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.

 

The Top 500 Richest Americans Hold More Wealth Than The Bottom 150 Million Do

page: 5
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
So This is "IT"

Isn't it?

The great divide in this country: "You have more; you obviously stole it or hurt people to get it; ergo: it has become forfeit and property of the "collective"(state).

Perhaps a
"refresher" ( ormaybe"first look"?) for you young "socially conscious" do-gooders :
en.wikipedia.org...


Following their leader Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge imposed an extreme form of social engineering on Cambodian society — a radical form of agrarian communism where the whole population had to work in collective farms or forced labour projects.

In terms of the number of people killed as a proportion of the population (est. 7.1 million people, as of 1975[6]),

it was the most lethal regime of the 20th century.[7]

The Khmer Rouge wanted to eliminate anyone suspected of "involvement in free-market activities". Suspected capitalists encompassed professionals and almost everyone with an education, many urban dwellers, and people with connections to foreign governments.


The Khmer Rouge believed parents were tainted with capitalism. Consequently, children were separated from parents and brainwashed to communism as well as taught torture methods with animals. Children were a "dictatorial instrument of the party"[8] and were given leadership in torture and executions.[1]
Flag of Democratic Kampuchea

One of their mottoes, in reference to the New People, was: "To keep you is no benefit. To destroy you is no loss."[9] The ideology of the Khmer Rouge evolved over time. In the early days, it was an orthodox communist party and looked to the Vietnamese Communists for guidance.

It became more anti-intellectual when groups of students who had been studying in France returned to Cambodia. The students, including future party leader Pol Pot, had been heavily influenced by the example of the French Communist Party (PCF).

-continues(further down the page):
"In power, the Khmer Rouge carried out a radical program that included isolating the country from foreign influence, closing schools, hospitals and factories, abolishing banking, finance and currency, outlawing all religions, confiscating all private property and relocating people from urban areas to collective farms where forced labor was widespread. The purpose of this policy was to turn Cambodians into "Old People" through agricultural labor. These actions resulted in massive deaths through executions, work exhaustion, illness, and starvation.

In Phnom Penh and other cities, the Khmer Rouge told residents that they would be moved only about "two or three kilometers" outside the city and would return in "two or three days." Some witnesses say they were told that the evacuation was because of the "threat of American bombing" and that they did not have to lock their houses since the Khmer Rouge would "take care of everything" until they returned. These were not the first evacuations of civilian populations by the Khmer Rouge. Similar evacuations of populations without possessions had been occurring on a smaller scale since the early 1970s.

The Khmer Rouge attempted to turn Cambodia into a classless society by depopulating cities and forcing the urban population ("New People") into agricultural communes. The entire population was forced to become farmers in labor camps.

Money was abolished, books were burned, teachers, merchants, and almost the entire intellectual elite of the country were murdered, to make the agricultural communism, as Pol Pot envisioned it, a reality. The planned relocation to the countryside resulted in the complete halt of almost all economic activity: even schools and hospitals were closed, as well as banks, and industrial and service companies.

During their four years in power, the Khmer Rouge overworked and starved the population, at the same time executing selected groups who had the potential to undermine the new state (including intellectuals or even those that had stereotypical signs of learning, such as glasses) and killing many others for breaching even minor rules.

Cambodians were expected to produce three tons of rice per hectare; before the Khmer Rouge era, the average was only one ton per hectare. The Khmer Rouge forced people to work for 12 hours non-stop, without adequate rest or food. They did not believe in western medicine but instead favoured traditional peasant medicine; many died as a result.

Family relationships not sanctioned by the state were also banned, and family members could be put to death for communicating with each other. In any case, family members were often relocated to different parts of the country with all postal and telephone services abolished.

The total lack of agricultural knowledge by the former city dwellers made famine inevitable. Rural dwellers were often unsympathetic or too frightened to assist them. Such acts as picking wild fruit or berries was seen as "private enterprise" and punished by death.




en.wikipedia.org...
Just letingyou know where we on this side ( who can "uncomprehendingly" support the "wealthy" as I see all the time) are coming from...
edit on 18-8-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-8-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

You dont need to go out of your way to defend the wealthy - They employ lawers to do that


But seriously, how much harm would a wealth cap do to the world? hmm?

A wealth cap would be just as effective as a "life expectancy" cap. Both would be arbitrary. Both would be determined by governments. Both are judgemental.



