If you've never read how this band lost about $11k on tour for a month (although, yes, while at the same time making other income from sponsors, YouTube, Patreon, iTunes etc)---it's interesting.
Because they're, frankly, successful---and a lot of bands never get to there.

https://medium.com/@jackconte/pomplamoose-2014-tour-profits-67435851ba37

Yeah, that's what he said. The Government, Military and Education systems mentioned received 100% of their revenues from taxation of a capitalism based(not pure) economy. That same government and military rely heavily on issuing contracts for R&D, supplies, and equipment all to companies operating in a capitalism based economy. That education system relies heavily on private investment and grants from corporate and private entities all generating their incomes from within a capitalism based economy.

That stands in contrast to the same governments, militaries and education systems elsewhere in competing countries like China and Russia, heck even the only slightly less capitalist EU too. Not a single one of the listed innovations came from any of those sources, but instead from within America. I think it is more than naive, but in fact dishonest, to ignore that being able to profit of your own ideas and grow your own business and keep the profits from it is just maybe a contributing factor in all that.

Catch everyone who doesn't have a gas can and lighter in their hands. Anyone dumb enough to unambiguously look like an arsonist in a burning building gets a Darwin award posthumously.

Then why ignore the one asking for help to give to one who just looks like they need help? That's not trust, it's judgement. Maybe they're just dirty, not homeless or needy.

Edit: My point is most people don't help homeless or needy people because they think there's a good chance they're going to use the money for something they don't support or that they're not really needy (some panhandlers in SF have reportedly pulled six figure incomes, I knew of one at Stanford that drove to work panhandling in a nice Mercedes.) If you can take the time to buy them a meal of their choosing or what they need in a store, you have control and helped more...on top of treating them like a human being, not a problem or eyesore. Those wanting cash, not help, will refuse.
Yes, I understand it's asking more of people.

What drivel.

Baker made his point, you just recognize the idiocy of it so claim he must mean something else, but he means to have you believe exactly what he said....and he means to be instructing people from the pulpet on how to vote, something that until recently was considered illegal, but today it's fine so long as he's saying "vote Trump".

Churches aren't non profits, they simply claim that status because they are protected from having that status removed because "religion". There is NO scrutiny, not higher scrutiny. Name one recognized religion that's lost it's non profit status.
Edit: BTW, From the IRS-Churches that meet the requirements of IRC Section 501(c)(3) are automatically considered tax exempt and are not required to apply for and obtain recognition of tax-exempt status from the IRS. (Hardly more scrutiny, since there is no scrutiny at all)

Non profits don't pay their leaders millions, buy them multiple jet planes, build hundred million dollar buildings, or keep billions in assets while claiming to not be able to fulfill their mission statement for lack of funding. Preachers beg directly from the pulpit for money for their 5th jet plane God said they need... they don't get the money from side hustles, although they get money that way too, but that's their personal income (although it's often laundered through the church to avoid taxes).

Religions are non prophets....meaning they have, and follow no prophets as practiced.

Bakker is a loon but the video cuts off before he makes his point. I can only assume RWW shortened it to meet some agenda point.

However, don't let this get in the way of some good'ol'fashioned Christian bashing.

BTW, Churches are tax-exempt because they are nonprofits. However, they receive higher scrutiny from the IRS than other nonprofits and must provide more detail than other nonprofits to keep the status. Most rich preachers leverage their nonprofit fame to generate income in for-profit taxed ventures (books, videos, etc.). It's deplorable and immoral (IMHO) but not illegal.

Sorry, Bob, your dude is either a moron or liar. (The woman screaming at him from off camera isn't much better.)
I had my proof when he lied "best case scenario, 10 ft sea level rise in 40-50 years, worst scenario is 100ft."

That is absolutely not even close to the prediction. Most accepted predictions are in the 2-3 ft sea level rise range by 2100, not 10-100 ft by 2060. Since he is so incredibly wrong about the basics, I have no doubt he's just as wrong or worse in his understanding of the science and not worth my time.....his lack of understanding a temperature change that takes thousands or tens of thousands of years is less destructive than one of equal magnitude taking decades reinforces that assumption.

