Skip to main content

Last night, Bill Maher delivered an excellent final New Rule on how some of the 1% are whining about feeling persecuted.

Did you know that during World War II, FDR actually proposed a cap on income that in today's dollars would mean that no person could ever take home more than about $300,000?  OK, that is a little low.  (audience laughter)  But wouldn't it be great if there were Democrats out there like that now, who would say to billionaires, "Oh, you're crying?  We'll give you something to cry about.  You don't want a minimum wage?  How about we not only have a minimum wage, we have a maximum wage?"  (audience applause)

That is not a new idea.  James Madison, who wrote our Constitution, said, "Government should prevent an immoderate accumulation of riches."  Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, they all agreed that too much money in the hands of too few would destroy democracy.

Video and full transcript below the fold.

And finally, New Rule: Someone must tell me what is with this new trend of people who have all the power acting like they're the oppressed ones?  Heterosexual Christians under siege from gays.  White people complaining that reverse racists are trying to strip them of their right to shoot unarmed black men.  And most bizarre, the recent wave of billionaires sobbing that they're being demonized and under attack.  And the thing is, it's not just having all the money in the world that's getting them down, it's that the rest of us don't often enough look at them and say, "You are the most brilliant industrious person on Earth.  Can you teach us how to be more like you while we buff your cock with this fine Sham-Wow?"

You know, I used to think Hollywood egos were the neediest, but these Masters of the Universe?  More like babies on a plane.  Stock trader Steve Schwarzman — net worth $8 billion — once said that Obama raising his taxes 3% felt like when Hitler invaded Poland.  Sounds like something Sarah Palin would tweet after huffing paint thinner.  (audience laughter)  But with the super-rich it's becoming a meme.  Now we have Tom Perkins — net worth $8 billion — saying the richest 1% are so persecuted in America, they feel like Jews in Nazi Germany.  Which is why just to be safe, last week Tom built a panic room inside his mansion that's a full-size replica of Anne Frank's house.  (groaning audience laughter)

Is it really that hard out there for a pimp with $8 billion dollars?  You know, even when your shady financial tricks tanked the economy, nothing happened to any of you.  Nobody went to jail, nobody went broke, Justin Bieber didn't even egg your house.  You just got richer while everybody else got poorer.  The Oxfam committee released a report this year on global inequality, and the 85 richest people — 85 — owned more than the bottom 3 1/2 billion put together, which is half the planet.  This is a real problem, and not just for when they go halfsies on a wedding present.

And not that that Nazi/Jew analogy deserves to be taken seriously, but the Jews didn't do anything to deserve the hate they got.  But America's super-rich?  In the last 30 years, even though worker productivity went up 90%, income only went up 8%.  If I was working twice as hard, and someone else was reaping almost all the reward, I'd hate them.  And I'd also want to know, how could that happen?

Well, billionaire Sam Zell knows the answer to that.  He said the rest of America should stop bitching about the 1%, and realize they are the 1% because they work harder.  OK, now we do need to come after you with pitchforks.  (audience laughter and applause)  Is talking on the phone in a comfortable office really more degrading than working in a slaughterhouse, or a sweatshop, or on a reality TV show?  With just one real estate deal last year, Sam Zell made a thousand times what this guy makes.

Did he really work a thousand times harder?  By the way, that's a coal miner, not John Boehner.  (audience laughter)

Did you know that during World War II, FDR actually proposed a cap on income that in today's dollars would mean that no person could ever take home more than about $300,000?  OK, that is a little low.  (audience laughter)  But wouldn't it be great if there were Democrats out there like that now, who would say to billionaires, "Oh, you're crying?  We'll give you something to cry about.  You don't want a minimum wage?  How about we not only have a minimum wage, we have a maximum wage?"  (audience applause)

That is not a new idea.  James Madison, who wrote our Constitution, said, "Government should prevent an immoderate accumulation of riches."  Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, they all agreed that too much money in the hands of too few would destroy democracy.

