How Unequal Are We? Redistribution of Wealth to the Rich

page: 8
40
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


jamesfetzer.blogspot.com...



Got that? The government, since Vietnam, was actually including the Social Security Trust Fund in the budget to make the cost of America’s military mania seem smaller next to the total cost of government. But there’s more. Hold on… “That [$3trillion] figure includes the Pentagon budget request of $717 billion, plus an estimated $200 billion in supplemental funding (called ‘overseas contingency funding’ in euphemistic White House-speak), to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, some $40 billion or more in ‘black box’ intelligence agency funding, $94 billion in non-DOD military spending (that would include stuff like military activities funded through NASA, military spending by the State Department, etc., military-related activities within the Dept. of Homeland Security, etc.), $123 billion in veterans benefits and health care spending, and $400 billion in interest on debt raised to pay for prior wars and the standing military during peacetime (whatever that is!).” How’s that for a spending menu? But there’s more…




posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   
I see nothing wrong with a little more equality. If it weren't for the workers on the production lines busting their asses day after day after day, the wealthy industrialists, business owners, et cetera, would have nothing to show for themselves. They would be forced to do all of the work themselves and we know how that would turn out don't we? They would fail overnight.

It is a two way street. The employees are just as important as the employer. Without the employees, the employer goes nowhere fast, and without the employer the employees have nowhere in which to work. Both are equal in importance and therefore, both should be treated equally.

Unfortunately, the current social structure forbids equality and even turns its nose up at the very suggestion of such a thing ever occuring. Worse yet, is that the majority of people actually fight against a system that would promote equality and fairness by equating it with communism, and the evils that are associated with that political system. They constantly remind us of how horrible this type of ideology was for the people, and while they are correct in their assesment, it does not mean that under trustworthy governance, a system that promoted equality for all couldn't succeed.

I believe that an ideology like this could succeed and succeed very well.

As I previously stated, without the employee, the employer is left with nothing. They would be unable to successfully operate their business effectively. So why shouldn't the employee be entitled to a larger slice of the pie so to speak? I believe that the employee should be given a larger slice of the pie. A much larger slice than they are currently allotted in any case.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Isosceles
 


No way -- what we need is FREE TECHNOLOGY for corporations so they can AUTOMATE so that their highest cost -- labor -- is no longer needed. It works through accelerated depreciation -- a little trick that Reagan kicked in high gear: not just depreciation but tax CREDITS!!!

www.theatlantic.com...




Thus, under ACRS, the tax treatment of a $100,000 bulldozer works roughly like this: The company begins by claiming a $30,000 deduction for depreciation. This means that a $30,000 deduction will exempt (shelter) $30,000 of the company's profits from tax; since the corporate tax rate is 46 percent, the deduction will save the company nearly $15,000. Next, the company claims a $10,000 investment-tax credit, which is subtracted directly from its tax bill. (The 10 percent investment-tax credit has existed in various forms since 1962.) Combined, the two tax breaks save the company $25,000. After the first year, the bulldozer produces no credits, since the investment-tax credit is a one-time benefit, but depreciation continues. Eventually this tax treatment will be even more generous. The declining balance will increase to 175 percent in 1985 and to 200 percent in 1986.


[edit on 22-4-2010 by drew hempel]



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   
I am not going to spend all night debunking each one of these rich people are destroying the middle class arguments because I have better things to do. What I will say is a book called "A Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism" changed my life for the better. I used to believe all the crap being spewed on this thread, but that book changed my thinking and I am a smarter person for it. Now what I will say is I am not rich, but I am a small business owner who owns a tax prep service so I literally see thousands of tax forms each year. So, trust me when I say the more you make the more Uncle Sam gets...If you look at straight income then you will arrive at the wonderful numbers the OP has posted, but once you consider the taxes paid for consumption of goods, investments and other variables the "rich" in some states pay upwards of 65% - 75% of what they earn in taxes. So I challenge anyone to take that deal and be happy with it. Go find a dollar and give me 75 cents because I need to go buy that big fat Hersey's bar that tastes good now, but puts on the pounds later...Oh wait we're not talking about you giving me 75 cents that is actually the government getting fat on all of my hard earned money! Wealth and rich people aren't the problem the bureaucrats in Washington are.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Spider2009
 


Everyone knows that taxes on consumption are REGRESSIVE. Luxury goods are often tax deductions -- horses, yachts, the 2nd house, etc.

Capital gains -- investments -- is only taxed at 15%

So those are all lower taxes for the rich. Social security is not only regressive but stolen by the rich for the military.

