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: 7
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 


What world do you live in? Everything in this country is ill gotten. It is all stolen goods. The Europeans came to this land and through violence took from the native peoples. Every business has some fraud, violence or outright theft in its background. Now that the criminals are sitting at the top, they say, "Please don't victimize us. It wouldn't be right for us to pay a little more in taxes of our ill gotten gains." The rich benefit the most from all the services our taxes provide even welfare. If a man on welfare has food to feed his children that means he doesn't have to break into the rich man's mansion and kidnap his child.
edit on 5-3-2011 by BillfromCovina because: spelling




posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Remember all you billionaire loving people who said if you tax corporations they will either raise prices or reduce their workforce; therefore, the consumers will still-end up paying.

Well, if this is true, why all the complaining about taxing the rich? If the rich and going to stay rich - no matter what, why in the world would they care if taxes are raised?

You complain because it's not a one-way trickle down economy - it's a system. Small to medium size businesses and consumers are great with putting their money back in the system. It's the large corporations and billionaires which clog the system.

If it wasn't for AGI, every person could have had a $100,000. It's not good for the economy to have corporations which are too big to fail or ineffective in reinvesting their money.

By taxing the rich, it unclogs the system and the money is reinvested - the rich will get their money back - it just gets to pass through the system.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by BillfromCovina
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 


What world do you live in? Everything in this country is ill gotten. It is all stolen goods. The Europeans came to this land and through violence took from the native peoples. Every business has some fraud, violence or outright theft in its background. Now that the criminals are sitting at the top, they say, "Please don't victimize us. It wouldn't be right for us to pay a little more in taxes of our ill gotten gains." The rich benefit the most form all the services our taxes provide even welfare. If a man on welfare has food to feed his children that means he doesn't have to break into the rich man's mansion and kidnap his child.


At what income level would you advocate violence in order to 'redistribute' someones wealth?

I ask you this: have you ever been forced, under threat of inprisionment, to shop at any store? To buy anyones services? Did you or anyone you know participate in the theft and genocide of the native peoples? Has a rich person ever stuck you up for the money in your pocket? Are you certain that everyone you label as 'rich' has somehow aquired their wealth through violence or skullduggery?

If a farmer becomes wealthy by means of good business sense and voluntary competition, do you feel he owes you anything?

Can you back up your assertion that even the rich benefit from welfare? I would assert that not even the recipients of welfare benefit from welfare. Regardless of the pros or cons, do you feel one man owes another simply because they exist together in a geographical region? Do you lay claim to any of my justly earned gains, or should I claim yours if you earn more than me?

Lemme inform you on who the real thief is - the state is who deserves your ire. It is the state who imposes taxation (theft) of half or more of your resources, it is the state who inflates and devalues your currency, it is the state the inprisions millions and slaughters millions more and sends you the bill whether you consent or not. Its not the rich man down the street who deprives you of whats yours - its the monopoly of violence that injects its cancerous nodes into every aspect of your life, and the life of the wealthy man who you believe to be you enemy.

Your advasary is not the productive, wealthy people you are jealous of, your advasary is the monopoly of violence you call government who you wish to look to as saviour.

Stop being such a fool.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 



Since you asked, yes I know many rich/powerful people who obtain their wealth through illegal acts. Things which directly effected me.

It's very, very common.

I'm not going to give personal details about my life - but I can tell you the system is corrupt.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daughter2
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 



Since you asked, yes I know many rich/powerful people who obtain their wealth through illegal acts. Things which directly effected me.

It's very, very common.

I'm not going to give personal details about my life - but I can tell you the system is corrupt.




Just as Ive seen evil and depraved acts commited by poor people, and middle class people, and black people. and white people. This shouldnt mean we punish a group collectively for the actions of a few. Those who aggress are guilty, just as those who dont are not. To put them in the same grouping is illogical and immoral.

I might suggest to you that the power that the rich do weild illigitimately is only enabled by the monopoly of violence that is the state. A businessman can make you do nothing, not until, at least, he bribes the gun of the state and points it in your direction. Since a businessman relies on your consent, he cannot effectively weild the gun himself without offloading its costs onto the general taxpayer. In a free system, any behaviour by a rich business owner that conflicts with his customers would immediately cost, and check the behaviour of his business. In a state system, the business owner lobbies (bribes) the state (gun) to be pointed at its competition, thus depriving consumers of alternatives as 'regulations' and 'licencing' are enforced, (in the interest of the lobbying business) to stilfe competition and create huge barriers to entry, in effect creating a monopolistic cartel of state protected 'rich folk' who leverage their advantageous position to levy still further controls on competition.

Thus the rich use the monopolistic violence of the state to monopolize the market and therefore are ticks suckling upon the leach that is the state. But the core problem here is not wealth itself, as in a free society wealth is just a yardstick of the value one offeres to the consumers, but instead the core problem is *violence*. the big honking gun in the room that, of course, everyone of means will try to control, if not to point at others, at least to not have it pointed at themselves.

Thus the core problem is not rich vs poor, but instead violent vs voluntary. Violence is a negative sum game of a few big winners at the expense of the rest of us. Voluntarism is the opposite. A positive net gain for all involved. Rich people arent the problem. Avocates of violence (government) are.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
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.





