Bill Maher "Rich" Threads (Merged)

[Mr Natural]

What happened to the work ethic?

What a load of Randian horseshit

Americans were working MORE HOURS than any people in the industrialized world.

We also had the most highly educated workforce in human history.

Stop believing this holier than thou Randian nonsense and look at the facts.

America is in trouble because its LEADERS have put it in jeopardy.

Not because the American working classes have screwed up.

It's hard to figure, but there are those who actually believe that working people make too much and rich people don't have enough.

 

[Madeline]

No shit...read some of the posts written in defense of Wal-Mart's.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No shit...read some of the posts written in defense of Wal-Mart's.

"Older socialists dreamed of a world in which all classes would share in the fruits of the world. Yet when a permutation of this emerges, it is resented if it represents capitalism. An institution beyond the imaginings of socialists of old: Wal-Mart. Within Wal-Mart we see a cornucopia of goods designed to improve human well-being, at prices that make them affordable for all. Millions of jobs are created, and prosperity is spread throughout areas where it was sorely needed. An entity owned by share-holders, people of mostly moderate incomes who have invested their savings, worker-capitalists."
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=05


[Wal-Mart owns 8,300 stores, of which 4,000 are in 44 different countries. Its 2010 revenues are expected to top $500 billion. Putting Wal-Mart's revenues in perspective, they exceed the 2009 GDP of all but 18 of the world's 181 countries. Why is Wal-Mart so successful? Millions of people voluntarily enter their stores and part with their money in exchange for Wal-Mart's products and services. In order for that to happen, Wal-Mart and millions of other profit-motivated businesses must please people.
]Townhall.com::Home::About US

 

[Madeline]

That's a very rosey defense of Wal-Mart's, PoliticalChic. And doubtless there's some truth to it. You may know I loathe all the big box stores, especially that one, for a variety of reasons. I don't happen to see them as shining examples of the successes of capitalism; I see them as shining examples of the failure to regulate, outsourcing jobs, slave and child labor, environmental disasters, small business jobs killers, etc.

Many, many more people will be made poor for life by Wal-Mart's than will ever be made rich.

I guess it's all in which end of the lense you have hold of.

 

[FireGod]

It was 100% earned by the wealthy person.

The wealthy person uses his own factory, hires his own workers, purchases his own raw materials, advertises using his own money, markets with his own mail, phone and internet and sales-force, distributes with his own trucks (or pays to lease those of others) and pays for the gas, bridges and tolls along the way, too.

If you are suggesting that there may be some undesired by-products produced (like gas emissions or some water pollution, etc) along the way, I don't disagree. But that's true of every manufacturer and just about every person, too. IF the government needs to charge the manufacturer a bit in the form of a tax to cover the governmental costs of regulation and clean-up, that's fine. That can be charged as a COST of production, too, and the manufacturer is still the ONLY one who is paying for the creation of his wealth.

If his workers don't like their wages, they can work elsewhere or collectively bargain for a better wage and "benefits" (and let's be blunt, "benefits" from the perspective of the employer is just part of the wages he pays, short and long term). But they are still earning their income because the manufacturer is the one creating the product and selling it -- earning all of it on his own. (And if it isn't one individual entrepreneur -- some Daddy Warbucks -- who is the sole owner, but is instead a large number of share-holders, that doesn't change the analysis at all).

So, getting back to the nub of it: OF COURSE the wealthy person (the wealth creator) has earned the money. Every freaking dime of it.

So would you agree with post 84? After all it is the best way to motivate the rich to continue to provide jobs and get the US economy back on it feet.

Two replies: First, your post 84 could have been LINKED for ease of reference.

My bad http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/134830-bill-maher-rich-threads-merged-3.html#post2781254

However, I will say this much. EVERY person should be "invested" in the Republic and its economy (economies). So, a national sales tax on consumption seems most fair to me. IF I am a rich person (or, to the liberals, one of the evil, greedy "class") then the more I consume, the more I pay. Those who have less, consume less and thus "pay" less in terms of taxation. So there you have it. The "rich" pay more because they consume more and the less affluent pay far less because they consume far less. What could be more fair?

