Via
Raw Story: Fox News decided that “radical left-wing Hollywood actor” Ed Asner needed to be taken to task for his role narrating a “disgusting hit piece” on rich people. In an animated video for the California Federation of Teachers, to make a point about “trickle down economics” and America’s outrageous and ever-widening income disparity, a rich person is seen taking a piss on the head of a poor person. (On Dec. 5, Fox News
decided that the video was “controversial” and invited the pathetically inconsequential Daily Caller publisher Tucker Carlson on to pretend he was all offended by it… as if he gives a shit.)
Since nothing gets Fox News viewers more excited than make-believe outrage—not even Viagra—Sean Hannity sent one of his minions to track down Asner and stick a mic in his face.
It didn’t go very well, as you can see in the clip. I for one say Good on Ed Asner! He treated this Fox News clown with ALL the respect he deserved.
Speaking of pissing on people, if frat-boy dickhead Sean Hannity was on fire on the ground in front of me, and I’d just drunk a six-pack, let’s just say that I’d hold my fire.
31 Comments
siftbotTax the Rich: An animated fairy tale has been added as a related post - related requested by Trancecoach on that post.
lantern53says...Do the math. You can tax the rich at $100 and it won't cover all the spending the gov't does. but if you want to send all of your money to the feds because you think they are better at deciding what to do with it, feel free. Let a bureaucrat run your life.
YogiOccupy has made income inequality a front page issue, it's on everyones mind now. We need to keep pushing, this is for the sake of our democracy and our freedom.
volumptuousLame.
No one has ever claimed that doing one thing will fix the financial situation of the US.
What is your point here? If it doesn't fix everything don't do it?
Bringing the top tax brackets to where they were (OH MY GOD ITS THREE PERCENT MORE!) before Bush cratered the economy, will help two entire shitloads. Taxing capital gains and other tricks as normal income will also help two shitloads more.
The math has already been done fifteen gazillion times and shows the same thing over and fucking over again. Mother of fuck, what is wrong with you people?
Do the math. You can tax the rich at $100 and it won't cover all the spending the gov't does. but if you want to send all of your money to the feds because you think they are better at deciding what to do with it, feel free. Let a bureaucrat run your life.
bareboards2A thousand blessings on your head for cutting this off before Malkin spoke. That woman gives me the heebie jeebies.
quantumushroomIf the liberal dream of seizing all the wealth of the rich came true (minus, I'm sure, Hollywood weirdos) they'd loot about 250 billion, enough to fund our entire precious thugverment for 10-12 days.
The Right needs to step aside like an aikido sensei and just let the taxocrats raise taxes as high as they want, that way the left can OWN the turbo-boost they give to the Depression they're already creating,
Lame.
No one has ever claimed that doing one thing will fix the financial situation of the US.
What is your point here? If it doesn't fix everything don't do it?
Bringing the top tax brackets to where they were (OH MY GOD ITS THREE PERCENT MORE!) before Bush cratered the economy, will help two entire shitloads. Taxing capital gains and other tricks as normal income will also help two shitloads more.
The math has already been done fifteen gazillion times and shows the same thing over and fucking over again. Mother of fuck, what is wrong with you people?
direpickleAt least get your math right, man. No one is suggesting this, but if you seized 100% of the top 1%'s income, you'd get around $1.2T more from them than now, and that would just about cover 2012's deficit.
And $250B would cover 24 days.
In short, LEARN TO MATH.
Edit: Oh, yeah, and if you took all of the top 1%'s wealth, (which is what *you* said), you'd get $16T, enough to pay off our national debt or fund the federal government for 4-5 years.
If the liberal dream of seizing all the wealth of the rich came true (minus, I'm sure, Hollywood weirdos) they'd loot about 250 billion, enough to fund our entire precious thugverment for 10-12 days.
