Closing the wealth gap

28,527 Views | 526 Replies | Last: 9 mo ago by DiabloWags
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

BigC said:



I would conclude from the above that some people are not paying their fair share. The question is, who are these people and what constitutes "fair"? A very complicated question and certainly one to debate.




Per 2018 IRS data, the Top 5% paid 60.3% of all federal income taxes.




10 percent of the richest people in the United States own almost 70 percent of the country's total wealth.

Those rich people in the furs would stand in line in the cold for several weeks to keep that percentage payment of taxes vs percentage of wealth ownership ratio going.

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:


Those rich people in the furs would stand in line in the cold for several weeks to keep that percentage payment of taxes vs percentage of wealth ownership ratio going.


It's amazing what a CAL education can do.
Who knew that spending $243.50 a quarter was the key to making MILLIONS.
What a great investment!


GO BEARS!


going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

bearister said:


Those rich people in the furs would stand in line in the cold for several weeks to keep that percentage payment of taxes vs percentage of wealth ownership ratio going.


It's amazing what a CAL education can do.
Who knew that spending $243.50 a quarter was the key to making MILLIONS.
What a great investment!


GO BEARS!





That must be a pivot argument because it doesn't address what I wrote and you quoted.

Let me hit you with a blunt 2 x 4 statement:

Jeff Bezos' ex wife, MacKenzie Scott, gets it. I'm not convinced that Jeff does.

*It doesn't change my sentiment on the subject that you are self made…but I respect you for it. Most of the rich dudes I know are not….but I do know a guy 2 years ahead of me in high school that is self made and he is worth $500M.

* Another person that gets it: Keanu Reeves. A story in the East Bay Times today reports he donated 70% of his take from the original Matrix movie ($31.5M) to cancer research. He is a stellar human being.

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:



The problem is little of this was implemented. Costs still continue to rise. I'm not sure what the point of arguing over about my imprecise wording has to do with the US is paying much more in medical costs, and Obamacare did nothing to stop those cost increases other than reducing costs paid by the uninsured who not insured. It seems like a deflection to me.


Obamacare hasn't even reduced medical spend as a percentage of GDP. Dajo9 mentioned how much 3% could do for our country but imagine if we weren't spending 18% of GDP just to keep ourselves alive. It's obviously a complex problem connected to our food sources and runs through everything in this country. Imagine if big agriculture and their captive congress members weren't subsidizing food that makes us less healthy? Something like 1/3 of adults are diabetic or pre diabetic. And of course, it's a regressive problem that hurts the people least able to do something about it.

As for the recent posts regarding wasteful military spending, two thumbs up from me. People love to complain about the government but is there any more wasteful bureaucracy than the US military? Medicare is actually a pretty well run organization which has a lower administrative burden than private health insurance. If our whole government was that efficient, we might actually be able to fix some problems without confiscatory taxation but alas you will never get legislators to actually address government waste because they rely on it.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

wifeisafurd said:



The problem is little of this was implemented. Costs still continue to rise. I'm not sure what the point of arguing over about my imprecise wording has to do with the US is paying much more in medical costs, and Obamacare did nothing to stop those cost increases other than reducing costs paid by the uninsured who not insured. It seems like a deflection to me.


Obamacare hasn't even reduced medical spend as a percentage of GDP. Dajo9 mentioned how much 3% could do for our country but imagine if we weren't spending 18% of GDP just to keep ourselves alive. It's obviously a complex problem connected to our food sources and runs through everything in this country. Imagine if big agriculture and their captive congress members weren't subsidizing food that makes us less healthy? Something like 1/3 of adults are diabetic or pre diabetic. And of course, it's a regressive problem that hurts the people least able to do something about it.

As for the recent posts regarding wasteful military spending, two thumbs up from me. People love to complain about the government but is there any more wasteful bureaucracy than the US military? Medicare is actually a pretty well run organization which has a lower administrative burden than private health insurance. If our whole government was that efficient, we might actually be able to fix some problems without confiscatory taxation but alas you will never get legislators to actually address government waste because they rely on it.

