Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, February 14, 2014

Derek Thompson, The Atlantic: The average 1 percenter is quite rich. But she lives in a state of relative poverty compared to the astronomical wealth of "the 1 percent of the 1 percent." Take one look at this graph, and you'll think you recognize the story: Yeah, yeah, yeah, the 1 percent blasts into the stratosphere while the 99 percent languishes in stagnation, moving on ... Simple, right? Except this graph doesn't tell that story, at all. Because you see that languishing green line at the bottom? That's the 1 percent.

Advertisement

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

Corky

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

Now let's add labels (the income data lives here if you wanna play at home) and voila, you can see this isn't a picture of the rich and the rest. It's the 40-year history of the rich, the truly rich, and the truly filthy stinking rich -- the 1 percent, the 0.1 percent, and the 0.01 percent.

As Tim Noah explained, they're mostly executives and bankers. A 2010 study of the top 0.1 percent found that 61 percent of this group is either a banker or an executive/manager [for] another big corporation. The rest are mostly lawyers (7 percent), doctors (6 percent), and real estate people (4 percent).

How'd they all get so rich? It wasn't the way the rest of us get rich. It wasn't their wages. It was something else.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"The richer you are, the more likely your riches come from stocks, not salary. For the three groups graphed above -- 1 percent, 0.1 percent, and 0.01 percent -- capital gains account for 22, 33 and 42 percent (respectively) of their average income. At the very tippy-top of the economy, the 400 richest tax returns analyzed by the IRS take home about 50 percent of their income from capital gains.

Practically all the growth in average income at the top comes from stocks. Between 1992 and 2007, the average salary of a top-400 tax return doubled, but average capital gains haul increased 13X. Wages are for normal people. The richest get richer from their investments.

As Matt O'Brien explained, the incomes of top-earners ride a roller coaster, and that roller coaster is the stock and bond market. Just look at top incomes compared with gyrations in the S&P 500. (CHART)

As O'Brien concluded:

The rise of the rentiers is nothing new. What is new is the degree of financial globalization and liberalization that has supercharged the fortunes of the super-wealthy even beyond robber baron levels. But it's no mystery how to reverse this. It's a matter of setting better rules for markets and taxing earners at the top a bit more."

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-13 11:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

Rentier capitalism is a term currently used to describe economic practices of parasitic monopolization of access to any (physical, financial, intellectual, etc.) kind of property and gaining significant amount of profit without contribution to society. (Wiki)

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-13 11:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

WTF are you rambling about. can you do any critical thinking?

Your idol and QE are directly responsible.

#3 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2014-02-13 11:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

#3

www.youtube.com

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-13 11:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

Has Obama Been Good for Millionaires?

A new study from WealthInsight, the London-based wealth-research and data firm (and yes, they are non-partisan), showed that the United States added 1.1 million millionaires between Jan. 1, 2009 and the end of 2011, the latest period measured. There were 5.1 million millionaires in America at the end of 2011, compared with around 4 million at the end of 2008.

That works out to more than 1,000 millionaires a day under the Obama administration. (They defined millionaires as people with total net worth of $1 million or more, excluding primary residence).

www.cnbc.com

OOPS

#5 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-02-13 11:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

OOPS

Yes, one should have expected that the recovery from the Great GOP Recession would have left the 1 percenters behind and cured inequality in America.

You're a real thinker there, Pcon.

#6 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-13 11:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

#4 | POSTED BY CORKY

www.youtube.com

#7 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-02-13 11:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

Yes, one should have expected that the recovery from the Great GOP Recession would have left the 1 percenters behind and cured inequality in America
#6 | POSTED BY CORKY

Make your case!

#8 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-02-13 11:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

It's ludicrous to presume that would have happened. But them, I forget to whom I speak.

#9 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-13 11:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

then

#10 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-13 11:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

Obummer loves the 0.01%ers. In fact, he'll be one in the future. Our educational system really needs to look at a new area of curriculum. It could involve courses on how to become POTUS. One of the most attended and overflowing courses would be "Confidence Game 101". Another would be "How to read teleprompters with confidence". A third would be: "How to write lefty feely-good books". A fourth would be: "How to be POTUS by leading from behind".

#11 | Posted by matsop at 2014-02-13 11:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

How is that TARP working out for everyone? I wonder how it worked out for the .01%?

This problem will not go away until Congress divests itself of the power it wields via the loopholes it has placed in the tax code. It is not the fault of the people who take advantage of the tax code, it is the fault of the people who wrote it.

#12 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-02-13 12:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

4 Ms cut, pate, and taunt has no idea what she posts.

I challenge you to explain QE, dood frank, and TBTF.

Go away until you can actually post something relevant to the topic YOU POST!!

#13 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2014-02-13 02:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It is not the fault of the people who take advantage of the tax code, it is the fault of the people who wrote it."

It's the fault of both because those taking advantage of it are also the people who help the Republicans, who refuse to change it, in office.

#14 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-13 02:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's the fault of both because those taking advantage of it are also the people who help the Republicans, who refuse to change it, in office.
#14 | POSTED BY DANNI

B. Hussein Obama is not part of that in anyway? How is this solely a Republican cause?

#15 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-02-13 02:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

#15

You've confused her.

danni believes only the conservative high income/asset folks utilize the advantaged tax code to their advantage.

#16 | Posted by eberly at 2014-02-13 03:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

"B. Hussein Obama is not part of that in anyway? How is this solely a Republican cause?"