So you work for the rich.

You're JOB is a TAX DEDUCTION!

freelanceswitch.com...



f you find yourself in a situation where you need to consult with a lawyer or an accountant, for any reason related to your freelancing, you can write off those professional fees. Documenting such expenses is just a matter of having an invoice or receipt.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 11:59 PM
link   
While I would like to state for the record that |I do not hate the rich in any way shape or form, I know that the majority, just like anyone else, are kind human beings. What I do know is that many in the top income bracket are able to afford accountants that can find them loopholes which enable them to save themselves thousands of dollars annually. Let us not forget the individuals who have hidden a large portion of their wealth in suiss bank accounts to avoid further taxation.

The middle class and the poor cannot afford these luxuries and often end up paying nearly the same in taxes that those in the wealthiest income bracket are required to pay every year.

Let us not forget that the largest corporations are given huge tax breaks and incentives your average American could only dream of, and they receive corporate welfare on top of that.

Meanwhile, we have people bitching about having to pay Joe Shmoe down the street his whopping four hundred dollars a month to sit at home and live like a king off of the backs of American taxpayers. Yet, they say nothing regarding the corporate welfare system in which the costs trump the citizens welfare system by a vast margin.

Let us also not forget the attitude so prevelant that the average Joe Shmoe is a lazy, freeloading leech that survives off of the backs of American taxpayers when Joe Shmoe could have very well been a taxpayer up until the economy began to crash, or before that when hundreds of thousands of jobs up and left America for third world countries due to greed and the desire to profit even further.

Joe Shmoe, however, should suck it up, support his family, continue paying his mortgage, his utilities and his health and car insurance, by securing a job at Burger King. That'll surely keep he and his family afloat, huh?

Of course it wont. Now he is homeless or living in a tent with his wife and two children, while bankers, and corporate CEO's continue to pat themselves on the backs and award themselves hefty bonuses on top of their already inflated salaries. Yeah, that certainly sounds like a fair and just system to me.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by RRokkyy
 





If you believe that you have been thoroughly and completely brainwashed by TPTB. You now believe that a persons failure, or poverty is their own fault. Basically if you fail it is because you are a SINNER, or LAZY.


Blame is irrelevant, and it is not I who has accused the poor of anything, nor could you quote me saying so, but look at who has been quoted as calling the poor sinners and lazy, and not only using these words, but capitalizing them to stress the belief...why, it's you!

If you choose to be a helpless victim and surrender your own personal power to some mysterious acronym that is your choice to make.




You are pwned by the TPTB. You have Stockholm syndrome.


Right, it couldn't possibly be that I am simply a powerful being who has control of my own destiny. Nope, must be Stockholm syndrome. Must be that I have been brainwashed. After all, studies show...




All the studies show people succeed based on inherited IQ and talent. In the same family the children with the high IQs end up with the better jobs.


Mmmmmm...all studies? Are you sure? Consider this study:




The study concludes that, generally, income increases with IQ; but, the increased income does not necessarily translate into increased wealth (by “wealth” the study means “net worth”). It also says that people with high IQ are not consistently better than people with low IQ at staying away from financial distress - as measured by problems like maxed out credit cards, late bill payments, and bankruptcy.


www.thetaoofmakingmoney.com...




In his Working with Emotional Intelligence Goleman wrote: "I found that 67 percent - two out of three - of the abilities deemed essential for effective performance were emotional competencies. Compared to IQ and expertise, emotional competence mattered twice as much. This held true across all categories of jobs, and in all kinds of organizations."

Going beyond 67%, Yale professor Sternberg writes in American Psychologist in Nov. 1995: "Between 75% and 96% of the variance in real world criteria such as job performance cannot be accounted for by individual differences in intelligence test scores."


sq.4mg.com...

That same studies continues with this:




Stanford professor Steele finds that the SAT is "in a sense an IQ test" and that "the SAT in fact measures only about 18% (ranging from 7% to 30%) of the factors that determine a person's freshman grades." Corroborating this 18% figure, James Maas found that SAT's accounted for 16% of future academic success at his Cornell. The point of all these numbers is that a large percentage of success is NOT related to IQ. Nevertheless, an increasing number of employers are asking job applicants to provide SAT scores. This is a wise trend in hiring, given that up to 1/3 of success in entry jobs is related to IQ. SAT's now largely test.for IQ, but the new SAT's may correlate more with high school grades than with IQ.