His proof it's not real....he hasn't noticed it on the prospectus for condominiums or bank loans in Miami...not that he's read many but he's certain not a single fucking one mentions sea level rise....but that's absolutely bullshit, they do. Prices in low lying areas have steadily dropped since 2000 specifically because of increasing chances of flooding, while higher, previously low income areas are becoming gentrified. Hurricane and flood insurance rates have also skyrocketed because insurance companies do factor in climate change, which would be noted in a condo sales prospectus or bank loan. He's quite simply lying.

Don't think it went unnoticed that you didn't address the question a whit.

So let's have those names, your bloodline will not be saved from the disaster you help cause.

*sigh....passive aggressiveness from someone who keeps changing the argument is tiresome, ask your friends.

Your original statement ....""American wealth inequality is staggering. "
???? Stated as if that is a bad thing......."

Clearly indicating staggering wealth inequality isn't a bad thing.

Now..."I totally agree that EXCESSIVE wealth inequality is a bad thing",
so unless you misspoke, you must be parsing the difference between staggering (acceptable) and excessive (unacceptable)....but staggering >= excessive.

Wealth/income inequality are tied....and now who's being pedantic?

Well, I'm glad you aren't running the economy then, sadly the one most in control thinks the same, that one person making (not earning) >10000 times what another makes for < 1/10000 the work isn't inequitable, and neither is one person owning more than 10,000,000 average fully employed countrymen thanks to an accident of birth and/or criminal/dishonest business practices.

As a percentage of income, businesses and the rich pay nothing compared to the poor, who can least afford it.

I'm all for simplification, no loopholes or special deductions, including religion (wow, would that fill some coffers!), I could even go for one tax rate on all income (edit: including inheritance), with a huge standard deduction. I absolutely agree what we have is a convoluted mess that benefits the rich and penalizes the poor and unconnected....particularly business taxes. I also think they should be simplified and standardized, with no more special tax handouts to any businesses added as new law, and any bailouts should be pure stock transactions nationalizing any businesses that need bailouts, paid at current market rates.
Unfortunately, as I mentioned, I think going to only national sales tax effects the poor in a way that's not equal or just, even if you include businesses, and puts excessive additional burden on those who already need help.

You might have missed my original statement where the entire tax code was abolished. Income taxes go away. There are no loopholes, breaks, tax credits or deductions, etc. Rich people/businesses purchase more goods and services than poorer so they would pay more taxes proportionally (in sum not percent). I am not looking for wealth equality I am looking for taxation equality. Look at Amazon's taxes again this year.

"The veracity of the statement has no bearing on the fact that you dismissed/questioned it first"

<Sigh> Pedantry is tiresome. Tell your friends.

My original statement had to do with my belief that wealth inequality is not a bad thing. It had little to do with OP's assertion that he foolishly sees current wealth inequality as "staggering".

"Forgive us if we take the words of economists, historians, reality, and our own senses over a random person's opinion. "

You are free to heed whoever pleases you. If you crave my
forgiveness, consider yourself forgiven.

"If that's not excessive, I have to wonder what could be in your opinion. "

I too have to wonder what "excessive" wealth inequality actually looks like. I don't think I have ever seen a large scale example. So, I'll just pull a number out of the air: under most distribution models, I would say that I consider a Gini coefficient of, say, .9 to be "excessive".

"My wife, head of her department for 10 years, working 45-50 hour weeks, makes $30k a year working like a dog....Warren Buffet makes >10000 times that much doing absolutely nothing...not excessive?!"

I thought we were talking about wealth distribution, not income distribution. Anyhow, to answer your question, the answer is "No", I do not consider that to be "excessive".

I think I just explained how that does nothing to address wealth inequality and leaves the poor paying the maximum percentage of income in taxes while letting the rich only pay a tiny portion, only the set sales tax percentage (on what they legally buy in the U.S. and report).
Your plan would probably have to set sales tax at near 50% (it's already over 10% with all the other tax revenues), meaning the poor, who spend all they make, pay >50% in taxes (and over 90% of all taxes with around 10% of all income), and the rich, who would spend <1% of their income taxably (I know that's not a real word) pay about 1/2%. Sounds like a great solution to wealth inequality, doesn't it?

