Hmmm...the incomes of the top 400 earners spiked 409%? At the same time the stock market was soaring? Connection? Probably not. I mean it's not like the average American isn't smart enough to invest in the market. Oh wait...the average American is a fucking moron!!! You wanna know why rich people are so rich? It's not because they're stealing from you, it's because while the average American takes their paycheck and blows it on alcohol and video games, the smart Americans invest.
@Vyarium Smart rich Americans invest in buying politicians so poor Americans have no political voice (or money). Many of the rich also avoid paying taxes by way of off shore bank accounts. Poor people who can barely afford to pay the rent and eat don't exactly have much disposable income to gamble on the stock market. Also the stock market and capitalism is actively pushing wages and conditions lower at every given chance, through globalization and automation so those at the bottom get stomped.
@Spentastic Invest in buying politicians? I don't know what the hell you're talking about but I don't invest in politicians. I learned how to play the capital markets when I was 14 years old and have since built up enormous wealth buy making educated and well thought out decisions. I don't come from a rich family, and I have never had any formal financial education. Don't give me that bullshit about those at the bottom getting stomped. I built my own wealth, everyone else can do the same.
@Vyarium Sounds like you have the solutions to all the worlds problems. Some people actually WORK for a living pal. Sitting on your behind betting on the stock market isn't work and for those shares to go up someone has to work and unfortunately that same person has to get shafted by 'the man'. That's capitalism 101, get in cheap labor and make them produce as much as possible so the shareholders and execs get PAID. The worker gets told work harder or get fired, Fuck that shit.
@Spentastic First of all, EVERYONE has an opportunity to play the stock market. And I absolutely consider investing to be WORK. Just because I'm smart enough to know that there exist opportunities to produce wealth beyond the simple manual labor jobs does not mean my line of work isn't work. Everyone has a choice. You can choose to work for the shareholders, or you can choose (like I did) to be a shareholder.
@Spentastic and for the record, America was founded as a capitalist society. And as a capitalist society, we operate with an economic and political system in which our trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit. (that's capitalism 101) If you don't want to live in a capitalist society, don't live in America.
@Spentastic Ok, that makes sense. I still don't like some of your beliefs about investing but I guess we can agree to disagree on some things. And for the record, I do plan on leaving America in the future. I think the capitalistic idea behind the country is AWESOME and it believe it could have been truely a great nation, but our leaders have seriously fucked it up and I'll be moving if things don't improve in the near future.
@Vyarium For the record I believe in a Keynesian mixed economy with certain vital parts of the economy government run and other less important parts privately run. I believe in a minimum wage and the value workers unions play in building the middle class. I also believe that the state should play a part in the welfare of its citizens without rewarding those who choose not to contribute. I am also an enemy of free trade and believe tariffs play a role in protecting local workers and businesses.
If you’re interested in the problems with the world like social problems, environment ,education, politics, banking, and government even if you have an ounce of question or doubt on the problems you know that exist in this world please watch Zeitgeist Addendum here on youtube and Zeitgeist Moving Forward which is part two. It answers most of the problems we have today. Keep Posting this on more vidoes.
@TheSkunkCat Of course they do, it's just that you're trying to tell this to a group of people who think they're just temporarily embarrassed millionaires who'll get rich once the super rich are able to do as they did in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
47 percent of the population pay NO TAXES and thats the bottom poorest. And almost all the tax revenue is paid by the RICH! Can anyone explain that and how thats fair? The rich is paying all the taxes. How are they not paying their fair share??
@KripDrip Wrong. Even someone working minimum wage pays taxes dumbass. In fact, rich Americans pay VERY LITTLE taxes. Big corporations like WalMart pay no taxes at all. Most of the tax burden in America falls on the middle class, which can't afford it. Meanwhile, 10% of this country's population rakes in 80% of the wealth in it.
@KripDrip "Can anyone explain that and how thats fair? The rich is paying all the taxes. How are they not paying their fair share??" - I can, It is the same rules for every American. If you cash out the value of certain social economic conditions (created by the proper care of the lower classes) then you are expected to pay taxes. The same rules for every single person in the United States. Therefore complete fair, which is what you asked for. I will continue in the next bit.
@KripDrip - Secondly, in order to be rich and make that kind of money you require certain social economic conditions. The rules are pretty simple, have a go, play the game and if you win we expect you to pay a portion of your income towards maintaining the game platform that you have enjoyed raping the fuck out of. Your argument that 47 percent don't pay taxes, of course they do but no direct wage taxes purely because they don't earn enough to live on to begin with. The rich do. FUCK OFF.
You have the foolish republican voters to thank for this. The messed up part is tghat in the face of all this, they will still vote Republican. Go figure
Who cares about the top 400 earners!!!! really they don'tmatter in the median income earners. You argument is flawed. Basically you are saying that if we got rid of the top 400 earners everyone else will be richer. HOW will that happen???? Magically, there will be more money in my bank account because Bill Gates and Warren Buffet is gone. You argument is lame Cenk and does not make sense.
@guinnessman1970 No you don't make any sense. It is nothing about getting rid of top 400 earners and we somehow we are getting more money. He is just showing that republicans is liaers and they will only do taxs cuts for the rich and help them. NO money top earners get from tax cuts will go down in the system for the average american, it only help the rich getting richer. As soon as you wake up and realise that you are hurting youreself and the middelclass (whitch i assume you are)
TYT raises an important point. The gap between the middle class and the upper class get wider every year. All this has happened before, and the outcome is always the same, class warfare. Fortunately, today we are still far from that end, but if we permit the trend to continue, we will eventually get there. You say that you have some ideas. What are they?
"I'm not talking like those crazy right wingers, I'm saying we need to overthrow the government".
It is so heart warming to know that the following groups love America so much, that they passionately offer advice that is in the best interests of America. Islamist, socialist, communist, and Leftist are very busy running every 3rd world country, but they still have time to look out for America.
@lousinup Blah blah blah. Your Isms ....yes anyone who is not in line with your view has to be one of those terrible things. Does it hurt you to know that the Nazi's were conservative? Does it make you cry that fascism tends to be pretty anti-liberal? You people keep coming up with these absurd analogies and have nothing to back them up. Stop watching Glen beck...read a book...learn something..and come back when you have something better than a talking point. The educated are tired of you.
@mrfinn9 Fascism is an extremist, authoritarian, and nationalist ideology, leaning neither left or right in terms of economics. The Nazi party didn't believe in capitalism, it believed in corporatism, which is when the government controls or at least directly influences corporations. And your use of the term conservative is incredibly misleading. For example, a radical Marxist living in present-day China can be considered a conservative if he wants to conserve Maoist communism.
This is incredibly disturbing. If you look at Bush's presidency you can see exactly who he was serving. This is not just any 400 people. These are the 400 richest bastards in our country. Can you imagine how much money those % increases represent considering the amount they started with? If you are poor and a Republican please realize that the family values rhetoric is just a line to get your vote.
They are not serving you, they are not serving me. They are just hoarding their gold.
families dont invest....... so of course their income doesnt go up like that of an investor.
get a clue. i do nothing but talk shit about republicans but this guy is a fucking moron. maybe if families cared more about investing instead of buying snacks, and gas guzzling, etc they would have more money to invest.
@AntiVenomFangX you have to have money to invest first...which many people don't have enough of to invest. you shouldn't have to invest in the market to make a decent amount of money and retire comfortably.
@AntiVenomFangX That's a bit simple. Sounds like a sound bite concocted by some think tank or organisation designed as a pseudo proof.
On inspect 0.9^30 = ~4.2%
So even if every 1penny investment had a 90% chance of returning a penny the odds of getting to 11m are still only 4% or about 1 in 25. And the only investment that 90% guarantee a 100% return on your original investment in linear time are ponzi schemes.
@AntiVenomFangX I didn't say its 100%, further I didn't say you said it was 100%. Simply put. I was demonstrating that your statement, a reworking of the wheat and cheesboard problem, is a obvious piece of pseudo evidence designed to seem of some relevance on casual comprehension but is easily revealed to be irrelevant.
Just don't want people to read it and think "Gee, wow. Just 1 penny can get me millions and millions..."
@AntiVenomFangX Are there any investments out there? yes and no.
There was plenty of money before 2008 in fact too much. There was too much investment in things that weren't needed. So arguably there was no room on the market for any-more *investments* only speculation. And even things thought of as investments <2008 like Greece are now shown to be mal-investment.
Given the huge gap in information joe and a hedge fund. The result will likely be in this climate joe loosing.
The heart of the system is that you show up at ALL local precinct meetings of BOTH the republican AND democrat LOCAL PRECINCT meetings and REMOVE _ALL_ the OLD representatives. The good news is it probably does not take more than 5 to ten of you to win the votes at each meeting
Income inequality in the US has mushroomed over the past thirty years. In fact America now has basically the same income spread it did in the 1920s. Hey America, when rich conservatives promised to take you back to "the good old days," they never told you WHO they were good for, did they?
