Greetings From The 1% by Abigail Disney

[Najnaj]

Sobering little vid just in time for the elections....

[Didly]

Simpleton explanations of complex issues distilled into idiot-friendly articles and videos- designed to inflame and divide. I'm sick of it, from both sides.

[Hilhen7]

Everyone except the Republicans predicted this outcome.

Every single time they cut taxes for the Rich this happens. Somehow the results will be different the next time...

[Machismo]

Simpleton explanations of complex issues distilled into idiot-friendly articles and videos- designed to inflame and divide. I'm sick of it, from both sides.

You just described the Trump administration's entire time in power.

I'm still waiting for those spending cuts and that balanced budget.

[Ivanstone]

Simpleton explanations of complex issues distilled into idiot-friendly articles and videos- designed to inflame and divide. I'm sick of it, from both sides.

Oh look. A "both sides do it" post. How quaint.

Posted every time by someone who knows their side fucked up but still feels the need to deflect anyways. Bonus points for using a burner account.

[Didly]

Oh look. A "both sides do it" post. How quaint.

Posted every time by someone who knows their side fucked up but still feels the need to deflect anyways. Bonus points for using a burner account.

Not a burner.

This is essentially summing up the argument against supply-side economics, a debate that's been raging for decades.

The debate is this:

Which is better for the economy- giving a Steve Jobs type 1 million dollars, or giving one million people 1 dollar? Some would argue the Steve Jobs type invests that money back into the business, and can do more for the economic state of the country than giving a bunch of people that 1 dollar to go get a soda from the gas station. Even buying a "superyacht" or a business jet requires a person to design it, a company with sales/marketing/IT/manufacturing staff to create it, an airport/marina with staff to keep it at, an FBO with staff to refuel it at, a hotel with employees at the destination that jet/yacht takes you to, etc.

Some, like this video, would argue that the Steve Jobs type doesn't "need it," and that the soda helps the country more in the long-term.

What do you all think? I tend to lean towards the first camp, and would argue this post is less of a deflection than yours.

[youswas]

Oh look. A "both sides do it" post. How quaint.

Posted every time by someone who knows their side fucked up but still feels the need to deflect anyways. Bonus points for using a burner account.

what? the other side is pointing out our flaws? better make a meme out of that so we can discredit it with zero evidence every time.

[Devourment]

Didly, quit being a bitch about politics....

[Cebel]

Sobering little vid just in time for the elections....

Im def not in the 1%, and I got a tax cut. This is just more BS liberals spew. Stopped listening after that, cause she just proved she's full of shit.

[Merie]

The middle class did get a tax cut, though it was curiously made temporary while the tax cut for the super rich were permanent. Funny how that works. What concerns me about the tax cut is that every single dollar "cut" is really just another dollar our government has to borrow. This coming from the GoP that could do nothing but harp on about the deficit and the out of control spending.

[Ivanstone]

Which is better for the economy- giving a Steve Jobs type 1 million dollars, or giving one million people 1 dollar? Some would argue the Steve Jobs type invests that money back into the business, and can do more for the economic state of the country than giving a bunch of people that 1 dollar to go get a soda from the gas station. Even buying a "superyacht" or a business jet requires a person to design it, a company with sales/marketing/IT/manufacturing staff to create it, an airport/marina with staff to keep it at, an FBO with staff to refuel it at, a hotel with employees at the destination that jet/yacht takes you to, etc.

The debate is actually this:
The Executive Weasel might not do anything with his $1M. It might just rot in some offshore bank account.
The 1M will spend that dollar. On soda. Or food. Or gas. Or anything. It gets injected back in to the economy almost immediately. And it ends up back in the pocket of the rich man anyways. But at least he earned it and the life of the 1M is very slightly better.

[Underverse]

Not a burner.

This is essentially summing up the argument against supply-side economics, a debate that's been raging for decades.

The debate is this:

Which is better for the economy- giving a Steve Jobs type 1 million dollars, or giving one million people 1 dollar? Some would argue the Steve Jobs type invests that money back into the business, and can do more for the economic state of the country than giving a bunch of people that 1 dollar to go get a soda from the gas station. Even buying a "superyacht" or a business jet requires a person to design it, a company with sales/marketing/IT/manufacturing staff to create it, an airport/marina with staff to keep it at, an FBO with staff to refuel it at, a hotel with employees at the destination that jet/yacht takes you to, etc.

Some, like this video, would argue that the Steve Jobs type doesn't "need it," and that the soda helps the country more in the long-term.

What do you all think? I tend to lean towards the first camp, and would argue this post is less of a deflection than yours.

It's a biased argument. A tiny fraction of the wealthy are Steve Jobs-type people. Also, people spending money on soda still benefits the economy as they're supporting multiple steps in the supply chain, including individual vendors. That's the argument you make, at least, when you're talking about superyachts.

