Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Bernie's Inequality in America National Town Hall - TYT Summary" video.

Cenk talks about stats and then goes on to give deceptive data in less than 2 minutes. The productivity vs compensation chart is misleading. To start, productivity went up due to technology. Next, depending on what measure of inflation you use wages have gone up. If you use the PCE or GDP deflator wages have gone up. Also, inflation is hard to measure as it does not take into account quality and thus typically over estimates it. Due to increased productivity goods and services have become cheaper and better which is essentially a wage increase. It is safe to say that this town hall had no one with an opposing viewpoint to counter the crap they said. Way to push to actually educate the viewer there.
4
If you break up Google than how would people look up facts that Cenk tells them to?
2
I know the summary Bernie: "Millionaires and billionaires, and the top 1/10 of 3% of 1% have way too much money! And we need to give away frees shit!" Pretty predictable.
2
I looked at the stats objectively and I feel that Cenk, Bernie, Warren, etc. are being very deceptive. There is a lot more to it than what they are presenting. They system we have is not perfect, and needs adjustments. But it is great as a whole.
2
It comes down to that none of these individuals can relate to the common man. They became rich by being involved in politics. The very thing they oppose, money in politics, is how they got rich. They never ran charities or fund raisers (raising taxes is not a fund raiser). They never ran a business and create jobs. You have Bernie who stole electricity from his neighbor because he was too poor to pay bills, and you have Moore who made millions off of Roger and Me but fled Flint without helping them. They are people who run their months and get rich off of useful idiots.
2
Amy, roads, fire and police are all locally ran and funded. 70% of fire fighters are volunteer. Schools are locally ran and funded as well and have many volunteers. How many times does Bernie, Warren or Moore volunteer? How often do they raise money for the needy? Why hasn't Moore helped the people of Flint? Why did Bernie make a million off of selling his book in Walmart? Why didn't he post it for free? These are people that found a route to earn a lot of money and they did it by fooling you.
2
Shawn, Warren and Bernie never ran businesses. Bernie never had a job until he was 40 and it was a politician. Bernie stole electricity from his neighbor. Moore got rich by suing the magazine company he worked for and then created documentaries. Warren lied about being a native american to gain an advantage in her position at her university. Fact is these same people on this panel took advantage of laws and situations to become rich. Two are now politicians living off of the tax payers dime. And when they became rich they bought many homes and just pocket their money. When has Moore ever helped Flint? Why didn't Bernie post his book online for free? Meanwhile the Koch Brothers donated money to John Hopkins for research and the Walton family at least creates jobs.
2
Post WW2 was strong due to the fact that every other nation was rebuilding and we weren't. Also, no one paid those high tax rates.
2
They are also very deceptive. Things are not that bad.
1
The income inequality is natural and not as severe as they are making it out to be. The top 10% earn 40% of the income. Is that bad? I don't think as they have worked hard. Even at that they pay 70% of federal income taxes. They point to wealth inequality as it looks more severe. However, when you break down what wealth actually is than you realize that it is not severe. Many people, including myself, have negative wealth due to large investments such as homes and college loans. In the US someone with no debt and only $10 has more wealth than 25% of the nation. Why? Because many have negative wealth. The top 1% who have a lot of wealth have it from their assets as in their companies. Bezos has a lot of wealth due to his many shares of Amazon. He isn't hoarding houses or food or cars or other consumable goods middle class people use. He has many shares of his company that is valued high. Just running around throwing out these numbers with no perspective is not an argument. In fact, it is a part of the problem. There is so much to these numbers that they are not releasing. I find it disturbing that they do this.
1
People kill people. Owning a gun makes it easier to kill, that is true. No one denies that. The issue is that banning guns only takes it out of law abiding citizens' hands where the criminals have the advantage. Allowing people to have guns evens the playing field. In the end, though, the gun needs a person to operate it. A .22 hand gun is more dangerous in the hands of a criminal than a BAR is in my hands. Why? Because I am not a violent threat. That criminal is. In the end it comes down to the person.
1
Jay Ben, yes. What's your point?
1
Seth the Wicked, it isn't that easy. You point to KS when I can point to CA and Connecticut. But keep riding KS all you want while continuing to fail at economics.