You people can't seem top figure out that it's the military spending that's ruined you. cut it by 25% and then run the numbers - 750 billion a year, that's a tarp program every friggin year no wonder you're broke-
Okay, so the top 400 wage earners? BIG DEAL! Our country has 300 MILLION people. this is a stupid chart and if anyone takes this seriously, they are really stupid. I am MIDDLE class and I DID get some tax cuts. This man is an idiot. Do research, he's stupid.
Govt officials set up a system that makes them rich! Why the f*ck would they change it?! Anyone that thinks the people in charge of a system that makes them rich would change the system is a f*cking idiot! This system will NEVER change because the people that benefit from it are the same people that determine how it works!
Complain complain complain is what you'll do for the rest of your lives! Just like your parents complained, just like their parents complained, etc., etc.
"Capitalism is the end of history, it doesn't get better then this!" Apologises the parasitic narcissist who prays he was the beneficiary of a corrupt, backward "market" system of wealth distribution. tubaboy, you're weak self-centred prostitute.
Wealth redistribution is already happening... All the wealth of America is being redistributed towards the rich. That is causing the economy on the whole to not grow at a stable rate, and the REAL economy (you know, us people) is shrinking.
Ahh so so providing a good and service people use/buy is an evil thing? Your comment was not an answer at all, but the funny part is when they apply even more redistribution of wealth where the people will believe they are middle class until they find out they have just created a perminate 2 class system, the poor and the elite.
Wealth redistribution towards the rich is destroying the WHOLE ECONOMY. Even Henry Ford knew the benefits of giving the workers a higher rate of pay, because THEY are ultimately the source of the Ford Motor Company's profits.
A high rate of wages can be discribed as functioning capitalism, which is not happening in America right now, which is a credit economy.
So you are saying there are not several thousands who do not fit into the 2 classes shown? 400 people is not even a dent of a percentage. So 5% get better? ever think why or how rather than just scream its governments job to make your wealth?
@tubaboy71 Cente-left socialist democracy parties are not examples of Socialism. If they were true Socialists they'd align themselves with Chavez and other true Socialists.
The EU is Socialist? You've not only shown that you don't know anything about Socialism but Europe either.
@tubaboy71 Chavez is a totalitarian leader? Really? You're just like the rest of the stupid right-wingers I meet on Youtube who are the first ones to scream about how evil Socialism yet you can't define it and so come out with ridiculous this like Venezuela is totalitarian.
TYT are getting so boring now. Still complaining when Capitalism doesn't work out for them. DUHHH IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO!
Until people start to use some damn common sense and get out of their childish bubble and quit believing that Capitalism is designed for the working class we're all doomed.
LOL no kidding they also fail to understand that people work their way on up from being poor or middle class to wealth all the time. Hard to do in other systems. They want the same regardless of skill or work ethic, but I guess IF they don't work enough that there socialized medicine will get rid of them fast enough LOL
The top 400 people are getting all this money from US.
The extra money they are getting is from cutting jobs from people like YOU, denying people like YOU their pay rises, from gambling with YOUR pension plans, by increasing YOUR medical insurance costs while not paying out when YOU need it. They are paying the most because they have the most INCOME. As a proportion of disposable wealth, they are paying NOTHING compared to the poor.
Most of what you say isn't really true. Wealth creation is not a zero sum game. The "rich" aren't "taking" money from you.
Also, very few (none?) of the very very rich come out of the health insurance biz - that is actually a fairly low-margin industry.
Regarding the pension fund 'gambling' - that was the government which chose to bail these guys out. An organization's level of corruption is lcorrelated with its size and power, smaller gov would help.
Low margin? Do you know how much actual profit there is? And do you know how much the CEOS get paid? And do you know how much they are spending on lobbying and marketing? The insurance industry is clogged with waste in order to give the maximum amount of money to MANAGEMENT. Productivity (profit per worker) is going WAY up in America, and yet pay is not.
And the bailouts were to make the banks liquid again, NOT to reimburse pension funds.
@dangerouslytalented Besides the fact this reply is complete nonsense you are trying to say that the millions of people who work within the insurance and marketing industries shouldn't have jobs? I seriously think leftists are looking at the wrong areas to where and why pay is down for those with basic labor jobs.
Those who are working in insurance and marketing industries should be working in OTHER jobs if their industries are overgrown. And with less healthcare costs to employers, those jobs will suddenly open up.
Ok, with the healthcare industry being reformed, the other industries, which are being weighed down with these monsterous healthcare costs will be able to spend more money on other things. This would be a boost to the economy, as businesses would be spending this money on stuff they would be able to use.
Well you are using the argument that insurance companies spend sooooooooooooo much in marketing are you sure the common workers in the marketing industry could afford less work and lower pay? I mean since you are placing a worth on their "non specialized" common" degrees.
And the marketing budget for the government is not nearly as much as that being squandered by the healthcare industry marketing drugs to people who don't really need them.
Ahh sharp answer! I dunno $300+++ million to Louisiana and Nebraska for health care votes, a judicial seat for a health care vote, a multi billion dollar union deal to stop union protests against the health care deal. Lets see how much do those government websites cost now? How about the 3 million for the signs marking "stimulus dollars"? How much is the government spending on marketing for the census?
"Low margin? Do you know how much actual profit there is?" -Yes. "do you knw hw mch they r spnding on lobying +marketing? " -Yes."The insce indtsty is cloged w/waste in order to give the max amount of $ to MNGMT." -We need some insurance reform. People " i.e.management" trying to make money is a good thing. "Productivity (profit per worker) is going WAY up in America" -Good thing. "yet pay is not."- if workers aren't happy w/their pay, they should start their own companies.
Actually wasn't it Obama who took thousands of people's pensions via changing bondholder stock to common stock and converting unions' with unsustainable benifits debt common stock to the bondholders' stock when GM and Chrysler went bankrupt?
That bondholder stock would not have been worth the paper it was printed on had GM and Chrysler gone under.They were so bankrupt as to make it not matter.
"That bondholder stock would not have been worth the paper it was printed on had GM and Chrysler gone under.They were so bankrupt as to make it not matter"
LOL oh really? Please tell us what the difference is. This will be funny as those bonds were guaranteed to be worth 80+% of their original value where the common stock was worth about 8 cents a share.
Those people paid with the fruits of their labor being a cop or teacher it and their bond inwhich they purchased went down in value not up. You are also ignoring Obama broke the contract and made up his own laws to make this happen. These bonds were part of 401k's.
Had those companies been allowed to fold completely, those bonds would have been not worth the paper they were printed on anyway, being worth what the company was worth, and the debts exceeded the value of the factories, the real estate, etc.
... except that most of those assets consisted of auto plants in Detroit, and do you know how much you can buy an abandoned auto plant in Detroit for? Practically nothing.
Except for the fact that that is not at all how it was broken down....money you are claiming that did not exist is and was there it tranfered hands at the cost of the bondholders...
Had the Big Three folded, then the bonds would have been WORTHLESS, because there would have been nobody to buy up the assets of GM, Ford and Chrysler. I mean, GM are even NOW still finding it very hard to sell off SAAB and Hummer, it looks like a deal with Koeniggsegg might go ahead to sell SAAB, but if the Big Three went under, not only would the bondholders missed out anyway, but every single employee (who were also bondholders) would have lost out completely, no job, no benefits, no nothing.
Ford was not in on it and the money you are claiming not to be there was there just transfered to OTHER people. Only reason the "workers" and union thugs are bond holders (different than common stock) was due to Obama breaking the contract. I live in the state it effected most and it is a reason why my state is no longer a blue state.
No, you just do not even have a clue to what the hell you are talking about and you keep digging deeper trying to excuse it. This must be one of them there radical right wing stories the MSM ignored on a national level but it was covered locally. I bet people think its cool that the prez used his powerto destroy a legally binding contract and destroyed THOUSANDS of people's retirement.
The problem here is not Obama's fault. It is the fault of the managements of GM and Chrysler, who, over the last 30 or 40 years have underfunded the pension plans, cut R&D, underfunded healthcare plans, cut spending across the board, and Obama had a horrible decision: Allow an entire industry to die, putting MILLIONS out of work (and bonds you speak of would have been almost worthless) or help bail them out and restructure, while destroying retirement savings of thousands.
Union benifits are what DESTROYED GM and Chrysler why do you think they needed billions and still need billions? Bondholders are treated like a loan. If they let the bonds crash they were worth 80% of there original value not "nothing". You should change your name to Dangerouslystupid as you will also more than likely deny that those "benifits" raised the costs of inferior cars $2600+ each.
That $2600 extra that was being paid for each car was because of the underfunding of pension and healthcare plans going back decades, which boosted short term profitability at the cost of long term viability, which meant that part of the labor cost of a 1973 Pontiac GTO would have to be paid for by somebody buying a 2008 Pontiac G8.
Every GM or Chrysler car built during the time the pensions were underfunded became a liability, even if it been recycled for scrap years ago.
mmm yeah too bad when they were "fired" aka work shop or layed off they got paid 90% of their normal pay. Ever see their retirement benifits? They literially were getting more than they actually paid in.
