Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 6
48
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   
You're all a bunch of Robin Hood's hey? Why should anyone work hard to succeed anymore just to have it taken from them to pay everyone else's way. I know you'll say that that's simply not true and you work hard but yet you support taking from the "rich" so that government can spend, spend and spend some more as long you get this and you get that, right?

When are people going to address the real problem, a government out of control spending money they simply don't have, instead of defending this and blaming the rich because they don't pay enough. I'd rather the rich continue to donate to charities, as they do in great numbers, and then allow these charities to help the poor. Mitt Romney caught hell because he paid 14% tax, yet, people fail to realize he donated just over $4 million (30% of his take home) to charity while Obama donated $172,000, and better yet, Biden donated $5,000.

The sad part about this is that the more the government taxes the rich, the less they will donate to charities. And, the government's track record in anything is dismal, so we'd rather have feds do the helping rather than the charities who are on the front lines and are out there in our local communities?




posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Signals
 


What a stupid thing to say! No one is asking the rich to give ALL their precious money away. They just need to pay their fair share.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   
You guys believe all these conspiracies about the corporations and the government and how they work together, but you think you are going to get the government to "tax the rich" and somehow get back at them?


grow up people, and have some consistency in your views.

edit on 9-12-2012 by MrBelligerence because: video link not working



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11235813213455
reply to post by openminded2011
 


Why wouldn't it upset him? The taker class is growing while the maker class is shrinking. Asking those that already give more than their fair share to give to those that are giving nothing is just a slap in the face.


The Maker class are the workers and they are shrinking because the real "taker class" are the owners, CEO's and bosses who are turning to machines and to places like China for manufacturing because it is cheaper than paying an American a decent wage. That is a real slap in the face to your own country when you'd rather support China than pay workers in the USA. I say take your family along with your jobs and all of you go live in China.

Don't you worry, the real takers, millionaires and billionaires are still doing fairly well (or should I say un-fairly well - lol) They have managed with help from friendly politicians and devoted lobbyists to socialize their losses and privatize their profits.
edit on 10-12-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rezlooper
You're all a bunch of Robin Hood's hey? Why should anyone work hard to succeed anymore just to have it taken from them to pay everyone else's way. I know you'll say that that's simply not true and you work hard but yet you support taking from the "rich" so that government can spend, spend and spend some more as long you get this and you get that, right?

When are people going to address the real problem, a government out of control spending money they simply don't have, instead of defending this and blaming the rich because they don't pay enough. I'd rather the rich continue to donate to charities, as they do in great numbers, and then allow these charities to help the poor. Mitt Romney caught hell because he paid 14% tax, yet, people fail to realize he donated just over $4 million (30% of his take home) to charity while Obama donated $172,000, and better yet, Biden donated $5,000.

The sad part about this is that the more the government taxes the rich, the less they will donate to charities. And, the government's track record in anything is dismal, so we'd rather have feds do the helping rather than the charities who are on the front lines and are out there in our local communities?





The sad part about this is that the more the government taxes the rich, the less they will donate to charities.

That is not true at all. On the scale of wealthy we are talking about - the new taxes are a drop in the bucket and only noticeable to their accountants. If it causes them to skimp on another charity of their choice they were not exactly the 1% Democrats are talking about removing the loopholes for and taxing the same a everyone else.

The real rich have pet charities and alma maters - and no matter what you do or take away from them they are going to rally and support them next year.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


