You have to ask yourself, why THIS video outraged Rush Limbaugh

Originally posted by XPLodER

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by Tearman
The way I see it is those who posses great wealth aren't doing anybody much good at the moment. So they might as well part with it!

It isn't as if the wealth wont flow back up to the top, anyway. The parting will only be temporary. In the meantime, all that wealth that is sitting around doing nobody no good will be put to some good use for a while.

Sippin the socialist koolaid. Mmm Mmm.

The propaganda got to ya.

I think you people are confusing the people who worked their way to their wealth with the ones who steal it from the taxpayers with the government's help - Wall Street. But hell, to you rich peoples is rich peoples, right? Toss em all in the same boat.

socialism for the rich,

BILLIONAIRES WARN HIGHER TAXES COULD PREVENT THEM FROM BUYING POLITICIANS

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Introducing a new wrinkle into the already fraught fiscal cliff showdown, a consortium of billionaires today warned that if their taxes are raised they will no longer have enough money to buy politicians.

The group, led by casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson, commissioned a new study showing that the cost of an average politician has soared exponentially over the past decade.

While the American family has seen increases in the cost of food, health care and education, Mr. Adelson says, “those costs don’t compare with the cost of buying a politician, which has gone through the roof.”

www.newyorker.com...

you dont seem to realise,
there are two types of rich people,
those who use their wealth for good
and then theres the 1%
who simply use their money to buy a better life for themselves while throwing everyone else under the bus

which are you?

xploder

You do realize that the New Yorker opinion piece was satire, right?

Secondly, please point out the parts of the tax code that only go after wealthy people who throw everyone else under the bus and leave the rich people who use their wealth for good alone.

The 1% is not to blame.

The 1% includes wealthy business owners and job providers that make up the strength
of this country and are examples of the American dream...

The blame goes directly on the "point zero one percent"------.01%

These are the elite. This is where the blame lies. This is where conglomerates of corporations
monopolize the economy and the stock market. These are the plotter and planners and TAKERS.

These are the entities who own the wealth of huge corporations who profit billions and pay no
taxes, then add insult to injury by receiving government subsidies and tax breaks, looting
the pockets of the American taxpayer.

It's not the 1%......it is the .01 elite

Originally posted by rival
The 1% is not to blame.

The 1% includes wealthy business owners and job providers that make up the strength
of this country and are examples of the American dream...

The blame goes directly on the "point zero one percent"------.01%

These are the elite. This is where the blame lies. This is where conglomerates of corporations
monopolize the economy and the stock market. These are the plotter and planners and TAKERS.

These are the entities who own the wealth of huge corporations who profit billions and pay no
taxes, then add insult to injury by receiving government subsidies and tax breaks, looting
the pockets of the American taxpayer.

It's not the 1%......it is the .01 elite

And there you go. So many Americans have fallen for this bait and switch. Why did the OWS crowd and Moveon and daily KOS not even mention George Soros, a guy who should fit their very definition of Evil. He started out by helping his uncle sell the goods of the Jews he ratted out to the Nazis. He made billions by destroying economies. He is not known as "the man who devalued the British pound" for nothing. Did they freak when Soros was continually at Obama's side during the first campaign? Nope. Did his name ever come up during the OWS protests when so many other people with les money came up? Nope. Why? Because he bankrolled all of that theater.

Originally posted by NavyDoc


Pretty much everything. First they even start of with a Stalinesque characture of "the rich" clutching big money bags, taking all of the money to sit on,

So you are mad because of the way they portrayed the people who crashed our economy???

Since this crash it is interesting to observe people like you deflect for the banks, the fed and con job
that you yourself had to pay for.

People like you make it impossible to call a spade a spade,

Second, the rich are sitting on their money

www.theatlantic.com...

ignoring things like investment capital, ignoring things like we spend more per student than every other country rossieronline.usc.edu... ,

what is the problem with investment capital? Who attacked that?

that perhaps a problem with our school system may just be retention of poor teachers, and really blaming everything on "the rich."

Perhaps some teacher are not the best, but they did not crash the economy did they? The bankers and their
cadre did, not the teachers. It just so happens that they are also rich, more so after they bilked YOU and me.

