Bill Maher's excellent and sobering commentary on the wealth gap

[kpete]

&feature=player_embedded

If you're rich, you should be begging the government to redistribute your wealth. 'Cause you know what happens in countries where there's a huge disparity between the rich and the poor? The rich get kidnapped. It happens 72 times a day in Mexico. Getting snatched out of your car is so common in South Africa, that they actually make cars that do this.

(shocked audience reaction)

Do you really think your trophy wife is going to empty out the Swiss bank account to save your sorry ass? I'm talking to you, Donald Trump! (audience cheering and applause)

Think about it. And remember, the difference between a mosquito and a hedge fund manager, is a mosquito will stop sucking blood before it explodes.

more:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/11/1208385/-Bill-Maher-s-excellent-and-sobering-commentary-on-the-wealth-gap

[mucifer]

1. So he changed his mind about whining about paying too much taxes?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/03/21/bill_maher_discovers_his_inner_grover_norquist_117573.html

[mountain grammy]

3. Guess he realized how stupid that remark was. I'm sure many people pointed that out to him.

[Honeycombe8]

69. Well, there's federal taxes, state taxes...and there're California taxes, in his case.

He's paying over 50% in taxes. That is damn high. It's because of the CA taxes, a state with high taxes.

There is a breaking point. I do believe that when anyone makes money, they should be able to keep at least most of it (more than 50%). Otherwise, you're mainly working/making money for someone else.

[truebluegreen]

75. 50% of his total income, or 50% at the top marginal rate?

Back in the fifties--when we actually paid for our wars instead of charging them--noted communist Eisenhower had no problem with a top marginal rate of approx. 90%...but that rate was paid only on the portion of income above the equivalent of $3 million a year.

Which sounds pretty reasonable to me, especially if it includes ALL income, not just payroll.

That would change things a bit wouldn't it?

[Honeycombe8]

85. He doesn't say. It's in the article in the OP.

90% is way too high for taking anyone's income, IMO. It's just a philosophy difference, I guess. People should pay their fair share of taxes. There's a purpose for taxes. But fair share does not mean 90%, IMO.

Whatever the real tax rate ends up being on someone's total income (and there is a total tax rate, taking into consideration higher rates on a portion of it)...I think everyone should be able to keep most of what they make. So if it's 90% tax on the top income of a rich person, but bottom line, he ends up paying a total of 49% in taxes on his total income, I'm o.k. w/that.

[truebluegreen]

90. Of course 90% is way to high...

but a top marginal rate of 90% might not be. It certainly wasn't when we were paying off WWII, and refitting war industries into peacetime occupations, building the interstates, etc.

[Honeycombe8]

92. True, dat (as they say). But that's not likely to happen these days.

The Republicans, as wacky as they are, have taken control of our tax system, it seems.

[truebluegreen]

93. True, they have.

And it would help if some Democrat--who shall remain nameless--would stop buying into the "cut spending" side of the equation.

[Honeycombe8]

94. Yes. I'm disillusioned. And confused. And dismayed. nt

[Vincardog]

78. Please provide links to back that up. How exactly do you get to over 50%?

[Honeycombe8]

84. Errr.....I read the article in the OP. Says his taxes in CA are over 50%. nt

[Vincardog]

91. I read it too, I did not see the 50% tax statement

[Honeycombe8]

95. It must be in the video, then. It's there. That's where I got it.

I assume he's talking about the fed and state taxes combined.

[hfojvt]

96. generally when you make that much money

Last edited Wed May 15, 2013, 11:53 PM - Edit history (1)

you are making it from other people.

Look at even a small business. I worked for a satellite dish factory. Made a whopping $5.40 an hour (usually). How did the owner make his much higher salary? Did he work for it? I am not sure how much work he did, but generally he was getting his income by paying us less than the value of what we produced. If he takes just $1 an hour from each of his 200 employees, he makes $400,000 a year.

I think CEOs are the same way, except they have many more employees to profit from.

How does Maher make his money? He gets it from advertisers who pay for ads based on his viewership and then add the costs onto their products. He sorta gets it the same way JK Rowling does. It comes from 2 million viewers giving him $5 a year for an hour's entertainment every day. So there he is making, say $5 million a year, and suppose the tax rate is such that if he makes another $5 million that taxes will take 80% of it. Is that such a bad thing? It's money that he is getting from the public and it is going back to finance public purposes.