Because it is they who refuse to even discuss any tax increase while it is the Democrats who keep saying we need a tax increase on the wealthiest Americans, who want to keep the law that governments use to report foreign accounts where rich people hide money to avoid taxes, etc.

#17 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-13 03:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Danni
Are you embarrassed by that last response?

#18 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2014-02-13 03:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Jesus H Christ Danni. Obama got his tax increase when the tax cuts expired. Remember how he kept saying "we'll look at spending if I get some tax revenue"? Then when he got it said f off Republicans.

#19 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-02-13 03:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

Danni
Are you embarrassed by that last response?

#18 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2014-02-13 03:18 PM | Reply | Flag

Sadly, I'm sure she's proud of herself.

#20 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-02-13 03:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Danni
Are you embarrassed by that last response?"

Not in the slightest. We've followed supply side economics too long already, we've tried free trade too long already. We need to return to the economic principles we relied on during the most prosperous parts of the 20th century before Reagan slashed taxes and started running up debt.

#21 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-13 04:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Danni can't comprehend much less comment on QE and Dodd Frank ramifications wihtout proving her lack of understanding.

Obama is fanning the riches of the 1%. Yet he pretends to represent the 99. Danni,as an OWS, would rather not talk about QE and how it's lining the pockets o the 1%.

#22 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2014-02-13 04:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

WaveyDavey is exactly right. Here's another doozy. Obamacare puts everyone making 138% of poverty level or less into the Medicare system. In that system all health care expenses are subject to disgorgement by the State upon your death. So your house and care can be impounded by the State, but only if you're poor when you enter Obamacare.

#23 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-02-13 04:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

-WaveyDavey is exactly right.

There's a sentence no one ever expected to read here, lol.

#24 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-13 04:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

#23 Nutcase

Only if they have no heirs.

#25 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2014-02-13 05:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

#14....No one is required to pay one penny more in tax than is required by law. Anyone who takes advantage of the tax code is not at fault for taking that advantage.

Also, the amount of wealth that a person has is not the business of anyone else.

#26 | Posted by Visitor2 at 2014-02-13 08:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Nothing new under the sun.

Complaining about the rich goes as far back as Jesus Christ. And the rich had him killed him for it.

Then for centuries the ignorant masses blamed their misery on the Jews. Until the Holocaust.

Now, the political correctness demands that it's all the fault of capitalists.

Look up the Pareto Principle. The distribution between poor and rich has hardly changed since the beginning of history.

It's a matter of setting better rules for markets and taxing earners at the top a bit more."
#1 | POSTED BY CORKY

As if the rich are going to pay their political cronies to raise their taxes. What a maroon!

#27 | Posted by Ray at 2014-02-13 09:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

"..that 61 percent of this group is either a banker or an executive/manager another big corporation. The rest are mostly lawyers (7 percent), doctors...."

Whistle blown, BS flag thrown.
No rock stars or Hollywood performers?

#28 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-02-13 11:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

No elected officials, of course...

#29 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-02-13 11:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

OOPS

Yes, one should have expected that the recovery from the Great GOP Recession would have left the 1 percenters behind and cured inequality in America.

You're a real thinker there, Pcon.

#6 | Posted by Corky

What are you calling the "Great GOP Recession"?

I seriously doubt you can back any of that up with fact.

(other than our weak POTUS telling you that and everyone laughing at him)

#30 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-02-14 10:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

Capital gains from Stocks and Bonds do not increase the wealth of our nation. They do, however, enjoy taking most of the income and at a lower tax rate than the average worker. In our economy paper shuffling is king.

#31 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-02-14 10:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

The Rise (and Rise) of the 0.01 Percent
Posted by Corky

What Liberals in this country are going to realize soon is that they are not only bigots, but also very greedy. Most Republicans already know this. They have a conservative belief system that was not lost in the last few decades.

The Greed is real! The reason for it is embarrassing.

Today, Americans enjoy a standard of living that is far better than it was just 30 years ago, yet this belief of enormous lack has emerged far stronger than it was 30 years ago.

#32 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-02-14 10:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

Capital gains from Stocks and Bonds do not increase the wealth of our nation. They do, however, enjoy taking most of the income and at a lower tax rate than the average worker. In our economy paper shuffling is king.
#31 | Posted by nutcase

If you don't want to take risks and live a comfortable worry-free life, then go do that. Don't expect to be rewarded for it. That would be greedy.

#33 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-02-14 10:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Capital gains from Stocks and Bonds do not increase the wealth of our nation"

don't a majority of Americans have a retirement plan invested in stocks and bonds?

#34 | Posted by eberly at 2014-02-14 10:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

"We need to return to the economic principles we relied on during the most prosperous parts of the 20th century before Reagan slashed taxes and started running up debt."

That was the conclusion of the author as well. "Tax the highest earners a bit more."

I agree. We here in the Air Force need new bombers. And fighters for that matter. During those halcyon days of the 1950s and 60s, this is what those taxes collected at inordinately high rates went to fund.

#35 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-02-14 10:32 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I am laughing my butt off at the Anti-Obama crowd in the room on this one.

Let's simply look at the graph. Remember the Rebpublican theory of Trickle down economics and how it would benefit normal people if taxes on the rich were cut? Where do you see the rise of this .01 percent begin? I don't see normal people benefiting from this as a matter of fact we are much worse off. Look at the graph in this article just as a guide it has continued to get more and more lop sided.

That said, once the worst of the recession was over Obama tried several times to get tax raises in place and that didn't happen the way they should have either.

When you actually learn how the Stock market works today and see the technologies used by the investment companies to take advantage of micro & macro fluctuations, essentially manipulating the market and just who is benefiting the story gets better.

