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: 6
21
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by macman
Taxes are the price you pay for civilisation...and if folks can't afford Job's product, then it doesn't matter what he manufactures. As you seem to have discovered down there, when there's no work, and the credit runs out, things can get a little punky.

No taxes are not the price you pay for civilization. They are what is stolen out of your pocket to provide for everyone else.

Nonsense. Schools, roads, infrastructure, fire and police protection, etc, etc...you wanna dole out a check to every individual that offers you a societal service...even those that don't bite you in the butt?
How many people squawk about paying school taxes when they don't have kids...yet don't recognise the strengths of an educated society. It goes on, and the reward is civilisation. Cut everything, and you have suburban Detroit.


I believe you suffer from a self-induced, misplaced myopia....but that's just me.

This is a reply to the OP, and to you Johnny Cannuck. Michael Moore is a buffoon and laughable at best.
Did you Johnny Cannuck make 100,000 dollars last year? Well I only made approx 45K, so you need to give me some of your 100K because its not fair.
Do you see the logic in that? I didn't think you would.




posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Why should anyone care?

The wealth of America is controlled by a tiny fraction of the population and the piece of the cash pie that they eat is only getting bigger while everyone underneath them is going on a starvation diet.

The average American has been lulled into apathy and hit on the back of the head with a club while corporations take your wallet.

Are you working harder and making less? Did your ancestor toiling in the middle ages have a greater share of the proceeds?

Indeed.

motherjones.com...
edit on 4-3-2011 by Helmkat because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
Pretty close to a marxist philosophy.


As I watched the obviously rich AND well-fed Moore on the attached video, I couldn't help but think:

"Regarding Moore's food intake: That's not his, that's a national resource. It's ours".

source



Mods: please fix the link.
edit on 3/3/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)




edit on 3/3/2011 by 12m8keall2c because: fixed long link url


This is one of the best description of this guy that I ever read. Great observation!



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


So what did Michael Moore do with his winnings of lawsuits? He apparently made 222 million from one of his documentaries. As for those films being so successful, well I guess there's a lot of suckers out there that are willing to help make a so called rebel of his cause rich. He calls down capitalism but yet profits from it, don't you think it quite hypocritical? And makes an issue of guns, but yet he belongs to the NRA, go figure.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
He reminds me of that asshat Sean Penn, who praises the virtues of people like Chavez and Castro from his cozy Malibu beach house.

These people are to be laughed at, not taken seriously.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkrunner
 


Exactly, it's easy for them to talk big when there in their lush surroundings with lots of cash flow to make their lives comfortable. If their so into their tax deductible causes why don't donate all their riches and put their money where their mouths are.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
If capitalism wasn't a corporate welfare state, Moore's ideas could be deemed Marxist. However, this is not the case. We (i.e., the average taxpayer) are paying more than our relative fair share in order for the corporations (and the wealthy) to revel in welfare conditions for the purposes of providing jobs and supporting the economy.

But the jobs are eliminated or farmed, globally, where $.15 will by a firm the same work that in other countries (with a so-called) fair wage would cost $10. The money is exponentially taken and doled out to the rich who use its power and influence to steal even more from the taxpayers, behind an illusion of saving the economy ... which they are destroying.

At no point is the average taxpayer's requisite position in this system considered for amelioration. God forbid welfare to poor people. But welfare for the corporations? By God, yes!



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Mak Manto
I don't get half the comments against Moore...

The man's all about helping those who are less fortunate and not having the wealthy pretty much break the law and break the backs of millions of Americans to become insanely rich.

And Moore himself also goes out of his way to not be that way. For example, he's stated that he has no problem with people uploading his documentaries onto Youtube and other websites to share for free.

The man's about helping those who are suffering...


Really?

How much of his wealth has he donated to help those that are less fortunate? Oh, I forgot, he wants the Govt to do that, by taking from everyone.
It is ridicules to state that he is for helping people by allowing some of his movie to be downloaded. That is just called good PR.

Millions of dollars.

Fahrenheit 9/11, for example, saw that 60% of the net profit of the documentary go to charities. He does a lot to help out others.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Mak Manto
 


Fahrenheit 9/11 (highest-grossing documentary of all time) Worldwide Net: about $230,000,000
Worldwide Gross: about $220,000,000
60%: $132,000,000
Moore's take: $20,000,000 ... though there is dispute ... he may have received less



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Hadrian
 
You realize, of course, that you are describing exactly the very party you support.

Three of his crockumentaries were found to be 85% B.S. It's interesting to note that the last time he was in for a doctor visit, he caused quite a stir when they found out his blood type was Ragu. I almost hit him in an intersection one time, but my brakes were working fine. He yelled at me and said ".... why didn't you go around?" I replied: "I didn't have enough gas."

Seriously, if you whiners don't like it here. there are many countries that will accept you and your beliefs; may I suggest Cuba or Venezuela? Maybe North Korea?



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hadrian
If capitalism wasn't a corporate welfare state, Moore's ideas could be deemed Marxist. However, this is not the case. We (i.e., the average taxpayer) are paying more than our relative fair share in order for the corporations (and the wealthy) to revel in welfare conditions for the purposes of providing jobs and supporting the economy.

