Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 6
15
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions


You're serious?

Pathetic excuse for a human being.




Hes a bunny! Get it right!


On topic.

Why not ANSWER his question. Logically now, NO insults...............





posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 04:52 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?


Because the majority of people are getting poorer and poorer, while the few are getting wealthier
and wealthier at the expense of the rest.

They do keep more, they used to be taxed at 90%, now they get taxed much less.

America crossed the thresh hold and needs to balance its books like it use to.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5
The USA is 25th in Math and Science...how many of the 24 nations ahead of us pay to put thier citizens through college? ALL...why do you think Korea, China et al are at the top of the Math and Science rankings? And no, they aren't smarter than US Kids...they just tap all thier talent and we just tap a fraction of it. Let kids eat, go to college and have thier healthcare taken care of...every kid...and the USA will hands down dominate the world.

Free stuff?....Lord that argument is as tired as the current GOP's idealogy of BS and tantrums. Who cares anymore about thier nonsense? Time for America to shine again IMHO. I am of the 5%...and it's time we stepped on the gas and find out what this country can do if EVERYBODY is given a chance..a CHANCE...an OPPORTUNITY...that is not crushed by hunger, ignorance and sickness....all throughout history symptoms of greedy tyranical rulers. We are a plutocracey, but change is comming.


I rarely respond to a thread without reading the whole thing first, but I just had to say this is a very inspired post. I'm so tired of listening to ignorant people, mostly Americans, whine about the Gubment giving their money to "people who don't want to work." Just because someone qualifies for government assistance does not mean "they do not want to work." My philosophy is if you want to live in a society you need to contribute to the rest of society. If you want everything you have to belong to you become a freeman-on-the-land, quit using our roads, schools, hospitals, and infrastructure and then your problem will be solved.

I could have puked during the last election cycle every time some idiot had a pair big enough to use the phrase "American Exceptionalism". The only things America is exceptional at right now is hubris, debt, ignorance, and BMI. You know who is exceptional? Finland. Finland has socialized healthcare and free education (yes, university tuition is free to EU residents) and guess where they rank in education? NUMBER ONE.

You wanna be exceptional again America? Start taking care of your country and not lining the pockets of your wealthy.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   
The problem is that the people who call the shots in this country are part of that top 5% or 10% and nobody is virtuous enough to vote against their own best interests so our elected representatives will always vote for what is best for them and by proxy what is best for the top 5% to 10%.

Whether it comes to open class warfare or just warfare at the ballot box, in the end, the poor will always win because there are more poor people than there are rich people. it`s only a matter of time until the poor fill congress with representatives who will tax the rich right out of the country.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by TXRabbit
 


So, why are you here? To say that you won the game? I know a lot of people who have "won the game" that didn't have to do ANYTHING. How easy is life when daddy has hundreds of connections?

I went to school, pursued my interests, and wracked up thousands in debt. How lucky am I if I don't win the game? Losers get DEBT
edit on 3-1-2013 by JDmOKI because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tardacus
...it`s only a matter of time until the poor fill congress with representatives who will tax the rich right out of the country.


And as 50% of the tax base disappears how do you suppose pet projects will get funded?! Fairy dust? As that continues then the next bracket will be the new "rich" and I suppose we can tax them out of the country too. You know, the top 50% have more money so we need to take what they have too! There goes 98% of the tax base.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 08:31 PM
link   


Every legislature in the federal goverment that can actually vote on laws affecting the 95%, are in, or of, the top 5%. usgovinfo.about.com... Every mainstream media person with any type of broad audience are in the top 5%. And, they discuss what is to happen to the other 95% with various people that are also in that top 5%.
reply to post by jimmyx
 


How about that, yet we have voters that make up the 95% who support these same politicians who want to cater to the 5%. How ridiculous is that? Representatives of both parties live well beyond the average American. They have benefits and pensions that exceed the average American, yet they want to cut social security, or other government worker pensions. They want teachers pay to reflect student improvement, yet they vote themselves raises even thought they're the people responsible for voting for all the spending bills and the costs for 10 years of war. Maybe their raises or drop in pay should reflect how well they do their job and how their decisions influence the economy.

They would rather cut programs that benefit the elderly who don't have any pension and who rely solely on a monthly social security check. What do they care, they only have to serve a few years and they're entitled to a government pension!

If representatives salaries and benefits were in line with the average American, I bet a lot of these cuts that benefit most Americans wouldn't happen. You probably wouldn't be getting lawyers, business owners, and executives running for office anymore. If they had a 4 or 8 year term limit, we would no longer see career politicians that stay in office until they retire. We would also save on the cost of pensions! If anybody thinks these representatives are in office to help you, you're kidding yourself. These slime ball politicians are self-centered and are in office for the power, easy money and to benefit the few. Heck the majority of them don't even show up in the house to vote. What company would allow you to go home when there are important things to finish up before the end of the year?

My rant is over.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by kingking
 


I normally don't call out people when they "hit and run" in threads with quips and platitudes of useless "wisdom" but in this instance I will. Back on page 4 you suggested that it was a revenue problem and that we have "decreased" it. I gave you the last 20 years of receipts and outlays that clearly show an overall trend of increased "revenue" that the Government gets to play with.

I also provided the outlays (not a put down, but just in case, outlays is spending) and it shows a dramatic increase over the past 10 years. Clearly outpacing our deficit spending each year as we march on.

