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.

 

Email: 'Time to kill the wealthy'

page: 9
38
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Partygirl

Originally posted by Taupin Desciple
That e-mail is a joke. Whether it was meant to be serious or planted by someone to cause an uprising........it's a joke. One Million dollars makes you rich? Maybe in Uganda. But certainly not in America.
:


A million doesn't make you rich?!?!
I'm pretty sure if you total up all the money I will be able to earn in my lifetime it will not reach $1 MM. (unless we have hyperinflation lol).

But hey, if you say so...then I suppose you wouldn't mind paypalling me a million...heck, a hundred thousand would be just fine. Even ten thousand will do. I'll take a hundred, why not. Can you spare me $25 until next payday? Cup of coffee?

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



Comparitively speaking dear.

A cup of coffee sounds good by the way. I'm always up for good conversation.







posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by DataWraith
Anyone who goes after either 'bankers' or politicians in such a way always make me think they ( like the 'terrorists') will go after the easy targets.
And as an ex-banker my advice is IF you REALLY wanted to make a difference to the world FFS threaten to or go after the CEO's and directors , DO NOT go after the regular staff who are there to provide for their families and are in pretty much the same boat as the guy on the street.
NOT every bank employee makes millions in bonuses, or is on even a decent wage these days most are on the same wages as a regular office clerk and they certainly DO NOT have ANY influence on policy, that belongs to the CEO's and directors and their corporate lobbyists.
But ANYONE who suggests such a violent course of action is only helping to derail any progress made by the public, CEOs and the such should be brought up on charges not summarily executed no matter who they are, because if you prosecute instead then you give a stronger message to the corrupt by saying "do wrong and you WILL go to jail and lose your ill gotten gains", whereas violent action just makes them dig in further and protect themselves even more and makes it harder to sort them out..


I have seen people here who have commented against the Death penalty, now saying that CEOs should be executed for crimes against the people.

Oh the hypocrisy!



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex

Originally posted by DataWraith
Anyone who goes after either 'bankers' or politicians in such a way always make me think they ( like the 'terrorists') will go after the easy targets.
And as an ex-banker my advice is IF you REALLY wanted to make a difference to the world FFS threaten to or go after the CEO's and directors , DO NOT go after the regular staff who are there to provide for their families and are in pretty much the same boat as the guy on the street.
NOT every bank employee makes millions in bonuses, or is on even a decent wage these days most are on the same wages as a regular office clerk and they certainly DO NOT have ANY influence on policy, that belongs to the CEO's and directors and their corporate lobbyists.
But ANYONE who suggests such a violent course of action is only helping to derail any progress made by the public, CEOs and the such should be brought up on charges not summarily executed no matter who they are, because if you prosecute instead then you give a stronger message to the corrupt by saying "do wrong and you WILL go to jail and lose your ill gotten gains", whereas violent action just makes them dig in further and protect themselves even more and makes it harder to sort them out..


I have seen people here who have commented against the Death penalty, now saying that CEOs should be executed for crimes against the people.

Oh the hypocrisy!


I'm against the death penalty but that doesn't mean I want murderers to be left alone to wander the streets freely. I would prefer to send corrupt bankers and politicians to prison but if the system is so corrupt as to allow them to remain above the law then a good shunning may be our only recourse.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Mourninwoody
 


Bring back the tar and feathers I say and parade them in front of everybody. Naked, but with extra feathers around the unmentionables so not to offend others sensibilities...



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Originally posted by fooks

what are you suggesting? the friggin game be rigged?


When you talk about rigging the game, that opens up the question of whether the game is rigged at the moment.

But leaving that aside, if you take rules out of the game, and open up American society to the kind of exploitation that existed during the era of the "Robber Barons", you will have the same results, i.e., bloody battles fought in the streets and the eventual breakup of the largest corporations by the government.

This will keep happening in American society until one day you have this:



ya and if we go back a couple more years to the vikings

wtf you talking about?



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
the basic problem is complication - instead of relying on a simple golden rule system of law with eye for an eye we have increasingly complicated things to the point where people with means can find ways that arent available to others. there are 50,000 traffic laws in CA alone. You need 10 different agencies all doing the same thing to keep track of it all and they still get lost.

if they really wanted to fix the US - 10% flat tax on income - no tax breaks, no other fees, fines or levy's.

if you become rich then it's because you became rich not found a loop hole.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
The solution isn't violence. Why not just tax the wealth of the super wealthy at 10% a year. Over a few decades their control would dwindle. They would still be left pretty wealthy, but not to the same scale they are now.


