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.

 

NBC's Ann Curry Rants: It's 'Fundamentally Unfair' Some Have More Money Than Others

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by tkwasny
 



What evidence anywhere in the Universe demonstrates that there is this concept called "fair"?


"BALANCED", there is a difference between balance and fair.


When two galaxies filled with countless trillions of civilizations spend billions of years colliding, eventually destroying all the life contained in both, is that fair?


Isn't it unbalanced to talk about matters you don't really understand? Since you're now asserting that there are countless trillions civilizations that are all wiped out over BILLIONS of years and you state this as a fact. Seems kind of weird.


When a "big cat" hunts down a gazelle and sheds it into bite-sized pieces, is that fair?


How else would a big cat survive? And if there were too many gazelle's - then they'd graze until there's nothing left to graze on correct? So you could consider that balance. After all, they are animals and don't have a sense of fairness. We humans, however do. So instead of the few grazing until there is nothing left for the rest of us, why not let our brains work for us and work this problem out? Simple; so many of you have been convinced that life isn't fair. If you believe that concept then you, through your own subconscious, will make sure that life is not fair.


Is it fair a baby is born without certain organs only to die hours later?


You stating these things has little to no relevance to what we are talking about. Science can make it fair for a baby like that. But is how science is being used, fair, when there are tons of scientists researching better viagra pills and water-proof-eye-liner rather than researching something else? You would argue; "it's their own choice" I would concur but then we are back at square one. We must take responsibility, one step beyond what we can, if we ever want a chance at progressing as humans. Not as "this country" or "this class" or "this skin color".


Fairness is an oddity that only exists is the realm of social PERCEPTION. There is no evidence this is required to be true. Ugly thought isn't it? But none the less true.


You're wrong. There is balance. Out of balance we can pour forth fairness. Sadly, it is OUR social perceptions that prevent us from doing so. After all, the general perception is that; Life is NOT fair. Correct? Then if it is not fair, why would we even attempt to be fair? It would seem like insanity. And that is where you guys are stuck at.




posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 



Well, what exactly should I do about all that ?


What can you do about all that? First of all, you need to get rid of the "rich is better" misconception that's somewhere in there. And get rid of the politics that's intrinsic in your every day thinking and communication. There's tons you can do without even doing anything. "exponential growth" would be something to ponder.


Dig more ditches for one cent a month for twenty years ?


Why would you if you see the bigger picture?


And by the way, Who determines where somebody is born ?


God knows. Yet that's not the question. The question is; "Why should it matter where someone is born?"



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by InfoKartel
 
Life isn't fair.

In trying to make life "fair" you end up making it unfair to a large part that were succeeding elsewhere.

Again, progs are great at evening the playing field to the lowest common denominator.

If not by force, then by coersion, or by guilt.

Artificial "fairness" is as phoney as any system devised, because people aren't all the same. Some have drive, talent, looks, height, abilities that makes them excel.

Let's punish those that can. For those who can't or won't.


edit on 28-4-2012 by beezzer because: sp


For me, it's not about who has money and who doesn't. It's about abusing a system that is meant to improve the quality of life, not diminish it. The circulation of money is supposed to make life easier. Imagine working and each week getting paid in food, clothing, blankets... It would be a real hassle having to carry it all home. So, money is the medium between pay and purchase.

But, the filthy rich found a way to make money with money. They found a way to make their talents pay off in utterly unrealistic levels. Who in the world needs a billion dollars? What baseball pitcher is worth a hundred million bucks? What actor deserves 20 million for a movie? These earnings are ludicrous.

When the U.S. economy was first created there should've been a cap on how much a person can earn each year. Say, a million dollars. If they want to make another million the next year, then they would have to stay in business for this year, with the profits of over a million going to the workers or to the government to spread the money out to other Americans.

There is no reason why one should have sooo much money that they couldn't spend in ten lifetimes, while others can't support themselves today.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 
When you place caps on earnings, regardless of the amount, you're limiting growth. You're limiting potential.

If I forced you to only eat a certain amount, no matter how hungry you were, what does that benefit you? You'd eventually learn to only eat at the limit inwhich I set.

I.

Set.

An arbitrary number based on nothing more than what I think is right.

Still sound fair?



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 



If I forced you to only eat a certain amount, no matter how hungry you were, what does that benefit you?


Your ignorance is astounding. Even your own analogies work against your point!

A human belly can only hold so much food before it explodes! What's the point of eating beyond what I can? Surely this must lead to implosion...wait a second, lets look at US economics(for the ease of it), is it imploding?