Interesting that you are still fit to blame teachers when there is no evidence that teachers manipulated the
laws and trust of our great capitalist system, hired politicians and benefited from their crimes not once
but twice.

It is a sham that you and other corporatists conservatives would have us believe that teachers created this
downturn. Maybe it is because you have become wealthy and you feel entitled, you want to defend the people
you identify with. But that does not change the facts leading up to the economic hit -

No mention of spending more than we take in, no mention that the higher wage earners already pay more in income tax than the rest,

And they used to pay 90% in taxes, they pay less than twice that now.

It was a propaganda piece right out of the old Soviet Union.

Quick Deflect!

Gotta protect the poor bank and TPTB!

You have to have a bogey man to blame to convince people to give TPTB more and more power.

Exactly what the video explains.

Conservative corporatist have been blaming our economic woes on teachers, police men, fire men and
the rest. Using the crash as an EXCUSE to gut public sector jobs, because we all know teachers and firemen
are the bogey men here

It is actually very cute that you actually had the nerve to use "TPTB" in a sentence where you are defending
banks and TPBT

You are the person defending TPTB who are as powerful are they are due to their economic prowess.

reply to post by Thepump


I love it how you go into personal attacks, but okay. The high wage earners crashed the economy? Not a government insisted that everyone had a home loan, even if they could not pay for it? Not Fanny and Freddie? Not a government that regulates everything to death? Not massive entitlement programs used to buy votes that create record levels of debt to pay for? None of that? Just the greed of Steve Jobs, Stephen King, and the orthodontist down the street--the evil 1%? Nothing else?

Does any of this sound familiar?

According to the political theory of Marxism-Leninism of the early 20th century, the kulaks were class enemies of the poorer peasants.[1] Vladimir Lenin described them as "bloodsuckers, vampires, plunderers of the people and profiteers, who batten on famine.”[2] Marxism-Leninism had intended a revolution to liberate poor peasants and farm laborers alongside the proletariat (urban and industrial workers).

DefinitionsAccording to the Soviet terminology, the peasants were divided into three broad categories: bednyaks, or poor peasants; serednyaks, or mid-income peasants; and kulaks, the higher-income farmers who had larger farms than most Russian peasants

In May 1929, the Sovnarkom issued a decree that formalised the notion of "kulak household" (кулацкое хозяйство). Any of the following defined a kulak:[1][6]

use of hired labor
ownership of a mill, a creamery (маслобойня, butter-making rig), other processing equipment, or a complex machine with a mechanical motor
systematic renting out of agricultural equipment or facilities
involvement in trade, money-lending, commercial brokerage, or "other sources of non-labor income".
By the last item, any peasant who sold his surplus goods on the market could be automatically classified as a kulak. In 1930 this list was extended to include those who were renting industrial plants, e.g., sawmills, or who rented land to other farmers. Grigory Zinoviev, a well-known Soviet politician, said in 1924, "We are fond of describing any peasant who has enough to eat as a 'kulak'." At the same time, the ispolkoms (executive committees of local Soviets) of republics, oblasts, and krais were given rights to add other criteria for defining kulaks, depending on local conditions

You've been duped, my friend, and TPTB are quite happy.

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
This attempt to put words in my mouth is patently offensive and typical entitlement class tactics.

Your oponnent's tactics may have been offensive but then you dropped into the realm of disgustingly offensive with one sentence. Quite the feat.

Condemning a whole group of people based upon interactions with a small number while simultaneously labeling them all in one sentence. Impressive display of ignorance. Had this not been directed towards the poor, but an ethnic group, it would be considered racism.

Have an argument like an informed adult.

Originally posted by Osiris1953

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
This attempt to put words in my mouth is patently offensive and typical entitlement class tactics.

Your oponnent's tactics may have been offensive but then you dropped into the realm of disgustingly offensive with one sentence. Quite the feat.

Condemning a whole group of people based upon interactions with a small number while simultaneously labeling them all in one sentence. Impressive display of ignorance. Had this not been directed towards the poor, but an ethnic group, it would be considered racism.

Have an argument like an informed adult.

And yet, it seems quite acceptable for many to condemn a whole group of people if they happen to make over 250K a year.