What can you buy with $2 billion dollars that you can't buy with one?  You couldn't spend that kind of cash if you lived forever and your money manager was MC Hammer.  (audience laughter)

And you know, there are some billionaires today who get that.

And that's why they give most of their money away.  (massive audience applause)

As Warren Buffett once said, "I should write a book on how to get by on $500 million, because apparently there's a lot of people who don't... know how to do it."

Originally posted to BruinKid on Sat Mar 01, 2014 at 05:00 AM PST.

Also republished by Electronic America: Progressives Film, music & Arts Group.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The best part of that New Rule (19+ / 0-)

    ... was that Bill Kristol was sitting next to Maher when he delivered it.  Bill Kristol, who has never been right about anything ever.

    The highlight of the show was when Kristol started criticizing Obama for not starting more wars.  Maher told him that many of his predictions had been wrong, then read about a dozen hilariously bone-headed things Kristol had said about the Iraq war before it was revealed to be a disaster.  Hilarious, if you don't consider the million or so dead people who didn't find that illegal and unnecessary war funny.

    We have always been at war with al Qaeda.

    by Dallasdoc on Sat Mar 01, 2014 at 05:10:35 AM PST

    •  I was upset (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z, happyshadow

      that Maher didn't press the point that Kristol has NEVER opposed an American military operation.  I'm pretty sure that's the definition of a war monger.

      "Unrestricted immigration is a dangerous thing -- look at what happened to the Iroquois." Garrison Keillor

      by Spider Stumbled on Sat Mar 01, 2014 at 05:28:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  He's always too polite to his conservative guests (7+ / 0-)

        Clearly he doesn't want them to get hurt fee-fees and go away.  Dog knows why -- his best shows are always the ones with no conservatives.

        He was actually pretty confrontational with Kristol, and did make the point several times that Kristol was always for war, IIRC.  Kristol sat there looking like he had a bad case of heartburn by the end of the show.  

        We have always been at war with al Qaeda.

        by Dallasdoc on Sat Mar 01, 2014 at 05:34:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  But if he keeps them there he can show them up (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          vpd4, fumie, Team Leftie, mungley

          Humiliating them without overstepping a certain point has the appeal they'll keep returning for it. Push too hard and they'll refuse to return for the edification of his viewers.

          I wish I had stocks in aluminium these days. All that foil would be a great investment opportunity.

          by Ceri Cat on Mon Mar 03, 2014 at 07:25:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  I enjoy his show but (8+ / 0-)

    I'm getting really sick of his selective love for science.  He constantly mocks the tea party and Republicans for being ignorant of the science behind evolution and climate change, but when it comes to vaccines and food safety, he just spouts whatever nonsense pops into his head.  Last night he brought up this issue with Subway using an additive that has non-food uses and said dismissively,  "I'm sure they have statistics that say it's safe in small doses, but what about those of us who don't want any poison in our food."

    Yes, the do have statistics that say that.  That's how "science works.

    "Unrestricted immigration is a dangerous thing -- look at what happened to the Iroquois." Garrison Keillor

    by Spider Stumbled on Sat Mar 01, 2014 at 05:27:35 AM PST

  •  We Solved This for Half a Century. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OooSillyMe, Calamity Jean, Matt Z

    Fortunately for our owners, we remember neither that nor how we did it.

    It's all pure hypothesis going forward.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sat Mar 01, 2014 at 05:35:23 AM PST

  •  Maher is a National Treasure.... (5+ / 0-)

    Saw this Live on Friday Night, and so true it makes you laugh and cry at the same time.

  •  RE: Bill Maher's Monologue (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DHFabian, Deeliberate, fumie

    Where is George Carlin when you really NEED him?!

    He might say that we should polishing up some new crosses....