The problem there is that they are being laid off temporarily, because GM could not sell cars.
If they did not pay a large proporation of their wages, then these people would have to leave town forever, and the company would lose all its workers.
Personally, I think they should have, instead of telling them to stay home, they should have had them painting the walls of the factory or helping retool or building houses for Habitat for Humanity or retraining or whatever, like Toyota does.
Cutting an already progressive tax rate is more socialistic? You are going to have to explain that one since the fact those whom make money make it providing a good or service people buy with their own free will. Every argument I have seen listed in this section is beyond weak.
"That bondholder stock would not have been worth the paper it was printed on had GM and Chrysler gone under.They were so bankrupt as to make it not matter"
LOL oh really? Please tell us what the difference is. This will be funny as those bonds were guaranteed to be worth 80+% of their original value where the common stock was worth about 8 cents a share.
Obama did say a while ago, that he wanted to change the Tax Code to something along the lines of a Fair Tax, which means making Corporations pay their fair share. But looking at the way things are goin...we can't even get Healthcare for everyone yet. So I remain skeptical, but still hopeful.
Fair Tax? You mean a flat tax? That would put the burden SQUARELY on the consumers, leaving the top 1% and 1% of 1%, who have gathered most of America's wealth, paying FAR LESS in tax.
I am all for smaller government - and I am all for "we the people". Cause when this is all said and done - the rich people are going to have to eventually come down from their ivory towers when the "little people" start to revolt and they have no more of us to kick around. And it is sad that gov't believes that rich people create jobs - when they don't they just extort money from us and we become the bitch slapped ho'. As for Hope & change - we hope they change before its too late.
Correct me if I'm wrong but in America as you go up in tax brackets, that changes your tax overall right?
Like, here in Australia you might pay (say) 10% up to $10,000, then 20% up to $20,000. But that first $10,000 you're still only paying 10% for. You only pay the 20% for the 10,001 to 20,000.
As far as I'm aware in the American system you pay a fixed amount across the board. Can someone confirm/deny for me.
Here you pay a fixed amount based on your total adjusted income after write offs. But, that's only for wages.
Capital gains on stocks, for instance, are usually taxed at 15% of your gains. Real estate gains are often taxed at 0%, depending on how long you live there and if you reinvest it quickly. Sometimes they can just be put off a very long time. And there are other rates for other things. Tax avoidance is a huge industry, it's so complicated.
When you have big dreams of being among the top 1% of the richest and so you back them up, well what do you expect?
I am on the left. My proposal is for a new government that holds corporations accountable to the society which made them successful by requiring them to fund social programs via paying the highest taxes on their capital gains (i.e. socialism).
Others might suggest a different method of paying for social services.
The fact is that tax paid on PROFIT cannot affect the price of goods in a free market economy. The price of goods stay the same regardless of the corporate PROFIT TAX. The reason is that if a corporation tries to raise it's prices it has competitors that will not raise prices.
What affects the price of goods and services is sales tax. That is a tax placed on consumers. Capital Gains Tax (PROFIT TAX) is placed on the businesses.
Uh, no. Companies don't care where their money is taxed from, as it all affects the same thing, their PROFITS. If their profits are being taxed, they'll raise the price of goods (or hire less people or cut wages, ect.) until they meet their profit goal. Your assumption that competitors won't do the same is foolish as their profits are (hopefully) going to be taxed the same. Either way, it's not the "evil" rich business men that are going to be paying for it.
People refuse to pay higher prices whenever possible. Supply and demand doesn't give a damn about a company's profit "goals".
The only people you're fooling with your right wing PROPAGANDA are the tea baggers. Go spread your propaganda where idiots will listen to you. Not here.
Lol, murderer? That's rich. I also love how dissenting opinions are "right wing PROPAGANDA", how open minded of you.
Newsflash: Not all products are perfectly elastic. Some things are necessities, which consumers have to buy no matter what. And when companies can't get away with raising prices they either go out of business or cut in other places (employment, ect.) like I already said. Either way, it's a loss.
Yes, you are a murderer because you spread propaganda and you are simple. You don't even know you've been taught the lie that you are spreading around. PROPAGANDA.
You are so wrong about profits. A business does not go out of business due to capital GAINS tax you. And in America, the majority of Americans are EMPLOYED by SMALL BUSINESES.
America has businesses profiting hundreds of millions RIGHT NOW. That money goes to luxerous lifestyles. Not job creation.
To be more specific of why you are a murderer I will add that due to the right wing propaganda you unrealizeingly spread, you contribute to the misinformation of ACTUALLY what happens in an all capitalist economiy thus feeding new comers to the debate inacurrate information and confirm other people's misconceptions. That results in them (and you) making decisions based on faulty learning. Which results in less people supporting social services. That leads to people's deaths.
According to who? Not that there were any tea partiers back then, anyway. Given how people change, I wouldn't be suprised is a lot of tea partiers voted for Carter.
I'm not sure I understand what that has to do with anything. But okay, yes, you're right, Reagan did in fact win the electoral college in 1980 and 1984. Congratulations. How does that connect to the Reagan economy vs the Carter economy?
Are you suggesting people were "stupid" and voted so overwelmingly for a "bad economy"? Funny thing is Carter was labled the idiot Peanut Farmer by those in his own party.
Actually I'm suggesting you're stupid because you're rambling about 14 different things. Or I'm stupid because I can't follow what the electoral college has to do with anything. I mean, Obama won 365 to 173. I guess that proves that his economic ideas, including fake-ass pretend only in Glenn Beck's head socialism, are what the voters want?
Actually I am going to raise you and call you an economic dumb fuck. Was Bush's economy bad? YES. Has Obama fixed anything besides dumping trillions into an unfixed economy? NO. Simple fact is Reagan beat Carter and he beat Mondale back too back. If his economy was BAD he would not have had a second term. I guess that logic doesn't set into idiots like you does it? I will bet your stupid ass will come back and say this chart tells all again huh?
Yes, you're right, logic that simple doesn't set at all with an idiot like me. But, but, but, (flustered), didn't you see the chart? Haha, you tool. Have fun.
Great reply, repeating your argument when it was already answered several times. I can make a chart showing 10000 poor people moving out of the "poor class" into the "upper middle class" to debunk the chart. Thing is it has little to no meaning to the size of the economy and what is really going on, just like this chart.
Yeah, I made an "argument". Sure, thats what happened. You might be suprised to know that I don't need a chart from a Youtube video to know this. Its been WELL FUCKING DOCUMENTED FOR 15 YEARS. Jesus, how stupid and dense some people are. Just because I haven't bothered to respond to your idiotic points (the 1984 election, really?) doesn't mean you've made a good point. I don't know if you've noticed, but we're not having a debate here.
I know because your points are too fucking stupid to "debate". Just like the left's health care plans all do not make fiscal sense, just like this chart
Fiscal sense? Fiscal? Hahahaha, thats probably the first correct thing you've said here. That graph doesn't make "fiscal" sense at all. Oh man, keep tooling that toolerific toolitude, you tool.
@tubaboy71 Without trying to weigh in on a dead debate (which I unavoidably am doing ;/ ) Your chart would be irrelevant since those people you would be plotting control very little wealth.
Where a chart of the top 400 wealthiest directly own or through shares in large business 5%? 10%? 15%? of GDP??? There wealth will almost certainly be a reflection of other large stake holders who may not be in the TOP400 but who hold a significant amount of stock too.
@tubaboy71 Thats what I mean. 47% are not net recipients. In fact its the top 5% (if I remember correctly) pay something like 50%. Those 400TOP people ARE relevant. As there wealth alone is a significant part of GDP and is almost certainly down to share holdings, so their wealth also is a direct indicator for the whole economy.
By your own admission just now the bottom 47% pay nothing, so saying they moved within that 'nothing' bracket says nothing.
@tubaboy71 Hey, hey, hey. I did not say anything of the sort either way.
What I am saying is you painted a false dichotomy between the significance of this graph and your suggested hypothetical graph of 'poor' people moving into the 'middle class' nothing more.
@CmdrTobs I did not paint anything "false" the significance of the graph you are claiming is great is nul. You act like GDP is your GDP? Do you feel some sort of entitlement to those 400 people's earnings? What good or service to you provide besides an opinion?
What?!!! You act like I have dicussed something other than your comprehension and analysis of the chart. "I act like" What do you know how I act like? I have not espoused a view point either way on the topic.
What I do know is that if you think this graph contains the same information about the overall economy as a graph showing poor people moving into the middle class you need to learn to comprehend charts. That is all.
@CmdrTobs that is where your comprehension leads you to believe fact is my point is you could throw up any 400 people in there and make it look any way you wanted dip shit.
What?!!! You act like I have discussed something other than your comprehension and analysis of the chart. "I act like" What do you know how I act like? I have not espoused a view point either way on the topic.
Wait. What? have you watched any of the debates between Carter and Reagan? Or Mondale and Reagan? Reagan tripled the deficit in his first term, and had a terrible recession that resulted in him closing down the stock market for several days in the late 80s. Even his own advisors admit he gave handoffs to pretty much any type of corporation you can think of. He framed the debates. "It takes time to kill the big bull of government." Sound familiar?