Or consider this study:




People don't become rich just because they are smart, said Jay Zagorsky, author of the study and a research scientist at Ohio State University 's Center for Human Resource Research.

Your IQ has really no relationship to your wealth. And being very smart does not protect you from getting into financial difficulty, Zagorsky said.


researchnews.osu.edu...

Or this study,or this and this study and many more too numerous to mention that contradict your claim with no citations.

If you want to be angry with me for insisting that you are very capable and have the capacity for greatness within you, that is your choice, but how does it help you?



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 

That was an excellent post with some great points. You are absolutely right when you say it is easy to rant myself included. It takes time to solve problems. It takes time to figure out what the real problems are. And I believe you are correct in that we can't solve complex problems with of the mark simple solutions such as just playing the blame game.
Also now that you mention it I have never worked for a poor man either!!



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Honestly...i don't mind the rich getting rich..or the rich getting richer..

My problem is that our government is structured in such a way where they respond dramatically to financial influence and lobbying from corporate interests.

So the tax code, policies and regulations end up dramatically skewed to favor the rich getting richer...to the detriment of the poor.

That's why you have Billionaires with half a conscience like Bill gates and Warren Buffet actually ASKING to be taxed more and explaining that they paid little and sometimes no tax at all.

An equal playing field is all anyone can ask for.

Some millionaires lobby for higher tax bils
www.marketwatch.com...

I should pay more tax, says US billionaire Warren Buffett
www.guardian.co.uk...



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
I'm gonna share some personal things here, which I usually would not, but I have a point to make.

The system is DEFINETLY set up to reward the rich and completely tax the poor at an increasing rate.

I'll use myself as an example.

I made a little over 500K last year, personal income.

I paid throughout the year, about 25K in income taxes. Another 8K for IE and CPP and those things.

I filed my return and do you know how much I got bacK?

Twenty Two Thousand.

Meanwhile one of my employees who makes 60K a year was dinged for 15K in taxes and had to give the government another 1200$ when he filed his return.

That is utterly ridiculous. I could not believe my eyes. To me, the richer you are, the more you should pay, it just makes sense.

I called the goverment, asked them what was up, they said

" Ohh your lucky, you fall into the higher tax bracket, enjoy your free money"

I felt sick to my stomach. So I left my house with my cheque in hand a brought it straight to the Community Big Brothers/Big Sisters club and donated all of it.

The system is purely un-moral.

~Keeper


The OP is talking about the US, not Canada.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by RRokkyy
 





If you believe that you have been thoroughly and completely brainwashed by TPTB. You now believe that a persons failure, or poverty is their own fault. Basically if you fail it is because you are a SINNER, or LAZY.


Blame is irrelevant, and it is not I who has accused the poor of anything, nor could you quote me saying so, but look at who has been quoted as calling the poor sinners and lazy, and not only using these words, but capitalizing them to stress the belief...why, it's you!

If you choose to be a helpless victim and surrender your own personal power to some mysterious acronym that is your choice to make.




You are pwned by the TPTB. You have Stockholm syndrome.


Right, it couldn't possibly be that I am simply a powerful being who has control of my own destiny. Nope, must be Stockholm syndrome. Must be that I have been brainwashed. After all, studies show...




All the studies show people succeed based on inherited IQ and talent. In the same family the children with the high IQs end up with the better jobs.


Mmmmmm...all studies? Are you sure? Consider this study:




The study concludes that, generally, income increases with IQ; but, the increased income does not necessarily translate into increased wealth (by “wealth” the study means “net worth”). It also says that people with high IQ are not consistently better than people with low IQ at staying away from financial distress - as measured by problems like maxed out credit cards, late bill payments, and bankruptcy.


www.thetaoofmakingmoney.com...




In his Working with Emotional Intelligence Goleman wrote: "I found that 67 percent - two out of three - of the abilities deemed essential for effective performance were emotional competencies. Compared to IQ and expertise, emotional competence mattered twice as much. This held true across all categories of jobs, and in all kinds of organizations."

Going beyond 67%, Yale professor Sternberg writes in American Psychologist in Nov. 1995: "Between 75% and 96% of the variance in real world criteria such as job performance cannot be accounted for by individual differences in intelligence test scores."


sq.4mg.com...

