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.

 

Time for a mass redistribution of wealth

page: 24
28
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 09:43 AM
link   

spiritualzombie
reply to post by zeroBelief
 


How is it the second coming to care about people's pain, to understand people make mistakes, to care about those struggling? Is that really so distant a concept for you that you would think of it as the second coming.

I don't know what to say. I've read books, I've watched movies. I have empathy for people.

You can do it too, my son.


Fair enough.

And I'm going to do you a solid here. I'm going to be 100% honest with you, about my perspective, and why it is my perspective.

To boil it down, because I feel that if you are satisfied with your lot in life, enough so that you are not willing to do what it takes to make a difference, then I personally don't have sympathy for you. Let alone, empathy.

I've learned the hard way, that when you care, have empathy, and sympathy, for someone who needs help....needs a change in their life...but doesn't have that internal drive, doesn't have the NEED or the DRIVE to make that change in their life...all of your energy is a 100% waste.

I've seen it when I was a child living in a children's home.

I've seen it growing up since then, and as an adult.

I was recently asked to speak to a relative...because this relative truly respects me, looks up to me...and needs help to get out of where he is in life (he's living on full blown disability benefits for problems that he chooses not to deal with, yet could be a computer programmer like me). I said "You know, he's not stupid, he knows he's got potential. He's 38 yrs old, and he's chosen to live on disability benefits". I was told "Yeah, you know, I could write him off too..but he's a good guy....and, he's family...he needs help...help you can offer him...could you try?"

I took that to heart, and I did everything I could to help my relative.

But he chose not to accept. He chose to cut off communication with me.

This is exactly what I knew would happen, based off of a lifetime of experiences. But, I tried anyways. Because I liked him, and because he is "family".


So, where does this leave me?

If I see someone struggling..TRYING....I'll do what I can to help them. Absolutely. Positively.

But, if I don't see that? Sorry, you're on your own. Flies in your eyes. Buzzards circling. I could care less. Nothing I could do will prevent you from ending up right there again the moment I stop taking responsibility for the one thing you have ultimate responsibility over.

Your life.


It's sad. I wish things were as rosey and altruistic as you and others would have me believe.



homeless-coders-trees-for-cars-app-2013-12

This, I firmly believe in, and applaud. The man who helped him saw something in him. And he was proven correct. So much so, I bought the app, just to give the man the $.99 so that he could continue to improve himself.

If I don't see something in someone, I'm not helping them, nor am I about to feel sorry, or give them a second thought. I will, however, keep my mind open enough to continue to observe to see if time has come to where that person has finally grown tired of their current condition. Tired enough to decide to try to take that first step. Then, I'll be there to help them through to the end. So long as they continue to have that drive.

Time is too precious, whereas it's time that can be spent on those that are worthwhile of your time. Such as those who are willing to actually take steps to TRY and improve themselves.





So there you have it. My 100% pure, unadulterated, and un-snarky thoughts. Feel free to challenge it. Nothing is going to change this viewpoint, as it is my viewpoint. And I own it. And I know "Oh, you're so close minded, you're not open to change...". Yepp, I'm going to hear that. Go ahead. Say it all you want.

My ears are open towards people who truly want to change themselves.




posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   

nenothtu

combatmaster
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 


It is a fair idea....

But it will not work in the real world.

There will always be a 1%. It doesnt matter what you do, it is part of human nature to distribute power to a minority, whether through action or inaction, it is inevitable! Individuals will always having clashing opinions.

The only way to stop this from occurring is for every single individual human being to achieve collective consciousness. That way all individuals are in the same thought process. Humanity acts as a whole, as one!


Do you mean like a hive of bugs?

We are humans, not bugs.

Even hives have "the 1%" - the queen and drones, etc.

If "individuals are in the same thought process", have "achieved collective consciousness", they re no longer individuals.

And they will STILL have a "1%".




WTF are you on about.... whats so hard to comprehend..... humans have never and will never all live in peace..... do oyu honestly think that 7 billion people can exist and all share the same view and opinion on life without clashing... impossible without CC. And if that happens through CC then there is no more 1%, since we all think the same thing.