"If [Reagan's] economy was BAD he would not have had a second term."
Bush's economy was bad by your admission, but he had a second term. Bad leadership with the economy doesn't disqualify someone from getting a second term.
If need be? I shouldn't have said that. I mean, it really looks like we have no choice. We are not being represented. We need a revolution. I just don't see any other way.
If we are going to overthrow the system, then we need to create several panels of discussion about what our new form of government is going to look like once we have control.
Fighting against a system without an end-game in mind is just anarchy and will only make things work.
We must also remember to change things in a way that does not destroy infrustructure. How do we protect our lines of communication when the government fights back through internet censorship?
I am willing to donate my website for the cause until someone out there who has a more relevant domain name they would like to use for our cause comes along.
What I am proposing at this time is only a site for discussion on the end-goal of our new government structure. We can work out the "how tos" as we get closer to an agreed constitution.
Check out the Facebook site - they have whats called The COFFEE ?? - sorry forgot the whole name - but its the smart version of the Tea Party. It's a forum for ideas and free thinkers - on how to talk to government and each other for a change in our system.
I'm opened minded about reaching out to the Tea Party to fight a common enemy, but only if they are in favor of providing a socialized healthcare and education system. I don't know of very many Libertarians who are.
Othwerwise, I think it'll be better if someone can recommend another, more like minded, group or if we form a new one if one doesn't already exist..
4. People are as gullible as ever! When an candidate is elected because of race, or cheap slogans instead of issue, and a ruckus risen over "global warming" for the sake of additional tax revenue, we're surely in for troubled times.
@breadym --- I sooo agree with your points so well!!! I agree with your 3 reason greatly...The system is choking the life out of the middle class and Americans are to dumb to realize it which why I agree with your 4th one..Americans are so dam gullible!! Sometimes I really think that the American people are truly against what is best or what will help the American people. The sheep in this country will never wake up!!
2. deficits are ignored. YOU CAN'T SPEND MORE MONEY THAN YOU EARN! Whether it's in the gov., GM, or personal finances, people are spending more than their making.
3. The system has slowly choked the middle class. CEO and executive pay has reached a 450:1 ratio in most cases whereas years ago the typical CEO was making 35 times as much as the typical entry level worker for a company. Bank bonuses reward risky short term transactions instead of long term healthy growth.
Comparing the top 400 incomes to those below the poverty line is not a fair representation of anything. This guy is a typical bozo progressive who is just a radical as the "far right conservatives" he makes fun of in his little skit here.
The problem with America is that: 1. generally, people don't want to work to earn their money, i.e., everybody from the bottom to the top are looking to get a quick buck.
Progressive revolution, absolutely. The working class has to unite and fight or die in poverty without any damn health care. The world communist revolution scared the the capitalists, so for 70 years up to 1990 they gave some of their money to buy off workers and win their loyalty. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the capitalists have taken back all the gains that workers made in the prior 70 years and the workers are back in poverty. This time the workers need to complete the job.
Hmmm...the incomes of the top 400 earners spiked 409%? At the same time the stock market was soaring? Connection? Probably not. I mean it's not like the average American isn't smart enough to invest in the market. Oh wait...the average American is a fucking moron!!! You wanna know why rich people are so rich? It's not because they're stealing from you, it's because while the average American takes their paycheck and blows it on alcohol and video games, the smart Americans invest.
Vyarium 3 months ago
@Vyarium Smart rich Americans invest in buying politicians so poor Americans have no political voice (or money). Many of the rich also avoid paying taxes by way of off shore bank accounts. Poor people who can barely afford to pay the rent and eat don't exactly have much disposable income to gamble on the stock market. Also the stock market and capitalism is actively pushing wages and conditions lower at every given chance, through globalization and automation so those at the bottom get stomped.
Spentastic 3 months ago
@Spentastic Invest in buying politicians? I don't know what the hell you're talking about but I don't invest in politicians. I learned how to play the capital markets when I was 14 years old and have since built up enormous wealth buy making educated and well thought out decisions. I don't come from a rich family, and I have never had any formal financial education. Don't give me that bullshit about those at the bottom getting stomped. I built my own wealth, everyone else can do the same.
Vyarium 2 months ago
@Vyarium Sounds like you have the solutions to all the worlds problems. Some people actually WORK for a living pal. Sitting on your behind betting on the stock market isn't work and for those shares to go up someone has to work and unfortunately that same person has to get shafted by 'the man'. That's capitalism 101, get in cheap labor and make them produce as much as possible so the shareholders and execs get PAID. The worker gets told work harder or get fired, Fuck that shit.
Spentastic 2 months ago
@Spentastic First of all, EVERYONE has an opportunity to play the stock market. And I absolutely consider investing to be WORK. Just because I'm smart enough to know that there exist opportunities to produce wealth beyond the simple manual labor jobs does not mean my line of work isn't work. Everyone has a choice. You can choose to work for the shareholders, or you can choose (like I did) to be a shareholder.
Vyarium 2 months ago
@Spentastic and for the record, America was founded as a capitalist society. And as a capitalist society, we operate with an economic and political system in which our trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit. (that's capitalism 101) If you don't want to live in a capitalist society, don't live in America.
Vyarium 2 months ago
@Vyarium I don't live in America (thank god).
Spentastic 2 months ago
@Spentastic Ok, that makes sense. I still don't like some of your beliefs about investing but I guess we can agree to disagree on some things. And for the record, I do plan on leaving America in the future. I think the capitalistic idea behind the country is AWESOME and it believe it could have been truely a great nation, but our leaders have seriously fucked it up and I'll be moving if things don't improve in the near future.
Vyarium 2 months ago
@Vyarium For the record I believe in a Keynesian mixed economy with certain vital parts of the economy government run and other less important parts privately run. I believe in a minimum wage and the value workers unions play in building the middle class. I also believe that the state should play a part in the welfare of its citizens without rewarding those who choose not to contribute. I am also an enemy of free trade and believe tariffs play a role in protecting local workers and businesses.
Spentastic 2 months ago
If you’re interested in the problems with the world like social problems, environment ,education, politics, banking, and government even if you have an ounce of question or doubt on the problems you know that exist in this world please watch Zeitgeist Addendum here on youtube and Zeitgeist Moving Forward which is part two. It answers most of the problems we have today. Keep Posting this on more vidoes.
Shnimberz 6 months ago
Not to Americans.
THE. RICH. FUCKING. STEAL. FROM. YOU! (And they steal a ridiculous amount of you as well!)
I mean how much more obvious does it need to be?
TheSkunkCat 6 months ago
@TheSkunkCat Of course they do, it's just that you're trying to tell this to a group of people who think they're just temporarily embarrassed millionaires who'll get rich once the super rich are able to do as they did in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Homer177 4 months ago
47 percent of the population pay NO TAXES and thats the bottom poorest. And almost all the tax revenue is paid by the RICH! Can anyone explain that and how thats fair? The rich is paying all the taxes. How are they not paying their fair share??
KripDrip 8 months ago
@KripDrip Wrong. Even someone working minimum wage pays taxes dumbass. In fact, rich Americans pay VERY LITTLE taxes. Big corporations like WalMart pay no taxes at all. Most of the tax burden in America falls on the middle class, which can't afford it. Meanwhile, 10% of this country's population rakes in 80% of the wealth in it.
You call THAT fair?
CommandoDude 6 months ago
@KripDrip "Can anyone explain that and how thats fair? The rich is paying all the taxes. How are they not paying their fair share??" - I can, It is the same rules for every American. If you cash out the value of certain social economic conditions (created by the proper care of the lower classes) then you are expected to pay taxes. The same rules for every single person in the United States. Therefore complete fair, which is what you asked for. I will continue in the next bit.
TheSpankymonkey 6 months ago
@KripDrip - Secondly, in order to be rich and make that kind of money you require certain social economic conditions. The rules are pretty simple, have a go, play the game and if you win we expect you to pay a portion of your income towards maintaining the game platform that you have enjoyed raping the fuck out of. Your argument that 47 percent don't pay taxes, of course they do but no direct wage taxes purely because they don't earn enough to live on to begin with. The rich do. FUCK OFF.
TheSpankymonkey 6 months ago
You have the foolish republican voters to thank for this. The messed up part is tghat in the face of all this, they will still vote Republican. Go figure
lifeisforaseason 11 months ago
Who cares about the top 400 earners!!!! really they don'tmatter in the median income earners. You argument is flawed. Basically you are saying that if we got rid of the top 400 earners everyone else will be richer. HOW will that happen???? Magically, there will be more money in my bank account because Bill Gates and Warren Buffet is gone. You argument is lame Cenk and does not make sense.
guinnessman1970 1 year ago
@guinnessman1970 No you don't make any sense. It is nothing about getting rid of top 400 earners and we somehow we are getting more money. He is just showing that republicans is liaers and they will only do taxs cuts for the rich and help them. NO money top earners get from tax cuts will go down in the system for the average american, it only help the rich getting richer. As soon as you wake up and realise that you are hurting youreself and the middelclass (whitch i assume you are)
omfg24days 1 year ago
TYT raises an important point. The gap between the middle class and the upper class get wider every year. All this has happened before, and the outcome is always the same, class warfare. Fortunately, today we are still far from that end, but if we permit the trend to continue, we will eventually get there. You say that you have some ideas. What are they?
ronharrow 1 year ago
Well, I saw that coming.