I dont get how so? Obviously a life expectancy cap is a ridiculious notion, however i fail to see how a wealth cap would be a bad thing



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

You dont need to go out of your way to defend the wealthy - They employ lawers to do that


But seriously, how much harm would a wealth cap do to the world? hmm?

A wealth cap would be just as effective as a "life expectancy" cap. Both would be arbitrary. Both would be determined by governments. Both are judgemental.



I dont get how so? Obviously a life expectancy cap is a ridiculious notion, however i fail to see how a wealth cap would be a bad thing



...and ever onward we march comrades...

(didyou not bother to read anything I posted directly above you?( or is this a result of a reply from page#2 yet?)
What gives you or anybody the right to limit my income or what I do with my property?
and how does such a cap benefit you personally?
Keeping earned money away from "me"; doesn't automatically put more in the pockets of the indigent,"lazy"( or "less lucky") as some doggedly maintain!

edit on 18-8-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Originally posted by beezzer
Then lets STEAL IT!!!
(you grab the torches, I'll grab the pitchforks)

Lets TAKE their money. Lets steal it. Hey, I got a great idea! -ding!-
Lets elect a president that will steal it for us! BONUS!!!
That way we don't get busted for STEALING!!! Because it'll be "legal"!

So let me get this straight...
In your opinion, if you use your excessive wealth to:

1) Lobby the government to bend the laws so you can take more from those who actually work.
2) Crush other lesser entrepreneur and those farther down the elite chain from you.
3) Manipulate the stock market for your personal gains.
4) Receive tax breaks for things you're not doing.
5) Steal from your employees by holding their jobs over the heads.
6) Take from this country and send the assets overseas.
7) Burden the social service system by not paying your employees benefits.
8) Lobby for lenient safety laws that hurt peoples health and damage the environment for profit.
...Then your just paying fair and within the laws, so that's perfectly okay in your opinion?

...But...
If you:
1) Use your voice to the government to put an end to the unfair practices in the above list.
2) Ask the government to fairly tax those abusing the tax and social services system.
3) Ask the government to stop tax breaks to those who do not fairly earn them.
4) Ask to see “tickle down” economics either be enforced or the tax breaks removed.
5) Want to see an end to lobbying, and the unfair voice it gives the minority in Washington.
6) Want laws enacted against predatory economic and stock market tactics.
7) Want to ensure that employees are fairly compensated for the work they do.
8) Want to see companies limited on how much they can off-shore American assets.
9) Want to see actual enforced laws that protect health and the environment from abuse for gain.
10) Want to see legislation to stop the rich from using their excessive wealth to steal your hard earned money and 401K through their ability to manipulate markets.

Then your stealing?!?

I really think your ethical compass is 180º backwards...

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Originally posted by beezzer
Then lets STEAL IT!!!
(you grab the torches, I'll grab the pitchforks)

Lets TAKE their money. Lets steal it. Hey, I got a great idea! -ding!-
Lets elect a president that will steal it for us! BONUS!!!
That way we don't get busted for STEALING!!! Because it'll be "legal"!


Originally posted by defcon5
So let me get this straight...
In your opinion, if you use your excessive"opinion" wealth to:

1) Lobby the government to bend the laws so you can take more from those who actually work. "SPECULATIVE"
2) Crush other lesser entrepreneur and those farther down the elite chain from you.
3) Manipulate the stock market for your personal gains.
4) Receive tax breaks for things you're not doing"SPECULATION".
5) Steal from your employees by holding their jobs over the heads.(err ?what?)
6) Take from this country and send the assets overseas.
7) Burden the social service system by not paying your employees benefits.
"benefits are "benefits" are they not? Not gaurantees..

Originally posted by defcon5
8) Lobby for lenient safety laws that hurt peoples health and damage the environment for profit."SPECULATION"
...Then your just paying fair and within the laws, so that's perfectly okay in your opinion?

...But...
If you:
1) Use your voice to the government to put an end to the unfair "opnion" practices in the above list.
2) Ask the government to fairly "opinion" tax those abusing "speculation" the tax and social services system.
3) Ask the government to stop tax breaks to those who do not fairly"opinion" earn them.
4) Ask to see “tickle down” economics either be enforced or the tax breaks removed.
5) Want to see an end to lobbying, and the unfair"opinion" voice it gives the minority in Washington.
6) Want laws enacted against predatory" judgemental & opinion" economic and stock market tactics.
7) Want to ensure that employees are fairly " opinion" compensated for the work they do.
8) Want to see companies limited on how much they can off-shore American assets.
9) Want to see actual enforced laws that protect health and the environment from abuse "opinion" for gain.
10) Want to see legislation to stop the rich from using their excessive "opinion" wealth to steal your hard earned money and 401K through their ability to manipulate markets.