But that wont happen so who cares!



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 10:03 AM
link   

spiritualzombie
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Wait, so neocons are actually liberals? I did not know this. Interesting...



Yes.




Neoconservatism... originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry ('Scoop') Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves 'paleoliberals.' [After the end of the Cold War]... many 'paleoliberals' drifted back to the Democratic center... Today's neocons are a shrunken remnant of the original broad neocon coalition. Nevertheless, the origins of their ideology on the left are still apparent. The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists.



If you'll notice, most of the "neocons" are "former" democrats, such as Mitt Romney. Around 2000, the political color scheme in the US was changed so that red now represents the Republicans, to reflect that fact, and the neocon takeover of the Republican party. During the Republican inception surrounding the crucible of the Civil War, Republicans identified themselves as "Radicals" in DC, and has radical leftist ideology. After Reconstruction, their ideology took a swing to the right, and now it appears to have swung back to it's roots on the left with the neocon takeover of the Republicans. However, during the Civil War era, and Reconstruction, Democrats were the conservatives of the day, swung to the left, and have never gone back. This means that we now have no real conservative voice in American Politics, and both parties are but two sides of the same liberal coin.

Another source.




What’s a neocon? A liberal “mugged by reality,” Irving Kristol said.



Yet another source




A neoconservative (also spelled "neo-conservative"; colloquially, neocon) in American politics is someone presented as a conservative but who actually favors big government, interventionalism, and a hostility to religion in politics and government. The word means "newly conservative," and thus formerly liberal. A neocon is a RINO Backer, and like RINOs does not accept most of the important principles in the Republican Party platform. Neocons do not participate in the March for Life, stand up for traditional marriage, or advocate other conservative social values. Neocons support attacking and even overthrowing foreign governments, despite how that often results in more persecution of Christians. Some neocons (like Dick Cheney) have profited immensely from the military-industrial complex.

Many older neocons had been liberals in their youth and admired President Franklin D. Roosevelt, while younger neocons are more economically conservative than Roosevelt but like to downplay the social issues. In 2010 the highest priority of the neoconservatives was to increase military action by the United States in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and to expand it to an American confrontation against Iran; in 2011 their goals include supporting a military attack on Libya, continuing the Afghanistan War indefinitely, and even suggesting military action against Syria. There is a revolving door between some neocons and highly paid positions in the defense industry, which may explain the constant neoconservative demands for more wars.






I'm not a liberal, I'm not a conservative, I'm not a democrat or a republican... I believe in equality and some people call me a liberal for it, but I thought equality was just an American thing. I believe in gun rights, and some have thought I had republican leanings because of it, but I think Republicans today are too heavy handed with the hatred and inequality.



They ARE. I was a Republican for 40 odd years, but am one of the conservatives who jumped ship and left after the liberal neocon takeover. The things you cite are symptoms of that takeover. Now I'm closer to being a Libertarian with a conservative main ideology, but with some disturbingly liberal tendencies. Like you, I can't really be pinned down, and have been often mislabeled on that account. In this day and age, I think a better gauge of political thought is a separation into camps of "individualist" and "collectivist". I am an individualist, and you appear to be a collectivist, and that is where we differ.

Neocons are "collectivists" ( the old "liberals") with a concentration on corporatism - back in the day, they would have fit the description of "fascists".




Conservatives.... ugh. Good people, but so wrong. Easily manipulated by nationalism. Racists who don't know they're racists, sexists who know but pretend not to be, cynics, always saying how war and torture and greed is necessary...basically if you ever hope for a better enlightened future, don't look to a conservative.



I beg to differ. As a conservative, I am not racist. There are any number of people in this neighborhood (such as my "twin brother by a different mother") who can and will, most vehemently, verify that. I AM a cynic, but that does not naturally lead to a belief in the necessity of war, torture, and greed. It recognizes the reality of those things, but not the necessity of them, and there is a difference. It's an observation and recognition of the human condition, and a belief that the lowest common denominator drags the rest down into the gutter with it if left to it's own devices.