Unit2, I really enjoy your posts.
Some of the most insightful posts that I've ever seen on this Forum, let alone any other.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

DiabloWags said:

bearister said:


Those rich people in the furs would stand in line in the cold for several weeks to keep that percentage payment of taxes vs percentage of wealth ownership ratio going.


It's amazing what a CAL education can do.
Who knew that spending $243.50 a quarter was the key to making MILLIONS.
What a great investment!


GO BEARS!





That must be a pivot argument because it doesn't address what I wrote and you quoted.


What I posted were statistical facts regarding the Top 5% and how much income tax they paid.
What you posted was your opinion/speculation using a photo from the Big Game to express your opinion.

If you think that the Govt knows best how to spend your money, that's fine.
I dont agree with that claim, nor am I here to appease you and convince you that I "get it".
Moreover, me "getting it" does nothing to close the wealth gap.


Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

Unit2Sucks said:

wifeisafurd said:



The problem is little of this was implemented. Costs still continue to rise. I'm not sure what the point of arguing over about my imprecise wording has to do with the US is paying much more in medical costs, and Obamacare did nothing to stop those cost increases other than reducing costs paid by the uninsured who not insured. It seems like a deflection to me.


Obamacare hasn't even reduced medical spend as a percentage of GDP. Dajo9 mentioned how much 3% could do for our country but imagine if we weren't spending 18% of GDP just to keep ourselves alive. It's obviously a complex problem connected to our food sources and runs through everything in this country. Imagine if big agriculture and their captive congress members weren't subsidizing food that makes us less healthy? Something like 1/3 of adults are diabetic or pre diabetic. And of course, it's a regressive problem that hurts the people least able to do something about it.

As for the recent posts regarding wasteful military spending, two thumbs up from me. People love to complain about the government but is there any more wasteful bureaucracy than the US military? Medicare is actually a pretty well run organization which has a lower administrative burden than private health insurance. If our whole government was that efficient, we might actually be able to fix some problems without confiscatory taxation but alas you will never get legislators to actually address government waste because they rely on it.

Unit2, I really enjoy your posts.
Some of the most insightful posts that I've ever seen on this Forum, let alone any other.

Thanks Diablo.



wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

DiabloWags said:

BigC said:



I would conclude from the above that some people are not paying their fair share. The question is, who are these people and what constitutes "fair"? A very complicated question and certainly one to debate.




Per 2018 IRS data, the Top 5% paid 60.3% of all federal income taxes.




10 percent of the richest people in the United States own almost 70 percent of the country's total wealth.

Those rich people in the furs would stand in line in the cold for several weeks to keep that percentage payment of taxes vs percentage of wealth ownership ratio going.


1% of the people own 110% of the world. If you say it enough it has to be true. Just like Trump won the election.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:


The promise of Obamacare was to bring down medical prices and that has not happened. Lot of fingers to point - Obamacare really has not been able to fully function for example, and there does not seem to be much initiative in the Biden administration to go after health care costs. But to say we don't spend money on social program is bunk. This has been an old argument point for years now but a single payer system or some form of that might have huge cost savings for the government and consumers and save a lot of money for other things like infrastructure. Just my two cents.
I support all these arguments for reduced military spending and more cost effective health care costs, which would save us all a ton of money. I don't see any path to achieving those goals other than voting for liberal Democrats, do any of you? The Presidential candidates that supported such things are people like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.
Well I certainly do on medicare expansion - Joe Biden who I voted for. Joe, you promised - get it done.

Sanders is a whack job. The last thing I want in another old, cranky guy in the White House, this time with no hair rather than orange hair. None of his numbers add-up, much of his policies are pie in the sky stuff, he has no details, a lot of what he says make not sense, and amusingly he is not very PC (which I like, but his party will be unhappy). His comments about military spending are about as vague as it gets: "We will present a thoughtful budget that meets the defense needs of this country without just simply supplying billions of dollars of unnecessary money to the military industrial complex." Nice jargon, but Bernie can't you even come up with specific cuts in the world's largest budget? I'm not wasting my time on Bernie, he could never win, and his policy statements act like that he nows he will never win and his agenda is more important. Strangely the old cranky guy, Tump, said he would look for cuts by keeping out of wars blah blah. Trump appears to call for defense spending cutshttps://www.defensenews.com pentagon 2018/10/17. That didn't happen either.