#36 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2014-02-14 10:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Where do you see the rise of this .01 percent begin?"

Is there a problem with the 1% or .1% or .01% becoming richer?

It seems like you would really only have a valid argument if you could somehow demonstrate that, all other things being equal, everyone else would be better off had that top percent not become richer. Would I be richer, if the .01% were making less money? I don't see how. And I certainly don't see how low paid unskilled workers would be making more. Unless you want to explain to me how the economic value of the top tier somehow influences the labor value of a ditch digger. If anything, conventional economic wisdom would suggest that it would increase demand for that type of worker. After all, the more I make, the more likely I am to hire someone to shovel the snow out of my driveway or mow my lawn.

The bottom line is that my ability to earn an income isn't affected in the slightest by the fact that someone somewhere is making a billion dollars this year. So exactly why should I care? Is it a simple matter of jealousy that's driving this argument?

#37 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-02-14 11:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

Is there a problem with the 1% or .1% or .01% becoming richer?

#37 | Posted by madbomber

Look at the environment in this country in the 1800s and early 1900s and the Robber Barons. Look at the environment in ANY country where the Ultra-Rich are allowed unrestrained wealth growth. You end up with a handful of people in control and by and large a population that suffers for it. So, bottom line? Yes, It is bad.

When the Robber Barons were put in check and things like inheritance taxes were established and Unions came into existence you seen the rise of a strong and vibrant middle class in this country. With the rise of the .01 Percent, please tell me what has happened to the middle class? Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

If you are not in one of a couple fields your ability to earn an income is most definitely affected even if you don't realize it and only the blind can not see it. With wealth comes power and influence. Who is benefiting from off-shoring and outsourcing? What is the net effect on your income? Why do you think immigration reform has not been tackled? Why do you think millions of illegals are continually allowed to work at major companies? Who benefits from free trade and how? I know very well my wage potential was significantly higher prior to Bush taking office. Wages have significantly deflated vs the dollar since the establishment of Trickle Down. In particular starting under GW and continuing into Obama. Over 50% of this country no longer pays a Federal Income Tax and are indeed subsidized.

Also for your information ditch diggers in this country are paid very well. On the order of $30-50 an hour depending where they are digging that ditch. They are skilled workers running big equipment. They aren't like in the 3rd world digging a trough by hand. Do assembly line workers deserve more? Well they have an ability to do a highly repetitive job over and over day after day until their body breaks down. I couldn't do that job - talk about hell on earth for someone who can and does think. Do they deserve the ability to live comfortably and not worry about their retirement which is being strategically stripped away? As wages continue to fall in relation to real inflation and deflation of the dollar we are on a downward track.

#38 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2014-02-14 11:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

There was good reason we had tax rates upwards of 70-90 percent on top earners in the first part of the last century... to make a more level playing field in a crony capitalist system designed to flow wealth upwards.

#39 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-14 11:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

#39 | Posted by Corky

Precisely. And where are we headed today?

#40 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2014-02-14 12:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

#40

If we keep electing people willing to raise taxes on the 1 percent (and the .01 percent) and who are willing to work on policies that lead away from inequality in the country, we might one day get a more level playing field.

But as long as conservatives are led around by the nose by moneyed interests, and as long as some liberals provide only cynicism and fall into the corporate-sponsored "parties are the same" memes, that ain't a gonna happen.

#41 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-14 12:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Unless you are a member of the top 0.01 percent AND are extremely greedy, what possible intelligent reason does a person have for opposing increases in taxes to this infintisimal elit?

#42 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-02-14 12:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Unless you are a member of the top 0.01 percent AND are extremely greedy, what possible intelligent reason does a person have for opposing increases in taxes to this infintisimal elit?

#42 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-02-14 12:32 PM | Reply | Flag:"

Remove the word "intelligent" from your question and I can answer it with fanciful tales of job creators and trickle down.

#43 | Posted by Sully at 2014-02-14 12:39 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Corky, leave these 'producers' alone!

Without these extremely wealthy people most of the US would be languishing in stagnant wages and lack of good opportunity....

#44 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-02-14 12:40 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Billionaire who compared the Occupy protests to 'Kristallnacht' now thinks that the rich should get more votes

A billionaire venture capitalist has made the controversial suggestion that people like him should be entitled to more votes while others shouldn't be allowed to have a say at all.

Tom Perkins, whose personal net worth is believed to be around $8billion, has suggested that only American taxpayers should be allowed to vote in the U.S. and that those who pay more in taxes should be allotted more votes.

'The Tom Perkins system is: You don't get to vote unless you pay a dollar of taxes,' he said at an event in San Francisco on Thursday.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk

Of course, GALAXIEPETE, it could go the other way....

#45 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-14 12:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

-these 'producers'

www.youtube.com

#46 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-14 12:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

CEO: Quit complaining about being poor

Bud Konheim, the CEO of Nicole Miller, says that Americans are wealthy compared to other countries.

www.cnn.com

#47 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-14 12:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

"what possible intelligent reason does a person have for opposing increases in taxes to this infintisimal elit?"

Justice, fairness, not being a jealous jerk, wanting to pull your own weight, integrity, contentedness, not being part of a thieves mob, not thinking it is okay to target a small group because you have more numbers then they do, a realistic look on who already pays the lions share by a vast margin, looking to the future rather then just the moment, not having your wits disappear just because you see a shiny thing, logic, reason, honor, class, not falling prey to stupid consumerism, dignity, intellect, not pursuing class warfare to gain control of the weak minded, maturity, need i go on?

