Forbes 400

"Just 400 Americans -- 400 -- have more wealth than half of all Americans combined."


http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/...-more-wealth-/

Oddly enough, this statement is true. Is that the America that you thought you were living in? Are you okay with 150 million people suffering while an elite 400 are obscenely wealthy and actively rigging the system so they can drain more money from the rest of the population?

Not all people on the Forbes 400 are evil, but some of those multi-billionaires are (shock!) greedy. Some of them like to use the gigantic megaphones that their wealth can buy to influence politics. Sure, they only have 400 votes. But they can influence millions of votes.

Given the events of the last few months, can you see how there may have been some influence to extend the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% and there might be some influence to push anti-union state laws to force the lower classes to pay the tab?

Or maybe you believe that nobody on the Forbes 400 list ever tries to influence politics for their benefit.

A Boeing 747-400 could hold all of the Forbes 400 easily. Compare that to half the population of the U.S.A. Seems a little uneven, no?

IMHO one of the greatest threats our great country faces is the disparity of wealth and our ignorance to recognize it. Originally Posted by sipapi

Without a middle class buffer between the haves and the have-nots, our country is destined to become Mexico. Social unrest would be inevitable.

Lets break it down.

Total wealth in country: $53 trillion (top 400 have $1.27 trillion)

Held by top 1% - $18.3 trillion
Held by next 19% - $26.7 trillion
Held by next 30% - $6.8 trillion
Held by next 50% - $1.2 trillion

total federal debt: $14.2 trillion
total state debt: $2.4 trillion
unfunded social security liability: $4 trillion
unfunded state pension liability: $3 trillion
CBO projected deficits next 10 years: $9 trillion (and its a low estimate)

The top 400 are meaningless. The government would have to confiscate 100% of what they own, 26 times over, to make up for current problems. Class warfare always gets the votes...but seriously, where is the government going to get the $33 trillion to pay its credit cards off? Are we going to confiscate nearly 3/4 of the wealth owned by the top 20% (and we're talking wealth confiscation, not income tax).

The link, and Moore's comments might be a very good argument for reduced governent spending...class warfare or no class warfare.

The top 400 are meaningless. The government would have to confiscate 100% of what they own, 26 times over, to make up for current problems. Class warfare always gets the votes...but seriously, where is the government going to get the $33 trillion to pay its credit cards off? Are we going to confiscate nearly 3/4 of the wealth owned by the top 20% (and we're talking wealth confiscation, not income tax). Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

Why confiscate when they can print? Oh yes, they will print, and that is when the real pain will be felt. Controlled inflation is the most insidious form of taxation at their disposal. It's also the most effective, since most people don't consider inflation to be a form of taxation.

"Why confiscate when they can print"

Good point...but inflation can't keep up with our current pace. Neither can wealth confiscation...its not like the 'wealth' of the Forbes 400 is in Uncle Scrooge's vault...its manifested in the valuation of large corporations. We can't liquidate Wal Mart to pay the national debt.

So how will we pay off all the debt? I say we have to grow out of it. Our GNP is stuck at $14 trillion a year (maybe less this year even). If we could increase GDP by a few percentage points, that would be a start. To this end, I would take a lesson from third world despots everywhere...exploit our energy resources!

Step 2 would be to reduce expenditures...this being the polar opposite of what the current administration is doing, I do tend to disagree with them.

Some will say that its not 'safe' to exploit our own resources - I really think we're beyond the point in having a choice in the matter.

Some will say that we can't cut government programs - We are rapidly losing the ability to choose in that arena.

Some like Michael Moore will say to take it from the rich - but after looking at the numbers, well, that's just juvenille.

I like to run and jump, or I used to when I was a little younger but I can't compare with a guy playing in the NBA. Do you realize that the best runners and jumpers in the world are in the NBA? I don't think it is fair that some much talent is concentrated in such a small population pool. Then I read where these talented individuals are working to improve! I want so much to be like them but I could never do it. I think we should pass some sort of legislation to reduce their abilities to level equal to my own. Then I will feel so much better than some people are just better at something than me. I also like to sing but I can't hold a candle to Celine or Neil. Maybe we can do something about that as well. I can perform like Ron Jeremy (my story and I'm sticking to it) but I don't think any of you have any right to be jealous.
Longer pick up the book Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut.

There is a video where a young woman named Mary Katherine Hamm makes the point if all the millionaires and all of the billionaires had their wealth confiscated they won't even pay off the debt Obama has created in this last year alone. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbwMPzbzVJM

Oh lookie, I've been accused of class warfare. Predictable. The war has already been waged against all of us and won.

