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.

 

Obama and redistribution of Wealth...

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Here in this video you get a clear explanation of just what is TAKING from someone and GIVING it to others is all about. The act of redistribution is TAXING or taking a higher portion of some people's income, and giving it to others. Cut and dry!

ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS, I HAVE SEEN RIDICULOUS ARGUMENTS BEING MADE BY CHILDISH ATS MEMBERS REGARDING WHAT THEY DEFINE AS SELFISHNESS.

THE idea of KEEPING more of your INCOME that YOU EARNED and DID not take away from someone else HERE on ATS is considered SELFISH, TO A FEW.

This plays along the same logic, that I or anyone else can enter these ATS MEMBER'S homes look around and pick-up nice things that I LIKE and take them to my HOME. THE nice things or STUFF you have in your home was something YOU worked at to buy, it IS YOUR PROPERTY. INCOME is ALSO your PROPERTY, HAVING IT taken from you is the same equivalent, SINCE IT IS YOU WHO WORKED FOR IT.


REMEMBER KIDS: I'm not taking income (PIE) from you...I'm GIVING (PIE) income to ME!



[edit on 16-8-2009 by Gateway]




posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   
LOL, It's always the rich greedy people who made their money on the blood sweat and tears of someone else who worry about something being taken away from them. These very elitist would rather blow money on a vacation in Spain then to be taxed a little more.

Face the facts, prevention is the best path to take.

For example, if we were taxed in order to have after school programs and this prevented the youth from doing dastardly deeds, that cost would be minuscule when compared to housing that very same adolescent in the jail system.

You get the picture I'm painting?



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
the "re-distribution" of wealth DOES need to occur but not in the obama socialist way. 96% of the world's wealth is held by 1% of the pop. that ain't right!

srsly tho...obama FTL.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Better Mouse Trap
 


So, let me get this right, you're FOR a marxist approach to the economy and peoples money?

You believe in a redistribution of wealth?

How much can I take from you?



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Better Mouse Trap
LOL, It's always the rich greedy people who made their money on the blood sweat and tears of someone else who worry about something being taken away from them.


Income is gained by providing a service, or producing something. People exchange their labor VOLUNTARILY for income. When I go to work I exchange my labor for PAY. This pay is MY OWN, NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S NOT YOURS OR ANYONE else.



These very elitist would rather blow money on a vacation in Spain then to be taxed a little more.
Anyone who works hard for their money CAN then spend it how they deem FIT.



Face the facts, prevention is the best path to take.
What the hell does that MEAN?




For example, if we were taxed in order to have after school programs and this prevented the youth from doing dastardly deeds, that cost would be minuscule when compared to housing that very same adolescent in the jail system.
Isn't the prevention of DASTARDLY deeds, the responsibility of the PARENT? OR is the government the parents?



You get the picture I'm painting?
I'm afraid, I can't help you, if you don't know the definition of what I described above.

Please leave your front door open, I'll be by to pick-out things I LIKE to take with me.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution2012
the "re-distribution" of wealth DOES need to occur but not in the obama socialist way. 96% of the world's wealth is held by 1% of the pop. that ain't right!

srsly tho...obama FTL.
DID you see what the video is about? Kiddo...am I right? SINCE you believe YOUR income is not yours I'LL BE GLAD TO TAKE IT...PLEASE SEND IT TO ME.

[edit on 16-8-2009 by Gateway]



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Communism is a last step in human evolution and we cannot escape it, now there are two different ways to approach it, however. One is a lenin way, where he argues that small group of true pure communism believers must cling and do whatever is necessary to transition into communism, and another is European way, where people decide for themselves and within time everybody sees benefits of socialism and with upcoming technology breakthroughs ( free energy) communism will occur.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by wrill
Communism is a last step in human evolution and we cannot escape it, now there are two different ways to approach it, however. One is a lenin way, where he argues that small group of true pure communism believers must cling and do whatever is necessary to transition into communism, and another is European way, where people decide for themselves and within time everybody sees benefits of socialism and with upcoming technology breakthroughs ( free energy) communism will occur.



In the belief that "people cannot change", governments under the banner of communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40 million to 260 million human lives.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.[7]

Today, communism continues to rule over one-fifth of the world's people.[8]


from www.conservapedia.com...