#48 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-02-14 01:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

#48

laissez faire capitalism is a system designed to flow wealth upwards, and has been very successful at that.

Which makes such complaints as yours laughable.

It's like the average Joe sitting in a no-limits poker game with the Koch Bros. Joe ain't a gonna win, ever.

#49 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-14 01:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

#49

No the point stands you just don't like to look in the mirror and realize exactly what it is you are wanting. Theft based on what they have. Some of us are big enough to call a spade a spade and chose to do what is right rather then what we think we can get away with.

#50 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-02-14 01:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Some of you are dumb enough not to know when the economic system is stacked against you and for the wealthy... because they wrote the current laws that support said system.

www.google.com

#51 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-14 01:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Did Sally not see the word "intelligent" in Moder8's question?

That "jealousy" blabber is just the dumbest crap in the world.

#52 | Posted by sully at 2014-02-14 01:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

#52

Again the mirror is not always nice sully. Just because you don;t like what you see in it does not mean that is not what it is reflecting. You would like to think of it as dumb only because you know that there is no reasonable alternative when you think of it with any intellectual honesty. But continue on, you are the victim, so it is okay to steal from them. After all it is not stealing when you do it with a mob.

#53 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-02-14 01:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

#51

Wait, you are telling me that having money makes it easier to make money?

STOP THE PRESSES!!!

But for those of us not surprised by common knowledge it still does not make it right to steal.

#54 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-02-14 01:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Again the mirror is not always nice sully."

Again, you're saying really dumb stuff because you don't have a real point.

Assigning other people silly motivations isn't as impressive as you think. Its just stupid. Every time you post this junk you're telling us that you're a fool.

#55 | Posted by sully at 2014-02-14 01:44 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

-common knowledge

lmao... so, it's OK to be getting screwed as long as everyone knows it?

See, this is where the 1 percent get their proxy voters, from the shallow end of the the gene pool.

#56 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-14 01:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Assigning other people silly motivations isn't as impressive as you think. Its just stupid. Every time you post this junk you're telling us that you're a fool."

Again the retort of

"well i can't argue with that so i will call him stupid"

Well if you ever want to get around to honestly thinking about it you will realize by very definition you have no leg to stand on.

You advocate taking from someone because they have more then you do you not?
And yet you don;t like to use words like take or steal because they betray what your motivations are. For people like you it would seem that the biggest threat to your philosophy is honesty.
Ask yourself, would it be okay on a small scale? Would it be okay to round up a bunch of guys and head to a house or store and take what they have because you do not have it? Obviously the answer is no but it seems it is okay if done on a larger scale. Who lacks intellectual integrity? The guy how calls it as it is or the guy who cannot deal with using the appropriate terms because it showcased character flaws?

#57 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-02-14 01:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

"so, it's OK to be getting screwed as long as everyone knows it?"

Yes, yes we are all the poor victims. I got it corky, you need to rationalize your jealousy. Some of us are just above that.

"See, this is where the 1 percent get their proxy voters, from the shallow end of the the gene pool."

Sure, as opposed to the uneducated masses manipulated into class warfare to get their little shiny things. Poor fool have you no understanding of history? Do you not see that you are in exactly the same position as many of the manipulated of the past. When power is desired the masses are the easiest way to get that and the easiest way to control them is to instill jealousy. Time and time again we have seen it, but this time it must be different right?

#58 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-02-14 01:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Again the retort of

"well i can't argue with that so i will call him stupid""

Nooooo, that's what you're doing. "I have no point so I will blabber about jealousy".

It IS stupid. And since you repeat this nonsense over and over, the evidence is pretty strong that you ARE stupid.

#59 | Posted by Sully at 2014-02-14 01:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

#58

The FACTS are that our current economic system flows wealth upwards, as proven in the links I gave you.

You are OK with that discriminatory system tilted towards the wealthy, presumably because you have been brainwashed to "think" so, others are not.

#60 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-14 02:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Nooooo, that's what you're doing. "I have no point so I will blabber about jealousy".
It IS stupid. And since you repeat this nonsense over and over, the evidence is pretty strong that you ARE stupid."

Sure thing there buddy, you keep telling yourself that. It's funny to me that that is still all you can come up with. In lieu of argument just say the other is blabbering stupidly about jealousy then when called out pretend like calling someone stupid is an argument.

Give me one reason why taking is not taking. Give me one reason why lusting after what someone else has is not jealousy. Give me one reason why just because someone has more then you they should not be allowed to keep it. Give me one reason why it is a good thing to want to take from others. Give me one reason why a rich guy is less of a human then anyone else.

Seriously, take a good hard look in the mirror. You whine about assigning motivation but you have not supplied yours. Frankly the closest thing to a motivation outside of jealously is the fabricated victim mentality.

So prove me wrong or shut up about it. If you want robin hood fine, own it. Don't pretend like the definitions don;t apply just in your case.

#61 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-02-14 02:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The FACTS are that our current economic system flows wealth upwards, as proven in the links I gave you.
You are OK with that discriminatory system tilted towards the wealthy, presumably because you have been brainwashed to "think" so, others are not."

You mean like the natural process?
That is nothing new. It has existed since the beginning of a monetary system and even before that.
The only difference being that now, like many other time periods, mans jealousy is being exploited to control the weak minded.

#62 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-02-14 02:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Washington DC is corrupt. They have been corrupted by the 1% and even more so by the .01%. The .01% are even above the law.

#63 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-02-14 02:17 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

It is a travesty that so few should have so much while large populations starve and struggle to survive.