Now Warren is different. I disagree agree with some of what she says, but she is intellectually honest, and unlike Sanders who is a better politician, dumb enough to get into specifics like her wealth tax plan, which killed her campaign. But the woman could actually run a White House, unlike Sanders, and she is a lot more of capitalist than she let's on. I'm still not going to vote for her over Biden.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

bearister said:

DiabloWags said:

BigC said:



I would conclude from the above that some people are not paying their fair share. The question is, who are these people and what constitutes "fair"? A very complicated question and certainly one to debate.




Per 2018 IRS data, the Top 5% paid 60.3% of all federal income taxes.




10 percent of the richest people in the United States own almost 70 percent of the country's total wealth.

Those rich people in the furs would stand in line in the cold for several weeks to keep that percentage payment of taxes vs percentage of wealth ownership ratio going.


1% of the people own 110% of the world. If you say it enough it has to be true. Just like Trump won the election.


That attitude will not be helpful in maximizing the duration of the very sweet deal being enjoyed. Even though they feel like victims, toss a couple of bones to the proletariats to mollify them. St. Barts Christmas getaways will be guaranteed for another 75 years.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Elizabeth Warren was a better candidate running as a reformer, but then she shifted her focus to be more of a PC progressive. I suspect she and/or her advisors decided to try and go after the Bernie votes, thinking that Sanders would falter the second time around.


Wifeisafurd, if you wouldn't mind, could you summarize your views (nutshell) on the following questions?

How much of a problem do you think "wealth/income inequality" is in the US today? And if it's a problem, to what extent should the federal government attempt to rectify it?

You have mentioned estate taxes, I believe, but could you summarize, in general, what else (if anything) you feel should be tried?
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"According to Sitaraman, in an epically unequal society, with a constitution built for equality, we won't last long. Unless something changes quickly, we may experience revolution, instability, coup attempts and violence, common fates of unequal societies. More likely, he writes, "either the republic will transform into an oligarchy, or the people will be seduced by an authoritarian demagogue….

Sitaraman, who is a policy adviser to Elizabeth Warren and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, brings a fresh eye and an impressive range of historical thinking to an ageless question: What are the conditions for freedom? He tours the intellectual struggles of the 19th and early 20th centuries, as progressives worked to reconcile industrialization and democracy. He gives us a glimpse of episodes that led to the progressive creation of the income tax, the development of antitrust laws and enforcement, the creation of a welfare state … and through the demise of those achievements a generation in which we've reduced taxes, stopped investing in public infrastructure, and stopped enforcing antitrust. According to Sitaraman, we've lost the policies essential to the preservation of the middle class."

Here's Why Economic Inequality Threatens Our Republic


https://billmoyers.com/story/american-inequality-threatens-republic/
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Interesting take

https://vm.tiktok.com/TTPdMeE83Y/
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
" A 2014 study by researchers at Princeton and Northwestern concludes that government policies reflect the desires of the wealthy, and that the vast majority of American citizens have "minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy ... when a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose."[86][87]

When Fed chair Janet Yellen was questioned by Bernie Sanders about the study at a congressional hearing in May 2014, she responded "There's no question that we've had a trend toward growing inequality" and that this trend "can shape [and] determine the ability of different groups to participate equally in a democracy and have grave effects on social stability over time."[88]

In Capital in the Twenty-First Century, French economist Thomas Piketty argues that "extremely high levels" of wealth inequality are "incompatible with the meritocratic values and principles of social justice fundamental to modern democratic societies" and that "the risk of a drift towards oligarchy is real and gives little reason for optimism about where the United States is headed." Wikipedia

Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
" There is something seriously wrong with an economy that enables the world's richest man to add $28 billion to his wealth in a single day while more than 50% of Americans ."
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

Elizabeth Warren was a better candidate running as a reformer, but then she shifted her focus to be more of a PC progressive. I suspect she and/or her advisors decided to try and go after the Bernie votes, thinking that Sanders would falter the second time around.