The Right needs to step aside like an aikido sensei and just let the taxocrats raise taxes as high as they want, that way the left can OWN the turbo-boost they give to the Depression they're already creating,
dagComment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)
that was awesome and made me laugh. Much respect to Lou Grant. http://videosift.com/talk/Review-of-3-VPN-Services-for-Watching-Region-Blocked-Videos
YogiSo when taxes were insanely high in the 50s...what was happening? Oh yeah the economy was growing. Seriously you fail at Math and History right now...get a fucking education. Or just a library card.
If the liberal dream of seizing all the wealth of the rich came true (minus, I'm sure, Hollywood weirdos) they'd loot about 250 billion, enough to fund our entire precious thugverment for 10-12 days.
The Right needs to step aside like an aikido sensei and just let the taxocrats raise taxes as high as they want, that way the left can OWN the turbo-boost they give to the Depression they're already creating,
ant*talks
siftbotAdding video to channels (Talks) - requested by ant.
chingaleraLibrary card. What a concept. Last time I went to a library all the books I wanted to check out had never been returned....87'??
All he really may need is to block certain url's on his own computer, turn off a.m. radio and get some pussy, cause I reckon he's unavailable to the same sex....
So when taxes were insanely high in the 50s...what was happening? Oh yeah the economy was growing. Seriously you fail at Math and History right now...get a fucking education. Or just a library card.
chingalera....."Haters wanna hate,
Lovers wanna love,
I don't even want,
None of the above...."
shagen454Wow, I just watched that video on here and I didn't even see the trickle down system piss arch!
Thanks for pointing it our FOX! That was fucking awesome and so true, LOL!!
Class War is being waged. We need to turn the tides!
BicycleRepairManHaha "disgusting hit piece" Love it when FOX refers to the thing they are actually doing AS they are doing it.
BicycleRepairManThankfully Bush rescued the economy by giving tax-cuts to all those job-creators, and they were, and still are just creating the shit out of all those jobs, if he hadnt done that, who knows, the economy could have totally collapsed in 2008 or something, right?!
If the liberal dream of seizing all the wealth of the rich came true (minus, I'm sure, Hollywood weirdos) they'd loot about 250 billion, enough to fund our entire precious thugverment for 10-12 days.
The Right needs to step aside like an aikido sensei and just let the taxocrats raise taxes as high as they want, that way the left can OWN the turbo-boost they give to the Depression they're already creating,
FletchI'm thankful the video cut off before that shrill harpie and official FOX faux rager Michelle Malkin began to bloviate.
heropsychoThe irony is QM is caricaturing Democratic proposals to absurd extremes (tax the rich 100%!!!!), complete with an apocalyptic outcome (THE ECONOMY WILL CRATER!!!) in an attempt to discredit it, when what QM favors IS the caricature of what is reasonable about conservative ideas when it comes to policy.
I'd laugh except this kind of crap is what dominates the GOP, and I'm not sure if this past election is going to clue them in on how ridiculous this kind of thought is.
If the liberal dream of seizing all the wealth of the rich came true (minus, I'm sure, Hollywood weirdos) they'd loot about 250 billion, enough to fund our entire precious thugverment for 10-12 days.
The Right needs to step aside like an aikido sensei and just let the taxocrats raise taxes as high as they want, that way the left can OWN the turbo-boost they give to the Depression they're already creating,
bobknight33Where did you get your figures? I don't believe.
http://videosift.com/video/The-National-Debt-and-Deficit-Deconstructed-Tony-Robbins
At least get your math right, man. No one is suggesting this, but if you seized 100% of the top 1%'s income, you'd get around $1.2T more from them than now, and that would just about cover 2012's deficit.
And $250B would cover 24 days.
In short, LEARN TO MATH.
Edit: Oh, yeah, and if you took all of the top 1%'s wealth, (which is what *you* said), you'd get $16T, enough to pay off our national debt or fund the federal government for 4-5 years.
