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.

 

OWS - Do you hate this "1% evil person"?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by GLontra
Who called Trisha "a monster"? Not me. Just want that she pays her fair share in taxes.

Nobody got rich ALONE. She got help from her employees to get rich. Without them, she would never go anywhere. Her employees helped to generate wealth.

No, you didn't use the explicit word "monster". No, but you implied she somehow abandoned the employees. Those employees weren't forced at the barrel of a gun to work for her. They had a "contract" of sorts. The employee performs a certain task for a certain wage. If it was unfair, the employee has the obligation to NOT take the job.

True, nobody gets rich 100% on their own. And, lazy asses NEVER get rich, unless they hit the lottery. You get rich by hard work, dedication and sacrifice. At the end of it, you should be able to enjoy the fruits of your labor.

So, how much is her "fair share" of taxes? Honestly. How much money should someone be allowed to make? That's what this is all about, isn't it? You don't want someone to make a lot of money, because at some point it's "too much". So, how much money in taxes should someone pay?




posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by aching_knuckles
I see. So you are now stating that you are in favor of welfare and food stamps while we all work to become millionaires? Because without welfare and food stamps, her story is not possible. And from what I have seen of your posts, in the past you havent agreed with food stamps or welfare. Hell, the tone of this post you wrote seems to be against any assistance at all, while posting the experieces of a woman who became a millionaire after using social programs for at least a year.

I have no problem with social programs. I do, however, have a problem with people who use them their entire life, and then it becomes one generation after another. Personally, I think her example is a great "hand up" approach to getting people out of poverty.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3
I don't buy it. When I see the image below, I shake my head. Regardless, I don't see the calling for a "select 1%".


You pick out one image of one person in the 99% to make a point that you deserved what you got (which you do). But 99% is a lot more ideas than that one person. The movement also is supporting whatever cause or belief you hold. It's about all humans... Of course the is probably someone there who hates dogs or doesn't like vegtables, what does that have to do with calling out the corruption of the 1%... Corporate greed and militarism has destroyed this country and sadly the minds and limbs of many who've fought in endless wars... Anyone - you - the girl in the picture - anyone can present their ideas... That is how this is leaderless - that is how it is about us... This is a new age of instant communication between everyone in the world - the old paradigms are obsolete... You can disagree with that girl in the picture, but look through the others maybe there is someone you understand.... It's not about her "beef" with the system, it's about all of our "beefs" with the system. Because something is wrong and we all have them - some more pressing - some more important...



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by trika3000
 

I "understand" the argument. I "get it". Really, I do. In fact, I get it so much that I thought the Tea Party was the answer, and I still think it has good fundamental ideas. What saddens me is that the ORIGINAL Tea Party principals and ideas have been hijacked by the corporations. The OSW movement may have started out along many of the same lines, and I'm sure there are a LOT of things that the Tea Party and OWS movements agree 100% on, but now OWS has been hijacked by the CP and the leftist militants like Van Jones. That being said, it's only going to further the divide in this country.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
Everyone knows OWS is not targeting successful business owners. They are targeting the wall street, CEO, and banking fraudsters.


Yea it's the Wallstreet guys who didn't creat anything or do anything they just swindle people out of money and do nothing but get millions in return for being shady and lying.

^ That is the people OWS is complaining about........That 1%.....there is about .25% of that 1% who we should probably model our lives after because they did it the right way.

The MSM won't tell us about them though.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
I don't hate anyone, without people like Steve Jobs I wouldn't have an iPhone.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3

Originally posted by aching_knuckles
I see. So you are now stating that you are in favor of welfare and food stamps while we all work to become millionaires? Because without welfare and food stamps, her story is not possible. And from what I have seen of your posts, in the past you havent agreed with food stamps or welfare. Hell, the tone of this post you wrote seems to be against any assistance at all, while posting the experieces of a woman who became a millionaire after using social programs for at least a year.

I have no problem with social programs. I do, however, have a problem with people who use them their entire life, and then it becomes one generation after another. Personally, I think her example is a great "hand up" approach to getting people out of poverty.


Alllright. So now you are saying you are OK with social programs, as long as everyone eventually becomes a millionaire. What happens to those who dont become millionaires? The rules of capitalism dont allow everyone to be millionaires, especially when the rules are written by the already wealthy. So if they cant become a millionaire within a set period of time, they just are kicked off welfare and their descendants not allowed to claim public assistance?