Originally posted by NavyDoc
reply to post by Thepump

 

I love it how you go into personal attacks, but okay. The high wage earners crashed the economy? Not a government insisted that everyone had a home loan, even if they could not pay for it? Not Fanny and Freddie?

You are repeating a distortion just like the video points out. The banks crashed the economy by over leveraging, selling and insuring junk derivative products to investors all over the globe.

You are really gonna blame people trying to buys homes?

In case you didn't know Dr., people who fail to pay their mortgage lose their homes and their down payment
which protects banks from the "risk" they are assuming.

The logic you are trying apply is half baked at best.

My family bought and paid for three homes under the same kind of mortgage system prior to this crash, at least
ten of my friends bought homes via Fannie and Freddie.

Quick Deflect!

Not a government that regulates everything to death?

The government was regulating the Goddamned system for decades prior, what are you talking about?

You wanna know why you are getting attitude?

Because it pisses me off that a smart person like you would ignore the fact that tens of millions of people
have homes that used the same system just fine, no crash, no problems.

The government is supposed to work for us and helping AMERICANS buy homes is not a bad thing,
not everyone has a high paying job. A responsive government is not the problem... Next, the politicians
who re jiggered the system did it in the name of trying to halt " a government that regulates everything
to death"

Not massive entitlement programs used to buy votes that create record levels of debt to pay for? None of that? Just the greed of Steve Jobs, Stephen King, and the orthodontist down the street--the evil 1%? Nothing else?

The entitlement programs did not crash the economy

Quick Deflect! (AGAIN)

Does any of this sound familiar?

According to the political theory of Marxism-Leninism of the early 20th century, the kulaks were class enemies of the poorer peasants.[1] Vladimir Lenin described them as "bloodsuckers, vampires, plunderers of the people and profiteers, who batten on famine.”[2] Marxism-Leninism had intended a revolution to liberate poor peasants and farm laborers alongside the proletariat (urban and industrial workers).

DefinitionsAccording to the Soviet terminology, the peasants were divided into three broad categories: bednyaks, or poor peasants; serednyaks, or mid-income peasants; and kulaks, the higher-income farmers who had larger farms than most Russian peasants

In May 1929, the Sovnarkom issued a decree that formalised the notion of "kulak household" (кулацкое хозяйство). Any of the following defined a kulak:[1][6]

use of hired labor
ownership of a mill, a creamery (маслобойня, butter-making rig), other processing equipment, or a complex machine with a mechanical motor
systematic renting out of agricultural equipment or facilities
involvement in trade, money-lending, commercial brokerage, or "other sources of non-labor income".
By the last item, any peasant who sold his surplus goods on the market could be automatically classified as a kulak. In 1930 this list was extended to include those who were renting industrial plants, e.g., sawmills, or who rented land to other farmers. Grigory Zinoviev, a well-known Soviet politician, said in 1924, "We are fond of describing any peasant who has enough to eat as a 'kulak'." At the same time, the ispolkoms (executive committees of local Soviets) of republics, oblasts, and krais were given rights to add other criteria for defining kulaks, depending on local conditions

You've been duped, my friend, and TPTB are quite happy.

Communism is dead, don't be a fool -

It is bizarre that you believe pointing out greed and corruption is a communistic act.

Unfortunately TPTB are RICH and they ARE bloodsuckers.

Between Ed Asner, You and I, YOU are the only person who has resorted to distortion and propaganda.

This is not Russia, but you state is is to protect TPTB and your own interests -

Ask yourself with a small portion of integrity,

"Do you the TPTB want to be taxed more?"

"Do you really think public employees constitute TPTB?"

reply to post by NavyDoc


Why is it when people hoard newspapers, toys, clothes, etc it's a sickness but when the rich hoard money it's "shrewd"?

reply to post by NavyDoc


That's true....but I don't demonize anyone in the upper middle class range. Should we who are upper middle class pay more than the impoverished? Absolutely we should, it is our responsibility to do so....and that holds true for the super rich.

So....yeah.. BTW I don't appreciate people trying to goade me into arguments simply because I disagree with blatantly fallacious debate tactics.

Originally posted by travisirius
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Why is it when people hoard newspapers, toys, clothes, etc it's a sickness but when the rich hoard money it's "shrewd"?

