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.

 

the top 5% don't care about the bottom 95%

page: 5
15
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


The bottom 5% don't care about the top 95%. Discuss.




posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 02:21 AM
link   
the "go out, get a job, make something of yourself" line is getting old. Capitalism and Corporatism don't allow for everyone to live comfortably. There will always be a huge portion of people living below the poverty level. Why? because these mil/billionaires are robbing people left right and centre and turning HUGE profits, then turning around and looking for ways to keep their money without losing half of it to tax. The corruption runs deep, You'll never root it out now. You have to kill what was planted and start fresh. Good luck.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 05:19 AM
link   
Bravo Zulu!



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by yorkshirelad
 


I just find the thread a bit odd. It's like people are insinuating 95% of the American public are feckless lazy welfare queens, who would starve were it not for the good charity of the 5 % .


That is the idiotic stance of American conservatism, we should all pay tribute to the fabulous and
wealthy, while government is just a tool to protect the wealthy.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 07:14 AM
link   
Ah, the current crop of Marxists have found another Kulak class with which to rally the masses.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by youwouldknow
the "go out, get a job, make something of yourself" line is getting old. Capitalism and Corporatism don't allow for everyone to live comfortably. There will always be a huge portion of people living below the poverty level. Why? because these mil/billionaires are robbing people left right and centre and turning HUGE profits, then turning around and looking for ways to keep their money without losing half of it to tax. The corruption runs deep, You'll never root it out now. You have to kill what was planted and start fresh. Good luck.


Name the time in history where this has not been the case. Its called human condition. How many times has the status quo been supplanted with another status quo that turns into the same thing? It's a fantasy to ever think that things will be different. It's been the same way since we lived in caves.

So given that.. If you know this... since you know the rules of the game.. it's your own damn fault for not sidestepping or jumping over he barriers that are holding your back from your potential.

There is no shame in being poor.. Hell, most of us start out that way. I grew up in a trailer park next to a truck stop in nowhere South Dakota. These days I'm not rich but I am now deep in the 25%'er tax bracket and I know what got me there. I'm tone deaf to the word NO. There is shame however in staying poor. I have just never heard any good excuse for it. Most of the time the able bodied and minded people who for their entire lives remain poor ARE poor because of stupid decisions that they made for themselves.

If you want wealth go get your wealth.. Go earn your wealth.. It is there. Too many people look at this as a 0 sum game where if someone else is wealthy that means that I cannot be.
edit on 3-1-2013 by 11235813213455 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by 11235813213455
 


You're incorrect. We used to live in an environment which provided enough for everyone. The culture was matriarchal, not patriarchal. It is an assumption not evidenced that tye way the social institutions are currently set up simply reflects our nature. An assumption which is known by many to be false.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by 11235813213455
 


You're incorrect. We used to live in an environment which provided enough for everyone. The culture was matriarchal, not patriarchal. It is an assumption not evidenced that tye way the social institutions are currently set up simply reflects our nature. An assumption which is known by many to be false.


You are very incorrect. History is pretty clear that paternalism and not materialism has been the norm from China to Spain and from the tip of Chile to the Northwest Territories until mankind adopted meritocratic principals as well as the rule of law.

And by "we" and in relationship to a particular environment; when would that have been? What culture? On what part of the Earth? When and where did man live in this utopia of plenty and what was its name?



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by 11235813213455
 


No. You are simply unaware.

The saharasia region where civilization only was some 10-12,000 years ago. We lived almost entirely in matriachy until the region became desert. As the climate changed so did the culture and social institutions.

You are 100% incorrect that we have been this way since being cave dwellers.

As for all the details, go read a book. I suggest this one to fast track you on the right direction:

Saharasia
edit on 3-1-2013 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 09:24 AM
link   
'If you are not rich, you are just plain stupid' is a tired old refrain from the priviledged wealthy class who feeds off the sweat of the middle classes and the poor.

It's all about opportunities in life. A goatherder in africa will always be poor, as compared to an american kid in USA.

There are more opportunities in USA then in Africa, but that is only due to the differences in LEADERSHIP of these 2 subject nations.

Even within US, while having more opportunities, that window is closing rapidly as the inequality gap widens. A children in the wealthy suburbs of Brooklyn has more opportunities in life than a kid from a trailer park in California. Is it the faulth of the kid? No, but some will blame the parents.

However, lets look at the fact - there is only one seat at the top of every company. There is no such thing as equal opportunities, as in everyone will get that seat. It depends on merit. Thus, if one becomes the CEO, does that mean he is smarter than his peers whom had similar education and experiences?

Truth is, no. There is only one seat at the top

Extrapoliate it to every company and well paid departments/jobs that exists in USA. How many would ever get to seat at the top, to get huge bonuses and payouts, compared to those below him, AND how many companies can compete within an economy or start ups with the scale existing monopolies have?

