This 6 minute video sums up the shocking facts of American wealth and inequality

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wow. Now that was profound. Did you believe that someone said that saving was bad???
Of course you did. Because you wanted to believe that.
Nice thing about con tools like you is that you are so predictable. You can always know, before you say anything, what you are going to say. Because you lack the ability to think independently. And you take you statements from the far right wing bat shit crazy con sites. ALWAYS.

I call it the Koch test. If the koch bros. would be in favor of it, so would the con tool. If the koch bros. would be against it, so would you be against it. Makes life so simple. Hell you do not even have to think. Just copy and paste. Take those right wing talking points and go forth.
So, if a study comes up saying that the wealthy do not spend new income at the level of the poor, you can get behind "liberals think weathy people are bad". Or you can post drivel like "liberals think saving is bad".
Which, technically, makes you a dipshit. IMHO.

Did you believe that someone said that saving was bad???


Christopher Brown said

"Those who make the least consume the most of their income; those who make the most tend to save a great deal, and for that reason, according to the economist Christopher Brown, at Arkansas State, “income inequality can exert a significant drag on effective demand.”"

Do you believe he meant that saving was good?

He stated a fact about savings and the wealthy. Do you believe that facts are bad??

What should we do now that he gave us these facts?
Should we stop the rich from saving?
Should we stop the rich from making more than the poor?
Quick, what should Obama do with these facts?

 

[Rshermr]

Did you believe that someone said that saving was bad???


Christopher Brown said

"Those who make the least consume the most of their income; those who make the most tend to save a great deal, and for that reason, according to the economist Christopher Brown, at Arkansas State, “income inequality can exert a significant drag on effective demand.”"

Do you believe he meant that saving was good?

He stated a fact about savings and the wealthy. Do you believe that facts are bad??

What should we do now that he gave us these facts?
Should we stop the rich from saving?
Should we stop the rich from making more than the poor?
Quick, what should Obama do with these facts?

Now, now, Toddster. Obama can not do much at all with the facts. The facts have been out there for decades. Nothing new, just a good deal of proof that it is true.
What needs to happen, and what is happening, is that people need to become educated. They need not believe the sources that you believe, toddster. They need facts, not agenda meant to make them more malleable to those with the big bucks who spend those big bucks to get their votes to the politicians they own. Now, I know, being a con tool, that you do not believe in truth for the sake of truth. But those who vote need the truth, as opposed to the propaganda that you push. As for you, there is no chance that you will make use of that truth.

How would you make use of that knowledge?? Many ways, but here is one:
You would stop believing that taxing the rich has some appreciable effect on job creation.

 

[MikeK]

These mental midgets believe saving money is stuffing it in a Mason jar and burying it in the backyard.
Saving money goes into banks and other financial institutions.
They take those savings and loan it out as capital to businesses and corporations that want to expand their businesses either hiring new employees and/or construction new facilities.
Savings is the lifeblood of capitalism and economic growth.
Without investors in savings and stock nothing gets done.
Amazing the ignorance of basic Econ 101 here.

I think he means that when the rich have money that's money that is not being redistributed to him.

No. What I meant is when certain individuals are able to hoard vast amounts of the Nation's wealth resource, which always results in a proportional reduction of that resource in the lower income sector, the effect is reduced circulation, which causes economic inertia.

I did not mean any part of the presently hoarded money should be redistributed to me, which is the notion right-wing propagandists have inseminated the weak minds of their disciples with. Rather those hoarded resources should be applied to make-work programs in the manner of FDR's WPA and CCC programs, and used to repair and rebuild our infrastructure.

I have personal awareness of the effectiveness of FDR's WPA program because it rescued my own immediate family from the depth of the Great Depression. It enabled my father to work at repairing roads and public properties in upstate New York and to send money home. Much of that program was funded by the 91% progressive tax rate imposed on the super-rich of that era.


A new report finds that around the world the extremely wealthy have accumulated at least $21 trillion in secretive offshore accounts. That’s a sum equal to the gross domestic products of the United States and Japan added together. The number may sound unbelievable, but the study was conducted by James Henry, former chief economist at the consultancy McKinsey, an expert on tax havens and offshoring. It was commissioned by Tax Justice Network, a British activist group.

Super Rich Hide $21 Trillion Offshore, Study Says - Forbes

That is just one example of the hoarding problem that needs to be addressed.