Mammaltronsays...I like the part where we cut back to Sean to find someone in the studio laughing at the (clearly tongue-in-cheek) comment.
direpickleI used the 2012 budget (~$3.8T, look it up wherever), the most recent figures for total income and total taxes paid of the top 1% (which are from 2010) from the Tax Foundation, which are $1.52T and $350B, respectively, so I did a little rounding. So you can adjust my $1.2T to $1.15T, if you want.
The top 1% in wealth owned 34% of the US's total wealth, in 2007, according to Wikipedia citing a Forbes article citing this article which cites this paper by Edward Wolff of NYU. The 2010 numbers cited are 35%, but I rounded down to 30% to be safe. Then I just looked up the total US household wealth--which is harder to do than you might expect.
Wikipedia reports ~$54T for the total US household *and non-profit* wealth in 2009 (Graph), which gets its data from the Federal Reserve. If you go to p. 104 of the 2011 document, you can see that this went up to $60T. I don't know how much of that is non-profits and how much is households, so I looked at the Census data.
Unfortunately the most recent is from 2007, which is pre-crash but which gives the mean household wealth as $556k. There were about 110M households in 2007, so that gives us about $61T total--but this was pre-crash. So we can kinda compare with the Wikipedia chart and see that in 2007 the total household+nonprofit wealth was $66T. So let's just assume ~$5T is nonprofits, so households had around $50T in 2009 and maybe closer to $55T in 2011, give or take. 30% of $50T is $15T. I had made slightly higher estimates before to get my $16T (didn't see the 'nonprofit' thing there).
So all told, the data's from the census and the Fed, and I'm kinda rounding down everywhere I can. I did some extrapolating here and there because I can't find a consistent data set from any year after 2007, and it wouldn't be fair to your side of the argument to use 2007's numbers. If you can find better data or if there's something egregiously wrong, please correct me.
Where did you get your figures? I don't believe.
http://videosift.com/video/The-National-Debt-and-Deficit-Deconstructed-Tony-Robbins
VoodooVway to stay impartial there fox.
why report the news when you can make the news right?
cosmovitellisays...The problem with America is it's full of traitors and patriots and no-one can tell one from the other.
-Mark Twain
bobknight33Good job.
Take all 16 trillion from the wealthiest and pay off the national debt. Smart, very smart.
Then what. Obama wants to add another 4 Trillion + over his 2nd term. Then what? Confiscate the the next set of top wealthy group?
Then after that you would be reaching down to the top 50%. Then you would have nothing left. At you rate we might be fine for another 15 years. Then what? There would be no wealth in America. Worst yet there would be no incentive.
Even if this was a 1 time deal it would be devastating to pull that much $ out of the economy.
I'm not saying that the rich could / should pay more but the country has a real spending problem on entitlements and military. We are going broke and the current ruling party wants to tax the rich another 3% and print more money and very very very little spending cuts.
Far be it if I vote against receiving $500 bucks/month from the government but it has to be done. All must suffer and all will suffer greatly if spending is not addressed in an honest straight forward way.
( Also we are not even mentioning the hundred of trillions of unfunded obligations.)
I used the 2012 budget (~$3.8T, look it up wherever), the most recent figures for total income and total taxes paid of the top 1% (which are from 2010) from the Tax Foundation, which are $1.52T and $350B, respectively, so I did a little rounding. So you can adjust my $1.2T to $1.15T, if you want.
The top 1% in wealth owned 34% of the US's total wealth, in 2007, according to Wikipedia citing a Forbes article citing this article which cites this paper by Edward Wolff of NYU. The 2010 numbers cited are 35%, but I rounded down to 30% to be safe. Then I just looked up the total US household wealth--which is harder to do than you might expect.
Wikipedia reports ~$54T for the total US household *and non-profit* wealth in 2009 (Graph), which gets its data from the Federal Reserve. If you go to p. 104 of the 2011 document, you can see that this went up to $60T. I don't know how much of that is non-profits and how much is households, so I looked at the Census data.