So now I ask you, do you still think "this problem was created by increasing spending and decreasing revenue?" It is clear that while there was a small decrease in revenue a couple of years, we have boosted our tax-receipts tremendously only to skyrocket the spending.

*Please note I am using the names below to reference periods; the spending is coming from Congress and approved by the President. No one person is to blame for this.

Clinton era we had an average tax-receipt of $1.4 trillion and outlays of $1.5 trillion. Relatively small deficit of approximately $80 billion over an 8 year period.

Respectively, Bush era we saw $2.06 trillion and $2.39; deficit of $300 billion and Obama era $2.25 trillion and $3.58; deficit of $1.3 trillion.

Average 20 year period of tax-revenue: $1.9 trillion. Spending: $2.3 trillion.

Our tax-revenue has nearly doubled while our outlays (spending) has outpaced immensely. It is a damn spending issue and it is unsustainable.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by kingking
 


I normally don't call out people when they "hit and run" in threads with quips and platitudes of useless "wisdom" but in this instance I will. Back on page 4 you suggested that it was a revenue problem and that we have "decreased" it. I gave you the last 20 years of receipts and outlays that clearly show an overall trend of increased "revenue" that the Government gets to play with.

I also provided the outlays (not a put down, but just in case, outlays is spending) and it shows a dramatic increase over the past 10 years. Clearly outpacing our deficit spending each year as we march on.

So now I ask you, do you still think "this problem was created by increasing spending and decreasing revenue?" It is clear that while there was a small decrease in revenue a couple of years, we have boosted our tax-receipts tremendously only to skyrocket the spending.

*Please note I am using the names below to reference periods; the spending is coming from Congress and approved by the President. No one person is to blame for this.

Clinton era we had an average tax-receipt of $1.4 trillion and outlays of $1.5 trillion. Relatively small deficit of approximately $80 billion over an 8 year period.

Respectively, Bush era we saw $2.06 trillion and $2.39; deficit of $300 billion and Obama era $2.25 trillion and $3.58; deficit of $1.3 trillion.

Average 20 year period of tax-revenue: $1.9 trillion. Spending: $2.3 trillion.

Our tax-revenue has nearly doubled while our outlays (spending) has outpaced immensely. It is a damn spending issue and it is unsustainable.


Hello.

Yes still think the problem was increase output and reducing input in proportion.

It is a simple concept as far as I am concerned. This model started primarily in the 80's

which coincides with a fairly drastic decrease of taxation and an expansion of agency and

military. I agree the spending is unsustainable, but I also believe the tax rate should be raised

to stem the bleeding, in leu of cutting unemployment and expenditures which have helped sustain

people during these hard times.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by JDmOKI
reply to post by TXRabbit
 


So, why are you here? To say that you won the game? I know a lot of people who have "won the game" that didn't have to do ANYTHING. How easy is life when daddy has hundreds of connections?

I went to school, pursued my interests, and wracked up thousands in debt. How lucky am I if I don't win the game? Losers get DEBT
edit on 3-1-2013 by JDmOKI because: (no reason given)


See - that's the whole problem. People see life, success and wealth as a Game. Always worried about "winning" or what the other guy is doing.

Guess what? It's not a game. Success, wealth, happiness is a side-effect of living a good life. If you're worried and losing sleep because you're in so much debt (I've been there as well), maybe you should stop looking at the "game" and start looking at the player.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TXRabbit
 


No, the problem is that I, like so many others, are forced to succeed through an education system structured around debt. I am working on my degree and hoping that I could find a connection to pay off my debt to banks, not raise kids and live the American Dream. It is a game and I am a player but......the GAME IS RIGGED.

Your lying to everyone and yourself if you don't acknowledge this fact just because your one of the few that got lucky.

edit on 4-1-2013 by JDmOKI because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by kingking
It is a simple concept as far as I am concerned. This model started primarily in the 80's

The model goes back to the enactment of the 16th Amendment and the creation of the Federal Reserve.


which coincides with a fairly drastic decrease of taxation and an expansion of agency and
military.


You keep pushing this line that there have been "drastic decrease of taxation" and it is complete nonsense. Show me the years we had such drastic decreases. In the 80's, in current dollars, we went from $500 billion in tax receipts to $900 billion; not a single year of decreased tax revenue -- (well, one year; 1982-1983 there was a small decrease, but not "drastic")

You are either lying, delusional or willfully ignorant.


I agree the spending is unsustainable, but I also believe the tax rate should be raised
to stem the bleeding, in leu of cutting unemployment and expenditures which have helped sustain
people during these hard times.


This statement contradicts itself. You claim you agree that the spending is unsustainable but instead of fixing it you think....just tax more.
edit on 4-1-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 12:03 PM
link   
I think it's also fair to point out that the bottom 95% don't care about the top 5%. Tearing down the rich and successful is the first step in the direction of communism. Wealth redistribution may sound like a lovely idea to those on the bottom of the ladder but, let's be perfectly blunt and honest... if you were one of the 5%, would you care about those on the bottom of the ladder?

I wouldn't.

I'm not being callous, just perfectly honest. However, there are millions of pretend Mother Theresa's out there who think that if they were rich, they'd put their money to good use. Unfortunately, money and power changes people- and seldom for the better.









 
15
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join