I can see how it would be bad for him, but it is hard for me to feel the pain of somebody making $5 million a year. Better to finance a school or a library than to finance another private jet or indoor bowling alley for him.

Am I supposed to believe he is an Atlas and that the world will collapse if he shrugs? It didn't collapse in the 1970s. In fact, it almost collapsed in 2008, when the casino games of the rich investing class almost brought down the whole banking system.

[Honeycombe8]

98. Owners of small businesses usu. work very long hours.

I owned a deli once. Very long hours. Without pay. But owners do more than work. They risk. They envisioned the idea of the business, spent hours over papers working out the numbers to see if it'd work, made a million decisions, got a lease for a business location, put up money that they would lose if the business failed (most small businesses fail). Owners do a lot of work that the employees don't see. But if the business fails, they are the ones that could lose their shirts. And if the business succeeds, they are the ones who make the money because they are the ones who risked everything to start the business. It's theirs. They own it.

Employees do a task. It's that simple. Whether they work for Business A or Business B. Whatever task that is, or job, or skill....it pays a certain wage. That employee is certainly free to start his own business. But most people don't because they can't afford to finance it, can't afford to live w/o a wage while getting the business off the ground, and if it fails, it might literally ruin their lives.

Maher makes his money by getting a salary for doing something that few people in the world can do. Same thing with Tom Cruise, Bruce Willis, Nicole Kidman. You make money by being unique and talented. When there are just a few people in the world who can do what you do, you are in position to demand more money. Cruise gets paid the big bucks because the production company can't hire "John Doe," because people wouldn't go see the movie with John Doe in it. It HAS to be Cruise. So Cruise can demand and get the big bucks. So can Maher. But they took a risk. Few entertainers become stars. If Cruise hadn't hit it big, he might be waiting tables somewhere. Risk.

I see no purpose in being jealous of people who have risked it all to start a business, or get paid a lot because people like you want to pay to see them because they have talent or charisma. In fact, I think it's great. Maher is a quick wit, funny, very intelligent and informed, and one of the best political satirists that's been around in years. Are you suggesting he should get paid the same as the bus boy at the local cafe? ANYONE can be a bus boy. Only Maher can do what he does.

They earn it. They get to keep most of it, is my philosophy. Otherwise, people wouldn't take a risk to do those things. That's what the American Dream is all about. Why I, as a woman, can support myself and buy a house and car and live an independent life, while in much of the world that's not possible for women. If I work hard, get a vocation or learn a skill, I have the opportunity to earn a decent living. I can risk a lot and start a business and get rich...or go bust. Or I can be a waitress, if I want. If I got paid the same no matter what I did, what wold be the incentive for getting an education, risking my life's savings to start a business, work 50 instead of 40 hours a week?

[hfojvt]

99. I don't believe they earn it

they get it. They command it, but that does not mean they earn it.

Only Maher can do what he does?

Bunk.

There are tens of thousands of people who can do what Maher does.

If those rich people didn't get to keep their millions then
"Otherwise people wouldn't take a risk"

That is speculation. You think if Maher only got to keep $1 million out of the $5 million a year that he "earns" that he would choose instead to be a bus-boy or a realtor?

Well, even if he did, it would not be a great loss to humanity. Nor would it be a huge loss if Payton Manning decided to drive truck instead of throw a leather ball around or if Bill Self chose to do plumbing instead of win Big 12 championships and choke in the big dance.

More to the point though. Was nobody making movies or playing basketball back when the top tax rate was 70% for Federal taxes? According to your theory they would not have bothered to take those risks unless they could siphon away huge amounts of money from the public. Why did Mark Twain bother to write his books when he could not become as rich as JK Rowling?

Also, if Maher only keeps $1 million of the $5 million that he scams from the public, he is still not making the same salary as a bus-boy.

At least not in my town.

At that rate, Maher would still be richer than most people, and I will bet he could get by on a mere million a year - somehow, if he really scrimps and only buys one new car a month or something.

[GCP]

2. Only entertainers will address this

And Elizabeth Warren.

[Boomerproud]

4. Why is the audience laughing? This isn't a stand-up routine.

These things are happening. I bet the National Review twit on the panel wasn't laughing-he probably wanted to get the hell off the stage.

[closeupready]

5. Because Maher is nothing more than a comedian and entertainer.

They laugh because that's what they showed up to do.