If you mean by "last step" the total destruction of freedom and humanity in general, then I agree.





posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


no, last step where class antagonisms will be reconciled, in other words
last conflict to occur and put an end among divided humanity (poor vs. rich)
we've dealt with many more already, state vs religion, royalty vs commoners, women vs men.

So just like people believe years ago to be run by pope or let men abuse women or have slaves, we will remember and laugh on how stupid we were to not redistribute wealth. and yes i know it sounds scary to share your bread with neighbor but it will happen, and you cannot escape it. But we still have a choice to choose on how we going to accomplish it, by war or by peace.

[edit on 16-8-2009 by wrill]



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   
"Anyone who works hard for their money CAN then spend it how they"-Originally posted by Gateway

I agree, but how many recent rags to riches stories do we have compared to "old money" that has been passed down through the generations. The present day elitist don't work hard for the money, most of it was passed down to them.

Many of the VERY rich people in that elite tax bracket live on this "old money."

Old money= money that was made during the days of slavery, the pimping of the disfranchised during the recession, the forced labor camps, government corruption, organized crime and reckless greed. Rarely does a "nice guy" become super rich, you have to be manipulative and filled with greed.

THESE ARE THE PEOPLE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE TAX INCREASE.


[edit on 16-8-2009 by Better Mouse Trap]



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


I didn't know communism could kill people...could you describe how communism kills? does it jump out and stab you in a dark alleyway? Or am i just being crazy when i say it was wicked leaders who killed people...democracy,communist,republic..doesn't matter.An evil tyrant will kill no matter what ideological banner he is under.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Better Mouse Trap
 



THESE ARE THE PEOPLE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE TAX INCREASE.


IMO, they don't even worry about tax increases. Because whatever tax increases they get, they will merely pass it on to those who are buying their products or services.

Another reason they don't worry about tax increases is because they can easily move their assets around to countries that charge lower taxes.

You are correct that they don't work hard for their money, but they do make sure that they keep it.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Better Mouse Trap
 



The present day elitist don't work hard for the money, most of it was passed down to them.


Like most of the current crop of our politicians and the people that have them in their pockets?

The only way to fairly "spread the wealth" is to get rid of the exorbitant amounts of red tape that causes small start ups huge overhead costs and causes them to not be able to compete effectively with the larger businesses.

Another thing, you can tax this old money all that you want, but you won't ever gain access to it unless they go into their bank accounts and take what they have.

The only way to morally spread the wealth is to change to laws to make easier for people looking to get ahead to actually get ahead. Currently things are not like that. As I mentioned above there is tons of rep tape and regulations start-ups have to cut through that raises the cost of the business to run, which means they have to charge just as much as the big crops to operate, which in turn offers no real advantage to starting up your own business to slice away the profits of the bigger corps.

Bigger corps will under cut their competitors because they can afford the lost, because the smaller start-ups have a huge amount of overhead to contend with. Cut that overhead and small start-ups could under cut the big corps and out last them because the start up is making a profit where as the big corps are operating at a loss.

The whole idea of "spreading the wealth" is stupid. The only way to get the wealth is to earn it, by making the business environment fair to all companies that choose to enter into it. Big corps by their very nature will shrivel up and die within a few years, because they cannot compete with smaller more agile businesses that are able to meet their customers needs better than a big corp.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Redistribution of wealth only happens between middle and lower class!

And middle class aren't exactly rich, but work hard for what they have.

Lower class aren't always good-for-nothing leeches, and get screwed in a society that deems their hard work less valuable than, say, a skilled trade.

How we value each other in a society and what we're worth should change. I shouldn't have to dish out my hard earned cash because minimun wage is a joke!

People that make good choices should not have to shell out for ones that made poor choices.

In essence, my heart doesn't bleed for the bleeding hearts.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
You are well an truly ignorant if you think "redistribution of wealth" is the core argument against this tax system and healthcare reform. Redistribution of wealth can be applied to so many things, in so many ways. Nobody gave you the authority to dictate whats "acceptable" redistribution of wealth and whats not. If you are going to make distribution of wealth your core argument your going to loose because:

-The overgrown military you fellas go on about, that depends on redistribution of wealth, 20% of our taxes go into the military, thats a piece of MY money going into your "strong defense" so if your going to tell me you dont want money taken out of your backside I dont need to be forced to pay for your overgrown military.