LoveBunnyMiri 1 year ago
"I'm not talking like those crazy right wingers, I'm saying we need to overthrow the government".
It is so heart warming to know that the following groups love America so much, that they passionately offer advice that is in the best interests of America. Islamist, socialist, communist, and Leftist are very busy running every 3rd world country, but they still have time to look out for America.
lousinup 1 year ago
@lousinup Blah blah blah. Your Isms ....yes anyone who is not in line with your view has to be one of those terrible things. Does it hurt you to know that the Nazi's were conservative? Does it make you cry that fascism tends to be pretty anti-liberal? You people keep coming up with these absurd analogies and have nothing to back them up. Stop watching Glen beck...read a book...learn something..and come back when you have something better than a talking point. The educated are tired of you.
mrfinn9 1 year ago
@mrfinn9 Fascism is an extremist, authoritarian, and nationalist ideology, leaning neither left or right in terms of economics. The Nazi party didn't believe in capitalism, it believed in corporatism, which is when the government controls or at least directly influences corporations. And your use of the term conservative is incredibly misleading. For example, a radical Marxist living in present-day China can be considered a conservative if he wants to conserve Maoist communism.
4gl2u 1 year ago
Ok so which ones are the tea partiers. thumbs up
EsCurve 1 year ago
I'm scared, man.....
*sigh*
HerGuardianAngel1991 1 year ago
This is incredibly disturbing. If you look at Bush's presidency you can see exactly who he was serving. This is not just any 400 people. These are the 400 richest bastards in our country. Can you imagine how much money those % increases represent considering the amount they started with? If you are poor and a Republican please realize that the family values rhetoric is just a line to get your vote.
They are not serving you, they are not serving me. They are just hoarding their gold.
1ironaut 1 year ago
families dont invest....... so of course their income doesnt go up like that of an investor.
get a clue. i do nothing but talk shit about republicans but this guy is a fucking moron. maybe if families cared more about investing instead of buying snacks, and gas guzzling, etc they would have more money to invest.
AntiVenomFangX 1 year ago
@AntiVenomFangX you have to have money to invest first...which many people don't have enough of to invest. you shouldn't have to invest in the market to make a decent amount of money and retire comfortably.
imadabest1 1 year ago
@imadabest1
many people dont have the money to invest? if you have a penny you can make over 11million if you double that penny 30 times(do the math)
dont tell me people dont have the money to invest. they dont have the smarts to not spend it on luxuries.
AntiVenomFangX 1 year ago
@AntiVenomFangX That's a bit simple. Sounds like a sound bite concocted by some think tank or organisation designed as a pseudo proof.
On inspect 0.9^30 = ~4.2%
So even if every 1penny investment had a 90% chance of returning a penny the odds of getting to 11m are still only 4% or about 1 in 25. And the only investment that 90% guarantee a 100% return on your original investment in linear time are ponzi schemes.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
@CmdrTobs
nobody said anything about chances being 100% nor did they say that there is a guarantee of 100% interest being made.
i simply contradicted something someone said.
AntiVenomFangX 1 year ago
@AntiVenomFangX I didn't say its 100%, further I didn't say you said it was 100%. Simply put. I was demonstrating that your statement, a reworking of the wheat and cheesboard problem, is a obvious piece of pseudo evidence designed to seem of some relevance on casual comprehension but is easily revealed to be irrelevant.
Just don't want people to read it and think "Gee, wow. Just 1 penny can get me millions and millions..."
wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Wheat_and_chessboard_problem
Good day.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
@CmdrTobs
so i dont get it. i contradicted what someone said.
AntiVenomFangX 1 year ago
@AntiVenomFangX Are there any investments out there? yes and no.
There was plenty of money before 2008 in fact too much. There was too much investment in things that weren't needed. So arguably there was no room on the market for any-more *investments* only speculation. And even things thought of as investments <2008 like Greece are now shown to be mal-investment.
Given the huge gap in information joe and a hedge fund. The result will likely be in this climate joe loosing.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
The heart of the system is that you show up at ALL local precinct meetings of BOTH the republican AND democrat LOCAL PRECINCT meetings and REMOVE _ALL_ the OLD representatives. The good news is it probably does not take more than 5 to ten of you to win the votes at each meeting
gunthaarz 1 year ago
Income inequality in the US has mushroomed over the past thirty years. In fact America now has basically the same income spread it did in the 1920s. Hey America, when rich conservatives promised to take you back to "the good old days," they never told you WHO they were good for, did they?
SAGEBOT500 1 year ago
You people can't seem top figure out that it's the military spending that's ruined you. cut it by 25% and then run the numbers - 750 billion a year, that's a tarp program every friggin year no wonder you're broke-
leppy111 1 year ago 22
@leppy111 How about get rid of the illegal income tax 2005 945 billion stolen from us Americans and given directly to the fucking bankers !!!
JHK1976 11 months ago
Okay, so the top 400 wage earners? BIG DEAL! Our country has 300 MILLION people. this is a stupid chart and if anyone takes this seriously, they are really stupid. I am MIDDLE class and I DID get some tax cuts. This man is an idiot. Do research, he's stupid.
awashney 1 year ago
@awashney chill
robertiker 1 year ago
show me the graph one more time, *nothing happens* Sums up the situation rather nicely - that.
gabydewilde 1 year ago
Govt officials set up a system that makes them rich! Why the f*ck would they change it?! Anyone that thinks the people in charge of a system that makes them rich would change the system is a f*cking idiot! This system will NEVER change because the people that benefit from it are the same people that determine how it works!
Complain complain complain is what you'll do for the rest of your lives! Just like your parents complained, just like their parents complained, etc., etc.
Dream on!
halette20001 1 year ago
The same reason that the Roosevelts changed it in the early part of the 20th century. Because the system is going into a boombust cycle.
dangerouslytalented 1 year ago
"its not socialism but socialism is great!, we must defend socialism!" cries the indoctrinated lazy asshat
tubaboy71 1 year ago
@tubaboy71
"Capitalism is the end of history, it doesn't get better then this!" Apologises the parasitic narcissist who prays he was the beneficiary of a corrupt, backward "market" system of wealth distribution. tubaboy, you're weak self-centred prostitute.
Tuathalful 1 year ago
Great you make my point for me! You are the exact type of unselfreliant turd who would reply..a socialist!
tubaboy71 1 year ago
actually the lazy asshat uses socialism as a way of not having to argue with a position that isn't socialism.
skedaddleMLS 1 year ago
please explain how wealth redistribution is not socialistic......
tubaboy71 1 year ago
Wealth redistribution is already happening... All the wealth of America is being redistributed towards the rich. That is causing the economy on the whole to not grow at a stable rate, and the REAL economy (you know, us people) is shrinking.
dangerouslytalented 1 year ago
Ahh so so providing a good and service people use/buy is an evil thing? Your comment was not an answer at all, but the funny part is when they apply even more redistribution of wealth where the people will believe they are middle class until they find out they have just created a perminate 2 class system, the poor and the elite.
tubaboy71 1 year ago
Wealth redistribution towards the rich is destroying the WHOLE ECONOMY. Even Henry Ford knew the benefits of giving the workers a higher rate of pay, because THEY are ultimately the source of the Ford Motor Company's profits.
A high rate of wages can be discribed as functioning capitalism, which is not happening in America right now, which is a credit economy.
dangerouslytalented 1 year ago
So there is no deficits for uncommonly high benifits and entitlements?
tubaboy71 1 year ago
There must be a balance, and there is none in America right now. Productivity (profitability per worker) is through the roof, while pay is stagnant.
dangerouslytalented 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Pay is stagnant in all business?
So there is no deficits for uncommonly high benifits and entitlements?
tubaboy71 1 year ago
Pay is stagnant for the lower 95%. That means US.
dangerouslytalented 1 year ago
So you are saying there are not several thousands who do not fit into the 2 classes shown? 400 people is not even a dent of a percentage. So 5% get better? ever think why or how rather than just scream its governments job to make your wealth?
tubaboy71 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Pay is stagnant in all business?
So there is no deficits for uncommonly high benifits and entitlements?
47% of people in this country already do not pay taxes and our government is playing Robinhood with it against the countries own constitution.
tubaboy71 1 year ago
If you still believe that in 2010 Capitalism is for the working class you're a moron.
SupremePenguinTone 1 year ago 6
@SupremePenguinTone And you would rather be like Greece? That is even more moronic.
tubaboy71 1 year ago
@tubaboy71 Greece is Socialist ? =|
SupremePenguinTone 1 year ago
@SupremePenguinTone Much more "socialistic" than it needs to be..infact you can say that about the whole EU
tubaboy71 1 year ago
@tubaboy71 Cente-left socialist democracy parties are not examples of Socialism. If they were true Socialists they'd align themselves with Chavez and other true Socialists.