[DhhD]

13. Humor is at times a form of sadness, despair and a cover for the helplessness (of the 90%).

[Fumesucker]

9. As Hawkeye Pierce once said on MASH..

I laugh because it's the only way I can open my mouth without screaming.

[awoke_in_2003]

44. +1000. nt

[demwing]

17. They laugh because they are confused

if this issue wasn't so tragic it would be funny, in a mock-the-extreme-stereotype sense.

Maher keeps everyone on the edge of "funny" with his occasional drug or sex reference--and he's really good at what he does--but the content was factual, and the audience knew it. They laughed, but they were also silent. More than once I noticed Maher paused for a laugh but the audience didn't respond...I think they were a little stunned.

[L0oniX]

45. Ever watch George Carlin? He tells the truth and people laugh. n/t

[hughee99]

6. He should be more proactive. Rather than waiting for government, he's free to redistribute

his estimated $23 million dollars all by himself.

[Schema Thing]

7. NO NO NO NO NO

This is a classic Republican/Libertarian response. Found on a Progressive discussion board, it's stunning in it's silliness and flippancy.

One person's largess does nothing to correct an abusive system where the abused have been Stockholmed into supporting the system.

[hughee99]

8. Unfortunately, yes. You need to read his comments.

Maher's comments suggest the rich should be scared and begging the government to take their wealth FOR THEIR OWN PROTECTION. Bill doesn't seem to feel that he's in so much danger that he's giving up his money.

[Fumesucker]

10. He gave up a million to Obama's PAC

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2012/02/bill-maher-donates-million-dollars-to-obama-pac.html

[hughee99]

12. He has 23 million dollars and suggests that wealthy people SHOULD fear for their safety.

He's wealthy, he's not scared. If he was, he could "redistribute" his own wealth until he's not "wealthy" anymore.

While he certainly makes points on the overall society structure, his suggestion doesn't even seem to be one that he personally believes.

[JDPriestly]

15. He is wealthy. That's why it counts more when he gives this warning.

And it is true. I have a friend (from Mexico) whose (Mexican) sister was kidnapped in Mexico.

It's not uncommon at all.

I don't know how "rich" the sister was. Hijacked from her car as I understand it.

It isn't a matter of personally believing something or not. At this point, it isn't even a matter of morality or fairness. We are reaching a point where wealthy people had better start caring for the poor and middle classes out of self-interest. I think that is Maher's point.

[hughee99]

19. Do you have any friends in the US that have been kidnapped?

It IS uncommon here. We're not at that point in the US. Given the number of people that still vote repuke, we're not even all that close. Maher is suggesting that wealthy people SHOULD be scared, but since he is a wealthy person, he knows that this is not true.

If it counts more when a wealthy person says the government should redistribute their wealth (because it's not in their personal, selfish best interests), why does it not count more when poor people who use government programs suggest we need to cut taxes and "entitlement spending" (like many repuke voters do)?

[JDPriestly]

23. It counts the same in terms of votes, but the financial and social outcomes are very different.

Cutting taxes and entitlement spending to cut the poor?

We have tried that. It's called "trickle down." The point of Maher's statement is that the poor are worse off now than they have been in the history of our country.

So, it counts the same in terms of votes, but it does not count the same in terms of dangers to out country. Right now, the corruption at the top is unbelievable. The appointment of Penny Pritzker to Sec. of Commerce in an Obama (supposedly liberal) administration shows just how corrupt it is.

If you know poor people who vote Republican, explain to them what they are doing to themselves. It's stupid.

[Blanks]

25. If you know poor people who are voting republican...

Then you know there is no explaining anything to them.

They vote republican because they believe in their pro-life, small government rhetoric. They hear it every day on the radio. It must be true. I'm not suggesting that we don't talk to them, just don't expect to be heard.

[We People]

73. Perhaps saving their own hides is a start to get them thinking

That group will probably never do anything outside of their own self-interest - it's been ingrained in them and enables them to rationalize what they do. But perhaps it's a start - something needs to give them the impetus for second-guessing their actions.

[zeemike]

16. Yep...this is boilerplate for the right

they will tell you it is about freedom....you are free to give it away, just not free to require everyone to pay their fair share....freedom from responsibility for them.

[DonB]

38. Couldn't have said it better

but I would have one small adjustment and replaced "Republican/Libertarian response" with "CONservative, rethugliCON, teabagger, libercarelessian, and corporate democRAT response".

