposit boxes, gold, silver miners, GDX, GDXJ, etc
luvcheney1 5 months ago
unfroze.
chiefdancingostriche 5 months ago
frozen at 1:18
chiefdancingostriche 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you better get some balls
LODZ61261 5 months ago
Is it true that Thom Hartmann is the most listened to liberal radio host?
PoliticsILove 6 months ago
@PoliticsILove Probably. There are dozens and dozens of people listening.
luvcheney1 5 months ago
Progressives might get more respect and be listened to if they dropped the nutty social control aspect of their beliefs.
Turbo05Dodge 6 months ago
@Turbo05Dodge who or what are beliefs, pray tell
subscriber77 6 months ago
forward this to as many ppl as u know and then the working class can do something.
saplondon09 6 months ago
I love it. Thom PROVES that Reaganomics is what RUINED this country & yet these loons on the right still spew their lies claiming that socialism never worked. ROFL.
Socialism blended with REGULATED Capitalism not only worked, it fricken MADE America the greatest nation on earth. Reaganomics has destroyed our economy. If we don't go back to Alexander Hamiltons plan, America is screwed & will remain at the mercy of the super wealthy, who don't give a crap about any of you. WAKE UP!
Lightmane321 7 months ago 7
@Lightmane321 This goes way back before Reagonmics....it all started going down hill in 1913.
Turbo05Dodge 6 months ago
@Turbo05Dodge well, you're probably right, but I don't know much about America politically, prior to 1913, but thanks for the info. I've heard this before, so you're probably right, but it doesn't change what reaganomics has done to this country. run up massive debt & then declare that we can't afford these "entitlement" programs anymore, which is like saying "we can't afford to pay you at your job anymore"
not liking where we're heading
Lightmane321 6 months ago
@Lightmane321 Until around 1910, total Govt tax revenue was less than 5% of the economy, Fed. State and local. By then, we were the world`s manufacturing and agricultural leaders. That didnt leave much room for Socialism.
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@luvcheney1 I know very little about our economy prior to the 1920's, but thanks for that info. But if you're saying you not for Socialism, then you truly don't know what Socialism is, for I assure you that almost every american is "for" socialism. They just think they aren't because of the lies from the republicans. They always lie. They lie about Social Security, Medicare, etc. It's their way. It's what they do & they're good at it too : )
Lightmane321 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Lightmane321 The US Govt publishes a Trustees Report, and the Govt itself says Social Security, and MediCare have unfunded liabilities, about $17 Trillion for SS, and $40 Trill for MediCare. The entire national debt is only $14 Trill. Those systems have to be changed fundamentally, it is just arithmetic. Arithmetic applies to Liberals, as well as Conservatives. Its just that the Libs dont want to deal with the math.
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@luvcheney1 So you're saying that Bernie Sanders is lying?
Lightmane321 5 months ago
@Lightmane321 Go find the Trustees Report. I did. Read it. Do I have to go find it for you? From the Report: "Conclusion
Projected long-run program costs for both Medicare and Social Security are not sustainable under currently scheduled financing, and will require legislative corrections if disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers are to be avoided." In other words, DO SOMETHING. Paul Ryan knows this, I do, why dont YOU?
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@luvcheney1 You really need to stop with the condesending bullshit. Why people always have to act like they're intellectually superior to the person they're debating with is beyond me & I could care less if you are. Bernie Sanders says Social Security has a 2.6 Trillion Surplus & can pay out every benefit due for the next 26 years & 80% after that. IS HE LYING? Bernie also has a proposal to make it 100% solvent for the next 75 years. Paul Ryan is a lying slime, but you believe him. Fine.
Lightmane321 5 months ago
Unfunded liabilities doesn't mean it's broke. It means the govt has borrowed against it. Social Security is fine. Paul Ryan wants to end Social Security because he hates Social Security & Wall Street wants that 2.6 trillion. I've never seen or heard anyone as slimy as Paul Ryan. I'm shocked you believe anything that comes out of his mouth.