The main difference between giving money to someone who is wealthy and giving it to someone who is poor is that the wealthy are more likely to sit on it, while the poor can't afford to do so. Both groups will spend frivolously. What we need is breaks for true innovators, not just the wealthy as an aggregate group, which includes plenty of economic leeches who produce nothing.

[Daelak]

Simpleton explanations of complex issues distilled into idiot-friendly articles and videos- designed to inflame and divide. I'm sick of it, from both sides.

Yeah, ignore the mountain of empirical evidence showing global wealth inequality is actually a massive inhibitor of the global economy performing better, we should give them the benefit of the doubt and cut more taxes so even more money is maldistributed to further slow growth and exacerbate inequality and the tens of trillions evaded from taxation.

- - - Updated - - -

Im def not in the 1%, and I got a tax cut. This is just more BS liberals spew. Stopped listening after that, cause she just proved she's full of shit.

How much did you get, pro bono defender of the victimized wealthy?

[Th3Scourge]

Lol Now This. That's some quality correlative analysis right there regarding super yachts.....

[Didly]

The debate is actually this:
The Executive Weasel might not do anything with his $1M. It might just rot in some offshore bank account.
The 1M will spend that dollar. On soda. Or food. Or gas. Or anything. It gets injected back in to the economy almost immediately. And it ends up back in the pocket of the rich man anyways. But at least he earned it and the life of the 1M is very slightly better.

Let's stick with that Steve Jobs (I guess now Tim Cook) thing. Sure, some of it rots in an off-shore bank account, but they just built and opened a new headquarters. There were construction jobs, design jobs, electricians, cable runners, etc. that worked on the job. Plus the new hirings at Apple to fill that building. Surely, even if some of it does go towards extending a selfish, lavish lifestyle, that it has more value to the economy as a whole than someone enjoying that soda.

[Hilhen7]

Not a burner.

This is essentially summing up the argument against supply-side economics, a debate that's been raging for decades.

The debate is this:

Which is better for the economy- giving a Steve Jobs type 1 million dollars, or giving one million people 1 dollar? Some would argue the Steve Jobs type invests that money back into the business, and can do more for the economic state of the country than giving a bunch of people that 1 dollar to go get a soda from the gas station. Even buying a "superyacht" or a business jet requires a person to design it, a company with sales/marketing/IT/manufacturing staff to create it, an airport/marina with staff to keep it at, an FBO with staff to refuel it at, a hotel with employees at the destination that jet/yacht takes you to, etc.

Some, like this video, would argue that the Steve Jobs type doesn't "need it," and that the soda helps the country more in the long-term.

What do you all think? I tend to lean towards the first camp, and would argue this post is less of a deflection than yours.

The $1 million is nothing for Steve jobs, so he buys back some stock.

The poor use their $1 to buy soda from a gas station. Gas station uses that $1 to buy more supplies from pepsi. Pepsi uses that money to buy new machinery, and so on.

[Machismo]

Let's stick with that Steve Jobs (I guess now Tim Cook) thing. Sure, some of it rots in an off-shore bank account, but they just built and opened a new headquarters. There were construction jobs, design jobs, electricians, cable runners, etc. that worked on the job. Plus the new hirings at Apple to fill that building. Surely, even if some of it does go towards extending a selfish, lavish lifestyle, that it has more value to the economy as a whole than someone enjoying that soda.

And yet, the people paying for those things are actually the future generations... that's the problem. If you are going to push supply-side economics, you sure as shit better balance a budget first.

[Hilhen7]

Let's stick with that Steve Jobs (I guess now Tim Cook) thing. Sure, some of it rots in an off-shore bank account, but they just built and opened a new headquarters. There were construction jobs, design jobs, electricians, cable runners, etc. that worked on the job. Plus the new hirings at Apple to fill that building. Surely, even if some of it does go towards extending a selfish, lavish lifestyle, that it has more value to the economy as a whole than someone enjoying that soda.

Doesn't matter as long as the money is being circulated in the economy.

Because that business owner that sold the soda will use it for something else.

[Fahrenheit]

Im def not in the 1%, and I got a tax cut. This is just more BS liberals spew. Stopped listening after that, cause she just proved she's full of shit.

I'm not in the 1%, but I'm pretty close and yes I got a tax cut, but congrats on falling for the fiscal equivalent of the jingling of keys while the real shit happened behind your back.

[Didly]

Yeah, ignore the mountain of empirical evidence showing global wealth inequality is actually a massive inhibitor of the global economy performing better, we should give them the benefit of the doubt and cut more taxes so even more money is maldistributed to further slow growth and exacerbate inequality and the tens of trillions evaded from taxation.

- - - Updated - - -



How much did you get, pro bono defender of the victimized wealthy?

Wow... you certain read into that what you wanted to see. Was this response something you had in your clipboard and needed to paste it somewhere?