I did a little research at the federal government’s website checking out our actual spending by year. I have some questions. It is my understanding that George Bush is responsible for this out of control spending because of two wars and market collapse. George Bush Defense spending was $600 billion a year from 2004 to 2007. Then in 2008 when Obama went into office Defense spending went from $600 billion to $964 billion. Why is defense spending $400 billion more a year when we are no longer in Iraq? It would seem that Obama is a much bigger warmonger than George Bush ever was. Welfare under Obama has gone from $261 billion to $500 billion in four years. Is the doubling of welfare a positive attribute of our country? I find it very disturbing that welfare has almost doubled in 4 years why do democrats never mention this issue?
This is really interesting and I feel this really shows how much both Republicans and Democrats are lying about Social Security. SS payments have actually dropped from $826 billion in 2007 to $780 billion in 2012. But Federal Employee Retirement has gone from $100 billion in 2007 to $125 billion in 2012. It would seem that federal employ retirement is substantially out pacing SS payment.
Why is Obama reducing spending on education from $149 billion to $110 billion?
Next,, total spending under Bush was $3.1 trillion a year with an annual deficit of about $100 million. Under Obama spending has gone from $3.1 trillion to $3.8 trillion a year with deficit spent of $1.2 trillion a year. Plus under Bush tax revenue was about $3 trillion a year and under Obama tax revenue is now $2.1 trillion.
It appears to me that Bush actually had a much more balance budget than Obama. The big question is this; Obama is spending $700 billion more a year than Bush almost 25% more spending. Are you getting 25% more services from the Federal Government? Plus, it seems that half of the additional $700 billion that Obama is spending is all going to the Military. So is Obama a bigger war monger than Bush? Plus, Obama is spending $210 billion more on welfare than Bush. Bottom line is Obama is spending $700 billion more a year with $364 billion to defense and $210 billion to welfare. It seems strange that poverty is continuing to get worse, and our Military is getting weaker. What is the deal with that? My conclusion is Obama has actually grown the great American military sector and industry more than any other part of our economy. The health care industry is the exact same size it was 12 years ago. It would seem that both parties are committed to growing our defense industry and that Obama has doubled those efforts. As a Democrat do you find that surprising? I sure did as a Republican. Is this what Democrats were voting for? Did Democrats know they were voting for higher taxes to support the growing poverty class by 2.6% a year and to grow the defense industry by about 12% a year?
I believe this answers the question why stimulus does not work, why Americans are taking home $4000 a year less. Plus, it shows how big of a lie all the media is when it come to our economy and how our tax money is spent.

This article was written for a different blog but it works for a response to your absurd blog. So who is the a$$ now as you put it.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 12:39 AM
link   
In all honesty, when the right wing propaganda machine begins its condemnation and counter campaign against a piece of information such as this, you know it is provocative in a good way, you know it is probably good, honest and it rattles the establishment.

It is hilarious to see them claim it is propaganda. Isn't all information propaganda? And isn't Fox News and other right wing media centres the biggest liars and propagandists of all?



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by SpeachM1litant
 


clearly someone who gets his "truth" from comedy central. Notice you have to say "fox news and other.." because on T.V. fox news is the only news which isn't insanely left. It's all bull# but saying fox news is the worst really shows you're still plenty brainwashed.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrBelligerence
reply to post by SpeachM1litant
 


clearly someone who gets his "truth" from comedy central. Notice you have to say "fox news and other.." because on T.V. fox news is the only news which isn't insanely left. It's all bull# but saying fox news is the worst really shows you're still plenty brainwashed.


You are daffy

Fox News claims is custom built for "conservatism", yet Fox news is the same force that sold
the big government policies of the last decade. Fox News actively sold it all, the new departments,
the spying, the liberty smashing policies to combat "terror", the insane military campaigns; all of which
cost trillions and are contrary to what conservatives claim they represent... Sorry to say but you are
in denial in the biggest way possible.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by rgzing
reply to post by ldyserenity
 

So is Obama a bigger war monger than Bush? Plus, Obama is spending $210 billion more on welfare than Bush. Bottom line is Obama is spending $700 billion more a year with $364 billion to defense and $210 billion to welfare. It seems strange that poverty is continuing to get worse, and our Military is getting weaker.


You answered your own questions above. There's a larger overall spending on welfare, but the increase appears to be in pensions rather than social security.

I'm no military expert but it's generally accepted that hi-tech warfare is the way to go and it's not a technology sector where costs drop over time due economies of scale, mass availability of technology and so on. Those boom boom toys are getting very expensive and the government are having less to show for their money - even if America's military budget is bigger than anyone else's.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 03:54 AM
link   
So the maker class has had the last how many years with bush tax cuts, yet the economy went to hell in a hand basket?

So let me get this right, they make billions and as some people would have you think they also make jobs?
Ok well if they have these cuts and supposedly create jobs, then why are we in a recession? why do we have a sizable % in unemployment still? I mean these guys create jobs don't they?

That would actually be the smart thing to do, since if more people had jobs they could pay taxes and thus take the burden off these 1% guys. That would make the most rational sense to me. Had these bumbling idiot CEO's not been so greedy and shipped millions of jobs overseas to save a few bucks, they wouldn't have to take such a hit with the tax rate going up.