Lightmane321 5 months ago
@Lightmane321 Because the Trust Fund, by law, was used to buy US Treasury bills, which were immediately SPENT. That surplus is gone, it is just an accounting number. When SS needs that cash, the Federal Govt will need to go get that $2.6Trillion, in addition to all the other spending it is doing, an additional expense. The money was not invested outside of Govt, it was loaned, and spent already by govt. Sorry, you dont know shit. Its not mu fault. Thats why you believe Bernie. Look it up.
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@luvcheney1 Dude. You're right dude. Bernie is LYING TO ME! What was I thinking. The most honest politician ever is LYING - ROFL.
Here's some facts for you. The only morons who spent us into huge debt were republicans.
Reagan TRIPLED our DEBT, running up more debt than all presidents before him COMBINED
George Bush DOUBLED it, running up more debt than all presidents before him COMBINED
Under Obama, it's risen 4 trillion, which is INSANE, but most of it was GW's, but Obama still failed
Lightmane321 5 months ago
@Lightmane321 Right on! Also, the right-wing conservatives will say some of the government services don't work because they don't want them to work. They will purposely try to destroy it just to prove their own point.
PoliticsILove 5 months ago
Comment removed
Lightmane321 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PoliticsILove Gotta love it, and now they've ruined the post office & are now saying "see, they're broke, because government sucks" - ROFL - when they're the ones who caused the post office to go broke. Thom totally exposed this too. Republicans are lying cheating crooks. So are many Democrats, which is why nothing is getting done, because Corporate America is in control now, which means we're all screwed.
Lightmane321 5 months ago
That's a lot of words, Thom, but what is your point?
Do you want the government to confiscate all the wealth in the country and distribute it "fairly". Why not say it directly? We all know why. Nobody would listen to your drivel if you stated it plainly. Anybody with any understanding of history knows that your socialist ideology has been tried and it has failed. You spoon-feed this bankrupt ideology to the uneducated. Wealth is not created by government.
KayPossumm 7 months ago
@KayPossumm I agree. Why does it surprise Thom that our society's alpha producers have said "Fuck you" to progressives and fought back successfully? They didn't get rich in the first place by having sissy personalities like Thom's. If Thom really wants to help the allegedly downtrodden, he'd stop feeding their envy and instead teach them something they can do directly to improve their lives, like learning personal finance.
MrAdvancedAtheist 7 months ago
@KayPossumm Oh....really? Check out a country called The United States of America, circa 1950-1980. Tell me how miserably that experiment failed. There were still plenty of Bentley's rolling on the highways, but the average family actually lived, not merely survived. Women stayed home and raised their kids, kept a clean home, cooked healthy meals etc. Your argument is crap. And somehow I doubt that you are one of the .001% that Hartmann mentions in this piece.
Waszma 6 months ago
@Waszma That was before Japan moved into manufacturing, then Taiwan, Korea, and now China. Screwing bumpers on Chevy`s, and making plastic Barbie Dolls is not going to get us far today. Exactly WHY ought American workers be able to be rich screwing on bumpers? Dont you think Chinamen would be ecstatic to earn even half what we do?
luvcheney1 6 months ago
@luvcheney1 Screwing on bumpers huh? You make 40 hours a week of labor sound so insignificant. Maybe the CEO who sits on his ass in the board room should try it for a week. Ever watch Undercover Boss? The higher ups are always shocked at the effort required to do these "meaningless tasks". No Luvvy, I think the country is much better off with all of the poverty and foreclosures, makes it more adventurous to live here. Let's Mad Max ourselves right into a fucking wasteland. BTW, Cheney blows.
Waszma 6 months ago
Comment removed
Waszma 6 months ago
@Waszma First, we had agriculture as the main occupation. Then, industrialization drove wages, standard of living higher. ( Screwing on bumpers). Now, the world is moving into high tech: computer software, bio medicine, pharmacueticals, intellectual properties, etc. Farming with a plow, screwing bumpers, making Barbies, will no longer make us middle class. The future is high tech. BUT, Govt, Union school monopolies leave our kids unprepared to work in the future. We lag. We lose. Game over,.
luvcheney1 6 months ago
@luvcheney1 If manufacturing doesn't matter anymore, walk into a Walmart, flip over 99% of the products on the shelf. You'll find they're made in, yeah China, our new landlord. Also, make sure you tell the Koreans to stop sending all those Hyundai's and Kia's over here...they're wasting their time manufacturing all that crap, but somehow it ends up on our highways...hmm.
