Zone1 Should A Handful Of Billionaires Own More Wealth Than The Bottom 50% Of All Americans?

[Toddsterpatriot]

At the urging of Republican Senators Hawley and Rubio, a new think tank is working out ways for the GOP to changetheir messaging.

They want to shift their rhetoric from support for corporations and the morbidly rich to pretending they care about working people. This new organization will, they say, “think differently about labor vs. capital than Republicans have in recent generations.”


It’s a cynical effort to capture Trump’s working class base. He’d promised he’d bring our jobs home from China, empower labor unions, raise taxes on the rich so high that “my friends won’t ever talk to me again,” and give every American full health insurance that cost less than Obamacare. Those promises helped win him the White House.

All were lies, but the GOP base bought it and gave him tens of millions of votes; now Hawley, Rubio, et al think they can bottle that populist rhetorical magic and repeat Trump’s shtick for 2024.

Which raises the existential question both economists and politicians have debated for centuries:


America has had two different but clear answers to that question during the past century.

From the end of the Republican Great Depression with Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930s until 1981 (including the presidencies of Republican Presidents Eisenhower and Nixon, who maintained the top 91% and 74% income tax rates), the answer was unambiguous: “The economy is here to serve average Americans.”

Income and wealth during that time rose at about the same rate for working class Americans as they did for the rich, something we’d never before seen in this country.

This was not an accident or a mistake. It was the very intentional outcome of policies put into place by FDR and then maintained by both Democratic and Republican administrations for almost 50 years during that pre-Reagan era.

And then came the Reagan Revolution, when Republicans decided that the middle class wasn’t as important as giant corporations and the very wealthy after all, and that the rest of us are here to serve the rich.

Should a Handful of Billionaires Own More Wealth than the Bottom 50% of All Americans?

At the urging of Republican Senators Hawley and Rubio, a new think tank is working out ways for the GOP to change their messaging. They want to shift their rhetoric from support for corporations and the morbidly rich to pretending they care about...

m.dailykos.com

Im sure this will hurt the feminine sensibilities of certain moderators, so I expect it to be moved with not much intelligent input.

As opposed to letting the dems in congress have it?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Bill Gates? Jeff Bezos? Mark Zuckerberg?


How quaint that a mindless little prole dedicated to serving these technocrats is now whining about billionaires.

 

[jbrownson0831]

At the urging of Republican Senators Hawley and Rubio, a new think tank is working out ways for the GOP to changetheir messaging.

They want to shift their rhetoric from support for corporations and the morbidly rich to pretending they care about working people. This new organization will, they say, “think differently about labor vs. capital than Republicans have in recent generations.”


It’s a cynical effort to capture Trump’s working class base. He’d promised he’d bring our jobs home from China, empower labor unions, raise taxes on the rich so high that “my friends won’t ever talk to me again,” and give every American full health insurance that cost less than Obamacare. Those promises helped win him the White House.

All were lies, but the GOP base bought it and gave him tens of millions of votes; now Hawley, Rubio, et al think they can bottle that populist rhetorical magic and repeat Trump’s shtick for 2024.

Which raises the existential question both economists and politicians have debated for centuries:


America has had two different but clear answers to that question during the past century.

From the end of the Republican Great Depression with Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930s until 1981 (including the presidencies of Republican Presidents Eisenhower and Nixon, who maintained the top 91% and 74% income tax rates), the answer was unambiguous: “The economy is here to serve average Americans.”

Income and wealth during that time rose at about the same rate for working class Americans as they did for the rich, something we’d never before seen in this country.

This was not an accident or a mistake. It was the very intentional outcome of policies put into place by FDR and then maintained by both Democratic and Republican administrations for almost 50 years during that pre-Reagan era.

And then came the Reagan Revolution, when Republicans decided that the middle class wasn’t as important as giant corporations and the very wealthy after all, and that the rest of us are here to serve the rich.

Should a Handful of Billionaires Own More Wealth than the Bottom 50% of All Americans?

