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.
beezzer
Again, do you want a one world government, or just get the wealthy Americans?
I'm trying to figure out the end-game here.
ketsuko
reply to post by spiritualzombie
The problem with what you want is that you are asking the very people who were empowered to give the bailouts to act to tear down the ones who got the bailouts.
Ummm, so if the ones who got the bailouts basically cashed out the government by forcing it to give them the money ... why on earth do you think the very same government is suddenly going to turn on them?
And even better, if what was done is wrong, then what makes it better to suddenly completely abrogate property rights and go on a witch hunt looking for wrong doing based on your notions of criminal greed? Where do you even stop with that and what constitutes criminal greed?
beezzer
reply to post by spiritualzombie
LOL
I'm not the one who wants wealth redistribution.
You do.
Change the laws, redefine words, do whatever you want to enable you to take away wealth from one account to put it in another.
spiritualzombie
Antigod
When did I ever say they should be above the law? Not once.
What do you call it when you don't think the bailout should be investigated, that an entire economy could be held on a 7 trillion dollar ransom and these guys take a huge cut just for themselves.
They are above being investigated, arrested, above court... above your scrutiny.
They are allowed to sway law, control legislation, control the country, reward themselves, taking trillions from tax payers for their own greed addiction.
You most definitely do believe they are above the law.
poet1b
reply to post by Antigod
40 years ago, I think it is fair to say that most of the people who earned their own fortunes came by it fairly honestly, but not at this time.
Wall street bankers made hundreds of millions through sheer fraud. If you took the time to do some research, this is what you would find.
They steal billions, and get fined hundreds of millions, and no restitution to the victims. That is a very nice profit for their criminal enterprises.
And what about all the money made from illegal drugs, and the laundering of that money?
Ever read about how Rockefeller earned his massive fortune? He was essentially a mob boss. Then a large number of the super rich, like Mitt Romney made their money by robbing pension plans. He should have gone to jail for those dirty practices, and not been running for president.
Sorry, but those who worship of the wealthy are blind to the reality.
spiritualzombie
ketsuko
reply to post by spiritualzombie
The problem with what you want is that you are asking the very people who were empowered to give the bailouts to act to tear down the ones who got the bailouts.
Ummm, so if the ones who got the bailouts basically cashed out the government by forcing it to give them the money ... why on earth do you think the very same government is suddenly going to turn on them?
And even better, if what was done is wrong, then what makes it better to suddenly completely abrogate property rights and go on a witch hunt looking for wrong doing based on your notions of criminal greed? Where do you even stop with that and what constitutes criminal greed?
Okay, so you have accepted that it's corrupt.
If you want to say it's not possible to go after such a colossal system of corruption, that's valid. If you want to say the punishment, if found guilty, should not include draining their assets that's fine, though I disagree.
But, sadly, I agree with you. They are too big. And for that reason, as stated in the original OP, I simply vote for any legislation that takes their money to help those suffering.
rjbaggins
reply to post by spiritualzombie
There should be a limit. How much money do these people need?
poet1b
reply to post by Antigod
It was beezzer who claimed the wealthy should not be punished for their crimes.
Then you backed him.
Beezzer is known for creating straw man argument which he attributes to another poster.
I understand what is being written by Spiritualzombie.
spiritualzombie
beezzer
reply to post by spiritualzombie
LOL
I'm not the one who wants wealth redistribution.
You do.
Change the laws, redefine words, do whatever you want to enable you to take away wealth from one account to put it in another.
Notice how you never actually respond to a question, but when you state the same question over and over, I have no problems answering directly? It's because I'm actually interested in a discussion.
You're into mis-direct, re-direct, re-word... The coward's way of debate. The guy who has no argument, so he changes words to create an argument he can fight.
You're weak, Beezzer and I'm calling you out on your tactics.
beezzer
According to you, it is now treason to have more than you.
Antigod
Actually you do come across as Beezer suggests.
spiritualzombie
beezzer
According to you, it is now treason to have more than you.
Antigod
Actually you do come across as Beezer suggests.
This is not at all what I said, but you backed him.
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.
Antigod
spiritualzombie
beezzer
According to you, it is now treason to have more than you.
beezzer
And I call it how I see it.
No, you re-word it as you see fit. You don't argue with the truth because you can't, so you change the truth to be something you can argue with.
Shame on you.
Actually you do come across as Beezer suggests.
poet1b
Antigod
spiritualzombie
beezzer
According to you, it is now treason to have more than you.
beezzer
And I call it how I see it.
No, you re-word it as you see fit. You don't argue with the truth because you can't, so you change the truth to be something you can argue with.
Shame on you.
Actually you do come across as Beezer suggests.
Here is the quote where you back Beezzer after he made his claims that it would be wrong to put the rich on trial.
There is nothing about economics here. Most of you posts are personal attacks and personal opinions without any factual basis to back up your claims.
So now it is time for you to apologize.