The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Thursday, October 30th, 2014 8:40pm PDT - promote requested by eric3579.

If only the 1% would pass laws to distribute their wealth...

I think it's more like if they would stop redistributing the wealth to themselves from their workers.

If they would stop being greedy f'tards, then more people would have money to buy the things that move the economy and nobody would need government aid in the form of food stamps and welfare (save those who are honestly mentally or physically unable to work).If you want to build an economy the keyword is "build". You don't build a house by building the attic first magically floating there, then the foundation and walls to get up to it, you start with a foundation, then walls. If the people at the bottom have money to do more than barely survive, they buy things that actually move the economy, they buy things at retailers, who need to hire more people; those people buy things which results in transportation and warehouses hiring more people, those people buy things; manufacturing starts hiring (if the rich f'tard didn't send those jobs overseas, which the conservatives blame on the government rather than the rich guy who sent the job overseas for some reason, it's not like the price of that shirt went down when they sent it overseas, they just pocketed the extra wealth for themselves) and those people buy even more expensive things.

Our right wing economy favors investors and large business over the needs of the vast majority. It doesn't matter how much GM stock investors buy and trade, GM won't make more cars and hire more people until enough people can buy cars.

As we slide more and more money from the people who actually spend money in the economy and make it move, to people who just horde and invest, the economy will continue to spiral down. More and more people will require food stamps and welfare due to the actions of the rich, but the conservative right will blame the workers and former workers rather than pushing blame onto the people who are refusing to pay living wages, who push jobs overseas so they can personally pocket more wealth, and complain about the people they aren't giving living wages to and the people they laid off need government assistance, and the conservative voters go right along because the pulpit and Fox News has brainwashed them into believing that a party that disobey's everything their Jesus taught them is the Christian party.

The growing wealth and income gap is the biggest challenge facing our nation, and indeed much of the world. Of course most of the rest of the world does a better job of caring for the work force than the US does, paid maternity leave in all but 4 nations, paid vacation time in most of the world by law, paid sick time in most developed economies, minimum wages tied to inflation in much of those countries, a minimum level of health insurance for every man woman and child without having to buy from for-profit corporations (most actually use a single payer, which sort of ignores the fact that our individual mandate that we have now was invented by the Republican party, and is financed the same way they wanted to do it and the tax penalty for not participating is the same...the other nations that use individual mandates do so via not-for-profit insurance)... We do so much to protect the rich and investor class in this nation... sickening really.

Some system where the wealth of the lowest paid worker was linked to the companies net profit would be nice. If their going to argue that whole "trickle down" thing they can only complain so much when we legally manacle them to their staff!

Or perhaps a national minimum wage based on a fraction of the highest earners.

Or going really crazy perhaps outlaw anything but co-operatives/shared ownership with staff. (that one is probably too complicated and problematic to be practical I fear)

I might suggest a similar system for politicians too i.e. they get paid as much as their poorest citizens, or some sensible fraction of that number. (including private assets to discourage corruption)

Maybe even go the whole hog and make politicians and high ranking civil servants utterly dependant on the state i.e. no significant private property and a state issued lifestyle which matches that of the poorest.

Too Extreme perhaps but if we meet them somewhere in the middle...

The Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalists would probably go mental, but then how would we tell?

@Chairman_woo

Well, I wouldn't link minimum pay to highest earners. I would perhaps add a tax penalty based on the income differential. Nor would I go to the extreme of outlawing all but co-operatives/shared ownership. Perhaps a very small tax break for them to encourage that form of business.

I have thought about tying politician pay to the poverty line. Want to be a Representative or Senator, congratulations, you get 2x to 3x the poverty line, and you can have up to 3 staff members at 1.5x the poverty line. No lifetime benefits and of course strict term limits for Congress and the Supreme Court (the President still gets lifetime protection, but no other lifetime benefits and perhaps 5x the poverty line while in office). Nor do they use the Capital building itself but once a year where a lottery decides who gets to go for the State of the Union. The primary idea is to make the number of Representatives we have based on the actual population, rather than shift the 435 that we've had since 1911 around based on state populations. With modern technology, they can stay in their home (computer drawn) districts. I wouldn't make them fully dependent on the state, this is just something somebody does to serve their community for a short time.

So yeah, basically the middle ground.

I was a Libertarian Anrcho-Capitalist after I left the Republican party because I couldn't stand how the Republicans want to legislate morality. Because at the time I was still convinced that sort of economics worked best... over time I realized, after actual vetting sources and looking things over, that the problem was more at the high end than I was led to believe... that and I got a heart just as my evangelical Christianity was about to collapse, mostly due to Republicans and eventually kept off by logic.

@RFlagg - i can't even stomach coming up with a fairer way to rule when the entire system of rulership is owned and run by people who benefit from the way it currently works.

We need a way to make these changes to the system... As of right now, at least in my country, i think a total revolution would be needed before the system changed.

They shredded all the documented evidence of expense account abuses by British MP's so that no investigation or punishment could take place. Various organisations contacted them to get hold of the documents, but they were told that expenses data is only held for 3 years then destroyed(despite the fact that medical records and work records are held for something like 50+ years).

That is pretty much exactly what you were talking about - us challenging their wage packet - and they quite happily did whatever the fuck they liked so that they wouldn't get in trouble.

You could do something like scaling it off the national average wage so that when they really do their job better, make the country more successful and prosperous they earn more. But there is absolutely no way that could be enforced. If their pay and future job prospects are not affected by the quality of the job they do, how can we really expect them to do their best?

Eat the rich, etc. etc.

Catastrophe is the only thing that will change this course now. Sad, since that fucks everyone, and not the people who cause/benefit/deserve it.

The way our brains are wired, we want what we want, now. The truly smart people who run these markets know that it is all a ticking time bomb as the majority of people don't have the money to support our consumer economy, and even that if the system were corrected they would be even richer, they still continue to take the moderate gain now instead of the potential even larger gains down the road.