That same studies continues with this:




Stanford professor Steele finds that the SAT is "in a sense an IQ test" and that "the SAT in fact measures only about 18% (ranging from 7% to 30%) of the factors that determine a person's freshman grades." Corroborating this 18% figure, James Maas found that SAT's accounted for 16% of future academic success at his Cornell. The point of all these numbers is that a large percentage of success is NOT related to IQ. Nevertheless, an increasing number of employers are asking job applicants to provide SAT scores. This is a wise trend in hiring, given that up to 1/3 of success in entry jobs is related to IQ. SAT's now largely test.for IQ, but the new SAT's may correlate more with high school grades than with IQ.


Or consider this study:




People don't become rich just because they are smart, said Jay Zagorsky, author of the study and a research scientist at Ohio State University 's Center for Human Resource Research.

Your IQ has really no relationship to your wealth. And being very smart does not protect you from getting into financial difficulty, Zagorsky said.


researchnews.osu.edu...

If you want to be angry with me for insisting that you are very capable and have the capacity for greatness within you, that is your choice, but how does it help you?



"All of us, each and every single one of us, are capable of greatness. Whether we ever achieve that greatness, is entirely up to us. "

"Blame is irrelevant, and it is not I who has accused the poor of anything, nor could you quote me saying so, but look at who has been quoted as calling the poor sinners and lazy, and not only using these words, but capitalizing them to stress the belief...why, it's you!"

Are you a lawyer? Sounds like you are using double speak. Or maybe NLP.
YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SAID A FAILURE TO ACHIEVE GREATNESS IS A PERSONAL FAILURE. This is often translated by Christians to mean sinner or lazy.
I am the one who said failure has a lot to do with inherited IQ.

A high IQ does not guarantee success. However a low IQ does make it very difficult. There are not many retarded CEOs.

Statistics can be twisted to mean almost anything. My personal experience and observations has shown me that a difference in IQ between 120 and 135 results in a difference between a degree in the hard sciences,chemistry,math,physics and no such degree.


"Right, it couldn't possibly be that I am simply a powerful being who has control of my own destiny."
Nobody on earth has control of their destiny. Its delusional to think so. At most you can influence it a bit.
Though I did have a friend who met Joan of Arc when he was a kid, and she did tell him that he could make his own destiny.

But those with genius IQs often attribute their success to hard work and not luck and good genes. Thats just their ego talking.

The RICH are in fact a separate genetic superior class and half of all wealth is inherited. The inherited wealth is then used to provide all the advantages to their offspring,from better environment,to better education,to positions of power through corruption and influence.
The end result is corruption of government resulting in imperialist wars and slavery.

The best counter argument to great wealth is the communists system failed without the rich. The desire for Power was sufficient to corrupt and destroy them.

Like I said it is Stockholm syndrome when you worship the rich,unless you are one of them.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by RRokkyy
 





Are you a lawyer? Sounds like you are using double speak. Or maybe NLP. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SAID A FAILURE TO ACHIEVE GREATNESS IS A PERSONAL FAILURE. This is often translated by Christians to mean sinner or lazy. I am the one who said failure has a lot to do with inherited IQ.


Really? Why can't you quote me as saying that? Is it because you are lying? I think so. You are welcome to interpret, but let's be clear here; I said what I said, and I did not say what I did not say. You first have to reinterpret what I say in order to make the leap to what you claim Christians say. Ironically, before you do this, you claim I sound like I am using double speak.




A high IQ does not guarantee success. However a low IQ does make it very difficult. There are not many retarded CEOs.


Now your equating a low IQ with retardation. That's double speak.




Statistics can be twisted to mean almost anything. My personal experience and observations has shown me that a difference in IQ between 120 and 135 results in a difference between a degree in the hard sciences,chemistry,math,physics and no such degree.


Ahhh! Okay then, forget clinical studies, we've got you and your anecdotal evidence to rely upon. Right.




Nobody on earth has control of their destiny. Its delusional to think so. At most you can influence it a bit.


More anecdotal evidence, or did you actually do a double blind study to come to that conclusion? Delusional? Are you a psychiatrist? How's the current DSM coming along?




But those with genius IQs often attribute their success to hard work and not luck and good genes. Thats just their ego talking.


I see. So, hard work is just a waste a time then? Either we have luck and "good genes" and this will lead to wealth, or we are just doomed to poverty. Have you ever bothered to listen to your own ego talking, because it is in great disrepair my friend.




The RICH are in fact a separate genetic superior class and half of all wealth is inherited. The inherited wealth is then used to provide all the advantages to their offspring,from better environment,to better education,to positions of power through corruption and influence. The end result is corruption of government resulting in imperialist wars and slavery.