But the jobs are eliminated or farmed, globally, where $.15 will by a firm the same work that in other countries (with a so-called) fair wage would cost $10. The money is exponentially taken and doled out to the rich who use its power and influence to steal even more from the taxpayers, behind an illusion of saving the economy ... which they are destroying.

At no point is the average taxpayer's requisite position in this system considered for amelioration. God forbid welfare to poor people. But welfare for the corporations? By God, yes!


REPLY: 40% of Americans pay no taxes at all, while the top ten percent of "rich people" pay 85% of your taxes.

Over $700 Billion per year for Health and Human Services, mostly paid for by "the evil rich." Don't go away mad, just go away..... your envy is showing. So, if "they" all went away, you wouldn't mind giving up 90% of whatever you make to replace the loss?
edit on 4-3-2011 by zappafan1 because: Content



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Mak Manto
 
Only 60% goes to charity.. of the NET, not gross. What about profits from his stock in Haliburton?



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Helmkat
 
YOUR wealth is completely controlled by YOU..... except for that which goes to pay for the welfare state and union dues to overpaid state workers.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 

You didn't tell me why I was misinformed. Please also list all the books on capitalism you have read. Let me guess, you went on line and paid to go to Glenn Beck University.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 



So, in order to raise someone up, we must take from those that are successful?
No.


Sometimes, unlike a true Democracy, we are a Republic really, it doesn't say Me the Person, it's We the People.


We the people is not in reference to welfare and social programs, it is within the Declaration of Independence from Great Britain.


No really, We the People are the first three words in the preamble to the United States Constitution. It really is, look: www.archives.gov...


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


SEE!? It's right there, We the People, not "Me the Person" America needs to take care of it's own.

Hell, the idea of supporting the general welfare of the people of the United States was so important to the framers of the Constitution that they put it in the Constitution TWICE:


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;



America was not designed for the collective good, it was for the individual to take care of themselves and prosper on their own merits, not the collective, check your history.


No it's not, it is for the collective good, that's why the states formed a union of states.


If you want to help people, that is fine. Do so with your own money. I am tired of being forced to do so via taxes.


So are you for ala carte taxation? You know, maybe your right, maybe I don't want MY taxes going to the military. Maybe the military should be privately funded. I don't want MY taxes going to train someone to kill. I don't want MY taxes going to build nuclear weapons, I don't want MY taxes going to build tanks or guns. Maybe that's ok for some people, the military should be a private organization and I don't want to pay for some lazy soldier medical needs who was stupid enough to get his legs blown off. Why should I pay for that? It's not MY fault that soldier was stupid and got his legs blown off.

Do you see how myopic and stupid that sounds?

I realize that part of the Constitution dictates that the common defense is a requirement of the US government, and that means that part of the taxes I pay has to go to that.


I donate time and money to what I see as important. It is not the job of the Govt to take care of people.


No it's the job of the people of a nation to take care of the less fortunate and less able within that nation, it is everyones responsibility. We owe it to the elderly to take care of them when they get old, why? Because thats the human thing to do. We owe it to the affirmed to take care of them when they can't take care of themselves, why? Because that's the human thing to do.



From the first colonies came a collective mentality. Everyone in the colony/village received equal shares of crops and food. Not all put in equally though. This failed and many perished.


This is revisionist history and complete BS!

People who think that the individual is more important than the collective whole show an exceptionally selfish and myopic view of community and civilization. When the nation as a whole takes care of its own, the nation prospers as a whole.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by zappafan1
 


Incorrect. 60% of the gross. However, in this case, it's immaterial as the discrepancy is a paltry $6 million, the budget for the film. What might be material, though, is that the 60% was determined prior to the film's release, prior to the longest standing ovation in history at the Cannes Film Festival, prior to opening #1 and prior to making more money than any documentary ever has. You may spew your silliness, fat jokes, what have you, hoss, but the film didn't make that much money by us elitist Limousine Liberals, alone! Even when you tack on all the Moslems, Welfare Queens and Gays, you still gotta see that some of your compatriots in Dulllsville, Iowa forked over a ticket or two and went to see Michael instead of bowling and McNuggets ... maybe for just one night. Stop hating on the government haters.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 





Sometimes, unlike a true Democracy, we are a Republic really, it doesn't say Me the Person, it's We the People.


True democracy is mob rule. And While the preamble of the US Constitution says we the people, the Bill of Rights secures INDIVIDUAL rights as well as civil protections. There is no provision for the US government to redistribute wealth in the Constitution.




Indeed, but bits and pieces of the Constitution do not denote authority or a free interpretation of authority thereof as the Congress shall see fit.
SEE!? It's right there, We the People, not "Me the Person" America needs to take care of it's own. Hell, the idea of supporting the general welfare of the people of the United States was so important to the framers of the Constitution that they put it in the Constitution TWICE


This is true, and although I agree far more with Madison than with Hamilton on this issue. The SCOTUS has decided that the General Welfare clause of the Constitution does give congress a wide range of spending power. HOWEVER, this is limited by other provisions of the Constitution, i.e. the GW clause can't be used to usurp States Tenth Amendment rights by forcing spending on the individual state legislatures, nor can the Federal Government violate rights reserved by the people in the 9th Amendment. So there ARE SOME limitations to the power congress can hold, even with the wide breadth of the GW clause.