Person who calls themself John Galt, you're just another one of the manipulated masses. You can shrug all you want but it won't make a bit of difference, pawn. My comment was about some (not all) of the upper millionth using their wealth to unfairly influence politics. I'll assume that your lack of comments about their front organizations, PACs, and propaganda means that you agree with that.

I bet you look like Ron Jeremy! LOL

...exploit our energy resources!

Step 2 would be to reduce expenditures...this being the polar opposite of what the current administration is doing, I do tend to disagree with them.

Some will say that its not 'safe' to exploit our own resources - I really think we're beyond the point in having a choice in the matter.

Some will say that we can't cut government programs - We are rapidly losing the ability to choose in that arena.

Some like Michael Moore will say to take it from the rich - but after looking at the numbers, well, that's just juvenille. Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

Suggesting that Michael Moore wants to 'confiscate' the wealth of the Forbes 400 is juvenile. He just wants them to share the burden and feel a more equal amount of pain.

Start another thread on your "drill baby, drill!" energy solution.

If you don't like spending during a recession to boost the economy and get it back on track, then lucky you! We can just demand that all of that money reverse flow and go back to it's source. What do you think the NYSE would do? So much for your 'hands off' economic principles. We'd be right back to square one in a protracted recession.

Everyone wants to cut expenditures, even Moore. That's the most obvious thing in the world. Americans want to get their money's worth out of government...total no-brainer. Moore made another point in "Capitalism: A Love Story" that Americans might get their money's worth...and get a better bargain...in some situations where social programs work better than pure capitalism. After all, capitalism is all about PROFIT...and profit is the difference between what the customer paid for and what he really got. (shouldn't it be called Swindelism after a certain point?). Capitalism is also rife with middlemen. What we're all really after is a bargain. Bargainism! I like that.

Suggesting that Michael Moore wants to 'confiscate' the wealth of the Forbes 400 is juvenile

For your viewing enjoyment - a short video of Michael Moore suggesting that the wealthy don't really 'own' their wealth...rather it is 'collectively owned' by all of us.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/real...-it-from-them/

He just wants them to share the burden and feel a more equal amount of pain.

Possibly the most concise statement on the flaws in modern liberal philosophy I have ever seen.

It is obvious what Moore has said in this video and in other videos. If you have seen them and refuse to discuss what he said then I'm not going to pursue it but Moore has said he is is a communist. By definition he believes in sharing by force of a gun.

maybe moore could be the first to start writimg checks..wheres mine??

My comment was about some (not all) of the upper millionth using their wealth to unfairly influence politics

In a nation of 300 million, the upper millionth percentile would be 3 people. Lets look at them:

Bill Gates - $100k to DNC, $80k to RNC

Warren Buffet - $74k to DNC, $13k to RNC

Larry Ellison - $130k to DNC, $30k to RNC

Glad you pointed that put.

Oh yeah,

Michael Moore - $37k to DNC, $0 to RNC...the scoundrel even donated to McCaskill...using his movie money to unfairly influence Missouri politics.

Longer, you were accused of inciting class warfare because you were, in fact, inciting class warfare. Yes the rich do influence the political realm to their best advantage. That is why so many of them support Democrats. Libertarians, and some conservatives promote the idea of individual liberty and the removal of obstacles preventing the poor from becoming rich. Democrats generally want to keep the lower class dependent on government, and providing cheap labor for the rich. This way they get the poors' vote and the rich's money.

And don't give me any union crap. Unions place a ceiling on what people can earn, you can't get farther, even if you merit a higher wage. Unions, who once had their place, are now huge barriers to individual prosperity.

Hate to say it, Longer, because you make me laugh, but this time you should listen to Galt.

Why confiscate when they can print? ...... Originally Posted by Philhelm

A quick economic lesson in a small nut shell:
The amount of money in circulation is not directly related to the amount of dollars that are printed! Strange statement? Not when you look at the way the amount of money is really created. It has to do with how much money a bank can loan out vs. how much money they have to have in reserve to loan that money out that is never printed. For example, if they can loan out $10 and have to have $9 in reserve. The Fed has allowed them to create $1 in the supply of money available; or 10%. (It is a little more complicated than that, but essentially that is how it works.) Likewise if their are restrictions on the way money is loaned then the money supply is restrained. Monetary policy controls the money supply, and interest rates. Most monetary transactions are not done in paper dollars; that is our walking around money we carry and use day to day. Large transactions are not done in dollar bills; these transactions are in checks, wire transfers, and other easily traced methods.

There are a couple of books available about the regulations of the Federal Reserve that are eye openers. It took me three boring months to read them.

Oh well, another degree; and not any smarter just more reading finished.

JR