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.

 

Moore On Wealthy People's Money: "That's Not Theirs, That's A National Resource, It's Ours"

page: 11
21
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkrunner
 


You have the Fed Reserve to thank for that. With no regulation, no oversight, they can manipulate the market, and inflate the currency. Thus suggesting higher taxes is in the best " interest " of the people! The state of things is actually becoming comical! You got idiots like Moore who claim that all should be wealthy, and oppose Capitalism, and yet there he is as an entrepreneur. Selling his movies and making millions. Contradictory much?




posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by Aggie Man
 





Government intervention would stop needless blood shed.


And the government intervention has done so well for the citizenry of this country thus far hasn't it? You honestly believe that the USG intervention would prevent blood shed? laughable at best~


Not a physical, military intervention. I mean taxing the rich, just as they did to pull us out of the great depression. And, yes, I believe it would work just as it did before. The rich survived and lived to prosper another day. It's not laughable, it's a proven reality.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 





I mean taxing the rich, just as they did to pull us out of the great depression.


You do realize that it wasnt taxes that pulled us out of the depression, it was FDR and his interventionist minions that backed off and allowed the Free market to right itself.


By 1936, the main economic indicators had regained the levels of the late 1920s, except for unemployment, which remained high at 11%, although this was considerably lower than the 25% unemployment rate seen in 1933. In the spring of 1937, American industrial production exceeded that of 1929 and remained level until June 1937. In June 1937, the Roosevelt administration cut spending and increased taxation in an attempt to balance the federal budget.[79] The American economy then took a sharp downturn, lasting for 13 months through most of 1938. Industrial production fell almost 30 per cent within a few months and production of durable goods fell even faster. Unemployment jumped from 14.3% in 1937 to 19.0% in 1938, rising from 5 million to more than 12 million in early 1938.[80] Manufacturing output fell by 37% from the 1937 peak and was back to 1934 levels.[81] Producers reduced their expenditures on durable goods, and inventories declined, but personal income was only 15% lower than it had been at the peak in 1937. As unemployment rose, consumers' expenditures declined, leading to further cutbacks in production. By May 1938 retail sales began to increase, employment improved, and industrial production turned up after June 1938.[82] After the recovery from the Recession of 1937–1938, conservatives were able to form a bipartisan conservative coalition to stop further expansion of the New Deal and, when unemployment dropped to 2%, they abolished WPA, CCC and the PWA relief programs. Social Security, however, remained in place.



The crisis had many political consequences, among which was the abandonment of classic economic liberal approaches, which Roosevelt replaced in the U.S. with Keynesian policies. These policies magnified the role of the federal government in the national economy. Between 1933 and 1939, federal expenditure tripled, and Roosevelt's critics charged that he was turning America into a socialist state.[83] The Great Depression was a main factor in the implementation of social democracy and planned economies in European countries after World War II (see Marshall Plan). Although Austrian economists had challenged Keynesianism since the 1920s, it was not until the 1970s, with the influence of Milton Friedman that the Keynesian approach was politically questioned.


Take note in the first:



In the spring of 1937, American industrial production exceeded that of 1929 and remained level until June 1937



By allowing the Free Market to sustain itself, production output and financial prosperity began. But then this occurred:



Roosevelt administration cut spending and increased taxation in an attempt to balance the federal budget

The American economy then took a sharp downturn, lasting for 13 months through most of 1938. Industrial production fell almost 30 per cent within a few months and production of durable goods fell even faster. Unemployment jumped from 14.3% in 1937 to 19.0% in 1938, rising from 5 million to more than 12 million in early 1938.[80] Manufacturing output fell by 37% from the 1937 peak and was back to 1934 levels



By allowing the market in 1938, to " right itself", it allowed for further prosperity. The high taxation was't the reason for the end of the Depression, the Free Market, and WW2, which allowed for contracts and the " war machine " boosted the economy.
edit on 10-3-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Lol where are you getting your historical information from? Taxing the wealthy is NOT what pulled us out of the depression.

If you would like to debate financial history, I strongly suggest you study the topic first.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


FDR and his interventionist minions? It was these people that were directly responsible for bringing us out of the great depression via the great compression.


