Study Shows Richest 0.00025% Owns More Wealth Than Bottom 150 Million Americans (Reagan, Obama)

[chucksnee]

Originally Posted by AlongTheI-5

The number of jobs outnumber the number of teenagers. Immigration is a no-no (except at Trump's personal properties of course). The GOP is definitely not the friend of the working class.

Because they are in mama's basement and think they deserve better.....


Yes, cause trump hires every single person, every single one.....comments like that are useless fodder...

[GoodHombre]

Hard working honest people make billions of dollars, great business, our favorites.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by sickofnyc

"According to Zucman's research, the richest 0.00025 percent—just 400 Americans—have seen their share of America's national wealth triple since the 1980s, while the wealth of much of the U.S. population has stagnated or declined."

Which part of "Wealth" do you not understand?

That's just more driveling propaganda and disinformation falsely equivocating Wealth with Income.

Ronnie Raygun has nothing to do with anything.

If Carter was President from 1976 until now, the situation would be the same.

So, I buy property and build a 20-story condo-office-retail complex in 1985 and it's value is $15 Million.

Now, 39 years later, other people say it's value is $250 Million.

How is that Ronnie Raygun's fault?

He's dead, you know?

He's been dead for a while now.

Are you suggesting The Ghost of Ronnie Raygun is forcing other people to say my property is valued at $250 Million?

How's that work, exactly? Are Leprechauns or Unicorns involved?

That's what Wealth is: assets. It's real estate, stocks, bearer bonds, non-bearer bonds, promissory notes, automobiles, boats, planes, antiques and various forms of art like paintings and sculptures and a vase from the Ming Dynasty.

How, exactly, do you intend to redistribute a $3.4 Million Van Gogh painting among the, um, "Poor"?

You can't give the painting to a poor person, because then that poor person would be wealthy, and that would be unfair.

Are you going to take an Exact-o knife and cut the painting up into tiny pieces and redistribute it to the Poor?

Because, if you did that, then the painting is no longer worth $3.4 Million.

What about a stock certificate that says 10,000 shares? A share is $100, so that would be $1 Million.

Are you going to cut it into pieces and give the Poor a little 2mm x 2mm piece of the stock certificate?

What, exactly, are they going to do with that?

I'm hoping you're getting a grip on Reality® now.

Yes, 25% own 80% of the Wealth and that comes to about $70 TRILLION.

But, that's not $70 TRILLION in cash, it's $70 TRILLION in assets.

To convert the assets to cash, you have to liquidate the assets by selling them.

So, who, on this Earth, has $70 TRILLION in cash to purchase $70 TRILLION in assets?

Well, no one. All the governments on Earth don't even have $70 TRILLION in cash. In fact, all the governments on Earth have only about $6 TRILLION in cash.

Let's think small, like $3 TRILLION.

Okay, so, who has $3 TRILLION in cash to purchase $3 TRILLION in assets?

No one. The government doesn't even have that much cash.

You could increase the federal debt by $3 TRILLION, but you have steadfastly maintained that increasing the federal debt is bad, and you decry increases in the federal debt.

Let's say they do it anyway. So the government increased the federal debt by $3 TRILLION to buy $3 TRILLION in assets.

Now, the government is sitting on an extra $3 TRILLION in debt and $3 TRILLION in assets.

How, exactly, does that help the Poor?

The government's sitting on $3 TRILLION in assets that it cannot redistribute to the Poor until it first liquidates the assets to convert them into cash to hand out to the Poor.

So, who has $3 TRILLION in cash?

Well, the people who sold the government $3 TRILLION in assets can use that cash to buy back the $3 TRILLION in assets.

The story so far....

The government bought $3 TRILLION in assets and ballooned the federal debt by $3 TRILLION then sold the assets back to the people they bought them from and those people are now just as wealthy as they were before.

And the Poor get $7,547 each, which they will promptly spend on alcohol, drugs, tobacco, lottery, gambling, prostitutes, tattoos and X-Box and then be exactly where they were before the government went $3 TRILLION in debt.


Aren't Liberals grand?

[greywar]

Originally Posted by DRob4JC

1- How many of the 150 million are on the streets of California and have no interest in working?

134,000 homeless in california. a whopping .00089%. But you want to make that the big deal? Uh huh.

2- How much do the two categories pay in taxes right now?

which 2 categories? And how do you define it. Do you include social security for example? Or fees?

3- How much of the 150 million make bad life decisions and sabotage themselves?

Dunno, but more bad decisions are made because of being poor and the circumstances surrounding it then you might think. Renting vs buying a house for example. Poor people cant buy even if it was a good decision. IE the less money you have the fewer GOOD choices you have.