A national sales tax, however it is ultimately structured, also becomes easy to quantify for such things as analyzing the cost of production.

Possibly, I would like to hear why this is not a good idea though from those who have objections. The only thing that comes to mind is the cost of living would go up across the board, therefore those who are just barley scrapping by now would probably go under.

I have come up with the perfect solution one that the republican party can stand behind with pride.

LOWER THE TAXES ON THE 1% to zero and progressive tax rates from there with the poorest kicking in at 39%.

On the theory that it is the rich who make the jobs then there will be no more poor in a very short while.

As pointed out by Liability the above is not so clear, I aim to fix that below.

I have come up with the perfect solution one that those who believe that the wealthiest in the country are the major players in creating jobs and (IMO), thereby being in charge of the economy (even if by default).

LOWER THE TAXES ON THE 1% wealthiest citizens to 0%, while having the progressive tax rate go up the less you make ending at 39% for the lowest tax bracket.

This provides incentive for those who have money to make more money by providing more jobs to produce more things without fear of having it stolen by the government. After all they earned they keep it or not their choice. It also provides incentives for the poor to do something about their situation and move up the economic ladder. Not to mention that the poor tends to be way more of a burden on government services therefore should shoulder more of the burden in paying for those services. With all of the job creation that the wealthy would be doing, the poor should have no problem moving up the economic ladder. Everybody wins that chooses to do so.

I can not imagine that anyone who really believes in trickle down economics would have a problem with this (not an accusation to Liability).

 

[Madeline]

FireGod wrote in part:

Originally Posted by Liability

However, I will say this much. EVERY person should be "invested" in the Republic and its economy (economies). So, a national sales tax on consumption seems most fair to me. IF I am a rich person (or, to the liberals, one of the evil, greedy "class") then the more I consume, the more I pay. Those who have less, consume less and thus "pay" less in terms of taxation. So there you have it. The "rich" pay more because they consume more and the less affluent pay far less because they consume far less. What could be more fair?

A national sales tax, however it is ultimately structured, also becomes easy to quantify for such things as analyzing the cost of production.
Possibly, I would like to hear why this is not a good idea though from those who have objections. The only thing that comes to mind is the cost of living would go up across the board, therefore those who are just barley scrapping by now would probably go under.

No rational tax pundit supports a regressive tax as a substitute for the income tax, FireGod. A tax is considered regressive when a poor person will pay an effective rate (percent of total income) that exceeds the effective rate paid by a wealthy person. Any form of sales taxation is considered to be regressive.

As a second objection, though much less severe, a consumption tax would be far too easy to avoid merely by buying overseas.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That's a very rosey defense of Wal-Mart's, PoliticalChic. And doubtless there's some truth to it. You may know I loathe all the big box stores, especially that one, for a variety of reasons. I don't happen to see them as shining examples of the successes of capitalism; I see them as shining examples of the failure to regulate, outsourcing jobs, slave and child labor, environmental disasters, small business jobs killers, etc.

Many, many more people will be made poor for life by Wal-Mart's than will ever be made rich.

I guess it's all in which end of the lense you have hold of.

CNBC regularly shows a one hour special on Wal-Marts, and stats included say the average American saves about $900 bucks a year as a result of the price competition via Wal-Marts.

Many of their retirees are wealthy due to the stock program.
No one has to shop there, or work there, or buy their stocks....

I kind of like not being forced.

Pretty much the definition of Capitalism.

 

[topspin]

millions of wallmart shareholders have gotten rich, oh wait democrats hate shareholders even ones who prior to owning wallmart were middle class.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Confiscating 40% of what ANYONE earns and has created for themselves -is IMMORAL.