At the urging of Republican Senators Hawley and Rubio, a new think tank is working out ways for the GOP to change their messaging. They want to shift their rhetoric from support for corporations and the morbidly rich to pretending they care about...

m.dailykos.com

Im sure this will hurt the feminine sensibilities of certain moderators, so I expect it to be moved with not much intelligent input.

The Reich would be so proud of your post.

 

[Moonglow]

No, it is wrong for a handful of people to control economics in society.

 

[rightwinger]

Yes, because 50 percent of Americans can’t be trusted with wealth. Just give them enough so that they can barely survive

Only the Super Wealthy will use that money to help make ANERICA Great. Trickle Down is all we can really trust
They will give poorer Americans what they need to survive.

 

[expat_panama]

Yes, because 50 percent of Americans can’t be trusted with wealth. Just give them enough so that they can barely survive

Only the Super Wealthy will use that money to help make ANERICA Great. Trickle Down is all we can really trust
They will give poorer Americans what they need to survive.

Correct, as I understand it all the rich people in America meet once every week and decide how much money to give to every single person in the bottom 50%. It takes all day long they say.

 

[rightwinger]

Correct, as I understand it all the rich people in America meet once every week and decide how much money to give to every single person in the bottom 50%. It takes all day long they say.

They meet with Republicans actually and discuss what tax breaks they can get and how little actually has to go to the employees

 

[expat_panama]

They meet with Republicans actually and discuss what tax breaks they can get and how little actually has to go to the employees

Right. Every Saturday and 6 PM in some warehouse in Baltimore iirc...

 

[rightwinger]

Right. Every Saturday and 6 PM in some warehouse in Baltimore iirc...

No, it is a special committee of the Bilderberg group.

 

[expat_panama]

No, it is a special committee of the Bilderberg group.

Yeah, and they meet every Saturday and 6 PM in some warehouse in Baltimore.

 

[Mac-7]

At the urging of Republican Senators Hawley and Rubio, a new think tank is working out ways for the GOP to changetheir messaging.

They want to shift their rhetoric from support for corporations and the morbidly rich to pretending they care about working people. This new organization will, they say, “think differently about labor vs. capital than Republicans have in recent generations.”


It’s a cynical effort to capture Trump’s working class base. He’d promised he’d bring our jobs home from China, empower labor unions, raise taxes on the rich so high that “my friends won’t ever talk to me again,” and give every American full health insurance that cost less than Obamacare. Those promises helped win him the White House.

All were lies, but the GOP base bought it and gave him tens of millions of votes; now Hawley, Rubio, et al think they can bottle that populist rhetorical magic and repeat Trump’s shtick for 2024.

Which raises the existential question both economists and politicians have debated for centuries:


America has had two different but clear answers to that question during the past century.

From the end of the Republican Great Depression with Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930s until 1981 (including the presidencies of Republican Presidents Eisenhower and Nixon, who maintained the top 91% and 74% income tax rates), the answer was unambiguous: “The economy is here to serve average Americans.”

Income and wealth during that time rose at about the same rate for working class Americans as they did for the rich, something we’d never before seen in this country.

This was not an accident or a mistake. It was the very intentional outcome of policies put into place by FDR and then maintained by both Democratic and Republican administrations for almost 50 years during that pre-Reagan era.

And then came the Reagan Revolution, when Republicans decided that the middle class wasn’t as important as giant corporations and the very wealthy after all, and that the rest of us are here to serve the rich.

Should a Handful of Billionaires Own More Wealth than the Bottom 50% of All Americans?

At the urging of Republican Senators Hawley and Rubio, a new think tank is working out ways for the GOP to change their messaging. They want to shift their rhetoric from support for corporations and the morbidly rich to pretending they care about...

m.dailykos.com

Im sure this will hurt the feminine sensibilities of certain moderators, so I expect it to be moved with not much intelligent input.

How do you plan to dispose of the bodies after you “liberate” their wealth?