 

[koshergrl]

Crazyville.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He stated a fact about savings and the wealthy. Do you believe that facts are bad??

What should we do now that he gave us these facts?
Should we stop the rich from saving?
Should we stop the rich from making more than the poor?
Quick, what should Obama do with these facts?

Now, now, Toddster. Obama can not do much at all with the facts. The facts have been out there for decades. Nothing new, just a good deal of proof that it is true.
What needs to happen, and what is happening, is that people need to become educated. They need not believe the sources that you believe, toddster. They need facts, not agenda meant to make them more malleable to those with the big bucks who spend those big bucks to get their votes to the politicians they own. Now, I know, being a con tool, that you do not believe in truth for the sake of truth. But those who vote need the truth, as opposed to the propaganda that you push. As for you, there is no chance that you will make use of that truth.

How would you make use of that knowledge?? Many ways, but here is one:
You would stop believing that taxing the rich has some appreciable effect on job creation.

Obama can not do much at all with the facts.

For once we agree, Obama cannot do much at all.

You would stop believing that taxing the rich has some appreciable effect on job creation.

Do you believe that raising taxes on the rich would increase job creation?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He stated a fact about savings and the wealthy. Do you believe that facts are bad??

What should we do now that he gave us these facts?
Should we stop the rich from saving?
Should we stop the rich from making more than the poor?
Quick, what should Obama do with these facts?

Now, now, Toddster. Obama can not do much at all with the facts. The facts have been out there for decades. Nothing new, just a good deal of proof that it is true.
What needs to happen, and what is happening, is that people need to become educated. They need not believe the sources that you believe, toddster. They need facts, not agenda meant to make them more malleable to those with the big bucks who spend those big bucks to get their votes to the politicians they own. Now, I know, being a con tool, that you do not believe in truth for the sake of truth. But those who vote need the truth, as opposed to the propaganda that you push. As for you, there is no chance that you will make use of that truth.

How would you make use of that knowledge?? Many ways, but here is one:
You would stop believing that taxing the rich has some appreciable effect on job creation.

Should we stop the rich from saving?
Should we stop the rich from making more than the poor?

In case your failure to answer these questions was accidental.

 

[Rshermr]

What should we do now that he gave us these facts?
Should we stop the rich from saving?
Should we stop the rich from making more than the poor?
Quick, what should Obama do with these facts?

Now, now, Toddster. Obama can not do much at all with the facts. The facts have been out there for decades. Nothing new, just a good deal of proof that it is true.
What needs to happen, and what is happening, is that people need to become educated. They need not believe the sources that you believe, toddster. They need facts, not agenda meant to make them more malleable to those with the big bucks who spend those big bucks to get their votes to the politicians they own. Now, I know, being a con tool, that you do not believe in truth for the sake of truth. But those who vote need the truth, as opposed to the propaganda that you push. As for you, there is no chance that you will make use of that truth.

How would you make use of that knowledge?? Many ways, but here is one:
You would stop believing that taxing the rich has some appreciable effect on job creation.

Obama can not do much at all with the facts.

For once we agree, Obama cannot do much at all.

You would stop believing that taxing the rich has some appreciable effect on job creation.

Do you believe that raising taxes on the rich would increase job creation?

So, Toddster says:
Obama can not do much at all with the facts.

For once we agree, Obama cannot do much at all.

Nice juvinile attack. No president can do anything with those facts BY HIMSELF. You know that. There are these things called the congress and the senate.

You would stop believing that taxing the rich has some appreciable effect on job creation.

Do you believe that raising taxes on the rich would increase job creation?

No. And I did not say that it would. However, raising taxes is one way to generate revenue for stimulus spending, which likely would help create jobs.

 

[Rshermr]

What should we do now that he gave us these facts?
Should we stop the rich from saving?
Should we stop the rich from making more than the poor?
Quick, what should Obama do with these facts?

Now, now, Toddster. Obama can not do much at all with the facts. The facts have been out there for decades. Nothing new, just a good deal of proof that it is true.
What needs to happen, and what is happening, is that people need to become educated. They need not believe the sources that you believe, toddster. They need facts, not agenda meant to make them more malleable to those with the big bucks who spend those big bucks to get their votes to the politicians they own. Now, I know, being a con tool, that you do not believe in truth for the sake of truth. But those who vote need the truth, as opposed to the propaganda that you push. As for you, there is no chance that you will make use of that truth.

How would you make use of that knowledge?? Many ways, but here is one:
You would stop believing that taxing the rich has some appreciable effect on job creation.

Should we stop the rich from saving?
Should we stop the rich from making more than the poor?

In case your failure to answer these questions was accidental.

No. And No. And the reason that I did not answer the questions was because the questions were not serious. No one is suggesting that we stop the wealthy form saving, nor for equalizing income. That would be a communist concept. Do you know some communists??

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Should we stop the rich from saving?

Saving is what you and I and most other Americans do. But it is critically important that the difference between saving and hoarding of money be examined and the detrimental effect and harmful potential of hoarding be acknowledged.

Should we stop the rich from making more than the poor?

Of course not. Wealth is a healthy aspiration and those who acquire wealth via lawfully and morally acceptable methods are entitled to it. But we need to agree upon a level at which accumulated (hoarded) wealth is counterproductive to the national economy and represents a harmful potential.

 

[RKMBrown]

These mental midgets believe saving money is stuffing it in a Mason jar and burying it in the backyard.
Saving money goes into banks and other financial institutions.
They take those savings and loan it out as capital to businesses and corporations that want to expand their businesses either hiring new employees and/or construction new facilities.
Savings is the lifeblood of capitalism and economic growth.
Without investors in savings and stock nothing gets done.
Amazing the ignorance of basic Econ 101 here.

I think he means that when the rich have money that's money that is not being redistributed to him.

No. What I meant is when certain individuals are able to hoard vast amounts of the Nation's wealth resource, which always results in a proportional reduction of that resource in the lower income sector, the effect is reduced circulation, which causes economic inertia.

I did not mean any part of the presently hoarded money should be redistributed to me, which is the notion right-wing propagandists have inseminated the weak minds of their disciples with. Rather those hoarded resources should be applied to make-work programs in the manner of FDR's WPA and CCC programs, and used to repair and rebuild our infrastructure.

I have personal awareness of the effectiveness of FDR's WPA program because it rescued my own immediate family from the depth of the Great Depression. It enabled my father to work at repairing roads and public properties in upstate New York and to send money home. Much of that program was funded by the 91% progressive tax rate imposed on the super-rich of that era.


A new report finds that around the world the extremely wealthy have accumulated at least $21 trillion in secretive offshore accounts. That’s a sum equal to the gross domestic products of the United States and Japan added together. The number may sound unbelievable, but the study was conducted by James Henry, former chief economist at the consultancy McKinsey, an expert on tax havens and offshoring. It was commissioned by Tax Justice Network, a British activist group.

Super Rich Hide $21 Trillion Offshore, Study Says - Forbes

That is just one example of the hoarding problem that needs to be addressed.

Myth: The Nation's wealth is a fixed amount, therefore the poor can only own what is not owned by the rich.

>>> Rather those hoarded resources should be applied to make-work programs in the manner of FDR's WPA and CCC programs, and used to repair and rebuild our infrastructure.

While I would much prefer work programs over welfare programs, I do not agree that the way to fund work programs is to progressively steal from the assets of the so called rich, who invariably end up being the group of people that earn more money than the 51%. Set the tax rate to a flat rate that covers the costs of government and I'm good with your proposal for funding programs that can be argued to benefit the population in general based on some level of investment with some expected return on investment. For example, a new power grid.

 

[JoeNormal]

Myth: The Nation's wealth is a fixed amount, therefore the poor can only own what is not owned by the rich.

I don't think anyone is claiming that The Nation's wealth is a fixed amount. Productivity has doubled over the last 30 years (at the cost of a lot of stress for just about everybody) so the wealth of the nation couldn't have helped but grow. The beef is that those productivity gains and the resulting increase in wealth almost exclusively went to the top 25%, overwhelmingly to the top 1% and grotesquely to the 0.01%.

 

[koshergrl]

These mental midgets believe saving money is stuffing it in a Mason jar and burying it in the backyard.
Saving money goes into banks and other financial institutions.
They take those savings and loan it out as capital to businesses and corporations that want to expand their businesses either hiring new employees and/or construction new facilities.
Savings is the lifeblood of capitalism and economic growth.
Without investors in savings and stock nothing gets done.
Amazing the ignorance of basic Econ 101 here.

