Michael Moore on Morning Joe: 'Withdraw Your Money from Bailed Out Banks'

[blacken700]

[Soul Crusher]

I did two years ago and am very happy I did.  My bank sent a notice that they had no exposure to subprime, derivatives, etc, but that the Fed Gov was charging them more money to pay for the losses of the FDIC from the big banks. 

They did not pass that along to us thankfully. 

[garebear]

Even though a lot of/ most Republicans are politically opposed to Michael Moore, you have to admit he is on the side of the little guy.

He didn't gloss over or talk up Clinton in that clip.

Thanks for posting it.

[big L dawg]

made some good points

[Soul Crusher]

Even though a lot of/ most Republicans are politically opposed to Michael Moore, you have to admit he is on the side of the little guy.

He didn't gloss over or talk up Clinton in that clip.

Thanks for posting it.

I agree he makes good points, but i disagree with him on a ton others. 

Look, even though i disagree with his views, it is good that he is out there exposing this corporate communism as Ratigan calls it. 

[blacken700]

I agree he makes good points, but i disagree with him on a ton others. 

Look, even though i disagree with his views, it is good that he is out there exposing this corporate communism as Ratigan calls it. 

what points do you disagree with?

[Soul Crusher]

Even though a lot of/ most Republicans are politically opposed to Michael Moore, you have to admit he is on the side of the little guy.

He didn't gloss over or talk up Clinton in that clip.

Thanks for posting it.

I re watched that clip.  Have I said anything different than moore has on most points about the baucus bill or the criminal banksters? 


Yet moore is applauded and I am attacked. 

[Soul Crusher]

what points do you disagree with?

What I disagree with is his blaming capitilism for this mess when the opposite is true.  Capitilism is based on the bad being allowed to fail. 

That is not what we have with these bailouts and wall street/dc revolving door.

We have corporate communism as Dylan Ratigan calls it.  Its like welfare for billionaires when these criminals either need a jail cell or bankruptcy. 

Capitilism did not get us into this mess, corruption, wallstreet/govt greed, and incompetence got us into it. 

[SAMSON123]

What I disagree with is his blaming capitilism for this mess when the opposite is true.  Capitilism is based on the bad being allowed to fail. 

That is not what we have with these bailouts and wall street/dc revolving door.

We have corporate communism as Dylan Ratigan calls it.  Its like welfare for billionaires when these criminals either need a jail cell or bankruptcy. 

Capitilism did not get us into this mess, corruption, wallstreet/govt greed, and incompetence got us into it. 

THAT IS CAPITALISM RIGHT THERE....

For some reason people seem to think that capitalism and making a living are interchangeable...THEY ARE NOT. CAPITALSIM is having a pair of shoes made in China for one dollar and then selling them in america for one hundred dollars, Capitalism is paying two dollars for a bushel of corn while selling a 16 ounce can of corn for $1.39 CAPITALISM IS GETTING THE MOST MONEY FOR SOMETHING WHILE PROVIDING/PAYING THE LEAST FOR IT, while disregarding the masses and their financial reality.

Making a living is a long gone mindset in america.This was when everything from a company all the way down to a Mom and Pop store knew the reality of people and put a price on goods that was/is based on the REAL VALUE of the product, the processing, the labor involved and the manufacture AND THE LIVING WAGE NECESSARY TO PAY EMPLOYEES.

As it stands Michael Moore explained the top one percent in america having more wealth than the bottom 95 percent COMBINED!!!!...THAT IS WHAT CAPITALISM DOES. It is NOT about fair business, it is NOT about entrepreneurship, it is not about provding a better MOUSE TRAP..it is about swindling, lying, defrauding, buying power, lobbying, etcetc to get ownership and control over whole businesses and industries so that all of the wealth of that business or industry comes to one person/entity/family. This is how the Rockefeller's, Duponts, Mellon's, Wallenbers, Gates, bankers etc etc came into the wealth they did and amassed the power and control they obtained.

[shootfighter1]

First off, we don't have pure capitalism...not with bailouts, preferential treatment of certain companies, and the government stepping forcing the hand of banks and other private industry.

Capitalism certainly promotes more overall economic growth than socialism and much more than communism.  Capitalism is good if the government ensures everyone plays by the rules (and they protect the people).  Pushing banks to loan to low income folks is not a good example.