Perhaps we could start by asking why it is that you believe a wealthy person is not entitled to the monetary gains they have acquired through the voluntary exchanges with others.

We all have to pay taxes - this is generally understood. It is also understood that it is not really right to effectively tax someone at or below the poverty level for things like food. I can agree to that point - as can most people.

What I don't understand, however, is where people get off saying that the "wealthy" somehow should not 'be quite so wealthy.' As it is, the tax-burden of the wealthy is astronomical - the top 1% pay, if I remember correctly, about 40% of the taxes while representing only 20% of the nationally reported income.

For those who need a translation: that means the top 1% effectively pay twice the amount of taxes respective to their income than the average person does.

"But, Aim, they have all of that money! It's concentration of wealth!"

Yes, this is generally what happens when the average American family has an annual income of $33,000 pre-tax and average cumulative debt of some $120,000 - about four years' of pre-tax income. Which means that the average family would have to do nothing but pay on their debt for about five years to settle it.

In more practical cases - these people are looking at 30 years or more to pay off their debt (because they need to do things like fill gas tanks, pay for utilities, eat...).

Loans are a tool. In America, they have become a way of life. Rather than saving $50 at the end of every week - people see that as a $200/month loan payment they can afford. The overwhelming majority of Americans are financially insolvent and could not pay off their debt even if they were to sell everything they own.

Now - the banks should have never issued the loans in the first place... but our tax dollars go toward teaching you basic skills like math... it doesn't take a well disciplined math genius to figure out if your income is going to meet your required expenses.

Further - the banks, normally, would never issue such risky loans. Why? Because of what happened. Banks would not profit from such risky loans.... were it not for the Federal Reserve and a number of Federal policies that effectively rewarded banks for issuing such risky loans. With no financial risk to the lending institution - it was crazy not to loan money to anyone who came through the door. Sure - it was poor practice, but you would get trampled by other banking institutions if you didn't take advantage of the opportunity while it lasted.

It was a game of hot-potato... everyone knew it was only a matter of time before someone got burned (Republicans and Independents in Congress were raising hell over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac since 2001 - even the Bush administration indicated there was a problem). No one wanted to be responsible for putting a damper on what was, at the time, a booming market.

In a free banking system - it simply never would have happened. Banks would have been liable for their held and loaned assets and no reputable bank would accept bank notes from a bank that had such poor lending practices.

At the end of the day... a lot of finger pointing can be done - but the reality is that our entire way of life has been way out of control for a long time. You can't work a minimum wage job and expect to have your own house. Not unless you live like a miser for a while and pay for the thing outright. You're not going to get it right out the gate, though. You're also not going to be able to feed and clothe a family of four on such a job.

And, yet, this is what many people seem to expect. It's not realistic. It's not sensible. There is nothing wrong with communal living - a few families sharing the same (perhaps large) house and grounds. But too many people want to live an unsustainable lifestyle and then get upset when they find out they can't afford to pay their credit card debt and complain that all of the wealth has become concentrated in the hands of a few.

Is it any wonder?



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Yeah! Lets kill bankers!
But let's protest;
Killing enemies on the battlefield
Death penalty
(Non-born infants are ok)

So lets kill;
Unborn infants
Billionares
Maybe millionares if they act too snooty
That guy who got a degree and makes 80K (he really steams me)
Anyone who has more than me

Do I have it right? Just wanted to make sure I'm on the same page.

edit on 7-10-2011 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
None of these protests will change anything. Look at Greece...with the size of their protests nothing changed and their PTB did what they wanted to anyway. Politicians aren't going to do anything because they know that people are gullible and come the next election they will talk like they sympathize with you, and understand your plight only to get re-elected and go back to the same sh*t. Look at Nobama. He gave the banksters the last installment of TARP, and now that this seems like a hot political potato he has endorsed OWS and has claimed to identify with them. Really!?!? Then why the hell did you bail them out!?!?! But, alas, he knows people forget and most will not even acknowledge he did it.

The only thing these people understand IS violence, unfortunately. All you idealists that think mass protests change anything are delusional. Pacifism doesn't work in the US, never has never will. We are a country of action. When Americans wake up and realize this, it ain't gonna be pretty. That's if they ever do! I support peaceful resolution, but unfortunately I think this time nothing short of violent revolution is going to suffice to correct the problem.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by aching_knuckles
reply to post by silent thunder
 


And the demonization starts.....Seriously, do people fall for propaganda this clumsy? This is embarrassing. If this were real, you never would have heard of it until they traced the guy and arrested him, like with that one guy who was going to fly drones with bombs on them. They wouldnt leak this story before naming a suspect.