[n2doc]

18. And if he did, so what?

23 million is nothing in a multi-trillion dollar economy. You libertarians seem to think all problems can be solved individually. They only solution to this particular problem is to make everyone involved, no matter if they like it or not. In fact, the ones who are most resistant to paying taxes on their vast wealth (Koch's for example) are the ones who really need to have their taxes raised so they have less to fuck the rest of the country with.

[hughee99]

20. You libertarians? Did you intend this for someone else? n/t

[2ndAmForComputers]

27. I'd guess (a) he did not, and (b) his assessment is accurate.

Or maybe not. Some right-wingers are not libertarians.

[hughee99]

29. Wow, nice work, now I've been called a RW and a libertarian.

A banner day for me.

[AlbertCat]

32. 23 million is nothing in a multi-trillion dollar economy.

Exactly! He's upper middle class...or at the low end of "rich" these days.

The Gatsby movie's budget was 104.5 million. He coulda given it ALL to them and it might have covered "craft service"....


(Oh... Craft service is like the snack cart on the set... for those of you not in the film industry)

[Yavin4]

21. WalMart is No. 1 on Fortune magazine's top 500 companies

They're the single largest employer in the USA, and they don't give health insurance to all of their workers.

[hughee99]

24. Okay... is this why rich people should fear for their safety?

Besides, the ACA is fixing all this. All Walmart employees (and everyone else) will have healthcare by next year.

[hughee99]

53. Property values, mingling with the "riff-raff".

Do you really believe that rich people in the US live in fear of poor people?

[hughee99]

63. most of them don't need personal security.

the system keeps the 99% in line.

[hughee99]

66. Again, where did I say this

There may be a million reasons why raising taxes on the 1% makes sense. Do you know what ISN'T one of those reasons? Rich people fear for their personal safety from the 99%. Maher knows it too.

[hughee99]

71. Please (re)read the OP where Maher

Himself suggests that the wealthy should be begging for the government to redistribute their wealth to protect them from the 99%. Maher is a wealthy guy and I was suggesting he didn't need to wait for the government take HIS money to keep HIM safe from the 99%

[farmbo]

83. Stop already! This was Grover Norquist's response to Warren Buffet

It's the basic ad honimum attack by the RW against any wealthy person who is perceived to be a "traitor to his class"-- that unless they first give away every nickel of their own fortune and don a hair shirt; that they are a brazen hypocrite and can't be trusted.

Just what is accomplished if Bill Maher gives his $100 MM fortune to the Government?

.001% of the SNAP Budget for six months.

And what is accomplished if Congress restores a marginal income tax rate to the 1950s level and applies it to the top 2%?

An additional $2 Trillion in education, infrastructure, and social program spending for every future budget cycle-- and a restored middle class.

[hughee99]

87. Frankly I don't give a fuck what Grover Norquist said. I'm NOT talking about the same thing.

I'm NOT saying the rich shouldn't be paying more, I'm NOT suggesting the current system is good, and I'm not even suggesting that Maher turn his money over to the government.

Here's what I've said over and over (which is why I asked the previous poster to reread Maher's comments)...

Maher suggests that rich people in the US should fear for their safety. Maher says they should be begging the government to redistribute their wealth (if they weren't rich, they wouldn't be targets). I asked why the rich should have to wait for government to take their money. If a rich person wants to no longer be rich, that's something they can do themselves. They can give it to government, sure, they can give it to charity, or they can flush it down the toilet if they want, but it's completely within their power to become "middle class" if they choose. Maher is wealthy and in the US (the exact type of person he suggested should be fearful), he doesn't seem to fear for his safety enough to get rid of his money.

[farmbo]

89. Kidnappings are a way of life in countries with sharp income inequalities...

... And no viable middle class. Maher's point is that the US is headed in that direction, unless we reject the Grover Norquists of the world and redistribute a small portion of the wealth of the 2% to assure a strong middle class.

You have taken his his well-warranted (and courageous) societal argument and trivialized it by making it personal to Maher.

I 'get' your argument, but it sort of misses the larger point of Maher's rant.

[Yavin4]

60. Not Yet. Our infrastructure protects them.

But that infrastructure is tattered.

[hughee99]

62. The part that protects them has held up pretty well.

Look at the treatment of the Occupy protesters.

[Yavin4]

58. That's incorrect.

The ACA covers full time employees. WalMart gets around the law by limiting worker hours so that they're not full time and therefore not eligible for health care coverage.