-Redistribution of wealth is inevitable regardless of what system you implement and this is what rightie purposefully ignores just to smear a different system. The tickle down system under Bush was still redistribution of wealth, it was only the other way around where the wealth gained the lionshare of tax advantages. For you to argume about this tax system benefitting the middle class but completely ignore the redistribution of wealth in the other system, *SNIP*

-Just as easy for you to argue about redistribution of wealth in this system and can argue that the fair tax system in redistribution of wealth as it continues to take out the income of individuals through their expenditures of goods and services so it still redistributes their money in a collective form vai product taxes. Fair tax is still redistribution of wealth becuase you are takening money from those who earned it and are redistributing it into federal and state services such as police and fireman.

I can really go on. There are so many scenarios redistribution of wealth could be applied to. For to argue against it under one system is real ignorant and I believe just a way to smear a system you dont personally like. Whether you choose to oppose it or not redistribution of wealth will exist in some form so long as there is a collective system of money collecting, the argument is a moot.

SG

*MOD EDIT: Hold off on the name-calling. Cheers -alien

[edit on 17-8-2009 by alien]



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
You are well an truly ignorant if you think "redistribution of wealth" is the core argument against this tax system and healthcare reform. Redistribution of wealth can be applied to so many things, in so many ways.


What is redistribution if income is not taken from some and given to others then?



Nobody gave you the authority to dictate whats "acceptable" redistribution of wealth and whats not.
Ahh on that note: Nobody gave the lefties the idea to 'dictate' what is OKAY in terms of taking my INCOME and using it FOR THEIR PROJECTS either. But at the VERY least should YOU not have DIRECT SAY on your own income. Or does the GOVERNMENT HAVE SAY on HOW your income should be used.

At least in my ARGUMENT I say YOU DECIDE WHAT TO DO WITH your income since it is yours. Your side of the argument is that IT MAY WELL BE YOUR INCOME, BUT GOVERNMENT IS MORE WISE AND SHOULD DECIDES WHAT to do with it.




If you are going to make distribution of wealth your core argument your going to loose because: -The overgrown military you fellas go on about, that depends on redistribution of wealth, 20% of our taxes go into the military, thats a piece of MY money going into your "strong defense" so if your going to tell me you dont want money taken out of your backside I dont need to be forced to pay for your overgrown military.
Then get rid of the military spending, and give me back my money.

I don't understand your argument. It is YOU who is contradicting yourself. YOU NEED TO DECIDE who has property rights over your income. IS IT YOU, OR IS IT GOVERNMENT, SOUTHERN GAURDIAN?

If you take the view, that YOU decide what to do with your income then you will work hard to abolish ALL FORMS OF REDISTRIBUTION of wealth.

If NOT, THEN WHY DO YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT THE HUGE MILITARY SPENDING?




-Redistribution of wealth is inevitable regardless of what system you implement and this is what rightie purposefully ignores just to smear a different system. The tickle down system under Bush was still redistribution of wealth, it was only the other way around where the wealth gained the lionshare of tax advantages. For you to argume about this tax system benefitting the middle class but completely ignore the redistribution of wealth in the other system, you are a complete tool.


YOU are confusing the argument here. So I'll put it in layman's terms so that you may understand:

What is property rights? Who is the rightful owner of income earned? How will EVERYONE be better off?

ARE people BETTER off TAXED and given services that government provides...or are people better OFF IF EVERYONE INCLUDING RICH, POOR, BLACK, WHITE, BROWN, GREEN...is given BACK MOST IF NOT ALL THEIR INCOME?

How is giving people back most if not all their income GOING TO HURT THEM, AND destroy society?

Isn't the economy better off if people have more of their income to spend on things they need. If you think society is better OFF if income is taken away, then WHY NOT TAKE ALL OF IT? SO that we all CAN enjoy this great SOCIETY you see?




-Just as easy for you to argue about redistribution of wealth in this system and can argue that the fair tax system in redistribution of wealth as it continues to take out the income of individuals through their expenditures of goods and services so it still redistributes their money in a collective form vai product taxes. Fair tax is still redistribution of wealth becuase you are takening money from those who earned it and are redistributing it into federal and state services such as police and fireman.
ALL of these things can be provided in the PRIVATE sector if need be. I don't need to be taxed to be given lousy police protection. When was the last time you filed a STOLEN property report and the POLICE actually took the time to even bother looking for said property AND GAVE YOU BACK your property?