Waszma 6 months ago
@Waszma When I was a boy, Japan made all the crap, the kind of stuff we see today from China. After 4 or 5 decades, Japan isnt known for crap, but high quality stuff, and their wealth is better! Korea is ahead of China, but in a few decades, the "opressed" Chink will be driving nice cars, and living like Japs. We must stay ahead, or become equals to them. Choose.
luvcheney1 6 months ago
@luvcheney1 The real problem in this country, and really, think about this, is that corporate profits can be sky high at the same time as record breaking unemployment levels. You hear about the Verizon layoffs after a huge profit year? That's the main problem here, not that there isn't enough wealth, just that it's in the hands of very few people. I don't want to live in a country where 90% of the people are destitute, if I did I'd move to Somalia, I could get a house on the beach for $6.43
Waszma 6 months ago
@Waszma Verizon stock today is at the same level it was in 1997, 14 yrs ago. 2010 income statement shows $3.06 billion after tax profit, on $106.6 billion revenue, or 2.87% profit. Gee, how horrible! For every $100 I spend with Verizon, they make $2.87! Go fuck yourself stupid.
luvcheney1 6 months ago
@luvcheney1 Verizon is literally swimming in cash. In the first quarter of this year, it tripled its profits, compared to the previous quarter, and it’s been consistently outperforming the stock market now for the past several years. And yet, even with such a profitable company, you have a situation where it is demanding unprecedented givebacks from its workers. Oh, sorry, you'll have to wait for me to recuperate before I can fuck myself, I just got done ramming your wife into a coma.
Waszma 6 months ago
Waszma 6 months ago
@Waszma "5 yr averages". Your figures, of after tax profit, are 7.4%. Wow, for every $100 I spend, they make $7.40. This is excessive? Of course, maybe we can get those workers more, so Verizon can get a bailout, go bankrupt like GM with the UAW did, instead of paying the taxes you stated, the difference between 13.6% and 7.4%. They were "allowed" to keep just 54.4% by the Feds. You want most of that given to those poor workers? Stupid motherfucker.
luvcheney1 6 months ago
@luvcheney1 Who do you want it given to "stupid motherfucker"?, since we're hurling insults. Let's make it simple for your simple mind, ok? Was the quality of life not better from 1950-1980? We we not the worlds larget creditor? Now the quality of life here blows and we are the biggest debtor nation on the planet, no? Can your feeble brain not connect the dots? Hyper fucking greed my boy...that is the problem. You want this country to become Mexico? 1% filthy rich, 99% dirt poor? Go live there.
Waszma 6 months ago
@luvcheney1 Hey Einstein, did the guy who "screwed on the bumpers" design the shit that came out of Detroit for the past 40 years? I don't think so. In the late 70's, when ships carrying 5-6,000 Datsuns and Toyota's were docked in port Newark etc., you'd think the brain trust would have seen the ass kicking coming. Or the lame ass govt would have slapped some nice tariffs on em. Maybe both. You seem to have a lot of contemp for the American worker. You've been brainwashed by fat as Limbaugh huh?
Waszma 6 months ago
@Waszma 1950-1980 the US was the world`s manufacturer. I guess we should have bombed Japan, China, Korea, Taiwan into the stone age, then we could STILL be the only one! GM bankruptcy and which cars were doomed? Small ones! Saab, Pontiac (no truck-suv), Saturn. What is saved? Big ones. Chevy (truck-suv), Caddy, GMC, Buick. Hummer sold FEW cars, irrelevant. Chevy has small cars, made in Korea. UAW makes it impossible to profit in US with SMALL cars. Making cars that lose money is your idea?
luvcheney1 6 months ago
@luvcheney1 BTW, in Germany in a company that has 1,000 or more employees, 50% of the board of directers must be made up of labor reps. And their economy makes ours look like shit. If you've shopped for a BMW, Audi or Mercedes lately, they don't give their shit away. How is it that it works there but not here? Also, was it a "bumper screwer" who decided not to spend a few dollars on a rubber bladder that would have kept people from burning to death? Cost Ford $125,000,000. Greed baby, greeeeeed!