1
Kelli, your anecdotal situation does not represent the norm. The warehouse in my city hires at $15/hr. Also, the economy changes where warehouse jobs are in less demand. Wage stagnation is a myth. As I said, if you were to use the PCE or GDP deflator measure of inflation wages have gone up. Measuring inflation is challenging to begin with which is why there are 4 methods in doing it. Along with that goods and services have improved. You mention increasing rent. If you look at the areas in the market that have seen the largest price increase they are healthcare, education and housing. They are also the three areas in the market that receive the most subsidizes from the federal government. The rest of your comment is asinine and I don't need to address as I addressed enough already.
1
Jay Ben, the GDP deflator shows that there are many factors that contribute to these numbers. Just holding these numbers to one variable shows how deceptive one is. Stats are not that easy. This is not to say that there is not a wage problem, it is to say that the wage stagnation issue is a myth. You have to add in the fact that benefits grew as well. Why? Well the expansion of the payroll tax plays a role. Why is it that wage stagnation charts start around 1970 around the same time we expanded the payroll tax and government programs like the EPA and OSHA? As for better goods and services, I bought my car in 2011. I get over 30 miles a gallon. I have had little maintenance on it. Little things like that saves me money.
1
It isn't that easy. The current president supports state rights and state governments being more involved.
1
Dans Savvy, define "fair share".
1
Learned Hand, it isn't that easy. People who earn that much have a different lifestyle financially and different issues to deal with. Just because someone earns a lot of money does not mean they should receive less.
1
France is not really doing well economically. Also, there are many arguments against universal healthcare and "free college".
1
davy209, a worker is not a company. You can't compare the two. A company makes investments to grow. Individuals have write offs as well. As a college student I have many write offs. Most of my expenses beyond rent and food are listed as student expenses when I do my taxes. I can justify them in some way. For example, I bought a new pair of shoes. I justify it as I teach in a lab and give talks so I needed dress shoes. I bought a new pair of sweat pants. I justify it as an education expense as I workout in sweat pants, especially in the winter. That is an education expense because the university built a gym saying it was education related. Now if you want to talk about the complexity of the tax code at the federal level and how it should be more fair I would agree. Federally I support an individual flat tax with an consumption tax. That's fair. But I doubt you will.
1
Aaron, define "fair" wages. Define a "strong education system" (which you clearly need, education is not capitalized). Saying vague statements is not a way to push policy.
1
saul, N. Korea has universal healthcare and free education to all. They have a 100% literacy rate as well. Bernie is a communist.
1
imnodog, when you understand what wealth is you realize it is not a major issue. The 1% own their wealth through shares of their company. Bezos owns most of Amazon. He is not hoarding homes, food, water, oil, etc. He owns most of the shares of Amazon. In reality those shares of Amazon are worthless to a poor person in Ethiopia as they are in a position in needing food and water now. If you were to give that person in Ethiopia shares of Amazon they would be wealthier on paper, but they are not investors. They don't have time to invest it, generate, income, and then buy things. This is why these numbers are deceptive. There is a lot to them. But go ahead, take Bezos shares of Amazon and give it to poor people in Ethiopia. Give them those slips of paper. They have zero understanding of investment. But go ahead and do it. You will make them wealthier on paper, but are you really making them better off?
1
imnodog, we can stick to the US. Say you were to take a lot of shares of Amazon from Bezos and give it to a homeless person in the US. Someone with zero understanding of investment. Do you make them better? Maybe. Maybe they sell it. But they will be screwed over as someone much smarter than them will buy it for pennies on the dollar. But they get money. But they will blow through it quickly as they have little understanding in how to save and invest. You can't just point to wealth inequality and cry that things are bad. There is a lot to it.
1
imnodog, shares are worth something only to investors. Shares are worth a lot to me and you and others who can invest. But to someone in Ethiopia they are worthless. It is not food, water, oil, etc. They are nothing more than slips or paper or numbers on a screen. If you sell shares and get the money that does not increase the amount of food, water, oil, homes, etc. in society. So even if you sell your shares and give the money away to feed the hungry you did not solve anything. Someone still has to produce that food. Someone still has to deliver it. And in the long run you really need to educate those people so they can feed themselves. It isn't as easy as "give them the money". The resources and knowledge is not there. What makes these companies valuable is that they provide long term benefits towards society. They give people jobs, they produce goods and services for people to consume. That is why those shares are worth a lot. If you just took all the shares of Amazon and sold it for money you essentially destroy Amazon. That means no more jobs, no more wealth create. If you give that money to someone who is poor they will not invest it. This is why the whole wealth inequality talking point is very deceptive. It isn't that simple. You can't just sell shares, get money and then feed the hungry. You have to understand why those shares are so valuable to begin with. You also have to understand that someone still has to produce the food and you have to look at long term investment.