TL;DR You screw over hard working americans out of jobs, then complain about your taxes going up? and you blame the "Takers?" **** logic...



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 04:26 AM
link   
That was a great video. It was good at explaining the situation. And I can see why it would infuriate rich people. One important thing that should be added though, is that not all rich people are bad people. Some actually worked hard for their money. And some rich people are admirable.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
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.


Yes he did.


Soros was not a large donor to US political causes until the 2004 presidential election, but according to the Center for Responsive Politics, during the 2003–2004 election cycle, Soros donated $23,581,000 to various 527 groups dedicated to defeating President Bush. A 527 group is a type of American tax-exempt organization named after a section of the United States tax code, 26 U.S.C. § 527.

After Bush's re-election, Soros and other donors backed a new political fundraising group called Democracy Alliance, which supports progressive causes and the formation of a stronger progressive infrastructure in America.[58]






Now, where does MoveOn.org get much, if not most, of its money?

Why, from George Soros, a high-level financier and multi-billionaire whose enviable fortune places him firmly in the stratosphere of the top 0.1 percent. As the Capital Research Center confirms, MoveOn.org got its big break in September 2003. George Soros sat down with MoveOn.org co-founder Wes Boyd and made this generous offer: Soros would donate $2.5 million. Another loaded leftie, Peter Lewis, agreed to match Soros’s gift. Together, they also pledged a joint match, $1 for every $2 donation, up to $5 million.

This equals $10 million that MoveOn.org scored just from these two mega-rich guys. These leftists are in no position to lecture the Right about accepting money from the wealthy.






The Alliance for Global Justice has received grants from George Soros’ philanthropy, the Open Society Institute ($100,000 since 2004), and from the left-wing, money launderers of the Tides Foundation ($60,000 since 2004) that allows high-profile donors to give secretly to radical causes.

Much of the money received by the Tides network of philanthropies has come from Soros’ charity, according to philanthropy databases.

The Open Society Institute has given $24,599,553 to the Tides network of philanthropies since 1999. Of that total, $18,154,270 went to the Tides Foundation and the remaining $6,445,283 went to the Tides Center, which like the Alliance for Global Justice, serves as a fiscal sponsor for small or new activist groups.


OWS does not like Obama? I've never seen a single anti-obama sign at one of the rallies. Plenty of anti-bush signs, but not a single anti-obama one.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11235813213455

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by 11235813213455
America used to be a place where people would come from the other side of the planet to make things happen. To make their fortune. To live their dreams.

Yep...right after the 200 year long genocide of the Native American was more or less completed and the ragtag survivors shuffled onto concentration camps.


Fast forward to the present and what do we have?

A bunch of lazy, no-talent, incompetent people who were born into obscene wealth who simply do not deserve the wealth they have had the dumb luck to fall into. Something is TERRIBLY wrong with us when we are reluctant to tax Donald Trump, Paris Hilton, and the Koch Brothers...ALL OF WHOM are wealthy because mummy and daddy GAVE IT TO THEM while school children don't have books in their classrooms.


Half the population is broken and bitches about what their perceived entitlements are and who owes them what.

The government DOES owe the American Peasant quite a bit. In case you haven't been paying attention they only thing you have gotten back for your tax dollars since the mid-60's is a state of nearly perpetual warfare.


Don't like your current situation? Change it! No one owes you a squirt of piss in this life and if you think they do get used to disappointment.

They are...that's why so many Americans voted for candidates who ran on the campaign promise of taxing the lowest forms of life in our country...the garden-variety American Billionaire.



WOW... When you jump the shark you do it in spectacular fashion dont you? Go ahead and run to those same old tired worn out talking points.. blah blah.. American Indian..blah blah..genocide..blah blah.. greedy rich people... I feel a yawn coming on.

You exactly epitomize my post.


Meh. Whatever. Thankfully due to demographic shifts we soon won't even have to listen to the "pity the billionaire" argument being expressed anymore.

Enjoy your descent into irrelevance.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 08:37 AM
link   


OWS does not like Obama? I've never seen a single anti-obama sign at one of the rallies. Plenty of anti-bush signs, but not a single anti-obama one.


True...but don't confuse "less loathing" for "love".