Your views dont seem very well thought out.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3
reply to post by trika3000
 

I "understand" the argument. I "get it". Really, I do. In fact, I get it so much that I thought the Tea Party was the answer, and I still think it has good fundamental ideas. What saddens me is that the ORIGINAL Tea Party principals and ideas have been hijacked by the corporations. The OSW movement may have started out along many of the same lines, and I'm sure there are a LOT of things that the Tea Party and OWS movements agree 100% on, but now OWS has been hijacked by the CP and the leftist militants like Van Jones. That being said, it's only going to further the divide in this country.


But that is the beauty of it is it's leaderless so it can't really be hijacked... If you watch the feeds for awhile you'll see all different types and kinds speaking. My twitter feeds don't even have the Anonymous members agreeing... The TP movement was a political movement, this is a human movement - and sure the politicals will try and edge in but they is more room as it's a human movement and is taking place on the internet. The TP took place in the MSM and lost out. That's why youngsters deemed the TP as oldfashioned... This isn't going to be stopped it's everywhere... This is evolution not revolution
edit on 6-10-2011 by trika3000 because: i gotta go to sleep



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by navy_vet_stg3
 


Being somebody of means isnt the problem here nor should it be.
Monopolies and Corporatism is! When large multinationals dictate to supposedly sovereign Governments then we have a problem



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by aching_knuckles
Alllright. So now you are saying you are OK with social programs, as long as everyone eventually becomes a millionaire. What happens to those who dont become millionaires? The rules of capitalism dont allow everyone to be millionaires, especially when the rules are written by the already wealthy. So if they cant become a millionaire within a set period of time, they just are kicked off welfare and their descendants not allowed to claim public assistance?

Your views dont seem very well thought out.

I've never said I'm against social programs. I'm okay with them...in moderation. See the difference? And, no, not becoming a "millionaire" (although that would be nice), but simply becoming self sufficient. There is a difference there.

You don't have to be a millionaire to live well. I'm not a millionaire, and I live well. I have a standard 3 bedroom ranch home in a nice neighborhood. When I got out of the Navy, I only made $6.36/hr. I lived in a 2 bedroom apartment. Over time, I climbed the ranks, and became an engineer (non-degreed). I've worked for everything I have, but I don't have more than I can afford. I didn't buy a McMansion when I made $14/hr. I didn't when I made $30/hr. I don't own one now that I make more than that. Part of the problem is people do live outside their means, and then complain that they're broke. Save, save, and save, and work hard, and you'll get there. You won't make $100,000/yr right out of college, but if you work hard you'll get there.

As for people who "don't become millionaires" should they be kicked off welfare, I say this; YES! I don't think welfare should be something people live on for life. There's no excuse, other than medical/mental handicaps. Give it a certain amount of time (it takes 4 years for a bachelors degree), and then they're done. Period.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mindweaver
Being somebody of means isnt the problem here nor should it be.
Monopolies and Corporatism is! When large multinationals dictate to supposedly sovereign Governments then we have a problem

You won't get one argument out of me on this statement. I agree.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by GLontra
Where are those employees who helped Trisha to make her first million back in the 80's ? How many of them are unemployed now? How many get their homes foreclosured in the recent crisis?

Why Trisha should not pay taxes to fund the Welfare for those people?


First of all, Trisha is a business owner. She is assuming all the risk, not her employees. She has poured her own effort and money into building the business, not her employees. She has provided work for others who otherwise may not have had it. Now that she's successful, you want to punish her by increasing her tax burden? Why shouldn't her taxes be the same percentage as anyone else's? If the percentage is the same and she is earning more than the average person, well then she is paying more in taxes too. How is that not fair? You think she should pay extra taxes to fund the welfare of her ex-employees? Implement that "strategy" and you take away the incentive for small business owners to hire others, under that scenario she would have been better off making all the jewelry herself in her own garage to avoid the burden of hiring people and paying punitive taxes. Don't you understand that small business owners need incentives to hire others rather than additional penalties? I work for a small firm and the owner has stated that the reason we haven't grown this company is because the additional tax burden and health care costs make it cost prohibitive. This is the problem with our economy, no one has any incentive to hire. The government wants to increase taxes on small businesses in a time when earnings are flat and most owners are just in survival mode. The government should instead be offering these suffering businesses incentives.