Our species does not deserve to inhabit this or any planet.

#64 | Posted by drewl at 2014-02-14 02:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

-That is nothing new. It has existed since the beginning of a monetary system and even before that.

Well, no it hasn't. Greed has never been more organized than it is in a crony capitalist system.... which you submit too like Pavlov's dogs.

#65 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-14 02:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

"In lieu of argument just say the other is blabbering stupidly about jealousy then when called out pretend like calling someone stupid is an argument."

I'm not arguing with you. I'm not going to debate the merits of your assigning emotions to other people. Assigning negative emotions to other people because you don't like what they're saying IS stupid.

There's nothing to debate. Unlike you, I'm not trying to tell anyone how they feel. I'm telling you that telling people how they fell because you don't like their position is idiot behavior.

#66 | Posted by Sully at 2014-02-14 02:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Well, no it hasn't."

and we are supposed to take you seriously?

The guy with three chickens has always gained wealth faster then the guy with two.

#67 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-02-14 02:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I'm not arguing with you. I'm not going to debate the merits of your assigning emotions to other people. Assigning negative emotions to other people because you don't like what they're saying IS stupid."

No you are not arguing with me you are in internal conflict.

See, my point is proven via definition. I call it jealousy or envy so does the English language. What do you call it.
dictionary.reference.com
www.merriam-webster.com

Support why the definition does not fit or shut up about it. We get it, you don't like what your position says about you but that is not reason to trow out the very definition of the words used.
You don't like my term but what term would you have me use?
You have not given one because even you know that there is no positive term that fits.

#68 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-02-14 02:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

-The guy with three chickens

Didn't buy a rwing congressman and tell him what laws to write.

And Sully is right, this "jealousy" thing is nonsense. Or do you need my zip code again?

#69 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-14 02:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

For those with similar experience, the only thing that separates the winner from the losers in Monopoly is luck. The parallels between that board game and our economic divisions should be obvious to the most casual observer. All the arguments put forth by the 1% are intended to promote those disparities and are BS. Yet, they are swallowed hook line and sinker by simple minded wannabe billionaires.

#70 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-02-14 02:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Didn't buy a rwing congressman and tell him what laws to write."

Actually dating back to the beginnings or commerce those that had more were able to manipulate governments and create local governments. Again a history lesson may be in order if you wish to understand the reality of the issue.

And yes it is noted that your partisanship goes as far as to think corruption is a one side of the isle thing. And again we are somehow supposed to take you seriously.

#71 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-02-14 02:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

"And Sully is right, this "jealousy" thing is nonsense."

Then argue with Miriam Webster. Or find a term to describe it that somehow paints it in a positive light. Go on i dare you. You know better then to use fair so what would you use?

#72 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-02-14 02:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

- had more were able to manipulate governments and create local governments.

lol, again, you submit to that like one of Pavlov's dogs.

#73 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-14 02:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Support why the definition does not fit or shut up about it."

As many times as you assign emotions to other people I'm going to tell you that it is the behavior of a moron. There is no validity to your moronic behvior and I won't pretend for a moment that there is.

If you don't like it, you're free to stop blabbering but I'm not going to shut up on the orders of an imbecile.

#74 | Posted by Sully at 2014-02-14 02:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

" The parallels between that board game and our economic divisions should be obvious to the most casual observer."

Really? So we are all to start out with the exact same thing and live our lives up to the chance of the roll?
Well if you wanted a real parallel you would have to have the guy with boardwalk and park place constantly paying for every other players bills while dealing with the constant whining that it is not fair because he has more.

Parallel? Not so much aside from that both involve capital.

#75 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-02-14 02:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

People want, and deserve, a level playing field. That's not jealousy, it is just.

#76 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-14 02:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

"If you don't like it, you're free to stop blabbering but I'm not going to shut up on the orders of an imbecile."

You don't have to. You lack of any argument is plenty.

#77 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-02-14 02:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

"People want, and deserve, a level playing field. That's not jealousy, it is just."

Ha, level playing field?
So you wan't rich people to pay less taxes?
You wan't the rest of us to pony up our fair share?
You think that small business should have to deal with the same massive regulation that big companies do?
You think that Joe Blow should pony up for neighborhoods to go to school?
Methinks you would not like that much.

#78 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-02-14 02:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Look at the environment in this country in the 1800s and early 1900s and the Robber Barons. Look at the environment in ANY country where the Ultra-Rich are allowed unrestrained wealth growth."

Written another way, people are allowed to pay them as much for a good or service as they choose. You seem to be saying they shouldn't be allowed to keep the money we willingly give them. If "we" have a problem with them accumulating money, then maybe "we" should stop giving it to them.

"You end up with a handful of people in control and by and large a population that suffers for it."

This handful of people must be progressives. Because they're the only ones I see who want to control me. Control how much I make. Control what I eat. Control whether or not I can own a gun. And to be honest, if I were in power, that's exactly what I would want. A government that could expressly forbid anyone from ever threatening my position of power. Why should I be forced to expens resrouces defending my position of power when I can simply have the government pass laws that does that for me. All the better if I can sell it to "the people" that it's actually for their benefit.

"When the Robber Barons were put in check and things like inheritance taxes were established and Unions came into existence you seen the rise of a strong and vibrant middle class in this country."

Wanna know what brought about the strong middle class? WWII. And the destruction of every other industrialized economy on earth That created a huge demand for labor, which drove up prices. It was perfectly predictable, but it was an anomoly. Want it to happen again and you'd better be ready to nuke someone.