1
imnodog, to add, giving money to a poor person in Ethiopia does not help their cause. They value food and water, not money. Giving it to a homeless person does not help them as they will waste it quickly. Also, this does not factor in the negative wealth we have in the US due to loans. I have my own apartment, car, have nice meals every day, etc. I have negative wealth due to loans. That contributes to the wealth inequality. There is a lot to this. Crying wealth inequality is nothing more than a rallying call to stir up emotions of the ignorant.
1
Chris, crony capitalism is a problem of a government with too much power. To alleviate cronyism you have to limit the powers of the federal government. These individuals want to do the exact opposite of that.
1
imnodog, no, I am taking conversation down to where it needs to go. You started with a political, appeal to emotion talking point. That talking point is empty as it requires a lot of details which I am providing. Is there wealth inequality? Yes. Now what does it mean. On your first paragraph. The bank will have enough money for me as I don't have much in the bank. However, it won't have enough for everyone as it is required to loan out the money and hold onto only around 10%. This creates what is called the "inverted pyramid". Now a bank can retain more money through other banks or the Fed if needed, but that will only occur during dire economic times. That is where the Fed becomes the lender of last resort. So there is a lot to it. Next, to say that money has no value is true to a degree. But you have to realize where it obtains its value. It obtains it by being invested in the market. When it is invested in a way to generate wealth and value in the market then the money increases in value. A reason why people become rich is because they invest their money wisely to generate wealth. Many don't thus they do not become rich. Investors can take that money and buy shares of a company to have that money grow by shares increasing in value. It is a form of investment where I put my money in a bank to collect interest. In the end, though, it is not food, water, oil, etc. It is just money on a screen. I will agree with you on that. But in our nation and in our monetary system it has value. However, in Ethiopia for one person, or even a group of people it doesn't. And giving money to a homeless person on the US does not increase value of money as they are poor with money. Harsh reality is they are poor for a reason. "no one is saying people should give shares to the poor, you brought it up as an example only. I only made an argument before about selling shares to show you how they have value, no one is making that argument though." Fine, then why complain about wealth inequality? That is where most of their wealth in the 1% comes from. To add in the US a home owner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. A home owner has around 60% of their wealth tied into their home. Beyond owning a home the average person has little to no wealth. Now are they starving to death? Are they in terrible shape? No. They are fine. That is why there is no "revolution" on this wealth inequality issue. The vast majority do not care to be like the Walton family and own half of Walmart. That is why the Walton family is so wealthy. So unless you demand to give up their shares, what is your point in bringing up wealth inequality, especially in relation to hunger? "sure, they pay most of their work force minimum wage and provide people with goods that their workforce probably can't pay to have themselves." This is a different topic but Walmart pays above the min. wage. Many jobs pay the min. wage are small businesses. Why don't you attack them? Why attack Walmart? Why aren't you attacking Hy Vee or Raleys? They are both retail stores as well. Even at that they still gave people jobs and offer a convenient way for others to buy goods. You complaining about them paying a wage you deem to be too low is you literally saying "if they don't pay higher they should not be hiring at all". So if a company does not pay enough, according to you, should they just not hire people? Never mind the fact that they cannot afford higher wages. They offered people a job that could not find work anywhere else. You see that as a problem? "Now I don't know much about shares and investments, but I'm pretty sure people buy/sell stocks all the time. You give monetary value to own a little bit of something, that's how stocks work, correct? So people sell shares all the time, how is Amazon still standing?" That to is a whole different discussion in itself. However, it again comes down to what I mentioned earlier. Shares are not food, oil, homes, etc. They are a form of investment where the market and the people involve value it. "no it ain't" It is. This is why there isn't an uprising on the streets. This is why Bernie's "revolution" never took off. This is why OWS died off. It isn't a big deal. Most people just want to mind their own business. They have their families, homes, cars, careers, etc. Just because Bezos is rich does not mean others are suffering. In fact he became wealthy by making other lives' easier. "no one is arguing to sell shares, they're probably arguing to tax the rich more..." The rich are already paying the vast majority of taxes. And why tax them more? What do you gain?