  •  Touche Bill!!! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Touche Bill!!! Scott Noren DDS

    by DoctorNoren on Mon Mar 03, 2014 at 10:51:49 AM PST

  •  Maximum Income (12+ / 0-)

    That was the public policy reason for the old 1950's era 91% marginal tax rate income over $1,000,000 per year (after numerous exemptions and deductions).    It served as a soft-cap on income,  yes people could earn an AGI of more than $1,000,000 (today that would be more than $10,000,000 a year) but for any employer to pay that or employee to demand that would be counter-productive considering any incremental increase in pay beyond a certain amount would mostly go straight to the government.     The key is to make the highest level of progressivity so high that it does not inhibit free market incentives.     Today considering state, local, property, sales, FICA, and Medicare taxes having a top Federal rate of around 60% and then removing the cap on Social Security Income would serve essentially the same purpose,  a soft-cap on income.    Limiting salaries also allows for more money to be paid shareholders in the form of dividends as a reward for putting their money at risk,  allows for higher R&D expenditures,  and even leaves more money available to pay higher wages to other employees.   There's more to the progressive income tax than just gathering revenue.   There are important public policy reasons for high tax rates on mega income earners (and for estate taxes as well).  

  •  *** (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Isn't there a Scandinavian country that has no minimum wage but does have a maximum wage?

  •  Issues with the Issues (0+ / 0-)

    First, I do not believe that quoting a founding father from a blog that does not properly reference the quote can reasonably be believed as factual (immoderate accumulation of riches).  If James Madison did say something similar, logic would dictate that he was referring to politicians and government controlling an "immoderate" amount of riches. We know this to be true due to the limiting nature of the US Constitution.

    Personally, I have no problem with the rich getting richer as long as they are creating jobs and prosperity in their endeavors.  Let's not forget that the government never created a job that produced a return on the investment (although that doesn't stop them from claiming they do).  Most of every dollar the federal government takes out of the economy is used to control and influence those who make up the vast majority of the electorate: the middle class and poor.  If one looks close enough, you see that government has been a very poor arbiter of spreading the wealth as there are even more people on welfare programs today than there were when the Great Society was introduced in the 1960's.

    While Mr. Maher is complaining about "the 1%" and speaks of billionaires, he fails to mention that to actually be in the 1% requires you earn $193,307 annually (single wage earner -  That's not even close to a billion dollars.

    I try to avoid comedians when looking for information, so when I am curious about the advances or backwards trends in household incomes, the generally end up at or  There you will find that without the political filters the 99% have been doing very well. Our only setbacks being recessions and other crisis generally caused by some act of congress (another reason to give them fewer dollars).

    Bill says, "And that's why they give most of their money away." speaking of the 1%'ers that he admires while misreading what they give away.  It's never been "most", Bill.  It's always been a tiny percentage that allows them to remain wealthy and be even more generous down the line.

    But why sit around and complain about how much the rich make.  It seems that some think their riches take away from the rest of us being able to earn our way in life.  That is simply not true.  When the economy grows it isn't because a group of union workers got a pay raise.  It grows because there are people out there willing to trust their futures to investors who set the foundation for creating more jobs and more wealth.  If the left ever gets over that static economical mindset, the country will be a much more prosperous and enjoyable place to live.

    •  You think? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Damaged262, dewolf99, jqb, terrybuck

      There are more people on welfare today than in the past? Welfare ended by 1996. What we had called welfare was General Assistance and AFDC -- both gone. You can stretch the definition of "welfare" to include anything that is publicly financed, such as public education, but realistically, welfare had always referred to GA and AFDC.

    •  Maher mentions billionaires because (6+ / 0-)

      it is billionaires that have recently been whining in the media about being persecuted. You know the old saying "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"? Well, if you've got more money than God but you still feel the need to pule about how badly you're being treated, perhaps you should just buy an island to go live on and keep a lower profile.

    •  You don't seem to grasp this concept: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      SATIRE, (facepalm, while smh).  

      Don't forget your shammy…

      I'm damaged and I like it, it made me what I am! BTW, my avatar is as stollen as my father's retirement fund, the old man died almost penniless. Bankers don't go to prison for breaking our laws, they buy bigger yachts.

      by Damaged262 on Mon Mar 03, 2014 at 04:25:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry storeysound. (0+ / 0-)

        That comment was for mover.  Not directed at you.