#79 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-02-14 02:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Corky's "just"

www.youtube.com

#80 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-02-14 02:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

People want, and deserve, a level playing field. That's not jealousy, it is just.

#76 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-14 02:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Are you sure? Our resident moron did post a link to a dictionary! LOL

#81 | Posted by Sully at 2014-02-14 02:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

#81

Not my fault you don't know what the words mean.

#82 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-02-14 03:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

It is not the fault of the people who take advantage of the tax code, it is the fault of the people who wrote it.

#12 | Posted by MUSTANG

Those are the SAME PEOPLE.

This is the problem with america. If the rich want something, they can buy off a legislator to make it happen. If the poor want something... they can get in line.

#83 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-02-14 03:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is old news. Capitalism has an inherent tendency to concentrate wealth, as Marx pointed over 150 years ago.

#84 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-02-14 03:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wanna know what brought about the strong middle class? WWII. And the destruction of every other industrialized economy on earth That created a huge demand for labor, which drove up prices. It was perfectly predictable, but it was an anomoly. Want it to happen again and you'd better be ready to nuke someone.

#79 | Posted by madbomber

Wanna know what ended the strong middle class?

The rich buying off the legislators to pass trade deals that raised stock prices while offshoring jobs.

The .01 percent get RICHER from policies that make everyone else POORER. And then they can turn around and use their increased riches to do it all again. It's a spiraling cycle of self enrichment at the expense of the average american, and it won't stop until we change our election system, which is basically LEGALIZED BRIBERY, make possible by the FALLACY known as "corporate personhood".

#85 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-02-14 03:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Some of you sound as if you don't understand how much wealthy people contribute to society. The jobs we create. The arts which we fund. The charities we donate. The big ticket items we buy for one another.

Face it. Without us you would all be screwed. Calvin Coolidge understood this. Ronald Reagan understood this. Mitt Romney understood this.

No citation necessary

Walker '16: Because rich people give far more than they receive, and poor people don't give much of anything.

#86 | Posted by BradfordWinston at 2014-02-14 03:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Some of you sound as if you don't understand how much wealthy people contribute to society. The jobs we create. The arts which we fund. The charities we donate. The big ticket items we buy for one another.

Face it. Without us you would all be screwed. Calvin Coolidge understood this. Ronald Reagan understood this. Mitt Romney understood this.

No citation necessary

Walker '16: Because rich people give far more than they receive, and poor people don't give much of anything.

--------

Complete total and utter garbage.

Not one rich person has ever built a bridge, mined for coal/oil, or cured anything. All of these things are done by the masses.

What the rich do is profit from the above using access to the social system. That is why if you gave everyone 1 million dollars without changing said that nothing would change.

Those with access to the corridors of power rig the system and then blame the populace for not working hard enough. SOP.

#87 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-02-14 03:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

Shawn, obviously you are a [...] with no life experience unable to understand that rich people do more for society than poor people. We are the broad shoulders upon which the stupid and the poor stand up to breathe the free air of opportunity. I personally provide employment to my cook, two gardners (part time), my manservant (Barnabas), as well the people who clean my pool, look after my horses and tend the golf course at the Club, and numerous other people who have me to thank for their livlihood. You on the other hand probably don't contribute anything to society.

I am not saying I'm better than you. We will leave that decision up to the Lord Jesus.

No citation necessary

#88 | Posted by BradfordWinston at 2014-02-14 03:38 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 4

Some of you sound as if you don't understand how much wealthy people contribute to society. The jobs we create. The arts which we fund. The charities we donate. The big ticket items we buy for one another.

Face it. Without us you would all be screwed. Calvin Coolidge understood this. Ronald Reagan understood this. Mitt Romney understood this.

#86 | Posted by BradfordWinston

Hah. The only thing reagan understood was that you can temporarily make the economy seem really healthy if you decide to give massive tax cuts and charge it all the nation's credit card.

You're not rich. You're far to simpleminded for success. You just fantasize that someday you'll be rich, but you won't. So stop rooting against yourself and your neighbors and supporting the greedfuks who've hijacked our democracy.

#89 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-02-14 03:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

lol. Bradford hooks a couple of people who don't get his Stephen Colbert impression.

#80

Gets his definitions from comedians.

#90 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-14 04:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

#90

Missed the dictionary link?
I used comedians because they simplified the concept so even a child could understand. Funny you still don't get it.

#91 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-02-14 04:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

#89 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

I think you've been punk'd.

#92 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-02-14 04:33 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"The rich buying off the legislators to pass trade deals that raised stock prices while offshoring jobs."

You mean it had nothing to do with the rest of the world rebuilding their industrial capability and introducing competition into the global marketplace?

Yeah. You're right. Couldn't be that.

"The .01 percent get RICHER from policies that make everyone else POORER."

You'll have to be more specific as to what policies exactly are making someone poorer. Unless those policies are those that prevent the poor from tapping into the earned income of others, thus denying them revenues they would have had access to if the government DID permit one person to raid the coffers of another.

#93 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-02-14 04:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Gets his definitions from comedians.

#90 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-14 04:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

There's nothing wrong with the definition. Its just not relevant. Knowing what the word means doens't mean you can assign it as a motivation behind someone else's position.

Dummies often bring irrelevant informatoin into a conversation, mistakenly thinking they've made some kind of profound point.

#94 | Posted by Sully at 2014-02-14 05:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

" Knowing what the word means doens't mean you can assign it as a motivation behind someone else's position."

So the word cannot mean what the word means because you don't like it?
Show me where it does not apply, you have many times taken issue but cannot supply an alternative.