Why is it when someone steals money from someone on the street its called mugging but when they use the government to do the same thing it's called their moral obligation to those that have less?

reply to post by openminded2011


Well, In spain the never ever wanted to tax the rich and they are the pits now. I think we should follow that example.


Taxing people different based on income is wrong. Except the rich have been allowed to have such a huge gap from everyone else that it makes sense since the only reason they are that rich is because they took for everyone else.

..but yes continue to protect the rich. like i said it worked great for spain

Originally posted by votan
reply to post by openminded2011

 

Well, In spain the never ever wanted to tax the rich and they are the pits now. I think we should follow that example.


Taxing people different based on income is wrong. Except the rich have been allowed to have such a huge gap from everyone else that it makes sense since the only reason they are that rich is because they took for everyone else.

..but yes continue to protect the rich. like i said it worked great for spain

Wasn't it Spain's overspending on a defunct green energy program what really sank it?

reply to post by Thepump


Communism is dead, but the tactics live on. The exact same rhetoric that was used to scapegoat an entire class of people so that the masses would willingly give over their freedom to a larger evil is being used today and you and Ed Asner are falling for it. Okay, Asner is probably part of it, but do you honestly believe that Soros would let an administration that he bought and paid for hurt his bottom line? The man who devalued the British pound? Really?

Billionaire financier George Soros stands to make handsome profits with his newly launched investment fund, established to capitalize on new “green energy” — a policy agenda largely dependent on government subsidies supported by the Obama White House.

www.theblaze.com... -fund-to-profit-from-obama-green-agenda/

Do you really think Buffett is going to cut his own throat even after his bull# about his secretary paying less taxes than him?

Since it would take an entire book to detail all the ways Warren Buffett is involved in America’s economy, both on the private side, but also the government side, one can sum up his direct connection over the past five years by saying; He owned the banks that created and sold worthless assets to the world’s investors. He owned the ratings agency that charged huge fees to lie about the value of those worthless assets. He owned the banks that bet against huge odds on those same worthless assets. He owned the media company that made sure the American people never found out the truth. He owned…invested in, rather, the man who would decide the fate of each of his investments, US Senator Barack Obama. He created the government bailout plan that would save his soon-to-be worthless investments. He profited by the billions on the implementation of his global banking bailout idea. With the US economy collapsed, he advised the President to pump trillions of dollars into the US economy through massive stimulus programs, profiting companies he owned. From destruction to rebuilding, Warren Buffett has helped guide the events like no other man alive, and profited like no other as well.

www.whiteoutpress.com... ett-the-devil-in-the-details213/

Buffett and Soros are profiting quite well from their "social justice movements." Buffett made billions of dollars off the mortgage refinance laws and bailouts we were told would "help the poor." They play this game of "blaming the wealthy," propose to raise the income tax on the "wealthy" making over 250k a year and foolish people, fists pumping in the air, go "right on! screw the rich bastards" and give them the power to make billions at taxpayer expense all the while telling us that it is to help the poor and hurt the rich and you guys buy it. Yes, you have been duped.

Here's a question for you. There is a proposal to increase the inheritence tax to 55% on inherited assets over 1 million. Do you agree with it?

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Osiris1953

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
This attempt to put words in my mouth is patently offensive and typical entitlement class tactics.

Your oponnent's tactics may have been offensive but then you dropped into the realm of disgustingly offensive with one sentence. Quite the feat.

Condemning a whole group of people based upon interactions with a small number while simultaneously labeling them all in one sentence. Impressive display of ignorance. Had this not been directed towards the poor, but an ethnic group, it would be considered racism.

Have an argument like an informed adult.

And yet, it seems quite acceptable for many to condemn a whole group of people if they happen to make over 250K a year.

I agree and will be very happy to see this sentiment gain more traction..

These people are nothing more than fiscal bigots that persecute a minority.... Those that make more than they do..

How is this not a civil rights issue at this point?

The problem with the video here is that it's far to simplistic for the issue. The problem is that there are multiple issues that needed to be dealt with. One problem is that manufacturing is simply a lot cheaper in places like China and Indonesia. And another was that the government decided that protectionism is taboo. In fact they subsidized companies to move overseas. Which is why manufacturing dried up in the US.

Another is that government is simply spending too much. You can't have wars and charity at the same time. Thats why the National Debt is ballooning at a record pace.