And herein lies the problem. This is EXACTLY what my tax bill comes to w/state and federal each year... and I make less than 50K a year, but some asshole hedge fund manager that played roulette with our 401K's and helped to collapse the whole economy only gets taxed 15% on his "income" which is six figures. The majority of the wealthy do not make their money from actual wages, but from interest on investment. THEY wrote these tax laws to benefit THEMSELVES. You know it and I know it.

 

[MikeK]

May I use your property, your utilities, your labor to hawk my goods and then claim 100 cents on a dollar of gross receipts was "earned by me"? No?

Then don't tell me any wealthy person has "earned 100%" of his income, either.

It was 100% earned by the wealthy person.

The wealthy person uses his own factory, hires his own workers, purchases his own raw materials, advertises using his own money, markets with his own mail, phone and internet and sales-force, distributes with his own trucks (or pays to lease those of others) and pays for the gas, bridges and tolls along the way, too.

[...]

When you begin with a significant deviation of angle you end up completely off the track. So let's go back to the beginning and adjust: What "factory" does the CEO of a mortgage bank who takes home a $300 million annual bonus use? What trucks does he use? And what tolls does he pay?

To shorten what could be a redundant exchange of economic theory and political philosophy, the fact is no one arguing here is opposed to wealth which is ethically and honestly created. What is opposed here is the kind of excessive wealth which is accumulated via usury and deviously unethical means.

Using a factory to create wealth is good. Using money to exploit people who have none is not good.

Exploitation is very different from creative effort. The argument is not against wealth but the means by which it is accumulated.

 

[Valerie]

* MOSTLY ACCURATE
snopes.com: How Big Is Wal-Mart?





This should boggle your mind!! And scare you as well!



1. At Wal-Mart, Americans spend $36,000,000 every hour of every day.

2. This works out to $20,928 profit every minute! 5.8133333% margin

3. Wal-Mart will sell more from January 1 to St. Patrick's Day (March 17th) than Target sells all year.

4. Wal-Mart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target + Sears + Costco + K-Mart combined.

5. Wal-Mart employs 1.6 million people and is the largest private employer. And most can't speak English.

6. Wal-Mart is the largest company in the history of the World.

7. Wal-Mart now sells more food than Kroger & Safeway combined, and keep in mind they did this in only 15 years.

8. During this same period, 31 Supermarket chains sought bankruptcy (including Winn-Dixie).

9. Wal-Mart now sells more food than any other store in the world.

10. Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which 1,906 are Super Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had 5 years ago.

11. This year, 7.2 billion different purchasing transactions will occur at a Wal-Mart store. (Earth's population is approximately 6.5 billion.)

12. 90% of all Americans live within 15 miles of a Wal-Mart.

13. Let Wal-Mart bail out Wall Street.


Origins: No doubt, Wal-Mart is the behemoth of the retail business world. In November 2008, as many other retailers were retrenching while experiencing plummeting sales figures amidst a severe economic downturn, Wal-Mart's same-stores sales actually exceeded its expectations, increasing by 3.4 percent over the previous year. The figures cited above attempt to place the scale of Wal-Mart's operations in context, demonstrating how truly large it is even in comparison with the other top retails chains in the U.S.


At Wal-Mart, Americans spend $36,000,000 every hour of every day.

 

[MikeK]

CNBC regularly shows a one hour special on Wal-Marts, and stats included say the average American saves about $900 bucks a year as a result of the price competition via Wal-Marts.

Many of their retirees are wealthy due to the stock program.
No one has to shop there, or work there, or buy their stocks....

I kind of like not being forced.

Pretty much the definition of Capitalism.

I have no problem with capitalism but there is something seriously wrong with the kind of laissez faire capitalism which if not brought under control will transform America into a two class society and resurrect the Gilded Age.

Capitalism is fine so long as it is regulated by essential socialist policies. One such policy I believe should be imposed is a limit on the accumulation of personal assets. I believe that no American citizen should be permitted to accumulate more than twenty million dollars in personal assets.

Name-calling and ad hominem nonsense will be ignored but I invite critical arguments against that proposal.