The people who's income has fallen most in the last 1-2 years is the ultra rich.  That has been in the news quite a bit in the last few months.

[garebear]

THAT IS CAPITALISM RIGHT THERE....

For some reason people seem to think that capitalism and making a living are interchangeable...THEY ARE NOT. CAPITALSIM is having a pair of shoes made in China for one dollar and then selling them in america for one hundred dollars, Capitalism is paying two dollars for a bushel of corn while selling a 16 ounce can of corn for $1.39 CAPITALISM IS GETTING THE MOST MONEY FOR SOMETHING WHILE PROVIDING/PAYING THE LEAST FOR IT, while disregarding the masses and their financial reality.

Making a living is a long gone mindset in america.This was when everything from a company all the way down to a Mom and Pop store knew the reality of people and put a price on goods that was/is based on the REAL VALUE of the product, the processing, the labor involved and the manufacture AND THE LIVING WAGE NECESSARY TO PAY EMPLOYEES.

As it stands Michael Moore explained the top one percent in america having more wealth than the bottom 95 percent COMBINED!!!!...THAT IS WHAT CAPITALISM DOES. It is NOT about fair business, it is NOT about entrepreneurship, it is not about provding a better MOUSE TRAP..it is about swindling, lying, defrauding, buying power, lobbying, etcetc to get ownership and control over whole businesses and industries so that all of the wealth of that business or industry comes to one person/entity/family. This is how the Rockefeller's, Duponts, Mellon's, Wallenbers, Gates, bankers etc etc came into the wealth they did and amassed the power and control they obtained.

Good post.

[Bindare_Dundat]

THAT IS CAPITALISM RIGHT THERE....

For some reason people seem to think that capitalism and making a living are interchangeable...THEY ARE NOT. CAPITALSIM is having a pair of shoes made in China for one dollar and then selling them in america for one hundred dollars, Capitalism is paying two dollars for a bushel of corn while selling a 16 ounce can of corn for $1.39 CAPITALISM IS GETTING THE MOST MONEY FOR SOMETHING WHILE PROVIDING/PAYING THE LEAST FOR IT, while disregarding the masses and their financial reality.

Making a living is a long gone mindset in america.This was when everything from a company all the way down to a Mom and Pop store knew the reality of people and put a price on goods that was/is based on the REAL VALUE of the product, the processing, the labor involved and the manufacture AND THE LIVING WAGE NECESSARY TO PAY EMPLOYEES.

As it stands Michael Moore explained the top one percent in america having more wealth than the bottom 95 percent COMBINED!!!!...THAT IS WHAT CAPITALISM DOES. It is NOT about fair business, it is NOT about entrepreneurship, it is not about provding a better MOUSE TRAP..it is about swindling, lying, defrauding, buying power, lobbying, etcetc to get ownership and control over whole businesses and industries so that all of the wealth of that business or industry comes to one person/entity/family. This is how the Rockefeller's, Duponts, Mellon's, Wallenbers, Gates, bankers etc etc came into the wealth they did and amassed the power and control they obtained.

There you go off the deep end again.

[BM OUT]

Id like to know how much Moore gives to the poor.What percentage HE gives.

[bears]

THAT IS CAPITALISM RIGHT THERE....

For some reason people seem to think that capitalism and making a living are interchangeable...THEY ARE NOT. CAPITALSIM is having a pair of shoes made in China for one dollar and then selling them in america for one hundred dollars, Capitalism is paying two dollars for a bushel of corn while selling a 16 ounce can of corn for $1.39 CAPITALISM IS GETTING THE MOST MONEY FOR SOMETHING WHILE PROVIDING/PAYING THE LEAST FOR IT, while disregarding the masses and their financial reality.

Making a living is a long gone mindset in america.This was when everything from a company all the way down to a Mom and Pop store knew the reality of people and put a price on goods that was/is based on the REAL VALUE of the product, the processing, the labor involved and the manufacture AND THE LIVING WAGE NECESSARY TO PAY EMPLOYEES.