The terms i used fit perfectly. The description is accurate but that accuracy you refuse to acknowledge because it shines a light on the only motivation that reason would point to.

The motivation is not assigned it is revealed and the definition is the means in which we see why it is you think it is okay to take from others.

Prove me wrong. Show me how taking is not taking. Otherwise own up to it.

Look, if you believe in the robin hood thing then that is fine it is your belief and opinion. I think it is flat out wrong and stupid but that is fine. But at least admit that what you advocate is a mob mentality where taking because the other has more is acceptable to you. Without that there is no intellectual honesty in your position. That much is unequivocally shown by your aversion the proper terms applied.

#95 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-02-14 05:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think George Zimmerman was jealous of that kid, which is why he murdered him.

Look it up.

#96 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-14 05:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wanna know what brought about the strong middle class? WWII. And the destruction of every other industrialized economy on earth That created a huge demand for labor, which drove up prices. It was perfectly predictable, but it was an anomoly. Want it to happen again and you'd better be ready to nuke someone.

#79 | Posted by madbomber

Really? You think that's what brought up the economy? The destruction of other countries? Not sure where you learned your history or economics. Ever hear of the Marshall Plan? Do you understand what it was and why we did it?

Manufacturing was flourishing in this country well before WWII. After WWII - We couldn't sell these ruined countries anything for a long time. Indeed we gave away a lot to them. I guess in that mindset you could say that government purchase of goods and foreign aid drove it? How about the fact that sweatshops like so many of our clothes are made in today ended in this country? Or that workers in the Auto, steel and other industries were organized bargained for better wages? Labor protection laws and the like?

#97 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2014-02-14 05:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don;t get your bloodthirsty obsession with the guy. i would have thought after the butt kicking you received about that and being proven wrong by a bunch of drudgies as well as lawyers and the jury you would have had enough. Can't figure out if you are a glutton for punishment or just in to the whole masochism thing.

#98 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-02-14 05:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

"So the word cannot mean what the word means because you don't like it?"

Huh? We all know what the word means. The fact remains that people can believe that billionaires should pay more taxes without being jealous of them. Your claim to the contrary is completely asinine. I've been pretty plain with you this whole thread for a reason: You are talking complete garbage and it demeans me or anyone else to pretend otherwise for even a second.

"Show me where it does not apply, you have many times taken issue but cannot supply an alternative."

I don't have to show you ----. You don't get to assign motives to others. Deal with it.

Other people have expressed their motivations and you chose to ignore them anyway so I don't who you think you're fooling.

#100 | Posted by Sully at 2014-02-14 05:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

What Sal is doing in this thread is every bit as stupid as claiming that people criticize Palin because she "scares" them. Its pretty much the same thing.

#101 | Posted by Sully at 2014-02-14 05:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The fact remains that people can believe that billionaires should pay more taxes without being jealous of them."

No, that is not even a valid opinion. What do you call it when a small segment of people are forced to carry the lions share simply because you don;t like that they have more? Think about it, you would not ask Bill Gates to pay as much as he does if he had nothing. You treat the rich differently as a lesser person whom you think owes everybody else. To you they are not equals because of what they have. Admit it, you are envious of what they have so seek a way to take it from them. There is no other alternative. Unless that is you would rather the term bigot.
They have you want, you want to take. that is textbook jealousy. Sorry if reality shows you what you do not want to see.

"You don't get to assign motives to others. Deal with it."

I assigned no motives, i observed them in practice.

"Other people have expressed their motivations and you chose to ignore them anyway so I don't who you think you're fooling."

No they have not. Like you they just can't handle the truth so whine about the proper description being used.

#102 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-02-14 06:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

You'll have to be more specific as to what policies exactly are making someone poorer. Unless those policies are those that prevent the poor from tapping into the earned income of others, thus denying them revenues they would have had access to if the government DID permit one person to raid the coffers of another.

#93 | Posted by madbomber

I just told you. Free trade policies are pushed by the .01 percent. They get access to the labor of people who live in huts and cheaper labor equals higher profits and stock prices? Who benefits from that?

And who in america pays the cost?

Instead of protecting americans from competing with the labor of people who live in huts and drink muddy water, our government was bought off to throw american labor to the wolves and line the pockets of wall street.

Yes, globalization was bound to happen, but our government did nothing to protect american workers or the american standard of living, because our private election funding system forces government to only serve big donors, who care all about wall street and nothing about main street.

#103 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-02-14 06:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

#101

False parallel to belittle an argument only betrays your lack of reasonable opinion.

#104 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-02-14 06:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic."

Who said that Sully?

#105 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-02-14 06:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

False parallel to belittle an argument only betrays your lack of reasonable opinion.

#104 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-02-14 06:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Its the same thing. If that's the type of idiotic blather you want to put out there then own it.

#106 | Posted by Sully at 2014-02-14 06:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Its the same thing. If that's the type of idiotic blather you want to put out there then own it."

Sure thing there buddy.

Look, if you want an opinion that is unsupportable as proven by your lack of any intelligent input then fine that is your prerogative. But there is no need to make yourself look dumber then you already have. For your own good you should let it go. No reason why a little butthurt should make you loose all your self respect and dignity.

#107 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-02-14 06:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

""When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic."

Who said that Sully?"