The Great Compression refers to an economic event in the United States in the early 1940s in which the difference in wealth and income between the rich and poor became much smaller than it had been in preceding time periods. Economist Paul Krugman gives credit to the policies of President Franklin Roosevelt as having deliberately caused the event and points out that its effects have lasted up until the 1980s. Decades of conservative economic policies beginning in the 1980s and beyond have slowly resulted in a re-emergence of the wealth inequality that had existed prior to the great compression.


en.wikipedia.org...


The Great Compression: The middle-class society I grew up in didn’t evolve gradually or automatically. It was created, in a remarkably short period of time, by FDR and the New Deal. As the chart shows, income inequality declined drastically from the late 1930s to the mid 1940s, with the rich losing ground while working Americans saw unprecedented gains. Economic historians call what happened the Great Compression, and it’s a seminal episode in American history.


krugman.blogs.nytimes.com...

Furthermore, the charts below argue my point nicely. Notice that the years the tax rates were higher on the rich, happen to coincide with years where economic equality was most prevalent.





Attribute this to whatever you wish. I attribute it to higher taxation on the wealthiest 1-2%.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


First things first...

Do you believe a tax rate of 90+% holds a place in the "land of the free"???

Just because someone can afford it is not a reason to tax them more.

The government taking 90 cents out of every dollar flies in the face of everything this country was founded upon.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by HaveAnotherOne
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


First things first...

Do you believe a tax rate of 90+% holds a place in the "land of the free"???

Just because someone can afford it is not a reason to tax them more.

The government taking 90 cents out of every dollar flies in the face of everything this country was founded upon.


Yes, If they will not put the money back into the economy, then yes...100% yes!

It's not like that top 1% will go bankrupt, or even be in want.

Amassing wealth beyond ones capability to spend in 100 lifetimes while many other suffer is not right. If someone chooses to engage in such activity, then I would give them two options: (1) spend 90% on new jobs and pay equality or (2) get taxed that 90%. Either way, the money should be circulated throughout the economy. It should not be horded at the expense of everyone else. It's unsustainable and is certain to collapse.

So, now you can call me a socialist if you wish to do so. I don't mind that label. It's a damn sight better that being labeled a greedy rich elite.
edit on 10-3-2011 by Aggie Man because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by HaveAnotherOne
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Why not create your own wealth instead of worrying who has what?

The opportunities are only limited by your own intelligence.

People have the right to use their property (in this case their money) in any way they see fit, whether it be saving every penny of it, or blowing it like its going out of style.

Yet you want to take it away under threat of force through taxation????? Not much for property rights are you?
edit on 10-3-2011 by HaveAnotherOne because: (no reason given)


But when the banks had to be bailed out that money came from forced taxation. I didn't see a post from you saying let the banks fail.

All the "carry your own weight" mantra went away. What the rich started to say is they needed help for the overall good of scoiety.

When corporations start opening their own schools and building their own road, then they can start complaining about taxes.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Well you are in fact a socialist, and as a result, there is no further need to debate. You are clearly opposed to the ideals this nation was founded upon. You have zero respect for property rights, or economic freedoms.

IMO, you are the cause of the future of this nation looking dim. You and people like you.

How about I fund your relocation to another nation? Venezuela perhaps?


edit on 3-10-2011 by Springer because: removed childish name calling



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Daughter2
 


Uh, corporations do in fact have their own schools.

You didnt hear me complaining about the bailouts because I wasnt on this site at that time. Rest assured, I am just as much opposed to them as I am any other ridiculous unconstitutional expenditure.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man
Yes, If they will not put the money back into the economy, then yes...100% yes!

It's not like that top 1% will go bankrupt, or even be in want.

Amassing wealth beyond ones capability to spend in 100 lifetimes while many other suffer is not right.


Having that much unused resources is also anti-free market. Free market depends on people doing rational things (things which increase wealth). Hoarding money and resources hurts the poor as well as the rich.

At a certain point, they aren't taking money to get rich (which would rational under the free market theory), they are doing it out of pure emotional needs (getting power).



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


I have to say, using one man, Paul Krugmanm, who is obviously liberally biased, based on the fact that he works for the NYP, is hardly viable evidence. Further, I find it interesting that Pauls conclusions state that the implemented scheme showed prosperity between the different financial standards, when it is known fact that :


By May 1938 retail sales began to increase, employment improved, and industrial production turned up after June 1938.



So if in 1938, the standard of living was just then showing signs of prosperity, how is it, prosperity was already ascertained prior?