Waszma 6 months ago
@Waszma Germany, per capita GDP (PPP), $35,700, USA per capita GDP (PPP) $47,200. Your premise is silly, especially given the fact that over the last 6 decades, Germany doesnt need to spend money to protect itself, because we do it for them , in order to not have them cause a world war every few decades. BTW, BMW recalled 350,000 luxury vehicles, with dangerous brakes. Perfection is impossible.
luvcheney1 6 months ago
@luvcheney1 Once again you didn't get the point. Yes, production is high, but wages are low, hence the huge percentage of people struggling and living in misery. Wages have been stagnant here for 30 fucking years man, that's bullshit. We're running out of consumers. Yeah, per capita GDP is higher in Germany, but since the wealth isn't as sharply concentrated as it is in this shithole, the bulk of the people live well. We have a lower standard of living despite production being high.
Waszma 6 months ago
Waszma 6 months ago
@Waszma Didn't you understand my last post? I was trying to explain to you that we should have been making cars that compete with the rice rockets 40 years ago. Poor communicators on corporate and labor sides fucked up the auto industry. They could have rolled out the math..."hey, we can pay you X Dollars an hour and make a car with better quality and performance than Japan. Either we agree on something that makes sense or we're doomed. Where was it that you read "make cars that lose money"?
Waszma 6 months ago
@Waszma The highest selling vehicle in the US, for the last 34 years isnt a "rice rocket". It is a Ford, F-150 truck. #2 selling vehicle is a Chevy 1500 truck. UAW labor costs make it impossible to make smaller cars profitably here. Unless, they are made in a right to work state. Why would GM ditch the small car lines at bankruptcy if they MADE money?
luvcheney1 6 months ago
@luvcheney1 Because they didn't make them soon enough, or well enough. Dude, you have probably misread me, I am not a socialist, I am not a right winger, I am not a progressive. I care only about what makes this country strong, or stronger. Fuck left or right, it's a balance that's been missing. Yeah, unions have been too demanding at times, so have the corporate heads. If there was sufficient intellegence on both sides they wouldn't seek to destroy each other. But, Ford Fiesta? Kicking ass now.
Waszma 6 months ago
@luvcheney1 OK...you're not a dummy (painful to admit), I'd be interested to hear your opinion, let me ask you this; where do you think we fell down? And what do we need to do to get the train back on the track? BTW, nice job dodging the 475:1 ratio issue : ) But seriously, please answer those two questions.
Waszma 6 months ago
@Waszma Feb `11, Fiesta sold 6270, F-150 sold 37,549 units. You are grossly uninformed. BIG is what sells. Libs hallucinate. 475-1 ratio: Corps have owners, known as stockholders. They are greedy, as is everyone. They will not pay one more penny to anyone they dont have to. They pay whatever it takes, to get CEO who will maximize stock value. Just like Yankees do. If far less secured talent, they would pay far less. "competition" in US for talent, thats all.
luvcheney1 6 months ago
@luvcheney1 Your numbers make no sense. How many mid-sized pickups does the F-150 compete against....5? How many sub-compacts does the Fiesta compete against, 500? Big sells huh? You're saying more V-8 pickups were sold last year than econo boxes? I don't think so. As far as the stock holders/CEO argument goes, how does Germany do it with a 12:1 ratio? Seriously dude, greed has put us in this spot, but it's not as fashionable as it was a while ago. It's giving capitalism a bad name.
Waszma 6 months ago
@Waszma German Directors must obviously find it far easier to find talent, than in the US. Perhaps, like Michelle Obama told us, go into non profit work, not go after the money. After all, high school grads here want to study Liberal Arts, not become MBA`s. Perhaps they ought to follow the money, but working for money is frowned upon.
luvcheney1 6 months ago
@luvcheney1 Through July 2011, 978,495 pickups sold, 1,360,336 small cars.
Waszma 6 months ago
@Waszma That is precisely why the UAW Corporations make bigger, higher profit vehicles. Because they cant compete price wise. GM sells small, econo boxes, but they are made in Korea. You just wait, they will sell the first Chinese cars too. Its not they can NOT make them its the fact they cant make them at a profit. GM, Chrysler has armies of retired UAW to support, and the competition has few retired draining resources. So, they make high profit vehicles, others not yet making.
luvcheney1 6 months ago