1
"Is a system that has 1% of the population owning more than half of that population's wealth a system that is "working" for you?" I have answered that question many times. The reality is that it requires a long answer because there is a lot to it. But if you want a simple yes or no answer I will say simply this.........yes. But with that I will also say this......there is a lot more to it than you realize. My university offers an MBA course and we study these very things. You need to take 36 credits to get an MBA. That simply scratches the surface in how complex this is. So my answer to your over simplified, and shallow question on a complex issue is simply yes.
1
"Is your argument that the poor should be poor because you think they'd waste their money?" To a degree. People are poor for a reason. I am all for helping the poor, but you can't do that by simply giving them money. Many need to be educated. Many have mental problems. Many were raised in bad environments. But most made poor decisions. Simply giving them money is not the solution. This is where I am highly critical of the political left and people like Bernie and Warren. They are not showing people how much work it actually takes to help others, especially those who are poor. They feel you can just tax the rich and give it to the poor. It isn't that simple. People have to physically help them.
1
"I make a claim, you should refute my claim, not refute something I am not claiming." I am refuting your claim. The discussion is wealth inequality. I am showing you why wealth inequality exists, why it isn't a major issue, and how you can't compare it to world hunger. "you didn't understand what I said, I don't care how much money you got in the bank, the bank does not have the money to pay everyone because the money isn't real, it's just digits on the screen..." A bank is required to, by law, hold a certain about of currency. It is around 10% of the deposits. This is mandated by the Fed. The idea is what is called the "inverted pyramid" where banks loan out funds to people to invest in the economy and keep it running. But it has funds for those who want cash. "I never said money has no value, I said money isn't real. The value of it is real. you have some reading comprehension issues. My example using money is only to show that something that ins't real can have value, just like stocks..." If you want to say that then fine. But at that point you have to understand what money is and why it exist which is another topic in itself. "such a simple way of looking at things. People who become rich are outliers. in reality if you are born rich chances are you will die rich, if you are born poor chances are you will die poor. there aren't many people who are born poor becoming rich. This is because the capitalist system isn't fair or just. A poor individual has no money to invest, no education to progress..." This is another topic that has a lot to it. For example, you have the nature vs nurture argument. Being born poor or rich can influence your future lifestyle. Being raised a certain way contributes to that, or your genetic makeup. Capitalism has little to do with that. You are, again, taking a complex issue and limiting it down to an appeal to emotion talking point. In this case it is capitalism and how it isn't "fair". "okay, let me try to write this in a simple way; stocks have value, the rich have stocks therefore they have wealth. this doesn't mean I think we should give stocks to the poor.." Ok, than what's your point in complaining about wealth inequality? "homes are tangible things, money and stocks aren't... A very wealthy person does not have 60% of their wealth in their homes, your using a bad example." I agree a wealthy person does not have 60% of their value tied into their home, they have it in stocks. Are you now seeing where wealth inequality comes from? "lol, did you just say the Walton family is so wealthy because the vast majority of people do not care to be like the Walton family?" Do you want to run a major business like Walmart? I sure don't. I know many that don't. "no one is asking people to give up their shares, they're asking to raise taxes." What's the difference? "it seems 42% of workers get paid less than $15.00 US an hour." Ok, and? To start, I do not believe that stat. Next, how many work part time? How many have a spouse who is well off? How many are kids who live with parents? What is the cost of living where they reside? I am technically in that 42%, I am fine. Again, you can't just throw vague statements out there. "no it ain't. you made a claim that Amazon would be worthless if people sell their shares, I'm only pointing out people do that on a daily basis." I was referring to Jeff Bezos giving it to a homeless person who then sells it for pennies on the dollars. There is a difference between free buying and selling and giving it away. You support the latter. You literally said you want to tax them more which is taking their money. This is not an argument against taxes, it is an argument in how you see someone you see as wealthy and wanting to tax them more when they have shares, not income. "most people in the US aren't in their worst of the worst, they can get by on the little they get so they become complacent. This isn't true for the rest of the world though." Globally is a completely different situation that is even more complex. How do you tackle the situation in Chad with multiple religions, languages and cultures? Look the diversity there. Their literacy rate is less than 50%. "proportionally they pay the least." Again, more to it than that. Many of the rich pay 50% of their income in taxes. "lol, you have written way to much to say that is a long answer, I'll take that as a none answer, and this will be my last answer to you. You're not an honest player here for me to continue to waste my time on. " This is a complex issue and you wanted a discussion. I gave you one. To simplify this issue with simple talking points is very dangerous. "that's just your bias showing through. peace out." So poor people all made intelligent decisions with their money but ran into bad luck? That is not true. Why do around 70% of lottery winners go bankrupt?