Now when random executives are killed off (probably executives that were actually on the 99%ers side) the response will be heavy handed and approved of.


That's the point: they don't care about whether if the people buys it or not. They wanna scare the establishment and cops so it's gonna add up to the "protesters are criminals" orwellian mindset.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by haarvik
None of these protests will change anything. Look at Greece...with the size of their protests nothing changed and their PTB did what they wanted to anyway. Politicians aren't going to do anything because they know that people are gullible and come the next election they will talk like they sympathize with you, and understand your plight only to get re-elected and go back to the same sh*t. Look at Nobama. He gave the banksters the last installment of TARP, and now that this seems like a hot political potato he has endorsed OWS and has claimed to identify with them. Really!?!? Then why the hell did you bail them out!?!?! But, alas, he knows people forget and most will not even acknowledge he did it.

The only thing these people understand IS violence, unfortunately. All you idealists that think mass protests change anything are delusional. Pacifism doesn't work in the US, never has never will. We are a country of action. When Americans wake up and realize this, it ain't gonna be pretty. That's if they ever do! I support peaceful resolution, but unfortunately I think this time nothing short of violent revolution is going to suffice to correct the problem.


Indeed.

I've been in a war protest of a few hundred thousands of people who did nothing else than marching slowly and chanting 2-3 lame slogans down the city streets for a few hours, then they went home. That was a self-humiliating farce.

It would have taken only 1/4 of these people to get really angry, rioting and attacking the targets of their frustrations, and cops would have run away for cover and the establishment would have been shaken. This would have been historical and would have had a better chance at provoking an end to the war than all these Mickey Mouse demonstrations.

The power of a protest isn't about the numbers, but what protesters DO.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Typical proletarian drivel. Look at godless USSR, do you think it benefited from killing the intellectuals. Our society should worship the most worthy, not envy them and spite them. Everyone should learn the violin and realize that not everything is a flippin' competition. I may not agree with everything that Maynard Keynes said, but damned if he wasn't just about spot-on for this one. (From wikipedia)

How can I accept the Communist doctrine, which sets up as its bible, above and beyond criticism, an obsolete textbook which I know not only to be scientifically erroneous but without interest or application to the modern world? How can I adopt a creed which, preferring the mud to the fish, exalts the boorish proletariat above the bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia, who with all their faults, are the quality of life and surely carry the seeds of all human achievement? Even if we need a religion, how can we find it in the turbid rubbish of the red bookshop? It is hard for an educated, decent, intelligent son of Western Europe to find his ideals here, unless he has first suffered some strange and horrid process of conversion which has changed all his values.
-John Maynard Keynes



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
No one's going to die but it is pretty shameful that these morons really think the wealthy should be wiped out. I wonder if they'd have the same mentality if they were a millionaire? Probably not.

I have nothing against the wealthy of America, nor do I have anything against corporations. But I do have a problem with billionaires not paying their fair share and I have a huge problem with corporate America buying out our government.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Echtelion
 




It would have taken only 1/4 of these people to get really angry, rioting and attacking the targets of their frustrations, and cops would have run away for cover and the establishment would have been shaken. This would have been historical and would have had a better chance at provoking an end to the war than all these Mickey Mouse demonstrations.


I'm sorry, my friend - I am no friend of the "establishment" and have plenty of my own grievances with the way we are doing things. However.... rioting serves no purpose other than to destroy the property and lives of others. Do it - and you will be 'put down.'

Society has no room for thuggery - which is what rioting is all about: "I am not getting my way - so I am going to intimidate and destroy!"

You have rights to free speech and assembly. You do not have the right to tear up something that isn't yours. You don't have the right to operate under the pretense of coercion. The inciters and leaders of riots are nothing more than war-lords who quest for control at the expense of others.

I not only fail to support such initiatives - I will take active measures to suppress them. If it comes to the point that I have to do something about it - lethal force is the only logical recourse, and it will be one of the few things I apply liberally.

"You're a draconian ass, Aim!"

Perhaps. That is really beside the point. I can function in society without the use and/or threat of violence. I may be hot-tempered, but my solution to not getting my way is not to burn buildings or kill people. The society I represent and that I swore and oath to protect believes in respecting the rights and property of others.