Then your stealing?!?

I really think your ethical compass is 180º backwards...

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


Care to try again without using the vague subjective word "fair" (or variations"unfair" unfairly") et al....
I realize vague flaming rhetoric is big with the "hope and changey" folks.
people who have that kind of wealth(I don't) have the rights of all other citizens too.I'm sure They feel using their resources as they see fit is"fair" also,
( see "fair" is meaningless and subjective ...) (just like "hope" and that "change" stuff").

You are welcome to those opinions (i.e.180 degrees "backwards"). but they ARE merely speculation and opinion from one point of view.
edit on 18-8-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-8-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Originally posted by 46ACE
Benefits are "benefits" are they not? Not gaurantees..

Then don't expect the middle class to pick up the tab for your lack of benefits via government social services, and still expect to get a tax break under the “trickle down” economics excuse.


Originally posted by 46ACE
Care to try again without using the vague subjective word "fair" (or variations"unfair" unfairly") et al....
I realize vague flaming rhetoric is big with the "hope and changey" folks.

Okay, then lets try Undemocratic, Uncapitalistic, Unconstitutional, instead...

Please show me in our Constitution where it says that the rich minority has more say within our government then the poorer majority, simply because they have the means to lobby for laws that give them a financial advantage? Please explain to me how a government that only looks after the interests of the few at the top is a Democracy and not a Feudalism? Please tell me how keeping the smaller businessman/worker down using your superior resources is Capitalism?

Now if you want to say that calling that unfair, is well...unfair, then by all means do so, but it certainly fits the definition of unfair as per the dictionary:

un·fair
adjective
1. not fair; not conforming to approved standards, as of justice, honesty, or ethics: an unfair law; an unfair wage policy.
2. disproportionate; undue; beyond what is proper or fitting: an unfair share.



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 8/18/2011 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by blocula
www.mybudget360.com... ...what a decent new car costs now ,you could buy a nice house 40 years ago for the same price!.....somethings really wrong here and the end results not going to be nice


Wages were also considerably less the average household income was $3,216.00 in the 50S. Hate to tell you nothing has changed if anything we have more buying power now.
edit on 8/18/11 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Timing
reply to post by CaDreamer
 


What is happening isn't capitalism.

What is happening is, for lack of a better word, corruptionism.

In capitalism it would all be equal playing field and the big money corporations would have to compete by the same rules as the smaller guys. The problems is the big money corporations pay politicians to rig the game in their favor. That's called corruption.


You made up a new word order, thats cool!!!!!
I made up a new word order too!!!!!!!! Mine is the
SILENT CURTAIN of cultural Marxism.

Your clock need setting though.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by blocula
this is what the government expects and demands of the 150,000,000 people and 99% of their children when they grow up >>> "run the rat race till you die and your gonna pay for your coffin and grave as well and if you rock the boat and dont bow down to our iron will you will be left with three choices >>> homelessness,prison or death"........"you have to like yourself to be normal and being normal is expensive"


You have it nailed down: homelessness,prison, or death.


Dont expect much from people though.
A large percentage, maybe even 66% or more, worship those with
money and power and will beg the rich to be allowed to
serve them on their knees.
That is human nature and no amount of education
can change that.
They will starve to death and still worship the rich with
their last breath.

PS: It may be that it is only the top 400 who hold as much wealth
as the bottom 150 million.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
The op has pointed out about the wealth that is held by the small percentage of people in the US and states how wrong it is that so many are struggling while these people are living easy, and the taxes that are paid on every 100 dollars made.
There are a few things that can be stated, as to this fact.

There are 2 kinds of wealthy people in this country, old and new wealthy. Those who hold the old wealthy, inherited it from their family, that worked very hard at making that money, to pass it on to the next generation. What is not often looked or stated, is that all of the wealth made from business, all started with a person willing to take a chance and a risk to put up everything to grab hold of the American dream and to make it. What is not stated or shown is how much people who do put forth that risk, are willing to gamble, even with their own family and social lives, working long and hard, just to ensure that they accumulate that wealth, living very frugally and often spending far less than what middle and lower class people spend to live. And their family that inherits said wealth, work hard to keep it, by investing and taking small risks, to slowly increase and keep it growing, and thus passing it to their children.