The EU is Socialist? You've not only shown that you don't know anything about Socialism but Europe either.
SupremePenguinTone 1 year ago
@SupremePenguinTone Wow you are not too bright at all are yea penguin? since when is totalitarian rule socialism? God you are an idiot.
tubaboy71 1 year ago
@tubaboy71 Chavez is a totalitarian leader? Really? You're just like the rest of the stupid right-wingers I meet on Youtube who are the first ones to scream about how evil Socialism yet you can't define it and so come out with ridiculous this like Venezuela is totalitarian.
SupremePenguinTone 1 year ago
@SupremePenguinTone Really ? explain to me how it is not? You are really stretching since you deny and turn to totally defend . IDIOT!
tubaboy71 1 year ago
TYT are getting so boring now. Still complaining when Capitalism doesn't work out for them. DUHHH IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO!
Until people start to use some damn common sense and get out of their childish bubble and quit believing that Capitalism is designed for the working class we're all doomed.
SupremePenguinTone 1 year ago
This has to be the dumbest, least accurate video I've ever seen.
First, the "guys at the top" pay more taxes in absolute terms as well as % terms.
Second, who cares what the top 400 people make, that has nothing to do with anything.
observer855 1 year ago
LOL no kidding they also fail to understand that people work their way on up from being poor or middle class to wealth all the time. Hard to do in other systems. They want the same regardless of skill or work ethic, but I guess IF they don't work enough that there socialized medicine will get rid of them fast enough LOL
tubaboy71 1 year ago
The top 400 people are getting all this money from US.
The extra money they are getting is from cutting jobs from people like YOU, denying people like YOU their pay rises, from gambling with YOUR pension plans, by increasing YOUR medical insurance costs while not paying out when YOU need it. They are paying the most because they have the most INCOME. As a proportion of disposable wealth, they are paying NOTHING compared to the poor.
dangerouslytalented 1 year ago
@dangerouslytalented
Well put!
manilaenglish 1 year ago
@dangerouslytalented
Most of what you say isn't really true. Wealth creation is not a zero sum game. The "rich" aren't "taking" money from you.
Also, very few (none?) of the very very rich come out of the health insurance biz - that is actually a fairly low-margin industry.
Regarding the pension fund 'gambling' - that was the government which chose to bail these guys out. An organization's level of corruption is lcorrelated with its size and power, smaller gov would help.
observer855 1 year ago 2
@observer855 well said.
biglu30 1 year ago
Low margin? Do you know how much actual profit there is? And do you know how much the CEOS get paid? And do you know how much they are spending on lobbying and marketing? The insurance industry is clogged with waste in order to give the maximum amount of money to MANAGEMENT. Productivity (profit per worker) is going WAY up in America, and yet pay is not.
And the bailouts were to make the banks liquid again, NOT to reimburse pension funds.
A smaller government allows giant corporations.
dangerouslytalented 1 year ago
@dangerouslytalented Besides the fact this reply is complete nonsense you are trying to say that the millions of people who work within the insurance and marketing industries shouldn't have jobs? I seriously think leftists are looking at the wrong areas to where and why pay is down for those with basic labor jobs.
tubaboy71 1 year ago
Those who are working in insurance and marketing industries should be working in OTHER jobs if their industries are overgrown. And with less healthcare costs to employers, those jobs will suddenly open up.
dangerouslytalented 1 year ago
Really? What jobs would those be? Unicorn jockeys?
tubaboy71 1 year ago
Ok, with the healthcare industry being reformed, the other industries, which are being weighed down with these monsterous healthcare costs will be able to spend more money on other things. This would be a boost to the economy, as businesses would be spending this money on stuff they would be able to use.
dangerouslytalented 1 year ago
LOL that is a pretty general answer for a few million workers with college degrees.
tubaboy71 1 year ago
The healthcare industry is not the only industry that uses marketing and call centres and so forth. The degrees are not that specialised.
dangerouslytalented 1 year ago
Well you are using the argument that insurance companies spend sooooooooooooo much in marketing are you sure the common workers in the marketing industry could afford less work and lower pay? I mean since you are placing a worth on their "non specialized" common" degrees.
tubaboy71 1 year ago
I wonder how much our own government is spending on lobbying and marketing......
tubaboy71 1 year ago
why would the government need to lobby itself?
And the marketing budget for the government is not nearly as much as that being squandered by the healthcare industry marketing drugs to people who don't really need them.
dangerouslytalented 1 year ago
Ahh sharp answer! I dunno $300+++ million to Louisiana and Nebraska for health care votes, a judicial seat for a health care vote, a multi billion dollar union deal to stop union protests against the health care deal. Lets see how much do those government websites cost now? How about the 3 million for the signs marking "stimulus dollars"? How much is the government spending on marketing for the census?
tubaboy71 1 year ago
"Low margin? Do you know how much actual profit there is?" -Yes. "do you knw hw mch they r spnding on lobying +marketing? " -Yes."The insce indtsty is cloged w/waste in order to give the max amount of $ to MNGMT." -We need some insurance reform. People " i.e.management" trying to make money is a good thing. "Productivity (profit per worker) is going WAY up in America" -Good thing. "yet pay is not."- if workers aren't happy w/their pay, they should start their own companies.
observer855 1 year ago
Actually wasn't it Obama who took thousands of people's pensions via changing bondholder stock to common stock and converting unions' with unsustainable benifits debt common stock to the bondholders' stock when GM and Chrysler went bankrupt?
tubaboy71 1 year ago
That bondholder stock would not have been worth the paper it was printed on had GM and Chrysler gone under.They were so bankrupt as to make it not matter.
dangerouslytalented 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
dangerouslytalented
"That bondholder stock would not have been worth the paper it was printed on had GM and Chrysler gone under.They were so bankrupt as to make it not matter"
LOL oh really? Please tell us what the difference is. This will be funny as those bonds were guaranteed to be worth 80+% of their original value where the common stock was worth about 8 cents a share.
tubaboy71 1 year ago
where would that money have come from?
dangerouslytalented 1 year ago
The original bondholders, which were teachers and police officers.
tubaboy71 1 year ago
No, the money to pay these people out.
dangerouslytalented 1 year ago
Those people paid with the fruits of their labor being a cop or teacher it and their bond inwhich they purchased went down in value not up. You are also ignoring Obama broke the contract and made up his own laws to make this happen. These bonds were part of 401k's.
tubaboy71 1 year ago
Had those companies been allowed to fold completely, those bonds would have been not worth the paper they were printed on anyway, being worth what the company was worth, and the debts exceeded the value of the factories, the real estate, etc.
dangerouslytalented 1 year ago
Nope that means those bondholders would have been first in line to collect on the assets and the sales of those assets.
tubaboy71 1 year ago
... except that most of those assets consisted of auto plants in Detroit, and do you know how much you can buy an abandoned auto plant in Detroit for? Practically nothing.
dangerouslytalented 1 year ago
Except for the fact that that is not at all how it was broken down....money you are claiming that did not exist is and was there it tranfered hands at the cost of the bondholders...
tubaboy71 1 year ago
Had the Big Three folded, then the bonds would have been WORTHLESS, because there would have been nobody to buy up the assets of GM, Ford and Chrysler. I mean, GM are even NOW still finding it very hard to sell off SAAB and Hummer, it looks like a deal with Koeniggsegg might go ahead to sell SAAB, but if the Big Three went under, not only would the bondholders missed out anyway, but every single employee (who were also bondholders) would have lost out completely, no job, no benefits, no nothing.
dangerouslytalented 1 year ago
Ford was not in on it and the money you are claiming not to be there was there just transfered to OTHER people. Only reason the "workers" and union thugs are bond holders (different than common stock) was due to Obama breaking the contract. I live in the state it effected most and it is a reason why my state is no longer a blue state.
tubaboy71 1 year ago
You use quotation marks around the word "workers"... Are you implying they do not work?
dangerouslytalented 1 year ago
No, you just do not even have a clue to what the hell you are talking about and you keep digging deeper trying to excuse it. This must be one of them there radical right wing stories the MSM ignored on a national level but it was covered locally. I bet people think its cool that the prez used his powerto destroy a legally binding contract and destroyed THOUSANDS of people's retirement.
tubaboy71 1 year ago
The problem here is not Obama's fault. It is the fault of the managements of GM and Chrysler, who, over the last 30 or 40 years have underfunded the pension plans, cut R&D, underfunded healthcare plans, cut spending across the board, and Obama had a horrible decision: Allow an entire industry to die, putting MILLIONS out of work (and bonds you speak of would have been almost worthless) or help bail them out and restructure, while destroying retirement savings of thousands.
dangerouslytalented 1 year ago
Union benifits are what DESTROYED GM and Chrysler why do you think they needed billions and still need billions? Bondholders are treated like a loan. If they let the bonds crash they were worth 80% of there original value not "nothing". You should change your name to Dangerouslystupid as you will also more than likely deny that those "benifits" raised the costs of inferior cars $2600+ each.
tubaboy71 1 year ago
That $2600 extra that was being paid for each car was because of the underfunding of pension and healthcare plans going back decades, which boosted short term profitability at the cost of long term viability, which meant that part of the labor cost of a 1973 Pontiac GTO would have to be paid for by somebody buying a 2008 Pontiac G8.