Is that a fact? Really? A fact with out citation because you've all ready explained how statistical data could be misleading and your own personal experience far closer to the truth. While you're so busy envying this "separate genetic superior class" have you considered your own corruption. I mean let's face it, you have demonstrated your willingness to lie just for the dim hope you can win an argument.




The best counter argument to great wealth is the communists system failed without the rich. The desire for Power was sufficient to corrupt and destroy them.


The best counter argument to great wealth is the communist system failed without the rich? That sounds like an argument for great wealth. Not a very good argument, but it is hardly a counter argument for great wealth.




Like I said it is Stockholm syndrome when you worship the rich,unless you are one of them.


You say this about me, but let's just post your own assessment of the rich one more time:




The RICH are in fact a separate genetic superior class and half of all wealth is inherited.


That sir, is worshiping the rich. Try again.

[edit on 23-4-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 12:14 AM
link   
The fact that anyone takes this as bad news shows just how warped and depraved people have become. While the OP was worrying about the rich getting richer did he or she happen to notice that everyone's real wages were increasing?

In other words even the poor were getting more. Who cares if the rich get richer as long as the majority of folks are blessed with more buying power. The politics of envy is destructive indeed. The left would actually prefer that everyone wallow in miserable poverty just as long as the rich were stripped of their wealth. That is the typical outcome of communism and socialism.

The fact is we should want the rich to get richer and we want more of the middle class to become rich. That wealth fuels the economy. The fact that the current administration has an insane redistribute the wealth plan, that Stalin would be proud of, should be cause for alarm.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenThunders
 


www.epi.org...



In 1979, the top 10% of families received 67.0% of all income generated by assets such as stocks, bonds and real estate. By 2006, that share had risen to 81.3%. By contrast, the share of capital income that went to the other 90% of families has fallen from 33.0% in 1979 to 18.7% in 2006. The portion of capital income going to the top 1% of families has gradually increased from 38.0% in 1979, so that by 2006 this small group received more than half – 57.7% -- of all capital income.


www.epi.org...



The 400 American households with the highest incomes also have enjoyed a much faster pace of income growth than the vast majority. And, because tax rates applied to their income have fallen by a third, their after-tax incomes grew substantially faster than their pre-tax incomes. The figure looks at inflation-adjusted pre-tax and after-tax income growth for the 400 top-income families between 1992 and 2007, based on new data recently released by the Internal Revenue Service. It shows that while pre-tax income grew by a staggering 409% over that 15-year period, after-tax income increased even more, by 476%.





www.epi.org...



Economic Snapshot for July 22, 2009 Minimum wage workers: better educated, worse compensated by Andrew Green and Heidi Shierholz This Friday, the federal minimum wage will increase from $6.55 to $7.25, the third and final step in the minimum wage increase Congress authorized in 2007. With this final step, an estimated 4.5 million of America’s lowest paid workers will receive a raise, but this increase still leaves the real value of the minimum wage lower than it was 30 years ago.


[edit on 24-4-2010 by drew hempel]

[edit on 24-4-2010 by drew hempel]

[edit on 24-4-2010 by drew hempel]

[edit on 24-4-2010 by drew hempel]



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by drew hempel
 


OK I'm going to offer a simple math lesson free of charge. I will ask a few basic questions to see if you've got it.

The first lesson is that percentage of a total does not tell you what the actual total is. A percentage is a fraction of the total. The total wealth of a nation is not a fixed amount. In the case of the economy of a healthy industrialized nation, the total wealth as measured by buying power and accumulated goods and services increases, due to increases in production and the creation of new classes of products and services, especially as technology advances.

1) If the rich obtain a larger percentage of the total output of a nation that implies the poor are getting poorer right?
Answer:
No as the earlier graphs clearly show most segments of the population increased their overall wages after taxes.
2) If the rich are getting richer, we must be evil and unfair.
Answer:
No, the more capable and aggressive members of society have always accumulated more wealth, but not necessarily at the 'expense' of their fellow man. Does Lebron James produce more points for his team at the expense of his teammate Mo Williams? If baskets were a closed sum game as many of you think the economy is, then there would be no reason to have a top producer like Lebron. In fact we should reduce his minutes because it's 'unfair' to his teammates.