As it stands Michael Moore explained the top one percent in america having more wealth than the bottom 95 percent COMBINED!!!!...THAT IS WHAT CAPITALISM DOES. It is NOT about fair business, it is NOT about entrepreneurship, it is not about provding a better MOUSE TRAP..it is about swindling, lying, defrauding, buying power, lobbying, etcetc to get ownership and control over whole businesses and industries so that all of the wealth of that business or industry comes to one person/entity/family. This is how the Rockefeller's, Duponts, Mellon's, Wallenbers, Gates, bankers etc etc came into the wealth they did and amassed the power and control they obtained.

your post is only telling the down side to capitalsim.  you do not speak of the up sides.  you also have no answer to the problem other than "CAPITALISM IS BAD".  what is your answer?  more government intervention?  do you want the government to suppress capitalism?  do you want them to take that right away from the people?  i guess i'm confused as to what your post is inferring.  do you not think that there will be down sides to suppressing "capitalism"? 

i personally feel that your thought process is too narrow on this.  everyone loves to break out that statistic about 1% of the population controlling 95% of the wealth like they're saying something profound.  anyone who knows anything about economics knows that is just playing with stats. 

how bout this. that same 1% pays about 60% of all tax revenue.  and this is only counting their individual tax returns.  the companies that that 1% control supplies about 10-15% more of all of our tax revenue.  see now i can play that game too.  how bout the bottom 50% of people in this country pay no income tax at all?  again half the people in this country PAY NO INCOME TAX.  whether you want to admit it or not we do have a progressive tax system in place.  our tax system is not the problem.  we do not need to redistribute wealth to solve our problems.  the problem lies in the corruption of the system that we have in place by the citizens AND the government.  we need to fix the problem within the confines of the system that we have in place. 

[Soul Crusher]

Capitilism is the least bad economic system.

[quadzilla456]

your post is only telling the down side to capitalsim.  you do not speak of the up sides.  you also have no answer to the problem other than "CAPITALISM IS BAD".  what is your answer?  more government intervention?  do you want the government to suppress capitalism?  do you want them to take that right away from the people?  i guess i'm confused as to what your post is inferring.  do you not think that there will be down sides to suppressing "capitalism"?  

i personally feel that your thought process is too narrow on this.  everyone loves to break out that statistic about 1% of the population controlling 95% of the wealth like they're saying something profound.  anyone who knows anything about economics knows that is just playing with stats.  

how bout this. that same 1% pays about 60% of all tax revenue.  and this is only counting their individual tax returns.  the companies that that 1% control supplies about 10-15% more of all of our tax revenue.  see now i can play that game too.  how bout the bottom 50% of people in this country pay no income tax at all?  again half the people in this country PAY NO INCOME TAX.  whether you want to admit it or not we do have a progressive tax system in place.  our tax system is not the problem.  we do not need to redistribute wealth to solve our problems.  the problem lies in the corruption of the system that we have in place by the citizens AND the government.  we need to fix the problem within the confines of the system that we have in place.  

What would you prefer?

Person A:

Net Income          = $50,000
Taxes             = $10,000 (20% of $50,000)
Total Income (after taxes)   = $40,000

Person B:

Net Income         = $15,000
Taxes            = $0 (just for illustration)
Total Income         = $15,000

Person C:

Net Income         = $10,000,000
Taxes            = $4,000,000 (40% of $10,000,000)
Total Income (after taxes)   = $6,000,000

Which person would you want to be?

Person C pays a shit load more taxes than person A $ B. In fact it would take 400 person A's to equal the amount of taxes paid by person C. But look at the total income. After taxes Person C still makes as much as 150 Person A's. They are still living the high life - even after paying 40% taxes on their income. They can still buy 150 more cars than person A. They can still buy 150 more homes than person A.

The problem with the top 5% of the population paying most of the taxes is that the bottom 95% is not making enough money. I am sure they would have no problem paying 10,20 or 30% taxes if their income could justify it.

Nobody wants to be person B, even if they had to pay no taxes.

[bears]

What would you prefer?

Person A:

Net Income          = $50,000
Taxes             = $10,000 (20% of $100,000)
Total Income (after taxes)   = $40,000

Person B:

Net Income         = $15,000
Taxes            = $0 (just for illustration)
Total Income         = $15,000

Person C:

Net Income         = $10,000,000
Taxes            = $4,000,000 (40% of $10,000,000)
Total Income (after taxes)   = $6,000,000

Which person would you want to be?