 

[rightwinger]

Yeah, and they meet every Saturday and 6 PM in some warehouse in Baltimore.

I have been to Bilderberg meetings

Mostly we sit around playing Poker and drinking beer till the Strippers show up.

 

[Red Front]

At the urging of Republican Senators Hawley and Rubio, a new think tank is working out ways for the GOP to changetheir messaging.

They want to shift their rhetoric from support for corporations and the morbidly rich to pretending they care about working people. This new organization will, they say, “think differently about labor vs. capital than Republicans have in recent generations.”


It’s a cynical effort to capture Trump’s working class base. He’d promised he’d bring our jobs home from China, empower labor unions, raise taxes on the rich so high that “my friends won’t ever talk to me again,” and give every American full health insurance that cost less than Obamacare. Those promises helped win him the White House.

All were lies, but the GOP base bought it and gave him tens of millions of votes; now Hawley, Rubio, et al think they can bottle that populist rhetorical magic and repeat Trump’s shtick for 2024.

Which raises the existential question both economists and politicians have debated for centuries:


America has had two different but clear answers to that question during the past century.

From the end of the Republican Great Depression with Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930s until 1981 (including the presidencies of Republican Presidents Eisenhower and Nixon, who maintained the top 91% and 74% income tax rates), the answer was unambiguous: “The economy is here to serve average Americans.”

Income and wealth during that time rose at about the same rate for working class Americans as they did for the rich, something we’d never before seen in this country.

This was not an accident or a mistake. It was the very intentional outcome of policies put into place by FDR and then maintained by both Democratic and Republican administrations for almost 50 years during that pre-Reagan era.

And then came the Reagan Revolution, when Republicans decided that the middle class wasn’t as important as giant corporations and the very wealthy after all, and that the rest of us are here to serve the rich.

Should a Handful of Billionaires Own More Wealth than the Bottom 50% of All Americans?

At the urging of Republican Senators Hawley and Rubio, a new think tank is working out ways for the GOP to change their messaging. They want to shift their rhetoric from support for corporations and the morbidly rich to pretending they care about...

m.dailykos.com

Im sure this will hurt the feminine sensibilities of certain moderators, so I expect it to be moved with not much intelligent input.

There's no reason for society to allow people to have millions, much less billions of dollars. It's not in the interest of a civilized, modern society to have such gross inequality. So much power in the hands of one person or family in the form of money, undermines our freedoms.

 

[rightwinger]

There's no reason for society to allow people to have millions, much less billions of dollars. It's not in the interest of a civilized, modern society to have such gross inequality. So much power in the hands of one person or family in the form of money, undermines our freedoms.

Nothing wrong with them having tremendous wealth
There is also nothing wrong to expect them to contribute more

 

[Red Front]

Nothing wrong with them having tremendous wealth
There is also nothing wrong to expect them to contribute more

It is wrong when there are so many people living in scarcity, even homeless. Allowing people to have millions, not to speak of billions, leads to cronyism and eventually war. Armies of lobbyists in the halls of government, legally bribing politicians to pass laws that serve the vested interests of the wealthy at the expense of the working-class. The public suffers and eventually, that leads to social unrest and civil war. The ruling-class are a bunch of leeches, living off of the labor of others.

 

[rightwinger]

It is wrong when there are so many people living in scarcity, even homeless. Allowing people to have millions, not to speak of billions, leads to cronyism and eventually war. Armies of lobbyists in the halls of government, legally bribing politicians to pass laws that serve the vested interests of the wealthy at the expense of the working-class. The public suffers and eventually, that leads to social unrest and civil war. The ruling-class are a bunch of leeches, living off of the labor of others.

I don’t believe in taking from the rich and giving it to the poor.
But I also don’t believe in making it easier for the wealthy to accumulate and maintain wealth

 

[luiza]

Should A Handful Of Billionaires Own More Wealth Than The Bottom 50% Of All Americans?​

For a start , they already do .
This suggests the Sheeple have allowed the system to develop this way .

