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: 12
21
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.




posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by HaveAnotherOne
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.


I donate regularly. I'm not going to go do that just to prove a point to you. However, here is a thread I started a year ago that proves that I donate my money to charities:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Or do you think I posted that thread a year ago in anticipation of your challenge?



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


I donated eleventy jillion dollars to every charity on earth.

Those words carry the same amount of proof do as yours in that thread.

Evidence is what counts, not just mere words.

The problem in America is there isnt enough violent hatred for you and your ilk. Once people like you are gone once and for all, the rest of us can go on being free.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by HaveAnotherOne
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Then why not add a Constitutional Amendment?

Wait I know. Because people like you are so freaking loony, it would never get passed. You are just as bad as the jesus freaks.


There is already an amendment dealing with taxation, the 16th to be specific.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Nothing about redistributing it.

Try again.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by HaveAnotherOne
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Nothing about redistributing it.

Try again.


Nothing that says it can't be redistributed (i.e., reinvested).



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man


Nothing that says it can't be redistributed (i.e., reinvested).


Lol you just showed your true lack of knowledge of the document.

It is not an affirmative grant of powers subject to particular limitations. ALL government power stems from the Constitution, and when it comes to spending public money, they are limited by the specific enumerations in Article 1 Section 8.

Incidentally, the 16th gave the powers NO NEW powers of taxation. You do know that right?
edit on 10-3-2011 by HaveAnotherOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
**ENOUGH**

The personal attacks an bickering will stop here. Please refrain from discussing each other and discuss the topic at hand. Members participating in this discussion who continue to name call and post off topic remarks will have their posts removed and warnings will be given.

Do not reply to this post.

Thank You.


~Keeper
ATS Moderator



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Looks like someone got their feeling hurts, because someone got learned! I failed to see the personal attacks, considering most were descriptors of society in general but ok?



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Actually, WW2 did not end the Great Depression. WW2 ended the New (Raw) Deal, and that's what ended the Great Depression.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by zappafan1
 


To a degree, I would agree...but WW2 was more of a catalyst.

Edit ADD to post: keeping in mind, the economic growth started in 1938, but we didnt get into the war until Dec 7 1941.
edit on 10-3-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daughter2

Originally posted by zappafan1
reply to post by BillfromCovina
 


That rant sounds exactly like what I would expect from someone who lives on the Left coast. The sooner Cal. falls into the water, the better.



Hey are you just as upset about the bailouts? I looked at your past posts and you don't seem to have a problem with using tax dollars - as long as those tax dollars go to the rich.

You ok with a big government - when those things support the rich. Like have politicians try to arrest people for not voting.



REPLY: What you call "tax dollars" means nothing more than those that earned it keeping more of their money. I have no problem with that. It's "the rich" who create jobs, not some poor shlub living on the street. at the very least, the rich put their money into banks, who then loan it to others to open a new business or expand an existing one. Do as I did and start your own business, see what hoops the local, state and federal governments make you jump through, and get back to us.

Do you realize that not one person on this entire website forum could make a pencil ( as we are used to.)? Ask anyone who works in construction, or who build cars, or yachts if they mind some rich guy buying any of those things.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man
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%.


REPLY: Krugman is an intellectual idiot who has never been right about things economic, because he believes in Keynesian economics. The guy shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the mush-filled minds of our youth. Joe Biden has lots of foreign policy experience, too, but he's always been wrong. For every Krugman there are ten economists who say he's a loon.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
To save ourselves from economic and financial disaster, a dramatic change in the conventional wisdom of economic policy by our leaders is essential. The numbers are growing, the people are becoming aware of the atrocity we face from the Federal Reserve. With a better understanding of the monetary policy, the better off we will be when the time comes to establish a new more tangibly backed currency.

Then, prosperity will be gained.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1

Originally posted by Daughter2

Originally posted by zappafan1
reply to post by BillfromCovina
 

It's "the rich" who create jobs, not some poor shlub living on the street. at the very least, the rich put their money into banks, who then loan it to others to open a new business or expand an existing one.




Here's part of the problem. It's not the rich who are creating jobs, it's the middle and poor income people who finally manage some extra cash to take a chance who are the backbone of America.

