The pandemic has seen billionaires' wealth reach a record $10.2 trillion

[UltraModernGuy]

The people on this list, better be prepared to MOVE their wealth to another country. If the socialist end up winning the U.S. election in November, they will destroy what little capitalism in this nation, and confiscate these people's wealth for themselves, with a FRACTION spread to the subjects of this nation (as opposed to CITIZENS), to ensure they continue to grovel at the feet of the government barons.

Wait, there's a Socialist running? I wish. All I see is another generic Corporate/Centrist Dem. Based on your poor grammar, I'm assuming you have no idea how to actually define Socialism without going to Wikipedia. Turn off Fox bruh.

 

[Avro Arrow]

Utterly obscene, America.

Allowing this kind of wealth to accumulate in the hands of so few is nothing to be proud of but a sign of a fundamentally corrupt and broken business model and it will eventually bring your country to its knees and there maybe no getting up.

Babylon, Rome, France, Russia - All empires who fell because the wealthiest hoarded money and power. The USA was supposed to be different, but it isn't. The "American Empire" will fall just as the others did.

 

[scavengerspc]

Given that 96% of journalists are liberal, whereas less than 0.5% identify as very conservative, and that ratio is similar in the upper management of social media and search engine firms, it's quite clear that they ensure "the rest of the world" hears only what they wish it to.

96% of journalists are Liberal? I can't find proof of that, can you? I mean I would agree that they are mostly liberal as journalism is by nature a profession of a Constitutionalist.

not /s

 

[Avro Arrow]

Most confusing and backwards statement I've ever read... You mean to tell me, unless your in this billionaire category, that your ok with these companies doing and paying less than the general public for there contributions. Money earned, should always be money taxed regardless of where you fall on the bracket. In the most ideal sense these folks/companies would be flipping more of the tax burden to then help run programs like Medicare, ssi, etc instead they walk away from all these moral programs. Its easy to blame one party and label "left" "Right" but its a fundamental that this country has absolutely let get out of control on both sides. We at this point stand no chance in 20-30 years in my age group to having any moral retirement because the people in our past have screwed this system so hard. Then you throw in technology, automation and evolving trends and this pattern only gets worse over time. Eventually something will break, but your obvious message does nothing to support a positive change, rather just blame the left, typical A-Game of republic - Right or Left.

Let's be perfectly honest here. There is no "Left" party in the USA. There's "Right" and "Far-Right". The Democrats only appear to be leftists when compared to the Republicans. Here in Canada, our most right-wing party is still to the left of the US Democrats.

 

[Avro Arrow]

96% of journalists are Liberal? I can't find proof of that, can you? I mean I would agree that they are mostly liberal as journalism is by nature a profession of a Constitutionalist.

not /s

The people who say things like that call anyone who isn't a bible-thumping neo-conservative a liberal. They don't even know what a liberal is.

 

[OortCloud]

It's extraordinary that the US has become so extreme that being a 'liberal' can be an insult. What next? You filthy intelligent, forward thinking, literate, urbane erudite individual!

 

[Avro Arrow]

I'm sorry but no, flat 15% tax for everyone is more correct, and it's what we should do, you make a buck for an entire year uncle sam gets 15 cents, no exemptions no nothing, you make 1 billion dollars uncle sam gets 150 million no questions. It's time we treat everyone fairly.

Oh sure, let's do that. It will only accelerate the wealth disparity that is already out of control. The rich paid 80% in tax during the 50s and early 60s. THAT is why the USA was so prosperous then compared to now. You can argue words all you want but I prefer to pay attention to what actually happened. What I was talking about ACTUALLY HAPPENED. What you're talking about makes no sense to anyone which is why it has never, and will never, be implemented anywhere.

 

[Avro Arrow]

Hey Pal, we might not have well paying jobs, healthcare, higher education without a lifetime of debt, or the right to have our votes count but as long as America has a fanatical belief in trickle down economics,a steady supply of minimum wage jobs with no benefits, a supreme court to control women's bodies, the bible to teach us history (but only the new testament part), and right to purchase a M-16 (aka AR-15) the same day and go shoot up a school we Americans will be A-OK!

I present you the unofficial "SIDE SPLITTER" award for the funniest intelligent post in the thread. BRAVO! ??

 

[Avro Arrow]

It's extraordinary that the US has become so extreme that being a 'liberal' can be an insult. What next? You filthy intelligent, forward thinking, literate, urbane erudite individual!

Only in the USA have I ever heard someone say that they didn't want to vote for someone because he seemed "Too intellectual". I was so astonished that I didn't know whether to laugh at him or gasp in horror.

 

[Endymio]

96% of journalists are Liberal? I can't find proof of that, can you?

In 2016, 96% of journalists donated to Clinton, 4% donated to Trump. The numbers for 2020 will almost certainly be even more skewed Democratic. But don't take my word for it, listen to Jill Abramson, self-proclaimed liberal and former executive editor of the New York Times:

"The news pages were unmistakably anti-Trump,” Abramson writes...she describes a generational split at the Times, with younger staffers favoring an unrestrained assault on the presidency. “The more ‘woke’ staff thought that urgent times called for urgent measures; the dangers of Trump’s presidency obviated the old standards,” she writes. " “Given its mostly liberal audience, there was an implicit financial reward for the Times in running lots of Trump stories, almost all of them negative: they drove big traffic numbers..."

The Times (which I must point out is less left-biased than most media sources today) has still fired several reporters for not slanting their stories far enough left, including one episode where the reporter who drafted the neutral and accurate headline "Trump urges unity over racism" was fired, and the newspaper went so far as to recall the entire edition, to reprint it with a more negative headline:

The Daily Beast: NYT Retracts Headline.