In the matter of "war" particularly - the most recent ones which are on everyone's mind, Afghanistan and Iraq, rather than the playgrounds of my youth which no one now remembers - I think Afghanistan is a "good" war, and Iraq was a "bad" or "useless" or "unnecessary" one. It was that very wild and misspent, reckless youth that developed my thoughts in the matter. When you see people blown into bitty pieces, there had better be a good reason for it, and all too often there isn't.

It will leave you cynical.

Your views on "conservatism" appear to be shaped by observation of neocons, and the mistaken assumption that they are "conservatives", which they are not.




Liberals... Great when it comes to civil rights, lots of empathy for those who suffer, but blind when it comes to gun rights.

You know, they're all eff'd, but I do honestly believe conservatives are just more cynical. They all gravitate toward a police state. The leaders on both sides all make plays for a New World Order.



All of the actual Police States within my living memory were instituted by "liberals", and more specifically by "collectivists". My reckless youth was spent fighting against them, sometimes in recognized altercations, often in unrecognized ones, and yet here I stand a "conservative" - and violently opposed to Police States to this very day. Go figure. A true "conservative", one who recognizes individual merit, CAN NOT support a police state mentality, because the essence of that IS collectivist. Collectivism is the only philosophy that can support a police state, due to the very nature of police states. An "individualist" police state would crumble into dust in the first 6 hours of it's existence, as all the peons went their own way.

Liberals ARE great proponents of "civil rights", which is a concept I refuse to recognize. I recognize only "rights", not "civil rights". Civil rights, by their definition, are rights issued by the State (i.e. "civil"), and are therefore subject to revocation by the same. A "right" which is subject to revocation is no "right" at all - it' just a privilege granted by TPTB.




But as citizens of the U.S., I thought we all believed in equality. I thought we all believed in Truth and Justice. I thought we all agreed that greed and corruption was wrong, so it stuns me that we can all so obviously see that there is a super wealthy elite controlling the government, keeping us from moving forward, suppressing cleaner technologies, pushing for money to rule politics... and it's a partisan issue??? Criminal deconstruction of the United States Government is now just a partisan issue.



"Equality" cannot be legislated. All men are born "equal", i.e. with equal protections under the law, but not all develop equally. That is regulated by their humanity, by their very nature and individual strengths and weaknesses, and no amount of legislation will change that.




These guys need to be taken down a notch, their power reduced somehow... They have become insane with greed. They never have enough. And now they are buying the United States.

This effing greed, this power hungry, all controlling, greed. They fight against healthcare reform, they fight against unemployment benefits, they fight against raising minimum wage--- but they fight FOR keeping their damn tax cuts, bastardizing free speech into unlimited cash for campaigns, and demand trillions when their corrupt system threatens the economy. Effing financial terrorists.

They deserve worse than having their money taken away. Really they deserve prison or worse.



They need to be ignored, made irrelevant, and relegated to the trash can of bad ideas in history. Given their drive for power and recognition, that seems to me to be a more fitting punishment... to be made irrelevant and to be ignored, to have their "power" revoked by the very people they seek power over. As I said before, all power is granted by the peons. All they have to do is realize that and revoke it (can be done, because there are more of "us" than there are of "them"), take their own authority back to themselves, and leave the power hungry lying in the dust and crying.

I do despair that will ever happen, however. People are generally sheep in search of a shepherd.


edit on 2014/2/1 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Well said.

And, not only are all men created equal in the matter protection under the law although I would say that's as ephemeral as any privileges granted under the state, which is why I try really hard to use the term "Civil Privilege" rather than "Civil Rights," because the law is made and enforced by the state, and we can all see how well the state has been enforcing its own laws lately, but the big thing is that all men are created with the same unalienable Rights, true Rights.

Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness (not have happiness, seek it), Right to Property (the housing, food, clothing, etc., you provide for yourself, your wealth), Right to Self-Defense (guns), etc.

Those things all men (and women) are created with equally, and no power of man on earth has the right to take them away in way shape or fashion. They can only attempt to oppress which is what Wealth Redistribution really is, an attempt to oppress and remove the Right to Property that everyone has.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 10:20 AM
link   

spiritualzombie

... The topic of healthcare for all and they actually try to talk people into believing in a right to die without insurance?