If you choose to take such actions as rioting - you make yourself an enemy of that society, and an imminent threat to the life and rights of innocent people. It is simply not logical to regard the lives of people who cannot comply with the rather basic concepts of civility that apply within society. There is no need to welcome such people back into society - those who are not killed in the resulting conflict should be permanently exiled.

There is no room in America for people who believe they can take what they want from others at the end of a spear. If you want to behave like that - you can go to Africa or the Middle East.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vikus
Only if they start off with George Soros

I've been trying to find what's wrong with Soros. As far as I can tell, he's an atheist, socialist, merry prankster who wants to legalize marijuana. It looks like he's the main player behind getting the 99% out into the streets. What am I missing besides insider trading
?



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


I think you misunderstand the intent. It is not to riot and hurt innocent lives, but rather to remove those in power who have allowed this to take place, i.e. congress, senate, unlawful police actions, etc. There is a line, and those who cross it deserve punishment. Those who take action to correct years of corruption at the expense of the American people do not.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
is it true probably not. but are the poor getting pissed off enough that it could happen yes. when our tax payer dollars are used to protect mulltibillion dollar corporations who pay no taxes but take a multibillion dollar refund check while joe shmo has to pay 1100 dollars of his 30000 dollar income because he had to fix his home with a early withdrawn from his 401k because insurance company renegged on paying for repairs. then yes violence might be in future.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Sorry I can only give you one star. Your statement about taking active measures against rioting, is one of the reasons that I believe that the type of rioting we saw earlier this year in the UK won't happen here. If somebody goes to flip my car or set it on fire, they will be looking down the barrel of a shotgun. They keep talking about the LA riots over Rodney King, but, they fail to mention the Korean shopkeepers protecting their stores with rifles.


Before somebody asks me if my car is worth someone's life? That's not my descision, it is the decision of the person or people who go to damage it. Before they do something like that, they need to ask themselves if it is worth their life?



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Echtelion
 




It would have taken only 1/4 of these people to get really angry, rioting and attacking the targets of their frustrations, and cops would have run away for cover and the establishment would have been shaken. This would have been historical and would have had a better chance at provoking an end to the war than all these Mickey Mouse demonstrations.


I'm sorry, my friend - I am no friend of the "establishment" and have plenty of my own grievances with the way we are doing things. However.... rioting serves no purpose other than to destroy the property and lives of others. Do it - and you will be 'put down.'

Society has no room for thuggery - which is what rioting is all about: "I am not getting my way - so I am going to intimidate and destroy!"

You have rights to free speech and assembly. You do not have the right to tear up something that isn't yours. You don't have the right to operate under the pretense of coercion. The inciters and leaders of riots are nothing more than war-lords who quest for control at the expense of others.

I not only fail to support such initiatives - I will take active measures to suppress them. If it comes to the point that I have to do something about it - lethal force is the only logical recourse, and it will be one of the few things I apply liberally.

"You're a draconian ass, Aim!"

Perhaps. That is really beside the point. I can function in society without the use and/or threat of violence. I may be hot-tempered, but my solution to not getting my way is not to burn buildings or kill people. The society I represent and that I swore and oath to protect believes in respecting the rights and property of others.

If you choose to take such actions as rioting - you make yourself an enemy of that society, and an imminent threat to the life and rights of innocent people. It is simply not logical to regard the lives of people who cannot comply with the rather basic concepts of civility that apply within society. There is no need to welcome such people back into society - those who are not killed in the resulting conflict should be permanently exiled.

There is no room in America for people who believe they can take what they want from others at the end of a spear. If you want to behave like that - you can go to Africa or the Middle East.


Really? You just said you don't believe in violence unless its you being violent. Rioting is just another word for War, the only difference is who is doing the rioting/warring. Nothing but labels really. Shunning works very well in these circumstances and if you choose to place yourself in a situation where you feel your "hot-temper" gets to use "lethal force" I hope its with me.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Lets take that last post of yours and replay it as if it was a conversation with yourself,


"I may be hot-tempered, but my solution to not getting my way is not to burn buildings or kill people."


"I will take active measures to suppress them. If it comes to the point that I have to do something about it - lethal force is the only logical recourse, and it will be one of the few things I apply liberally." ...


You have rights to free speech and assembly. You do not have the right to tear up something that isn't yours.


...

Huh what?
There's some sound logic.



new topics




 
38
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join