People, here is one very simple truth- no society has EVER taxed itself into prosperity. EVER. It's never happened and it never will. We need to borrow a page from the Reagan administration's handbook, REDUCE tax rates and offer intentives and overall tax revenue will INCREASE. Lighten the load on businesses and guess what they do with the excess, they roll it back into the company. They add people, increase their office space, etc. The bigger they get the more taxes they send in. It has been proven to work, yet every time we go through a recession the government in charge wants to do the opposite, they go right back to the old mantra of raising taxes on the "rich" (businesses and their owners).


edit on 6-10-2011 by SavedOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by trika3000
But that is the beauty of it is it's leaderless so it can't really be hijacked... If you watch the feeds for awhile you'll see all different types and kinds speaking. My twitter feeds don't even have the Anonymous members agreeing... The TP movement was a political movement, this is a human movement - and sure the politicals will try and edge in but they is more room as it's a human movement and is taking place on the internet. The TP took place in the MSM and lost out. That's why youngsters deemed the TP as oldfashioned... This isn't going to be stopped it's everywhere... This is evolution not revolution
edit on 6-10-2011 by trika3000 because: i gotta go to sleep

The Tea Party is "leaderless" as well. Bottom line, throughout history, when a movement swells, some politician will jump out in front of it and try to take credit, and ultimately lead it. It's pretty apparent where the OWS movement is headed.

Van Jones

At this point, since these clowns have jumped out in front, the OWS movement is "lost" with mainstream America, and will be seen as a bunch of radicals. They may "have been" a "human movement", but it's not going to last now. When people pick friends like Van Jones, it's all over, just like when the Tea Party saddled up with Sarah Palin. Stick a fork in it.

The REAL change will be when the people in the CENTER ban together and don't allow the far left and far right to take over the movement. The far left has taken over OWS. It's a fact.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
She took the initiative to lead. We need leaders. We need creators. THAT is why she made millions and you didn't. You sat in your office, content with working for some other random creator or leader. If you want to make millions, you're going to have to change how you live your life.

No, it won't be easy. She was going to college and working long hours and worrying about her kids. You will have to work extremely hard the first 10 to 20 years to get yourself going.

If it was easy, everyone would be millionaires. These 1% had the courage and perseverance to do it. The 99% don't. They want to be credited for something they didn't accomplish.

It comes down to discipline and strength of will.

Again, credit where credit is due. Excuses do not pay the bills. Get to work.

There're a LOT of 99 percenters that're looking for work. You won't have trouble finding employees. That's somethign that creators and leaders have going for them. They're resourceful.

I'm not saying the 99 percenters are dumb. But they usually don't do what it takes.

So I guess this post shows where I stand on this issue. I am not anti-rich. I support them. They have tried harder than anybody else to control their lives and win. They deserve the reward.
edit on 6-10-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by navy_vet_stg3
 


A person making a couple of million in a small, incorporated business does not make them part of the 1%. In fact, it barely makes them upper-middle class which is currently evaporating.

So, no, we don't hate this woman, we want to help create many more folks like her.


We need a whole lot more millionairres, and a whole lot less billionairres!


I very rarely quote myself, it is extremely bad form, but I need to elaborate.

For every 1-Billioinairre, we could create 999 more Millionairres and still leave the original party rich. And, I'm not talking about redistribution of wealth. I'm talking about Free Market!

The US used to house the most billionairres, but predictably the BRIC countries are now hosting the most.


The 2011 Billionaires List breaks two records: total number of listees (1,210) and combined wealth ($4.5 trillion). This horde surpasses the gross domestic product of Germany, one of only six nations to have fewer billionaires this year. BRICs led the way: Brazil, Russia, India and China produced 108 of the 214 new names. These four nations are home to one-in-four members, up from one-in-ten five years ago. Before this year, only the U.S. had ever produced more than 100 billionaires. China now has 115 and Russia 101.

Forbes

So, think about this. 1210 people worth a combined $4.5 Trillion! That is a potential 4,500,000 Millionairres!!

Cumbersome legislation has driven the little man out of business. It is almost impossible to navigate the spider web of licensing, reporting, tax codes, and multiple agency oversight. I posted an example in some other thread about the difficult and expensive process just to be able to mow lawns on the side as a business!!

So, only the giant conglomerates are able to do business, and their innovative competition is handicapped and driven out. Worse yet, there are often exemptions to many of the reports and fees and oversight after a corporation reaches a certain level. Here in Florida, some recent legislation exempted any corporation with $500M or more in assets, while adding a $1500 mandatory fee for any company under that size!