I think he means that when the rich have money that's money that is not being redistributed to him.

No. What I meant is when certain individuals are able to hoard vast amounts of the Nation's wealth resource, which always results in a proportional reduction of that resource in the lower income sector, the effect is reduced circulation, which causes economic inertia.

I did not mean any part of the presently hoarded money should be redistributed to me, which is the notion right-wing propagandists have inseminated the weak minds of their disciples with. Rather those hoarded resources should be applied to make-work programs in the manner of FDR's WPA and CCC programs, and used to repair and rebuild our infrastructure.

I have personal awareness of the effectiveness of FDR's WPA program because it rescued my own immediate family from the depth of the Great Depression. It enabled my father to work at repairing roads and public properties in upstate New York and to send money home. Much of that program was funded by the 91% progressive tax rate imposed on the super-rich of that era.


A new report finds that around the world the extremely wealthy have accumulated at least $21 trillion in secretive offshore accounts. That’s a sum equal to the gross domestic products of the United States and Japan added together. The number may sound unbelievable, but the study was conducted by James Henry, former chief economist at the consultancy McKinsey, an expert on tax havens and offshoring. It was commissioned by Tax Justice Network, a British activist group.

Super Rich Hide $21 Trillion Offshore, Study Says - Forbes

That is just one example of the hoarding problem that needs to be addressed.

You've got to love proud 2nd generation welfare recipients.

 

[MikeK]

Myth: The Nation's wealth is a fixed amount, therefore the poor can only own what is not owned by the rich.

This is a daunting topic because there are arguments at varying levels on both sides and it involves dealing with issues of real wealth or fiat wealth, and because it can be shown that not only the wealth of this nation but that of the entire Earth is finite, I prefer not to engage in such a diversionary discussion. For the purpose of the discussion at hand I am satisfied with the fact that in every recorded example of wealth distribution it is clearly shown that proportional disparity exists between the upper and lower economic classes. When one increases, the other decreases -- as is clearly the case in the current U.S. example.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

While I would much prefer work programs over welfare programs, I do not agree that the way to fund work programs is to progressively steal from the assets of the so called rich, who invariably end up being the group of people that earn more money than the 51%. Set the tax rate to a flat rate that covers the costs of government and I'm good with your proposal for funding programs that can be argued to benefit the population in general based on some level of investment with some expected return on investment. For example, a new power grid.

Considering what we both know about how great fortunes are created, if you choose to regard progressive taxation as "stealing," my response to that is I have absolutely no problem with stealing from thieves! One good rip-off deserves another.

As far as upper-level hoarders are concerned, they could be taxed at the level of billions and it would in no way affect their lifestyles. That fact alone is an almost shameful irony.

 

[koshergrl]

That requires a re-definition of the term "thief" of course.

Something progressive nutbars are always good at...we are eternally being inundated with new "definitions" to justify their ever broadening net of fascism.

 

[RKMBrown]

Myth: The Nation's wealth is a fixed amount, therefore the poor can only own what is not owned by the rich.

I don't think anyone is claiming that The Nation's wealth is a fixed amount. Productivity has doubled over the last 30 years (at the cost of a lot of stress for just about everybody) so the wealth of the nation couldn't have helped but grow. The beef is that those productivity gains and the resulting increase in wealth almost exclusively went to the top 25%, overwhelmingly to the top 1% and grotesquely to the 0.01%.

Compare and contrast please the definition of "poor" in America with the rest of the world's "poor." When I see poor with no job for years on end such as my relatives that have flat screen TVs eating better than I did when I worked my way through college.... well you will have a hard time convincing me. We have too many on disability, too many on unemployment for too long, too many people gaming the systems, the numbers don't add up. We need welfare reform again.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Myth: The Nation's wealth is a fixed amount, therefore the poor can only own what is not owned by the rich.

This is a daunting topic because there are arguments at varying levels on both sides and it involves dealing with issues of real wealth or fiat wealth, and because it can be shown that not only the wealth of this nation but that of the entire Earth is finite, I prefer not to engage in such a diversionary discussion. For the purpose of the discussion at hand I am satisfied with the fact that in every recorded example of wealth distribution it is clearly shown that proportional disparity exists between the upper and lower economic classes. When one increases, the other decreases -- as is clearly the case in the current U.S. example.