Every GM or Chrysler car built during the time the pensions were underfunded became a liability, even if it been recycled for scrap years ago.
dangerouslytalented 1 year ago
Their benifits packages went up since 1973, judging from the looks of it they should have added $4000 to every car they built since 1973....
tubaboy71 1 year ago
Actually, they have been going down, as the unions got weaker under Reagan.
dangerouslytalented 1 year ago
mmm yeah too bad when they were "fired" aka work shop or layed off they got paid 90% of their normal pay. Ever see their retirement benifits? They literially were getting more than they actually paid in.
tubaboy71 1 year ago
The problem there is that they are being laid off temporarily, because GM could not sell cars.
If they did not pay a large proporation of their wages, then these people would have to leave town forever, and the company would lose all its workers.
Personally, I think they should have, instead of telling them to stay home, they should have had them painting the walls of the factory or helping retool or building houses for Habitat for Humanity or retraining or whatever, like Toyota does.
dangerouslytalented 1 year ago
watch the video and you'll see that wealth has be redistrobuted from the middle class to the rich via Bush tax cuts. is that not socialist?
skedaddleMLS 1 year ago
Cutting an already progressive tax rate is more socialistic? You are going to have to explain that one since the fact those whom make money make it providing a good or service people buy with their own free will. Every argument I have seen listed in this section is beyond weak.
tubaboy71 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dangerouslytalented
"That bondholder stock would not have been worth the paper it was printed on had GM and Chrysler gone under.They were so bankrupt as to make it not matter"
LOL oh really? Please tell us what the difference is. This will be funny as those bonds were guaranteed to be worth 80+% of their original value where the common stock was worth about 8 cents a share.
tubaboy71 1 year ago
Exactly Cenk.
Which is why we have the RON PAUL REVOLUTION!
Pacmaniacone 1 year ago
Ron Paul would be a disaster.
dangerouslytalented 1 year ago
Obama did say a while ago, that he wanted to change the Tax Code to something along the lines of a Fair Tax, which means making Corporations pay their fair share. But looking at the way things are goin...we can't even get Healthcare for everyone yet. So I remain skeptical, but still hopeful.
uberdansounds 1 year ago 2
Fair Tax? You mean a flat tax? That would put the burden SQUARELY on the consumers, leaving the top 1% and 1% of 1%, who have gathered most of America's wealth, paying FAR LESS in tax.
dangerouslytalented 1 year ago 3
I am all for smaller government - and I am all for "we the people". Cause when this is all said and done - the rich people are going to have to eventually come down from their ivory towers when the "little people" start to revolt and they have no more of us to kick around. And it is sad that gov't believes that rich people create jobs - when they don't they just extort money from us and we become the bitch slapped ho'. As for Hope & change - we hope they change before its too late.
ValyTraveler 1 year ago
Correct me if I'm wrong but in America as you go up in tax brackets, that changes your tax overall right?
Like, here in Australia you might pay (say) 10% up to $10,000, then 20% up to $20,000. But that first $10,000 you're still only paying 10% for. You only pay the 20% for the 10,001 to 20,000.
As far as I'm aware in the American system you pay a fixed amount across the board. Can someone confirm/deny for me.
bersaba 1 year ago
Here you pay a fixed amount based on your total adjusted income after write offs. But, that's only for wages.
Capital gains on stocks, for instance, are usually taxed at 15% of your gains. Real estate gains are often taxed at 0%, depending on how long you live there and if you reinvest it quickly. Sometimes they can just be put off a very long time. And there are other rates for other things. Tax avoidance is a huge industry, it's so complicated.
TheGiantRobot 1 year ago 2
Hey, the Reagan Revolution did exactly what it was supposed to. And all those broke ass tea-partiers love him so much.
eirefrance 1 year ago
@eirefrance
When you have big dreams of being among the top 1% of the richest and so you back them up, well what do you expect?
I am on the left. My proposal is for a new government that holds corporations accountable to the society which made them successful by requiring them to fund social programs via paying the highest taxes on their capital gains (i.e. socialism).
Others might suggest a different method of paying for social services.
Key thing is we all want the same end result
manilaenglish 1 year ago 2
I agree 99%. The 1% remaining is that we do need to cut spending, and defense is the perfect place to start.
eirefrance 1 year ago 2
@eirefrance
I'm with you.
manilaenglish 1 year ago
So basically, you want to pay higher prices for all the goods and services you buy? That's the most regressive tax possible.
donotswallow 1 year ago
@donotswallow
The fact is that tax paid on PROFIT cannot affect the price of goods in a free market economy. The price of goods stay the same regardless of the corporate PROFIT TAX. The reason is that if a corporation tries to raise it's prices it has competitors that will not raise prices.
What affects the price of goods and services is sales tax. That is a tax placed on consumers. Capital Gains Tax (PROFIT TAX) is placed on the businesses.
Revolution!
manilaenglish 1 year ago
Uh, no. Companies don't care where their money is taxed from, as it all affects the same thing, their PROFITS. If their profits are being taxed, they'll raise the price of goods (or hire less people or cut wages, ect.) until they meet their profit goal. Your assumption that competitors won't do the same is foolish as their profits are (hopefully) going to be taxed the same. Either way, it's not the "evil" rich business men that are going to be paying for it.
donotswallow 1 year ago
@donotswallow
People refuse to pay higher prices whenever possible. Supply and demand doesn't give a damn about a company's profit "goals".
The only people you're fooling with your right wing PROPAGANDA are the tea baggers. Go spread your propaganda where idiots will listen to you. Not here.
Get lost murderer.
manilaenglish 1 year ago
Lol, murderer? That's rich. I also love how dissenting opinions are "right wing PROPAGANDA", how open minded of you.
Newsflash: Not all products are perfectly elastic. Some things are necessities, which consumers have to buy no matter what. And when companies can't get away with raising prices they either go out of business or cut in other places (employment, ect.) like I already said. Either way, it's a loss.
donotswallow 1 year ago
@donotswallow
Yes, you are a murderer because you spread propaganda and you are simple. You don't even know you've been taught the lie that you are spreading around. PROPAGANDA.
You are so wrong about profits. A business does not go out of business due to capital GAINS tax you. And in America, the majority of Americans are EMPLOYED by SMALL BUSINESES.
America has businesses profiting hundreds of millions RIGHT NOW. That money goes to luxerous lifestyles. Not job creation.
MURDERER
manilaenglish 1 year ago
@donotswallow
To be more specific of why you are a murderer I will add that due to the right wing propaganda you unrealizeingly spread, you contribute to the misinformation of ACTUALLY what happens in an all capitalist economiy thus feeding new comers to the debate inacurrate information and confirm other people's misconceptions. That results in them (and you) making decisions based on faulty learning. Which results in less people supporting social services. That leads to people's deaths.
manilaenglish 1 year ago
Yes all those tea partiers were less broke under Reagan than they were Carter.
tubaboy71 1 year ago
According to who? Not that there were any tea partiers back then, anyway. Given how people change, I wouldn't be suprised is a lot of tea partiers voted for Carter.
eirefrance 1 year ago
Did you look at both Reagan election results?
'80 Reagan/Bush 489 Carter/Mondale 49
'84 Reagan/Bush 512 Mondale/Ferraro 13
tubaboy71 1 year ago
I'm not sure I understand what that has to do with anything. But okay, yes, you're right, Reagan did in fact win the electoral college in 1980 and 1984. Congratulations. How does that connect to the Reagan economy vs the Carter economy?
eirefrance 1 year ago
Are you suggesting people were "stupid" and voted so overwelmingly for a "bad economy"? Funny thing is Carter was labled the idiot Peanut Farmer by those in his own party.
tubaboy71 1 year ago
Actually I'm suggesting you're stupid because you're rambling about 14 different things. Or I'm stupid because I can't follow what the electoral college has to do with anything. I mean, Obama won 365 to 173. I guess that proves that his economic ideas, including fake-ass pretend only in Glenn Beck's head socialism, are what the voters want?
eirefrance 1 year ago
Actually I am going to raise you and call you an economic dumb fuck. Was Bush's economy bad? YES. Has Obama fixed anything besides dumping trillions into an unfixed economy? NO. Simple fact is Reagan beat Carter and he beat Mondale back too back. If his economy was BAD he would not have had a second term. I guess that logic doesn't set into idiots like you does it? I will bet your stupid ass will come back and say this chart tells all again huh?
tubaboy71 1 year ago
Yes, you're right, logic that simple doesn't set at all with an idiot like me. But, but, but, (flustered), didn't you see the chart? Haha, you tool. Have fun.
eirefrance 1 year ago
Great reply, repeating your argument when it was already answered several times. I can make a chart showing 10000 poor people moving out of the "poor class" into the "upper middle class" to debunk the chart. Thing is it has little to no meaning to the size of the economy and what is really going on, just like this chart.
tubaboy71 1 year ago
Yeah, I made an "argument". Sure, thats what happened. You might be suprised to know that I don't need a chart from a Youtube video to know this. Its been WELL FUCKING DOCUMENTED FOR 15 YEARS. Jesus, how stupid and dense some people are. Just because I haven't bothered to respond to your idiotic points (the 1984 election, really?) doesn't mean you've made a good point. I don't know if you've noticed, but we're not having a debate here.
eirefrance 1 year ago
I know because your points are too fucking stupid to "debate". Just like the left's health care plans all do not make fiscal sense, just like this chart
tubaboy71 1 year ago
Fiscal sense? Fiscal? Hahahaha, thats probably the first correct thing you've said here. That graph doesn't make "fiscal" sense at all. Oh man, keep tooling that toolerific toolitude, you tool.
eirefrance 1 year ago
@tubaboy71 Without trying to weigh in on a dead debate (which I unavoidably am doing ;/ ) Your chart would be irrelevant since those people you would be plotting control very little wealth.