 

[scavengerspc]

In 2016, 96% of journalists donated to Clinton, 4% donated to Trump. The numbers for 2020 will almost certainly be even more skewed Democratic. But don't take my word for it, listen to Jill Abramson, self-proclaimed liberal and former executive editor of the New York Times:

"The news pages were unmistakably anti-Trump,” Abramson writes...she describes a generational split at the Times, with younger staffers favoring an unrestrained assault on the presidency. “The more ‘woke’ staff thought that urgent times called for urgent measures; the dangers of Trump’s presidency obviated the old standards,” she writes. " “Given its mostly liberal audience, there was an implicit financial reward for the Times in running lots of Trump stories, almost all of them negative: they drove big traffic numbers..."

The Times (which I must point out is less left-biased than most media sources today) has still fired several reporters for not slanting their stories far enough left, including one episode where the reporter who drafted the neutral and accurate headline "Trump urges unity over racism" was fired, and the newspaper went so far as to recall the entire edition, to reprint it with a more negative headline:

The Daily Beast: NYT Retracts Headline.

Ok, I get it now. But still taking the info from the NYT would be like someone on the left taking the same poll at fox news or The Washington Post.

 

[Endymio]

Ok, I get it now. But still taking the info from the NYT would be like someone on the left taking the same poll at fox news or The Washington Post.

It was not a poll of the NYT only, but rather data from all 2016 political donations from journalists.

 

[OortCloud]

In 2016, 96% of journalists donated to Clinton, 4% donated to Trump. The numbers for 2020 will almost certainly be even more skewed Democratic. But don't take my word for it, listen to Jill Abramson, self-proclaimed liberal and former executive editor of the New York Times:

"The news pages were unmistakably anti-Trump,” Abramson writes...she describes a generational split at the Times, with younger staffers favoring an unrestrained assault on the presidency. “The more ‘woke’ staff thought that urgent times called for urgent measures; the dangers of Trump’s presidency obviated the old standards,” she writes. " “Given its mostly liberal audience, there was an implicit financial reward for the Times in running lots of Trump stories, almost all of them negative: they drove big traffic numbers..."

The Times (which I must point out is less left-biased than most media sources today) has still fired several reporters for not slanting their stories far enough left, including one episode where the reporter who drafted the neutral and accurate headline "Trump urges unity over racism" was fired, and the newspaper went so far as to recall the entire edition, to reprint it with a more negative headline:

The Daily Beast: NYT Retracts Headline.

Do you think that bias is just bias? Maybe it's a set of reasonable people deeply concerned by the path the country is being led down by the current administration?

 

[p51d007]

Wait, there's a Socialist running? I wish. All I see is another generic Corporate/Centrist Dem. Based on your poor grammar, I'm assuming you have no idea how to actually define Socialism without going to Wikipedia. Turn off Fox bruh.

LMAO...yeah, Biden "isn't" a socialist, but, he also is brain dead, and being propped up until after the election in hopes that they win. Then, he will "step down" for the good of the country and let SOCIALIST Harris do her damage, that Obama started.

 

[Endymio]

Do you think that bias is just bias? Maybe it's a set of reasonable people deeply concerned by the path the country is being led down by the current administration?

This would be a rather laughable rationalization of bias, even were it not for the fact that those donations were made before the current adminstration was the administration. Journalist ethics requires reporters to check their opinions at the door, regardless of how "deeply concerned" they are.
Even more hypocritical is when journalists sharply criticize something Trump said or did, after having ignored or even praised the same words or actions by Obama.

But it's not the bias that bothers me as much as the sheer, abject dishonesty the media has begun stooping to. It seems like there's no bar too low for modern journalists to crawl under, if it helps "the cause". Even here, a supposed Tech news site, left-leaning political hit pieces are showing up with regularity -- just in time for the election.

 

[scavengerspc]

It was not a poll of the NYT only, but rather data from all 2016 political donations from journalists.

I'll take your word for it brother because I can't find anything beyond what Jill Abramson said about her experience at the Times. Recovering from an accident for a month now and it kinda limits me.

 

[Endymio]

I'll take your word for it brother because I can't find anything beyond what Jill Abramson said about her experience at the Times. Recovering from an accident for a month now and it kinda limits me.

Sorry to hear that. Glad to see you made it through the hurricane OK, however.

EDIT: To add something even more contemporary to the debate on media bias, how about the current fiasco over the next presidential debate, as the Debate Commission chose an ex-Biden staffer to be the "impartial" moderator.

 

[UltraModernGuy]

LMAO...yeah, Biden "isn't" a socialist, but, he also is brain dead, and being propped up until after the election in hopes that they win. Then, he will "step down" for the good of the country and let SOCIALIST Harris do her damage, that Obama started.

I can't argue with your Biden comment, a ham sandwich could be propped up by the Dems and win because of what a horrible disaster this current administration is. But, Kamala is miles away from being a socialist, and Obama was the ultimate corporate dem...

 

[Markoni35]

Bernard Arnault lost 19 billions of dollars in just one year. He really sucks. I never lost that much money.

 

[scavengerspc]

Sorry to hear that. Glad to see you made it through the hurricane OK, however.

Well thank you for that. It was hurricane Laura when it happened though. I have some property in Louisiana and went down to help tighten things up as Laura got closer and things took longer than expected so I just stayed with a Tennant. I went outside to bring her dog in and just got clobbered on the head by something. Ended up being in the hospital for 12 days.

 

[gramey78]

Subtract their $22,000,000,000,000 in stock ownership liabilities included in the stock certificate price to fund their assets, and bingo the debt to equity ratio is 2.00 or underwater with two liens on their corporate holdings.