Maher on the 0.1%

[hfojvt]

23. actually the money is NOT there

the top 0.1% only gets about 10% of the national income. The top 0.9% gets another 10%.

The REST of the top 10%? They get 30% of the national income.

They are getting a good slice, and taking a whole lot of the pie.

Helpful to the Democratic Party? Well, that depends. I think that the Democratic Party should say "we represent the bottom 80%".

Is that an untenable position? Why? The bottom 80% is a sizeable majority. Both parties should be chasing after that majority.

Now you might say that 99% is an even larger majority, but I say it is kinda hard to represent the bottom 99%.

Take the Bush tax cuts (please). It could easily be argued that "the Bush tax cuts are for the bottom 99%". In fact, that's what Bush and company DID argue. I, OTOH, argued that most of the Bush tax cuts went to the rich.

Well, if only the top 1% is rich, then I WAS WRONG. Because 73.9% of the Bush tax cuts went to the bottom 99%. Heck, over 60% of them (MOST) went to the bottom 95%.

Hurrah for the Bush tax cuts!!!

Let's not divide the bottom 95% by pointing out that only 36% of the Bush tax cuts went to the bottom 80% and that MOST of them (64%) went to the top 20%, and that further, a mere 7.4% of them went to the bottom 40%.

No, I guess I will get on board. The Bush tax cuts - a tax cut for the 99%, making America less unequal.

We already have a party that represents the top - it's called Republican. It would be nice if we had a party that represented the bottom.

Instead, like I have said before, and I quote "The Republican Party represents the top 5%, the Democratic Party represents the next 15% and neither of them represents the bottom 80%."