The answer is that ALWAYS there will be some whom will be left behind, not because they are stupid or lazy as the unconscionable rich had always derided them with such insidious lies.


Next - if everyone aspires to be an entreprenuer or a boss, then who will be the workers? If everyone is a doctor, who will be the nurses? If everyone become a professor, then who will become the grade school teachers? Who will be the artistes that inspire our world with song and beauty? Who will be the technicians and operators who keep the entire economy humming?

Point is, it takes ALL kinds for an economic powerhouse society to function - from the CEO to the janitor.

For those who aspires for wealth, there is nothing wrong with that, for it motivates them and help create jobs. But there are those who DO NOT aspire for fabulous wealth, whom are equally important to the economy and society as employees.

Employees are NOT asking for Lamborghannis as transport, cavier for lunch, monthy trips to the french riveria, private schools for their kids, best class wards and medicines when they fall sick, etc.

All that they ask for is to be treated with dignity, paid honest and sustainable wages to live and love just like every human being born on Earth. And that calls for sharing by the wealthy to them. Will the wealthy listen and share, or will they remain out of touch to reality and concerns of the masses, live in the ivory towers before it gets burn down one day soon?



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by youwouldknow
the "go out, get a job, make something of yourself" line is getting old. Capitalism and Corporatism don't allow for everyone to live comfortably. There will always be a huge portion of people living below the poverty level. Why? because these mil/billionaires are robbing people left right and centre and turning HUGE profits, then turning around and looking for ways to keep their money without losing half of it to tax. The corruption runs deep, You'll never root it out now. You have to kill what was planted and start fresh. Good luck.


I disagree. That's not a reason, that's a cop-out



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by 11235813213455
 


No. You are simply unaware.

The saharasia region where civilization only was some 10-12,000 years ago. We lived almost entirely in matriachy until the region became desert. As the climate changed so did the culture and social institutions.

You are 100% incorrect that we have been this way since being cave dwellers.

As for all the details, go read a book. I suggest this one to fast track you on the right direction:

Saharasia
edit on 3-1-2013 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)


Comical.. I am not incorrect on this and one poorly written tome to the contrary is not convincing. Words mean things and my usage of the word "norm" was used correctly.

Please clarify.. Are you trying to get me to acquiesce that if only women were in control we would have a utopia with no 1% or 5%'ers? Are you really trying to be that simplistic?


edit on 3-1-2013 by 11235813213455 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


the top 5% don't care about the bottom 95%
Obviously.

If they did care, they would no longer be a part of the Top 5%.







edit on 1/3/13 by BrokenCircles because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   
No-one has yet to answer my question as to WHY they should care.

Why should they care about the 95%?

Why all the concern on the 5%?

Why can't people keep what they earn?



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
No-one has yet to answer my question as to WHY they should care.

Why should they care about the 95%?

Why all the concern on the 5%?

Why can't people keep what they earn?


You're serious?

Pathetic excuse for a human being.


edit on 3-1-2013 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11235813213455

Comical.. I am not incorrect on this and one poorly written tome to the contrary is not convincing. Words mean things and my usage of the word "norm" was used correctly.


Kid, read the book, or stay in your own league.


Please clarify.. Are you trying to get me to acquiesce that if only women were in control we would have a utopia with no 1% or 5%'ers? Are you really trying to be that simplistic?


Where the hell did you get this from


Entirely illogical assumptions here.

READ A BOOK!

I have nothing further to say to you until you pony up and actually educate yourself a bit.
edit on 3-1-2013 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
No-one has yet to answer my question as to WHY they should care.

Why should they care about the 95%?

Why all the concern on the 5%?

Why can't people keep what they earn?

Why should the 95% care if the 5% get to keep what they earn?

Cuts both ways.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


Nice response.. feign outrage and stomp off. See I belive that's where the problem lays with you... you've only read one verbose book and you consider yourself in rarified air.

The issue I see with your posts is you completely blew past the thrust of my statement, injected subject matter which you feel yourself an authority on after reading "a" book.

I asked you the question about women because you are hell bent on driving home some demonstrably ill conceived point about matriachy (maybe pick up a dictionary?) as a "gotcha". All of which is off topic BTW.

I welcome your departure.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions

Originally posted by beezzer
No-one has yet to answer my question as to WHY they should care.

Why should they care about the 95%?

Why all the concern on the 5%?

Why can't people keep what they earn?


You're serious?

Pathetic excuse for a human being.


edit on 3-1-2013 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)


*meh*
You're entitled to your opinion.

Still doesn't answer the question.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions

Where the hell did you get this from


Entirely illogical assumptions here.

READ A BOOK!

I have nothing further to say to you until you pony up and actually educate yourself a bit.


James DeMeo and education do not belong in the same sentence.

Or is pseudoscience considered education now?



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join