Soak the rich, then what?
Soak the Rich!
rattler
Active member
Yes, indeed, see my sig (even if you cannto relate to the spanish transparents, the music should say it all):
Why do we always elect those people that have nothing more to do than to bow to the rich and the powerful? Can we not all access by now the information about the incredible corruption we are living in? Doesn´t matter whether it is the US, Europe, Asia, we are being "barbered" by people that pledge water and drink wine, soothing and anaesthezising us with "patriotrism", threats (real or imagined or invented) etc., just to go on with thier rampage: The "rich" have gained 56% more income in the last 4 years, the rest of the planet is going down economically... Now you tell me why we do have to support that?
Whatever we have, one thing is sure: Every people is governed by the powers they deserve, they can love it or leave it (can´t they?).
JillyZ just saw the light (or not?), it is about time we ask ourselves (and this only can be answered correctly understaning all the facts and the way things work: Education) "what do *WE*, the people, want?"
Laws only for the poor, no way with me. Wine or water, I dont care, but please on the same basis for all. As we say in Spain: "Or we all get a screw or the ***** goes into the river".
Oh, the markets say this or that? Fine, then, but who is these people that are "the markets"?
The markets are you and I, the small entrepeneurs that invest money with some idea on how to make more of it: Your local banker, your local advocat, your local construction company, your hair dresser, your gynecologist (urologist), your bar owner.
You, me, *w*e are "the market", why not simply take the responsibilitiy that goes along with it and start digesting your gains and losses?...
Do we really want what we see happening?
Make your choices, ladies and gentlemen, place your bets...!
*YOU* are the people, after all.
What we have right now, and not surprisingly so, is a system disintegration after a won (cold) war (and, yes, it has served us very well for decades. But so has the steam engine).
Why do we need still "representative" democracy if the new technologies allow us to decide on everything online or via oour TV distance control by press of a button? Daily! To me it seems we are stuck in a 20th century problem in the 21st...
Think out of the box, and stop voting idiots that just want to serve the powers-that-be.
You decide, you win or lose.
Rattler
Last edited:
It's impossible for the many to live off the few. The chickens are landing in southern Europe. Libs ask why do people not vote in "their" best interest, in this case "Their best interest" they mean vote for Libs who'll give them hand outs. As was shown in the video there simply isn't enough money to get by by raising taxes. They hope the economy will grow enough to fund the welfare(actually vote buying) programs. Here 40% of all spending is borrowed money & the Libs are upset @ the notion of even slowing down the rate of increasing spending, muchless actual spending cuts.
As far as the system is concerened, Rattler is corect, We are the market & we, in looking out for our individual benifits in the market, make the market work better than any other.
As far as the system is concerened, Rattler is corect, We are the market & we, in looking out for our individual benifits in the market, make the market work better than any other.
Last edited:
senojekips
Active member
From what I can deduce from the News, "the few" that you quote here are certainly not "the rich" they are the "little man" who like so many of us has no Tax accountant to minimise his tax and ends up paying all he owes.
The major shortfall in tax revenue raised in these countries is due to the big end of town, who pay nothing like their fair share of the tax burden.
OK, so taxing the rich alone is not going to solve the problem IF you believe the video at the start of this thread. It still appears the the rich are minimising their taxes by far more than the lower end taxpayers as was demonstrated last year.
Warren Buffett said:
George Kaiser said:
So I think that quoting Southern Europe's problems is not the answer, you should be looking a lot closer to home.
Last edited:
rattler
Active member
Frankly, (and thank you George for giving me credit), we should not vote libs nor unlibs, nor leftists nor rightists, nor greens, nor blues, nor whites, nor blacks.
The voitng laws in itself are from the 19th century and dont reflect *my* (our?) interests, as they are completely outdated: 80% lof the public is not voting (as in the US, where you need to register) or 40% (as in Europe where you dont need to register)?
OK, fine, you dont need to force people to vote, but why are the non-voters ignored (and hence not represented)?
First step to a new system would be to "represent" non-voters by *EMPTY" seats in parliament: If parliament (any parliament) wants to be representative, represnt the elections as they are, leave the seats that are not voted for empty and dont fill them with people representing just a percentage of voters: Non-voters are a percentage (and an expression of intention) all by itself, they need representation.
Next step:
Have everybody decide what he thinks is good or bad, best for him or for others, directly.
What do we need paid representatives, MoPs and Senators for, nowadays when everybody can make his own choice every day? You get up, switch on TV, and you find a few questions you can answer with "yes", or "no", or "ignore". Everybody, every morning, presses his buttons or not (I guess the hackers out there will ensure the system will be as compromised/sanitized fraud wise as the current one), and what comes out is what *we* want.
Not what Mr. Stanley or Mr. Poor thinks is best, but what you, e.g. the represntative members of IMF think best.
