Stephen King's Message

reply to post by RealSpoke


So, you're saying America does not, as a society, personify things that are not people, nor does it dehumanize?

that's a good one.

What a bunch of nonsense. If he wanted to give his money away he would have already. At least Angelina and Brad put their money where their mouth is. I'm guessing most of King's money is socked away in a tax shelter or Swiss bank account.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

Do you realize exactly how much of America you covered in at least half of those bullet points?

Uh no, the majority of people are not sociopaths or psychopaths..

Correct! The majority are "sheeple"...the REST are psychopaths!

reply to post by Blackmarketeer

Dear Blackmarketeer,

You know how easily I get confused, but I try to understand everything you post. I'm afraid I'm confused again. When Mr. King says "Tax me ...," he doesn't seem to really mean that. He's saying "Tax all the rich people."

And when he says that all some people want Romney to do is to acknowledge that he couldn't have made it in America, without America, surely he's simply uttering a tautology. The rich in France couldn't have made it without France, the rich in any country couldn't have made it without the country they live and work in. Forgive me, but, so?

I also noted that Mr. King approved of the charities he gave money to, but not the charities that others helped. Is he calling for a list of approved charities? Doing away with the tax deduction for charitable giving? That it's better for the government to decide what charities to give to than the people who made the money that will be given? I'm uncertain about his position on the role of charities in this country.

Finally, beyond the rather coarse language, I missed any new ideas or proposals, if there were any. How does he differ from President Obama and his call to make the rich pay their "Fair share?"

I'd appreciate some help in finding something significant and new in his article.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
What a bunch of nonsense. If he wanted to give his money away he would have already. At least Angelina and Brad put their money where their mouth is. I'm guessing most of King's money is socked away in a tax shelter or Swiss bank account.

www.celebitchy.com...

latimesblogs.latimes.com...

King makes the point that the wealthy aren't about job creation. He says if they make more money, they don't go out and employ more people. He also points out that in many cases, when the wealthy make donations they send it in the direction of people and places that help the rich. For example, academies that only the very wealthy attend. He says as more money flows up (not trickling down), it stays up. He argues that investment flows outside of the USA so it isn't helping job creation or the US economy.

So...the argument he is making is that left to their own devices, the very wealthy are not helping anyone but themselves. By extension, if they had to pay more tax, the money would (ideally) be invested in the US and spread around to help those that need it the most.

reply to post by Kandinsky

Dear Kandinsky,

Thanks very much, that adds some clarity I hadn't seen.

It's a little too late (too early?) in the day for me to start a detailed discussion, but I think some additional questions should be asked. Wherever the money is invested, it ends up going to someone who wants it, either an individual or a business. (And I don't really expect answers to these, I'm just thinking out loud.) Why would the rich invest somewhere else if the could make a greater return investing it in the US? Why is the US a bad place to invest? And, if it's bad for our rich people to invest in, wouldn't the rich of other countries feel the same way? Perhaps our goal should be to make the US a good place to invest in again.

By extension, if they had to pay more tax, the money would (ideally) be invested in the US and spread around to help those that need it the most.

Listening to some of the posters here, one might get the idea that the government is spending huge amounts on the military. Outside of the soldier's salaries and health care, the money goes to the rich contractors. Paying for health care? Doesn't that money go to hospitals and doctors? I love the idea of helping the poor, but there is some real debate over whether the government's approach has been helping the poor, or is just spending money on them. You know the "Give a man a fish . . ." debate.

This is not meant to be partisan, but I kind of like Romney's approach of giving 10% of his income to the church, along with whatever other charities he has. I tend to think that churches, the Salvation Army, Goodwill, and so on, have better track records then Washington.

Anyway, it's 4:30 a.m. and I'm really too tired to be effectively posting. I just wanted to thank you for the clarification you've offered, it's really a big help.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by buster2010
Has anyone noticed that the people who earned their wealth seems to have no problem paying taxes? The ones that are always whining about taxes are the ones who inherited their wealth the ones who didn't work for it. Unless you call waiting for mommy and daddy to die working.

I paid my way through university. I lived by myself in a tiny renovated garage for years. Eating was a pain in the butt. My way wasn't paid.

I still work very hard and taxes drive me nuts (I live in Australia but it's still annoying). This is the same logic persons like Hilary Clinton throw around that new generation people are spoiled etc ... At the same time they want people to spend to help the economy at times. It's so backwards.

Originally posted by charles1952
Why is the US a bad place to invest? And, if it's bad for our rich people to invest in, wouldn't the rich of other countries feel the same way? Perhaps our goal should be to make the US a good place to invest in again.

I wish the U.S would do this in one way.

Currently in my industry we have one very large company charging their employees to work for them. 30% of their work force is made up for 'paying students'. I know for a fact that other parts of their work force are from Russia and India. I've lost out on work because I'm competing with $400 a month employees from other countries.

