It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump’s 17 cabinet picks have more money than a third of Americans combined

page: 4
24
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

They think they are going to make America great..I want to know exactly what that entail's..I see then making corporate America great again..I see little trickle down to the little guy.
edit on 16-12-2016 by vonclod because: Doh




posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: vonclod

Job growth.

IBM just slammed down 25k job openings for trump sight unseen



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: vonclod

Business always trickles down to the little guy. Always. Even a plant that is 100% automated needs someone to make the robots, program the robots, maintain the robots, sell the robots, provide materials for the robots, etc., etc., etc. These people need to eat while they're at work, buy gas to get to work, and buy things with their income. And so it goes.

The reason many claim 'trickle down doesn't work' is that they want to throw money at big business to make it work. No. That's not how it works. You need to encourage businesses to start or expand. To do that, you establish a favorable environment... realistic regulation, freedom to try new ideas, availability of start-up loans, that sort of thing. The target of all this is not the big corporations but the little companies with room to expand and the guy in his basement with a new idea for a thingamabob with a special whatsit on the side. Those guys will take $10,000 and produce hundreds of good jobs, while $10,000,000 thrown at GM or ExxonMobil will produce maybe 1 or two jobs. They go through that much in a single board meeting.

Regulations keep the little guys out and only let the big dogs in. The big dogs don't need help and don't have anywhere else to grow.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Butterfinger

Not exactly. Only if US taxpayers meet their demands:
"But to CNBC, the company said the offer was not a hard commitment, rather a plan to hire up to that many if business conditions allow over coming years. IBM in May told The Wall Street Journal it had more than 20,000 open positions, amid restructuring that reportedly resulted in thousands of layoffs."

www.cnbc.com...



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Thank's for the reply, I get what you are saying.
It just look's like the big dog's are going to run the show, Exxon dude for instance.
I hope it work's out..I agree on over-regulation being a big problem. However the reason for over regulation is often a response to unscrupulous practices gone rampant..I agree though it need's to be realistic and fair.
Takes big money to work around that kind of thing, money the little guy cannot access.
What do you think of Goldman Sachs in the mix?



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

who said it was a sin?



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: vonclod

This maga dream seems to be built upon an old 'wild west' meme, that Americans are hearty souls with an over abundance of work ethic and ingenuity enough to make anything happen that we wish. But few, I think, are willing to really consider why America was able to become the power house it has.

European people hit these shores in the early 16th century with 16th century technology and competed with people with technology a thousand years behind them. Those people then for the most part died off with the diseases that came over with the Europeans.

This left a freeking huge continent filled with fertile farmland, mountain ranges overflowing with timber, mineral wealth to be mined. It's no wonder these transplanted Europeans could be such a success. And all that on top of the slave labor employed to keep it going. And even then it was four score and seven years later that they nearly tore it all apart by fighting with each other for supremacy.

Emerging mostly unscathed from the first world war that tore Europe apart the 'greatness' of America crashed a decade later later because of fiscal irresponsibility. Then it was mostly because of WWII and the industry that supported it that America put itself back together. And when that war ended, all of Europe was in ruin. All the industrial might of the world was in shambles,, except for the US. Sure Pearl Harbor was bombed, but everything else was intact. The industry the manufacturing plants, all of it running full ahead making profit from supplying product to the bombed out countries of Europe and Asia. America had a complete monopoly.

It was the capriciousness of historical chance that was the main force of any previous American greatness, not the exceptionalism of the American people. But the people we are dealing with here seem to think otherwise.



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Kettu

Hey! Now there are no more alligators in the swamp. Just don't mind the crocodiles and occasional hippo that took their place.
edit on 16-12-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: ksiezyc
a reply to: Kettu

If he picked any politician the left would complain he's keeping the establishment.

If he picked anyone with business or similar experience the left would complain he's playing favorites/conflict of interest/pay to play.

If he picked someone from who's left, those without experience the left would complain they lack experience.

Ugh.

He could pick a non-politican and a non-rich business man. Or union bosses. Or someone from the middle class. There are MANY different walks of life Trump could have pulled people from where he'd be honoring his "drain the swamp" pledge while not simultaneously refilling it. It doesn't take much thought to come to that conclusion either.

Ugh.
edit on 16-12-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Kettu

I don't mean to sound rude, but who cares?
So he has rich people in office. Other politicians didn't?
So he has more money than us. Who cares?
Are you jealous of him? Is that what it is?
Or do you think that Clinton being in office would be a fair representation of the average Joe?



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: vonclod

I'm honestly not sure why Goldman Sachs is even being mentioned. Maybe an attempt at cooperation between government (deregulation) and financial sectors (small business loans)?

It is an aspect to watch. Remember "Trust but Verify"?

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Why is it a bad thing that he picked a rich guy? Are you jealous again?
I don't recall him or anyone on his campaign suggesting that draining the swamp meant lowering the average income level of people in office.



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: stolencar18

Because all those things are HUGE signs of impending corruption and collusion.



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: stolencar18
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Why is it a bad thing that he picked a rich guy? Are you jealous again?
I don't recall him or anyone on his campaign suggesting that draining the swamp meant lowering the average income level of people in office.