The latter thinking is the politics of envy that the left and folks like Hitler, Karl Marx, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Obama and other moral infants have exploited as part of their rigid and totalitarian view of a socialist utopia. These people use this moral failing as a lever to confiscate wealth (aka stealing) from hardworking people and give it to their cronies and the unproductive.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenThunders
 


I'm gonna make this REAL SIMPLE for you:




but this increase still leaves the real value of the minimum wage lower than it was 30 years ago.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by drew hempel
reply to post by SevenThunders
 


I'm gonna make this REAL SIMPLE for you:




but this increase still leaves the real value of the minimum wage lower than it was 30 years ago.


If I could be allowed to jump in briefly Drew, I would just like to interject that you are correct, that regardless of how much wages have increased, in a time when the threat of hyperinflation is very real, it makes little difference that wages have risen. Further, empathetic to your concerns, if it is "the rich" who are the ones who have conspired to have a Federal Reserve thrust upon us, (the agency most responsible for the inflationary times we live in), then "the rich" deserve to have several cans of whoopass opened up on them.

Of course, "the rich" is just too vague and broad of a term, and what needs to happen is abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning the responsibility of printing and coining monies to that branch which was Constitutionally mandated the responsibility to begin with, which is Congress. The reasons wages have increased and yet less can be bought with that increase is due to fiat money, or valueless money. This is the source of inflation and the simple answer to fixing it is to stop relying on fiat money. Attacking "the rich" accomplishes nothing, as they are as mysterious as the acronymistic TBTB. We can't fight ghosts, but we can fight real existing institutions that are causing this problem.



[edit on 24-4-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Let's see, who are the real winners of the redistribution of wealth.

I would say entities like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Chase, the Federal Reserve, the IMF, the government, the crooks like Bush and Obama, all the other criminals in government and the mega corps.

I wonder if the OP is going to call for more power to be placed in the government's hands and the VERY people that have stolen the TRILLIONS of dollars around the world?

Probably not, some people just cannot see beyond the propaganda.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 





I would say entities like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Chase, the Federal Reserve, the IMF, the government, the crooks like Bush and Obama, all the other criminals in government and the mega corps.


The government itself does not profit....although it has been USED by all the entities above to get the "redistrubution" both you and I speak of.



I wonder if the OP is going to call for more power to be placed in the government's hands and the VERY people that have stolen the TRILLIONS of dollars around the world?


Well holy S man....what is your solution? You know that the only viable way to fix things is THROUGH government...whether you want to Regulate MORE or LESS.

You made a thread about possibly running for office on a vague set of issues. Why should I trust you? If I followed your logic, I should never trust you.

What's amazing to me...EndisNighe...you blast me for this thread...yet you are also agreeing with me with your statement.

You agree that the filthiest of the wealthy has ripped off the rest of us. In fact, I can't figure out why you are even being critical of any of this.



Probably not, some people just cannot see beyond the propaganda.


Come on. What propaganda am i not seeing through?

The MEGA CORPS, the big banks, all of it....employs the wealthiest people in the world.

How can you not make the correlation?



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


Hi Dave,

I'm going to address this particular post you wrote in response to endisnighe.

There are two types of recognizable tyranny, that of the government and that of the wealthy. You and I may recognize tyranny of the wealthy without acknowledging tyranny of government. While someone else may recognize tyranny of government without acknowledging tyranny of the wealthy.

In our society we've been led to believe that the wealthy individuals are worthy of praise for their individualistic success and deserve whatever they recieve. The champions of the 'American Dream'. It's this thought process that has enabled the wealthy to become feudal lords without regards to the people and bypassing the issues that a government official may face. A majority can fire a politician, but not a CEO.

I can hear the argument against the above statement now, "The free market will fire the CEO." No, it will only cause them to reinvest in the next highly profitable market, enabling their wealth while removing themselves from the publics crosshairs.

Any attempt to correct the system we have now is branded a 'redistribution of wealth' and is antithema to the 'American Dream', thus, anti-American.

On the first page of this thread we heard about a nice bit of philanthropy, $22,000 in charity. That's a tax deduction. That's the system we have now. When you make a lot of money, the system rewards you even further, perpetuating your 'American Dream'. When you don't make as much money, the system can punish you and you can be labeled a failure of society, incompetent, lazy, or all of the above.

This country needs socialism, it needs smarter government to stop the oppression of mega-corporations. We need a redistribution of wealth. We don't have freemarket choice when one company owns a majority of the products you buy. We need to progress beyond this belief that the richest people in the world are somehow better than the rest of us simply because they make more.





top topics
 
40
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join


ATS Live Reality Remix is on-air in 17 minutes.
ATS Live Radio Presents - Reality Remix Live SE6 EP6

atslive.com

hi-def

low-def