Not saying that we will go straight to paradise from here with this system of voting our government, but then, we at least are sure that what we see is the effect fo the buttons we pressed, and the human being in general has a certain ability to learn from errors: After a certain time span we will have improved significantly (or not, but then we only have to blame ourselves, our neighbours or simply start a civil war to erradicate all that think differently than ourselves).
Whatever the outcome: Problems solved.
At least you have saved you billions of money paid to our "representatives" right now.
We have a standard joke here in Spain, and its supposedly the shortest available): "I met a poor mayor".
Go figure, check out your mayor, thats where it all starts.
Voting, nowadays, is not in your interest anymore.
Rattler
The voitng laws in itself are from the 19th century and dont reflect *my* (our?) interests, as they are completely outdated: 80% lof the public is not voting (as in the US, where you need to register) or 40% (as in Europe where you dont need to register)?
OK, fine, you dont need to force people to vote, but why are the non-voters ignored (and hence not represented)?
First step to a new system would be to "represent" non-voters by *EMPTY" seats in parliament: If parliament (any parliament) wants to be representative, represnt the elections as they are, leave the seats that are not voted for empty and dont fill them with people representing just a percentage of voters: Non-voters are a percentage (and an expression of intention) all by itself, they need representation.
Next step:
Have everybody decide what he thinks is good or bad, best for him or for others, directly.
What do we need paid representatives, MoPs and Senators for, nowadays when everybody can make his own choice every day? You get up, switch on TV, and you find a few questions you can answer with "yes", or "no", or "ignore". Everybody, every morning, presses his buttons or not (I guess the hackers out there will ensure the system will be as compromised/sanitized fraud wise as the current one), and what comes out is what *we* want.
Not what Mr. Stanley or Mr. Poor thinks is best, but what you, e.g. the represntative members of IMF think best.
Not saying that we will go straight to paradise from here with this system of voting our government, but then, we at least are sure that what we see is the effect fo the buttons we pressed, and the human being in general has a certain ability to learn from errors: After a certain time span we will have improved significantly (or not, but then we only have to blame ourselves, our neighbours or simply start a civil war to erradicate all that think differently than ourselves).
Whatever the outcome: Problems solved.
At least you have saved you billions of money paid to our "representatives" right now.
We have a standard joke here in Spain, and its supposedly the shortest available): "I met a poor mayor".
Go figure, check out your mayor, thats where it all starts.
Voting, nowadays, is not in your interest anymore.
Rattler
Last edited:
rattler
Active member
I know double posting is not well appreciated here, but as I have received some emails in a very short time, let me make it clear (and if mods wish, feel free to merge my posts):
I am not deliberately anti-system, nor a commie, nor a revolutionary (I think), but as a thinking being I have to realize and react to "the system" quite obviously being "anti-me" as of lately.
Rattler, FWIW
I am not deliberately anti-system, nor a commie, nor a revolutionary (I think), but as a thinking being I have to realize and react to "the system" quite obviously being "anti-me" as of lately.
Rattler, FWIW
senojekips
Active member
Just cut and paste your second post into the prior one using the Edit feature. This will avoid any double posting.
Personally I see no harm in double posting so long as you are not attempting to "flood" a thread. In fact it is preferable in my view to great long and involved slabs of text. (Just my opinion).
I feel that here you have outlined one of the problems in this type of debate. The content of one's posts are often attributed to one's personal politics, (usually in a derogatory sense) rather than being judged on whether their contents are factual or not.
RayManKiller3
Active member
In order for such a system to work properly without screwing over the country, it would require a very well educated public... Do you realize how many people (in US at least) are uneducated when it comes to economics, military affairs, foriegn policy, etc.? I know personally that they outnumber all those that at least have some idea if not know completely well about it. This is why representation is needed in the form of congress..
Remember, what people want is not always in the best interest of a country. They may know what they want, but they may not how how to get what they want or not understand what the results may be.
This idea of yours I do not see working for at least 4-5 generations, assuming we fix the education system and lower poverty which both of those problems reflect on one another. Not to mention it will be incredibly difficult to even think about in large, diverse populations.
rattler
Active member
located in Nigeria? Or Ghana?
http://militarygear.com/asp/2010/01/15/anatomy-of-a-military-dating-scam/
Ladies, beware!
Rattler
http://militarygear.com/asp/2010/01/15/anatomy-of-a-military-dating-scam/
Ladies, beware!
Rattler
By "the few" I meant those who pay taxes vs the parasites who absorb more taxes than they pay. Southern Europe is a prime example of unaffordable social perks that people have voted themselves. Now they are running out of "other people's money"
Frankly I think I'm more aware of what's going on than a great many, the fact that we participate in a political forum shows that all who participate here probably are very much ahead of the general population. Personally I don't mind voting for myself & 4 other people, if the 20% voter turn out stat is accurate. Way to many are only interested in who's winning American Idol, Survivor, America has talent(insert your own equivelent shows).