The rich are cheating the game of capitalism by not spending their money freely enough, they are sitting on billions that are supposed to be circulating in society.

There is a finite amount of money, simply because there is a finite amount of natural resources.

What has happened is...there are five kids in a circle. They are circulating a bag of candy that has thousands of pieces. There's a fat kid in the circle and everytime the bag passes him he holds the bag longer than the mandatory 2 seconds, he holds it 2 minutes and then instead of removing one piece of candy, he removes 10 pieces. One of the other kids calls him out on what he's doing, "You're #ing up the rotation fat kid!" What's funny is the other kids then tell the objector to shut up because the fat kid has as much a right to take more than the rest if he wants. That's what people who are arguing for the rich are doing.

People who argue for the rich are cowards. They have no problem jumping down the throats of people lesser than them and calling them lazy. But soon as the rich guy walks past, they ask can they shine his shoes in hopes he'll toss some change their way. If the poor guy takes a nickel from you, you beat him to a pulp. If the rich guy takes a dollar from you, you look the other way and as he walks off you shout, "Maybe in the future you'll give me a nickel huh....MAYBE?" The rich guy doesn't even respond.

I'll finish this later...



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by DZAG Wright

Originally posted by zappafan1

Originally posted by Daughter2

Originally posted by zappafan1
reply to post by BillfromCovina
 

It's "the rich" who create jobs, not some poor shlub living on the street. at the very least, the rich put their money into banks, who then loan it to others to open a new business or expand an existing one.


Here's part of the problem. It's not the rich who are creating jobs, it's the middle and poor income people who finally manage some extra cash to take a chance who are the backbone of America.

The rich are cheating the game of capitalism by not spending their money freely enough, they are sitting on billions that are supposed to be circulating in society.

There is a finite amount of money, simply because there is a finite amount of natural resources.

What has happened is...there are five kids in a circle. They are circulating a bag of candy that has thousands of pieces. There's a fat kid in the circle and everytime the bag passes him he holds the bag longer than the mandatory 2 seconds, he holds it 2 minutes and then instead of removing one piece of candy, he removes 10 pieces. One of the other kids calls him out on what he's doing, "You're #ing up the rotation fat kid!" What's funny is the other kids then tell the objector to shut up because the fat kid has as much a right to take more than the rest if he wants. That's what people who are arguing for the rich are doing.

People who argue for the rich are cowards. They have no problem jumping down the throats of people lesser than them and calling them lazy. But soon as the rich guy walks past, they ask can they shine his shoes in hopes he'll toss some change their way. If the poor guy takes a nickel from you, you beat him to a pulp. If the rich guy takes a dollar from you, you look the other way and as he walks off you shout, "Maybe in the future you'll give me a nickel huh....MAYBE?" The rich guy doesn't even respond.

I'll finish this later...


REPLY: You write the first part of your sentence, then provide no evidence to back it up. Cute. The second part of your first sentence I agree with, but you don't realize that 99% of "the rich" started just that way. Then you give your opinion as to where and how much you think "the rich" should do with THEIR earnings. Please remember that "the rich" category reaches down to 100K, which isn't really "rich" at all. What you fail to realize is that you are saying the exact same thing the public unions and members are saying, except they want to tell the taxpayers (and you) how much money they (and you) should give up (by force of government.) The part about the "finite amount of money" is just plain ignorance of economics. The only body that can create money out of thin air is The fed, which we need to get out from under asap. You've obviously never owned a business.

The newest spewing of crappola from Michael "I never met a sandwich I didn't like" Moore was "..."The rich have committed these crimes and the people will demand your ass is in jail… we have a right to your money!" Yet he doesn't indicate what law gives people that "right." he can't because it doesn't exist in America.... and never will. But he's a big (and I do mean BIG) fan and supporter of Cuba/Castro and Hugo Chavez. Please, both of you move to somewhere that is of your liking. Get a job in either of those places, or try to start a private business there. Then you'll experience first hand what it is you wish for America.

America went from worst to first in less that 275 years because we allow ALL people to start the (economic) race at the same time. The Communists/Marxists/Socialists/Progressives/Democrats like yourself expect everyone to finish the race at the same time, regardless if they even run the race. That's like having the Super Bowl, and after the fourth quarter, if someone is ahead in points, they play overtime until the score is even, and game over.

