Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

hfojvt

(37,573 posts)

10. but he's spreading the wrong message

Reply to merrily (Reply #7)

Mon Apr 21, 2014, 03:10 AM

Apr 2014

Focusing on the 0.1% is just a very good way for the bottom 80% to get screwed.

It allows politicians to promote "middle class" policies with most of the benefits going to the top 20%. And why not IF 99.5% of the top 20% is part of the "middle class"?

But then society just gets more and more unequal.

The top 20% and the top 10% are NOT part of the middle. They are part of the top.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

42 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Maher on the 0.1% [View all] eridani Apr 2014 OP

k&r thanks for posting. nm rhett o rick Apr 2014 #1

first it's the super rich, then it's the rich hfojvt Apr 2014 #2

These days, that's "middle class" -- The class right below the super rich. loudsue Apr 2014 #3

that's what Maher would like you to believe hfojvt Apr 2014 #5

Good points merrily Apr 2014 #7

but he's spreading the wrong message hfojvt Apr 2014 #10

I agree. But he is also spreading part of the correct message: merrily Apr 2014 #11

The reason we focus on the top 1% TBF Apr 2014 #19

actually the money is NOT there hfojvt Apr 2014 #23

These #'s you're quoting aren't like those I've seen bandied about of late ... brett_jv Apr 2014 #26

wealth vs. income hfojvt Apr 2014 #39

You don't agree with my charts - TBF Apr 2014 #29

I didn't disagree with your charts hfojvt Apr 2014 #40

Good point. That's why he's talking about the "0.1%" as opposed to the 1%. Nye Bevan Apr 2014 #13

Actually, I chose the title, not Maher. Should I change it? n/t eridani Apr 2014 #14

No, given that he is already in the 1%, it was probably appropriate for you to pick "0.1%" (nt) Nye Bevan Apr 2014 #16

This message was self-deleted by its author LanternWaste Apr 2014 #20

Have you ever heard him object to paying his fair share of taxes? Bandit Apr 2014 #17

I have read about it, yes hfojvt Apr 2014 #18

If the Koch brothers DocMac Apr 2014 #22

well no wonder Maher is jealous of them, then hfojvt Apr 2014 #25

I get what you are saying. DocMac Apr 2014 #28

The difference is that he earned it. zeemike Apr 2014 #30

Bill Maher's net worth sulphurdunn Apr 2014 #41

K & R !!! WillyT Apr 2014 #4

K&R -- One of his best n/t whathehell Apr 2014 #6

Excellent.. blue14u Apr 2014 #8

any power seeking bully undergroundpanther Apr 2014 #9

At least he's one of the growing number of rich, super rich, uber rich, bearssoapbox Apr 2014 #12

Bill Gates Senior tried to get a high earners tax passed in WA State eridani Apr 2014 #15

Good one, Bill! n/t Martin Eden Apr 2014 #21

Oh, I get it now. Trickle down goes from the super-rich all the way down to the rich. tclambert Apr 2014 #24

Bill Maher's net worth..... clarice Apr 2014 #27

So? wyldwolf Apr 2014 #31

Kinda like the pot calling the kettle black...IMHO. nt clarice Apr 2014 #32

Elizabeth Warren�s net worth as of the end of 2011 was as high as $14.5 million wyldwolf Apr 2014 #33

So you don't see ANY irony ??? nt clarice Apr 2014 #34

I wouldn't call it irony. But at the same time, no one in yours and my economic station... wyldwolf Apr 2014 #35

LOL.....He could always "trickle" a little of that 23 Mil my way !!! nt clarice Apr 2014 #36

but then EVERYONE would ask! wyldwolf Apr 2014 #37

I wonder the same thing.. clarice Apr 2014 #38

adding a kick defacto7 Apr 2014 #42