1
This is what I find to be interesting "again, you're still creating a strawman. no one is asking people to give up their shares, they're asking to raise taxes." What is the difference? What are you taxing? And remember, stocks are not income.
1
imnodog, I answered your question. I will answer it again. " easy question, 1% owns half of the world's wealth, is that "working" for you?" Yes. It is working for me.
1
" explain how 1% of people owning 50% of the wealth is a successful system." I did. There is a lot to it. But to repeat some of the things I said take Bezos for example. He runs a company that makes it a lot easier for millions of people. I can buy what I want from the comfort of my home. Instead of driving around, using gas, putting wear and tear on my car, and go store to store looking for something that might not exist, I can buy what I want from Amazon. That saves me time and money. Is he well of? Sure. But my life is much better because of it as well. That is one of many ways the wealthy make for a successful system. They made the lives of millions better.
1
"this is getting tiresome. this isn't my opinion, most of the world is capitalistic and most of the world is in poverty. " Eh, many countries practice many things. But look at this. S. Korea took a capitalistic route in the past where N. Korea took a communist route. Which country is more successful now?
1
" I disagree but even if it were true, most people aren't succeeding." The vast majority are succeeding, just in different ways. I am in debt due to college loans. I earn $23,000 a year. However, I am a year away from earning my PhD. That is success. My parents own a home but my dad earns only $60,000 a year. My mom in unemployed. However, they raised three kids, two with their MBAs and one earning their PhD. That is success. You are so narrow minded that you feel success is being Jeff Bezos or the Koch Brothers. This is why Bernie's "revolution" never took off. The vast majority don't care. They are fine. It is the very very poor in inner cities and the lazy who only care. The vast majority don't care. They are fine with their simple life.
1
imnodog, I answered your next question. Have any more.
1
imnodog, are you "unsatisfied" or do you disagree? There is a difference. I look at things from other people's perspective. What makes you think I don't? I realize that the vast majority of people don't care if the Walton family or Bezos is very wealthy. All they care about is their life and how they are doing. You talk about the rest of the world. I cannot control that, neither can you. And you blame capitalism which is very shallow. There are many factors that play a role in why those countries struggle. Take Chad for example. Or Venezuela who is socialist. They face many issues. Iran is a non-secular nation and is struggling. It isn't capitalism. I can point to many examples in how the free market has led to great growth and innovation. Those countries you point at that have struggled have governments that are very oppressive and controlling. They practice the exact opposite of capitalism. Tell you want, point to me a struggling country and explain to me how they are practicing capitalism.
1
Michael Harold, workforce participation is low due to people refusing to work and living off of social welfare programs. Workforce participation is growing though.
1
Brother X, it makes a lot of sense. How about you compare CEO pay to the number of employees. If they are hiring more employees why shouldn't they earn more? If you were to take the top 6 executives of Walmart and spread their salaries to the 525,000 lowest paid employees of Walmart they would earn an extra $147 a year. That's it. What do you gain by cutting CEO pay?
1
pogo575, just lots of comments to respond to.
1
You don't have to be a millionaire to be in the 1%.
1
Ramon, Walmart can choose to fire them. They don't have to hire those workers.
1
Ramon, Walmart at least gives them a job. Walmart gives the ability to earn an income and improve themselves. Bernie and his fans want to just give money away who produce nothing and who are not working to develop skills. That is a problem.
1
People need to really stop talking about wealth inequality until they actually know what wealth is. The reason why the bottom 50% have so little wealth is because of loans. A person in the US can have no debt and only $10 and have more wealth than 25% of the nation. Why? Because you have people like me with negative wealth due to college loans. I have a nice income to live off of and be fine, I just made an investment that puts me in a hole that will be temporary.
1
Only 5% of the nation works more than one job. Also, the min. wage is the minimum. You can't tie it to inflation. Never mind the complexity of inflation to begin with, the fact is that the minimum wage is the minimum.
1
This Guy, the government giving special favors, such as tax breaks, to certain groups of people is a problem that comes from big government. If we had limited government we would have a flat tax at the federal level.
1
thelonius monk, the rich have zero power. Government does have power. For as bad as Walmart or the Koch brothers may be they never forced anyone to give up their money or work for them. Government has. The problem is government, not rich people.
1