4.5 million millionairres could be made within months if we just stopped protecting the giant corporations and started letting the little guy do business in a truly Free Market!!

And does someone really even need to be a millionaire? I live very comfortably right now with a net worth of less than $10k. Imagine if the little guys were able to compete with the corporations and 100's of millions of people just increased their net worth by $10k or $100k. The world would be an extremely better place!!!
edit on 6-10-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jonnywhite
She took the initiative to lead. We need leaders. We need creators. THAT is why she made millions and you didn't. You sat in your office, content with working for some other random creator or leader. If you want to make millions, you're going to have to change how you live your life.

No, it won't be easy. She was going to college and working long hours and worrying about her kids. You will have to work extremely hard the first 10 to 20 years to get yourself going.

If it was easy, everyone would be millionaires. These 1% had the courage and perseverance to do it. The 99% don't. They want to be credited for something they didn't accomplish.

It comes down to discipline and strength of will.

Again, credit where credit is due. Excuses do not pay the bills. Get to work.

There're a LOT of 99 percenters that're looking for work. You won't have trouble finding employees. That's somethign that creators and leaders have going for them. They're resourceful.

I'm not saying the 99 percenters are dumb. But they usually don't do what it takes.

So I guess this post shows where I stand on this issue. I am not anti-rich. I support them. They have tried harder than anybody else to control their lives and win. They deserve the reward.
edit on 6-10-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)




Do you really believe that it's possible every citizen in a country to become a self-employed "enterpreuner"?

If everyone becomes a self-employed "enterpreuner", who will be the employees of the "enterpreuner"? No company can survive without employees. No company can work with only one person, the owner alone. How the factories are supposed to work in a country where everyone is a self-employed "enterpreuner"?

Another question: do you know how many hard working "enterpreuners" had failed? Do you know that millions of people who tried to have their "own small business" failed, not because they didn't worked hard enough, but because the profits were not enough to keep the business runing? Do you know that many hard working owners of small business had to close doors and become salaried workers? Do you know that some of them lost their salaried jobs and now are unemployed collecting welfare?

Yes... "Enterpreuners" who worked hard, but failed, closed doors, became salaried workers, and after some time lost their jobs and are now unemployed people collecting welfare. They exist. And you may become one of them in the future... Life is full of surprises...

So, stop this bullsh*t that everyone who is a salaried worker is "a loser", or is lazy, and learn how the real world works.



edit on 6-10-2011 by GLontra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3

True, nobody gets rich 100% on their own. And, lazy asses NEVER get rich, unless they hit the lottery. You get rich by hard work, dedication and sacrifice. At the end of it, you should be able to enjoy the fruits of your labor.


In fact, I know a lot of lazy people who got VERY rich without work and without hitting the lottery. They are sons and daughters of billionaires (Paris Hilton is an example). They are lazy, they didn't work, they didn't won the lottery, but they become rich, VERY rich, after they inherited a fortune from their parents.

Believe me: at least 20 percent of the billionaires are in this category of people. And most of them don't give a # to "administrate" the inherited business. They put a manager to do it. And they put some millions on financial speculation and in the money markets, and can have a good life with never ever having to worry about money again.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by navy_vet_stg3
 


hmm let me think abo hhhaarrgggh


that will be a no

edit on 6-10-2011 by futuredude because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
Everyone knows OWS is not targeting successful business owners. They are targeting the wall street, CEO, and banking fraudsters.


YES millions DOES NOT make you a 1% what a 1% is is someone with billions and trillions...whos combined income could pay the NAtional deficit, some don't need to be combined the founder of time warner could easily pay the deficit and still have money left over.
Of course that is what TPTB want you to think OWS is about...but it's not it is their BS propaganda for creating MORE division amongst the people.


Oh boy I don't even know why I am bothering Carry on.
~~~



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by GLontra
 


I think you are wrong, and studies and statistics say you are wrong.

#1. Paris Hilton has been working. TV shows, Public appearances, etc.
#2. Most inherited wealth does not survive a full generation. People with no work ethics and street smarts do not keep their money long.
#3. There are many books and articles stating that the majority of wealth is earned, not inherited.

Read up on it.

The Millionairre Next Door is one of my favorite books ever. Millionairre Mind is the next edition of the same research.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join