The new wealth, are people, like Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs, who took a chance, and found a niche in the market to use to build their individual wealth and become wealthy. But funny how the op fails to mention that no matter if it is old or new wealth, how these wealthy people take the time to give back to the community, in the areas of foundations, grants, and endowments, that benefit all in a community and not just a few. They give to charity and those, like Bill Gates, and Jobs, and Hunter, pay more in taxes, that too is not mentioned by the Op.

We can not punish the rich or the very wealthy, for their success, as that is wrong. Do you punish someone for being the best in their field, or at what they do, penalizing them for getting and showing that it is possible to be successful in this country? Are they not entitled to celebrate in their own way, or do we go the way that a few would suggest and redistribute the wealth, taking from those that worked so hard at what it is that made them their fortune, then what message does that send, beyond don’t be successful or take a risk as you will get punished, leaving little to no incentive to even try?

No, the problem lies with the government that lays out the laws that make it hard for businesses to get started and expand. Remove much of that red tape and watch people move on up.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


I am guessing there is a basic misunderstanding as to what the “trickle down” economics theory is, and how its supposed to work. It's basically tax relief that is given to the rich and their corporations, by the government, paid for by the middle class, with the understanding that they will use that money to strengthen the US economy, the US job market, the US middle class worker, and add US jobs.

What the rich have instead decided is that these tax breaks are there as their personal treasure trove to be looted at will, shown as personal profits, or sent outside the US to strengthen foreign investments. Then to make matter worse, many of them use our social services system as their benefits package, also paid for by the middle class worker (Wal-Mart being a prime example):

from another post I made earlier:


Originally posted by defcon5

Wal-Mart’s cost to Taxpayers
Wal-Mart's low prices don't come cheap. In fact, each Wal-Mart store employing 200 people costs taxpayers approximately $420,750 annually in public social services used by Wal-Mart workers whose low wages and unaffordable health insurance mean most of them are among the working poor. That's the finding of Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay for Wal-Mart, a report by the minority staff of the U.S. House of Representatives Education and the Workforce Committee.

Now lets take that times how many Wal-Mart run stores across the US:


How many Wal-Mart’s in the US
Unit count information as of August 31, 2008
· United States: 4,227 total units
o Wal-Mart discount stores (914)
o Supercenters (2,576)
o Sam's Clubs (594)
o Neighborhood Markets (143)

This means that just Wal-Mart alone generated roughly $1,778,510,250.00 annually in US tax debt, as of 2008, just by it's cost in social services used by its employees, not even counting the other tax rebates and tax breaks that it gets from our government.


What needs to be done, is those breaks need to be revoked for anyone who uses this money for reasons other then what it is intended for, anyone who loots social services as their benefits package, or uses it as though its there for their personal profit.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 8/18/2011 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by 46ACE

Just letingyou know where we on this side ( who can "uncomprehendingly" support the "wealthy" as I see all the time) are coming from...


Your worth taking a poke at..........
Its always presented as the strawman argument:Communism or Capitalism.

State Communism, is a modern idea of equality by force that has been proven to be
a failure.. though the cultural Marxists are still trying it and even
have the help of many on the right when it suits them,(Bush) to destroy society.

However if you study history you will see that Capitalism has been since
the beginning of civilization/agriculture associated with SLAVERY AND WARFARE
and has probably killed hundreds of millions of people.

So neither system is viable for a prosperous middle class.
Slavery is not the alternative to State Communism.