Wealth and poverty can't both be bad, because wealth is the ANSWER to poverty. You obviously don't know this, but if someone makes an adjusted income of only $160,000, they are in the TOP 5% of earners, = the rich.
The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5 percent of nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax. So, you whiners, the numbers don't lie. Do some research, get a life, and quit whining because someone has two dollars more than you do.

New Data: Top 1% Pay Greater Dollar Amount in Income Taxes to Federal Government than Bottom 90%.
www.taxfoundation.org...

35% of people in America are on the public dole, and 38% pay virtually no taxes at all; and it's unsustainable. You could tax "the rich" at 100%, and it would hardly make a dent in the national debt. Selling America lock, stock and barrel wouldn't pay the total unfunded mandates the government (mostly Dems) "owes" over the next 30 years.
www.usdebtclock.org...
Look at the bottom-right, where it says "US Unfunded Liabilities," then right above it where it says "Total National assets>

edit on 10-3-2011 by zappafan1 because: Spelling (typing too fast)

edit on 10-3-2011 by zappafan1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-3-2011 by zappafan1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by zappafan1
 


That's all rather interesting data.

However, I see nothing to justify crediting FDR's policies with the observed trend.

This is one of the huge problems in these types of studies and statistics - the lack of experimental controls and the inability to isolate a variable. It's like the Aztecs slaying hundreds of prisoners and undesirables to prevent the end of the world during a solar eclipse. They did it and the world didn't end - therefor the practice was justified.... and no one wants to risk the end of the world for the sake of experimentation.

There were also several other factors that changed with the "crunch." Consumers began saving more. As I've already pointed out in other posts and threads - one of the huge problems that has lead to our current state is the demand for lines of credit and the lack of financially solvent individuals and lending institutions. While we can blame banks and federal regulations for only having a 1:10 reserve asset:liability ratio - the consumers are equally liable for living so hideously beyond their means.

I'm a young guy - older than I look, but none of what is going on today was my fault. I'm 22 - but I'm damned sure going to learn from the bone-head maneuvers of generations past.

Similarly - the solution to fixing our current problem will be to reduce the portion of the economy running off of credit and go back to a mentality of saving money as opposed to getting what we want now and paying it off five years later. In a strange way - job insecurity is the best motivator to adopt such economically and financially healthy consumer mentality.

Taxing the 'rich' more and spending even further into a deficit to guarantee the paychecks of government workers is not going to resolve the problems we see in the economy. It will only make them worse.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
It's "the rich" who create jobs, not some poor shlub living on the street. at the very least, the rich put their money into banks, who then loan it to others to open a new business or expand an existing one. Do as I did and start your own business, see what hoops the local, state and federal governments make you jump through, and get back to us.


The rich don't create jobs. In fact, I was looking at the job ads today and I couldn't find ONE job posted by a rich person.

Business trying to meet consumer demand creates jobs. The driving force is consumer demand - not wealth.

The rich aren't interested in creating growth as much as they are taking it from other people. The top 400 wealthiest people would live very happy lives by just taking things existing now (every house - all food).

Without consumer demand there would be no jobs.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Daughter2
 

First, you DO know that the term "rich" includes those making $110k per year... hardly "rich" by most standards. What do you think they do with their money... paper their den with it? Ask the (mostly union) workers if they care some "rich" guy buys a Cadillac or Lexus or....? What do you think they'd say?

Money equals freedom, and trying to explain freedom to many Americans is like trying to explain the concept of "wet" to a fish.

So, the "rich" don't create jobs? Here's but one scenario that plays itself out every single day, hundreds of times over:
Lets take an example (complaint?) of someone having a dream, or goal, of owning a 25 bedroom house (the same concept applies to most anything someone might want to buy): think of all the individual "parts" that it takes to build the house; wood, steel, glass, copper, stone, paper, shingles, oil products etc. Now think of all the people who mine/collect those materials. Then think of all the people who take the raw materials and process them from a raw material into things that can be used by another industry, who processes them into thousands of other items.

OK? Then there's a bunch of other people who take the processed materials and turn them into finished products, like nails, screws, glass for windows to light bulbs, paint and stain, shingles, 40 different types and sizes of wood products, copper wire and plumbing, door slides, hinges and pulls, and probably 100 or so more.