I disagree with you. Churchill once said
In some countries you can vote if you want to, some demand a registration, in some you must vote (Belgium). In Belgium more than 100 years ago you only were able to vote if you paid taxes. Different democracies different voting rules.
If you are free to vote you have a clue whom to vote for. If you must vote there are people who just vote without knowing what they are in fact voting for.
In the movie/book "The Remains of the Day" there's a nice discussion between the butler Stevens and mr. Spencer, it's quite thought provoking.
I prefer that everyone is able to vote but that we also have to accept the consequences of it. Education is very important here. Look at the Arab spring. The ones who won the revolution lost the election. The ones who knew what it was all about lost to the ones who only cared about the food and the little money they got from the islamist institutions.
About money. I don't care about how much people earn. But I dislike crooks. So I don't care about Gates or Buffett. But I dislike drugs-bosses and CEO's who give themselves big bonuses although their companies are losing money or are bailed out by the government. I don't give money to charities either. A lot of them are just a hoax and the others, well, look at the salaries of their CEO's. We (me and my wife) take care of a deaf and mute person with a mental disability (came to us as a child). That's our contribution.
I like that! If you don't pay taxes, i.e. you're dependant on govt, you can't vote. It's a conflict of interest to recieve benefits & vote to continue them.
rattler
Active member
Hoo? What are you talking about when you write "Southern Europe"?
I can only talk for Spain (definitely Southern Europe), but here it is precisely where the "low end" tax payers pay for *everything* the biggies (and not paying) wreck and have been wrecking. We have no "social perks" that I knew of (enlighten me, please), but we have a group of bankers, service industry and constructors (we have only a fairly irrlevant "Big Industry" percentage in our PIB) that make skyrising profits (Telefonica: 10.260 Millions of Euros last year net gain, but 17.000 workers set off, just as one example of many: http://www.elpais.com/articulo/econ...valias/Vivo/elpepieco/20110226elpepieco_7/Tes), pay millionary wages to crooked managers (Bank of Valencia just went broke but pays a total of over 1.000 Millions of wages to its top ten who drove them into ruin: http://blogs.laverdad.es/atonitos/2012/01/01/el-escandalo-de-los-supersueldos-de-los-banqueros/), we have politicians that just got caught spending 1.5 Millions on Cocain in 3 years - and they used their public money funds to pay it, of course (http://www.theolivepress.es/spain-n...e-andalucia-chief-spent-eu-grants-on-cocaine/) - and so on.
Now, we are going to create a "bad bank" (of course, how else, fincanced by public money = my tax payer money = 120.000 Millions of tax Euros) that will concentrate all the losses the national and international banks accumulated through hilarious speculations in the financial markets here in Spain during the last 5 years in order to allow the banks "to make profits again" as our president said (but..., er, what? They made *top* profits *all* and every year so far... The new "bad bank" is just to get rid of the "non-profitable" sectors… What is it here that I dont understand?)...
I have no notices that this would be different in Germany (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/world/europe/german-president-wont-resign.html), nor UK (http://www.pfhub.com/top-9-political-scandals-in-the-united-kingdom/) nor US (not even naming the tops Enron, Worldcom and Subprime Mortgage maybe still ring a bell?).
Get real, please, we are getting barbered top-down, and you also.
Rattler
Last edited:
rattler
Active member
You are actually hitting home in my argument: You simply claim that what was right 80 years ago should be right for now, because it was right then.
OK, following your stint, should we take back the rights from women to vote because they could not (in the US) in 1920, (in Spain) 1975, or in Saudi Arabia (2010)?
Some of the Americans you defend indeed seem to think that would be perfectly allright, but "thinking" and "believing" stuff and quoting others who think and believe the same thing does not serve as an actual argument to support a cause, as can be seen by valid quotes below:
Ann Coulter (2001): "I think [women] should be armed but should not vote ... women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it ... it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care."
A "Christian Husband, Father, and Provider", from Texas in his blog 2009: "How do I know women shouldn't vote? Because they've virtually done a voluntary recall on the 19th Amendment by not voting. Especially in my state (Go, Texan Women!). -snip- The good news is that women understand this problem, too. And, instead of foisting their ill-considered choices on the country, they just don't vote. ...-snip- ...While there may be some of you denying reality right now and saying that I'm all wrong about this, the best part is that I'm right."
Sen. Kay O´Connor (Kansas), 2001: "-snip- ...believes that if men had been protecting the best interests of women, then women would not be forced to cast ballots and serve in the Legislature. Instead, they could stay home, raise families and tend to domestic duties... -snip- ... Men should take care of women, and if men were taking care of women we wouldn't have to vote."