An arbitrary number based on nothing more than what I think is right.


Well, instead of going by the number YOU think is right, why not RESEARCH and find out that people can only eat so much before they die of eating too much?



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by InfoKartel
reply to post by beezzer
 



If I forced you to only eat a certain amount, no matter how hungry you were, what does that benefit you?


Your ignorance is astounding. Even your own analogies work against your point!

A human belly can only hold so much food before it explodes! What's the point of eating beyond what I can? Surely this must lead to implosion...wait a second, lets look at US economics(for the ease of it), is it imploding?


An arbitrary number based on nothing more than what I think is right.


Well, instead of going by the number YOU think is right, why not RESEARCH and find out that people can only eat so much before they die of eating too much?

*yawn*

Fail.
You miss the point. (Obviously)

If I told you that you could only eat 1,000 calories of food per day, regardless of what exercizes, energy output you performed, would that be considered fair?



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 



Fail.
You miss the point.


WHAT?!


If I told you that you could only eat 1,000 calories of food per day, regardless of what exercizes, energy output you performed, would that be considered fair?


If you did the research and found, that I needed 3000 calories a day for all of that, yet I insist on eating 5000 a day and storing another 5000 worth of calories away - simply because I can. And someone tells me, it might be better for me to eat less and share more because the world is hungry...it would be the truth. But I would have to humble myself in order to do that. Now, if all my life I've been told I must have more otherwise I'm of less value than others(superiority complex) then I guess I'm going to have a lot of trouble humbling myself.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   
I haven't read all the replies yet, but here's my two cents.
I don't have a problem with people having more money than I do, but it really ruffles my feathers when people have enough to feed the world five times over. Hell, they could all chip in and cure the national debt while still having enough left over for themselves to still remain rich.
Just look at Steve Jobs. I still haven't heard about any charities he donated to.

Let's get real. Nobody needs that much money. Nobody needs to have a jet and a yacht. Yeah, I'm sure it's nice, but if everyone has to feel the pain of not having even a pot to...



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by InfoKartel
 
You once again, didn't answer the question.

Shall I repeat it?

Or have you decided to fail for all eternity.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by InfoKartel
 




I've been told I must have more otherwise I'm of less value than others


This is another example of a brainwashing tactic. To instill in people that it was important that they "keep up with the Joneses" was pure genius and people are still buying into it (no pun intended).



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Well it's eventually gonna come down to one company or maybe 2 or 3, having all the money in the world and the rest of us having only what we think we need. And then a new awesome item comes out that we all need/ want, but only these companies sell it.

Guess what, we are already slaves...

Burn your money, then burn your idea that you need it, then go and live for real.

I want to know how capitalism works, when no one makes enuff money to buy what they are classified to " Need " anymore, regardless of sex, race, education, and skill set, this is the future of the slave force, formally kown as the working class.

The Jones! I saw those manicans in the storewindow, they got a new Ipad 5, has extra memory for storing all my hopes and dreams that will never do anything with, becuz I am always working.

If you really sum up everyone's life here on earth, and then sumed of just the folks who work, against the folks who do not work, You'd stop working right away and start stealing, trust me.

The biggest lie the world was ever been fed, was that we were ever equal in the 1st place.
edit on 28-4-2012 by Moneyisgodlifeisrented because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by jiggerj
 
When you place caps on earnings, regardless of the amount, you're limiting growth. You're limiting potential.

If I forced you to only eat a certain amount, no matter how hungry you were, what does that benefit you? You'd eventually learn to only eat at the limit inwhich I set.
I.Set.An arbitrary number based on nothing more than what I think is right.
Still sound fair?



But, that's what is happening now. You traded money for food. Do you think it's fair that we are financially limited as to how much food we can buy? The fix is in, so to speak. Some people excel at this money game, and they set the limits. A decent man wants to get a job in a factory (no desire to run the country or become an executive), so what kind of pay can he expect? Minimum wage, or a pay that just keeps his head above water. Why should he have less simply because it isn't in him to be a cutthroat in politics or business?

As for someone making a quick million, would they shut down their business for the rest of the year? No, because someone else will start the same business, so when you open to make money the next year, you will have no customers. Greed ensures that you will stay in business.

What does growth and potential have to do with each person's right to enjoy this life? So far, growth and potential has put everyone just one economic collapse away from being out on the street.