 

[MikeK]

Walmart loses money in the United States. All of its profits come from other countries. It is like we are getting paid to have Walmart stores in this country. Other countries subsidize our Walmart shopping habit & you are getting more than you pay for. Walmart brings money back into this country & that money creates jobs here.

Whoever massaged this outrageous nonsense into your brain should be arrested!

 

[Liability]

CNBC regularly shows a one hour special on Wal-Marts, and stats included say the average American saves about $900 bucks a year as a result of the price competition via Wal-Marts.

Many of their retirees are wealthy due to the stock program.
No one has to shop there, or work there, or buy their stocks....

I kind of like not being forced.

Pretty much the definition of Capitalism.

I have no problem with capitalism but there is something seriously wrong with the kind of laissez faire capitalism which if not brought under control will transform America into a two class society and resurrect the Gilded Age.

Capitalism is fine so long as it is regulated by essential socialist policies. One such policy I believe should be imposed is a limit on the accumulation of personal assets. I believe that no American citizen should be permitted to accumulate more than twenty million dollars in personal assets.

Name-calling and ad hominem nonsense will be ignored but I invite critical arguments against that proposal.

You presented no argument FOR your "proposal."

You merely espoused a rather simplistic "belief."

 

[Liability]

May I use your property, your utilities, your labor to hawk my goods and then claim 100 cents on a dollar of gross receipts was "earned by me"? No?

Then don't tell me any wealthy person has "earned 100%" of his income, either.

It was 100% earned by the wealthy person.

The wealthy person uses his own factory, hires his own workers, purchases his own raw materials, advertises using his own money, markets with his own mail, phone and internet and sales-force, distributes with his own trucks (or pays to lease those of others) and pays for the gas, bridges and tolls along the way, too.

[...]

When you begin with a significant deviation of angle you end up completely off the track. So let's go back to the beginning and adjust: What "factory" does the CEO of a mortgage bank who takes home a $300 million annual bonus use? What trucks does he use? And what tolls does he pay?

To shorten what could be a redundant exchange of economic theory and political philosophy, the fact is no one arguing here is opposed to wealth which is ethically and honestly created. What is opposed here is the kind of excessive wealth which is accumulated via usury and deviously unethical means.

Using a factory to create wealth is good. Using money to exploit people who have none is not good.

Exploitation is very different from creative effort. The argument is not against wealth but the means by which it is accumulated.

Thankfully, it is not up to you or your ilk to "determine" what wealth is "excessive."

When you guys attempt to discuss silly notions like an "excess profits tax," the same questions come up. What the **** is an "excess" profit? Who are you to determine how much is enough or too much? What is the basis for your random calls? Who on earth gave you (or would give you) that kind of authority? Why would they do something silly like that?

Similarly it is not for you or your ilk to determine what wealth is honestly and ethically created. Outside of actual criminal behavior which is subject to the rule of law and evidence and due process safeguards, it really is of ZERO consequence if you happen to object to the manner in which any entrepreneur creates wealth.

 

[PoliticalChic]

CNBC regularly shows a one hour special on Wal-Marts, and stats included say the average American saves about $900 bucks a year as a result of the price competition via Wal-Marts.

Many of their retirees are wealthy due to the stock program.
No one has to shop there, or work there, or buy their stocks....

I kind of like not being forced.

Pretty much the definition of Capitalism.

I have no problem with capitalism but there is something seriously wrong with the kind of laissez faire capitalism which if not brought under control will transform America into a two class society and resurrect the Gilded Age.

Capitalism is fine so long as it is regulated by essential socialist policies. One such policy I believe should be imposed is a limit on the accumulation of personal assets. I believe that no American citizen should be permitted to accumulate more than twenty million dollars in personal assets.

Name-calling and ad hominem nonsense will be ignored but I invite critical arguments against that proposal.

"I have no problem with capitalism ...[but]no American citizen should be permitted to accumulate..."

The logic here is akin to 'I used to drive to work ...but now I bring my lunch.'

I truly appreciate when folks like you reveal their refusal to learn from experienc, i.e. "essential socialist policies."