Sanders also runs as a reformer. Turning away from that isn't really chasing his votes.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Big C said:

Elizabeth Warren was a better candidate running as a reformer, but then she shifted her focus to be more of a PC progressive. I suspect she and/or her advisors decided to try and go after the Bernie votes, thinking that Sanders would falter the second time around.

Sanders also runs as a reformer. Turning away from that isn't really chasing his votes.

Warren's big thing used to be reforming Wall Street. Sanders was for that but also ran as a "socialist" (didn't explain well enough the difference between the modern European model of Democratic Socialism versus "the S-word"). I never heard Warren lean hard towards the progressive wing until after she became a candidate for President. And I read her book.
LudwigsFountain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:


Medicare is actually a pretty well run organization which has a lower administrative burden than private health insurance. If our whole government was that efficient, we might actually be able to fix some problems without confiscatory taxation but alas you will never get legislators to actually address government waste because they rely on it.
I've enjoyed reading this thread and the many thoughtful posts. But when I see the often expressed notion that Medicare is efficient I feel compelled to add my two cents, based on a career spent in health care finance.

The lower administrative burden typically quotes Medicare's 5% admin costs vs 20% in private insurance. I find this misleading for the following reasons.

1. Some private insurance outfits may have 20% overhead but the large ones don't. 12 to 15% is more typical. At least it was a few years back when I was still working and negotiating against them.

2. Most importantly, the percentage is determined by using the 'cost of care' (spending on medical care) as the denominator. The Medicare cohort has a cost of care that is 4 to 5 times that of the remaining population. If you use the more relevant metric of per capita administrative burden Medicare has a higher burden. If anyone's interested I can tell you why my experience has led me to believe that's the more appropriate measure.

3. As best as I could determine, the 5% figure is derived only from the direct Medicare portion of the HHS spending. I have to believe that there is substantial overhead spending in the remainder of the HHS budget that relates to Medicare.

4. A lot of Medicare overhead is spent in other parts of the government. Part B premiums, for example, are collected through Social Security deductions. There has to a cost associated with administrating that.

5. Finally, and this is small potatoes, but it just always irritated me, Medicare imposes costs on providers that other payers don't. The third highest paid employee in our hospital's finance department (after me, the CFO, and our controller) spent 100% of her time preparing Medicare reports and doing the complex accounting necessary to ensure that we recording our Medicare revenue accurately.

I also found much more waste and outright fraud associated with Medicare.
82gradDLSdad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
going4roses said:




We spent a lot less on military back in the late 70s when I was stuck on I 5, in Weed, Ca, in a snowstorm, because of a jackknifed truck, for 24 hours. **** happens. What's your point?
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
going4roses said:

" There is something seriously wrong with an economy that enables the world's richest man to add $28 billion to his wealth in a single day while more than 50% of Americans ."

Not sure why Robert Reich would be surprised by this.
Our capital markets offer this kind of opportunity.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:



Sanders is a whack job. The last thing I want in another old, cranky guy in the White House, this time with no hair rather than orange hair. None of his numbers add-up, much of his policies are pie in the sky stuff, he has no details, a lot of what he says make no sense, and amusingly he is not very PC (which I like, but his party will be unhappy).

I've said this before and I will say it again...

Bernie Sanders "peaked" when he appeared for his big Anderson Cooper interview on "60 Minutes" and Anderson asked him a very simple question about "How much will all of your policies cost?"

Not surprisingly, Sanders deflected and went off into a vague ramble as he threw his hands around.

He clearly didnt have an answer. But perhaps even more importantly is that the audience came away with a distinct feeling that it really didnt matter to Sanders. Costs dont matter. To the typical American family who knows exactly what their monthly expenses are, Sanders came across as not just ignorant, but dangerous.
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

going4roses said:

" There is something seriously wrong with an economy that enables the world's richest man to add $28 billion to his wealth in a single day while more than 50% of Americans ."

Not sure why Robert Reich would be surprised by this.
Our capital markets offer this kind of opportunity.


Opportunity for good for some but grave irreversible damage to most.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:


Yes, I assume you paid taxes that helped fund the government that provided the infrastructure that set you up to succeed. But did you pay your "fair" share? I believe that's what this thread is about.