For those with the ability to earn billions, the goal should be to contribute to society, not take away from it. A million per year is MORE than enough for anyone.
edit on 4/28/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/28/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by InfoKartel
reply to post by beezzer
 



If I forced you to only eat a certain amount, no matter how hungry you were, what does that benefit you?


Even your own analogies work against your point!

A human belly can only hold so much food before it explodes! What's the point of eating beyond what I can? Surely this must lead to implosion...wait a second, lets look at US economics(for the ease of it), is it imploding?


An arbitrary number based on nothing more than what I think is right.


Well, instead of going by the number YOU think is right, why not RESEARCH and find out that people can only eat so much before they die of eating too much?


I agree with you, but JEEEZ, what's this about: "Your ignorance is astounding." We don't need that in an intelligent conversation.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by InfoKartel
First of all, you need to get rid of the "rich is better" misconception

Being rich IS better than being poor. Having food IS better than not having food. Having fun IS better than not having fun. Being productive IS better and more satisfying than not being productive.

And get rid of the politics that's intrinsic in your every day thinking and communication.

You mean like the far left wing politics thats intrinsic in the 'spread the wealth' crew and NBC.


Who are you to decide if a person 'makes too much'?? It's no ones business how much money another person makes. If a person is self sufficient (which rich people are) then it's no ones business what kind of family life they have or what they chose to do with their money. They earn it ... it's theirs. End of story.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
For those with the ability to earn billions, the goal should be to contribute to society, not take away from it. A million per year is MORE than enough for anyone.


You are forcing your moral values onto others. For those with the ability to earn billions, their goal can be whatever they want. It's their life. It's their money. It's their ability. We have no right to steal from them simply because they have figured out how to make more money than us.

As for 'a million a year is more than enough for anyone' ... sure .... but so what? In a perfect world people would voluntarily donate all that excess to help their fellow man or reinvest in things that would help others ... but this isn't a perfect world. And we can't force people to be what we consider to be 'perfect'. If we took from them anything over the arbitrary amount, then we would be thieves and those people would be slaves to the state .. and those slaves would stop producing.

Atlas would shrug.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj


For those with the ability to earn billions, the goal should be to contribute to society, not take away from it. A million per year is MORE than enough for anyone.


Once again, we have someone else determining what someone should have.

YOU decide a million per year.

Someone else may say 100,000.00 per year.

Someone else?
50K?

When you have an outside agency determining an individuals worth, you've said goodbye to freedom.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
That Ann Curry,
such a loud mouth Ranter!
I bet Rush and Alex J are worried
about losing listeners to that beast.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Who are you to decide if a person 'makes too much'?? It's no ones business how much money another person makes. If a person is self sufficient (which rich people are) then it's no ones business what kind of family life they have or what they chose to do with their money. They earn it ... it's theirs. End of story.


This is under the misconception that money is personal property. It's not. An economic system is about money always circulating from one hand to the next within that system. Because checks and balances were not put into place, a few (the so-called 1%) were allowed to abuse and manipulate the system.

You sit at the dinner table with ten other people. The meal consists of ten portions of everything. As the ten slices of meatloaf get passed around, you see that one person took 2 portions. You say to yourself, "Oh well, I can do without the meatloaf because there's plenty vegetables." But then that greedy meatloaf stealing butthead takes an extra baked potato, and your green beans. Now you are left with just bread.

What you are claiming is that this is okay because that greedy one is smarter than you. And, you'd be right because he was smart enough to know that no one would complain.

Well, it's time to complain.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by jiggerj
For those with the ability to earn billions, the goal should be to contribute to society, not take away from it. A million per year is MORE than enough for anyone.


You are forcing your moral values onto others. For those with the ability to earn billions, their goal can be whatever they want. It's their life. It's their money. It's their ability.


See! Moral values have nothing to do with money (or rather, it shouldn't have anything to do with it). Further, it's NOT their money. Money is the pause between earnings and purchases. People can own a washing machine that they purchased, but they can't own the money. The money is supposed to go back into the system so that others can purchase material goods. But, when billions of dollars are simply held by just a few people, when it is taken out of circulation, then you can't earn it or spend it.

The U.S. dollar is owned by every U.S. citizen. Don't you find it odd that the top 1% have and/or controls all the money, but the country's trillion dollar deficit is divided evenly amongst every citizen? I say, sorry, the top 1% enjoying the money should be responisble for 99% of the deficit.

By the way, if you are a U.S. citizen, this is what you owe right now:




posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


The government owning companies is Corporatism/Fascism not Socialism at all.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join