It's been attributed, probably falsely, to the guy that said this:

"Private property ... is a Creature of Society, and is subject to the Calls of that Society, whenever its Necessities shall require it, even to its last Farthing, its contributors therefore to the public Exigencies are not to be considered a Benefit on the Public, entitling the Contributors to the Distinctions of Honor and Power, but as the Return of an Obligation previously received, or as payment for a just Debt. "

#108 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-02-14 06:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

#108

Read you quote in full context.
www.deleonism.org

#109 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-02-14 06:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Look, if you want an opinion that is unsupportable as proven by your lack of any intelligent input then fine that is your prerogative. But there is no need to make yourself look dumber then you already have. For your own good you should let it go. No reason why a little butthurt should make you loose all your self respect and dignity.

#107 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-02-14 06:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

How am I supposed to argue intelligently against some stupid premise that you completely made up? All I can tell you is that you're stupid for believing your own lie. What else can I say? It would be insane of me to try to seriously argue with someone who is literally presenting himself as a mind reader who knows what others are thinking and feeling better than they do.

Grow up and learn to state your case like an adult without assigning motives and feelings to others and then people can discuss things with you.

#110 | Posted by Sully at 2014-02-14 06:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Read you quote in full context."

That's a real quote, not a fake one like yours.

#111 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-02-14 06:35 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Grow up and learn to state your case like an adult "

That's funny coming from the guy who has not said one thing to support his contention whatsoever.

You ask me to grow and state my case, look up the thread there is plenty of support. And a reasonable explanation. Compare that to the whole works of Sully on the subject which are essentially you saying no. You sir are a hypocrite at best and that is only if we assume that you also cannot comprehend what i have said and therefore do not see the argument laid out. But if you have read it then you are a liar.

This is the very reason why debate is a lost art now. There are to many such as yourself who cannot support a position but are so annoyed that someone else can that they have resulted to nothing but mindless insults. Reason is dead to these people and logic shall not be used because it would lead those like you to question your opinion.

So call me stupid, at least i have expressed support for my opinion. Frankly i do not care what you think of me. If you are so blinded by your unreasonableness that even basic thought is beyond you then you are beyond hope.

I used to have a whole lot more respect for you and was of the opinion that you were someone who would argue with a foundation to base it off but lately Sully, you have been showing the exact opposite to be true.

#112 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-02-14 06:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

#98

I was just giving you an example of the asinine assignation of motivation with which Sully has been slapping you around.

#113 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-14 07:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Really? You think that's what brought up the economy? The destruction of other countries?"

I don't "think" it. I know it. After WWII, if you wanted a refrigerator, or a TV, or a car, or any other major durable good, you bought it from a company that was producing it in the US. This created an enormous demand for unskilled labor. In fact, up until the 1970s, a lot of people with college degrees worked in factories. Because they paid better than many of the jobs that required "professional" labor.

That all changed in the late 1960s, earlier 1970s. Based in part on the next part of your post:

"Ever hear of the Marshall Plan? Do you understand what it was and why we did it?"

Yes. The Marshall plan was intended to be the non-coercive solution to keeping Europe from going completely communist. It also provided the seed for a redeveloped Europe that eventually came into competition with the US, thus increasing competition and resulting I lower wages. Same thing happened in Asia. In fact, it's quite likely that the increased market competition would have been delayed for 20 or 30 years if the US had done nothing, thereby reducing the negative effects on the US middle class.

But of course that all had to end. That level of reduced competition could only occur in a coercive environment. Once the Communists learned they were the butt of all jokes western, they ditched Marx in favor of the free market. Or at least globally free markets.

"The fact remains that people can believe that billionaires should pay more taxes without being jealous of them."

Billionaires already do pay more taxes. I think the argument is the many progressives want them to pay ALL of the taxes. Mostly to fund progressive wet dream projects that most people wouldn't want anything to do with.

"Who benefits from that?"

I do. And so do millions of other consumers. By being able to buy a product that costs less than it would if it were made in the US by labor that cost two or three times as much. Maybe that's what you don't get. If this didn't benefit consumers, it wouldn't be happening. The role of the firm is to cater to its customers. Not uninvolved third parties seeking one-sided methods to achieve their own desired end states.

But I'll put the ball back in your court. How would I benefit from reduced globalization?

"Yes, globalization was bound to happen, but our government did nothing to protect american workers or the american standard of living..."

Because you couldn't. Not without screwing over consumers and employers for the sake of the employee. Just think about the US in 2014 vs. 1950. Which do you think represents a more prosperous period? Would you want to trade places with a "you" in 1955? I don't think so.

#114 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-02-14 07:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

Strange how all the rich are liberal democrats.

#115 | Posted by tmaster at 2014-02-14 08:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

Strange how all the rich are liberal democrats.
#115 | POSTED BY TMASTER

Yeah, like the Koch brothers and Romney...

#116 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-02-15 09:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

Strange how all the rich are liberal democrats.
#115 | POSTED BY TMASTER

Yeah, like the Koch brothers and Romney...

#116 | Posted by WhoDaMan

Gore, Clinton's... All of Hollywood! Countless others.

and soon to be Obama....

Not seeing them give up any of their wealth.

#117 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-02-15 12:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

yeah yeah yeah....blah blah blah.....maybe the one percent should just go out of business..close down...END ALL JOBS they create and let you smucks living in the the street fighting each other for scraps of food..I mean, I"VE got mine, why should I care about you lefties ?

#118 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-02-15 08:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

Strange how all the rich are liberal democrats.

#115 | Posted by tmaster

Strange how you have no idea what you're talking about but you post as if you do.

Hollywood is the punching bag for the right because it is the EXCEPTION to the rule. Most rich are greedbags who only care about their own finances.

Hollywood enrages them because they cant comprehend anyone using their wealth to try and improve the country for the less fortunate.

#119 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-02-16 03:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort