It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Nancy Pelosi: I Wish [Poor] Would Earn More So They Could Pay More [Taxes]

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 04:54 PM
Riddle me this...

How can I get a job if there are no jobs or people won't hire me because it all goes to minorities because of quotas or how can I get any sort of aid because it's all going to the illegal immigrants and not to people who truly need it?

Screw you Pelosi.

Stop whining and do something about it. Give me a job or give me aid.

posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 05:01 PM
reply to post by EvilSadamClone

Minorities lost twice as many jobs in this recession than whites and illegal immigration is at an all time low.

So maybe you just aren't getting hired because you have a bad attitude? Or tend to make ill-informed bigoted remarks?

Over the past four decades, millions of Mexicans have moved to the United States, creating the greatest wave of immigration from one country to another the world has ever known.

But that wave has come to a standstill and may even have reversed: The number of Mexicans coming to the U.S. has slowed dramatically in recent years, and the number of Mexicans returning home has increased, according to a new report by the Pew Hispanic Center

The unemployment rate for African Americans is set to soar to a 25-year high of 17.2 percent by the third quarter of this year, according to a new study by the Economic Policy Institute. The rate for Latinos is also expected to hit a record high of 13.9 percent this year.
edit on 24-4-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 05:25 PM

Originally posted by grey580

How do you even respond to the headline?
Maybe if you gave more kids a chance to get college educations you'd have more people earning more.
Therefore getting better jobs. Therefore paying more in taxes.

Gutting our education system is a sure way of making the poor earn even less.

we don't need all those poor people getting college educations!!! the people who we have now with those degrees can't find jobs!! we need the poor cashier running that cash register, and next time you rent a hotel room, aren't you gonna feel a bit grateful to the maid that spent her times really cleaning it well??

as far as them defining all that 50% who don't pay income tax as "poor", I get to take issue with that....
our household income it below the mean, that means that over 50 percent of the homes in this country are earning more than us.....we ain't too poor that we don't pay federal income taxes, out of our checks, and usually at tax time also!! always have!!
that fact that nancy seemed to infer that they were the "poor" and we just need to pay them more, kind of gives me the impresson that either she's dumber than I thought, or she knows danged well why so many get out of paying taxes and is just diverting attention to the "poor" just like alot of other people. only alot of the other people aren't sitting in the halls of congress in a position where she should know danged well just what the repercussions of the legislation she and her buddies have passed!!!
it's all the danged deductions and credits that they have, and I would almost be willing to bet that if we searched hard enough we could find someone earning twice as much as this household does getting out of paying the taxes.

put it another way, does nancy have friends who aren't paying taxes, maybe she isn't even,, oh ya, divert the attention, blame it on the "poor".

posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 05:30 PM
reply to post by Indigo5

It wasn't just public service, it was a requirement to keep their FCC license.
Back when broadcast television was just that, having to be broadcast over the public airwaves channels had to justify serving the public interest.
That's why radios stations still give at least 1 hour a week to charities and other local organizations free of charge and commercial free.
To maintain their license they must serve the public good.

When TV made the jump from broadcast to cable they no longer had to do nightly news and morning news.
In fact some stations cut the funding to them, the public got upset, and that's when morning news transitioned to morning shows.
They still give news which satisfies the wants of the public, but they also have tons of fluff which advertisers like.

All of this is a tangent though.
Basically news today isn't what it used to be, it's all about profit so everything has to be sensational.
Which is a point you made re headline news.
I just wish more people realized it's all sensation and took more news with a grain of salt.

Your last point on the Bill, or transcript is spot on.
I do listen to talking heads for enjoyment, but I don't believe either side of the argument until I have read the whole bill, proposition or w/e.
Not the small blurb in the ballot either, I read the actual proposition I'm supposed to vote on.
edit on 24-4-2012 by Pigraphia because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 08:18 PM
reply to post by neo96

Pelosi is actually an example of how even a half crazy rich person can end up in Congress in a powerful position. Did I say only half crazy, my bad

What is more unexplainable than Pelosi holding Office are the folks voting for her. They can't possibly have a clue who she is or what she is like.

Last week she wanted to Amend the First Amendment to control corporate speech which is beyond insane. Even her own Democratic Party and all Media are in fact corporations. That and you can't amend an Amendment through a Bill or Presidential Order. I think she now fancies herself a Dictator and I know she want's her private jet on the taxpayers dime back.

Perhaps the new law stopping the insider trading that made her and her husband rich beyond reason has driven her over the edge. But then perhaps she is just pandering for votes from the illiterates who must keep her in office.
edit on 4/24/2012 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 09:19 PM
This sounds like a job for inflation! And derivatives!

Nancy Pelosi could always pay them more money so they can pay more taxes. No, we can print more money, and use it for gift wrap? No, give out government credit, make it look like more taxes are being paid.