Where a chart of the top 400 wealthiest directly own or through shares in large business 5%? 10%? 15%? of GDP??? There wealth will almost certainly be a reflection of other large stake holders who may not be in the TOP400 but who hold a significant amount of stock too.
Your counter plot would debunk nothing
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
@CmdrTobs AHH the majority is irrelevant and the largest grouping of 47% do not even pay taxes. You also debunked nothing I have said....
tubaboy71 1 year ago
@tubaboy71 Thats what I mean. 47% are not net recipients. In fact its the top 5% (if I remember correctly) pay something like 50%. Those 400TOP people ARE relevant. As there wealth alone is a significant part of GDP and is almost certainly down to share holdings, so their wealth also is a direct indicator for the whole economy.
By your own admission just now the bottom 47% pay nothing, so saying they moved within that 'nothing' bracket says nothing.
I don't get what your "Arrrha!" point is?
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
@CmdrTobs 100% of recipiants of the redistribution of wealth are within that 47% meaning they pay nothing in and get something out they did not earn.
So are you saying that there are not opportunities for people to excel if they work?
What opportunities are there if they don't? Welfare?
tubaboy71 1 year ago
@tubaboy71 Hey, hey, hey. I did not say anything of the sort either way.
What I am saying is you painted a false dichotomy between the significance of this graph and your suggested hypothetical graph of 'poor' people moving into the 'middle class' nothing more.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
@CmdrTobs I did not paint anything "false" the significance of the graph you are claiming is great is nul. You act like GDP is your GDP? Do you feel some sort of entitlement to those 400 people's earnings? What good or service to you provide besides an opinion?
tubaboy71 1 year ago
@tubaboy71
What?!!! You act like I have dicussed something other than your comprehension and analysis of the chart. "I act like" What do you know how I act like? I have not espoused a view point either way on the topic.
What I do know is that if you think this graph contains the same information about the overall economy as a graph showing poor people moving into the middle class you need to learn to comprehend charts. That is all.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
@CmdrTobs that is where your comprehension leads you to believe fact is my point is you could throw up any 400 people in there and make it look any way you wanted dip shit.
tubaboy71 1 year ago
@tubaboy71
What?!!! You act like I have discussed something other than your comprehension and analysis of the chart. "I act like" What do you know how I act like? I have not espoused a view point either way on the topic.
Learn to comprehend.
Your nuts, matter closed.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
@CmdrTobs Im no more nuts than any asshat throwing up a chart for 400 people LOL
tubaboy71 1 year ago
Wait. What? have you watched any of the debates between Carter and Reagan? Or Mondale and Reagan? Reagan tripled the deficit in his first term, and had a terrible recession that resulted in him closing down the stock market for several days in the late 80s. Even his own advisors admit he gave handoffs to pretty much any type of corporation you can think of. He framed the debates. "It takes time to kill the big bull of government." Sound familiar?
youmustbethatninja 1 year ago 14
Sure thats it! That has to be it! Living through that time frame we were just lied to and it worked better than Obama.
tubaboy71 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tubaboy71
"Was Bush's economy bad? YES."
...
"If [Reagan's] economy was BAD he would not have had a second term."
Bush's economy was bad by your admission, but he had a second term. Bad leadership with the economy doesn't disqualify someone from getting a second term.
gorgonous 1 year ago
If need be? I shouldn't have said that. I mean, it really looks like we have no choice. We are not being represented. We need a revolution. I just don't see any other way.
Revolution!
Who's in?
manilaenglish 1 year ago
If you would like to join a panel of discussion or donate resources, Private Message me.
Revolution if need be. Who's in?
manilaenglish 1 year ago
If we are going to overthrow the system, then we need to create several panels of discussion about what our new form of government is going to look like once we have control.
Fighting against a system without an end-game in mind is just anarchy and will only make things work.
We must also remember to change things in a way that does not destroy infrustructure. How do we protect our lines of communication when the government fights back through internet censorship?
manilaenglish 1 year ago
and will only make things WORSE. (not work. - sorry I can't edit the typo).
anyway, continued....
We all have our own opinions about fiscal and monetary policy, bill of rights, method of services distribution, and other policies.
So we must first find a common ground to start from. We need to agree on a common end goal and then debate how to get there afterwards.
I would like to see a website dedicated to these discussions. We need a proper forum. Who is willing to provide the site?
manilaenglish 1 year ago
I am willing to donate my website for the cause until someone out there who has a more relevant domain name they would like to use for our cause comes along.
What I am proposing at this time is only a site for discussion on the end-goal of our new government structure. We can work out the "how tos" as we get closer to an agreed constitution.
manilaenglish 1 year ago
Check out the Facebook site - they have whats called The COFFEE ?? - sorry forgot the whole name - but its the smart version of the Tea Party. It's a forum for ideas and free thinkers - on how to talk to government and each other for a change in our system.
ValyTraveler 1 year ago
@ValyTraveler
I'm opened minded about reaching out to the Tea Party to fight a common enemy, but only if they are in favor of providing a socialized healthcare and education system. I don't know of very many Libertarians who are.
Othwerwise, I think it'll be better if someone can recommend another, more like minded, group or if we form a new one if one doesn't already exist..
manilaenglish 1 year ago
Hey if you do start a "Revolution" = a common sence movement or forum I will be more than happy to read all about it.
After all Government should fear it's people.
ValyTraveler 1 year ago
What we need is President Kucinich. I would have thought that was a total joke 8 years ago, but not any more.
Noobtac 1 year ago 2
Trickle down economics FTL.
Krumbz2003 1 year ago 2
That's right. They make funding cuts and actually cut their taxes. The average joe gets less and less. Reaganomics doesn't work.
xChrisBoulterx 1 year ago
4. People are as gullible as ever! When an candidate is elected because of race, or cheap slogans instead of issue, and a ruckus risen over "global warming" for the sake of additional tax revenue, we're surely in for troubled times.
breadym 1 year ago
@breadym --- I sooo agree with your points so well!!! I agree with your 3 reason greatly...The system is choking the life out of the middle class and Americans are to dumb to realize it which why I agree with your 4th one..Americans are so dam gullible!! Sometimes I really think that the American people are truly against what is best or what will help the American people. The sheep in this country will never wake up!!
trscott1975 1 year ago
2. deficits are ignored. YOU CAN'T SPEND MORE MONEY THAN YOU EARN! Whether it's in the gov., GM, or personal finances, people are spending more than their making.
3. The system has slowly choked the middle class. CEO and executive pay has reached a 450:1 ratio in most cases whereas years ago the typical CEO was making 35 times as much as the typical entry level worker for a company. Bank bonuses reward risky short term transactions instead of long term healthy growth.
breadym 1 year ago
Comparing the top 400 incomes to those below the poverty line is not a fair representation of anything. This guy is a typical bozo progressive who is just a radical as the "far right conservatives" he makes fun of in his little skit here.
The problem with America is that: 1. generally, people don't want to work to earn their money, i.e., everybody from the bottom to the top are looking to get a quick buck.
breadym 1 year ago
Except it wasn't comparing it to those below poverty level. It was comparing the top 400 to the Median Family Income. The Middle Class.
Everyone in this country is getting screwed by the upper 1% and they are getting help from our own government in doing so.
I am not as hopeful as Cenk. Too many politicians bought and paid for on both sides of the aisle, and we never have a voice in the matter.
Any chance of a revolution will get squashed.
NuRm69 1 year ago
Progressive revolution, absolutely. The working class has to unite and fight or die in poverty without any damn health care. The world communist revolution scared the the capitalists, so for 70 years up to 1990 they gave some of their money to buy off workers and win their loyalty. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the capitalists have taken back all the gains that workers made in the prior 70 years and the workers are back in poverty. This time the workers need to complete the job.
JayPhilosopher 1 year ago