I cannot answer that question, but what I can say is...

- The government is running huge deficits.
- We have enormous wealth inequalities. (Will tomorrow's customers even be able to afford tomorrow's products?)
- The infrastructure that enables people to take reasonable risks to succeed is crumbling.
- We appear to be using the earth's resources at a rate that is unsustainable.

I would conclude from the above that some people are not paying their fair share. The question is, who are these people and what constitutes "fair"? A very complicated question and certainly one to debate.



Yes, the government is running massive deficits, infrastructure is crumbling, the environment is under pressure, and there is an enormous wealth inequality. But dont you think that it's a pretty big stretch to conclude (as you did) that there is a correlation between the issues you raised and the causation is because some people arent paying their fair share?

DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
going4roses said:

DiabloWags said:

going4roses said:

" There is something seriously wrong with an economy that enables the world's richest man to add $28 billion to his wealth in a single day while more than 50% of Americans ."

Not sure why Robert Reich would be surprised by this.
Our capital markets offer this kind of opportunity.


Opportunity for good for some but grave irreversible damage to most.

Please explain the irreversible damage to most.
Be specific.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

sycasey said:

Big C said:

Elizabeth Warren was a better candidate running as a reformer, but then she shifted her focus to be more of a PC progressive. I suspect she and/or her advisors decided to try and go after the Bernie votes, thinking that Sanders would falter the second time around.

Sanders also runs as a reformer. Turning away from that isn't really chasing his votes.

Warren's big thing used to be reforming Wall Street. Sanders was for that but also ran as a "socialist" (didn't explain well enough the difference between the modern European model of Democratic Socialism versus "the S-word"). I never heard Warren lean hard towards the progressive wing until after she became a candidate for President. And I read her book.
She definitely leaned further left. I think my issue is with your description of "PC progressive." That seems to suggest someone who leans hard into culturally left/liberal issues (race, sexual orientation, gender, abortion, etc.) as opposed to economic issues. Both Warren and Sanders hold similar views on the cultural issues, but Sanders doesn't tend to play it up IMO. He's much more focused on economic and/or class-based issues.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LudwigsFountain said:

Unit2Sucks said:


Medicare is actually a pretty well run organization which has a lower administrative burden than private health insurance. If our whole government was that efficient, we might actually be able to fix some problems without confiscatory taxation but alas you will never get legislators to actually address government waste because they rely on it.
I've enjoyed reading this thread and the many thoughtful posts. But when I see the often expressed notion that Medicare is efficient I feel compelled to add my two cents, based on a career spent in health care finance.

The lower administrative burden typically quotes Medicare's 5% admin costs vs 20% in private insurance. I find this misleading for the following reasons.

1. Some private insurance outfits may have 20% overhead but the large ones don't. 12 to 15% is more typical. At least it was a few years back when I was still working and negotiating against them.

2. Most importantly, the percentage is determined by using the 'cost of care' (spending on medical care) as the denominator. The Medicare cohort has a cost of care that is 4 to 5 times that of the remaining population. If you use the more relevant metric of per capita administrative burden Medicare has a higher burden. If anyone's interested I can tell you why my experience has led me to believe that's the more appropriate measure.

3. As best as I could determine, the 5% figure is derived only from the direct Medicare portion of the HHS spending. I have to believe that there is substantial overhead spending in the remainder of the HHS budget that relates to Medicare.

4. A lot of Medicare overhead is spent in other parts of the government. Part B premiums, for example, are collected through Social Security deductions. There has to a cost associated with administrating that.

5. Finally, and this is small potatoes, but it just always irritated me, Medicare imposes costs on providers that other payers don't. The third highest paid employee in our hospital's finance department (after me, the CFO, and our controller) spent 100% of her time preparing Medicare reports and doing the complex accounting necessary to ensure that we recording our Medicare revenue accurately.