It's good in a way. I've met some over seas workers and they're very nice talented people. They deserve an income just as much as me. However, it is frustrating because I actually like my work. I just don't want to live in one of the cheaper countries.

I guess one day living costs and employment will balance out. Already there are huge amounts of work being out sourced to over seas from the west. The one main stay American and the UK seem to have left is the unparalleled education they can provide in specialist fields.

Eventually it will come back to bite the rich people in some way. Unfortunately they will probably be long gone before they can witness their children's children working for lower wages I imagine. Then again, maybe it's not a bad thing ... another step towards equal work for equal pay around the planet.

(My friend in Russia now earns almost double in the last five years and I earn about 1/3rd of my previous income for the same work)

Originally posted by buster2010
Has anyone noticed that the people who earned their wealth seems to have no problem paying taxes? The ones that are always whining about taxes are the ones who inherited their wealth the ones who didn't work for it. Unless you call waiting for mommy and daddy to die working.

This is the thing I keep noting! In my family, and their entourage, many are supportive of more taxes being placed on the rich... and yet they ARE that rich, and acknowledge they are ready to do so. They are also people that came from poor backgrounds and struggled and worked hard to get where they are.

I run into people who defend the old trickle down theory and insist the rich shouldn't be required to pay more taxes, but up to this point, those have all been people who are not of that more affluent population we are speaking of.


(Maybe there is people reading this that are exceptions to that, and welcome them to say so , that I hear them out and take note, this is just what I have collected in experience so far)

But I admit it does make me wonder about the Stockholm syndrome type of explanation....

Or the simple way people like to have figures in society that represent a potential of being free from all responsibility, duty, to the collective. The possibility of believing that "if I struggle and suffer, I can be one day rewarded with total freedom and benefit of power, without responsibility with it." (is it a coincidence so many right wing people are also into religion that promises a similar idea?)

People live their dreams through such figures and personalities they identify with and admire. Even if they never get there themselves.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Stephen King ... .... typical left wing rhetoric and class warfare fodder.

Stephen .. if you really want people to all 'pay their fair share' then you should be calling for a FLAT TAX with no loop holes. Everyone .. no matter how much or how little they make .. would pay the same percent. That's the ONLY 'fair share' kind of tax there is. In the mean time, since you are so hell bent on the government getting more money just so they can piss it away, go ahead and write them a really big check. That'll make you feel better.

Freak'n waste.
If the government SPENT BETTER, there would be no need for so many taxes as it is.

For a smart guy .. he's really dumb.

Stephen was always a good guy in my book. This rant just makes him legendary.

There it is in plain words. Ah, so refreshing! Nice to know that even the rich see it for what it really is.

Would a bank help bail you out if you were going bankrupt? With the bail out of the banks and not the American people our government got to play both sides of the argument. We let them.

Is the federal government making decisions that are for the good of the people? With special interest groups, such as big oil, we have let big business hi-jack the decision making process in out government at all levels.

Do you trust your elected officials? No I do not.

Are the rich at fault in a society that breeds getting rich? No they are not.

Do Americans need to come together to make changes to put this country back on track? Yes we do. Remove the elected officials that cannot make good decisions. Get involved with your government. Make a difference somehow someway.

....or sit back and watch while sucking on a beer/coke/water and eating a pizza/burger/sub and keep repeating "ain't America great?" (it once was)

Am I the only one who finds it supremely ironic that there is a significant segment of posters on a conspiracy theory forum who defend the people who conspire against them in real life, and also the means by which they execute their oppression?

That is to say, unless you are also super-rich, the super-rich ain't your friends. The extremely wealthy, their corporations, and the government they bought out from under you are the ones oppressing you. The rich and their corporations are the ones who caused this Recession. The rich and their corporations are the ones who would rather watch the economy crumble than risk their septuple-digit personal profits on actually hiring American workers at a livable wage. The rich and their corporations are the ones who took multiple bailouts under two different corporate-sponsored Presidents, had a good laugh, and then kept doing what they did to tank the economy in the first place. And why wouldn't they? They have over half of the country convinced that they're the good guys, they own the government, and even if everyone caught wise all of a sudden, they'd still have all of our money stowed in offshore accounts, so it wouldn't matter.

And yet, they aren't the enemy? Wake up and smell the coffee you can't afford anymore, people. Class warfare has been here for a while, and the poor aren't the ones who started it.

Stephen king is pretty much awesome. I wish all wealthy people thought as he did and began their lives as the common man.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


I guess if he wants to be taxed then tax him. While it may fix certain problems, it will not fix the problem we're actually having right now. Unfortunately he does not understand our current situation.

The problem is the poor have an unusual shortage of money. The reason is because we're post housing crisis. The vast majority of money in this country is created when loans are taken out. Take out a loan, most of that money is created right then and there.

After the housing crisis banks stopped loaning and people stopped borrowing. This caused the money supply to shrink. This made money harder to get. Remember all the talk about how the banks aren't loaning after the bailout? Well that's the problem. Taxing the rich isn't going to make them loan more money either. We'll still have the same problem.

The rich don't even have enough money to make a dent in the problem anyway. It's that big of a problem. But mainly because, taking money out of an economy that already doesn't have enough money is stupid. You wouldn't fill up an empty bucket by taking water out would you?

The actual problem won't get fixed until we either change our money system, or people start borrowing again and therefore buying again. But that won't happen unless they have real wealth to back the loan up, like a job for example, and a car to get back and forth to work to pay said loan back and a road to drive it on.

What we need is infrastructure investment like high ways, bridges, dams, power plants, levies, fiber broadband. Something to give people jobs so they borrow and buy houses. Something that actually creates jobs for the 99% and which increases the tax base. Getting the 99% jobs is going to create much more tax revenue than the 1% even have let alone tax.

If they did tax the rich it would only be enough to increase the debt. That's right, INCREASE! The gov borrows so fast that even if they raised taxes on the rich the debt would still increase. The money would just vanish into a meaningless debt and help no one.

So, we're going to tax the rich to still be broke? That's kinda retarded. If we're gonna be broke either way, then just keep the money. After all, It's not like rich people's money just sits there. They invest it. Or the bank invests it.

Most of the time that money isn't even in the hands of the rich. 99% of the time rich people's money are in the hands in the poor being loaned out and used to buy stuff and keep the economy going. It's just the rich don't know that because the bank doesn't tell them who they loaned it to.

But the problem right now is nobody has a job to borrow that money and put it to use, and second nobody wants to build infrastructure in a country that has no jobs. Build a road to abandoned industrial park because all the jobs went to Mexico? What's the point?

The solution to the problem is to ask why people have to borrow and be in debt in the first place or else our money supply dries up and we starve to death?

The answer to that question is the fractional reserve banking system that's ran by the Federal Reserve.

TL;DR version:

I'm rich and should be taxed more. But I'm not going to volunteer that money, the government is going to have to take it from me.

Typical rhetoric from a rich liberal.

/TOA

reply to post by The Old American


stephen king donates 4million dollars a year.

www.guardian.co.uk...

that is volunteering plenty o' $$$.

reply to post by mythos


Just because he donates, doesn't mean he thinks money solves everything. He just knows money is one of those things that solves a good bit more than other stuff.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

Do you realize exactly how much of America you covered in at least half of those bullet points?

Uh no, the majority of people are not sociopaths or psychopaths..

It may all be perspective, but that doesn't mean there's no truth. Special rules apply.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


agreed... i was responding to the snarky post regarding the "typical liberal" not volunteering his money.

Mr. King does volunteer his money. and his time.

but once again... i agree with what you have said. money is not the pan-solution to all problems, and the fact that we have created a society that seems to think it is, means the "bad-guys" have already won. money is an abstraction of energy. real solutions come from real work. real love. real interaction. real energy.

we are so far off the path, even our solutions are illusions.



TANGENT to further illustrate this point: even if we were able to magically turn every car into a hybrid car that gets 10,000,000 miles to the gallon, we would still be doing the environment no favors- we would still need to manufacture those cars using materials we have stripped mined. we would still need to build a spider-web of roads by paving over the earth with gauges of tarmac. we will still leave a horde of the rotting corpses of vehicles long after those who drove those vehicles have perished. etc.




we are very far off the path... as am i on this reply!

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
So we should just punish them for being rich by taking away 99% of everything they own and giving them to the lazy people who don't want to work because they deserve more than the rich do. Okey dokey, that sounds good to me.

Which is why I believe in the flat tax, with no loop holes.

You seem to be forgetting many middle class's between rich and welfare cases. To retort on your remark there are also many rich elites who are lazy, some of the lazyest of them all. A specially those who are multiple generational and do not break their backs earning their wealth. The more common middle class citizen is the one who is being screwed over th worst.

You seem to have forgotten the blue collar laborer. Those who have spent their entire lives working only to come short on the poverty scale, there are a lot of factors involved also, like living beyond ones means, employment, and other things as well. I agree to a point on a fixed flat tax, with variables. If a corporation wants to outsource there production let them, but tax the hell out of them in the process. Other examples inhareance taxes, middle class people pay out the nose in inharetnance taxes, as well as a few more well off's, but the elites all get off the hook.

Only reason for this reply was to correct the way you worded that remark on "let's give it to all the lazy people who don't want to work", There are plenty of working people who deserve a larger break. To those who are lazy and want to live off the system, they better have a good reason for needing assistance, other than that they can either find a job or live in the streets because our welfare system in this country isn't going to last long at this rate.

SSI was originally intended for the widows and widows of war vets who were lost at war. It has now become a free ticket for illIgals and freeloaders, it has to stop. It's just one step in the road to our economic recovery.
Large corporations should be held accountable for everything they do. Bankers and banks also. That pretty much covers the elites.

Enough said, pardon the selling and grammar, I'm currently outside and logged in through iPhone.