February 17, 2010 | Photo Credit: test LIKE THIS ARTICLE ? Join our mailing list: Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Economy headlines via email. TAKE ACTION Change.org|Get Widget|Start an Online Petition � This is Part II of David DeGraw's report, "The Economic Elite vs. People of the USA." Click here for Part I. "The war against working people should be understood to be a real war.... Specifically in the U.S., which happens to have a highly class-conscious business class.... And they have long seen themselves as fighting a bitter class war, except they don't want anybody else to know about it." -- Noam Chomsky As a record amount of U.S. citizens are struggling to get by, many of the largest corporations are experiencing record-breaking profits, and CEOs are receiving record-breaking bonuses. How could this be happening, how did we get to this point? The Economic Elite have escalated their attack on U.S. workers over the past few years; however, this attack began to build intensity in the 1970s. In 1970, CEOs made $25 for every $1 the average worker made. Due to technological advancements, production and profit levels exploded from 1970 - 2000. With the lion's share of increased profits going to the CEO's, this pay ratio dramatically rose to $90 for CEOs to $1 for the average worker. As ridiculous as that seems, an in-depth study in 2004 on the explosion of CEO pay revealed that, including stock options and other benefits, CEO pay is more accurately $500 to $1. Paul Buchheit, from DePaul University, revealed, "From 1980 to 2006 the richest 1% of America tripled their after-tax percentage of our nation's total income, while the bottom 90% have seen their share drop over 20%." Robert Freeman added, "Between 2002 and 2006, it was even worse: an astounding three-quarters of all the economy's growth was captured by the top 1%." Due to this, the United States already had the highest inequality of wealth in the industrialized world prior to the financial crisis. Since the crisis, which has hit the average worker much harder than CEOs, the gap between the top one percent and the remaining 99% of the US population has grown to a record high. The economic top one percent of the population now owns over 70% of all financial assets, an all time record. As mentioned before, just look at the first full year of the crisis when workers lost an average of 25 percent off their 401k. During the same time period, the wealth of the 400 richest Americans increased by $30 billion, bringing their total combined wealth to $1.57 trillion, which is more than the combined net worth of 50% of the US population. Just to make this point clear, 400 people have more wealth than 155 million people combined.

edit on 18-8-2011 by RRokkyy because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-8-2011 by RRokkyy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by EmVeeFF
Here's the elephant in the room, the problem with all these "Let's take the wealth back!" movements...

Fist off, this was the foundation of Karl Marx's Ideology

And secondly, all the people who had their "Money taken from them" (as taking the wealth back implies) VOLUNTARILY SUBMITTED to any impoverishing thing they were "subjected" to.



Like income tax?



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
They keep pushing....harder and stronger with each passing day.

I'm telling you all that eventually people are going to blow a gasket if this continues.

The massive protests will start here if spending cuts come to programs Americans desperately need and taxes are not raised or end up being cut for wealthiest americans and corporations.

It simply can't happen anymore. They are increasing the cost of living for those who simply can't afford it.

Stocks are dropping because they fear another recession...BUT IT'S WALL STREET THAT IS HELPING IT HAPPEN.

You can't rake in record profits and not hire anyone...while at the same time destroying government jobs.

It's frickin ironic, republicans pushing to end government programs that will put endless amounts of people out of work....therefore increasing the unemployment rate....while at the same time outsourcing our jobs.

this is absolute damned madness.

It's gotta change.

Whether it be public or private, WE NEED TO PUT PEOPLE BACK TO WORK.
edit on 18-8-2011 by David9176 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Originally posted by 46ACE
Benefits are "benefits" are they not? Not gaurantees..

Then don't expect the middle class to pick up the tab for your lack of benefits via government social services, and still expect to get a tax break under the “trickle down” economics excuse.


Originally posted by 46ACE
Care to try again without using the vague subjective word "fair" (or variations"unfair" unfairly") et al....
I realize vague flaming rhetoric is big with the "hope and changey" folks.

Okay, then lets try Undemocratic, Uncapitalistic, Unconstitutional, instead...

Please show me in our Constitution where it says that the rich minority has more say within our government then the poorer majority, simply because they have the means to lobby for laws that give them a financial advantage? Please explain to me how a government that only looks after the interests of the few at the top is a Democracy and not a Feudalism? Please tell me how keeping the smaller businessman/worker down using your superior resources is Capitalism?

Now if you want to say that calling that unfair, is well...unfair, then by all means do so, but it certainly fits the definition of unfair as per the dictionary:

un·fair
adjective
1. not fair; not conforming to approved standards, as of justice, honesty, or ethics: an unfair law; an unfair wage policy.
2. disproportionate; undue; beyond what is proper or fitting: an unfair share.



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 8/18/2011 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)


Who's keeping who"down"?

The constitution says nothing regarding "class" :" Neither has more say".Citizens are accorded equal rights;rich or poor, black /white,male/female/? ..

Your representative not representing you?
It is within your prerogative No its your "obligation" to remove him.