I also found much more waste and outright fraud associated with Medicare.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I don't disagree with any of this. One of my good friends was a medicare fraud prosecutor for the government and we talked a bit about some of the numerous scams that people used so I was aware of that issue but I didn't know about a lot of the other points. I would still think that medicare inefficiency pales in comparison to the military and other government agencies/orgs. I suppose it's possible that if we had the government more involved in healthcare it wouldn't actually reduce the per dollar administrative burden and that it could make our health care even less efficient but I don't know enough.

What I do know is that medical billing is a disaster in this country. The unknowable nature of costs and unpredictability of benefits makes it so difficult to make informed healthcare decisions and I can't even imagine how less fortunate people deal with health problems in this country. The rise of high deductible plans has only exacerbated the situation. I got hit with a $4400 bill last year for a 5 minute ER visit which included $1300 in x-ray fees. All of the urgent care facilities were full so we had no choice but to go to urgent care. Still getting random bills here and there for different providers who were apparently involved in the visit. It's infuriating but fortunately we are able to pay for it.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:



What I do know is that medical billing is a disaster in this country. The unknowable nature of costs and unpredictability of benefits makes it so difficult to make informed healthcare decisions and I can't even imagine how less fortunate people deal with health problems in this country. The rise of high deductible plans has only exacerbated the situation. I got hit with a $4400 bill last year for a 5 minute ER visit which included $1300 in x-ray fees. All of the urgent care facilities were full so we had no choice but to go to urgent care. Still getting random bills here and there for different providers who were apparently involved in the visit. It's infuriating but fortunately we are able to pay for it.

Agreed 100%.

The amount of time that I've had to spend on the phone with someone in medical billing over a basic "in-network" visit to a cardiologist for an echo-stress test and Holter monitor was a very sad example of how screwed up the billing system is.

As much as we would like to think that we are in the Digital Age and everything is done electronically, if someone doesnt transcribe an actual visit into a data-base, it leads to one billing issue after another. It gets even more complicated by the fact that (on certain occasions) a medical device manufacturer may not have the same billing code as the insurer. If the left hand doesnt know what the right hand is doing, you wind up getting charged the full cost of a device like a Holter monitor. My bill eventually went from $2700 down to about $150, but not before numerous phone calls over a 3 month period. And even when I questioned the $150 for the Holter monitor ( based on an "in-network" procedure that is standard of care ), I was told that the device itself was considered "out-of-network". When I asked why my cardiologist chose an "out of network" monitor, I was told by his office that that's the monitor that he prefers. Of course, this was all after the fact with zero transparency.

After all was said and done, the woman from medical billing (Marge) and I wound up having a good laugh at least.

I told her that I had a 4 year degree from a noteworthy public university and that I found all of this billing stuff to be terribly complicated; almost like a jig-saw puzzle. When I questioned how someone with a lesser education (or no education) where English might be a second language could possibly navigate all of this crap, she stoically remarked:

"Well, no matter what your background is . . . I've usually found that when someone gets a bill that they dont think they owe, they know how to make a phone call."

Well, there is that.

wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

sycasey said:

Big C said:

Elizabeth Warren was a better candidate running as a reformer, but then she shifted her focus to be more of a PC progressive. I suspect she and/or her advisors decided to try and go after the Bernie votes, thinking that Sanders would falter the second time around.

Sanders also runs as a reformer. Turning away from that isn't really chasing his votes.

Warren's big thing used to be reforming Wall Street. Sanders was for that but also ran as a "socialist" (didn't explain well enough the difference between the modern European model of Democratic Socialism versus "the S-word"). I never heard Warren lean hard towards the progressive wing until after she became a candidate for President. And I read her book.
I agree. She spent many years as a lawyer representing Wall Street and her donor list is full of Wall Street. She is not Sanders, and not even close. Her views are to regulate capitalism, Sanders basically wants to have the government control every part of your life and get rid of the private sector as we know it. Her problem was that she was on a collision course with Sanders in the primary as Biden went to the middle. Sanders was a more experienced and better politician. Warren lost.
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Are you blind ? Or do you only see what you want I don't have that privilege.