"For three decades after its independence in 1947, India strove for self-sufficiency instead of the gains of international trade, and gave the state an ever-increasing role in controlling the means of production, says Aiyar:

These policies yielded economic growth of 3.5 percent per year, which was half that of export-oriented Asian countries, and yielded slow progress in social indicators, too.

Growth per capita in India was even slower, at 1.49 percent per year.
It accelerated after reforms started tentatively in 1981, and shot up to 6.78 percent per year after reforms deepened in the current decade.

What would the impact on social indicators have been had India commenced economic reform one decade earlier, and enjoyed correspondingly faster economic growth and improvements in human development indicators? In "Socialism Kills: The Cost of Delayed Economic Reform In India," Aiyar seeks to estimate the number of "missing children," "missing literates" and "missing non-poor" resulting from delayed reform, slower economic growth, and hence, slower improvement of social indicators.
He finds that with earlier reform:

14.5 million more children would have survived.
261 million more Indians would have become literate.
109 million more people would have risen above the poverty line.

The delay in economic reform represents an enormous social tragedy, says Aiyar. It drives home the point that India's socialist era, which claimed it would deliver growth with social justice, delivered neither." (emphasis mine)
Source: Swaminathan Aiyar, "Socialism Kills: The Cost of Delayed Economic Reform in India," Cato Institute, October 21, 2009.

Thanks so much, Mikey. Without your posts I might fool myself into believing that adults learn from history.

 

[PoliticalChic]

* MOSTLY ACCURATE
snopes.com: How Big Is Wal-Mart?





This should boggle your mind!! And scare you as well!



1. At Wal-Mart, Americans spend $36,000,000 every hour of every day.

2. This works out to $20,928 profit every minute! 5.8133333% margin

3. Wal-Mart will sell more from January 1 to St. Patrick's Day (March 17th) than Target sells all year.

4. Wal-Mart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target + Sears + Costco + K-Mart combined.

5. Wal-Mart employs 1.6 million people and is the largest private employer. And most can't speak English.

6. Wal-Mart is the largest company in the history of the World.

7. Wal-Mart now sells more food than Kroger & Safeway combined, and keep in mind they did this in only 15 years.

8. During this same period, 31 Supermarket chains sought bankruptcy (including Winn-Dixie).

9. Wal-Mart now sells more food than any other store in the world.

10. Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which 1,906 are Super Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had 5 years ago.

11. This year, 7.2 billion different purchasing transactions will occur at a Wal-Mart store. (Earth's population is approximately 6.5 billion.)

12. 90% of all Americans live within 15 miles of a Wal-Mart.

13. Let Wal-Mart bail out Wall Street.


Origins: No doubt, Wal-Mart is the behemoth of the retail business world. In November 2008, as many other retailers were retrenching while experiencing plummeting sales figures amidst a severe economic downturn, Wal-Mart's same-stores sales actually exceeded its expectations, increasing by 3.4 percent over the previous year. The figures cited above attempt to place the scale of Wal-Mart's operations in context, demonstrating how truly large it is even in comparison with the other top retails chains in the U.S.


At Wal-Mart, Americans spend $36,000,000 every hour of every day.

So, what's the part that should "... scare you as well"?

 

[KissMy]

Whoever massaged this outrageous nonsense into your brain should be arrested!

Oops, My-Bad? I heard the earnings report incorrectly or it was reported wrong on the radio station I listened to. The corrected info is posted below.

Wal-Mart 2Q Profit Up 3.6%; US Same-Store Sales Down Again

While results have been strong internationally as Wal-Mart moves to further broaden its operations, the U.S. has been a laggard since the country's economy bottomed in early 2009.

International sales rose 11% and earnings jumped 17%. But namesake domestic stores had a 0.2% profit drop as same-store sales declined 1.8%. Sam's Club had 2.2% earnings growth and a 1% rise in same-store sales excluding fuel. Overall, U.S. same-store sales minus fuel were down 1.4%.