        I'm damaged and I like it, it made me what I am! BTW, my avatar is as stollen as my father's retirement fund, the old man died almost penniless. Bankers don't go to prison for breaking our laws, they buy bigger yachts.

        by Damaged262 on Mon Mar 03, 2014 at 04:27:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Government is not a business... (4+ / 0-)

      " Let's not forget that the government never created a job that produced a return on the investment "

      Typical right wing slogan that government should be run like a business.

      You do realize government is not business right?.

      Goverment's objective  is to promote welfare of everyone including that pay them, taxpayers (or to put it in right wing language the 'givers')

      A business's objective is to get as much out of the customers (the 'givers') that pay them to enrich the owners or shareholders (the 'takers').

    •  Forget Ayn Rand...the Karl Marx of the Right-wing (8+ / 0-)

      ""When the economy grows it isn't because a group of union workers got a pay raise.  It grows because there are people out there willing to trust their futures to investors who set the foundation for creating more jobs.""

      Sorry...that's complete bunk. The risk takers are those who get laid off when the pigs drive the company into the ground and walk away with millions. The risk takers are the workers who lose their 401k's after the "investors" use those worker's retirement accounts to get PUBLIC stock to create the companies they run.

      And did get a job from a poor man. The poor and working class spend their money...not hoard it like the rich. THAT creates jobs.

      Small business mom and pop savings accounts produce 80 percent of all new jobs. The government 10 percent and the rich and corps create the last 10 percent.

      The above conservative principles on risk-takers and job-creators is based on pure horse-poop.

    •  "the left" @Mover (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Free Jazz at High Noon

      "the left"-- we just whine all day long about how those rich people make a thousand times what we do in any given set of work hours. whinge, whine, complain God we're so annoying! We're just little fleas. We don't need no stinkin' money.


    •  Recessions (2+ / 0-)

      To claim that recessions are caused by the interference of Congress without explaining at whose behest such interference comes about is just disingenuous on your part. The fact is that deregulation of the financial industry,(culminating in the repeal of the Banking Act of 1933, a.k.a., Glass-Steagall) demonstrates better than anything how legislative meddling destroyed the conditions that produced great prosperity among the rich AND a vibrant middle class after the Great Depression. This destruction was the triumph of the Republican economic "revolution" wherein Wall Street got virtually everything it wanted, and we now have a democracy routinely suppressed by oligarchs. Forget lobbying Congress; the super rich can now OWN congressmen and senators outright. If you think for one minute that they don't buy representatives for the express purpose of meddling with the economy so that they always win, you are living in a fool's paradise. If you think the winner-take-all economy that they have created is still a level playing field, you don't know which end is up.

  •  Minimum Wage (8+ / 0-)

    The hypocrisy of Catholic/Christian politicians is staggering.  And it is amazing how polite and moderate the Bishops are in urging an increase in the minimum wage when they went all ballistic (remember "Fortnight for Freedom?") about "religious freedom" and the need to police women's reproductive rights relative to Obamacare. Opposing women's right to not be held hostage to an endless cycle of pregnancies is a sure way to keep women from getting out of poverty.

  •  On the mark, as usual Bill (5+ / 0-)

    I really think that bill Maher is the most gifted comedian of this generation.

    And I'm damn glad that he's on our side.

    he's politically CORRECT ...... and hilarious in the bargain.

    Him and John Fugelsang are the two best we got.

    In case you don't know who John Fugelsang is, google him.

    He's another brilliant comedian of the left wing persuasion.

    "Love Is Why We're Here"

    by Paniolo Joe on Mon Mar 03, 2014 at 12:38:30 PM PST

  •  Bill Mahers (6+ / 0-)

    First...... The top ,005 percent does not even look on the middle class ,
    seniors and poor as being part of this country.  Much having a say or any
    freedom / rights or the right to vote.  
    They believe they are the chosen and we are their disposable work force
    to use and do whatever they wish.  
    The poor misinformed republican voters are being used as a weapon , to pry a wedge among citizens so these Global Empires and other elite can do whatever in the hell they wish.  
    Other republican voters are more concerned about their
    stock prices than the welfare of this nation and the
    citizens which live here.  
    In fact many elected democrats have started to join
     their policies.  
    Seems as if once a person has crossed the line into the
    elite , their ideas & policies seems to get blurred.

    •  The middle class (2+ / 0-)

      does not even look on the poor as being a part of this country or, for that matter, the human race. I say this because you would be hard-pressed to find a liberal who doesn't claim to support the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which says that all people have a human right to adequate food and shelter, even if they can't secure jobs/income. This generation disagreed.

      •  Because it's simply not sustainable (0+ / 0-)

        to take money from some people and give it to others, especially if the social systems you utilize tend to encourage intergenerational welfare.

        •  total bs (3+ / 0-)

          Sorry, but completely untrue.  Intergenerational welfare as you call it, or people remaining on welfare for decades only ever applied to around 10% of those on welfare.  A problem, perhaps, but not unsustainable.  And I have to wonder how many people who remain dependent do so because they are too sick to work but not sick enough for disability, that's a debate for another time though.
          The unsustainable thing in welfare has always been spending more on the bureaucracy designed to prevent people from receiving it than we ever actually gave to recipients.  I actually realized that reading PJ O'Rourke. He pointed out how we'd spent like a half million per recipient (don't quote me I just know it was an outrageous figure) in order to show welfare has failed.  But what it showed me was how much more we're willing to spend to weed out 'cheaters' than to help people.  Programs like the EITC & child tax credits have very low overhead & actually help raise people out of poverty.  
          Put people in housing projects with no jobs or grocery stores nearby & incredibly poorly funded schools & make them jump through hoops just to get enough to survive (~300 maximum TANF family of 2, ~300 max SNAP )   you'll end u with inter generational poverty.  I would be happy to spend the same (or more) upfront to give people educations & permanent homes in decent neighborhoods & see if it really ended up the same.  We've never tried it, so don't tell me it has failed.
          But, I have always wondered this.  According to free market ideology, There are going to be some unemployed/underemployed people in any society, right?  Some people who aren't smart/driven/lucky/blessed/whatever enough to succeed.  Why not have it be the same people?  In other words, what's the alternative to having a permanent cadre of people on welfare?  Having everyone on it for some part of their life?  Is that better?  
          People like you seem to think welfare should cure/end poverty meaning we have welfare for a decade or 2 then never again, but that's irrational.  Job skills/availability is always changing, new people get sick & end up with horrible wok histories (or as I said unable physically to work but not considered disabled), new people end up with unplanned pregnancies or trying to escape abuse, etc.  There will always be people who need help & if we can't sustain the help we have failed as a society, they haven't failed for needing help.

          •  It's actually simple... (3+ / 0-)

            It's actually simple to cut welfare for the poor in half. If you really can't find work then it's time you go live on a government commune. You get a room and you work the land. Israel has been doing this for decades in the form of the Kihbutz.

            One central kitchen, in building where everyone gets one room.  Communal living is only way to end welfare as we know it. But then again, welfare for the poor is only one half percent of GDP.

            RIGHT-WING welfare on the other hand runs in the trillions.

            15 trillion in of-shore tax evasion scams

            Billions in oil, gas and farm subsidies.

            Hundreds of millions to Bush's Faith Based Initiative where every US taxpayer now funds the likes of PAT ROBERTSON who took 500k in ONE YEAR ALONE.

            I never even mentioned the military-industrial pig-trough or the privatization of prisons scam that forces the US taxpayer to pay $200 per prisoner per cell over and beyond the proper cost.

            When any conservative blow-hard asswipe talks "welfare"...tell them what welfare really looks like.

            •  a few ? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Spot on about TRUE welfare.

              But on the topic of welfare addressing poverty:
              Although when u said Repub welfare, I thought for a sec, u got my point.  We've never implemented lib welfare always the Repub untrusting spend more to prevent 'fraud' than to help version.

              & I could live with your kihbutz suggestion , but in reality how would that work?  Does every state have enough unused arable land to set up these poor farm communes?  What about the infirm?  I've been off work for most of a year due to unexplained Med problems (countless visits & tests), do I (& my son) starve?  Can u work your way off the kihbutz or is it permanent?

              That seems like a great solution for those whose jobs are shipped overseas, not like a way to help those with unplanned pregnancies or health problems.

  •  Is Bill Maher the counterpoint to Rush Limbaugh? (0+ / 0-)

    I don't watch Bill Maher, but I did watch Limbaugh (in my young and stupid days) back when he had a syndicated TV show.

    Looking at the transcripts, with the notations indicating audience response, sure reminds me of how Rush's audience responded to him.

    I'm pretty sure that Maher is right more often than Rush is, but still, I have an uncomfortable feeling that Maher's audience is no more open to discussion on any given topic than Rush's audience ever might have been.

    •  Maher Vs Limbaugh (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DebFrmHell, kirnerpilstime

      Maher doesn't frequently just make up stuff that he knows is BS when he says it. Limbaugh does it all the time.

      Something I try to remind people about. During the Obama Birth Certificate non issue, I noticed that this was brought out after the election, not before it. An intelligent person would have done it before the election.
      Both Limbaugh and Trump blew BS about this, for months. From what I've learned, both are billionaires. As a billionaire, either could have spent a million $$ dollars and hired the best investigators available from anyplace in the world, and found the truth. Neither of the two bastards, spent a dime of their own money, which tells me they already had the answer. Incidentally, a million dollars, is a thousandth of a billion. For either of them, spending that money is vaguely like the rest of us buying a  new lawnmower.  Practically everything Limbaugh says is designed to get folks fired up, jumping on couches, and burning down the various govt. office buildings in the land.
      I don't see Maher as that kind of person. Limbaugh has consciously tried to hurt people by calling them names, again not the usual characteristics of intelligence. Remember Limbaugh telling us that everyone caught using illegal drugs should do prison time ?? Then when he got caught, his attitude was completely different. He went all to hell when authorities searched his properties.

  •  I, for one (12+ / 0-)

    am very tired of seeing my fellow Americans going bankrupt just trying to get health care. My retired neighbor worked hard all his life and saved. Gone. Health care has ruined any dreams of doing anything in their golden years. They may get to keep their house but likely not. The reward for being a true blue American. Politicians have shipped our jobs out then blame us for being out of work. Hate your neighbor because he needs help with food and unemployment. Your neighbor is why America is broke right? America is not broke but is being fleeced and it is not your neighbor doing it.

  •  When Maher's on he's on (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    He isn't always, and sometimes he's wildly wrong, IMHO, but he is doing well here.

    But one thing: I'm curious about the response to the concern trolling that if they are taxed higher, they will give less to charity.

    I think there's a circular argument here about how less charity is needed if they are not taxed so high, but I'm not sure what it is. I know Buffett and Gates also say their taxes are too low. And a mathematical argument saying linear taxes can't really apply to exponential moneymaking doesn't capture any hearts.

    It feels like blackmail for them to withhold $$, but it's still an argument we need to refute, I think...

  •  Eh (0+ / 0-)

    Predictable. The last time I listened to Mahar was quite a few years ago, when he launched into a "hilarious" monologue about women and children in poverty. He showed the sort of ignorance about class and opportunity  that is typical of the rich.

  •  Amused by Brainwashed Wanna-Be Conservatives (5+ / 0-)

    Some of the posts regarding Bill Maher's comments on the 1% are unintentionally funny – i.e., those defending the wonderful uncontrolled capitalistic system which the rich in the USA have used to replace democratically-REGULATED capitalism.

    All of these ignorant, knee-jerk boobs consciously or unconsciously buy into Ayn Rand, her predecessor Social Darwinism, and its predecessor Puritanism: all of which divide the world up between virtuous, go-getter Heroes and all the rest of us undeserving drek.  The standard marching song of sociopathic thieves ("Behind all great wealth lies a crime -- Balzac) and the merely, stupidly lucky (right time / right place Charlies).

    Maher is so right -- the majority of people work tremendously hard in this country (work is actually a disease in the USA). But only a teensy percentage who are coasting on the present, totally stacked socio-economic deck, make a fortune from doing little except clever insider manipulation -- whereas all the rest of us work for decreasing sheckles.

    Our country worships sociopaths who are willing / have been willing to do ANYTHING to steal maximum money.  There are huge distinctions between what is "legal" (i.e., you can hire lawyers to make anything so) and what is ethical or equitable.   When the ultra-rich finish destroying the Earth as a habitat for human beings, at least THEY will be gone (unfortunately, along with all the rest of us).

    We worship those sociopaths (Captains of Global Corporacracy) because they are rich.  Therefore, our values have come to totally suck and we are getting the world that we too "deserve."   Have a nice day, apologists for the greed-crazed, and now-unregulated sociopaths now running Global Corporations, and seeking to run the entire world.

  •  Maher (0+ / 0-)


    Why isn't rong>HE the president?

  •  Maher Matters (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Damaged262, kirnerpilstime

    What he says, Matters.  Let's support him; his imperfection is perfect.

    I used to watch him a lot and wondered how he could be so lost when it comes to women. Then I noticed he had  women on his show who challenged him.  He gave them voice and listened.

    He's grown, and that what it takes to create democracy, day by day-- To grow.  

     "...We walked off and looked for America...," Paul Simon

  •  Bill Gates, The Paragon of Virtue (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ValkyrieValjean, dicentra

    I like the way Bill gates is giving away his money, unlike other billionaires.  Why, a number of years ago Gates was worth $40 billion.  On the news tonight it said he was only worth $73 billion.

    I checked the above paragraph carefully, and I don't see any typos.  Yes that was $73 billion he is worth today.

    I wish I could give my money away like that.

    I thought that the FED was the only one that could create money out of nothing.  Apparently Gates can give his money away, but what he has left is almost double what he had when he started giving it away.

    •  not only that (0+ / 0-)

      ..but he doesn't just give it away, he "invests" it in things like public education where he can have influence for his $ and take the pesky "public" out of the way.  Privatizers in, taxpayers out makes it so much easier for business to mold the product.  Plus also there's a little something something on the side for the education industry (Pearson, InBloom, etc., Charter School owners and executives).  

  •  I have a small message for the 85 (2+ / 0-)

    at the top end:

    <{(*SHUT  THE  !@#$%^&()  UP!!!!!!**)}>  before 1% of the 3.5 BILLION COME FOR YOUR ASSES!!!!!!!!!!

    Sorry, but THAT level of hubris just doesn't deserve to be delivered with precious oxygen...... Nor do those delusional bastards deserve to EXPERIENCE oxygen any more.

  •  Shamwa (0+ / 0-)

    Maybe in France chamois is pronounced shamwa, but here it is a shammy.

  •  Billionaires who give money away (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    deserve no applause. They got their billions the same way that the billionaires who hoard their wealth got it - by outsourcing jobs and cutting wages.

  •  Parasitic Elite (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BLUE Skies in Red Hell

    What Bill Maher is referring to on his show is what i like to refer to as the "Parasitic Elite". Who are the "Parasitic Elite" you may ask? Well simply stated the "Parasitic Elite" are individuals or entities that use influence or wealth or political power to gain more at the expense of others.  The "Parasitic Elite" desire for more is insatiable and just like how a parasite from the insect world continues to feed off its host organism until it dies, so will the "Parasitic Elite" feed off the rest of us until we die.  Its a sad but true fact of life in our society today.

  •  unbelievable (0+ / 0-)

    The daily KOS is certainly headed down to to join the muck under an outhouse if you actually think this slime they call bill mahr has done ANYTHING "excellent". first however, please remind us again, as to where he divested all his money to help America??

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site