What's this jealously nonsense? I could care less about Trump's money, or any of those people's money. I CARE about the fact that only the very top 1% of the economic scale is the only representation the people have in the White House. In other words, I don't feel like any of us have any representation there.

So what does "drain the swamp" mean to you? Remove all the liberals?



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: WhateverYouSay




Sure, let's start with Betsy Devos. She got her money from an inheritance (same as Trump). Not sure I'd call that "success".


That evil witch.



No, it doesn't mean she's an evil witch, but it does show that the notion that America is a meritocracy is flawed. If you want to support birthright governance maybe you should move to the UK.

What does make her a witch is the privatization of the school systems, which gives families with money the capacity to successfully navigate the system, while poorer families are left behind in dysfunctional charter schools which are even more of a joke than bad public schools, they're just for enriching the people running them (hmm, I wonder if we're starting to see a pattern here)



“the average SPP [School Performance Profile] score for traditional public schools was 77.1,” but for charter schools it was 66.4, and cyber-charter schools came in at a low 46.8.


www.washingtonpost.com...

So when someone is born with a silver spoon, and then creates opportunities so only those born with silver spoons will be granted good opportunities, I think that is genuinely, morally wrong. What do you think about it?







Tillerson was the CEO of an oil company. I'm guessing you probably don't even believe in climate change


I am an avid advocate of scientific literacy. Don't assume things. I don't put political religion above everything else. That said, being a CEO of a oil company isn't an inherently bad thing...Unless you think it is, and I can't help you with that.


Ok, we know Exxon funded climate change denial. How is that not evidence of wrongdoing if you claim to believe the science?

And yes, I actually do think running an oil company is inherently a bad thing, the same way I think running a tobacco company is inherently a bad thing, but an oil company is worse given the foreign excursions that have been had securing oil and the petrodollar, so yeah it's an industry stained with a lot of blood. The only good thing about Trump in this case is that he's making it obvious that our foreign policy has always been about oil.



and buy up patents to prevent electric cars from becoming popular. If you're not swayed by this argument, just think of it again in 20 years and think of the costs incurred then


This is a common misconception of the electric car. Most of the issues with EVs have to do with their range and energy storage capacity. I am happy to say that Tesla has made major headway in this arena.

It's a common misconception? So the part I quoted which provided evidence of oil companies buying up patents was fabricated?




So far you haven't provided any evidence of wrong doing. Just accusations.

Edit:

Not even accusations against specific individuals either, or even relevant accusations.


Yes, climate change anti science was funded by Exxon under Tillerson's leadership. How is it not relevant, your point was that people criticize these people because of envy, my point is these people are greedy MFers who do not operate on notions of meritocracy (the idea of capitalism), or do not operate in the public good (anti science and foreign wars).



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Kettu

Your post does strike me as having a lot of quite seething, if yet eloquent, envy, with misplaced, short-sighted anger.

The rich have their 'reward' already, and each one of them is a unique person who cannot be pre-judged by anyone who is not privy to their inner circle, to intimate knowledge of their personal ethics & business/ financial choices (except for those living the most obviously callous & devious lifestyles). However, the low-median 'common folk' are those in the best position to choose honest values centred in justice, mercy & humility, evolving through the challenges they face on the path of Life, as they work toward their end.

Trump does seem to be keen on enacting investment in infrastructure, and I found myself wondering whether these billionairres are signing up as legitimate 'justice warriors', who actually have the clout, network & backing to assist in the 're-development' of the US of A.

Give him a chance before saying it's all a sham. They might literally be in it for the challenge - they have so much money already, surely a few of them will be there purely for the possibility of helping to achieve actual change for the People..?



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: WhateverYouSay


Ok, we know Exxon funded climate change denial. How is that not evidence of wrongdoing if you claim to believe the science?

...

Yes, climate change anti science was funded by Exxon under Tillerson's leadership. How is it not relevant, your point was that people criticize these people because of envy, my point is these people are greedy MFers who do not operate on notions of meritocracy (the idea of capitalism), or do not operate in the public good (anti science and foreign wars).

Who funds the Global Warming propaganda? You know, Hansen and the IPCC? Oh, right, the same governments that want to profit from carbon credits...

People in glass houses.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 05:02 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Climate change is not propaganda. The climate is changing. That's fact. It's historical. The only thing in dispute is the amount that Humankind contributes towards the rate of its change. Well, the majority of scientists are against your notion. That's also a fact. The political shenanigans of US's carbon taxes have zero bearing on that. Nor does it have bearing on the UN meeting in Paris were Earth's countries came together to collectively recognize this threat.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 05:05 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Not always. I've had successful businesses owners who make three figures+ tell me, "Why would I hire more people I don't need? Why would I pay them more when I have no problem fining replacements?"

The only thing that trickles down is liquid, and its yellow.
edit on 17-12-2016 by Kettu because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 05:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: jtma508

That just reinforced my post. Innocent until proven guilty is a principle I thought we embodied as Americans. I'm passionate about it anyways.


As much as I agree with what you're saying,

I disagree the notion is Guilty until proved Guilty.

At this point the Right acts so untouchable, it takes a major felony to suggest internal guilt might even be possible.

It would be one thing if it was a witch hunt, but the reality is real criticisms are brought to the table, and rather than assessing guilt, the Right simply reassesses what it means to be guilty instead.
edit on 17-12-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join