[hughee99]

67. I believe the ACA requires them to have insurance

Whether their employer pays for it or not.

[2ndAmForComputers]

26. Who the hell do you think you're fooling?

[hughee99]

28. I don't really get what you're saying since you haven't made any kind of argument

Bill Maher suggested that rich people in the US SHOULD fear for their personal safety because of the income inequity. I haven't seen much evidence to support that. Bill Maher IS rich and doesn't seem to fear for his own personal safety. He at least doesn't fear "being rich" enough to give away his money so he's not a target.

[2ndAmForComputers]

31. More transparent than the vacuum between galaxy clusters.

[hughee99]

34. Okay, It's time to shit or get off the pot.

Bill Maher has argued that the wealthy in the US SHOULD fear for their safety based on the income inequity in the US.

Do you believe that is true?
Do you think HE believes that is true?
Is there any significant evidence to support those beliefs?

[AlbertCat]

39. the vacuum between galaxy clusters.

May be transparent, but is full of virtual particles, dark matter and lots of dark energy. So there's more to it.

23 million may be more than you or I have, but it's not that richy rich these days.

Did he inherit his wealth or does he sit back and let all the corporations he's on the board of hand it to him? Or does he actually do some work? Does he have illegal or at least unethical tax havens... off shore? Is he not paying his taxes?

Just asking some questions before I demand he give ME some of his money.

[hughee99]

36. I'm right? Where did I suggest that taxes should be voluntary?

Could you show me? Everyone seems to be going after me for an argument that I didn't make, didn't attempt to make, and (by the way) don't believe. I'd love to read what I wrote on that, but I don't recall writing anything about it and can't find it anywhere.

All I'm saying is that Maher's argument that the rich should WANT to pay more because they're in danger is bullshit, and Maher knows it's bullshit because HE's rich and doesn't feel like he's in danger from "the 99%", or at the very least, doesn't feel the danger enough to give away his millions and join the 99%.

[hughee99]

51. My post doesn't suggest ANYTHING of the sort.

I'm saying that if Bill Maher personally fears for his safety because he has money, he shouldn't wait for the government to take it away from him, he can give it away if he chooses. I then went on in subsequent posts to SUGGEST that the wealthy are not really in any danger from the 99% (like in Mexico, as one had suggested) and that Bill Maher doesn't really feel like he's in danger either.

If by "basically what I said" you mean "NOT what I said but what you inferred" then you are accurate.

[Doc Holliday]

52. A pertinent question would be

"Does Bill Maher employ personal security?" The answer might determine the degree of personal danger he feels, which in turn would help determine the bullshit content of his statement.

As far as "giving away his millions" goes, no one is asking him to.

[Ash_F]

79. Everybody is going after you because it was a stupid Freeper comment /nt

[awoke_in_2003]

46. Your republican is showing. nt

[L0oniX]

47. What's $23 mil compared with the trillions in hidden offshore accounts or

to what the Koch asscarrots are worth. It's chump change.

[hughee99]

54. If you personally fear for YOUR safety because YOU are rich, the trillions offshre don't matter.

Someone like Maher can very publicly give his money away so everyone knows he's not rich anymore. Then he'll be "safe" won't he?

I agree that he'd be in danger with this kind of money in other countries, but the income disparity in the US has not resulted in the 99% rising up and attacking the rich, and I don't see it on the horizon either.

[AAO]

88. No, the 99% has not risen up and attacked the rich..... Yet.

If you think that won't eventually happen if 99% get ever poorer and the rich continue to get richer, you don't understand human nature. Survival is a powerful force. Protection of your children may be even more powerful.

[freshwest]

61. His $23 million isn't enough. And he's talking about being compelled. Being part of a country that

makes one rich demands that they take responsible and give back.

At this time, the libertarian repukes want a one way street for wealth, and will use any distortion of reason to justify it. Saying Maher should voluntarily pay government is a libertarian argument as if government is a charity to be paid on a whim.

The government is an expression of Americans seeking to arbitrate between groups of our society in an equitable manner as set out by law. It is not about behaving charitably or making a donation.

That's pure libertarian, dittohead mentality, and a disrespect the contract between citizens that formed this nation. The people who work and make the wealthy rich don't do it out of charity, but necessity. The reverse is true also.

