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: 8
21
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   



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

No he did not. The article states, again, that they could donate up to 60% of the profit to a charity(s). It does not state that it was done or completed.

And again, it did not state Moore's profits from the movie, it stated the Disney Company would do it.

Anyway you try to twist or turn it, that article proves only that the Disney Corp was making a decision.




posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 08:29 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


Look up!!!!
"He does alot". HE being the emphasis. You giving him credit.
The article places his name in it because he created the movie. The Disney Corp was the one donating, or planning on donating.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Its an amazing phenomenon that people are so worried for the rich. Either they themselves may be rich [which would explain their viewpoint] or they are brainwashed to worry about rich people’s welfare.

I would think we should worry about those in need in this country who are going hungry tonight, as people here worry about the burden of rich people . . . a strange obsession to say the least.

Of all the causes in the world you have people worrying about the abuse of the rich!
How ridiculous!

Michael Moore, however imperfect he may be, since he is only a human being, has always taken the side of the poor and middle class, for when it comes to economic issues it is the poor and middle class who deserve the most concern as it is they who are the most vulnerable.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


Why is Moore a hypocrite because he fights for the poor and middle class?

What do you fight for but yourself and your precious rich people you love so much.

The point is that RICH PEOPLE DON’T NEED HELP in economic terms, it is the poor and middle class who do.

Nobody hates the rich or wants to see anyone robbed of what they rightfully earn, but on the other hand if the society wants services to be up to par it needs money from taxes to have a modern infrastructure, police and fireman, and other vital services to maintain a civilized society.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by inforeal


Michael Moore, however imperfect he may be, since he is only a human being, has always taken the side of the poor and middle class, for when it comes to economic issues it is the poor and middle class who deserve the most concern as it is they who are the most vulnerable.

No he has not. If that was the case he would be building soup kitchens, low income housing and so on.
He has found his niche in the world, twisting the truth and making a lot of money from it.
He profits from the same system he cries foul on.
Basically poop telling vomit it stinks.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


How do you know how much charity he gives? How can you judge him without knowledge of what he does?
If he spreads information in his films that aids the poor and middle class then he is helping them on a certain level.

Nobody’s perfect, not even you, therefore to hold him up to a standard of perfection is ridiculous. He is only one person who is trying to help ordinary working people.

He is a man who spends his profits to help in spreading the philosophy that puts poor, middle class, and ordinary Americans at the focus of our concern not the rich and powerful who don’t need his help.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by inforeal
reply to post by macman
 


How do you know how much charity he gives? How can you judge him without knowledge of what he does?
If he spreads information in his films that aids the poor and middle class then he is helping them on a certain level.

Nobody’s perfect, not even you, therefore to hold him up to a standard of perfection is ridiculous. He is only one person who is trying to help ordinary working people.

He is a man who spends his profits to help in spreading the philosophy that puts poor, middle class, and ordinary Americans at the focus of our concern not the rich and powerful who don’t need his help.

You are right, how do i know that he does. How do you know if he does not?

Again, he profits from his films that cry foul on the system that he films on. He is a person of very low character.

It has nothing to do with perfection. He is a walking contradiction and a hypocrite all wrapped into one.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by inforeal
reply to post by projectvxn
 


Why is Moore a hypocrite because he fights for the poor and middle class?


Because he is a hypocrite just like Al Gore telling everyone to conserve energy while he uses as much as he wants.


What do you fight for but yourself and your precious rich people you love so much.


Taking it personal hardly helps your argument.



The point is that RICH PEOPLE DON’T NEED HELP in economic terms, it is the poor and middle class who do.


Yes, so let's end expensive union perks and "work rules" that help send U.S. jobs overseas and help drive up budget deficits at home.



Nobody hates the rich or wants to see anyone robbed of what they rightfully earn, but on the other hand if the society wants services to be up to par it needs money from taxes to have a modern infrastructure, police and fireman, and other vital services to maintain a civilized society.