I agree change the lobbying and finance laws! close and lock the "revolving doors"; term limits! ( I'm All for'em)

Please explain to me the difference between "mob rule of the majority" and the "rule of law" (a republic) where individuals rights are protected from the mob.
(You know a "democracy": is two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner).The founders abhor d"democracy"..
the rule of law ( the constitution) protects the rights and property of all including of the "rich" from the guillotine wielding mob.
edit on 18-8-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-8-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Then again, consider this one point:

The majority of those mentioned, all have one thing in common, they get paid by: The people of the USA, who just happen to be US senators and Representatives.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRokkyy

Originally posted by 46ACE

Just letingyou know where we on this side ( who can "uncomprehendingly" support the "wealthy" as I see all the time) are coming from...


Your worth taking a poke at..........

Hey RRocky ever heard of a "contraction"? Two words put together with an apostrophe denoting the missing part? you know words like "don't"="do"+"not" and "you're"="you"+"are".

as in ,I don't know uh,let me see : " You (are) worth taking a poke at?"

and the "Paragraph". It makes reading a wall of text possible.

Originally posted by RRokkyy


State Communism, is a modern idea of equality by force that has been proven to be
a failure..
Thank you; on that we agree.


Originally posted by RRokkyy




though the cultural Marxists are still trying it and even
have the help of many on the right when it suits them,(Bush) to destroy society.

I didn't much care for "BOOSCH jr." after the SPP and the "patriot" act myself..

And your point was(?) My allusion to all this "eat the rich" stuff ; is not(?) akin to the dangerous thinking evident in these failed violent ( communist) movements."??? I think I made a valid connection.

A day doesn't go by here where somebody isn't screaming to:" tear it all down;use unicorn hooves as a currency "Teslas' suppressed "free energy"; drink that free"bubble up" and eat that rainbow stew"!
.Well people gotta' eat and that takes time; work; equipment; fertilizers/seed/ fuel and land. not a single part is free or made in a Star Trek replicator out of "raw atoms"

As you so astutely noted: The collectivist uses the force of a gun(govt) and bayonet. The capitalists use incentive of payment.to provide.
You get to pick one : "Buckaroo"
As for me the collectivists can all go to hell..

.

Originally posted by RRokkyy

However if you study history you will see that Capitalism has been since
the beginning of civilization/agriculture associated with SLAVERY AND WARFARE
and has probably killed hundreds of millions of people.

So neither system is viable for a prosperous middle class.
Slavery is not the alternative to State Communism.


February 17, 2010 | Photo Credit: test LIKE THIS ARTICLE ? Join our mailing list: Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Economy headlines via email. TAKE ACTION Change.org|Get Widget|Start an Online Petition � This is Part II of David DeGraw's report, "The Economic Elite vs. People of the USA." Click here for Part I. "The war against working people should be understood to be a real war.... Specifically in the U.S., which happens to have a highly class-conscious business class.... And they have long seen themselves as fighting a bitter class war, except they don't want anybody else to know about it." -- Noam Chomsky As a record amount of U.S. citizens are struggling to get by, many of the largest corporations are experiencing record-breaking profits, and CEOs are receiving record-breaking bonuses. How could this be happening, how did we get to this point? The Economic Elite have escalated their attack on U.S. workers over the past few years; however, this attack began to build intensity in the 1970s. In 1970, CEOs made $25 for every $1 the average worker made. Due to technological advancements, production and profit levels exploded from 1970 - 2000. With the lion's share of increased profits going to the CEO's, this pay ratio dramatically rose to $90 for CEOs to $1 for the average worker. As ridiculous as that seems, an in-depth study in 2004 on the explosion of CEO pay revealed that, including stock options and other benefits, CEO pay is more accurately $500 to $1. Paul Buchheit, from DePaul University, revealed, "From 1980 to 2006 the richest 1% of America tripled their after-tax percentage of our nation's total income, while the bottom 90% have seen their share drop over 20%." Robert Freeman added, "Between 2002 and 2006, it was even worse: an astounding three-quarters of all the economy's growth was captured by the top 1%." Due to this, the United States already had the highest inequality of wealth in the industrialized world prior to the financial crisis. Since the crisis, which has hit the average worker much harder than CEOs, the gap between the top one percent and the remaining 99% of the US population has grown to a record high. The economic top one percent of the population now owns over 70% of all financial assets, an all time record. As mentioned before, just look at the first full year of the crisis when workers lost an average of 25 percent off their 401k. During the same time period, the wealth of the 400 richest Americans increased by $30 billion, bringing their total combined wealth to $1.57 trillion, which is more than the combined net worth of 50% of the US population. Just to make this point clear, 400 people have more wealth than 155 million people combined.

edit on 18-8-2011 by RRokkyy because: (no reason given)



You know I didn't like the bankers and CEO's giving themselves huge bonuses on the tarp money either;

I just can't support the principle behind "legislative revenge" which hands the money back to the govt at gunpoint: merely so they get to dish it out to their more palatable;"more" politically correct" friends this time around.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Originally posted by 46ACE
Who's keeping who"down"?