Person C pays a shit load more taxes than person A $ B. In fact it would take 400 person A's to equal the amount of taxes paid by person C. But look at the total income. After taxes Person C still makes as much as 150 Person A's. They are still living the high life - even after paying 40% taxes on their income. They can still buy 150 more cars than person A. They can still buy 150 more homes than person A.

The problem with the top 5% of the population paying most of the taxes is that the bottom 95% is not making enough money. I am sure they would have no problem paying 10,20 or 30% taxes if their income could justify it.

Nobody wants to be person B, even if they had to pay no taxes.

interesting exercise.  whats your remedy?  are you saying person C should pay more than that 40% because he/she makes more?  how much do you think person C should be paying? 

[quadzilla456]

interesting exercise.  whats your remedy?  are you saying person C should pay more than that 40% because he/she makes more?  how much do you think person C should be paying?  

Note: for Person A I made a mistake - the taxes are 10% on $50,000, not 10% on $100,000.

The remedy would be to somehow go back to a middleclass society where hard work is rewarded. Obviously we are now competing with China and India and their cheap labor. It is a difficult problem. But bottom line is this country has to start manufacturing stuff again. When Henry Ford invented the assembly line and was churning out 2000 cars a day he was also paying his workers good wages. They were able to prosper. Now we are moving to a society that will be part third world. In Africa you get the same discrepancy between rich and poor.

I am going to say the top 1% should pay 80% taxes. At least until they restore employment and bring back quality jobs to this country.

Person D: (Banker)

Net Income (2008)      = $10,000,000
Taxes            = $4,000,000 (40% of $10,000,000)
Total Income 2008 (after taxes)   = $6,000,000


Net Income (2009)      = $20,000,000
Taxes            = $16,000,000 (80% of $20,000,000)
Total Income 2009 (after taxes)   = $4,000,000

We know the rich are getting richer, the poor poorer. So let's take another example. Assume this person (banker) earned $10 million in 2008 and paid 40% taxes (unlikely). In 2010 after all the bailouts he earns $20 million and now the public demands he pay 80% taxes.

He is still making $4 million after taxes - about 66.6% of his 2008 pay.

The rich are doubling their income easily which offsets the increase in taxes.

My guess is if taxes on them increase to 80% their incomes would dramatically increase to offset the loss.

The overall trend: Wealth is being concentrated in a third world manner which is not healthy and conducive to a first world society that invents and prosper. With third world society comes crime, hunger, disease.

[Soul Crusher]

Note: for Person A I made a mistake - the taxes are 10% on $50,000, not 10% on $100,000.

The remedy would be to somehow go back to a middleclass society where hard work is rewarded. Obviously we are now competing with China and India and their cheap labor. It is a difficult problem. But bottom line is this country has to start manufacturing stuff again. When Henry Ford invented the assembly line and was churning out 2000 cars a day he was also paying his workers good wages. They were able to prosper. Now we are moving to a society that will be part third world. In Africa you get the same discrepancy between rich and poor.

I am going to say the top 1% should pay 80% taxes. At least until they restore employment and bring back quality jobs to this country.

Person D: (Banker)

Net Income (2008)      = $10,000,000
Taxes            = $4,000,000 (40% of $10,000,000)
Total Income 2008 (after taxes)   = $6,000,000


Net Income (2009)      = $20,000,000
Taxes            = $16,000,000 (80% of $20,000,000)
Total Income 2009 (after taxes)   = $4,000,000

We know the rich are getting richer, the poor poorer. So let's take another example. Assume this person (banker) earned $10 million in 2008 and paid 40% taxes (unlikely). In 2010 after all the bailouts he earns $20 million and now the public demands he pay 80% taxes.

He is still making $4 million after taxes - about 66.6% of his 2008 pay.

The rich are doubling their income easily which offsets the increase in taxes.

My guess is if taxes on them increase to 80% their incomes would dramatically increase to offset the loss.

The overall trend: Wealth is being concentrated in a third world manner which is not healthy and conducive to a first world society that invents and prosper. With third world society comes crime, hunger, disease.

The only way to change this is to end the corporate communism that Ratigan talks about.  We need to end too big to fail, get rid of the EPA, get rid of govt unions, and make it easier to make stuff here.