OK, but try to finally understand this key concept. The "rich" employ Americans. Exactly what is a "rich" person to you anyway? Regardless, tax them to death and they don't employ so many Americans and the jobs go overseas.

And unemployed people don't pay the taxes needed to help support everything you just mentioned, but people with American jobs do.


Simple as that ...

edit on 3/7/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 



OK, but try to finally understand this key concept. The "rich" employ Americans. Exactly what is a "rich" person to you anyway? Regardless, tax them to death and they don't employ so many Americans and the jobs go overseas.


Last year during the tax debate the GOP said that employers weren't hiring because they were afraid that their taxes were going to go up if the Bush Tax Cuts expired. So, the Democrats relented and passed the tax cuts for the wealthy. Did it do anything for the jobs situation? NO it didn't

Sorry to say this, but it's the reality, we do need to cut the budget, but we also need to raise taxes. Sorry, but that's the reality of the situation. Tax cuts for people who were supposed to use them to create jobs obviously didn't work, and they aren't paid for tax cuts, so why keep them? Is it unfair? No, it's not unfair. Why? Because we were promised that if the rich got their tax breaks they would start hiring people and start getting this economy moving again. They didn't do that, so we need to repeal those tax cuts for the wealthy. I am not suggesting we go with Michael Moore's idea of a 90% tax on the affluent, I think that putting them back to where it was when Clinton was in office would do.

We also need to cut out the subsidies for corporations. Why should we give these people free money? Especially oil companies who routinely screw over the public. We need to cut those out, and we need to close tax loopholes that corporations use to dodge taxes.

This is just what we have to do. We also have to cut "defense" spending. Why should we pay for bases in other countries? Why should we pay to rebuild nations we bombed into dust? Why should we pay to protect S. Korea from the North? We need to bring our troops home, and close these foreign bases, if the world needs a police force, they should go to the UN.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 

I know because I have a CNN article. You're only problem with the article is that it didn't list the charities.

Don't be a poor sport about it, Macman. Admit when you're wrong.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by centurion1211
 



OK, but try to finally understand this key concept. The "rich" employ Americans. Exactly what is a "rich" person to you anyway? Regardless, tax them to death and they don't employ so many Americans and the jobs go overseas.


Last year during the tax debate the GOP said that employers weren't hiring because they were afraid that their taxes were going to go up if the Bush Tax Cuts expired. So, the Democrats relented and passed the tax cuts for the wealthy. Did it do anything for the jobs situation? NO it didn't



It's been what a whole 2 months since the tax breaks were extended? Oh, and hope some day that dems can understanding the real difference between extending a current tax "break" and passing a new tax cut. They really are not the same thing at all. Most people understand that changing the economy is like steering an aircraft carrier - it doesn't make 90 degree turns. The economy should, however, have had time to react in the 2 years since obama and the dem's pork-barrel "stimulus" bill, but obviously hasn't as far as jobs are concerned.

But wait! what's this?

New February 2011 jobs data to refute your entire post


Nonfarm payroll employment increased by 192,000 in February, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 8.9 percent. Job gains occurred in manufacturing, construction, professional and business services, health care, and transportation and warehousing.


You can read. Obviously there is still a lot of slack in the jobs sector, but "Job gains occurred in manufacturing, construction, professional and business services, health care, and transportation and warehousing". Many of those areas like construction were among the hardest hit since obama took over, and now even these jobs are starting to come back. All because businesses don't have to worry about higher taxes.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
Yes, so let's end expensive union perks and "work rules" that help send U.S. jobs overseas and help drive up budget deficits at home.


Of course the fact that Chinese labour is paid pennies on the dollar as opposed to paying American (& Canadian) workers enough to enjoy a decent living has nothing to do with it, right? The fact that work that was sent to Mexico is now going to Asia because it is even cheaper is immaterial, right? So what do you aspire to now?...that the American worker earn a Mexican wage...cuz that would be an improvement on being unemployed? You want your fellow Americans to join that race to the bottom?

Tell me, now that the corporations are paying peanuts for labour and it is being done without health and environmental standards that we demand back home...is your quality product that much cheaper for you? No? So where is the difference going? Perhaps to those sticky fingers on Wall Street? That ain't capitalism.

Unions have squat to do with manufacturing going overseas...it's all about greed, and those sufficiently blinded that they would rather blame their neighbours than the government that allowed it to happen. It's easier to post on line than to challenge your lawmakers. Hence the sobriquet Keyboard Kommandos . If they spent as much time haranguing those who actually put you in this fix as they do sticking up for the perpetrators...well then they wouldn't feel the need to be out on their unionised neighbours front lawn with pitchforks and torches.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mak Manto
reply to post by macman
 

I know because I have a CNN article. You're only problem with the article is that it didn't list the charities.

Don't be a poor sport about it, Macman. Admit when you're wrong.

I will admit when I am wrong, when proven wrong. Your article proves nothing.
Thanks, try try try again.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Money is not theirs or ours, it in fact is an illusion, because it is fiat anyway. But, you can't own natural resources, but just try telling that to these polished turds on wal street!



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by centurion1211
Yes, so let's end expensive union perks and "work rules" that help send U.S. jobs overseas and help drive up budget deficits at home.


Of course the fact that Chinese labour is paid pennies on the dollar as opposed to paying American (& Canadian) workers enough to enjoy a decent living has nothing to do with it, right? The fact that work that was sent to Mexico is now going to Asia because it is even cheaper is immaterial, right? So what do you aspire to now?...that the American worker earn a Mexican wage...cuz that would be an improvement on being unemployed? You want your fellow Americans to join that race to the bottom?


No, it's simple economics. Don't they teach economics in canadian schools?


Tell me, now that the corporations are paying peanuts for labour and it is being done without health and environmental standards that we demand back home...is your quality product that much cheaper for you? No? So where is the difference going? Perhaps to those sticky fingers on Wall Street? That ain't capitalism.


We should have those standards. But can't we do with out the union "work rules" that, for example, require 4 people be put on crews when only 1 or 2 are required? Think of the money saved from that alone.


Unions have squat to do with manufacturing going overseas...it's all about greed, and those sufficiently blinded that they would rather blame their neighbours than the government that allowed it to happen. It's easier to post on line than to challenge your lawmakers. Hence the sobriquet Keyboard Kommandos . If they spent as much time haranguing those who actually put you in this fix as they do sticking up for the perpetrators...well then they wouldn't feel the need to be out on their unionised neighbours front lawn with pitchforks and torches.


This is just flat out wrong, but a moot point since you are obviously unwilling to educate yourself.

And your post was written by a true Keyboard Kommandos himself. One who would rather rant about what's taking place in a neighboring country than deal with the issues in his own.
edit on 3/7/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
And your post was written by a true Keyboard Kommandos himself. One who would rather rant about what's taking place in a neighboring country than deal with the issues in his own.

Thanks for the personal comments. We share many economic issues and further, since this is an international forum, you are going to get international response. I regret to say that you will also get those who disagree with you. However, I'm quite certain that there are websites out there where you can sing your song to those who fully appreciate it.

Oh, and please, where do you get your certainty that I don't deal with issues in my own land? It may surprise you that one can both talk the talk and walk the walk. I have a history as a very busy union rep for a public service employer. I also pay attention to what's going on around me. And I share my concerns with my lawmakers...they know and respect me - even those on the other side of the political fenceline.

Blaming all of society's ills on unions is bad economics...in fact it is cartoon economics. Knowing how globalism has screwed the North American middle class is pretty obvious. I just don't get the fact that so many people get out there and shill for those who did it to them...and you don't have to be whistling 'Yankee Doodle Dandy' to connect those dots.

But please...keep on blaming your neighbour. That'll fix it.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by 46ACE
as if they snuck in at night and stole their meager savings from their unguarded piggy banks.




How did we punish them? Jail...never...uhh increased oversight? Not with the GOP in power...uh OK, how about increase the marginal tax rate, just a measly 2%?...nope never...well why don't we just give them all the money taxpayers have...That seems a reasonable punishment.....wait a minute...I was kidding.



This new Bloomberg article does an excellent job of breaking down the insanity.

The U.S. government and the Federal Reserve have spent, lent or committed $12.8 trillion, an amount that approaches the value of everything produced in the country last year, to stem the longest recession since the 1930s…

The money works out to $42,105 for every man, woman and child in the U.S. and 14 times the $899.8 billion of currency in circulation…

The combined commitment has increased by 73 percent since November, when Bloomberg first estimated the funding, loans and guarantees at $7.4 trillion…



www.geldpress.com...


edit on 4-3-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)


Hi:
maybereal11: Don't take this as sarcasm directed at you ;(It's definitely " sarcasm" just don't take it personnally) I simply don't know what to do just trying to square things wth my principles.
What a clip! Gotta' see that .Well what are our options people ?
I'm a "simple" man; All people within 6 blocks of wall st. are guilty?Otherwise I don't know how many years it would take to sort'em out, I can't. I've got a few rifles and a spool of rope where do we start(?):

ATTENTION PLEASE :"WEARING A TIE: STAND BY THE WALL"
"For general crimes against society: bank balance and other holdings presented as prima facie evidence. hand over your check book and face the wall; prepare to be judged!"("blindfold er.."Sir"? $39.99 (recycled,laundered); $59.99( fresh new( made in mexico) in the box)? centerfire rifle cartridge $1.00 .22 lr .15 (+10%)cash; visa; or mastercard;"capitalism" you know old chap!
crack...crack...crack!
I'm not an over night marxist but I don't like being taken advantage of anymore than anybody else. Can you guarantee the new bosses won't be clones of the old bosses?


edit on 7-3-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-3-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 



Of course the fact that Chinese labour is paid pennies on the dollar as opposed to paying American (& Canadian) workers enough to enjoy a decent living has nothing to do with it, right?


You seem to be upset about this turn of events.

Why?

You realize that the reason we can afford a decent living here is because of the products made in areas with lower costs of living. You can buy a frying pan for $30 because it was made in China. Very similar stuff from American suppliers runs $100+ because of higher tax rates on production and higher employee wages. You'd quickly find that life would suck pretty fast without China, Malaysia, Taiwan, etc producing our less complex and sophisticated equipment. A frying pan doesn't have to be accurate to within thousandths of an inch or have alloy controls as tight as an engine block does. They just have to manage not to get lead or mercury in the thing, and keep its alloy tolerances fair enough to keep it from shattering like glass when you drop it or blowing up on the stove (the nightmares that could be told of poor quality control in China....)

This is not a bad thing.

The problem is that we've lost our entrepreneurial spirit and friendliness in this country. What new things are we producing for other countries to purchase? What skilled labor sets are we putting to use to be worth the higher costs to other countries?

When there is very little difference between the skills and abilities of an American worker from a Chinese worker... why pay hideously more for the same thing?

The problem is that we've not been applying ourselves to the development of new products and services that will make use of our technological, engineering, manufacturing, information, and manpower resources that have advantages over what other countries can provide.


So what do you aspire to now?...that the American worker earn a Mexican wage...cuz that would be an improvement on being unemployed? You want your fellow Americans to join that race to the bottom?


Lower wages translate to lower costs of living - which translate to similar proportionate income. If you do the same job, the same number of hours each day, and can afford the same products and services - does it matter if you are getting paid $0.05 per hour or $500,000 per hour? Nothing has really changed except the number of digits involved in your transactions.


Tell me, now that the corporations are paying peanuts for labour and it is being done without health and environmental standards that we demand back home...is your quality product that much cheaper for you? No? So where is the difference going? Perhaps to those sticky fingers on Wall Street? That ain't capitalism.


Depends upon which products and services we are discussing, really. Computers have been seeing increasing offshore manufacture and assembly. The price of your average computer has continued to drop relative to per-capita GDP despite inflation, economic downturns, etc. There are also an increasing number of services bundled with a computer purchase that were never before available, even back when only the rather wealthy could afford a computer (and that wasn't all that long ago - the mid 90s; if you had a computer, it was usually because you needed it for work and it was easily a $1,000 dollar affair).


Unions have squat to do with manufacturing going overseas...it's all about greed, and those sufficiently blinded that they would rather blame their neighbours than the government that allowed it to happen.


Two problems - first; unions are a rather large problem for manufacturing. They tend to get involved in issues that end up disrupting the flow of business. For example - union members are often supposed to be guaranteed a certain number of hours each week - even if the business has no need for those workers to be there that long. Rather than reduce hours and keep people employed (with, perhaps, a slight reduction in benefits through a slow period) - workers are laid off to protect the hours and benefits of the others.

You also have the constant issues of "this position does this, you have to wait two hours for someone of another position to get time to come over and move that ladder out of the way." While, within reason, positions and worker roles have to be clearly defined and adhered to to prevent confusion - it's just as bad to stove-pipe and hold up the job over small, isolated issues.

Second - what does the government have to do with any of this? Why should the government have any say in what businesses go where? Or, more aptly - how do you propose a government force a business to stay here in America?

Shall we hold business owners at gunpoint? Take control over their bank accounts and not authorize transfers for constructing in other nations? Prosecute people for treason for accepting employment within another nation's industry?

Sounds like a great place to live.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Blaming all of society's ills on unions is bad economics....


But who said unions are to blame for all of society's ills?

Certainly wasn't me.

All I have said is that since unions got to share a good piece of the economic gain over the years, it is now time to also share some of the economic pain.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by centurion1211
 



OK, but try to finally understand this key concept. The "rich" employ Americans. Exactly what is a "rich" person to you anyway? Regardless, tax them to death and they don't employ so many Americans and the jobs go overseas.


Last year during the tax debate the GOP said that employers weren't hiring because they were afraid that their taxes were going to go up if the Bush Tax Cuts expired. So, the Democrats relented and passed the tax cuts for the wealthy. Did it do anything for the jobs situation? NO it didn't


WUK buddy: so what happened next we got "Obamacare"(" we have to pass the bill for you to see what's in it...."sound familiar)"Business" was reluctant to hire because they couldn't come up with a firm cost of hiring new employees.The health care stuff threw such a wild variable out there nobody knew what a new employees benefits would cost...

Originally posted by whatukno
Sorry to say this, but it's the reality, we do need to cut the budget, but we also need to raise taxes. Sorry, but that's the reality of the situation. Tax cuts for people who were supposed to use them to create jobs obviously didn't work, and they aren't paid for tax cuts, so why keep them? Is it unfair? No, it's not unfair. Why? Because we were promised that if the rich got their tax breaks they would start hiring people and start getting this economy moving again. They didn't do that, so we need to repeal those tax cuts for the wealthy. I am not suggesting we go with Michael Moore's idea of a 90% tax on the affluent, I think that putting them back to where it was when Clinton was in office would do.

We also need to cut out the subsidies for corporations. Why should we give these people free money? Especially oil companies who routinely screw over the public. We need to cut those out, and we need to close tax loopholes that corporations use to dodge taxes.

This is just what we have to do. We also have to cut "defense" spending. Why should we pay for bases in other countries? Why should we pay to rebuild nations we bombed into dust? Why should we pay to protect S. Korea from the North? We need to bring our troops home, and close these foreign bases, if the world needs a police force, they should go to the UN.


edit on 7-3-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join