Unfortunately the most recent is from 2007, which is pre-crash but which gives the mean household wealth as $556k. There were about 110M households in 2007, so that gives us about $61T total--but this was pre-crash. So we can kinda compare with the Wikipedia chart and see that in 2007 the total household+nonprofit wealth was $66T. So let's just assume ~$5T is nonprofits, so households had around $50T in 2009 and maybe closer to $55T in 2011, give or take. 30% of $50T is $15T. I had made slightly higher estimates before to get my $16T (didn't see the 'nonprofit' thing there).
So all told, the data's from the census and the Fed, and I'm kinda rounding down everywhere I can. I did some extrapolating here and there because I can't find a consistent data set from any year after 2007, and it wouldn't be fair to your side of the argument to use 2007's numbers. If you can find better data or if there's something egregiously wrong, please correct me.
chingalerahttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-10/google-revenues-sheltered-in-no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion.html
Googles' rich, bitch!
BicycleRepairManYou do realize that direpickle wasnt actually suggesting that, right? he was responding to QMs free-fantasy about what liberals "really want": @quantumushroom: "If the liberal dream of seizing all the wealth of the rich came true (minus, I'm sure, Hollywood weirdos) they'd loot about 250 billion, enough to fund our entire precious thugverment for 10-12 days"
But I guess thats how it always work on your side, you make up your own insane "liberal agenda" and then ridicule it for being insane.
Good job.
Take all 16 trillion from the wealthiest and pay off the national debt. Smart, very smart.
direpickle10/10 for trolling. You got me. Responded to my comment where I said, verbatim, "NO ONE IS SUGGESTING THIS," to ask for number-clarification. This put distance between my comment, and then you could accuse me of saying that I think we should do that. Mad props.
Or maybe you weren't trolling. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and very politely explain the discussion, assuming you just forgot.
QM said something silly and hyperbolic:
And I corrected the numbers to reflect reality:
You asked where I got my numbers, and offered a video where Tony Robbins gives numbers that are both incorrect and out of date (the nearest I can tell, his $1.3T figure was from 2009, and was the top 1% not the top 2%).
Then I told you where I got my numbers, and linked to every source.
Good job.
Take all 16 trillion from the wealthiest and pay off the national debt. Smart, very smart.
Then what. Obama wants to add another 4 Trillion + over his 2nd term. Then what? Confiscate the the next set of top wealthy group?
Then after that you would be reaching down to the top 50%. Then you would have nothing left. At you rate we might be fine for another 15 years. Then what? There would be no wealth in America. Worst yet there would be no incentive.
Even if this was a 1 time deal it would be devastating to pull that much $ out of the economy.
I'm not saying that the rich could / should pay more but the country has a real spending problem on entitlements and military. We are going broke and the current ruling party wants to tax the rich another 3% and print more money and very very very little spending cuts.
Far be it if I vote against receiving $500 bucks/month from the government but it has to be done. All must suffer and all will suffer greatly if spending is not addressed in an honest straight forward way.
( Also we are not even mentioning the hundred of trillions of unfunded obligations.)
TrancecoachAnd then there was silence.
No response, because there isn't one.
I admire your calm, clear, matter-of-fact tone.
Nothing ameliorates bitter partisan vitriol like facts and data. At least, in an ideal debate -- which is, sadly, far from commonplace.
10/10 for trolling. You got me. Responded to my comment where I said, verbatim, "NO ONE IS SUGGESTING THIS," to ask for number-clarification. This put distance between my comment, and then you could accuse me of saying that I think we should do that. Mad props.
Or maybe you weren't trolling. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and very politely explain the discussion, assuming you just forgot.
QM said something silly and hyperbolic:
Mordhaus*dead
siftbotThis video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by Mordhaus.
Trancecoach*fixed
*dead
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.