Now think of those who design the machines and tools that make all of that possible; then those who again take raw materials to build those machines and tools. Now think of the design and raw materials again needed to build the cars, trucks and motorcycles to get the people to their jobs, machinery to manufacture all of THOSE things, and all the jobs created along the way.

Apply the same reasoning to the oil recovery, materials, equipment/machinery and people who work together to produce the electricity that all of the above needed to accomplish all of that. So that one terrible rich person who had a dream or a goal of having a house has helped to provide at least 100,000 jobs, or more.... all for the want of one house. And all of them pay their taxes, invest their money in banks, who loan it to..... and the money goes 'round and 'round again.

Each and every one from the top down... in all the different income levels and building trades made money. They all, in their own way, help those around them. The richest among us pay over 90% of our taxes, are philanthropic, and have their money in banks (they don't put it under a mattress or paper that house with it), which loan it out to others who have that silly dream of a house, or a G-4, or sending their kid to college. So, again, ask the contractor, electrician, plumber, roofer, brick-layer, concrete workers and company, and on and on and on... if they care that some "rich" guy wants a house. All of that is why I'm about fed up with people who say that "the rich should pay their fair share." The above shows very explicitly how the rich DO pay their fair share; and that's BEFORE they pay their taxes.

Those rich people who educated themselves (to be able to invest in, or design or build all of that machinery,) make more than others because their efforts help the most number of people. Money (cash... dollars) are nothing more than Certificates of Appreciation for goods or services rendered. Under those rich people are all the other people who did the manual labor to do all of the other stuff. They are the ones who are hit hardest by government intervention (taxes) that is used mainly to sustain itself, and giving it to those who feel they deserve it merely because they belong to a minority group, or simply because they exist and draw breath, and it's stolen every week or two from those who work for a living, who then have less to help themselves, or others they feel are most in need. The ability to do all those things above is individual liberty and freedom at work, and Capitalism is what allows all of those things to happen. A true Democracy is basically nothing more than Socialism and mob rule. No Democracy in history has lasted more than 200 years, because the mob learns that they can vote themselves to receive money from those who earned it, which is where we've been headed since Woodrow Wilson.

Look.... read the Bill of Rights. Take notice that there are no rights that place a burden on your fellow man.
Socialism (which includes public unions) is always run by those who feel and believe that by their very existence they can make Socialism/Marxism or Communism work somehow, even though it's never worked in all of history (and over the past 80 years or so has directly resulted in the deaths of about one hundred million human beings.) It is those people who never have to live in the world they created, and they place a burden on everyone by taking their freedom (and, yes, money equals freedom) and distributing it to those who have put them in power (meaning a political outcome), instead of the capitalistic approach of the individual distributing it to who THEY feel needs it most, who use it for an economic outcome.

Finally, think of this: in 2009 the Federal Health and Human Services Department spent almost $700 Billion dollars; the Department of Defense spent $640 Billion; $540 Billion went to the Treasury Dept; $90 Billion to the Dept. of Transportation, and on down the list. Since 90% of the tax money going into government coffers come from the rich, just who do you think paid for the vast majority of that?


edit on 10-3-2011 by zappafan1 because: Added content

edit on 10-3-2011 by zappafan1 because: Content



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 





the lack of experimental controls and the inability to isolate a variable



If your implying that there should be a " variable " in the Free Market, I can assuredly tell you, that in the Free Market, if the interventionists stand clear, the Free market has the ability to run itself, and run itself rather well if I may add.

Your comment, " the lack of controls" would suggest that government regulation, or intervention is necessary. Which in fact, is the culprit ( which btw your apparently trying to find ), to why we are in the mess we are in today. Stop and take moment and think, look at our schools systems for example. The massive failure rate, and drop out levels. Why do you think that is? Do yo think A) Teachers dont care anymore, or B) to much liberal intervention which caused the teachers and faculty to become low level employees because the gov.t became the " mediator ".

My guess is the latter of the two. Point is, your looking for a " variable ", well there you have it. To much government intervention, regulation, restrictions etc, is the cause of our current crisis.




top topics



 
21
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join