As you were have wonderful day
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

" A 2014 study by researchers at Princeton and Northwestern concludes that government policies reflect the desires of the wealthy, and that the vast majority of American citizens have "minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy ... when a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose."[86][87]

When Fed chair Janet Yellen was questioned by Bernie Sanders about the study at a congressional hearing in May 2014, she responded "There's no question that we've had a trend toward growing inequality" and that this trend "can shape [and] determine the ability of different groups to participate equally in a democracy and have grave effects on social stability over time."[88]

In Capital in the Twenty-First Century, French economist Thomas Piketty argues that "extremely high levels" of wealth inequality are "incompatible with the meritocratic values and principles of social justice fundamental to modern democratic societies" and that "the risk of a drift towards oligarchy is real and gives little reason for optimism about where the United States is headed." Wikipedia

Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States
They're actually is no statistical data to be able to determine levels of wealth inequality, since there is no data measuring people's wealth. Think about it - how would a economist be able to determine your net worth? What public source would they go to for the value of your law practice? They don't know what you have in the bank. At best they could guess the value of your house (assuming title is held in your name and they knew the amount of your mortgage). Where would they go to look at cars, boats, golf club membership, your wife pearls or wharf you buy her (and you better). They could look at your reported income to the IRS. But where does the economist go? That is why you typically see studies about income inequality based on IRS data - because it is available and reliable data. Instead of quoting Piketty from Wikipedia, read his book, you might stop quoting all these studies with different numbers since he says they are not based on reliable data. Since there is no raw data on wealth, Piketty (and other economists with his views) tried to back into the numbers in the manner I described in my prior post, and his scholarship has been challenged by some. But if you keep quoting these studies on wealth distribution, Piketty says you our a fraud.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:


I agree. She spent many years as a lawyer representing Wall Street and her donor list is full of Wall Street. She is not Sanders, and not even close. Her views are to regulate capitalism, Sanders basically wants to have the government control every part of your life and get rid of the private sector as we know it. Her problem was that she was on a collision course with Sanders in the primary as Biden went to the middle. Sanders was a more experienced and better politician. Warren lost.

In many cases, Warren has been on the "wrong" side of the table given her legal representation.

Her years as an attorney include representing Dow Chemical when they were fighting liability over women who had suffered using their breast implants. She is a Harvard Law School bankruptcy specialist, and contrary to her campaign staff's noble and pious narrative that she was trying to "ensure adequate compensation for women who claimed injury", it should not go lost on even the most casual observer that her capacity was as an advisor to a Company that was intent on limiting payments to women. Quite simply, Warren was part of a Dow defense team that had containing the company's liability as its #1 goal.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
going4roses said:

DiabloWags said:

going4roses said:

" There is something seriously wrong with an economy that enables the world's richest man to add $28 billion to his wealth in a single day while more than 50% of Americans ."

Not sure why Robert Reich would be surprised by this.
Our capital markets offer this kind of opportunity.


Opportunity for good for some but grave irreversible damage to most.

DiabloWags said:

Please explain the grave irreversible damage to most.
Be specific.

goingroses said:

Are you blind ? Or do you only see what you want I don't have that privilege.
As you were have wonderful day

I asked you a most simple question to explain your claim of irreversible damage to most.

You deflected and failed to answer it.
I will ignore your posts in the future.


82gradDLSdad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

going4roses said:

DiabloWags said:

going4roses said:

" There is something seriously wrong with an economy that enables the world's richest man to add $28 billion to his wealth in a single day while more than 50% of Americans ."

Not sure why Robert Reich would be surprised by this.
Our capital markets offer this kind of opportunity.


Opportunity for good for some but grave irreversible damage to most.

DiabloWags said:

Please explain the grave irreversible damage to most.
Be specific.

goingroses said:

Are you blind ? Or do you only see what you want I don't have that privilege.
As you were have wonderful day

I asked you a most simple question to explain your claim of irreversible damage to most.

You deflected and failed to answer it.
I will ignore your posts in the future.





Welcome to the club.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
82gradDLSdad said:

DiabloWags said:


Are you blind ? Or do you only see what you want I don't have that privilege.
Quote:

As you were have wonderful day

I asked you a most simple question to explain your claim of irreversible damage to most.

You deflected and failed to answer it.
I will ignore your posts in the future.





Welcome to the club.

He's now on ignore with BearForce and HelltoPay.



 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.