Actually, I was answering your quote already in my post when I said that we seem to try and use 20th century solutions for 21st century problems, not thinking out of the box and unable to see that all lefts, rights, liberals, or whatever ideas are dinausaurs and outdated.
So, Churchill thought democracy (didnt look up the quote, but maybe 1950?) was a good idea 70 yrs ago. Does this say anything about 2012?
Now, and here comes the twist, and to change theme, you seem to be not really knowing what you are answering to, as you are actually (in your way, no: In Churchills way!. repeating my basic idea, even if you claim you do "disagree" (whith whom, with me, or with Churchill?), let me r e p e a t from my posts before:
- NOWHERE have I stated that *I* thought democracy was a wrong form of government or that I could think of a better one, what do you disagree with here?
- I have tried to make the point that "representative" democracy - today - has derived from the real democratic idea and that we needed to re-invent democracy the way the Swiss handle it, with the help of new technologies
- my idea is to evolute towards a more flexible and reactive and more direct - more "demos" - "demo"cracy, just because I personally think Churchill had it all right with his take 70 yrs ago.
So, what is it exactly that do you want to say by profounding in my same arguments when you say you "disagree" with me when I ask for democracy?
It seems you just said something to have said something...
Rattler
Last edited:
Greece & Italy comeb to mind. Looks like Spain is suffering from the "Too big to fail" notion like we are. Sounds like you could use "The Fair Tax".
Women get trained from birth that someone, ideally a Knight in shining armor will take care of them. If it looks like a guy won't then the Govt can. For the 1st Century there was no clause authorising benevolence with the tax payers money, this seems to have gone away starting with women's sufferage. As far as Women not voting, they get credit/blame for Bill Cinton's 2 terms. It should be noted that the US isn't set up as a Democracy, but a Representative Republic based on democratic principals. The Libs seem bent to trying to change us to a democracy, with the decline in education they've caused they see benefits in mob mentality voting.
senojekips
Active member
Oh,... sorry, I didn't realise that you were talking about the politicians.
You know they make their money off of bribes, not taxes....:wink::shock:
rattler
Active member
Just the thought that there might be a faint chance of success with this idea gives you the creeps, right?
Oops, forgot, what was it again that you wanted to bring to Iraq? http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2003/summer_iraq_byman02.aspx (highlighting by me):
(Seems your "most optimistic" got it right partially already, from what I hear lately from Tunesia, Egypt, Marruecos, Lybia, Bareihn, Syria, Lebanon, Kuweit etc.) ...Summer 2003 —
What should the government of Iraq after Saddam Hussein look like? The U.S. government has worked feverishly to address the problem—creating working groups and planning cells, formulating options, and discussing ideas with U.S. allies while pundits and analysts in the media, think tanks, and academia have further identified this issue as a vital one to ensure that peace in Iraq and in the region is secured
(quote continued after the "interesting" ad that comes with it, the anatomy of how we are getting barbered... R.)
RELATED CONTENT
Saddam's Bombs? We'll Find Them Kenneth M. Pollack, The New York Times, June 20, 2003
(quote continued)
Democracy lies at the heart of all of these discussions. President George W. Bush himself declared, "All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected, they need democracy." As members of a prosperous democratic society, U.S. citizens innately believe that democracy would be good for Iraqis too. The most optimistic have even offered a vision of a future Iraq as a "City on the Hill" for the Arab world that would inspire democracy throughout the Middle East and beyond.
-snip-
Creating democracy in Iraq would require a long-term U.S. commitment, but the United States has made similar commitments to far less strategic parts of the world. Creating a democracy in Iraq would not be quick, easy, or certain, but it should not be impossible either.
Rattler
Last edited:
I never claimed that what was right 80 years ago should be right for now.
Women are different from men but must have equal rights.
The only thing we agree on is democracy and taking on crooks. There are many forms of democracy but I don't want a democracy of "power to the people" and I don't like populists. You find crooks everywhere, CEO's , politicians but also the ones who steal your car or wallet, or the hairdresser who doesn't pay taxes.
You say we are the market. That's not true. We are a part of the market. A global market that is.
Many problems we face today are caused by "the people". The market adjusts to the people, not the way around. Banks gave easy credit to people because they wanted to buy a house or car, allthough they were barely able to repay the loan. Companies moved to China because the people wants to buy cheap products. The people want free health care but don't like to pay taxes.
Many problems are also created by politicians who do what the people want them to do so he get voted again in the next election. That's irresponsible politics. A politician must do what has to be done.
It's very easy to blame someone else, but if you want to fix a problem start with yourself.
In my last unit there was someone who was always bashing the self employed because they had big villa's and drove big mercedeses. I told him to go to a bank, get a big loan and start a business so he could buy a big villa and a big Mercedes.