Nice try.

The wealthy are setting all the rules and making sure that the rest of us don't get to play.

Oh and those overpaid State workers?-Wrong answer- They are doing what all American workers should be doing, getting organized and not letting the rich control THEIR wealth.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Helmkat

Originally posted by zappafan1
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.





Nice try.

The wealthy are setting all the rules and making sure that the rest of us don't get to play.

Oh and those overpaid State workers?-Wrong answer- They are doing what all American workers should be doing, getting organized and not letting the rich control THEIR wealth.


That's a funny statement when you consider who these overpaid state workers actually work for and who their union bosses pay big money to influence. They work for the taxpayer and achieve their wealth from the liberal democrats who are so easy to influennce.

Funny stuff

ETA:
As for Moore, someone please keep feeding him Big Macs and Quarter Pounders several times a day. Maybe he will donate the $2.7 million in lost profits he is suing for to the American Taxpayer.
I think those are his only profits. Maybe he'll turn his large estate into a homeless shelter.
edit on 5-3-2011 by jibeho because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
reply to post by Mak Manto
 
Only 60% goes to charity.. of the NET, not gross. What about profits from his stock in Haliburton?


I stated in my post, zappa, that 60% of the net was going.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mak Manto

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.


Ok, were is the proof?



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by BillfromCovina
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.



Your assumptions really make for run reading.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


You are right, I stand corrected on the We the People issue.
The US was still not created for the collective. The US was created for the individual to succeed or fail.

As for this issue with wealth being rationed or hidden by the wealthy?
Where do you people come from?
My family and I are almost debt free, minus our house. Without a vehicle payment and no credit cards, we will be able to save about $800 a month. This is how the other tech I work with became wealthy. No debt, living within his means.
Every persons monetary value is based on their decisions, no one else is at fault. Don't over spend.
This is not rocket science.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
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.


No it is not revisionist history. Go and re-read your books. Just because it does not fit your argument does not make it false.

Al a carte taxes no. A flat tax would work.
As for where the taxes go? Go back to the original intent of taxes. The general welfare is not welfare for the masses. It is for the good of the state, ie roads, bridges, sanitation and so on.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Mak Manto

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.


Ok, were is the proof?

Fahrenheit 9/11: Chairty - CNN



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
reply to post by centurion1211
 


I bet that fat hypocrite wouldn't feel the same way if we wanted HIS money!


Even if he was willing to go out and give piles of his own money to the poor, he has no right to donate everyone else's money. But this is the hallmark of all collectivist thought. What you want to do with your own money doesn't matter. It doesn't belong to you. It belongs to the hive.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mak Manto

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Mak Manto

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.


Ok, were is the proof?

Fahrenheit 9/11: Chairty - CNN


To bad the site you gave states very specifically that 60% could go to un-named charities, yet to be identified by Walt Disney CO.
So no, his profits were not donated. Disney stated that they could donate.

Thank you and try again.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 

Yeah, they could donate, 60% of the NET PROFIT OF THE MOVIE.

They're not donating their own money from the company, macman. They're donating it from the net profit of Moore's movie.

You said you wanted proof, there it is. Just because it doesn't list the charities doesn't mean they're lying.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Mak Manto
 


It is not proof.
I am going to buy a bridge in Brooklyn. That is proof that I bought a bridge? Um no.
Show me where there is an article or report stating that Moore did in fact donate his own money.
Not that there is a plan to maybe donate up to 60%.
Sounds like Moore himself wrote the article. Truth twisting at its best.
Plus, it was not from Moore, but via the Disney Company. That is like saying "I donated to this charity" when in reality the company I worked for donated to it.


Thank you, try try again.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
And I quote
"The Wall Street Journal reported that about 60 percent of the net profit ultimately generated by the film could go to charities yet to be identified by Walt Disney Co. (DIS: Research, Estimates) "

It does not state that it has happened. It does not state that Moore decided this. It does not state that it is money from Moore's pocket.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Mak Manto
 


It is not proof.
I am going to buy a bridge in Brooklyn. That is proof that I bought a bridge? Um no.
Show me where there is an article or report stating that Moore did in fact donate his own money.
Not that there is a plan to maybe donate up to 60%.
Sounds like Moore himself wrote the article. Truth twisting at its best.
Plus, it was not from Moore, but via the Disney Company. That is like saying "I donated to this charity" when in reality the company I worked for donated to it.


Thank you, try try again.

I never said he donated his own money. You're putting words in people's mouths. I said he donated 60% of the net profit of his movie.

You're confused a bit, but that's alright.

He donated 60% of the net profit of the documentary.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
And I quote
"The Wall Street Journal reported that about 60 percent of the net profit ultimately generated by the film could go to charities yet to be identified by Walt Disney Co. (DIS: Research, Estimates) "

It does not state that it has happened. It does not state that Moore decided this. It does not state that it is money from Moore's pocket.

So, Disney chose the charities. Since he didn't, that means he's not responsible?

Macman, Macman, Macman...



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join