If they are prepared and wish to live in a system governed by The Rule of Law and Democratic principles , they must use the system to change matters.
Less bleating and more action .

 

[rightwinger]

Should A Handful Of Billionaires Own More Wealth Than The Bottom 50% Of All Americans?​

For a start , they already do .
This suggests the Sheeple have allowed the system to develop this way .

If they are prepared and wish to live in a system governed by The Rule of Law and Democratic principles , they must use the system to change matters.
Less bleating and more action .

The wealthy follow the Golden Rule

“He who has the Gold makes the Rules”

Little the bottom 50 percent can do about that

 

[marvin martian]

At the urging of Republican Senators Hawley and Rubio, a new think tank is working out ways for the GOP to changetheir messaging.

They want to shift their rhetoric from support for corporations and the morbidly rich to pretending they care about working people. This new organization will, they say, “think differently about labor vs. capital than Republicans have in recent generations.”


It’s a cynical effort to capture Trump’s working class base. He’d promised he’d bring our jobs home from China, empower labor unions, raise taxes on the rich so high that “my friends won’t ever talk to me again,” and give every American full health insurance that cost less than Obamacare. Those promises helped win him the White House.

All were lies, but the GOP base bought it and gave him tens of millions of votes; now Hawley, Rubio, et al think they can bottle that populist rhetorical magic and repeat Trump’s shtick for 2024.

Which raises the existential question both economists and politicians have debated for centuries:


America has had two different but clear answers to that question during the past century.

From the end of the Republican Great Depression with Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930s until 1981 (including the presidencies of Republican Presidents Eisenhower and Nixon, who maintained the top 91% and 74% income tax rates), the answer was unambiguous: “The economy is here to serve average Americans.”

Income and wealth during that time rose at about the same rate for working class Americans as they did for the rich, something we’d never before seen in this country.

This was not an accident or a mistake. It was the very intentional outcome of policies put into place by FDR and then maintained by both Democratic and Republican administrations for almost 50 years during that pre-Reagan era.

And then came the Reagan Revolution, when Republicans decided that the middle class wasn’t as important as giant corporations and the very wealthy after all, and that the rest of us are here to serve the rich.

Should a Handful of Billionaires Own More Wealth than the Bottom 50% of All Americans?

At the urging of Republican Senators Hawley and Rubio, a new think tank is working out ways for the GOP to change their messaging. They want to shift their rhetoric from support for corporations and the morbidly rich to pretending they care about...

m.dailykos.com

Im sure this will hurt the feminine sensibilities of certain moderators, so I expect it to be moved with not much intelligent input.

Most of the billionaires are your fellow DemoKKKrats.

8 of the top 10 below are well-known lefties:

Who are the richest people in America? Forbes publishes a list with surprises

As every year, the prestigious Forbes magazine has published its annual ranking of the 400 richest Americans. It highlights that there are fewer millionaires in the US due to infla

www.marca.com

 

[Red Front]

I don’t believe in taking from the rich and giving it to the poor.
But I also don’t believe in making it easier for the wealthy to accumulate and maintain wealth

There's no reason for us in this modern, technologically advanced age with so much automation and powerful computers, artificial intelligence, autonomous driving vehicles..etc, for there to be Americans living in abject poverty. We can very easily eliminate homelessness and poverty in general, in America and around the world. There's no excuse for it. So to have multimillionaires and billionaires living in opulence, when there are nearly a million Americans homeless, is unacceptable and immoral. It's wrong. Society doesn't have to allow it.

Society can actually place a cap on how much money and assets a person can own. Everything above, let's say, a million dollars yearly, would be in the hands of the public. The money would go to build and maintain the nation's infrastructure. Provide housing, education, healthcare, public transit, space exploration, and colonization..etc. A person could make up to 1.2 million yearly and keep as much as ten million dollars in the bank. If a person isn't satisfied with having an income of 100 thousand dollars monthly, with ten million in cash savings, then they're the one with the problem. They're suffering from a serious case of financial gluttony/greed.