 

[Madeline]

That's a very rosey defense of Wal-Mart's, PoliticalChic. And doubtless there's some truth to it. You may know I loathe all the big box stores, especially that one, for a variety of reasons. I don't happen to see them as shining examples of the successes of capitalism; I see them as shining examples of the failure to regulate, outsourcing jobs, slave and child labor, environmental disasters, small business jobs killers, etc.

Many, many more people will be made poor for life by Wal-Mart's than will ever be made rich.

I guess it's all in which end of the lense you have hold of.

CNBC regularly shows a one hour special on Wal-Marts, and stats included say the average American saves about $900 bucks a year as a result of the price competition via Wal-Marts.

Many of their retirees are wealthy due to the stock program.
No one has to shop there, or work there, or buy their stocks....

I kind of like not being forced.

Pretty much the definition of Capitalism.

Would you say the small businesses killed off by Wal-Mart's were "not forced"? The town business centers shuttered? The children and adults overseas whose working conditions to manufacture goods sold at Wal-Marts are inhumane?

As I said, depends on how you view things. I don't need another $900 a year that badly....and I am far from rich.

 

[Madeline]

CNBC regularly shows a one hour special on Wal-Marts, and stats included say the average American saves about $900 bucks a year as a result of the price competition via Wal-Marts.

Many of their retirees are wealthy due to the stock program.
No one has to shop there, or work there, or buy their stocks....

I kind of like not being forced.

Pretty much the definition of Capitalism.

I have no problem with capitalism but there is something seriously wrong with the kind of laissez faire capitalism which if not brought under control will transform America into a two class society and resurrect the Gilded Age.

Capitalism is fine so long as it is regulated by essential socialist policies. One such policy I believe should be imposed is a limit on the accumulation of personal assets. I believe that no American citizen should be permitted to accumulate more than twenty million dollars in personal assets.

Name-calling and ad hominem nonsense will be ignored but I invite critical arguments against that proposal.

"I have no problem with capitalism ...[but]no American citizen should be permitted to accumulate..."

The logic here is akin to 'I used to drive to work ...but now I bring my lunch.'

I truly appreciate when folks like you reveal their refusal to learn from experienc, i.e. "essential socialist policies."

"For three decades after its independence in 1947, India strove for self-sufficiency instead of the gains of international trade, and gave the state an ever-increasing role in controlling the means of production, says Aiyar:

These policies yielded economic growth of 3.5 percent per year, which was half that of export-oriented Asian countries, and yielded slow progress in social indicators, too.

Growth per capita in India was even slower, at 1.49 percent per year.
It accelerated after reforms started tentatively in 1981, and shot up to 6.78 percent per year after reforms deepened in the current decade.

What would the impact on social indicators have been had India commenced economic reform one decade earlier, and enjoyed correspondingly faster economic growth and improvements in human development indicators? In "Socialism Kills: The Cost of Delayed Economic Reform In India," Aiyar seeks to estimate the number of "missing children," "missing literates" and "missing non-poor" resulting from delayed reform, slower economic growth, and hence, slower improvement of social indicators.
He finds that with earlier reform:

14.5 million more children would have survived.
261 million more Indians would have become literate.
109 million more people would have risen above the poverty line.

The delay in economic reform represents an enormous social tragedy, says Aiyar. It drives home the point that India's socialist era, which claimed it would deliver growth with social justice, delivered neither." (emphasis mine)
Source: Swaminathan Aiyar, "Socialism Kills: The Cost of Delayed Economic Reform in India," Cato Institute, October 21, 2009.

Thanks so much, Mikey. Without your posts I might fool myself into believing that adults learn from history.

PoliticalChic, history has taught us an agraian society cannot be industrialized by socialism. It is not a surprise socialism did not work in India. To be successful, socialism has to have a base of capitalism to build upon. No one disputes that capitalism is an excellent economic engine....but we also know, unrestrained capitalism is a failure. Socialized capitalism is the best system available....should we use second-best?