[hughee99]

81. Again, you seem to be not the first (or the 10th) person to misunderstand my comment.

I'm not suggesting Maher should pay the government more, but Maher has suggested that being rich in America makes people targets for violence (comparing the US to South Africa and Mexico). If rich people don't want to be targets, they don't have to wait for Government to take their money away, they can give it away.

It's like saying, "having guns in the in the house is dangerous. I have a lot of guns in the house. People should be demanding GOVERNMENT take the guns out of their house for their own safety." If having no guns in the house makes you feel safer, you can do that yourself, today. If not being wealthy makes you feel safer, you can do that too.

[hughee99]

77. The quote from the OP...

"If you're rich, you should be begging the government to redistribute your wealth. 'Cause you know what happens in countries where there's a huge disparity between the rich and the poor? The rich get kidnapped. It happens 72 times a day in Mexico. Getting snatched out of your car is so common in South Africa, that they actually make cars that do this.

(shocked audience reaction)

Do you really think your trophy wife is going to empty out the Swiss bank account to save your sorry ass? I'm talking to you, Donald Trump! (audience cheering and applause)"


The rich in South Africa and Mexico have reason to be concerned. Maher doesn't live in either of these countries.

[backscatter712]

11. Righteous rant! I approve this message! n/t

[JDPriestly]

14. Best Bill Maher yet. Especially about fast-food jobs and interns.

But I don't want to give it away. Delivery is everythin.

[Rain Mcloud]

22. Humor is the peanut butter which hides the bitter pill

which saves you from getting your fingers sewn back on from trying to shove it down the throat of that moron pitbull your son just had to have and then let languish,tied up to the tree in the back yard.

[WillyT]

35. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[DustyJoe]

37. one percenters

Another 1 percenters views on the 'wealth gap' after whining his taxes were too high are rated highly in my 'I don't care what he thinks' ignore list.

[AlbertCat]

40. Another 1 percenters views

I assume you meant an apostrophe in "percenter's"

I also assume you think 20-something million is a 1 percenter!

That's a laugh!

[DustyJoe]

65. Another 99 percenters views

Even President Obama stated that 3 million dollars tax deferred retirement savings is a sufficient amount. So yes, 20+ million dollars places Maher in the 1 percenter category easily. Yep, 20-something million to the 99% is definitely a 1 percenter.

[erpowers]

72. He is A One Percenter

With a net worth of $23 million Bill Maher is a one Percenter.

[Newest Reality]

43. So, the increase in

"homeland security" and militarization of the police forces will come in very handy to assure the pesky poor have no deleterious impact on the Lords of the Dynasty.

Makes sense.

[HiPointDem]

48. is bill maher begging the gov't to redistribute *his* wealth? no? didn't think so.

[love_katz]

49. I love Bill Mahler's humor.

It seems like some people on this board are forgetting that Mr. Ma her is an entertainer. Part of a comedian's job is to...hmmm...how do I say this? I was going to use the word exaggerate in his depiction of a ridiculous situation (which the incredible and growing gap between the Have More's and the rest of us is a perfect example). However, he isn't really exaggerating. He is using wonderfully sarcastic humor to describe how things might become for the uber wealthy if they continue to rob the rest of us.

Yay Bill!

With that said, I am with the rest of the folks who have pointed out that if Bill gave away his wealth, it would be a drop in the bucket attempt to stop the inequity of our current Robin Hood in Reverse economic system. It would not change the breathtaking greed and theft which have occurred and are continuing to occur. It is our current system which needs to be changed, probably beginning with overturning the Citizens United/corporations are persons ruling.

And maybe Bill is worried about being kidnapped or carjacked, or whatever.

[ljm2002]

50. That was really good.

I hope some of the very wealthy are listening. Although it is unlikely.

[Initech]

74. Hedge fund managing should be a felony. It's grand larceny.

[gateley]

76. K& the 100th R!

[Locut0s]

80. I wonder about Bill sometimes...

I love his humour and most of his rants. I think he's spot on politically most of the time. But I wonder how much of it is a show. It seems he's gotten much much more liberal over the years which is a good thing if true, but maybe he also saw money in going that direction too? He's publicly said he's friends with Ann Coulter on more than one occasion and that just makes no sense.

[Liberal_in_LA]

82. excellent

[Brigid]

86. As somebody here put it recently:

"Do you really want to be the last rich guy in a poor country?"

We may not be there yet, but we're on our way.

[question everything]

97. Just watched it yesterday

Excellent!