Also most of these things are provided at the local level, souther gardian? MY FEDERAL INCOME TAX DOES NOT PAY FOR MY POLICE OR FIREFIGHTERS AROUND HERE. Maybe you have the FBI, CIA, OR SOME FEDERAL FIREFIGHTER DIVISION ready to cater to your 911 calls but I'm afraid most Americans pay for their local police and firefighter through either sales taxes or state or local taxes.



I can really go on.
Go for it! I'll debate you till the cows come home or until you DEVELOP some reasoned thoughts.




There are so many scenarios redistribution of wealth could be applied to. For to argue against it under one system is real ignorant and I believe just a way to smear a system you don't personally like.
Ah..you mean just like the military spending you don't like?

The FACT of the matter is that WE DO NOT HAVE a universal GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED HEALTH CARE system NOW!!! You argument DOESN'T STAND BECAUSE THE SYSTEM IS NOT IN PLACE NOW... AND we haven't been paying it for years like you trying to equate police or firefighter services......again...the system is not in place...and to place it REQUIRES FURTHER FUNDING HENCE FURTHER TAXATION...And further redistribution.


YOUR argument boils down to: We pay for fireman and police why not keep on spending on something else...lets see.....lets see...I KNOW HOW ABOUT we spend on HEALTH CARE. Ridiculous!!



Southern Gaurdian this is what you are saying: We are taxed now for certain things...let's just increase our taxes to fund this new thing...and WHO care if you don't like it...shut up and deal with it. And why are you complaining?


It's funny you want to increases taxes, but question WHY the disgruntlement of the people, as if any form of taxation should be something that should be welcomed.


[edit on 16-8-2009 by Gateway]



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by orderedchaos
Redistribution of wealth only happens between middle and lower class!


I disagree. The wealth has been redistributed INTO the wealthy people's hands for the past 30 years or so. That's why 1% of the people own 99% of the money. I don't remember anyone crying about THAT redistribution of the wealth...

Obama's just doing what he can to balance that out just a little.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



Has the government TAKEN your money and given it to Bill Gates at the threat of violence or putting you to jail? Redistribution can only be done if someone takes it from you unwittingly, government is the only group that does that.

In commerce violent, involuntary and oppressive redistribution is IMPOSSIBLE. Since ALL form of exchange is voluntary. (ie Nobody forced me to buy products from Walmart thereby putting more money in Sam Walton's pocket, or that of Bill Gate's)

But, if you are talking about LAWS enacted to help a few corporations, like subsidizing, the OIL companies, the Banking sector, Car manufacturers...or others. Then LOOK AROUND my friend coz it's still happening under OBAMA; Biofuels and Green Industry, Banking, Auto industry...ect.

We have either two choices: We can either increase AND enact NEW laws to protect, regulate, and tax businesses at the expense of others. OR ELIMINATE these impediments and get back to FREE-MARKET competition. Were SOME business go bankrupt and others succeed.


[edit on 16-8-2009 by Gateway]



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gateway
But, if you are talking about LAWS enacted to help a few corporations, like subsidizing, the OIL companies, the Banking sector, Car manufacturers...or others. Then LOOK AROUND my friend coz it's still happening under OBAMA


I know that. I disagree strongly with him on that.

I AM talking about laws. Tax shelters, loopholes, corporations and their bonuses at the expense of the workers, $10 million salary for the CEO while the worker feeds his family on $10 an hour. Government subsidies of industries such as Petroleum, Pharma and Agribusiness. I'm talking about "trickle up".

The Role of Government in Keeping the Wealthy Rich



For some reason most of the discussion in Washington and the media of the bank bailouts is overlooking their central feature: taxpayer dollars are being used to sustain the income of incredibly rich bankers. The public should be furious over this upward redistribution of income.

The basic story here is very simple. If we got the government out and left things to the market, virtually the entire banking sector would be bankrupt. Citigroup, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and almost all the other big banks, and thousands of smaller ones, would be out of business. (My bet is that even "healthy" banks like Wells Fargo would be in bankruptcy before too long. They hold plenty of bad debts, too.)



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Sorry, sir. I don't believe for one minute that Obama will redistribute wealth from the top 1% and spread it around. That 1% don't even pay taxes.

I don't have that much faith in Obama. From what I can tell, he's no different than Bush, and I doubt he could balance a booger on the end of his finger.

I can HOPE he'll do good, but that HOPE is floundering, seeing as the only CHANGE I have since he's been in office is sitting in a dish on my desk.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join