The veracity of the statement has no bearing on the fact that you dismissed/questioned it first, and now agree. Your position changed....and so has your argument now from 'staggering wealth inequality isn't a bad thing" to ' wealth inequality isn't staggering'.
Forgive us if we take the words of economists, historians, reality, and our own senses over a random person's opinion.

Wiki- in 2014 the top wealthiest 1% possess 40% of the nation's wealth; the bottom 80% own 7%; similarly, but later, the media reported, the "richest 1 percent in the United States now own more additional income than the bottom 90 percent".[8] The gap between the top 10% and the middle class is over 1,000%; that increases another 1,000% for the top 1%. The average employee "needs to work more than a month to earn what the CEO earns in one hour"
If that's not excessive, I have to wonder what could be in your opinion. My wife, head of her department for 10 years, working 45-50 hour weeks, makes $30k a year working like a dog (at a job that is life and death for her customers, platelet donation, her department keeps our only local blood bank open as the only money making department, she doesn't make fries.)...Warren Buffet makes >10000 times that much doing absolutely nothing...not excessive?! Also, because he only pays taxes on what he spends, he pays less in taxes than we do.
Thpp!....Ack!

There are problems in the US that may eventually make the US more likely to fall into a revolution, but I doubt that the type of wealth inequality we have today is high on the list.

We have had a few riots in some of the larger cities. Poverty and lack of opportunity are definite contributors to these riots. However, these localized riots never seem to spread, even though we have the income disparities you mentioned. At least for now, I don't think we can expect a "French Revolution" type event to occur, even though there are quite a few millionaires and billionaires living within a few dozen miles of the poorest people.

Fixing and upgrading our crumbling infrastructure could easily create enough of those jobs at least short term, by which I mean one to two decades, to employ every single able bodied American....granted, that's less than 1/3 of us, but would make unemployment rare.

Some countries have tried the free check/minimum income. It turned out to have zero effect on employment, no one decided they shouldn't work and just live on the stipend, it was under $600 a month, but they did find a huge benefit in well being and homelessness.
I don't see a huge difference from social security except age.

That said, I agree, what I've read of this new deal is overreaching pie in the sky dreaming that only made those supporting it seem unrealistic and not serious.

My new deal would trade all these benefits for sterilization after one child. Anyone with two kids pays more and is excluded from benefits, those with 3 or more go to work camps to pay society back for their irresponsibility. Lower the population by 1/2 and solving all these issues becomes exponentially simpler....many solve themselves.

And what exactly does veganism have to do with alcohol consumption? The vast majority of alcohol is vegan friendly.

Vegans have nothing to gain from decreased alcohol consumption.


----
Also Dr.Greger makes no claims. He simply reads out the research from a world wide scope of researchers, none of which are vegan.

And cherry picking what exactly? He's presented literally 10s of thousands of research papers all from unrelated researchers. And it's not like he's picking out some fringe groups, he's quoting the biggest health organisations in the world.

While it's easy to call him a cherry picker, I challenge anyone to find any credible evidence of cherry picking. I'm yet to hear back from someone over the last 6 years.

And I also challenge you to find an article that isn't funded or tied to the egg/milk/beef/fish industry which claims that eating x animal product is healthy.

Even easier, find an industry funded study which shows the detrimental effects of their own product. You won't, because they are inherently biased - an industry would never publish something that would hurt their bottom line. And no he doesn't ignore or cherry pick around industry funded studies, he exposes their tricks and data manipulation as well. That's not cherry picking, that's proper analysis.

And actually thanks to the freedom of information act, we can see how many studies they hide from us (when they don't like the results), and only publish the ones that suit their revenue centered agenda.

And this is why he's labelled a cherry picker - revenue loss. Broccoli ain't making anyone rich.

Let me put it into perspective:

He did a few video on how those WIFI sensitivity diseases are fake, and the comments are insane - because it's hurting people's income. And this is a pretty niche market, so you can imagine what a billion dollar industry would attempt to do to discredit him. Of course, they never address the research, just him.