Are you saying I DON'T have a right to die without health insurance?

Are you saying I DON'T have right to decide what useless frivolities I choose to spend my own resources - or what is left of them - on?

We are ALL going to die some day, whether wasting money on a corporate product like "insurance" or not. No insurance policy ever written can insure that you or I will not die.

Just what "rights" do you think I should be issued, then?

I don't want insurance, nor am I going to have it. I've said that from day one of the Obamacare debacle, and I meant it. I do believe that some folks thought I was blowing smoke out of my ass in saying so, yet here I stand, past the deadlines, uninsured. They can bite me. I'm not buying it, and I'm not supporting their corporate cronies.

NO corporate fascist dictatorship is EVER going to determine what I waste my own money on. I'm perfectly capable of deciding for myself how to waste my money, and where to throw it away if I so choose.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 10:30 AM
link   

AutumnWitch657
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 


You really think someone should just hand over their money because you want it? Yeah ok. There's someone out there with less than you. What would you do if you were forced to provide for them because you have more? The only thing missing from this is the ski mask and handgun. That's robbery. Plain and simple.


I think the fact that these people earn alot of their money by avoiding paying tax means that a substancial amount of that money isnt actually theirs.

The people have a right to take THAT back at least.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 10:44 AM
link   

nenothtu

zeroBelief
It really all comes down to personal choice. We don't all have to be convinced that the world is out to get us. That "luck" is something to pray for, and if it doesn't come your way, that you are screwed.

We don't all have to make conscious decisions to change our lives.

Good things happen to GOOD PEOPLE.

JUST BE GOOD.

BE NICE.

EVERYONE WILL LOVE YOU FOR IT.


And attractive women will FLOCK to you!!!!


It's true. So horribly, HORRIBLY, true.

And, being good, you will not have the moral (or more properly, "immoral") resources to take proper advantage of that situation.

Life sucks when you're good - it's so UNFAIR!

Won't someone please pass a law to correct that injustice?




Crimes didn't handle the situation appropriately. So now we have HATE crimes.

Bullies are bad. We are no longer allowed to deal with them in the time honored and proven fashion of forcing them to stop. That is now considered "bad". It's an "assault". So now "bullying" is against the law, or very well soon will be.

Running could lead to injuries on a schoolyard. Make it against the rules for any kind of running during recess. Step further, ban recess.

Give idiots phones with texting capability. They drive and text, Darwin kicks in and removes them from the gene pool. Make ANYTHING that could POSSIBLY distract the driver (eating, smoking, listening to the radio, talking on the phone, talking to passengers) against the law.

Guns are against the law on planes. Not good enough. Let's make TOY guns, even one inch long ones obviously intended as a prop for a toy...and ones that there is no conceivable way that a properly cognizant human being could consider a threat...illegal on planes too.





Yeah, our world is screwed. Screwed, and in a hand basket. A hand basket with a pretty little bow tied to it.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 10:45 AM
link   

SearchLightsInc

AutumnWitch657
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 


You really think someone should just hand over their money because you want it? Yeah ok. There's someone out there with less than you. What would you do if you were forced to provide for them because you have more? The only thing missing from this is the ski mask and handgun. That's robbery. Plain and simple.


I think the fact that these people earn alot of their money by avoiding paying tax means that a substancial amount of that money isnt actually theirs.

The people have a right to take THAT back at least.


That is a full blown assumption on your part that is totally wrong.

Believe it or not, not everyone is afraid to pay taxes. But how much of my money do you want?

Or put another way, how much of my money can I keep?



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 10:59 AM
link   

combatmaster

WTF are you on about.... whats so hard to comprehend..... humans have never and will never all live in peace..... do oyu honestly think that 7 billion people can exist and all share the same view and opinion on life without clashing...



No, I don't think that. I'm honestly struggling to figure out what YOU are on about, and WHY you brought such a ridiculous notion up to begin with.




impossible without CC. And if that happens through CC then there is no more 1%, since we all think the same thing.