4- How many are saddled with decades of college debt with a degree that's not marketable?

Dunno offhand. But its probably not as high as you think. STEM degrees are a growing % of the college degrees, and outnumber those getting degrees in humanities for example.

Why do you assume income inequality is some scheme? Those at the top usually are disciplined with their money and how they conduct their finances.

Bwahahah. No. Those at the top know that it takes money to make money. The problem we are finding is that eventually you run out of other peoples money to hoard. I hope the irony of this is not lost on you.

All this income inequality stuff does is fuel envy. Unless they are breaking the law, or are extremely immoral - leave them alone.

no. Because at a certain point it DOES become not only immoral, but more importantly it becomes bad for everyone. Including those at the top. Because massive inequality slows our ability to expand our economy.

Why not educate people so they can do better for themselves instead of stirring up strife?

you mean go into debt so that you can get that STEM degree?



Look, I have a friend who was dirt poor. She ended up marrying someone who is a trust fund kid. Heres some of the changes:
Her children will go to college.
There is no stress about bills. no arguments about money that destroy relationships and damage children.
They bought a house. no mortgage, no interest paid to someone else.
They buy cars without paying interest to others.
They have medical care. And can afford their medication regularly, leading to healthier and happier lives, and the ability to make better decisions.


etc etc etc. Having enough money gives you opportunities to make good choices.

Originally Posted by Mircea

Aren't Liberals grand?

blah blah blah. What a bunch of word salad. I'm sure you had a point in that huge post above, but it is lost amongst your meaningless drivel. Come on Mircea, I know you can make a point very effectively. You did not do so there. You just went on but valuation. Which is sort of irrelevant.

[Neuling]

Originally Posted by GoodHombre

Hard working honest people make billions of dollars, great business, our favorites.

If you mean businessmen by people, I would say no, I prefer the owners of small and medium-sized, family businesses anytime. No need to make billions, there are much more important things than money, such as treating your employees the way it should be, fully paying your corporate taxes the way it should be, etc.

[Dbones]

Originally Posted by sickofnyc

The powerful are purchasing the policy and enough is enough!

lmao...And you support Globalism (progressivism) which is what causes all of this. Go figure.

[Dbones]

Originally Posted by Neuling

If you mean businessmen by people, I would say no, I prefer the owners of small and medium-sized, family businesses anytime. No need to make billions, there are much more important things than money, such as treating your employees the way it should be, fully paying your corporate taxes the way it should be, etc.

Globalists have replaced the small business for giant conglomerates that operate internationally and controlled by shareholders who have no allegiance to any country at all. Only a NATIONALIST can bring this back to where it once was but for some reason the very people who seem concerned about this are against Nationalism and for Globalism. What a confused screwed up bunch eh?

[pete98146]

Originally Posted by Dbones

Globalists have replaced the small business for giant conglomerates that operate internationally and controlled by shareholders who have no allegiance to any country at all. Only a NATIONALIST can bring this back to where it once was but for some reason the very people who seem concerned about this are against Nationalism and for Globalism. What a confused screwed up bunch eh?

Exactly! Well put. I bet if you ask the typical Democrat why they are for Globalism, they'd have no idea. Globalism is an 8 lane highway which leads in one direction ------> New World Order.


I've preached this until I'm blue in the face. If you are a proponent of Globalism, you better do some research on NWO because that is their end game of the 1%. Of course the Elite will paint this pretty picture of One World where everybody is equal, happy and free. But what they desire is an Oligarchy run by the Elite. They call all the shots....neo slavery at it's finest! The top of the pyramid will continue to have control of EVERYTHING and the people unlucky to live in this society are merely powerless pawns. Does this sound like Nirvana to you?


Globalism is rearing it's ugly head right now. Do you really think Chuck and Nancy oppose the wall? Probably not. They see the merits behind securing America. But they are both in alliance (and no doubt on the payroll) with the Elite...have been for a long long time. The Elite want borders and walls torn down, not built.


Also, there is NO America or any nation under NWO... Is this what you Dems want?


Nationalism and Globalism are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Chuck, Nancy, Bush, Clintons, Obama are all Globalists. Trump is a Nationalist.


Get it now? I find it alarming how many folks in this country don't understand what's at stake. People...educate yourselves!!!!!!!!!!! At minimum, learn about New World Order and decide if this is something you'd want for yourself and your family!

[Neuling]

I am also against globalization, it benefits only a small percentage of people and causes a lot of damage in the process.

[pete98146]

Originally Posted by Neuling

I am also against globalization, it benefits only a small percentage of people and causes a lot of damage in the process.

Bingo! The Average Joe (Democrat or Republican) losses in the end.