If i were going into business to make things, the last place i would set up my plant would be in this country. 

Whether it be the union goons, SEQRA requirements, etc, its just a bad place to make stuff. 

[bears]

Note: for Person A I made a mistake - the taxes are 10% on $50,000, not 10% on $100,000.

The remedy would be to somehow go back to a middleclass society where hard work is rewarded. Obviously we are now competing with China and India and their cheap labor. It is a difficult problem. But bottom line is this country has to start manufacturing stuff again. When Henry Ford invented the assembly line and was churning out 2000 cars a day he was also paying his workers good wages. They were able to prosper. Now we are moving to a society that will be part third world. In Africa you get the same discrepancy between rich and poor.

I am going to say the top 1% should pay 80% taxes. At least until they restore employment and bring back quality jobs to this country.

Person D: (Banker)

Net Income (2008)      = $10,000,000
Taxes            = $4,000,000 (40% of $10,000,000)
Total Income 2008 (after taxes)   = $6,000,000


Net Income (2009)      = $20,000,000
Taxes            = $16,000,000 (80% of $20,000,000)
Total Income 2009 (after taxes)   = $4,000,000

We know the rich are getting richer, the poor poorer. So let's take another example. Assume this person (banker) earned $10 million in 2008 and paid 40% taxes (unlikely). In 2010 after all the bailouts he earns $20 million and now the public demands he pay 80% taxes.

He is still making $4 million after taxes - about 66.6% of his 2008 pay.

The rich are doubling their income easily which offsets the increase in taxes.

My guess is if taxes on them increase to 80% their incomes would dramatically increase to offset the loss.

The overall trend: Wealth is being concentrated in a third world manner which is not healthy and conducive to a first world society that invents and prosper. With third world society comes crime, hunger, disease.

your scenario makes sense inside of a macroeconomic vacuum but has no place in the real world.  if only it were this easy.  you tax the rich that heavily and production would come to an abrupt halt.  which means jobs would come to an abrupt halt.  an increase in a tax rate does NOT translate into an increase in tax revenues after a certain point.  80% is WAY WAY above that point. 

[Soul Crusher]

your scenario makes sense inside of a macroeconomic vacuum but has no place in the real world.  if only it were this easy.  you tax the rich that heavily and production would come to an abrupt halt.  which means jobs would come to an abrupt halt.  an increase in a tax rate does NOT translate into an increase in tax revenues after a certain point.  80% is WAY WAY above that point. 

What you are describing is the Laffer Curve

also, people mneed to understand its not the 1950's anymore and capital, people, assets, etc, are much more easily moved out of high taxed areads than in previous years. 

[bears]

What you are describing is the Laffer Curve

also, people mneed to understand its not the 1950's anymore and capital, people, assets, etc, are much more easily moved out of high taxed areads than in previous years. 

nice call. i couldnt think of the name.

[quadzilla456]

your scenario makes sense inside of a macroeconomic vacuum but has no place in the real world.  if only it were this easy.  you tax the rich that heavily and production would come to an abrupt halt.  which means jobs would come to an abrupt halt.  an increase in a tax rate does NOT translate into an increase in tax revenues after a certain point.  80% is WAY WAY above that point.  

That is a good point you make. I know that if you tax the wealthy to death it will have a negative effect on the economy. It is a simple example to illustrate the point that the wealthy have huge incomes that would still be huge compared to the average person even after paying 80% taxes.

But right now they are getting more wealthy and it is also having a negative effect on the economy. There needs to be balance. I am afraid the problems facing America is not gong to be solveable soon. God only knows what is going to be the result.

[Soul Crusher]

That is a good point you make. I know that if you tax the wealthy to death it will have a negative effect on the economy. It is a simple example to illustrate the point that the wealthy have huge incomes that would still be huge compared to the average person even after paying 80% taxes.

But right now they are getting more wealthy and it is also having a negative effect on the economy. There needs to be balance. I am afraid the problem facing America is not gong to be solveable soon. God only knows what is going to be the result.

The govt is causing this situation by focusing solely on the banking sector and rewarding the banksters for their criminal activity. 

if you look at where the most abuses and discrepancies are, its in the mega corps, not the small businesses of 5-100 employees.