The constitution says nothing regarding "class" : “Neither has more say".Citizens are accorded equal rights;rich or poor, black /white,male/female/? ..

That’s how things are SUPPOSED to be, but those with the money use it to ensure that they receive special consideration well above the majority through such tools as: Kickbacks, gifts to reps families, campaign contributions, promises of campaign aid via things such jets/buses/advertising, high paying dummy jobs created for reps family members, straight out bribery, etc.

All of that is out of the reach of the common man, and causes the reps to vote on behalf the minority that is paying them off vs what the democratic majority requires. THAT is BOTH UNDEMOCRATIC and UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

This is really not that hard to figure out, I fail to see why you cannot understand my point here.


Originally posted by 46ACE
Your representative not representing you?
It is within your prerogative No its your "obligation" to remove him.

We keep removing them only to get the same thing from the next batch that come in. None of them are impervious to the lobbying (a.k.a. bribery) that goes on in D.C. After all, it’s the riches extravagant campaign contributions that get them into office to begin with. So these new reps are already bought by the time they enter office.

Personally, I'd like to see them required to wear the logos of those who own and control them, like NASCAR drivers do:



Originally posted by 46ACE
the rule of law ( the constitution) protects the rights and property of all including of the "rich" from the guillotine wielding mob.

No one is saying that its okay to steal from the rich, what is being said here is that the rich need to be prevented from using their power to steal from the rest of us. Eventually if that is not reigned in then it will be rightfully time for mob rule. Somewhere in that pesky thing called a Constitution it guarantees us petty little surfs the right to raise up against those who might oppress us, including another class of ruling elite.

You are aware that we fought a revolution once to get out from under the oppressive rule of rich European nobility that sought to tax us without representing our wishes before government, right? You see the parallels here?

Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it, and right now strong historical parallels can also be drawn with time right before the French Revolution, replete with the rich sitting up there raking all the money and telling the rest of us surfs to go “eat cake” while oppressing the middle class and poor under excessive taxes and wars.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Let's just get all the rich people and shoot them.
Then we can all be poor, aspire to nothing (don't want to be rich, they shoot you!) and live in our hovels being angry at the people with BIGER hovels, eating a better class of dirt. Then we can shoot them!
And then be angry at the people with clean socks. And we can shoot them!
And then be angry at people with dirty socks.
And shoot them.
Then be angry at people with clean feet.
And shoot. . . . . .
if we all were poor ...no one would be poor



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by MrXYZ
If you look at how tax rates developed ever since Reagan, you realize that there's been a HUGE redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle class to the top 1%. This is an undeniable FACT!

And whereas the poor and middle class spend all their money on tangible stuff inside the US, rich people invest it where the returns are greatest...ASIA! So all those tax breaks don't actually help the US economy, contrary to what the politicians want you to believe.


Then lets STEAL IT!!!
(you grab the torches, I'll grab the pitchforks) jane or joe nobody goes to prison for stealing $500 from their company where they work...but...the ceo "of the same company" embezzles 5 million and doesnt go to prison,this example shows how warped our social structure has become...but i guess its a good way to eliminate the undesireable elements of society...the middle class

Lets TAKE their money. Lets steal it. Hey, I got a great idea! -ding!-
Lets elect a president that will steal it for us! BONUS!!!
That way we don't get busted for STEALING!!! Because it'll be "legal"!


So according to your "logic", it's only stealing if the poor and middle class do it...yet if the top 1% DEMONSTRABLY do it over the course of 25+ years, it's somehow ok...yeah, makes perfect sense


Also, you obviously aren't a patriot because you don't care about the US economy or how people in general are doing...great attitude.
edit on 18-8-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

If they stole their money then they should be arrested.
If they earned it and used existing laws to KEEP it, then to take it away would be. . . .
wait for it. . .
wait for it. . .
STEALING!



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join