The fact still remains that it was WW2, and interventionists allowing the Free market to right itself. Plain and simple. If you wish to embrace a mans opinion, based off of his personal thoughts and views, and believe whole heartedly that a simple graph he conjured up in his garage as your basis of argument..then I can't help you~



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by HaveAnotherOne
reply to post by Daughter2
 


Uh, corporations do in fact have their own schools.

You didnt hear me complaining about the bailouts because I wasnt on this site at that time. Rest assured, I am just as much opposed to them as I am any other ridiculous unconstitutional expenditure.



But it's NOT TOO LATE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT BAILOUTS. The money still can be returned! Just change the tax laws and the money can be given back.

Why is your focus on teachers and not banks.

Do you really think the extra union wages hurt the economy more than the illegal/bad management of Wall street?



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by HaveAnotherOne
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


First things first...

Do you believe a tax rate of 90+% holds a place in the "land of the free"???

Just because someone can afford it is not a reason to tax them more.

The government taking 90 cents out of every dollar flies in the face of everything this country was founded upon.


Yes, If they will not put the money back into the economy, then yes...100% yes!

It's not like that top 1% will go bankrupt, or even be in want.

Amassing wealth beyond ones capability to spend in 100 lifetimes while many other suffer is not right. If someone chooses to engage in such activity, then I would give them two options: (1) spend 90% on new jobs and pay equality or (2) get taxed that 90%. Either way, the money should be circulated throughout the economy. It should not be horded at the expense of everyone else. It's unsustainable and is certain to collapse.

So, now you can call me a socialist if you wish to do so. I don't mind that label. It's a damn sight better that being labeled a greedy rich elite.
edit on 10-3-2011 by Aggie Man because: (no reason given)




Wouldn't that suggest, that the very thought or practice of liberty, by being an entrepreneur, to promote ones business, and to stimulate the economy, by creating jobs go along with what the founding fathers desired for this country? Your suggesting that because these business owners are more successful because they may be smarter than you and I, that they should be made to pay " consequences " for being more productive? For having a brighter mind? Wheres the logic in that? Where's the liberty in that?
edit on 10-3-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Daughter2
 


lol changing the tax laws would impact a banks CLIENTS more than it would the bank itself. Taxes are passed on to the end consumer. What part of that do you not understand?



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by HaveAnotherOne
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


Pay no attention to Aggie. He simply has a case of wallet envy, typical of supporters of income redistribution.

They realize they are either : too lazy, too dumb, or a combination of both to make something of themselves, so they want to punish those who do so they can feel better about themselves.



What's up with the name calling? parasite? lazy? dumb?

Dude, I make a damn good living. One does not have to be poor or dumb in order to embrace social justice and equality. The fact of the matter is that where I have a heart, you have a lump of coal.




posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Please enlighten us where it says in the Constitution that states that the smarter and richer are obligated to pay for the poor, and the lazy? Please reference an Article or Section from the Document. Then, and only then will your argument have merit.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Descriptors, not name calling. What you propose is feeding the parasites, when they should be starved and not fed.

Ah social justice, a leftists favorite euphemism for income redistribution.

You are hitting all of the talking points arent you. Heart, nor emotion has no place in economics, nor politics for that matter. Especially when it comes to other peoples property. Be compassionate all you want with your own money, but keep your emotions out of other peoples wallets.

Now, how about that relocation?

Better yet, lets see how true you are to your feelings. Go to the charitable website of your choice and donate $500. Then post a screencap of the receipt. Since you make a "good living", it shouldnt be a problem right? Lets start distributing some of your income first.

Why dont you simply just admit that you have no use for the Constitution, or any of the foundations this country was founded upon?
edit on 10-3-2011 by HaveAnotherOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Please enlighten us where it says in the Constitution that states that the smarter and richer are obligated to pay for the poor, and the lazy? Please reference an Article or Section from the Document. Then, and only then will your argument have merit.


No need to cite it, as it is not in there.

What I can say is that our founding fathers never fathomed the possibility of mega corporations and super rich elite that horde money to gain power. In fact, I believe they loathed the notion. Slowly but surely, the richest Americans are becoming more like royalty, while us serfs do the grunt work to add to their untapped fortune.

While you may believe that the constitution is the end all to be all, I call it nothing more than a basic frame work that should be expanded upon as the times demand it to be.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join