But that wont happen so who cares!


Impossible with OR without it. There will ALWAYS be a "1%" - every hive and hive mind on the planet demonstrates that. It's observable and repeatable. Without the 1%, the hives dissociate and move out randomly as individuals, destroying the hive.

"Collective consciousness" my ass.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


Well put. let's examine the term "inalienable"... " not alienatable", "unable to be separated from the possessor".

Inalienable rights are the only "rights" there are, as they cannot be taken away from the individual, by definition.

All else is mere "privilege".



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   

SearchLightsInc

AutumnWitch657
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 


You really think someone should just hand over their money because you want it? Yeah ok. There's someone out there with less than you. What would you do if you were forced to provide for them because you have more? The only thing missing from this is the ski mask and handgun. That's robbery. Plain and simple.


I think the fact that these people earn alot of their money by avoiding paying tax means that a substancial amount of that money isnt actually theirs.

The people have a right to take THAT back at least.


NO money is ever actually theirs, or yours either, for that matter.

Nor is it mine.

Nor is it "the Peoples".

The putative owners are stamped right there, on every single bill. "Federal Reserve Note" and "The United States of America". The money itself is THEIRS, not ours. It has the ownership marks right on it, for all to see. Front, top, and center. In big letters.

Which is why I've chosen not to hoard money. Can't take it with me when I check out, anyhow. Even if it WAS mine.

"The people" have no more right to take what is not theirs from others who it doesn't belong to than I do.

If you want "Wealth", create your own. Use any system of measurement you like, but make it YOUR OWN.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   

zeroBelief

Crimes didn't handle the situation appropriately. So now we have HATE crimes.

Bullies are bad. We are no longer allowed to deal with them in the time honored and proven fashion of forcing them to stop. That is now considered "bad". It's an "assault". So now "bullying" is against the law, or very well soon will be.

Running could lead to injuries on a schoolyard. Make it against the rules for any kind of running during recess. Step further, ban recess.

Give idiots phones with texting capability. They drive and text, Darwin kicks in and removes them from the gene pool. Make ANYTHING that could POSSIBLY distract the driver (eating, smoking, listening to the radio, talking on the phone, talking to passengers) against the law.

Guns are against the law on planes. Not good enough. Let's make TOY guns, even one inch long ones obviously intended as a prop for a toy...and ones that there is no conceivable way that a properly cognizant human being could consider a threat...illegal on planes too.





Yeah, our world is screwed. Screwed, and in a hand basket. A hand basket with a pretty little bow tied to it.


Yup. The inmates are running the asylum these days.

"Hate crimes" are a pet peeve of mine. What sort of crime DOESN'T involve a degree of hate? Calling a "crime" a "hate crime" is like complaining that an asteroid explodes after it obliterates everything at the impact point. WHO really cares at that point? Who is LEFT to care? The damage is done, and the explosion doesn't make any difference at all. It can be compared to a nuclear strike - who really cares that their lifeless body is flung 65 yards downwind when it's already LIFELESS?

In the matter of "bullies", you can deal with them any way you like. Make a law if that makes you feel better about them, but as for myself, I'm just going to keep on assaulting them right back, laws be damned.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   

KawRider9
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 


I have several boats, cars, trucks, guns, guitars, jet skis, dirt bikes, etc. You know how I got all this stuff?
I worked my ass off for it all and you ain't taking @#** from me!
If you want what I have, do what I do and put in the blood, sweat and tears.

This damn gimmie attitude will get you nowhere!


huh?...so...the poor are poor because they don't work their ass off?....only lazy people are poor?



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


I'm replying to your post in general, not to pick one person, really.

But how can one "steal" resources needed to live? There's only so much on Earth to keep people sheltered and fed. How is taking from the kid who has a pile and giving to the starving kid "stealing?" It's moral, in my thinking.

And really, the rest is "entertainment." Let the super wealthy keep their "entertainment." The poor can play with a rock, or something. It's now down to the basics of life and we have to look at ourselves and wonder if we can be okay with letting a majority (heck, or even one) of our population suffer and die because a few have amassed the items necessary to just exist.