No it's not, it is for the collective good, that's why the states formed a union of states.


Let's not construe that to mean collectivism. The Union wasn't formed to create a nation with collectivist philosophy. Otherwise there would be no acknowledgement of inalienable rights, endowed by our creator(D of I), and supported in the Constitution, as individual.



People who think that the individual is more important than the collective whole show an exceptionally selfish and myopic view of community and civilization. When the nation as a whole takes care of its own, the nation prospers as a whole.



This is not entirely true. There's a difference between the acknowledgement of individual rights, inalienable by government or any majority, and selfishness. Collectivism and mob rule democracy do not secure the rights of the minority, they endanger them.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 



There is no provision for the US government to redistribute wealth in the Constitution.


Taking care of those that cannot take care of themselves is not redistribution of wealth it's promoting the general welfare of the nation.

Let us look at the logical conclusion to the Conservative idea of complete individualism, no taxation spent on anything that benefits the public as a whole, and the complete end of all what are called "entitlement programs"...

Without this basic social safety net, people who have lost their jobs through corporate downsizing have to live on the streets, they start to get sick, and then they die. But because it's not the government's job to clean up the corpses, the bodies rot in the streets spreading disease to the healthy population.

Without this basic social safety net, the elderly who can no longer work start dying off in droves, no money for medication, no money to help themselves, they too become homeless and end up dying on the streets.

Which is less expensive, helping someone who cannot help themselves stay in a home and have their basic needs met, or to allow them to fester on the streets and eventually die through starvation or exposure to the elements, only to leave a diseased and rotting corpse?

I just find it quite selfish to think that helping people who cannot help themselves is a bad thing.

Which leads me back to another point. If social safety nets are a bad thing, then why is defense spending a good thing? Why should MY taxes go to train a person to kill? If people want a military they can donate to a PMC. If corporations like Haliburton need protection for their natural gas pipeline in Afghanistan why can't they pay Blackwater to protect it? Why should I pay for a military that I will never have the opportunity to use? And why should I pay the medical bills for a dumb ass soldier who choose to get his legs blown off? Because as we all know, disabled soldiers choose to be that way. Because they are lazy and want to live off of our taxpayer dollars. They should just be thrown in a landfill like the garbage they are.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Appologies for not reading past the first post, but the title quoted makes my brain go into convulsions due to the sheer madness and evilness of it. People say a lot of crazy stuff, which is fine by me as long as they dont support violence, but this one quote violates every ethical bone in my body just as an artillery shell deconstructs a human to its constituate, meaty clumps.

Moores statement is the exact moral equivalent of saying 'my gang and I like your watch, clearly since you can afford that watch, you dont deserve it.' Moore asserts a universal statement of violent intent - the question to him is not rightful ownership of property, but who can gain at the expense of the wealthy. The whole notion is predicated on the basic Marxist assertion that no one really owns anything, and what is owned is decided arbitrarliy by the men with guns who will use violence to achive some percieved or imagined 'common good.'

When he says its 'not theirs' he is claiming it is his, when he claims it is 'a national resource' he is excusing theft and violence through social pressure, when he claims 'its ours' he is pandering to the parasite of any standing to feel entitled to something they had absolutely no hand in creating or amassing. He is advocating theft and violence on a nationwide scale, and if taken seriously, his ignorant words could cause massive suffering and bloodshed as the parasites attempt to 'reclaim' what is 'theirs', deluded into thinking they somehow have a claim to the justly earned property of their fellow man. *spit*

And since any moral rule must be applied universally and without justified exceptions, (or it becomes an excuse) shouldnt his own substantial wealth be subject to 'nationalization'? (theft nationwide) Am I justified in 'nationalizing' his wallet via a gun to his ribs if I see him on the street? How much per year does one have to make in order to be eligable for armed assault and theft? 250k?



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by DCPatriot

Originally posted by woodwardjnr


America was built on the backs of slaves then on the backs of the working man ,



And it shouldn't follow that members of the white race 7+ generations after slavery should still be expected to be responsible for it......dumba$$.

Get off your a$$ and provide for yourself.

You are NOT my responsibility.


First, I can't believe there are people who gave this post a star.

Second, after 7+ generations, the elite are still benefiting from these civil rights violations. The Koch brother's daddy (who gave them their millions) had the benefit of not competing against minorities or women.

In fact, in the very elite there is a ton of documentation of how they earned their money. And to be fair, when I'm talking about the elite I'm mean the left and right elite

And no one is asking the white race to pay for it - just think about the benefits YOU have been provided because other people were treated unfairly.

The thing is you don't realize how much YOU DID NOT PROVIDE FOR YOURSELF. You probably take for granted how much was given to you in life.

You might say your parents provided for you. But that nice house you grew up in was provided to you, in part, because your father didn't have to compete against women in the workforce.




top topics



 
21
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join