Ron Paul pulled ~10%-ish during the primaries...but the third party candidates only pulled ~1% of the vote in the general election. Assuming that 100% of the Obama voters would have not ever considered it an option to vote for the "Other" category (which is statistically ridiculous) if all those RP supporters remained true to the "liberty" cause we would STILL expect to see 4-5% of the vote for that "Other" category. However...this simply did not happen. Mostly because the a majority of those RP supporters ultimately decided they hated Romney slightly less or that it wasn't worth voting at all.

However...it's no more fair to say that Romney "won" the RP supporters back than it is to say OWS is a big fan of Obama. The RP supporters I know that voted for Romney did so at the expense of almost feeling physically ill at being complicit to the two-party paradigm.

Also...be sure to note that there was a much greater Pro-Dems / Anti-Repubs sentiment at OWS at the ONSET that there would be after it was rolling for a few months. Turns out...the guy they THOUGHT was "on their side" stood by idly while municipal police departments used chemical weapons which are explicitly banned by the 1993 CWC treaty on our own citizens right here in the good ol' US of A....an action which just so happens to meet 4 out of 5 conditions to be considered "domestic terrorism" by the US Patriot Act.

...ever since then they've been a bit more stand-offish to ol' Obama.

My only point is that we shouldn't let the false cultural war that our Slave Masters have pushed upon us separate us. At the end of the day...a dread-locked, bongo-playing, homosexual, OWS hippie from San Francisco and a pro-life, Evangelical, military veteran from Texas STILL have more in common with ONE ANOTHER than they do with ANY of their elected representatives with the RARE exception of the once-in-a-blue-moon Ron Paul or Jesse Ventura.

As it stands now, I think the "liberty" movement has finally gained enough traction that in 2016 we MIGHT actually have a fair set of Presidential debates. However...if I know the bastards that run the show...they will "open up" the debates to BOTH the Libertarian AND the Green Party at the same time...thus ensuring that the old cultural lines of Tie-Dye vs. RealTree will continue. The Greens will "steal" a couple of % from the left...the Libertarians will "steal" an equal % from the right...and we will STILL wind up with either a Republican or Democrat in office UNLESS we do all that we can the next four years to not alienate EACH OTHER...OUR FELLOW AMERICANS.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Reply to post by SELAboy
 


Punishing?

Your hyperbolic attempt to turn the wealthiest Americans into victims, falls completely flat.

We are talking about returning rates to what they were 13 years ago. Yet you continually equate this with the end of America and the transition into a Stalinesque country. It's absurd to even debate this with you anymore. If you got spoiled and thought the Bush cuts were permanent then perhaps you should feel punished though I suppose. Who's entitled now?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 





well ill do your homework for you then School District Owes $1 Billion On $100 Million Loan
WHO is the taker class?
www.npr.org...
you simply have no idea at all do you, socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor and you cheer then on xploder


I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Your saying California schools taking out stupid loans is the fault of the rich? Wouldn't that be the school system at fault? I thought the answers were all with the Intellectuals that run academia? Why would these folks be borrowing money like this? Shouldn't you be mad at the idiots who got the loans...? Why can't we blame the people who do stupid things. The world is getting so strange.

V



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by GR1ill3d
So the maker class has had the last how many years with bush tax cuts, yet the economy went to hell in a hand basket?

So let me get this right, they make billions and as some people would have you think they also make jobs?
Ok well if they have these cuts and supposedly create jobs, then why are we in a recession? why do we have a sizable % in unemployment still? I mean these guys create jobs don't they?

That would actually be the smart thing to do, since if more people had jobs they could pay taxes and thus take the burden off these 1% guys. That would make the most rational sense to me. Had these bumbling idiot CEO's not been so greedy and shipped millions of jobs overseas to save a few bucks, they wouldn't have to take such a hit with the tax rate going up.

TL;DR You screw over hard working americans out of jobs, then complain about your taxes going up? and you blame the "Takers?" **** logic...


Yep. You hit the nail on the head. Tax cuts for the obscenely wealthy can (sometimes) create a few jobs for us American Peasants. However...they just CAN'T do it in the Holy & Sacrosanct Free Market. The billionaire class HAVE created TENS OF MILLIONS OF GOOD PAYING JOBS in the last decade or so...IN CHINA, INDIA, VIETNAM, TAIWAN, AND MEXICO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cutting some of the capital gains taxes in the early '80's DID foster capital investment in the United States...but at that time WE HAD TARIFF'S AND EXCISE TAXES!!