And a third problem is that in today's world is that the rich can live anywhere. See the article.

CA tax increases backfire.

States are finding out that when the rich feel harassed they start walking. It seems people have this funny idea that their property belongs to them. And thieves are thieves. Even when they say they are from the government. The major problem with excessive taxation of the rich is they leave. Taking the money and their consumption with them. People may poo-poo trickle down but millionaires and their lifestyles create a lot of jobs in this economy. And indirectly support a number of others. Lose enough of them and everyone suffers.

You don't work for poor people.

Even God weighs in on the issue.

8th Commandment.
Thou shalt not steal.

10th Commandment.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Quote from the article.

As panic spreads that goosing taxes on the rich may have created enough “tax flight” that the California will actually collect less taxes, there was welcome news that a business had committed to opening in the State. Executives of the 99 Cents Only Stores Inc. proclaimed they would be opening a new location in Beverly Hills on formerly posh Rodeo Drive

reply to post by openminded2011


Thanks OP.

One of the best 8 minutes investment of my time.

S&F

Anything that pisses off Limbaugh is good.

Hopefully this will go viral.

Originally posted by 11235813213455

Originally posted by votan
reply to post by openminded2011

 

Well, In spain the never ever wanted to tax the rich and they are the pits now. I think we should follow that example.


Taxing people different based on income is wrong. Except the rich have been allowed to have such a huge gap from everyone else that it makes sense since the only reason they are that rich is because they took for everyone else.

..but yes continue to protect the rich. like i said it worked great for spain

Wasn't it Spain's overspending on a defunct green energy program what really sank it?

I am sure it didn't help but follow that money too. Hmm who could put green energy into practice who could do that.. hmm well not the bum down the street.. sure as hell not me .. i wonder who... hmm who can put in that kind of infrastructure who has that kind of MONEY.. yes those jobs creators THOSE that need tax breaks so they can put in that defunct green energy program because it sure as hell was not the government who installed that, they were just sold on it. by those people who escape me at the moment.

Selling garbage like defunct green energy by the rich in spain tanked spain if you want to look at it that way.. kinda like the rich tanked this country by what the video pointed out.

In both cases the rich want to get taxed less. In spain they never touched the rich even when the gap between the rich and the poor was soo great.

the rich are the ones who cause the financial crash... they lobby governments and buy governments in order to pocket more money.. did you not pay attention??

All i am saying is that spain has already been where we are now. where we are debating whether or not to tax the rich more. Spain already tried not taxing the rich and that hasn't helped out.. sooooo how about we do the opposite or jsut follow suit.

Originally posted by votan

Originally posted by 11235813213455

Originally posted by votan
reply to post by openminded2011

 

Well, In spain the never ever wanted to tax the rich and they are the pits now. I think we should follow that example.


Taxing people different based on income is wrong. Except the rich have been allowed to have such a huge gap from everyone else that it makes sense since the only reason they are that rich is because they took for everyone else.

..but yes continue to protect the rich. like i said it worked great for spain

Wasn't it Spain's overspending on a defunct green energy program what really sank it?

I am sure it didn't help but follow that money too. Hmm who could put green energy into practice who could do that.. hmm well not the bum down the street.. sure as hell not me .. i wonder who... hmm who can put in that kind of infrastructure who has that kind of MONEY.. yes those jobs creators THOSE that need tax breaks so they can put in that defunct green energy program because it sure as hell was not the government who installed that, they were just sold on it. by those people who escape me at the moment

If the government didn't have the money to spend then they shouldn't have bought it. Pretty simple stuff..

Heck.. the principal is so easy to understand that most children understand it. Why does the government get a pass on acting so stupidly by putting the country in debt for buying the snake oil that was/is green energy?

reply to post by NavyDoc

Why did the OWS crowd and Moveon and daily KOS not even mention George Soros,

Because largely we aren't conspiracy folks. Soros has nothing to do with Occupy and we don't typically name people just cause and effect.

Did they freak when Soros was continually at Obama's side during the first campaign?

Was he continually at Obama's side? And, why would we care if he was or not, we (a good majority of us) don't like Obama.

Why? Because he bankrolled all of that theater.

No he didn't. See above.