Maybe it should be termed "redistribution of necessities."



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by diggindirt
 


I heard a similar story, except the guy who made millions wasn't born so poor, and made his fortune by being a good salesman, conning people into buying stuff for far more than it was worth.

Plenty of criminals work real hard to gain their stolen loot, but a con man is still a con man, no matter how much money is made.

I think you made your story up.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by zeroBelief
 


I totally understand that view point. I have shared that view point possibly even harsher.

Sounds like you do keep an open mind and you do give people the opportunity to change their ways or help themself.

It's true there are people that are so lost, so content, or see themselves as such victims that they become intolerable to be around.

As horrible as it sounds I have seen people of such a pathetic, gimme attitude, always blaming others, and I have tried to help, given money, lots of money, to help them when they needed it or to even support their ambitions to give them that chance... Then time passes and they have nothing to show but a list of all new woes. And I've thought, this person should just kill themselves. That could be their gift to society. Simply remove themselves. Their final touch that makes the world a better place.

So, yeah, I understand helping people, giving people a chance and also despising them for being so pathetic.

But when it comes to legislation, or broad strokes, I just can't paint with that brush.

I tell myself I'm wrong. They aren't all like that. And for myself I really do have my mom as a positive example of someone on welfare with kids who pulled herself up, no longer on welfare, she owns a home, her kids make great money --- while my dad the wealthy lawyer found a way to not pay child support all those years, not be there, but own a lot of really nice things. So I also have this perspective of wealthy people who put everyone aside even close family to pursue themselves.

I just try to maintain the idea, despite my personal experiences, that helping people in need is a good thing.

Anyway, the original idea to this post was to just say thumbs up to you, and I get it.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 12:40 PM
link   
We don't have to redistribute the wealth, but the wealth should be re-redistibuted.

The top 1% is not the problem, the top .00001% is the problem.

The answer is simple, cancel all debt.

All this debt that everyone supposedly owes was created by widespread massive fraud.

Cancel the debt, and the super rich will no longer be super rich.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   

OpinionatedB
reply to post by Tarzan the apeman.
 


There is a lot of greed in coveting what someone else has to the point you think they should pay you for nothing more than breathing air.


I am not talking about average wealth. I'm talking about those using vast wealth, influence and power to control government.

Ask yourself these questions...

Do you plan to introduce legislation that undercuts the power of the people to give you an unfair advantage? Do you have plans to influence a vote using multiple news media outlets you own? Do you have meetings with heads of government to discuss issues that you care about and offer favors for their support? Have you ever been part of a meeting that discussed a new talking point to be introduced? There is more, but this is the idea on where to start the list of investigations...

These people plot to take over the U.S., and as one person put it, the world. They use their influence to create laws to make what they're doing 'legal' on paper. They are plotting to turn 'we the people' into 'we the .0001%' and they use media outlets they own to manipulate people into supporting their takeover.

They need to be called out, their false laws nullified, funds frozen, investigated, possibly put on trial, and depending the outcome, sent to prison and have all their money distributed equally back to the people. Then they can be left penniless to pick themselves up by their boot straps. Examples for the rest.



edit on 1-2-2014 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 





Cause then we'll be the 1% and we EARNED it by taking it from those who earned-. . . . oh.


The usually mechanisms rich people get rich is through hard work. The only problem is they get rich off other peoples hard work. Wealth redistribution is well over due. Nothing can be more stifling to the economy and the common man than off shore bank accounts with trillions of dollars in...




posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


The top 1% are supporting the top .0001%. The mindsets of the top 1% are a problem. They should be scared to support the top .0001% for fear of having their assets taken for supporting financial terrorism, fraud, intentionally misleading public through multiple news outlets.

Something needs to happen to make the 1% wake up to the damage and corruption and start distancing themselves from the .0001% intent on controlling the country through corrupt practices.

Losing all their money would scare the F out of them. Especially if they started seeing it happen.

Depending on the crime, death penalty could be put on the table for financial terrorism... Such as participating in a plot to intentionally tank the U.S. economy and hold the country hostage with a ransom set in the trillions.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join