When you look at B.100 Balance Sheet of Households and Nonprofit Organizations

here....... http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/annuals/a2005-2012.pdf

Why does one cohort have to decrease when another increases?

 

[RKMBrown]

Myth: The Nation's wealth is a fixed amount, therefore the poor can only own what is not owned by the rich.

This is a daunting topic because there are arguments at varying levels on both sides and it involves dealing with issues of real wealth or fiat wealth, and because it can be shown that not only the wealth of this nation but that of the entire Earth is finite, I prefer not to engage in such a diversionary discussion. For the purpose of the discussion at hand I am satisfied with the fact that in every recorded example of wealth distribution it is clearly shown that proportional disparity exists between the upper and lower economic classes. When one increases, the other decreases -- as is clearly the case in the current U.S. example.

Why limit to this earth? Why not just say the universe has a finite mass therefore...

Wealth is a measure of value of production. You are looking at wealth as a measure of that which can be redistributed. Not of that which can be produced. You see taxes as a means to enact revenge on the wealthy for some evil that you assumed they did to you. Is a rich person evil when he uses his money to buy a company? Is he evil when he makes a profit selling the company?

Most people that think profits are evil, don't have a problem with personally receiving the spoils of said evil profits. Funny how that is.

 

[Rshermr]

Myth: The Nation's wealth is a fixed amount, therefore the poor can only own what is not owned by the rich.

I don't think anyone is claiming that The Nation's wealth is a fixed amount. Productivity has doubled over the last 30 years (at the cost of a lot of stress for just about everybody) so the wealth of the nation couldn't have helped but grow. The beef is that those productivity gains and the resulting increase in wealth almost exclusively went to the top 25%, overwhelmingly to the top 1% and grotesquely to the 0.01%.

Compare and contrast please the definition of "poor" in America with the rest of the world's "poor." When I see poor with no job for years on end such as my relatives that have flat screen TVs eating better than I did when I worked my way through college.... well you will have a hard time convincing me. We have too many on disability, too many on unemployment for too long, too many people gaming the systems, the numbers don't add up. We need welfare reform again.

Interesting statements. Do you have any proof of your statements??? In case you missed it, we have recently experienced one of the worst economic downturns of our history. Did you expect that there would not be an increase of substantial numbers needing assistance in the form of ue insurance and job creation as a result?? The result of an economic downturn of the size of the one that occurred in 2008 -2009 required action. Instead, we had one party refusing to agree to anything, and who REQUIRED that about 40% of the stimulus that was passed over their unanimous votes was in tax decreases. The fact that unemployment required increases in ue insurance payments was obvious. And those payments have an almost immediate impact on demand creation, which is in most economists belief a good thing. Sitting and watching is what we did from the beginning of the great depression, in '29, until 1933, And we watched the ue rate go from about 3% to over 24%, on its way to almost 25%. So, suggesting that we do so again seems a bit backwards.

 

[Rshermr]

Myth: The Nation's wealth is a fixed amount, therefore the poor can only own what is not owned by the rich.

This is a daunting topic because there are arguments at varying levels on both sides and it involves dealing with issues of real wealth or fiat wealth, and because it can be shown that not only the wealth of this nation but that of the entire Earth is finite, I prefer not to engage in such a diversionary discussion. For the purpose of the discussion at hand I am satisfied with the fact that in every recorded example of wealth distribution it is clearly shown that proportional disparity exists between the upper and lower economic classes. When one increases, the other decreases -- as is clearly the case in the current U.S. example.

Why limit to this earth? Why not just say the universe has a finite mass therefore...

Wealth is a measure of value of production. You are looking at wealth as a measure of that which can be redistributed. Not of that which can be produced. You see taxes as a means to enact revenge on the wealthy for some evil that you assumed they did to you. Is a rich person evil when he uses his money to buy a company? Is he evil when he makes a profit selling the company?

Most people that think profits are evil, don't have a problem with personally receiving the spoils of said evil profits. Funny how that is.

Really?? Who do you think is against profits? Try reading and understanding this as a concern relative to who is getting the spoils of this economy and who is not:
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened - Bloomberg

Then let me know how you think this is a good thing and how it does not cause further harm to our economy.