It's coming to a point in the administration when the office folks are at a loss for reason due to the coming elections.

No, scratch that excuse, because of some IMF rearrangements, and the UN breathing down their neck, and the dollar being devalued, and policy unwinding the Bill of Rights, and the NWO. And the State Department wants to push forward the health bills and ID cards to go with the OCD monitoring by a netState while Obama is dangling by a thread with his personal files. The banksters need sacrifices.

I think maybe essentially the USA is feeling the pressure of another financial crisis. Oh don't worry, Hillary probably has some Greek stock invested and ready to mature in 10 years by now, so she's safe, mostly, as long as government still gets the extra slack in insider trading laws.

I was going to say maybe the botox or juvederm injecton needle went too far into Pelosi's brain this time, but that's not realistic, kind or fair to her. Let's blame Newt Gingrich instead. According to my calculations we are going to get a female President on the brink of disaster in 3, 2, 1...

No, the best way to kickstart the economy is to put a per-radius rule on chain stores, ban department stores for the sake of competition, bring in the water car motors to avoid oil barrel debts to foreign countries, and let Columbia bring in all the coke they can...oh wait they already did that one.

posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link's the "Let's take everything completely out of context" thread.

My turn.

JOHN BOEHNER: "We're going to ship millions of American jobs overseas."

Yep, just more John Boneman speaking what he really wants to do. Send all our jobs to China. After this statement, he cried.

Bush or Romney 2012! Freedom!
edit on 24-4-2012 by MiddleClassWarrior because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 10:26 PM
I see nothing wrong with the thread headline. It takes money to run the government. People earning more means more taxes come in to run things as well as giving the people earning more a higher standard of living. Isn't that what we all hope for? What are the alternatives? Making less money? Making more but not paying more in taxes? Seriously, does anyone think we don't need government? What about defending our country? What about ensuring the safety of our foods, drugs, water, air, cars, and so on? How about regulations that keep corrupt people from ripping off the public? Like what happened with the banks and Wall Street the last few years?

posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 11:57 PM
reply to post by jaxnmarko

A little government is a good thing.
What we have now is too much government.
You made a nice list of things that have useful regulations for our protection.
Using google anyone could find examples harmful over regulations on at least half of the things you mentioned in that list.

It's not just government regulations, our legal system is laughable.
Did you know there now exists a needle that causes less pain while have blood work done.
Why isn't it in use, the company that produced it doesn't want to take the risk of being sued because a phlebotomist might accidentally say "this is a new painless needle".
The patient feels a little discomfort next thing you know the company has to settle out of court because their lawyer found 100 other people who felt discomfort.
(I know about this needle because I am a licensed phlebotomist, not that it does any good no one is hiring right now).

The whole system is messed up, too many laws piled on top of laws, mandates and regulations.
Sweep the books clean of useless or outdated laws, and put 10 year caps on all new laws.
If they are useful they can be voted to not expire for another 10.
The useless ones, or ones that turns out aren't as good in practice go away when they expire.

posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 07:40 AM
essentially she's right. She may have said it in a clumsy way, but she's right.

The big big big problem with trickle down neo-liberal Frankfurt school economics, is that it funnels wealth to the very top of the pile. I'm of the opinion that 'trickle down economics' only works in the toilets of dubious fetish clubs really.

Over the last 30 years there have been massive productivity increases by the majority, yet the majorities wages have remained static. The very top of the pile have effectively taken the benefit from this. Which is now why tax and the top rate earners is such an issue. If all workers who had increased their productivity had been paid to match this, the economy would be in a *much* better state.

This breaks consumer capitalism, as it's dependant on having consumers, to consume. Ford (as in the industrialist) grasped that when he said the reason why he didn't automate his factories more is that 'robots don't buy cars'. That's why the top end of the market is booming, you know, the luxuries market and the like, but the economy as a whole is flatlining.

posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 08:13 AM
reply to post by neo96

The more you make the more they take. I seen this post as we were having a family discussion about how they push children through schools today like a meat market. A process kinda like steroids to develope poor children (investments) into wealthy taxpaying citizens as quickly as possible (12 years). And much as payroll tax is a theft I have a problem with property tax. I owe no man for my home or car only the govt. Therefore I own nothing in the USA.

posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 08:25 AM
I don't know. I think Nancy needs to read more. Profiting from the labor of others without giving a direct benefit would seem to fit. Considering that income tax isn't spent nor does Congress do the jobs listed in Article 1 as they are listed. Most have been farmed out. For example, I seem to recall filling out IRS forms, not Congressional forms and mailing them to the IRS and not Congress. Come to think of it, since it is always a matter exceeding $20, I don't ever remember having a trial by jury.



Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.


Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in