Today...we actually PAY OUT TAX CREDITS to Mitt Romney & Friends to SEND jobs overseas so that he can EVADE TAXES AND ESSENTIALLY USE SLAVE LABOR...but we are STILL supposed to cut taxes on what that prick makes here DOMESTICALLY?!!??

The difference was that during the Cold War our Fear of Russians meant that we wanted all the factories that made anything relevant right here on US soil...AND OUR TRADE POLICIES REFLECTED that we put the USA FIRST in DIRECT PROPORTION to the threat-level that the old USSR posed.

Take cars for example...we didn't start allowing significant investment in German and Japanese auto's until we were finally convinced in the 80's that the Soviet's didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of invading the geographic territory where the factories were. You see...US Consumer spending = profits = capital investment in whichever country said automobiles are being manufactured.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, we decided it was A-OK to produce things WHEREVER we wanted because it wasn't as if anybody could actually TAKE those centers of production from us by force anymore. Unfortunately...even as late as the '90's we were STILL thinking about the world in terms of antiquated industrial-age symmetrical wars and threats.

Too bad most Americans are simply too poorly educated to realize that Ayn Rand's Church of Holy Supply & Demand Curve oversimplifies economic issues to absurdity. Every economic textbook on planet earth gives ALL KINDS of examples of Market Failure which can stem from reasons such as, but not limited to, environmental catastrophe, warfare, political instability, monopoly, oligopoly, corruption and bribery, graft, excessively litigious environments, constraint of raw materials or other inputs, and about 50 more.

In fact...for an economist rate of taxation is one of the LEAST relevant things to determining job growth. Within reason of course. This assumes we are talking about any tax strategy which has been implemented in the United States since WWII onwards. Obviously, if we imposed a flat tax of 99.9% of all income across the board no matter how much or little you make it would have devastating effects....but that argument is a little like arguing that water is unhealthy for humans because people have drowned. While this is a technically a true statement...closer examination and a dose of common sense indicates that water is actually quite beneficial to one's health so long as you (obviously) keep it out of your lungs.

Raising taxes the meager few percentage points that Obama is proposing is GOOD for the economy. The #1 rule that we learned from the Great Depression is that MONEY IS LIKE BLOOD...it only does you go if it CIRCULATES. Taxation and (gasp!) REDISTRIBUTION of wealth is what makes capitalism possible in the first place. If this NEVER occurs sooner or later the top of the pyramid has all the money and nobody to buy their products and services...at which time the entire damn economy collapses and one experiences widespread Market Failure that every student in Freshman Econ 101 learns about...but which Fox News continues to mysteriously ignore.

It's that damn simple, people.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Variable
reply to post by XPLodER
 





well ill do your homework for you then School District Owes $1 Billion On $100 Million Loan
WHO is the taker class?
www.npr.org...
you simply have no idea at all do you, socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor and you cheer then on xploder


I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Your saying California schools taking out stupid loans is the fault of the rich? Wouldn't that be the school system at fault? I thought the answers were all with the Intellectuals that run academia? Why would these folks be borrowing money like this? Shouldn't you be mad at the idiots who got the loans...? Why can't we blame the people who do stupid things. The world is getting so strange.

V


No...we SHOULDN'T be mad at the people who took out the loans. We should be mad at the cheapskates who make it necessary for SCHOOLS to borrow money because we are too busy buying overpriced weapon-systems to kill civilians in the Middle East.

A SINGLE tactical Tomahawk Cruise Missile costs $1.5 MILLION DOLLARS. You will likely work and be taxed your ENTIRE LIFETIME for the privilege of buying ONE of these monstrosities which was used to blow up a $6 tent and a camel in the middle of nowhere.

...the problem ISN'T the schools.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Yes, it is damned simple, but you missed the simple part. Taxation and "redistribution" do not help the economy. The most inefficient way to use a dollar is to send it through the government. Sending money to Washington is a way of keeping money out of circulation and we lose vast amounts of that economic lifeblood blood through the bureaucracy and cronyism that is the federal government.





new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join